Casper

Maybe there were other pressures, like publishers? Or perhaps someone Price knows and respects took him to task for the structure in his first review, and Price duly noted the criticism? We cannot know for sure, but I certainly don't see it as having to be clandestine or greed motivated.

Toto

I am listening to this Podcast. I think it clarifies things as far as the relationship between Price and Acharya.

Malachi151

What does it say?

Dave31

So once again we have a majority of folks here speaking so authoritatively about Acharya's work yet, they have never read her books. The Idea that Dr. Price and Acharya (And Doherty) are not going to remain critical of each others work in a peer review fashion is absurd and has no basis in fact.

The fact is, Dr. Price no longer stands behind his old review of "Christ Conspiracy." It demonstrates how low some of you are and how desperate you are for dirt to go and dig up that old review from the cache. It should be removed and if anyone had an ounce of integrity here they would never have used it in the first place.

Dr. Price did not offer a fair, objective review. He focused on silly things like Spocks "V" shape hand sign (which she was right about) and giving out her private and personal information instead of the great work that is in C.C. Acharya feared for her life after he did this. Some of you here seem to have no conscience to show any concern about that.

Thing is, Dr. Price was man enough to admit what he did was despicable. Dr. Price took the review down completely a few YEARS ago. There was absolutely no litigation or publishers involved. They became friends over time.

- Totally bogus and just a way for you to start this rumor like malachi trying to start the rumor that she is part of a cult. As Toto said, "based on no facts at all"

They appeared together on the infidelguy radio show as Toto linked.

Acharya wrote a review of his
"The Pre-Nicene New Testament"
http://www.truthbeknown.com/new-testament.html

Dr. Robert Price has written the foreword to her latest book,
"Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ"
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/whowasjesus.html

Amazon - Who Was Jesus? (or via: amazon.co.uk)

So, rather than creating false assumptions and rumors, the fact is that they worked it out like normal adults. Nothing more than that. They have both benefited from each others work and will probably continue to do so.

Jeffrey Gibson

How do you know that "professional jealousy" was Price's motive?

And even if it were, how does that make what he said in his review untrue?

Jeffrey

Ted Hoffman

And why would I be interested in easing your purported wonder?
Why in Gods holy name, would I be interested in answering any question from you?
Malachi has responded to your disingenuous questions. As usual, we can see that you are not interested in engaging in any discussion here so I will not bother with you.
I dont think they are really "weaknesses." Its just a case of tacit complicity in slothful scholarship. Its a matter of turning their backs when their colleages churn out manure instead of exposing it as manure. I guess its because they see themselves in each other. NT scholars hold their tongues when their colleagues publish manure, rather than let laymen know that what just came out of the press is manure. Instead, they spend time quibbling over niceties like whether Jesus was a marginal Jew, a revolutionary or eschatological prophet. Yet they ignore the foundational flaws that they collectively derive their works from.

My feeling is that we need people to shake the HJ cage. Everybody who is interested in doing so. Cooks, quacks, professionals, hacks, hucksters, charlatans, everybody should have a go at it with their own case. Once the HJ belief is dislodged or at least put in doubt, then people can look carefully at the best alternative explanation. As long as we let people walk around thinking that a HJ existed as flesh and blood man, we are not helping in challenging this popular belief. (Remember Price specifically attacked this stance in his former review that Rick Sumner discussed at Ebla some years ago). I dont think we should endorse Archaya's work (I personally think she is not very critical and is not cautious in reaching her conclusions) or Freke and Gandy, but our energy is better expended attacking the Crossans, Meiers, Sanders, Goodacres etc. Malachi, I suggest we invade the strongholds of NT. Archaya is actually small fry. She is just a passionate researcher trying her best with what resources she has at her disposal. I am almost through with Sanders next book and my earlier review will be available in the IIDB modern library next month (yes, it has taken close to a year!). Then we go after the next vaunted NT scholar.

So, yes, I sorta agree. Let Archaya do her thing. At any rate, between Archaya's works and the work of James Tabor, none is better than the other they both are full of leaps of logic and inaccuracies and we dont help the MJ case by inordinately attacking Archaya yet people like Jim West have no stern words for Tarbor, yet Tarbor has published plain nonsense.
So, yes, I sorta sympathize with Price's stance, assuming I am right about his reasons for withdrawing his review of Archaya.

Right. My suggestion is Archaya and her cult are just seedlings seeking to grow in the shadow of the huge oak that is Christianity. Christianity is a cult. Lets equally take it out. I am not saying we spare Archaya, but at least its her scholarship that is questionable, but we are in agreement regarding her belief on the existence of a HJ.

ApostateAbe

We are in agreement that Christianity is wrong. We are in agreement that the character of Jesus today is a myth. We are not in agreement that Jesus started as a myth. I don't agree with that position. The biggest names in critical Bible scholarship outside of atheist activist circles find the Jesus-myth position to be preposterous (see the dismissals on this page). To mainline critical scholars, Jesus-mythers look something like creationists. And 20% to 40% of BC&H forum goers do not agree with it (see this poll). Normally, the rallying point for anti-religious activists is something that secular scholars generally agree with--evolution, old Earth, big bang, secular government, subjectivity of spirituality--but not the mythical Jesus.

Amaleq13

Where does he say that? Certainly not in the excerpt in the OP. He clearly does not deny or in any way negate his "differences" with Acharya's other book, he declares them "secondary, though important and fascinating".

Do you have a quote where he denies the "differences" or are you misreading him here?

The thread is about the radical change in Price's attitude. There is nothing "low" or "desperate" about considering the actual evidence of that change. Do you really not know how to critically examine an issue? There really is no other way to discuss the change without noting the actual evidence of the change.:huh:

Nonsense. He wrote it and published it on the net. The most he can do is make it clear that he has reconsidered the tone with which he wrote it. But you can't unring the bell, amigo.

Perhaps, but I'm more interested in your claim that he is now denying its factual accuracy. The excerpt simply does not support that claim so you either have another quote in mind or you are misreading what we have.

Amaleq13

I should have bet you a beer, Ben. It would have been a fabulous Oak Aged Imperial Stout from one of my favorite local establishments.

Toto

You can download it for free. They talk about their mutual interest in mythology and in the neglected nineteenth century theorists that Acharya has revived. Acharya admits that some of her statements in Cosmic Chist were "mischevious." They agree that NT scholars are like laundrymen taking in each other's wash, afraid to challenge the basic assumption of a historical Jesus.