Rick Sumner

How exactly can anyone be a "threat to skepticism," unless you're defining the term by a set of conclusions, rather than an approach to inquiry?

Either Holding is right or he isn't. Neither event is a "threat" to skepticism of any kind.

Solo

You are not being fair, Toto. A number of people have made a large contribution here by long and studious silences both to the twit and to the scholars who feel engaged by him.

Jiri

Roger Pearse

If so, why don't we see cogent, courteous refutations here when his name is mentioned? This thread, like all the others featuring his name, consists of personal attacks on him. It doesn't breed confidence, in me anyway.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Well said.

Toto

I think you see refutations when his arguments are mentioned. But the mere mention of his name brings up his entire debating style and persona.

jakejonesiv

That is a good point, Roger. And that is exactly what Richard Carrier does in "Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn't Need a Miracle to Succeed". He refutes Holding in nearly every particular, and in a way that even Christians such as yourself should be able to agree with. This is no radical piece of scholarship, becuase JHP is soooo wrong on this issue.

Jake

DCHindley

A "heated" debate is not necessarily "good" debate, eh?

I remember reviewing a set of dueling journal articles between Bart Ehrman (JBL 109: 463-74, 1990) and Dale Allison (JBL 111:489-95, 1992). It is often asserted that Allison soundly trumped Ehrman's points "one for one," although I found that he only directly addressed 7 of the 13 points Ehrman had made. The difference, though, between Ehrmans style and that of Allison was this:

Initially, Ehrman's language is straightforward. However, starting on page 467, Ehrman begins to suggest that those who propose the traditional equation of Cephas and Peter have not given the NT documents a "close" or "careful" reading, and suggests that this is due to them "prejudging the issue in light of John 1:42." Ehrman clearly employs the figure of Tragedy to describe the interpretations of others, in that their prejudgment has not allowed them to recognize the "simpler explanation" Ehrman champions.

This kind of rhetoric continues, in even stronger language, in point E.3.b, where Ehrman states that "most commentators have simply overlooked, or rather chosen to ignore, what should seem rather obvious", reasoning that "any sensible reader [of Gal 2] would assume that" Cephas and Peter "were different persons."

The Ehrman moved to the employment of Sarcasm in E(C2)a, where he chides those that hold that Paul cites "some sort of officially transcribed document of the Jerusalem conference in Gal 2:7-8" by saying that "[i]t is not surprising that such an idea occurred to no one for nineteen hundred years." This continues in E(C2)c where employment of circular reasoning by Ulrich Wilckens to "establish the likelihood that Paul is citing the earlier agreement of the Jerusalem council" by reason of the mere presence of the name Peter, and in spite of "characteristically Pauline words and phrases", "will scarcely do".

Then, on page 471 (E(C4) above), Ehrman returns to Tragedy, in that he implies that those who see the Cephas who heads one column of the parallel lists theorized in 1 Cor 15:5 as the Apostle Peter, have not given the issue as much "careful consideration" as he has. The answer, to Ehrman, is "[s]trikingly" obvious, and again suggests that other scholars have "overlooked" the answer due to "the blinders we normally wear when reading a text like this". These blinders are caused by their "previous knowledge", presumably, of John 1:42. In addition, another motive is implied by Ehrman's assessment (in E5) that "[t]he implications of this conclusion will be obvious to anyone who has worked at any length with the NT materials". In other words, the issue has been overlooked to avoid wholesale reevaluation of five traditional assumptions used to evaluate theories related to early Christian origins.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/c...20/001854.html

Allison in his response is polite enough, and makes no effort to misrepresent Ehrman's position(s) as far as I can see. Like Ehrman, he employs some rhetorical figures, notably Tragedy (in an Ironic sort of way) to describe Ehrman's quest (A1) to revitalize a position that has already been, in Allison's eyes, discredited. The implication is that Ehrman, through his own tragic flaw, is championing a lost cause. Later, in the section where he offers his own evidence for the equation of Cephas & Peter, he indirectly belittles Ehrman's presumed response (to A2) by Satirically characterizing it as "mere speculation" and "dubious". It looks like Allison has turned Ehrman's characterizations of scholars holding the traditional positions back upon Ehrman himself, although in a somewhat more subdued manner.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/c...20/001855.html

In short, Allison was polite and doesn't attempt to distort opposing positions in the way I felt Ehrman did, and in the end, many felt Allison "bested" Ehrman, when in fact Allison fell far short of that goal.

DCH

Roger Pearse

Do you have a link to the TWeb debate? Might be interesting to see.

Thanks,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I think you're right about the name (I never see discussion of specific arguments).

His literary personality is intentionally aggressive and scornful. But, just thinking outside the box, I was wondering.... is the argument against him that he should not be? If so, why? If not... can we put into words what the actual argument is?

Or is it something like this... Do atheists perhaps believe that no-one should be aggressive and scornful towards them and atheism, or something of that kind? If so, why? If not... what actually is the objection? (Just exploring what the logical point being made is). Is it wrong morally to be rude?

What do people think?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

Holding is not just aggressive. He engages in some juvenile taunts, as when he makes fun of people's names, and in general name calling. This adds nothing to the discussion, and seems designed to just provoke an emotional reaction in his opponent.

The opponent can win in this case by maintaining the upper ground and not responding in kind. But this takes effort, and it diverts energy from the real issues.