So, while at the local library today I find the "Skeptic" Magazine (vol. 15 no. 1, 2009). Just giving it a quick skim I noticed Callahan made a few changes from his online version for example, prior to Acharya's response article Callahan made this comment:
Quote:
Tim Callahan "I have absolutely no idea where Joseph got the notion that Horus had 12 disciples or that he was ever crucified."
Of course, in
her article refuting Callahan's sloppy research, Acharya showed exactly where "the 12" motif comes from, demonstrating that Callahan's "I have absolutely no idea" was based on his own lack of knowledge about the subject.
So, in the magazine he changed it to:
Quote:
"In the Book of the Amduat (dating from 1650-1550 BCE) Horus is shown enthroned facing the personified 12 hours of the night, which D.M. Murdock, Joseph's main academic source, sees as 12 disciples..."
But...he continues to repeat the rest of the shallow, encyclopedia-surfing info that Acharya also already addressed - as others did in forums. He just ignores it all, as if it doesn't exist - talk about
sloppy.
By all means, be sure to compare the two articles.
In the whole article, Callahan only cites one footnote to an astronomer who also writes for Skeptic mag., and he shares only three references for further reading, citing his own forum and the jrandi forum which maliciously attacks and smears Acharya's work and her personally on a constant basis. And, he cites
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/skept ... geist.html - however, he just couldn't quite spell "Stellar" correctly (a. either on purpose or b. due to his incompetence based on the fact that he didn't have any problem correctly sharing the other two links) so he spelled stellar as steller.
Callahan cites it in the magazine as - (
http://stellerhousepublishing.com/skeptic-zeitgeist.html)
So, if anyone looks up the link they won't easily find it. What a dirty trick by Callahan.
I think everyone should contact Skeptic magazine and request Acharya's response be in the next issue since Callahan mucked up the link citation.
Contact Skeptic Magazine: http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/contact_us.html In my opinion Callahan represents the uninformed, old school theology and comparative religion courses that maintain a monumental obstacle keeping the research of theologians and historians from meeting, based on the facts and evidence. People like Callahan represent why the information in Acharya's work never gets revealed in your typical comparative religion course. I see Callahan's article as the door hitting him in the arse on his way out. College kids with internet access sometimes have more knowledge about comparative religion. I'm surprised he is a writer for "Skeptic" - he does not do a very good job of representing Skeptics. For example, in the article under the subsection 'History vs. Myth,' in the very last sentence Callahan claims that Josephus and Tacitus are "solid evidence" for a historical Jesus, which is ridiculous.
Quote:
Callahan "So the evidence for Jesus as a real, historical personage, though meager, is solid"
Acharya and others such as Doherty, Price and Carrier have addressed the (non)value of these purported "references" many times, but Callahan is completely oblivious to all of that scholarship. Instead, he sounds like he's had his head buried in a bunch of shallow apologist books.
All in all, a totally lame article that adds nothing to the debate, except as to demonstrate this "old school" that is quickly becoming irrelevant because its students ignore the vast wealth of really interesting information.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
