The lying deceitfulness of Richard Carrier exemplified

 Regular readers here know what I think of Jesus mythicists in general and Richard Carrier in particular.

But, I have now found a new reason to scorn him.

Via a post on the sub-Reddit for academic biblical criticism, I was Googling about Mark Goodacre and came across a Carrier blog post that claimed to have refudiated (sic) him. As usual with Carrier, it has diarrhea of the mouth in its incredible verboseness, but here's the big point.

Carrier claims that Mary Magdalene, often translated as Mary of Magdala in newer English bibles, is NOT "of Magdala" but rather is named for the Hebrew "Migdol," or "tower." He then spins from that to the Tanakh's use of "migdol" to give us this mythopoeic dreck:

Mark gives us two Mary’s, representing two aspects of this legendary role. “Magdalene” is a variant Hellenization of the Hebrew for “tower,” the same exact word transcribed as Magdôlon in the Septuagint—in other words the biblical Migdol, representing the borders of Egypt, and hence of Death. In Exodus 13, the Hebrews camped near Migdol to lure the Pharaoh’s army to their doom, after which “they passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness three days” (Numbers 33:7-8), just as Jesus had done, on their way to the “twelve springs and seventy palm trees” of Elim (33:9), just as we know the gospel would be spread by twelve disciples and—according to Luke 10:1-17—seventy missionaries. Meanwhile, “Mary the mother of Jacob” (many don’t know it, but “James” is simply Jacob in the original languages, not a different name) is an obvious reference to the Jacob, of Jacob’s well, whose connection we already see Mark intended. This Jacob is of course better known as Israel himself. 

So these two Marys in Mark represent Egypt and Israel, one literally the Mother of Israel; the other, the harbinger of escape from the land of the dead.

That's despite the village of Magdala documented as existing in New Testament times. See Wikipedia.

It's also, again per Wiki, a misinterpretation, if we're charitable, and a lie, if I'm less charitable, about the use of "migdol" in the Tanakh.

So, WHY the lie?

My best guess is that it's ultimately an attempt to deny not just her actual historicity, but her "scene-setting quasi-historicity." In other words, Carrier is trying to make it look like not only no such person existed, but no such person LIKE HER, from which she as a literary-historical character could have been drawn, could have existed. And, you do that by trying to pretend Magdala out of existence.

Now, if Carrier wanted to actually perform textual criticism, he'd asked why she's called "Magdala" in Matthew when many Marcan manuscripts say she was from "Dalmanutha." But, that would undermine the whole attempt, as I see it, to pretend Magdala didn't exist.

It's like other deceitful mythicists, whose chops I thoroughly busted in the past, trying to claim Nazareth didn't exist in New Testament times.

Of course, Gnu Atheists, as I see it, think they HAVE TO disprove the existence of a historical Jesus to strengthen their belief system in their religion. (Yes, it is one, sociologically speaking, in a sense, and in my philosophy of religion definition, halfway there, too.)