Peter Kirby

(I know what you're saying, I have "too much time on my hands." But I just got a creative idea, an itch, and had to scratch it.)

An Ode to the Acharya

Reverend with mastery in many a religion;
Masonry, astrology, the entrails of a pigeon;
Antilogy, glottology, sciences forbidden;
Agenda-driven, error-ridden, grand conspiracy unhidden!

After the star 'round which we spin, Solomon's name was part Latin.
But his name did not stop there; "Om" and "On" added some flair.
(Oh, I wonder, and from where? India and Africa, you do aver.)
Of etymologies, you are never done; it also comes from "Suleiman."

Star Trek is cited without mince, as though it counted as evidence:
"Live long and prosper," it is said by Spock, with a sign of Vulcan stock.
Said figure do Jews also draw, to remember God's gift of the Law.
It is Vulcanic, you conclude of Sinai. You will forgive me if I am wry.

Like Peter Pan and his merry band, Osiris reigns in "nefer nefer land."
Druids followed the religion of Buddha; maybe it came on the wings of Garuda.
Augustine 'twas once Manichean, now you've made him into a Mandean.
Jasher's book is assumed genuine; of four fakes, I don't know which version.

The Problem that has vexed many men, you solve with a mere swoop of the pen:
Mark used a Latin Gospel from Marcion, while Luke and Matthew have the Greek recension.
You give Revelation a medieval date, among many claims made without slack of gait.
That some may be true is undeniable, but I choose to study scholars more reliable.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Star Trek is cited without mince, as though it counted as evidence:
"Live long and prosper," it is said by Spock, with a sign of Vulcan stock.
Said figure do Jews also draw, to remember God's gift of the Law.
It is Vulcanic, you conclude of Sinai. You will forgive me if I am wry.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

mightyjoemoon

:notworthy Thanks, Peter, that was hilarious! See? This is why I come here! Between the thoughtful posts of those more informed about linguistics than I, and the priceless sense of humor of others, I am so glad I started this thread.

Overall, when it comes to the Acharya book, I find it very interesting and suspect that there are some nuggets of truth in there that, despite the biased and bullshit presentation and research of the author, accomplishes an important goal. Kind of like Fahrenheit 9/11.

Bede

And what goal might that be? The only thing that Acharya seems to achieve is to further ensure that the Jesus Myth idea looses credibility and becomes more suspect. The Jesus Mysteries does the same thing to a lesser extent. What Jesus Mythers should be doing is trashing these books themselves to ensure they cannot be tarred with the same brush. I think Doherty made an awful mistake by not poleaxing them both when he had the chance.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

mightyjoemoon

To make people reconsider the a priori assumption that they were raised with that Jesus was definitely, without a doubt, a historical figure. You raise good points though.