Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgoodguy · 06-03-2011, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

The fact the Price cites Earl Doherty and Stephan Huller favourably strikes me as proof of his basic honesty and curiosity.

I heard him answer a question on the Bible Geek recently about our pal Stephan Huller, IIRC he said something like: Stephan is brilliant, well read, and thinks outside the box, but he didn't agree with much of what he said.

Yes, but to Price's credit he doesn't stoop to peronal attacks or outright dismissal. His review of Huller's "The Real Messiah" was interesting: he listed points he agreed with, points he hadn't thought of before, and points that he considered not well argued. The overall tone was positive, but he's not afraid to disagree (politely).

Price seems to have been moving away from making firm declarations about early Xtian activities and beliefs. He states his current preferences on various issues (eg the continuity of the Mandean cult from early times) but doesn't seem rigid or defensive. I appreciate his willingness to keep an open mind. He cites Trobisch favourably also.

I much rather see evidence and argument than parsing insults.

bacht · 06-03-2011, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

I much rather see evidence and argument than parsing insults.

Amen

discordant · 06-03-2011, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Any chance the reason Price's book reads the way it does is to give it popular appeal rather than scholarship status?

That's a good question. The blurb does claim it's written for a general audience. But I'd say the content makes a lie of the blurb. Roughly half of what I've read is too technical to have popular appeal. Going back several years, the nature of the discussions would have made no sense to me. Compare how much Bart Ehrman holds the reader's hand, to how much Price does it. Ehrman is for a general audience. Price, it seems, is for people who've read Ehrman.

Not that I'm hating on Price or anything. He's awesome. But he could've done a better job of presenting his point of view.

discordant · 06-03-2011, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

He said that something was more probable than something else, and the conclusion was along the lines of, "Therefore, we don't know whether or not Jesus was baptized."

What he actually said was "It therefore appears that the baptism of Jesus is a concretization of very ancient myth."

Does that change your opinion of him? He did what you said he should do.

ApostateAbe · 06-04-2011, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by discordant

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

He said that something was more probable than something else, and the conclusion was along the lines of, "Therefore, we don't know whether or not Jesus was baptized."

What he actually said was "It therefore appears that the baptism of Jesus is a concretization of very ancient myth."

Does that change your opinion of him? He did what you said he should do.

That's his concluding thought? Yes. I think that's great. I wish he would do more of that.

Toto · 06-04-2011, 01:05 AM

Off topic post from GDon split off here

discordant · 06-04-2011, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I picked up The Pre-Nicene New Testament and I admit it took me (an amateur) a little while to adjust to his writing style. He combines vast knowledge of the field with a sly sense of humour that's easy to miss. He seems determined to provide as little offense as possible to readers while examining all theories without prejudice (quite a challenge in this emotionally-charged subject)

But his enthusiasm is infectious. He gleefully romps through all kinds of kooky apocryphal material and sees it all as helping to illuminate the early centuries of our era. His essays about the formation of the canon and the history of NT scholarship were very helpful to me. Also his own translations of the NT canon were refreshing and sometimes challenging.

The fact the Price cites Earl Doherty and Stephan Huller favourably strikes me as proof of his basic honesty and curiosity.

This is very well put.

I heard him read his introduction to Romans on his podcast. What's striking to me is that he explains the mainstream view in a way that doesn't sound crazy, which must be hard to do when you disagree with it completely.

ApostateAbe · 06-04-2011, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by discordant

Does anybody feel similarly about Price's work? I've learned plenty from him, but reading this book feels like a guilty pleasure.

I picked up The Pre-Nicene New Testament and I admit it took me (an amateur) a little while to adjust to his writing style. He combines vast knowledge of the field with a sly sense of humour that's easy to miss. He seems determined to provide as little offense as possible to readers while examining all theories without prejudice (quite a challenge in this emotionally-charged subject)

But his enthusiasm is infectious. He gleefully romps through all kinds of kooky apocryphal material and sees it all as helping to illuminate the early centuries of our era. His essays about the formation of the canon and the history of NT scholarship were very helpful to me. Also his own translations of the NT canon were refreshing and sometimes challenging.

The fact the Price cites Earl Doherty and Stephan Huller favourably strikes me as proof of his basic honesty and curiosity.

Price seems to give favorable gestures to almost anyone, as long as they are in his same general skeptical camp, including Acharya S, Freke and Gandy. I wouldn't take it as having an open-minded mentality, except if by "open-minded" you really mean "indiscriminate." At least there is a limit to that behavior--he wrote negatively about Dan Brown.

Of course GakuseiDon had more to say about that in the split thread here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=302652

discordant · 06-04-2011, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Price seems to give favorable gestures to almost anyone, as long as they are in his same general skeptical camp

He favourably reviewed von Harnack's work on Marcion, and scarcely says a bad word against Ehrman. So, no, you're wrong. I don't even know where you get these impressions of Price from.

ApostateAbe · 06-04-2011, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by discordant

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Price seems to give favorable gestures to almost anyone, as long as they are in his same general skeptical camp

He favourably reviewed von Harnack's work on Marcion, and scarcely says a bad word against Ehrman. So, no, you're wrong. I don't even know where you get these impressions of Price from.

Do you believe that those two authors do NOT belong in the same general skeptical camp?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-04-2011, 01:05 AM	#26
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Off topic post from GDon split off here

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.