Steven Carr

Useless?

I think you'll find they are extremely helpful as secondary sources, even if they did not cite their sources.

I've lost track. Are we talking about the Gospels here?

DCHindley

Steven,

Just as much now as then, don't we have to distinguish between amateur popular writers (dare I say, such as mythicist John Mackinnon Robertson, who dropped out of school at 13 and was afterwards entirely self taught?) and academic scholars (Strauss, van Manen, etc)?

Can't we just consider AS as an amateur popular writer who draws on, at worst, amateur popular writers of the past, and at best, the more speculative (and since superseded) hypotheses of the academic critics?

DCH

Jeffrey Gibson

Which of the 19th century scholars' works that AS cites do you find "extremely helpful"? And how are you defining "helpful'? In what way in particular do you find them to be so?

Jeffrey

rcscwc

You know better about Hindu traditions than Hindus do? Or Acharya does?

That is the ONLY tradition.



A scrifice is delberate. But Krishna was shot accidentally, mistaken for a deer.

There are lots of parallels in Gita and NT, but not because Gita is a later work. Far from it. Gita predates Jesus by centuries.

Steven Carr

How am I defining 'helpful'? I'm sorry, but this is not a remedial English class.

And I mistakenly thought GDon was talking about the Gospels when he said that secondary sources were useless. My mistake. I should have read more carefully.

Why did GDon claim that secondary sources were useless, when all of Biblical scholarship depends upon claiming that secondary sources are useful?

GakuseiDon

According to Archarya, the British possibly destroyed the traditions related to a "crucified Krishna", which is why the Hindus don't have that tradition today.

premjan

There's no tradition of crucifixes at all in India.

Kapyong

Gday,

I have read her early book, and her website.

In fact I analysed and reported on one of her web-pages right here on this site. I found that overall, her use of sources was poor, and her work un-scholarly. But as it turns out, the very first item I checked was fine, and I said so (while noting most of her work was suspect.)

AcharyaS then turned up here to thank me for pointing out her work was sound - when in fact my conclusion was the opposite !

She cherry-picked the ONE place I agreed her work was sound, ignored the rest of the article, and pretended I had supported her work.

Pathetic.
Dishonest.


K.

rcscwc

According to AS this. According to AS that.

If she did not find any tradition regarding deliberate killing of Krishna, then she conjured it up out of thin air.

She had some pics of a man, purporting to be Krishna on cross. But none of these, I pointed to her, are in Indian traditional art. They are more Greek and Roman pics than Indian.

rcscwc

One by one.

Pic #1. It is like an Egyptian figure. What is that crown on the head? Where is the peacock feather. Anyway, dress is far fron India.

Pic #2. Anyone can see that shooters are wearing some Greek-Roman dress. And Krishna in the node?

Pic #3. Seems to be Jesus, beard and all. Krishna with a long beard? Never seen.

PS: Is Moor's Pantheon available on line?