Neil Parille

One of the best known Josephus scholars discusses Valliant's theory (though not by name) at 3:13:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvfPxFQCpCU&t=3:14:00

For those who don't know, Valliant's theory is a version of Roman Provenance Theory, the idea that the Roman Emperors (or people close to them) created Christianity (or perhaps hijacked it for their own purposes). This theory isn't given the time of day by anyone. Even atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has said "a sophomore with 2 semesters of New Testament can see through it," or words to that effect.

I live 3,000 miles away from Valliant, have never attempted to call him on the phone, visit him, or send him a regular letter. I guess that makes me a "stalker."

James Valliant doesn't like me:

If anyone wants to know what a brazen liar Valliant is, he repeated his claim that Durban House (the book's publisher) was independent. Here is "Durban House" reviewing David Kelley's Truth and Toleration on Amazon. Customer Review Durban House Publishing 1.0 out of 5 stars Wide Open Mind Reviewed in the United States on July 21, 2002 Kelley endorses a concept of "tolerance" that includes the "toleration" of the comprehensive dishonesty of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. A "Big-L" Libertarian is almost by definition one who uncritically embraces the Brandens or Rothbard in their dishonest slams on Ayn Rand, just as Kelley has now embraced the Brandens. Politically, the valid concept is "rights." Morally, the concept of "tolerance" is meaningless. Debating, discussing or working with someone depends on having an honest colleague or rival to do it with, whatever you agree or disagree about. Nothing positive can come from cooperating with the dishonest. "Tolerating" the dishonest, in any non-political sense, means endorsing it -- voluntarily giving it the very credibility it does not deserve. Would Kelley debate flat-earth advocates or those who deny the Holocaust, if he found in a particular case, he wasn't totally sure whether the advocate was evading or not...? 22 people found this helpful Amazon.com WWW.AMAZON.COM

I don't think Peikoff edited PARC, much if at all. For example, Valliant says that Rand never met Barbara again after 1968. Certainly Leonard would have heard of the 1981 meeting. There is also the ethical issue of editing a book critiquing books you've sworn you'd never read. Also, Jim mentions Brandens post -68 writings which I doubt Leonard read.

Michael, According to JV, Weiss will be publishing a reprint of the 2005 PARC with a new introduction. If Valliant owns the rights, then it probably won't cost much money for Weiss to print it.

Casey Fahy in 2005, __________ When he published that part, on my own website, we both believed that doing so would jeopardize what relationship he had had with Leonard Peikoff. I can personally vouch for the fact that Jim did not consult with Peikoff or anyone else associated with ARI about the content of his book—at all, ever. As proof of this, when Dr. Peikoff did make Rand's papers available to him, Peikoff told Jim that his first reaction to the very idea of the project was, and I quote, "Am I gonna have to pick a fight with Valliant now?" And, it was reading those original essays alone that convinced Peikoff to make Rand's notes available. Period. ___________ In the comments to this article both James and his wife commented without correcting this egregious error.

Peikoff pod cast 76 from 2009. https://peikoff.com/2009/08/24/do-you-approve-of-the-intellectual-battle-waged-by-jim-valliant-and-diana-shaw/ _______________ Now I have another question from the same person about two individual objectivists with a public profile. In a long question, he wants to know what I think of them, do I agree with them and my answer is I thoroughly approve of the intellectual battle waged by Jim Valliant and Diana Shay Shaw [Hsieh]. I admire the work of both to the extent that I know it. _______________ I wouldn't get from this that he and Valliant are such close friends and that he even helped write The Passion of Ayn Rand's Cricits.

This is what Valliant says. I recall Valliant saying he and Peikoff weren't close friends. Does anyone recall where Valliant said (or denied) anything like this? (7) James Valliant on Peikoff - TDO 352 | Jonathan Hoenig, Nikos & James Valliant - YouTube It's about 14 mins in.

Someone must have gotten to Yaron because he just launched a nasty attack on Branden. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYP1wC0vXJA&t=4865s

I don't know how many who supported it red it closely. A couple people did mention that Valliant overdid it and was acting like a prosecutor wanting a conviction. I imagine most people now know that in 2009 biographies came out that more or less confirm the Branden accounts. The most recent review on Amazon is July 4, 2021. Before that it was 2019.

My point is that there was a lot of early support for the book and now people who praised it must realize the book was BS. I don't know if Yaron supported the book when it came out but he must be aware that as of yet there is no rebuttal of theBranden books.

He claims that Rand was "unconventional" so it's not surprising she held unconventional views on sex and marriage. OTOH, she did swear the Brandens to secrecy. PARC is a case of collective buyer's remorse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB-OXSTMOQw At 34:33 According to Yaron we'll have to wait until the Archives are available.

He says that he was on the board of a small Objectivist publication and Bob Bidinotto published a positive review of The Passion of Ayn Rand. He said he knew that was the end of it with LP. He asked Peikoff if he thought that Barbara was making up the idea of an affait and LP said it was possible and that the claim was "an arbitrary assertion." Kelley says he knew of the affair in the 70s.

According to Kelley, he read "When Earth's Last Picture is Painted" at a memorial for Frank and "If" at Rand's funeral.

This is a recent interview with David Kelley. He talks about his break with Leonard and The Passion of Ayn Rand during the first 8 minutes or so. I don't know, or had forgotten, that he read a Kipling poem during a small memorial for Frank. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VZAz5gYRbU

PARC was a nasty attack when it came out. I imagine one of the reasons Valliant hates me is that it hasn't stood the test of time. In 2009, two biographies came out and pretty much confirmed Barbara's book. The 100 Voices (an ARI Archive project) came out It doesn't support Valliant on any of the issues he made a big deal out of (the typewriter, etc). I can't imagine Milgram's biography, if it is every published, siding with Valliant.

If anyone wants the PDF of my critique of Creating Christ, just email me at neil.parille@aol.com Valliant said in the interview that he's been "overwhelmed" by the support has has received for the book. He then mentions all of two people with relevant degrees in the field (Robert Price and Robert Eisenman). The book, best I can tell, hasn't been reviewed in any journal of religion, history or theology. Valliant once claimed that he sent drafts of the book to "all the experts in the relevant fields." Serioursly, all 9000 members of the Society for Biblical Literature? None of the experts I've contacted ever heard of the book. Valliant boasted of his supposedly great memory. As I may have mentioned, when I was working on my critique of PARC, it occurred to me that Valliant wrote the quotes from memory and then later inserted the page numbers without checking them. Take for example Valliant's claim that Barbara insinuates that Rand's amphetamine use interfered with her mental state. That's something that you could easily misremember. In fact when I read Valliant's book I thought "yeah that wasn't fair of Barbara." Here is Jim's mangling of what Barbara said: http://www.solopassion.com/node/2877

I listened to the interviews with Valliant. 1. Valliant was more aggressive than normal. It doesn't appear that our hosts knew that there have been two biographies of the Brandens that have more or less confirmed the Branden accounts. Since Valliant constantly called called the Brandens "liars" it would have been good for our hosts to ask him if he thinks Burns and Heller are liars as well. 2. Valliant claimed all the bad stuff in the 60s was due to Branden and Rand didn't know about it. Is this believable? 3. Valliant brought up Hessen. Hessen said Barbara went to easy on Rand. 4. Our guests didn't ask Valliant why he approves of the ARI's re writing of Rand's posthumously published material. 5. No hard questions on Valliant's nutty Creating Christ. I'm listening now to the first episode ("I don't care if I'm an Objectivist, I'm a fan") and I think there is promise to the show.

Michael, Thanks, didn't know.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIwnFth-NfBpdMjrvNFKVyA

It was a one of a kind site. It's too bad that Richard decided not to keep it update. If I recall it was around 2009 that he stopped which was when the biographies came out. There has been a lot since then.

Lawrence still seems active on wikipedia. Years ago I contacted him with links to recent O'ist books and thought that would keep his site current. He never got back to me or it was non-commital.