Freethought & Rationalism Archive

burning flames · 11-16-2007, 09:40 AM

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...sey_graves/16/

and a disclaimer

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/graves.html

so, is this book considered "right" by people?

Freethinkaluva · 11-16-2007, 10:13 AM

At the top of those links it has a sort of disclaimer saying:

Quote:

"[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.]"

The ONLY person, to the best of my knowledge who has actually studied Kersey Graves work & investigated where he was getting his information is Acharya.

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

For more on Graves goto her "Acharya's Frequently Asked Questions" section at the very top. http://forums.truthbeknown.com/index.php

Also, you should read "Suns of God"
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm

mountainman · 11-16-2007, 12:08 PM

What does "right" mean?

Academics like slandering each other when they
think they can get away with it (you only have
to hang around here for a while) and often over
petty issues - such as the documentation of sources
utilised.

Consider just a small bit of this book. Chapter 31:
Christianity Derived from Heathen and Oriental Systems,
a parallel exhibition of the precepts and practical lives
of Christ and the Essenes, at this page.

The author presents the Essene philosophical writings
as being "condensed from Philo, Josephus, and other
authors", but fails to provide the source references
back to these various Philo, Josephus, and other
authors.

I have been meaning to go back and cite in the above
tabulation the references to these sources, all of which
are available now on the internet. Although I have not
yet done this "check on Kersey Graves" with respect to
the tabulated data here at his Chapter 16, I am in fact
reasonably confident that these source citations exist,
because I have read many of them in passing in those
authors - specifically Philo and Josephus. Incidentally,
there appears to be further references in Porphyry (c.300)
although he is a little late.

Best wishes

Pete Brown
___________

Toto · 11-16-2007, 01:58 PM

Kersey Graves is an interesting character, but not a reliable source. As Carrier notes, this field needs to be modernized and brought up to date. Acharya S is not doing anyone a favor by promoting his work as it is. It is too easy for JP Holding to take potshots at him and find errors.

Like many theosophists and spiritualists of that time, he turned to his imagination as a source of authority. It is hard to rely on any source from that era - you can't always tell if a statement is based on research or the spirits talking to or through the author.

Kersey Graves

Quote:

The Richmond Democrat described him as “a close student and an independent thinker.” [40] Nevertheless, while he may have been earnest or sincere in his beliefs, he was also overconfident about his powers of discerning hidden designs and patterns in extremely meager and dubious collections of data. At the same time, he does not seem to have appreciated how tenuous his sources were and how precarious almost all of his intuitions and speculations were. It is not unreasonable to imagine him in his rural Indiana barn, tacking onto the walls all around him fluttered pieces of paper with random notes on them, looking for a flash of intuition that would make sense of them all. It would have resembled something like the fevered garage ruminations of John Forbes Nash in A Beautiful Mind.

It is tempting to attribute some of Graves’ arrogance about his "findings" to the extreme inner light convictions in which his spiritual life developed. Elias Hicks had preached against "a departure from the only sure foundation of true and real Christianity, the light within, or spirit of truth, the immediate revelation of the spirit of God, in immortal souls of men and women; the only and alone true teacher of the things of God under the gospel." [41] With Graves, a similar conviction was nourished toward solipsism by the comfort that spiritualism gave to the phenomena produced by inspiration, self-justifying revelations. In such a situation, contrary evidence would be minimized, and the reality checks inherent in the Scientific Method that Graves admired would be all but impossible.

His dream-like method -almost an exercise in free association - not only suggests a kind of spiritualistic trance narrative, but also raises the question of his mental stability. His anti-religion books came out of a period of years of an unspecified illness that, as he said, had “incapacitated” him for public lecturing. During this time he struggled internally with religion as a “cramping” of the mind. In this light, his writings can be viewed as the product of a kind of self-imposed psychotherapy for his severe mental distress. His later, ostensibly humorous, remark that his mother, when he was a child, thought that his intense studies might make him crazy—and that he was already close to that—perhaps revealed more than he realized.

There is a wikipedia entry for him

Kersey_Graves marked with a flag for disputed.

From Acharya S's FAQ:

Quote:

"I can assure you that I have not discovered one individual in modern times who has looked into the issues surrounding Kersey Graves as much as I have. When the subject is studied IN DEPTH, it becomes apparent that Kersey Graves made nothing up, as he has been charged, but was working with preceding scholarship. Whether or not that scholarship is accurate becomes the issue then, not whether or not Kersey Graves "fabricated" anything. I have examined many aspects of his work and have not found one instance of "fabrication." More careful citation on Graves's part would have prevented many of these aspersions from being cast upon him."
~ Acharya

This misses the point. He may have relied on the scholarship of the time, but that scholarship had a shakey foundation. We don't rely on the general historical pronouncements of that era - we've come a long way.

Freethinkaluva · 11-19-2007, 11:00 AM

"Acharya S is not doing anyone a favor by promoting his work as it is."

- I don't see where she "promotes" his work at all. She merely brings it up for discussion to investigate how accurate it is or is not.

"Like many theosophists and spiritualists of that time, he turned to his imagination as a source of authority. It is hard to rely on any source from that era - you can't always tell if a statement is based on research or the spirits talking to or through the author."

- This comment is a straw man isn't it? in Acharya's research, she hasn't found even one instance of fabrication. Nobody denies that, "More careful citation on Graves's part would have prevented many of these aspersions from being cast upon him."

Isn't it a rather broadstroke there to claim that, "It is hard to rely on any source from that era" ?

I don't think that's an accurate comment. This is an era in which we have many sciences being formed - archaeology for example.

"...it is imperative to keep in mind that until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone by Napoleon's troops and the subsequent translation of such by Champollion in 1822, no one could read Egyptian hieroglyphics! So, at that point, a huge amount of data previously undeciphered and unknown finally became available. To recap, before 1822 no one could read Egyptian hieroglyphics..."
http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewt...=1149&start=15

Understandably, a lot of information about religion was being discussed during this era.

Toto · 11-19-2007, 12:38 PM

Where is Acharya's skeptical investigation of Graves' claims? Where does she separate the wheat from the chaff?

For example, Krishna is not really like Christ, linguistically or otherwise. But evidently Christian missionaries emphasized and overemphasized all possible connections or coincidences as part of their sales campaign to convince Indians to accept Christianity as related to their own religion, rather than the religion of European colonialism.

This does not tell us anything about the origins of Christianity.

Cheerful Charlie · 11-19-2007, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burning flames

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...sey_graves/16/

and a disclaimer

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/graves.html

so, is this book considered "right" by people?

No, its crap. Full of third hand nonsense, much of it balderdash.
Its an interesting read but much to be taken with a lot of salt.

CC

burning flames · 11-19-2007, 05:30 PM

what makes it crap?

acharya s seems to like it, and says she thinks all his claims are source able.

mountainman · 11-19-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burning flames

what makes it crap?

acharya s seems to like it, and says she thinks all his claims are source able.

I think most critics dispute the fact that the hard yards
have yet been demonstrated in linking the claims made
by this author to the source citations. The problem is
magnified by the fact that K. Graves made alot of claims.

Acharya S may have indeed checked the sources, but
where are publications in which this possibility may be
ascertained?

It is my opinion, BTW, that at least some of the claims
made by Graves are in fact bourne outin the analysis
back to the source citations. Richard Carrier admits
as much in his article (referenced above).

The task to refute Graves or to confirm his claims is yet
to be done. Are there any research students out there?

May I suggest - as a starting point - Grave's claim made
in this specific book concerning the pre-extant "sayings"
of Jesus were taken from descriptions of the traditions,
philosophy, way of life and actions of the Essenes.

There is no substitute for the actual research.
And btw, the results of that research.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Toto · 11-19-2007, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burning flames

what makes it crap?

acharya s seems to like it, and says she thinks all his claims are source able.

Did you or CC bother to read the thread before posting?

11-16-2007, 09:40 AM	#1
burning flames Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: florida Posts: 887	Kersey Graves: The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...sey_graves/16/ and a disclaimer http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/graves.html so, is this book considered "right" by people?

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

11-16-2007, 12:08 PM	#3
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	What does "right" mean? Academics like slandering each other when they think they can get away with it (you only have to hang around here for a while) and often over petty issues - such as the documentation of sources utilised. Consider just a small bit of this book. Chapter 31: Christianity Derived from Heathen and Oriental Systems, a parallel exhibition of the precepts and practical lives of Christ and the Essenes, at this page. The author presents the Essene philosophical writings as being "condensed from Philo, Josephus, and other authors", but fails to provide the source references back to these various Philo, Josephus, and other authors. I have been meaning to go back and cite in the above tabulation the references to these sources, all of which are available now on the internet. Although I have not yet done this "check on Kersey Graves" with respect to the tabulated data here at his Chapter 16, I am in fact reasonably confident that these source citations exist, because I have read many of them in passing in those authors - specifically Philo and Josephus. Incidentally, there appears to be further references in Porphyry (c.300) although he is a little late. Best wishes Pete Brown ___________

11-19-2007, 11:00 AM	#5
Freethinkaluva Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: USA Posts: 78	"Acharya S is not doing anyone a favor by promoting his work as it is." - I don't see where she "promotes" his work at all. She merely brings it up for discussion to investigate how accurate it is or is not. "Like many theosophists and spiritualists of that time, he turned to his imagination as a source of authority. It is hard to rely on any source from that era - you can't always tell if a statement is based on research or the spirits talking to or through the author." - This comment is a straw man isn't it? in Acharya's research, she hasn't found even one instance of fabrication. Nobody denies that, "More careful citation on Graves's part would have prevented many of these aspersions from being cast upon him." Isn't it a rather broadstroke there to claim that, "It is hard to rely on any source from that era" ? I don't think that's an accurate comment. This is an era in which we have many sciences being formed - archaeology for example. "...it is imperative to keep in mind that until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone by Napoleon's troops and the subsequent translation of such by Champollion in 1822, no one could read Egyptian hieroglyphics! So, at that point, a huge amount of data previously undeciphered and unknown finally became available. To recap, before 1822 no one could read Egyptian hieroglyphics..." http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewt...=1149&start=15 Understandably, a lot of information about religion was being discussed during this era.

11-19-2007, 12:38 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Where is Acharya's skeptical investigation of Graves' claims? Where does she separate the wheat from the chaff? For example, Krishna is not really like Christ, linguistically or otherwise. But evidently Christian missionaries emphasized and overemphasized all possible connections or coincidences as part of their sales campaign to convince Indians to accept Christianity as related to their own religion, rather than the religion of European colonialism. This does not tell us anything about the origins of Christianity.

11-19-2007, 05:30 PM	#8
burning flames Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: florida Posts: 887	what makes it crap? acharya s seems to like it, and says she thinks all his claims are source able.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.