This guy (in response to this):
I think what is crazy is the need to vilify Simcha. At the worst, he has taken the evidence further than it should go, but in that regard, he is on more solid ground than any orthodox Christian scholar. Including Goodacre, whose historical reconstructions take a backseat to his faith.
Goodacre is a moron if he thinks that he or any other scholar has the right to edit anybody else’s website or articles or anything. Would Goodacre agree to let an expert on any other topic edit his views? Of course not.
On the specific issue about the nails, Goodacre notes correctly that there is no evidence that these nails had anything to do with Jesus and certainly a lot of Jews were crucified. But Simcha’s response also makes sense — apparently the followers of a prophet thought that there were healing properties in relics from his. Whether he proves to be right or not (obviously there is no way to know) it is not nearly as irrational from the historical point of view as, say, the resurrection or penal substitution. Which scholars are allowed to espouse without ridicule.
It kills me that archaeologists hate people (like Bary Ehrman) who can engage the unwashed masses.
(Ed – I’ll be nice and delete his personal information)
My response (quite tame, actually):
Based upon your ‘analysis’ I believe you need to spend some more time reading actual scholarly works. If you really believe that scholars espouse the resurrection(!) and they do so without ridicule you must either be completely ignorant of the past 60 years of academic research into New Testament or you simply are lying. I can’t think of more than a handful of scholars who use the resurrection in their academic publications and all of them are routinely ridiculed.
Until you spend the time necessary to become acquainted with actual scholarship in NT I don’t see how responding to you on these subjects would be of any benefit.
His return response (in classic ‘twit-bag’):
My point is that you and others are very cordial toward scholars such as Goodacre, who believes that Jesus died for our sins, which is nuts (and something I took for gospel most of my life). Yet references to Jacobovicci, who espouses something less crazy by comparison, are inevitably filled with invective.
If you can’t see that, then you are pretty dense. But you aren’t dumb, just an asshole. Seriously, I deserve abuse for writing to a jobless stranger who writes for free on a blog. Lesson learned. Good luck.
After a good laugh, I responded:
Have you even read Mark Goodacre? You are the asshole here; making broad generalizations against friends of mine who you clearly know absolutely nothing about. Then you criticize me for attacking the very poor pseduoscholarship of Jacobovici? Are you delusional? You must be. And ignorant.
I’m not sure where he got the ‘jobless’ claim from since I’m quite happily employed and have been employed. And ‘Oh no!’ I write on a blog for free, ergo I know nothing. Forget the fact that I have a book which is soon to be published via academic press, or that I’ve written on the subject of media and history for online academic journals. This matters little to anyone who fails at doing even the slightest amount of research. But we all know that bloggers are ‘jobless’, right? How completely silly.
This just goes to show you the sort of nimrod who rallies behind the Jacobovici banner. Who are they? Well, clearly they are delusional, ignorant, and unlearned. Indeed, it seems that any attempt to direct them to appropriate sources, which might enlighten them even a little, is met with hostility and more deluded thinking. Gee, this poor, misled soul sounds a lot like those other ignorant individuals…you know who I mean, those crazy followers of the Zeitgeist movie!