Dave31

There's a major problem with Carrier's opinion of Acharya's work - he's never actually read it!

All he knows about Acharya's works from what I've seen is what has been e-mailed to him. He's obviously irrationally biased against her work and it can't have anything to do with her work since he's never studied it! He tells others to stay away from her work and it gets kids like Rook (who say Carrier is his hero) to write intellectually dishonest blogs at the RRS smearing her, while he too, has never studied her work. And when people confront Rook about it he bans them from the RRS.

I find these irrational biases against her work disturbing and an embarrassment to the mythicist movement. I like Carriers work, but it seems he's made some egregious errors in his Luxor article criticizing a short paragraph of hers.

Inscription at Luxor (Carrier vs Acharya S) updated with Acharya S's response http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=100965

I would like to see Carrier etc get past his irrational biases against Acharya for the mythicist team, so to speak. Dr. Price and Doherty find Acharya's work quite valuable.

At any rate, I'd like to see Doherty, Carrier and Acharya be apart of this project.

"Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance"
- Albert Einstein

ApostateAbe

Dave31, in order to make a very sound evaluation that Acharya S represents the dregs of scholarship, you only need to read a small random portion of her material. She hardly ever cites primary sources, even when she has the opportunity, and her conclusions reflect that all too often. Not that such a thing would matter to you. It matters to the rest of us, and it matters especially to a group of people aiming to be taken seriously as scholars. Acharya S would drag them down.

Ted Hoffman

Like me and many others, he has seen no reason to read it. I read Price's review of The Christ Conspiracy and that settled it for me. So many errors and sloppy scholarship crawl out of her work. There are too many things to be read, why read her/ his work?
Price remarked:
I think Archaya's mistake is that he started by writing potboilers. By the time he had made enough money and wanted to start serious work, his reputation had been soiled. But all is not lost. He/she can still salvage her reputation and have a good standing among reputable scholars. After all, she is now getting favorable mention from her former critics.

Dave31

Some people never learn do they, Abe. My last post proves you wrong - as Carrier has obviously made the same sloppy mistake.

Inscription at Luxor (Carrier vs Acharya S) updated with Acharya S's response http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=100965

That's just dumb. You don't know what you're talking about - Acharya now has 4 books totaling 1,900 pages with 5,555 footnotes/citations to references & primary sources, utilizing over 1,442 bibliographical sources by respected authors/ publishers and peer-reviewed scholarly journals and dozens of illustrations. "Christ in Egypt" alone contains 600 pages with nearly 2,400 footnotes/citations utilizing over 900 bibliographical sources.

AAbe, You and others like you, who are so irrationally biased against Acharya's works are the ones who "drag down" and embarrass the movement - and you've demonstrated that here repeatedly.

Hoffman, you could win the Tweb "screw ball" award for bringing up that trash from Dr. Prices old review that was taken down and removed YEARS AGO! You're obviously unaware that Dr. Price wrote the foreword to her third book Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk) You don't know anything about her work either - you don't even know if Acharya S is a male or female. Her photo is on her books - you've clearly never seen them.

If her "reputation has been soiled" it's due to the irrational diatribes by people who criticize her work while knowing nothing about it. That's intellectually dishonest. You guys have only proven my point. I just pointed out to you how Carrier's critique of Acharya is very seriously flawed and you both gloss over it - probably didn't read that either did you. You're more interested in attacking a single female author in a coward like manner, rather than being reasonable and accurate. I don't think either of you are in the position to say who's dragging anything down or who's reputation is tarnished - you guys may consider checking yourselves.

And once again:

"Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance"
- Albert Einstein

Ted Hoffman

Dave, start with Malachi's incomplete critique address criticisms in pages 2 to 4.

ApostateAbe

Dave31, if she has a library of material in her bibliography, that is hardly relevant if it is filled with encyclopedias, websites and materials from the 19th century, when she is writing on a first-century topic. 5,555 footnotes! She must be quite a word processor.

Jeffrey Gibson

FWIW, there is a proportionally analogous number of citations, footnotes, and bibliographical references in Marshal Gardner's A Journey to the Earth's Interior and in Tim Lay Haye's commentary on the book of Revelaltion.

How that makes what is claimed in these works true, or the works themselves of any value, is beyond me.

I take it that your working definition of "irrationally biased" is "thinking that Acharya's "works" do not exhibit true scholarship" and that your criteria for determining who is and is not "rational" is whether or not the agree with what AS claims?

Jeffrey

Toto

Acharya S is not so much a disinterested scholar as she is someone who is promoting an alternative view of religion, which has political and social consequences.

I think that some of the opposition to her is based on a rejection of her social and political ideas, which might make that opposition "irrationally based." But that does not make it irrational or even wrong. It is to her credit that she is trying to improve her scholarly credentials.

Of course, it doesn't help that she appears on Jeff Rense's show. . .

ApostateAbe

My personal opposition to her is about her promoting a theory of Jesus based on bad arguments and woefully-bad sources. Her theories are becoming picked up by people with an anti-religious agenda, which sucks because I have an anti-religious agenda, and she is making people like me look like idiots.

Toto

She claims not to be anti-religion. I think she is anti-fundamentalist, but pro-new age.