Clivedurdle

In for a penny...

Remember the ideas of co-evolution and arms races and interactions and gestalt.

Introducing Plato and real suns!

http://www.well.com/~davidu/hypercosmic.html

The Greek and Roman and Persian world was extremely messy with a little bit of this and a little bit of that!

MarmINFP

I don't own this book and so I don't know the rest of the passage. Going by your quote, it seems to me that the two paragraphs are referring to two different goddesses. Campbell says, "The reader recalls, perhaps, the Orphic legend..." by which he is referring to something separate but related to the first paragraph(ie he is comparing two myths).

How do other people read this?

hatsoff

Yes and no. I'm sure you've heard of the term "vocal minority." Like all other loosely-moderated message boards (and despite your cries to the contrary, this board is indeed moderated very loosely), disparaging opinions pop up like fireflies. I suggest you pay closer attention to the momentum of the board in general. More importantly, I encourage you to judge posters based on their posts, not on the posts of their peers--IE, don't lump a highly variable community into a single stereotype.

You're right; it doesn't. But that's what you will reap, and I suggest you develop new strategies to deal with that criticism.

It's good that you seem to be interested in correcting errors, but conversely troubling that you'd apparently prefer to offload the blame to others. Whenever you publish a book, you're bound to make mistakes. My father had the same problem when he published a book on William Riley McKeen and the Pennsylvania Railroad a couple years ago. Granted, he didn't face the same sort of vitriolic opposition that you have (his was not nearly so controversial a subject), but he was genuinely embarrassed at his misstatements, and in homage to the truth has publicized them at his own initiative. I highly suggest you take the same approach: instead of rebelling against criticism, seek it out eagerly, and correct whatever errors you discover.


I would suggest neither approach. Know who you're drawing from, and what are their credentials. If the subject is controversial (as this one certainly is!), look for corroboration. A simple Google search would have flagged Wheless as suspicious.

No, it's not, which is why I'm so curious about your refusal to admit responsibility for the error.

Personally, I've never read your work. I have no reason to do so, as it fails to interest me. Yet I do see your persona here on the boards, and that does disturb me somewhat. I suggest you try not to let the comments of a few uneducated puppets rile you.

EDIT: It does concern me to hear, though, that you need consult an English dictionary about the Greek terms "presbyter" and "bishop." One means "old age" and the other "principal office"--and although I did check online to be sure, those definitions were from memory. That sort of thing is damaging to your credibility. Why should I trust your judgment when your knowledge base seems to be lacking so?

MarmINFP

Thanks. Footnotes are always helpful.

I like the subject of the book especially that he focuses so much on the Old Testament. Does anyone know of a more credentialed writer who has written about the Bible in terms of comparative mythology without a specific emphasis on astrotheology?

Iasion

Greetings Acharya S,

Thanks for your reply, and welcome to IIDB :-)


Actually, I pointed out one case where you fairly accurately quoted a tertiary source.
But I did not say you or your work were accurate. I argued essentially the opposite.

You have mis-represented me.


But Taylor wasn't translating directly from Julian's writings. He was translating from the Greek fragments of Cyril, who quoted Julian. Which makes Taylor a tertiary source.


False.
Many authors are received here with respect as you can easily check. But authors who mis-represent their sources receive short shrift.


I dismissed the "ye" and the comma as completely un-important.

I did, however, mention a minor issue about the addition of the word "Christian" to the quote. (This word is not found in the original, and Julian is known specifically for NOT using this word. OTH, this could be explained as merely a choice of the translator to be more wordy.)

Your quote mis-represents the earliest source by adding a word that is not present.
Now, you conspicuously avoid even addressing this issue of the added word "Christian" - why is that?


False.
I pronounced your quote of a tertiary source as reasonably accurate. But I pronounced your work overall as poor scholarship. You have mis-represented my words.


I see you conspicuously avoid addressing your enormous error about Pope Leo X. That is not a trifle - it is a glaring error that no scholar would make.

It shows you did not spend any time checking and researching this quote - you simply accepted it from Walker. 1/2 hour of research would have confirmed this quote was spurious. You simply did not check the facts, and repeated a glaring falsehood.

This error is one of the most obvious and well-known in this field. Almost as bad as claiming the Council of Nicea chose the books of the bible, or voted Christ divine.

Please respond to this issue.


I have published no books. My posts here have been nit-picked thoroughly, and errors are pointed out. Your work will receive the same treatment.


Vitriolic? Surely you jest.


You weren't open to the issue of your glaring error about Pope Leo X - will you address this error here please ?

You weren't open to the issue of relying heavily on un-reliable 19th C. writers - will you address that issue here please ?

I plan to bring up more of your errors - I look forward to hearing your response.


Once again, you are mis-representing my words. I dismissed the "ye" and comma as irrelevent.

But I then addressed other issues as relevent :
* the addition of the word "Christian" (a minor issue)
* the glaring error of Pope Leo X "quote" (a huge issue)
* your failure to accurately give source book/section/chapter
* your reliance on un-reliable 19th C. writers
* few cites to modern mainstream writers.

You conspicuously FAILED to address these relevent issues. You simply focussed on minor issues I had already dismissed as un-important, as if they formed the core of my argument.


The Pope Leo X error is huge. It's one of the biggest mistakes you can make in this area. Will you be addressing this error and fixing your web-site?

I did not address your character, and certainly did not assassinate it. I judged you a "poor scholar" based on my analysis of your work, and I provided examples of your errors here. You ignored the bulk of my arguments.

Your attitude and behaviour here is the antithesis of good scholarship.


Indeed.
What makes you a poor scholar is :
* un-critical use of secondary and tertiary sources
* failure to check your claims
* use of out-dated works
* lack of attention to detail


Do you think that those of us who argue with you,
"believe in an invisible Jewish man floating omnipresently about in the sky who resides inside your head and can read your every thought " ?

I believe no such thing.
In fact, I support the JM theory.


Such as your serious factual error about Pope Leo X ?


Fantastic.
Let us know when you have removed your glaring error about Pope Leo X from your web-site.


What nonsense. No serious scholar would write this.
Sources must be checked. Scholars know that, scholars do that.

You don't.
You accept anything your read, IF it supports your theory.
But you don't actually CHECK to see if your sources are correct !
Then you get caught in glaring errors such as Pope Leo X, and refuse to even admit it.

Tell us Acharya S -
Do you still stand by your claim that Pope Leo X made that statement about the "fable of Christ" ?


Iasion

Casper

One issue I have with connecting the observation of atsronomical cycles with early histories is that those early histories may be "imagined" based on extrapolation of those cycles into the past.

Case in point is Mayan astrology/astronomy, which can be seen to evolve over time, but was used by the Mayans to extrapolate a history far earlier than archeology supports.

It isn't exactly a sticking point, just a precaution.

MarmINFP

I guess we simply disagree on definitions. The Sun is included in all ancient astrologies and is used as a symbol throughout all ancient religions. Hence, sun worship is one aspect of astrotheology. In fact, the sun is the most central feature of astrotheology.

Sure. I'll try to figure out what some examples might be. However, it seems no one in this thread is arguing against the theory that astrotheology and sun worship can be found in Jewish writing because its accepted that Judaism has elements borrowed from many cultures including ones that had a strong astrological bent. On the other hand, many here are against the idea of Christianity being based on these same elements from Judaism all the while claiming Christianity entirely came from Judaism. Or is it acceptable that Christianity is(at least partially) astrotheological as long as we deny the influence of the astrotheological elements of the culture that Christianity arose in?

The arguments keeps switching around. I can't keep track of what the actual criticisms are. The only clear criticism so far seems to be about Tertullian and therefore a criticism about validity of any of Acharya's evidence.

jjramsey

The paragraphs are referring to the same event. Zeus Meilichios is Zeus in the form of a snake. From Encyclopedia Mythica's entry on Dionysus:

MarmINFP

Could you clarify? I'm not sure I quite understand. Even if "imagined" by the ancients, isn't that what mythology is about? In what way should we be any more cautious about this than any other aspect of mythology? Even without astrotheology, weren't most ancient histories largely imagined?

gstafleu

You should try Vienna too one day:

This is from the side of the Stephansdom!

Gerard Stafleu