Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

"transfiguration and life as a God in Heaven"

Heaven... cosmologically distinct from Earth. End of story and proof you didn't even bother to read these through. What you said were facts. You just have cherry picked what facts you want.

LMAO:

Every single one of Joseph's references were being pulled straight out of Boswell's book, including the Louis V. Žabkar, Glazov, and others hahaha. Couldn't even be bothered to do your own bloody research. That is just astounding. What absolute laziness. You are just a parrot for Boswell.
Last edited by Chrissy Hansen on Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

I'm not going to respond to anything else in this thread. It is derailed and frankly, I'm tired of debating people who are just being reactionary.

Oh, you can't do an accurate history of mythicism, because I don't like hearing about these bad things.

Oh, you can't say there isn't a dying-rising god category because look at my misread parallelomania that can't consider critical theory.

Oh, look at all these Pyramid Texts which really do nothing to challenge your critical analysis, so I will just act like a child and call it pseudo-philosophy because I don't understand a basic 101 course on religion.

Seriously, I'm not responding on this again. I've got better things to do: like actually publishing real articles and contributing to scholarship.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Also final note:

Jörg Rüpke confirmed to me in email that he holds Jesus to be as well attested as many other ancient figures and considers Josephus and Paul's letters evidence of this.

As such, he is not a mythicist. End of story. But what do ya know, once again I was write in interpreting his work and y'all were just projecting... again.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Chris Hansen wrote: Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:56 pm "transfiguration and life as a God in Heaven"

Heaven... cosmologically distinct from Earth. End of story and proof you didn't even bother to read these through. What you said were facts. You just have cherry picked what facts you want.

LMAO:

Every single one of Joseph's references were being pulled straight out of Boswell's book, including the Louis V. Žabkar, Glazov, and others hahaha. Couldn't even be bothered to do your own bloody research. That is just astounding. What absolute laziness. You are just a parrot for Boswell.
Heaven is an actual, physical location in Egyptian culture, idiot. It is not cosmologically distinct. You're the one twisting what is written.

This proves that you don't actually understand anything that you have read, and I doubt if you've even read anything about this at all.

And I'm using Boswell's website (I don't have his book) because it's convenient for me. Nor did I hide that fact because I have linked to his website twice now, so you're not uncovering some great mystery. I'm not going to find each book (and yeah, I have quit a few of the books Boswell used, though not all of them because they cost too much for to afford) and type out everything just for you. My time is much more valuable than that.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Also, in regards to Chris Hansen's allegations/charges of plagiarism.

That's not how plagiarism is defined and as a student you should know that. What's more, I have brought a few facts to Boswell's attention that he wasn't aware of, such as a Mithreaum that shows Attis in a tree, and a Coptic Christian Magical Papyrus in which Jesus and Horus are invoked as the same god, and he used them for his own research. That's not plagiarizing, Chris, that's called collaboration. Boswell wouldn't have made his website and book public if he didn't want people to use them. So your charge of plagiarism is just a poor attempt at dismissing the person and the facts, instead of engaging with them.

Also, how am I plagiarizing Boswell when I'm quoting the same scholars he quotes? I only quoted Boswell once, because he summed up the point about the resurrection taking place in Djedu and Khem, which are physical locations on earth.

You have zero idea how the field comparative mythology operates, what methods are applied and what this means for the broader range of religious synthesis during the first centuries AD. Hell, I don't even think paganism has as much of an impact on Christian origins as some others have said, and my research is focused primarily on the impact the Kitos revolt had on Christian origins. But don't tell me that a duck isn't a duck, and that Osiris wasn't believed to be bodily resurrected, because sure as hell was and the primary texts prove it.

Grow up kid. Now I am done with you.
nightshadetwine
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:35 am

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by nightshadetwine »

Chris Hansen wrote: Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:15 pm 1) Incorrect. I'm saying what it means to "rise" or "resurrect" is culturally specific and therefore, the fact that a myth seems similar on the surface has no bearing on whether or not it constitutes the *same* or a *parallel* myth elsewhere.
Yes, the way Osiris rises or resurrects is in an Egyptian context of resurrection. Jesus resurrects in a Jewish context of resurrection. The main point though, is that they both overcome death and offer the same to their followers. It's the same concept. This isn't a surface level similarity. This is the main concept/point of their resurrections.
Also the resurrection texts do not literally think that he will physically get up...
It doesn't matter. It's described as the resurrected literally getting up. Of course the mummy didn't really get up and ascend to the sky. Saying that someone who died got up and ascended to the sky was a way of deifying the person.
they were well aware that this is not the same as Jesus, because they continued moving the mummies around.
I don't know what you're talking about here.
Again, that a text says something in narrative does not actually mean that we should take it as a literal belief. The description does not indicate the intricacy of belief. Yes, Osiris conquered and overcame death to the Egyptians. But how he did that is culturally specific and distinct.
You keep getting lost in details. The concept of a deity overcoming death and offering the same to it's followers is not unique to Christianity. This is a fact. It doesn't matter if the resurrection is different. It's the same concept.
2) I completely understand there is a difference between a text description in myth, and how Egyptians literally believed. They knew their kings did not physically get up in this life. They did so in the *afterlife* (this is also why the *dead* king is identified with Osiris directly, whereas the successor becomes identified with Horus).
No, you don't seem to understand. The texts describe the king getting up in their tomb on earth and ascending to the sky in order to get to the netherworld. It doesn't matter if the mummy didn't literally get up and ascend to the sky. Do you think Jesus literally got up out of his tomb? This was a way of deifying someone. They would be said to have resurrected and ascended to heaven. It doesn't mean they literally did, even if people believed they did.
3) He was a deity who overcame death by being alive in death. That is why I say Egyptian resurrection is culturally specific. As Burkert noted, it was a "transcendent life beyond death." In his death, he gains life and so simultaneously is dead and alive, transcending death and overcoming it, while also embodying it. Thus, the dead king is identified with Osiris to come to a transcendent life, while the living king is with Horus. I'd add that Metzger was able to demonstrate that during the time of Christianity, Egyptians clearly believed that Osiris' body was buried in Egypt somewhere (identifying some 20 locations associated with it, actually). Thus, the idea he was bodily resurrected in a physical earthly sense is nuts, demonstrating that there is divide between ritual text (the Pyramid Texts) and actual beliefs. Rituals are often mythologized, but are not direct 1 to 1 beliefs of what happened. We see this same thing in magical texts as well (such as the PGM series) and with propaganda pieces (Marduk Ordeal Text). The mere fact that you can point around to narratives means very little if you aren't applying any critical theory or method and examining what Egyptians actually believed, because myths and narratives are actually widely debated as to whether they represent beliefs... which everyone with a PhD in religious studies has long recognized. My entire point is that while they believed he rose, the narratives we have do not necessarily (in fact we know they don't) have a direct correspondence to what Egyptians believed, especially when we look at text genres. Ritual texts function through a huge amount of metaphor and creative writing, as the Pyramid Texts do. But it is clear from other texts we have, that they did not literally think that a dead king got up and walked around... kind of hard to think that if you are moving their corpse around to safer locations.
You wrote a lot here but didn't really say anything you didn't already say. To the Egyptians, Osiris conquered death and they hoped to conquer death just like him. That's the point. It doesn't matter how he conquered death. You're viewing "death" in a very modern way. The resurrected weren't considered "dead", they were alive.

Alexandrea in Aegypto. The role of the Egyptian tradition in the Hellenistic and Roman periods : ideology, culture, identity, and public life(Leiden University, 2011), Kyriakos Savvopoulos:
In the Egyptian funerary world, the dead can retain frequent contact with the world of the living through post-funerary rites, since he can be resurrected within his body. In general, death and resurrection are two basic components of the Egyptian Culture... There is nothing in the Alexandrian hypogea that implies a change in the ideas about the fate of the deceased. The treatment of the body remains Greek: hence, unlike the Egyptian tradition, there is no resurrection whithin the actual body of the dead. The meeting between the two worlds concerns issues of memory and ancestry rather than actual communication with the resurrected dead, as is the case with Egyptian funerary practices.

Salima Ikram, “Mummification,” in UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, ed. W. Wendrich (Los Angeles: 2010)
The ancient Egyptians carried out mummification, the artificial preservation of the body, to ensure the survival of the body after death. They believed that the dead body could be reanimated.

Death and Burial in Ancient Egypt(The American University in Cairo Press, 2003), Salima Ikram:
Pyramid Texts are carved in vertical columns in sunk relief. They are frequently painted green or blue-green, alluding to the Osirian colour of rebirth, as well as to the sky to which the king acends when he enters the eternal divine realm and becomes identified with Osiris. The spells are to aid the king in his ascent to the sky and to his reception into the kingdom of the gods. There are three main types of utterances: protective spells... spells for the deceased to use in the Afterworld... and the last set of incantations which is associated with the execution of funerary rituals, such as the Opening of the Mouth, a ritual that reanimates the mummy and restores it's senses... The lector priest would recite magical spells and prayers, while touching the mummy's nose, mouth, eyes, ears and chest, thereby restoring it's five senses. Once the mummy was reanimated it joined the mourners for one last time in a funerary feast, equivalent to a wake...

Opening of the Mouth: Ceremony which served to reanimate the corpse.

Ancient Egypt: State and Society(Oxford University Press, 2014), Alan B. Lloyd:
Once at the tomb the major rite performed was the ritual of the Opening of the Mouth. This was designed originally to activate statues and bring them to life but was later also transferred to the treatment of coffins and mummies, which, for ritual purposes, amounted the same thing. It's function in the mortuary cult was all-important restoration of bodily functions to the deceased such as speech, sight, hearing, and smell so that the inanimate corpse was converted once more into a living being. From this point it enjoyed the corporeal attributes needed to take the deceased through the journey to the afterlife and maintain them there in the fullness of their earthly being...

During the Greco-Roman era, Osiris and Dionysus became associated with each other. Dionysus was also said to have died and resurrected.

Ritual Texts for the Afterlife: Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets(Routledge, 2007), Fritz Graf, Sarah Iles Johnston
According to one tradition, Rhea brought together the pieces of the dismembered god and then revived him. Philodemus relates this story in the service of explaining why Dionysus is said to have been born thrice: once from “his mother,” he says, a second time from Zeus’ thigh and a third time, after his dismemberment by the Titans, when Rhea collected the pieces and revived him. Philodemus claims that the Hellenistic poet Euphorion “agrees with these things” and that “the Orphics are absolutely fixated on them.” In the first century CE, Cornutus reports that “according to myth” Rhea revived Dionysus after he had been torn apart by the Titans. Similarly, Diodorus Siculus says that Demeter (who was often equated with Rhea from the fifth century onwards, including in Orphic contexts; see n. 32 below) arranged the pieces of Dionysus “from which he was born anew” and that “the teachings set forth in the Orphic poems, which are introduced into their rites,” agree with them, but “it is not lawful to reveal them in detail to the uninitiated.” The following points seem clear, then: at least as early as Euphorion, there was a story that Rhea revived Dionysus after his dismemberment that could be regarded as “Orphic"...

At this point we might ask specifically what the bricoleur has gained by combining the two themes that I have suggested underlie his version of Dionysus’ death: succession and corrupted (i.e., human) sacrifice. Granted that it was important to present Dionysus as Zeus’ failed heir; granted that an attack by Titans solidified the identification between Zeus and Dionysus; and granted that ingestion was a common theogonic motif, nonetheless we must ask why it was desirable to make the Titans consume Dionysus in a sacrificial setting that had no parallel in theogonic myth. What was the advantage of introducing this theme? Two things. First, some victims of human sacrifice, including the two whose stories most closely parallel Dionysus' tale (Pelops and Lycaon's son or grandson) die but are subsequently resurrected, as Dionysus will be.

Depending on which particular version of the story we choose to follow, Dionysus’ revival parallels that of other children who had been sacrificed and then revived (e.g., Pelops); parallels that of Osiris, whose dismembered pieces were cared for by Isis, a goddess similar to Rhea and Demeter; or draws on the motif of creation through ingestion that is found in many Mediterranean cosmogonies and theogonies. Notably, whichever version we take, Dionysus’ revival also serves as an implicit parallel for what the initiates themselves anticipated: they, too, would die but, in somewhat the same fashion as Dionysus, they would win a new existence after death (compare tablets nos. 26 a and b).

Dionysos(Routledge, 2006), Richard Seaford:
Dionysos, like Jesus, was the son of the divine ruler of the world and a mortal mother, appeared in human form among mortals,was killed and restored to life...

Dionysos could be called 'Initiate' and even shares the name Bakchos with his initates, but his successful transition to immortality- his restoration to life and his circulation between the next world and this one- allows him also to be their divine saviour.

Plutarch (Moralia 364) compares Dionysos to the Egyptian Osiris, stating that 'the story about the Titans and the Night-festivals agree with what is related of Osiris- dismemberments and returns to life and rebirths'...The restoration of Dionysos to life was (like the return of Kore from Hades at Eleusis) presumably connected with the immortality obtained by the initiates...

So as you can see, Dionysus and Osiris were associated with resurrection and the overcoming of death. Because of this, they were saviors to their followers and gave them eternal life. Their followers hoped to conquer death and be free of sin and punishment just like they were, and just like Christians. There's a whole lot of other parallels between Osris, Dionysus, and Jesus.

During the Greco-Roman era, there was also the deity Serapis which incorporated Osiris, the Apis bull, Dionysus and Asclepius. Three of those deities die and return to life. The Apis bull was born to a virgin cow. Asclepius was known for healing the blind, raising the dead etc. and so Sarapis was also associated with miraculous healings. Epaphus was also associated with the Apis bull, Osiris, and Dionysus. Epaphus just so happens to also have a virgin/miraculous birth. These are all the same motifs you find in the NT texts. The miraculous aspects of Jesus aren't unique.

"Serapis, Boukoloi and Christians from Hadrian to Marcus Aurelius", Livia Capponi in Hadrian and the Christians(Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), Marco Rizzi (ed.) 121-140:
Serapis or Osirapis, a fusion of Osiris and the Apis Bull, was basically the sacred bull of Memphis after its death, a combination god that had existed in Egypt since Pharaonic times as a god of the underworld and a symbol of the annual resurrection of nature. Under the Ptolemies, Apis was assimilated or associated to various Hellenistic deities, including Zeus, Helios, Dionysos, Hades and Asklepios to form Serapis, a Hellenised god of the sun (Helios),fertility (Dionysos), the underworld and healing (Asklepios and Hades), who ended up being the most popular god in Egypt and the patron deity of the city of Alexandria...

In Egypt, indeed, Hadrian built new temples, where Serapis and Isis were worshiped along with Hellenic gods, such as Helios, Zeus Hypsistos, Dionysos, Saturn, Asklepios, Ceres-Demetra-Kore. This was in order to promote the integration of the Alexandrian and Egyptian religion with the Graeco-Roman pantheon , and ultimately, to foster loyalty to the empire. All these gods were deities of the underworld and symbols of resurrection and salvation, and could be associated (at least in the eyes of the pagans) with Christ...

The iconography of Serapis as a Greek bearded god with sun-rays around his head like Helios, ram’s horns like Ammon, a serpent encircling his sceptre like Asklepios, the horn of plenty in his left hand like Pluto, a club like Herakles, a sceptre in his left hand and the right hand raised as a sign of majesty like Zeus, presents strong points of contact with the iconography of Christ. Serapis also appears as a sacrificial bull and, alternatively, a shepherd, which recalls the image of Christ as a sacrificial lamb and as the ‘good shepherd’...

The Egyptian worship of Serapis certainly played a role in preparing a spiritual background for the diffusion of Christianity. The Egyptians, trained to celebrate the annual sacrifice and resurrection of Serapis for the redemption of the sins of the country, became genuinely interested in the story of the resurrection of Jesus, and Christian communities emerged, above all in the area of the Fayum.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Joseph D. L. »

And not to self aggrandize myself, but look at this:

https://mythodoxy.wordpress.com/2020/06 ... s-in-arms/

A post like this is long overdue. Throughout my personal journey that has led to the creation of this blog, I’ve encountered several “kindred spirits,” so to speak, along the way who have all made significant contributions toward making this website possible. (It should go without saying that this does not imply that they all agree with everything that is written here at Mythicism.) So I’d like to take this time to show some appreciation and to recommend that you all go check out their work.

First and foremost, I think I owe the most thanks to my long-time friend in the ‘mythicist’ community- James Hiscox, author of James Hiscox Blogs. James by far has been the most reliable and supportive comrade over the years as we have gathered, shared, and dispensed our research on this topic. As good a guy as they come.

https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/

Another fellow WordPress blogger fighting the good fight for ‘mythicism’ is Derreck Bennett, author of Atheologica: Subjecting Religion to Critical Thought, as well as Atheomedy: The Sacrilegious Rants of a Godless Bastard. I had never met another poor soul so cursed with an unhealthy fervor to “geek out” over comparative mythology as much as myself… until I met Mr. Bennett. His OCD for source citation rivals my own and has proved very useful for adding even more data to the bibliography of this blog here at Mythicism.Net.

https://atheologica.wordpress.com/

https://atheomedy.wordpress.com/

Also be sure to check out his book Addictus: A Nonbeliever’s Path to Recovery, available now on Amazon.

Jordan Day, co-author of Ē Odos: The Path to Learning Greek, has made invaluable contributions to the content of this blog through his help in translating some obscure primary sources which, up to that point, I hadn’t seen available in English anywhere on the internet.

https://www.youtube.com/user/NonReductionist

The same can also be said about John F. Felix of Digital International Atheists Group.

http://diagroup.pbworks.com/

Nicholas Covington, author of Hume’s Apprentice, has been very supportive in helping spread awareness of my website-

https://skepticink.com/humesapprentice/

-as has Joseph D. L. over at Early Writings: Biblical Criticism & History Forum.

A rising star in the ‘mythicist’ community is one Derek Lambert, co-host of the MythVision Podcast, who brings some much needed charisma & energy to what is usually a community composed of introverted nerds, such as myself.

https://www.facebook.com/MythVision/

https://thewaterboyz493013953.wordpress.com/

https://www.patreon.com/mythvision

Last, but certainly not least, I owe much gratitude to a fallen sister-in-arms, the dearly departed Dorothy M. Murdock. She was a trailblazer for this community. It was her work that had the most significant influence in shaping my views on religion & mythology into what they are now, and by extension, has influenced my views on life in general as well. R.I.P. Thank you for everything.

https://www. amazon.com/Acharya-S/e/B001UXZSBM/

DN Boswell is fully aware and supportive of me promoting his work on here. That he felt it necessary to even mention me, a nobody, at all is an honour.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Chris Hansen wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:27 am 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.
What an outrageous and Orwellian proposition.

If I'm writing a treatise on a particular subject I'm not going to overburden someone with the entire biographies of the sources I'm using. It's irrelevant.

Is harassment on bar with pedophilia? Is racism on par with rape? No.

Nobody protects legacies by using their work. How does that even make sense?

Seriously man, you have a complex you need to work on.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

In an episode of "Mythicist Milawaukee" last year, Robert M. Price and Christopher Hansen were guests. It's actually a very good discussion.

https://youtu.be/PSJ64C7dk0k

Along the way, in an exchange about modern examples of mythologized historical figures, Price brought up Martin Luther King, Jr., the American Civil Rights leader of the last century. Price made the point that because the focus of interest in King was his heroic achievements, we gladly overlook his personal failings, which Price named as plagiarism and philandery. We might also mention that King had a criminal record (which is the point of "civil disobedience" in the American style).

Hansen seemed to experience no difficulty overlooking the personal failings of this American hero, and expressed no qualms about securing King's legacy.

The incident is also interesting because it perpetuates a calumny against King. Boston University, from where King received his doctorate, investigated the plagiarism charge. The appointed committee of inquiry found that King's use of others' material was permissible within the conventions of scholarship for the time and discipline. King was, in other words, not a plagiarist to the satisfaction of the institution who would suffer if he were one.

ETA: The committee declined to revoke the degree granted to King in the 1950's, but did include a statement of its own that was appended to the institutional archival copy of the dissertation. There was no possibility of sustaining a charge of intentional plagiarism, and the committee made no such finding. The citations in question were typically traced to King's handwritten index cards and similar media with incomplete information recorded on them. I know of no observer who believes that the technical deficiencies found by the committee would have escaped detection by modern automated plagiarism tools, and could not have been remedied by routine mechanical revision. Such tools did not exist during King's lifetime.

This should, in my view, inspire some care in adopting any sort of global policy of citation of those accused only if accompanied by a personal evaluation. King is not unique in being the target of false charges, possibly sincerely lodged charges. Even charges adjudicated at the level of the English-American criminal standard of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" regularly reveal some false convictions when the (rare) opportunity for definitive re-examination of verdicts is offered. Finally, of course, many charges are lodged that are never adjudicated or professionally scrutinized.

Price is a familiar figure to us all. He meant no harm, and no doubt sincerely remembered the charge and sincerely forgot the exoneration based on the examined facts of the case. And Price's larger point stands: we do well to preserve the legacy of great deeds without the encumberance of human failings which are tangential to the legacy which continues to better our lives.
Last edited by Paul the Uncertain on Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:11 pm, edited 5 times in total.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation

Post by andrewcriddle »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:36 am In an episode of "Mythicist Milawaukee" last year, Robert M. Price and Christopher Hansen were guests. It's actually a very good discussion.

https://youtu.be/PSJ64C7dk0k

Along the way, in an exchange about modern examples of mythologized historical figures, Price brought up Martin Luther King, Jr., the American Civil Rights leader of the last century. Price made the point that because the focus of interest in King was his heroic achievements, we gladly overlook his personal failings, which Price named as plagiarism and philandery. We might also mention that King had a criminal record (which is the point of "civil disobedience" in the American style).

Hansen seemed to experience no difficulty overlooking the personal failings of this American hero, and expressed no qualms about securing King's legacy.

The incident is also interesting because it perpetuates a calumny against King. Boston University, from where King received his doctorate, investigated the plagiarism charge. The appointed committee of inquiry found that King's use of others' material was permissible within the conventions of scholarship for the time and discipline. King was, in other words, not a plagiarist to the satisfaction of the institution who would suffer if he were one.
Could you give a source for this please ?
I don't think it is an accurate summary of the committee's findings.

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply