Freethought Nation

Is there any errata for Suns of God available anywhere - done some searching, but my google-fu was either no up to the task, or there is none.

I think I might have a few, so just wondering there is a list of already spotted misprints and such. Especially with regard to the sources there seems to be the occasional mistakes. If there is no list, I could of course provide the ones I have.

There currently is no errata for 'Suns of God' but, you're welcome to post any mistakes here in this thread and we'll consider it or simply link to this thread.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

This bit on page 103:

"Jes Chrishna was the name of the ninth incarnation of Jesnu, or Vishnu, whose animal is the fish, as in the case of Joshua, the son of the fish Nun... Jes is a title of the sun. Jesse was the name of the sun-god of the southern Slavs."

is, per the source-listing from Drews' The Christ Myth, page 197.

In the edition I have (from archive.org, so probably not the same as hers) this bit is definitely missing. Is this because major differences between editions (I doubt it), or is this a typo/misnumbering/whatever?

Arthur Drews book, The Christ Myth doesn't have a pre-view at Google so that makes it a bit more difficult to search online but, I did find it in several other places.

The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus/Part 4/Section 7

The witnesses to the historicity of Jesus

You could ask a local library if they have it and you'll most likely find it.

I'll find more later.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Thank you for your close reading and interest. The quote on p. 103 in my book Suns of God is as follows:


It turns out you are correct that my citation was in error, as it should have been to Drews's book Witness to the Historicity of Jesus, p. 197, rather than to The Christ Myth, both of which books I used for SOG.

However, it should be recalled that in Drews's writings we are dealing with translations from his original German. I was able to find the precise passage in question in Drews's original German edition, the title of which is translated as The Christ Myth:


It appears that the original German book Die Christusmythe was split into two publications when rendered into English.

We should also keep in mind that, in Drews's original German, the names "Jes," "Jesnu" and "Jesse" would be pronounced with an initial y sound, as in the German word for "yes," ja, is pronounced "ya." Hence, a better transliteration here, perhaps, might be "Ies," "Iesnu" and "Iesse." There is much scholarship as concerns various epithets of this type, including IES as a monogram for Dionysus, a solar deity.

In SOG, there are some typos, like this one, and a few inaccuracies, but for the bulk of important contentions, I have followed up the research in this book with much confirming scholarship in my other books, such as Who Was Jesus?, Christ in Egypt and ebooks like Jesus as the Sun throughout History, etc.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

We have another ass-hat bent for a smear campaign against Acharya's 'Suns of God' by another scholar wannabe named, 'Miekko.'

Could use some help posting in there pointing out this guys flaws.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

So, 'Miekko' is now 'Zwaarddijk' at the IIDB

Now I'm wondering if 'Miekko' isn't 'Seirios' in his thread: Errata for Suns of God? but I don't want to assume that is the case.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

This Miekko is particularly pompous.

I just posted the following

Miekko, I've read your critique of Suns of God, and found it extremely thin. You adopt a patronising tone, and fail to respect that Suns of God is arguing a case for the systematic evolution of supernatural myth out of natural observation. I checked a few of your assertions, which you throw off with such condescension as supposedly putting Acharya beneath contempt. What a surprise, your claims turn out to be empty.

["The first error to leap out of the text is that ... Pacific voyages have been estimated to have begun at least 30,000 years ago."] http://arf.berkeley.edu/projects/oal/ba ... slands.htm states "Early Human Settlement of Near Oceania
The oldest known occupation sites are radiocarbon dated to ca. 36,000 years ago (the late Pleistocene), on the large island of New Guinea and in the adjacent Bismarck Archipelago [and] ... would have required open ocean transport, suggesting the presence of some form of watercraft." Now you may say Acharya was talking about Polynesia, but this quote on the settlement of New Britain and Bougainville can reasonably be considered the beginning of the long Pacific voyages.

["there doesn't really exist any reason to posit that Sicily means anything along the lines of "sun". A claim such as the one she's making does require some kind of backing up - reference to an etymological dictionary, a paper on the meanings of names of locations, or anything really along those lines."]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_the_Odyssey states "the Island of the Sun was Sicily... [a view] taken as standard in the 1959 Atlas of the Classical World." Again, this is contestable, but you make it sound like Acharya plucked it from thin air.

When you put out such easily corrected howlers, even though admittedly the detail is contestable, you destroy your credibility.

Your conclusion of hostility to astrotheology is just ignorant. You appear to have opened with prejudicial assumptions, and the case you have constructed to support your first impressions is weak.

We now know that this 'Seirios' person is the same 'Miekko' of the 'somerationalism. blogspot.' He's also 'Zwaarddijk' at the IIDB:


His Arthur Drews question over at the 'Errata for Suns of God?' thread shows up in his blog:


I have merged the two threads together.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Footnote #345 in The Horus-Jesus connection seems to reference the wrong work by Kellner. I have no idea which work is the right one, and would like to know the correct one. Hope it helps if you're compiling errata.

There is no footnote #345 so, what page are you talking about and which footnote? Are you even talking about the correct book?

The source could be here: “Gegen die Valentinianer”

We really appreciate any corrections, however, I've seen your blog and now know that you are on some smear campaign to maliciously attack Acharya and her work with extreme vitriol. We are open to criticism but, it's very difficult to read due to all the endless stream of caustic hatred you spew at your blog. It's not helpful and I hope no respected college or university would reward such behavior - perhaps that's why you hide who you really are and refuse to take responsibility for your actions.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

The version I have of Christ in Egypt has all the footnotes numbered. #345 is indeed Gegen die Valentianer.

Quoting the relevant part:
"Although many people remain unaware of the real meaning behind “Christmas,” one of the better-known correspondences between pre-Christian religion and Christianity has been the celebration of the god’s birth on the 25th of December.[343] Nevertheless, it has been argued that this comparison is erroneous because Jesus Christ was not born on December 25th, an assertion in itself that would come as a surprise to many, since up until just a few years ago only a miniscule percentage of people knew such a fact. Indeed, over the many centuries since the holiday was implemented by Christian authorities, hundreds of millions of people have celebrated Jesus’s birthday on December 25th, or Christmas, so named after Christ. [...] In this regard, a century ago Dr. K.A. Heinrich Kellner, a professor of Catholic Theology at the University of Bonn stated concerning “Christmas, or the feast of our Lord’s birth,” that the “whole Church, and all the sects, agree in observing the 25th December as this date.”[345]" (my bolding)

[345], Gegen die Valentianer does not contain any of the part I have bolded. The only work of Kellner listed in the Bibliography is this one. It does not contain such a quote, hence, this is probably attributed to the wrong work.

"Smear with malicious vitriol"? I point out problems. Since there's so many of them, I can't help but be a bit sarcastic.

However, I think you guys should prove my criticism wrong instead of accusing me of being on a smear-campaign. The only response I've gotten this far from Acharya's supporters misquoted its source - Robert Tulip using proof of settlement of the Solomon Islands (just about 150 miles or so from the Bismarck archipelago) as proof that the Polynesian expansion was way earlier than the scholarly consensus thinks.

Of course, that particular source I use that dates them much later is probably a fundamentalist evangelical, so can't be expected to get non-christian tribal expansions dated right. The first (and only, and undeniable) sign of that is the fact that he expects their expansion to have occured in the time frame that the Bible permits.

Also, I point you to things in need of fixing for the next edition free of charge. That is something, isn't it? Duly note that if you ban me, I can't point these things out to you and will have dozens more things to complain about in my critical review! The reason I joined incognito was really to be able to contribute something to her writing - she does at times point out how much work it is for her to write these books, and how typos and other things can creep in. This would be beneficial for both of us - I wouldn't do ten times more work trying to find out which book it might be from, she would get to know where a small mistake has crept in so she can fix it. I figured that knowledge of me writing a critical blog would hamper this. I guess it will.

Theories should stand up to scrutiny, people. If they don't, why do you keep whining about how mean I am?


Of course I am secretly hoping she's actually fabricated entire quotes, but that's because I am an evil human being, barely distinguishable from Satan himself except through my lack of hoofs.

Actually, my university wouldn't mind at all. I want to stay anonymous for now, this may change if you guys don't go all rabid on me. What I've seen this far, staying anonymous may be a good idea, as I've been accused of faking credentials and all other kinds of nasty shit already.

My comment Miekko refers to is above in this thread. People can read it and see Seirios/Miekko is coming here with an obviously hostile and ignorant agenda, quite stupidly misrepresenting my response and give the impression of inability to read what I actually said or to admit mistakes. This leaves Miekko looking like a goose.

I point out that the long Pacific sea journeys began more than 30,000 years ago with the sea crossings to the Solomon Islands/Bougainville. Miekko is right that Bougainville is not in Polynesia, but it is correct to see these Pacific voyages as the precursors of the later Polynesian voyages, which was my point. Miekko's inability to read continues with the claim I allege this is "proof that the Polynesian expansion was way earlier." I did not allege Polynesia was itself settled 30,000 years ago. Nor did Acharya, who was talking about long Pacific voyages by Polynesians before they got to Polynesia. 150km by sea is a long way, although not as long as the later Polynesian voyages. Indeed, it was the ancestors of the Polynesians who made the long sea voyages in Melanesia 30,000 years ago.


Long Pacific voyages did indeed begin at least 30,000 years ago, if not the final voyages to what is now classed as Polynesia. It is actually not relevant that the long Pacific voyages of the Pleistocene, going well over the horizon, were by Pacific Islanders in Melanesia. Miekko's abusive comment rests on the flimsy and tendentious assertion that a sea journey by primitive people of 150 km is not a long way. Try it yourself in a canoe with no map.

Miekko uses an incorrect source who states "There are signs that the settlement of the islands of the Pacific began as early as 1500 BC" which as I showed is blatantly wrong in ignoring the settlement of the Solomon Islands 30,000 years ago. Miekko wrongly state "Papua New Guina [sic] [settlement did not]... require any considerable open-sea navigation" and "Acharya's estimate [is] one order of magnitude greater than that which scholars seem to agree on." I showed these statements were false, since Bougainville is still part of PNG, but I am still waiting for a retraction and apology. Instead we got a feeble further attempt at misrepresentation.

In fact the Polynesians travelled early from Melanesia, where they had arrived via long sea voyages in the Pleistocene. So great point Miekko, it wasn't the Polynesians who travelled across the sea 30,000 years ago, it was their ancestors.

See an informative discussion at http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/artic ... 00356.html
with the following map:

This map shows a reconstruction of Polynesian expansion from Melanesia, in an article citing a number of leading Pacific archaeologists. Your depiction of this claim as "pseudoscience" is just wrapping your malevolence in a shameful gotcha effort to misrepresent a statement that is factually correct. You should apologise to Acharya and to me and retract your incorrect smear of her scholarship.

But wait, there's more. Miekko's response on my comment about Sicily is very lame. Miekko says the Atlas of the Classical World "says the Island of the Sun was Sicily, but not that Sicily per se "means" the island of the Sun. There is a rather important difference there." This semantic irrelevance is elevated by Miekko into a completely false and insulting blog title "A Case Study of Pseudoscience". More a case study of ignorant slander by Miekko, who has not retracted the false statement "there doesn't really exist any reason to posit that [Sicily] means anything along the lines of "sun"." No reason except that the 1959 Atlas of the Classical World says so. Until people admit blatant errors no one here is likely to start to have any respect for them. Acharya welcomes constructive engagement, but not misrepresentation and stupidity.

Acharya says straight out that

This is phrased in such a way that these thousands of miles through open seas were sailed tens of thousands of years ago. This is misleading, and should at the very least be rephrased. I suggest this alteration:




The original text is misleading no matter how you try turning it.

Your attempt to debunk me by and large *agrees* with me, if you actually read what it says.

Also, care to quote the entire passage from the Atlas of the Classical World, including preferably both the paragraph before and after the relevant bit so I can see it in context? To me, your use does look like a quote-mine, and I want to see it in context before retracting my question. I have not been able to obtain that book in any form. However, it seems the Atlas of the Classical World adopted the claim of one Victor Berard as to how to identify an island in the Odyssey - rather than a stance of semantics. the AotCW isn't an etymological reference work anyway, so ...I call quote-mine on your part here. By the way, Victor Berard's justification for thinking that the island of the Sun was Sicily is apparently part of an euhemerist argument regarding the Odyssey.

Seirios, what is at issue here is that you have accused Acharya of pseudoscience. This is a highly damaging and false allegation on your part.

Your evidence for this slur includes one example (Polynesia) where a sentence might have been worded more clearly, although its underlying intent is perfectly reasonable and easily clarified, and another (Sicily) where you jump to conclusions even though an apparently mainstream reference source supports Acharya's comment.

In my comment above, I state
You can go to the link to see the context, including the mention of the distinguished HH Scullard, as follows:



Now, I see that Acharya is quoting Dupuis and indicating it is his view, which you neglected to mention. You yourself quote Dupuis in your blog epigraph with the rather strange term "creduilty". You can read Dupuis at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/AJF3298 ... w=fulltext

Now, I am sure there is plenty of room for civil debate about Dupuis, but kicking off with the assertion that he is a pseudoscientist is a very destructive method for anyone who is genuinely open to exploring the complexity of ancient culture.