Mythra

Wouldn't the very discussion we are having about Robert M. Price tend to call into question (at least slightly) the importance of academic accomplishments and credentials with regards to accepting what they say? It seems to me it would.

Robert M. Price has two PhD's. One in Systematic Theology, the other in New Testament. And yet we are wondering if he is reliable. We're wondering if we can trust what he tells us.

Perhaps I'm way off base here. I'm sure that scholars vary widely in their opinions about practically every subject. But if so, then why the disdain for non-scholars?

Surely those of us who haven't had the opportunity for such an excellent education should still be entitled to discuss and learn from this wonderful site.

Solitary Man

Yes, I've mentioned to others here how fast he picked up on the materials. Unlike some here, he actually has potential. If only he'd get off his high horse and start actually evaluating the field, then maybe, just maybe, he'd actually get somewhere. I remember him espousing Archaya S. many moons ago. Yes, he has come a long way.

Sven

Not that I agree with Malachi (I simply don't know enough about this), but "full of crap" seems to mean something else than "not perfectly right", don't you think?

Zeichman

Regardless, it sets an absurdly high standard that would do wonders for anti-intellectualism.

Malachi151

It has nothing to do with being anti-intellectual, which I certainly am not, I just have something against the intellectuals in this specific field.

I think that New Testament studies needs an entire paradigm shift.

The problem is like the issue of geocentrism vs. a heliocentrism.

Its not that the astronomers prior to Copernicus were stupid people, they simply had a wrong model that they were working from, and by going to "school" all that happened was this wrong model was reinforced.

The wrongness of the view was institutional.

The same is the case now in NT studies IMO.

The "scholars" of NT studies are geocentrists stilling atop their ivory towers in a heliocentric system.

Zeichman

But by your reasoning above, because geocentrism is wrong, astronomy should be abandoned.

youngalexander

Bai Jove! I think your on to something here. Or, to use another analogy

The "scholars" of NT studies are creationists stilling atop their ivory towers in an evolutionary system.

I like this too
could become
by your reasoning above, because creationism is wrong, NT studies should be abandoned

Solitary Man

As far as I can see, there is nothing in the NT which relates to creationism.

Sven

To ask for something better than "full of crap" is an absurdly high standard?

Ted Hoffman

I agree with Malachi 100%. For years we (mythicists) have been chastised for not having read books written by NT Scholars and instead reading Doherty and Archaya S. I have read more than a dozen books by credentialed NT scholars (historicists) and because several historicists have mentioned Sanders favourably (unlike Crossan and Meier) I decided to focus on Sanders. When I presented my first review (Doherty called it an "Expose") of E. P. Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus, I was chastised for reviewing junk by historicists here.
Junk? What are we talking about? Now, Sanders retired in 2005 as Arts and Sciences Professor of Religion at Duke University, North Carolina where he had been since 1990. He holds a Doctor of Theology degree from the University of Helsinki and a Theology degree from Union Seminary in NYC. His specialty is Judaism and Christianity and he has authored or co-edited over a dozen books and taught in several universities.

That is a credentialed NT scholar. When an amateur takes apart his book, his erstwhile defenders call his work junk. If credentialed scholars publish junk and put their names and signatures against that junk, are there grounds for questioning Malachi based on his credentials or lack of it?

I am almost through with Sander's Jesus and Judaism and I must report it is equally junk (going by the way junk is used in the above thread). Yet that is the book I was told is serious.

I regard Malachi as more capable and more logical than a dozen NT scholars. He may not be exposed to a diverse amount of information and may not be proficient in Greek and Hebrew, but he approaches the texts with no prior commitments so is in a better position to do a honest, balanced job.

Keep it up Malachi. Forget the naysayers.