The Dumplin' Dumbash Page

Though Dumplin' rants for several paragraphs this round, there's really not much we need to say in reply. Because what he has to say that time IS that stupid. Seriously.

The entirety of Dumplin's whine this week could have come straight from a fundy pulpit where Bob Jones would feel comfortable scratching his pits. His argymint:

"Duh ah....Holding is imposing this 'patronage' stuff on the New Testamint....duh ah...."

As readers know, we don't take Dumplin' seriously here. This is why rebuttals to him appear on the toon site, not on Tekton proper. Our main purpose in taking 10 minutes a week to answer his diatribes is that we enjoy watching him drool on himself. He gives us funny things to post on the TWeb Screwball thread. This one's another, after Dumpy quotes Matthew 8:5-10:

Notice, Holding sees patronage associated with the word "faith" in the passage above. Jesus doesn’t say anything about patronage, or how it would differ from a master/slave (or Father/child) relationship, or how faith based on patronage would be different from faith based on just believing what men have told you. Holding is merely juxtaposing the word "patronage" with the Biblical reference to "faith," and is thus creating an interpretational context in which faith is associated with patronage. The new idea becomes part of the reader’s understanding of what "Biblical faith" is, and thus Holding’s extrabiblical teaching effectively merges with the Bible and acquires all the assumed authority and infallibility of the words that are actually written there.

Notice too that Holding’s interpretation is merely one possible interpretation of what is written—the interpretation that seems right in his own eyes. He could just as well have pointed out that the centurion had not seen or heard of Jesus healing anyone by "remote control," and thus was proceeding on blind faith, in the absence of evidence. Or he could have used "master/slave," "general/soldier," or "parent/child" instead of "patronage," and thus interpreted the passage as giving no special support to the patronage idea. He could even have pointed out that the centurion’s evidence-based faith is inaccessible to those of us for whom God does not show up and provide any evidence. It’s all in how you place the emphasis and in what academic context you supply.

Aw....isn't he cute when he thinks he knows what he's talking about!

Needless to say, this sort of beet-faced sermonizing doesn't do a whole lot to answer serious, credentialed scholars like de Silva, or Malina, or Pilch when it comes to rebutting their analysis of passages like these in terms of ancient patronage. Nor does it do much to answer credentialed scholars specializing in the anthropology of the Greco-Roman world, who would affirm that patronage was the grease that turned the social wheels of that society. (So no -- it isn't "merely one possible interpretation," Dumpy -- it is the ONLY interpretation, period. And actually, some of that, like master/slave, would be ONE FORM of patronage that existed.)

It's no surprise, therefore, that Dumplin' has little choice once again to get on his broken hobby horse of "waaaaaah, God doesn't show up in real life, waaaaah." Meaning of course, in the kissyface way Dumpy THINKS God should show up, at his beck and call as the ultimate spoiiled brat. The "patronage answer" kills this contrived expectation of Dumpy's, which is why it disturbs him so much and why he can't help but dip into the emotional wah wah well.

So no, Dumplin' -- it's no "conceptual patch" or an "artificial interpretational context." It's a genuine defining context backed up by the best credentialed scholarship. It also means all your rap about prayer not working is down the toilet, with the rest of your scholarship. A patron gave as he saw fit -- when it served his purposes. Not simply because you whined and cried and asked. Therefore, your attempt to twist the centurion story doesn't work -- it falls once again on your ignorance and lack of understanding of how the model works. Dumplin' says, "Nothing in the ancient practice of patronage (or its modern equivalents) put such strict limits on what the patron could be asked for, particularly in connection with requesting access to the patron’s resources in order to accomplish the tasks the patron has commissioned." Wrong, Dumpy. The strictures of honor but strict limits on what the patron could be asked for, as did the principle that you didn't overstep and presume you could get anything you want. The case in point is the place where Herod offered his dancing stepdaughter half his kingdom. The last thing she would have done would have been to be rude enough to ask for exactly that. Again, more stupidity: "Granted, the patron’s role was more exalted than that of the person being patronized, still it was never the patron’s role to make himself completely inaccessible." Wrong again, Dumpy. Most naturally the patron WAS inaccessible; it was not unlikely that you'd never meet him. It was a broker you most often dealt with, not the patron.

And so it is. As always, Dumplin' the Rat is lost in a socio-lingustic maze, and he thinks he's making progress because of the dents he's making in the wall banging his head on it.