Littlejohn

Go, Mr. Carrier!


Parallelomania, the Luxor Image & the Gospels: Richard Carrier and Acharya S discuss

«..In the last few days, an acrimonious dispute between Richard Carrier and Acharya S is occurring on their blogs (though most of the acrimony seems to be on Acharya S's side, it should be stressed). I've avoided reproducing any acrimonious text below wherever possible.

Richard Carrier writes on his blog:

Parallelomania is the particular disease of Jesus myth advocates who see “parallels” everywhere between early Christianity and all manner of pagan religions. Many of those parallels are real; don’t get me wrong. Some are even causal (Christianity really is a syncretism of Judaism and paganism, which point I will soundly prove in my coming book On the Historicity of Jesus Christ). But most parallels are not real, or are not causally related (remember that basic rule in science: correlation is not causation). Some don’t even exist (and here bad scholarship becomes the disease: see my cautionary review of Kersey Graves’ Sixteen Crucified Saviors).»

It's amazing, but I feel I share fully the thought of Richard! .. Indeed, on reflection I feel myself a sort of Italian Richard Carrier ! ..;-)))

Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

"..Christianity really is a syncretism of Judaism and paganism.."

In this passage, Carrier omitted to add the 'JESUAN' GNOSTICISM, the which was the REAL 'church' founded by Jesus of Nazareth! ..

Jesuan Gnosticism, as well as that 'Johannine' (ie that of John the Baptist, from whose matrix Jesus flourished) NOT had absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic-Christianity of origins: now simply 'Christianity'... Unfortunately, until today there are few scholars in the world, to have recognized this inescapable reality.

Littlejohn

.

Toto

I thought that Acharya S was an admirer of Graves.

If you infer that Carrier is jealous of someone from the evidence that you have, you are demonstrating the problems with your method.

stephan huller

Exactly. There is this tendency in the modern world to never admit you're wrong, to defend your errors - even when you know they are errors - because admitting you made a mistake somehow works as an argument in favor of your opponents. It's so stupid. In the real world, its always about the bigger picture. You might lose one sale to your competitors but as long as you're winning more than you lose, you're an 'ace.' I don't understand this obsession in the humanities and in scholarship general about never admitting you were wrong.

Littlejohn

The icon shown here, appears on the cover of the book 'Jesus as the Sun throughout History' by Acharya S.

The tetrarayed (four rays) disc that appears behind the head of Jesus, is a symbol and at the same time a very important exegetical key, which could lead very far in the reconstruction of the historical Jesus, when properly interpreted.

Too bad that Mrs. Murdock has not realized it ... Unfortunately, his 'blind' faith in the theory of completely mythicist origin of Jesus and of the Christianity (more accurately Catholic-Christianity), it inevitably has crystallized her exegetical horizons ....

For those who are potentially interested in the topic, I add that such symbolism is almost certainly linked to the stay of Jesus in Antioch of Syria, in a certain period of his life. Here Jesus was appealed 'Balaam' by the Jews of the diaspora who lived in Antioch. (His followers were appealed 'balaamites': see Apocalypse of John)

Littlejohn

.

LegionOnomaMoi

I'm assuming you are referring to your little thread on Carrier's use of Bayes' and then doing what you did there: misrepresenting what people (including Carrier and me) actually said. Nobody said that fuzzy logic or Bayesian models could be used to "clarify details about ancient papyrus documents" (and not just because papyrus is singular, but this you continually use this instead of papyri, leading me to believe it's not just a typo). The question isn't "can one use Bayesian models when it comes to X specific historical question" but "can Bayesian models be used at all when it comes to history?"

However, as this is off topic, I'll go back to your thread to respond.

youngalexander

Carrier admits an error, corrects it, discusses the matter further, and signs off!
That Luxor Thing Again

outhouse

yes he follows a great method, for the search of knowledge in history

nothing wrong with that

GakuseiDon

Thanks for the link, youngalexander! Seems like my earlier post was correct. That Carrier is wrong in one point, doesn't mean his overall point is incorrect. Good to see him recognize the need for mythicists to critique each other's work, instead of 'playing the “back slapping” game', as he puts it. But disappointing to see him bow out of any future criticism of Acharya S's work.

I love his comment:

One of the reasons Murdock’s methodology goes off the rails is that she assumes everyone is out to get her and that there is always some sort of evil conspiracy against her work. Which insulates her from listening to criticism and correcting the way she does things. That is one of the surest ways to fail as a scholar. It likely also prevents her from having useful dialogs with experts in ancient history. Which is the surest way to make yourself irrelevant as a scholar. But that’s her own lookout.

That is a hallmark of all fringe thinking, I suspect. I can't wait to read the response over at the FringeThought Nation forum.