Customer Reviews

The Impossible Faith

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Anyone who reads much of what Holding says on the web knows that he majors in ad hominems against those who disagree, and it should be well known that I do not like him. He's a non-credentialed arrogant hack who has gained a following mostly from the uninformed. No wonder he had to self-publish this book. He claims that one of the reasons Christian publishers won't publish it (which leads me to think he tried to get it published) is because, in his own words, "I won't write Left Behind style crap, and the market for Christian lit is glutted, unlike the atheist market." I think there is another reason.

The book reminds me of one of the good college term papers I've read, which I'd give him a "A" on if I were grading it, but that's it. "Good," in so far as he read a few books and strung together some decent information from which I learned a little. "College term paper," in so far as he lacks a breadth of knowledge on the issues he writes about beyond that level. Among Christian publishers who are looking to publish in the area of apologetics, they are looking for something better.

On the back cover Holding claims to have 17 years in apologetics ministry. If he's 38 years old now (a guess), then that means he started his ministry when he was 21 years old. What can that mean? That a 21 year old on the web arguing for Christianity has an apologetics ministry? Hardly. He also claims "It is impossible to estimate the evangelical impact that is possible because of The Impossible Faith." Since he capitalizes and italicizes the words, "The Impossible Faith" here, it's hard not to escape the conclusion he's referring to his own book. Such wildly overstated self-promotional claims usually come from college sophomores who think they know everything simply because they're not yet informed enough to fully grasp the serious objections to their own arguments.

The "explosive proposition" of his book is that "there is simply no possibility that Christianity could have been accepted by anyone in the ancient world, unless its first missionaries had indisputable proof and testimony of the faith's central tenant, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Had there not been such indisputable evidence to present, Christianity would have been an impossible faith." (p. viii) This is a very large claim! It's widely recognized among educated people that the larger the claim is, the harder it becomes to prove it. But if you think this is a large claim he goes even farther. When discussing the skeptical argument that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, Holding writes: "It is impossible that Christianity thrived and survived while making such audacious claims falsely, and even more incredible to suppose that such claims were made with the full and continuing knowledge that the result in most cases would be rejection, ostracization, and persecution." Then in the next paragraph he adds, "There are two added layers of difficulty..." So, first Holding claims such a faith is "impossible," but that's not enough. He adds that beyond being impossible, "it's even more incredible..." But that's not even enough, for he goes on to talk about "two added layers of difficulty." (p. 97). How he can pile up "two added layers of difficulty" on top of an already "incredible" skeptical argument on behalf of an "impossible" scenerio, is beyond me. Educated people know not to claim more than what their arguments actually show.

His argument has floated around in Christian circles for decades, and maybe even centuries before, with more reserved claims about what it actually shows. It would be interesting to know who first used it. I myself used it as a Christian. But I only claimed the Christian faith was unlikely. The novelty of his approach is that he uses some recent scholarship from the Social Science Group of Malina, Neyrey, and Rohrbaugh, along with McCane's study of burial customs in the New Testament era--books which someone must have pointed out to him and from which he uses like they were the gospel truth. He obviously picks and chooses what he wants to believe by these scholars, since none of them would affirm the inerrancy of the Bible, and McCane may be an atheist for all he knows.

It's worth looking at his main argument.

Holding argues that ancient societies highly valued honor much more than we do today, and as such Jesus' shameful crucifixion and burial would be powerful obstacles to them believing he is the Son of God. Holding asks, "How could a man, subject to such overwhelming disgrace, in a society where honor was so crucial, have come to be recognized as the Son of God? There is only one viable explanation," that Jesus arose from the dead. (p. 17). Really? Only one viable explanation?

Holding argues that in the ancient world people concentrated not on individual identity but rather on group identity such that there were three strikes against believing in Jesus. Strike # 1 is that Jesus was a Jew, hated and despised by the Romans. Strike # 2 is that Jesus was a Galilean, which added to Roman hatred just like Iraq or Afghanistan is to us today. The Galileans were also thought to be "ignoramuses" by the Jews in Judea. Strike # 3 is that Jesus was from Nazareth, which would cause both Jews and Gentiles to scoff at the idea he was the Messiah. Holding writes: "Ethnically and geographically, Jesus was everything that everyone did NOT expect a Messiah to be." (p. 27). Everyone? Really?

Holding argues that the resurrection was a major stumbling block in preaching to the Gentiles because a bodily resurrection went against the philosophical thinking of that day, where the body was considered something to be escaped from, and it was strange to Jewish ears because "no one had conceived of the idea of one UNIQUE resurrection before the time of final judgment" (pp. 29-32). Again. "No one"? What about Herod and some others (Mt 14:1, Mark 16:14-16)?

Holding argues that in the ancient world "innovation was bad." Giving preference to the thinking of the ancestors over innovative ideas was the rule among the ancients. Holding argues this in regard to several particular innovative ideas: 1) Jesus taught that believers should be willing to forsake their families; 2) Jesus reached out to tax collectors and a Samaritan woman; 3) Jesus said the Temple would be destroyed by pagans; 4) Jesus teaching was subversive toward the Jewish perception of patriotism. Since Christianity was such an innovation (an arrogant and exclusive innovation), "it is extremely unlikely that anyone would have accepted the Christian faith--unless there was indisputable evidence of its central claim, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ." (pp. 33-45). Once more. Is it "extremely unlikely that ANYONE would have accepted the Christian faith...?"

Holding turns next to three other religions, Mithraism, Mormonism and Islam and argues that none of these other religions passes the test as an "impossible faith." (pp. 47-66). There are differences, no doubt, but they all arose from superstitious people and charismatic leaders. Mithraism actually died out, and by the criteria Holding suggested earlier that an impossible faith would be one that "passed into history" (p. vii) then it should be considered an "impossible faith." When it comes to Mormonism, like Christianity, he doesn't mention how persecution actually fans the flames of a movement.

In the short and remaining mostly superficial chapters Holding argues that there are "three pillars" supportive of the "impossible faith": 1) Miracles; 2) The empty tomb; and 3) The fulfillment of prophecy (pp. 67-75). He argues that the resurrection was not expected by his disciples (pp. 77-82). And he closes by arguing against two old and often debated arguments that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, known as the "swoon theory" (pp. 83-94), and the "theft theory," that someone stole the body of Jesus and perpetrated a lie (pp. 95-105).

Overall Holding wildly overstates his case, doesn't interact sufficiently with his detractors, and bases his arguments on certain implausible assumptions that he doesn't justify. For instance, Richard Carrier has sufficiently refuted his claims, not once but twice, along with Robert M. Price, Brian Hotz, and recently the combative Matthew Green, but Holding doesn't mention their arguments or interact with them at all in this book. While I can excuse him for not dealing with Green's recent arguments, I can't with regard to those written before he self-published his book. Why didn't he? He doesn't interact with the book, The Empty Tomb, either. If he wants to be a scholar, a wannabe, then the one thing scholars do is they show awareness of the relevant literature and interact with it. Holding doesn't do this in his book, even though he does attempt this outside of his book.

Furthermore, Holding quotes from the New Testament showing no awareness of Biblical criticism, the debates about Biblical inspiration, or whether Jesus actually fulfilled prophecy. To blithely quote from a gospel (or the New Testament) without some understanding of the strata of gospel origins and the debates that ensue from them is just superficial stuff. He also assumes the people in Biblical times were not superstitious people in comparison to our own modern educated societies. He thinks people believed Christianity because of evidence even though they believed in Artemis, Zeus, and Janus, and that's merely college student level stuff.

For a detailed refutation of Holding's book see Richard Carrier's book, Not the Impossible Faith.

-----------

I'm the author of "Why I Became an Atheist," and the forthcoming edited book, "The Christian Delusion."

Christianity is often wrongly labeled a baseless faith, believed in the absence of evidence. Richard Dawkins and other peddlers of tomfoolery have made that claim for years, so it's excellent to see books available like The Impossible Faith (TIF), which convincingly argues that Christianity succeeded primarily because of the overwhelming evidence - mainly the resurrection - that backed up the teachings of Jesus and his disciples.

The book serves essentially as a primer on the social world of the Bible and it's aimed at an audience badly in need of understanding - average American Christians. After finishing TIF readers will have an easier time contextualizing difficult passages, for example, Jesus' teaching in Matthew 12:49-50 to forsake family if necessary. To the modern mindset such a command doesn't make much sense, but in light of the fact that identity in the ancient world was determined by which social groups individuals belonged to, the significance isn't as difficult to see.

My favorite chapter, however, consists of a discussion about Christianity's uniqueness. Skeptics have an irritating habit of treating all religions as if they are equal and easily dismissed. "What makes Christianity so special?" is the typical cry, and in my teenage years I couldn't give a good answer, which is probably the case for many new Christians. Holding answers by succinctly comparing Christianity with three of it's major competitors, Mithraism, Mormonism and Islam, illustrating just what makes the faith so special. Parenthetically, Holding's comparison does much to debunk the idea that Jesus was somehow copied from another ancient deity.

The online version of the book contains an argument that I find particularly interesting. Potential converts to Christianity in the first century were encouraged to test its claims. Why would the founders of a fledgling religion encourage people to try to debunk it's claims if they were making things up? As Holding puts it,

"As if the apostles weren't making things hard enough for themselves by making extraordinary and testable claims in a social environment where it was difficult to keep secrets, they increased the odds significantly by actively encouraging people to check out their claims. Encouraging people to verify claims and seek proof is a guaranteed way of ensuring that your fledgling cult is a flop - unless, of course, those claims hold up under the scrutiny that your encouragement will undoubtedly generate."

But perhaps the best thing about TIF is the response it has elicited from critics. They would undoubtedly deny the strength of Holding's argument, but the fact that the brains of the modern atheist movement have responded so fervently since the book was published says a lot. I don't think the rebuttals count for much, since they amount to "well, other ancient religions had a tough time too!" But I think reading TIF and the rebuttals, particularly Richard Carrier's book-length attempt, is well worth it.

This book is full of historical misunderstandings. I am trying to decide whether or not Christianity is for me. After reading this, i am starting to doubt the historical claims of Christianity even more than before. This work is certainly a piece of shoddy scholarship that would not survive in any kind of peer-review process associated with the secular academy. If this book is representative of apologetical scholarship on the historical issues of Christian origins, then the faith is hanging on by a thread. And I suspect that thread is the mere emotional needs of the believers.
I did read Richard Carrier's rejoinder, "Not The Impossible Faith", and can tell you that he is a first rate historical scholar. Carrier's book confirmed my own criticisms of Holding's work and added several more, all of them solid.
For anyone interested in the topic, I recommend Richard Carrier's book instead. You will actually learn something. Holding's book is just fallacious apologetic drivel masquerading as historical scholarship. "The Impossible Faith" is a waste of time for anyone interested in learning and not just trying to reinforce cherished beliefs.

In the 21st Century Christian Apologists have used a multi-faceted approach to defend the traditional view of Jesus.

The first argument used is the radical nature of Jesus, that in some way he felt he was at least in a special relationship with Yahweh and he engaged in behavior that would only be appropriate for Yahweh. This can be explored in Jesus According to the Scripture by Darrell L Bock.

The second argument is how exactly did Christianity get started after Jesus died on the cross? Christian apologist have argued that only the resurrection could have changed the disciples from frightened men into evangelical defenders of the faith. Skeptics do not feel the resurrection is necessary to explain this and tend to explain away the resurrection appearances as hallucinations. A good book on this is Mike Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. It provides both the Christian view and skeptical arguments.

The third argument is the conversion of enemies of Jesus, in this case his brother James and Saul of Tarsus. The conversion of James could be explained as grief based and opportunist as he eventually became the leader of the new Christian movement but explaining the conversion of Saul tends to be more difficult. Skeptics tend to postulate hallucinations and unknown psychological problems to explain Saul's conversion. Christians argue the above would not be enough to have a truly life changing effect on him. This argument can also be explored in Licona's book.

The forth argument is that Christianity would have been unpopular to both Pagans and Jews because of various features in it. The argument is that by 64 AD the early Christians converted enough people to be noticed by the Roman Government and to be used as a scapegoat for the fires of Rome. Obviously this had to be a sizable population to be noticed and to be useful in this manner. How were they converted period when Christianity would have seemed so unattractive for reasons explored below?

The fifth argument would be the martyrdom of the Apostles and Paul. While some of the martyrdom accounts cannot be verified it is certainly historical that James the brother of Jesus, Peter and Paul died for their convictions. Skeptics argue correctly that in of itself martyrdom means nothing as many people die for false beliefs but Christians are also argue correctly that no one dies for beliefs they know to be false. So it is obvious the above truly believed that Jesus rose from the dead, but was this brought about through hallucinations or a true experience is the debated issue.

Holding is the main creator of the forth argument and I will explore it below.

Chapter 1 focuses on the crucifixion. This is by far Holding's strongest argument.

A man crucified as a dead insurgent would have no appeal to Pagans.
A man crucified for blasphemy would have no appeal to Jews.

Lastly and oddly enough not mentioned by Holding was the implication that if Jesus was crucified you might surely become crucified too!

Chapter 2 dealt with the origins of Jesus a Jew from Nazareth in the province of Galilee. I do not feel this argument is as strong as the argument in Chapter 1 for the following reasons.

It is obvious that Judaism did enjoy some success among the Pagans through both conversion and support. This happened without Judaism being an evangelical religion. Evangelical Christianity would have seemed attractive to at least some of the Pagans who wanted to embrace the ethics of Judaism, without embracing the totality of Mosaic Law. Up until the beginnings of the Judean War it is hard to know if the average Pagan would have been informed enough about Judea to know the low views Jews held of Nazareth and Galilee. Before the 2nd Gulf War how much did the average American know about say Basra?

Obviously Jesus' Judaism would not be held against him by other Jews. However it seems his small town backwater stigma did not greatly impede his ministry during his lifetime so this does not seem to have been a lethal problem.

While this issue might have raised eyebrows I cannot see it as a great impediment to early Christianity.

Chapter 3 deals with the fleshly nature of the resurrection of Jesus. These arguments are explored in a lot more depth by N. T Wright in his book The Resurrection of the Son of God. This argument would have very much created a lot of difficulties among Pagans because it would have seemed both pointless and vulgar. I am not sure if the idea of a singular resurrection would have been a stopper for all Jews, witness the reaction of Herod and others to reports of Jesus' miracles after the execution of John the Baptist, however it certainly would have been a stopper to theologically well educated Jews of that period. For example Paul.

This argument is very strong for its affect upon Paganism but I feel questionable for its use among Jews. I do feel it is by far stronger than the argument of the 2nd Chapter though not as strong as the argument in the 1st Chapter. Other arguments such as women witnesses and the use of people such as Matthew do seem to suggest that the early evangelist were telling the truth as these are not the type of witnesses one would sensibly make up.
Other parts of the book deal with other religious movements such as Mithraism, Islam and Mormonism. I am satisfied with Holding's arguments against Mithraism though I think he exaggerates in some ways the difficulty faced by early Mormons. Early Mormonism had the advantage of having a theology that both supported American Manifest Destiny and supported Slavery. The rise of Islam can be in many ways compared to the rise of Nazism as both started out against great difficulties in their early years and when they gained power they killed their enemies. The obvious difference is that Hitler lost his conquests and Mohammed and his followers won theirs. Nothing really remarkable in this.

All and all I think Holding has an interesting argument but it needs to really be developed a lot more strongly. I think in conjuncture with other arguments for the faith is gives one a good reason to consider Christianity.

J.P. Holding promotes this book by claiming an atheist paid $5000 for an answer, yet curiously he never names the expert who composed that answer or where to find it. Probably because it exposes him, and soundly refutes his thesis. His book doesn't even respond to any of those well-researched, well-supported refutations. It was published as if they didn't even exist. Holding so routinely misrepresents the facts, quotes out of context, and often just doesn't know what he's talking about, that he does a disservice to everyone by mis-educating them in the quest to propagandize his faith. If you want to know the real facts, about ancient cultures and religions and the origins of Christianity, and if you want to see demonstrated how Holding leaves things out and gets things wrong and leaves many of us with a strong suspicion of his dishonesty, you should read the scholarly refutation even he refers to, yet never identifies: Not the Impossible Faith, by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. Yes, that's me.

I give this book 4 stars. Really easy and quick read, I would have improved the last chapter where he pleads with the reader to consider the resurrection for what it was. I feel that he should have a little more of a Gospel message at the end and explain a bit about the need not only to believe the resurrection but to repent of our sins and put our faith in Jesus Christ for our salvation and eternal life. Other than that, it was good quick read. I don't think this is meant to be exhaustive but it covers a few basic points.

All of these atheists saying that it's a horrible book riddled with logical fallacies are way over the top. If you're a Christian or a non Christian who isn't antagonistic towards the Gospel and aren't already all filled with hate for God, then you should enjoy this book.

Forget what the atheists have to say about it...they are impossible to please.

Holding's basic thesis is that 1st-century Jews would have regarded worship of a crucified man blasphemous, therefore, the only way Christianity could have gotten started in such setting is if it really did provide undeniable miracles. The rebuttal is easy: people can be excessively gullible, as even the New Testament admits the apostles were (Acts 21:21-24, Galatians 2:11-14). The people of the first century had no problems attempting to worship mere mortals when viewing events they couldn't currently explain(Acts 14:11-15).

Perhaps the most damaging rebuttal to Holding's thesis is that he assumes that everything the New Testament asserts as true historical fact, no embellishments whatsoever. The vast majority of even Christian scholars and bible commentators do not accept the doctrine of "biblical inerrancy".

Jesus is reported to have said "blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed" (John 20:29). In other words, Jesus blesses those who exercise Christian faith even though they have never been subjected to hard undeniable facts to support it, such as Thomas allegedly was with the resurrected Jesus. Therefore, a Christian could have easily found that God approves of her belief even though she had never been presented with hardcore proof for that religion. Thus many Christians of the first-century would have found it acceptable to believe in Jesus without proof, which means Christianity was launched by means of blind faith and NOT hardcore miracle-proofs as Holding asserts.

One problem Holding doesn't deal with are the NT assertions that many people, who were allegedly exposed to Paul's miracles, turned away from his gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). Whatever stunts Paul pulled, they were not quite so undeniably miraculous so as to prevent most of his Galatian churches' apostasy from him. Demas was an alleged fellow worker with Paul, but he found worldly pursuits more enticing after his stay in Christianity (2nd Timothy 4:10.)

What kind of people populated Paul's churches? Those who committ incest (1st Corinthians 5:1) Perhaps that is why Paul admitted that most unbelievers found the gospel to be utterly foolish (1st Corinthians 1:18), and that the gospel was not too convincing to people with great intellect, but was only found true by idiots (v. 26)

Jesus predicted that many of those who DID the miracles in his name, he would regard as never having espoused the faith, and would reject them on the day of judgment (Matthew 7:22-23). If you can do a miracle in Jesus name and still be an unbeliever, obviously you didn't find the miracle too believable!

Suffice it to say that not only do secular scholars find Holding's book sub-par, but the very scholars that Holding loudly professes allegience with (i.e., the Context Group) have stated, through their co-founder Richard Rohrbough, that Holding gives Christianity a bad name, he needs serious help, and none of them want to be associated in any way with his apologetics.

If Christian publishing houses were willing to print sub-par garbage like "evidence that demands a verdict" (Josh McDowell), Holding's failure to find any Christian publisher for this book speaks volumes. Not even Christians find it convincing!

The writing is fine. The ideas are put together cogently. But it's simple and the arguments are cliche. The author writes from apriori and assertion which is all well and good but something substantive needs to be added to lend credibility to the assertions.

Ultimately this is why self publication is a dangerous thing. There are an aweful lot of bad ideas and writing out there and with the advent of the internet and self publication authors who don't have the ability or talent to get published can do it themselves. But really, if you can't get published in the real world perhaps there's a good reason for that?

James Patrick Holding's Tekton Apologetics Ministries has long been an excellent resource for historical apologetics, defending the Biblical accounts and putting down such fanciful ideas as the Christ-myth. With his second print release, Holding has put onto paper one of his feature essays, which has long been one of his most effective.

These several arguments present strong historical and social reasons for believing that Christianity couldn't have survived without a literal resurrection. They work together beautifully, and he creates an excellent reason for belief.

Highly recommended for any Christian who wants to be able to defend his faith adequately, and for any non-Christian who wants an incredible reason to believe. Great job, Mr. Holding.

This book by James Holding is quite different from many of his online diatribes where he frequently uses sarcasm and ad hominems. However, this book is well written, it avoids sarcasm and diatribes, it cites many sources, and it is concise. It is offered as "food for thought" and not meant to be a comprehensive essay on the topic which he covers in greater detail in his online version of TIF.

There are many rebuttals availible online to Holding's online version of TIF. There are some written by Richard Carrier, Brian Holtz, and Dr. Robert Price. These rebuttals are availible on the secular web (Internet Infidels). Holding has responded to these rebuttals on his website "Tektonics".

I have read the book and although I still disagree with his main conclusion (the Resurrection really happened), I give this book a "5" rating because it is refreshing to see James Holding writing a book that is not filled with wrath and invectives. He can write much better than I can and unfortunately I am not currently able to answer all his arguments in his book. I will be doing some homework over the coming weeks so I can offer better reasons for my conclusions why I feel the book's conclusion is in error.