Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

[maryhelena]

Self correction doesn't occur where you protect pedophile legacies.

[andrewcriddle]

Because pedophiles should not be cited without noting who they are. Otherwise their legacy is protected and people don't learn about it. This would be like citing Mengele without noting his involvement in the Holocaust.

But also, I'm primarily writing a history of scholarship on mythicism. People are complaining that I mentioned Carrier's harassment situations that led to him being banned from Skepticon. My point is twofold:

1) Heinous criminals of sex abuse, racism, etc should not go without noting this. Otherwise it protects the legacy of abusers. This is *not* saying we can't use their scholarship. We can. But we don't protect their legacies while doing it.
2) To write a proper history of scholarship, we *need* to note these problems, because they may (and often do) affect the reception of work.

I think your point about procedure when writing reception history is basically valid.

However I'm very doubtful about your wider claim.

Mengele I think raises a rather narrow issue. His experimental data was obtained by vile means.

There is a broader issue when one is challenging the reliability of someone's findings. 'Evidence of character in the broad sense is relevant here. Although the major problem is probably zealous committal to some agenda good or bad rather than general moral turpitude.

However,the idea that when citing someone as the source of a persuasive argument one should routinely mention their moral turpitude appears doubtful in principle and likely to have very undesirable effects in practice.

Andrew Criddle

[perseusomega9]

I was basically going to post the same as andrew but with much less eloquence.

[Chrissy Hansen]

I think your point about procedure when writing reception history is basically valid.

However I'm very doubtful about your wider claim.

Mengele I think raises a rather narrow issue. His experimental data was obtained by vile means.

There is a broader issue when one is challenging the reliability of someone's findings. 'Evidence of character in the broad sense is relevant here. Although the major problem is probably zealous committal to some agenda good or bad rather than general moral turpitude.

However,the idea that when citing someone as the source of a persuasive argument one should routinely mention their moral turpitude appears doubtful in principle and likely to have very undesirable effects in practice.

Andrew Criddle

And Richard Pervo's research was obtained while expending himself on child exploitation. And I don't think it is doubtful. And the only undesirable affects I can see is that people would want to distance themselves from that researcher who was a pedophile... in which case I'm all for that. Pervo should not have been allowed back in academia, nor should Joosten when he gets out of prison. They've violated the trust of everyone.

And here is another issue: should we just ignore that 1 in 5 women in academia will have been sexually abused as either adults or children? What kind of ethic are you setting by giving pedophiles and sexual predators protection in their legacy? I can say, as a survivor myself, you are sending the message that we don't matter to academics.

Helmut Koester was a rapist who assaulted his grad students. Should we ignore that he damaged the livelihoods, mental wellbeing, and future of several human beings *within academia*? These people are the antithesis to what academics should do in promoting a system which is fair and equal and not exploitative.

[andrewcriddle]

[

And Richard Pervo's research was obtained while expending himself on child exploitation. And I don't think it is doubtful. And the only undesirable affects I can see is that people would want to distance themselves from that researcher who was a pedophile... in which case I'm all for that. Pervo should not have been allowed back in academia, nor should Joosten when he gets out of prison. They've violated the trust of everyone.

And here is another issue: should we just ignore that 1 in 5 women in academia will have been sexually abused as either adults or children? What kind of ethic are you setting by giving pedophiles and sexual predators protection in their legacy? I can say, as a survivor myself, you are sending the message that we don't matter to academics.

Helmut Koester was a rapist who assaulted his grad students. Should we ignore that he damaged the livelihoods, mental wellbeing, and future of several human beings *within academia*? These people are the antithesis to what academics should do in promoting a system which is fair and equal and not exploitative.

a/ I'm afraid I don't think that the fact that Pervo used the same office computer for doing his academic research and for downloading child porn provides a meaningful parallel to Mengele.

b/ Your statements about the appropriate career implication of moral misconduct may well be correct. I think this is a different issue from good citation practice.

c/ I'm afraid I don't think that good citation practice should normally be concerned with the message that is being sent to victims.

d/ The reason I think that this somewhat distasteful subject raises major issues, is that I regard it as extremely important that we can discuss our ideas with each other without having to establish that we are good people. That we can evaluate ideas on their intrinsic merits whether we like or dislike the people putting forward the ideas.

Andrew Criddle

[Chrissy Hansen]

a/ I'm not sure it makes a difference. Horrible people deserve to be held accountable for being horrible people.

b/ One's academic career is linked inexorably with citations, because how much they are cited determines their career's impact, as well as *how* they are cited.

c/ Maybe "good" citation practice needs an update then, as more and more scholars have been arguing especially in light of Joosten.

d/ I mean, I don't think we have to establish that we are good people. If aren't involved in some public case of sexual offense, murder, etc., I don't think it matters. No one needs to justify if they are a good person. And separating the ideas from the person is, imo, a psychological impossibility. In the case of Joosten, he literally used language from the Song of Solomon to talk about his pedophilia. The crime was completely linked with his study of the Bible. We could also talk about how Richard Carrier has an admitted fetishes and... well let's just say the infamous "cosmic sperm bank" takes on new meaning in that light. Pretending that the person and the ideas can be separate has been and is consistently used to protect the legacies of horrific individuals, which should not ever be done.

[andrewcriddle]

a/ I'm not sure it makes a difference. Horrible people deserve to be held accountable for being horrible people.

b/ One's academic career is linked inexorably with citations, because how much they are cited determines their career's impact, as well as *how* they are cited.

c/ Maybe "good" citation practice needs an update then, as more and more scholars have been arguing especially in light of Joosten.

d/ I mean, I don't think we have to establish that we are good people. If aren't involved in some public case of sexual offense, murder, etc., I don't think it matters. No one needs to justify if they are a good person. And separating the ideas from the person is, imo, a psychological impossibility. In the case of Joosten, he literally used language from the Song of Solomon to talk about his pedophilia. The crime was completely linked with his study of the Bible. We could also talk about how Richard Carrier has an admitted fetishes and... well let's just say the infamous "cosmic sperm bank" takes on new meaning in that light. Pretending that the person and the ideas can be separate has been and is consistently used to protect the legacies of horrific individuals, which should not ever be done.

On point b/ it seems obvious that one can if one wishes have a provision for sacking someone for misconduct without this having anything to do with citation practice.

On point d/ if you are doing some form of intellectual biography of a scholar then these concerns are certainly relevant. It is more doubtful that these concerns are appropriate when analysing the ideas themselves. The cosmic sperm bank is a weird idea irrespective of Carrier's motives in upholding it.

Andrew Criddle

[Chrissy Hansen]

b/ sacking does little for destroying the respectability of a scholar or making sure their career is destroyed for their horrible actions (as it should be). Again, case in point, Pervo. Revising citation methods to always caveat using these scholars ensures that their legacies are permanently stained the way they should be. There is a reason why people were by and large unaware of what Pervo did (because SBL covered it up, no one talked about it, and no citations caveated his actions, meaning that a huge number of scholars had no they had befriended a pedophile).

Just think about this practically... statistically most people on this website probably know a sex abuser. Sex abuse becomes worse in circles with more hierarchies... i.e. academia. Now do you think scholars shouldn't go out of their way to make sure these people aren't welcome?

d/ There is no analyzing ideas without the person. Ideas are informed by the person, their experiences, and their biases. Always. And yeah it is a weird idea, but it still made it into a peer reviewed book and is an "idea" in his book, which has a perfect parallel in Carrier's fetishistic motivations, by his own admission in his emails.

[Ken Olson]

Chris Hansen wrote:

I don't think it is necessary to burn their books. But if they get cited, they get cited ethically: with full awareness and statements of what they did.

In my work on the Testimonium Flavianum, I want to cite Richard Pervo on Gamaliel's speech in Acts. Against Serge Bardet, who takes the speech as supporting the authenticity of the Testimonium because it shows that first century Jews were concerned about the growth of Christianity after Jesus, Pervo takes the speech to be a Lukan creation and that Luke intends it to show that the growth of Christianity in the face of adversity is proof of its divine origin. I think Pervo is correct (and that this is a theme Eusebius picks up from Luke and uses in several of his works and is present in the Testimonium) and I don't see how Pervo's pedophilia or criminal conviction affects that particular issue. If you do, please explain how.

I cited Pervo like this:

Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009) 148.

What would I need to add to my citation for it to qualify as an ethical citation, with full awareness of what Pervo did, in your view?

Also, I will make sure to take note that you white knight pedophile books. I'm glad to see your care about your fellow humans ends for the sake of some person's book.

It sounds like you are compiling a list of undesirables.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I admit that I once served on an SBL panel with Richard Pervo, and that this was after I had been informed of his conviction at the e-listers meeting at an earlier SBL.

https://www.sbl-site.org/meetings/Congr ... tingId=23

We all shook hands and introduced ourselves and neither I nor anyone else there mentioned his conviction. (He had, of course, already lost his job at that point). Does this make me an enabler? Am I so tainted that people citing me have to mention this? How about Charles Hedrick, who was on the same panel? Is his work on Secret Mark tainted by his presence on the panel?

I had not heard that about Helmut Koester. He once made an unfavorable comment after hearing my paper on Luke's dependence on Matthew in the double tradition at a panel on Q at another SBL. Should I now quote him as “known rapist Helmut Koester” when I refer to it?

On a related topic, pedophilia is psychological condition and, if you care about your fellow humans, you should distinguish between it and possession of child pornography, which is the crime of which I believe Pervo and Joosten were guilty. Many people with pedophilia never act on their desires and you ought to distinguish between the condition and criminal activity.

Best,

Ken

[Joseph D. L.]

What it means to die and rise is distinct in various societies. Case in point, Egyptian "resurrection" does not happen physically.

https://mythodoxy.wordpress.com/2014/12 ... of-osiris/

It appears that both Spiegel and Fairman consider Unas’ burial ritual as a resurrection ritual. Spiegel often speaks of the “resurrection of the soul,” but on closer inspection it becomes evident that by that term he means the “coming-forth of the soul” from the grave. It seems to us that he should have used the latter term throughout his description and avoided the expression “resurrection of the soul.” First of all, the “soul” or, more correctly, the Ba never died, and without death there can be no resurrection. But there is another problem here. The Pyramid Texts state emphatically that the king never died: “(Unas) did not die, he departed alive.” Unas certainly died, but to the Egyptian mythopoeic mind his death was but a transition to a new life: “Thou sleepest, thou awakest; thou diest, thou livest.” This is the idea that lies behind the statement: “Atum, that son of yours is this here, Osiris … he lives and this Unas lives; he did not die, and this Unas did not die.” Spiegel understands these words as being addressed to the Ba of the king, but the Ba is not mentioned at all. The comparison is between the dead king and Osiris. Just as Osiris was killed and rose to new life, so the dead king, identified with Osiris, through the recitation of the spell is made alive again. In other words, what we have here is the bodily resurrection of the dead king and not the resurrection of his Ba, which never died. To be sure, the body was in the grave, but it did not remain there inert or inanimate; special spells were recited to call it back to life: “His limbs which were in the secret place when he joined those who are in Nun are (now) united; he spoke his last words in Heliopolis. Unas comes forth on this day in the real form of a living Akh in order that he may break up the fight and punish the quarrel. Unas comes forth as a guardian of Maat; he brings her, as she is in his possession.” The same idea of bodily resurrection lies behind another statement: “Thy body is the body of this Unas, thy flesh is the flesh of this Unas, thy bones are the bones of this Unas; thou goest and this Unas goes, thus Unas goes and thou goest.” This passage refers to Osiris, with whom the pharaoh is identified, as Sethe observed. Through the recitation of these spells and the effectiveness of the ritual, Unas becomes alive in his true physical corporeality. Only as such can he be transformed into a Ba or an Akh, traverse the earth and the heaven, find his place among the stars, and be in command of other glorified dead (Akhs).

A Study of the Ba Concept in Ancient Egyptian Texts ~ Dr. Louis V. Žabkar

These inscriptions are called the ‘Pyramid Texts.’ They are spells that deal primarily with three stages in a king’s resurrection: (1) his awakening in the pyramid; (2) his ascending through the sky to the netherworld; and (3) his admittance into the company of the gods.

Ancient Egyptian Magic ~ Dr. Bob Brier

Osiris awakes, the languid god wakes up, the god stands up, the god has power in his body.

Pyramid Texts, Utterance 690

O Osiris the King, stand up! Horus has caused you to stand up … You shall come to your former condition, for the gods have knit together your face for you.

Pyramid Texts, Utterance 369

Ascend with Isis, rise with the Day-bark. May you have power in your body!

Pyramid Texts, Utterance 222

Horus will rub your flesh, O King; Thoth will rub your feet. O Shu, raise up the King; O Nut, give your hand to the King.

Pyramid Texts, Utterance 323

In the Coffin Texts, there are portions of a liturgy whose aim was to enable the ba to separate itself from the corpse and to exit the netherworld unhindered. Spells 94-96 and 488-500 are part of this liturgy. Spell 94 is entitled “Causing the Ba to Depart from the Corpse,” a sentiment that runs counter to the fear, frequently expressed in later texts, that the ba might distance itself from corpse. In this spell, the ba is still in close contact with the body. Osiris has created it out of the discharges of his flesh and the semen of his phallus; it is the “ba in its blood.” From his bodily fluids, Osiris creates a ba that is to emerge into the light of day and take sexual pleasure in the world above. This was a role the deceased wished to play. In spell 96, the deceased calls himself “that great ba of Osiris, on whose behalf the gods have ordained that he copulate by means of (etc.).” The corresponding divine commandment reads, “Come out and copulate by means of your ba.” This concept shows clearly that the ba belonged to the physical sphere. … The ba belonged to the physical sphere of the deceased, restoring his movement and his ability to take on form. … Here we are clearly in the horizon of the image of death as corporal vulnerability. This much is shown by the list of body parts enumerated in the spell: eyes, knees, jb-heart, ḥ3.tj-heart, ba, corpse, body, throat, and nose. The unity of the person has collapsed, and it must be restored to the deceased. Even the ba belongs to this group of physical aspects and elements; it is one of the personal items that must be returned to the deceased.

Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt ~ Dr. Jan Assman

Geb will open for you your blind eyes, he will straighten for you your bent knees, there will be given to you your heart (ỉb) which you had from your mother, your heart (ḥȝty) which belongs to your body, your soul which was upon earth, your corpsewhich was upon the ground. There will be bread for your body, water for your throat, and sweet air for your nostrils. The owners of tombs will be kindly to you, the owners of coffins will come to you, they will bring to you your members which were far from you, when you are re-established in your original shape.

Coffin Texts, Spell 20 I

Raise yourself [in] your shape, for that is your body.

Coffin Texts, Spell 847 VII

You have your legs; lift up your body, gather your members together, that you may tread out the paces to the tribunal, to the place where the gods are, that they may give you the fluid which issued from you. May you never be inert, having it.

Coffin Texts, Spell 235 III

Osiris was bodily, physically resurrected.