GakuseiDon

No. Carrier belittles her research. It is Acharya S that takes criticism personally, in my experience. I'm disappointed because Carrier is the more careful scholar. But even if he is wrong, so what? I've been wrong before. It's the risk one takes in putting things out there.

In this case, Carrier's comment that the two inscriptions were made by the same person at the same time doesn't appear to stand. But his overall point -- that the contents of the two inscriptions are related, with one being a summary of the other -- can still be correct.

outhouse

Carrier i'll follow. Not a myther using biased methods that show a distinct Parallelmania. In that respect carrier is right.

this “immaculate conception” had been around and is known to have been used for quite a while is nothing new, and has nothing to do at all with the historicity of jesus.

tanya

Thank you Don, for explaining that.

I appreciate your main point, and I agree with you: We write, according to our convictions, and let the chips fall where they may. No dispute here.

But, where I disagree with you, is here:

"Carrier belittles her research."

a. Why does he belittle it? How is her research deficient? Deficient compared with what?

b. Why belittle it? Why not simply reveal the oversimplification of her analysis, or the paucity of her data supporting an unpopular thesis, or the absence of rigor in citing alternative explanations....?

c. What does Carrier's opinion have to do with the price of tea in China? So what if Carrier thinks her research inferior to xyz, whatever xyz may be...some kind of gold standard one presumes...?

Why should Carrier's opinion sway you, in even the tiniest fashion? (I am assuming that Student Don is not a pseudonym for RC, himself, of course.)
You expressed "disappointment" upon learning that her published text was not incorrect. This attitude, for me, is fundamentally flawed. We ought not, in my view, be anxiously awaiting confirmation that author abc has been proven wrong.

I think we should instead be focused on seeking evidence to support an author's declared point of view, particularly, when that perspective challenges the prevailing viewpoint. I will be neither disappointed, nor exhilarated, upon learning that Carrier's palaver about Bayes' theorem is viewed by the mathematics community as utter nonsense.

My personal perspective, (that Carrier is completely wrong, to imagine that employing Bayes' theorem to address the question of Jesus' presumed historicity, will yield meaningful results) is utterly irrelevant. I therefore have trouble comprehending why you would express disappointment on learning that D.Murdoch was not wrong in this argument. Who cares? I am quoting from you:
It matters not, to me, whether D.Murdoch was right or wrong, on this particular issue. What does matter, is whether or not there is any substance to her allegation that early Christianity lifted ideas and text from even more ancient religious practices, and in that sense, I would argue, that Carrier was protesting, not against Murdoch, but against this position that the Jesus myth was constructed, in part, from much earlier, non-Jewish myths.

I do not find one scintilla of evidence in support of an historic Jesus, a supposed Jewish rabbi, who dishonored the essence of Judaism, by repudiating its central tenet: monotheism. On the other hand, the tradition from Egypt, both in support of the mythical character of Jesus, and by silence, the absence of support for a genuine person named Jesus, hailing from Galilee, in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, lead me to conclude that the mythical origin is on very solid ground.

I reject the Josephus text as forgery. Ditto for Tacitus, and Suetonius, none of these three supposed witnesses, however, lived in the time frame attributed, by the gospels, to the life of Jesus. Pliny the younger's letter is neither in the proper time frame, nor distinctly relevant, as it fails to identify the miracle worker of the gospels, referring to "chrestians", referring to the Greek word corresponding to good person, not the Hebrew word, translated to Greek, corresponding to "anoint".

Dave31

Hi tanya,

It should come as no surprise at all that GakuseiDon would is "disappointed" that Acharya S was correct because GakuseiDon and others here have been maliciously smearing her AND her work for several years now. He's been proven wrong repeatedly, yet, he refuses to ever acknowledge it or offer any sort of apology when one should've been offered.

Read through the comments here:

Parallelophobia, personal attacks and professional jealousy: A response to Richard Carrier's 'That Luxor Thing'

Carrier isn't much better. He's just more subtle about it. The purpose of mentioning Kersey Graves and other comments in his blog was merely a derogatory slap. Carrier has always tried to paint her as unreliable and unscholarly when Carrier himself just proved that that's precisely what he is on this Luxor issue. He's jealous of Acharya, which is why he went after her in the first place. She has never done anything to him at all beyond respond to his attacks.

And it would remain to be irrelevant as demonstrated by Acharya and several Egyptologists. That point is a distraction from the issue at hand that Acharya was raising in the first place in her first book from 1999, which Carrier never did and STILL doesn't seem to understand.

Carrier wasn't just wrong, he was very sloppily and egregiously wrong. Carrier proved himself to be utterly unreliable on this Luxor issue, which is exactly what he's always trying to convince everybody else of regarding Acharya's work.

Carrier is guilty of exactly what he's accusing Acharya S. The fact is that Acharya's work on this issue is quite superb. However, Carrier, GakuseiDon and others here are incapable of ever acknowledging that fact.

judge

Plainly.

What are you thinking of here?

Such as?

Such as?


In what way? Similarity does not mean that things must have copied or been influenced by.


Where did I say I found them objectionable?

Dave31

Here's a new blog that Acharya has posted on this Luxor issue that seemed like it ought to be posted here for all to see and give it a good going over:

Is Jesus's nativity an Egyptian myth?

judge

Murdoch starts by saying maybe there is influence on the gospels from egyptian sources. That this is a possibility.
Somewhere towards the end she concludes that her speculations are fact.

It doesn't seem clear at what point anyone is supposed to accept that the speculation is in fact the truth of the matter.

Dave31

You're being hyperbolic as she makes no such claim at all. She provides primary sources and commentary from highly respected Egyptologists substantiating her position, which she had been doing all along. She makes quite a case.

Carrier has certainly been sloppy and egregious on this issue. There is no doubt about that. He also launches some personal attacks by trying to compare her to Kersey Graves. He has been telling people in radio and at his lectures not to read her work too. It's transparent that Carrier is jealous of her. Carrier went after her. Acharya S never did anything to him at all.

At this point, Carrier just needs to apologize to her. Carrier owes her an apology for trashing her and her work for several years without ever having actually read her work. That's intellectual dishonesty by a "scholar" with a Ph.D. He should be reprimanded for it and suffer the consequences. Carrier needs to be held accountable. Otherwise, he's just trashing her and her work while making sloppy and egregious errors and taking absolutely no responsibility for it.

If Acharya S did anything even remotely close to that she'd never hear the end of it for sure. She certainly does seem to be held to a completely different standard.

aa5874

It is most amusing and rather a big joke when people attempt to accuse some of Parallelophobia when those who support the Historical Jesus also will boast of their "parallels".

Some say the Historical Jesus is like Augustus. Some say their HJ is like a typical Roman rebel.

Well, 1600 hundred years ago, Justin Martyr suffered from Parallelophobia.

First Apology 21 Trypho the Jew suffered from Parallelophobia, too.

"Dialogue with Trypho It is NO secret that even Christians and Jews of antiquity claimed the Jesus story was parallel to the Myth Fables of the Greeks and Romans.

judge

She seems to when she says....." In the final analysis, Christianity constitutes a syncretism of Judaism and Paganism, including the highly important Egyptian religion."

According to whom?

I dont really care about Carrier, and if Carrier is wrong on this one point it doesn't mean Murdoch s broader claims stand.