J.P Holding’s Logic: A Case Considered & Now With a Follow up Reply
The creator of the Tektonic Apologetic website, J.P Holding’s (here after I'll refer him as Bob or the name I’ve used for him in our debates) ability to logically and objectively debate an issue is directly proportional to his personal dislike for the other side regardless of the individual’s character and personal scholastic credentials. Examples can be seen in his reviews of Hector Avalos, Robert Price, Bart Ehrman and anyone else he chooses to character assassinate.
Since Bob’s Tekton website caters to the conservative Protestant Christian community, these believers view Bob as a Crusader out to defend the Holy Land / “Conservative Christian Truth” from anyone Bob considers an infidel to be roasted alive (not by object scholarship), but the flame of a subjective sarcastic mind as he did in his T-web review of Hector Avalos book.
Bob’s goal is, again, to subjectively prove that only “mental morons” who reject conservative Christianity; a point his fans and groupies love to hear in that Bob now does their thinking for them on any subject that might upset their Protestant dogmatics (notice at the Tekton website, Catholic and Mormons theologies are attacked as well).
Once someone has cross Bob’s imaginary mental line, he lunches into a literary tirade where he is both judge and jury in condemning the person as a remarkably stupid person often labeling the offender scholar with a list of sarcastic adjectives. Once Bob has condemned the individual, from then on, if that person says it up, Bob says it’s down. If they say it is right, Bob says it’s left. Bob’s goal (as seen in this case) is not to provide objective and logical objections, but to confuse the debate with highly clouded facts such as he does here throwing out a concept of a totally unrelated society (Roman / Latin /secular) and use it to explain Jewish society (Near Eastern / Semitic / religious).
An example here of a case in point is an issue we debated two years ago and also again posted here at D.C. based on a “wild card” theological claim from the late 1970’s where I heard radio evangelist Layman Straus claim a crucified Jesus (Luke 23:34) had to ask his father to forgive their sins since his feet were no long touching the ground (Luke edr).
Since this was totally a novel theological idea, Bob was also totally without any conservative guidance here since this theological claim is not discussed in any Biblical or Patristic commentary I know of. Thus, Bob had to be creative in order to counter this odd ball theological claim.
To do so, he posits an explanation from Roman society and law: the Classical concept of Client-patronage. But since Bob has limited resources, he references his explanation to the Oxford “Dictionary of Sociology” and not the Oxford “Classical Dictionary”. While the “Dictionary of Sociology” acknowledges that this is “traced by some” back to ancient times, his source deals mostly with the medieval concept feudal serfdom some 700 years removed from the world of Jesus. Bob goes on to call this reference a must read for Harry to “start with something very simple to educate himself as far as what these terms mean in the context of serious study of the social world of the New Testament.” Just how a dictionary on modern sociology with an article that never once mentions the “social world of the New Testament”, or a Semitic world that based its theology on the idea of a Covenant made to Abraham and the Jewish people in keeping Torah is simply quite hard to relate!
The Oxford Classical Dictionary defines a “client” as a Roman “free man who entrusted himself to another and received protection in return. Clientship was a hereditary social status consecrated by usage and recognized, though not defined or enforced, by law.” It continues by noting “The size of a man’s clientele, and the wealth and status of his individual clients, were a visible testimony to his prestige and social standing) and therefore to his political influence).” Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4 edition, p. 348.
In light of this definition as understood by Bob, Yahweh had to have been chosen by the Israelites in order for him to become deified as their God (Patron) so the Israelites (Clients) could receive protection; a total reversal from the Biblical account in the Hebrew Bible!
Bob continues attempts to explain this theological quirk for Luke 23: 34 by saying that God is the “Patron” and the Jews people are the “Clients” (However, Bob fails to understand that Jesus cry of forgiveness was as much to the Romans as to the Jews: Romans who were considered hated pagan and NOT under the Hebrew god Yahweh and his Covenant).
In his rush not to allow me any chance to advance this theological “wild card” of Rev. Straus, Bob has based his whole argument on a Roman secular concept and forces this on a Semitic religious world, but he totally neglected the third main character in Luke’s gospel: Jesus!
Now Bob’s creative mind comes into play again by injecting a foreign and strange new concept in that Jesus was a “broker” which the business dictionary defines “as an negotiator between prospective buyers and sells … in matters of trade, commerce, or navigation”; or a term straight from Wall Street and Capitalism. Thus, Bob has not only missed used an ancient secular Roman concept forced on to a Semitic religious Covenanted people (who generally hated Romans rule passion), he now had to make up for his deficiency by using an anachronistic modern secular Stock Market term in which Jesus is the go between for a people already called by God!
In updating his Tekton website to my post at D.C., Bob jumps on the fact that I claimed Jesus participated in the Temple sacrificial system with his usual sarcastic rejoinder:
“Participated in? Really? What version of the Bible is that found in, where Jesus sacrifices to the Temple? Must be the CHV (Crazy Harry Version).”
Had Bob not been on such an attack mode, he should have considered the Christian Doctrine of the Atonement; the very bases for my post on Luke 23: 34 in the first place.
But again, Bob goal is two fold, win a debate with someone he has placed on his list at all coast and character assassinate them at the same time. The sad part is that Bob has more in common with the second function than he does with honest objective scholarship which his biting remarks try to hide.
Finally, if one counts Bob’s words in his reply to my post at DC, one finds Bob spending 144 words in attack and none justifying his misuses of the “Client-patron” Roman term along with his modern Wall Street term “Broker”.
A Reply to Holding’s Follow up (2-08) at his Tektonic Website:
Problem A: Holding cited me for using “A business dictionary” and yet he must go to a website entitled: BNET or Business Network: The go-to place for management (just check out most of his references).
Problem B: He cites from the above Business Network a theologian from Notre Dame University, Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J., known for his modern sociological interpretations of the New Testament. His faculty profile reads as follows: “His current research project is God, In Other Words: Cultural Interpretation of the Christian Deity. His main scholarly effort has long been on the use of social science models and concepts for the interpretation of biblical documents.” Holding quotes from his “Worship in the fourth gospel: A cultural interpretation of John 14 – 17: Part 2. So yes, only as a “cultural interpretation” can Jesus be a modern “Broker”.
Problem C: Holding cites a dissertation by Johanna Stiebert entitled Construction of Shame in the Hebrew Bible: The Prophetic Contribution to prove his “patron-client” thesis when Ms. Stiebert clearly states she is only using a modern analogy: “This could be read in analogy with vassal – suzerain / patron-client.” Again, notice the sentence section: “This could be "read in analogy…”
Problem D: Holding totally confused my statement about the “wild card” theology of evangelist Layman Straus with his argument for the validation of Patron-Client. He stated: “So far from being a "novel theological idea or wild card" as poor Harry says, this is merely mainstream Biblical scholarship -- it can be found in sources like deSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity and Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values.”
Robert / Bob, I did not know evangelist Layman Straus' “wild card” claim about Jesus being unable to forgive sins was “mainstream Biblical scholarship”. Really! Now I’m learning just how uneducated I am.
Problem E: Holding stated: “Really. I had no idea Jesus was crucified in the Temple. I suppose this really does come from the Crazy Harry Version”. Fact is the atoning death of Jesus was felt in the Temple as the curtains were torn and the death of Jesus the negated the Temple sacrificial system (Matthew 27: 50 – 51). Bob, go figure!
Next time Holding might start with an etymological world study in Hebrew and Greek to avoid the anachronistic error of injecting authors of modern social science theories on to an ancient Near Eastern world.
Since Bob’s Tekton website caters to the conservative Protestant Christian community, these believers view Bob as a Crusader out to defend the Holy Land / “Conservative Christian Truth” from anyone Bob considers an infidel to be roasted alive (not by object scholarship), but the flame of a subjective sarcastic mind as he did in his T-web review of Hector Avalos book.
Bob’s goal is, again, to subjectively prove that only “mental morons” who reject conservative Christianity; a point his fans and groupies love to hear in that Bob now does their thinking for them on any subject that might upset their Protestant dogmatics (notice at the Tekton website, Catholic and Mormons theologies are attacked as well).
Once someone has cross Bob’s imaginary mental line, he lunches into a literary tirade where he is both judge and jury in condemning the person as a remarkably stupid person often labeling the offender scholar with a list of sarcastic adjectives. Once Bob has condemned the individual, from then on, if that person says it up, Bob says it’s down. If they say it is right, Bob says it’s left. Bob’s goal (as seen in this case) is not to provide objective and logical objections, but to confuse the debate with highly clouded facts such as he does here throwing out a concept of a totally unrelated society (Roman / Latin /secular) and use it to explain Jewish society (Near Eastern / Semitic / religious).
An example here of a case in point is an issue we debated two years ago and also again posted here at D.C. based on a “wild card” theological claim from the late 1970’s where I heard radio evangelist Layman Straus claim a crucified Jesus (Luke 23:34) had to ask his father to forgive their sins since his feet were no long touching the ground (Luke edr).
Since this was totally a novel theological idea, Bob was also totally without any conservative guidance here since this theological claim is not discussed in any Biblical or Patristic commentary I know of. Thus, Bob had to be creative in order to counter this odd ball theological claim.
To do so, he posits an explanation from Roman society and law: the Classical concept of Client-patronage. But since Bob has limited resources, he references his explanation to the Oxford “Dictionary of Sociology” and not the Oxford “Classical Dictionary”. While the “Dictionary of Sociology” acknowledges that this is “traced by some” back to ancient times, his source deals mostly with the medieval concept feudal serfdom some 700 years removed from the world of Jesus. Bob goes on to call this reference a must read for Harry to “start with something very simple to educate himself as far as what these terms mean in the context of serious study of the social world of the New Testament.” Just how a dictionary on modern sociology with an article that never once mentions the “social world of the New Testament”, or a Semitic world that based its theology on the idea of a Covenant made to Abraham and the Jewish people in keeping Torah is simply quite hard to relate!
The Oxford Classical Dictionary defines a “client” as a Roman “free man who entrusted himself to another and received protection in return. Clientship was a hereditary social status consecrated by usage and recognized, though not defined or enforced, by law.” It continues by noting “The size of a man’s clientele, and the wealth and status of his individual clients, were a visible testimony to his prestige and social standing) and therefore to his political influence).” Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4 edition, p. 348.
In light of this definition as understood by Bob, Yahweh had to have been chosen by the Israelites in order for him to become deified as their God (Patron) so the Israelites (Clients) could receive protection; a total reversal from the Biblical account in the Hebrew Bible!
Bob continues attempts to explain this theological quirk for Luke 23: 34 by saying that God is the “Patron” and the Jews people are the “Clients” (However, Bob fails to understand that Jesus cry of forgiveness was as much to the Romans as to the Jews: Romans who were considered hated pagan and NOT under the Hebrew god Yahweh and his Covenant).
In his rush not to allow me any chance to advance this theological “wild card” of Rev. Straus, Bob has based his whole argument on a Roman secular concept and forces this on a Semitic religious world, but he totally neglected the third main character in Luke’s gospel: Jesus!
Now Bob’s creative mind comes into play again by injecting a foreign and strange new concept in that Jesus was a “broker” which the business dictionary defines “as an negotiator between prospective buyers and sells … in matters of trade, commerce, or navigation”; or a term straight from Wall Street and Capitalism. Thus, Bob has not only missed used an ancient secular Roman concept forced on to a Semitic religious Covenanted people (who generally hated Romans rule passion), he now had to make up for his deficiency by using an anachronistic modern secular Stock Market term in which Jesus is the go between for a people already called by God!
In updating his Tekton website to my post at D.C., Bob jumps on the fact that I claimed Jesus participated in the Temple sacrificial system with his usual sarcastic rejoinder:
“Participated in? Really? What version of the Bible is that found in, where Jesus sacrifices to the Temple? Must be the CHV (Crazy Harry Version).”
Had Bob not been on such an attack mode, he should have considered the Christian Doctrine of the Atonement; the very bases for my post on Luke 23: 34 in the first place.
But again, Bob goal is two fold, win a debate with someone he has placed on his list at all coast and character assassinate them at the same time. The sad part is that Bob has more in common with the second function than he does with honest objective scholarship which his biting remarks try to hide.
Finally, if one counts Bob’s words in his reply to my post at DC, one finds Bob spending 144 words in attack and none justifying his misuses of the “Client-patron” Roman term along with his modern Wall Street term “Broker”.
A Reply to Holding’s Follow up (2-08) at his Tektonic Website:
Problem A: Holding cited me for using “A business dictionary” and yet he must go to a website entitled: BNET or Business Network: The go-to place for management (just check out most of his references).
Problem B: He cites from the above Business Network a theologian from Notre Dame University, Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J., known for his modern sociological interpretations of the New Testament. His faculty profile reads as follows: “His current research project is God, In Other Words: Cultural Interpretation of the Christian Deity. His main scholarly effort has long been on the use of social science models and concepts for the interpretation of biblical documents.” Holding quotes from his “Worship in the fourth gospel: A cultural interpretation of John 14 – 17: Part 2. So yes, only as a “cultural interpretation” can Jesus be a modern “Broker”.
Problem C: Holding cites a dissertation by Johanna Stiebert entitled Construction of Shame in the Hebrew Bible: The Prophetic Contribution to prove his “patron-client” thesis when Ms. Stiebert clearly states she is only using a modern analogy: “This could be read in analogy with vassal – suzerain / patron-client.” Again, notice the sentence section: “This could be "read in analogy…”
Problem D: Holding totally confused my statement about the “wild card” theology of evangelist Layman Straus with his argument for the validation of Patron-Client. He stated: “So far from being a "novel theological idea or wild card" as poor Harry says, this is merely mainstream Biblical scholarship -- it can be found in sources like deSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity and Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values.”
Robert / Bob, I did not know evangelist Layman Straus' “wild card” claim about Jesus being unable to forgive sins was “mainstream Biblical scholarship”. Really! Now I’m learning just how uneducated I am.
Problem E: Holding stated: “Really. I had no idea Jesus was crucified in the Temple. I suppose this really does come from the Crazy Harry Version”. Fact is the atoning death of Jesus was felt in the Temple as the curtains were torn and the death of Jesus the negated the Temple sacrificial system (Matthew 27: 50 – 51). Bob, go figure!
Next time Holding might start with an etymological world study in Hebrew and Greek to avoid the anachronistic error of injecting authors of modern social science theories on to an ancient Near Eastern world.