The Dumplin' Dumbash Page

On Seven Questions

When it comes to spin, Dumplin' Dumbash has cyclones beat. He starts his 8/1 diatribe against Geisler and Turek with the whine that G and T are trying to "convince people we're right." Good night. Really? We had no idea. And in all of that, apparently Dumplin's blog is not for the purpose of convincing anyone that HE is right - about Geisler or Turek being wrong, or about anything else - but his whole purpose is, contraily, to NOT convince anyone he's right about anything. Well, good. He's doing a good job of that.

In any event, Dumplin' wants to play historian today, so let's see how he deals with some of the issues G and Y bring up.

• On early and eyewitness testimony (questions 1-3): Dumplin' plays the duh card and asks, "Duh ah, how early is early?" Let me give you a hint, Dumplin': In relative terms dealing with ancient historical documents, "early" generally means within the lifetime of witnesses. Dumplin' don't have the cajones to do any serious study of document datings (as we do here, of course, so all he does is link to a Bruce Metzger commentary, hoist the specter of diversity ("The dating of Christian manuscripts is a rather contentious field, with conservative Christians pushing for earlier and earlier dates."), make vague allusions to the possibility of getting things wrong even in a short time, and run away. In scholarly terms, that's like leaving a paper bag of ox manure at someone's door, setting it aflame, ringing the doorbell, and hightailing it. You'll never see Dumplin' lay out any serious epistemology for the dating and authenticity of documents, because that would involve "work."
• On trustworthy testimony (question 4): Here, Dumplin' just pulls Hume's mangy old cat out of the bag and waves it around above his head. They reported miracles? I haven't seen any. They're automatically untrustworthy. Duh ah….that was easy.
• On archaeology and enemy attestation (questions 5 and 6): Dumplin' alerts us (duh ah) to be watchful for "cherry picking" and irrelevant evidence though he gives us no example of G and T or anyone else actually doing it. I think we need to be more alert for Dumplin' pickin' his nose and causing brain damage, or from damaging his brain from all the spin he puts in his blog
• On embarrassment (question 7): Dumplin' calls this the "most frankly apologetic of the seven criteria," which is kind of funny because it is regularly used by folks like the Jesus Seminar who have no apologetic for Jesus to offer. That said, Dumplin' is right in one sense, to imply that it needs to be used more judiciously, though not in the way he thinks. Too often CoE is used with modern values, not those of the agonistic culture of the NT in mind. Dumplin' does err when he makes an issue of that "the apostles were not being written by the apostle whose flaws are being confessed. It's never as embarrassing to confess someone else's sins, especially when the confession is supposedly good for the soul and for the glory of the savior." That's the mindset of a modern individualist, not an ancient collectivist. Confession of sin or weakness by a leader of one's group (such as Peter, or as applies, Jesus) would reflect badly on all other group members.

Dumplin' closes this entry with his goofy genre-ignorant wah wah about how "Jesus taught his followers a non-literal view of reality" and says he'll soon be looking closer at G and T on these issues. Start the laugh track and save time.