Solitary Man

Dawkins is a very respected and published scholar with a PhD. Both Harris and Price have PhDs and are likewise published. Richard Carrier is on his way to earning a PhD. All of them have slipped up every now and then, but only Acharya S. has the temerity to publish drivel with a very poor methodology and very little interaction with real scholars. Even the littlest of those scholars, Carrier, is still leaps and bounds beyond Acharya.

PS - Why haven't you apologized for accusing me of messing up Patrologiae Graecae when it was clearly your error?

PPS - I'm a very fast reader, and very fortunate that she has some work on her website. Like her article on the historical Jesus, which comes, unless she is misleading readers, directly from her book.

Dave31

I'm not so sure you deserve an apology at all...especially when you offer nothing but insults about her and her work - which you've never read. A little arrogant aren't we? :huh:

Where are the moderators now with all of these insults? It only proves my earlier point that a legitimate discussion of Acharya's work is not welcome here.

MarmINFP

I agree its strongly stated. The use of "ironically" is an interpretation of Tertullian's emotional intent. The quote could be restated using other words with the same basic point being made.

The important part of your question is whether its unreasonable. The word "ironically" implies an emotional intent and such an implication has nothing specifically to do with supporting the reasonableness of her claim. Its mostly unimportant. I can say that I wouldn't have stated it that way, but I suppose she was rhetorically emphasizing her point.

Many people in these threads seem to not like her style of phrasing things. I understand this because there are many authors whose style I dislike. She is writing for a general readership and so her sometimes rhetorical style doesn't bother me personally.

I don't remember her ever denying that she uses rhetorical devices in her writing. Her intent to persuade seems obvious to me. As a reader, its fair to take this with a grain of salt.

Antipope Innocent II

It's odd that neither "Acharya S"/Ms Murdock nor her vocal fan on this thread have bothered to tackle the points in Malachi's article above. And he clearly has read Ms Murdock's book.

So - either of you?

I must say, having read even just that critique I don't exactly find myself rushing to Amazon to order this book via expedited courier post haste.

Solitary Man

So let me get this straight. If I make a mistake, I'm supposed to admit it, but if you make a mistake, you get a free pass?

Not with you lowering the discourse, you're right it's not. Perhaps if those hurling insults, her adamant loyalists, refrained, we wouldn't have this discussion.

PS - Please point out what I said that was an ad hominem attack.

Dave31

LOL, just because I organized a quote from her book, you label me a supporter.

Anyway, your selective perception on this quote is clearly biased. The comprehension on this quote here seems non-existent. You simply refuse to understand that if there were no charges of sun worship going on AT THE TIME OF TERTULLIAN he would've never created "The Charge of Worshipping the Sun Met by a Retort" The point is that there was a reason and Tertullian felt he had to address it on more than one occasion. Tertullian was not the only church father who needed to address this sun worship issue. This came up time and time again. 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. And he was not the only church father who had address this issue. What is so difficult to understand? Could you guys possibly make it anymore difficult? It's really very simple.

MarmINFP

I've been reading Robert M. Prices recent book on the pre-Nicene Christian texts. I don't have it with me at the moment, but he spoke of how he went about creating his own interpretations. He decided not to confer directly with other scholars, and yet at the same time he was mostly dependent on the interpretations of previous scholars because his knowledge of ancient languages was limited. So, he wasn't reading the original texts for the most part.

Aren't all scholars dependent on the work of other scholars especially when they're working out a theory as broad as Acharya's?

Jeffrey Gibson

Since, as I understand things, AS claims (if not boasts) (1) that she has proficiency in Latin and Greek and (2) that her primary research is carried out in the primary sources, what does "something's" not having been translated into English have to do with anything? How does the non existence of an English translation a Greek or Latin text provide an obstacle to her finding evidence for her claims, especially since the bulk of extant Greek literature and documentary evidence is available on the TLG and on PHI 8 and of Latin on the PHI 7 and elsewhere (like in the Loebs and Teubners) and is easily searchable?

The only way that ancient text not being translated into English from Greek or Latin is an obstacle for research is that the researcher doesn't read those languages.

BTW, do you read Greek or Latin? If not, how are you yourself able, as you seem to claim you are, to assess the validity of AS's claims about what Greek and Latin texts say or how good her claimed research in the primary sources is?

Jeffrey

ApostateAbe

Sir, why do we have to be talking about the Catholic Encyclopedia? We don't need to filter our knowledge of Tertullian through the paraphrasing of an encyclopedia. You speculated, "You've never done it have you - not in Latin or Greek attempting to find something never before translated into English." The works of Tertullian translated into English are found online. ONLINE. THEY ARE THERE. YOU CAN READ THEM YOURSELF. You don't need to go to a library. You don't need to know Latin or Greek, because the translation has been done for you. I'll give you a step-by-step guide.

1) Go to http://www.google.com
2) Type in Tertullian Ad nationes into the search bar.
3) IMPORTANT: Skip the links that say "encyclopedia."
4) Click on the link that goes to www.tertullian.org/works/ad_nationes.htm
5) Click on link that goes to book "I" of the English translation.
6) Hit Ctrl-F on your keyboard and type "Sun".
7) Click on the link that says, "Chapter XIII. ----The Charge of Worshipping the Sun Met by a Retort."
8) Copy and paste this text into the IIDB message box:

Chapter XIII.214 ----The Charge of Worshipping the Sun Met by a Retort.

Others, with greater regard to good manners, it must be confessed, suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a well-known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do less than this? Do not many among you, with an affectation of sometimes worshipping the heavenly bodies likewise, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise? It is you, at all events, who have even admitted the sun into the calendar of the week; and you have selected its day,215 in preference to the preceding day216 as the most suitable in the week217 for either an entire abstinence from the bath, or for its postponement until the evening, or for taking rest and for banqueting. By resorting to these customs, you deliberately deviate from your own religious rites to those of strangers. For the Jewish feasts on the Sabbath and "the Purification,"218 and Jewish also are the ceremonies of the lamps,219 and the fasts of unleavened bread, and the "littoral prayers,"220 all which institutions and practices are of course foreign from your gods. Wherefore, that I may return from this digression, you who reproach us with the sun and Sunday should consider your proximity to us. We are not far off from your Saturn and your days of rest.

9) Now make your argument based on that quote.

All early Christian documents are translated into English and they are published online within access of a Google search. There is no need to trust an encyclopedia. There is no need to trust Acharya S. Don't cite tertiary sources just because Acharya S does. If Acharya S does not do it the scholarly way and instead cites an encyclopedia, <edit>an explanation is sorely needed.

MarmINFP

I read the article. Much of his criticism I'm not informed enough to respond to. There is one section right at the beginning that stood out to me.

"Within these pages Acharya S attempts to convince us that all religion originated from the worship of nature, primarily astronomical worship, and that Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus are all personifications of ancient sun gods, or perhaps "The Sun God", and thus of course never actually existed but are just myths.

To this last point I agree, though largely reasons that have little to do with the claims made in The Sun of God, and to all of the other points I disagree. At it's core, The Suns of God rests on making the case for a "grand unifying theory" of all religious worship. This "grand unifying theory", according to Acharya, is "astrotheology". Astrotheology is, quite simply, theology based on the observation of celestial bodies."

My viewpoint is primarily comparative mythology, and astrotheology is just one aspect to me. Its unimportant to me whether or not astrotheology is a grand unifying theory, but I do believe it unifies quite a bit. From my studies of comparative mythology, I don't doubt that there are many elements that unify religions. Astrotheology is just one of them.

And, besides comparative mythology and astrotheology, I also look to comparative religion studies and integral theories. Acharya's work is interesting and I enjoy it, but my worldview isn't dependent on her being right in her every single citation.

I believe there is more that we don't know than we do. I'm perfectly fine with her theories still being somewhat tentative. I have faith that academia, slow as it may be, will be moving in this direction. In a few decades, theories like these will become more clear, but for right now I'm just glad people are discussing them at all even if its just nitpicking debate.