Response to Matthew Ferguson: The Morbid Fantasies of Christian Apologists

In the past two days, I noticed evaluations of a certain "Christian apologist" by two deeply dedicated foes of Christianity.  Both men used the same name to describe this person, who appears to be a writer of some sort  But I can't believe they're really talking about the same person.

The first, atheist blogger and author John Loftus, wrote the following about this gentleman, whom we will call "DM," in his book How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist:

"I must admit I like DM.  He's highly educated, knowledgeable about a wide range of issues, pretty damn smart, very passionate, and kinda funny, like me . . . He reviews books on Amazon and comments there, like me.  He's polite until he meets up with what he considers sheer ignorance or is personally maligned . . . " (164)

The second skeptic, classics doctoral candidate and anti-Christian blogger Matthew Ferguson, wrote of a "DM" who appears, by sharp contrast, to be bereft of any single intellectual or moral virtue.  He repeatedly "harassed" Ferguson by posting critical challenges to his theories on his blog.  He insulted Ferguson, posting "tons of personal attacks," and proved "rude, obsessive (three posts!), and vehement," not to mention boorish in his sub-feminist use of the term "man up."  He is "dishonest about covering his tracks," spreads "false information" about Ferguson, and indeed "lies" on a regular basis.  DM is, furthermore, completely out of his league when it comes to evaluating the genre or historicity of ancient books, a mere "layman" as well as (citing an e-mail from Richard Carrier) a "dishonest ass."  Indeed, this DM is "the bottom of the barrel of what modern Christendom has to offer."  His method is to "rudely insult those who do not convert to his religion," then whine when shots are fired in return.


Worst of all, the evil DM, the one who has subjected Ferguson to such harassment, even nurtures "morbid fantasies" about Mr. Fergusons death!


DM: "I'm not going to respond on his site, though, since he keeps threatening to censor me. I will, however, give him a chapter to hang himself in my new book -- more than his childish brand of 'scholarship' deserves.'"



MF: "(DM) is not the first Christian apologist that I have found to use violent imagery to describe what he would do to non-Christians.  For example, a friend of mine a couple years ago recorded some videos of a Christian street preacher, named Clarence 'Bro' Cope, in which Clarence stated that he would 'slit' my friend's 'throat' and personally drag and throw him into Hell . . .


"Contrary to (DM)'s morbid fantasy, however, I doubt that I will commit suicide after he writes yet another polemic against me in his new book." 


Is it possible that these two men, both "DM" -- and their full first and last names also coincide -- are really the same person?  That hardly seems possible.  Surely there is some confusion here.  After all, Loftus and Ferguson are both atheists.  So outspoken an atheist as John Loftus could hardly say such nice things about a borderline psychopath whose "modus operandi" is to "rudely insult those who do not convert to his religion."  Nor would a former frequent guest poster on Loftus' often hard-edged Debunking Christianity site, a "Christ myther," have e-mailed THAT DM to say:


"You and I have had our disagreements, but I respect you because you’re honest, sincere and show respect for other people in your comments."


Neither does it seem likely that books written by such a scoundrel would be praised by some of the most eminent scholars in "Christendom," both for insight, and even for reasonableness of tone. 
Obviously these gentlemen must be two entirely different "DMs."  One: honest, sincere, respectful, informed, and sometimes funny, even if wrong.  The other: a spiritual vacuum, destitute of any one emotional, spiritual, or intellectual virtue.  If the two men met and shook hands, they would probably explode, and take a few parsecs of space with them.  (Pardon the violent imagery.  For the record, I do not really wish any nearby stars or planets to blow up.) 


Yet the odd thing is, Loftus posted on a Facebook page belonging to Ferguson and critical of "DM," implying that in fact, they were speaking about one and the same Christian author. 

How are we to solve this mystery? 


A few theories come to mind.  Let's see if we can figure out which is correct.

(1) There is just one DM, but he suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder.  (Or, alternatively, is possessed by a sadistic warrior spirit, perhaps from an Aztec tribe.) 

(2) DM is, in fact, a sinner, some days worse than others, but the greater variable here is (as Loftus suggested might be the case) the personality or self-representation of Mr. Ferguson.

(3) It may also be that Mr. Ferguson is misunderstanding what he reads.  This would also cohere with one possible interpretation of DM's criticism that Ferguson can be "blind as a bat" when it comes to the exegetical arts. 

Since Multiple Personality Disorder seems to have fallen out of favor, and the second hypothesis is not really at odds with the third, let us try to solve this mystery by seeing if we can find any evidence for Hypothesis 3 in Ferguson's comments, above.  Since it is his most serious allegation, let us begin with Ferguson's claim that DM fantasizes about the former committing suicide.  If Ferguson has gotten that wrong, one can understand his ire.  But given such an enormous mistake, one would henceforth be wise to take Ferguson's exegetical interpretations -- all of them -- with a large grain of salt.  A Great Salt Lake of salt. 


Does DM wish ill to Matthew Ferguson? 

I'll give the textual evidence, then how Ferguson interprets it, then why that interpretation seems unlikely.  Aside from clearing up the mystery of the two DMs, examining these comments should also help us understand how Ferguson reads and interprets texts in general:


DM: "I'm not going to respond on (Ferguson's) site, though, since he keeps threatening to censor me.  I will, however, give him a chapter to hang himself in my new book -- more than his childish brand of 'scholarship' deserves."


Ferguson's interpretation:  "Since he has made it clear that he plans to write more polemics against me, including a book chapter that he hopes will cause me to 'hang myself . . . '"
"(DM) is not the first Christian apologist that I have found to use violent imagery to describe what he would do to non-Christians.  For example, a friend of mine a couple years ago recorded some videos of a Christian street preacher, named Clarence 'Bro' Cope, in which Clarence stated that he would 'slit' my friend's 'throat' and personally drag and throw him into Hell . . .


"Contrary to (DM)'s morbid fantasy, however, I doubt that I will commit suicide after he writes yet another polemic against me in his new book." 



So it is clear that Ferguson believes the words in red above mean that DM not only hopes Ferguson will commit suicide after reading the chapter DM is writing, not only does he "fantasize" about Ferguson's death, but even that killing Ferguson is something Marshall "would do" (under what conditions, Ferguson does not specify.)

There seem, however, to be several serious problems with this interpretation:

(1)  The phrase "hang yourself" seems to enjoy a broader semantic range than literal death by strangulation.  For instance, Cambridge Dictionary gives the following definition:

"You say that someone can go hang (himself or herself) if you do not ​care what that ​person says or does about something: If she's ​expecting the ​report by ​tomorrow, she can go hang herself."

Even more relevantly, Idioms.com features the following phrase (which I have often heard, whether or not Ferguson or DM have):

give somebody enough rope (to hang themselves)

"To allow someone to do what they want to, knowing that they will probably fail or get into trouble: "I let him speak on, knowing that he would offend the director, and gave him just enough rope."

 

On this interpretation, "Give him a chapter to hang himself" would mean roughly the same as to allow someone to be "hoist by their own petards."  In other words, Ferguson's attack upon Christianity would be "hurt, ruined, or destroyed by the very device or plot one had intended for another."  (Note that "petard" was a small bomb, so "hanging" is actually a bit less violent than the alternative metaphor.)

(2) The context of DM's remark would also seem to favor the interpretation of "refuting" over that of  murder. 


(3) And, indeed, "refute" is a goal more commonly expressed by one scholar about another than "murder."  By Richard Carrier's methods of probabilistic reading, it would therefore seem the default, odds-on interpretation. 

 

(4) When Ferguson mentioned that he was suffering from health issues, and asked for help from his readers financially, DM offered to send in some funds.  If his goal were to do in Mr. Ferguson, helping to cover his medical expenses would seem rather counterproductive.

 

(5)  Actually, the chapter by DM that Ferguson refers to does not include any "polemics" against Mr. Ferguson.  (Nor did DM say that it would.)   What the chapter does is analyze an ancient work that Ferguson compares to the gospels -- The Contest of Hesiod and Homer -- and demonstrate that there are dozens of differences that fall in favor of the gospels when it comes to historicity.  At least twice (in an early draft) Ferguson is mildly criticized for what DM perceives as errors, such as neglecting vitally important dis-analogies between the two sets of literature.  But these criticisms never involve mere polemics: rather DM treats this entirely as an intellectual dispute, in service of finding important truths.  Typical of the tone are the following paragraphs:

"Matthew Ferguson contributes to what has been a a long and, on the surface, fruitless search.  But wisdom is affirmed by all her children: in history, as in science, failed experiments sometimes teach us as much as successful ones. 

"Christians and all who search for truth may be grateful for such challenges, which highlight not a God of Gaps, but a God of history.  With each challenge so far, the credibility of the gospels grows by leaps and bounds, and the gap between Jesus and his “competitors” yawns still deeper and wider.  'Come let us see.'"

 

This hardly seems like the tone of a homicidal maniac. 

 

(6) In general, even on the Internet, DM's remarks about Ferguson have been more frequently civil, than have Ferguson's remarks about DM. 

(7) In addition, the notion that Ferguson has misinterpreted DM's remarks would seem easier to reconcile with the opposing image of DM promoted by other hard-core atheists in the movement -- that Marshall, while no saint, and given to both sarcasm and poetic hyperbole, and certainly mistaken, is not quite the fanged, three-headed monster from Hades that Ferguson makes him out to be. 

 

All in all, then, it seems highly unlikely that DM meant to express any wish that Ferguson harm himself, or be harmed by anyone else.  (Indeed, in a private communication, DM tells me that he wishes "all the best for Ferguson -- long life, good health, friends, love, good food, adventures, and yes, greater maturity in dealing with criticism, and far deeper insight into the central texts of early Christianity.") 

 

But falsely accusing someone of a wish to commit murder is a pretty dramatic error to make! 


"So you DO NOT wish me to kill myself or come in for any kind of harm?  You only hope to see my arguments prove self-refuting?   Oh, why that's very different!  Never mind!"




And yet Ferguson not only plunged off that cliff -- whoops, there I go again -- he took this exegetical false path eagerly, exaggerating DM's "fault" -- DM hopes Ferguson will kill himself, no, he fantasizes about Ferguson's death, no, he wishes to make it happen -- despite the offer of money to improve his health! 

 

A person who could make such a God-awful error in reading, dragging a writer down to the pits of hell (oops!  more overly dramatic metaphor!)  on such flimsy evidence -- "blind as a bat" to evidence that trumpets from within and without the text for a more prosaic and charitable reading -- is, one would think, at a minimum, liable to make other serious errors in reading. 

And that, let me gently suggest, is the key one should bring to reading much that Matthew Ferguson writes. 

 

A Few More (Fresh) Examples

(a) "You have not really read the gospels in a serious way, however many times you have leafed through the texts" is also subject to multiple interpretations.  It could mean, as Ferguson repeatedly interpreted it, "You have not taken academic classes, read every word, read more than once, considered multiple theories," etc.  But it could also mean, "You are unskilled in interpreting these texts, regardless of how many classes you have taken in them.  You have yet to discover the proper interpretive clues."

 

The latter is obviously the correct interpretation.  DM bends over backwards to make that clear.  He argues that Ferguson's interpretation, not his academic choices, is flawed: "You describe the gospels as 'novels.'  This is complete and utter nonsense."  He says the truth is "standing in front of you like an elephant in broad daylight."  He calls Ferguson, not "uneducated" or "stupid" or "ignorant of the primary languages" but rather "blind as a bat."

 

All this implies that the problem lies in interpretation, not in academic history.  "Leaf through the texts" is thus deliberate hyperbole, which a reader of the New Testament ought to learn to recognize, given how often the main protagonist in the gospels uses it. 

What further compounds and confirms Ferguson's reading error here is that he not only misinterprets, but subsequently MISQUOTES DM, twice:

"I stated that (DM) misrepresented me for (1) claiming that I had not 'studied the Gospels in any serious way,' and (2) had only 'leafed through the texts' of the Gospels."

"If Marshall were to claim that Bart Erhman or Marcus Borg had only 'leafed through the text' of the Gospels, or had not 'studied them in any serious way,' he would be misrepresenting their academic and professional work."

 

What difference does it make that Ferguson substitutes the word "study" for the word "read" here?  "Read" often carries the semantic meaning of "understood," whereas "study" does not.  "Do you read me?"  Or, as Jesus put it, "They have eyes, but see not."  Here, again, Ferguson errs through failing to pick up on subtle but important distinctions between the meaning of English phrases.  He studies, but fails to read; looks, but fails to see. 

And yes, I say exactly the same about Bart Ehrman and Marcus Borg.  (And demonstrated it, in the latter case, in Why the Jesus Seminar can't find Jesus.)  Indeed, so even does Carrier, from time to time.  (When he's not calling Ehrman, like me, a "liar.") 

 

Also, of course, it is unfortunate when a scholar misquotes someone he disagrees with.  Ferguson has complained about my mistakes: it is about time he took his own more seriously. 
 

(b) No, DM did not promise or imply "polemics" in the coming book, as noted.  He promised serious intellectual challenges.  And that is what he will be offering. 

(c) Clearly, Ferguson's scoffing at the notion that pagan Greeks would have "based their interest in science on their religion" is seriously undermined, at least, by Carrier's claim that many did, in fact, do just that.  Carrier and Ferguson may spin all they like: what else should we expect? 

(d) "Challenge" is not "harass."  Aside from posting intellectual challenges on-line, DM never committed any act normally understood as "harassment" -- telephone calls, knocking on doors, contacting relatives.  Ferguson is abusing the language by using such loaded terms, and also repeating his propensity to uncharitable interpretations.  DM explains:  

 

"I intend to continue challenging Ferguson's ideas, along with those of other scholars who make public arguments that I think are mistaken.  And if I tell Ferguson to 'man up' and 'face the music,' a wise exegete should neither think I am implying that women are weak (I happen to like accomplished women, and I have helped some become that way), nor that I am suggesting anything about the acoustics in his dorm.  (Still less making threats, however vague or notional, to his health in any way.)  That is what public debate and scholarship are all about: and I happen to enjoy free-spirited debate."  
  

(e) DM is not a "layman" when it comes to scholarship on religions.  He is Ferguson's senior, in almost every relevant sense, and his works have been strongly endorsed by scholars at Baylor, Duke, Marquette, Oxford, Penn State, Washington, Yale, etc.  It might be nice if Ferguson were to acknowledge these facts once or twice, instead of denying them.

 (f) DM claims that one can detect genre without knowing the original language, if the work has been professionally translated.  (A fact one can generally take on the authority of other scholars.)  Ferguson derides this claim, but in his rebuttal of DM's arguments, he does not seem to point to a single relevant mistake DM makes that depends purely on language. 
That would be the proper way for Ferguson to support his point -- by showing how DM's disinterest in Latin has crippled his reading of this or that text, if indeed it has. 

(g) Richard Carrier has called almost everyone on the planet "dishonest" at least once or twice.  His opinion can therefore be discounted.  He did fine on stage debating DM (rhetorically), but has consistently lost written debates (as has Hector Avalos, which also explains his ire, which began after DM showed in detail on Amazon, then here how Avalos had misrepresented the New Testament.  Avalos' first long attack on DM was posted soon after -- without mentioning the prior debate.  Is that hard to understand?  Clearly, even Avalos knew at some level that he had embarrassed himself.) 

DM's criticism of works by Carrier and Avalos are easy to find on the sites for their books on Amazon.  After nearly 600 responses to his criticism of On the Historicity of Jesus, not one of his points has been effectively challenged. 

This also fits the pattern above.  Ferguson wishes (it seems) to think maximally ill of DM, so he solicits input from scholars who are maximally smarting after losing encounters with DM.  Ferguson fails to take into account the opinions of more mainstream, and more eminent, scholars who think highly of DM's work.  That is a form of cherry-picking, or confirmation bias.  Why should the opinion of Richard Carrier, who has probably never read one of DM's books, has no position in academia, is famous for wildly criticizing other scholars, and is still smarting from multiple painful encounters on-line (see this review), be worth more than that of great scholars like Nicholas Wolterstorff, Allan Chapman, or Rodney Stark? 




So is DM a villain or a saint?  No doubt a little of both.  Or maybe, from his own egocentric perspective, a lot of both, as Walker Percy recognized:



"I am rascal, hero, craven, brave, treacherous, loyal, at once the secret hero and asshole of the Cosmos.”



And what about Matthew Ferguson?

Whatever else he may be -- scholar, sage, gentleman, lover, pianist, painter, connoisseur, pet owner -- like Richard Carrier, and Bart Ehrman, and the whole Jesus Seminar, I think he is a rather poor reader.   

With that in mind, read what he says about DM -- or about the gospels -- and I think you will better understand what you find when you do so.   


PS: I have been asked to address Matthew's assertion that he has blocked me on his website, or has the right to censor my comments, or to say "If you earn a B- in translating this silly Latin e-mail into English, I'll let you post" (I could almost do it, though I haven't studied an hour's worth of Latin, most of the vocabulary is quite simple).  OK, let me answer that question.   


First, I do not care about posting on Matthew's blog.  I'll be talking with serious publishers this year about serious works that add important insights and sets of knowledge to the sum of human thought.  (As, I believe, have some of my other books and articles.)  If a Matthew Ferguson, or a Jerry Coyne, wishes to take the easy route to escape my barbs, let them.  I didn't want to take the time to write a self-defense, either.  But claims of death threats should, I suppose, be answered. 


Second, I little know or care what Matthew Ferguson's rules for etiquette on his blog are.  I do believe that after my two initial mistakes, amply apologized for, I have been more courteous to Matthew, than he to me, and also focused more on the issues.  (Aside from this bit of self-defense, not my idea.)   And I think that should be enough.  But every blogger makes his or her own rules, however self-serving, and I'm cool with that.  A man's blog is his castle. 


Third, again, what really interests me are the analogies skeptics offer to the gospels, and how they fail upon serious historical analysis.  Note, for example, how Bart Erhman's recent attempt to compare the gospels to the life of Polish rabbi Baal Shem Tov, or to Apollonius of Tyana, fared upon the mere beginnings of such analysis.   I maintain that all such skeptics seem "blind as bats" when reading the New Testament, failing to notice dozens of qualities that render them uniquely credible as historical documents. 


I am sorry Matthew Ferguson dislikes me, and that he has convinced himself (incredibly) that I wish him ill.  (Apparently Peter Boghossian somehow got the same impression.  Apparently my enthusiastic, tongue-slightly-in-cheek style of challenging skeptics doesn't suit everyone.)  But I remain delighted by the intellectual challenges Ferguson (more than Boghossian) brings to the historical texts of Christianity, and fascinated by their repeated (but familiar) failure.  Having said my piece in this self-defense, I do not, now, intend to be distracted from those truly important issues.  If, along the way, I have the chance to make peace with Matthew or some other skeptic who thinks ill of me, I will gladly take it.  But I don't think that's in my court, now, nor will I be dissuaded from continuing to seek truth where it may be found -- through dialectic, most happily of all. -- DM


PPS: A poster named Andrea below complains not that this post is too long, but that it is too short!  I have only addressed 2%, well not even that, of Ferguson's article, he claims.   And why didn't I provide a link to Ferguson's article?  Am I afraid it makes me look bad?   And (doing a 180) why did I answer Ferguson at all?  Am I one of those people who just can't let it go? 


Some of these complaints are bizarre and mutually-contradictory, but foolishly, perhaps, I'll bite. 


First, if you want to read Ferguson's article, here it is.  Enjoy. 


Second, Andrea counts wrong.  Printing it out, Ferguson's rant comes to 16 pages, and I addressed every argument on page 6, for instance, plus much of the rest.  So he's at least an order of magnitude off. 


Third, when several people publicly call YOU a "liar," I suggest that you try to set the record straight, if it needs setting straight. 


Fourth, if someone accuses you of harboring murderous thoughts, I  suggest that you answer THAT accusation, if nothing else.


Such a risibly false accusation, of such a magnitude, is more than enough to refute in one day.  Even if that were all I did above -- and it is not -- it should cause any fair-minded person to read the rest of Ferguson's work, including his critiques of myself, if at all, with deep suspicion. 


Fifth, as noted below, if I were really obsessive, I could have detailed many more errors and false accusations in Ferguson's hit piece.  I mention several more in respond to Andrea: I could add more, if I wanted to spend more time on this.  


But what I have written is more than enough.   Indeed, if you accuse someone of murderous intent or desire, and that accusation proves completely bogus, that alone should discredit you in polite society and as a source for exegetical interpretation for a good long time. 


Finally, while Ferguson's critique is a bit sordid and even occasionally edges on the paranoid, and I don't much enjoy this part of the public discourse, I do believe it is instructive.   THESE are the kind of scholars upon whom many skeptics rely for their interpretation of early Christianity.  People who unapologetically commit grotesque blunders when reading plain English, and then can't manage to properly apologize for those blunders (see comment 5).  People who prove themselves to be poor exegetes in their native languages.  That ought to give their fans pause. 


But I do intend to return to substance, and to the texts themselves, which yes, are in my view far more interesting.