Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-08-2011, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

On Saturday, 9 April 2011, at 5pm, I will be debating my "nemesis" J.P. Holding on the textual reliability of the New Testament ("Do We Have What They Had?"). It is being sponsored by the Christian congregation of Pastor Cameron English and will be held at the Amador Christian Center (see their events page; right now it's a little ways down the page). For directions and more info see the Sacramento FAN page on the event. The center is located at 16829 Latrobe Road, in Plymouth, California, about twenty miles northeast of Sacramento. Anyone is welcome to attend.

ApostateAbe · 02-08-2011, 01:04 PM

The textual reliability of the New Testament? Seems like an easy win for Carrier. It could have been worse. All he needs is to read off a few of the gospel contradictions at the heart of the narratives, sensibly explain such contradictions, and preempt the responses that JP Holding has made public in his own writing. Compare such ad hoc counterarguments with those used in any ideological defense of dogma. Challenge him to give a hypothetical example of a pair of passages in the Bible that clearly contradict each other.

Watching and listening to many of these kinds of debates, I anticipate that there is one very big problem that Carrier needs to anticipate:

If JP Holding follows the pattern of so many performance debaters, he will not actually debate the points with much attention or focus. He will instead give a very brief and weak counterargument to something that Richard Carrier brings up, if he deals with them at all, and he will instead spend the rest of his time reading a sermon that he has prepared. Richard Carrier should call him out on this tactic and remind the audience that this is a debate, not a church service, which means answering the challenges and dealing with the points that are on the table.

hjalti · 02-08-2011, 03:53 PM

Abe, I don't think bringing up contradictions helps in a discussion of the textual reliability of the New Testament.

John Kesler · 02-08-2011, 06:09 PM

This is an interesting development for someone who claimed that he would never do an in-person debate:

Quote:

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sowant.html
Those who wonder why I shun most forums and all oral debates need look no farther than this -- settings in which it is pretended that you have to answer at once, or else there obviously is no answer, are a poor venue. It is of far greater value to be in a setting where time is on your side -- so that as competent and thorough job as possible can be done initially.

http://tektoonics.tektonics.org/etc/...tracttack.html
I don't do live debates -- with anyone. I will not debate atheists, Unitarians, open theists, or whoever, any other way but in print, where it is possible to take time to find answers to questions and where the details of an issue can be discussed in a comprehensive fashion. I consider oral debates a waste of time, as they tend to produce nothing but sound bites. Oral debates tend to be victims of what I call "60 Minutes Syndrome" -- they are efforts to cover an in-depth topic in just a few minutes or hours, with no real means to treat subjects with the in-depth scrutiny they deserve.

Of course, he also claimed that he would never blog, but now he has more than one!

Quote:

http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/whitej01.html
In fairness I must admit that this is related to a difference in methodology we have as apologists. While I respect White for his past work, I must admit that I find the entire idea of doing work via "blogs" (as well as the process of deciding issues by means of oral debates, havens for "sound bites") to be an entirely unworthy enterprise. This is why I never do oral debates and never will.

http://www.tektonics.org/manifesto2011.html
The Tekton Ticker and the Tekton Forge. Yes, I’ve done it. I’ve conceded to the trend to blog, hence The Tekton Ticker and the Tekton Forge.

Another interesting, shall we say, "anomaly," is that even though the main page of Tektonics says this...

Quote:

Theology Web
Our exclusive place for debate!

...on this page is a heading labeled "Debates," with these entries:

Quote:

Debates

"Was Jesus as [sic] Historical Figure?"vs. Frank Zindler, Opposing Views website, 2008

"Did Jesus Exist?" vs. Ken Humphreys, Premier Christian Radio, May 2009

But perhaps there's a definition of "exclusive" with which I'm unfamiliar.

stephan huller · 02-08-2011, 06:38 PM

I am always on the side of the best looking candidate. That's why I am rooting for J P Holding.

ApostateAbe · 02-08-2011, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Abe, I don't think bringing up contradictions helps in a discussion of the textual reliability of the New Testament.

That's a good point. I was having in mind historical reliability. I think the debate will be tougher for Carrier.

Switch89 · 02-08-2011, 08:48 PM

If Carrier prepares well for this debate (such as he has when he debated Mike Licona) and he looks into the points that Holding makes for textual reliability on his website, researches and debunks those, then Carrier will have a slam-dunk case. The Gospel of John was reworked radically, Revelation was reworked radically, and various minor interpolations are all over the place.

Switch89 · 02-08-2011, 09:08 PM

Re: John Kesler, That is a curious contradiction: Why has Holding suddenly decided to do a live debate? I'll bet that Holding has deluded himself into believing he can make quick work of Carrier, and so he's making an exception just to take out an old nemesis. Unfortunately for Holding, as long as Carrier arms himself well before the debate, he will be in for a pummeling.

judge · 02-08-2011, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

If Carrier prepares well for this debate (such as he has when he debated Mike Licona) and he looks into the points that Holding makes for textual reliability on his website, researches and debunks those, then Carrier will have a slam-dunk case. The Gospel of John was reworked radically,

It was? Can you tell me how we know this. I am aware that a passage was added in chapter 8 in some mss but how was it reworked radically?

Quote:

Revelation was reworked radically, .

Where abouts?

manwithdream · 02-09-2011, 06:38 AM

Maybe this is a stupid question, but what is the purpose of arguing about the textual reliability of the New Testament? Why aren't they debating the textual reliabiliity of the Hebrew Bible? Would it make any difference to argue about that? What exactly happens if you can show it is perfect or bad in some way? It can be perfect and false or it can be bad and true. So what does the textual reliability prove about the New Testament anyway?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-08-2011, 01:04 PM	#2
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	The textual reliability of the New Testament? Seems like an easy win for Carrier. It could have been worse. All he needs is to read off a few of the gospel contradictions at the heart of the narratives, sensibly explain such contradictions, and preempt the responses that JP Holding has made public in his own writing. Compare such ad hoc counterarguments with those used in any ideological defense of dogma. Challenge him to give a hypothetical example of a pair of passages in the Bible that clearly contradict each other. Watching and listening to many of these kinds of debates, I anticipate that there is one very big problem that Carrier needs to anticipate: If JP Holding follows the pattern of so many performance debaters, he will not actually debate the points with much attention or focus. He will instead give a very brief and weak counterargument to something that Richard Carrier brings up, if he deals with them at all, and he will instead spend the rest of his time reading a sermon that he has prepared. Richard Carrier should call him out on this tactic and remind the audience that this is a debate, not a church service, which means answering the challenges and dealing with the points that are on the table.

02-08-2011, 03:53 PM	#3
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	Abe, I don't think bringing up contradictions helps in a discussion of the textual reliability of the New Testament.

02-08-2011, 06:38 PM	#5
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I am always on the side of the best looking candidate. That's why I am rooting for J P Holding.

02-08-2011, 08:48 PM	#7
Switch89 Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montgomery, AL Posts: 453	If Carrier prepares well for this debate (such as he has when he debated Mike Licona) and he looks into the points that Holding makes for textual reliability on his website, researches and debunks those, then Carrier will have a slam-dunk case. The Gospel of John was reworked radically, Revelation was reworked radically, and various minor interpolations are all over the place.

02-08-2011, 09:08 PM	#8
Switch89 Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montgomery, AL Posts: 453	Re: John Kesler, That is a curious contradiction: Why has Holding suddenly decided to do a live debate? I'll bet that Holding has deluded himself into believing he can make quick work of Carrier, and so he's making an exception just to take out an old nemesis. Unfortunately for Holding, as long as Carrier arms himself well before the debate, he will be in for a pummeling.

02-09-2011, 06:38 AM	#10
manwithdream Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: united states Posts: 156	Maybe this is a stupid question, but what is the purpose of arguing about the textual reliability of the New Testament? Why aren't they debating the textual reliabiliity of the Hebrew Bible? Would it make any difference to argue about that? What exactly happens if you can show it is perfect or bad in some way? It can be perfect and false or it can be bad and true. So what does the textual reliability prove about the New Testament anyway?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.