Pages

Sunday, August 01, 2010

Truth by definition

Apostate Paul Tobin has posted a reply to TID. Like a typical apostate, he continues to define himself by the Christian faith. He still lives in the shadow of the church, only now he pelts the stained-glass windows with rocks.

Apostates have nothing to live for. Nothing better. Nothing half as good. So their only purpose in life is to attack their former faith. It helps them to pass the time. While away the boredom of their vapid existence.

I’m going to quote some of his statements more than once to make different points.

I. “Modern” Scholarship

The main thesis of my original article in the book The Christian Delusion is that the fundamentalist/evangelical position on the Bible is not reflected by modern mainstream Biblical scholarship, historical research and near eastern archaeology.[3] Before proceeding with the detailed response below I would like to make two general observations.

Firstly, given my thesis, it is quite strange to see that the “rebuttals” are based mainly on quotations from evangelical scholars and publications with frequent references to my not “interacting” with “evangelical scholarship.” An important point of my article in the book, and something I will continue to emphasize below, is that evangelical scholarship is not mainstream and not supported by a consensus of scholars who do not hold the same pre-suppositional biases.


There are several problems with this set-up:

1. In his addendum, he said, “I have argued that the evangelical belief in biblical inspiration cannot be defended in light of modern scholarship” (169).

But how is he in any position to claim victory if he constantly runs away from evangelical answers to his objections? It’s not as if evangelical scholars simply ignore what “critical/mainstream” scholarship has to say. They read what the liberals have to say, and they present counterarguments.

2.That’s not how he introduced his thesis in TCD. Here is what he actually said:

Most Christians claim they have a reasoned faith. This faith claim is based on the Bible being the word of God in some meaningful sense. But modern scholarship has shown us that the canonical Bible:

i) Is inconsistent with itself,
ii) Is not supported by archaeology,
iii) Contains fairy tales
iv) Contains failed prophecies, and
v) Contains many forgeries.

Given all this, the Bible cannot be considered an inspired–“God breathed–document. Rather it seems to be written by a superstitious people who were creating God in their image, as Ludwig Feuerbach charged. Therefore Christianity is not a reasoned faith. It cannot stand up to critical scrutiny (148).


Notice that he originally cast his thesis in chronological terms. “Modern” scholarship has alleged disproven the inspiration of Scripture. The insinuation seems to be that Christians traditionally believed in the inspiration of Scripture because they didn’t know any better. But modernity has discovered disconfirmatory evidence. So his thesis seems to turn on a contrast between past knowledge and present knowledge.

Yet in response to me, he’s using “modern” as if that were “synonymous” with “mainstream.” But, of course, that’s non-sensical. 20-21C evangelical and fundamentalist scholars are just as modern as 20-21C “mainstream” scholars. We’re dealing with contemporaries.

So unless he’s using “modern” as an idiosyncratic synonym for “modernism,” to denote to denote a particular mindset, his contrast between “modern” scholarship and evangelical/fundamentalist scholarship is bogus.

2. In addition, Tobin is simply a contributor to TCD. But the TCD reflects the editorial agenda of John Loftus. As Loftus says in the introduction to TCD:

As the editor of this book I envisioned it as an extension of my previous one, Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2008), which I think of as important background reading for the chapters in this one, although you don’t need to read it in order to understand and benefit from this present book (15).

In addition, it’s not as if John Loftus has a hidden agenda:

I can, and I do argue against mainline and even Catholic Christianity. It's just not my focus. My focus is on fundamentalism because the majority of Christians believe the "literal" passages in the Bible, and because they have a zeal for pressing their views upon me through economic and political power. Liberals are not that much of a threat, period. They do not blindly accept what they read in the Bible, and that's being more reasonable than fundamentalists, who have a Bible verse for every problem, intellectual or social. I can agree with liberals on this, so why bother with them? My goal is to dislodge the evangelical Christian off of center.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-my-focus-is-on-debunking.html

And that agenda is clearly on display in TCD. TCD doesn’t target theologically moderate to liberal Bible scholars like Dale Allison, Brevard Childs, Craig A. Evans, Joseph Fitzmyer, Robert Jewett, Luke Timothy Johnson, John Meier. It doesn’t target center-left theologians like Alister McGrath, Richard Swinburne, Keith Ward, or Rowan Williams.

No, TCD concentrates its fire on conservative evangelicals, with special reference to inerrancy. So the title of the TCD is a misnomer. It should really be called The Evangelical Delusion, or the Inerrancy Delusion.

Tobin tacks on a token reply to liberals at the end of his essays, but that’s a tertiary target, both in reference to his own essay and the TCD as a whole.

How can Tobin show that conservative Evangelicals are “deluded” if he refuses to interact with Evangelical scholarship? Tobin raises stereotypical objections to the inerrancy of Scripture which evangelical Bible scholars regularly address. By dodging direct engagement the counterargument, Tobin leaves the counterargument intact. You can’t disprove the opposing position if to you act as though responding to their counterarguments is simply beneath you.

And this is not a problem for my position. Rather, that’s a problem for his position. His failure to press the charge home.

It’s like a rag-tag army that marches up to a fortified city, stands there declaring victory and demanding our unconditional surrender. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but we’re not going to open the city gates without a fight. You need to defeat us.

II. Proof By Quotation

Firstly, given my thesis, it is quite strange to see that the “rebuttals” are based mainly on quotations from evangelical scholars and publications…

The reason I respond to Tobin by quoting scholars to the contrary is that I’m answering him on his own level. His idea of proof is to simply cite or quote “mainstream” scholars or “critical” scholars. That’s his idea of evidence. The sheer opinion of a “mainstream” scholar counts as evidence. Just bare conclusions. He rarely gives a supporting argument.

That’s his modus operandi in TCD, and that’s his modus operandi in response to TID. It’s a tendentious appeal to authority.

In the same vein, he chides me for referring the reader to footnoted literature, but that, too, is standard operating procedure for Tobin.

III. Truth By Definition

Embedded within these rebuttals are quotations from “scholars” who still believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch[1]…

The main thesis of my original article in the book The Christian Delusion is that the fundamentalist/evangelical position on the Bible is not reflected by modern mainstream Biblical scholarship, historical research and near eastern archaeology.

Firstly, given my thesis, it is quite strange to see that the “rebuttals” are based mainly on quotations from evangelical scholars and publications with frequent references to my not “interacting” with “evangelical scholarship.” An important point of my article in the book, and something I will continue to emphasize below, is that evangelical scholarship is not mainstream and not supported by a consensus of scholars who do not hold the same pre-suppositional biases.

Any “research” done seems to be based purely on evangelical and fundamentalist works –filled with speculations and guesses for which little or no evidence is provided.

The main point is this, no serious (i.e. non evangelical) scholar today considers the stories in Genesis 1 and 2 to be anything more than different creation myths “cut and pasted” together by a later scribe to form an uneasy narrative.

I can continue to quote various scholars ad nauseam,[14] but the point, I think, is made. Scholars who respect the methodology of historical research (which, unfortunately, exclude most evangelical scholars) are generally in agreement about the uneasy contradiction which exists between the epistle of James and the epistles of Paul.

In his rebuttal of the obvious anachronism of the reference to “Ur of the Chaldees” that I pointed out in my article, Hays simply quoted the opinion of an evangelical scholar (Duane Garrett)

In his attempt to rebut the anachronism of calling Abimalech “king of the Philistines”, Hays actually quoted an evangelical who still believes that Moses wrote the Pentateuch! No serious Biblical scholar today takes such a position.

Next Hays turned to my comments about the anachronism of the references to camels in the patriarchal narratives. Outside fundamentalist/evangelical circles, the anachronism of the references to domesticated camels during the time of Abraham and Joseph is, more or less, a settled issue.

The one non-evangelical work Hays cites is Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt published by Oxford University Press. Archaeologists do not consider the case Hoffmeier is making to be particularly strong. This is what William Dever has to say on Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt.

Here Hays accuses me of not interacting with “standard scholarship” on the issue of the historicity of the Exodus and the Conquest. Yet all the references he sites (notes 47 & 48), with one exception, are from evangelical publishers! How is this “standard scholarship”??

In response to my noting the conflicting messages of the epistles of James and Paul, Hays (as in (2) above) has merely resorted to citing an evangelical scholar who thinks that the epistles of James and Paul were not in conflict. That does not really solve anything though, since I can equally site [sic] many critical historical scholars who think differently.

Hays suggestion – which he referenced from yet another evangelical author…

Note also that Hay’s “rebuttal” amounts to nothing more than asserting an evidentially unsupported speculation. Hays quoted his evangelical “scholar” as saying…

Not only has he ignored the references from mainstream scholarship that I provided…

See a pattern?

1. Tobin is trying to win the argument by definition. Define his position as the true position. He doesn’t have to refute the arguments of evangelical scholars. It’s sufficient to merely classify which scholars are “mainstream” and which are “evangelical” or “fundamentalist.”

By definition, real scholars are “mainstream” scholars or “scholars.” By definition, evangelical/fundamentalist scholars aren’t “serious” scholars. Indeed, we should put “scholar” in scare quotes whenever we refer to evangelical/fundamentalist scholars. By definition, “standard” scholarship is non-evangelical.

He talks about evangelicals and fundamentalists the way a Klansman talks about the “darkies.”

He takes “mainstream/critical” scholarship for granted as the standard of comparison. But, of course, that begs the question. A polemical book like TCD needs to make a case of whatever controversial methods and assumptions it employs. It can’t show that Christian faith is delusive by stipulating the rules of evidence.

His appeal to “mainstream” scholarship is an argument from authority. But he hasn’t given the reader a good reason to treat “mainstream” scholars as authority-figures.

2. Notice how he sets up a false dichotomy between “archeologists” and James Hoffmeier. You’d never know from his statement that Hoffmeier is, himself, a seasoned field archeologist.

3. Observe his circular definition of consensus. The only consensus that counts is “mainstream” opinion. Evangelical dissent doesn’t reflect a lack of consensus, for he uses a selective definition of consensus which limits the referent whoever agrees with Tobin.

4. Another obvious problem with such trusting appeals to critical consensus is that today’s critical consensus differs from yesterday’s critical consensus, as well as tomorrow’s critical consensus.

5. Yet another problem with his appeal to “consensus” is that it gives the lie to his appeal to “evidence.” For consensus is a sociological phenomenon rather than an evidentiary datum. The standard for consensus is correspondence with what other people believe rather than correspondence with the facts.

6. If, by this own admission, the dividing line is ultimately presuppositional rather than evidentiary (i.e. “presuppositional bias”), then that’s the very first thing he needs to discuss and defend.

7. What does he mean by the “methodology of historical research?” Is that a tendentious euphemism for methodological naturalism, a la Troeltsch? Is so, then he needs to make a case for his naturalistic historiography. That’s not something he can posit as a fait accompli. And he needs to do that in TCD. If not there, he needs to do that in response to TID.

8. And if a naturalistic historiography is his touchstone, then this also gives the lie to his evidentiary appeals–for in that event he is not allowing the evidence to speak for itself. Rather, he is speaking to the evidence. He is telling the evidence what it may or may not say.

9. Babinski, Tobin’s co-contributor quotes “evangelical” scholars to help make his case for the “primitive” cosmology of the Bible. But according to Tobin, evangelical scholars aren’t “serious” scholars. So we have to choose between Tobin’s chapter and Babinski’s chapter. Which one should we jettison?

IV. Is “Mainstream” Scholarship the Gold Standard?

In lieu of a real argument, Tobin constantly falls back on authoritarian appeals to “mainstream” scholarship. But if that’s the standard, then, as Jason Engwer already pointed out, a lot of atheistic scholarship is decidedly substandard.

i) For instance, so-contributor Robert Price relishes his self-appointed role as the bête noire of mainstream scholarship. He (and Richard Carrier) contributed to The God Who Wasn't There: A Documentary Asserting that Jesus Christ Never Existed, which hardly represents “mainstream scholarship.”

Price’s iconoclastic espousal of radical Dutch criticism hardly represents the critical mainstream:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/bauer_christ_caesars.htm

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/schmithals_first_christians.htm

Likewise, Price’s parallelomania hardly represent “mainstream” scholarship. As James Dunn exclaimed, “Gosh! So there are still serious scholars who put forward the view that the whole account of Jesus’ doings and teachings are a later myth foisted on an unknown, obscure historical figure,” “A Response to Robert Price,” J. Beilby & P. Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views (IVP 2009), 94.

ii) Then there’s co-contributor Richard Carrier. In TCD, does his opinion that Mark’s Gospels “was not even written as history, but as a deliberate myth” (303) represent “mainstream” scholarship? And what about his other imaginative theories on pp303-04? Is that “mainstream”?

For that matter, isn’t Carrier pretty contemptuous of modern scholarship in NT studies?

Many issues I thought were cut-and-dried are actually mired in complexity, and my research in these areas has absorbed far more time than it should have. The two most annoying examples of this (though not the only ones) are in dating the contents of the New Testament and identifying their authorship and editorial history. There is no consensus on either, even though standard references (like Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, and The New Interpreter's Bible) tend to give the impression there is. Even when acknowledging some disagreements, they do not accurately convey the shear number of disagreements and the complexity of determining their relative merits.

In other words, not only is there no consensus, but there are dozens of positions, and arguments for each are elaborate and vast. It was only after over a month of wasting countless hours attempting to pursue these matters to some sort of condensable conclusion that I realized this was a fool's errand. I have changed strategy and will attempt some sort of broader, simpler approach to the issues occupying my chapter on this, though exactly what that will be I am still working out. It will involve, however, a return to what historians actually do in other fields, which New Testament scholars seem to have gotten away from in their zeal to make sense of data that's basically screwed in every conceivable way. For when it comes to establishing the basic parameters of core documents, I have never met the kind of chaos I've encountered in this field in any other subfield of ancient history I've studied. Elsewhere, more often than not, either the matter is settled, or no one pretends it is.

Now sure, everything above can be debated endlessly. But an endless debate on one detail, multiplied by a dozen details, multiplied by a dozen problems, multiplied by a dozen documents (since the Gospels aren't the only vexations among early Christian documents, not by a longshot), you end up with nearly two thousand endless debates. Even supposing you can fit an eternity into a day and thus nail a conclusion on any one point in under ten hours, ahem, two thousand days still works out to more than seven years (as you'll surely be taking weekends off at least--to drink yourself into a stupor, if nothing else). And at the end of it, you have perhaps only a few pages to show for it all, since that's all that will be needed to summarize your conclusions regarding the basic facts of your evidence before moving on to the actual topic of your book. A handful of pages. Which took seven years of soul-crushing tedium to compose.

No thanks.

The field of New Testament studies needs to get its house in order. Until it does, I'll have to do without what I can normally rely upon in other fields: well-supported conclusions (or a ready consensus on the range of conclusions possible) on the most fundamental issues of evidence.


http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/search/label/New%20Testament

V. False Dichotomy

i) Tobin sets up a false dichotomy between “mainstream” scholarship and “evangelical” scholarship. Of course, Tobin’s operational definition of what’s out-of-the-mainstream is anything to the right of Tobin. But even on his own terms, how does he determine what represents the “mainstream” position or the “consensus” position. Does he have polling data from seminaries, divinity schools, and professional associations which provide a statistical breakdown of where contemporary Bible scholars range along the theological spectrum? Let’s see him crunch some numbers.

It also generates a potential dilemma. For what if “mainstream” scholarship merges with “evangelical” scholarship? At that point, Tobin will find himself stranded on beachhead during a rising tide. Indeed, one prominent critic is deeply alarmed by that very development:

My focus is the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), the main organization for Biblical scholarship in North America. In recent years it has changed its position on the relationship between faith and reason in the study of the Bible. I think that it has forgotten the lessons of both Pascal and Spinoza, and is falling into a confused domain of dissension and hypocrisy. The problem, as I understand it, has to do with money.

SBL used to share its annual meeting with the major American organizations for Near Eastern archaeology (the American Schools of Oriental Research, ASOR) and for the study of religion (the American Association of Religion, AAR). But due to petty disputes among the leaders of these groups, ASOR and AAR have dissolved their links with SBL. In order to keep up its numbers at its annual meeting, SBL has reached out to evangelical and fundamentalist groups, promising them a place within the SBL meeting. So instead of distinguished academic organizations like ASOR and AAR in the fold, we now have fundamentalist groups like the Society of Pentecostal Studies and the Adventist Society for Religious Studies as our intimate partners. These groups now hold SBL sessions at the annual meeting. The participation of these and other groups presumably boosts attendance—and SBL’s income—to previous levels.

The problem is that the SBL has loosened its own definition of Biblical scholarship, such that partisan attacks of this type are now entirely valid. When I learned of the new move to include fundamentalist groups within the SBL, I wrote to the director and cited the mission statement in the SBL’s official history: “The object of the Society is to stimulate the critical investigation of the classical biblical literatures.”3 The director informed me that in 2004 the SBL revised its mission statement and removed the phrase “critical investigation” from its official standards. Now the mission statement is simply to “foster biblical scholarship.” So critical inquiry—that is to say, reason—has been deliberately deleted as a criterion for the SBL. The views of creationists, snake-handlers and faith-healers now count among the kinds of Biblical scholarship that the society seeks to foster.


http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=04&ArticleID=09&Page=0&UserID=0&

VI. The Argument from Silence

As Christopher Hitchens so succinctly puts it- “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

That’s very quotable, but what does it mean, exactly?

i) To take one example, we don’t have any specific evidence that most folks in antiquity ever existed. The hoi polloi never made it onto monumental inscriptions. Classical historians don’t have a habit of naming slaves and peasants. We don’t have marked graves for most people who lived and died. Or birth certificates. Or death certificates. So should we conclude that the human population was limited to those individuals for whom we have specific archeological evidence?

ii) And suppose we measure Tobin’s claims by his own yardstick? Most of the time he doesn’t give us supporting evidence for his claims. All we get are quotes from his favorite liberal “scholars.” And he doesn’t quote their arguments (assuming they have any). He simply quotes their say-so.

Secondly, most of the “rebuttals” amount to no more than suggesting or speculating other possible explanations than the ones I have presented. This is something I have pointed out in my book The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager (pp. 212-214) Evangelicals seems to have difficulty understanding the difference between the concepts of possibility and probability- just because an hypothesis is possible does not mean it is the most probable explanation for something…Simply providing an alternative hypothesis, without providing any evidence or argument, proves nothing.

i) One of Tobin’s problems is the way he illicitly converts the absence of evidence into counterevidence. He acts as if the absence is evidence is just a different kind of evidence: evidence to the contrary.

But lack of evidence doesn’t point in any particular direction. His chronic reliance on the argument from silence is an invitation to speculate. Evidence rules out certain possibilities. In the absence of evidence, we are left with various logically consistent ways to fill the gap. The absence of evidence doesn’t point in one direction rather than another.

ii) He also confuses lack of evidence with the lack of corroborating evidence. Yet Scripture itself is testimonial evidence for various events. So it’s not as if we’re starting from zero.

iii) An argument from silence can be persuasive if there’s reason to expect a certain type of evidence. That’s something which Tobin needs to argue on a case-by-case basis.

iv) When I reviewed The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, a few years ago, the contributors to that work resorted to any alternative explanation, however far-fetched, to deny the resurrection of Christ.

VII. Sifting the Evidence

1. Primary & Secondary Sources

In addition to Tobin’s misuse of the argument from silence, there is also his token appeal to the “evidence.” He likes to talk about the evidence against Scripture. But he’s better at telling than showing. He uses “evidence” as a euphemism for quoting his favorite liberal “scholars.” But if he’s going to make a big deal about the evidence, then secondary sources don’t count as evidence. He needs to show us the primary sources which allegedly contradict Bible history. What he’s giving us is not the actual evidence, but a summary or reconstruction from his favorite liberal “scholars.”

If he’s going to complain about my quoting scholars in support of my position, then he needs to do better, right? If he can quote scholars, I can quote scholars.

2. The Loftus Standard

Apropos (1), Tobin must, in consistency, apply the same standard to his extrabiblical historical sources as he does to the Biblical historical sources. According to Loftus, ancient history is a poor medium of communication. “If God chose to reveal himself in history, then he chose a very poor medium to do so.”

But, of course, that claim, if true, isn’t limited to Bible history. Rather, that applies to ancient history in general.

Indeed, atheists like Loftus assurance us that ancient people were backward and superstitious. That’s why we can’t trust the testimonial evidence of Scripture. For Bible writers shared the same primitive, superstitious views as their contemporaries.

So Tobin’s chapter cancels out the chapter by Loftus, or vice versa. Which one should we jettison?

3. The Carrier Standard

In TCD, Carrier lays down the following criteria for judging the Gospels: “Your doubts become stronger when you can’t question the witnesses; when you don’t even know who they are; when you don’t have the story from them but from someone else entirely; when there is an agenda…we don’t know who really wrote them, or when, or where…That’s what we don’t know. What we do know is that the Gospels were written with an agenda…We have no way of knowing what got added to the version we now have in the Bible…The existence of improbabilities, contradictions, propaganda, evident fictions, forgeries and interpolations, and legendary embellishments in them has been exhaustively discussed in modern literature…We can’t trust our sources, and we have no idea who their sources were or how faithful they were to them. We have no eyewitness accounts… (TCD, chap. 11).

But, oddly enough, I don’t find Tobin asking these same questions of the ancient historical sources he cites (laundered through his favorite scholars) in opposition to Scripture.

Before Tobin is in any position to invoke his ancient extrabiblical sources as the benchmark for measuring Bible history, he needs to run them through the Carrier filter:

i) Identify the sources. What is he referring to? Writings? Inscriptions? Coins? Pottery? Graffiti?

If his sources are literary, what’s the genre?

ii) What’s the date of the source? By what methods did you arrive at the source?

iii) Who wrote the source? Was the author an eyewitness? If he claims to be an eyewitness, how does Tobin verify that claim?

iv) Conduct an séance to interrogate the ancient eyewitness. We can’t trust an ancient eyewitness whom we can’t even question.

v) Does the source have an agenda? Is the source propagandistic?

vi) What sources did the writer use? How faithful was he to his own sources?

vii) How many recensions did the source pass through?

viii) Does the source reflect a superstitious outlook, viz. attributing the success or failure of a military campaign to the gods?

VIII. Evidentiary Duplicity

On the one hand, Tobin denies that certain Biblical events ever happened unless we have corroborating evidence. On the other hand, when we have an event like Noah’s flood, where we also have Mesopotamian flood traditions (Atrahasis, Sumerian King List, Epic of Gilgamesh, Erdu Genesis) which corroborate the historicity of the event, he turns around and cites that supporting material as if it somehow undermines the Biblical account.

So in reality, he has a “heads I win/tails you lose” evidentiary standard. If there’s no corroborative evidence for a Biblical event, then we should deny the historicity of the event–but if there is corroborating evidence, then we should also deny the historicity of the event!

IX. Rigging the Rules of Evidence

Unfortunately this commonly made accusation against any reasonable person who demands extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claim is misplaced. I have written in detail the historical method and how it relates to the treatment of miracles in my book, The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager.[36]

Sagan’s catchy slogan is just the right size to fit on a bumper sticker, but why should we accept that dubious claim? What does it even mean?

1. What makes a claim an “extraordinary” claim? Does that simply mean the event in question is exceptional, out of the ordinary, or unusual?

But unbelievers think that many natural events are extraordinary in that weak sense. Likewise, they think that many human events or historical events are extraordinary in that weak sense. And they don’t demand extraordinary evidence (whatever that means) for such events. So they must have something stronger in mind.

2. They often appeal to the uniformity of nature. So do they define “extraordinary” in the sense that miracles don’t happen, inasmuch as that would run counter to the uniformity of nature?

But, of course, that definition begs the question. Whether miracles do or don’t happen is the very point at issue. You can’t very well presume that miracles never happen without begging the question.

Hence, reported miracles don’t have to overcome the presumption that miracles never happen. For that would assume the very thing the unbeliever must prove.

3. Perhaps, though, the unbeliever thinks the onus is on the believer. Since the believer is asserting that miracles happen, the believer assumes the burden of proof.

However, the unbeliever is asserting that miracles don’t happen, so he—in turn—shoulders a commensurate burden of proof.

4. Frequently, the uniformity of nature is underwritten by appeal to the laws of nature. Here we have a strong claim: miracles don’t happen because miracles can’t happen.

And why can’t they happen? Because that would violate the laws of nature.

Extraordinary events don’t demand extraordinary evidence as long as they’re the right kind of event—natural events, consistent with natural law. A miracle is the wrong kind of extraordinary event for ordinary evidence to suffice.

But there are several problems with this claim:

5. An unbeliever can’t very well presume that the laws of nature preclude miracles. For he’s making a very ambitious claim. A claim about the state of the world.

That’s something he needs to defend. He can’t merely stipulate that his view of the world is right. He must argue for his view of natural law. Therefore, it’s not as if reported miracles must overcome the presumption that natural law precludes their occurrence.

Even if natural law did preclude the miraculous, that, of itself, is a claim which demands a supporting argument.

6. Keep in mind that a natural “law” is just an anthropomorphic metaphor. Literally speaking, there are no “laws” of nature. That’s a figure of speech which is borrowed from human affairs and then projected onto nature.

7. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we formulate the possibility of miracles within a natural law framework, what would be extraordinary about an event that “violated” the laws of nature?

That would only be extraordinary under the assumption that natural laws are the ultimate factors governing reality. An absolute limiting condition. They demarcate what is possible and impossible.

But, of course, the unbeliever cannot very well presume such a grandiose position. He needs to argue for it.

8. To see the problem with (7), ask yourself the following question: “Is there something extraordinary about the idea that God would do something contrary to the laws of nature?”

On the face of it, there’s nothing extraordinary about such an idea. If God is more ultimate than nature, then God is more ultimate than natural law. So God isn’t bound by nature law. Rather, the laws of nature depend on God.

On the face of it, there’s no presumption that God would never do something contrary to the laws of nature. That would only follow if the laws of nature are ultimate and autonomous.

9. Of course, at this point, the unbeliever will object to the introduction of God into the equation. After all, the unbeliever doesn’t believe in God.

But why doesn’t he believe in God? Does he take the position that God’s existence is an extraordinary claim demanding extraordinary evidence?

But why is God’s existence extraordinary? After all, many theologians argue that God is a necessary being. And if God is a necessary being, then it would be extraordinary if he didn’t exist. Indeed, his nonexistence would be impossible. So his existence is not extraordinary: rather, it’s inevitable.

10. Of course, an unbeliever will deny that God is a necessary being. But if a theologian must argue that God is a necessary being, then an atheologian must argue that God is not a necessary being. An atheist or agnostic can’t merely presume that God is not a necessary being. His own denial is a belief. A belief with its own burden of proof.

On the basis of 1-10, there’s no prima facie assumption that a reported miracle amounts to an extraordinary claim. If an unbeliever is going to classify a reported miracle as an extraordinary claim, then he must mount an argument for his category. It’s not something he’s entitled to take for granted.

He is making a claim about the state of the world. That’s not something he can merely stipulate to be the case—especially when his claim is controversial.

11.What about extraordinary evidence? What an unbeliever really means is that, practically speaking, no evidence will ever overcome the presumption against the occurrence of miracles.

But that, of itself, is a very ambitious claim. It’s an extraordinary claim to claim that, practically speaking, no evidence can ever overcome the presumption against the occurrence of miracles.

Indeed, it begs the question. It really boils down to supposition that since miracles either don’t occur or can’t occur, then there is no possible evidence for miracles. But that’s tendentious.

12. Apropos (11), what does it mean to say that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence?

i) Does it mean the evidence for an extraordinary claim must be the same kind of thing as the event it attests? Supernatural claims demand supernatural evidence? Paranormal claims demand paranormal evidence? Where both evidence and event belong to the same class or category of thing? Is that what this rule of evidence amounts to? The nature of the evidence must correspond to the nature of the event?

Yet that seems to be viciously regressive. After all, the objection to miracles (to take a specific example) is that miracles are inherently implausible. And that is why we need a special kind of evidence to overcome the presumption of their nonoccurrence.

But if the sceptic is demanding the same kind of evidence, if a miraculous report demands miraculous evidence, then the evidence would suffer from the same (alleged) implausibility as the event it attests.

If you say a miraculous event is implausible because it’s miraculous, then miraculous evidence for a miraculous event would be equally implausible.

Yet the slogan seems to concede that a miracle is credible as long as you can furnish the right kind of evidence. On the fact of it, the slogan doesn’t say that no quality or quantity evidence would ever count as probative evidence for an extraordinary claim.

ii) And if, in fact, this is what the slogan really amounts to, then is that a sound standard of evidence? How is the sceptic in any position to rule out the possibility of a miracle? Isn’t his own worldview based on a preponderance of the evidence? If so, then his worldview must make allowance for counterevidence. The evidentiary standard cuts both ways. If he can’t make allowance for any possible evidence to the contrary, then is worldview isn’t based on the state of the evidence.

iii) But what is the alternative? If it doesn’t mean that an extraordinary claim requires the same kind of evidence to attest the event, then it would require a different kind of evidence. But, by definition, a different kind of evidence would be ordinary evidence.

13. It’s also ambiguous to say an extraordinary claim demands extraordinary evidence. This can mean either of two things:

a) It requires extraordinary evidence to attest the occurrence of an extraordinary event.

b) It requires extraordinary evidence to attest the extraordinary nature of the event in question.

i) But (a) seems circular. Unless you can already recognize the extraordinary (e.g. miraculous, supernatural, paranormal) nature of a reported event, why would you demand special evidence to attest that claim? You would only demand extraordinary evidence if you already classified the event in question as an extraordinary event.

For unless the event already fell within your preconception of an extraordinary event, then ordinary evidence would suffice to attest its occurrence.

ii) So that leaves us with (b). But the problem with that interpretation is that sceptics don’t think you need extraordinary evidence to identify a miracle (to take one example) as an extraordinary event.

To the contrary, sceptics routinely reject extraordinary claims of this sort (e.g. miraculous, supernatural, paranormal) because they have a preconception of what kinds of events are ordinary, and what kinds of events are extraordinary. They accept or reject the credibility of a reported event based on their preexisting classification scheme of what is actual, possible, impossible, probable, and improbable.

For them, it goes like this:

i-b) Miracles are inherently implausible.

ii-b) The reported event falls within the stereotypical domain of a miraculous event.

iii-b) Hence, the reported event is inherently implausible.

iv-b) Hence, it requires extraordinary evidence to overcome the presumption of its nonoccurrence.

But, of course, the major premise (i-b) simply begs the question.

X. Sagan Says

Another problem with Sagan’s facile maxim is that what’s ordinary or extraordinary is person-variable, depending on your individual range of experience. To take just one example, I’m reminded of an encounter between Richard Dawkins and Rupert Sheldrake:

A crusading atheist and author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is a Fellow of CSI (The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, formerly CSICOP) and a strong supporter of James Randi. His earlier books were on evolutionary biology, the best known being The Selfish Gene. In 2007, he visited Rupert to interview him for his TV series Enemies of Reason:

Richard Dawkins is a man with a mission – the eradication of religion and superstition, and their total replacement with science and reason. Channel 4 TV has repeatedly provided him with a pulpit. His two-part polemic in August 2007, called Enemies of Reason, was a sequel to his 2006 diatribe against religion, The Root of All Evil?

Soon before Enemies of Reason was filmed, the production company, IWC Media, told me that Richard Dawkins wanted to visit me to discuss my research on unexplained abilities of people and animals. I was reluctant to take part, but the company’s representative assured me that “this documentary, at Channel 4’s insistence, will be an entirely more balanced affair than The Root of All Evil was.” She added, “We are very keen for it to be a discussion between two scientists, about scientific modes of enquiry”. So I agreed and we fixed a date. I was still not sure what to expect. Was Richard Dawkins going to be dogmatic, with a mental firewall that blocked out any evidence that went against his beliefs? Or would he be open-minded, and fun to talk to?

The Director asked us to stand facing each other; we were filmed with a hand-held camera. Richard began by saying that he thought we probably agreed about many things, “But what worries me about you is that you are prepared to believe almost anything. Science should be based on the minimum number of beliefs.”

I agreed that we had a lot in common, “But what worries me about you is that you come across as dogmatic, giving people a bad impression of science.”

He then said that in a romantic spirit he himself would like to believe in telepathy, but there just wasn’t any evidence for it. He dismissed all research on the subject out of hand. He compared the lack of acceptance of telepathy by scientists such as himself with the way in which the echolocation system had been discovered in bats, followed by its rapid acceptance within the scientific community in the 1940s. In fact, as I later discovered, Lazzaro Spallanzani had shown in 1793 that bats rely on hearing to find their way around, but sceptical opponents dismissed his experiments as flawed, and helped set back research for well over a century. However, Richard recognized that telepathy posed a more radical challenge than echolocation. He said that if it really occurred, it would “turn the laws of physics upside down,” and added, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

“This depends on what you regard as extraordinary”, I replied. “Most people say they have experienced telepathy, especially in connection with telephone calls. In that sense, telepathy is ordinary. The claim that most people are deluded about their own experience is extraordinary. Where is the extraordinary evidence for that?”

He produced no evidence at all, apart from generic arguments about the fallibility of human judgment. He assumed that people want to believe in “the paranormal” because of wishful thinking.

We then agreed that controlled experiments were necessary. I said that this was why I had actually been doing such experiments, including tests to find out if people really could tell who was calling them on the telephone when the caller was selected at random. The results were far above the chance level.

The previous week I had sent Richard copies of some of my papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, so that he could look at the data.

Richard seemed uneasy and said, “I’m don’t want to discuss evidence”. “Why not?” I asked. “There isn’t time. It’s too complicated. And that’s not what this programme is about.” The camera stopped.

The Director, Russell Barnes, confirmed that he too was not interested in evidence. The film he was making was another Dawkins polemic.

I said to Russell, “If you’re treating telepathy as an irrational belief, surely evidence about whether it exists or not is essential for the discussion. If telepathy occurs, it’s not irrational to believe in it. I thought that’s what we were going to talk about. I made it clear from the outset that I wasn’t interested in taking part in another low grade debunking exercise.”

Richard said, “It’s not a low grade debunking exercise; it’s a high grade debunking exercise.”

In that case, I replied, there had been a serious misunderstanding, because I had been led to believe that this was to be a balanced scientific discussion about evidence. Russell Barnes asked to see the emails I had received from his assistant. He read them with obvious dismay, and said the assurances she had given me were wrong. The team packed up and left.

Richard Dawkins has long proclaimed his conviction that “The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans”. Enemies of Reason was intended to popularize this belief. But does his crusade really promote “the public understanding of science,” of which he is the professor at Oxford? Should science be a vehicle of prejudice, a kind of fundamentalist belief-system? Or should it be a method of enquiry into the unknown?


http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html

XI. Historical Knowledge

Tobin has a naïve view of what constitutes historical knowledge. He makes bold historical claims about the past as if these are hard facts in relation to which the testimonial evidence of Scripture is false. But as one scholar explains:

Of course, the past has left traces of itself besides such testimony, most notably materials that an archaeologist can examine: coins, pots, the remains of dwellings, and the like. In the modern period of historiography, some observers (those bewitched by the prestige of the sciences and anxious to ground historical statements in something more solid than testimony) have assumed that such archaeological remains offer us the prospect of independent access to the past. Here, after all, are data that are directly observable and upon which scientific testing can be carried out, akin to the data available to the natural scientists.

Yet we maintain, in our description of the acquisition of historical knowledge, that the assumption is false. Archaeological remains (when this phrase is taken to exclude written testimony from the past) are of themselves mute. They do not speak for themselves; they have no story to tell and no truth to communicate. It is archaeologists who speak about them, testifying to what they have found and placing the finds within an interpretive framework that bestows upon them meaning and significance. This interpretive framework is certainly not entirely or even mainly, derived from the finds themselves, which are mere fragments of the past that must somehow be organized into a coherent whole. The framework is, in fact, derived largely from testimony, whether the testimony of people from the distant past who have written about the past, or the testimony of others, more recent inquirers into that past who have gone before and were themselves dependent upon testimony from the distant past. It is this testimony that enables the archaeologist even to begin to think about intelligent excavation. It is this testimony that helps in the choice of where to survey or dig, imparts the sense of the general shape of the history one might expect to find in any given place, enables a tentative allocation of destruction levels related to specific, already-known events, and permits material finds to be correlated with certain named peoples of the past. The “filling out” of the picture of the world that is thus produced is itself much more general than specific. The reason is that literary remains are much more useful where specific historical issues are to the fore; nonliterary artifactual remains are most useful to the person interested in general material culture and everyday life.

The whole business of correlating archaeological finds with the specifics of the past as described by texts is, in fact, fraught with difficulty. Interpretation inevitably abounds as to what has in fact been found. Is this destruction layer to be associated with this or that military campaign? Is this site in fact the site of the city mentioned in that particular text? Leaving aside specific sites, the data collected evening large-scale regional surveys represent a highly selective sampling at best, and these data are open to a range of interpretations. Interpretation also abounds as to what has not been found, because the absence of evidence on the ground for events described by a text cannot necessarily be interpreted as evidence of the absence of those events, even if a site has been correctly identified.


I. Provan et al., A Biblical History of Israel (WJK 2003), 46-7.

XII. Mopping Up

1. Hays started by defending the contradiction between the creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2 by stating that “numerous scholars” say that Genesis 1 is a “global creation account” while Genesis 2 is a “local creation account”. This is shoddy for a few reasons. Firstly, Hays did not provide even a single reference from these “numerous scholars”…

Since Tobin refuses to read scholars who don’t show up on his preapproved list, why should I refer him to even more scholars he will never read?

2. And secondly, he does not seem to understand that merely providing an alternative possibility does not settle the question.

Sure it does. He posited a contradiction between the chronology of events in Gen 1 and Gen 2. If, however, Gen 2 has reference to the preparations for the Garden, then it doesn’t have to be in sync with Gen 1. That’s not a contradiction. Rather, that’s a separate process–with its own timetable.

3. In response to his, unnamed, “numerous scholars,” I will cite a few modern scholars, among many, who assert that Genesis 1 and 2 are in contradiction to each other – primarily because the stories in those two chapters are woven from two separate (somewhat contradictory) sources.

Quoting scholars who “assert” that to be the case is not a reason for believing their assertion. Merely quoting writers who agree with him doesn’t make it so. That’s not an argument. Just a one-sided opinion survey.

And, of course, the allegation of composite sources has been addressed in standard evangelical scholarship.

4. Similarly his “rebuttal” of my pointing out the discrepancy between the number of animals brought up to Genesis 6:19-20 and Genesis 7:2-3 is to cite one evangelical scholar, Bruce Waltke, who thinks it is due to “the Hebraic literary technique of synoptic/resumption expansion”. He does not explain why this explanation is stronger than that of Friedman[7], Soggins[8], Kugel[9] and the majority of critical scholars who thinks that this discrepancy is real and points to the multiple source origins of the Pentateuch.

And Tobin doesn’t explain why his alternative is stronger than Waltke’s. Name-dropping is not an argument.

5. Here Hays shows shoddiness in reading what is before him. He makes a great effort, subdividing point 4 into three separate paragraphs numbers i, ii and iii asserting how I was wrong in noting that racism makes the Bible untrue. The problem is he was attacking an argument I did not make! In my article[10] I raised the issue of racism in the books of Deuteronomy, Ezra and Nehemiah in contrast against the more racially inclusive book of Ruth to show that the Bible is inconsistent when it comes to this issue. Hays has completely missed the point. This is all the more surprising when one considers the fact that my whole argument is contained only within a single paragraph in my article!

Since, as I argued, his allegation of racism is false, there is no inconsistency between one set of books and another.

6. In my article, I had noted that the markedly different outlooks of the books of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs as another example of how the Bible is inconsistent with itself.[11] Hays response that I fail “to take into account the genre of each” does nothing in resolving this problem. Genres may impact the way an idea is being presented (in music, different genres such as rock, or disco or rap can be used to speak of undying love) but not in its message (all these genres can also speak of hate). The messages of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs if they do come from one god, comes from a schizophrenic one.

Tobin misconstrues both books:

1. Ecclesiastes

Ecclesiastes alternates between the “vanity” passages and the “carpe diem” passages. Tobin isolates the “vanity” passages to the exclusion of the “carpe diem” passages. But these go together:

i) According to the vanity passages, life is fleeting, unpredictable, and unfair. Due to mortality, nothing accrues. You can’t take it with you. Generations come and go, but the world remains the same.

You can plan for the future, but you can’t count on the future. Except for Judgment Day, there are no guarantees. Providence is often inscrutable.

ii) Given the vanity passages, we need to adjust our goals to the nature of our existence in a fallen world. Form realistic expectations. There’s no point making the accumulation of stuff your overriding goal in life. For one thing, you’ll have to leave it all behind. And even before you die, you may lose it all due to misfortune. Fame and fortunate are utterly ephemeral.

So make the most of the moment. Be practical. Be realistic. Live your life according to what is attainable in this life–with a view to the Day of Judgment. Don’t skimp on today for the sake of tomorrow, for tomorrow may never come. Enjoy each day at a time.

2. Proverbs

i) The proverbs are general adages, no promises or prophecies. Elementary rules of life which work more often than not. If you play the rules, things can still go wrong, but they’re more likely to go wrong if you break the rules. All things being equally, you’re more likely to succeed if you follow the rules.

ii) But Proverbs also acknowledges the existence of injustice in a fallen world. You can do everything right, only to see everything to wrong. But the fear of the Lord will never let you down in the long run, for God will rights the scales of justice in the Final Judgment.

7. In response to my noting the conflicting messages of the epistles of James and Paul, Hays (as in (2) above) has merely resorted to citing an evangelical scholar who thinks that the epistles of James and Paul were not in conflict. That does not really solve anything though, since I can equally site [sic] many critical historical scholars who think differently.

i) Certainly it doesn’t “solve anything” when Tobin raises objections, the ducks all the arguments to the contrary.

ii) And it doesn’t “solve anything” for him to simply quote the opinion of critical scholars. For their opinions are no better than their supporting arguments.

The problem with his tactic of truth-by-quotation is that, for every scholar he quotes, I can quote another scholar to the contrary. The only way to break free of stalemate his for him to start arguing for his positions. In the meantime, I’ll continue to answer him on his own level.

8. In commenting on my section on the impossibility of a worldwide flood, Hays refers me to works by young earth creationists who have “marshaled many arguments to the contrary.” May I point him to the fact that even in their “battle” with evolution in the public sphere, most creationists have retreated into the more nebulous claims of “Intelligent Design” which avoids making claims about the age of the earth, Noah flood and anything which has been soundly refuted by scientists. Perhaps I should respond here by telling Hays that he should “refute” all of modern physics, geology, paleontology, cosmology, astro-physics, biology, biochemistry etc.etc. since all these show young earth creationism to be complete nonsense.

i) That’s an ignorant characterization of the ID movement. For instance, Michael Behe isn’t a disguised version of Henry Morris. Behe comes from a very different religious tradition. Theistic evolution is the default position in modern Catholicism.

ii) In my response to Tobin, I didn’t take a position on young-earth creationism. I merely pointed out that he is dismissed that position without addressing the arguments of its best representatives. What Tobin is doing now is to bluff his way through the conversation. Using words like “astrophysics” and “paleontology,” followed by “etc. etc.” is not an argument.

iii) In addition, his original objection was to a global flood, not young-earth creationism in general. If the whole package of young-earth creationism is his actual target, then there are some other creation scientists (e.g. John Byl, Marcus Ross) he needs to engage–besides the ones I already cited.

iii) I also pointed out that he simply ignores old-earth creationism. I guess we need to remind Tobin that TCD purports to show that Christian faith is delusive. So given the apologetic thrust of TCD, it assumes a burden of proof. As such, it is incumbent on Tobin to actually argue for his contentions. He doesn’t get a free pass.

iv) Finally, I pointed out that his attack on Noah’s flood is out of sync with the view of the world which his co-contributor (Babinski) attributes to the author of Genesis. So either we jettison Babinski’s chapter, or Tobin’s.

9. In attempting to discredit my claim that the Genesis story ofNoah’s flood is dependent on ancient Babylonian flood tales like the Epic of Gilgamesh, Hays quotes a “liberal” blogger Peter Enns as someone who does not take that position. But immediately after the section quoted by Hays, this is what Enns wrote:
The literary evidence from ancient Mesopotamia makes it very likely that Genesis 6-9 is Israel’s version of a common and much older ancient Near Eastern flood story. The similarities are clear…[15]
This expressly contradicts the impression Hays was trying to convey about Enns position!


Actually, Tobin is the one who’s trying to foster a misimpression. He began by saying “It has long been known that the story of the great Flood told in Genesis chapters 6-9 is a scientific impossibility” (151). That’s the context in which he then appealed to the alleged dependence of the Genesis account on Mesopotamian accounts. The implication of his statement is that Gen 6-9 is fictitious because that derives from earlier, equally fictitious exemplars.

He never suggested that the Genesis account is based on a true story. That there was a real flood. Yet even Enns admits that this goes back to a real flood. (Just not a global flood.)

10. Hays sidestepped the reasons given by Cyrus Gordon on why the Noah’s story is dependent on the Babylonian one.

Gordon’s objections are perfectly consistent with the historicity of the account:

i) The Genesis account doesn’t situate the flood in Israel rather than Mesopotamia. If the flood originated in Mesopotamia, how does that disprove Genesis? Gordon’s objection wouldn’t cut any ice with a scholar like Walton, Alexander, or Youngblood who favors the local interpretation.

ii) As far as familiarity with flooding, the Exodus generation was acquainted with the annual flooding of the Nile, as well as flashfloods in the Sinai.

iii) If the flood was global, and survivors repopulated Mesopotamia before migrating elsewhere (because the ark settled in Mesopotamia), then we’d expect Mesopotamia to be the nexus of diluvial traditions.

11. The quote he gave mentions nothing about dependence of the various stories – but merely asserts that these stories recall “a common event.” Again there is no attempt to show how such a possibility is stronger than the theory of dependence.

The question is whether or not Gen 6-9 has a factual basis. Even according to Gordon (whom Tobin cited), it does. But if it has a basis in fact, then you can’t very well say it was a scientific impossibility.

Perhaps Tobin is tacitly assuming the global interpretation. If so, he needs to deal with the scholars I cited (on both sides of that issue).

12. In his rebuttal of the obvious anachronism of the reference to “Ur of the Chaldees” that I pointed out in my article, Hays simply quoted the opinion of an evangelical scholar (Duane Garrett) taken from, presumably, a private e-mail correspondence between the two. The suggestion that the Ur referred to in Genesis 11:26-28 may refer to a location different from that accepted by most scholars is just that: a suggestion. This flies against the consensus held by most historians on the matter, a consensus based on firm archaeological findings.[16] Let me provide a quote from archaeologist and historian Eric Cline:
The biblical writers’ reference to Abraham’s father city of Ur of the Chaldees is, therefore clearly anachronistic. This point is accepted by virtually all scholars, without argument.[17] [Emphasis added]


i) To say “this point is accepted by virtually all scholars, without argument” is a damning characterization of “consensus.” If it’s accepted “without argument,” then so much the worse for consensus.

ii) Victor Hamilton (whom I quoted) also cites archeological evidence for his interpretation.

iii) Tobin disregards the arguments I gave by Currid and Kitchen.

13. Again note how Hays, and Garrett, are merely presenting another possibility without attempting to show how it is superior to the consensus opinion.

That’s demonstrably false. Garrett gave an argument for his interpretation, which Tobin simply ignores.

14. In his attempt to defend the anachronism of Genesis 26:1 where reference is made to a city (Gerar) which, as have been shown by modern archaeology, simply did not exist during the time of Abraham, Hays suggested that “scribes sometimes updated archaic terms.” There are a couple of objections to this. First, merely speculating that the anachronism could have been caused by a later scribe does not prove that it actually happened that way. Hays needs to provide evidence why he thinks this is the most likely explanation here. There is no textual evidence that I am aware of that supports his speculation. Second, such a suggestion surely opens a can of worms for a fundamentalist such as Hays. If scribes can “update archaic terms” why can’t he update the archaic stories as well.

i) There’s nothing outré about my suggestion that scribes sometimes modernized obsolete terms. Emanuel Tov, in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Fortress 1992), has a section documenting how scribes would replace rare words with more common words (259f.), and another section documenting different phases in the orthography of the Hebrew text (221ff.).

He also has a section on conjectural emendation, where–among other things–he says, “Justification for conjectural emendation comes, first and foremost, from the recognition of the imperfections of the available textual evidence: Only a very small part of all the readings that were created and copied throughout the many generations of transmission of the text that are known to us. Many readings have been lost, among which were necessarily readings that were contained in the first copies. Since the evidence that has been preserved is arbitrary from a textual point of view, it is permissible to attempt to arrive at the ancient texts by way of reconstruction (353).

So my suggestion represents “mainstream” scholarship.

ii) There’s no comparison between updating archaic terms and updating “archaic stories” (whatever that means). To update obsolete terminology is a conservative procedure–a way of preserving the story by replacing long-forgotten place-names, &c., in the interests of intelligibility.

iii) I didn’t know I was a “fundamentalist.” I thought I was a Calvinist. Tobin needs to read a church historian like George Marsden to learn the difference.

15. Note also that Hay’s “rebuttal” amounts to nothing more than asserting an evidentially unsupported speculation. Hays quoted his evangelical “scholar” as saying that “perhaps there was an early wave of Aegean invaders…[that] Moses applies the generic name ‘Philistines’ to them.” Err…Perhaps not.

This objection assumes that Tobin knows what "really" happened. But as his co-contributor, Robert Price is fond of pointing out, we can’t hop into our time-travel machine and see for ourselves. Reconstructions of the distant past can’t avoid speculation. All we have is trace evidence. We interpolate the gaps with educated guesswork.

16. The last point is not an ‘argument from silence.’ It is not as though we lack evidence from that time about what beast of burden was used during the middle bronze age (around 2000 to 1500 BCE - the purported time of Abraham’s existence). The point is that we know what kind of animals was used the beast of burden during that time - donkeys!

Are archaeologists so ignorant or stubborn that they refuse to accept the evidence presented before them? No, the real reason is simple: the evidence for widespread domestication of the camel prior to the 12th century BCE is simply non-existent!

i) The Biblical record is, itself, a historical witness to that phenomenon.

ii) Evidence for donkeys hardly counts as evidence against the existence of domesticated camels. You might as well say any evidence for the existence of Cadillacs counts as evidence against the existence of Porches!

iii) Why would we expect to find significant evidence for something like that so long ago?

17. Perhaps I can make the issue clearer with an hypothetical example. Imagine the founder of a new religion in Iran or Saudi Arabia - where almost everyone is Muslim, and practice circumcision – telling his followers, “To set you apart, God has commanded that you remove the foreskins from your penises.” This would have been met with utter lack of comprehension, since everyone around them was already circumcised!

That oversimplifies the issue. There were other differential factors:

i) The timing of circumcision. Jewish circumcision was a birth rite, applied to babies on the 8th day, unlike a rite of passage applied to adolescents (which is the case in some other cultures). What makes a ritual sign significant is not just the sign itself, but the whole ceremony.

ii) The subjects of circumcision. Jewish circumcision was restricted to males, unlike some other cultures which observe both male and female circumcision.

18. Here, like the stories of the flood, creation and paradise, the parallels between this and story of Moses told in Exodus 2:2-10 are amazing:

· The mother had a baby in secret. (Exodus 2:2)

· Due to dire circumstances, the baby had to be cast away. (Exodus 2:3a)

· This was done by making a basket out of bulrushes and sealing it with tar. (Exodus 2:3b)

· The baby was put into the basket and left adrift on the river.(Exodus 2:3c)

· The baby was discovered by the person who became his foster parent. (Exodus 2:5-6)


That ignores the disanalogies, as well as analogies with other, intertextual, incidents.

i) It’s well documented that the Bible sometimes makes ironic, polemical use of certain pagan motifs. So even if Exod 2 contained a literary allusion to Sargon or Horus or whoever, this wouldn’t create any presumption that Exod 2 is unhistorical. It would just be another case in which a Biblical writer or speaker is trying to trigger an association for polemical purposes.

ii) In Exod 2:3, the word “basket” is “the same word used of the boat that Noah built to save his family and the world’s animals from the Flood (Gen 6:14). The fact that the Bible only uses the word here and in the flood narrative (‘the ark of the covenant’ uses a different Hebrew word) strongly suggests that there is an intentional connection being made between two accounts,” J. Oswalt, Exodus (Tyndale House 2008), 292.

So there is, indeed, a literary allusion. It is not, however, an allusion to a pagan myth or legend. Rather, it’s an intertextual allusion to the flood account in Genesis.

iii) Oswalt points out another parallel in the same verse: “The Hebrew word used for ‘reeds’ here is the Egyptian loan word sup, which is the same word used in 13:18 and elsewhere to identify the sea that God led his people across (28 occurrences; see also Jonah 2:5). This creates a strong impression that the narrator wanted the reader to make a connection between the two events,” ibid. 292-93.

So this would be a case of literary foreshadowing, where one story anticipates another.

In that event, we now have two strategically placed narrative clues. The proper way to interpret Exod 2 is not, in the first instance, to reach for extraneous parallels–but to notice the intertextual parallels which the narrator intended to trigger.

iv) The form of the Sargon legend involves a first person intro and an epilogue that concludes with 1 of the 4: blessings/curses, didactic lesson, temple donation, or prophecy. None of this applies to the Moses story.

v) First, the meaning and function of the story are unclear. Second, there is no threat to the child Sargon. The account simply shows how a child was exposed, rescued, nurtured, and became king (see Brevard Childs' commentary on Exodus). Third, other details do not fit: Moses is never completely abandoned, never out of the care of his parents; and the finder is a princess and not a goddess. It seems unlikely that two stories, and only two, that have some similar motifs would be sufficient data to make up a whole genre. Moreover, if we do not know the precise function and meaning of the Sargon story, it is almost impossible to use it as a pattern for the biblical account. The idea of a mother abandoning a child to the river would have been a fairly common thing to do, for that is where the women of the town would be washing their clothes or bathing. If someone wanted to be sure the infant was discovered by a sympathetic woman, there would be no better setting (see A. Cole, Exodus, p. 57). While we may not be dealing with a genre of story-telling here, it is possible that Exodus 2 might have drawn on some of the motifs and forms of the other account to describe the actual event in the sparing of Moses--if they knew of it. If so it would show that Moses was cast in the form of the greats of the past.

http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/exod.2.pdf

19. Hays suggestion – which he referenced from yet another evangelical author – that the same word is used for father-in-law or son-in-law - is simply incorrect. Anyone with a good lexicon of Biblical Hebrew[30] can check for themselves that the words are pointed differently.

Needless to say, there were no vowel points in the original text. That’s why commentators on various books of the OT often challenge the Masoretic pointing if they think a different understanding makes better sense of the text.

20. Here Hays takes me to task for noting Moses’ name was originally Egyptian not Hebrew. He asks rhetorically “how does that cast doubt on the historicity of the account, exactly? Since Moses was adopted by the Egyptian princess, why wouldn‘t his adoptive name be Egyptian rather than Hebrew?“

Not only has he ignored the references from mainstream scholarship that I provided, he has forgotten (or have not read) Exodus 2:10 which erroneously states that the name Moses is derived from the Hebrew word masah which means “to pull out” from water. As Niels Lemche noted:
Obviously this represents “folk etymology” taken from the narrative structure but without any linguistic support. In Egyptian, the name occurs in compounds[31] referring to certain pharaohs, including Kamose, Tuthmosis and Ramesses (Ramose).[32]


i) Folk etymologies like Exod 2:10 are puns. You might as well say a pun is erroneous. That misses the point entirely. It’s just a play on words–a nickname based on homophonic associations. It was never meant to be a true etymology.

ii) Tobin also fails to distinguish between the narrator and the princess. The narrator is translating an Egyptian statement into Hebrew.

iii) Moreover, the Hebrew word sounds like an Egyptian word, which forms the basis of the pun.

Once again, Tobin could easily consult the relevant evangelical scholarship on this penny ante issue. Cf. J. Currid, Exodus 1-18 (Evangelical Press 2000), 64; J. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt (Oxford 1999), 140-42; K. Kitchen, The Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans 2003), 296-97; J. Oswalt, Exodus (Tyndale House 2008), 293; D. Stuart, Exodus (Broadman 2006), 93.

21. The answer to Hays question is simple: there is simply no time in the period where the Exodus may have happened. If we date it according to the biblical chronology – around the mid 15th century BCE – then we have a problem because Exodus 1:8-11 says that the Israelites were forced to build the cities of Pithom and Ramses. But the first Egyptian Pharaoh with the name Ramses appeared only in 1320 BCE. There is evidence that a city called Pi-Ramses was built – by Rameses II who ruled Egypt from 1279-1213 BCE.

Of course, that old chestnut is repeatedly discussed in evangelical scholarship. There’s a viciously circular quality to Tobin’s objections. He raises a stale objection to the evangelical view of Scripture. An objection that's been repeatedly addressed in the evangelical literature. He acts as if his objections are unanswerable. But when you then point out that his objections have already been answered, he turns a deaf ear to the answers since that’s “evangelical” or “fundamentalist” rather than “mainstream.”

For standard treatments of this complex issue, cf. J. Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament (Baker 2001), 125ff.; J. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt (Oxford 1999), 117-21; K. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans 2003); 255-59; D. Stuart, Exodus (Broadman 2006), 67f..

22. Throughout the period of the New Kingdom (c1569-1076 BCE), Egyptian armies have been known to march through Canaan as far north as the Euphrates in Syria. From the 15th to the 11th century BCE, Canaan was a province of Egypt!

It is important here to pause and let this evidence sink in and see how it relates to the story of the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan (see below). If Canaan was under complete control of the Egyptians throughout this period, then the Israelites could not have escaped from Egyptian rule. They would be merely leaving one region and entering another – all under the administrative control of the empire of Ramses II![33]


Israel’s survival was never predicated on her innate ability to repel her enemies. Rather, her survival was always dependent on God’s protection, which was–in turn–contingent on her fidelity to the covenant. Tobin’s objection is premised on his atheistic assumptions.

23. Hays says my statement on the extent of David’s kingdom to be “deceptive” – yet it seem to me that he has been rather disingenuous in his accusation. I never compared the Davidic or Solomonic empire to Rome – merely to what is claimed for it in the biblical narratives.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the issue is whether we’d expect the Davidic or Solomonic “empire” to be on a scale which would leave behind significant amounts of monumental evidence.

24. His ”defense” is based mainly on explaining away the absence of evidence (i.e. destruction and/or rebuilding by the Babylonians, Persians, Romans and Muslims and lack of access to possible archaeological sites). In other words, it is an implicit admission that he has little evidence to support the claims made about the united monarchy in the Bible.

Notice how he begs the question by assuming that there ought to be extant evidence, despite Kitchen’s entirely reasonable explanation. There is nothing to “explain away” unless there’s a prior expectation of the contrary. Tobin needs to justify his expectation, which is a chronic failing of his.

88 comments:

  1. To add to what Steve has said concerning scholarly majorities, people may want to visit Tobin's web site and note that he sometimes disagrees with majorities in modern scholarship.

    And Tobin is an atheist, which puts him in a tiny minority with regard to how he interprets the evidence relevant to the existence of God or gods. If Tobin wants to argue that the majority of scholars in fields relevant to God's existence agree with his atheism, then where's his documentation for that conclusion? If a majority of scholars in a past generation rejected atheism, should somebody living at that time have rejected atheism also? What if your life overlapped two periods, one in which atheists were a majority and one in which they weren't? Why think we should judge such an issue by means of a scholarly majority? After all, the vast majority of people don't agree with such a standard. The large majority of people aren't atheists. Tobin is rejecting the conclusion of the large majority of people in favor of the opinion of a tiny minority.

    Let's consider some of the claims Tobin makes in an article about the New Testament canon at his web site. There are too many false and misleading claims in the article for me to address all of them here, but I'll address several examples. For a more extensive treatment, see my series on the canon here.

    After mentioning Ignatius, Papias, and Justin Martyr, he comments:

    "Another reason is that some of the New Testament books were not yet written during their lifetimes!"

    Yet, he dates Justin's death at 165 A.D. Is he suggesting that some of the New Testament wasn't written until later? If so, does he think most scholars agree with him on that point?

    (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  2. (continued from above)

    Tobin goes on:

    "Irenaeus (c.130-c.200), Bishop of Hippo, argued against Marcion's inclusion of only one gospel with a curious piece of logic: 'As there are four winds,' he argued, 'there should therefore be four gospels.' Satisfied with this logically ruthless demolition of Marcion, Irenaeus drew up a list of writings he considered canonical. His list consist of 22 books of which 21 are present in today's New Testament."

    Actually, Irenaeus wasn't bishop of Hippo. And Tobin is repeating a misrepresentation of Irenaeus' argument for the four gospels, a misrepresentation that's been corrected even by one of the scholars Tobin himself cites elsewhere in his article (Bruce Metzger). And there is no canon list in Irenaeus.

    He says later:

    "Thus the non-canonical Didache, I Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas all date to the second half of the first century, while the canonical II Peter and Jude dates to the middle of the second century."

    I'd like to see his documentation of a scholarly majority supporting his dating of those documents.

    As you read other material at Tobin's web site, note how often he disagrees with scholarly majorities or makes no attempt to document majority support for his position.

    Surely Tobin would acknowledge that we shouldn't assume that majorities are always correct, scholarly majorities or other majorities. But then he should spend less time appealing to majorities and more time arguing for his position and against others.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In regards to the Hebrew of son-in-law and father-in-law, not only were the vowel pointings not added for thousands of years after the events the texts are meant to discuss, but holem, qames-hatuf and qames are all related and can reduce to the other in many situations.

    The hilarious thing is that the first comment is by Avalos, who commends Tobin for this comment on Hebrew vowel pointings! Could Avalos have any less credibility as a scholar at this point? He's been known as a crank for years at SBL meetings, but this kind of stuff is simply ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I hope this message is not considered inappropriate.

    I read Tobin's work prior to Hays and I've been waiting for Hays to answer. I'm a Christian and I'm a long-time reader of apologetics, philosophy of religion, etc. I try to stay on top of this stuff as much as I can but I have been through some very hard times lately - my wife having left our marriage and our church. I have been really out of the loop and I have never really focused on OT historicity at all. It was always an area I had hoped to get into prior to becoming a single parent.

    Tobin's criticisms did actually shake up my faith a bit. And I'm not someone shaken easily by skeptical objections. But reading Hays extremely reasonable response, I feel relieved.

    I want to personally thank you guys for responding to their criticisms. It is a tremendous help, and I want to tell you that you are all doing an excellent job. You guys make a great team. You are all so bright and each of you has their own unique specializations. Again - thank you guys so much for defending the faith like you do.

    Alex

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here is a visual illustration of the point about son-in-law/father-in-law made by Steve:

    ‏‏חֹתֵן - this is the word for "possessing a son-in-law" which makes you a father-in-law.

    ‏חָתָן - Here is the word for "daughter's husband" or son-in-law.

    Even without a knowledge of Hebrew you can see that the main three characters are identical. The point Steve is making is that in the original form, the three identical characters are all that was there. Whether you were writing son-in-law or father-in-law, the word you used was ‏חתן.

    In most of the old cognates (Old Arabic, Syriac, Musnad, etc.) the word can mean either son-in-law or father-in-law.

    Later scribes placed the vowel-pointings into the text and thus decided based on their own analysis of context, tradition, etc. which word was meant by the three consonants and created a way to distinguish based on adding vowel pointings.

    The vowel pointings of course are not inspired, and in this regard the latter scribes that added them could have been incorrect.

    This is but one of the many examples where Tobin (and Avalos) show themselves incapable (or willfully reluctant in the case of Avalos) of handling even basic grammatical/linguistic issues.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve said...

    iv) When I reviewed The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, a few years ago, the contributors to that work resorted to any alternative explanation, however far-fetched, to deny the resurrection of Christ.

    I believe the book can be downloaded at the webpage below..

    This Joyful Eastertide: A Critical Review of The Empty Tomb:
    http://www.triapologia.com/hays/ebooks.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'd like to add my hearty echo of appreciation and a standing ovation to Alex Dalton's.

    An outstanding post. An exquisite surgical dismantling.

    And when Steve wrote this:

    "It’s sufficient to merely classify which scholars are “mainstream” and which are “evangelical” or “fundamentalist.”

    By definition, real scholars are “mainstream” scholars or “scholars.” By definition, evangelical/fundamentalist scholars aren’t “serious” scholars. Indeed, we should put “scholar” in scare quotes whenever we refer to evangelical/fundamentalist scholars. By definition, “standard” scholarship is non-evangelical.

    He talks about evangelicals and fundamentalists the way a Klansman talks about the “darkies.”

    He takes “mainstream/critical” scholarship for granted as the standard of comparison. But, of course, that begs the question. A polemical book like TCD needs to make a case of whatever controversial methods and assumptions it employs. It can’t show that Christian faith is delusive by stipulating the rules of evidence.

    His appeal to “mainstream” scholarship is an argument from authority. But he hasn’t given the reader a good reason to treat “mainstream” scholars as authority-figures."


    I have also seen Liberal Protestants make this same disparaging rhetorical move as Tobin does.

    ReplyDelete
  8. RE: “In regards to the Hebrew of son-in-law and father-in-law, not only were the vowel pointings not added for thousands of years after the events the texts are meant to discuss, but holem, qames-hatuf and qames are all related and can reduce to the other in many situations.”

    I presume Ranger is a highly trained Hebraist, but one could not tell from Ranger’s muddled comments.

    The fact that MASORETIC vowel pointing was not added until late antiquity does not mean that vowels were not indicated at all in pre-Masoretic Hebrew.

    We have matres lectionis (some consonants used to indicate vowels) that help us to reconstruct at least some of the vowels before Masoretic pointing. We also have Greek transcriptions and comparative Semitic data, even if it is not always complete.

    Please also note the following:
    1. Vowel patterns (+ affixes) ARE a primary means of semantic differentiation with Hebrew roots, and so how am I wrong to state that? Maybe Ranger has overlooked Joshua Fox’S Semitic Noun Patterns
    (Harvard Semitic Studies 52; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003).

    2. Note also how imprecisely Ranger uses the term “all related.” What does that mean? All English vowels are “related,” and so does that mean the word “Low” and “Law” are the same because the –a- vowel is related to the –o- vowel, and they can be “reduced” to one another, anyway? Does Ranger know the relationship between phonetics and phonemics?

    3. Ranger provides not a whit of documentation for this statement about reduction of vowels. At the very least, I don't know what "reduce" means here. A "reduced" vowel has a very specific meaning in Masoretic Hebrew phonetics, and QAMETS, which is regarded as a FULL VOWEL, is usually not described as a "reduced" vowel.

    Consider Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Scribner’s, 1971), p. XVII: “In addition to the vowels listed above there are three others...which together with [shewa] are known as reduced vowels.”

    QAMETS is not among the “reduced” vowel listed by Lambdin, and so how can, for example, CHOLEM “reduce” to QAMETS (Ranger says that “they can reduce to the other”)?

    Or perhaps Ranger can provide examples of where:

    A. The CHOLEM “reduces” to QAMETZ, and then document that for Masoretic or pre-Masoretic Hebrew with CHOTEN and CHATAN, if possible.

    B. Explain how or why the long –e- vowel in the second syllable of CHOTEN “reduced” to, or became a, QAMETS in CHATAN.

    Then, Manata, who himself does not have the linguistic equipment to even say who has committed blunders or not, simply declares Ranger to be correct.

    But perhaps Mr. Manata is a Hebraist, and I have been underestimating him. If so, I offer my apologies. But could Mr. Manata tells us how he specifically determined that Ranger was correct about those supposed “blunders” and Hebrew vowel reduction?

    ReplyDelete
  9. RE: “The hilarious thing is that the first comment is by Avalos, who commends Tobin for this comment on Hebrew vowel pointings! Could Avalos have any less credibility as a scholar at this point? He's been known as a crank for years at SBL meetings, but this kind of stuff is simply ridiculous.”

    Interesting stuff for The National Enquirer, but I see no philological or linguistic arguments here against what I said.

    Why not take Tobin's correction in a good spirit of learning instead of lashing out in this fashion?

    ReplyDelete
  10. DR. HECTOR AVALOS SAID:

    "Why not take Tobin's correction in a good spirit of learning instead of lashing out in this fashion?"

    Is Paul Tobin a "highly-trained Hebraist"?

    ReplyDelete
  11. If you want to play the credentials card (again!), then John Currid's credentials are clearly superior to Tobin's. Indeed, that's an understatement.

    ReplyDelete
  12. RE: Is Paul Tobin a "highly-trained Hebraist"?

    He was good enough to notice your mistakes on his own, and he consulted with me before posting it. That would be more than you folks did here in terms of editorial review.

    Or did you have a trained Hebraist look at your post before publishing those embarrassing comments? It might be a good idea in the future.

    Yes, it might be a good idea to have a Dr. Currid look at your materials on Hebrew before posting.

    In any case, YOU have to be qualified in Hebrew to even know who is good or not good in Hebrew, but you keep overlooking that simple lesson.

    I also noticed that, unless I missed it, no one responded to my critique of the supposed Egyptian words behind some of Exodus narratives.

    http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com
    /2008/11/six-words-for-triablogue.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I also noticed that, unless I missed it, no one responded to my critique of the supposed Egyptian words behind some of Exodus narratives."

    I'm still waiting for you to respond to 3/4 of the arguments I've given you.

    You're not a trained, expert metaethicist, so why are you commenting on metaethical issues and then moaning about non-experts in Hebrew commenting on Hebrew? You're such a sham.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "But could Mr. Manata tells us how he specifically determined that Ranger was correct about those supposed “blunders” and Hebrew."

    It was inductive, based on the numerous errors you've committed in our discussions. I also have concluded that you lack epistemic virtues and only complain when *Christians* write outside their area of expertise, but not when atheist do so. So if I was wrong, my call wasn't without merrit. Given your knowledge of the topics we have been discussing, coupled with your over-inflated ego (that far outstrips what you in fact know in the areas we've discussed), I'm not impressed by what I've seen.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. RE:" I'm still waiting for you to respond to 3/4 of the arguments I've given you."

    I think you are under the mistaken impression that you have provided arguments. I also don't always have the time to recapitulate the basic history of biblical exegesis, biblical linguistics, historical epistemology, etc.

    That is often the case when dealing with amateurs. So I do so as time permits, as I still think educating amateurs has value.

    Again, the arrogance is to speak an expert when one is clearly not. My work in biblical ethics/violence has been duly reviewed, and so I don't need a non-expert like yourself to judge who is or is not an expert. Your judgement of what impresses or does not impress you is meaningless to experts.

    Once you get a bit more training maybe we can discuss things on a more even level. I would very much welcome that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I think you are under the mistaken impression that you have provided arguments. I also don't always have the time to recapitulate the basic history of biblical exegesis, biblical linguistics, historical epistemology, etc. "

    I did most recently in this post:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/07/hector-avaloss-non-expertise-exposed.html

    as is obvious to anyone who can read. I think you are under the mistaken assumption that we're in your class where you can get away with your assertions and bullying tsctics while cowering students submit to your ego so that they can get their grade. We're not on your turf, Hector.

    Moreover, I made no arguments from "biblical history, lingusitics, &c.

    Lastly, you wouldn't know an epistemology from an esophagus.

    "That is often the case when dealing with amateurs. So I do so as time permits, as I still think educating amateurs has value."

    Again, we're talking about the debate on metaethical issues, Hector. So here you go again refuting yourself. You're an amateur on ethics. If anything, I've educated you and taught you some basic ethical, logical, and epistemolological conceptual distinctions.

    "Again, the arrogance is to speak an expert when one is clearly not."

    Which you're doing when you bloviate on metaethical issues. keep refuting yourself for me, "expert."

    "Once you get a bit more training maybe we can discuss things on a more even level. I would very much welcome that."

    I note and accept your withdrawl from our debate.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ohhhhh! He's holding back! Oh I see. Well I can't wait to research and find where all Dr. Avalos' fully unleashed superior intellect is allowed to flourish. All without the rather annoying interaction with amateurs .....

    ReplyDelete
  19. DR. HECTOR AVALOS SAID:

    “He was good enough to notice your mistakes on his own…”

    i) So you’re now admitting that one doesn’t need to be a highly-trained Hebraist after all. Is that it?

    ii) Of course, it wasn’t *my* mistake. If you’re going to claim it was a mistake, you must impute the mistake to Currid.

    iii) What mistake would that be, exactly? Are you asserting the originality of the vowel points?

    “And he consulted with me before posting it. That would be more than you folks did here in terms of editorial review.”

    i) But since he’s not a “highly-trained Hebraist,” he’s in no position to evaluate the quality of your editorial review. You keep overlooking that simple lesson.

    ii) Likewise, he’s in no position to say who’s right–you or Currid. You keep overlooking that simple lesson.

    “Or did you have a trained Hebraist look at your post before publishing those embarrassing comments? It might be a good idea in the future. Yes, it might be a good idea to have a Dr. Currid look at your materials on Hebrew before posting.”

    I rather doubt that Currid would be embarrassed by his own comment. Remember, I was quoting him. Do you even think before you write these foolish statements?

    “In any case, YOU have to be qualified in Hebrew to even know who is good or not good in Hebrew, but you keep overlooking that simple lesson.”

    Assuming I’m not a Hebraist, then I don’t even know if Hector Avalos is good or bad in Hebrew. So why should I prefer you to Currid?

    Likewise, by your yardstick, the average reader of TCD isn’t qualified to even know if Tobin’s claims are good or bad, but you keep overlooking that simple lesson.

    “I also noticed that, unless I missed it, no one responded to my critique of the supposed Egyptian words behind some of Exodus narratives.”

    Why did you bother to post that at an unscholarly forum like DC? By your own admission, the average reader at DC isn’t qualified to evaluate your post. You keep overlooking that simple lesson.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dr. Hector Avalos said...

    "I also don't always have the time to recapitulate the basic history of biblical exegesis, biblical linguistics, historical epistemology, etc. That is often the case when dealing with amateurs. So I do so as time permits, as I still think educating amateurs has value."

    Then it must pain you to deal with amateurs like Paul Tobin and Ed Babinski.

    Not to mention John Loftus. He contributed a chapter on Bible prophecy. Is Loftus a "highly-trained Hebraist"? Is he a highly-trained Classicist?

    ReplyDelete
  21. This has turned rather ugly for Dr. Avalos, hasn't it?

    I've been fortunate to personally interact with many "experts" in several fields of science and I'm happy to report that none of them ever resorted to the kind of arrogant pontificating that Dr. Avalos regularly employs when interacting with people who disagree with him. They don't do it in writing and they don't do it in speech.

    I think you are under the mistaken impression that you have provided arguments... Again, the arrogance is to speak an expert when one is clearly not.

    Stunning! :o Blindness like this must be willful, but what purpose does it serve? Shouldn't Dr. Avalos be pursuing truth?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dr. Avalos leaves out in his answer that there are many instances in which the Masoretes made decisions on what the "real" reading of the text is, called the "ketiv-qere" readings. Don't let all of the talk about vowel reduction throw you off, because there are many different ways in which vowels reduce.

    I might just ask him to use his expertise to translate dalet-waw-dalet.

    ReplyDelete
  23. STEVE HAYS WRITES: "Apostates have nothing to live for. Nothing better. Nothing half as good. So their only purpose in life is to attack their former faith. It helps them to pass the time. While away the boredom of their vapid existence."

    ED'S REPLY:

    1) I hate to disillusion a good Calvinist like you Steve, but apostates come in all sizes, shapes and colors. They don't all spend their vapid existences [sic] worrying about what Steve says, or the Bible. Most apostates are in fact relatively quiet about leaving the fold. That was one of the reasons I published a collection of testimonies, because there wasn't such a volume. Such folks were not speaking up much. There were a few individual volumes and articles. But not a collection of them in one book. Not in the 1980s.

    Another thing I learned while seeking out such first hand stories by people who left "fundamentalist/conservative Evangelicalism" is that everyone takes different routes after leaving. A third of the stories I collected were from people who remained Christians though they left behind Christian conservativism for more moderate/liberal views. Some left for other religions, mysticism, agnosticism, or atheism (there's even a spectrum among atheists, from soft to hard atheism, and different personality types within atheism just as there are within Christianity).

    2) How are you "passing the time" Steve? Why do you feel the need to engage 24/7 with "apostates" as well as "other Christians?" Yours is the "joyous life" is it? Growing bleary eyed debating folks from JP Holding to Dave Armstrong, and the fellow Christians at BIOLOGOS? You're a debating kind of guy who likes putting his words out there for others to see and read. So are those other people, the apostates and fellow Christians whom you debate online.

    ReplyDelete
  24. EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:

    "Most apostates are in fact relatively quiet about leaving the fold. That was one of the reasons I published a collection of testimonies, because there wasn't such a volume. Such folks were not speaking up much."

    Before it became radical chic. Now they're cashing the check for their 15 min. of fame.

    "How are you "passing the time" Steve? Why do you feel the need to engage 24/7 with 'apostates' as well as 'other Christians?' Yours is the 'joyous life' is it? Growing bleary eyed debating folks from JP Holding to Dave Armstrong, and the fellow Christians at BIOLOGOS? You're a debating kind of guy who likes putting his words out there for others to see and read."

    i) Actually, I prefer writing short stories. But duty before pleasure.

    ii) Why would I classify the contributors to BioLogos as fellow Christians? Why give them the benefit of the doubt? Anyway, that's a motley crew.

    iii) Defending a meaningful existence (Christianity) and defending a meaningless existence (atheism) are hardly comparable.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Notice that Dr. Avalos ignores the point being made above to talk about my usage of "reduce" and other diversions from the actual point being made by us against Tobin (which deals with the usage of vowel pointings to differentiate between forms of חתן.

    For those paying attention, notice how each of his "points" divert from the actual discussion, and how his citations only back up the diversions and do not deal directly with the issue at hand.

    To clarify things, here is what Tobin said:

    Hays suggestion – which he referenced from yet another evangelical author – that the same word is used for father-in-law or son-in-law - is simply incorrect. Anyone with a good lexicon of Biblical Hebrew[30] can check for themselves that the words are pointed differently. Although these words share the same consonant Het-Tav-Nun (Ch-T-N) the vowels use for the word for ‘father-in-law” are different from the word denoting son-in-law or bridegroom. In its most basic form, father-in-law is pointed with a holem (with an “o” sound) above the Het and a sere (with an “e” sound) below the Tav and can be written as choten. The word for son-in-law is pointed with qames (an “a” sound) below both the Het and Tav giving the word chatan.

    Hector said, "Tobin is correct, and he speaks to the fact of how often Triabloggers don't have enough expertise in biblical languages to form sound exegetical and historical conclusions."

    The argument we are making is that Tobin is incorrect in this assessment because the vowel pointings (which are his central means of differentiating the usage of חתן) come much, much later in the history of the text. Thus, the original words for son-in-law and father-in-law in the pre-Masoretic texts are both simply חתן, which can be interpreted either way depending on context.

    In Hebrew, the later tradition differentiated by assigning vowel pointings based on their interpretation, but not every language did this as evidenced by continued non-differentiated usage in the Syriac, Old Arabic and other cognates (see any standard lexicon for evidence of this, ala Kohler Baumgartner).

    There is little evidence of pre-Masoretic markers significant enough to differentiate between the holem/sere pointing for חתן, and the qames/qames pointing. It's origins are in the Akkadian ḫat(a)nu, which simply means any relative by marriage (see Huehnergard or even Tawil). For instance, the Samaritan Pentateuch uses the unspecified and unpointed חתן, which is why it remains in the indeterminate Arabic form in the Arabic version. There is nothing to indicate at this point of the textual history how a scribe would differentiate between the two terms outside of context and tradition. Since the actual differentiation in the text comes much, much later in the history of the language this brings the possibility of misinterpretation and error.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Notice how he sets up a false dichotomy between “archeologists” and James Hoffmeier..."

    Is this same James Hoffmier who "declares the bible wrong about almost all the early history of Israel..."? Surely, he suggests the Exodus story is based on some historical facts, but this does not support your position.

    You speak a lot about "liberal 'scholars'". Was Bruce Metzger not liberal enough for you?

    And do the Evangelical Scholars you cite all support your intention that "Noah's Flood" is a true event, I wonder?

    Do any of them?

    Finally, way to go on the Christian Love with this post. It's just oozing from every line ;>

    ReplyDelete
  27. Notice that Dr. Avalos ignores the point being made... For those paying attention, notice how each of his "points" divert from the actual discussion, and how his citations only back up the diversions and do not deal directly with the issue at hand."

    Surely the issue at hand is that even conservative christian and jewish scholars largely accept that the Old Testament from Genesis thru to the Exodus at least is largely mythical. Arguing over who a mythological person's ancestors is seems a rather academic exercise. Sure, some academics posit that these stories have elements of historical truth... But it's only those who insist that the Bible cannot be trumped by any other evidence who hold ("contend", apologies for my earlier terrible typing) that the Bible is true or that the Exodus as described in the Bible was a historcial event.

    This is not controversial. This is also not based on a "presupposition" that the Bible cannot be true. It is based, as Tobin goes into in detail, on decades of archeology which (the experts overwhelmingly say) conclusively shows that the early history of the people of "Israel" was not as the Bible describes.

    If you want to argue for a Christianity that accepts the largely mythological status of the Old Testament, go right ahead. The Catholic Church and even the UK's Evangelical Alliance would accept that position.

    ...But it seems yo want more than that. You want to argue for Young Earth Creationism and a Moses-authored Pentateuch - two things have practically zero support in the academic community.

    Just who are your "experts" who argue for the historicity of "Noah's Flood", I wonder? Ken Ham? Please do tell me. I really want to know!

    ReplyDelete
  28. PTET SAID:

    "Is this same James Hoffmier who 'declares the bible wrong about almost all the early history of Israel...'?"

    If you have to ask, you don't know.

    "Surely, he suggests the Exodus story is based on some historical facts, but this does not support your position."

    Since you evidently never read his monograph on Israel in Egypt, or his book on Biblical archaeology, you don't know what you're talking about.

    "You speak a lot about "liberal 'scholars'". Was Bruce Metzger not liberal enough for you?"

    Metzger was a moderate who usually defended the Bible.

    "And do the Evangelical Scholars you cite all support your intention that "Noah's Flood" is a true event, I wonder? Do any of them?"

    If you have to ask, then you haven't bothered to study their writings. You suffer from self-reinforcing ignorance.

    "Finally, way to go on the Christian Love with this post. It's just oozing from every line ;>"

    It's not as if you comments are oozing love from every line. It's not as if Hector's comments are oozing love from every line. It's not as if TCD is oozing love from every line. It's not as if the Bible is oozing love from every line.

    "Surely the issue at hand is that even conservative christian and jewish scholars largely accept that the Old Testament from Genesis thru to the Exodus at least is largely mythical."

    You seem to define "conservative" as anyone to the right of you.

    "Arguing over who a mythological person's ancestors is seems a rather academic exercise."

    PIggybacks on your ignorant premise.

    "Sure, some academics posit that these stories have elements of historical truth... But it's only those who insist that the Bible cannot be trumped by any other evidence who hold ('contend', apologies for my earlier terrible typing) that the Bible is true or that the Exodus as described in the Bible was a historcial event."

    How would you know–since you obviously don't read them?

    "This is not controversial."

    No, it's just ignorant.

    "This is also not based on a "presupposition" that the Bible cannot be true. It is based, as Tobin goes into in detail, on decades of archeology which (the experts overwhelmingly say) conclusively shows that the early history of the people of 'Israel' was not as the Bible describes."

    Tobin is proudly ignorant of the other side of the argument. He only cites the minimalists, while systematically shielding himself from scholarship to the contrary. And you share his studied ignorance.

    "If you want to argue for a Christianity that accepts the largely mythological status of the Old Testament, go right ahead. The Catholic Church and even the UK's Evangelical Alliance would accept that position."

    Why would I board a sinking ship?

    "...But it seems yo want more than that. You want to argue for Young Earth Creationism..."

    In my response to Tobin I didn't argue for or against that. I merely pointed out his question-begging denials.

    "...and a Moses-authored Pentateuch - two things have practically zero support in the academic community."

    So you appeal to academic groupthink as a substitute for reasoned argument.

    "Just who are your 'experts' who argue for the historicity of 'Noah's Flood', I wonder? Ken Ham? Please do tell me. I really want to know!"

    If you read my chapter on Tobin, you'd know.

    You're long on attitude and short on argument. That's a counterproductive way to demonstrate the intellectual superiority of your alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Since you evidently never read his monograph on Israel in Egypt, or his book on Biblical archaeology, you don't know what you're talking about."

    I know enough that James Hoffmeier says the evidence does not support a literal reading of the Old Testament, which is rather my point... Saying that something could have happened is not the same as saying it did happen, a point which Tobin makes very well...

    "Metzger was a moderate who usually defended the Bible."

    Metzger was a moderate who defended the Bible but was clear that it was not an unbiased history of Israel, especially regarding the New Testament. (He's commonly described as a "conservative", but I'll accept he does not meet your rather fruity definition of that word...) My point stands. Moderate, mainstream opinion, including Metzger and Hoffmeier, is that archaeology does not support the historicity of much of the Old Testament.

    "You seem to define "conservative" as anyone to the right of you."

    Balderdash. You are the one dismissing the majority of Biblical scholarship as "liberal" because it does not insist upon the Bible being "true" no matter what the evidence says.

    "Tobin is proudly ignorant of the other side of the argument. He only cites the minimalists, while systematically shielding himself from scholarship to the contrary. And you share his studied ignorance."

    Complete, arrant, nonsense. The Maximalists also say that archeology does not support the historicity of the Old Testament. It's amusing watching you pretend that your position on the Pentatecuch of the "Flood" has any academic support whatsoever, outside of Ken Ham and his ilk.

    "So you appeal to academic groupthink as a substitute for reasoned argument."

    Erm, no. I am not a Biblical scholar, linguist or historian. I am, however, honest about what Biblical scholars, linguists and historians say about the historicity of the Bible. I am also honest enough to admit that these scholars lay out in great detail why they come to this conclusion.

    "You're long on attitude and short on argument. That's a counterproductive way to demonstrate the intellectual superiority of your alternative."

    Oh how I lolled.

    I await with bated breath your non-existent list of non-Fundamentalist academics who hold that Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that "Noah's Flood" happened as the Bible described.

    I watch with interest as you bear false witness against Biblical Scholarship in general, which overwhelmingly holds, maximialists included, that the Bible does not support the historicity of much of the New Testament.

    Ya know, it's perfectly OK for you to say that *you* disagree with what scholars overwhelmingly say. It's another thing to pretend that they don't say it. It's quite another thing to dismiss them all as 'liberal "scholars"' just because they don't believe Noah invented alcohol...

    ReplyDelete
  30. [Bah. All of those "New Testament"s should of course read "old Testament". Apologies.]

    ReplyDelete
  31. PTET,
    You appear to take after Avalos in enjoying changing the topic.

    Apparently you don't know much about Hoffmeier. As a professor at TEDS, he subscribes to this statement of faith in regards to the Scriptures:

    We believe that God has spoken in the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, through the words of human authors. As the verbally inspired Word of God, the Bible is without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for salvation, and the ultimate authority by which every realm of human knowledge and endeavor should be judged. Therefore, it is to be believed in all that it teaches, obeyed in all that it requires, and trusted in all that it promises.

    As a leader in the Old Testament section of the Evangelical Theological Society, he also subscribes to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

    So if by not supporting "a literal reading of the Old Testament," you mean someone who subscribes to the Chicago statement and that the Scriptures are "without error" and that "it is to be believed in all that it teaches, obeyed in all that it requires, and trusted in all that it promises," then nobody at Triablogue or elsewhere in Reformed and evangelical Christianity reads the Bible "literally."

    I'd suggest you pick up his books from Oxford University Press and his recent book on archaeology and see what he actually says before attempting to incorrectly summarize him again.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ranger

    "You appear to take after Avalos in enjoying changing the topic."

    Erm, hello? I have been sticking very precisely to my topic, which is that this article and you on this thread are mis-representing Tobin's position and Biblical Archeology in general by pretending that anyone outside of Fundamentalism thinks the Old Testament through Exodus (at least) is an accurate, non-mythological history of Israel.

    "Apparently you don't know much about Hoffmeier. As a professor at TEDS, he subscribes to this statement of faith..."

    Well, apparently you don't know much about this this statement of faith is applied in practice. Check out this interview with Hoffmieir. in Christianity Today a few years back. Here's some highlights...

    "My point is you have to decide which text literally because you can't take them both literally..."

    "...sometimes the numbers of the Bible are used in a symbolic way..."

    "...We don't have any evidence [that Hebrews were in Egypt]..."

    That entirely supports Tobin's position on what real, genuine, non-controversial scholarship says about The Exodus... Even Evangelicals do not have any evidence is happened as the Bible describes. Even the moderates think there is positive evidence it did not happen as the Bible describes.

    "...nobody at Triablogue or elsewhere in Reformed and evangelical Christianity reads the Bible "literally..."

    Call it what you will. Here is Steve from the original post:

    "On the one hand, Tobin denies that certain Biblical events ever happened unless we have corroborating evidence. On the other hand, when we have an event like Noah’s flood, where we also have Mesopotamian flood traditions (Atrahasis, Sumerian King List, Epic of Gilgamesh, Erdu Genesis) which corroborate the historicity of the event, he turns around and cites that supporting material as if it somehow undermines the Biblical account."

    Seriously. The Flood? "Corroborate the historicity of the event? You have GOT to be kidding me...

    {nice talking to you, btw.}

    ReplyDelete
  33. PTET SAID:

    “I know enough that James Hoffmeier says the evidence does not support a literal reading of the Old Testament, which is rather my point...”

    James Hoffmeier teaches at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, which is formally committed to the inerrancy of Scripture. The kind of evangelical scholarship that Tobin ignorantly attacks.

    And if you actually read his books, you wouldn’t keep making these foolish claims.

    But if you really want me to put the final nail in the coffin, I could always email him your silly attributions. He and I correspond from time to time.

    “Saying that something could have happened is not the same as saying it did happen, a point which Tobin makes very well...”

    Tobin doesn’t know what *did* happen. He wasn’t there. And if he relies on testimonial evidence, then he must include the historical witness of Scripture.

    “Moderate, mainstream opinion, including Metzger and Hoffmeier, is that archaeology does not support the historicity of much of the Old Testament.”

    Needless to say, Metzger was a NT scholar, not an OT scholar. And if you ever bothered to inform yourself by actually reading the books he’s written or edited, you wouldn’t keep making these pig-ignorant attributions. It doesn’t do your cause any good. But that’s fine by me.

    “Balderdash. You are the one dismissing the majority of Biblical scholarship as ‘liberal’ because it does not insist upon the Bible being ‘true’ no matter what the evidence says.”

    Feel free to furnish your stats on the “majority of Biblical scholarship.” Did you conduct a scientific survey? Are you a sociologist?

    And, of course, majorities have no bearing on truth-claims.

    Not to mention your willful caricature–“being ‘true’ no matter what the evidence says.”

    ReplyDelete
  34. Cont. “Complete, arrant, nonsense. The Maximalists also say that archeology does not support the historicity of the Old Testament.”

    Because you believe whatever Tobin tells you?

    “It's amusing watching you pretend that your position on the Pentatecuch of the ‘Flood’ has any academic support whatsoever, outside of Ken Ham and his ilk.”

    I cited my sources. You have no counterargument.

    “Erm, no. I am not a Biblical scholar, linguist or historian. I am, however, honest about what Biblical scholars, linguists and historians say about the historicity of the Bible. I am also honest enough to admit that these scholars lay out in great detail why they come to this conclusion.”

    You regurgitate what hack thirdhand sources like Tobin spoon-feed you.

    “I await with bated breath your non-existent list of non-Fundamentalist academics who hold that Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that ‘Noah's Flood’ happened as the Bible described.”

    Now you rig the game by dictating what type of academics can speak to the issue. Truth by definition. Thanks for confirming my thesis.

    “I watch with interest as you bear false witness against Biblical Scholarship in general, which overwhelmingly holds, maximialists included, that the Bible does not support the historicity of much of the New Testament.”

    Since you present no hard evidence to back up your claims, there’s nothing for me to rebut.

    “Ya know, it's perfectly OK for you to say that *you* disagree with what scholars overwhelmingly say.”

    Which assumes what you need to prove.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hello Steve - nice of you to answer my comments.

    I quoted Hoffmeier above stating that there is no evidence that the Hebrews were ever in Egypt.

    Can you cite any academics who hold that Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that ‘Noah's Flood’ happened as the Bible described?

    If you cannot accept that even Evangelical Seminaries teach the documentary hypothesis, then seriously I have to wonder...

    Here is Conservapedia of all sources on the subject: "The great majority of Bible experts accept one or another version of the Documentary Hypothesis. However it is rejected by some Fundamentalists... The Documentary Hypothesis is taught in at most universities and seminaries."

    As for "Biblical Maximalists", I presume you think Wikipedia is part of some anti-Biblical conspiracy when it says "While there is no scholarly controversy on the historicity of the events recounted from the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BC, and that the events predating the United Monarchy cannot be shown to have any historicity, the positions of "maximalists" vs. "minimalists" concern the monarchy period, spanning the 10th to 7th centuries BC. The maximalist position holds that the accounts of the United Monarchy and the early kings of Israel, king David and king Saul, are to be taken as largely historical."

    So again: Can you cite any academics who hold that Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that ‘Noah's Flood’ happened as the Bible described? Can you cite any academics of any sort who have evidence that the Exodus happened as the Bible describes? Hoffmeier has already told us that he can't.

    If you want "truth by definition", Steve, stick to your "statements of faith" which define the "truth" as what ever scriptures say.

    ReplyDelete
  36. PTET,
    Actually, yeah, you did change the subject because my argument that Avalos ignored was that in the pre-Masoretic tradition the words for son-in-law and father-in-law were identical. You responded to my comment with a different discussion altogether.

    As for Hoffmeier's interview, and your comments, you merely show that you don't know what evangelicals mean by inerrancy. You might consider reading the Chicago Statement and then you will know that Hoffmeier falls right within evangelicalism in his comments.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hi Ranger

    Let's focus on our discussion shall we... Moderate, mainstream, scholarship supports Tobin's position on the authorship of the Pentateuch. Sheesh - the documentary hypothesis is taught even in Evangelical seminaries. Hoffmeier says clearly that he does not know of any evidence that the Hebrews were ever in Egpyt.

    That wasn't hard, was it?

    I didn't say Hoffmeier didn't hold the Bible to be errant. Sheesh - all of this just re-enforces Tobin's point. Even Evangelical scholars who hold that the Bible is inerrant admit there is no evidence the Exodus happened as the Bible claims.

    Steve's attempts to dismiss the overwhelming body of Biblical Studies academia as 'liberal "scholars"' is utterly absurd. His claim that Tobin does not "engage" with Evangelical scholars is nonsense.

    As for "hebrew pointing" I'm guessing Tobin is referring to the text which we actually have to check. Certainly, of course, that could be erroneous. After all, it's wrong about the rest of the pre-history of Israel...

    [And for Steve... My phrasing in my last post was mangled. Can you cite any working, credible Biblical scholar who thinks Moses wrote the Pentateuch? Steve even get's to tell us who is "credible".]

    P

    ReplyDelete
  38. PTET SAID:

    “I quoted Hoffmeier above stating that there is no evidence that the Hebrews were ever in Egypt.”

    Your quote was deceptive because you left out his qualifications: “We don't have any evidence. What we do know is that from the 16th century B.C. down the next couple hundred years, the northeastern delta of Egypt had significant Semitic populations. It would be very easy to have the Hebrews among that group.”

    You also omitted his other qualifications: “It depends. Often there are disputed interpretations of data. Reading texts, there can be disputes in the meanings of words. Interpretations can change as our interpretation of the Bible can change as we get a better knowledge of Greek or Hebrew or things that we thought we understood in the days of the King James Bible, we now in the light of new linguistic evidence have clearer understanding. I think that's true of any academic discipline.
    So the sun can rise and set on archeology, but it certainly can help us.”

    Moreover, your new claim is a far cry from your original, unsourced attribution: ‘”Is this same James Hoffmier [sic] who "declares the bible wrong about almost all the early history of Israel...’?”

    “Can you cite any academics who hold that Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that ‘Noah's Flood’ happened as the Bible described?”

    If you bothered to study conservative evangelical scholarship on the Bible, you could answer that question for yourself. Instead of documenting your claims, you document your prejudice.

    “Here is Conservapedia…I presume you think Wikipedia is part of some anti-Biblical conspiracy when it says…”

    That’s acutely ironic. You pay lipservice to academic documentation, then you resort to such unacademic sources as Wikipedia and Conservapedia to document your claims!

    “I have been sticking very precisely to my topic, which is that this article and you on this thread are mis-representing Tobin's position and Biblical Archeology in general by pretending that anyone outside of Fundamentalism thinks the Old Testament through Exodus (at least) is an accurate, non-mythological history of Israel.”

    Once again, you rig the issue.

    “Seriously. The Flood? ‘Corroborate the historicity of the event? You have GOT to be kidding me...”

    An exclamation is not a counterargument. Rather, it’s rhetorical filler masquerading as a counterargument.

    ReplyDelete
  39. PTET SAID:

    "Sheesh - the documentary hypothesis is taught even in Evangelical seminaries."

    Where's your list?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Steve

    "Your quote was deceptive because you left out his qualifications...

    Jeez louise. If you cannot parse that Hoffmeier is saying here matches Tobin's claims, then I really cannot help you. There is no room in the archeological record for the "Exodus" as described in the Old Testament to have occurred. Hoffmeier claims that it is possible that the events related in the OT have some sort of historical basis. He offers NO EVIDENCE for this. Most scholars - including the "Maximalists" - agree that the episode is mythological. Your dancing round this point is quite hysterical.

    "Moreover, your new claim is a far cry from your original, unsourced attribution: ‘”Is this same James Hoffmier [sic] who "declares the bible wrong about almost all the early history of Israel...’?”

    Obviously you can't use Google unless the Devil turns you. Or something. Maybe the article is lying about what Hoffmieir believes, of course. I find that hard to believe, since anyone who has read anything about the last 50 years of archeology outside of christiananwers.net knows that none of this is in the slightest bit controversial.

    "If you bothered to study conservative evangelical scholarship on the Bible, you could answer that question for yourself. Instead of documenting your claims, you document your prejudice."

    So you cannot name one working, credible Biblical scholar who thinks that Moses wrote the Penteteuch or who thinks the "Flood account" is actual history. Duly noted. Any my prejudice? O please do remove the beam from your eye.

    "That’s acutely ironic. You pay lipservice to academic documentation, then you resort to such unacademic sources as Wikipedia and Conservapedia to document your claims!"

    Jeez louise again. Mate, this is not an academic discussion. This is comments on a blog. Seriously, I have no clue what books you read, but I can assure you the Maximalist/Minimalist debate is very, very old news - and "Young Earth Creationism" and the Biblical Account of the Exodus are long, long discredited. You are making the Triablogue look ridiculous by insisting that anyone should take these myths seriously.

    "Where's your list?"

    Does this help?

    ReplyDelete
  41. PTET SAID:

    “Jeez louise. If you cannot parse that Hoffmeier is saying here matches Tobin's claims, then I really cannot help you.”

    Tobin attacks the historicity of the Exodus whereas Hoffmeier defends the historicity of the Exodus. That’s a total mismatch.

    “There is no room in the archeological record for the ‘Exodus’ as described in the Old Testament to have occurred.”

    A naked assertion.

    “Hoffmeier claims that it is possible that the events related in the OT have some sort of historical basis.”

    Quote where Hoffmeier claims that. Give the verbatim quote, plus title and pagination.

    “He offers NO EVIDENCE for this.”

    Easy for you to say since you never read his books or articles.

    “Most scholars - including the ‘Maximalists’ - agree that the episode is mythological. Your dancing round this point is quite hysterical.”

    You like to use the word “evidence” a lot, but you fail to document your claims with suitable evidence. So you’re just a poseur.

    “Obviously you can't use Google unless the Devil turns you. Or something.”

    For someone who supposedly values evidence, it’s revealing to see what passes for evidence when you are forced to substantiate your claims. That’s not a quote from Hoffmeier. That’s a quote from Magee, attributing that position to Hoffmeier. Magee offers no documentation to verify his claim.

    This illustrates the problem when you rely on hostile, thirdhand sources.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Cont. “So you cannot name one working, credible Biblical scholar who thinks that Moses wrote the Penteteuch…”

    Gleason Archer, John Currid, Richard Hess, Walter Kaiser, John Oswalt, Allan Ross, John Sailhamer, to name a few.

    “…or who thinks the ‘Flood account’ is actual history.”

    T. D. Alexander, John Currid, John J. Davis, Gordon Hugenberger, Kenneth Kitchen, David Livingston, Jeffrey Niehaus, Allen Ross, Vern Poythress, Ronald Youngblood, to name a few.

    “But I can assure you the Maximalist/Minimalist debate is very, very old news…”

    A red herring.

    “…and ‘Young Earth Creationism’ and the Biblical Account of the Exodus are long, long discredited.”

    Keep repeating that to yourself, with your eyes closed. Click your heels three times and hope your wish comes true.

    In addition, even if YEC were discredited, that wouldn’t ipso facto discredit the Bible since you also have OEC scholars to deal with.

    “You are making the Triablogue look ridiculous by insisting that anyone should take these myths seriously.”

    You’re very egotistical to imagine that I live for your approval. And I don’t see that you’ve done anything with your life to justify your exaggerated self-importance.

    “Does this help?”

    Another revealing example of what you substitute for actual evidence.

    That’s not a list of evangelical seminaries.

    Moreover, there’s an obvious difference between teaching that the Documentary Hypothesis is true, and covering the Documentary Hypothesis in class to critique it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Steve

    "Tobin attacks the historicity of the Exodus whereas Hoffmeier defends the historicity of the Exodus. That’s a total mismatch."

    [Facepalm]. OMG. Seriously, dude. This is like talking to a goldfish. The Hoff is asked "Is there archeological evidence that Hebrews were in Egypt?". He answers "We don't have any evidence...". Yes he offers qualifications. No, he does not support the historicity of the Bible account. He says it could be based on some historical events. That is not the same as saying is happened like the Bible says.

    Your problem is that you are clearly incapable of processing any information which contradicts the Bible. It's like your little brain does somersaults.

    "You like to use the word “evidence” a lot, but you fail to document your claims with suitable evidence. So you’re just a poseur."

    [Facepalm] again. Dude. Tobin lays out source after book after expert after source discussing the reasons why archeologists overwhelmingly say that the Exodus could not have happened as the Bible describes. You just ignore everything he says on this. It is painful to watch.

    "Gleason Archer, John Currid, Richard Hess, Walter Kaiser, John Oswalt, Allan Ross, John Sailhamer, to name a few..."

    Gleason Archer? I lolled. Next on your list, Currid. Erm, dude... It does not sound like he supports the Exodus account of the Bible to me.

    And now I understand. You have a total binary view on this. You think that either experts think the OT is entirely true, or it is entirely false.

    You are not able to mentally process that mythological accounts might be based on true history somewhere - but that does not make them history.

    Oh - wait a minute, I just read this from a search for Currid on the Flood: "Genesis is truth given by the Creator himself". Did he say that? He certainly seems to be quoted a lot by creation.com and sites like it. Maybe he didn't say it and someone quoting him said it. In any case, [facepalm] times infinity on the old fundamentalist view of the evidence there...

    "Keep repeating that to yourself, with your eyes closed. Click your heels three times and hope your wish comes true."

    Since I live in the real world, where YEC has practically zero scientific support, and not in Fundamentalist Fantasy Land like you do, I can only watch in awe as you project your insecurities and mental gymnastics on everyone else.

    "You’re very egotistical to imagine that I live for your approval. And I don’t see that you’ve done anything with your life to justify your exaggerated self-importance."

    You are quite the most pompous and ridiculous idiot that I have come across online for quite some time. Since I talk to lots of Fundamentalists, that is quite an achievement.

    It's taken quite a lot to drag this out of you Steve, but it is obviously that you are an unrepentant, unabashed, Young Earth Creationist.

    Your position is not evangelical. It is fundamentalist.

    Your position is not based on logic, evidence or reason. It is based on an absurdly over-literal reading of the Bible, and an absurd rejection of huge chunks of modern science. You can delude yourself about how everyone is biased and you are not, Steve, but the simple fact is that you are an idiot, by choice, because you choose to believe stupid things.

    Since it is pointless trying to use logic, evidence and reason to argue someone out of a position that is not based on logic, evidence and reason, I say goodbye to you, Sir.

    To Ranger - it was nice talking to you. You have my sympathies for havng to be on the same "side" as Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  44. PTET SAID:

    “OMG. Seriously, dude. This is like talking to a goldfish.”

    Takes one to know one.

    “The Hoff is asked ‘Is there archeological evidence that Hebrews were in Egypt?’. He answers "We don't have any evidence...". Yes he offers qualifications. No, he does not support the historicity of the Bible account.”

    His entire monograph on Israel In Egypt is a sustained defense of the historicity of the Exodus–not to mention his sequel–Ancient Israel in Sinai.

    Thanks, once again, for illustrating the intellectual caliber of infidels.

    “He says it could be based on some historical events. That is not the same as saying is happened like the Bible says.”

    Quote where he says that. Verbatim quote, complete with title and page number(s).

    “Your problem is that you are clearly incapable of processing any information which contradicts the Bible. It's like your little brain does somersaults.”

    You’re problem is that you imagine you can bluff your way through a debate without having to back up your claims.

    “Tobin lays out source after book after expert after source discussing the reasons why archeologists overwhelmingly say that the Exodus could not have happened as the Bible describes. You just ignore everything he says on this. It is painful to watch.”

    Does Tobin also nurse you and burp you and change you?

    Considering the fact that I wrote a long refutation of his chapter (in TCD), followed by a long refutation of his reply, to say I “just ignore everything he says on this” is self-attesting rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Cont. “Gleason Archer? I lolled.”

    Which is not a counterargument.

    “Erm, dude... It does not sound like he supports the Exodus account of the Bible to me. ”

    Since you haven’t read his monograph on Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament, much less his 2-volume commentary on Exodus, that’s yet another expression of your hidebound ignorance.

    You stupidly think you can just wing it in this debate without actually reading the authors you presume to speak for.

    “And now I understand. You have a total binary view on this. You think that either experts think the OT is entirely true, or it is entirely false. You are not able to mentally process that mythological accounts might be based on true history somewhere - but that does not make them history.”

    Because I called your bluff, and you had a losing hand, you’re now trying to change the subject and thereby deflect attention away from your foolish bet. It was always easy for me to cite academics who subscribe to the historicity of Noah’s flood as well as the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Next time, don’t gamble if you can’t afford to lose.

    “Oh - wait a minute, I just read this from a search for Currid on the Flood…”

    Yes, that’s your idea of evidence. Just do a Google search and see what you can scrape up without having to read anything which would overtax your preschool attention-span.

    “Since I live in the real world, where YEC has practically zero scientific support, and not in Fundamentalist Fantasy Land like you do, I can only watch in awe as you project your insecurities and mental gymnastics on everyone else.”

    You’re ten parts rhetoric to zero parts argument.

    “You are quite the most pompous and ridiculous idiot that I have come across online for quite some time. Since I talk to lots of Fundamentalists, that is quite an achievement.”

    Your intellectual performance never rises to the level of your rationalistic rhetoric. You talk about evidence, but you don’t give any.

    “Your position is not based on logic, evidence or reason. It is based on an absurdly over-literal reading of the Bible…”

    Well, that’s ironic considering the fact that the contributors to TCD interpret the Bible quite literally in their efforts to disprove the Bible.

    “Since it is pointless trying to use logic, evidence and reason to argue someone out of a position that is not based on logic, evidence and reason, I say goodbye to you, Sir.”

    Having lost the argument, you try to cover your rereat in a flurry of rationalistic adjectives. However, you don’t actually use logic, evidence and reason. Rather, you use only use the words, minus the actual argumentation.

    ReplyDelete
  46. PTET,

    I've looked up some of your material on the web. It's often hard to follow, since some of your links no longer work, what you say in one place seems inconsistent with what you say elsewhere, etc. But, from what I've gathered so far, it seems that you're an atheist and that you at least used to argue for the position that Jesus didn't exist. You've linked to web sites that make that argument, and the title of one of your broken links suggests that you at least held that position several years ago. At a minimum, you take the position seriously and sometimes link to web sites that argue for it.

    But positions like atheism and the non-existence of Jesus are the beliefs of a tiny minority. Why, then, are you putting so much emphasis on scholarly majorities?

    And why do you keep moving from one standard to another? At one point, you refer to Evangelicals and fundamentalists. At another point, you refer only to fundamentalists. Elsewhere, you suggest that one of Steve's positions isn't held by any scholar, not even any fundamentalist scholar. But at another point you'll merely say that the majority agrees with you, as if you know that some scholars do support Steve's position. You're at least a poor communicator. And I suspect the problem goes deeper than that.

    What about conservative Catholics, Jews, etc.? Why do you keep ignoring other types of scholars who hold conservative views of the Bible? You keep mentioning (here and elsewhere) that the Catholic Church supposedly has taken a position in support of non-conservative scholarship. But a large segment of that denomination is conservative, including some of its scholars. Catholicism doesn't require its scholars to take a non-conservative view of the historicity of the Bible. Rather, non-conservative views are optional, not required by the hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  47. PTET,

    [Facepalm]. OMG. Seriously, dude. This is like talking to a goldfish. The Hoff is asked "Is there archeological evidence that Hebrews were in Egypt?". He answers "We don't have any evidence...". Yes he offers qualifications. No, he does not support the historicity of the Bible account. He says it could be based on some historical events. That is not the same as saying is happened like the Bible says.


    You're such a hack and you're obviously a troll. One can do a google search and easily find out that you're full of it.

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1998/september7/8ta044.html?start=5

    Furthermore, why are you even writing? Why are you commenting on anything? Didn't Hector Avalos teach us that non-experts must sit down and shut up? Didn't Avalos teach us that if you are not an expert, you can't even write on these topics? Didn't Avalos teach us that for a non-expert to act as sure as you is the sign of an "utter amateur?" Do you disagree with Avalos? Do you think he's stupid for saying that? Will you go on record not only here but at DC and call Avalos out?

    Lastly, given your line of argument, why do the vast majority of philosophy religion profs at PhD granting Universities believe in God? They are the experts in that field, why do they think the argument successful?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hello Jason

    "I've looked up some of your material on the web..."

    Thanks for taking the time. Yup, I kept up a website some time ago, and blogged for some time after that. I looked into the notion that Jesus "didn't exist" and, yes, I concluded that the evidence did not support that. This is how we learn. We challenge our preconceptions.

    "But positions like atheism and the non-existence of Jesus are the beliefs of a tiny minority. Why, then, are you putting so much emphasis on scholarly majorities?"

    Woah. The positions I have laid out here, time and time again, are what the majority of scholars, Christian, Jewish and otherwise, support. It is all very well for amateurs to investigate and argue positions away from the mainstream, but if we don't start with an understanding of what the mainstream say, we are deluding ourselves. As for atheism being a "tiny minority", it may be where you live, but it isn't where I live. Moreover, educated, intelligent people the world over are more likely to be atheists - or at least not be religious.

    All that is beside the point, however, I have not been arguing anything here that is not the consensus among the overwhelming number of biblical scientists and historians. Steve and Triablogue do not even want to admit that this consensus exists. They also do not seem to be able to get their head round the fact that the only scientists they can come up with who reject this consensus option hold that the Bible is inerrant no matter what the evidence says.

    "And why do you keep moving from one standard to another? At one point, you refer to Evangelicals and fundamentalists"

    It is Steve who keeps using the term "evangelical", but who keeps arguing for more extreme positions, such as Young Earth Creationism, which are Fundamentalist.

    "What about conservative Catholics, Jews, etc.?"

    How do you define "Conservative"? Here's an article from AiG complaining about a NY Times article headed Conservative Jews reject Torah, allegedly in light of archaeology". The article claims that by rejecting the Torah, these self-described conservative jews can no longer be called conservative. You will find the same arguments aimed at any Catholics, no matter how theologically conservative, who reject the OT as accurate history.

    Here's the problem: Steve & Triablogue cannot accept that the majority of scholarly opinion, Christian, Jewish and otherwise, hold that much of the OT is not historical, not because they are "liberal", not because of "presuppositions", but because - as Tobin has laid out in great detail - the evidence overwhelmingly says so.

    What Steve does is to lay out evangelical scholars who hold that the bible is inerrant, who say that something like the OT history could have happened - as if that wipes away what every other scholar says. That is an absurd position.

    The problem here is that Steve cannot process any information which suggests the Bible is "true". Hence is pages and pages of blether.

    ...Thanks again for taking the time to talk to me.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hi Paul

    "You're such a hack and you're obviously a troll. One can do a google search and easily find out that you're full of it."

    O i lolled. What does your article say? That no records survive of the two and half million people the Bible claims fled Egypt, because the papyruses might have rotted. Sure, Christian and Jewish arcehologists spent over a century combing every inch of Egpyt and the Sinai looking for evidence of "the Exodus" and couldn't find a single trace of it, but some scholars, who hold the Bible to be inerrant, keep looking for excuses to say it could have happened.

    And of course elements of "The Exodus" story could be based on some historical memories. The trouble is that the vast majority of scholars have concluded that the stories are essentially made up. There was no huge movement of Hebrews from slavery in Egypt thru the Sinai to the promised land. The "Hebrews" instead grew up from existing semitic peoples in the fertile crescent. They have Egyptian folk memories largely because the Egyptians dominated their culture for centuries.

    None of this is controversial in Archeology. Yes, it is rejected on religious grounds by scholars who insist that their holy books are true.

    "Furthermore, why are you even writing? Why are you commenting on anything? Didn't Hector Avalos teach us that non-experts must sit down and shut up?"

    No. Try reading for comprehension. Any discussion by amateurs must begin with an understanding of what the experts are saying and why they say it. Avalos says the ancient texts we have about Moses are confused because the texts we have available to us are confused. You can come up with excuses about why the Bible is apparently wrong until the cows come home. That does not make you an expert in ancient semitic languages.

    "Lastly, given your line of argument, why do the vast majority of philosophy religion profs at PhD granting Universities believe in God? They are the experts in that field, why do they think the argument successful?"

    Religious people tend to be more interested in studying religion. Do you need more than that? Most scientists do not believe in a personal God. Fundamentalists ignore evidence which contradicts the Bible.

    One more time for the cheap sheets: everything I have argued here has been the scholarly concensus, christian, jewish and otherwise, about the historicity of the OT. Of course some scholars disagree on details. But the consensus remains - the OT thru Exodus is not a reliable telling of the pre-history of Israel or Judaism.

    Steve & Triablogue want to pretend this consensus does not exist, on the basis of a handful of scholars who can provide only excuses why they don't have any evidence to support their positions - and who have signed statements affirming that the Bible is true no matter what the evidence says.

    P

    ReplyDelete
  50. PTET,

    1. The article said more than that. It also clarified why he says there's no DIRECT evidence, but it goes on to say that there is INDIRECT evidence.

    So I caught you lying, now you're changing the subject to claiming that the event never happened because there's no direct evidence. I lolled at your change in goal posts, and then I note that your new assertions don't deal with the responses to those claims.

    2. I see, so you explain away the majority by claiming that the field is filled with religious people. Well, I lolled at that fallacious argument, and then I noted to myself, "Self, anti-religious people are more interested in debunking religion."

    In any case, that the arguments for God work, and that religious epistemology reconciles the pretended gap between faith and reason is, one more time for the cheap seats, the scholarly consensus.

    Lastly, Steve and the Triabloggers care more for arguments than consensus. We duly note your intellectual weakness and inability to argue and think for yourself, though.

    We also show that there are major scholars who do agree with us, which debunks your claim that there are NONE.

    And we also note that you hold to the non-existence of Jesus, which is NOT held by the consensus of scholars. So you contradict your methodology.

    We also note that you have refused to call Hector Avalos stupid for ruling ALL of your claims out of bounds. You are not an expert, so you cannot evaluate the arguments from the experts. You cannot write about it. Are you willing to go on record here, and at DC, and admit that either (a) you opened your pie hole and spoke when all you should have done was lolled, or (b) Hector Avalos makes stupid and umb comments? Which is it. While I wait I'll be lolling as well as noting how your posts ooze with humanist love.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Most scientists do not believe in a personal God.

    You need to read: Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Elaine Howard Ecklund (Oxford 2010).

    You'll note the field isn't as diverse as you suggest, and you'll also note the reason why the VAST MAJORITY of scientists who are atheists, are atheists. It isn't because they've considered the arguments. It isn't a function of their science. For MANY of them, belief in God was dropped due to childhood incidents, for MANY OTHERS it is never even considered for fear of job security, etc.

    I keep lolling at you. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Paul

    "The article said more than that. It also clarified why he says there's no DIRECT evidence, but it goes on to say that there is INDIRECT evidence... So I caught you lying..."

    Oh grow up. I said specifically that there was no evidence that the Exodus Event occurred. If you read what Hoffmeier says, he argues that something way smaller than that told by the words of "Exodus" states could have happened.

    For those interested in a good discussion of the reasons why archeologists reject the "Exodus" as history, including the counter-arguments made by people like Hoffmeier, all you need to do is check Wikipedia.

    "In any case, that the arguments for God work, and that religious epistemology reconciles the pretended gap between faith and reason is, one more time for the cheap seats, the scholarly consensus."

    That is so stupid I don't even know where to begin. Einstein didn't believe in your personal God. Neither do most NAS scientists. In fact, the more education and people have, the less they are inclined to believe in God.

    "Steve and the Triabloggers care more for arguments than consensus. We duly note your intellectual weakness and inability to argue and think for yourself, though."

    You delude yourselves into thinking you can "argue" about these things while completely ignoring what the majority of experts, including Christian and Jewish experts, say. You stick to Evangelical arguments are are apparently unable to process anything not written by Evangelicals. You aren't giving arguments. You are giving apologetics.

    "we also note that you hold to the non-existence of Jesus, which is NOT held by the consensus of scholars. So you contradict your methodology"

    I investigated the possibility of the non-existence of Jesus and I rejected that. I can conclude, however, that you are an idiot.

    "We also note that you have refused to call Hector Avalos stupid for ruling ALL of your claims out of bounds."

    Let me add "pompous asshat" to that.

    "You need to read: Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Elaine Howard Ecklund (Oxford 2010)."

    I think I read a different version of that than you did.

    "Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform," Ecklund says. (emphasis added)

    I can understand how you would miss the words "do not" and completely get the wrong end of the stick. You are, after all, completely unable to distinguish between your religious sensibilities and reality.

    P

    ReplyDelete
  53. "Oh grow up. I said specifically that there was no evidence that the Exodus Event occurred. If you read what Hoffmeier says, he argues that something way smaller than that told by the words of "Exodus" states could have happened."

    I'll grow up when you grow a brain, deal?

    You distored the situation and Hoffmeier's comments. He gives *arguments* for why direct evidence is lacking, and also claims that there *is* evidence, indirect. So your claim rested on hiding an important ambiguity.

    "That is so stupid I don't even know where to begin. Einstein didn't believe in your personal God. Neither do most NAS scientists. In fact, the more education and people have, the less they are inclined to believe in God."

    You're ytoo dumb to even recognize the argument you've been given. Not only isn't Einstein (singular) sufficient to overturn a "consensus," Einstein and scientists are not experts in the field of philosophy of religion. Can I just pull anyone scholar I wish into a discussion on the historicity of Exodus event? So does my Christian buddy who has a PhD in math count? LOL.

    The majority of educated people just a little while ago believed in God. Do you think that counted for the truth of theism? I also offered reasons for the correlation between irreligion and intelligence in TID. There are many factors that can explain it. And at the end of the day, it's the arguments that matter; though your hiding behind the consensus to avoid arguing is duly noted. LOL

    "You delude yourselves into thinking you can "argue" about these things while completely ignoring what the majority of experts, including Christian and Jewish experts, say. You stick to Evangelical arguments are are apparently unable to process anything not written by Evangelicals. You aren't giving arguments. You are giving apologetics."

    Actually, we read the other side; you don't. You keep saying Tobin presented the best evidence and arguments. But we read Tobin. So, [facepalm] boy are you a self-refutation machine.

    "I investigated the possibility of the non-existence of Jesus and I rejected that. I can conclude, however, that you are an idiot."

    Why would you investigate facts. According to you, investigating consists in the demographics of who holds what view.

    "Let me add "pompous asshat" to that.

    Will you go to DC and call Hector this?

    "I think I read a different version of that than you did.

    "Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform," Ecklund says. (emphasis added)


    Did you even read it, or did you just quote mine? You can remain ignorant all you want. But the MAJORITY of scientists who reject religion have never bothered to study the arguments. And if they have, as the study shows, they look at the weakest, oldest, and most strawiest forms of those arguments. You're imploding while I'm lolling.

    "I can understand how you would miss the words "do not" and completely get the wrong end of the stick. You are, after all, completely unable to distinguish between your religious sensibilities and reality."

    This contradicts nothing I said. And the article undermines much of what you said. Other than that, I read the book, you didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  54. PTET didn't even read the article he linked to. We're seeing a trend. He misrepresents Hoffmeier. He missrepresents the article he linked to on Ecklund. He misrepresents our comments and arguments. No wonder he's a militant unbeleiver. He has all the qualities: hang on to faith by misrepresenting and ignoring.

    Here's some statements from the article PTET left out:

    "Among scientists, as in the general population, being raised in a home in which religion and religious practice were valued is the most important predictor of present religiosity among the subjects."

    "Ecklund and Scheitle concluded that the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable."

    "Ecklund says, "It appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists."

    "Foreign-born scientists are more likely to say "there is little truth in religion" and less likely to attend religious services, according to the authors. But being foreign-born had no significant impact on the odds of believing in God. This is interesting, they say, in light of the high percentage (25 percent) of foreign-born scientists among those surveyed." (Ooooooo, better take th eoutsider test!)

    "Results from the study also show that the more children in a scientist's household, the more likely he or she is to adhere to a religion."

    "Although data from the GSS reveal that older individuals express higher levels of religious belief and practice compared to younger individuals, this does not seem to be the case among academic scientists.

    RAAS data reveal that younger scientists are more likely to believe in God than older scientists, and more likely to report attending religious services over the past year. "If this holds throughout the career life-course for this cohort of academic scientists," Ecklund says, "it could indicate an overall shift in attitudes toward religion among those in the academy."

    ReplyDelete
  55. Paul

    "You distored the situation and Hoffmeier's comments. He gives *arguments* for why direct evidence is lacking, and also claims that there *is* evidence, indirect. So your claim rested on hiding an important ambiguity."

    You have completely ignored, again, what I said. Hoffmeier does not claim the evidence supports the Exodus as told by the Bible. He says an event on a much smaller scale could have happened. If you had bothered to read any of the material on this I've linked to time and time again, you'd know why most scholars disagree with Hoffmeier.

    "You're ytoo dumb to even recognize the argument you've been given."

    [Facepalm]

    "The majority of educated people just a little while ago believed in God. Do you think that counted for the truth of theism?"

    Consensus does not mean "truth". But as I have said time and time an time and time again, you cannot pretend to argue the merits of an argument if you ignore what scholars actually say about it. In all these arguments about the OT, you are IGNORING what most scholars, Christian, Jewish and otherwise say.

    "Why would you investigate facts. According to you, investigating consists in the demographics of who holds what view."

    Heres's how this works. When you are presented with arguments which contradict your childish-sunday-school version of Bible history, you go into meltdown. It doesn't matter if these arguments come from Christians or Jews or whomever. Yu just repeat the same old apologetics time and time and time again, claim everyone who disagrees with you is a degenerate apostate, and keep at it until your "opponents" move off in discuss.

    "...Did you even read it, or did you just quote mine? You can remain ignorant all you want. But the MAJORITY of scientists who reject religion have never bothered to study the arguments..."

    Let me get this straight so I am clear about what you are saying.

    When the more intelligent, educated section of the community tends to reject religious arguments, they do so for reasons other than logic and reason.

    When the less intelligent and educated section of the community tends to accept religious arguments, they do so for reasons of logic and reason.

    "Here's some statements from the article PTET left out:"

    You know, Paul, when I link to something (which I do a lot) I assume people will read the articles for themselves.

    "If this holds throughout the career life-course for this cohort of academic scientists," Ecklund says, "it could indicate an overall shift in attitudes toward religion among those in the academy."

    Since religiousity and the belief in God is continuing to decrease every time a poll is published, this statement just seems silly. A better match for the data, surely, is that those in science get less religious over time for reasons which are yet to be established.

    In any event...

    ReplyDelete
  56. Paul, talking to you is hopeless. The facts are that the majority of scholars, including Christian and Jewish scholars, hold that the OT thru Exodus (at least) is not an accurate pre-history of Israel. These scholars do consider the argumentsput forward by Hoffmeier et al. that a uch smaller event than that described in the Bible may have occured. They reject it.

    You never deal with that.

    You instead keep trying to derail the conversation. I wonder why? Oh yeah - because you will do and say anything to protect your childish Bible-school vision of your religion.

    Do you want to know a very big reason why I do not believe in God, Paul? It is because of people like you.

    You show no charity. You show no love for your neighbor or your enemy. You do not turn the other cheek. You bear false witness against anyone - Jews, Christians and Atheists - who challenge your Evangelical beliefs. You show no respect for anyone that may bring something new to your knowledge and beliefs.

    I am happy for people to read tru this thread, Paul, and to come to their own conclusions as to what they should believe on the basis of the evidence and what experts say.

    Beyond that, I have no interest in talking to you.

    You are a poor advert for Christianity... But, sadly, a typical one.

    P

    ReplyDelete
  57. PTET SAID:

    “But as I have said time and time an time and time again, you cannot pretend to argue the merits of an argument if you ignore what scholars actually say about it.”

    So, by your own admission, you’ve just disqualified yourself, as well as Tobin, from arguing the merits of the argument when you ignore what “Fundamentalist” scholars actually say about it. Thanks for your concession speech. Could we have some musical accompaniment?

    “Do you want to know a very big reason why I do not believe in God, Paul? It is because of people like you.”

    So you now admit your real motive for rejecting the Christian faith is emotional rather than intellectual.

    “You show no charity. You show no love for your neighbor or your enemy. You do not turn the other cheek. You bear false witness against anyone - Jews, Christians and Atheists - who challenge your Evangelical beliefs. You show no respect for anyone that may bring something new to your knowledge and beliefs.”

    Unfortunately, when we compare those pretty sentiments with what you write on your angry, obscenity-laced blog, you don’t seem very eager to emulate the virtues which you try to foist on others.

    “Beyond that, I have no interest in talking to you.”

    A typical reaction when unbelievers lose the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  58. PTET,

    Funny, huh. You came here acting like an ass, lolling and [facepalming] everyone, i then put on my PTET mask, "argue" like PTET, and PTET throws a hissy fit.

    Do as you wish and run along. I never had any interest in talking to you in the first place. You are a troll and are not trying to debate or honestly interact with what Steve &c are giving you.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "“Do you want to know a very big reason why I do not believe in God, Paul? It is because of people like you.”

    You know what, my math teacher in grade school was a big meany, so that's a big reason why I don't believe 1+2 =2.

    "“You show no charity. You show no love for your neighbor or your enemy. You do not turn the other cheek. You bear false witness against anyone - Jews, Christians and Atheists - who challenge your Evangelical beliefs. You show no respect for anyone that may bring something new to your knowledge and beliefs.”

    Apart from the fact that you offer zero exegesis of those passages, and apart from the fact that it was I who showed you to lie (on numerous occasions), you're a typical fundy atheist who confuses true religion with moralism. Apart from that, I was simply getting rid of a troll who didn't want to interact with anyone at a serious level. I out-trolled the troll and your last resort is to play the moralist card?

    "You are a poor advert for Christianity... But, sadly, a typical one.

    Rethink your approach when you come to our house. You're a guest. I bet if a Christian punched a bully in the nose you'd call him a "poor advert."

    get real and spare me the three-hanky tear jerkers. I don't do fallacies of shame.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Steve

    "So, by your own admission, you’ve just disqualified yourself, as well as Tobin, from arguing the merits of the argument when you ignore what “Fundamentalist” scholars actually say about it. "

    One cannot "engage" Fundamentalists, since they refuse to even countenance any evidence which contradicts their holy text.

    "So you now admit your real motive for rejecting the Christian faith is emotional rather than intellectual."

    I said nothing of the sort. I rejected religion on intellectual grounds when i was 8 years old (when I was first presented with "Noah's Flood" as a supposed, fact, as it happens). I see you're still not at that level. It is clear, however, that emotion plays a large part in people's decision to "believe".

    "..you don’t seem very eager to emulate the virtues which you try to foist on others..."

    Dude. I blogged comic rants. I am not directly rude to guests to my own blog. How my behaviour is supposed to justify you're Christ-like escapades I do not know.

    I regularly have very fruitful, friendly and rewarding conversations with religious people, Steve. Unfortunately that is not on your agenda.

    "A typical reaction when unbelievers lose the argument."

    The shorter Steve. Be more and more obnoxious until there is no possibility of a reasonable discussion. Declare victory when there is no-one left to talk too.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Paul

    "I never had any interest in talking to you in the first place. You are a troll and are not trying to debate or honestly interact with what Steve &c are giving you."

    At every stage I have tried to engage with your arguments. Friendly debate and banter is all very well. But as you say, you've never been interested in that.

    "... and apart from the fact that it was I who showed you to lie (on numerous occasions), you're a typical fundy atheist who confuses true religion with moralism..."

    As I've said repeatedly, I'm happy for people to judge for themselves who has tried to have a reasonable discussion here and who has not.

    ReplyDelete
  62. PTET SAID:

    “One cannot ‘engage’ Fundamentalists, since they refuse to even countenance any evidence which contradicts their holy text.”

    Thanks for corroborating the thesis of my post: since you can’t win the argument, you try to win by definition. By defining away the opposition.

    “I said nothing of the sort.”

    That’s exactly what you said. I quoted you verbatim, where you said: ““Do you want to know a very big reason why I do not believe in God, Paul? It is because of people like you. You show no charity. You show no love for your neighbor or your enemy…”

    So your atheism is emotional rather than intellectual.

    “I rejected religion on intellectual grounds when i was 8 years old (when I was first presented with ‘Noah's Flood’ as a supposed, fact, as it happens). I see you're still not at that level.”

    It’s true that I don’t operate at the level of an 8-year-old boy. But thanks for admitting the grade-school quality of your atheism. That explains a lot.

    “How my behaviour is supposed to justify you're Christ-like escapades I do not know.”

    It’s a test of your sincerity. You flunk the test.

    ReplyDelete
  63. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Steve

    "Thanks for corroborating the thesis of my post: since you can’t win the argument, you try to win by definition. By defining away the opposition."

    Nonsense. Let's go thru this yet again.

    Modern, mainstream scholarship, which includes many theologically conservative Catholics, Protestants and Jews, accepts that the Old Testament thru Exodus (at least) is not an accurate pre-history of Israel.

    Some scholars, like Hoffmeier, hold that something on a much smaller scale than the OT Exodus event could have happened. They point to what they call "indirect evidence".

    Mainstream scholarship discusses this "indirect evidence" but rejects it. Tobin and his sources discuss all this in great detail, but here is a nice, short summary from Wikipedia:

    "While some archaeologists leave open the possibility of a Semitic tribe coming from Egyptian servitude among the early hilltop settlers and that Moses or a Moses-like figure may have existed in Transjordan ca 1250-1200, they dismiss the possibility that the Exodus could have happened as described in the bible.[19] A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[8] and it has become increasingly clear that Iron Age Israel - the kingdoms of Judah and Israel - has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[20] the culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[21]"

    None of that is controversial in archeology. It deals with claims from scholars like Hoffmeier. It confirms that the OT thru Exodus is mythological rather than historical.

    Fundamentalist scholars reject all this. They do so on the basis that their interpretation of the Bible trumps all evidence to the contrary. They are the ones letting definition prevent debate. They define away the opposition.

    YEC scholars, like the ones who say "Noah's Flood" happened, can't accept Hoffmeier, because he says when the Bible says "600,000" it doesn't really mean 600,000. Since you are apparently a YEC, Steve, I take it you reject Hoffmeier on these grounds. It is therefore you who are defining away the opposition - anyone who opposes the Bible must be attacked at all costs...

    There is no argument here, Steve. All we have is you flailing around tying to deflect the debate to protect your pitiful Sunday-school version of Christianity - like a monkey flinging its feces at visitors to the zoo...

    "So your atheism is emotional rather than intellectual."

    You seem to lack basic reading comprehension. I reject religion on intellectual grounds. People tend to "believe", however, on emotional grounds - like Evangelical-favourite C.S.Lewis, for example. People like you, Steve, a wonderful advert of the emotional vacuity of Christianity.

    "It’s a test of your sincerity. You flunk the test."

    This entire thread, nay blog, is a monument to your lack of sincerity.

    P

    ReplyDelete
  65. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I found a post that seems applicable for a couple of subthreads: Why Argue?

    Long excerpt:

    I’ve been in a long-term running argument with a particular atheist on Thinking Christian. I wrote him another long comment today, calling him to account for some obvious prejudice and stereotyping on his part, where he had been accusing Christianity of bias. After I wrote it I sat back and asked myself why? After five years, do I really expect today’s argument to change his mind? Not really. Some people might be open to convincing, but this person has remained committed to (entrenched in?) his atheism.

    Still I continue to hope, but what am I hoping for? This is what I wrote to him:

    "Why do I care about your addressing those things I just mentioned? Is it because I’m hurt by the prejudices or stereotyping? No, it doesn’t bother me in that way. Is it because I have to win this argument? Nothing could be further from the truth. Sure, there’s some intellectual satisfaction in the give-and-take, but I know from long experience that to set “winning” as a goal is to chase a vapor. Chances are, both of us think we’ve out-argued the other, but there’s no NCAA, MLB, NFL, or NBA to set the rules. There are no referees; there is no scorekeeper. No one is going to pronounce one of us the winner. There is no such thing as “winning.”

    The reason I ask you to face the realities of your argument here is because I’m hoping that you’ll take a close look at the logical and ethical inconsistencies of your own position, and learn something about yourself from that close look. I’m even hoping that by learning something about yourself, you’ll give yourself freedom to be open to realities you have so far refused to allow into consideration. I’m hoping you’ll learn some of the sorts of things that we all seriously need to know about ourselves and about real life."

    I hope I learn something about myself, too, and that I learn something about life and truth.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Hi Truth

    Nice of you to drop by.

    "After five years, do I really expect today’s argument to change his mind? Not really. Some people might be open to convincing, but this person has remained committed to (entrenched in?) his atheism."

    Coming from Christians who hold to "statements of faith" about the "truth" of the Bible, that is really rich. Ya know, I've been especially interested in all this stuff for over 10 years. I've read and discussed and debated. My position has changed or clarified on lots of things. For example, I thought that maybe Jesus didn't exist as a real person, but it seems that he was. I thought Jesus only spoke Aramaic - but I think he probably would've known at least some Koine Greek. I thought that people were generally interested in reason and debate, but I've found that, generally, people are only interested in protecting their own beliefs. Such is life.

    "The reason I ask you to face the realities of your argument here is because I’m hoping that you’ll take a close look at the logical and ethical inconsistencies of your own position.."

    I'm sure that's kindly meant, but it come across as astoundingly patronising. I take it you believe God wants mankind to be "saved" rather than "damned"? I take it you believe God created mankind knowing in advance many, many more of us would be "damned" rather than "saved"? If you can't see the logical and ethical inconsistency of your own position, then I'd say religion is more important to you than ethics. If you want to talk come see me here. All are welcome.

    "I hope I learn something about myself, too, and that I learn something about life and truth."

    “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Jung

    P

    ReplyDelete
  68. PTET SAID:

    “Nonsense. Let's go thru this yet again. Modern, mainstream scholarship, which includes many theologically conservative Catholics, Protestants and Jews, accepts that the Old Testament thru Exodus (at least) is not an accurate pre-history of Israel. “

    You like to make that fact-free claim without naming the “many theologically conservative” scholars who allegedly say that. Who said that where?

    “Tobin and his sources discuss all this in great detail…”

    Which I’ve rebutted twice now–both in TID, and in my rejoinder to his reply over at DC. And he didn’t cite any “theologically conservative” scholars.

    This also illustrates your pathetic reliance on hack thirdhand sources of information (i.e. Tobin). You haven’t done your own research.

    “…but here is a nice, short summary from Wikipedia:”

    Which illustrates your nonexistent standards of scholarship.

    “It confirms that the OT thru Exodus is mythological rather than historical.”

    A one-sided, tabloid Wikipedia article proves nothing.

    “Fundamentalist scholars reject all this.”

    Since you don’t read “Fundamentalist” scholars, that’s another fact-free assertion.

    “YEC scholars, like the ones who say ‘Noah's Flood’ happened, can't accept Hoffmeier, because he says when the Bible says ‘600,000’ it doesn't really mean 600,000. Since you are apparently a YEC, Steve, I take it you reject Hoffmeier on these grounds. It is therefore you who are defining away the opposition - anyone who opposes the Bible must be attacked at all costs...”

    Now you’re moving the goal post. The question at issue, as you yourself framed it, was the historicity of the flood, not the extent of the flood.

    “There is no argument here, Steve.”

    True. Your reply is conspicuous for the lack of any tangible argument.

    “All we have is you flailing around tying to deflect the debate to protect your pitiful Sunday-school version of Christianity…”

    That’s ironic coming from a guy who relies on Wikipedia for Bible scholarship. Do tell.

    “I reject religion on intellectual grounds.”

    Which is not what you originally said. Sorry to hold you to your own words.

    “People tend to "believe", however, on emotional grounds…”

    Which you certainly exemplify.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Steve

    "You like to make that fact-free claim without naming the “many theologically conservative” scholars who allegedly say that. Who said that where?"

    William Dever was widely regarded as a Conservative Christian Scholar. How about the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism? Are they Conservative enough for you?

    "Which I’ve rebutted twice now–both in TID, and in my rejoinder to his reply over at DC. And he didn’t cite any “theologically conservative” scholars."

    So now you get to say who is conservative and who isn't? Is this how you define every debate I wonder/ Oh yeah - of course it is.

    "This also illustrates your pathetic reliance on hack thirdhand sources of information (i.e. Tobin). You haven’t done your own research.""

    I o lolled. So how many years have you spent out in the archaeological field? How many peer reviewed articles have you written? We are both amateurs, you buffoon. The difference between us that you only read Evangelical or Fundamentalist sources.

    "Since you don’t read “Fundamentalist” scholars, that’s another fact-free assertion."

    Jeez louise I have cited AIG already in this thread. I read all sorts of stuff, Steve, Just because you don't doesn't mean you can project your insecurities onto everyone else.

    "Now you’re moving the goal post. The question at issue, as you yourself framed it, was the historicity of the flood, not the extent of the flood."

    I gave you numerous chances to say you were not a YEC. Who is shifting the goalposts?

    Another content free post from Steve completely failing to answer anything I wrote before, and seeking only to poison the debate.

    P

    ReplyDelete
  70. Doh. For Dever, I meant Metzger. My apologies.

    "The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. ... The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form. ... The process by which the Jews became ‘the people of the Book’ was gradual, and the development is shrouded in the mists of history and tradition. ... The date of the final compilation of the Pentateuch or Law, which was the first corpus or larger body of literature that came to be regarded by the Jews as authoritative Scripture, is uncertain, although some have conservatively dated it at the time of the Exile in the sixth century. ... Before the adoption of the Pentateuch as the Law of Moses, there had been compiled and edited in the spirit and diction of the Deuteronomic ‘school’ the group of books consisting of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in much their present form. ...Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long period of time."

    Introduction to the Oxford Annotated Bible RSV (1973), Ed. Bruce Metzger & Herbert May, emphasis added. (Metzger was described by Tektonics' in their A Review of The Daughter of Babylon as "an excellent scholar" and the author of an "excellent" work on the transmission of the New Testament)

    Can we wrap this up, Steve, Agree to disagree? Or are you determined to just drive me away by being annoying?

    ReplyDelete
  71. PTET SAID:

    “William Dever was widely regarded as a Conservative Christian Scholar.”

    Feel free to document that claim. Evidence! Evidence! Evidence!

    “How about the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism? Are they Conservative enough for you?”

    That’s inept. “Conservative’ Judaism is to the left of Orthodox Judaism, which is to the left of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism.

    “So now you get to say who is conservative and who isn't?”

    If you can, so can I.

    “Is this how you define every debate I wonder/ Oh yeah - of course it is.”

    The title of the post was “truth” by definition. Not how we classify positions along the theological spectrum, but defining “evangelical/fundamentalist” scholarship as “not serious.” Try to keep up with the actual debate.

    “I o lolled. So how many years have you spent out in the archaeological field? How many peer reviewed articles have you written? We are both amateurs, you buffoon. The difference between us that you only read Evangelical or Fundamentalist sources.”

    There’s an obvious difference between reading material from academic publishing houses and pulling stuff from Wikipedia, or treating a guy who works in the oil and gas industry as if he’s an expert on Bible scholarship.

    “I read all sorts of stuff, Steve.” Yes, Tobin, Wikipedia, whatever you can Google.

    “I gave you numerous chances to say you were not a YEC. Who is shifting the goalposts?”

    The question at issue wasn’t YEC. The question was if there were any “academics” who affirm the historicity of Noah’s flood. So, yes, you’re shifting the goalposts.

    “Another content free post from Steve completely failing to answer anything I wrote before.”

    I answered you point by point.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I already identified Metzger as a moderate, and you agreed. And Metzger was a NT scholar, not an OT scholar. So that's hardly germane to the Flood, the Exodus, the Pentateuch, &c.

    ReplyDelete
  73. PTET said: "Steve even get's to tell us who is "credible"."

    PTET said: "So now you get to say who is conservative and who isn't?"


    Oh i lolled. Steve gets to "tell us" things per PTET's permission, and when Steve does, PTET complains.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Steve

    The actual debate? Let's look at your opening words in this thread.

    "Apostate Paul Tobin has posted a reply to TID. Like a typical apostate..."

    What have we established? The scholarly consensus, of self-described Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, is that the Old Testament thru Exodus (at last) is not a reliable pre-history of Israel.

    Tobin cites a great many books from "academic publishing houses" which confirm this. The Wikipedia articles I linked to also provide citations.

    It is you who are trying to sideline all of these expert as being biased. Biased against what? You say they are not conservative" enough for your tastes. Well, which is it? Are experts to be accepted only on the basis of their "political" persuasion?

    But wait... Politics has nothing to do with it. What we are really talking about here is prior allegiance to the Bible. Yu want to reject Tobin because he is an "apostate". You want to accuse him of only using sources who say the Bible is not an accurate history.

    In return, you want to substitute scholars who begin with the presumption that the Bible is an accurate history. That is - by definition - what Evangelical and Fundamentalist scholars believe.

    It is you who is framing the debate this way.

    How so? Because as I have shown time and time again, the scholarly consensus deals with the claims of people like Hoffmeier. Sure, Hoffmeier (and Kitchen for that matter) are entitled to disagree - but it is utterly absurd to say that their opinions completely obviate what everyone else says. You want to be able to ignore opinions you don't like and substibute opinions you do like.

    As for Fundamentalists... There is nothing to debate, because they insist that the Bible is true no matter what.

    And no, Steve, you have not answered my point, because time and time again you avoid dealing with the cold, hard, fact that the leading scholars in Biblical Studies, on the basis of the evidence available to them, do not think that the OT tells an accurate pre-history of Israel.

    Who are your credible scholars? Hoffmeier? Who says that something substantially smaller than the Exodus event described in the Bible might have occurred? Kitchen? Who's interpretation is very much at odds with the mainstream on the reliability of the OT? Fine. You have your credible scholars.

    They do not make the consensus go away. The consensus is that the Exodus is not an accurate pre-history of Israel, because the archaeological evidence says Israel grew up out of the existing Canaanite population.

    If you want to challenge the consensus, it is for you to show evidence that the consensus is wrong. We are no experts. This is not an academic forum. You are not an archeologist or biblical expert, no matter how much you want to be.

    You are, on the other hand, infantile, bone-headed, and thoroughly unpleasant.

    P

    ReplyDelete
  75. PTET SAID:

    “What have we established? The scholarly consensus, of self-described Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, is that the Old Testament thru Exodus (at last) is not a reliable pre-history of Israel.”

    What you’ve established is a fictitious consensus by defining away scholars who don’t concede that.

    “Tobin cites a great many books from ‘academic publishing houses’ which confirm this.”

    And I returned the favor.

    “The Wikipedia articles I linked to also provide citations.”

    Citations aren’t arguments. And appeal to Wikipedia illustrates your nonexistent standards.

    “It is you who are trying to sideline all of these expert as being biased. Biased against what?”

    Miracles. They typically operate from methodological naturalism.

    “What we are really talking about here is prior allegiance to the Bible.”

    What we’re really talking about here is prior rejection of divine revelation.

    “Yu want to reject Tobin because he is an ‘apostate’.”

    I call him an apostate because that’s how he characterizes himself on his own blog.

    “You want to accuse him of only using sources who say the Bible is not an accurate history.”

    Maybe because that’s exactly what he does. So he shirks his burden of proof.

    “In return, you want to substitute scholars who begin with the presumption that the Bible is an accurate history.”

    Since you don’t read them, you don’t know what their presumptions are, if any. Not all conservatives approach the Bible with the presumption that Scripture is accurate. Some conservatives came to that conclusion after examining the Bible. They began with a presumption to the contrary.

    “Sure, Hoffmeier (and Kitchen for that matter) are entitled to disagree - but it is utterly absurd to say that their opinions completely obviate what everyone else says.”

    If people disagree, then there is no “everyone.” Rather, there are some people and other people.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Cont. “You want to be able to ignore opinions you don't like and substibute opinions you do like.”

    Since you’re not very bright I’ll have to spell it out for you. TCD is an exercise in atheistic apologetics. As such, it assumes a burden of proof. To make good on its claims, it has to engage the arguments of the opposing side. It can disprove arguments it refuses to engage.

    In addition, this is, or ought to be, a question of arguments, not collecting mere opinions.

    “As for Fundamentalists... There is nothing to debate, because they insist that the Bible is true no matter what.”

    You’re fond of mouthing that caricature. But since you don’t study them, you’re not qualified to form an educated opinion on how they operate. You’re a self-reinforcing ignoramus.

    “And no, Steve, you have not answered my point, because time and time again you avoid dealing with the cold, hard, fact that the leading scholars in Biblical Studies, on the basis of the evidence available to them, do not think that the OT tells an accurate pre-history of Israel.”

    What they “think” is beside the point. What are their supporting arguments? That’s the issue.

    “Who are your credible scholars?”

    Asked and answered.

    “Who's interpretation is very much at odds with the mainstream on the reliability of the OT?”

    I already dealt with the “mainstream” appeal. You lack adaptive intelligence. You simply repeat what’s been drilled into you, like a tape recorder on playback.

    “They do not make the consensus go away.”

    There’s no consensus to go away in the first place.

    “If you want to challenge the consensus, it is for you to show evidence that the consensus is wrong.”

    There’s no consensus to challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Steve

    "What you’ve established is a fictitious consensus by defining away scholars who don’t concede that."

    The consensus exists whether you like it or not. Of course there is dissent, as there is with any other scientific consensus. And of course the consensus doesn't the majority right - but it does mean than any discussion of the evidence must begin by understanding what the consensus says and why it says it.

    Your refusal to accept these things means nothing.

    "[biased against what?] Miracles. They typically operate from methodological naturalism."

    Do you accept the miracles attributed to Hiduism or Islam? How about appearances of the Virgin Mary? There were supposedly thousands of eye witnesses to those events. Why do you not accept these miracles? If these miracles happened, why is there no evidence that they did happen? Why is there no evidence of a large population of Hebrews moving though the Sinai desert? Why is there so much evidence that the "Hebrews" arose out of existing populations in Canaan? Do you think God miraculously covered up the evidence against these events?

    I am absolutely sure you reject the miracle claims of other religions. Since we cannot test your miracle claims, it's absurd for you to suggest we need to accept them a priori as having occured.

    "What we’re really talking about here is prior rejection of divine revelation."

    After your talk of "evidence" and "scholarship", it comes down to you whining that even Christian and Jewish academics won't rubber-stamp your religious beliefs.

    " Not all conservatives approach the Bible with the presumption that Scripture is accurate. Some conservatives came to that conclusion after examining the Bible. They began with a presumption to the contrary."

    If you believe that, your head must button up the back.

    "If people disagree, then there is no “everyone.” Rather, there are some people and other people."

    That is the same with every field of science. You really are an idiot, Steve.

    'Since you’re not very bright I’ll have to spell it out for you. TCD is an exercise in atheistic apologetics. As such, it assumes a burden of proof. To make good on its claims, it has to engage the arguments of the opposing side. It can disprove arguments it refuses to engage."

    And, here, for the record, because I am "not very bright", are your arguments that TGD "refuses to engage"...

    Drumroll please...

    Are we ready?...

    Here goes...

    1. "They typically operate from methodological naturalism..."

    2. "...prior rejection of divine revelation..."

    You really are a piece of work, Steve...

    "You’re fond of mouthing that caricature. But since you don’t study them, you’re not qualified to form an educated opinion on how they operate. You’re a self-reinforcing ignoramus."

    O.M.F.G. Fundamentalists state upfront that the Bible is true no matter what all over the place in their statements of faith. You really have a distinct problem with reality, Steve.

    "I already dealt with the “mainstream” appeal. You lack adaptive intelligence. You simply repeat what’s been drilled into you, like a tape recorder on playback.

    You dealt with nothing of the sort, and you, Steve, are nothing but a 4th Grade Junior Apologist, 3rd Class, regurgitating Sunday-School Fundamentalist bullcrap.

    And finally... Just what do you beieve about the Flood, Steve? You are very cagey. Did the animals come in two by two? Did Noah invent agriculture? Did you all-loving God murder tens of thousands of children by drowning them? I want to know, so I can properly ridicule you.

    P

    ReplyDelete
  78. PTET SAID:

    “The consensus exists whether you like it or not. Of course there is dissent, as there is with any other scientific consensus.”

    You’ve circularly defined “consensus” to mean center-left “consensus” to the exclusion of center-right scholarship.

    “Do you accept the miracles attributed to Hiduism or Islam? How about appearances of the Virgin Mary? There were supposedly thousands of eye witnesses to those events. Why do you not accept these miracles?”

    Just because you pop in out of nowhere doesn’t mean I haven’t dealt with these issues before. That’s what the archives are for.

    “Why is there no evidence of a large population of Hebrews moving though the Sinai desert?”

    You mean, like rusting RVs from the 2nd millennium BC? Maybe some Bronze Age beer cans?

    “I am absolutely sure you reject the miracle claims of other religions.”

    You’re assurance is in direct proportion to your ignorance.

    “Since we cannot test your miracle claims…”

    Why argue when you can just beg the question?

    “After your talk of ‘evidence’ and ‘scholarship’, it comes down to you whining that even Christian and Jewish academics won't rubber-stamp your religious beliefs.”

    Modern Jewry ranges along the entire spectrum, from secular Jews to the Hassidim. Your sweeping, fact-feel generalities bespeak your fathomless ignorance.

    For that matter, Christian and Jewish academics don’t rubberstamp your irreligious beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Cont. “If you believe that, your head must button up the back.”

    You never miss a chance to advertise your sociological ignorance.

    “That is the same with every field of science. You really are an idiot, Steve.”

    Try looking up the definition of “everyone.” That was your choice of words, not mine. And I won’t call you an idiot since that would be grossly unfair to idiots.

    “You really are a piece of work, Steve...”

    Which is not a counterargument.

    “O.M.F.G. Fundamentalists state upfront that the Bible is true no matter what all over the place in their statements of faith.”

    Feel free to quote a representative sampling of “Fundamentalists” who say that. Titles. Pagination.

    “You dealt with nothing of the sort, and you, Steve, are nothing but a 4th Grade Junior Apologist, 3rd Class, regurgitating Sunday-School Fundamentalist bullcrap.”

    Your command of reason and evidence is truly overwhelming. On second thought, you didn’t use any reason and evidence. Should we take a rain check until you find where you misplaced your brain?

    “And finally... Just what do you beieve about the Flood, Steve? You are very cagey. Did the animals come in two by two? Did Noah invent agriculture? Did you all-loving God murder tens of thousands of children by drowning them? I want to know, so I can properly ridicule you.”

    That’s what the archives are for.

    Like tribbles, you consume much time and take up much space without anything to show for yourself. Time for you to get a pet dog, or maybe an inflatable life-size doll to keep you company. Bye-ku.

    ReplyDelete
  80. PTET,

    I don't mean to offend, but if he deleted it, perhaps it was because you've been asked repeatedly to furnish supporting documentation for your claims but have refrained from doing so. I mean, you've cited Tobin and a few others like Hoffmeier, but the TB guys have already directly addressed those citations and the arguments they were meant to support either in this meta, in TID or in other articles here.

    Heck, you've been answered directly on more than a couple of your questions here in this meta (such as a demand for a list of credible conservative scholars), despite the fact that you could have found answers if you did some more research into the archives. Contrarily, you've been more than a little cagey about providing direct answers to questions or requests for supporting documentation.

    Given this state of affairs, your comment, "Let the records show Steve doesn't have the courtesy, decency or courage to provide a link or even a one line summary," demonstrates more than a little hypocrisy on your part.

    I am genuinely interested in seeing/checking the sources you have repeatedly appealed to. The guys here have no problem revealing who they read or where their info/arguments come from. Why not do the same?

    ReplyDelete
  81. PTET,

    "That is a complete fantasy on your part. You can see precisely why Steve deleted my post when you read it here. His excuse will be that I used one word of "profanity". The reality is, I pwned him."

    Your vitriolic response is unwarranted. Even so, can you reason out why my perception of a TB response to Tobin and your appeals to Hoffmeier is a "fantasy"? It certainly seems as though responses have been offered... Are mine eye decieved? Did you, indeed, write something that you knew would be taken as "profanity" as you say?

    "This is like saying there is no consensus on the moon landings, because some people say they wee faked; or that there is no consensus that Jesus existed, because some people say he is mythical."

    Also, you are appealing to "consensus" (which isn't really an valid argument) and the TBers are saying that such a thing doesn't exist. The claim that there is a consensus might be defensible and they have invited you to defend it, so why haven't you? If appealing to consensus is a valid argument and I've made a slip of logic, I am interested in reading your reasoning and explanation.

    Also, have the TBers appealed to consensus to refute you or the authors of TCD? I don't recall an instance of that, but perhaps I missed something?

    "You are pretending, like Steve, that merely citing some archeologists who disagree with the mainstream makes the mainstream go away. It does not."

    Please don't do me the disservice of foisting "pretending" on me. I'm not pretending anything because I am not being disengenuous. While it may come as a surprise to you, I'm not so jaded as to immediately dismiss someone I probably I disagree with. I am interested to read documentary evidence of the consensus you appeal to, because while the argument still isn't valid you may still be correct on that point.

    "I have provided links & information in every post I have made in this thread. That you haven't noticed these says a lot."

    Again, you are making uncharitable assumptions about my state of mind that you have no justification for. This is inconsistent with your complaints against others ("you show no charity, not love for your neighbor or enemy..."). Is this inconsistency justified and if so, how? May I also "turn the other cheek" by not harping on how how you have not provided said links/information in "every post"?

    Continued...

    ReplyDelete
  82. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Continued...

    "I have provided links & information in every post I have made in this thread. That you haven't noticed these says a lot."

    Again, you are making uncharitable assumptions about my state of mind that you have no justification for. This is inconsistent with your complaints against others ("you show no charity, not love for your neighbor or enemy..."). Is this inconsistency justified and if so, how? May I also "turn the other cheek" by not harping on how how you have not provided said links/information in "every post"?

    I have "noticed" the "links and information", such as the link to the Google search results for "evangelical seminary syllabus 'documentary hypothesis'". It seems to me that you should already know that appeals to Google search results showing that "documentary hypothesis" appears within the syllabi of some classes at "evangelical" schools is not proof of your claim (that I have paraphrased) that it is a "widely accepted hypothesis taught as sound methodology at the majority of evangelical schools". Notice that I'm not ridiculing you for thinking that this "evidence" you provided isn't germane to your claim. I bring it up not to ridicule you, but to provide one bit of evedence that, contrary to your fallacious claim, that I have noticed your links. The point here is not that you haven't furnished links or information, but that what you have provided does not appear support the claims you are making.

    Note that I say "appear to support". That is because I am open to hearing your cogent argument about why they _do_, in fact, support the claims you make.

    Toward the end of substantiating you are indeed genuinely interested in logical/rational discourse, could you please provide the documentary evidence that has been requested and furnish some arguments in place of assertions and appeals to consensus? You don't even have to do it here, you could do it on your blog where you can moderate the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  84. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  85. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I guess when the software says that something is "too large" it doesn't mean that it didn't post it... Oh well. Sorry for all the redundancy corrective deletions.

    ReplyDelete