Antipope Innocent II

I don't doubt it. But to go from stating that you do what any scholar worth their salt does to declaring that few over the centuries have done these fairly standard things is ... well ... let's just it's a rather grand pronouncement. Especially when you're talking about yourself.

No-one questioned your integrity. Though this grand accolade that you've generously awarded to yourself does make me question your sense of perspective.

MarmINFP

No Robots,

That is a good question. What comes to mind is whether those two charges can be usefully compared. Are they equal charges?

The charge of worshipping of the sun is merely a question of theology. Whereas, the charge of incest and cannibalism is a question of morality.

I don't think Acharya's conclusion is improbable, and in interpreting ancient texts we're limited to probabilities. It does seem to imply that some non-Christians perceived Christianity as sun worship. However, you could argue that Tertullian was responding to a slanderous attack rather than an honest observation.

In order to clarify the issue, we'd need more context of this quote. Unfortunatley, we don't have record of the accusations that Tertullian is responding to.

So, another question might be helpful. Do we have probable reason to conclude that the original accusation was a slanderous attack that didn't actually reflect how some pagans viewed Christianity?

Malachi151

And furthermore, even if this were true of 3rd century Romans who called themselves Christian, it still tells us nothing about the origins of the cult or whether or not Jesus existed.

It's no different than if 200 years from now a group of Scientologists began worshiping the sun and these practices were recorded. That still wouldn't mean that Xenu was conceived of as a sun god, or, for that matter, that L. Ron Hubbard was a sun god and thus never existed.

And again, back to what GD was saying, the evidence doesn't even support than any of this business were even true in the first place, so they weren't even sun worshipers anyway.

Dave31

You didn't even go to the link she provided to see that that's HOW the site which provides the those texts spells it. That's called a diphthong, by the way. You are absolutely oblivious to that fact, aren't you, but yet you feel the need to come back here once again with a personal attack, fallaciously accusing Acharya. Like Jeffrey, you've been caught out in your own ignorance - but you will never admit it.

This is precisely what Klaus Schilling - a scholar friend of Acharya's by the way who has backed up many of her important claims through his GERMAN sources - meant by "anal retentive" in the other thread.

The level of discussion here is DISGUSTING, frankly, and a complete waste of time.

Jeffrey Gibson

Can you mane any Classics scholar (let alone any authority on Diodours) who, or any authoritative reference work that, refers to Diodorus solely by "Siculus"?

Umm no you did not. I was asking for the the place in the Saturnalia itself (i.e. the book and line number of the Saturnalia) where the Latin behind the quote in question may be found-- not where a translator's translation of that Latin text might be found.

Are you telling me that you don't know what book and line of the Saturnalia the Davies translation is a translation of?

I did not ask for where I might find the particular translation you offered. I asked for the particular chapter and line in book one of Diodorus' work the translation you offered is a translation of.

Are you telling me that you don't know what book and line of the Diodorus' Universal History the Murphy translation you give is a translation of?

But the issue is whether you know.

True enough if what you are claiming is that what you give as Tertullian's words are from, and are an accurate reproduction of what is found in, the Catholic Encyclopedia. But certainly not true if what you are claiming is that these words are from Tertullian himself, let alone what he actually says.

Do you actually know what constitutes libel?

Are you actually saying that the "quote" of Tertullian you give is an accurate translation of the Latin?

And are you admitting that you never consulted the Latin that stands behind what you seem to be claiming is an accurate translation of Tertullian?


Jeffrey

Solitary Man

I most certainly did go to that site, but you're plain wrong. The site gives it as Patrologiæ Græcæ. Notice how there are three æ's. This is because in Latin, adjectives have to agree with the nouns they're modifying.

Well, you are partially right. Æ is a diphthong, but so is ae. What Æ/æ is called, however, is a ligature.

Oh the irony! You personally attack me and call me ignorant, and yet I personally attacked no one, and you are the one who is ignorant! Learn a little Latin, amice.

Admit what? That you're wrong, that you don't know Latin, and that you don't have any idea of what you're talking about? Go look at the site again! Au contraire, mon ami, I do admit it when I'm wrong, I've done it before, and certainly I'll do it again. But I'm not wrong here. As it is plain to see by anybody, you are.

Where are his sources? I asked for them in the other thread on Mark and historical narrative, and he never responded. Did I miss them somewhere?

Yes, you do have a way of lowering the discourse. :wave:

Ben C Smith

Since Google Books produces actual facsimiles of the original tomes, there should be little or no difference in research results quality between finding something in the hardcopy form of Migne and finding something in the digital form. Google differs from Google Books in quality of research in precisely that regard.

Though of course I agree that research should include more than Google Books... at least for now. If Google ends up scanning virtually every single book ever printed, it will be better than any library so far as quality of research is concerned.

Ben.

Acharya S

Oh for Christ's sake, Jeffrey - knock it off.

I will not answer to you and your snide insinuations every step of the way. Just for this ONE post I will answer, as it reveals the absurd comportment of this board.

I obtained the book from the UCLA library - do you want to see my library card? I don't have the book, as I stated, so I can't provide the citations you are dunning me for. If you are so interested, please go get the book yourself. Do you make everyone do research for you?

No, I'm terribly sorry, but I didn't have the time or resources to worry about whether or not the Davies translation is accurate. Unlike you, evidently, I am not suspicious of everyone's work to the point where I can't even trust a COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY publication.

What I see here is not clever scholarship but quite the opposite. Does such unending nitpicking and pettiness truly accomplish anything, besides running people off? Or is that your intent?

Please feel free to close this thread and stop "discussing" my work. I myself have better things to do.

Malachi151

Thanks. I was already aware of the amulet controversy, and planned to add something about that, probably just saying ",if it is even authentic." I didn't plan to go into much though since its mostly irrelevant to the point anyway, but maybe I should.

Thanks for the info about Origen. I'll leave the commentary on Origen in, but remove the questioning of whether actually believed the sun, etc. were living.

The main point remains though, it doesn't matter what Origen thought, his interpretation of the Jewish scritpures is just that, his interpretation. You can't use Origen to "prove" that the Jews thought X or Y, even if he were to be correct about it. The proof comes not from Origen, but from Jewish anthropology.

Thanks, and BTW, if anyone wants to help, I could use all the help I can get. I really don't care that much about writing this, but I just think its needs to be done. I'm hoping that infidels will host it when I'm done, and I'd be more than happy yo have co-authors, because there is just too much to cover so its good if other people can write up little things as well.

If 4 or 5 people each took one or two passage and write a critique, that would help things along. Perhaps we could do the vetting here, and I can format it all together into a single document.

Anyway, if anyone wants to help, just write something up and send it to me with the name you want listed as a co-author.

Solitary Man

There's a serious methodological problem with relying on texts which nearly all date before 1923. I have no idea why Archaya S. thinks she is above current scholarship. The current scholarship she does utilize is very minimal and not a whole lot of it is mainstream, and some of it cannot even be passed as "scholarship", like the bunk put out by the Theosophists. I cannot find one reference of Littleton, or Cyril Bailey, or Bruce Lincoln...

There's something that's said for "scholars" who prefer online websites, outdated books, and fringe (Theosophical Society??? COME ON!!) material in support of their...even crazier ideas.