Is CAI Qualified to Address Issues of the Greek Text

On Doorbells, Witches, Death Kneels, Black Eyes, Deathbeds, Funerals, “Real Men,” and Other Nonsense

How does one respond to opposing articles that purport to be substantive responses to one’s position, but instead are glaring examples of those who truly do not understand the issues and so attempt to pass off adolescent, chest-thumping statements and article titles as meaningful dialogue? Does one respond at all? And what happens when this is the pattern that comes from these writers? Does one continue to respond? Since my last article on this issue there has been a barrage of inane, blustering, self-congratulatory articles, most of which have been written (of course) by the same parties whom I have already shown do not even understand the issues surrounding New Testament exegesis. Although they continue to write “responses,” I believe they are finally coming to terms with their own inadequacies in this arena and have recognized that they are in way over their heads. They have therefore handed over the mantle of defense to a little-known, relatively inactive Roman Catholic apologist, who is (of course) a “convert” from Evangelicalism, to champion their cause—David Palm.

First, a brief note as to why I will not be responding at length to the “responses” to my articles and books from either R. Sungenis M.A. or John Pacheco. On a very broad note, R. Sungenis has made himself the epitome of an apologetic "National Enquirer," with his “the sun revolves around the earth, there was no Jewish holocaust, and Elvis has been sighted in Boston” tabloid style of apologetics. Sadly, no one takes him seriously. Even those within his own Roman Catholic community mock him (e.g., the Curt Jester has this prediction on whether CAI would retain a red-light rating from Petersnet: "I suspect by the end of the year Bob Sungenis will say that the universe revolves around him. Mr. Sungenis sometimes confuses himself with large gravitational objects since things like CAI seem to collapse around him. Snide comments aside, would love be wrong here." More specifically, his latest barrage of hastily assembled responses to me has displayed even more incompetence, bluster, and inability to read arguments correctly than did his previous articles. Here is one example. In response to this statement from my article:

This is humorous. I, in fact, did include Bohak in my email. That is obviously where Sungenis got the reference to begin with. Why didn’t I mention that “Bohak’s ‘1st century BC’ dating agrees with Burchard's parameters of 100 BC to 117 AD”? Well, I suppose the main reason would be that Bohak doesn’t date the document in the first-century BC; he dates the document in the second-century BC—clearly outside of the parameters of my investigation, and clearly outside of Burchard's parameters.

Sungenis writes:

Yes, indeed it is humorous. Pay close attention, folks. You’re going to see a most astounding contradiction from Eric Svendsen. What’s even better is you can check it out for yourself. Here is exactly what he said in his email to White: “One recent commentator, Gideon Bohak, even dates it in the First Century B.C.” . . . The discrepancy lies in the fact that Svendsen has Bohak giving dates in the First Century B.C. in one paragraph, and then in the next paragraph, Svendsen refers to Goodacre as saying that Aseneth is in the Second Century BC with “Gideon Bohak” in parentheses. Thus, Svendsen has two different datings from Bohak.

Actually, there is no “contradiction from Eric Svendsen,” nor is there a need to go to any other source than the original posting of this email, which is accessed through this URL; http://pub84.ezboard.com/fntrmindiscussionboardfrm9.showMessage?topicID=567.topic. The reason “Gideon Bohak” is in parentheses is because he’s the one I’m quoting! And, the first paragraph to which R. Sungenis M.A. refers above is, in my email, not attributed to Bohak or to me, but to Goodacre! There is no discrepancy on my part at all, and R. Sungenis M.A. has no excuse for getting this wrong. I even provided the URLs to each of the quotations. All R. Sungenis M.A. had to do was click on each one to see the source material. R. Sungenis M.A. repeats this several times, obviously under the impression that this is an error on my part:

Oh really? Is Bohak the other second century BC date? :) . Obviously, Svendsen hasn’t caught his own error that placed Bohak in the FIRST century BC in his email to White. So naturally, if he still thinks Bohak is in the second century BC, then Svendsen thinks he has found company for Goodacre. As you can see though, folks, Goodacre is indeed the odd man out, and I’m afraid Eric Svendsen is also the odd man out as well.

Even if it did, why does Svendsen say “One recent commentator, Gideon Bohak, even dates it in the First Century B.C.”?

Once again, Svendsen still hasn’t caught his double dating for Bohak. And if Svendsen had written the information properly, we could know whether Goodacre is siding with Battifol and Kraemer. In any case, it remains a fact that “MOST twentieth century scholarship has tended to treat it as a Jewish work of much earlier origin, probably in the First to Second Centuries A.D.”

Once again, the error is not mine—I am simply quoting Goodacre. Goodacre obviously committed a typo on the date, but Sungenis’ error is no typo. Sungenis had the full advantage of being able to rely on the second quote I provided, which is directly from Bohak himself. Once again, what we are witnessing here is a sloppy, shoddy, hastily thrown-together, hack-and-paste apologetic, nothing more. R. Sungenis M.A. is not interested in scholarship. He’s interested only in “winning” an argument.

Sungenis continues by quoting me:

The reason [J&A] wasn’t included in my work is quite simple; most scholars—even most 20th-century scholars—place it outside the specific time frame in question, estimating it to be closer to a mid-second century AD document.

Sungenis then responds:

Really? Are Goodacre and Kraemer “most 20th century scholars” too? Is that why Svndsen [sic] mentioned them? Who is Svendsen trying to kid? Goodacre and Kraemer are also out of the loop as far as “most 20th century scholars” go, yet it is obvious why Svendsen cites them and not Burchard, because Burchard doesn’t agree with Svendsen’s thesis! In fact, I didn’t even know that Svendsen didn’t include Burchard in his research, I just took a guess. Lo and behold, I was right, by Svendsen’s own admission! How in the world can he claim to be a competent scholar when, in fact, he doesn’t have one of the most provocative references to his thesis in his research?! Then he wonders why I call his work a pseudo-intellectual sham.

Svendsen calls this scholarship? The fact is that he left out the dates of those who go against his thesis, namely, Goodacre’s comment that “MOST twentieth century scholarship has tended to treat it as a Jewish work of much earlier origin, probably in the First to Second Centuries A.D.” Notice the word “MOST.” That means of all the scholars working on this, MOST of them date Aseneth at or very near the crucial time period for Svendsen’s arbitrary time period. That means that all the other dates Svendsen cites above (e.g., Battifol, Kraemer, Peirersma) are EXCEPTIONS to the general consensus, not the consensus. Funny that Eric doesn’t point that out to his reader.

Moreover, is that why Goodacre said that “MOST twentieth century scholarship has tended to treat it as a Jewish work of much earlier origin, probably in the First to Second Centuries A.D.”? Note the words “First to Second Centuries,” not “mid-second century.” Obviously, either Svendsen is being deceptive, or his scholarly eyes aren’t keen enough to catch that a “First to Second Century” dating falls right within the parameters of his arbitrary “100 BC to 100 AD” dating.

On the contrary; as I have pointed out several times—and what Sungenis continues to misrepresent—is that although 20^th-cent. scholarship gives a date range of 100 BC and AD 137, we should not take this to mean that all scholars of the 20^th century believe J&A was written just any time between 100 BC and AD 137. That’s nonsense, and Sungenis badly misunderstands this point. Rather, what this means is that several dates have been posited by 20^th-century scholars, but that only some (actually just a few) scholars have dated it in the first century BC, and some (again, just a few) scholars have dated it in the first century AD, but the vast majority of 20^th-century scholars place J&A somewhere near mid-second century AD—right at AD 137 to be precise—a date that does not fall within my time frame at all.

In response to my citation of support for my methodology from Roman Catholic scholars such as Fitzmyer, Meier and McKenzie, Sungenis states:

As he usually does, Svendsen ignores the difference between conservative Romans Catholic scholars and liberal Roman Catholic scholars, of which Fitzmyer, McKenzie and Meier are the latter. They believe there are mistakes in Scripture. Does Svendsen believe there are mistakes in Scripture? I don’t think so. Thus, to cite them as authorities does not put Svendsen in very good company. Moreover, Svendsen has the same problem with liberals in his Protestant religion. Svendsen cannot pretend that they wouldn’t disagree with many of the basic Protestant beliefs he holds dear. The real problem here is that people like Fitzmyer, McKenzie and Meier have gotten their false information about Greek and New Testament theology from the very Protestant liberals that Svendsen abhors. Yet, Svendsen finds it so convenient to quote these Catholic liberals when it is to his advantage, and no one in his Protestant following is the wiser.

This is absolutely silly, on several counts. First, what authority does Sungenis have for labeling these Roman Catholic scholars as “liberal” when his magisterium fully embraces them? I can make these kinds of judgments as an Evangelical, but Sungenis is disallowed. Who do we go to for official Roman Catholic teaching? To the Roman Catholic magisterium itself; or to R. Sungenis M.A., Roman Catholic tabloid epologist extraordinaire? Who speaks for Roman Catholicism today? The Roman Catholic magisterium; or R. Sungenis M.A., Roman Catholic tabloid epologist extraordinaire? Which of these has served on the Pontifical Biblical Commission multiple times? The likes of a Raymond Brown or a J.A. Fitzmyer, or the likes of an R. Sungenis M.A., Roman Catholic tabloid epologist extraordinaire? The Roman Catholic magisterium relies on the works of the former in defining, refining and explaining its teachings. It is safe to say that the magisterium has never even heard of R. Sungenis M.A., Roman Catholic tabloid epologist extraordinaire. It is more than obvious that when the Roman Catholic magisterium places its seal of approval on the works of J.A. Fitzmyer, R. Brown, J.P. Meier and J. McKenzie, we are in safe waters to determine what Rome thinks, believes and teaches. Just as obviously, the same cannot be said of a Sungenis, Pacheco, or Palm, mere children in relation to the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and none of which should be consulted for official Roman Catholic teaching (as mentioned above, Petersnet has given Sungenis' organization a red-light rating, labeling it a "danger" in terms of fidelity to the magisterium; http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=1900).

The second reason this is silly is that Sungenis has highly commended and touted the comments of the scholars adduced by his sidekick Pacheco regarding the use of heos hou. Yet many, if not most, of these scholars are—you guessed it—flaming liberals. One of these scholars is Jason BeDuhn, a self-proclaimed Manichean. In fact, in earlier days Pacheco denounced this same scholar for endorsing the New World Translation, writing articles against him with such titles as "BeDuhn takes a beating," and "BeDuhn pummeled by Pacheco," and "BeDuhn KO'd by Catholic" (notice the unmitigated arrogance and exaggerated sense of self importance reflected by these titles as well). Other liberal scholars cited by Pacecho and touted by Sungenis include Francis J. Moloney (having interacted with his works, I can verify that he would side with Fitzmyer over Sungenis any day of the week), Kim Paffenroth, as well as Walsh, North and Hamm, all of whom are Jesuits, a group notorious for spearheading liberalism in Roman Catholicism. Every one of these scholars would be considered “liberal” from Sungenis’ standpoint. Yet he has absolutely no problem relying on their comments regarding heos hou. Hence, Sungenis’ gratuitous dismissal of Fitzmyer, McKenzie and Meier, on the basis that they are “liberal” scholars, is nothing short of hypocritical. If he rejects their views of the use of adelphos based on the notion that they are “liberal,” then he must, on those same grounds, reject the views of Pacheco’s scholars in regard to heos hou. He won’t do that, of course, because Sungenis does not operate on the basis of scholarship or principled conviction. Rather he’s an opportunist; and as such, he will say anything he thinks might advance his cause, whether or not it happens to be true or consistent with other beliefs he claims to hold. Sungenis continues:

In further study of this matter, Jacob Michael and I began to examine more closely the deuterocanonical books written closest to the first century. The books of the Maccabees are very important in this regard, since most of them were written in the crucial period Svendsen has posed for his thesis (i.e., 100BC to 100AD).

Our research discovered the only usage of heos hou in the Maccabeean literature, namely, 4 Maccabees 7:3, which is included in most versions of the LXX, even the critical editions. It is a non-canonical book both by Catholic and Protestant standards, but this makes little difference, since Svendsen’s research includes non-canonical usages of heos hou. Again, it is Svendsen’s claim that the meaning of heos hou that continues the action of the main clause of a Greek sentence does not exist in Koine Greek between the years 100BC to 100AD.

No; my “claim” is that there is no clear instance of the Roman Catholic usage of heos hou in the time frame of this literature, and this passage is no exception. Both Sungenis and Palm make an issue of this by asserting either (1) I didn’t know the date of 4 Maccabees (I did), or (2) I wrongly classified 4 Maccabees with the LXX in my book (I didn’t). I both knew the date, and classified it correctly. The reason it is included in the LXX portion of my work is because 4 Maccabees is included in Rahlfs Septuaginta, which is the scholarly standard for LXX text, and which I used in my research (are Sungenis and Palm unfamiliar with Rahlfs?). Four Maccabees can rightly be classified either with the Septuagint or with the non-biblical literature of the period under discussion. Since I dealt with the LXX material first, I included it in that section. It would have been redundant to address it again in the non-biblical literature section, unless the passage provides a clear example of the proposed Roman Catholic usage—it doesn’t. As I pointed out in my book, due to the ambiguities involved in the exegesis of this passage, this instance of the phrase does not help the Roman Catholic case in the least.

In addition to his tabloid reputation, distortions and misunderstandings, Sungenis also uses an adolescent writing style that is filled with embarrassingly corny, melodramatic, and blustering language. Titles from his articles include “Ding, Dong, The Witch is Dead,” “The Grave of the Wicked Witch is Sealed Forever, RIP Eric Svendsen” (one wonders just how many times Sungenis can “deliver the deathblow,” “bury in the dustbin of history forever,” and conduct a “funeral” for the same thesis before he realizes that maybe the thesis he is trying to “kill” just won’t die), “Burnin' For Your Love: A Biblical Primer on Purgatory,” “Shea What You Will, He's Still Off the Mark,” “The New House of Fr. Neuhaus,” “The Adventures of Billvis and Bettshead,” “Uncorking the Erroneous Teachings, False Allegations, and Liberal Agenda of William Cork,” “A No-No to Assisi,” and my personal favorite: “LaLa's Tip For the Last 74 Years: Don't Listen to Tinky Winky”—a reference to his spin-off John Pacheco. Ironically, Sungenis has not taken his own advice on this, as he is now openly commending Pacheco (shall we listen to “Tinky Winky” Pacheco, Mr. Sungenis, or not?). The corniness of those titles is outdone only by the blustering, adolescent, melodramatic language that is found in those articles—phrases such as his opponent’s argument “has been put into the dust bin of history, never to rise again” aptly illustrates Sungenis’ narcissistic, exaggerated sense of self-importance.

Because of his cartoonish tabloid reputation, his incompetence in understanding New Testament Greek exegesis (he still has not responded to my article written more than a year ago, http://www.ntrmin.org/sungenis_and_heos_hou_2.htm, which demonstrates his utter incompetence in understanding things Greek), his overt distortions and misrepresentations of my arguments (which permeate his writings and which absorb far too much of my time), and his adolescent writing style, I have decided to write off R. Sungenis M.A. from further consideration. I’m sure he’s an intelligent enough man; it’s just that he’s incompetent on this issue, and I’ve grown weary of wasting of my time continuing to correct his overt errors and mistaken assumptions.

Nor (for reasons noted in my last article) will I waste further time interacting with the writings of his sidekick, John Pacheco, who suffers from the same maladies as Sungenis, but to an even greater degree. I have mentioned on several occasions that he attempts to tread into areas in which he is absolutely clueless—especially in the area of biblical languages (he had to get “help with the Greek” first from Sungenis and then from David Palm, and we’ve already seen the kind of “help” he got from Sungenis. We’ll see later that the “help” he got from Palm was not much better). He is also prone to the same overthrown, melodramatic, blustering and self-congratulatory language of Sungenis, employing such phrases as "[opponent x] takes a beating," or "[opponent x] pummeled by Pacheco," or "[opponent x] KO'd by Catholic," etc. Anything coming from one who displays such adolescent behavior is rightly rejected by those who take these issues with a measure of seriousness.

The mantle has therefore fallen to David Palm, a man who, from the looks of it, has condescended to become little more than Pacheco’s errand boy for this issue. Palm is, at least formally, the best qualified to discuss this issue, having earned an MA in New Testament from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where I can attest that he was at least exposed to New Testament exegesis and exegetical methods. Sadly, he demonstrates in his writings—and quintessentially in his apostasy to Roman Catholicism—that his years at Trinity were not (at least for him) well spent. From the correspondence that took place at the NTRMin Discussion forum, he doesn’t seem to have learned much from his training. I will be responding to Palm’s posts on that forum, as well as to a recent article he wrote. If I do deal with Sungenis or Pacheco’s points in the rest of this article, it will be incidental, due solely to Palm’s adoption of those points. If Palm wants to adopt and argue their positions, then they will be Palm’s arguments at that point and his own credibility will stand or fall on them. As we shall see below, Palm has not so far been well served by taking up Pacheco’s mantle. What follows is a synopsis of Palm’s public articles and the dialogue that took place at the NTRMin discussion forum between David Palm and a few NTRMin patrons, including me.

On Heos Hou

This is the first section of Palm’s critique of my thesis:

I want to address first what some might consider a trivial point. But behind this point lies a larger principle, to which I have just alluded. John Pacheco has caught Svendsen in a clear error. In his debate with Gerry Matatics, Svendsen stated that, “lexicons do not handle grammatical constructions. They handle words. You’ll find heõs. You’ll find hou. You won’t find heõs hou or any other grammatical construction.” As Pacheco has demonstrated, this statement is false since all major Greek lexica make reference to the construction heõs hou. This is a rather palpable blunder for one who has spent so much time looking up these words in various Greek lexica.

Since I have responded to this objection in my previous article, I won’t spend much time on it here. The point I was making in the debate is that lexicons are not set up to deal with the intricacies of Greek constructions. Yes, lexicons “make reference” to some grammatical constructions; but they do not deal with them as separate entries. None of the lexicons to which Palm refers treats heos hou as a unique entry, and no one can open a lexicon and find an entry for this phrase. Instead, lexicons treat it as a subentry of heos. They do the same with achri hou, placing it as a subentry of achri, even though New Testament scholarship has detected a very distinct difference in meaning when achri is accompanied by the particle hou and used with the subjunctive. Such a construction always denotes an eschatological goal. This nuance, of course, cannot be found in any lexicon, even though it is recognized as legitimate by New Testament scholars such as Marshall, Bruce, Barrett, Jeremias, Wainwright, Adamo, Bromiley, Nelson, Higgins, and others.

But this demonstrates just why Palm’s criticism is completely baseless. In his attempt to rescue Pacheco, Palm is immediately betrayed by his own inexperience in this area, and consequently his disqualification from addressing this issue in a meaningful way. To suggest that there is nothing left to learn about a Greek construction other than what we find in a lexicon is something I would expect from Sungenis and Pacheco (neophytes to Greek studies, both of them); but I would have expected something more from Palm, who (having sat at the feet of New Testament scholars who not only practice this methodology but teach it in the classroom as well) should have known better. To his shame, he has taken up the mantle and advanced the uninformed arguments of those who are unqualified to speak on these matters, and in the process has diminished his own credibility.

When he came to the NTRMin forum, here is what Palm had to say regarding the methodology I used in conducting my research on heos hou:

My second point is related to the first. One would have expected at least some acknowledgment, in a putative doctoral dissertation, of a piece of contrary evidence which was fully relevant according to the preponderance of contemporary scholarship. But the real reason Mr. Svendsen did not include the Joseph and Aseneth text in his study is that he was unaware of it, until it was brought to his attention by John Pacheco, via Gerry Matatics, just a few weeks ago. Isn't that right, Mr. Svendsen?

I responded:

And just why David Palm would expect this document, supposed (at that time) to have been written close to mid-2d cent BC, to be included in a thesis that examined the literature composed between 100 BC and AD 100 is also a mystery. Is this supposed to be a thoughtful critique, Mr. Palm? Seems more like the same smoke and mirror show we've come to expect from your crowd, nothing more. When you've demonstrated that you actually read from my article the true ramifications for this issue even if it were a first-cent document composed in AD 50, perhaps then you can tell us why it's "pointless" to argue this way.

Palm responded:

Actually, Mr. Svendsen, the true ramifications of this text falling into your thesis range were stated in your book:

"If this usage for the phrase can also be found in literature contemporaneous to Matthew's gospel (i.e., the first century AD), then there can be little objection to seeing this same usage in the passage in question, and Mary's perpetual virginity becomes a strong exegetical option." (WIMM, 77).”
Svendsen has above acknowledged that the preponderance of twentieth century scholarship places Joseph and Aseneth in the first or early-mid second centuries A.D., a welcome admission. But his actual thesis range of 100 BC to AD 100 is methodologically untenable. I agree with Mike, who wrote above: "Since Matthew was written in 60 AD, aren't the parameters 40 BC-160 AD? This seems more fair than your 100 BC-100 AD." So, the great preponderance of twentieth century scholarship places this work in a date range (100 B.C. to A.D. 137, per C. Burchard in the OT Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, p. 215) which essentially overlaps Svendsen's thesis range. And the fact that most of those scholars would place it at the latter end of that range is compensated by the fact that his thesis range, in order to be methodologically sound, would shift to encompass those dates.

To which I responded:

I think someone else has already addressed this, but I will affirm what they said. (1) As I mentioned elsewhere, the literature in this instance does not fall under contemporaneous usage. The year AD 137 is far removed from AD 50. Ken (Paradox II) has already provided a wonderful modern example of how a word can change meanings entirely in the course of a very short time [in his illustration of the word “gay,” which just 30 years ago meant “happy” but today means “homosexual”; no one in this day and age would dare say he is “gay” when he really means “happy.” Yet no one 30 years ago would doubt that someone’s claim to be “gay” meant he was “happy”].
(2) "Usage" falls into a different category than "instance" (the former refers to the common lingua, while the latter refers to individual occurrences). Just because there may be an instance of a word or phrase bearing a certain meaning in any given period does not thereby establish common usage. There are some words that are used in a certain way only once--and the only reason we translate it differently in that instance is because it is impossible to translate it in its normal sense and still make sense of the text. One example is the Greek word trapeza, which is normally translated "table." Just once it is translated "bank" (Luke 19:23). That does not establish normal usage, however, and no exegete worth his salt would ever suggest that "bank" is a viable exegetical option for other instances of the word. Yet this is what RC apologists want us to do with heos hou in Matt 1:25. There is nothing in the context that prevents us from applying normal usage and that compels us—or even allows us—to propose some exceptional instance of the phrase—nothing at all.

Palm had no response to this, even though he had every opportunity to respond. Someone else by the moniker of catholic33ad came to Palm’s defense and wrote (to another poster on board):

Ok... then why all the fuss? If you and Eric believe the Catholic position has the possibility of being entirely scriptural, then what use is it apologetics? Am I reading you right? Do you believe that the Catholic position is possibly the correct interpretation?

I responded:

I think this excerpt nicely encapsulates what the RC side is trying to argue on this issue. Last year, as I was flipping though channels trying to find NBA games that I wanted to watch, I chanced upon part of a rerun of the movie "Dumb and Dumber" on TNT. There was a somewhat humorous scene where Jim Carrey (playing a clueless twit) asked the female star of the movie what the chances were that she would go out with someone like him: "Give it to me straight; a hundred to one?" he guessed in an attempt to pry that information out of her. The woman, not wanting to lead him on, nicely told him, "more like a million to one." The demeanor of Carrey's character changed at that point from one of depression to one of hope; he smiled slyly at the woman and responded, "ahhhhhh . . . so you're saying there's a chance . . . I gotcha."

A million to one odds technically still carries a "chance," I suppose; but anyone who boasts about that kind of "chance" has obviously missed the whole point of what it means to be a million to one odds. Here's a clue--it's not something that bodes well for the odd-holder's position.

Unfortunately, in true Dumb and Dumber fashion, our RC friends are missing the point of what we are calling a "possibility" (which in reality is at best an improbability and at worst a virtual impossibility). With odds like that, who needs impossibilities?

Palm had no response to this. Instead, in another thread he wrote:

What I have said is that if one is going to reject that conclusion then interaction with the scholarly consensus to the contrary--and especially with such highly respected specialists such as Burchard--is the minimum required from a purported scholar writing a putative doctoral dissertation. And yet this is something that Svendsen has failed to do. He prefers gratuitous dismissal to scholarly argument, as apparently you do too.

I responded:

Try getting the point right, Mr. Palm. Even 20th-cent scholarship places the date outside my range (mid-2d cent AD). I am beginning to think that you are being deliberately deceptive here. Want to push this again?

In that same post Palm wrote:

But this brings us once again to the real reality. Svendsen did not even know about Joseph and Aseneth until it was brought to his attention a few weeks ago by John Pacheco.

To which I responded:

And not citing a document that the majority of 20th cent scholars dates mid-2d cent would be a significant point to make about a study of the literature composed between 100BC and 100 AD because of what particular reason, Mr. Palm?

Palm responded:

Because your date range is artificial and methodologically indefensible, as I've already said (and another non-Catholic list member has already observed.)

To which I responded:

And you base this on what? You and your opinion, based on your years of exegetical work on a doctoral level? Have you ever submitted a doctoral-level thesis to a committee of scholars for review, Mr. Palm? What, pray tell, qualifies you to decide that the date range is artificial and methodologically indefensible? Wouldn't that have been pointed out by the committee of non-Evangelical scholars that examined my work? Wouldn't it have given pause to the community of scholars that commended my work? Do you realize that the methodology you think is indefensible is, in fact, the same methodology that leads J. A. Fitzmyer, John McKenzie and J.P. Meier--heavyweight RC scholars all, and your theological and exegetical betters all--to reject the idea that adelphos can mean "close relative" in the New Testament? The same methodology, Mr. Palm. All you are doing in this exchange is proving just how incompetent you really are to speak of exegetical methodology.

Palm responded by asking three questions. Question # 1:

First, give us a methodologically and linguistically sound reason why your date range was not centered on the writing of St. Matthew's Gospel, rather than on the birth of Christ.

To which I responded:

That's easy. Because later usage is irrelevant to the point, but earlier use shows us the etymological changes that led to the current usage. I could have stuck to the NT period itself and that would have been completely acceptable to the issue of usage, but I wanted to note the kinds of changes in the phrase that led up to its usage in Matthew's day. All subsequent usage is, of course, completely anachronistic to first-century usage and is therefore irrelevant. How is it you don't know this, Mr. Palm?

Palm’s question # 2:

Second, please explain to us why, in the course of putative doctoral studies, you failed to notice the text of Joseph and Aseneth which the top specialist in Joseph and Aseneth studies dates right on top of your date range.

To which I responded:

How many times must I explain this to you, Mr. Palm? The scholarship to which you refer DOES NOT place Aseneth in my time frame; it places it in the late 130's, almost half a century outside my time frame. If you want to take issue with that then take it up with TLG.

Palm’s question # 3:

Third, please explain why even now you prefer gratuitous dismissal of the scholarly arguments of the top specialists, rather than scholarly counter-arguments.

To which I responded:

I don't; I simply think it unwise for your side to use a document of dubious dating as a "WE-HAVE-TO-HAVE-THIS-AT-ANY-COST" whipping boy.

During this discussion, I also posted in a separate thread a few questions of my own, all of which were directed specifically to Palm and were intended to disclose his own exegetical methodology:

Much has been said by the RC side regarding their need desperately to clutch onto just any example of heos hou--doesn't matter to them what time frame it is--that will save them from a glaring exegetical dilemma. It is obvious that what they are doing is attempting to pry open any escape hatch imaginable so that they don't have to live with the horrible ramifications of heos hou. Who could blame them?

But let's turn the tables on them momentarily and see if they are honest enough to come to grips with a few things. My questions are directed specifically to David Palm:

(1) Can you provide just one instance of heos hou, unambiguously dated in Matthew's own day, that clearly bears the meaning you need it to mean in Matt 1:25?

(2) If you can't find any--or even if you can find only one--what does that really imply for your position on Matt 1:25? (Please choose only one):

(a) It is a highly likely interpretation, hands down over all other options.

(b) It is the likely interpretation, having more weight than the other options.

(d) It is an unlikely interpretation, but it is still a possible one.

(e) It doesn't matter; as long as it can have that usage, it does have that usage in Matt 1:25 because Rome says it does.

(3) Using methodologies from NT exegesis only, can you explain what you think the difference is between adopting a position that is "highly likely" based on the exegetical evidence, one that is "probable" based on that same evidence, one that is "possible," and one that is "unlikely"? Further, can you explain what the acceptable criteria would be for distinguishing these categories?

(4) What significance is there for the exegesis of a NT text when a theologically insignificant word or phrase that consistently bears a certain connotation in NT and Hellenistic usage shows up in the passage that is undergoing exegesis? What do we normally do with such a word or phrase? Which option below best describes NT exegetical method? (Choose one):

(a) In NT exegesis, we normally apply the consistent meaning we find elsewhere unless something in the context of the passage itself prevents us from applying that meaning.

(b) In NT exegesis, we normally look around in literature outside the immediate time period to see if we can find another meaning; and if we find one, we would normally prefer that rare and anachronistic meaning over the consistent usage we find in the NT and Hellenistic writings.

I look forward to your answers. I think they will be quite telling.

As I mentioned above, the reason I posted this quiz was because I had discovered rather quickly, based on the content of his posts, that Palm really did not understand New Testament exegesis—in spite of the fine training he received from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I reminded Mr. Palm of this quiz on multiple occasions, and Palm continued to dodge it. I eventually forced his hand by prohibiting him from posting again unless it was specifically in response to my quiz. The next post that came from Palm ignored the quiz, and so I graciously warned him a second time. When he posted again without responding to my quiz I warned him yet a third time that unless his next post was in response to the quiz he would be banned. Here is how he responded:

Contrary to what you might suppose, I consider your questions very interesting and I will enjoy the task of answering them. I believe, however, that having the full palette of evidence on heos hou presented prior to such an answer is necessary, since they are closely aligned with that specific topic. Apparently that full presentation of evidence is not going to take place here; your procedural double standards won't allow it.

Thus, it looks as if a different venue is more appropriate to address the points you've raised, the points you've left unaddressed, and the points on which your own honesty is very much in question (yes, to all those reading this, there are very serious questions to be raised about Mr. Svendsen's honesty. We'll keep you posted, one way or another.)

Rest assured, I will address the counter-arguments you've made here. I hope you will engage them as a Christian gentleman: honestly, without insults, and without shirking your burden of proof.

I responded:

Translation: you can't answer my quiz. It is ridiculous to suggest that we must have the heos hou argument settled before you answer questions about methodology, since methodology is logically prior to exegetical conclusions. There is no procedural double standard, except for yours. I have laid my cards on the table about methodologies and you are afraid to lay yours on the table. Understandable so. I would be, too, if I held to your methodology while simultaneously arguing against mine. Until you do address this, please refrain from posting further. If you ignore this warning again, I will enforce it.

After he posted yet again, dodging the quiz as he had done before in violation of my specific request as the board owner, I banned him from the forum. It was apparent to me at that point that he knew the force of the quiz would expose his incompetence in this field of study. Palm knew what the consequences would be for posting again without responding to the quiz, and he simply opted to dodge it and become a “martyr” at the hands of NTRMin. That’s a much easier course of action than to answer my questions in the quiz. One of the moderators of the forum summed up Palm's actions nicely:

Mr. Palm, I'm sure you knew that post would get you banned and that is why you did it, right? Like most you love to play the role of interrogator. However, it seems you are afraid of sitting on the witness stand. Therefore as you were being backed into a corner of having to sit there you decided to become a "martyr" instead, right? LOL

Why are the questions in the quiz significant? Let’s break them down:

(1) Can you provide just one instance of heos hou, unambiguously dated in Matthew's own day, that clearly bears the meaning you need it to mean in Matt 1:25?

The answer is, for all of his claims to the contrary, Palm cannot provide such an example. There is no document that is unambiguously dated in the time frame under consideration and that clearly uses heos hou in the way Palm needs it. Why is this significant? For purposes of New Testament exegesis it is absolutely irresponsible to use unclear meanings and ambiguously dated documents in an attempt to overturn normal usage of a word or phrase. No New Testament scholar would ever condone such a practice. Joseph and Aseneth (as we shall see below) falls into the category of ambiguous dating; and 4 Maccabees 7:3 (again, as we will show) falls into the category of ambiguous meaning. Hence, neither document can be used to mitigate the meaning of this phrase in an attempt to lessen the severity of the case against the perpetual virginity of Mary. Palm knows this from his years at Trinity. That’s why he opted to dodge the question rather than answer it.

(2) If you can't find any--or even if you can find only one--what does that really imply for your position on Matt 1:25? (Please choose only one):

(a) It is a highly likely interpretation, hands down over all other options.

(b) It is the likely interpretation, having more weight than the other options.

(d) It is an unlikely interpretation, but it is still a possible one.

(e) It doesn't matter; as long as it can have that usage, it does have that usage in Matt 1:25 because Rome says it does.

Palm can’t answer this one without making it exceedingly clear to everyone that all the hoopla he has created over my thesis is, in reality, completely moot. The purpose of this question is obviously to bring the real issues to the fore, and to snap Palm back to exegetical reality. The only correct answer from an exegetical standpoint is (d). In fact, I purposefully made option (d) generous. The fact is, even with only one contrary example (keeping in mind that Roman Catholic apologists don’t even have one they can claim with certainty), the real status of the Roman Catholic interpretation is “highly unlikely”—bordering on impossible—not merely “unlikely.” What this means for New Testament exegesis is that the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matt 1:25 isn’t a viable exegetical option. It is one that cannot be adopted because the evidence of usage exegetically works so strongly against it.

Palm can’t answer this one without incriminating his own belief. He knows that exegesis requires us to make decisions about meaning based on common usage. He knows that one or two contrary instances of usage does not overturn the normal usage of a word or phrase. So, if we stick to the criteria of New Testament exegesis, we have to label the various exegetical options according to their relative probability based on usage and context. An option is exegetically strongest that conforms to the normal usage of the word or phrase, and exegetically weakest that relies on an unattested meaning in the period under consideration, or that relies on a single contrary instance which itself is fraught with uncertainty as to its meaning. There are varying degrees in between, of course; but the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matt 1:25 easily falls into the category of weakest.

(a) In NT exegesis, we normally apply the consistent meaning we find elsewhere unless something in the context of the passage itself prevents us from applying that meaning.

Finally, Palm cannot answer this question without either (1) betraying the weakness of the Roman Catholic position, or (2) lying to his audience. The correct answer from the standpoint of New Testament exegesis is, of course, option (a). Option (b) would be repudiated by any New Testament exegete—yet this is just the option Palm and his cohorts must pick in order to remain faithful sons of Rome. I have to think it was the impossible position into which these questions placed Palm that led him to dodge the questions rather than answer them forthrightly. That’s a shame. There are many Roman Catholics reading this exchange over which Palm has influence. He could have chosen to tell them the truth about just how exegetically weak their beliefs really are on this issue; but he cowardly chose instead to allow them to continue with false hopes.

Indeed, Palm used the very principle he now repudiates in an earlier written debate I had with him over the proper meaning of trogo in John 6:54, in which Jesus states: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” Palm, at that time, attempted to argue that Jesus must mean a physical “eating” here since trogo is never used symbolically in the New Testament. I responded by showing that the only other instance of this word in John is used in a symbolic sense: “He who shares [trôgô] my bread has lifted up his heel against me” (John 13:18). The intent of this quotation of Ps 41:9 is to show that Judas’ betrayal fulfills the Scriptures. The phrase “he who eats my bread” is no more “literal” than that Judas literally “lifted up his heel” against Jesus. The former symbolizes that the betrayer would be an intimate friend, while the latter symbolizes the betrayal itself.

The point of my mentioning this episode is that David Palm attempted to argue his point based on usage. He attempted to show that a Greek word is never used in such and such way, or is always used in such and such way, in a clear attempt to establish an exegetical foundation for his newly found belief in transubstantiation. To be sure, his analysis was wrong; but his methodology was not. Here we see evidence that Palm’s instinct, as a recent convert, was to apply the exegetical method he learned at Trinity. Yet, oddly enough, Palm seemingly has forgotten all this. He critiques my methodology as though it were some novel thing, when he knows full well that the methodology I used in my research is the standard methodology for doing New Testament exegesis. Palm is now either suffering from amnesia—or he is being deceptive. I don't know yet which is true.

On Joseph and Aseneth

In his article critiquing my position, Palm writes:

With regard to the instance of heõs hou in Joseph and Aseneth, Svendsen has sought to deflect the impact of the text by appeal to an uncertain date: “The reason it wasn’t included in my work is quite simple; most scholars—even most 20th-century scholars—place it outside the specific time frame in question, estimating it to be closer to a mid-second century AD document.”

There are two errors here. The first has to do with why this text wasn’t in Svendsen’s work and the second has to do with the scholarship with respect to the dating of Joseph and Aseneth. Let’s take the second one first. Even in the citations that Svendsen himself has unearthed concerning the dating of Joseph and Aseneth it is stated clearly that most twentieth century scholars date the work pretty much right smack on top of the range that Svendsen considered for his study (“. . . twentieth century scholars, . . . generally tend to agree regarding the text's date (between 100 BC and AD 135)” (Elaine Pardoe, http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/josasen.html). It’s strange that he did not see that before posting this as somehow vindicating his failure to consider this text.

Palm commits the same blunder here that I have already noted Sungenis commits in his article; namely, he fails to distinguish between proposed date ranges, and just where the majority of 20^th-century scholars actually falls on this issue. As I have pointed out above, the fact that one or two scholars have posited a first-century BC date or a first-century AD date accounts only for the proposed range, but does not say anything about which date most of those scholars actually hold. As it stands, most of those scholars hold a mid second-century date for J&A. Palm’s blunder betrays just how shallowly he has investigated this issue. But here’s the rub. Since a handful of scholars are now positing dates for J&A that range from second-century BC to sixth-century AD, the previous date range that accommodated one or two dissenting scholars must now be broadened to include the handful of dissenting scholars who are positing revised dates. Hence, if it is fair to say that “20^th-century scholarship” dated J&A within the range of the first-century BC and the second-century AD (something to which Palm is desperately clinging), it is just as fair to say (based on the same principles that Palm is misusing to argue his point) that “21^st-century scholarship” dates J&A within the range of second-century BC and sixth-century AD.

Hence, Palm must make a decision here, since he cannot argue a point against my view which, when pressed against his own view, disallows him to argue the point in the first place. He must decide what he means by “20^th-century scholarship.” Does he include the few dissenting “20^th-century” scholars who place the dating of this document in the first century BC or the first century AD? or does he rather limit this scholarship to the majority of scholars who date J&A in the mid second-century AD? If the former, then Palm has no basis for objecting to widening this date range in light of the fact that a handful of scholars now posits a second-century BC date and a sixth-century AD date. If the latter, then he has no basis for suggesting that J&A should have been included in the documents I examined in my thesis, since the majority of those scholars hold a mid second-century date. Obviously, Palm’s objections are rendered moot in either scenario.

Palm continues:

But more importantly, with respect to the first point, let’s be quite clear that the real reason this text wasn’t included in Svendsen’s work is that he was unaware of it until Pacheco brought it to his attention, via Gerry Matatics. He has admitted this.

Palm states this as though it were some remarkable thing that a scholar, examining the literature of a narrowly defined time period, would not include documents that fall outside that time period. I also didn’t include the Didache, the letters of Pliny, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagorus, Clement of Alexandria—indeed, any second-century document. And why should I? All of these documents—like Joseph and Aseneth—fall outside of first-century usage. My thesis was not a survey on all literature of the ancient world. I specified in my research what the parameters of the research would be. The only relevant material to this issue are documents leading up to the first century and documents of the first century itself. All later documents are anachronistic in determining first-century usage. Hence, for a Roman Catholic apologist to come along after the fact and exclaim, “Aha! Lookie! Lookie! He didn’t include this mid second-century document in his research of first-century literature! Aha!,” is, to put it very bluntly, just plain bone-headed. Roman Catholic apologists, including Palm, think they’ve made a wonderful point here. But, in reality, the only thing such an objection shows is the incompetence and/or inexperience of the person raising the objection.

It appears that when researching his “dissertation”, Svendsen simply looked up Greek texts using the TLG and assumed, without further inquiry, that any text that fell outside of his range according to the TLG could be safely ignored. But that’s not the way real doctoral dissertations work. A doctoral candidate is expected to have thoroughly exhausted his topic (which is why real dissertation topics need to be extremely narrow in scope.) Certainly he should not be caught later unaware of a piece of readily accessible evidence, which a significant portion of contemporary scholarship dates right smack in the middle of the period under study. Such an oversight illustrates a lack of scholarly acumen.

It is quite humorous, as someone who has written a “real doctoral dissertation,” to read the thoughts about “the way real doctoral dissertations work” from someone who has never written a doctoral dissertation, real or otherwise. Palm has no experience with doctoral dissertations, he has never undergone doctoral studies, and yet he thinks he knows what is involved. And, as I’ve already pointed out, a “significant portion of contemporary scholarship” does not date this document “right smack in the middle of the period under study. That’s simply Palm’s uninformed (and, quite frankly, sloppy) assertion.

The fact that TLG excludes this document from first-century literature is indeed sufficient for the scholar. That’s what TLG is for. It isolates ancient literature in a given time period, allowing the scholar to examine every occurrence of a grammatical construction within that time period. At least when I was conducting my research (mid 1990s), there was no other tool that allowed the scholar to do that (there may be others today, but I know of none). There were very few Internet sites with full texts of ancient literature—and those that were available were either unsearchable or not in the original languages. Indeed, TLG is the single most accurate tool for not missing any relevant document. The reader should note the alternative Palm is suggesting here. He is demanding that I should have read every single ancient document in the original language—not only within the parameters of my time frame, but also several centuries on either side—rather than rely on TLG, a completely searchable, unpartisan tool that returns much more accurate results much more quickly. No scholar today would choose to spend years manually looking up a phrase (that’s how long it would take) that can be retrieved within seconds by TLG. Is Palm under the impression that there are just a few documents to consider? To get a sense of the enormity of that task Palm is suggesting, I would encourage any reader of this exchange to visit his local theological seminary, ask for the location of its Loeb collection and papyri section, and see for himself what a monumental task that would be. Those volumes literally occupy an entire wall by themselves. Palm’s suggestion is laughable—no New Testament scholar would waste his time undertaking that task—and he has once again betrayed his ignorance of how scholarly studies in New Testament exegesis are conducted. To illustrate the absurdity of Palm’s suggestion, how many computer-savvy readers today would bother to scan manually through even this short article to a find every instance of the phrase heos hou? Is there anyone who would not rather simply choose to use the electronic search feature readily available to him? And is there anyone who doubts that the computer search would at the end of the day produce more accurate results? Applied to literature of ancient languages, the accuracy factor in finding as many instances of this phrase as possible is multiplied exponentially. Hence, Palm’s criticism is not only baseless and laughable, but the method he criticizes is just what everyone does in research today.

Then, too, when it is discovered such evidence needs to be handled with scholarly propriety. If evidence is to be discounted from the study, this should be done only after interaction with the opinions of specialists on the matter, especially if there is a preponderance of scholarly opinion, as there is in this case.

Indeed there is. And that “preponderance of scholarly opinion” dates J&A in the mid second-century AD.

But now that Svendsen has been caught in an oversight, he compounds the oversight by failing to interact at all with the arguments in favor of this text being relevant for his thesis. He prefers instead simply to hide behind uncertainty, which he inflates to look as imposing as possible.

Svendsen has been caught in nothing of the kind, and so there is no oversight to compound. It’s simply a matter of Palm’s inability to understand the distinction between phrases and concepts, such as the majority of scholars, date ranges, and 20^th-century scholarship. The fact that Palm did not know this is further proof that he is disqualified from any serious discussion on this issue.

Svendsen may fluff off the text of Joseph and Aseneth as if it matters little to him. But if I had been caught in such a major oversight in my putative doctoral dissertation, I would feel the sting of that oversight deeply.

Again, we have the observations about doctoral dissertations from one who is absolutely clueless about doctoral dissertations. The day Palm has successfully undergone the rigors of doctoral studies will be the day Palm has earned the right to speak on how doctoral studies are done.

Still, the sting can be eased by an honest admission of one’s weaknesses and oversights, as difficult and humbling as that is. Then, although a black eye is inevitable, one can at least have the satisfaction of knowing that he took the hit like a man.

Now we get to the heart of the issue. Here is what this issue is really about. Palm simply wants the testosterone-laden satisfaction of thinking he has given me a “black eye,” so that he can feel like a “real man.” What happens, one wonders, when it is discovered that Palm’s criticism of my view is wrongheaded to begin with because it is based on a gross misunderstanding of a great many things regarding this issue? Now that he knows he has made grave errors concerning dates, exegetical methodology, research methods, and probabilities vs. possibilities vs. unlikelihoods, can we now expect Mr. Palm to afford himself the satisfaction of “taking it like a man”? I know I’m not holding my breath.

On the Apocalypse of Moses

Here is what Palm has to say in regard to the Apocalypse of Moses, a text that I fully addressed in my research:

As Pacheco has pointed out, this text is even more damaging to Svendsen’s credibility since he included it in his book, but failed to note that it runs contrary to his thesis.

So now including a reference in my book is “more damaging” to my credibility than omitting the J&A reference that Palm mistakenly believes should have been there. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t, I suppose. Palm continues:

Here it is as cited in Svendsen’s book:

“But when I die, leave me alone and let no one touch me until the angel of the Lord shall say something about me; for God will not forget me, but will seek his own vessel which he has formed. But rather rise to pray to God until I shall give back my spirit into the hands of the one who has given it.”

Commenting on this text, Svendsen says, “Here it seems reasonable to suppose that in both instances the action in the main clause would cease after the action in the subordinate clause, so that in both cases, the meaning is only ‘until [but not after]’.” (WIMM, p. 69) In his most recent piece, Svendsen insists that, “Context is heavily involved in making these decisions, which is why I thoroughly examined the context of each passage in question.” But apparently he did not examine the context of this text sufficiently to notice that there is, in fact, no cessation of the action of the main verb in the first sentence. Adam’s hearers do not touch Adam before the Angel of the Lord “says something concerning him”, nor do they touch him after. In fact, it really is not even implied that they would touch him at all, for Adam seems to have a sort of premonition that God Himself would take care of his body (“for God will not forget me but will seek His own vessel…”) I believe this is a clear example of the usage of heõs hou with the meaning “until [with no reference to continuation or discontinuation]”, or perhaps even leaning toward, “until [and continuing]”. It is certainly very damaging to Svendsen’s thesis that this example is cited in his study, but not properly categorized.

We await Svendsen’s admission of this oversight.

Well, as soon as Palm finally points out an “oversight” I’ll be more than happy to “admit” it. Palm raised this issue on the NTRMin discussion forum as well, and here is how I responded:

Quoting Palm: Similarly, in the Apocalypse of Moses, the question is not whether they *can* touch him after the Angel "says something", but whether the use of heos hou automatically means that they do.

My response: No, that is not the question. The question is, Is this an example of a clear, unambiguous instance of the phrase that supports your meaning? In the conclusion of this section of my book, I write: "there are nevertheless no clear examples of this usage for at least a century and a half before Matthew wrote his gospel." Are you contending that this is a clear example where the action of the main clause continues after the until has been reached? If not, then your point is moot.

Quoting Palm: But on the contrary, the immediate context implies that they will not and the larger context shows that they do not.

My response: Patently false. Your suggestion is ridiculous. The immediate context implies no such thing, and the broader context implies no such thing either. It is rather assumed that Adam's body would be buried--hence "touched"--after the fact. In fact, we are specifically told that he was buried in the second passage from AoM that I cited in my book, and that you here ignored.

Quoting Palm: Thus, this is an example of the use of heos hou with no cessation, precisely the meaning that upholds the perpetual virginity of Mary in Matt 1:25.

My response: Nice try, Mr. Palm. Better try again, though. Perhaps if you had exercised a little less sloppiness and carelessness, and a little more diligence in your exegesis years ago, you could have avoided apostatizing to a theological position that now requires you desperately to defend exegetically untenable "hack and paste" dogmas.

Palm concludes regarding the AoM passage:

I believe this is a clear example of the usage of heõs hou with the meaning “until [with no reference to continuation or discontinuation]”, or perhaps even leaning toward, “until [and continuing]”. It is certainly very damaging to Svendsen’s thesis that this example is cited in his study, but not properly categorized.

A “clear example” of Palm’s proposed meaning for Matt 1:25? Hardly. Not only is this not a “clear example,” but it’s not even a likely one. The very most Palm could argue is that it’s ambiguous—and even that would be generous. What he cannot argue is that it is a “clear” example of his proposed meaning. The very fact that he does argue this way indicates that Palm is much more interested in polemics than scholarship. He is not driven by a desire to get at the heart of the issue in truth. His desire is rather to search desperately for something to cling to that will spare him the cold, hard reality of having no exegetical basis for his belief. Hence, since he has already admitted (above) that this example is “even more damaging” than the Joseph and Aseneth example, and since (as we have just shown) this example does absolutely no damage to my thesis (in fact, it supports it), then we must conclude (on Palm’s own reasoning) that the J&A example represents no damage either.

On Matthew 18:34

Palm begins this section of his article with a commentary on the Dividing Line debate:

Several of us who listened in to the “debate” between Gerry Matatics, Eric Svendsen, and James White were appalled to hear James White’s reply when Gerry unveiled the Joseph and Aseneth and Apocalypse of Moses texts. Instead of honestly interacting with the evidence that his opponent had offered, White immediately jumped to change the subject: “And can you show us any of that in the New Testament” (What was that I was saying about sacrificing honesty in order to score debating points? Do we need a clearer example?)

Bear in mind here that Gerry Matatics disingenuously introduced an example of heos hou that does not occur in the literature under consideration (even if he was not aware of it, one who relies on the research capabilities of a man who has no knowledge of these things is subject to this criticism). Palm, now fully aware that the majority of scholars do not date J&A in the time frame of that literature, nevertheless continues to be disingenuous. It is one thing to assert irresponsibly in a public debate (as Matatics did) that you have concrete evidence of your proposed usage when you really don’t. That’s bad enough. It is much worse to continue to propagate that non-example once it is known that it is not an example of your proposed usage. That’s what Palm is doing here. Palm should have chided Matatics for his sloppy handling of the evidence. Instead, Palm praises him, even though it is now known that Matatics’ proposed “evidence” is nothing of the kind. Once again, we see what truly drives Palm on this issue. Palm continues:

Gerry tried valiantly to overcome White’s transparent attempt to deflect attention from this issue, but ultimately White simply shut him down with the gratuitous comment that, “You're really filibustering and I think everyone can see that” and then headed off in a completely different direction. Of course, armchair quarterbacks like me were saying, first of all, “Don’t let him get away with that! Make him answer the evidence on the table…”, but then also, “Okay, then, hit them with Matt 18:34!”

Okay, then let’s see just how Palm "hits" us with Matt 18:34:

Although Svendsen does acknowledge in his book that heõs hou occurs in this verse, his interaction with it leaves much to be desired: “The wicked servant was to be tortured ‘until he should pay back all he owed’ (Matt 18:34), but that torture (it is implied) would cease after payment had been rendered” (WIMM, p.52). Even if one concedes that it is “implied” that the torture should cease, the fact is that numerous New Testament exegetes have held that there is NO cessation in the action of the main verb in this verse, for they argue that the servant can never pay the debt. This view is argued strenuously, as Pacheco has pointed out, by no less an exegete than John Calvin. Indeed, one could find any number of commentators on the New Testament who would argue that, even if it might be said to be implied that the servant would escape the torturers if he paid the debt, nevertheless he can never do so. Therefore, the action of the main clause does not cease, according to these commentators, after the action in the subordinate.

Palm then cites a couple of Evangelical scholars on this verse:

For example, Matthew Henry says on this passage:

“Thus he would have payment to be made, that is, something done towards it; though it is impossible that the sale of one so worthless should amount to the payment of so great a debt. By the damnation of sinners divine justice will be to eternity in the satisfying, but never satisfied” (Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, “Matthew”, http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC40018.HTM)

Or let us hear Dr. Don Carson, at whose feet Svendsen is so proud to have studied: “With neither resources nor hope, he begs for time and promises to pay everything back (v.26)—an impossibility. . . . The servant is to be tortured till he pays back all he owes (v.34), which he can never do.” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984, 406-7).

Palm concludes from these quotations the following:

Through their interpretation of this verse, these commentators hold a position that, regardless of what might be implied, the use of heõs hou does not automatically indicate that the action of the main clause ceases after the action of the subordinate clause. As I have said in my foreword to John Pacheco’s original rebuttal of Svendsen’s thesis, the burden of proof is fully on Svendsen to show that each and every counter-example we bring forth cannot mean what we say it means. In this case, it is his burden to prove John Calvin, Matthew Henry, Don Carson and a host of other New Testament exegetes wrong in their interpretation of Matt 18:34. And if they are not wrong—if in fact the servant is able somehow to pay the debt and be released from torture—then Svendsen needs to explain just what spiritual reality lies behind the parable, if not purgatory. . . . It is only Catholic theology that has a category for a temporal punishment in the afterlife for sins—namely, purgatory. So let Svendsen take his choice. Let him admit that the action of the main clause does not cease after the action of the secondary clause in Matt 18:34, thus nullifying his thesis, or let him admit that it does cease, in which case he will have conceded that Matt 18:34 is indeed a biblical proof for the existence of purgatory. I am satisfied with either outcome.

This is another passage that Palm introduced in the NTRMin discussion forum. Palm apparently copied and pasted this portion of his article, since it appears verbatim there. Here is how I responded to Palm:

Quoting Palm: Even if one concedes that it is "implied" that the torture should cease, the fact is that numerous New Testament exegetes have held that there is no cessation of the action of the main verb in this verse, for they argue that the servant can never pay the debt.

My response: Try to think through your argument before posting it, Mr. Palm. Whether the torture ceases or doesn't cease is completely irrelevant to the meaning of heos hou in this passage. If it ceases, then the action of the main verb also ceases once the “until” is reached. If it doesn't cease, that is only because the “until” is never reached. In no instance does the action continue after the “until” is reached—which is the meaning required for your view. Is this really all you have? That's it? Please tell me you have something more, Mr. Palm--some staggering display of exegetical prowess on your part that dismantles my thesis. Please tell us you have more than this.

Palm had absolutely no response to this—and for good reason. It is clear that Palm did not think through this passage before making his point. But that’s not the worst part of it. Palm had obviously held this passage as an example of his proposed usage for Matt 1:25 for quite some time before the DL debate, since (as he admits) he was cheerleading its use during the DL debate with Matatics. That means Palm had sufficient time and opportunity to think critically about his own interpretation of Matt 18:34. Yet, not only does he miss the real meaning of this passage, but he includes his misinterpretation of it in his article, and then posts it in the NTRMin forum. It required just one short paragraph in response to show how inept Palm is at exegesis. Once he was shown that he had misinterpreted the significance of heos hou in the passage, he opted not to pursue the issue. But that’s not even the worst part. Not only did he opt not to pursue this passage any longer (who could blame him?), but he has also opted not to retract it. The reader will recall that Palm earlier made a lot of hay about admitting “black eyes” and “taking it like a man.” Well, here is Palm’s perfect opportunity to do so. Will he own up to the fact that he was wrong about Matt 18:34 and publicly retract the criticisms he made of me regarding this passage? Again, I am not holding my breath.

An interesting reversal

Palm continues in his next section with what he perceives as a reversal of my position:

In following this renewed debate over the meaning of heõs hou in Matt 1:25 I noticed a very interesting reversal by Svendsen. Recently he wrote: “I freely concede in my book . . . that if a clear example of this usage can be found in the literature of Matthew’s own day, then Roman Catholics may have a case for their understanding of Matt 1:25.” But actually, he concedes quite a bit more than that; here is exactly what he says in his book:

“[I]f this usage for the phrase can also be found in literature contemporaneous to Matthew's gospel (i.e., the first century AD), then there can be little objection to seeing this same usage in the passage in question, and Mary's perpetual virginity becomes a strong exegetical option.” (WIMM, 77).

I think this is a fair and reasonable statement. But now that the “Jack Chick of Catholic Apologetics” (aka John Pacheco) has actually looked at the evidence and found serious holes in Svendsen’s thesis, Svendsen has suddenly changed his tune. For now he states:

“But even [if such a usage can be found], the Roman Catholic interpretation would simply move from the realm of exceedingly improbable to the realm of highly improbable. It would be a remarkable admission, indeed, for someone candidly to assert that his dogmatic belief is based on improbabilities regarding the Greek language. Yet, that is the most the discovery of one contrary instance of this phrase will yield the Roman Catholic position.”

Excuse me, Mr. Svendsen, but where did “there can be little objection” go? How did “strong exegetical option” suddenly disappear? Were you being disingenuous when you wrote those phrases in your book, or are you just in damage control mode now? Please tell us.

Palm betrays his inexperience once again by showing that he does not understand the difference between “usage” and an “isolated instance.” As I have already mentioned in this article, when he brought this point up in the discussion forum I responded by noting that "usage" falls into a different category than "isolated instance" (the former refers to the common lingua, while the latter refers to individual occurrences). Just because there may be an instance of a word or phrase bearing a certain meaning in any given period does not thereby establish common usage. I pointed out that the Greek word trapeza, normally translated "table," in just one instance must be translated "bank" (Luke 19:23). Yet this one instance does not establish “common usage,” and "bank" does not thereby become a viable exegetical option for other passages where this word is used. Yet this is just how Palm wants us to treat heos hou in Matt 1:25. There is nothing in the context of Matt 1:25 that even allows us to abandon normal usage and propose an exception. Hence, in spite of Palm’s misreading of my book, I do not allow that a single exception—or even two—to the normal usage of the phrase heos hou somehow constitutes a “strong exegetical option” for that meaning in any given passage—especially a passage whose context so obviously does not demand the exception. Rather, what I acknowledge in my book is the same thing that any New Testament scholar would acknowledge; namely, that if a certain understanding of a phrase can be found as common usage of the literature of the day, then it becomes a “strong” exegetical option for any given passage, assuming the context allows it. Obviously, pointing to one or two disputed instances, out of the seventy-some occurrences of heos hou in this time period, does not make an exegetical option “strong”—I would never allow such an absurd proposition to stand, nor would any New Testament scholar. The best status such an option could obtain is a “weak” exegetical option.

The objection by Palm is just one of his statements that prompted my competency quiz addressed earlier. It became apparent to me that Palm simply had no clue about the things he was asserting. Once answered directly, of course, Palm had no response to it, even though he was given ample opportunity to respond. Another contributing factor that prompted my quiz was the following assertion by Palm:

But please keep in mind throughout this exchange that the burden of proof is always on him to show that such a change has taken place. I do not have to prove the contrary. It's his assertion that the language changed during his thesis range (and then changed back immediately after!). Thus he must shoulder the burden of proof. He frequently tries to shift this burden, so please help me keep him honest.

Here is how I responded:

This is absolutely absurd. In the case of any word or phrase, if the usage has been shown to favor a certain semantic nuance in the literature under consideration, then the burden of proof always—always, always, always—falls on those who are positing an unlikely usage. Mr. Palm, I have now read several of your posts here, and each one is shallower than the previous. Are you going to present a real argument against my thesis, or continue to throw red herrings of supposed possibilities? Still awaiting a response that has substance.

Statements such as those asserted by Palm in his article and in the NTRMin Discussion forum make it abundantly clear that what we are dealing with here is someone who is clueless about New Testament exegetical practices. Let’s be very clear about this. Although it is the view that I favor, it’s not necessary to posit that the phrase heos hou dropped a nuance or two over the course of the time frame under discussion to show that the Roman Catholic view of Matt 1:25 still falls into the category of “highly unlikely.” It is enough to show that that particular nuance of the phrase is so rare as to render the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage virtually untenable. Indeed, no one can deny that much about the phrase, as I have already shown in my competency challenge earlier. Hence, if Palm thinks he has finally escaped the exegetical knife by suggesting that his proposed usage never completely passed from the scene, he is sorely mistaken. Sound exegesis never depends on rare usages, unless the context requires it. As I’ve already shown, there is nothing in the context of Matt 1:25 to demand anything but the normal usage of the phrase. And so Palm’s flailing objections amount to nothing more than a smokescreen to take our eyes away from the real issue; namely, that the Roman Catholic understanding of Matt 1:25 is at best a highly unlikely exegetical option.

Conclusion:

Palm concludes his article by writing:

My guess is that we are not going to receive satisfactory answers to the questions I have posed here. But the central fact is this. The evidence shows that, well within the boundaries of normal statistical deviation for such a small sample group, the usage of heõs hou meaning “until [and continuing]” or “until [with no reference to continuation or discontinuation]” is no less common in the one hundred years bracketing the writing of St. Matthew’s gospel than it is in the centuries before or after that period.

Actually this is wrong. Using a best case scenario (one that is most favorable to the Roman Catholic view), the percentage of occurrence for the proposed Roman Catholic usage is 7% in the period before 100 BC, and less than 1% in the period between 100 BC and AD 100. That’s quite a difference. Nevertheless, here is something that I am willing to grant to Palm—nothing new really, since it is also something I allowed in my book, not to mention in the competency quiz I issued to Palm. Let's grant for the sake of argument that the Roman Catholic proposed meaning of heos hou really didn’t fade entirely out of existence in the time period under consideration. Let's grant the possibility that it has always been a rare usage (although the evidence indicates that it is even rarer in the New Testament era than in the LXX era). The possibility of this must be acknowledged, and I freely acknowledge it on page 53 of my book. Granting this possibility and the accuracy of Palm’s statistics above, does this help the Roman Catholic case for Matt 1:25? Absolutely not. Whereas Palm thinks this helps his case, it actually militates against it. If indeed Palm admits that his proposed meaning for heos hou is a rare usage in any age (which is essentially what he has conceded in his statistics above), then what does that really mean for his understanding of Matt 1:25? Three of the questions I asked earlier in my competency quiz to Palm come into play here:

(1) If you can find only one instance of your proposed meaning, what does that really imply for your position on Matt 1:25? (Please choose only one):

(a) It is a highly likely interpretation, hands down over all other options.

(b) It is the likely interpretation, having more weight than the other options.

(d) It is an unlikely interpretation, but it is still a possible one.

(e) It doesn't matter; as long as it can have that usage, it does have that usage in Matt 1:25 because Rome says it does.

(2) Using methodologies from NT exegesis only, can you explain what you think the difference is between adopting a position that is "highly likely" based on the exegetical evidence, one that is "probable" based on that same evidence, one that is "possible," and one that is "unlikely"? Further, can you explain what the acceptable criteria would be for distinguishing these categories?

(3) What significance is there for the exegesis of a NT text when a theologically insignificant word or phrase that consistently bears a certain connotation in NT and Hellenistic usage shows up in the passage that is undergoing exegesis? What do we normally do with such a word or phrase? Which option below best describes NT exegetical method? (Choose one):

(a) In NT exegesis, we normally apply the consistent meaning we find elsewhere unless something in the context of the passage itself prevents us from applying that meaning.

Palm must at some point come to terms with this, even if we were to grant all the points in his critique. That critique avails him nothing because he is still left with exegesis and usage staring him in the face. If Palm were truly interested in the furtherance of truth, he would cease blowing smoke regarding this issue, frankly acknowledge the exegetical factors that stand against his view, and candidly admit the inherent weaknesses of his own position rather than attempt to mislead his readers with red herrings. Instead of his presently stated conclusion, he would conclude his article with something such as, “For all the points with which I disagree with Svendsen regarding whether heos hou ceased to be used in the way the Roman Catholic view of Matt 1:25 demands it be used, one thing I cannot deny is that this meaning is so rare that I am forced to deem it an unlikely option for Matt 1:25.” Will we finally see such a candid admission coming from the Roman Catholic polemic crowd. Others may hold out such hope; but once again, I’m not holding my breath.

Over the past year I have expended an enormous amount of time and energy writing articles in response to the uninformed criticisms of a few misguided Roman Catholic epologists, and this one will very likely be my last. No matter what I write—or how often—Roman Catholic epologists are sure to twist and distort it beyond recognition. This is nothing new, of course; the teachings and writings of Paul and the other New Testament writers were constantly twisted and distorted by the false teachers of their own day, and little has changed today—except that, in accordance with Paul’s own prediction, the deceivers have gone from bad to worse (2 Tim 3:13). At some point one has to allow the principle of diminishing returns to guide his decision on whether continuing to respond to such inane criticisms is even worth the time and effort involved. For me, it’s not. Roman Catholic epologists will continue to “discover” what they will no doubt hold up as “devastating” new arguments against my thesis—indeed, against biblical truth as a category. Let them. Every one of them—Palm included—has proven to me that he lacks the prerequisite knowledge of basic exegetical methods to respond to this issue meaningfully. This precludes all of them from having a voice on this issue that is worth listening to.

But, respond they will; and whether they have something meaningful to contribute or not doesn’t seem to be terribly important to them—that’s the nature of a false teacher, after all. When that happens, the reader is advised to exercise a bit of critical thinking and ask himself whether this is truly a response to my thesis, or merely an answer (Roman Catholic epologists are usually short on the former and long on the latter). Further, is it a response to my thesis, or to some distortion of it? The members of the NTRMin Discussion community had little problem identifying and exposing David Palm’s distortions of my thesis once he began posting his criticisms there. Moreover, the reader should ask himself whether the Roman Catholic epologist has truly escaped the exegetical dilemma he is in; that is to say, even if we were to grant all his points, does it really thereby help his cause, or is this just another smokescreen to take the focus off the exegetical weakness of his own views (as every single “response” has been thus far)? To help him decide on this, the reader is encouraged to wade through my past articles on this issue (as well as the excellent articles by Jason Engwer that are posted in the Roman Catholic Corner of this website) to gain a better sense of the kinds of stunts Roman Catholic epologists attempt to pass off as “responses” to this issue—or indeed, any issue they address. Once the reader has done that, he should be able to spot them fairly quickly when he sees them.

As for me, I’ll be pressing on to higher things; things that are much nobler than continuing to dialogue on this issue with those who always seem compelled to voice nonsense opinions on things about which they are not even qualified to speak. I have learned at least one lesson in this regard. If I address this issue again, it will be with a worthy audience; an audience other than the denizens of Roman Catholic epologetics.

Eric Svendsen, Ph.D.
Director, NTRMin.org