Oh boy, here we go with Richard Carrier exposing his ignorance and biases against Acharya S/Murdock again. This time in the comment section of his Luxor Thing blog. It starts with:
31. Slimy Man July 25, 2014
"I was about to buy this book. I noticed the author’s name and recalled you pulling her up on a few things in the past. I asked this question about Ehrman’s ‘Did Jesus Exist’, but would you recommend reading this book, despite its misconceptions? I guess this question actually has two parts:
1) Is there enough solid information within this book to warrant reading it; perhaps with your criticisms as a lens through which to read the remainder?
2) Would this book be worth reading strictly as a sceptic to see where people often go wrong, using your post and background knowledge as references? Or, as was my worry regarding Ehrman’s book, is the risk of accidentally internalising bad information too great a risk for someone who is still somewhat of a layman with regard to ancient history?"
Slimy Man needs to be made aware of the fact that Dick Carrier has never read Acharya's book, Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
or any other book of hers as exposed HERE
. Carrier takes what others have e-mailed him or posted in his blogs and uses it to make fallacious strawman arguments and, apparently, none of Carrier fanboys have ever checked his claims and just accepts whatever he says without question.
Richard Carrier's response:
Richard Carrier wrote:
"Which book are you referring to? Murdock has several. I don’t recommend any. She doesn’t adequately demarcate what is well documented from what is not, so a lay person can’t vet her own information so as to tell the difference between what is her own idiosyncratic assumption, claim, or interpretation, and what is established already in the field, or actually demonstrated by a source, etc. And she doesn’t do research well (e.g. over-relies on antiquated scholarship and doesn’t do contemporary literature surveys). And this makes things harder for a lay reader, not easier. You will get more confusion and misinformation than accurate data (and you won’t know which is which)."
How would Carrier know when he has never actually read a single book of hers? He is clearly regurgitating his standard smear campaign he has become so fond of over the last 10 years. Here Carrier is once again intellectually dishonest; just ask him what specific books of hers he has actually read, and if he's honest, he'll tell you none. So his comments on her work tend to include smears, libel and defamation. Carrier is incapable of discussing her work without making derogatory or condescending remarks, as anybody who has been at his lectures when her name pops up already knows. He is obviously jealous of her, due to the fact that she's actually better at this than Carrier is, and he cannot deal with it. It's truly sad too, because Carrier's constant attempts to "poisoning the well
" with Acharya's work is just an epic disservice to freethinkers, atheists, assorted mythicists and the field of mythicism - they all need to call him out on it.
It appears that Robert Tulip posted:
Robert Tulip wrote:
"Richard, I’m surprised you offer such a sweeping dismissal of Murdock’s work. Her recent book Did Moses Exist? is excellent, presenting a rigorous analysis of the origins of the Moses myth in the much older story of Dionysus. The Christ Myth Theory involves work in philosophy and theology as well as in your speciality of history. I think you are far too hasty to denigrate alternative perspectives which it appears you have not closely studied and do not understand. With Best Wishes, Robert Tulip."
Richard Carrier's response to Tulip:
Richard Carrier wrote:
I don’t have enough time in the world to expose all the crank theories in the universe.
“Moses was based on Dionysus” is right up there with “Jesus came from a flying saucer.”
If Murdock has fooled you into thinking there is a convincing argument for this, then you either don’t know sound reasoning when you see it, or you didn’t check her facts. Probably both.
If she wrote a book arguing that the Moses myth was partly lifted from the Sargon myth, then we’d be back in the mainstream. Because that is almost certainly true. But Dionysus? Please.
Just for example: Murdock’s claim that Dionysus parted the Red Sea and crossed it with a crowd of people (“he passed through the Red Sea on foot, with a multitude of men, women, and children”) has absolutely no evidence for it. At. All. Her entire specious methodology for trying to invent this claim out of completely unrelated evidence (and the sloppy scholarship of hundred-plus-year-old tomes, sometimes books written two or three hundred years ago!) is a classic example of why she simply is not to be trusted by anyone as a scholar. This is pure crank. Instead of checking the actual ancient sources, Murdock simply believes what Voltaire says, for example, hook, line and sinker. Voltaire cites no sources for any of his claims.
In ancient evidence Bacchus changed the course of some rivers (or in earlier accounts changed them into wine to get his enemies drunk), and crossed a river dryshod by building a bridge over it and likewise a sea by crossing in a boat, and none of this in Egypt, and he calmed the Indian Ocean and crossed it (in some accounts with an army) in the normal way (in ships/vessels). He did not “part” any of these much less cross their bottom “on foot” with a “multitude.” Even the actual tales appear to have arisen after the conquests of Alexander the Great (no prior myths have any clear knowledge of these claims or his conquest of India), by which time the Moses story had already long been written, but even those stories in India bear no resemblance to the Moses story. By the time a story appears that Bacchus dried some rivers to cross them (still not in Egypt), it was the 17th century, and the author claiming it (Bochartus) was badly confused (he says Nonnus says this in his epic about Bacchus, but no, he doesn’t…Nonnus mentions the monster Typheus drinking a river dry; not Bacchus; not Egypt; and not at all the same story).
Please, stop buying crank scholarship. Check facts. And if you can’t, because the author doesn’t tell you where their ancient sources are, well, then if they are claiming something remarkable, you know they probably don’t have any ancient sources."
That Luxor Thing
Richard Carrier is not qualified to comment on the work by Acharya S/Murdock with any authority or competence whatsoever, due to the fact that he has not read a single book of hers
. Keep in mind that this is the same guy going around proclaiming:
"The first thing to know is, forget about all the other mythicist theories ... So, I say, if you want a simple rule: Basically, if you don't hear it from me, be skeptical of it."
- Richard Carrier, "The Historicity of Jesus," youtube.com/watch?v=XORm2QtR-os (3:10)
There are plenty
of other scholars performing work as good as and often much better than Carrier's, including Murdock. No wonder fellow mythicist Earl Doherty declared that Carrier has an "ego the size of a bus."
Oh, I just love this one:
Richard Carrier wrote:
"Moses was based on Dionysus” is right up there with “Jesus came from a flying saucer."
I may have to add that to my post: Stupid Things Richard Carrier has Said and Done
It looks to me like Carrier merely skimmed the Wikipedia article link below but, as usual, glosses over anything that might suggest Carrier is wrong:
"Modern scholars such as Martin Hengel, Barry Powell, Robert M. Price, and Peter Wick, among others, argue that Dionysian religion and Christianity have notable parallels."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus#P ... ristianity
Note that the one hotlink Carrier provides in his comment is the first link from the external links section in that Wiki article, "Theoi Project, Dionysos." So, Carrier skimmed the Wiki article and skimmed a link, and then went on to make spurious comments with authority about a book he has never read, as if he's some sort of expert on the subject. I have news for you: He is not an authority on this subject, and he inadvertently admits his utter ignorance in the process.
Take note that Carrier just cannot comment on Murdock's work without insulting people who have read
it for themselves and know for a fact Carrier is wrong, so, in this case he insults Robert Tulip, who is actually quite well educated:
Richard Carrier wrote:
"If Murdock has fooled you into thinking there is a convincing argument for this, then you either don’t know sound reasoning when you see it, or you didn’t check her facts. Probably both."
Carrier's comment above reveals his own ignorance on the subject, as Acharya cites highly respected scholars discussing the Moses and Dionysus parallels. Carrier is just oblivious to them because he has never studied the subject.
Richard Carrier wrote:
If she wrote a book arguing that the Moses myth was partly lifted from the Sargon myth, then we’d be back in the mainstream. Because that is almost certainly true.She does spill plenty of ink discussing the Sargon myth
, which Carrier would know, if he actually had read her work. Once again, he reveals he is dishonestly and ignorantly making declarations about work he hasn't studied.
Richard Carrier wrote:
Murdock’s claim that Dionysus parted the Red Sea and crossed it with a crowd of people (“he passed through the Red Sea on foot, with a multitude of men, women, and children”) has absolutely no evidence for it. At. All. Her entire specious methodology for trying to invent this claim out of completely unrelated evidence
When one actually reads "Did Moses Exist" (DME) for oneself they'll realize all the work she has done and just how wrong Carrier is to the point of recklessness. In the first place, he seems to have reading comprehension issues, conflating the words of Voltaire with those of Murdock, e.g., here: "he passed through the Red Sea on foot, with a multitude of men, women, and children." That's VOLTAIRE's writing, not Murdock's. Carrier can't even keep it straight. He also makes mistakes of priority, apparently taking the Moses tale on face value and believing that the Exodus really happened in the 13th century BCE, supposedly before the Dionysus myth was composed. Using REAL scholarship, Murdock shows that conclusion to be anachronistic. Dionysus and wine-god myths predate the composition of the Moses myth by centuries.
Richard Carrier is simply not a reliable, credible or trustworthy source on the work by Acharya/Murdock:
"Over the centuries, many scholars have noticed correspondences between Dionysus/Bacchus and Moses..."
- Did Moses Exist (DME) page 273
Starting on page 273, "The Dionysus Connection
," Murdock compiles loads
of ancient sources one would think a historian would appreciate, such as tracing the stories about the god Dionysus and wine-making back 7,000 years ago. She cites sources such as Homer from around 900 BCE and over 50 other sources making the case for the Moses-Dionysus Connection, any objective and non-biased scholar interested in the subject would truly appreciate. Needless to say, when Carrier ignorantly claims "Instead of checking the actual ancient sources
," that's precisely what she did
, proving once again that Carrier will say anything to smear, defame or "poison the well' of Acharya/Murdock and her work because Carrier has been getting away with it for 10 years without ever being held accountable
. He really needs to be called out on it by others, especially other scholars.
Exodus into the Sea
"As early as Homer, we read that, like Moses, Dionysus and his devotees were pursued into a ruddy sea by an angry king. While Moses and his crew are chased towards the holy mountain of Sinai, Bacchus and his followers are driven down the sacred mount of Nysa. Like Moses’s kingly pursuer, the Greek god’s persecutor, the tyrannical Spartan ruler Lycurgus/Lykourgos, dies a horrible death. Other writers of antiquity who refer to the battle between Lycurgus and Dionysus include Aeschylus, Ovid, Seneca, Pausanias, Pseudo-Hyginus (3rd cent. AD/CE) and Nonnus.
"In The Iliad (6.129-143), composed around 900 BCE, the character of Diomedes describes the homicidal king driving the god and his followers down the Nysean hill:
"...all of them shed and scattered their wands on the ground, stricken with an ox-goad by murderous Lykourgos, while Dionysos in terror dived into the salt surf, and Thetis took him to her bosom, frightened, with the strong shivers upon him at the man’s blustering. But the gods who live at their ease were angered with Lykourgos, and the son of Kronos struck him to blindness, nor did he live long afterwards, since he was hated by all the immortals."
"Lycurgus’s punishment for dishonoring the gods was firstly to murder his own wife and daughter in a fit of madness, “in the belief that they were spreading vines,” and secondly to die horribly by being eaten by wild animals.
- Did Moses Exist (DME) page 347
The Ruddy Sea
"As we have seen, in his Hercules Furens (899-900), Seneca calls Bacchus “the tamer of Lycurgus and the ruddy sea...” Seneca translator Miller notes that the “ruddy sea” refers to the body of water that Dionysus “crossed when he conquered India.” Seneca’s original Latin for “ruddy sea” is rubri maris, the word rubri or “ruddy” connoting redness, as in the Red Sea. If Dionysus was “born” in Egypt, then he could be said to cross the Red Sea when his viniculture cult found its way to India. Here is one possible meaning of the motif of crossing the Red Sea; there are others, apparently.
Don Allen avers that Nonnus “probably had the crossing of the Red Sea in mind when he wrote of his hero that ‘he took to his heels and ran in fear too fast to be pursued/until he leaped into the gray waters of the Erythraian Sea.’”
It should be noted that the phrases “Erythraian Sea” and Rubrum Mare are used in antiquity to describe the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean or the Persian Gulf.
Since antiquity, comparisons have been made between the Spartans and Jews, including their legislators, about which subjects Dr. Louis H. Feldman notes:
"In the first place, there is the parallel...between their respective lawgivers, Moses and Lycurgus, both of whom (Diodorus 1.94.1-2) claimed a divine origin for their laws... Moreover, both Lycurgus and Moses (according to Hecateus, apud Diodorus 40.3.6) instituted a rigorous training program for their youth."
"Diodorus related that there were those who claimed Lycurgus, Solon and Plato “borrowed from Egypt many of those laws which they established in their several commonwealths.”
- Did Moses Exist (DME) page 348
"The Bacchus story also contained remarkable similarities to Mosaic attributes and legends. For, as Bochart pointed out, both Bacchus and Moses were born in Egypt, shut up in an ‘ark,’ and put on the waters. Both fled from Egypt toward the Red Sea and had serpents (in Moses’ case, a bronze serpent). For both, water flowed from a rock and milk and honey were provided. Both were called legislators, turned sticks into snakes, saw light in the darkness, and had unknown tombs..."
- Dr. Gerald R. McDermott
, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods
- Did Moses Exist (DME) page 331
I guess we'd better tell the credentialed professor with a real
job in academia, Dr. McDermott, that his citation of comparisons between Moses and Dionysus - done since antiquity - is equivalent to saying Jesus came from a flying saucer!
Yeah, Acharya cites older works, as one would think a true historian
would appreciate, since she's chronicling the history of the subject
. To reiterate for the umpteenth time, however, Murdock does not
rely on them, as she continues to dig up the ancient primary sources across a variety of languages
and the most modern as she does in her book, Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
. Carrier would already know this fact if he ever read a single book by Acharya/Murdock. I think it's time for Richard Carrier to grow-up and stop hate'n all the time on Acharya/Murdock. It's just a malicious lie to claim she is trying to "invent" anything. She absolutely does not ever need to do that and she meticulously cites her sources so, shame on Carrier for such ignorant and hateful comments