Pagan Survivals

[Carla O'Harris]

Hi Raven,

I thought it might be interesting to point out that Loka Táttur was a ballad collected in the 1700's in the Faroe Islands. In this poem are mentioned Odin, Honer, and Loki. This song amongst others of decidedly heathen content were sung amongst the folk. This was seven hundred years after conversion.

This is yet another example to prove that those who say there couldn't be pagan survivals are on crack, period. They need to go into rehab.

[Eran]

You know, one other thing -

I've often heard people and commentators refer to "Beowulf" as having been heavily Christianized. In point of fact, there is not a single reference to any New Testament topic, detail, or theme anywhere in the poem. There are a few things which can be interpretated as relating to the Old Testament - but they could as easily refer to Pagan themes, and only appear to be Biblical because of the most common viewpoints and translations.

For example, every reference to deity is normally translated into modern English as "God", and is assumed to refer to the Christian god. As a sample, in the first few lines, there is a reference to the "god of life". The Old English term actually present is "lif-frea" - an allusion to Frey or Freya. But it is normally presented as referring to the god of the Bible.

Another example is a reference early on to the brood of Nordic monsters as being "decendents of Cain". Though this could be seen as an Old (not New) Testament reference, there is in fact no Biblical justification for seeing Cain as an ancestor of monsters. More likely, this was originally a reference to Loki, and the name was merely switched. In other words, it is possible for Beowulf to have been lightly (not "heavily") Christianized - and clumsily at that.

Further, there are several references throughout Beowulf - and even some direct quotes - to the Rune Poems, which have not a whiff of Christianization in them at all, and actually are clearly and heavily Pagan.

A great part of why people can insist there were no Pagan survivals is that the survivals which do exist are usually misrepresented, misinterpreted, and mistranslated.

[David19]

I don't know much about 'pagan' survivals in Europe, but Africans practiced their native religions for ages (and still do, and in fact, their religions are influencing Christianity, at least in Africa).

That might not have much to do with what you're talking about, but i'd thought i'd put it here.

[MacMorrighan]

You know, one other thing -

I've often heard people and commentators refer to "Beowulf" as having been heavily Christianized. In point of fact, there is not a single reference to any New Testament topic, detail, or theme anywhere in the poem. There are a few things which can be interpretated as relating to the Old Testament - but they could as easily refer to Pagan themes, and only appear to be Biblical because of the most common viewpoints and translations.

For example, every reference to deity is normally translated into modern English as "God", and is assumed to refer to the Christian god. As a sample, in the first few lines, there is a reference to the "god of life". The Only English term actually present is "lif-frea" - an allusion to Frey or Freya. But it is normally presented as referring to the god of the Bible.

Fascinating! Although, I can see both sides of the fence on this issue. If Christianity was the common religion of the region in which Beowulf was written, it could be Christian, as Frey simply means "Lord" whereas Freyja means "Lady". However, if Christianity wasn't the religion the "the day" it almost certainly vies for a survival of "Paganism"-- although modern scholars have been notoriously shy (and this is being mild!) concerning how "survival" can, or should, be defined!

Although, I agree, modern scholars are in severe need of "rehab" for a variety of reasons, especially when they are minimalistic and tend to throw their "academic weight around" to get their minimalistic way.

Are there translations that have this side-by-side translation in any manner, for a more fair bit of discernment?


Another example is a reference early on to the brood of Nordic monsters as being "decendents of Cain". Though this could be seen as an Old (not New) Testament reference, there is in fact no Biblical justification for seeing Cain as an ancestor of monsters. More likely, this was originally a reference to Loki, and the name was merely switched. In other words, it is possible for Beowulf to have been lightly (not "heavily" Christianized - and clumsily at that.

Hmmm...with all due respect, I'm still a bit of a fence sitter, here. Although there is no evidence for him to have been an ancestor of any monster, he certainlky wasn;t not envisaged in the early Christian imagination of pleasant looking, and many have been seen as "monstrous" in appearance.

Further, I'm curious as to yourpersonal linking of Loki to this OT name.


Further, there are several references throughout Beowulf - and even some direct quotes - to the Rune Poems, which have not a whiff of Christianization in them at all, and actually are clearly and heavily Pagan.

You know, I believe I may recall having read in one of Hutton's books (I forget which one) in which he stated that there's no reason to believe that the Norse sagas actually record any authentic paganism, because they were recorded during a Christian period-- however, I was always been told that Christianity came rather late to this part of the world, making any literary survival more than likely to some extent!


A great part of why people can insist there were no Pagan survivals is that the survivals which do exist are usually misrepresented, misinterpreted, and mistranslated.

I'll go along with this, to some extent.

Take care,
Wade

[Carla O'Harris]

Can you secure the reference where Hutton allegedly said that? Because if he said that, he is a fool. Anyone who could make such a statement would have to be an absolute fool! The debate is NOT over whether such things hold any traces of paganism. That isn't even part of the debate. The ONLY question is how much these sources may have been affected by Christianity, and to a large degree, that question was settled in the debates between Sophius Bugge and Viktor Rydberg, with Bugge arguing for large Christian influence, and Rydberg proving the strong Indo-European parallels.

As far as Cain in Beowulf, there are a couple of directions one can go with the Beowulf Cain, as I've indicated on some previous posts. The Loki interpretation is a new and interesting one, as he was indeed the father of monsters. But since Cain was the twin-brother of Abel, whom he killed, it would also be possible to link him to Hodur, who killed his twin-brother Balder (with Loki's help, of course).

For this interpretation, see http://faculty.uca.edu/~jona/second/beonotes.htm#cain


From the Old English Poem Maxims I, lines 58-70 (ed. and trans. T. A. Shippey):

Wearð fæhþo fyra cunne, siþþan furþum swealg
eorðe Abeles blode. Næs þæt andæge nið,
of þam wrohtdropan wide gesprungon
micel mon ældum, monegum þeodum
bealoblonden niþ. Slog his broðor swæsne
Cain, þone cwealm serede. Cuþe wæs wide siþþan
þæt ece nið ældum scod. Swa aþolware
drugon wæpna gewin widne geond eorþan,
ahogodan ond ahyrdon heoro sliþendne.
Gearo sceal guðbord, gar on sceafte,
ecg on sweorde ond ord spere,
hyge heardum men. Helm sceal cenum,
ond a þæs heanan hyge hord unginnost.

[Translation: A state of violence came into being for the race of men, from the moment when the earth swallowed the blood of Abel. That was no one-day disturbance; from the blood-drops of that crime there sprang far and wide great wickedness from men, inextricable hatred and evil for many peoples. It was Cain who killed his own brother and plotted the murder. It was known everywhere after that that an eternal hatred was afflicting men. So the inhabitants of earth endured the clash of weapons through the world, inventing and tempering wounding swords.

The war-shield must be ready, the shaft must have a spear, the sword an edge and the spear a point, the unyielding man must have spirit. The brave man must have a helmet, the man of poor spirit will always have least treasure.]




This isn't primarily about Cain but about Balder, because after Balder's fall the world does fall severely in quality.


But more importantly, Cain is the clan-father of a trio in the bible who are the original Harpist, Herder, and Smith, which just happens to match the three great elves of the Ivaldi clan, Slagfinn, Egil, and Weland. This could place Cain in the same place as Ivaldi.

Rydberg says, here, (http://www.northvegr.org/lore/rydberg/104.php)


Grendel is the son of the troll-woman living in the marsh, just as Hati is Angurboda's. The author identifies Grendel with Cain banished from the sight of his Creator, and makes giants, thurses, and "elves" the progeny of the banished one. Grendel's mother is a "she-wolf of the deep" and a mermaid (merewif). Angurboda is the mother of the wolf progeny in the Ironwood and "drives the ships into Ægir's jaws".

In any case, we're seeing significant signs of syncretism, regardless of which way we go.

The life-Frea (life-Freyr) is a very solid interpretation. There is no way that one can seriously argue that "Frey" would just be heard as "Lord". It would mean that, but much, much more. It would be surrounded by centuries and centuries of connotations that could not be dispelled or diminished, and the use of that word would have been deliberate to transfer those connotations to a Christian context, but that it was an invocation of the pagan god Freyr is hardly to be disputed.

[Eran]

Cain as Ivaldi or Hodur - interesting. I hadn't considered either of those. Very astute. As you say, the point is syncretism. The early Christians certainly did a lot of that, and any or all of these possibilities are reasonable, the main thrust being to find a way to substitute a biblical reference within a Pagan story while changing as little as possible - and then pretending the totality is a Christian text. The end result of all that is, the story doesn't actually change - though to modern scholars it now looks like a "Christianized" tale rather than a Pagan one with a very minor Christian intrusion.

I've noticed this odd effect. A basically Pagan thing with a tiny insert of Christianity is seen as being primarily Christian with a thin recall of not-really-remembered Pagan symbols. Oddly enough, it doesn't seem to matter how much Paganism is there - one or two hints at biblical stuff makes an entire warehouse into a Christian repository. Imagine the reverse - suppose we were to take anything with even the barest whiff of Paganism and insist it was actually a Pagan thing with some barely-recognizable Christian frosting. The bias of modern scholarship is unmistakable. And this is the reason Pagan survivals are not more readily acknowledged.

[MacMorrighan]

Can you secure the reference where Hutton allegedly said that? Because if he said that, he is a fool. Anyone who could make such a statement would have to be an absolute fool! The debate is NOT over whether such things hold any traces of paganism. That isn't even part of the debate. The ONLY question is how much these sources may have been affected by Christianity, and to a large degree, that question was settled in the debates between Sophius Bugge and Viktor Rydberg, with Bugge arguing for large Christian influence, and Rydberg proving the strong Indo-European parallels.

Unfortunately, I am unsure of the reference, or whether or not is actually was Hutton (hence my quantification)-- though the most likely suspect would, of course, be his Pagan Religions.

Although, speaking of Indo-European influences, Hutton, in Pagan Religions, seems relatively silent about them, and is more keen to chalk similarities up to Greek originals [mythology, etc.] and Chistianity! I was really surprised at this!

Hmmm...after an uber-quick scan atr my copy of his book, the best candidate appears to be pgs. 295-97; though he never appears outright to tackle the sagas in these pages, while he does go after "Norse literature". He actually, here, calls the myth of Odinn hanging upon a tree, sacrificing himself to himself, as a Christian influence, rather than a pagan one, for example.


As far as Cain in Beowulf, there are a couple of directions one can go with the Beowulf Cain, as I've indicated on some previous posts. The Loki interpretation is a new and interesting one, as he was indeed the father of monsters. But since Cain was the twin-brother of Abel, whom he killed, it would also be possible to link him to Hodur, who killed his twin-brother Balder (with Loki's help, of course).

Hmmm...now I am far more satisfied with that! Thank you.


For this interpretation, see http://faculty.uca.edu/~jona/second/beonotes.htm#cain

Yeah! And a juicy collegiate link, too! Even betetr!


The life-Frea (life-Freyr) is a very solid interpretation. There is no way that one can seriously argue that "Frey" would just be heard as "Lord". It would mean that, but much, much more. It would be surrounded by centuries and centuries of connotations that could not be dispelled or diminished, and the use of that word would have been deliberate to transfer those connotations to a Christian context, but that it was an invocation of the pagan god Freyr is hardly to be disputed.

Hmmm...I imagine that Hutton would rather voriciously put forth such a reductonist interpretation, as he is more satisfied with in his previous books-- labling it all, of course, as so-called "academic rigour". Ugh... But, if you can supply some scholars in agreement with ya', please do! It's something great to add to my personal Library!

But, before I forget, and I've said it before (though it needs repeating) that scholars simply haven't defined precisely what they mean by "survival" when they use that term-- they simply take it for granted that there was, and could be, no "survival"; so they think it necessary for them to define that which they dismiss as a possibility (at least this is my impression).

[MacMorrighan]

Cain as Ivaldi or Hodur - interesting. I hadn't considered either of those. Very astute. As you say, the point is syncretism. The early Christians certainly did a lot of that, and any or all of these possibilities are reasonable, the main thrust being to find a way to substitute a biblical reference within a Pagan story while changing as little as possible - and then pretending the totality is a Christian text. The end result of all that is, the story doesn't actually change - though to modern scholars it now looks like a "Christianized" tale rather than a Pagan one with a very minor Christian intrusion.

I've noticed this odd effect. A basically Pagan thing with a tiny insert of Christianity is seen as being primarily Christian with a thin recall of not-really-remembered Pagan symbols. Oddly enough, it doesn't seem to matter how much Paganism is there - one or two hints at biblical stuff makes an entire warehouse into a Christian repository. Imagine the reverse - suppose we were to take anything with even the barest whiff of Paganism and insist it was actually a Pagan thing with some barely-recognizable Christian frosting. The bias of modern scholarship is unmistakable. And this is the reason Pagan survivals are not more readily acknowledged.

Very well put, Eran! Indeed, one thing I've always wished academia would do is own up to thier own biases!!! All too often this gets passed easily under the banner of disinterested objectivity, and worse, as so-calld "academic rigour". Ugh...

[Carla O'Harris]

Although, speaking of Indo-European influences, Hutton, in Pagan Religions, seems relatively silent about them, and is more keen to chalk similarities up to Greek originals [mythology, etc.] and Chistianity! I was really surprised at this!



It's consistent with his illogical dismissal of the Jesus Myth Thesis, which he tries to portray as some weird ideosyncrasy of Frazer, when in fact it was a general scholastic trend that has survived to this day. I have several great texts that have stronger arguments in that direction than almost anything else. It's very difficult to seriously understand the classics of Antiquity and not see the parallels ; for example, it's obvious to anyone who has read the Bakkhai that a lot of Gospel themes are based upon Dionysus' myths.

For obvious reasons Christians have not wanted this to come to general awareness. There has therefore been a religiously-biased backlash against this information for the last 70 to 90 years by religious scholars, and it is primarily upon this foundation that Hutton can think he has any basis for saying what he says without being laughed out of operation.

But this is a case of Catholic stacking the deck. That's not paranoia. That's fact.

Someone ought to inform Hutton that Bugge lost the debate.

[MacMorrighan]

It's consistent with his illogical dismissal of the Jesus Myth Thesis, which he tries to portray as some weird ideosyncrasy of Frazer, when in fact it was a general scholastic trend that has survived to this day. I have several great texts that have stronger arguments in that direction than almost anything else. It's very difficult to seriously understand the classics of Antiquity and not see the parallels ; for example, it's obvious to anyone who has read the Bakkhai that a lot of Gospel themes are based upon Dionysus' myths.

For obvious reasons Christians have not wanted this to come to general awareness. There has therefore been a religiously-biased backlash against this information for the last 70 to 90 years by religious scholars, and it is primarily upon this foundation that Hutton can think he has any basis for saying what he says without being laughed out of operation.

But this is a case of Catholic stacking the deck. That's not paranoia. That's fact.

Someone ought to inform Hutton that Bugge lost the debate.

Okay, I dion't have a photographic memory of Hutton's material (as SOME Pagan seem to), so...you gotta' dish da' dirt, gitl, and expound about all of this (I don't feel like wading through his boks at the moment, it's too late at night!). Also, tell me more about the Bakkhai, the other books you'd said you have, what are the reasons why Hutton hasn't been laughed out of academe, yet (did I mention how late it is?)?

[Carla O'Harris]

Ronald Hutton, The Triumph of the Moon : A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999, pp. 114 - 117 :




The case of Frazer is more complex. On the one hand, there is no doubt that during his undergraduate years he became a confirmed atheist or agnostic, and that one of the purposes of The Golden Bough was to discredit Christianity.

Oh, really? Atheist/agnostic writers apparently have bias, while other writers do not. How Hutton reads Golden Bough as discrediting Christianity is beyond me. There's many things one can read in there, but a discrediting of Christianity? This is paranoia.


The most important argument of the whole work was that ancient peoples had believed in a dying and reviving god ... Frazer's implication was that the figure of Christ had been an outgrowth from this body of (to him erroneous and unnecessary) belief, and he may well have intended it to be the more effective in that it was never made blatantly.

Hutton is capable of reading Frazer's mind, apparently.

Note that he fails to give us the other authors in this school, and to mention that it has serious adherents to this day. In this way, he makes it sound like this is Frazer's pet theory and ideosyncratic, which is far from the case.



...the 1900s saw the high point of his covert sniping at Christianity...

People call this scholarship? An important scholar like Frazer, whose work exists in the context of a much larger Mythic Jesus school, is portrayed as "sniping at Christianity"? Gosh, I thought he was engaged in important historical criticism.


The effect was not so much to demolish the claims of Christianity as to dilute and weaken them by setting them in a more general context of ancient religion.

Note the subtlety of Hutton's slander and innuendo. He himself is far too timid to come out and actually slam the authors he reviews, but will make statements with clear direction and innuendo intended to influence the reader, but whose subtlety he can hide behind if called on it.

Again, Frazer is portrayed as somehow setting out to "dilute and weaken" Christianity. It is very clear he was setting the claims of Christianity in the context of ancient religion. That would be an accurate statement, and then he should have followed it up with a presentation of other authors of the Mythic Jesus school, such as Robert M. Price, Earl Doherty, Joseph McCabe, Arthur Drews, G.A. Wells, and Freke and Gandy, amongst many others.

He then claims that there was an
emotional purpose which had driven Frazer.

This is ridiculous, but characteristic of Hutton. He engages in bad psychology to explain the motivations of an author, always with the implication that we must invoke the psychological or emotional to explain how the author in question could make such assertions. It has an alienating and marginalizing effect.

The Golden Bough consists of over a dozen volumes of erudite, footnoted, brilliant scholarship, and much of it continues to have validity to the present day. To present this work as if it were the outcome of a biased, polemical mind driven by emotion and the desire to "snipe" at Christianity is completely unfair to the importance of the work.

[MacMorrighan]

Oh, really? Atheist/agnostic writers apparently have bias, while other writers do not. How Hutton reads Golden Bough as discrediting Christianity is beyond me. There's many things one can read in there, but a discrediting of Christianity? This is paranoia.

"Paranoia"? How so, exactly?


Hutton is capable of reading Frazer's mind, apparently.

Just another example of him putting forth his opinion as fact, I would gather.

However, he seems to descretic the Dying-and-Rising God myth for no other reason that Frazer advancing it, and considering the matter settled (in that there were no D/R Gods). However, this is an incorrect assumption (likely based in J. Z. Smith's rticle, which, despite having read far for recent, and academic, material, continue to buy into his opinion, as though it were fact, similar to Hutton!). One should, then, read the book: The Riddle of Resurrection--Dying and Rising Gods in the Ancient Near East. The author, a scholar beyond compare, states uncatagorically (from all the academic reviews I've read-- I've not been able to acquire a copy, yet) that there were, in fact, Dyind-and-Rising Gods! A great this site for some great information on the topic is found here: The Pagan Origins of Christian Myth (http://www.tektoonics.com/parody/pocemon/scholarship_dying_and_rising_gods.html)! Indeed, it proves how shoddy Smith's initial research was-- in the case of Adonis, which came from another website, he writes off any ancient information about Him being a D/R-God because it was first recorded by early Christian fathers, and so states that it's likely a case of Christians trying to Christianize what they were witnessing. However, in an ancient source, written by a man that knew one of these Christian fathers (I'm terrible with names!) that he [the Christian father] was highly educated in Classical paganism, so it would be highly unlikely for it to have been merely a Christian interpretation!

There was an article published in the last Lammas issue of Pan Gaia (I think that was about when I'd bought it) called "The Dillemna of the Dying God" in which she took Smith at his word, acceptingall of his interpretations, and even siting snippets from other myths to back up such a thesis. For example, she would quote the author's of Inanna: Queen of Heaven... only so far as it would support her, it seems. Because, one of the co-authors, a Summerologist, was firm in his belief that Tammuz was, in fact, a Dying-and-Rizing God. (Even Egyptologists ae still certain of the D-R status of Osiris, whichnthey assert was an anual event, contrary with Samith!) And, she even sites The Riddle of Ressurrection, but only when it will support her thesis-- the Prof. who'd written this book is firm that there are, in fact, Dying-and-Rising Gods. In fact, this allows her to claim that "most historians" believe that there never were any Dying-and-Rising Gods. However, it seems as though her thesis was to disprove any God of antiquity from D-R status. But, if not, she should ave been clear about that, for the sake of clarity. She also footnoted Hutton as being in support in his Paga Religions, but I was unable to find anything of the sort in my copy. In fact, she said that the Dying-ad-Rising God(s) was/were an imposition upon the evidence-- we were pouring pagan cointent into a Christian mould, because, in "Western society" Christ was the only mythic figure to die and rise from the grave.

Despite what I know about this subject, the only thing that has since stopped me from writing a letter (though I sincerely fear that the damage has already been done, I am sad to say) is the fact that I am unable to acquire some key texts to site in the composition of a proper counter-argument to have published as a letter. But, again, I fear the damage has been done-- after all, I sincerely believed her, after I had read her article, not knowing that there were some serious poroblems with some of the "authorities" she'd siting, and that one of the most recent, and academic, would have actually disagreed with her main thesis! I'v also, sadly, learned that this article was also published in the Netherland's pagan journal, The Wiccan.


Note that he fails to give us the other authors in this school, and to mention that it has serious adherents to this day. In this way, he makes it sound like this is Frazer's pet theory and ideosyncratic, which is far from the case.

:fpraise: What other scholars are you aware of that seriously adhere to it, today? I'd be fascinated to investigate as many as possible, for further research!!!


People call this scholarship? An important scholar like Frazer, whose work exists in the context of a much larger Mythic Jesus school, is portrayed as "sniping at Christianity"? Gosh, I thought he was engaged in important historical criticism.

And, if you'll look ovber at some reviews of Hutton's books at Amazon.Com you'll see how many folks have, since, started sniping at Frazer, calling his book nothing but "Frazer fantasies" with no basis in reality.


Note the subtlety of Hutton's slander and innuendo. He himself is far too timid to come out and actually slam the authors he reviews, but will make statements with clear direction and innuendo intended to influence the reader, but whose subtlety he can hide behind if called on it.

And, ntice how effective this was, too? But, of course, Hutton can't be blaimed for the sheeple-Pagans out there (note my sarcasm), he claims he had no idea any Pagans would read it, save for scholars!


Again, Frazer is portrayed as somehow setting out to "dilute and weaken" Christianity. It is very clear he was setting the claims of Christianity in the context of ancient religion. That would be an accurate statement, and then he should have followed it up with a presentation of other authors of the Mythic Jesus school, such as Robert M. Price, Earl Doherty, Joseph McCabe, Arthur Drews, G.A. Wells, and Freke and Gandy, amongst many others.

Oh...whatever you do, do NOT mentioned Freke, and other similar authors as his text, such as S. A. (although I am unfamiliar with the others you list), as you wo8ld be torn to shreads as unacademically inconsequential, my friend!


This is ridiculous, but characteristic of Hutton. He engages in bad psychology to explain the motivations of an author, always with the implication that we must invoke the psychological or emotional to explain how the author in question could make such assertions. It has an alienating and marginalizing effect.

That it does!


The Golden Bough consists of over a dozen volumes of erudite, footnoted, brilliant scholarship, and much of it continues to have validity to the present day. To present this work as if it were the outcome of a biased, polemical mind driven by emotion and the desire to "snipe" at Christianity is completely unfair to the importance of the work.

Agreed! Although, I wish the other Vols., were abailable to us, rather than simply two. *sigh*

[Rasenna]

MacMorrighan:
At the risk of sounding totally stupid, I'm not sure after reading your post which side of the issue you fall on.
~R

[Carla O'Harris]

Hi,

Maybe I'm really tired, but did I miss the irony or sarcasm on that page you referred? It seems to argue against dying and rising gods. If this is an ironic spoof on the ridiculous nit-picking with which Christian scholars have tried to deconstruct this category because it interferes with the "uniqueness" of their position, then it is accurate. What am I missing in this article?

[Carla O'Harris]

Oh...whatever you do, do NOT mentioned Freke, and other similar authors as his text, such as S. A. (although I am unfamiliar with the others you list), as you wo8ld be torn to shreads as unacademically inconsequential, my friend!



Thanks for the warning, but I'll continue to cite Freke and Gandy, because actually, their books are accurate and I've checked their footnotes. I have no problem with their accuracy, and I think the problem that people have with them is, a) they're accurate, b) they're great popularizers, c) they interfere with Literalist Christian interpretations.

[MacMorrighan]

Thanks for the warning, but I'll continue to cite Freke and Gandy, because actually, their books are accurate and I've checked their footnotes. I have no problem with their accuracy, and I think the problem that people have with them is, a) they're accurate, b) they're great popularizers, c) they interfere with Literalist Christian interpretations.

Well, I bring it up, even because even Pagans (claiming academic rigour) have disposed Freke, and S.A. [whatever her name is, or were her initials A.S.?].

All my best,
Wade

[Carla O'Harris]

But S.A. and Freke are not in the same class. S.A. should not be dismissed entirely, because she has important things to say, but should be taken with a grain of salt because I have noticed some inaccuracies. But even she says some quite brilliant things, and again, I wouldn't put Freke in the same class.

We mustn't accept the slanders of others to poison the well, nor to transform good sources into bad sources through mere innuendo.

[MacMorrighan]

But S.A. and Freke are not in the same class. S.A. should not be dismissed entirely, because she has important things to say, but should be taken with a grain of salt because I have noticed some inaccuracies. But even she says some quite brilliant things, and again, I wouldn't put Freke in the same class.

We mustn't accept the slanders of others to poison the well, nor to transform good sources into bad sources through mere innuendo.

You make a very good point! However, the well runs so deep, as does the poison, with Freke and Acharya S (I found my copy of her book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold)-- they are lumped in with Silver RavenWolf and her ilk.

Perhaps it might be best (and this is what I do with some sources that aren't always the best) to cite their source material, and other sources, for example, when they are correct about something?

By the way, I saw Freke on TV the other night (if I remember correctly) and he's cute! :devil:

All my best,
Wade