Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 01-16-2008, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarmINFP

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Dave, I would understand why Acharya S would rely on a encyclopedia paraphrase on Tertullian if that were the only information she had on Tertullian. Like, suppose I didn't have access to the Internet, and all the information I had on Tertullian was a Catholic Encyclopedia sitting on my shelf. If I desperately needed information on Tertullian, then I would quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. And I would be careful not to rely on the nuances in meaning because it is a secondary source.

But, if I also have the English translation of Ad Nationes sitting on my shelf, then whatever the Catholic Encyclopedia says about it becomes wholly irrelevant. If I have the original Latin words of Ad Nationes sitting on my shelf, and I know how to read Latin, then why in God's name would I choose an English paraphrase from the Catholic Encyclopedia as my reference on Tertullian? It doesn't matter if the encyclopedia is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or Muslim. If you want to make a scholarly argument, you don't go to secondary sources, especially if you have direct access to the primary sources. The secondary paraphrases are going to distort the original meaning, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Does this make any sense to you? Am I being too nit-picky? Too long-winded? Too irrelevant?

I don't know for certain the reasons why Acharya chose to use the Catholic Encyclopedia, but I can make an educated guess.

I suspect she was trying to make a two-pronged argument. She was using Tertullian's statement as evidence and at the same time demonstrating that a well-respected Christian authority agrees that Tertullian's statement is valid. She is partly arguing against traditional Christian interpretations and so she likes to use Christian sources when they're available. If I remember correctly, she uses the Catholic Encyclopedia many times throughout her work probably for the reason I just stated. However, maybe it would have been more clear if she had also included a direct quote of Tertullian along with the reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Yeah, a direct quote from Tertullian certainly would have preempted my suspicions. If I were to read the bibliography of a book of critical modern scholarship on the character of Jesus, and I were to see an encyclopedia in the list of sources, I would probably think, "Hmm... this author must be making a critique of an encyclopedia entry." If I were to go to the spot where the encyclopedia is quoted and cited as if it represented the original meaning of an ancient author, that would probably be the time I put the book down and read something else instead. If Acharya S does that kind of thing over and over again, skipping over the primary sources and depending on modern materials like I keep hearing, like the articles she publishes online, well, that ought to tell you something important about the quality of her scholarship. But you have her books in hand and you should make that judgment yourself, not me.

MarmINFP · 01-16-2008, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigorist

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarmINFP

I don't know for certain the reasons why Acharya chose to use the Catholic Encyclopedia, but I can make an educated guess.

I suspect she was trying to make a two-pronged argument. She was using Tertullian's statement as evidence and at the same time demonstrating that a well-respected Christian authority agrees that Tertullian's statement is valid. She is partly arguing against traditional Christian interpretations and so she likes to use Christian sources when they're available. If I remember correctly, she uses the Catholic Encyclopedia many times throughout her work probably for the reason I just stated. However, maybe it would have been more clear if she had also included a direct quote of Tertullian along with the reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

That's not scholarship. That's advocacy.

What do you mean by 'advocacy'?

Are you referring to Acharya's quote or mine as advocacy?

Advocacy of what?

Advocacy means public support. Do I publicly support Acharya? Sure. I find her theories interesting. Do I defend Acharya's against her attackers? Not really. Attack her ideas if you wish. I was just explaining her possible motivations because, as I've read a fair amount of her work, I have some understanding of her style.

Quote:

I, at least, am pounding on the Tertullian thing because his works are among the most easily accessible of the ECFs. If Ms. Acharya is blowing references to simple things that can be easily verified, I don't have much confidence in her references to more obscure works.

It is a simple matter of credibility.

To me, its a simple matter of humble curiosity about the possible meanings of ancient mythology. I just enjoy reading and learning. I'm just in this thread for the ride. I don't hope to convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. Even I'm not convinced about much in life. Absolute certainty isn't one of the ideals I strive for.

Tertullian isn't all that important to me, but if its an important issue to some of the people here then everyone can keep arguing about it for pages more for all I care. However, I don't see that Acharya's theory stands or falls based on Tertullian.

I have a question for you and anyone else. How much do you know of comparative mythology?

Amaleq13 · 01-16-2008, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Anyway, If anyone has an issue with the paraphrase then, you need to take it up with the Catholic Enc.

The issue is not with the paraphrase but her misuse of it and her reliance upon it rather than Tertullian's actual words. How you can be confused about this despite having it repeated several times by multiple members is a mystery.

The selected portion of the paraphrase, taken in context of the entire paraphrase says the opposite of what she claims. Tertullian's actual words explicitly deny what she claims.

In short, there is simply no way to read either the paraphrase or his actual words and conclude that Tertullian ""ironically admits the true origins of the Christ story".

Quote:

Whether or not Tertullian denied or conceded to sun worship, whether or not he was responding to slander is besides the point - the point is he felt the need to address it on more than one occasion.

That is certainly not the point being made by the assertion that Tertullian "ironically admits the true origins of the Christ story" and that has been the focus of the criticism.

rigorist · 01-16-2008, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarmINFP

What do you mean by 'advocacy'?

Attempting to convince a specific audience to adopt a specific position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarmINFP

Are you referring to Acharya's quote or mine as advocacy?

Hers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarmINFP

Advocacy of what?

Don't know.

*snippage*

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarmINFP

To me, its a simple matter of humble curiosity about the possible meanings of ancient mythology. I just enjoy reading and learning. I'm just in this thread for the ride. I don't hope to convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. Even I'm not convinced about much in life. Absolute certainty isn't one of the ideals I strive for.

Sure, I can understand that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarmINFP

Tertullian isn't all that important to me, but if its an important issue to some of the people here then everyone can keep arguing about it for pages more for all I care. However, I don't see that Acharya's theory stands or falls based on Tertullian.

No, it doesn't. But here's the thing: I have to trust the author when the author cites and analyzes these works. I don't have the time to track down a gazillion references to obscure works. That's one of the things a scholarly author does for me. That is one of the things that is supposed to separate a scholarly author from an Internet kook.

But if a supposedly scholarly author completely blows a simple reference like in the case of Tertullian, I can no longer trust that author. Even if the author is otherwise correct, I have to hunt down a whole bunch of other references to restore that credibility. That is work I should not have to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarmINFP

I have a question for you and anyone else. How much do you know of comparative mythology?

I probably have a copy of Joseph Campbell lying around here someplace.

Amaleq13 · 01-16-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarmINFP

However, maybe it would have been more clear if she had also included a direct quote of Tertullian along with the reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

There is no question whether it would have been more clear. It would also have completed contradicted her assertion since his actual words leave no room for the implication she attributes to the excerpt from the paraphrase.

Dave31 · 01-16-2008, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarmINFP

However, maybe it would have been more clear if she had also included a direct quote of Tertullian along with the reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

There is no question whether it would have been more clear. It would also have completed contradicted her assertion since his actual words leave no room for the implication she attributes to the excerpt from the paraphrase.

That's not accurate - you still don't understand the point.

As Acharya said,

Quote:

"In his fervor to DENY that Christians worship the sun TERTULLIAN HAS IRONICALLY PRESERVED THE SUN-WORSHIPPING CONTENTION AGAINST THEM - do you understand?"

Amaleq13 · 01-16-2008, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarmINFP

Tertullian isn't all that important to me, but if its an important issue to some of the people here then everyone can keep arguing about it for pages more for all I care. However, I don't see that Acharya's theory stands or falls based on Tertullian.

It isn't about Tertullian. It is about her misuse of Tertullian and apparent reliance upon a Catholic Encyclopedia paraphrase rather than his actual words and what this suggests about the scholarship involved.

As an isolated error, it can be overlooked, I suppose. As a typical example of the sort of research relied upon for the entire book, it is something entirely different.

I'm adopting a wait-and-see attitude despite the serious misgivings this error engenders.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-16-2008, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

There is no question whether it would have been more clear. It would also have completed contradicted her assertion since his actual words leave no room for the implication she attributes to the excerpt from the paraphrase.

That's not accurate - you still don't understand the point.

As Acharya said,

Quote:

"In his fervor to DENY that Christians worship the sun TERTULLIAN HAS IRONICALLY PRESERVED THE SUN-WORSHIPPING CONTENTION AGAINST THEM - do you understand?"

OK. So why is his preservation of the contention ironic?

Jeffrey

Amaleq13 · 01-16-2008, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

That's not accurate - you still don't understand the point.

As Acharya said,

Quote:

"In his fervor to DENY that Christians worship the sun TERTULLIAN HAS IRONICALLY PRESERVED THE SUN-WORSHIPPING CONTENTION AGAINST THEM - do you understand?"

It is entirely accurate but you don't realize it because you continue to focus on a completely different statement despite my having repeatedly pointed this out. :banghead:

Please review the discusion of the statement I have been talking about by going back to this post. The statement to which I have been referring is in italics. Please note that it is not the one you have quoted.

Dave31 · 01-16-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

That's not accurate - you still don't understand the point.

As Acharya said,

It is entirely accurate but you don't realize it because you continue to focus on a completely different statement despite my having repeatedly pointed this out. :banghead:

Please review the discusion of the statement I have been talking about by going back to this post. The statement to which I have been referring is in italics. Please note that it is not the one you have quoted.

Whether or not Tertullian denied or conceded to sun worship, whether or not he was responding to slander is besides the point - the point is he felt the need to address it on more than one occasion.

Quote:

Amaleq13 "That is certainly not the point being made by the assertion that Tertullian "ironically admits the true origins of the Christ story" and that has been the focus of the criticism."

No, you're not accurate - you don't know the full context because you nor most others here have read the full context of what is stated on pages 158-159 of "Christ Conspiracy" on this issue.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.