Jeffrey Gibson

I note that the blurb for AS' Christ in Egypt rather loudly and proudly proclaims that

Interesting to me here are several things:

1. the hidden assumption in this blurb -- the intent of which is presumably to show that AS is conversant with the best of modern scholarship on ancient Egypt and therefore that her work is well researched -- that being "popular" means that what these scholars have to say on matters Egypt is sound (Joel Osteen is an extremely popular expositor of Christian, but that hardly means that what he says about Christianity is any good);

2. the implicit claims found there that the inclusion of peoples' works in a book automatically makes said book good, let alone an authoritative presentation of its topic and that the Egyptologists whose works are included would agree either with AS's representations of their work and, more importantly, the conclusions that AS draws from it.

3. the fact that no German or French or Egyptian Egyptologist's work -- popular or otherwise -- made the list of those whose works are included in AS's book, which is strange considering that AS (reputedly) reads 12 languages, and could presumably have translated the work of German and French and other non English speaking/writing "popular modern Egyptologists.

4. that AS (or her blurb's writer) has a curiously elastic view of what constitutes "modern". Frankfort is modern?? Margaret Murray, who retired from her post as an Egyptologist in 1935 is modern? Alan H. Gardiner??

5. That while the implication of the blurb (and the direct claim of Dave) is that AS has not only acquainted herself with, but mastered, all the relevant secondary (as well as primary!) literature on matters Ancient Egypt, there's apparently no "inclusion" in her book -- or awareness on her part -- of the work of such modern, professionally recognized experts in matters Ancient Egypt as Ian Shaw, Manfred Bietak, Ronald Leprohon, R. B. Parkinson, Detlef Franke, Stephen Quirke, James P. Allen, William Ward, Henry G. Fischer, Clyde Vandersleyen, Peter Der Manuelian, or Ellen F. Morris.

Jeffrey

semiopen

My impression is that the most impressive advances in Biblical Studies have happened within the last 40 years, from say 1970.

To say that someone in 1860 isn't worth reading, while somebody from 1960 makes perfect sense isn't exact. It seems to me that discussing the advances from 1970 onwards is a more useful question.

Looking at the previous posts however, the conversation seems to be going in a completely different direction. Probably, I've just misunderstood the OP.

Dave31

Yes Jeffrey, everybody here knows you have nothing but pure hatred for Acharya S even though you've never read a single book of hers. Or is it just misogyny?

BTW, Ian Shaw, James P. Allen are also cited in CIE. You cut-off where it says "and many more." Is it considered intellectually honest to rant compulsively about an author who's work you've never read?

Re Margaret Murray and Alan Gardiner, if you actually knew anything about Egyptology, Jeffrey, you would know that they are extremely well respected and that their works are used to this day. You can't study Egyptology without reading Gardiner, who devised the hieroglyphic sign list used today. But, of course, you wouldn't know that, because you're not a qualified expert on the subject - and one of Gardiner's teachers was Murray, so she's important. Frankly, Jeffrey, if you're an example of a "modern" scholar, I'll stick with those who are a few decades older. Why don't your students like you? Why are you always such a downer Jeffrey? Do you really hate everything?

Dave31

Let us not forget that modern scholarship isn't even close to being perfect. For example academia still rejects the mythicist position outright. They refuse to even entertain the concept to the point that they won't even take it seriously enough to attempt to refute the mythicist position showing clear signs of biases.

As Richard Carrier says in his review of Kersey Graves '16 Crucified Saviors:'

(bold emphasis is mine)

From the top of Carriers article:

"[Editor's note: This is a conflation of three responses which were made by Richard Carrier to feedback and e-mail involving questions about the scholarhip of Kersey Graves, in particular, and about scholarship, in general, in the subject area about which Graves concerned himself in The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors.]"

I have two questions for Carrier concerning his Graves article.

1. Did Carrier read Graves book from cover to cover?

2. Did Carrier investigate to see where Graves was getting his information?

By reading the article I would lean towards a "no" to both questions.

Acharya S/Murdock agrees with Carrier here and does the "excruciating" hard work sifting through very hard to find material across several languages, "academic journals," "obscure out-of-print books" etc. In fact, Acharya has performed the hard work investigating where Graves & other 19C. sources were getting their information. She's the only one to my knowledge who has performed that painstaking investigation. Carrier doesn't even claim he actually read Kersey Graves book, let alone investigate where Graves was getting his info and even says it would be too much work to do so.

From the preface in Christ in Egypt

(bold emphasis is mine)

(bold emphasis is mine)

So this history of religious bias even in modern academia must also be factored in.

Dave31

Nice broad stroke generalization and hand-waving dismissal of the 19c. but that's not necessarily accurate. That same hand-waving dismissal is why academia refuses to even consider the mythicist position as having any potential merit. Even though nobody has offered a serious refutation of it. They rigidly adhere to the a priori assumption that Jesus existed even though they have no problem admitting that all the other gods are just myths.

As Earl Doherty says:

What is a Mythicist?
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html

ApostateAbe

19th century scholarly writings may be legitimate or they may not be. The main problem is that Acharya S (and her brethren) cites 19th century writings the same as though they are original sources of early Christianity. Whether the scholars are right or wrong, it is a very bad amateurish way to provide evidence for a theory.

Celsus

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Firstly, Doherty is fairly fringe (except in this particular forum), whether for right or wrong reasons. Secondly, he is saying that the mythicist position generally has been revised. So why would he need to resurrect Renan or Frazer? You can go back to the originals yourself, but compare broad trajectories in Renanist or Frazerian traditions. Just like Marxian or Weberian sociology. But that's different from going back and treating Marx or Weber as a primary source for 19th century capitalism. That's what you don't get. It's not Acharya's appeal to 19th century scholarship per se that is problematic, it's the unquestioned wholesale assumption of their work, unreformed, that is problematic. That's why it's important that I said no one from the 19th century is taken without heavy modification, qualification and sometimes rejection (e.g. Kropotkin's anthropological evidence for "mutual aid" is thoroughly discredited but as a form of discourse in looking at the way in which cooperation rather than competition influences social interaction, it remains an important work).

The fact that you fail to grasp these very basic methodological distinctions says much about your understanding of the nature of scholarly work (and I doubt Acharya is much better at this than you).

Dave31

Celsus, you can blather all you'd like about "basic methodological distinctions" but the point will remain that a TON OF FASCINATING INFORMATION in Acharya's books is not being discussed because of people tossing out mindless rhetoric. Instead of wasting time attempting to assert your intellectual superiority, you could actually be reading the material under discussion. That's the intellectually HONEST thing to do.

Dave31

That is completely false as already thoroughly explained above

From post #4

"So, often, the 19th c. source is simply a starting point. Then she digs up the original, primary sources and provides them in her book in the original languages, with sometimes more than one translations."

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...53&postcount=4

ApostateAbe, despite your claims otherwise, you are not very familiar with her work, as your comments reflect a very shallow and superficial acquaintance with it. You admitted long ago that you've never actually studied her work. Yet, you're always quick to dive in the pile-on to trash her work however you can.

As one would know if they were actually familiar with her work, Acharya uses quotes as a steppingstone for further research, including providing the original sources and primary texts wherever possible - that's what all of her work since "The Christ Conspiracy" has done. But, again, you would need to be familiar with her work, instead of just pretending to be. Also, YOU could actually do the follow-up research yourself, instead of relying on people to spoon-feed it to you.

The neverending parroting of this fallacious 19 century sources argument is just another straw man, handwaving dismissal. While you are wasting time with these same, stupid arguments already long addressed, a TON of FASCINATING INFORMATION from Acharya's books goes undiscussed. Very disappointing and disgraceful, really.

Toto

OK - provide a teaser. Name a specific subject that Acharya provides some light on. instead of going on about how beastly people are to her.