Twelve Questions for Candida Moss and Joel Baden
And one for Noah Shachtman and Molly Jong-Fast
Michael Paulkovich
The journal Free Inquiry published an article in its Aug/Sep 2014 issue enumerating my list of 126 authors who lived in the first and second century who should have written about "Jesus of Nazareth," but did not. The list comes from my first book, No Meek Messiah and I discovered a languid attempt to rebut my research. Candida Moss and Joel Baden, both "university professors," responded with an article in The Daily Beast called "So-Called 'Biblical Scholar' Says Jesus A Made-Up Myth." They indicate an awareness of my book, and know of my list of ancient writers, but suspiciously they do not seem to have actually read my book, nor the Free Inquiry article. They also made a plethora of false claims in their article.

I thus have some questions for Candida Moss and Joel Baden.

1. Why did you lie, characterizing me as a "so-called biblical scholar"? I've never made such a claim and I'm unaware of any of my venues claiming such. Did you just make it up?

2. Why did you claim that one of my main pillars was that "most writers should have mentioned Jesus, since he was the Son of God and all that"? I never made such a claim.

3. Why did you lie, claiming "some" of the writers were "a little too ancient," stating that one of them died before the first century? All of the writers I cited were from the 1st century and beyond. (Note that the hyperlink in your poorly-researched Daily Beast article also links to the wrong Asclepiades, not the second century Asclepiades who I referenced; see p. 331 of No Meek Messiah). See also this article.

4. Why did you write that philosophers "aren't really known for their interest in current events"? Could you not read my book, demonstrating the ancient philosophers I cited did in fact write about current events?

5. Why did you lie, saying "the vast majority" of those on my list "have none of their writings preserved for us, or mere fragments at most"? Had you read pages 329-348, you'd see we still have today the works of at least 84 of the men and women in my table of 126. That's 2/3 of those my list -- not merely a majority but a vast majority. In fact you can purchase their works at Amazon and Barnes and Noble!

6. Why did you write that consuls, generals and kings "aren't writers," when I specifically cited many who were - in fact - prolific writers? Apparently you think that generals and kings and emperors did not write! Prime Minister Winston Churchill and General George Patton were prolific writers in the 20th century. So was Emperor Julian in the 4th century.

In my book, I included first century Emperor Tiberius, observing (p. 347) with scholarly references from historians that "Tiberius wrote Greek poems, a lyric poem on the death of L. Caesar, and a commentary of his own life, which Suetonius made use of for his Life of Tiberius. Tiberius also wrote many letters to princes and others (which Suetonius used), and Oratories to the Senate."

7. Why did you claim that in his own day "Jesus wasn't that important. He was just another wannabe messiah who ended up on the wrong side of the authorities"?

The Bible claims that Jesus' fame was "throughout all Syria" and "all Galilee," was followed by "great multitudes" and his words went "unto the ends of the whole world." That would be astonishingly impressive if it were true. But of course it is not. In a lesser perfidious claim, in Gergesa the "whole city came out to meet Jesus" (Matt 8).

Professors Moss and Baden, if Jesus "wasn't that important," are you saying that the gospels (which claim Jesus was incredibly famous during his lifetime) are untrue, and St. Paul was a liar (e.g. Romans 10:18)? Just how much of the New Testament is, in fact, false?

8. Why did you write "the argument isn't improved by saying that Jesus was a God who should be able to journal in his leisure time."? That wasn't a part of my argument; is it your argument?

(You might want to look up the term "Straw Man" at this point.)

9. Why did you lie, saying "Paulkovich has written nothing about himself--we have no biographical data on him... including, for the record, no Twitter account"?

If you would have just flipped my book over, or read an article from one of the magazines for which I write (including the aforementioned Free Inquiry article), you'd find lots of biographical information about me. Have you never heard of Google?

You were wrong about Twitter too: I had joined two years before your article (Sept 2011). For the record.



How hard is it to look someone up on Twitter, especially with a name like Michael Paulkovich?

10. Why did you claim "fully fourteen of the 126 are doctors, including a dermatologist, an ophthalmologist, and a gynecologist (Soranus). We can first point out that Jesus was supposed to have a gift for healing, so he probably didn't take his annual checkup seriously"?

What was your point here? We have the writings of these people; this total non sequitur seems just another sideways attempt at defamation. Moreover, one of Jesus' "gifts for healing" involved removing "devils" from people! Due to this childish nonsense in the Bible, Christians discarded scientific method for centuries and relied on exorcism and burning at the stake.

11. Why did you publish a "review" of my book, considering you never read the book, and you applied a minimal of research for your article? Do you still think it was a wise and honest idea to try to ruin someone's professional reputation by lying about their work and their personal information?

Of all your claims in your article, none of them are true.

12. Finally, do you now recommend that your university students publish reviews of books they never read?

And, a question for Noah Shachtman and Molly Jong-Fast: Why is their error-riddled, poorly researched, libelous "book review" still on the web site at The Daily Beast?

The Daily Beast has a code of ethics here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/company/code-of-ethics
It states: "We believe that skepticism is a virtue and cynicism is a vice... To that end, journalists must strive to hold themselves to high ethical standards: aiming for honesty, fairness and accuracy while avoiding conflicts of interest... Deletion will occur only in very rare circumstances having to do with a serious and fundamental factual error..."

It's about time to DELETE their "book review" online (with its many serious and fundamental factual errors) and replace it with an apology to me, don't you think?

If you wish, you can reply by email:
 

-- Michael Paulkovich
April 2021.

For a more on Candida Moss and Joel Baden's errors and poor research, see this Free Inquiry article, "Schooling Some University Professors".

cc:
Noah Shachtman, editor in chief @NoahShachtman
Molly Jong-Fast, editor at large @MollyJongFast

Other Daily Beast contributors who might be interested:
Noor Ibrahim @bynooribrahim
Paul Gottinger @PaulGottinger
CS Dickey @csdickey
Matthew Petti @matthew_petti
Asawin Suebsaeng @swin24
Ana Lucia Murillo @analuciamur
Steven Monacelli @stevanzetti
Daniel Newhauser @dnewhauser
Alex Israel @AlexIsrael
Shannon O'Connor @ShannonOConnor0
Cheyenne Roundtree @cheyenneisround
Felipe De La Hoz @FelipeDLH
Jordan Howell @JordanmHowell
#TheDailyBeast