People who have been reading my website for a while are probably aware that, at the end of 2019, I wrote a list of my articles that were most popular over the course of that year. At that time, I only had 185 article published. As of today, 25 April 2020, I now have 247 articles published on this website, counting this one.
Since I recently published an article about the ancient Egyptians that has received considerable negative backlash, I’ve decided to give a short list of some of my most controversial articles of all time. These articles are included here based on the number of angry comments that I have received pertaining to them. There are many other articles that I expected to be controversial that have not received many negative comments and are therefore not listed here.
I have included on this list a number of excerpts from various negative comments that have been left on my articles. I have, in some cases, excerpted the passages quoted below from longer comments, but I have not edited any of these passages for spelling, grammar, or punctuation, nor have I removed any kind of offensive language. These passages are completely uncensored.
“Was Jesus a Historical Figure?“
- Originally published 10 March 2018
- Why it was controversial: It offended Mythicists—people who claim that there never was any single historical figure who can be spoken of as a “historical Jesus” and that Jesus is, in fact, a completely made-up character.
- Excerpt from a negative comment: “Good grief, this is gauche. […] If you are going to leave this up, I’m going to have to disagree with my mate Richard: with research ‘skills’ like this you will make no sort of scholar. Even by the lax standards of New Testament Studies; this is tosh. By the standards of my grammar school education; this is tosh. Do yourself a favour: if you even wish to scrape a Third; acquire some at least notional research skills and demonstrate at least a nodding accurate acquaintance with the texts and scholars you claim to be critiquing.” —excerpted from a comment by Steven C. Watson, 7 January 2019
“Were Ancient People Conscious?“
- Originally published 9 November 2019
- Why it was controversial: It offended followers of Julian Jaynes, a psychologist who claimed that, prior to around 1000 BC, human beings were not conscious, but rather perceived their own internal voices as coming from external deities.
- Excerpt from a negative comment: “For someone clawing towards a BA, you toss dismissive judgements with embarrassing ease. And then you proceed to play the unclad emperor with a ‘rebuttal’ that is a classic mile wide and inch deep — almost Wikipedian in subtlety. You do not ‘get’ Jaynes, and you do not deserve your self-selected stature in dismissing him. […] You do not see. And I think it is because you do not look. Your tone throughout shows an arrogance that you do not yet deserve. You should be asking more than answering — wondering more than concluding. Jaynes was a genius — his work, a revolution.” —excerpt from a comment by Paul Otteson, 13 April 2020
“Did King Porus Defeat Alexander the Great?“
- Originally published 17 November 2019
- Why it was controversial: It offended some Indian nationalists who believe that Alexander the Great secretly lost the Battle of the Hydaspes and somehow covered it up.
- Excerpt from a negative comment: “Alexander was a Dimunitive 5 ft 3 inches to Purus 7 ft 6 inch Height. Alexander was literally terrified when he first SAW Puru. Alexander was defeated and convincingly by Puru,. The History by Greeks and English is a pack of LIES.” —excerpted from a comment by Raveesh Singh, 17 January 2020 (I don’t know where this guy got these height measurements from, considering they are not found in any of the ancient sources.)
“Is Donald Trump the Second Coming of Cyrus the Great?“
- Originally published 12 December 2020
- Why it was controversial: In the article, I criticized President Donald Trump, which offended some Trump supporters.
- Excerpt from a negative comment: “You have historical knowledge or remembrance but are ignorant of context and meaning. You babble twisting Christianity to your needs. At times it a bit of a task discerning the fool from the deceiver. Sometimes it is both. I have a solid opinion.” —comment by Bill Miller under the version of the article on Quora, 6 December 2019
“What Do Conservatives Really Mean When They Talk about ‘Western Civilization’?“
- Originally published 23 February 2020
- Why it was controversial: It offended white supremacists who believe that “western civilization” is a real, objective thing resulting from white people’s high IQs and that only white people can be a part of it.
- Excerpt from a negative comment: “The funny thing is ‘Western civilization’ is a very race-based concept. Serbia can’t do it (despite being the birthplace of its most important builder!). South Italy can’t do it (despite supposedly inventing it!). Greece can’t do it (again, despite supposedly inventing it!). Bolivia, South Vietnam, the Philippines, etc. can emulate many aspects of it, but only in a way that reminds people having a common ‘civilization’ is no substitute for common ancestry. And though individual East Asians can engage in it as part of a broader White-majority society, there isn’t really much evidence a fully Americanized South Korea would look particularly ‘Western’. The concept of ‘Western’ civilization outside of ‘the civilization practiced by Western countries (i.e., rich White-majority countries)’ is pretty incoherent if it’s applied to today. ‘Conservatives’ should stop talking about ‘Western civilization’ independent of race unless they want the world to look like the Philippines (or at best Hong Kong).” —excerpted from a comment by E. Harding, 10 April 2020
“Sorry, the Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax“
- Originally published 24 February 2020
- Why it was controversial: It offended people who believe that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus Christ, miraculously imprinted with Jesus’s exact likeness from the moment of his resurrection.
- Excerpt from a negative comment: “I read the list of reasons why the Shroud is fake here. Incredibly stupid arguments against authenticity. Not one is valid. That is the word skeptics like to use, Hoax and fake since they cannot explain that without sounding like a complete idiot . This post is no exception A fake?! A fake of what? A fake of Jesus right? According to forensic pathologists it is not fake, but very real.” —excerpted from a comment by Robert Page, 26 February 2020
“Were the Ancient Egyptians Black?“
- Originally published 23 April 2020
- Why it was controversial: It offended some Afrocentrists who believe that ancient Egypt was an exclusively black civilization and that the Egyptians defined themselves by the color of their skin.
- Excerpt from a negative comment: “Everything in that article has been destroyed in my few exchanges lol. Do you know how stupid I can make you all look if I could post pictures and videos? Don’t try to debate him on a forum where all he has to do is post the sequence of the pharaohs and their Negroid looking children and relatives to dismiss all of your black history denial.” —comment by Tre, 24 April 2020
Spencer, if you are working hard at trying to recover the past, critically reading the primary and secondary sources rather than satisfying some personal prejudice or ideology, who cares what a few people think? There will always be critics. And then there are those precious few online bloggers, who after some time of familiarization with them, you know that they are trustworthy. You probably have already come across a number of them. Rather than insults, these people may suggest further reading or other helpful comments. All the best for your studies.
Evil distortion of facts and violent attack has ever been the mark of underdeveloped minds.
Good to get used to it, but DO NOT EVER leave it distract and destroy your pursue.
Keep going — you are doing a great job!
Dear sir
I agree and support.!!!
The above are my words too!
Ironically, I began subscribing to this blog after following a link to the article about the historical Jesus (it was featured on the blog Vridar, which I also read). I’ve always found that the most vitriolic debates about the historical Jesus occur not between Christians and atheists, but among atheists themselves. No war is a vicious as a civil war.
In any case, controversy sells!
Funny—I can see why people get worked up about Jesus, Donald Trump, or even King Porus because these topics relate to people’s national and religious identities. But I’m surprised that anyone still cares about Julian Jaynes. I thought his work had gone out of fashion decades ago.
Honestly, Julian Jaynes’s work was never really in fashion—or at least it was certainly never in fashion among scholars. Pretty much as soon as he published his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind scholars started saying that his theories were crazy. Nonetheless, he still apparently has a small number of extremely loyal supporters outside of the scholarly world who are willing to defend him on any platform.
I remember that Richard Dawkins said that Jaynes’s theory was either brilliant or “barking mad.” I kind of lean toward the later interpretation. 🙂
Spencer,
You operate in a culture that doesn’t understand rational debate. Instead of “I disagree, here’s why…” you get “I am offended…”. My best advice, ignore those.
As a conservative Catholic I from time to time disagree with what you write, but I find your blog and your presence on Quora stimulating. Try to rise above the low-quality posts; you are doing fine.
Alex Pismenny
Hello Spencer,
My sci-fi (?) fantasy is to clone about 10,000 of you and send you out to all corners of the earth. Thanks for doing the intellectual legwork for a lot of us…., and of course take all detractors with a grain of salt.
Regards,
Radovan