I believe that we each have a responsibility to correct those things which we see are wrong, and as others who know me personally, if there is a fight that I feel is worth fighting, I will fight it:
Yesterday, Stephanie followed a commenter who linked to the blog of Stephan Huller. She noticed Maurice Casey mentioned in a post and when she noticed it was an email sent by Maurice to Charley Richardson the previous week, she immediately informed Maurice. He asked her to write to Huller asking him to remove the post because he had not requested permission for it to be published, it was published out of the context of the email he was responding to and needed his forthcoming work on a certain Jesus of Nazareth to support his comments on scholarship. Stephanie did as he asked only to discover a new post with rude and mendacious personal attacks against her with wild accusations about stifling his work and ridiculous speculations on the assumption she was not asking on Maurice’s behalf. He goes on to make wild accusations about a giant web of conspiracy in which Conservative Christians, Larry Hurtado, Jim West, Steph Fisher and others are accused of hoaxing him. Funny enough, Steph is not a Christian but an independent secular scholar interested in proper critical discussion including the discussion of Morton Smith’s work which is one of the many things Casey interacts with in his forthcoming book. Maurice then emailed Huller personally expressing his disgust and asked him to take both posts down. Huller responded saying he’d change Maurice’s name to a pseudonym but would not pull the posts. Maurice emailed Charley Richardson, as well as all colleagues who Richardson had originally sent the request to and Maurice then replied again to Huller. He received a threat from Huller to go ‘nuclear’ unless Stephanie was his daughter and here is Maurice’s response:
“I read this with total disgust. It is the work of someone with no morals or humanitas. Of course Stephanie is not my daughter. She is a doctoral student who came 12,000 miles to work with me because she wanted to work on the ‘Q’ material, and was impressed by An Aramaic Approach to Q (MSSNTS 122. CUP, 2002). After we had worked together for a while, she also became a wonderful personal friend. The notion that this is to promote my next book at your expense is grossly rude to me, and mendacious as well: that book does not require anything other than the recommendations which it has and a reputable publisher to promote it, which it obviously has too. This is no more convincing than the pathetic notion that scholars are trying to prevent the discussion of work on Morton Smith, though it is understandable that some busy professors do not find it significant enough to discuss. I do, but that’s a little bit in the next book, not as big a bit as Price, but knowledge could in my view advance a lot more quickly if people like that did not hold it up. Why have you no interest in telling the truth?
“You should take both posts down, not least because of the deeply offensive comments on Stephanie.”
Stephanie and Maurice have sent me copies of all correspondence between them and Huller and I am shocked at Huller’s behavior. If Huller wishes to be taken seriously as scholar, then his attitude should one which represents his learning and goals of better the world. I have seen nothing here to represent scholarship.
Update: Charlie Richardson has responded to Maurice with an apology promising to rectify the problem and Maurice has received a promise by Huller to remove the posts as well as a promise to go ‘nuclear’. I will take down this post when that promise is fulfilled.
Update: Once Huller removed his silliness, I pulled this post, but now that he has once again returned to his stupidity of the day, I am putting it back up. To note, in a post today, he writes:
In any event what seemed even stranger to me was that all afternoon I was getting all these nasty emails from ‘Professor Casey.’ Because I thought he was the ‘real Professor Casey’ I was very respectful. Yet I couldn’t help notice that the nicer I got the nastier his replies became.
At one point I naively asked him what his relationship with Stephanie was. Was she his daughter? Was this all a stunt to promote his latest book? The response I got was quite eye-opening:
Before we get to the response, let me share with you with the first email which Professor Casey sent Huller:
I am not impressed with this either. Kindly remove my comments altogether. I do not appreciate your comments on Stephanie either. You have been inaccurate and mendacious as well as rude, and you should remove all your comments on her as well. So please remove both posts.
Huller replies, thusly:
No she started this war and I will end it. I have waited almost a year to find out who the ‘steph’ was who ridiculed my life’s work without so much as reading my book.
The one condition that might make me change my mind is if it turns out she’s your daughter. My father died recently and I could accept her actions as that of a dutiful daughter.
If I am not told that she is your daughter this goes nuclear tomorrow as I am beginning to suspect this is all to promote your new book at my expense.
Not sure how that was being ‘nice’ or not, but this is the problem with people like Huller.