|
James White,
the Textual Critic
In February 2007, James White (a critic of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints) published on his web site blog some criticism of a book
he had not read. We know he had not read it because it has not yet been
published. The book was written by Dr. Daniel Peterson.
Dr. William J. Hamblin wrote to James to comment on his extraordinary
ability to do book reviews before the books had become available, and
suggested that James also review one of his books which was about to be
published. Below is the ensuing correspondence. We believe it is self
explanatory.
eMail 1 - Dr. William Hamblin to James White (2/11/07)
Dear James,
Someone just brought to my attention your notice of Dan Peterson's new book on Muhammad.
I am quite amazed by your ability to so insightfully review the contents of a book you haven't actually read. Pretty impressive, really.
You may also want to take a look at my new book: "Solomon's Temple: Myth and History" (forthcoming from Thames and Hudson in spring 2007), ISBN 0500251339, available on Amazon for preorder. It contains information that may cause you to reconsider you old claim that "Christians have never built temples." http://aomin.org/ETractTemples.html.
While you're at it, you might want to look at
Alexander and Gathercle
Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology
Paternoster (September 2004) ISBN 1842272721
and
G. K. Beale
The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God
InterVarsity Press (July 2004) ISBN 0830826181
Happy reading,
Bill Hamblin |
eMail 2 - Characteristically, James responds:
William Hamblin (by way of mail.door.public <mail.door.public@aomin.org> ) wrote:
Dear James, Someone just brought to my attention your notice of Dan Peterson's new book on Muhammad. http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1742 I am quite amazed by your ability to so insightfully review the contents of a book you haven't actually read. Pretty impressive, really.
Well, given your ability to misread anything I write, Bill, I'm hardly surprised. A rational person would note I did not review the book. In fact, I made note I had pre-ordered it, and I indicated that I would, in fact, review it upon receipt thereof. The fair minded person would note I was referring to Eerdmans publication of the book. The fact you can either miss the obvious so consistently is what is "pretty impressive." Or, more to the point, your willingness to continually misrepresent, since we both know you well know what I was doing in my notice of Eerdmans' action.
You may also want to take a look at my new book: "Solomon's Temple: Myth and History" (forthcoming from Thames and Hudson in spring 2007), ISBN 0500251339, available on Amazon for preorder. It contains information that may cause you to reconsider you old claim that "Christians have never built temples." http://aomin.org/ETractTemples.html. While you're at it, you might want to look at Alexander and Gathercle Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology Paternoster (September 2004) ISBN 1842272721 and G. K. Beale The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God InterVarsity Press (July 2004) ISBN 0830826181 Happy reading, Bill Hamblin
How utterly exciting...the relevance of Solomon to the early church, the concept of priesthoods, temple ordinances and the like, must involve more admission on your part of your predilection for gnosticism, but we will have to see. Of course, if you handle that patristic material as badly as your compatriots have handled Irenaeus, for example, we will be in for quite the show, to be sure. But hey, anyone who can turn a war club into a sheathed sword can come up with anything from any source at all, right?
James>>> |
eMail 3 - Dr. Hamblin to James White (I wish I could reveal some of the behind the scenes comments that others made regarding the rudeness of James' above comments.):
Hi James
Here's what you had to say:
"I can't help but believe that Mormonism, with its parallel to Muhammad in Joseph Smith, must produce a rather odd overview of Islamic history and claims. Though Islam's radical unitarian monotheism is the polar opposite of Mormonism's extreme polytheism, there are many other parallels between the two systems, especially between Smith and Muhammad, the Book of Mormon and the Qur'an, etc."
Here, without reading the book, you already "can't help but believe" that Dan "must produce a rather odd overview of Islamic history and claims." I suspect that any "rational" or "fair-minded person" would see this as blantantly prejudicial "preview."
Then, with no apparent sense of irony, you do precisely the same type of preview of my work, which you also haven't read. Here you claim that my book "must involve more admission on your part of your predilection for gnosticism." Wrong! But please don't bother to actually read my book before judging it. That would be far too much trouble, wouldn't it.
It's good to know that you are charming and predictable as always!
Bill |
eMail 4 - A quick follow-up note to James White from Dr. Hamblin.
Hi James
By the way, James, I should note that Dan's new book on Muhammad is essentially a reprint of the biography he published in D. Freedman (ed.), The Rivers of Paradise: Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, and Muhammad (Eerdmans, 2001), ISBN 0802829570. I have that book, and can attest that Dan's biography follows the mainstream academic consensus of Western scholars on Muhammad; it contains only three very brief and passing references in Joseph Smith or Mormonism in footnotes.
Your "preview" is demonstrably dead wrong.
Happy reading,
Bill
|
eMail 5 - James White to Dr. Hamblin (2/12/07)
Excuse me, but you wrote to me, did you not? You wrote with your
standard Provo-inspired arrogant attitude, and I simply replied,
reminding you of how many times you have provided...less than compelling
argumentation, and you respond thusly? Why do you feel the need to even
contact me? What kind of thrill does it provide to you? How about you
busy yourself doing what you believe is right, and I will do the same
thing? I do not need your snide e-mails, and it can't be good for you
to be indulging your desire to write them. In other words, Bill, unless
you have something of substance to say, how about you let others decide
who has the better arguments and drop the taunting teen-ager tactics?
James>>> |
eMail 6 - Dr. Hamblin to James White
|
I wrote you simply because you publicly attacked my friend's book WITHOUT HAVING ACTUALLY READ IT. I found that act to be so extraordinarily reckless, arrogant, and foolhardy that I felt you deserved to be called to account for it. All other motives you attribute to me here are mere fabrications of your rather fevered imagination.
Nice talking to you,
Bill
|
|
