GakuseiDon

In the last few days, an acrimonious dispute between Richard Carrier and Acharya S is occurring on their blogs (though most of the acrimony seems to be on Acharya S's side, it should be stressed). I've avoided reproducing any acrimonious text below wherever possible.

Richard Carrier writes on his blog:

Parallelomania is the particular disease of Jesus myth advocates who see “parallels” everywhere between early Christianity and all manner of pagan religions. Many of those parallels are real; don’t get me wrong. Some are even causal (Christianity really is a syncretism of Judaism and paganism, which point I will soundly prove in my coming book On the Historicity of Jesus Christ). But most parallels are not real, or are not causally related (remember that basic rule in science: correlation is not causation). Some don’t even exist (and here bad scholarship becomes the disease: see my cautionary review of Kersey Graves’ Sixteen Crucified Saviors).

One important example of a “non-parallel” is the Egyptian nativity narrative at Luxor... Acharya S (aka D.M. Murdock) responded to that by claiming I was reading the wrong text (and also not reading it right), but she’s mistaken. She also claimed that the meaning of “immaculate conception” is up for debate; it is not. She simply cites other people making the same mistake she did, as if a mistake many people make ceases to be a mistake, which is a non sequitur.

Carrier goes on to examine Acharya S's claims regarding the Luxor image, citing it as an example of "non-parallel" (i.e. Acharya S got her facts wrong):

More important is that Acharya/Murdock says the bulk of my details come from the “D” text and not the one at Luxor. The D text she refers to is the narrative accompanying the panels at the Deir el-Bahri Temple Complex built by Queen Hatshepsut in the 15th century BC. The Luxor Temple was built at the same time by the same queen. The visual panels at Deir el-Bahri are in all essentials identical to those at Luxor (with a few minor variances in the section after the nativity sequence, which are thus not relevant here). The D text simply expands the abbreviated text at Luxor. To claim that the shorter text at Luxor doesn’t simply abbreviate the full narrative provided at Deir el-Bahri is thus nonsense. To claim that the two stories are somehow intended to be completely different (despite being visually identical and inscribed in the same decades by the same queen) is even more nonsense.

Obviously the myth being depicted at both temples is the exact same myth understood the exact same way. Thus the full narrative at Deir el-Bahri does indeed describe what is going on in the Luxor scenes. I doubt Acharya/Murdock can find any living Egyptologist who would say otherwise, or indeed endorse any of her convoluted efforts to reinterpret the text to say the opposite of what it says and what the accompanying images show. The Luxor text even borrows verbatim phrases from the Deir el-Bahri text, e.g. the god “did everything he wanted with her,” which if you wonder what that means, the expanded text at Deir el-Bahri tells you, in some sexy detail.

Further details can be read on his blog.

Acharya S responded on her blog (all emphasis below in the original):

Despite the denials and distractions, the fact is that Carrier has been working with the wrong artifact. From my detailed analysis of Brunner's German - which, again, I provided in my lengthy section in CIE on this subject - it became clear Carrier was looking at Hatshepsut's birth scene, not that of Amenhotep III, which is the artifact in question...

Carrier actually asserts it does not matter which artifact one uses. It most certainly does matter! He then doubles down and compounds his error by claiming that the two scenes were created at the same time by the same person. That contention is completely erroneous. Hatshepsut's artists created her birth scene, of course, after she was born. They may have even built the walls upon which the later Amenhotep birth scene appears, although even that contention appears to be erroneous, as Amenhotep is likewise claimed to have built the relevant temple at Luxor himself. In any event, Hatshepsut's artists most certainly did not create the Amenhotep nativity scene, unless they were prescient and knew that Amenhotep III would be born at some point....

Carrier inaccurately asserts: "The D [Hatshepsut] text simply expands the abbreviated text at Luxor." No, it does not. The later Luxor text abbreviates the earlier text at Deir el-Bahri - there is a significant difference between these two concepts. In other words, the later Amenhotep III scribes censored the "sexy bits" of the Hatshepsut inscription - this fact conveniently ignored and turned on its head by Carrier is discussed in detail in my book Christ in Egypt.

Furthermore, no one is claiming that the "two stories are somehow intended to be completely different (despite being visually identical and inscribed in the same decades by the same queen)," as Carrier contends. Thus, that sentence constitutes simply imprecise hyperbole (and false contentions), knocking down the imaginary strawman of "completely different." My outlining in CIE of the differences between the two inscriptions is quite precise, not just a blanket and inaccurate statement such as "completely different." As I say, I went through the inscriptions and Brunner's German word by word, which, once more, is how I knew Carrier was discussing the wrong artifact.

The fact is that the two panels were not created at the same time. Amenhotep's was copied three-quarters of a century or more later than Hatshepsut's, and the text is different, in precisely the ways in which I have highlighted. Good scholarship does not conflate inscriptions decades or centuries apart by different individuals and then pretend the differences between them are irrelevant and "nonsensical."

In the end, Carrier should have simply admitted his error in using the wrong inscription, rather than compounding the error by mistakenly claiming the two panels were inscribed at the same time by the same person, along with implying that the later Amenhotep III inscription is the source of the earlier Hatshepsut text.

One of the points of contention is whether the inscriptions at Deir el-Bahri and the Luxor inscriptions were created at the same time or not. I've been googling this, but can't find any details. I don't want to rely on Acharya S for this. Can anyone confirm this?

Vorkosigan

Thanks Don. I really need to pick up all these blogs on an aggregator....

GakuseiDon

No problem. It's interesting browsing through these blogs. What caught my eye here was that there was a disagreement not relating to interpretation, or the opinions of 19th C Egyptian hobbists like Massey, but to an objective statement of fact. Either Carrier is wrong or Acharya S is wrong. (I'd be disappointed if it isn't Acharya S).

maryhelena

Vork - try Google Reader (free) works well within Chrome (free). One can pin the tab and its then just like having another webpage open within your web browser.

andrewcriddle

My suspicion is that Richard Carrier is wrong here. God's Wife God's Servant Temple scenes representing the king's divine conception and birth are known from the reigns of Queen Hatshepsut ... and Amenhotep III... The former comes from...Hatshepsut's funerary temple at Deir el-Bahri, while the latter is found... at the back of Amenhotep III's temple at Luxor.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon

Thanks for the cite, Andrew. Looking at it, it looks like there is a 60 year gap between the two, which means the claim that the two inscriptions were done by the same person at the same time can't be correct. Disappointing!

tanya

That does not concern me at all.

Here's what concerns me:

While I can appreciate Don's honesty, I am very disappointed to read of a bias against a forum member. One needs to maintain objectivity.

I am not surprised to learn that Carrier has erred here. When the dust settles, those forum members, who have been extolling the virtues, of his purported use of Bayesian theory to advance our understanding of the supposed "historicity" of jesus of nazareth/aka christ, will, I believe, be eating crow.

Carrier and others belittle D.M.Murdoch, for reasons opaque to me. I find her analysis refreshing, intuitive, logical, and rigorous.

I wish I could the write the same for those who defend use of fuzzy-bayesian-AI this, that, or the other, to clarify details about ancient papyrus documents.

Gorit Maqueda

Why disappointing? It's a good opportunity to fight and conquer 'confirmation bias'! Read it loud: 'Carrier was wrong and Acharya was right, Carrier was wrong and Acharya was right...' Yes, I know it may sound horrible (I like Carrier's texts), but...
It's always unusual to read or hear 'you were right and I was wrong'. I wonder if Carrier is great enough to say it.

judge

Well I'm a fan of neither, but can you explain what is refreshing intuitive or rigorous about Murdoch's work?

tanya

Until I encountered her web site, I had no idea that earliest Christianity adopted features, not just from Judaism plus Greek "paganism", mixed with a bit of Platonic thought, but also from ancient Egypt and India, as well. I am still waiting for someone to reveal that Dao De Jing also influenced, via the ancient silk route, the authors of the earliest Christian works.

Thank you D.M. Murdoch!

Judge, can you summarize in a sentence or two, what it is about D.M.Murdoch's publications, that you find objectionable? Has she committed some errors, conducted sloppy research, ignored opposing viewpoints, expressed opinions with which you disagree, or for some other reason?