Somehow I didn’t see that Acharya S’ discussion was three pages and that Carrier’s stuff was on the second page.

That said, you misrepresented Carrier as talking about a wholly different set of tablets, when at worst he overstated the sexual content of the panel in question–presuming that Acharya S isn’t pulling a fast one, which isn’t guaranteed either. Offhand, even from Acharya S’ words, it looks like there were two parallel inscriptions describing the same image. Tellingly, she leaves the second of JoeWallack’s complaints about the Luxor inscriptions unanswered. (See #330 in the lonnnnnng thread on Acharya S.) She tries to have it both ways, showing Sir Budge’s words indicate that Thoth appeared to the queen after she’d been impregnated, yet using a quote from Massey to say that Thoth was doing something analogous to the Annunciation in the Gospel of Luke.

BTW, just to be careful, I’ve PMed Richard Carrier about whether Acharya S rebutted him accurately.

For my own edification: What is IIDB?

Internet Infidels Discussion Board!

A term occurring as early as II Chron. xiii. 22, xxiv. 27, though perhaps not in the sense in which it came to be used later, and denoting “exposition,” “exegesis,” especially that of the Scriptures. In contradistinction to literal interpretation, subsequently called “pesha?” (comp. Geiger’s “Wiss. Zeit. Jüd. Theol.” v. 244), the term “midrash” designates an exegesis which, going more deeply than the mere literal sense, attempts to penetrate into the spirit of the Scriptures, to examine the text from all sides, and thereby to derive interpretations which are not immediately obvious.

Speaking of “Jesus being a midrash of Krishna” just doesn’t make any sense.

That’s not a valid reason to call a parallel strong. If the texts in question only weakly resemble one another, the parallel is still weak.

aziz: “This really is crossing the line of intellectual honesty. I know who wrote that quote ‘Amaleq13′ a moderator at IIDB and he is so one-sided and biased against anything by Acharya that it borders hatred.”

Care to cite evidence for this hatred? It shouldn’t be hard to find an IIDB post demonstrating this irrational hatred.

aziz: “Richard Carrier made an egregious error ‘skimming’ Brunner in German and actually cited the wrong tablets.”

I’ve Googled and have yet to find a confirmation of this. Again, care to show me?

I also agree with you about the translation and intellectual honesty too.

Ramsey “Yet when there is a lonnnnng thread on IIDB on her, we have, for example, her misrepresenting tablets at Luxor because she relied on a 19th century secondary source, or treating a quote from a translator introducing his translation of Macrobius as a quote from Macrobius himself. Before you accuse me of missing the forest for the trees, I quote one of the commenters in the thread responding to such an accusation: “we’re trying to determine how many of the trees comprising your forest are actually cardboard cut-outs so that analogy doesn’t really work.” So far, I keep seeing far more cardboard than tree. Sorry, but that’s how it is.”

This really is crossing the line of intellectual honesty. I know who wrote that quote “Amaleq13″ a moderator at IIDB and he is so one-sided and biased against anything by Acharya that it borders hatred. If you (or he) bothered to check or research for yourself what is going on at Luxor you’d find that Acharya has been right all along. Richard Carrier made an egregious error “skimming” Brunner in German and actually cited the wrong tablets. Talk about poor and sloppy scholarship.

Acharya’s translation of Macrobius is correct despite the desperate claims otherwise. Acharya’s new book “Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection” soon to be available will change the world of Egyptology.

http://www.missouristate.edu/relst/53042.htm

http://www.missouristate.edu/relst/matt.htm

http://courses.missouristate.edu/victormatthews/vita.htm