Talk:Gerald Massey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hertfordshire (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hertfordshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

COMMON MISQUOTATION OF GERALD MASSEY[edit]

A POINT ABOUT MISQUOTATION

Gerald Massey came to my attention via a poignant quotation attributed to him. By searching his published lectures, I've learned this popularly attributed quotation is a misquotation. The following discussion presents the original quotation, the misquotation, a thought about the motive for perpetuating misquotation, a solution to appease all parties, and finally a request for help.

I. ORIGINAL QUOTATION
6. We have heard the language like this of Mr.—— before (put in better English), when anything very upsetting has been presented to the world. Such damnation is dirt cheap! Also, the time has passed for denunciation to be mistaken for disproof. That is the kind of authority I had already counted on, and discounted, when I say, "They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth."

Original source: http://gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/epr_09_a_retort.htm

II. MISQUOTATION
There are various forms of misquotation. The most prominent example is found on the website of the conspiracy theory movie called Zeitgeist.

"They must find it difficult...Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority."

Misquotation source: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

III. MISQUOTATION: MOTIVE
I think part of the reason this misattributed quotation persists is that it's more poignant than the original. The misquotation is more easy for people to appropriate in support of other causes. The other possibility is that what I am calling a misquotation is not misquotation at all. I.e. There is just another source where Massey has in fact said "They must find it difficult...Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." If any credible source is found for this wording, my comments here are void. That said, I have found no reliable source for the aforementioned phrasing. I propose a solution.

IV. SOLUTION
Perhaps instead of attributing the paraphrase to Massey, we might turn the paraphrase into a saying, name the saying after Massey, thus attributing the spirit of the paraphrase to Massey, without explicitly implying the wording is Massey's. For example,

"They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority for truth, rather than truth as the authority." -Massey's Maxim

Thus, we create a maxim that isn't attributed to Gerald Massey, but which credits him for the spirit of the saying. This is similar to what was done with Sturgeon's Law. That is, an inelegant yet poignant quotation is paraphrased into an elegant and poignant maxim or rule. The paraphrase's spirit, but not its wording, is credited to the original author, because the saying is named after them.

V. REQUEST
I don't have the time or knowledge to properly correct this error on Gerald Massey's wikipedia page. I request that another editor implement the following corrections. (1) Add a note about the popular misquotation of Gerald Massey. (2) Contrast the misquotation with the correct quotation. (3) Link to sources of the correct quotation e.g. http://gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/epr_09_a_retort.htm. Thank you! SandwormDD (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of renown in Egyptology[edit]

It should be made clear that Massey's work is unrecognised in Egyptology. He does not appear in the Oxford Encyclopeadia of Ancient Egypt, which is perhaps the most comprehensive encyclopaedia on the subject, and is unheard of by most if not all professional Egyptologists. His work is no longer cited, and has been largely discredited, if confronted at all.Juggertrout (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Gerald Massey never stated that he was an Egyptologist. Also, the assumption that he's been discredited is a total falsehood when one takes an actual interest in his work and does some actual reading of his work. Taking citations from a website to disprove what's in his works shows lack of actual research abilities. When you want to disprove a person, you must state the facts to the contrary. Merely spewing out that his work has been debunked is not good enough. Also just because his name does not appear in the "Oxford Encyclopedia" doesn't mean he was any less knowledgeable than modern Egyptologists. As a matter of fact, Egyptolgists will not disagree with him when it comes to his work when it coms to Egyptian history because even the History Channel itself has validated his work using Eygptologists and archeologists. Darwin was not the first evolutionist, yet he was deemed the founder of evolution and you don't really hear about any of his predecessors. Fifty years from now, there will be quite a few modern Egyptologists who will disappear from the public's view as well. That is they way of the educational system. If it doesn't suit the political agenda, it will not be allowed. There are plenty of books out there similar to Massey's works who have been placed on the back burner. Not because of the mislabeled "misinformation" they provide but because those books actually cause a person to think outside the confines of the educational system.

While he may not have claimed to be an Egyptologist (and I would need a citation for that), the fact that he lectured in the subject is justification enough for his label as "amateur Egyptologist". I can safely say that many of Massey's assumptions regarding the Judeo-Christian and Egyptian parallels have been debunked, although his work is so "out there" that it never even penetrates the intellectual sphere, much the same as Erik von Daniken is avoided by physicists because his work is incredibly ridiculous, and what has been confronted by the physicists has been dismissed quickly and wth contrary evidence. This of course has not stopped Daniken's supporters, and many scientific conspiracy theorists of that nature.
This is not to lump supporters of Massey in with that category, however I feel those who trust Massey as an authority on Egyptology are unaware of his sources, or in any other work of Egyptology. I am an amateur Egyptologist myself, and the son of a professional Egyptologist working at the British Museum, where Massey gleaned his information on the subject. Having gone through and read both The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ and Ancient Egypt: Light of the World and analysed their sources, it is clear that they lack any kind of coherency or logic. The vast majority of statements are unsourced, and those which are are either eniterely false, or entirely misinterpreted. His analysis of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, for example, shows a complete lack of understanding of the subjects in question, or of Egyptology as a whole. There were very few people who shared his views at the time (although at that time, many crazy theories were being propunded by all section so Victorian society and academia), and he has very few supporters today (I can think of Acharya S only atm), all who have been widely debunked by their peers, and all who rely on sources by Massey and the equally unreliable Kersey Graves. Even fellow Christ Mythers, such as Richard Carrier, Timothy Frekes, and Peter Gandy, dismiss Massey as unreliable, and all evidence posts contrary to many of his claims.
I certainly did not spew out that his work has been debunked, the main article has refernces to a religious historian, and if thsi really does call trouble, I think that more can be added, although asking for a professional Egyptologist to write on Massey is like asking a professional physicists to write on Daniken or Velikovsky. An unnecessary waste of time and a way of giving oxygen to these pseudohistorians. Why do you think Richard Dawkins and other respected members of the scientific community refuse to debate Young Earth Creationists? Same reason.
The Oxford Encyclopeadia is the largest encyclopaedia on the subject, covering three volumes and thousands of articles. It lists Egyptologists from antiquity to the modern period, and is incredbly exhaustive. You seem completely ignorant of this encyclopaedia since you suggest that only modern, super Egyptologists are present, and that the so called Egyptologists du jour will one day be forgotten. Your Darwin analogy is ridiculous. Although preceding evolutionists such as Wallace and Lamarck may be unheard of to the layman (who I doubt could name a single Egyptologist anyway), open any encyclopaedia, general or scientific, and those names will be there. They are far from forgotten in the academic community, and still have modern day relevance in the scientific world. And could you please tell me what History channel programs vindicates his work; I could imagine aspects of his work being correct, and there are moments of truth, but not his central thesis.
The onus is largely on you to prove Massey's claims are correct and in line with modern Egyptology. If you would like to make certain points, they I would be happy to argue them, although I feel you will not change your mind anayway. Just because something is written down does not mean it is true. There needs to be original evidence. There are people who think that the world is 6,000 years old and that the US government plotted the 9/11 attacks. They outnumber people like you. Buthey are not right.
And please at least sign your post.Juggertrout (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, how about showing proof that he claimed to be an Egyptologist since you're the one who made the bogus claim. Don't ask me to provide any evidence where you fail to bring any. But I will say that in his Natural Genisis, he does separate himself from Egyptologists. You would clearly see that if you actually read any of his work, though this jargon you spewed is quite impressive. As a matter of fact, he hints to being an "evolutionist". But I can see it's your job to try to sway the public from actual facts. I now see why you are against him and others who have write like he does. You are more than likely some overemotional religious person who fails to see the parrallels between the ancients systems and the Judeo-Christian religion. Either that or an apologist. Again, even historians and other "professional" Egyptologists see the parallels between the Jesus and Heru story. There's no denying that but you can continue if you want. I am definitely leaning towards you not ever reading any works written by Gerald Massey. His name has been known for a while despite you not acknowledging that. Yet it took a movie for you to finally write about him? Doesn't make sense. I HIGHLY doubt you read any of his works. It's taking you too long to do something you should've already done, which is provide your sources of information.

Now, if you want to say that his information has been brought to light as being fraud, when are you going to bring some actual facts and comparison's between his work and "professional" Egyptologists? Again, you don't make accusations without having the ammo to back it up with. Gerald Massey doesn't make assumptions without providing his sources. Tell us what/who are his discredible sources, please.

No, I'm not ignorant of the Encyclopedia. I don't rely on what the "authorities" say is credible. I rely on objective research and common sense. When I say "modern" what do you think I mean by that since you called me ignorant? You're not showing that you're too bright yourself. When an Anthropologist uses the term "modern" man, do you think he's referring to men of today? And no, my analogy wasn't stupid by any means. You're missing the total point because your mind only allows you to approve the information that is founded in the academic arena which surrounds what people are taught in classes. In other words, you don't have any of your own real knowledge just the knowledge of those you follow. Again, there were people prior to Darwin who have not been made known because of their findings on the situation. There names are forgotten. Just because you haven't heard of them or they haven't been inducted into your schools of thought does NOT rule them out as being incompetent to the subject. Whoever owns the educational system owns the history. To assume that your world of learning is flawless shows your flawed thinking. If you assume that your world of learning is incapable of misleading people like yourself you are incapable of actual objective thought. He did not claim to be an Egyptologist, which may be another reason for him not appearing in academics regarding Egyptologists.

As far as the history channel goes, they always have shows about ancient history. They've talked about the similarites between the birth of Jesus and Horus. It may not have been on the same show, but again and objective mind won't just think one way when watching one show on one topic. Basically, you'll have to find it yourself. But with that said, Gerald Massey has stated the exact same things "professional" Egyptologists have stated when it comes to the similiarities. Stop hiding that fact. In order to find out if anything I am saying to the contrary is true or not, you must read his work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Qhaos (talkcontribs) 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your response is so angry, paranoid and irrational that I hasten to reply because that would give you some sort of respect. Furthermore, you have failed to answer many of my assertions and didn't understand any others.

- I never stated that Massey was an Egyptologist in my orignal post, YOU made the assertion that I did. I responded that, based on his life and research, amateur Egyptologist, would be an apprporiate title, the same way a person who devotes his life to insects may be an amateur entemologist. Under such circumstances it would be silly not to label him as such. In fact, search this page (http://gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/cnr_miscellanea_tracts_3.htm) for "Egypt" and you will see that Massey identifies himself as an amateur Egyptologist who studies Egyptology. I also suggest you read up what Egyptology is.

- I am not an "overly emotional religious person". I am an athiest. Such ad hoc attacks only incriminate you further, show your ability to jump to irrational conclusions, and show your inability to argue logically and factually. I am also NOT an apologist, whatever that means in this context.

- I never denied that certain historians see parallels between Jesus and Horus, I am saying that the way Massey portrays them is highly disingenuous.

- I also never denied that there WERE similarities between Jesus and Horus. There are also extraordinary similrities between Lincoln and Kennedy: http://theshadowlands.net/jfk.htm.

- I am aware that his name has been known for a while, just not among academic Egyptologists. I don't know what "movie" you are talking about.

- Who are you to deny that I have read any of his works. I ended my post by asking for YOU to provide any claims and I wil provide counter claims. Is it that hard to read?

- Who are these "men before Darwin" you speak of? I've already listed Lamarck and Wallace. Who are these scientists that nobody knows.

- Please sign your posts.

The rest of your post is just paranoid ravings. If you respond in the same manner, don't expect me to do so again. Nor do I think anything will change your mind.

"I don't rely on what the "authorities" say is credible." says it all reallyJuggertrout (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not paranoid nor irrational. People lie and cover up things when it comes to history, specifically ancient history. I mean, Columbus discovering America was probably the biggest lie ever told. But whatever, it's not me being paranoid, it is you being foolish. You made your assumptions, I've made mine but I'm more closer to the truth than you. There's no difference in either two. I can't help it if I'm exposing your ignorance. It's fine. It's not that difficult to show me where Gerald Massey is flawed in his research. You find that hard to do.

-First of all if you didn't imply that he was referring to himself as an "Egyptologist", you wouldn't have responded the FIRST time I told you that he never claimed to be one. Then you went on to say that you needed proof to show that he DIDN'T refer to himself as an Egyptologist. I show you the proof and you have nothing to say about it.

-Wow, you're really contradicting yourself. You've stated over and over again not to trust anything Gerald Massey has written and that his writings about the similiarities between Judeo-Christianity and ancient Egypt are flawed. I give you an example (Horus and Jesus), now all of a sudden you're saying that you didn't disagree. On the contrary, you did seeing as how nothing he writes can be trusted.

-You can still be an atheist and be an apologist.

-You don't have to rely on your "professional" Egyptologists to tell you who's credible and who isn't. For someone who isn't religious you sure do think like one. A religious person thinks the preacher is always right, so do you when it comes to Egyptologists. Not too bright. If you have that knowledge, I don't need to wait for you to find some help, do it yourself kid.

-I'm someone who actually read a lot of books, that's who I am. I'm someone who doesn't need to rely on any website or anyone for my information. I am aware of cop out comments like yours whenever faced with providing your own evidence. I gave you a tiny piece of what I had. You did nothing with it but ignore them and continue to hose this site down with more saliva filled jargon.

-Lastly, if you already named two of them why should I name any others? That doesn't make sense. I guess you think there couldn't POSSIBLY be any more than TWO. Are you kidding me?

Well, have fun with this sonny.

And yes, that last part should say it all because I'm no robot. I am free to think for myself. So let's not get think you're really smart by being told what to think.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Qhaos (talkcontribs) 19:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. You really don’t (or don’t want to) understand.

- Who says Columbus discovered America? All modern history books at least give some reference to the Vikings.


-I have already shown you proof that Massey was an amateur Egyptologist. Where is your proof to the contrary I was only responding the first time to your ERRONEOUS assertion that I had called him one. Please read it again.

-I have NEVER denied the parallels between Horus and Jesus. Read what I said about them, and Massey, and Kennedy and Lincoln again.

-Apologist for what? The truth?

-I guess we should trust any professionals then. Do you believe that Stonehenge was built by aliens? That Venus is a comet that crashed into Earth 10,000 years ago? That dinosaurs coexisted with man? That the holocaust is a myth? Because I know many people like you who don’t trust the “professionals”. All of science, history and academia is a lie. Of course it is. Seriously though, have you ever wondered why The Origin of Species became highly accepted by Darwin’s death, and yet Massey is still lurking in conspiracy corner? Evidence. And don’t say Massey is more damning, Darwin removed all need for an interventionist God, Massey simply suggested that the story of Jesus might not be accurate.

-I keep asking you to provide some of Massey’s claims so I can analyse them but you consistently fail. Well fine, here’s one example of Massey’s poor scholarship. Massey claims in Ancient Egypt: Light of the World that Horus had 12 disciples and shows a mural in the Book of Hades in which there are 12 reapers. Horus is not present in this scene. For Massey to make this connection he goes to a different scene within the same mural. In this scene there is a picture of a god whose name is the Master of Joy. Horus is never depicted although in other murals the artists do depict Horus. Had the artists ascribed 12 reapers in any relation to Horus all they had to do was put Horus at the scene. They did not, and yet Massey still makes this claim because in his mind he wants to make the connection. Unfortunately, ironically, it is not there, and all modern “scholars” who say that Horus had 12 disciples cite Massey without researching this claim. This is not a unique problem.

-I have no idea what you’re talking about in regards to the evolutionary scientists pre-Darwin. You claim that there are some that nobody knows of, and I would like some evidence for this claim.

I suppose you are free to think for yourself, like any person. That would put you the category of good, inquisitive men…as well as 9/11 conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers and Creationists.

If I don’t respond you’ll know why.

And for the third time, please sign your posts. Juggertrout (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Parallels between Horus and Jesus[edit]

The second half of this section isn't even about Massey, and shouldn't be here. The subject is covered elsewhere. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed the titled to "claimed parallels" because it seems more fitting.

I also rewrote the section about the survery too look like this:

"However, W. Ward Gasque conducted a world-wide pole of twenty leading Egyptologists - including Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen of the University of Liverpool and Ron Leprohan, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Toronto- in Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Germany, and Austria to verify if there was any academic support for these claims. The scholars were unanimous in dismissing the claimed parallels. One scholar, who called it "fringe nonsense", also cautioned that "[e]gyptology has the unenviable distinction of being one of those disciplines that almost anyone can lay claim to, and the unfortunate distinction of being probably the one most beleaguered by false prophets."[5].

I didn it so people who read about Massey's claims will know specifically that they've been rejected thoroughly by the egyptology community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.174.35 (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Horakhty[edit]

Why does Horakhty redirect to this page? From I what I can tell from googling it, Horakhty is associated with Horus. Is there any reason it shouldn't redirect to Horus?76.246.60.111 (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gerald Massey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Herbert Cutner POV[edit]

The paragraph referencing Herbert Cutner states without quotes that Gerald Massey "proves quite clearly to any unbiased reader..." That implies that Wikipedia is endorsing Herbert Cutner's opinion of Gerald Massey's work. In reality, that phrase is taken from Cutner's own work, on Page 33. It is Cutner's opinion of Massey's work. As such, it is at best peripheral to this article. It looks to me like some anti-Christian zealot wanted to justify this attack on Christian orthodoxy by including that paragraph. Pooua (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)