EarlDoherty

Well, it was only a matter of time. Roo Bookaroo has weighed in on Amazon between GDon’s and Neil Godfrey’s exchange of “Comments” over Don’s review of JNGNM. And Roo does it with his usual foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe against me and against anyone who supports me. Have a look at it, it is really quite entertaining. Quite frankly, I wonder what a professional psychiatrist would make of it. As far as I’m concerned, Looney Rooney is certifiably committable. (And I wonder why Amazon so freely allows a voice to such a straitjacket candidate.)

Here’s an excerpt I particularly liked:

Does anyone wonder, when there are such sympathetic souls out there, why I am loath to reveal personal details about myself, where I live, what university I attended, what style of hat I wear? Jeffrey Gibson several years ago gave us a good example of the dishonourable tactics which rabid anti-mythicists can indulge in (in this case against Richard Carrier) when they have detailed personal knowledge of writers they disagree with.

As well, taking a page from “honest Don” in his Amazon review, he quotes R. Joseph Hoffmann’s nasty comment long posted on the Wiki article on myself, a comment, by the way, which shows that Hoffmann, in accusing me of simply copy-catting G. A. Wells, never read The Jesus Puzzle at all. And not only did Robert Price ‘not raise an eyebrow’ he paid me the highest of compliments for presenting “real scholarship” (a phrase he used in regard to JNGNM) and has always been an unashamed supporter.

Note also that, like Bernard Muller, and as Bart Ehrman sneakily tried to imply, Looney Rooney virtually attributes the alleged existence of any Platonic cosmology about layers in an upper world and divine goings-on in them entirely as a product of my own self-serving fevered brain. For him, this is my “science-fiction view of the atmosphere.” The colossal ignorance behind such a contention is breathtaking. And if he really thinks I have added nothing new or innovative to the history of mythicism’s case for the non-existence of Jesus, he is truly demonstrating his ignorance of the entire field.

And if there were ever a case of pot criticizing kettle, Looney Rooney once again goes on and on about my and Neil Godfrey’s alleged less than Miss Manners language in the face of the kind of ad hominem tirades and perfervid attacks he indulges in. He finds fault with Neil’s accusations toward Don of “questionable tactics…devious voice…master of disingenuity, etc.” (all fully explained and justified from Don’s actual comments), as though such language is infinitely more disreputable than his own maniacal distortions directed against me personally (he also throws in a few against Neil), such as the above. Clearly, Amazon no longer has any standards whatsoever in the comments it allows. There is scarcely a single element of this comment that relates to a review of my book at all.

He claims: “Doherty and Godfrey feel the same outrage at his criticisms that Christian apologists of the 3d century expressed towards heretics.” No, our outrage is against the biased and deviously misleading devices used by Don in making his criticisms. (I note that Neil just as clearly recognized them as I did.) And until we get clear justified examples to illustrate and back up the Don-supported Carrier judgment of “90% speculation” in my book, we can be sure that no one using it as a battering ram against me will be given any credence.

I feel that it is important to expose this kind of behavior on a Forum like this so that everyone will get a clear picture of what is really involved in so much of today’s “Biblical Criticism and History” and how honest scholarship takes a distant second chair in the fanatical campaign to discredit mythicism and mythicists, no matter what the sordid and psychotic tactics that have to be employed.

Earl Doherty

Horatio Parker

Surely you have worthier opponents.

To the extent I'm a psychologist, of the amateur armchair variety, I suggest that you are exhibiting enabling behavior eg "Here’s an excerpt I particularly liked".

EarlDoherty

And where did you get your degree in psychology?

Sarcasm is "enabling"?

Earl Doherty

Horatio Parker

In this context, yes.

stephan huller

I have to admit I have stayed out of all Earl Doherty threads - for no ulterior motive, I just didn't and don't know enough to pass judgement. There are so many stores at the food court of speculation about the early Church, can't get to all of them (especially when some of his books are 800 pages long). But I have to admit - and please don't attack me for comparing myself and my experiences to his - but I have run into criticism and ridicule for a book I wrote and I overreacted initially. But in the end, I came away thinking - that's just the territory.

This is a two thousand year old religion that had a monopoly on 'the truth' for most of that time. Even the critics of that religion have been shaped to a degree by that original paradigm. It's not surprising that not everyone is going to agree with you.

None of this is going to get Earl mad at me. But here's the part that will.

While Don may or may not be fair, or Ehrman, or whomever else - he should be thankful that he's getting this much attention. No one is going to give a fuck about this theory based upon the merits of the theory. It's all the ancillary 'drama' of this or that 'controversy' that will make him a star and the book a success.

To some extent I credit Earl with tapping into every conflict with anyone who disagrees with him - but there comes a point where a lot of people will get turned off by it too.

It just seems to me - okay here it comes - that Earl has put too much of 'him' in this theory. I mean remember him complaining that people were pirating his books and that would mean that he would be left poor or destitute. Then it was the 'unfairness'/ of Ehrman's critique, then it was the persecution by Don and on and on it goes.

The bottom line is that it's unlikely that any author is going to make any money let alone a lot of money from writing any book - let alone one which is as intellectually sophisticated as this one. My advice is that he should just ride the wave of notoriety that he has achieved AND THANK EHRMAN AND DON et al in his next book because the bottom line is that no one gives a fuck about any of this. Most people that bothered to buy the book in the last few months probably did so because of the controversy created by these 'enemies.'

In the end, he's not going to appear on Oprah. People aren't going to learn how to live happier, more successful lives - be better parents from reading this book or any book on this subject. So what's the most he's going to earn. A couple of thousand dollars if he's very, very lucky.

I say this because I don't know what the difference is about having bad Amazon reviews or reviews in general. Do you really think that someone won't buy the book because someone named 'Gakusei Don' or 'Bookaroo' wrote a disparaging review? So if it's not about book sales what's the beef? That they are misrepresenting 'the truth'? Everyone misrepresents the truth in this business. I would even dare say that Earl had to do it to write the book. I did it. For the bottom line is that to write a revolutionary book in this field where so much has been written on the subject already you have to ignore thousands of pieces of information that contradict your thesis - and that is for all intents and purposes dishonest. For we should all be telling the reader - hey, I am not really sure about this, maybe I am wrong. And we don't, out of egoism or whatever. It is necessary to write a book but books are probably the most dishonest enterprise because they necessitate deception in order to uphold their initial thesis.

To this end, I think that the best we can do when writing a book is be advocates for an idea. A spokesman like Moses was the spokesman of God to the Israelites. Did Moses 'make up shit' to make his point? Yes, he most certainly did. God gave him ten commandments and the Israelites ended up with 613. In my mind the 603 'additions' represent the 'shit' that we engage in to get people to agree with the ten divine things we are fighting for. No the world isn't perfect but enjoy the ride. You wrote a book. It has had a profound influence of Neil Godfrey and many other people. But don't expect everyone to agree with you or 'be fair.'

They're just mad because they don't think you're being fair ignoring or 'misrepresenting' stuff that they hold dear to their heart. You can't treat them like Moses dealt with his dissenters - i.e. kill them all - so just grin and bear it - and enjoy the ride.

EarlDoherty

Dear Stephan,

I have no objection to you making your posting, although I don’t agree with everything you’ve said. But I don’t perceive any personal hostility or deliberate distortion in it. I might have let it go without comment, except that we all want to respond to even non-hostile criticism and ‘set the record straight’. I fully agree that my disputes with Don and Roo and their ilk have been of some benefit to me in terms of books sales (though hardly dramatic), but that is certainly not why I choose to defend myself against them. As I said, it’s more a natural instinct than anything else.

My concern over my books being pirated was not because I am thereby rendered poor and destitute, although the financial loss has been significant enough, even if on a relatively small scale. This is hardly NYTimes bestseller territory. The pirating is more the principle of the thing, because it is outright theft of my intellectual property, and that really rubs me the wrong way. If you were robbed of $100 on the street, you might be less inclined to bring in the police than if it were $1000. But failing to report it will not serve to make the petty crime situation any better, and you may possibly be enabling more such crime to take place.

I certainly don’t agree that nobody gives a fuck about this subject. If anything, over the years I have received comments, or have noted personal sentiments on amazon reviews or even sometimes on discussion boards, that the books I have written (and the website) have been extremely important to some people. I have been thanked profusely by those who have been thereby freed from religious torment. I have been more neutrally complimented for bringing clarity and insight to a murky field. So I must heartily disagree with your comment that “People aren't going to learn how to live happier, more successful lives.”

I also have to dispute that I have ever, in any of my writings, ever presented anything I knew was untrue, or hid anything I knew would work against my theories. I preferred rather to address it, although the odd time someone has called my attention to something I overlooked. One of the reasons why I finally wrote an 800-page book was so that I could avoid any accusation that I deliberately ignored or suppressed some piece of evidence that would have worked against my case. As Robert Price put it, I have left no relevant stone unturned. I also have a reputation for taking on anyone who wants to dispute me, even those who are openly antagonistic—provided that they supply something of substance (even if they’re personal attacks) which I can actually respond to and rebut. All this within reason, of course. One gives up on someone like J.P.Holding after a few exchanges, and if yet another apologist publishes the same old tripe against me and mythicism that we’ve all heard and that I’ve addressed before, I’ll usually let the rant go by (such as Ben Witherington’s). And I certainly have never knowingly deceived the reader, much less ‘made up shit’.

I am also led to rebut critiques and attacks so as not to leave the readers of those critiques and attacks misinformed or deceived by erroneous or deceptive statements. That is one of the reasons why Don and I have been at it for so long. No, I don’t expect everyone to agree or be fair. But if we let misconception and falsehood have a free ride on the wind, we only have ourselves to blame if we have to breathe in polluted atmosphere.

And don’t get me wrong. I enjoy the ride, otherwise I wouldn’t be on it. Just because I may sound intense at times and full of not a little righteous indignation, doesn’t mean I’m not getting a kick out of it. And if some don't enjoy reading it, well, they can just click on the Close button.

Earl Doherty

Adam

From my very non-MJ perspective, I can confirm Earl's aspersions on two light-weights. JPHolding is very vituperative, Ben Witherington is very peaceable, but neither makes any headway in a confrontation with anyone who understands the issue. Do they even understand themselves? Or do they know they don't have a case, so have to just say it again?

EarlDoherty

You'll have to explain yourself.

On the other hand, feel free not to bother.

Earl Doherty

mountainman

The greatest of which is an appeal to the rhetorical persuasion that is heavily laced with pathos - a direct appeal to the emotions of the hearer/reader. The Emperor Julian puts it like this:

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

At some stage these appeals to emotional and childish psychological instincts will be recognised for what they are, and the actual evidence in the field of ancient history, which has been largely ignored because of the apologist's hegemonic dogma, will be investigated by people who have not been brainwashed and mind fucked by the dogma.

Horatio Parker

OTOH, maybe Roo etc *is* a worthy opponent.