Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

"The Bible is inconsistent with much of recorded history. This page will attempt to catalogue as many historical inaccuracies contained in the Bible as possible." So begins the comments of one self-styled "T. Rex," a skeptic with a certain fondness for Internet research. Not that the Net is always bad for such things, but when it comes to serious digging on matters of Bible history, a collection of commentaries and a seminary library is actually the best start.

On his page Rex gives us 20 bullets to affirm his paradigm. The first point is not really any point at all -- it is a cite of the Smithsonian's comment that, "It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. It was not a book of history, poetry, economics or science." That's very nice, but what does this prove? The Smithsonian offers no specifics here, and being representative of the people, we can hardly blame them for being so flabby. But it is said in more detail: "Even biblical history is edited history: events were chose to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. Bible writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history, instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as 'The Annals of the Kings of Judah' (or Israel)." Well, howdy! No one in the real world thinks otherwise. Did you ever notice that no one in the Bible is ever recorded as actually using a restroom? (OK, it says Saul went to relieve himself, but does it say he succeeded?) Well, does that mean we think people went through Bible times with their legs crossed? Of course not. Rex seems to think he's revealing news here, but it's only news to anyone who hasn't been asleep for 3000 years. (See my comments on Skeptic X's hyperliteralization of this issue here.) Finally this blurb: "It is therefore not possible to try to 'prove' the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy." Hey, that's news too. It isn't possible to prove nearly all ancient events that way, and even most modern ones. 99.99999% of all events involve personal encounters that can't be put in a test tube. I'm not sure what Rex was hoping to prove with all of this, but whatever it was, it didn't make much of an impact.

Due credit, though. Rex gets more specific with his next venture, and this is one we have run across before:

John 12:21 (NIV), "They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee...." Bethsaida resided in Gaulonitis (Golan region), east of the Jordan river, not Galilee, which resided west of the river. The exact location of Bethsaida is of some controversy, but archaeologist Rami Arav and the University of Nebraska-Omaha have concluded that the location is at et-Tel (a-Tel), east of the Jordan river in the land of Geshur. The government of the country of Israel was convinced enough by the evidence to officially declare the et-Tel site to be Bethsaida.

What follows are a few links from various sources giving archaeological data favoring Bethsaida being east of the Jordan, and arguments for two Bethsaidas, but we've seen this one from Dennis McKinsey before: our answer then was that the reference by John is a geographical one, not a political one. Bethsaida was politically in Gaulonitis, and not in the political region of Galilee, but it was in the geographic region of Galilee. Pliny the Elder in his own work on geography puts Bethsaida in Galilee in the same way. But there's more in the articles that Rex doesn't tell us about. The site here is described only with the words, "This site discusses all three theories." Rex doesn't say what the "three theories" are here, and there is loads of data here that he doesn't even consider. The name "Bethsaida" means "house of fishing" and could have been applied to any number of unidentified sites along a lake. "The house of Andrew and Peter seems to have been not far from the synagogue in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14; Mark 1:29, etc.). Unless they had moved their residence from Bethsaida to Capernaum, of which there is no record, and which for fishermen was unlikely, Bethsaida must have lain close to Capernaum. It may have been the fishing town adjoining the larger city. As in the case of the other Bethsaida, no name has been recovered to guide us to the site. On the rocky promontory, however, East of Khan Minyeh we find Sheikh `Aly ec-Caiyadin, "Sheikh Aly of the Fishermen," as the name of a ruined weley, in which the second element in the name Bethsaida is represented. Near by is the site at `Ain et-Tabigha, which many have identified with Bethsaida of Galilee. The warm water from copious springs runs into a little bay of the sea in which fishes congregate in great numbers. This has therefore always been a favorite haunt of fishermen. If Capernaum were at Khan Minyeh, then the two lay close together. The names of many ancient places have been lost, and others have strayed from their original localities. The absence of any name resembling Bethsaida need not concern us." All of Rex's cites about Bethsaida being declared "official" by the Israeli government are misplaced. In fact, that John specifies "Bethsaida of Galilee" suggests strongly that he is aware of another "Bethsaida" from which he must differentiate this one.

John 3:23 says, "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim. . . ." Critics agree that no such place as Aenon exists near Salim.

We've run into this one before! As I note here: Aenon near Salim has been supposed to be at any one of three places; the likeliest candidate is a Salim near Shechem, which has a village now called Ainun nearby. However, since "Ainon" means "springs" and "Salim" means "peace", what we have here is a place name that would be very common in Israel (like our modern "Ridgewood"). But the source of this objection is none other than C. Dennis McKinsey, and that is where Rex gets his info from: Mr. Reliable McKinsey himself, a skeptic so out of the loop that not even another famous Skeptic gives him the time of day anymore. Rex at any rate asked McKinsey for a source on this, and McKinsey replied that he "did the research for this over 2 decades ago and, unfortunately did not keep a list of my sources. If I had known then what I know now, I would have written down the actual commentators. I did not realize people would be asking me for the precise citations 2 decades after I wrote my books and my periodical." There's the canons of professional research being followed to a T! McKinsey adds this advice: "...you need only ask your biblicist friend to cite one map showing a place known as Aenon, a place that is also near Salim. Ask him to produce one source, especially one that is not Christian in orientation." Well, so much for the detailed commentaries of Brown, Lindars, and Carson; but one may as well ask what difference it makes. This is the usual McKinsey Method: To avoid dealing with data, just label the source as deviant and move on!

And Rex moves on, quickly, to his next card: that Nazareth did not exist. He quotes one "Alan Albert Snow" (whomever he may be!) as saying that "Many modern Biblical archaeologists now believe that the village of Nazareth did not exist at the time of the birth and early life of Jesus. There is simply no evidence for it." We don't know what makes Snow an authority for this, but we reply by noting that Anchor Bible Dictionary reports evidence of Nazareth being settled at the time of Jesus in the form of Herodian tombs, and further point to here.

The next item has to do with the Flood, and that subject is beyond our scope of study. The next entry questions the historicity of the Exodus, using first of all a source published in 1910 and a couple of news articles. So ends the scholarly sourcework. We have no article to refer to on the subject as yet, but do refer to some points in Glenn Miller's item here.

The next point has to do with the book of Judith. What this has to do with the Bible, I can't say; but it is outside our scope. Then Esther is on the block for two points, and we have addressed such concerns as are voiced here (except the "127 provinces" idea, which I have yet to see designated as problematic by any commentary); then, not surprisingly, Daniel, which we have addressed here. Then we have the old "census of Luke" bit, addressed here. As a matter of interest, Rex uses as a source the work of Randel Helms and a report written in 1980; one of his major sources throughout is Harris' Understanding the Bible, which is not exactly a depth source! Then we have the usual about the Slaughter of the Innocents (with Harris and Isaac Asimov used as sources! -- that's really running the halls of Biblical scholarship, eh!).

The next point revives the usual argument about darkness over the land not being mentioned by Seneca and Pliny, which we have answered here. There is also an allusion to the "works of more than sixty historians or chroniclers who lived in the period from 10 C.E. to 100 C.E." who "were contemporaries of Jesus, if in fact he ever existed." This seems to be a hint towards Remsberg's list, which we have addressed at the link (it is rather slippery to call all of these "historians or chroniclers" if that is what is in view).

The final points have to do again with the Exodus, which we have no item for as yet (though we would note that archaeologists may be looking in the wrong place, if the ideas of David Rohl or any other proponents of revising the Egyptian chronology are correct; plus see link noted above) and lack of evidence concerning the city of Ai (which again by the accounting of Rohl and other proponents means no more than that archaeologists may be looking in the wrong place -- we find it interesting that Rex chose to highlight Ai rather than Jericho!).

And that's it from Rex -- I think we get better scholarly information from the purple dinosaur than from this one.

Part 2 -- Wrecks Lex -- And now an update. T. Rex was alerted to our response and issued a "Huh?" reply that amounts to waving the intellectual white flag. Don't expect any detailed scholarly defenses; do expect a lot of "Oh, yeah?" responses that don't answer the points at issue.

Rex starts with some introductory stuff:

On 7.17.02, [Holding] signed my guestbook with the link to his page, prior to that I had never heard of him or had any contact with him. The words listed under "Holding's Comments" are his exact words as of 7.18.02. Any changes or responses he makes to his page will be added at the end of this message.

Though I don't expect Rex to know, it was not me who signed his guestbook. No changes have been made to the above.

Note that I am not including the entire text of his page, jsut those comments that I find interesting, illogical, lacking in evidence or that I feel suffer from other problems.

Rex put his responses in tabular form; we will simply add comments below each block or set of blocks as needed.

I have to apologize, because I was not aware that someone who styled themselves "T. Rex" was not therefore suggestive of someone who would have any problem with any person offering puns, or who would regard such as "juvenile" or "childish." I would never have thought the same had T. Rex styled himself, say, "Ptero Sore" or "InZane Zebra." Though we have learned that what "childish" means when it comes from the mouths of Skeptics is, "You gored my ox. Ouch." I suppose Boss Tweed thought Nast's drawings "childish" as well. Tweed was just as lacking in humour precisely because he couldn't take the heat.

As for closing the site, no -- I wouldn't want to close down one of the few remaining wildlife preserves for parasitical animals. We need sites like Rex's around as an example of how incompetent the average Skeptic is.

I think I made it quite clear that "the Net is not always bad for such things" so that Rex's groan about merits is beside the point. It is nevertheless the case that the Net isn't the best place to start for detailed historical research, as yet. It will be quite a long time before much of the detail available in libraries and commentaries is available online, and it will take longer because of the numerous copyright issues and so on that will inevitably be run upon. In the meantime it remains that the far greater amount of scholarly and other detailed data is NOT online and that the Net seldom serves well as a primary source.

As for the page being "history-based" it apparently does not occur to Rex that the most relevant research for Biblical history is to be found in those places where Biblical-related research is found -- and that is not, despite protests to the contrary, the Internet. It boils down to that he did inadequate homework, regardless of what room he did it in.

When I spoke of the "page" I refer to the single article in question -- if I meant the entire website, I would have said so and not started with a specific quote from the page in question. Rex's paranoia is rather an irritant here.

As for the list being incomplete and on-going, that is not an excuse for inadequate homework, especially to the level found on Rex's page.

It isn't a point; as Rex uses it, it's merely a sound bite lacking in specifics -- that's no smear on the Smithsonian, since as a government institution, they are bound to remain objective; it is Rex's cheap use of it that is the problem. The beef about "legitimate scholars" proving things is a case of Rex splitting a hair never grown -- the Smithsonian statement doesn't even go as far as providing "evidence" of anything, not even a word that the Bible is inconsistent with history. Rex is taking the Smithy's statement farther than it reads -- it speaks only of the Bible's primary aim and purpose, which does not exclude it from being consistent with history at all. Nice try. Bad dinosaur.

Bingo. So Rex admits that the Smithy statement has no specifics, which means as he uses it, it is merely a sound bite -- and a misused one at that, since he is still taking the conclusion to mean inconsistency with history. At best the Smithy's statement indicates incompleteness in reportage of history (which any historian would have to be "guilty" of, since it is obviously impossible to report every single detail and every single point of view!), which does not equal inconsistency. As for the last sentence, Rex is apparently oblivious to the point that one can say something in more detail -- in this case, by explaining a position -- without dealing in specifics. Here a "specific" would be a citation from a Biblical text, followed by an explanation as to how that specific cite is affected by what is found in other evidence.

Really! So Rex thinks someone exists who supposes that the Bible records COMPLETE historical accounts. In other words, someone who thinks King Hezekiah did nothing but sit on his throne and burp during the times that the Bible doesn't record (say, 50-60 years of his life), precisely because there was nothing to record. Do I need to disprove this? No. Was the sarcasm necessary? Yes! Rex still thinks he's writing a second edition of Revelation, but he's telling no one anything that's not already known or common sense.

Rex obviously thinks he's offering (revealing) data some people are not aware of; otherwise he wouldn't be posting it on his site -- unless he's essentially admitting here that his entire site is just a waste of time and space and contains nothing anyone needs to read. OK, rather than the bathroom, what does Rex want to know that wasn't recorded, that he THINKS should have been recorded? (Before he proceeds, he should bear in mind that the Bible was written in an oral, "high context" setting, and he lives in a logocentric, "low context" environment. If he does not know the meaning of those terms he should not even bother answering this request.)

Perhaps Rex should instead reject his poor reading abilities. The statement is perfectly clear and his response is merely vague and non-specific. We'll give more detail after the next comment.

Oh, is it? Let's see if Rex the historian can laugh this one off. Take the Battle at Gettysburg as an example. Which of the following can we test scientifically or evidentially?

1. The North beat the South.
2. The South ordered 4,000 cannonballs prior to the battle.
3. Private Jones said to Private Grant, "Pass the musket balls, please."
4. At 3:03 PM on the day of the battle, Sgt. Bulvedere walked across the field to pick up his pyjamas.

Now it should be patently obvious that the vast, vast, vast majority of events that happened in any setting were of the sort in 3 and 4 above -- private conversations and actions whose only real evidence is what a person may record in writing or preserve orally. We can't test such things. The number is far from fictional; it is a simple fact that such things, which constitute the vast majority of events, can't be tested. Only events on a "macro" level (such as 1 and 2) ever leave any sort of evidence that can even begin to be tested. However, it is events on the level of 3 and 4 that constitute the vast majority of what is recorded in any ancient text, and also is what is the nature of the vast amount of history otherwise not recorded. So it runs back to this: Rex's original barble about not being able to test the Bible for accuracy is a pointless carp.

We have an open mind, and that is why we recognize the inadequacy of Rex's work. We've done the work he hasn't -- and we also aren't irresponsible enough to post arguments "incomplete" to this level.

The citation was found in the work of a Biblical scholar named Raymond Brown, whose erudition and reputation should be sufficient proof in this context and can hardly be compared to Marshall Applewhite, though given Rex's level of education, he would not known the difference between the two. That said, since I no longer think Brown's explanation the best, I moved on to another.

"So what"? So Rex finds it acceptable to report incomplete information and not deal with contrary ideas, even as he knows they exist and are at his fingertips. This is pathetically irresponsible and demonstrates a blatant inability to confront the data at hand. That he personally rejected it as "irrelevant" is not a sufficient excuse.

Now this is rather amusing, since if indeed our explanation is correct and "Bethsaida of Galilee" was a smaller village with the same name as the major city, then there is no "description" of it in the Bible with which to correlate any archaeological evidence. What it boils down to is that Rex (following McKinsey uncritically) reasoned this way:

1. City X is mentioned in the Bible.
2. City X is not mentioned anywhere else and is not otherwise identifiable.
3. Therefore the Bible errs in mentioning city X.

Rex may wash his hands of McKinsey and will if he knows any better. It is patently obvious that no ancient work could have possibly mentioned the name of every village, every hilltop, every geographic parcel, that ever existed at any given time. If only the Bible mentions "Bethsaida of Galilee" (or if only a certain historian mentions a certain city) this does not constitute any evidence of error as McKinsey thinks. In addition:

They are indeed misplaced, unless and until Rex deals with the argument that "Bethsaida of Galilee" is a different place. As it is, this is what Rex is reduced to as an "answer":

It's isn't a "large assumption" at all, given the data from the sites referenced (which Rex ignores); given the commonality of the multiplicity of names (even today -- how many places use the name "Madison" or "Washington" or "Albany"?) and given that John specifies "of Galilee" which would be pointless to note if he had the "major" Bethsaida in mind. Rex essentially waves the white flag and admits he has no actual answer other than yelling, "Oh yeah? Prove it!"

And he does it again. Sorry, Rex, but "Oh, yeah?" is not an answer. To answer you need to shed some doubt on the identification. Otherwise your only option is to admit that there are plausible identifications, and that McKinsey's definitive stance is unwarranted.

In McKinsey's case, it isn't. We have proven him vastly wrong, and utterly worthy of the designation, as Rex can see from our entry about him on this page. We have more than others' opinion in the mix.

Rex's ability to read seems rather questionable on many points. I would rather suppose he is playing dumb because he knows he's been caught using worthless sources and has no answer to that.

If Rex were half worth his salt he would not need more detail. It's quite simple, Rex. The cite is from John, right? I said commentaries, right? And it's about a specific verse, right? Now how hard is that? As for the "bias" bit, that's the usual Skeptical laziness. Would it be acceptable for me to say that McKinsey is a "biased" source? No, because that doesn't address the data at all. Brown, Lindars and Carson are/were professional NT scholars (Brown at least is deceased) and if their work is affected by "bias" then you can get yourself out in the stacks and prove it rather than playing manipulation games.

Too bad Rex doesn't know that we didn't employ this tactic -- we vastly proved McKinsey to be deviant, as noted above. But perhaps Rex could tell us where McKinsey has been published in a peer-reviewed journal of Biblical scholarship?

One actually does have to be an "authority" in the sense of knowing what they are talking about, and so far as we know from Rex, Alan Albert Snow is the guy who changes the oil in Rex's moped. It is clear at any rate that whatever Snow was/is, he's out of the loop on the scholarship ring, which doesn't agree with him, and if Rex thinks "evidence" is relevant, where is Snow's negative evidence? And actually, true scholars DO reject works of non-specialists out of hand, and rightly so, precisely because of the lack of discipline shown by both Rex and, apparently, Snow. Nor does the ISBD agree, which (even if up to date) doesn't thereby support the view that Nazareth didn't exist. (Rex can also can that standard manipulation game of "other sources" that as mentioned are about as useful as "I found the info on the ground on a piece of paper that blew by.")

Rex's paranoia is getting the better of him here; I did not "reject" the evidence on the basis of the date but noted the date because it is absurd to consult such a dated source when so much detail-work has been done in the intervening 92 years. It is far more ridiculous to assume that a 1910 source is up to date than to assume that there is no newer material that refutes or modifies what that source has to say -- and sorry, news articles, whatever their source, remain inadequate for the task of detailed and comparative study and Rex's use of them as primary sources only further demonstrates his inability to engage in the sort of detail-work needed to make his ventures worthwhile. Indeed he shows his laziness here:

Now isn't that nice. Rex doesn't have the wherewithal to read even 65 pages and cull out the relevant points. We're supposed to take this man's work seriously? Does this sound like someone who can be trusted to do the legwork to report a reliable and satisfactory argument based on complex data sets? We'll pass on the Judith comment, since Rex merely admits his comments were of no relevance to the Bible.

This is Rex's way of dealing with arguments, apparently: Play dumb and pretend you don't understand, then just say you're not convinced. By now we would not of course expect an actual response. And this is shown further:

Actually, yes, it does, because if it isn't something that was noticed by those deeply trained in the field, we have a right to ask whether the "problem" is merely something manufactured by someone who has no idea what they are talking about. I find it highly suspicious that this "problem" is not noted in leading commentaries on Esther, including ones that take pains to point out other alleged errors of a similar nature. Beyond that Rex's "examine everything" comment is a dodge for the fact that he obviously hasn't examined everything, and in fact hasn't even examined even the skimmings off the top of the barrel, and that is why he is unable to produce substantive responses.

Rex didn't "see" too well because we provided ample evidence for these ideas (and Rex doesn't read well; we didn't say the "king" title was figurative). There will obviously be no actual response from Rex on any of these points, and his personally lack of being convinced is not an answer.

Miller's item didn't need to address that issue; travel is the least of the matters of concern, and if Rex wants to make an issue of it, he needs to explain why that is a relevant argument. The travel itself is hardly impossible or problematic; Jews traveled from all over the Diaspora to Jerusalem regularly -- and one can readily see Rome working within this paradigm. Moreover, all Luke says is that each person went to his "own city" -- there is no indication that this required most people to travel any real distance, only to whatever "city" they called their own, which could have been a city in the immediate vicinity or could have been one of their own choosing (in this case, it has recently been suggested that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem as a way of escaping a heavier levy of taxes in Galilee), and as far as the text says the "ancestors" issue wasn't an actual requirement for every person to begin with, merely something Joseph worked within. So it's far from clear that the travel matter is a problem to start with, and Rex still has a long way to go (including refuting Miller's article) before he can be given 2 cents worth of attention here.

Rex seems to have many problems with basic reading; if there is anyone else out there who does not understand what a "depth source" is, please write me and let me know. Beyond that this sort of mulluguthering seems to be all that Rex can do when he is caught using sources that don't give anywhere near the needed amount of detail (Harris) to make a cogent and relevant argument, or that are by non-specialists in the field (Helms) and are used to the exclusion of a broader range of sources that do offer more detail and are by specialists. Rex's methods are simply inexcusable, and that is that.

Rex is not using Biblical scholarship hardly at all, which is the point. Harris comes closest of the three, but his work is a textbook and covers no subject in depth. One source is a former preacher from a fundamentalist denomination whose hermeneutic hasn't evolved out of fundamentalism. Asimov was only a collector of information and even acknowledged that he was not contributing anything to Biblical scholarship. Rex simply doesn't have the discipline or the concern to look into the sort of depth material he needs to, and his excuse about what his site is "based in" is not an answer.

This is Rex's longest "answer" to us and it tells us why Rex doesn't bother with longer answers elsewhere -- when it comes to such confrontations, he ends up flattened by a Hadrosaurus. "Holding says that Pliny wouldn't have recorded the darkness because he would've rejected it as miraculous and unreal. I can see no reason that he would reject it if a number of witnesses described it as an actual event, particularly when many people would've seen any eclipse as miraculous." That's actually misleading on a variety of accounts: Pliny himself rejected such an attitude, and number of witnesses isn't of relevance and does not make it any less the sort of event he would have rejected; and unless Pliny himself saw eclipses as miraculous it would not matter what anyone else thought. Indeed Rex is oblivious to the point that an educated Roman like Pliny would have been dismissive of any report from credulous (especially Jewish) peasants. Moreover Rex ignores our points that Pliny's work was never intended to be an exhaustive catalog. (It also assumes that the darkness was caused by an eclipse, which is not at all supported by the available data.)

"Note that Holding does refer to his Pliny theory as a 'guess.'" And the point is? It's nevertheless a guess based on collected data, and that Rex decides to highlight the word shows that he has no actual reply to offer.

"Holding's summative rejection of Seneca and Pliny says: 'For this objection to have any force, it must be shown WHY these writers should have included a reference to the darkness - but there is simply no evidence that they should have, or would have been interested in recording it." In a previous link to the Miller article (here), this type of 'argument from silence' is rejected." No it isn't; Rex just sees the words "argument from silence" in Miller's article and thinks he can magically poof it over for effect. Miller refers to negative evidence (lack of positive evidence for something) for a specific event, whereas we are arguing that lack of inclusion of a particular event, in works where the authors had a wide range of choices, and had specific attitudes that would have compelled them to ignore such an event as claimed. Rex can't tell apples from oranges.

Rex's point is invalid and useless, because he doesn't explain to us (for example) why on earth a writer of rhetorical handbooks like Quintiallian, or a chronicler of the deeds of Alexander the Great like Arrian, should be mentioning Jesus. He makes no point at all unless he tells us why they should have mentioned Jesus in the first place; otherwise their lack of mention of Jesus proves or indicates nothing. Obviously Rex does not have the wherewithal to address this point.

We have given a reference to Rohl. That's where Rex can start. But we doubt if he has the ability, for he then throws this bale of hayseed in the air:

In the case of Ai the "problem" is more of a multiplicity of possibilities, not that it has never been found, and then trying to correlate to Biblical data. By "wrong place" I and Rohl would mean that archaeologists are looking at the wrong layers of the buried site for their evidence -- not that they aren't looking for the right site. Other than that we don't expect Rex to do actual homework, since sound bites like the "Kennedy Assassination" one are much easier than getting out in the stacks.

No, that was it for Rex, from the page we looked at, and the one we chose was the one of most relevance to our mission here. But given the substandard quality of that single page, and of Rex's attempt to defend himself, that one page may as well have been it. We still suspect Barney is the better scholar.

Part 3 -- Rex Flecks. And now, more from Dino-Land. We must begin with a caveat, and that is that it appears T. Rex's sense of humour is marginally better developed these days, now that someone is pulling his chain. Not as much. Rex spends a great deal of time this round whining about issues of grammar, and his inability to understand what we say, and notably, about my use of the first-person plural, which as I have stated is our personal affectation here, and if Rex or other Skeptics don't like it, they can stencil an S on their heads and take a flying leap. We'll ignore as much of that drivel as possible; for now, Rex begins part 3 by admitting, "There is a lot in Holding's response that is humorous." But lest you think that a bonus, he grumbles at once, " If he were the intellectual superior that he thinks he is, then he wouldn't spend so much of his time with bad jokes or continuous insults toward me, whether or not they are true." Is that so? So Rex has conducted a study showing that intellectual superiority corresponds in reverse, with precision, to use of "bad jokes" ("jokes he doesn't like") and "continuous insults" ("satire")? I'm sure Mark Twain and Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Pope and other satirists of the past would agree. Them guys is jes a buncha oafs. As it happens, reader feedback does indicate a high degree of satisfaction with the general methods here, and so if Rex has a few burrs in his Fruit of the Looms, we recommend a rousing chorus of the "Gloom, Despair, Agony" song from Hee Haw.

But it seems the real problem is, we wrecked Rex's self-esteem. "If one concludes that I am intellectually deficient, which he does in his first paragraph," Rex, whines, "why repeat it so many times throughout the response?" Every paragraph? I think not. Every third or fourth, perhaps. But perhaps Rex also has gathered statistics showing how much material pro rata one should devote to noting an opponent's intellectual deficiencies before one may be considered "overly defensive or overly childish." I imagine some peer-reviewed psychological journal has done a number of studies on this subject, and can perhaps also tell us when it is actually a case of bad self-esteem having an overly imaginative case of paranoia. Yes, as in, a persecution complex. We know what it means.

I must give Rex another credit. He concedes that he's "at a disadvantage when it comes to debating Holding, since he has clearly read more in the area than I have." That's very kind of Rex; we indeed thank him, in all honesty, yet he says: "But it doesn't appears that he has read much in the area of logical argument and has some problematic grammatical construction that often detracts from whatever point it is he's trying to make." I'll buy the latter complaint -- I prefer style in writing to adhering to boring rules of grammar, which I had my fill of in days of college English -- but in terms of logical argument, sorry, no backwash. What Rex lacks in turn is a comprehension of how "logic" actually applies. To put it as I have with others, the very logical Mr. Spock can do nothing with his logic until he looks through the viewfinder and gathers data. However logical Rex may actually be, or thinks he is, unless he meets up with the disadvantage he honestly admits he has, all of that "logic" will be a wasted resource. In that light Rex's claim that he doesn't need to be as widely read to defend himself is on the par for absurd. Mr. Spock: "I don't need to look through the viewfinder to logically deduce how to escape from that Klingon fleet that is after us ---" *BLAM*

But more yet before down to dirty details. Rex whines a bit about how he would not have created a page on someone without notifying them (which is indeed his own preference and not mine -- I do not create these essays for the people I address, but for readers who ask me to) and then we get to his choice of a nickname. Burning issue, no? After claiming he didn't take it personally -- if so, then why did he see a need to comment? -- Rex merely denies the equivalence to Nast on subjective terms ("I don't buy it" -- well, my readership seems to, and they are whose opinion counts, not Boss Tweed's), says he doesn't "get" the parasitical reference (well, Rex, it refers to the level of bother you cause to others, not your habits), claims it's not my place to decide if he is incompetent (Whose place is it, then? Is Rex saying that his college professors can't give him a bad grade? If they can, why? Is it because they know more than he does? Did he not just admit that I have more reading than he does? Ah...), begs off that I am expecting too much from him (in which case, his posting of his work is much the same as a tourist throwing a lighted match into forest tinder), and then we get to where I spoke of the Net and Rex's use of it. Rex admits that I "did make it clear that the Net wasn't always bad for research the historical accuracy of the Bible," but, he says (there is always a big "but") "at the same time he implied that it was wrong in this case or he wouldn't have brought it up." Yes, I did, and I explained -- in detail -- why this was so. Yet Rex claims that his "point still stands that whether or not research is online or not has no bearing as to whether or not the research is valid." That's not actually the point. To use our example of Spock, if the Klingon fleet is coming, the more immediate information available in the viewfinder is a great deal more relevant than a book of Klingon idioms. The latter may indeed have relevance to the situation in some way or at some time, but the viewfinder provides more immediate and more detailed data, just as all of those commentaries, etc. I refer to do. Rex practically admits to this: "I agree that in all likelihood that there is more research available offline than online." But sorry, it is wrong to say that that "has no impact on what I have written or researched." Yes, it does, and that Rex thinks it has no impact only shows his vast unfamiliarity with the literature, which he admits is my advantage: just as not looking through the viewfinder when the Klingon fleet is coming will have a big, big impact on the Enterprise. " Implying that my research is faulty just because most of it was done online is wrong." If research is incomplete, and if "online" is an arena of incompleteness, then it is faulty, period. It is not the nature of the research per se but the substance of what is available through research of that nature. "And I did not claim to use the Internet as a primary source, so why did Holding bring that up?" Rex did not need to claim it; it emerged in the cites he offered. And he gets right to the meat of the problem here: "It obviously occurred to me that research on the Bible is available offline, however, that doesn't affect what I'm doing or saying unless that research conflicts specifically with something I've written." Bingo, Rex. Award yourself the Golden Tummy Rub.

And yet, not done with that:

I never "protested" or in any other way said that the only available research is available online, Holding put those words in my mouth. My page is history-based, meaning that my research will come from historical sources, not from religious sources such as a seminary or Bible commentary. I may or may not have done inadequate homework in Holding's opinion, but which things I wrote are specifically refuted (not guessed at) by offline scholarship.

Guessed at, my credenza. We'll see how that works out in specifics below. Beyond that Rex needs to grow beyond this bigoted perception that "religious sources" are somehow deficient. If they are, then he needs to get out and prove it, not merely shout from the sidelines. And still:

I have no paranoia, I'm just not a fan of someone presenting false information. Holding said my page contained 20 bullets. It obviously contained more than 100. That's not paranoia, that's accuracy.

Sigh, we still have not gotten beyond the point that I referred to the specific page I addressed, not the entire site which is only called a "page" loosely and with reference to an index page. That is the "all" I refer to -- not the whole site, and I never said the whole site. If I had meant site, I would have said so. Period. If Rex is not paranoid, then he can stop telling me what I really said.

Now indeed, watch Rex contradict himself in the space of two sentences: "I disagree completely with Holding that my homework is inadequate." That's one sentence. The next: "Since my page is not designed to be a full scholarly examination of the topic, I have no problem not providing a full scholarly examination of the topic." Guh ack! Well, if he didn't do a full examination, much less a scholarly one, then by definition, his work is inadequate. Period. Is this hard to grasp?

So let's now get to those 20 (not 100) points again. To my note that the Smithy statement says nothing about evidence or consistency with history, Rex whizzes right by the point and continues to act as though the statement said a word about historical accuracy. It didn't. It said not a word about accuracy one way or the other. It spoke of aims and purposes. That said, Rex's latest reply on this is misplaced and misses my point. Rex admonishes, " If Holding had actually read the Smithsonian letter and not just my one quote from it, he would have noted that the letter goes beyond just the 'Bible's primary aim and purpose' to discuss specific stories in the Bible." Actually, I did read it, and Rex is still in vague confines. The statement discusses only one story, the story of the Flood, and presents absolutely no rock-hard conclusions, noting only positive and negative evidences. In other words, it's not anywhere near providing anything for Rex's case; it's not making any definitive statements or saying, "This is proved/disproved"; it is, in short, useless as evidence for a Skeptical point of view. Still a nice try. Still a bad dinosaur.

Rex goes on, "I did not admit that the Smithsonian letter had 'no specifics,' I said I would 'like more specifics.'" Same difference in context: No conclusions of the sort Rex wants -- proof of inconsistency with history -- are given in the Smithy statement; hence no specifics whatsoever. Even where the Flood is concerned the Smithy offered a "way out" for the local Flood thesis. "It is obviously not a 'sound bite,' since we are not even talking about sound here, but text." Fine. A text bite if we wish to nitpick and avoid the point at issue. "Furthermore, the statement says that it is 'impossible' to prove the Bible true by checking its historical accuracy. If the Bible were not inconsistent with history, how would this be an impossible task?" Gosh heck, it's that same point I make already: The vast majority of what is historically recorded just isn't checkable that way. It's impossible to check whether Augustus really did say what Tacitus says he did. It's impossible to check whether someone really was executed as Josephus says he was. Get it? History can't get in a test tube. That's the point Rex still can't seem to get.

In closing on this, Rex still doesn't see "how something can go into more detail without being specific. A detail, by definition, is specific." Not hardly. A "detailing" can explain the nature of a position without offering specifics (data) that back it up. That's what the Smithy statement does, not that I blame them for it.

Rex bargles, "Obviously I do not think I am writing a second edition of Revelation, since I don't write fiction on my web site." It comes close; perhaps "creative writing with license" would work as well. After a few lines of wasted mulluguthering in which he still doesn't produce anyone who absurdly believes that the Bible gives a complete history, Rex claims that what I say about burps and bathroom breaks "are irrelevant and juvenile and they do not support his point or even have anything to do with any of my points" (meaning, they exposed the fallacy of his argumentation in a humourous way that embarrasses him, and does crush his point, which was that there is some issue of concern about the Bible not having full details on every subject), and then staidly remarks, "I never claimed or implied that the Bible or any other historical document - fictional or true - recorded every event. I think it is clear that not everyone in the world has all of the data that is on my site and I'd be willing to bet that I can easily find numerous people who aren't aware of these things." What is on Rex's site is not the point. What is the point is his statement that "Bible writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history" as though this were something worth making an issue over. It's isn't. It's nothing special, nothing news, and no one on earth would ever assume that a complete history was being given. In short, Rex raised a flag of doubt for merely rhetorical purposes.

On high context, etc. Rex barbles, "Holding claims that the Bible was written in a 'high context setting' but doesn't provide anything other than his word to support this. If I am to believe this 'fact,' which is not common sense, I need to see more, like a citation or source." Hmm, as if Rex thinks I make this stuff up? Tune in to Rohrbaugh and Malina's Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, Rex, and if you find that I haven't lied, I expect a full apology. As for this comment: "And I think it is clear that important events should've been recorded, particularly when there are so many unimportant things recorded." Don't forget that what you think is "important" may not have been "important" to others, or may have been important in a different way, and don't forget that modern graphocentrism (another concept for you to look up) is not the judge and jury for what ought or ought not have been written down. But as it is, we're still waiting for Rex to give us that example we asked for. He doesn't give even one.

After again denying that it is his reading skills that are the problem, and trying to justify it by splitting grammatical hairs ("Grammatically, you cannot 'prove an event.' You can prove that an event took place, but you can't prove an event." Heck, Rex figured out the meaning, so the communication was obviously effective regardless of grammatical niceties!) we get to the comparison I gave about Gettysburg events. Rex declares this a "totally meaningless example" but then out of the other side of his mouth admits that what I say is correct! "He says that we can't test items 3 and 4 and that is correct." So what's the issue, toilet tissue? Rex weakly states, "But why would anyone want to test them." Yes, and the point is? There is none that is relevant to the point, which is that the vast majority of recorded history -- including Biblical history -- is of the nature of 3 and 4, and no matter how many "whys" we ring up, they remain that way. Thus again, Rex's original barble about being able to test the Bible for accuracy is a pointless carp, and he says not a word of effective reply to this. Instead Rex whines that my 99.99999% number has no factual basis. "....you didn't provide a citation for where you obtained the number or let me know about your own personal research into determining this number. You didn't do these things because you clearly made the number up. That makes it fictional." As if Rex has a competing estimate he did the same for to prove me wrong? If it's even 99% or 90% he's still in the dino-dumps as far as his thesis is concerned. I'll give him the basis: Daily life. Go through any person's schedule and show us that any more than .00001% are scientifically testable. Can we test that you slept on a particular pillow on January 4, 1987? Can we test your conversation with Mom on June 13, 1965? No, we can't. And we can't test that Jacob slept on a stone pillow in Genesis, or that Hezekieh spoke to Isaiah. What evidence is left (other than the written records in question) that they did otherwise? Rex tells us, "By the way, events on a micro level do leave evidence and they are tested and studied. This is the field of social history (and others)." Fine and dandy. Examples? Vague claims won't do here. "The things in the Bible that I am questioning are things that would be recorded in history like places, names of rulers and the like and my 'barble' is not 'pointless carp'." And I say all of that is recorded just fine and as needed. Back to square one.

Rex interrupts next with the bias-barble: "Bible apologists, by definition do not have open minds. They are starting with a conclusion (that the Bible is true) and trying to find evidence to support that. To have an open mind, you have to be open to the idea that your initial hypothesis could be proved wrong." Fine, then: "Skeptical apologists, by definition do not have open minds. They are starting with a conclusion (that the Bible records falsity) and trying to find evidence to support that. Etc." There, did Rex just vanish in a puff of smoke? I thought not. He then says: "On the other hand, I have participated in religion my entire life and have examined in evidence that led me away from the Bible, since the Bible did not match that other evidence." Dandy. I ignored religion most of my life and have examined evidence that led me to the Bible, since the Bible did match that other evidence. Obviously one of us has gone wrong. Rex admits I have a leg up on study and evidence. What then are we to conclude thus far? Rex tries to wipe away that stain of less knowledge by claiming, "Holding may have done more work than me and my work may be incomplete, but I have an open mind and that makes my research more valid." To quote a phrase, some minds become so open that the associated brains fall out. I start with no conclusions, despite Rex's implied slander, and if he can prove otherwise, we are still waiting for engagement on Biblical details.

But we get to those, not quite yet; after expressing his annoyance over my use of the self-referential plural (for some reason, that annoys Skeptics a lot, which gives me further reason to use it), and whining about a perceived linguistic inadequacy (hmm, when people pick on these things, isn't that a sign of self-inadequacies in perception? -- BTW I do speak here of a citation of Pliny in Brown's work), whining as well that I "gave me the name of a scholar and told me how great that scholar was, but failed to provide a citation or a reference of any sort" (As if Rex were inclined to actually dig out anything? Not from the record he offers!), claims that the "'erudition and reputation' of a scholar are never sufficient proof, particularly in scholarly work" (the obscuratanism of this ridiculous statement speaks for itself, and speaks yards of freethinking arrogance!), whines moreover that what Brown said is "just his interpretation of the facts" (ah yes, the old "that's your opinion" that passes as a rebuttal, in place of negative evidence even against reasonable theses, in today's politically-correct world), whines again that "true scholarship never takes one source as 'proof' of anything, just evidence" (If the source is competent enough, as Brown was, and as Rex obviously does not know implicitly calling Brown an "anonymous singular scholar"! -- it darned well does amount to proof!); whines about the need "to comment on the fact that I didn't include all the information in a source article, since when citations are used, I don't know of any instance in history where every piece of information in the source was used in a secondary work" (that's a lame and poor excuse for failing to report contrary data, and lack of consensus is no excuse either for such blatant dishonesty); whines as well, "Does Holding discuss every theory that could alternately explain the things he discusses on his site? Somehow I doubt it" (That Rex "doubts it" is his own problem; I do discuss every reasonable theory; i.e., I feel safe excluding "the aliens had a town called Bethsaida" but would include any explanation I knew of that was grounded in reasonable foundations with respect to the relevant topical and scholarly literature); claims, "That I deemed a piece of information irrelevant is a completely sufficient reason not to discuss the information" (Irrelevant! "I didn't include refuting arguments because I thought they were irrelevant," i.e., irrelevant to keeping the facade alive!), and then -- answering the arguments? Don't count on it. "Suggesting that there are many places that have the same name, so there must have been another Bethsaida is not legitimate scholarship." Like heck it isn't, and Rex is still waving that white flag admitting he has no answer. Is suggesting that there are many towns called "Albany" not legitimate? Would it not be for someone in Bosnia who would know no better? What it boils down to is that Rex followed McKinsey's ridiculous dictum, hook, line, and sinker (and despite the implied protestation, that is where it comes from: he admits elsewhere to using McKinsey, so pardon me if I do not accept that it is pure coincidence that he and McKinsey came up with the same bogus line of reasoning) and cannot at all deflate the reasonable thesis that 1) multiple town names are a reality; 2) John does specify "of Galilee"; 3) the steps Rex does take, "If it isn't mentioned elsewhere, it does not exist", is illicit; and thus in conclusion, 4) a definitive stance that this constitutes an error is unwarranted, and it needs to be removed from Rex's list. It's as simple as that. It's not a matter of "taking my word" (there's that politically correct jibe again!), and it's a load of bogus bunk to try to rework his argument as though he were trying to say:

1. City X is mentioned in the Bible.
2. The Bible has numerous problems.
3. City X is not mentioned anywhere else in history and is not otherwise identifiable according to the Biblical evidence.
4. Therefore the Bible errs in mentioning city X unless further evidence can be found.

Well, sorry, but last I checked, guilt by association is a logical fallacy! If the Bible is purely a human product as Rex thinks it is, then a "problem" in 1 Kings could hardly be used to support an argument that there is a problem in John. Take it further, and even a chronological error in John would be no support for supposing a geographical error. If that is so Rex has just thrown out all of recorded history, since no secular historian (not even Tacitus, the top of the heap) is regarded as fully reliable. (The word "numerous" is also substantially greasy!) Step 3 we already showed to be illicit; we need cause for doubt, not mere silence, and the cause for doubt must be supplemented with clear reasons why a "Bethsaida of Galilee" of the sort we suggest would be mentioned anywhere else. Step 4, finally, commits the same error of definitiveness as McKinsey does, and is thus substantially the same. Rex can claim no more than that, "Therefore the Bible is not corroborated in mentioning city X." That's it. Rex barbles, "While I agree that not every city is mentioned by every historical record, if something is not found anywhere in any historical record, that is evidence that such a place did not exist." No, actually, it isn't. That's presumptive malarkey; silence can never be "evidence of" anything, unless at worst the silence is so pervasive and unlikely that it just has to say something. In this light Rex needs to explain to us why a minor fishing village -- as is proposed of the actual Bethsaida of Galilee -- needed to be mentioned, by whom, and where, and in what context. John proposes no resounding event occurring there (i.e., a battle) so why would this burg get the name by Josephus, for example? There is no logic at all in assuming that a place didn't exist on this basis, and the comparison to Atlantis is absurd -- we are not talking about an entire continent here, but a minor fishing village of no repute. Rex has severe problems with analogy impairment!

Rex still insists that the "official government declarations are not misplaced, particularly since they don't recognize Holding's 'Bethsaida is really different' place argument." Excuse me, but unless they actually know of, deal with, and answer the idea that "B of Galilee" is a different place, Rex's cites of the declarations -- not the declarations themselves -- are indeed misplaced, and if it isn't a good or worthy explanation, Rex needs to tell us why. Otherwise, that objection needs to be removed from his page (the 20 bullet one!) or filed under a different rubric -- perhaps of, "Bible uncertainties". Then he can show why this should cause us any more heartburn than a village mentioned only in Tacitus or Josephus.

We will skip over a bit more of Rex's whining and fussing over typing and grammar issues, which are irrelevancies in context; after disclaiming yet again his responsibility to do proper sourcework; after claiming he wasn't really implying we should reject work that is "biased" (nah, he just mentioned it for grits and shins! -- nah, he says he mentioned it because "it made it more likely that the works would be inaccurate" -- bingo, Rex: And the inaccurate should be rejected, yes? Thank you!), Rex does admit that "This would apply to any bias" but then whines that it would still be difficult for him to "get out in the stacks and find these works" even with the info provided (which is clear enough to anyone who knows what they are doing, actually!) -- get this sentence:

Examine the following sentence: "This is the usual McKinsey Method: To avoid dealing with data, just label the source as deviant and move on!" What data is included in this sentence? Is their not an implication that McKinsey is deviant in this sentence?

What!!! "Is their???" Maw, call the spelling and grammar police! So much for that, now can I reverse all of the complaints Rex made against me on that subject? I smell someone who is a slave to a spelling and grammar checker, who then counts on it to make him look like he has an authoritative handle he can critique others with! And no, it's an implication that McKinsey uses the deviant label, not that McK himself is deviant. Yeesh!

On it goes. Rex blatters for a few more lines about trivialities, under the illusion that his arguments from silence still stand -- and Rex, we did provide a link about McKinsey, in a paragraph below that one, and he has only been published in his own newsletter and in two books by Prometheus Press -- no peer-reviewed journals -- and then we get this hayseed analysis:

I do not know all the places McKinsey has been published, but I do know that data on the Bible does not only have to appear in a journal of Biblical scholarship to be accurate. How much of your beloved commentaries were first published in a journal of Biblical scholarship?

Pfft, hack -- OK: "I do know that data on cancer treatments does not only have to appear in a journal of medical scholarship to be accurate." Um, yeah, just put your life in Rex's expert hands! I also know that data on the Bible that appears in journals of Biblical scholarship that contradicts data claimed in penny-ante sources like McKinsey's material is much, much more likely to be accurate; and as a matter of fact, Rex, the commentaries as a whole are peer-reviewed as well and many of them do have ideas that first appear in journals. So be careful how you step in that minefield, my friend, it isn't safe for someone who thinks they're in the know with just a home-made BS detector.

And the evasion of actual answers continues. Rex wants evidence that the scholarship ring disagrees with Snow; I gave it to him in the link which he ignored, and we still don't get told who Snow is and why his claim is worth a hill of beans. Rex bellows with a T Rex roar, "There is no question that someone can provide evidence for something without being an authority on the subject. You do have to know what you are talking about, but that doesn't necessarily make you an authority." Heck yeah, Rex just gave license to nuts like Acharya S and Wayne Harrington to just make any claim. After all, there's no question that even Wayne or Acharya can provide "evidence" even if they are not authorities. Why not open the door for any bum on the street to provide an expert opinion? Sorry, Rex, but I know for a fact that true scholars DO reject works of non-specialists out of hand -- because years of experience have told them it's what needs doing. Political science scholar, you are? If some plumber sent you a paper in which he gave "evidence" that the Pope was a secret leader of a mystery faction that plans to conquer the earth, you gonna accept that? I didn't think so (if you answer "yes" please see a psychologist). Note that it is not just the training, but the exceptionality of the claims. In this case, Snow is not only a non-relevant authority, but is also making an audacious claim based on, actually, non-evidence (silence) that would never pass muster in any other venue (i.e., being said of a city mentioned only by Tacitus). Leedom, by the way, is no better, and we showed that ISBE is not in your corner (assuming it is an up-to-date edition, which I have my doubts about).

Next up, Rex excuses his inexcusable resort to a source outdated by 92 years. No, he would rather "assume" that in the 92 years intervening, nothing has been written refuting the material in that aged text, unless I show him otherwise. Be as responsible with information as Rex is, kiddies, when it comes to marijuana, and you'll live a free and easy life! Rex burps back that "older sources are used throughout the world of scholarship," but sorry, not for any purpose but to record the historical debate on a subject, and never without conside