(This post was originally posted HERE
Here's an article by Rook Hawkins addressing Ehrman's book along with his latest attack on Acharya S:
Did Jesus Exist? The Trouble with Certainty in Historical Jesus Scholarship
"First he makes no real distinction between the types of mythicist arguments and instead lumps them all together, creating a ‘guilt by association’ effect that is neither appropriate nor reasonable.12
That claim is misleading as the footnote Rook/Tom provides actually cites the Huffington Post article by Ehrman not his book. Acharya addressed that article here
Leave it to Rook/Tom to gloss over the 'guilt by association
' regarding Ehrman's holocaust denial comparison to mythicists comment in the Huff Po article in order to take a jab at Acharya instead. It just shows how some like Rook/Tom are unnecessarily cannibalistic and will maliciously smear other mythicists in hopes it will raise their own credibility. It doesn't, especially when the criticisms are inaccurate or flat wrong. Rook/Tom has a history of smearing Acharya S
. Rook/Tom's biases are as transparent as glass as he's incapable of acknowledging that Acharya S could be right about anything.
"For example, Carrier’s arguments which are often sound and methodical are lumped in with the claims made by Acharya S whose arguments are usually poorly researched and lack in contextual understanding. So the mistakes of one are stretched across the spectrum, as if Carrier were making the same claims Acharya S does, which is just not true.13"
It's as if Rook/Tom read Ehrman's book as well as Ehrman read Acharya's or worse (he didn't). Ehrman does not do that in his book so, leave it to Rook to be sloppy and inaccurate but, that's fine so long as he's smearing Acharya S - such is the influence of Rook/Tom's hero
, Carrier. Take note that Rook and Carrier are in the same camp with Ehrman as none have actually read her books. So, it's just more intellectual dishonesty from Rook/Tom. It's as if Rook is as jealous of Acharya S as Carrier and is also as desperate for oneupmanship rather than any sort of objectivity or honesty. They don't seem to understand how that ruins their own credibility.
Leave it to Rook/Tom in his footnote 13 to include links to Carrier's trash on the Luxor issue without including Acharya's responses, which do in fact demonstrate that Errier (Carrier) is in error but, Carrier simply doesn't have the integrity to admit that Acharya S was correct and he made sloppy and egregious errors in his criticisms of her work, as per usual. Rook/Tom does the same thing at his blog as he provides whatever trash he can to toss at Acharya S - doesn't matter how inaccurate it is so long as it's maliciously smearing Acharya S and he NEVER provides her responses or ours here at this forum proving those criticisms wrong or inaccurate.
Notice how Rook/Tom is incapable of providing a link to where Carrier, Dr. Price and others quite strongly defend Acharya S against Ehrman's sloppy claim accusing her of making up the statue? No, instead he provides those Luxor links that have nothing to do with Ehrman's book.
So Rook/Tom, like Errier and Errorman, is not a reliable or credible source that can be trusted for information regarding Acharya S. As we've talked about here many times, Rook hasn't even studied Acharya's work, but he dishonestly pretends to be an expert on it. He attacks her whenever he can, and he's just piling on. This crap of attacking the only known woman in this field is a really bad habit - sounds like sexism and misogyny as usual. Rook is also totally "professionally jealous," because, despite all these attacks, she's still one of the best known mythicists. Guys like Rook have little to offer except to puff themselves up by putting down Acharya - it's just puerile, unprofessional and, probably, sexist.
Oh, and according to Ehrman's credentialism, Rookie, who's barely got a high school education and is apparently attending classes at community college - pursuing the very, exact credentials that Acharya already possess - is unworthy of even a passing glance. So, Rook/Tom is beneath Ehrman's notice as he made no mention of Rook/Tom in his book, which gives Rook/Tom one more reason to be jealous of Acharya S once again.
Acharya's responses on Luxor omitted by Rook/Tom:
Parallelophobia, personal attacks and professional jealousy: A response to Richard Carrier's 'That Luxor Thing'Is Jesus's nativity an Egyptian myth?What Egyptologists (and other scholars) say about Egypt's role in Christian origins
"However, in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L)."
Here are just a few articles omitted by Rook/Tom regarding his blog section on Zeitgeist part 1:Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive EvidenceThe New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook Transcript (2010)Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'
To see more criticisms of ZG1 being exposed and debunked, including those cited at Rook/Tom's blog held up by him as reliable, goto our section on Zeitgeist part 1