Cold Case Christianity: Wallace continues to employ weak arguments for gospel reliability

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: Testing the Gospels From John to Hippolytus 
Posted: 13 Jun 2018 01:42 AM PDT

I am confident the Gospels were written early and were not corrupted or altered over time.

Then apparently you are unaware of how often Matthew "corrects" Mark.  Most Christian scholars, noting that Matthew and Mark read almost identically in many places (Synoptic Problem) agree with the theory that says this is so because Mark wrote first, and Matthew came along later, and borrowed extensively from Mark's text.

In the places where Matthew parallels a story in Mark, Matthew's version exhibits a consistent pattern:  where Mark's version would appear to support a low Christology (i.e., that Jesus was less than perfect or had only limited power), Matthew's changes make it more difficult, if not impossible, to sustain such low Christology.  Mark's version of the story says Jesus "could not" do many miracles there, Matthew's version changes this to "did not" do many miracles there, effectively getting rid of the implication that Jesus' miraculous powers were limited:

 Inerrantist Christian scholar J. A Brooks explains:

6:5 This statement about Jesus’ inability to do something is one of the most striking instances of Mark’s boldness and candor. It is omitted by Luke 4:16–30 and toned down by Matt 13:58. The statement should not trouble contemporary Christians. God and his Son could do anything, but they have chosen to limit themselves in accordance to human response. Even in the present instance Jesus healed a few, perhaps some who did have faith or who were too sick to have an opinion about him. The statement clarifies that Jesus was not the kind of miracle worker whose primary purpose was to impress his viewers.

Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic e.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 100).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Sure, Brooks goes on to 'explain' why Mark's more candid wording shouldn't bother Christians (who fantasize that Jesus was omnipotent regardless of what the bible might actually say), but his explanation is singularly unconvincing:  If Matthew had interpreted Mark's "did not" the way inerrantist J.A. Brooks does, Matthew would have had no more motive to "tone down" Mark's version than Brooks has. 

It is thus clear from Matthew's motive in "toning down" Mark's version, that Matthew was not comfortable with the words God told Mark to write.  J. Warner Wallace might find life more tolerable living within the happy wonderland of bible inerrancy, but it isn't realistic. 

As a new investigator of the claims of Christianity, I examined the case for early dating and became convinced the Gospels were written within the generation of the eyewitnesses.

Then you must have placed too much emphasis on a rather nebulous area of bible scholarship.  Inerrantist and conservative Christian scholars bemoan the almost impossible task of figuring out the date any gospel was written.  Guelich on Mark’s date:

As was the case with authorship and place, the debate over a precise dating of the Gospel indicates above all how little solid internal evidence we have to go on.

Guelich, R. A. (2002). Vol. 34A: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 1-8:26.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page xxxii). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Craig Blomberg on Matthew’s date:

External evidence proves scarcely more conclusive than internal evidence…Considerations of authorship prove equally indecisive. We have no secure traditions about how long the apostle Matthew lived or when he died. Nor does a possible provenance in Palestine or Syria enable us to narrow the time span. We must conclude, with D. A. Carson, that any date between 40 and 100 fits the data.

Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 40).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Wallace continues:

But how do we know whether or not the early accounts were corrupted over the years?

Easy, get yourself a "gospel parallels" book and carefully note those places where Matthew and Mark tell the same story. Matthew exhibits a consistent pattern:  where Mark's wording might plausibly support a low Christology, Matthew either "tones down", adds wording supporting a higher Christological view, or omits part of Mark's wording altogether.  See above, not only did Matthew take Mark's "could not" and tone it down to "did not", he also completely omitted Mark's following phrase that Jesus "wondered" at the unbelief of the people...a phrase that clearly supports a low Christology (i.e., if Jesus was God, he would not "wonder" at anything).

Once again, if Matthew wasn't "correcting" Mark, then what motivated him to make these changes and omissions?  If Matthew believed Mark's gospel text was "inerrant", he would not have sought to change and delete anything in Mark any more than any of the signatories to the Chicago Statement on Bible Inerrancy would wish to modify Mark's wording.

One way to test the content of the Gospels as they were passed down from generation to generation is to simply compare what was written about the Gospels by those who had direct contact with the eyewitnesses.

Good luck convincing anybody except other Christians that the surviving works of Ignatius, Papias,  Polycarp and other alleged direct followers of the apostles are preserved unto us intact, reasonably free of textual corruption or authorship suspicion, and that these persons had personally conversed with the original apostles of Jesus.  That scholarly controversy could fill a book, yet you talk about it as if the procedure wasn't much more involved than what we do today, contacting a person who knew the eyewitness and getting a statement.  Life isn't that easy, Wallace.

I’ve written about the New Testament Chain of Custody in Cold-Case Christianity; when testing the validity of a piece of evidence in a particular case, we need to establish who handled the evidence from the time it was first collected to the time it is presented in trial. When it comes to the Gospel eyewitness accounts, we must examine what the students of the Gospel authors said about the text, then what their students said, then what the next generation said, and continue this examination down through history, comparing the statements and quotes to determine if the message of Scripture has changed.

Wrong, see above:  You can discover how the gospel message changed by noting how Matthew's later gospel often "corrects" Mark or else omits or adds to his more primitive version.  Here's another example, this time Matthew significantly embellishes Mark's more simple version of Peter's Confession:

“Messiah”?  or “Messiah, Son of the living God”?
Mark 8	Matthew 16
27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, "Who do people say that I am?"  28 They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets."  29 And He continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ."    30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him.  31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes,	13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi,   He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"    14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."  15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"  16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,  the Son of the living God."  17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.  18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."    20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. 21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.

 It doesn't matter what solution you chose to solve the Synoptic Problem, it remains likely that somebody is lying:

If you agree with most Christian scholars that Mark's gospel is earlier, then how likely is it that Mark would "choose to omit" the vast bulk of Peter's theologically significant answer?  That's unlikely, so there's a good probability that the reason Mark's earlier version of Peter's Confession is shorter is because Matthew's later version constitutes adding fictional embellishments.

If you disagree with most Christian scholars, and instead hold that Matthew's gospel is earlier, then we have to ask why Mark, coming along later and borrowing text from Matthew, would "choose to exclude" the vast bulk of Peter's theologically significant confession, when in fact the part he appears to have omitted contains rather important doctrine on the authority of Peter to "bind and loose" (i.e., to forgive or refuse to forgive the sins of other people).

The monkey wrench in this machinery is that the early church fathers between the 2nd and 4th centuries are unanimous that Mark was Peter's follower or "secretary".  If that belief is true, then it must be presumed that Mark was well aware of the full extent of Peter's confession, since he was Peter's companion, thus in the best position to know how much Peter said during that confession...returning us once again to the problematic question of how likely it is that Mark would knowingly "choose to exclude" from the reader's eyes the most theologically significant portion of Peter's reply here.

I'm sorry, but that's horrifically unlikely.  It is far more likely, given patterns that Matthew has already demonstrated, that the reason these parallel accounts differ like this is because Matthew is coming along, later, using Mark's text as something of a template, and is knowingly embellishing Peter's short answer with fictitious words (i.e., Matthew is putting in Peter's mouth words Peter never said, i.e., fiction).

Or...Matthew thinks Mark was in error to exclude so much of Peter's Confession, since Matthew himself clearly prefers the longer version.  And Matthew's and Mark's different ideas about what would be sufficient gospel material to reveal to the reader, is made even more problematic by the conservative Christian belief that these two men were inspired by one and the same unchangeable god to write the way they did.

How likely is it that God would want Mark to hide most of Peter's confession from the readers, but then want Matthew to reveal the missing parts?

Then again no fool was ever stupid enough to claim that god was ever consistent or rational.  

Today, I’ll provide an example with the Chain of Custody from the Apostle John (additional “chains” can be found in Cold-Case Christianity).

John (6-100AD) was the youngest of Jesus’ disciples. He was the son of Zebedee and Salome and the brother of James. While a young man, John witnessed the life of Jesus and saw firsthand many of the amazing miracles Jesus performed. John also witnessed the Resurrection. John wrote his Gospel as an eyewitness account, accurately reflecting the truth related to what he observed as a disciple of Jesus.

But other conservative Christian scholars such as Craig Evans and Mike Licona agree that John's gospel often puts in Jesus' mouth words he never actually said...a position a "conservative" Christian would hardly take if the evidence in favor of John's historical accuracy were as obvious and clear as you pretend in your popular-level books.

This Gospel is a critical piece of evidence from the “crime scene” and John taught three important students and passed his Gospel into their trusted hands. These three men (Ignatius, Papias and Polycarp) became important early Church leaders in their own right and wrote about what they learned from John.

Like I said...have fun convincing the scholars, who know better, that the writings from these persons are reasonably free of suspicion and defect.

John Taught Ignatius, Papias and Polycarp

Ignatius (35-117AD) also called himself “Theophorus” (which means “God Bearer”). Church tradition describes Ignatius as one of the children that Jesus blessed in the Gospel accounts.

Church tradition also includes lots of stupid shit...like Papias, an alleged follower of the apostles, saying Jesus once gave a story about how grapes would one day talk to people.  I documented this earlier, search my blog post here for "grapes".

Ignatius was a student of John and eventually became Bishop at Antioch, (Turkey), following the Apostle Peter. He wrote several important letters to the early Church and seven of them survive to this day. These letters are important because they demonstrate the New Testament documents were already written and familiar to the early Christians. Ignatius quoted or alluded to many New Testament books (including Matthew, John and Luke, and several, if not all, of Paul’s letters).

 Philip Schaff, an actual scholar of Christian history and not an "apologist", in his History of the Christian Church, justifies skepticism toward even the alleged "genuine" epistles of Ignatius:

§ 45.  Development of the Episcopate.  Ignatius.

The whole story of Ignatius is more legendary than real, and his writings are subject to grave suspicion of fraudulent interpolation.  We have three different versions of the Ignatian Epistles, but only one of them can be genuine; either the smaller Greek version, or the lately discovered Syriac.  In the latter, which contains only three epistles, most of the passages on the episcopate are wanting, indeed; yet the leading features of the institution appear even here, and we can recognise ex ungue leonem.  In any case they reflect the public sentiment before the middle of the second century.  

II. His Letters.

On his journey to Rome, Bishop Ignatius, as a prisoner of Jesus Christ, wrote seven epistles to various churches, mostly in Asia Minor.  Eusebius and Jerome put them in the following order: (1) To the Ephesians; (2) to the Magnesians; (3) to the Trallians; (4) to the Romans; (5) to the Philadelphians; (6) to the Smyrneans; (7) to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna.  The first four were composed in Smyrna; the other three later in Troas.  These seven epistles, in connection with a number of other decidedly spurious epistles of Ignatius, have come down to us in two Greek versions, a longer and a shorter.  The shorter is unquestionably to be preferred to the longer, which abounds with later interpolations.  Besides these, to increase the confusion of controversy, a Syriac translation has been made known in 1845, which contains only three of the former epistles — those to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans — and these in a much shorter form.  This version is regarded by some as an exact transfer of the original; by others, with greater probability, as a mere extract from it for practical and ascetic purposes.

…The only genuine Ignatius, as the question now stands, is the Ignatius of the shorter seven Greek epistles.

Wallace continues:

Ignatius provides us with a link in the Chain of Custody related to the original eyewitness accounts, demonstrating they were written very early and entrusted directly to key disciples who guarded them as Scripture.

 Ignatius also felt free to embellish the virgin birth story.  Whereas the biblical story says:

 7 Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared.
 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and search carefully for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, so that I too may come and worship Him."
 9 After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was.
 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. (Matt. 2:7-10 NAU)

 Ignatius embellishes this story.  From his Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 19:
(actually, there is the shorter and the longer versions of this part of Ignatius' letter at this chapter, so here they are: 

Chapter 19
Three Celebrated Mysteries

[Shorter]

Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence by God. How, then, was He manifested to the world? A star shone forth in heaven above all the other stars, the light of which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And all the rest of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this star, and its light was exceedingly great above them all. And there was agitation felt as to whence this new spectacle came, so unlike to everything else [in the heavens]. Hence every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of wickedness disappeared; ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom abolished, God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life. And now that took a beginning which had been prepared by God. Henceforth all things were in a state of tumult, because He meditated the abolition of death.

[Longer]

Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence, but have been revealed to us. A star shone forth in heaven above all that were before it, and its light was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And all the rest of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this star. It far exceeded them all in brightness, and agitation was felt as to whence this new spectacle [proceeded]. Hence worldly wisdom became folly; conjuration was seen to be mere trifling; and magic became utterly ridiculous. Every law of wickedness vanished away; the darkness of ignorance was dispersed; and tyrannical authority was destroyed, God being manifested as a man, and man displaying power as God. But neither was the former a mere imagination, nor did the second imply a bare humanity; but the one was absolutely true, and the other an economical arrangement. Now that received a beginning which was perfected by God. Henceforth all things were in a state of tumult, because He meditated the abolition of death.

Naturally, Wallace, wishing to make Ignatius as honest as possible, will choose the recension of this letter that contains less embellishments (i.e., the shorter one), but even so, that doesn't gain him much advantage:

Ignatius says the star was brighter than other stars, the bible doesn't.
Ignatius says the star struck men with astonishment, the bible doesn't.
Ignatius says the moon and other stars joined this star in chorus, the bible doesn't.
Ignatius says there was agitation felt because of the star, the bible doesn't.
Ignatius says the appearance of the star destroyed every kind of magic, the bible doesn't.
Etc, etc.

Taking Wallace's logic, we must infer that it was apostle John who taught Ignatius to use fiction to dress up the biblical stories and make them more dramatic than they originally were.

Wallace continues:

Papias (60-135AD) was described by Irenaeus as a “hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time”. He eventually became the Bishop of Hierapolis (now known as Pamukake in Turkey). He was quite familiar with the oral testimony of the eyewitnesses during the early documentation of their Gospel accounts. These documents were still being written and circulated during Papias’ early lifetime.

Strangely, what Wallace doesn't tell you is that Eusebius, the 4th century church historian, emphatically disagreed with 2nd century Irenaeus on this point, and insisted that Papias did not hear from the apostles himself, but only heard what they said through third-parties.  From Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, ch. 39:

1. There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: "These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him." These are the words of Irenæus.

2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.

3. He says: But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.

4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders — what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.

5. It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

6. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John.

7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things, we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

Yes, Christian scholar Monte Shanks, Ph.d, wrote what is the most recent and persuasive case that Eusebius got this wrong, Irenaeus got it right, and that Papias really did have a personal or real-time acquaintance with apostle John, but I've already had a long discussion with Shanks on this, I've refuted his book, and I'll do battle with anybody who tries to use Shank's work to make Papias look reliable. 

Papias wrote a lengthy five-volume treatise called “Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord”, but this text has been lost to us. Papias’ work (as quoted later by Eusebius), alludes to many Gospel passages and stories.

Again, Wallace doesn't tell you that one such story was that grapes would one day talk to people, a story about the alleged 1000-year reign of Christ or "Millennium" (the doctrine is called chiliasm)  that cannot be plausibly interpreted as metaphor.  So the talking grapes element, that is, the part that is most absurd, was intended to be taken literally.  THAT's how stupid Papias and Irenaeus were.

Papias represents another link in the chain of custody, learning from John and the other eyewitnesses and passing this information down to the next generation.

Polycarp (69-155AD) was a friend of Ignatius and a student of John. Irenaeus later testified that he once heard Polycarp talk about his conversations with John, and Polycarp was known to have been converted to Christianity by the eyewitness Apostles themselves. Polycarp eventually became the Bishop of Smyrna (now known as Izmir in Turkey) and wrote a letter to the Philippians that references fourteen to sixteen New Testament books (including Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter and 1 John, with some scholars observing additional references to 2 Timothy and 2 Corinthians). Polycarp’s letter demonstrates the early texts were in circulation and familiar to the Philippians, making Polycarp’s references in his letter all the more meaningful.

Ignatius, Papias and Polycarp Taught Irenaeus

Irenaeus (120-202AD) was born in Smyrna, the city where Polycarp served as Bishop. He was raised in a Christian family and was a “hearer” of Polycarp; he later recalled hearing Polycarp talk about his conversations with the Apostle John. He eventually became a priest (and then the Bishop) of Lugdunum in Gaul (presently known as Lyons, France). Irenaeus matured into a theologian and apologist and wrote an important work called “Adversus Haereses” (Against Heresies). This refined response to the heresy of Gnosticism provided Irenaeus with the opportunity to address the issue of Scriptural authority and he identified as many as twenty-four New Testament books as Scripture (including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John and Revelation). Irenaeus provides us with another link in the chain of custody, affirming the established eyewitness accounts and faithfully preserving them for the next generation.

One wonders why Wallace appears to think that because it exists, and was linked to authorship by somebody after the apostles, reasonable people have no choice but to accept all this stuff as true and reliable.

Irenaeus Taught Hippolytus

Hippolytus (170-236AD) was born in Rome and was a disciple of Irenaeus. As he grew into a position of leadership, he opposed Roman Bishops who modified their beliefs to accommodate the large number of pagans who were coming to faith in the city. In taking a stand for orthodoxy, he became known as the first “anti-pope” or “rival pope” in Christian history. He was an accomplished speaker of great learning, influencing a number of important Christian leaders such as Origen of Alexandria (who heard him preaching while he was a presbyter under Pope Zephyrinus). Hippolytus wrote a huge ten-volume treatise called, “Refutation of All Heresies”. In this expansive work, Hippolytus identified as many as twenty-four New Testament books as Scripture (including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John and Revelation). Unfortunately, Hippolytus was persecuted under Emperor Maximus Thrax and exiled to Sardinia where he most likely died in the mines.

Marcion's canon was much shorter, and the only reason you think he was wrong is because he was accused by the "orthodox" church fathers, whose writing are our only information on Marcion,  of arbitrarily cutting out portions of the gospel text and keeping only what he liked.  You'd probably be singing a different tune if all of Marcion's writings and those of his defenders had survived unto today.  it's difficult to believe he'd have gained as wide of a following as the church fathers complain he did, if he was an absolute fool who clearly cherry-picked a few bits from the gospels and tossed the rest away...lest you commit yoruself the proposition that people were shockingly gullible in the 2nd century...which is a generalization that must then include Christians.  If Marcion's followers were duped because they couldn't check to see whether his version of the gospels was the same as the originals, that inability to check would also plague the Christians who attended "orthodox" churches.

As a result of Hippolytus’ exile and martyrdom, this particular chain of custody ends without a clear “next link”, although it is certain Hippolytus had many important students who preserved the Scripture with the same passion he had as a student of Irenaeus. One thing we know for sure: the Canon of Scripture was already established in the early 2nd Century, as eyewitness accounts were recorded by the Apostles and handed down to their disciples who wrote about them, described them, and identified them for later generations.

No, Wallace, you are not establishing the "eyewitness" nature of the canonical gospels by showing that they are quoted in the early church fathers.  The early fathers believed lots of false information, such as that Matthew was the first gospel to be published...a position now denied by the majority of bible scholars.

Why Wallace thinks "quoted by Hippolytus!" means "gospels were authored by eyewitnesses" remains a mystery.

The following facts about Jesus were affirmed from the earliest “links” in the New Testament Chain of Custody:

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary

Mark's gospel says nothing about this and is viewed by most Christian scholars as the earliest of the 4 canonical gospels (i.e., the earliest of the 4 gospels lacks the virgin birth story...suggesting the later gospels have it only because they are embellishing upon the original and less dramatic story).  In light of Mark's discernible intent to show Jesus as divine Son of God, it is highly unlikely he would have "chosen to exclude" references to the virgin birth, had he either known about them, or trusted that they were true.  So Mark's absolute silence on the virgin birth cannot be explained as his choice to leave out certain historical details. And if you trust as true the unanimous opinion of the early fathers that Mark is a written version of Peter's preaching, then Mark's intent in writing was little more than to repeat what the requesting church previously heard Peter say....so you cannot explain Mark's silence as a case of him not wanting to repeat what his church already believed.  They also already believed Jesus was baptized by John the baptist, healed many people, died for sin and rose from the dead too, yet Mark includes that stuff in his gospel nonetheless.

A star announced His birth

James Dunn is a Christian and a bible scholar, yet Gary Habermas noted that despite Dunn's openness to the supernatural, this moving star business in the Virgin Birth stories was not likely historically real.  Dunn said:

“Matthew’s moving star does not evoke a strong impression of historical credibility. If, instead, we attribute such detail to the symbolical imagination of the story-teller, how much of the story remains as a viable historical account?” (See Habermas, op cit.)

 I would argue as a skeptic that because Matthew specifies the "star" doing something a "star" obviously could never do (i.e., standing over the place where Jesus was, Matthew 2:9), the author of Matthew and his readers mistakenly believed that the stars really are either small points of light that can be manipulated light flashlights, or were angels, either of which view is clearly error.

Wallace continues:

He was baptized by John the Baptist, taught and had a “ministry” on earth

He was humble, unassuming and sinless

No, he disrespectfully replied to his own mother:

 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine."
 4 And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come." (Jn. 2:3-4 NAU)

The only reason Jesus heals a Gentile woman is because she cleverly answers his racist remark about how Gentiles are dogs and don't deserve to eat the bread of the children (Jews):

 22 And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed."
 23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us."
 24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
 25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!"
 26 And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."
 27 But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
 28 Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once. (Matt. 15:22-28 NAU)

Inerrantist Christian scholar Craig Blomberg doesn't have easy solutions to the obvious racism:

15:25–28 The woman merely repeats her plea for help but also kneels. Whatever her intention, Matthew will see some kind of worship here. Jesus pursues the question of the distinction between Jews and Gentiles (v. 26). Jews frequently insulted Gentiles by calling them “dogs,”— the wild, homeless scavengers that roamed freely in Palestine. But the diminutive form here (kynarion rather than kyōn) suggests a more affectionate term for domestic pets, particularly since these dogs eat under the children’s table.80 Even at best, Jesus’ remarks still strike the modern reader as condescending. Jesus apparently wants to demonstrate and stretch this woman’s faith. The “children” must then refer to Israel and the “bread” to the blessings of God on the Jews, particularly through Jesus’ healing ministry.

Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.). 

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 244). 

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Wallace continues:

He spoke the words of God and taught the Sermon on the Mount

The Sermon on the Mount is found in Matthew chapters 5-7.  The very similar Sermon on the Plain is found in Luke 6.  None of this is found in Mark.  If Matthew and Luke are telling the truth about what Jesus said, Mark surely knew that Jesus preached such things, even more so if the early traditions saying Mark was a companion of Peter are correct.  Mark would be no more likely to "choose to exclude" these clearly important sermons of Christ than would any inerrantist alive today, therefore, these sermons are absent from Mark the earliest gospel, likely because Mark didn't believe Jesus taught such things.

Ointment was poured on Jesus’ head

He was unjustly treated and condemned by men

On the contrary, the only time you hear Jesus backpeddling and conveniently insisting that his "kingdom" is not of this world, is when he is confronted at his trial about rumors that he has been calling himself the king of the Jews (John 18:36), a thing that would count as insurrection and warranting the death-penalty. Apparently he was a true insurrectionist, and only gave his claims a "spiritual" or "not of this world" application in a trial setting where the literal interpretation of his claims would render his execution certain.

He was whipped, suffered and was crucified

This all took place under the government of Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch was king

Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected

I'm willing to debate any apologist any time on Jesus' resurrection.

He had a physical resurrection body

That's irrelevant, you think he could make his body disappear into thin air, so trifling about what magic resurrected people are able to do is both stupid and childish.   I often wonder how many adult Christians are still scared of the monster under the bed.

He appeared to Peter and the others after the resurrection

Most Christian scholars say the resurrection appearance narrative in Mark the earliest gospel (i.e., Mark 16:9-20, the so-called "long ending") wasn't written by Mark and is a textual corruption.  If this majority scholarly view is correct, the earliest gospel thus ended at 16:8, and thus did not tell the reader anything about a risen Christ actually appearing to anybody.  The fear of the women in v. 8 would be reverential awe, not horrified alarm, therefore, ending at v. 8 does not constitute ending on a sour note.  Since Mark ends at 16:8 after saying an angel proclaimed Christ's resurrection, the shorter ending is quite fitting and natural, and is only unacceptable to inerrantists who have been reading the longer detailed versions of the ending in the other gospels for decades, and just cannot imagine that somebody living 2,000 years ago might actually not care as much as modern day apologists about bowling over the skeptics.

And regardless, even if we assume Mark's original ending forthrightly stated "the disciples went to Galilee where they saw the risen Lord", this earliest of gospels would then only give a primitive resurrection appearance narrative that lacks details, so that the more detailed versions in the later gospels (Matthew 28, Luke 24, John 20, 21) still look like the result of fictional embellishments over time.

He encouraged the disciples to touch and He ate with the disciples

The disciples were convinced by the resurrection appearances and were fearless after seeing

the risen Christ

Bullshit, the risen Christ orders THEM to take the gospel to the Gentiles (Matthew 28:19), yet if we can trust Paul in Galatians 2:9, they simply handed off the Gentile ministry to Paul wholesale, and continued to intentionally confine their own ministries solely to the "circumcision" or the Jews, thus bluntly violating their divinely given orders.  The apostles were anything but "amazingly transformed" by this risen Christ.

For example, Peter would eat with Gentiles, but when leaders from the Jewish faction of the church (i.e., "men from James") came to town, suddenly, he stopped eating with Gentiles, fearing to contradict the more legalistic views of the Jewish leaders (Galatians 2:12).

Again, the only biblical, information on James the lord's brother is that he stayed in Jerusalem and headed up the church there, with no indication at all that he wished to take the gospel to the Gentiles.

We are supposed to believe that all 11 original disciples saw the risen Christ and were mightily transformed, yet the book of Acts completely ignores most of them (Bartholomew, Matthias, Thomas, etc).  Yet if we are to believe these others also led Spirit filled ministries including the writing of divinely inspired epistles, etc, as today's Christians think happened,  we would naturally expect Luke, the "careful historian" to have found such realities too irresistible to leave out of his history of the early church.  Seems pretty clear that the reason Acts doesn't say shit about most of the other apostles is because they were so unimpressed with Jesus' 'resurrection', they slipped into obscurity by choice.

Jesus returned to God the Father

That's right...Jesus "ascended" (Acts 1:9-11).  Jesus and his biographers clearly believed that heaven was "up there", in total contradiction to the views of today's conservative Christians who insist that heaven is not "up there", but is rather a different dimension.  Nothing prevented God from enlightening the apostles to actual reality, so it is far from clear that God is merely accomodating their faulty views.  It's much more likely that these 1st century authors seriously believed that heaven was "up there".    By the way, the end of Luke 24 gives the reader every reason to think Jesus' resurrection and ascension took place on the same day, Easter Sunday, that is, leaving no room to suppose that 40 days parted the resurrection from the ascension (Acts 1:3).

He is our only Master and the Son of God

All things are subject to Jesus and all creation belongs to Him

He is the “Door,” the “Bread of Life,” and the “Eternal Word”

Jesus is our “Savior”, “Lord” and “God”

Faith in Christ’s work on the cross saves us

But Jesus was clearly forgiving sin and basing salvation upon works before he died on the cross.  You cannot get rid of the original legalistic form of the gospel by saying his death on the cross instituted a new covenant of grace where salvation is obtained now solely as a gift of God...because the risen Christ said the gospel to the Gentiles was exactly the same as the gospel he required his original apostles to obey (the part of the Great Commission most people miss, Matthew 28:20).  So regardless of what you conclude about the theological significance of Jesus' death on the cross, you cannot correctly obey the risen Lord unless you view your salvation as something to be earned, exactly as Jesus taught:

 17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
 19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
 20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:17-20 NAU)

 Everybody accepts the hermenutic of "immediate context", and in the immediate context, Jesus goes on to stress the importance of fulfilling both letter and spirit of the Law...not within a thousand miles of that "saved by grace" easy believeism taught by Paul.  There's no mystery whatever why today's fundamentalist more often quote Paul on "how to get saved", than Jesus.

 Wallace continues:

This salvation and forgiveness are gifts of grace from God

Wrong, the legalistic gospel Jesus preached (Matthew 5:19) is also the gospel for all future Gentile followers (Matthew 28:20).  At least Matthew himself thought so, since he provides for Gentiles a long gospel full of Jesus' legalistic teachings to the Jews.

Furthermore, that last verse justifies taking a razor and cutting out of your bible everything except the 4 gospels.  The gospel for future Gentiles was defined by the risen Jesus in Matthew 28:20 as the things he had taught his original apostles.  You already have that in the 4 canonical gospels, so Paul's letters are best viewed as nothing more than unnecessary complications best avoided.  Indeed, how exactly would your spiritual growth be stunted in the least if you excluded from you life everything in the NT except the 4 gospels?

Gee, maybe you'd slide into sexual sin because you'd no longer have access to Romans 9?

Maybe you'd start thinking skepticism was justified because you can no longer read the book of Revelation?

Wallace continues:

Jesus will judge the living and the dead

The facts about Jesus were written early and repeated often; they haven’t changed over time. We can be confident we have an accurate, unaltered record of Jesus’ life because it was written early enough to be fact-checked by those who were actually there (as Paul claimed in 1 Corinthians 15:6),

 Sorry, Wallace, but Corinth was several hundred miles away from Jerusalem, where the original resurrection eyewitnesses and these alleged "500 witnesses" were.



 Source:  http://blackwooduc.org.au/paulsworld-map/


 Paul must have known it was highly unlikely for any of his followers living in Corinth to desire to go away fro the families and jobs and suffer the time, expense and dangers of first-century traveling over hundreds of miles, just to find out whether Paul's claims about some eyewitnesses were consistent with what the eyewitnesses themselves were saying.  In those days, there was little or no welfare.  You stop working, your family starves.  While wealthy people might have the luxury to put forth such gargantuan effort to fact-check like this, the vast majority of the Corinthians, whom Paul himself characterizes as poor slobs (1st Corinthians 1:26), would be unlikely to do so.  It would be like me telling a homeless man in Seattle that flying elephants really exist in Nevada, and he can travel 700 miles to Nevada to check it out.

In fact, it is more than likely that whenever a Corinthian person wished to travel to Jerusalem, they would travel westward and go all the way around the globe to get there, which means Paul must have known that the Corinthians would have to travel more than 23,000 miles just to check up on this "500 witnesses saw Jesus alive" factoid.  I am the smartest historian and bible scholar in the world.



Once again, Wallace has a seriously difficult time convincing anybody except Christians that his apologetic arguments are forceful.

New Reply to James Patrick Holding's unconvincing backpeddling

Since I began showing the world in 2008 what a piece of shit scumbag James Patrick Holding really is by reason of his absurd Harsh Language article, and other similar online screeds, he has changed the wording in that article several times.  I respond to it point-by-point below:

Printed from http://tektonics.org/madmad.php

As of 9/2/2017, Barry Jones, aka turchisrong, owes me $24,074.35. When is he going to pay his bills?

I'm never going to pay that bill.  You will simply a) update the amount each year, and b) suffer from incessant questions as to why Licona and other legitimately credentialed Christian apologists started wanting nothing to do with you soon after my libel lawsuits against you became public knowledge.  Jesus would never agree with you that because a secular judge awarded you fees, you must have deserved those fees.  Yet you hold up this granting of fees as if lower court judges are incapable of getting things wrong.  If you supplied to your followers ALL of the briefing that I filed and you filed which led up to that court judgment, they would notice that the judge ignored mandatory precedent numerous times.

But no, I'm sure that your drooling followers, so quick to presume you innocent and me guilty, find it more important to remain ignorant and thus comfortable, rather than educate themselves on what really went down, and thus take the risk of finding out this court judgment was immoral and unlawful.

The Christian and Harsh Language

There’s a particularly moronic notion that some people might come up with in response to what is below. They might ask if the Context Group (whose work I cite below) agrees with what I’m saying here, and think that actually is a meaningful question. It’s not.

Yeah right. Asking whether the scholar whose work you use, drew the same conclusion from his work that you did, this is a "moronic" question that is not "meaningful".  Are you drunk?  Dr. Rohrbaugh certainly thought it significant that you draw a different conclusion from his work than he did.  He said your article (the one I'm refuting right now) was a perversion of the New Testament, ALL Context Group work, and particularly a perversion of his own work.  The issue is why Rohrbaugh finds it so "obvious" that you have "perverted" Context Group scholarship, if in fact all you doing is drawing a different conclusion from it than he does.

The Context Group certainly agrees that riposte was the norm in Biblical times, which is the single and sole point that I derive from them.

 Which is to your disgrace, since you take what you 'derive' from them and use it to justify the type of slanderous talk that most mature Christian scholars quickly classify as sinful.  Rohrbaugh even said this article of yours was so bad, it didn't even merit a response, he said it would be a waste of his time.

And once again, it doesn't matter that riposte was normal in biblical times.  YOUR particular brand of riposte often involves sexually inappropriate slurs and is otherwise sufficiently extreme as to qualify as "slander", a thing the bible repeatedly prohibits (Mark 7:22-23, Ephesians 4:31), and lets not forget that Michael the Archangel did not bring a railing accusation against even the devil, 

  7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
 8 Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.
 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
 10 But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed. (Jude 1:7-10 NAU)

 ...despite the availability of arguments that the devil so often publicly slanders Christianity that publicly slandering him back might constitute justified "riposte".

What they may not agree with me on is whether it is appropriate today. I don't disagree with their interpretations. I disagree with their applications. I don't draw conclusions about those applications from their research. I do that on my own. And if they think what I argue is a perversion of their work, then it's likely they've been grossly misinformed by a tendentious source that is giving them leading information to draw out a desired opinion.

No, there you are lying again.  You know perfectly well that the reason Rohrbaugh steamrolled you in 2008 was because I had emailed him a cut and paste from one of our debates where you were gratuitously insulting me in ways that mature Christian scholars find to be a shocking violation of basic NT ethics. 

For those interested, my 2008 correspondence with Rohrbaugh, including Rohrbaugh's comments to the effect that James Patrick Holding gives Christianity a bad name and is just a boor with no manners who doesn't deserve to be given the time of day, is publicly documented here.

Furthermore, in 2015, I emailed to Rohrbaugh a link to your "Harsh Language" article, and his reply email is the one where he said your "harsh language"  article was a perversion of the New Testament, Context Group work in general, and his own scholarship in particular.  This and more is all documented here.

Holding continues: 

But that said, so what if they don't like my applications? I would say in reply: That’s their problem, not mine.

So apparently, if a skeptic uses a "that's your problem not mine" excuse, you approve.

Last I checked, Rohrbaugh, for example, thinks the book of Nahum is too nasty and should be removed from the canon. That’s obviously a position I don’t agree with, and it's not a matter of intellectual deficiency for Rohrbaugh to hold that view since the key facts (such as that Nahum has harsh language) are not in dispute. Rohrbaugh's view on Nahum is a moral decision he makes based on his own preferences.

It's also a moral decision he makes as a person who has been a Christian for many decades.  Sorry, Holding, but you are going to have to say Rohrbaugh went for decades as a Christian without ever noticing that the bible justifies modern-day Christians to use sexually inappropriate slurs the way you do.  Rohrbaugh's long experience with and scholarly-level knowledge of the bible are also part of the reason he finds your slurs to be so devilish.

Or have you stopped slandering people now that your dark side was brought into light through the Courts, and you can no longer get away with posting filthy language online?   I have to wonder how many of your former mentally comatose followers started obsessing in Googling your name and mine, after I fucked up  your image over at theologyweb.

I do think those preferences are absurd, narrow-minded and out of touch.

What we learn from the world's foremost Christian apologist, then, is that even if we skeptics get our Ph.d's in some area of study associated with the sociology of the biblical world, and even if we also become Christians sufficiently that we end up writing scholarly tomes on the bible that are well-respected among bible scholars, we can still end up drawing conclusions that are absurd, narrow-minded, and out of touch.

Sounds to me like biblical issues are fatally ambiguous, thus justifying refusal to bother with that stupid bullshit, unless one does it solely as a personal intellectual hobby, like me.

I would even go so far as to say that such views about the canon are a perversion, and that Rohrbaugh is guilty of perverting the truth to that extent.

 That phrase wasn't included in your earlier editions of this article. But your late choice to say "perversion" appears to be biting back at Rohrbaugh, who himself was the first to use that word in this controversy, using it to characterize YOUR article. 

And there you are, the old J.P. Holding, returning insult for insult, doing exactly what the Context Group says constitutes a perversion of the bible and their own work.

What we further learn is that even if we skeptics accept Jesus, become educated in apologetics and then for 20 years thereafter operate a website that answers skeptical objections to Christianity, boasting of how scholarly we are the whole time,  we might still end up getting an "F" in Basic New Testament Ethics 101.

And the reason that often happens is because there is no Holy Spirit to effect spiritual growth in anybody in the first place. THAT is how you can be intensely involved in Christian defense for 20 years and yet miss the forest for the trees the entire time.

But the bottom line is: I agree with their findings, and I don't think they misinterpret the New Testament.

Well they sure said you "pervert" the New Testament.

However, I also don’t agree with all of their applications of those findings. There’s a huge difference, and very simple minds may not grasp that difference.

Then stop presenting biblical issues in the format of YouTube cartoons catering toward 40-year old adolescents, and maybe the juvenile delinquents who think you died for their sins will discover how the Holy Spirit kept Christians interested in his work for 2,000 years without needing internet bells and whistles and cartoon sound effects to overcome their inherent lazines, you stupid cocksucker. 

They also fail to grasp that it is quite possible for someone like Rohrbaugh to be judiciously informed on one matter while being profoundly ignorant on other matters. (This in contrast to fundy atheists, who are profoundly ignorant about just about everything.)

You weren't leaving room for Rohrbaugh to be "profoundly ignorant" on other matters back in 2008, when you were lauding his bible expertise and using some things he said to justify your slandering of other people.  Now that you've been steamrolled by the scholar you quoted the most for this stupid childish bullshit, suddenly, you remind the world that Rohrbaugh isn't perfect.  

Ha Ha, you are ANYTHING but a threat to bible critics.  And nothing spells "Emergency! Clam up! Emergency!" quite like your blocking my ISP from being able to access your website.  You are like the child during a fight saying "I'm not scared of you" while running away from the attacker.  You cannot escape the fact that talk is cheap; your actions speak louder than your words.

However, if any of the Context Group ever wished to argue that such language is inappropriate today, my reply is that they need to mind their own business and look past the rarified confines of academia.

And according to you that would also require that they abandon the basic morals they learned as children, and become willing to libel others in spite of the bible's many prohibitions against "slander".

Scholars like Malina and Rohrbaugh don’t spend any time confronting atheist idiots like DarkMatter2525 or NonStampcollector.

Probably because these well-qualified bible scholars have never seen any justification in the bible for spending their time confronting atheist "idiots".  So if you see such justification in the bible for this activity, the reader has to decide who is more likely to have gotten the biblical message correctly, qualified bible scholars, or one lone ranger on the internet who lost the support of his own favorite scholars when truth was brought to light in two libel lawsuits. Gee, that's a hard one.

They’ve never engaged in forum debate with lunatic fundy atheists who keep quoting Thomas Paine as an authority on the formation of the canon, or who have some sort of personality disorder and keep posting mile-long blog entries no one ever reads, or who have never done anything with their lives except work as day laborers or truck drivers and sit around collecting government checks and don’t have a job while they otherwise rack up huge six-figure debts they can’t pay off.

It appears you haven't learned your lesson perfectly, but you've certainly learned some of it.   Your subtle reserved language about me, and refusal to specifically mention my name, is in sharp contradiction to the demon-possessed three year old who was operating your website in 2015, and who slandered me hundreds of times over because of his psychotically narcissistic inability to recognize his own stupidity.  I was correct:  You are such an obstinate fuck, it really does take the extreme measure of kicking your head in, and causing you to associate pain with your stupid choices, to get you to calm down, since trying to convince you on a purely intellectual level is like trying to convince an alligator to repent and believe the gospel.  Your brain simply doesn't have the hard-wiring necessary to enable to you give a fuck about being wrong.  You missed your calling, Holding, you should have been a lawyer.  They too give a shit far more about how to trifle this and that, than about actual truth.

They also, not shockingly, never appeal to the Bible as authoritative justification for their views about modern behavior (because as the Nahum example shows, the Bible isn't their chief defining authority).

What skeptics learn here is that even if we became Christians and became as smart as Rohrbaugh, there is no guarantee we'd adopt the view of the bible God wants Christians to adopt...thus justifying the average unbeliever to say "fuck you" to any Christian challenge to learn biblical things.

They don't think Nahum is a good example for us. So of course the Bible isn't their final word as a moral guide.

And with all of your unbiblical slandering of other people, the bible apparently isn't your final word as a moral guide either.

It's also relevant that they aren't out there like the fundy atheists peddling their views deceptively and in gross ignorance.

Preaching to the choir.  You are scared blind of challenging me with any of your apologetics dogshit, you know you'll get steamrolled.  Most Christian apologists do not intentionally configure their website to make it inaccessible to certain people.  But you sure do.

If any Context Group member doesn’t think there’s a place for hard language today, good for them – they need to get out more.

If any internet apologist thinks there IS a place for hard language today, good for them --  they need to get out more.  Isn't  it funny that your excuses always sound stupid when anybody else use them? 

They are far from being my favorite Bible scholars, nor have I ever worshiped the ground they walk on; nor do I quote them the most on this website.

That's irrelevant, you weren't expressing or implying any of this backtracking in 2008 before you found out Rohrbaugh thinks you give Christianity a bad name.   I'm happy to infer from your constantly modifying this article that behind the scenes your followers have serious problems with you, sufficient to get you to constantly update this article. 

I respect their expertise and use it, but I can use the research of the Context Group even if they disapprove of my views and the way I apply that research.

The issue is not what you are "allowed" to do with somebody else's research.  

The issue is why the authors of that research complain that your use of their research constitutes an "obvious perversion" of it.  You cannot get rid of Rohrbaugh's Christian moral view by simply noting that somebody can be smart in one area and judiciously ignorant in another.  Rohrbaugh clearly thought your slanders were a violation of basic NT ethics, it was the equivalent of him feeling compelled to say that another Christian doesn't recognize that stealing is unbiblical.  One of you is not just in the wrong, but in the wrong so deep that it can only be explained by brick-level stupidity, or willingness to violate clear NT ethics.  I let the reader judge which extreme you are.

For the record, no Context Group member has ever written to me about any of this.

Because Rohrbaugh said a reply to your article wasn't worth his time.

The better question is whether you did the scholarly thing, and contacted Rohrbaugh to clarify his views about you.  In 2008, you pretended that you'd never contact him because he was too busy to worry about other people's personal problems, but on the contrary, Rohrbaugh's views of you are so low, he was effectively asserting that you sinned against him by "obviously perverting" his scholarship... just a modern way of making a claim that you are a false witness.  So unless you wish to go all the way into the liberal toilet and claim that even if you sin against somebody, there's no need to discuss it with them personally...then you don't have a choice, you have a biblical obligation to personally communicate with and seek forgiveness of, those who charge you with being a false witness.

And we all know that the real reason you didn't attempt any such contact is because you were genuinely fearful that Rohrbaugh would simply castigate you more and confirm that what I was putting out on the internet was accurate.

And if they ever did, I'd invite them to spend a few hours on YouTube and get some eye-openers.

That's rather stupid given that you've been made aware they think such conduct is wasteful.

But I don't expect they'd waste their time anyway. Rohrbaugh is in his 90s, and it is absurd to think that he or any of the other distinguished academics that are part of the Context Group spend any time trolling YouTube channels.

Good call.  It's more reasonable to assume only dumbfuck assholes who think of themselves as the center of the universe, would go around trolling YouTube channels looking for skeptics to refute.  Did you ever look in a mirror, or did your therapist insist that you need to start spending less time gloating over yourself?