A post over at Justin Taylor’s blog on The Loss of Historical Adam and the Death of Exegesis has generated a lot of comments and discussion, some of it being rather tense. I also had an exchange with a guy name Hank who was going around trolling against those who believe in the historical Adam. For those who are interested, the thread of that brief exchange (thus far) can be found here, and he began commenting after he said he read my essay critical of Peter Enns’ methodology. To spare the blow by blow details, my latest response follows below. What else could you add?
3.) “I’m just saying you seem like a young amateur in biblical studies–perhaps an MDiv–but certainly not someone who has written and exposed his ideas to learned and critical scrutiny.”
Response: Let’s say I’m a young amateur. To think this is a refutation is simply to commit an ad hominem fallacy and doesn’t prove your assertion that I’m just recycling others’ criticisms, that my arguments are wrong, etc. Let’s say hypothethically you are older and more knowledgeable than I with your condescending tone towards me. As the older and knowledgeable man, I would appreciate it if you not make a false appeal to authority but teach a younger man such as myself of how one interact with others fairly and reasonably: Please LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATE how my critique was wrong rather than merely asserting it and straw-man it. Ironically this whole time you have only been making assertions, and not offer critical scrutiny and interactions. Show an amateur like me how someone in the major leagues like you behave and engage in reasonable and charitable interactions, intead of acting like a juvenile Enns’ fan boy.
Truth be told, I have been following Enns for a few years now and I don’t know what the big deal with him is since Enns problem is more philosophically basic than how to weigh ANE evidences–if you recall in the essay that you said you read, I argue that the precommitments behind his bibliology would make rational discourse unintelligible and meaningless such as the very ones you expect others to engage in. Can you resolve this dilemma of Enns’ methodological precommitments?
4.) “That is not ad hominem, but from what I see a reasonable conclusion.”
Response: You might want to brush up on logic. You are committing a logical fallacy of ad hominem since you fail to address anything substantial in our exchange but simply shift the topic to something concerning the other person.
5.) ” I do see, though, that you are versed in the rhetoric of apologists: never answer questions only ask them.”
Response: It’s flat out incorrect for you to say this since I have answered your questions. Read it again. If you disagree, can you point out which one of your questions that I have not answered ? There was a question that I asked of you for further explanation so that I can answer it which ironically, you did not answer. Just looking at our exchange I find it ironic (yet once again) that the very thing you said about me is actually true about yourself in our exchange. It is you who never answer questions or inquiry. If I can remind you of what my inquiries you leave unanswered:
(a) Can you be more specific of what it is in my post that is merely “repeating the reactions of others”?
(b) Can you (1) show something I said (2)that has been stated by someone else before (links and book citation would be nice)?
(c) I’m curious to see how Enns deal with the methodological problems driving his position. Or how you would answer for that matter.
(d)What constitute for you a “serious background” in Biblical studies?
(e) I think it’s legitimate also as well to ask whether your credentials is up to par with the standard you are putting me through concerning “SERIOUS Background” in the mentioned areas of study.
One last thing: I finally looked at other comments on here and seeing your comments to others I just wanted to point out that you have the rhethoric of an Enns’ troll.