Toto

If you think that you have been personally insulted, please use the report post button.

But "loyalist" and "defender" are not normally considered insults. It would not be an insult for you to describe others as attacking Acharya, would it?

You would make a better case if you actually read the threads and responded. There have been several posters who have said good things about Acharya. There are others who have read her books and politely pointed out what they consider to be problems. There are some posters here who are a bit more aggressive, but only personal insults are banned - otherwise, this is just part of the culture of debate on the internet. If you see a criticism of her work that is incorrect, you can point this out.

Why can't you post in this environment?

Haven't we gotten beyond this? The quotes that you provided were incompleted documented and not to primary sources. What is your response to that? And why do you keep telling people to read the book, when it is obvious that some people here have read the book and still have problems with it?

Jeffrey Gibson

It is?

Here's the Latin:

Nam quod omnes paene deos, dumtaxat qui sub caelo sunt, ad solem referunt,
non vana superstitio sed ratio divina commendat.

Jeffrey

Toto

It seems that the paraphrase is accurate

and

as I suspected

Dave31

- Agreed but you may have missed the point I was making - if one shows appreciation for Acharya's work here they can expect to be ridiculed. For example, for posting 3 random quotes long prior to the 19 c. to Abe's false assumption that Acharya relies on 19th c. sources - I get ridiculed and name-called a "loyalist". He hasn't ever read her work and nobody has ever said anything to him or the others who ridicule without ever studying the works - so they don't know what they're talking about but they repeat these 19c. fase claims/straw man arguments and nobody holds THEIR feet to the fire for it. Instead, I get called a "loyalist"

- Yes, I'm aware but the overwhelming majority here are folks who have never read her work, never intend to yet, they bash and ridicule at every opportunity with extreme prejudism. Malachi151 is jealous of the attention she gets or something - he seems completely obsessed with Acharya. I wonder what his credentials are? Just look at the other thread. Those same folks are over here now dragging any potential discusstion down ... waiting for anything positive someone might post about Acharya's work ready for an ambush.

I tried to address A.Abe for his repeated straw man that Acharya relies on 19c. sources.

- My response is I gave the page numbers for further reading.

Also regarding the Macrobius quote - it was my own selection of words used in "Suns of God" 67-68. Acharya explains much further, beyond just that - I am *NOT* typing it all up for anybody. Not going to happen, look it up.

Again, my point in sharing these quotes was to show A.Abe that these were not 19C. sources as he repeatedly claims Acharya is reliant upon - a false claim that A.Abe uses as a straw man.

Jeffrey Gibson

AS does not present the material she "quotes" from Macrobius himself as a paraphrase. She presents it as an exact translation of (presumably) the Latin text I gave which she also seems to think that it is something Macrobius himself said and believed.
.
Is this what the Latin text "quoted" actually says?

Jeffrey

Toto

See, Jeffrey - this is why you try the patience of angels, not that I claim to be an angel. You posted a question to your friends on the Lt-Antiq list (helpfully indexed by my friends at Google), and you got your friends to locate the Latin text and tell you if it was a fair summary, and you knew that your colleagues agreed that it was fair, but you just posted a question as if the answer might be in doubt, withholding a lot of useful information.

Amaleq13

That is simply incorrect. There is absolutely nothing inherently insulting about it.

I don't use it because I understand it to specifically refer to one's loyalty to a government during a revolt. The general sense of it, however, is certainly appropriate.

Again, this is certainly not an insult. You do appear to be attempting to defend Acharya S and her theory. :huh:

You are entirely free to identify your interlocutors as "opposers" or even "attackers" if you wish. Neither is an insult and neither is inaccurate.

No person has been ridiculed in this thread to my knowledge. Please report any post you feel does so. What has been criticised is what appears to me to be an example of very poor scholarship. Relying on a paraphrase when the original is readily available is simply poor scholarship. Completely misinterpreting the paraphrase is poor scholarship.

There really is no excuse for it, IMO.

This blatant and incomprehensible error with regard to Tertullian does not suggest to me that I should bother but I am entirely willing to be convinced otherwise by those who already have the book. It seems simple enough to provide the specific citations of the original sources she uses. You don't have to copy the entire book. Titles, chapter, and page numbers is really all you need. If it isn't available online, we have several professional scholars with greater access to the information.

Very simple.

I have stacks of books I've already purchased that are waiting to be read. What I've seen so far from her book suggests I would be wasting my time and money but, as I've already said, I continue to be willing to be convinced otherwise.

Why not? Title, chapter, and page do not require you to do very much at all. It is the least to be expected in this forum where we have several professional scholars participating.

She clearly did not do so with regard to her assertion about Tertullian. She appears to have taken part of a paraphrase in isolation without regard to either the entire paraphrase or the original it purports to summarize.

Acharya S doesn't appear to know that Tertullian denies it. She claims he "ironically admits" it!!!

But that wasn't what she claimed. She claims he "ironically admits the true origins of the Christ story" when that is, by your own admission, entirely untrue because he actually denies it!!!

As I already indicated, I agree that this would be the appropriate focus but, for some reason, she felt compelled to place something far stronger and clearly untrue in his mouth. :huh: Should I just ignore this blatant error?

It is a blatant and, at best, incredibly sloppy error, Dave, that is only magnified given the professional background of the individual making it. One can only hope it is an isolated incident but it is simply disingenuous to suggest it is isn't rather significant.

How does that change the fact that it is an error that one would not expect from a professional scholar?

What "false assumption" have I made? How would reading her book correct the error?

It is my understanding that her book was being directly quoted. Is that not the case?

We aren't limited to the point you are trying to make when there is a clear and incomprehensible error in a quote from her book. I will happily concede that Abe was incorrect in his claim.

You still have this entirely false assertion about Tertullian that appears to result from wholly inadequate research.

Again, I'm willing to hold judgment on the entire book and not throw it out because of one error no matter how grievous but I'm certainly not going to buy it without a great deal more discussion here.

Jeffrey Gibson

Tacitus??

Jeffrey

Acharya S

The quote in question is on page 5 of Percival Vaughan Davies's translation, as stated in the citation I included on p. 68 of my book. I did not paraphrase, nor did I translate it myself. Davies's book is difficult to obtain, and I do not possess a copy myself. Nor is it available on Google books.

Again, that's Macrobius, The Saturnalia, tr. Percival Vaughan Davies, Columbia University Press, NY, 1969.

If everyone here is going to nitpick every sentence in my book, it may take a very long time indeed.

Some day it will be refreshing when we can all go beyond this hostile dissection and tendency towards libelous criticism so that we can appreciate what the ancients were attempting to convey with their observations of the natural world.

(And what, precisely, is a "tenancy" in this regard - you seem to be very quick to jump on incomprehensible remarks so long as they appear to be an attack on me. I have to wonder what exactly is the problem here, as it seems to have little to do with my work.)

Acharya S

From your remarks, I must conclude that you have not actually read any of my books. Practically every major germane conclusion I make is backed up with quotes and citations from others. In my most recent works, I have included the original languages, e.g., Greek and Latin, in some of the most important subjects. These quotations were tracked down with a great deal of difficulty, reflecting the type of diligence I utilize per my classical training as a scholar.

You don't provide one instance of your criticisms, just a general derogation of a body of work composed of millions of words.

The assertion that I have "provided...with no means by which to assess it" is utterly absurd. Few people over the centuries have taken the time and gone to the trouble that I have to verify practically every main contention.

Again, I must wonder what precisely is the agenda here in discussing a book that no one has read? Or, if he - the one person who has purported to have done so - has, he is so biased against me already that his only raison d'etre, it would appear, is defame me at every turn?