Jeffrey Gibson

One of the "scholars" appealed to is in this "refutation" of Carrier is Normandi Ellis, a journalist who is not an Egyptologist (she holds a BA in journalism from the University of Kentucky and an MA from the University of Colorado at Boulder) and has apparently vis a vis matters ancient Egyptian never published anything in any scholarly journal or academic press (her works seesm to be issued solely through new age and vanity presses) or been recognized by actual Egyptologists as having any actual expertise in this area. Why should she be listed to?

Jeffrey

Dave31

Normandi Ellis is probably mentioned here because she had something useful to say. Have you ever written a book or anything else? Have you confined all of your ideas - everything you've ever heard or considered - to ONLY the most qualified individuals in history? "Qualification" is a subjective term as well. Those who only listen to the most pedigreed authorities must live in a bubble as well. In fact, it's an impossibility. In any event, the argument in this case seems like a fallacy to me.

I should add that Carrier is not an Egyptologist, has Why, then, should Carrier be listened to? In fact, why should we listen to you are you an Egyptologist? The point here is that considering all the other highly credentialed Egyptlogists cited in Acharya's Luxor excerpt this is simply not a good argument.

Jeffrey Gibson

And what is the criteria you are using to determine whether or not something is useful? Besides that, since AS quoted Ellis in order to make her point, isn't the real issue whether or not what Ellis said is reliable and true.

Umm, yes I have.

Have you?

If you are going to use not writing a book as the criteria for whether we listen to anyone or not, I guess we have no cause to listen to you.

Because he didn't pose as an Egyptologist. Rather he forwarded materials from one.

One does not have to be an Egyptologist to raise the question of whether someone who has a BA and MA in journalism is an expert in Egyptology and has had anything accepted for publication in academic journals, does one?

You raise the question of whether Carrie is an Egyptologist. Why is it OK for you -- who, so far as one can tell, has no academic credentials whatsoever in any field, let alone in Egytptology - to raise the question but not for me?

I'm wondering why we should consider someone who is not an Egyptologist as someone worth listening to on matters of Egyptology. After all, you yourself say in your note about why we shouldn't regard Carrier as an authority on matters ancient Egypt, that we shouldn't. So by your own criteria, out goes Ellis.

Jeffrey

Dave31

Ahh yes, specifically a time frame when the mass destruction of pagan religions were taking place:

"Gimme that ol' time religion" VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLzbxJ0RNFY

After looking at the history and the origins of Christianity, I think Christianity would've "borrowed" those concepts earlier *IF* they could've gotten away with it. The fact will always remain that the concepts were popular and came long before Christianity was ever created.

You're admitting that major concepts, motifs and characteristics found within Christianity were indeed in existence practically everywhere before the common era - and that conclusion is in fact the general premise of Acharya's work.

In order for YOUR premise to work, the creators of Christianity would have had to live in a hermetically sealed bubble devoid of contact with the rest of the Mediterranean. In your scenario, Christianity would thus truly represent divine revelation.

You're suggesting that some miraculous minded Jews just happened to come up with all these concepts on their own, without any influence from all of the religions and cults of the Roman Empire surrounding them? That would be a miraculous genesis indeed!

Logic dictates that the creators of Christianity did not live in a hermetically sealed bubble but were quite familiar with the plethora of concepts that existed in the Roman Empire, particularly at Alexandria, which contained a massive library and which also was home to many thousands of Jews, Hebrews and Samaritans at the time. The evidence points to THESE Jews as being the major contributors to Christianity, and they were surely not oblivious to the very obvious religious concepts all around them, including and especially as concerns the highly popular Isis, Osiris and Horus.

In order to uphold this hermetically sealed bubble thesis, we would need not only to suspend logic but also to remove completely the milieu of the Mediterranean at that time, leaving the creation of Christianity within a miraculous vacuum.

One reason we find these concepts all over the place is because many of them are dependent on observations of natural phenomena, constituting the ancient sciences of archaeastronomy, astromythology and astrotheology.

Dave31

It has been well over a year (June 2008) since Toto first brought Acharya's response to Carrier's article about the Luxor issue here and NOT A SINGLE PEEP from Carrier. I would like to see him respond to this:

Doesn't Carrier hold a certain level of responsibility and accountability for his comments about Acharya's work in his Luxor article? If Carrier is in error shouldn't he either concede or demonstrate how he is not in error? Should he send an e-mail to Acharya apologizing for his errors regarding her work? Or is it just the standard here to trash Acharya S/ Murdock however one chooses without taking any responsibility or being held accountable for it? Lets not forget that Richard Carrier has never actually read any books by her.

Celsus

Alternatively you could just move on. These things happen all the time in scholarship, people move on to other matters. Just because he doesn't dwell on someone else's pet subjects doesn't mean anything one way or the other.

Dave31

Celsus, you are either inadvertently proving my point, or you're completely unaware of how Richard Carrier has trashed the work of Acharya S even though he has never actually read a single book of hers. There is a DISTURBING DOUBLE-STANDARD at play here or misogyny.

So, what you're saying is that it's okay for scholars like Richard Carrier to trash authors works he's never read, calling them poor, sloppy scholarship, but when he himself makes monumental egregious errors we are just to "move on," you say? That is, once again, either a double-standard or misogyny. After all, because of Carrier's article Acharya S has been quite maliciously attacked by theists and atheists. Carrier owes her an apology and must held responsible and accountable.

Specifically because of Carrier's trashing of Acharya S, he leads others who look up to him to do the same - like that kid Rook Hawkins (Tom V.) is a prime example who claims Carrier is his "hero" and writes a blog trashing Acharya's work, only to find out later he too never read the book he was supposedly reviewing. This kid has no education beyond high school, but, apparently, it's okay to trash Acharya S because there's no responsibility or accountability for it.

Acharya S has been harassed quite viciously even for simple typos. Had she made the same egregious error Carrier did ESPECIALLY while trashing someone else's work there's no question about it, the people here would pile-on and never let her hear the end of it. Would they simply let it go and move on - absolutely not.

It's an embarrassment to all atheists and Freethinkers. How unfortunate you felt the need to prove my point.

mountainman

Momigliano describes christian history as transcendental. That is an appropriate concept for us to meditate upon. Grant states that "Constantine managed to convince himself that he'd had a religious experience". Lord Acton writes that ... "“Where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. These are important ancient historical concepts to deal with.

Celsus

Hehe. Sorry, I'm giggling guiltily to myself about how amusing I find your apoplexy (which apparently you've been bottling for some time). If Acharya has made her rebuttal and is convinced by it (and has convinced others of it), then it stands on its own weight. In academia, being right is its own reward. Insisting on personal retribution against Carrier just makes you look silly.

Toto

"Rook Hawkins" ' review is here. He states there that he has not read her latest work. Rook Hawkins is a pseudonym formerly used by Thomas Verenna, whose current hero is R. Joseph Hoffmann.

As far as I can tell, his influence is limited at best.