diana

Subtitled: The Greatest Story Ever Sold
by Acharya S

Back in 1999, shortly after I graduated from college and was once again able to read and research what I wanted to, I decided it was time to learn about religions and decide what I really thought about it all. The local libraries in Augusta, Georgia (predictably) didn't have anything except Christ books, so I typed "atheism" into the search engine and followed my nose.

Of course, one of the first sites to appear was Acharya S's. Titled after her book--indeed, used for self-promotion of that book--it presented an irresistible read. I read quite a bit of the essay on her site (a synopsis of her book, pretty much), and found the material interesting, but wondered how well supported it was. She also provided links to Joseph Wheless' two online books, Is It God's Word? and Forgery in Christianity, which I read most of over the next few days. And it was her site that led me here to Infidels.

I determined to purchase her book when I had time and money, and see how well she argues her case and what quality of evidence she uses. I've only recently made good on this.

The first thing I noticed was her propensity to assert and overstate things, as overstatement is not only annoying to the reader, but weakens one's own case. Pages 31-47 cover "Biblical Sources" of Jesus' historicity, most of which is dedicated to copious quotes of other authors (some of whom do not claim to be scholars themselves) who have already drawn the conclusion that the New Testament is not historical at all. The references, presentation and footnotes look very impressive and scholarly to the uneducated, but a scholar would not merely quote people who sneer about forgeries; a scholar would present an even-handed view of the evidence, then point out why conclusion A is reasonable and conclusion B is insupportable. This does not happen. There is nothing even-handed about this book.

Page 48 ("Nonbiblical Sources") begins with the words "We have seen that the gospel accounts are utterly unreliable as history...." Of course, we have seen no such thing. Building upon this rickety premise, she goes into the discussion of extra-biblical "proofs" of Jesus' existence. Instead of listing the handful that qualify to be discussed as such and providing reasons for their dismissal as "evidence," she mentions them in passing without even providing the references themselves, then quotes an author or two (such as Wheless) who say they're stupid forgeries. Again...no evidence is provided and actual scholarly discussion is absent. What this amounts to is assertion that these are forgeries, presumably substantiated by various appeals to "authorities."

Early on, I began to notice familiar names (of authors she quotes, ad nauseum). Wheless, of course, rang a bell. His is a very well-known name in these circles. Doane sounded familiar, although I wasn't sure why yet. Dujardin was the name that kept cropping up that struck me as...fishy. This was because I remembered where I'd seen his name. It's an unusual name, and I rather doubt there's been more than one Dujardin to write a book on the mythological nature of the Christ story. It had to be the same one.

Where I'd seen it was in a book I'd picked up at the college library early this summer. The book caught my eye for a couple of reasons. It was titled Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions, and it looked very old. The original print date was 1889 (or something very close). Of course, I'd had to read this book. (As it turns out, that's where I'd seen "Doane"--he wrote it.) Dujardin was a French author who'd written a book in French who was quoted now and again in Doane's book, meaning he predated Doane's writing. When I made the Dujardin connection, I realized Acharya S was quoting (in English) a (French) writer from ~150 years ago as "evidence."

By itself, this is no problem. If something is substantiated fact, the age of the quote shouldn't matter. As a matter of fact, Acharya S had stated early (on page 21), that historicizers who aren't able "to refute the voluminous amount of evidence as to Christ's mythical nature are forced to dismiss the mythicists' research and conclusions by claiming their work to be 'outdated.'" So, she'd already admitted she appealed to "outdated" sources, didn't she?

Out of curiosity, I looked at her bibliography to see how many old versus new sources she listed. First, I looked up Doane.

Doane, T.W., Bible Myths and Their Parallels In Other Religions, Health Research, 1985.

1985? If anything, that is a reprint date. To state it as the date of the book is a lie. I believe it's known as "academic fraud."

Next, I looked up Dujardin.

Dujardin, Edouard, Ancient History of the God Jesus, Watts & Co, 1938.

Like hell.

Then Wheless' books, both of which are available in their entirety online with complete bibliographical information.

Wheless, Joseph, Forgery in Christianity, Health Research (There it is again!), 1990.

HA!

Wheless, Joseph, Is It God's Word?, www.infidels.org, (no date given)

Apparently, she couldn't find a reprint to appeal to, so she pretended there was no date available at all. "Health Research" is apparently a company that specializes in reprinting old books. There are 12 other books listed under this publisher, all of which have "respectable" mid-1900 dates. I suspect they are all reprints.

7 bibliographical entries refer solely to websites. Maybe I just have old-fashioned professors, but I'm working on my master's and I am forbidden to use internet information as substantiation for anything (unless it's a complete reprint, such as Wheless' books or things from Bartleby.com, in which case I'm required to give full bibliographical information, as well).

5 more bibliographical entries simply have no date. No date available? No. Just no date given.

Of the 106 bibliographical entries she lists, she only admits that one of them was written/published before the 20th century. That one was The Book of Jasher, and I think I know why she contented herself with the 1887 date.

There are very precise ways to write honest bibliographies. If you've used a reprint, you provide both the original print date and the date it was reprinted, so your reader knows both the date of the research and which book to look in on what page to find whatever it was you referenced. Using an "abbreviated" biography to pointedly conceal the antiquity of your sources is simply lying.

I haven't even reached page 90. I doubt I will. I can't believe a thing she says.

d

Gooch's dad

Great post, diana! I think I'll move this up to BC&H, it's dead-on for that forum.

Gooch's dad, Misc Discussions moderator

andrewcriddle

I have no wish to defend Acharya's standard of scholarship and the reference to the 1985 date for Doane is clearly misleading but the reference to Dujardin may be OK as far as it goes.

IIUC Edouard Dujardin lived from 1861 to 1949 and was active as a writer for much of this period.

According to the British Library Catalogue

Ancient History of the God Jesus 1938 appears to be the first English translation of Histoire Ancienne du Dieu Jesus first published in France in 1927.

I don't think that giving the date of the first English translation of a book originally published in French 11 years earlier is all that misleading.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

Thanks Diana. A great analysis.

diana

You're right. Thanks. I know Dujardin was quoted in Doane's book (who, incidentally, states up front that he isn't a scholar, he's just an average guy who noticed these similarities and decided to compile them in one volume), and I'm fairly sure it was the same book--just in French. I'd think the proper source information would include the original date it was written, then the date of the reprint into English, but I admit I haven't had to deal with that just yet so the rule on that is a bit fuzzy to me.

I know also that there are limits to quoting origination dates, but I'm not sure precisely where that line is drawn. Most of the "dates" she gives are clearly over the line, though.

Thanks for the feedback, gentlemen. I figured there have already been plenty of reviews of her work here, but I haven't read them and I was pissed off that I wasted $20 on this worthless tripe. I just had to get that off my chest.

I feel better now.

d

butswana

I got about half way through it before I gave up. She was making too many connections. She made it seem like the whole of the ancient world was in on the scam.
Reminds me of the "Our Gang" episode where the kids put on a show and they wondered why Froggie was the only guy in the audience. He was the only kid in the nieghborhood not involved in the production.

Chili

Good for you diana but don't make the same mistake twice now!

diana

In other words, read the reviews next time? Noted.

I am one for drawing my own conclusions as much as possible, though--all the more so when something is important to me. I don't know if I would enjoy a movie by reading reviews of it. I know less whether I feel any conclusions are substantiated unless I see the evidence myself. I'm sure the myriad reviews of her work that have cropped up here have stated over an over, at the very least, that she makes assertions and does not provide adequate substantiation for her claims, as well as that "drawing too many conclusions" thing (ain't that the truth?). But, I'm one of those people who must go subject myself to it before I feel justified in stating those same things. I have to see for myself that somebody's full of shit.

It's a blessing and a curse, depending upon context. It is also the reason I'm atheist.

It seems I'm doomed to wade through a lot of crappy books in the course of my journey. But I also occasion across well-written, accessible and thought-provoking ones, such as Who Wrote The Bible? which make it all worthwhile.

d

Chili

By all means diana, do what you have to and don't let me stop you. If anything let me add courage to your journey.

My point actually was that they are all shit if you are a set atheist. If, on the other hand, you are an atheist with some faith left in you, keep searching.

diana

I don't think my atheism makes them all worthless to me. I'm fairly resigned to the fact that I'm atheist, simply because I can't imagine anything that would convince me to look outside of natural causes for answers.

But I read theories concerning the origins of the bible and various myths out of interest in the subject, for the same reasons some people buy hot rod mags month after month or why they collect stamps or read Shakespeare. Religious origins &c are just what floats my boat.

d