Style Versus Substance

A case study.

An apologist provides his response to a blog, which was a response to another blog which reviewed a book by Bart Ehrman ("Forged")

I find it very difficult to detect any substance in the Apologist's comments. As far as I can tell his comments are either:

Filler - no meaning would be lost if these comments were deleted
Source - extracts from the source article (obviously these are necessary)
Misunderstanding - the source text has been misunderstood, resulting in an irrelevant response
Irrelevant - not on topic. No meaning would be lost if these comments were deleted.

#	Post	Category	Notes
1	A continuing deconstruction of the blog article appearing here:	Filler
2	http://benwallis.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/mike-licona-on-bart-ehrmans-forged.html	Source
3	Blog and opposing perspective is quoted in italics; my response appears in bold type.	Filler
4	New Testament studies seem to me to be hopelessly bothered by ridiculous religious biases on one hand and reactionary skeptical biases on the other.	Source
5	Agreement on my part in principle! We all have our biases and it is disingenuous in the extreme not to admit them, nor to admit that others of one's perspective hold such biases as well. I wouldn't necessarily refer to all who hold views on the matter as "ridiculously biased" or "reactionary," but at least he admits bias on both sides.	Filler
6	I insist on keeping a keen eye on the evidence, and weighing the arguments for myself without much concern for the academic authority (or lack thereof) of the person presenting them. I strongly encourage others to do the same.	Source
7	A wonderful claim and advice! However, Wallis's own bias is starting to come into focus, given this claim of his:	Filler
8	Licona himself counts among his historical conclusions that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead by unknown powers which originate in a disembodied mind. If this was merely a religious belief on his part that would be bad enough, but he actually travels around the country to speak publicly and debate opponents in support of his view that historians ought to conclude based on their scholarly research that Jesus' corpse was supernaturally reanimated!	Source
9	So, Licona holds unorthodox views on a separate matter not relevant to the subject at hand: deconstructing Ehrman's claim that much of NT Scripture is "forged." That sounds like an ad hominem attack and invitation to prejudicial judgement rather than "keeping a keen eye on the evidence and weighing the arguments without much concern for academic authority or lack thereof" to me...	Misunderstanding	Licona's view is not unorthodox, it is the basis of Christianity orthodoxy. The source is describing the Jesus resurrection story which is the entire basis of Licona's rationale, and reinforces Paul's determination of the essence of Christian theology regarding the resurrection
10	...he (Liconia) cites Eusebius' famous list of Christian Scriptures (Ecclesiastical History 6.20.1) as evidence that the proto-orthodox were quite careful in accepting books as canonical; in particular, he alleges that the general tendency in the early Church was to exclude rather than include"...On the contrary, early Christians offered some notoriously bad arguments in support of canonization, for example Irenaeus' argument that we can know the four traditional Gospels are inspired because there are four "principal winds" and four "zones of the world" (Against Heresies 3.11.8)..."	Source
11	Yes, that was a notoriously bad argument on Irenaeus's part and he was over-reaching based on his own misunderstandings on the nature of things (which have nothing to do with Scripture) on that one, obviously. We are all guilty of misunderstanding certain aspects of reality, of course--but again that doesn't detract from Irenaeus's soundest point which Wallis fails to mention or respond to: "In his writing against the Gnostics, who claimed to possess a secret oral tradition from Jesus himself, Irenaeus maintained that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture."	Irrelevant and Misunderstanding	There is nothing here which supports the argument that the early canonical process was reliable. In any case, the description of what Irenaeus says is not what he actually said. See actual text here…  http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103426.htm
12	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus#cite_note-45	Misunderstanding	The Wikipedia text does not reflect Irenaeus' words (see line above for actual text
13	Passage quoting Irenaeus in section 2 here:	Filler
14	http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103426.htm	Misunderstanding	See above
15	...and also the initial acceptance by Serapion of Antioch of the Gospel of Peter as canonical simply because it was attributed to Peter (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.12).	Source
16	Initial acceptance is of course the key word here. "Initial acceptance" based on the trusted word of a given congregation of believers did not constitute final endorsement, and Serapion of Antioch is known for his investigating the matter personally and reaching a far different conclusion--again a matter Wallis avoids mentioning. Serapion's statement found here in Section II:	Irrelevant	The Apologist is endorsing Wallis' point that Licona was wrong to rely on Irenaeus. Every "endorser" is going to come to a different conclusion, because the authenticity of Scripture at that time was a matter of opinion, based on alignment to a set of beliefs. Serapion is no exception.
17	http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/serapion.html	Irrelevant	No explanation
18	More importantly, however, canonical is not equivalent to authentic; the Church also took as authentic (but not canonical) a good number of dubious writings, for instance the Apostles' Creed and the spurious epistles of Ignatius.	Source
19	So outside of the Scriptures themselves, there exist writings (such as certain letters of Ignatius considered to be spurious--cannily referred to by Wallis as "epistles" to impute a scripture-like aura on them) that at one time or another had credibility among certain segments of the Christian community. That's tantamount to "the "Piltdown Man" hoax once having a degree of credibility in certain segments of the scientific community at the time: a matter absolutely irrelevant to the ultimate certification processes. The fact of the matter is that Counter to Wallis's claims, it supports Licona's counterclaim that "there is evidence that the proto-orthodox were quite careful in accepting books as canonical; in particular, he alleges that the general tendency in the early Church was to exclude rather than include". So, Wallis inadvertently deconstructs his own claim in this instance!	Misunderstanding	Epistle is another word for a letter. An epistle does not have to be Scripture. Also misses the point that the "certification processes" for Scripture have been ongoing since the Bible was authorised in the 4th Century. The Piltdown Man hoax is quite a good analogy. The difference with Scripture is that the authorised Bible is sold as the inerrant word of God. So an analogy would be people today who claim the Piltdown Man is scientific evidence.
20	Also quite canny on Wallis's part was to link letters generally accepted as forgeries with "The Apostles' Creed," conflating the two in the readers' perceptions. The Apostles' Creed is not Scripture but is supported by it and has its own history, transitional to the widely-accepted "orthodox" statement of Christian faith held by the majority of Christians in the basic form of the Nicene Creed, accepted by most denominations:	Misunderstanding	Wallis wasn't referring to forgeries, but to the fact that canonical does not mean authentic. Something that's not authentic is not necessarily a forgery.
21	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed	Misunderstanding	This link supports Wallis' argument
22	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed	Misunderstanding	This link supports Wallis' argument
23	A continuing deconstruction of the blog article appearing here:	Unnecessary
24	http://benwallis.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/mike-licona-on-bart-ehrmans-forged.html	Unnecessary
25	Blog and opposing perspective is quoted in italics; my response appears in bold type.	Unnecessary
26	So after all we see Wallis beginning to show his bias. After dismissing most of Licona's points out of hand--asking us in essence to "take his unsupported word" for it (what other blog invites us to do likewise?), Wallis claims that Licona's "most serious allegation" challenges this claim of Ehrman's:	Filler
27	The New Testament emerged out of these conflicts, as one of the Christian groups won the arguments and decided which books would be included in Scripture. Other books representing other points of view and also attributed to the apostles of Jesus were not only left out of Scripture; they were destroyed and forgotten. As a result, today, when we think of early Christianity, we tend to think of it only as it has come down to us in the writings of the victorious party. Only slowly, in modern times, have ancient books come to light that support alternative views, as they have turned up in archaeological digs and by pure serendipity, for example, in the sands of Egypt. (p183)	Source
28	If one reads further, Wallis focuses attention on Licona's careless use of the word "vote" to describe how such Scripture was accepted or rejected. True, there is no reason to assume that Ehrman claimed that a "vote" was taken on scriptural matters by early defenders of orthodoxy, and at least in one case Ehrman made clear that he never said that. That's still not to say that Ehrman's clever rephrasing of events posited above weren't misrepresentations.	Irrelevant	This response has no relevance to the source that it refers to.
29	Recall again the actual argument of Irenaeus in countering Gnostic and other heretical claims: he and other members of the orthodox camp had an irrefutable claim to apostolic succession that was no more than a generation or two removed. In Irenaeus's case, it was the apostle John who passed on his eyewitness testimony to Polycarp, and Polycarp to Irenaeus. Recall again also that the original testimony of the apostles was also subject to clarity and correction by other eyewitnesses to Jesus in His time. Any error on even the bishops' part would have been corrected by eyewitness members of the community at large.	Irrelevant	Irenaeus made no such claim and in any case, no claim at that time can be irrefutable.  And He was born 100 years after Jesus died.  There is also a false assumption here that the gospels are eye witness testimony. The Gospels make no such claim. There is also no reference to eye witness testimony of any miracles in Ireneaus' writing, except for what he had heard Polycarp say (i.e. more hearsay).
30	The apostolic succession from John the Apostle to Polycarp, and hence to Irenaeus:
31	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp	Irrelevant	Does not have any connection to the source that was quoted.
32	Compare and contrast that with the claims of those who early on were challenged as being heretical. Again, ignoring Wallis's "four winds" distraction, and again the fact that he didn't respond to Irenaeus's soundest argument based on this simple truth: "In his writing against the Gnostics, who claimed to possess a secret oral tradition from Jesus himself, Irenaeus maintained that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture."	Misunderstanding	The "four winds" is not a distraction - it epitomises the logic that Irenaeus used. In any case, this is not "Apostolic Testimony" - there is no testimony here from any of the Apostles who met Jesus.
33	So, make your own rational decisions: did Wallis correctly respond to Licona's points? Admitting that Licona made an error in asserting that Ehrman claimed that Scriptural acceptance rested on a hypothetical vote, is it still not clear that Ehrman is still cleverly implying some sort of conspiracy to discredit the orthodox viewpoint? Again, most notably, why do neither Ehrman nor Wallis address Irenaeus's strongest argument in support of orthodoxy resting on apostolic testimony and rather go to extreme lengths to direct our attention elsewhere?	Irrelevant.	There is no mention of a "vote" in Ehrman's book.  That's a straw man invented by Licona. The "Apostolic Testimony" argument is false (see above). It's a fact that Irenaeus named the Gospels, but that doesn't make them testimony.
34	continuing deconstruction of the blog article appearing here:	Unnecessary
35	http://benwallis.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/mike-licona-on-bart-ehrmans-forged.html	Unnecessary
36	Blog and opposing perspective is quoted in italics; my response appears in bold type.	Unnecessary
37	This is not the only clear instance where Licona has misunderstood Ehrman. For example, in one passage Ehrman wards against the misconception that Christianity was systematically persecuted in the early days of the Roman Empire, writing that, before the year 249 CE, there were...no declarations that it was illegal, no attempt throughout the empire to stamp it out"...	Source
38
39	So basically Wallis is supporting Ehrman's false claim that Christianity wasn't persecuted at large in the Roman Empire from Nero's time on until 249CE. While it's true that actual enforcement of persecution on a local basis was uneven in reality, that's not to say that the official policy of Rome and the Roman Empire didn't support persecution. It was a matter of carrying out state edicts, which has always been uneven in its actual application in any local jurisdiction anywhere. The same is true, for example, in officially atheist China today. Suppression of non-state-sponsored Christian churches--mandated by central government edict--is carried out to a greater or lesser extent based on the whims and perceived interests of local administrators.	Irrelevant	Nothing here counters the source. An assumption that early Christians must have been persecuted because they are persecuted in modern day China is clearly false.
40	Again, Christianity was made illegal in the Roman Empire around the year 30 CE, synonymous with the time of Jesus's death:	Irrelevant	Obviously, Christianity had to exist before it could be made illegal. But in any case it wasn't made illegal.
41
42	when Rome first became aware of Christianity around A.D. 30, it did nothing to stop it. Thinking this sect might weaken the always bothersome Jewish religion, Emperor Tiberius asked the Senate to legalize the Christian faith and declare Christ a Roman god. But the Senate refused. Instead, it pronounced Christianity to be an 'illegal superstition,' a crime under Roman law.	Misunderstanding	This is not correct according to the evidence. For example, the emperor Hadrian was asked for advice from a provincial governor about how to deal with Christians. Hadrian stated that merely being a Christian was not enough for action against them to be taken, they must also have committed some illegal act. He added that "slanderous attacks" against Christians were not to be tolerated.
43	http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-13-4-b-religious-tolerance-and-persecution-in-the-roman-empire	Misunderstanding	This source is incorrect (see above)
44	Ehrman and Wallis are also somewhat disingenuous in stating that Christianity was made "legal" in 269CE. While technically correct that wasn't the end of the story on Christianity's status nor the end of anti-Christian persecution. The Emperor Diocletian rescinded Christianity's legal status and initiated one more terrible persecution in 297CE. The Edict of Milan in 313CE then legalized Christianity again. However, Julian the Apostate sought to re-establish Paganism during his short reign and it wasn't until 363CE that Christian persecution ceased to be official policy for the remainder of the history of the Empire.	Misunderstanding	If something is technically correct, then it's correct.  But in any case, there is no statement that Christianity was made legal in 269CE.
45	So again, in conclusion: once Christianity was declared "illegal", it was considered fair game to be persecuted and suppressed by Roman authorities. Christians were convenient scapegoats to be blamed and persecuted by local authorities whenever anything went wrong within their jurisdictions. That status persisted for over three centuries. The extent to which persecution was carried out by local authorities at given times and jurisdictions is irrelevant, and claims that it wasn't official policy to do so are disingenuous. The vast majority of early Christian leaders were martyred along with prominent followers. A claim that Christianity wasn't persecuted statewide until 249CE under the emperor Decius is a popular myth subscribed to by anti-Christian "scholars" which has no basis in fact. Christianity's official status wasn't permanently guaranteed in the Roman Empire until after the death of the emperor Julian the Apostate in 363CE.	Filler
46	continuing deconstruction of the blog article appearing here:	Unnecessary
47	http://benwallis.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/mike-licona-on-bart-ehrmans-forged.html	Unnecessary
48	Blog and opposing perspective is quoted in italics; my response appears in bold type.	Unnecessary
49	Next we come to the Book of Acts. Wallis loses all pretense to objectivity in this curious about face! First he notes Licona quoting Ehrman's own statement regarding Acts:	Filler
50	a book that scholars have as a rule been loath to label a forgery, even though that is what it appears to be (p199)	Source
51	Wallis then goes on to Criticize Licona's pointing out Ehrman's actual opinion--that Acts "appears to be a forgery"--with Wallis's following curious statement:	Filler
52	Despite this clear indication on the part of Ehrman that most scholars avoid calling Acts a forgery, Licona claims that Ehrman speaks of Acts being a forgery as though this is the conclusion of scholarship." Now, it's not as if Licona simply overlooked on accident Ehrman's denial of this---he quotes it himself! So, why on earth should he think Ehrman to have suggested otherwise?"	Source
53	I don't see a claim on Ehrman's part that scholarship didn't supported his opinion in stating that "scholars have as a rule been loath to label a forgery"--do you? Why criticize Licona on irrelevant grounds for a matter demonstrated to be the case? Ehrman, does indeed claim Acts "appears to be a forgery." Furthermore, if Ehrman's opinion on the authenticity of Acts doesn't rest on "scholarship", his or another's, what value does it have in the first place?	Misunderstanding	The Book of Acts does seem to be a forgery given Ehrman's definition of the word "forgery". The issue is about Ehrman's definition of the word "forgery".
54	I'll paraphrase again for the sake of relative brevity. The issue in question is whether the description of Paul's travels--and whom he met with where and when--in Acts is contradicted by Paul's own statements on his travels in Galatians. Ehrman claims it does. Wallis states--of Licona:	Misunderstanding	This is a different issue.
55	According to Licona, this reading of Acts is uncharitable. Instead, he believes we should interpret Acts as a dynamic narrative which tends to "fast-forward" through certain events without comment, though he doesn't give us a reason to prefer his more stilted interpretation.	Source
56	Actually Ehrman provides a reason. Recall my posit of 3 days ago in which Licona deconstructed Ehrman's claims that one basis for disputing Epistles in Scripture was that they were too long" compared to other known letters at the time and the cost of producing and disseminating them would have been prohibitively expensive for someone of Paul's means. What Licona pointed out was that Paul probably didn't have to provide much (if any) of his own funds in doing so because Christians volunteered their services. This afforded Paul the opportunity to teach, analyze and explain in detail those issues which really mattered: theological insights and practical pastoral matters.	Irrelevant	This is not a relevant response to the source quoted above. In any case, Ehrman cannot be given the credit for identification of the fake epistles. They were identified as such hundreds of years ago.  The issue of how transcripts were funded is a completely different issue.
57	*But Ehrman still had somewhat of a point. There were expenses and practical matters to consider, especially as the early church sought to consolidate orthodox accounts from multiple authors in an early canon. That's a far more complex task than editing and disseminating a single letter to a single church.	Irrelevant	This is not a relevant response to the Source quoted above.
58	Scribes would have to be utilized by then and whether or not their services were "free," their time was not. If not directly paid by the church they would still have had to have made a living and funded their basic needs somehow. Making multiple copies of Scripture by hand is a laborious, time-consuming process--not even counting the cost of materials involved. Outside of theological/pastoral matters there was good reason to keep extraneous material to a minimum, such as accounts of travels, especially as the church grew and more and more communities would have wanted a copy--not to mention the necessity of countering as expeditiously as possible false "scripture" that had begun to appear at this time.	Irrelevant	This is not a relevant response to the Source quoted above. It is however one explanation of how errors, additions and omissions ended up in the Bible.
59	Why Acts then? It was written for an entirely different purpose--to chronicle, as its title suggests, the "acts" of the Apostles. It is not a theological work per se. Given its stated purpose, why wouldn't one give more weight to Acts as a more complete and accurate account of what was in other letters only referenced in passing, generally of some specific incident immediately linked to another of Paul's theological or pastoral points, if mentioned at all?	Irrelevant	This is not a relevant response to the Source quoted above. It just reinforces the point that Acts is even further removed from being a primary source than the (genuine) epistles.
60	A final consideration would be the strong evidence that Acts itself may have been written as a legal brief: a document submitted in defense of Paul for his trial in Rome. As such, the writer of Acts would have the direct testimony of others who accompanied Paul on his journeys and would be able to question and verify their accounts, as well as seek clarity from them on any other matter of concern to the author. The only principle witness inaccessible to interview of course would have been Paul himself, imprisoned in Rome. As such, there may have been minor errors, either on the part of the author of Acts or on the part of Paul's own recollections of those events, but again such would be expected were that to be the case. Historians claim Acts to have the earliest provenance of NT Scripture outside of Paul's letters and it appears to be preserved pretty much in its original form.	Irrelevant	This is not a relevant response to the Source quoted above. IT is also pure speculation
61	Blog and opposing perspective is quoted in italics; my response appears in bold type.	Unnecessary
62	Finally we come to a point where Wallis agrees with Licona: the probable use of secretaries in Paul's compositions:	Filler
63	Despite Licona's many mistakes, not all of his criticisms are completely off-target...	Source
64	How magnanimous!	Filler
65	...He points out that Ehrman himself admits that many of the reasons for thinking the epistles were forged take for granted that they were not extensively modified or otherwise influenced by the thoughts and expressions of secretaries. Yet Ehrman seems unable to provide good reason for making this assumption, except perhaps that there is no precedent for it in Greco-Roman antiquity. However, Licona correctly points out that such an argument is by no means decisive, especially considering that Paul is known to have used secretaries for his undisputed letters. So, this seems to me a valid defense against Ehrman's stylistic charges.	Source
66	This pro forma semi-concession on a single issue made only for the purpose of the appearance of lack of bias on Wallis's part is quickly brushed aside:	Filler
67	Fortunately for Ehrman, the most powerful arguments against the authenticity of most New Testament books are not stylistic, but rather based on external data, as well as their substantive (i.e. style-independent) internal content.	Source
68	A sweeping claim indeed that would necessitate another several volumes of writing to deconstruct. A two hour basic exchange of views on the matter between Ehrman and another Biblical scholar has been posted here before--here's the link:	Filler
69	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XGhtX-fNFQ	Irrelevant	This is a debate on the subject of the primary sources for the New Testament, and both sides of the argument agree that those primary sources are lost.
70	But again note that there is no claim that some texts never underwent revisions. The only issue is for what purposes. That's what the whole pseudepigrapha debate is about--which brings us back to Irenaeus's strongest point in favor of the theological and pastoral integrity of Scripture as it was known to exist by him in his time:	Misunderstanding	The first two sentences are true, but Irenaeus doesn’t make that point…
71	Irenaeus maintained that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture.	Irrelevant	Irenaeus made no such claim (see line 11) and even if he did, this is just an opinion.
72	Finally, Wallis ends with the false conclusion that:	Filler
73	In sum, then, it seems plain to me that Licona has allowed his religious biases to get the best of him.	Source
74	And, as expected, his further false conclusion that:	Filler
75	..he has little here of value to offer.	Source
76	And he would have us believe that he and Ehrman haven't allowed their "religious bias" to likewise get the best of them, as heretofore demonstrated?	Irrelevant	Ehrman is an agnostic who used to be an evangelical Christian. What is the nature of his bias?
77	Note that in the comments section another deconstruction of Ehrman's claims is mentioned, along with a link:	Irrelevant	The comments section contains opinions both for and against.
78	http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture/2011/04/10/forged-chapters-seven-and-eight-collateral-damage/	Irrelevant	Context not explained
79	Perhaps that would make an interesting subject to examine and consider in a future on topic discussion.	Filler
80	Apologies for the "brevity" of my deconstruction where I relied on paraphrasing and summarizing many points that were originally presented in more detail. You can read the original source yourself of course. I'm under pressure from JimC who doesn't respond to my actual points but nonetheless claims that simplistic/clever posits have the most merit, and he's counting every one of my words to excoriate me for not subscribing to such!	Filler