Carrier I would like to state the obvious, out about 345 footnotes Murdock (Acharya) is cited in 78 of them. That makes 267 citations that don't have her in the footnotes.
Also there are about 300+ sources throughout all. If you look at the amount of time Murdock is cited in the 267 footnotes and compare it to all the other sources cited, contracting with the amount of footnotes she isn't, you would find that her work only constitutes about 16% of the overall source guide.
In regards to detailed information that is left out... this is what I keep finding frustrating because Zeitgeist is talking attributes, not detailed history. In other words, it doesn't have to be a detailed by detailed account of how the person died; it just has to account for the critical points in the story.
I am pretty sure you and I can agree that pictorial events of how Oden hung himself on a tree certainly added to help Christians in their depictions of Christ being hung on the cross (or the pictorial statement found in Acts and the Epistles that he was hung on a tree). If this is the case, why does one need more information about him, like the reason why he did it or further detail; you also are ignoring the usage of typology to create myths (which is the most commonly used technique both in Classical Greek Myths and especially in Judaism).
I like your work Carrier, I just think that if your going to criticize someone you don't throw out these old arguments that don't make any sense due to your apparent bias.
You guy's remember this quote right? Well guess what, Richard Carrier responded...
Your argument is fallacious. Most of those hundreds of cites are for trivia that has no bearing on the substantial conclusions. I was referring to the facts that are dubious, not all the window dressing. When you get to the claims that are questionable, it's almost Murdock all the way down. I'm also bothered by her not telling readers that she is Murdock.
As to "pictorial events of how Oden hung himself on a tree" I would like to know your source for that. Indeed, I dare you to check that source yourself (if you even have one). I guarantee you will discover it doesn't quite attest what you think. I know this because it's what has happened every other time I checked a source like this. And prior probability favors a repeat performance.
Dubious sources cited Carrier?
Oxford University/Clarendon Press
Princeton University Press
Cambridge University Press
Cornell University Press
Yale University Press
University of Chicago Press
University of Pennsylvania Press
University of Wisconsin Press
Johns Hopkins Press
Harcourt, Brace & Co.
MacMillan & Co., etc...."
These are the publishers of some of the sources. Others include very esteemed authors such as Hayyim ben Yehoshua, A.L. Berger, James Bonwick, Joseph Campbell, R.L. Gordon, Jaime Alvor Ezquerra, John Gwyn Griffiths along with modern translations of ancient sources from translators like Raymond O. Faulkner's Egyptian Book of the Dead, James P. Allen's Pyramid Texts and ancient sources such Macrobius' Saturnalia Diodorus Siculus' Antiquities of Egypt and many more sources can be considered dubious?
I must state with conviction that you are just attacking the person presenting the source and the people cited instead of attacking the sources themselves (i.e. the Genetic Fallacy). I would appreciate if you could actually provide a reason as to why the source guide is faulty instead of saying "Oh Murdock is cited, it must be garbage!" I also draw attention the fact that Murdock's work only constitutes about 16% of the overall source guide in part 1... this does not mean that sources are "almost Murdock all the way down." As far as her not bothering her readers that she is Murdock... wtf? She has said that over and over and over again, she is not hiding that fact... I don't know what this is about but it would appear that you have some personal grudge against Murdock that apparently makes you blind to go beyond what was stated.