Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tjakey · 11-19-2007, 11:08 PM

Sixteen crucified saviors? Is that like a committee thing, starting a union, what? If one dead guy on a stick can't get the job done, will 15 more make a difference?

ApostateAbe · 11-20-2007, 01:34 PM

The work of Kersey Graves is either a set of outright lies or useless as scholarship. It doesn't have any citations to first-hand sources, which makes verifying the claims difficult. Graves at one point made a list of 20 characters that supposedly contributed to the myth of Jesus Christ. One of these was "Beddru of Japan." I was curious about this one, since it seems odd that a myth can travel all the way from Japan to the Middle East long before Marco Polo ever existed. But the odd thing is that I couldn't find any information on "Beddru," except from those who cite Kersey Graves. Other than that, I found zilch. That gives the Christians apologists points, since JP Holding investigated much more thoroughly, also coming up with nothing.

The one who popularized Kersey Graves is Acharya S. She cited the same list in her book, "Christ Conspiracy." Then, after she got a lot of criticism about the Beddru thing, she wrote a rebuttal and published it on her website. She said that Beddru is a typo misspelling of Beddou, which is one of the many European spellings of Buddha. That could be, but it is strange, since Buddha is mainly a myth of India and China, where Buddha was born and travelled and where Buddhism flourished, not so much in Japan. Acharya apparently repeated the same mangled typo in her book (without even citing Graves), and then proposed the correction afterward online only in retrospect.

Such a long series of confusions could have been pre-empted by the very simple act of citation. Historical scholars devote pages and pages to their bibliography. Kersey Graves doesn't have any.

Freethinkaluva · 11-20-2007, 08:04 PM

Toto "Where is Acharya's skeptical investigation of Graves' claims?" ... "Krishna is not really like Christ, linguistically or otherwise."

- Read "Suns of God"
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm

Acharya mentions Kersey Graves only 7 times in "Christ Conspiracy". In "Suns of God" she mentions him only in order to discuss the fracas surrounding his credibility. She does NOT rely on Graves at all.

Nobody, not even Richard Carrier has researched where Graves was getting his info like Acharya has, as it's a thankless job. She wrote the foreword to the 6th edition to "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors".

"As concerns the much-maligned Kersey Graves, to my knowledge not one of his critics has bothered to check out why he wrote what he did. I am evidently the first person to spend any time researching where he procurred his information, and I spill considerable ink on the subject in "Suns of God". Interested parties, I would think, would find it a fascinating piece of detective work."
~ Acharya

Graves only mentions "Beddru" one time in his list on page 30 I believe. However, he mentions Beddou 3-4 times. "Beddru" on page 30 in the list is clearly a typo which was more common prior to the internet age, which still can have errors.

"Beddru is Beddou is Buddha"
http://www.truthbeknown.com/beddru.html

Nobody is claiming Graves was a great scholar or even correct all the time but the broad claim that he made everything up is way over-the-top.

"The author has in his possession historical quotations to prove the truth of each one of the above parallels. He has all the historical facts on which they were constructed found in and drawn from the sacred books of the Hindoo religion and the works of Christian writers descriptive of their religion. But they would swell the present volume to unwieldy dimensions, and far beyond its proper and prescribed limits, to present them here; they are therefore reserved for the second volume, and may be published in pamphlet form also...

In proof of the correctness of the foregoing comparative analogies, we will now summon the testimony of various authors setting forth the historical character of the Hindu God Krishna, and the essential nature of his religion, so far as it approximates in its doctrines and moral teachings to the Christian religion. We will first hear from Colonel Wiseman, for ten years a Christian missionary in India."
~ Kersey Graves, 273
http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/...saviours-5.htm

Sadly, he died before this was finished. So he is not here to defend himself.

ApostateAbe · 11-20-2007, 08:36 PM

Freethinkaluva, you may want to re-evaluate the thought that Acharya S does not rely on Graves at all. She must have relied on Graves at least somewhat, given that she repeated the same misspelling of "Beddru" in her list on page 106 of Christ Conspiracy. Graves is the only author besides Acharya herself to make that misspelling. To make the same misspelling as Graves means that she trusted Graves to have his facts correct. It means she didn't check up on "Beddru" to see what kind of mythical character he is. It very likely means that she had no idea who "Beddru" was until after she published the book.

As for Graves, it is, again, very difficult to evaluate the legitimacy of the claims of someone who expounds on obscure historical knowledge and doesn't tell anyone who the primary sources are. I think the best thing Acharya can do is to take that extra trouble and time to track down and dig up those firsthand sources that can supply evidence for the claims of Graves. Firsthand/primary sources means the original/ancient manuscripts and stone writings that give the details of the mythical heroes, and so on. If one must rely on modern oral evidence for 2000-year-old myth, that is still a primary source, but certainly not as as good as manuscripts dating to the relevant time period. Secondary sources are everyone who say they looked at the primary sources, like Colonel Wiseman quoted on page 240, perhaps, only he doesn't seem to say where he got his information either.

Freethinkaluva · 11-20-2007, 08:57 PM

Abe "She must have relied on Graves"

- No that would be a false assumption. I understand how you could make the mistake though since you've never actually read "Christ Conspiracy" nor "Suns of God". You probably haven't actually read Kersey Graves either have you?

Folks who haven't actually read Acharya's works clearly aren't qualified to make commentary on it.

ApostateAbe · 11-21-2007, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freethinkaluva

Abe "She must have relied on Graves"

- No that would be a false assumption. I understand how you could make the mistake though since you've never actually read "Christ Conspiracy" nor "Suns of God". You probably haven't actually read Kersey Graves either have you?

Folks who haven't actually read Acharya's works clearly aren't qualified to make commentary on it.

I think that whether or not I have read the book is kinda irrelevant. I made an argument that Acharya relied on Graves (the same misspelling repeated). If you disagree with that argument, then you should give a reason why. I know you mean well. Your argument is an ad hominem--that is, discounting my argument because of my lack of qualifications. I agree with you that I do not have qualifications, but that shouldn't matter.

Freethinkaluva · 11-21-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freethinkaluva

Abe "She must have relied on Graves"

- No that would be a false assumption. I understand how you could make the mistake though since you've never actually read "Christ Conspiracy" nor "Suns of God". You probably haven't actually read Kersey Graves either have you?

Folks who haven't actually read Acharya's works clearly aren't qualified to make commentary on it.

I think that whether or not I have read the book is kinda irrelevant. I made an argument that Acharya relied on Graves (the same misspelling repeated). If you disagree with that argument, then you should give a reason why. I know you mean well. Your argument is an ad hominem--that is, discounting my argument because of my lack of qualifications. I agree with you that I do not have qualifications, but that shouldn't matter.

No Abe, stating the fact that you haven't read her books & wouldn't really know if she relied on Graves or not is a fact, not an ad hom. Credentials aren't exactly necessary on this issue but actually reading the book *IS*. And you have admitted that you have not. Therefore, you aren't qualified to make the claim that she relies on Graves.

ApostateAbe · 11-22-2007, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freethinkaluva

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think that whether or not I have read the book is kinda irrelevant. I made an argument that Acharya relied on Graves (the same misspelling repeated). If you disagree with that argument, then you should give a reason why. I know you mean well. Your argument is an ad hominem--that is, discounting my argument because of my lack of qualifications. I agree with you that I do not have qualifications, but that shouldn't matter.

No Abe, stating the fact that you haven't read her books & wouldn't really know if she relied on Graves or not is a fact, not an ad hom. Credentials aren't exactly necessary on this issue but actually reading the book *IS*. And you have admitted that you have not. Therefore, you aren't qualified to make the claim that she relies on Graves.

OK, dude, have a great Thanksgiving weakend.

Roger Pearse · 11-23-2007, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freethinkaluva

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think that whether or not I have read the book is kinda irrelevant. I made an argument that Acharya relied on Graves (the same misspelling repeated). If you disagree with that argument, then you should give a reason why. ...

No Abe, stating the fact that you haven't read her books & wouldn't really know if she relied on Graves or not is a fact, not an ad hom. Credentials aren't exactly necessary on this issue but actually reading the book *IS*. And you have admitted that you have not. Therefore, you aren't qualified to make the claim that she relies on Graves.

The only question of interest to most of us is whether what AA said is true or not. Is it?

The rest of your comments sound strange. Are you claiming that no-one is entitled to discuss material appearing on the web in very wide-spread quantities unless they buy the book? If so, why? This sounds uncommonly like a very standard publishers ploy to silence criticism -- publicise a book's claims widely and then demand that everyone accept them unless they have 'read the book.' We've all heard that one before, surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Freethinkaluva · 11-23-2007, 08:14 AM

I don't know why my comments seem strange as I'm merely pointing out the obvious in my response that you just quoted. AA hasn't read any of the books in question so he's not in any position to make claims about them.

I notice in this internet age any average Joe with the credentials of a high school education feels qualified to criticize the work of scholars without having studied their works. Especially on the topic of religion.

This is no "ploy to silence criticism", only to put it into perspective. My own experience of criticism in regards to the work by Acharya is that those who tend to criticize the loudest & strongest tend to be those who haven't even read the books. They're reliant upon online articles or excerpts which *DO NOT* contain all the details - that is what the books are for.

Folks are free to criticize but they can at least be civil, rational & respectful about it. One great place to start is to actually read the works BEFORE blasting them - why is that such a strange request?

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

11-19-2007, 11:08 PM	#11
tjakey Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 1,060	Sixteen crucified saviors? Is that like a committee thing, starting a union, what? If one dead guy on a stick can't get the job done, will 15 more make a difference?

11-20-2007, 01:34 PM	#12
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	The work of Kersey Graves is either a set of outright lies or useless as scholarship. It doesn't have any citations to first-hand sources, which makes verifying the claims difficult. Graves at one point made a list of 20 characters that supposedly contributed to the myth of Jesus Christ. One of these was "Beddru of Japan." I was curious about this one, since it seems odd that a myth can travel all the way from Japan to the Middle East long before Marco Polo ever existed. But the odd thing is that I couldn't find any information on "Beddru," except from those who cite Kersey Graves. Other than that, I found zilch. That gives the Christians apologists points, since JP Holding investigated much more thoroughly, also coming up with nothing. The one who popularized Kersey Graves is Acharya S. She cited the same list in her book, "Christ Conspiracy." Then, after she got a lot of criticism about the Beddru thing, she wrote a rebuttal and published it on her website. She said that Beddru is a typo misspelling of Beddou, which is one of the many European spellings of Buddha. That could be, but it is strange, since Buddha is mainly a myth of India and China, where Buddha was born and travelled and where Buddhism flourished, not so much in Japan. Acharya apparently repeated the same mangled typo in her book (without even citing Graves), and then proposed the correction afterward online only in retrospect. Such a long series of confusions could have been pre-empted by the very simple act of citation. Historical scholars devote pages and pages to their bibliography. Kersey Graves doesn't have any.

11-20-2007, 08:04 PM	#13
Freethinkaluva Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: USA Posts: 78	Toto "Where is Acharya's skeptical investigation of Graves' claims?" ... "Krishna is not really like Christ, linguistically or otherwise." - Read "Suns of God" http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm Acharya mentions Kersey Graves only 7 times in "Christ Conspiracy". In "Suns of God" she mentions him only in order to discuss the fracas surrounding his credibility. She does NOT rely on Graves at all. Nobody, not even Richard Carrier has researched where Graves was getting his info like Acharya has, as it's a thankless job. She wrote the foreword to the 6th edition to "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors". "As concerns the much-maligned Kersey Graves, to my knowledge not one of his critics has bothered to check out why he wrote what he did. I am evidently the first person to spend any time researching where he procurred his information, and I spill considerable ink on the subject in "Suns of God". Interested parties, I would think, would find it a fascinating piece of detective work." ~ Acharya Graves only mentions "Beddru" one time in his list on page 30 I believe. However, he mentions Beddou 3-4 times. "Beddru" on page 30 in the list is clearly a typo which was more common prior to the internet age, which still can have errors. "Beddru is Beddou is Buddha" http://www.truthbeknown.com/beddru.html Nobody is claiming Graves was a great scholar or even correct all the time but the broad claim that he made everything up is way over-the-top. "The author has in his possession historical quotations to prove the truth of each one of the above parallels. He has all the historical facts on which they were constructed found in and drawn from the sacred books of the Hindoo religion and the works of Christian writers descriptive of their religion. But they would swell the present volume to unwieldy dimensions, and far beyond its proper and prescribed limits, to present them here; they are therefore reserved for the second volume, and may be published in pamphlet form also... In proof of the correctness of the foregoing comparative analogies, we will now summon the testimony of various authors setting forth the historical character of the Hindu God Krishna, and the essential nature of his religion, so far as it approximates in its doctrines and moral teachings to the Christian religion. We will first hear from Colonel Wiseman, for ten years a Christian missionary in India." ~ Kersey Graves, 273 http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/...saviours-5.htm Sadly, he died before this was finished. So he is not here to defend himself.

11-20-2007, 08:36 PM	#14
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Freethinkaluva, you may want to re-evaluate the thought that Acharya S does not rely on Graves at all. She must have relied on Graves at least somewhat, given that she repeated the same misspelling of "Beddru" in her list on page 106 of Christ Conspiracy. Graves is the only author besides Acharya herself to make that misspelling. To make the same misspelling as Graves means that she trusted Graves to have his facts correct. It means she didn't check up on "Beddru" to see what kind of mythical character he is. It very likely means that she had no idea who "Beddru" was until after she published the book. As for Graves, it is, again, very difficult to evaluate the legitimacy of the claims of someone who expounds on obscure historical knowledge and doesn't tell anyone who the primary sources are. I think the best thing Acharya can do is to take that extra trouble and time to track down and dig up those firsthand sources that can supply evidence for the claims of Graves. Firsthand/primary sources means the original/ancient manuscripts and stone writings that give the details of the mythical heroes, and so on. If one must rely on modern oral evidence for 2000-year-old myth, that is still a primary source, but certainly not as as good as manuscripts dating to the relevant time period. Secondary sources are everyone who say they looked at the primary sources, like Colonel Wiseman quoted on page 240, perhaps, only he doesn't seem to say where he got his information either.

11-20-2007, 08:57 PM	#15
Freethinkaluva Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: USA Posts: 78	Abe "She must have relied on Graves" - No that would be a false assumption. I understand how you could make the mistake though since you've never actually read "Christ Conspiracy" nor "Suns of God". You probably haven't actually read Kersey Graves either have you? Folks who haven't actually read Acharya's works clearly aren't qualified to make commentary on it.

11-23-2007, 08:14 AM	#20
Freethinkaluva Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: USA Posts: 78	I don't know why my comments seem strange as I'm merely pointing out the obvious in my response that you just quoted. AA hasn't read any of the books in question so he's not in any position to make claims about them. I notice in this internet age any average Joe with the credentials of a high school education feels qualified to criticize the work of scholars without having studied their works. Especially on the topic of religion. This is no "ploy to silence criticism", only to put it into perspective. My own experience of criticism in regards to the work by Acharya is that those who tend to criticize the loudest & strongest tend to be those who haven't even read the books. They're reliant upon online articles or excerpts which DO NOT contain all the details - that is what the books are for. Folks are free to criticize but they can at least be civil, rational & respectful about it. One great place to start is to actually read the works BEFORE blasting them - why is that such a strange request?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.