Rick Sumner

If you think his "Protestant Rationalist viewpoint" somehow precludes him from saying that John chose 7 cities symbolically, you only confirm that you have no idea what Christian Rationalism is.

Wow. Melodramatic and a persecution complex, all at the same time. Unless you're not sure what "obsessed" means either.

Considering that the route is circular, there are two possible orders that will mesh with it. Out of 5040 possibilities. So the odds of him picking one of those orders by chance is 1/2520

You're right Toto. You're not going to convince me that's coincidental. I suppose that does mean I'm biased. I'm biased toward the absence of extraordinarily unlikely events when there's a more logical explanation. :huh:

Toto

I know what Protestant Rationalism is. It was a fairly well defined movement from a particular period of Christian history. I was not aware of a school of thought known as Christian Rationalism, and when I google the term, I come up with a new age group that sounds neither Christian nor Rationalist.

Projecting?

The item that needs an explanation is why John wrote to the seven churches in Asia, when there were more than seven churches, not why he happened to list the seven that he did in geographical order.

I'm a little tired of repeating this. I do not propose to continue over what is a minor point.

Jeffrey Gibson

It's not just in his review of AS' book that Price makes the claims about Jesus and Osirus etc. He also does so in his recent book Jesus is Dead (or via: amazon.co.uk). (American Atheist Press [April 30, 2007]

For a review of this book, go to http://bookreviews.org/pdf/7049_7653.pdf e.

Jeffrey

Rick Sumner

Ah, the one time this comes up that I do not reference Sandmel's sober reminder, someone else (albeit indirectly) does it for me. Price would probably do well to read Sandmel's caution. He somehow seems to have missed perhaps the most cited paper to ever come out of the JBL.

Toto

A very strange review. A book published by American Atheists Press, with no footnotes, but at the end of the review it finally dawns on the reviewer that this book is not aimed at the scholarly community.

Jeffrey Gibson

Here is what the author actually says:

Quote:

While this book may be attractive to the reading populace at large, it has little to commit itself to the scholarly field of New Testament studies. The writing is not a serious discussion of the issues among one’s scholarly peers but rather comes across as an extremely bitter rant against conservative Christianity and those who subscribe to it.

Is this really something that only "dawns" on the reviewer at the end of the review? Doesn't he say essentially the same thing earlier in the review? And more importantly, does he really say what he says about the nature and quality of Price's argument only because the book is not formatted in a particular way?

Jeffrey

Toto

Why does the reviewer pick that particular work of Price's to review, as opposed to The Pre-Nicene New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk)? Why does the reviewer continually appeal to the scholarly consensus, when Price has rejected that consensus for reasons made clear in his other work? Why does the reviewer find it strange that Price argues against both the Resurrection as a historical event and the existence of Jesus, since both are items of controversy of interest to the readers of American Atheist Press who often debate Christian apologists?

Shouldn't a reviewer have some background knowledge before trying to review a work? But I am afraid this reviewer tips his hat by the use of the term "hyper-skepticism" (as if that were a bad thing).

Jeffrey Gibson

I would imagine that it's because he was asked by the RBL editorial board to review that work and not the others. But if you are really seriously about wanting to know the answer to this question, you could always write the reviewer to find out.

Doesn't the reviewer make clear that it's the order in which these topics are argued, and not that Price argues against them, that he finds strange?

And are you actually saying not only that the resurrection as an historical event is of no interest except to those readers of American Atheist Press who often debate Christian apologist, but that that Bob addressed what he writes to, and intended his book only to be read by, the particular readers of the Atheist press who debate Christian apologists? Did (and does) Bob not hope that the scholars whom he takes on in his book -- as well as the NT guild as a whole -- will also take it up? Is it not an address to them as well?

(Incidentally, if is is not an address to them as well, then you might have have another explanation as to why the reviewer did not review Price's other works).

I note with interest that this is precisely the question I asked about the grad student from MIT who reviewed Earl's work. But I thought you had declared such questions to be "off topic". Why may you ask them, but not me?

In any case, are you now saying, seemingly in contradiction to what you said before, that the reason that the author says what he says about the nature and quality of Price's argument rests in something other than the fact that the book is not formatted in a particular way?


Jeffrey

Toto

As I read him, the reviewer implied that Price just needed to show that Jesus did not exist, and then he wouldn't have to discuss the resurrection at all.

Price appears not to care about most of the NT guild. If he were addressing them, I'm sure his southern manners would come to the fore.


That was not what was off topic about your digressions.

GakuseiDon

Isn't "hyper-skepticism" a term describing a self-refuting logical fallacy? I.e. "We can know nothing with certainty, including this statement".

The author appears to refer to that principle here:

The hyper-skepticism in Price’s book comes to the surface when he states that “The New Testament texts are like a constantly shifting kaleidoscope, and the application of our methods is the twisting of the tube.... But the next twist will yield something else, and we may not judge it more ‘true’ or ‘accurate’ than the one before. None can carry any particular conviction” (90).

Not only does this argumentation yield uncertainty; it is self-refuting. If we cannot know that the texts we are reading have value, whether they are true or accurate, and no one can carry any particular conviction, what, then, is the purpose of academia? If there is no conviction, then what was the purpose in writing this book?

Toto, to what is the author 'tipping his hat' IYO?