September 2009 Screwballs

[jpholding]

Prep for tomorrow (and for ya'll in the other hemisphere)....

First winner: Yo Loftus.

[Raphael]

[Darth Ovious]

Whee, September nearly here.

I'm getting married in 9 days. Let the countdown begin.

[Raphael]

Whee, September nearly here.

I'm getting married in 9 days. Let the countdown begin.

Congrats Darth.

(hmmm, September, my daughter is 3 on Sunday and we have our 6th wedding anniversary on the 27th)

[Andius]

Prep for tomorrow (and for ya'll in the other hemisphere)....

First winner: Yo Loftus.

The result of Yo Lunch and John Loftus performing the Dragonball Z fusion dance?

Oh the horrr.... oh who am I kidding? Ooooh the HILARITY!!!

[Rational Gaze]

EternalSkeptic 6 responds to me:

Randomicity-

(I knew I detected the whiff of Holding.)

Then maybe you would like to do a debate over at TheologyWeb.com, a website specifically designed for people of differing beliefs and worldviews to discuss/debate each other as well as to discuss things amongst people of the same/similar beliefs/worldviews.

(Hahaha-we have differing opinions as to what TheologyWeb is designed for.
Most consider it the lair of Jimmy Padwick Halting's flying monkeys.)

In fact, JP Holding is a user there, so maybe you would like to debate him as well/instead, especially seeing as you seem to have issues with his review of Dr. Avalos' work.

(I think what has transpired between them is sufficient for the purposes of honest brokers.)

4,000 textual variants amongst the 5,700 Greek manuscripts would be the exact amount. The fact that I have no problem accepting this fact should suggest how inadaquate Ehrman's argument is.

(That is a non-0answer to the issue I raised. What is 1% of 4,000 ?
And how is that number not significant.)

The exact passage I had in mind was 1 Thessalonians 2:7 in which Paul describes himself and his friends as either being "gentle" or as "little children" (sorry for the mistake). How this would be condescending is unapparant.

(Immaterial-as an example it fails for your side or mine.)

Either way, you seemed to have missed the entire point, in that every single variant left falls into areas like this.

(So you assert. an about that 1% ?)

You also do not seem to realise that the difference between some of this variants, like in this case, the difference is a single letter.

(Sorry-this is a side issue in any case. There is no question that there are additions to the body of texts at late dates.)

I'm sorry, but how is Dr. Craig asking Dr. Avalos to conduct the debate in a civilised and professional manner "shameful"?

(Wow-equivocation much ?
Calling someone a dishonest liar is hardly the same as asking them to "to conduct the debate in a civilised and professional manner ". Do you understand 'poisoning the well' ?)

The fact that Avalos is dishonest

(Allegedly 'dishonest'-I think it entirely reasonable that someone who used two texts extensively in a book would recognize them-and surely he viewed photos of the fragments in question-the claim that they reside in museums is immaterial.)

enough to warrant Dr. Craig asking him not to be, is.

(Judgment call and he had no business doing it in his opening statement. 'fair and professional' indeed.)

And how is the picture in the video of the Heckler shameful?

(Hahahah-it makes him look deranged-and the audio tells a different story. You can select a candid shot of anyone to make them look bad.)

IIRC, that IS what the heckler looked like, although I can't be certain. Sounds like you are just buttsore, if you ask me.

(Uhm-not really. Just bemused.)

Maybe becuase, you were the heckler?

(That guy had more hair than me by a long shot. I admire him.
And how is asking a question at the mic provided for the purpose 'heckling' ?)

I guess you missed the part where Dr. Craig said he felt uncomfortable about having to say that.

(He protests too much. Rang kind of false as he was in the process of blasting him. And he 'had' to say it " Give me a break.)

He wanted to conduct the debate in a fair and professional manner. How is that shameful? Maybe Avalos should stop trying to personally attack his opponents and stick to the arguments?

(Maybe Craig should do the same ?)

How is it unfair that idiots get blocked?

(Who decides ? Should we have IQ tests and a sign that says 'you must be this smart to have an opinion' ? How 'Holdingesque'.)

Maybe they should stop whining about their 'hero' getting called out for his dishonest methods. And btw, if "my side" is afraid of really debate, then why did Richard Dawkins turn down a request to debate William Lane Craig? Probably becuase Craig annihilated his 'buddy' Atkins.

(Dawkins doesn't make a habit of debating creationists-he feels it gives them undeserved cred. I agree-the two sides of that argument are not equivalent. Craig has turned down debates as well-John Loftus for instance.)

You should probably get off your high horse about Christians being "too afraid" to debate Atheists.

(You generalize-I was talking about that specific site.
Your hero Holding is fearless but only because he is secure in his ability to bury opponents under yards of quote mined irrelevance and parsing.)

More often than not, their arguments are simply too stupid to pay any credence too, in which case, Christian would rather spend their time debating/answering intelligent sceptics.

(Sorry-that's a convenient cop out. And that's 'skeptics'.)

And yes, I have read what Dr. Avalos has had to say about his supposed "expertise" in textual Criticism. Maybe you would like to read what Holding had to say in return? (I say this becuase in reality, you have probably only just read Avalos' response and come to your conclusions that way).

(Wrong-been there done that-and 'in reality' ? Wow-such assumptions. Actually a member on TheologyWeb and flying monkey lair.)

"Avalos issued responses on some of these points, and we will answer those here.

"In trying to refute my claims about our inability to reconstruct the originals of biblical texts, Holding draws on the "credentials card" to refute my arguments. However, this is a bad argument on at least two counts:

1) He is wrong about me not being a textual scholar."

I am not wrong about him not being a textual scholar, unless you define "textual scholar" so broadly as to include anyone at all. This is precisely what Avalos will do define it so broadly as to make it meaningless.
(His definition excludes Mr. holding himself as Avalos points out.)


"2) If I am unable to render judgments on textual criticism because I am not a "textual scholar," then his own ability to render text critical judgments would be vulnerable to the same objection since he is also not a textual scholar."

Not if I use the works of real textual scholars to arrive at my conclusions, which I do.
(So his entire argument and technique rest on quote mining-cute.
He has often ducked responsibility when caught mining passages that don't support his arguments, claiming 'your argument is with so an so-not me'. Richard Carrier and Avalos, as well as many others, have demonstrated the dangers Holding doesn't manage to avoid on this.)

"This is so because he has given me the following criteria for being a "textual scholar" (e-mail 1-9-08):

A textual scholar is someone whose specialization is textual criticism, who is recognized as such by his peers and who publishes material on this subject. By this account, Dan Wallace, Bart Ehrman, Bruce Metzger, the Alands, are all textual scholars.

If we analyze this further, Holding provides 2 specific criteria:

1. Specialization in textual criticism

2. Recognized by peers who publish material on the subject"

Thats right, and thats how it works in ALL fields, ranging from your plumber to your chef. So how does Avalos get himself into this category?
(More honestly than Holding himself who just admitted his 'expertise' is entirely reflections on the work of others.
Smell the hypocrisy.)

He doesn't -- what he does is hold up a rose and assure us it is equal to a whole garden. Keep in mind the names I used: Wallace, Ehrman, Metzger. Avalos will deftly avoid any comparison of himself to those worthies.
(Argument by bare assertion. Argument by faulty analogy. Assertion without evidence.)

I have not said, note as well, that he knows nothing of textual criticism -- no one can take courses in Biblical studies and not at least get some teaching on that. The issue here is that Avalos considers his counsel on the subject wiser and more worthwhile than that of his more eminent betters on the subject, both Biblical and secular textual critics.
(A guy who's only claimed skill is interpreting the work of others feels qualified to make such nuanced judgments ? Another assertion without citation or evidence. Argument by appeal to emotion. Also a species of ad hominem-as
'you're not as good as the best-therefore you have no significance'.
This is the stuff of playground half pint sycophants
fawning over the local bully.)

To do that, we should expect much better arguments from him and an explanation of why the experience and expertise of these others is to be found wanting.
(Sets a ridiculously high bar that he can't meet himself and is based on facts not in evidence.)

"I may not be the most prominent textual scholar in biblical studies, but that does not mean that I have not been certified by my peers in textual criticism. In fact, some of my earliest specialization in my publishing career was in textual criticism. My credentials are as follows:"

Before we get to those, note how Avalos skirts around the problem. "Certified" is a broad, sweeping word that can mean recognition to any level. It does not mean that he has been recognized with a competence equal to a Wallace or a Metzger.
(Sets an arbitrary standard. Re-defines a word that is already clear.
Cheap tactic.)

Note also that I deliberately dealt with and named New Testament textual criticism as the field and named people in that area. Not OT. If I meant OT, I would have used someone like Emmanuel Tov in my list. And Avalos had to know this is all I was dealing in, since he knows I skipped his sections on the OT.

That said, Avalos is also not on the level of Tov either, as will be clear.
(Same fallacy. Does one have to be the 'foremost' to speak at all ?
This is a pattern with Holding.)

Second, none of what Avalos will name amounts to either a "specialization" or recognition by peers in the subject area as a specialist in that subject:

"1. Formal training in textual criticism at Harvard under F. M. Cross and John Strugnell regarded as perhaps two of the foremost textual critics of the Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls in the last century."

What this amounts to isn't specified. If Avalos took the class under Cross and Strugnell, so did other people at Harvard. And needless to say, this will not make you a Wallace or an Ehrman by any stretch of the imagination.
(Argument by innuendo. Did he bother to find out the extent of Dr. Avalos' training ? I think not. Lazy and sloppy pseudo scholarship. )

"2. Peer reviewed contributions in textual criticism involving Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Ladino, Spanish, and Latin texts. These contributions are as follows:

"The Biblical Sources of Columbus's Libro de las profecías," Traditio 49 (1994) 331-335.

A Ladino Version of the Targum of Ruth," Estudios Bíblicos 54 (2, 1996)165-182.

Deuro/deute and the Imperatives of HLK New Criteria for the kaige Recension of Reigns," Estudios Bíblicos 47 (1989) 165-176.

The last article reported my discovery of new criteria for the recension of the Greek Bible known as Kaige. I found that the Old Greek recension of the LXX used forms of the Greek word poreuomai to translate the unlengthened imperatives of the Hebrew word transcribed here as HLK (means "to go"), while the so-called Kaige recensions uses the Greek words deuro and deute."

How this adds up to a "specialization" isnt explained.
(Missed the boat on that one. Avalos didn't claim to have 'specialized' and in fact mocked Holding for requiring more of him than he does of himself.)

At best, compared to the real specialists like Wallace, Ehrman, and Metzger, this is minor dabbling,
(Opinion-worthless.)

which is what wed expect any Biblical scholar to have done at the very least.
(Who made holding judge and jury here ? Just asking.)

And two of the articles arent even about the Bible.
(Say what ?)

This is like claiming to be a specialist in NT Greek after taking a few courses under Daniel Wallace and writing an article in which you analyze a few Greek words or point of grammar.
(Argument by false analogy again. Quite comical coming from a guy who was caught using a translation program when trying to pass himself off as a scholar capable of parsing ancient Greek.)

Avalos isnt a textual scholar; he is a scholar who has learned the basics about textual criticism.
(Sorry-not a judgment he's qualified to make.
And Holding is a librarian let us not forget.)

I also want it noted how he responded to my point that two of these were not about the Bible:

"Last time I checked the book of Ruth was in the Bible, and my work on Columbus has to do with what Bible he used. So to say that these are "not about the Bible" simply redefines what "Bible" means for him."

A targum of Ruth, and a Bible used by Columbus 1400 years after the fact? That's "about the Bible"? Who's the real "redefiner" here? This is standard tactical methodology from Avalos when he is cornerned: He redefines terms, then accuses the opponent of doing so first when he is corrected.
(Uhm-no. Laughable coming from the guy who tried to redefine 'faith' as 'knowing after examining forensic evidence'.)

A Targum is not about the Bible as it is subjected to textual criticism of itself, which is our subject at hand. Nor is the Columbus Version (whatever it was) of that nature.
(That's pretty twisted. Not even sure what he's trying to say on this one.)

Indeed, it is far from clear that any of these articles qualifies as "textual criticism" in the sense of getting back to what an original text -- and in particular, in this context, the Bible itself -- actually said.
(Everyone is entitled to an opinion-and this is one.)

Avalos is once again redefining terms as his needs dictate, and this is yet another example:

"Further evidence of being regarded by other scholars as competent in textual criticism was the assignment to review the following book by a major archaeological journal: Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Palaeography (Oxford, 1981) in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 260 (1985) 85-87."

Heres a description of that book:

"In Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, Professor Metzger provides an authoritative and absorbing account of the palaeography of Greek manuscripts of both the Old and New Testaments. Part One surveys the fundamentals of Greek palaeography. Part Two, the heart of the book, is a collection of forty-five facsimile pages from thirteen manuscripts of the Old Testament and thirty-two manuscripts of the New Testament."

This isnt a book about textual criticism its a book about paleography. The two fields are closely related, of course, but despite the semantic switch Avalos is making, they arent the same thing. Paleography is only part of textual criticism; it is not the whole field.
(Holding weakens his own argument here. And did anyone claim it was the 'whole field' ?)

Second, writing a review about a book on a specific topic isnt the same as being a specialist in it; if this is the case, then we should be able to find that all reviews are written by specialists in the field the book covers, and that is not at all the case.
(Back to the 'specialist test'-that Holding himself fails.)

Third, Avalos is trying to confuse the issue by avoiding the delineation of levels of specialty.
(Sorry-that is not at all clear. It is in fact an unfounded accusation as far as I can see.)

Note how Avalos is very careful to say he is "competent" but avoids what I specifically said "specialist." Theres a world of difference between "competent" and someone who is a specialist like Ehrman or Wallace.
(Oh please. Competence gets you in the game.
How does Holding know Avalos was 'careful' to do anything ?
More debris in the steady stream of innuendo.)

"In contrast, Mr. Holding offers us no peer reviewed publications in textual criticism in recognized journals (his own convoluted musings on his websites dont count). Nor does any recognized textual scholar I know cite any of his contributions in textual criticism."

Of course, Avalos evades the real issue here, which is that all of my sources from which my arguments are derived Wallace, Metzger ARE all serious textual scholars, and their credentials are/were such that they make Avalos appear to be a mere hobbyist by comparison.
(Someone is avoiding an issue-no doubt on that score.
How would Mr. Holding demonstrate even 'competence' in his own work if he hasn't been peer reviewed or even recognized as existing by the experts he names ?)

"As an aside, Holdings use of the credentials card is done on a pick-and-choose basis. For example, he has no problem using "Dr." Jim West as an authority despite the fact that Wests own association with a school (Quartz Hill School of Theology) of questionable accreditation has been the subject of much discussion."

Of course, I didnt cite West for any academic point, so this is irrelevant. I cited him for his pointed critique of Avalos' hypocrisy, and you dont need to be a scholar to see that.
(Then why quote a theologian ? Is West not a scholar ?
Hoist by his own petard. And that would be 'alleged' hypocrisy.
Alleged and thus far undemonstrated.)

That said, the link Avalos provides to here is far from earth-shaking. Quartz is clearly not trying to offer any sort of hard academic degree; much less is there any evidence that it is claiming to be more than it is. It appears to be little more than a sophisticated church training apparatus.
(Again-even if Quartz doesn't offer 'hard academic degrees' why bother to quote West on a matter that one doesn't need to be a scholar to see ?

I might add that one blog entry (that ends up seriously qualified) hardly amounts to "much discussion," and the issue was brought up only because the blogger thought West was being inconsistent with his position on homeschooling. Quartz Hill itself is not denigrated, other than where an anonymous commenter indicates what it offers would not be acceptable to an institution of higher learning, but it is far from clear that Quartz Hill is reaching for such a goal in the first place.
(Argumentum ad verbosium-Holding's specialty.)

"Yet, he may ignore the comments of a Dr. Zeba Crook, a bone fide biblical scholar. While he does not agree with me on many issues, Dr. Crook does say the following concerning by book, The End of Biblical Studies: "His chapter on Translation (ch 1) is unassailable."

I respect Crook for his social science work, but the fact is, he is not a textual scholar either. Nor is a one-word description an argument. In fact, its an appeal to authority, and so a fallacy by Avalos' own contrived definition.
(Hahahah. From the same guy who needed a 'Doctor' of divinity to point out something that even a non-scholar could see and
the same guy who admits all his work on the subject is cribbed from his authorities.
Astounding.
Holding dismisses Cook as some one who does 'social science work'-divorcing his work from it's biblical interpretive context. he knows better as he has discussed the subject elsewhere and has at least read about it.
He manages to leave the impression for the casual reader that Cook isn't involved with biblical studies at all.)

In short, the whole point of this has been that Avalos is NOT on the level of someone like Wallace, Ehrman, Metzger, the Alands, etc.
(So he keeps saying, without demonstrating that the level he is on is without merit.)

and I notice he doesnt seem very anxious to equate himself with one of those people. Of course he knows that if he does, hell get called down on it and have to admit I was right all along."
(Whoa-hold on there Turkel. Omniscient view point, a little mind reading and prescience. None of his claims lead to that conclusion.
Did he run out of time ?)

JP Holding, Hector Avalos. The End of Biblical Studies: critique: http://www.tektonics.org/af/avalos01.html

(More of an attack against the man than a 'critique' I think.)

I take Holding seriously becuase he is honest and acquainted with the facts.

(He is neither. His scholarship is sloppy.He is intentionally deceptive. He is the king of argument by verbosity. He is combative, abusive and dismissive of both those he can't match and those he could teach. He is a documented sock puppeteer who invented the term 'toon' to try and cover his mendacity much like Joseph Smith invented 'plural marriage' off the cuff when he was caught with his forteen year old maid.
He has been soundly thrashed by Richard Carrier who dissected Holding's little pamphlet in 'Not the Impossible Faith', and by Chris Hallquist. All reputable scholars are getting the word on Holding and he is going to be isolated from the academic community-but he was never really a member anyway.
He will be left to minister only to his flock of devout house wives and sullen skater boys who worship the lock and load version of jesus in the end.)

I do not take Avalos seriously, because, although he is acquainted with the facts, he is not honest, and it shows.

(Sorry-neither you nor your hero have shown that to be the case.)

Yes, you are wrong.

(Still assuming facts not in evidence.)

I particularly like your personal attack on Holding and myself.

(I'll leave you to muse on the hypocrisy of that statement at your own leisure.)

Smooth. It just so happens that I am acquainted with the facts.

(You have yet to prove that-cutting and pasting certainly doesn't do so.)

Yes, I have heard many arguments against Dr. Craig's. I also find your additional personal attack quite humourous.

(Excuse me ? Pointing out Craig attacked Avalos-however 'regretfully'-in his opening statement is hardly a personal attack.
And I called it guy-your connection to Holding's nonsense and it's second hand argument by authority nature was patent.)

Sounds like you know I am right and so are using whatever methods you can to try and put egg on my face.

(Hahahah-yea-that's what it sounds like alright. is that really the best you can do when you're not quoting Holding ?
Pathetic.)

Hmm, who does that sound like? Oh yeah, Avalos.

(No-Holding. See above.)

Everybody's minds are made up. The question is, do they change in the light of evidence or stick in the light of the evidence? Mine is the former, which is yours?

(Sorry-that is some sanctimonious bull[censored]

[Kabane52]

WOOT! Screwballs! Did you add in a section for just Yo Lunch?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

subscribing

[Sparko]

:gas:

[One Bad Pig]

:smashjaltus:

[Raphael]

My first Nomination for Spring (yes, it's officially Spring in the Southern Hemisphere....just tell that to the temperature)

Biblical Christianity Blog points us to this screwy judge:
http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2009/08/r...eschooled.html
Judge Lucinda V. Sadler

So here's a homeschooled young lady. She's ten years old, she's been homeschooled since first grade, and she's:

* Excelling in her studies
* Using recognized and approved curricula
* Routinely taking standardized tests
* Well-rounded in social skills
* Participating in public school activities, including extra-curricular sports
* In sum: “well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level”

What could be the problem? Oh, one more thing:

* She heartily reflects her mother's Christian faith.

......

And so ordered Judge Lucinda V. Sadler. No, no joking, no "scary future under Obama" imagining. This is the scary present under Obama. In fact, the ruling is worth quoting in part, for the sheer, breathtaking imperious audacity of the court:
"Despite Ms. Voydath's insistence that Amanda's choice to share her mother's religious beliefs is a free choice, it would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time with her mtoher and the vast majority of all of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view. Amanda's vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."

....

The case is in court because the child's parents are divorced, and the father does not want the child influenced by the mother's Christian faith. He thinks government reeducation camps would nicely remedy the problem he's having. Amanda (the child) says her father "constantly bombards" her about her faith. So there is the apparent cause — a not-unfamiliar scenario.

By the way, don't miss this as well: in the mind of the judge and the counselor AND the father, what's the best antidote to firm Christian faith in a child?

[T-Shirt Ninja]

Subscribing.

[Mr Minder]

[Rational Gaze]

I replied to EternalSkeptic6, awaiting for his invetible screwballworthy reply.

[Teluog]

Biblical Christianity Blog points us to this screwy judge:

"Despite Ms. Voydath's insistence that Amanda's choice to share her mother's religious beliefs is a free choice, it would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time with her mtoher and the vast majority of all of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view. Amanda's vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."

....

The case is in court because the child's parents are divorced, and the father does not want the child influenced by the mother's Christian faith. He thinks government reeducation camps would nicely remedy the problem he's having. Amanda (the child) says her father "constantly bombards" her about her faith.

If her dad is pestering her about her faith, than obviously she HAS considered a non-Christian point of view. Duh."