Daily Archives: 2011-05-10 12:30:26 UTC

Predictions of future McGrath reviews of Doherty’s book

Reading McGrath’s chapter reviews of Doherty’s book is to experience repeats of McGrath’s criticisms of mythicist arguments that he was making long before he ever apparently knew Doherty had a book. Now in his latest, Doherty is — don’t be shocked now — like a creationist!

Before then, we heard the same old line that Doherty does not consider or address alternative explanations, that Doherty simply thinks by advancing his own theory that he thinks he was made a persuasive argument, that by pointing out false attributions of sayings, or deeds, to Jesus, that he is proving his nonhistoricity, that he fails to engage the scholarship in the area, etc.

Here is my prediction for the rest of his reviews of Doherty’s book. read more »

Why Book Reviewers Sometimes Lie

Book burning

Image via Wikipedia

After posting my last discussion of a book review I found myself reading a completely different topic on Aljazeera’s English site: an article about the hostile reception of a book myth-busting the Bangladesh war of 1971. The author, Sarmila Bose, asks and answers the question why some reviewers published outright lies about what was written in the book even though the lies will be easily found out as soon as people start reading for themselves. She writes (my emphasis):

Second, detractors of the book claim that it exonerates the military from atrocities committed in East Pakistan in 1971. In reality the book details over several chapters many cases of atrocities committed by the regime’s forces, so anyone who says it excuses the military’s brutalities is clearly lying. The question is – why are they lying about something that will easily be found out as soon as people start reading the book? The answer to this question is more complex than it might seem. Of course the detractors hope that by making such claims they will stop people from reading the book.

I am reminded — again of a completely unrelated topic — of Niels Peter Lemche’s discussion of the tactics scholars use to divert others from reading the works of “minimalists” such as Davies, Thompson and Lemche. Denounce them as incompetent, never engage in a serious discussion with them, denounce their lack of expertise (e.g. they are not archaeologists), and, of course, outright name-calling. The actual words of Lemche are worth reading, and I have quoted him at length in The Tactics of Conservative Scholarship, which is also linked to the original article. But I quote one section here which has a disturbing connection with the reception of the work of Sarmila Bose:

Critical scholars should be critical enough to realize the tactics of the conservative scholars: never engage in a serious discussion with the minimalists. Don’t read Davies, Thompson, and Lemche; read books about them!

These tactics are a more socially acceptable form of book-burning.

Enhanced by Zemanta