Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:14 pm**

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:35 pm fwiw, another review of Skrbina's book, https://www.unz.com/article/review-of-d ... and-years/ (and a discussion below)

Wikipedia article on the review's author:

Kevin B. MacDonald (born January 24, 1944) is an American anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and a retired professor of evolutionary psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB).[1][2][3] In 2008, the CSULB academic senate voted to disassociate itself from MacDonald's work.[4]

MacDonald is known for his promotion of an antisemitic theory, most prominently within The Culture of Critique series, according to which Western Jews have tended to be politically liberal and involved in politically or sexually transgressive social, philosophical, and artistic movements, because Jews have biologically evolved to undermine the societies in which they live.[5][6][2] In short, MacDonald argues that Jews have evolved to be highly ethnocentric, and hostile to the interests of white people. In an interview with Tablet magazine in 2020, MacDonald said: "Jews are just gonna destroy white power completely, and destroy America as a white country."

Wikipedia article on the website:

Ron Keeva Unz (born September 20, 1961) is the editor-in-chief and publisher of The Unz Review, a website that promotes anti-semitism, Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, and white supremacist material.[1][2][3] In addition to Unz's own writings, the site has hosted pieces by white supremacist Jared Taylor, among others.

Posted: **Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:54 pm**

I see. I continue to think that Skrbina is not an anti-Semite (even if his book can be misinterpreted in this sense). I would find - and really I find - a serious inconsistency in this sense (between not being an anti-semite and writing a book that can be misinterpreted easily as anti-semite) if he shows to believe in an objective morality (as he does). But if one subscribes to Error Moral Theory (as I do by reading this blog), then one is dispensed from being concerned about presumed or less anti-semitism by Skrbina. And he/she can focus on some points well worthy of attention, I think.

ADDENDA: A more correct view than the link above is the following: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

Posted: **Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:21 pm**

The blog author spends a lot of time complaining about the inconsistency of others & claiming that there is no reason to say anything is right or wrong other than mere opinion. Then he engages in a form of special pleading here:

https://helian.net/blog/2017/02/12/mora ... deophobes/

The source of the danger is what I call “ideophobia.” So far, at least, it hasn’t had a commonly recognized name, but it is by far the most dangerous form of all the different flavors of “bigotry” that afflict us today. By “bigotry” I really mean outgroup identification. We all do it, without exception. Some of the most dangerous manifestations of it exist in just those individuals who imagine they are immune to it. All of us hate, despise, and are disgusted by the individuals in whatever outgroup happens to suit our fancy. The outgroup may be defined by race, religion, ethnic group, nationality, and even sex. I suspect, however, that by far the most common form of outgroup (and ingroup) identification today is by ideology.

For someone who spends a lot of effort promoting moral relativism, it is odd that he doesn't stop to think about the meta-principles that he is invoking to defend the acceptance of a moral precept. Perhaps if he thought more about his statements about things that are "most dangerous," to the point that they should be considered a "source of danger" like other named forms of immorality, he might find some way out of the subjectivist hole that he's dug for himself, beyond just this one paragraph of special pleading.

Posted: **Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:45 pm**

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:21 pm For someone who spends a lot of effort promoting moral relativism, it is odd that he doesn't stop to think about the meta-principles that he is invoking to defend the acceptance of a moral precept.

he answers your point just in that same post:

I cannot claim that ideophobia is objectively immoral. I do believe, however, that it is extremely dangerous, not only to me, but to everyone else on the planet. I propose that it’s high time that we recognized the phenomenon as a manifestation of human nature that has long outlived its usefulness. We need to recognize that ideophobia is essentially the same thing as racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, or what have you.

for a concrete example of the danger of ideophobia in action in this our contest: one may be tempted to ignore some interesting points advanced by Skrbina only because the latter has been just condemned a priori as a not-person in virtue of his (more presumed than real) anti-semitism.

Posted: **Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:57 pm**

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:45 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:21 pm For someone who spends a lot of effort promoting moral relativism, it is odd that he doesn't stop to think about the meta-principles that he is invoking to defend the acceptance of a moral precept.
he answers your point just in that same post:

I cannot claim that ideophobia is objectively immoral. I do believe, however, that it is extremely dangerous, not only to me, but to everyone else on the planet. I propose that it’s high time that we recognized the phenomenon as a manifestation of human nature that has long outlived its usefulness. We need to recognize that ideophobia is essentially the same thing as racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, or what have you.

He doesn't answer my point. He just falls back on asserting consistency with his doctrine of moral relativism, while at the same time mounting a moral argument, the same kind of thing that he pokes fun at other moral relativists for doing. His references to "extremely dangerous" and "a manifestation of human nature that has long outlived its usefulness" are appeals to there being a basis of morality that extends beyond opinion or taste. If he thought it were just subjective, he wouldn't have wasted his breath rationalizing these notions, just as he argues that others shouldn't waste their breath if they are to be consistent relativists.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:45 pmfor a concrete example of the danger of ideophobia in action in this our contest: one may be tempted to ignore some interesting points advanced by Skrbina only because the latter has been just condemned a priori as a not-person in virtue of his (more presumed than real) anti-semitism.

You're right to the extent that an ad hominem is an ad hominem.

Your attempt to continue to equivocate on what he stands for, however, doesn't speak well for your reading comprehension or objectivity. Or, for that matter, for your ethics, which you claim not to be real.

Posted: **Sat May 01, 2021 12:13 am**

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:57 pm He doesn't answer my point.

yes, he does. He perceives in ideophobia a threat to his physical existence as a mere living being on this planet, therefore he is free to define "dangerous" the ideophobia. It is pure Darwinian struggle for life to move him in a such judgement. Not a hidden morality.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:57 pm Your attempt to continue to equivocate on what he stands for, however, doesn't speak well for your reading comprehension or objectivity. Or, for that matter, for your ethics, which you claim not to be real.

It is very subtle, indeed, the difference (between objectivity and lack of comprehension), since I feel that Skrbina is "on something" when he signals the presence of a strong interest to lie in these situations, in that historical period, by that group of people.

Posted: **Sat May 01, 2021 12:19 am**

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 12:13 am
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:57 pm He doesn't answer my point.
yes, he does. He perceives in ideophobia a threat to his physical existence as a mere living being on this planet, therefore he is free to define "dangerous" the ideophobia. It is pure Darwinian struggle for life to move him in a such judgement. Not a hidden morality.

There is an appeal to others to stop doing something. That alone makes it a moral claim.

I cannot claim that ideophobia is objectively immoral. I do believe, however, that it is extremely dangerous, not only to me, but to everyone else on the planet. I propose that it’s high time that we recognized the phenomenon as a manifestation of human nature that has long outlived its usefulness. We need to recognize that ideophobia is essentially the same thing as racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, or what have you.

He has couched this in moral terms. He didn't have to do so. But he did.

Posted: **Sat May 01, 2021 1:11 am**

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 12:19 am
He has couched this in moral terms. He didn't have to do so. But he did.

he has not made, by his own admission, a moral claim. He has simply described what he perceives as the current threat in course to his own life: the ideophoby. You (=Peter Kirby) have not to confuse the realism of the mere description of a such external threat with a moral claim imparted to others.

As to Skribna, see this precise point:

With the exception of Nietzsche, all of the above individuals exhibit a glaring weakness: they are loathe to criticize anyone. No one comes in for condemnation, no one is guilty, no one is to blame for anything. For the earliest writers, I think this is due primarily to an insecurity about their ideas and a general lack of clarity about what likely occurred. For the more recent individuals, it’s probably attributable to an in-bred political correctness, to a weakness of moral backbone, backbone, or to sheer self-interest. In recent years, academics in particular are highly reticent to affix blame on individuals, even those long-dead.[6] This is somehow seen as a violation of academic neutrality or professional integrity. But when the facts line up against someone or some group, then we must be honest with ourselves. There are truly guilty parties all throughout history, and when we come upon them, they must be called out.

(p.16)

Note [6] reads:

There are exceptions, of course. Hitler, Nazis, or Islamic “terrorists” are still open targets, for example.

From the POV of moral nihilism, one may fully subscribe that quote. Hardly so for Skrbina, since otherwhere he says that we should not live under a lie, hence implying a moral judgement, the same one he doesn't like to apply (why?) in the case of "Hitler, Nazis, or Islamic “terrorists”".

At any case, he is particularly persuasive in his criticism of Aslan's view on Paul:

Paul does not appear in the book until very late, and then plays only a relatively minor role. He correctly notes that Paul’s Jesus is “almost wholly of his own making,” but never quite manages to place any blame on Paul at all. On Aslan’s reading, Paul is always an innocent and upright fellow, just doing his best to build a church as he sees fit. Paul never lied. In Aslan’s world, no one has any malicious intent, no one ever does anything bad or wrong, no one is to blame for anything.

(p.107, my bold)

The problem here is not only of Aslan's view, but of all mythicists and historicists of my knowledge. Even when the (once mythicist) Roger Parvus said me that Simon Magus/"Paul" could be a real liar in his approach to the Pillars before him, he is not giving as reason behind the Magus the precise intention of a hoax, but the mere will of power and authority in the field of prophecy among rival prophets.

Posted: **Sat May 01, 2021 1:23 am**

Jax wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:09 pm
maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:46 am I've just finished reading the book....... Suffice to say it left a bad taste in my mouth. Its almost like it has an undercurrent of negativity towards Jews.
Hi Mary, as it is unlikely that I am going to part with some beer money buying the book could you please assuage my curiosity as to why the author feels that Paul decided to pull this scam. Was Paul some kind of evil Jew bent on the overthrow of the Roman empire or something dumb like this?

Thanks, could use a good laugh.

Lane

Edit: Never mind. Just read the review bellow.

Some of it.

It's not just a case of Paul wanting to overthrow the Romans - it's his method of covertly going about it....Entice the 'detested' Gentiles to do the job for him.

As the initiator of the hoax, Paul earns the maximum amount of credit or, if you will, blame. His ‘moment at Damascus,’ if that’s what it was, kicked off the whole series of events. He constructed a simple and elemental lie, based on common ideas in mythology and a kernel of actual truth, in order to manipulate the Gentile masses for the benefit of the Jews. It was, quite frankly, a brilliant plan. But to successfully pull it off, Paul must have been a brilliant liar. He had to write down pure fiction as absolute truth. He had to lie to people’s faces and pretend to believe it. He had to entice and frighten innocent and simple-minded peasants into believing his outrageous concoction. And he did it. Paul—expert liar, artful liar, master liar.

Skrbina, David. The Jesus Hoax: How St. Paul's Cabal Fooled the World for Two Thousand Years (p. 84). Creative Fire Press. Kindle Edition.

=========

This is worth examining for a moment. Samuel George Frederick Brandon was a British professor of religion who died in 1971. In his books Jesus and the Zealots (1967) and The Trial of Jesus (1968) he indeed argued that Jesus was a Zealot. He certainly made some observations that are consistent with my antagonism thesis. He rightly understood that the Jewish Christians’ main aim was “the restoration of Israel’s freedom and sovereignty,” and that therefore, they would have been “instinctively hostile to the Gentiles” who wanted to join the church.[76] Later he correctly notes that “the end which that ‘gospel’ [of the Jewish Christians] had in view, namely, the vindication of Israel, implied both an overthrow of Rome and the punishment of the Gentiles.”[77] That’s exactly right, but he never considers the possibility that the Jews actively lied precisely in order to deceive the detested Gentiles, as a means to overthrow Rome.

Skrbina, David. The Jesus Hoax: How St. Paul's Cabal Fooled the World for Two Thousand Years (p. 94). Creative Fire Press. Kindle Edition.

my bolding

Seems to me we are right back to Jewish conspiracy theories.....

Posted: **Sat May 01, 2021 1:33 am**

The only scholar I see seems to be very similar to this Skbrina's description of a hoax in action, is Dennis MacDonald's view about Mark's use of Homer, the goal: to transvalue Homeric values by Christian values, having Jesus as better than Odysseus. In this case, none is scandalized for the moral implications of the idea.

And these moral implications would be read easily in this proposition:

By having Jesus like and better than Odysseus, "Mark" (author, under MacDonald's view) "actively lied precisely in order to deceive the detested Gentiles, as a means to overthrow Rome".

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Skrbina's view about Jesus

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus