Robert Price is one of the few (very few) credentialed scholars who doesn’t think Jesus existed. His work (and work put forth by others in the same vein) has been debunked by scholars ranging from the evangelical variety to atheists. I’ve blogged about that before. (For those interested, there was a specific response book put out years ago to Price’s Jesus mythicism called The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition
Price has since moved on to arguing that Paul never existed. His views are set forth in his new book, The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul
Nothing quite like the quest for attention when it’s mixed with a great big heapin’ helpin’ of nutbaggery and gross speculation.
well put.
Bless the scholars and the scholarship.
http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=JPM8HCB-g_4
(…”Beverly Hills Cop” gag…)
Marcion and Pauline studies notwithstanding I propose two scientific rebuffs.
Firstly: Refutation via cover art. Authors name directly beneath the horse’s tail. What follows we all well know.
Lastly: Refutation via algorithm.
Placing the title into anagram-solver(dot)nyet produces “no answers”.
More importantly, CSLewis on why good philosophy must exist.
Best
Astonishing. One may not believe in God or the promise of Jesus, but to deny the historical presence of Jesus or Paul is simply ridiculous. He should stick to debunking Santa Claus,the Easter bunny and the tooth fairly.
Actually the tooth fairy is real and I hated the cheap witch. She never left me more than 40 cents.
Why do the anti-historical peeps purpose their efforts so obviously in vain? These “scholars” are no different than “Mormon (LDS) apologist”. Mike I read these post of yours that we all love and appreciate but sometimes I uh..well I get pissed Mike.
understood.
How can some of these so-called scholars (e.g. Richard Carrier, Bob Price, Acharya S./D.M. Murdock, et. al.) be so filled with wit and passion and yet lack integral reasoning when arguing for the most improbable of hypotheses?
Glenn E. Snyder’s book review conclusion:
“But Price’s Paul/Simon hypothesis, with its corresponding theory of Christian origins, is not the only “historical” alternative to traditional and modern historical-critical interpretations of Paul and the Pauline letters. Yes, The Amazing Colossal Apostle is an interesting and sometimes entertaining read. But I am not able to recommend the volume for most readers: with its inconsistencies and errata, uncited claims and sources, and so on, the book’s costs—financially, historically, intellectually, and otherwise—significantly outweigh its benefits. Scholars who are working on related projects may be able to benefit from select parts of the book, and I hope that this review helps them to identify the parts in question. But to profit with delight, I would recommend reading a related but more reliable study, such as Richard I. Pervo, The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010).”
Sorry but I have to stick with the minority on the issue of Jesus mythicism – reality conflicts too much for the gospel stories to be credible imo. There was, I’m sure, a real Paul who actually wrote a part of the material ascribed to him (though much is forged) and his story in Acts is fictional (compare to his own letters).
You’re confusing literary presentation with historicity. They are not mutually exclusive.
I never cease to be amazed at the denials put forth by this (vein) of people,
Soon they will be denying Hitler ever existed.
Funny thought, Today at the supermarket I glanced at their operating system, it is abbreviated.. ISIS. Lol.
wonder if anyone’s told them!
I’ll also step up to Dr. Price’s partial defense. I have found some of his writings quite readable and well thought-out. Others less so. That’s one reason why I have “Amazing Colossal…” still in the shrink-wrap somewhere. Nevertheless, his verbal arguments on mythic Jesus and mythic Paul on “the Bible Geek” podcast seem quite defensible.
Anyone who thinks that the historical Jesus is unassailable is simply not looking at the evidence. The earlier Higher Critics’ pointed that the Jesus of the Gospels was probably a figure composited from other historical figures, OT exegeses, and mythological symbolism from several other cultures and, therefore, not historical. This point is as strong as ever and re-enforced by the considerable disagreement between the modern historical reconstructions by top-notch scholars.
As for the mythic Paul, I recently heard one of Dr. Philip Harland’s “Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean” podcasts and he quite clearly pointed out the remarkable parallels between Paul and Simon Magus. Whether or not Paul and Marcion were also the same figure is, I agree, much shakier but worth considering rather than dismissing out-of-hand.
Could Dr. Price’s works use significant improvements in progression development and referencing? Yes. Should his ideas be dismissed with minimal consideration? Absolutely not. Given the limits our our historical and theologically-tainted knowledge, such considerations much always be acknowledged as present even if they are treated as a demon in the doorway.
I’ll also dismiss one of the SBL reviewer’s comments. Dr. Price’s books sell for quite a reasonable price compared to other books in the field especially the academic press ones.
When one just presumes what Price presumes, the arguments become non-falsifiable — something he’d never tolerate in a debate about creationism (of any variety).
These sorts of arguments REGULARLY confuse correlation with causation (that two things are similar doesn’t mean they are the same, or that one gave rise to the other). If you took that trajectory away from Jesus mythicism, it would die rather quickly.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the application of falsifiability. The standard that I am aware of is that one makes a theory then one proposes a test that, if negative, would invalidate the current version of the theory.
In this case, Dr. Price’s theory is, essentially:
The existence of an historic Jesus may be established only if the preponderance of the facts related to an historic Jesus may be established as reasonably secure. If such a preponderance of facts cannot be secured, then an historic Jesus may not be established as historic. Such a figure may be a composite or mythic figure.
Several rules for establishing the security of an historical fact are:
1) If an historic Jesus “fact” can be established as previously recorded or reasonably assumed to be previously in circulation before the writing of the NT materials, then it cannot be assumed to be a fact but must be regarded as potentially legendary or re-attributed.
2) If an historical fact is similar to multiple previously-established attestations, then, unless it is a reasonably common historical event, the fact may not be assumed any more reliable than the other attestations.
3) If an historical fact contradicts other historical facts (especially within the same source material), then it must be considered a possibility but not a fact until the contradiction is resolved.
There are a couple of others but they are either more minor or more ambiguously theological.
Based on this, falsification of the theory requires looking at each Jesus fact and determining if it is secure or not.
Dr. Price’s works have done this. It is not, I fear, as rigorous as stated above but it certainly points out numerous unsecure facts that are taken as secure by many scholars (the existence of the town of Nazareth during Jesus’ childhood period being one).
I will add that Christ Myth Theory (as he often likes to call it – taken, I believe, from the previous round of scholars) is a bit confused. Technically, it should be split into Christ Myth and Jesus Myth. Jesus Myth is concerned about the historicity of the man Jesus and is much easier to evaluate. Christ Myth is concerned about the historicity of a Celestial Christ. Since this deals with matters of magic and the supernatural, one can argue development of the theological ideas but any actually theory is, by definition, unfalsifiable. In this case, not from the proponents of a Mythic Christ but from the proponents of an Historic Christ.
Unsecure facts (uncertainties) are not the equivalent of non-factuality. “I don’t know” and “we can’t be sure” is not synonymous with “it can’t be” and “it never happened.”
Historians don’t decide what was reality. They perpetually and invariably deal in probabilities, plausibilities, and possibilities. Price’s approach is ontologically arrogant. He presumes a priori that there is no reality beyond the material — curiously (or ironically) enough an idea that a great many people in the hard sciences don’t reject. Is Price just smarter than they are? Are they not “real” scientists? (One of my favorite silly remarks — amazing how thousands of people can get the same degrees, at the same universities, under the same professors, teach at the same places, write for the same journals, and do research in the same projects can suddenly become faux scientists when they don’t adopt the materialist paradigm). It’s akin to Price being presented as the “real” historian when so many others (practically all in this case – Price is in a distinct minority) with the same training, exposed to the same data, are doing “less historical” analysis. Really? The reviewers point out leaps, gaps, and idiosyncrasies in Price’s method and handling of the data, which raises an obvious question. How “certain” should we be of the reality Price presents? In other words, does Price’s own work withstand his own standards of certainty? If the reviews of his by peers (and the work of many other experts to the contrary) is any indication, the answer is no.
Look at the list you provided:
1) If an historic Jesus “fact” can be established as previously recorded or reasonably assumed to be previously in circulation before the writing of the NT materials, then it cannot be assumed to be a fact but must be regarded as potentially legendary or re-attributed.
** Price doesn’t want Jesus to be understood as “potentially” real. He’s after more than that. But think about the logic. Why is a non-recorded “fact” only to be considered legendary or in need of other attribution? Why are there no other options. Since when does the chronology of a piece of writing become the arbiter of what corresponds to reality?
2) If an historical fact is similar to multiple previously-established attestations, then, unless it is a reasonably common historical event, the fact may not be assumed any more reliable than the other attestations.
** Why do “facts” need to be considered more reliable than others to still be facts? (your sentence began with “historical fact” so this may be a wording issue).
3) If an historical fact contradicts other historical facts (especially within the same source material), then it must be considered a possibility but not a fact until the contradiction is resolved.
** possibility, yes – so why doesn’t Price stand with others who say “I don’t know?” vs. saying “Jesus was a myth?” Is he just dishonest?
You’re missing the fact (no pun intended) that Price is asserting that NO factual data exists for Jesus’ existence. It isn’t a question of “this or that statement in the NT might be wrong.” He’s saying ALL such affirmations are wrong. I’d suggest (with the super majority) that’s neither reasonable nor coherent.
Well, see, here we have a problem. Dr. Price does not state “it can’t be” and “it never happened.” nor did I. Indeed, Dr. Price frequently quotes (as near as I can remember it and I don’t remember the source historian’s name) “The historian asks not what is possible but what is probable.”.
Dr. Price often asks if it is more reasonable to believe in material occurrences which are, more or less, repeatable or divine ones which have never been reliably shown to occur. He rarely dismisses supernatural claims (unless proof of falsification is established) but he does ask for proof of them and, without that proof, then such claims cannot established as more likely than material claims.
1) “Why is a non-recorded “fact” only to be considered legendary or in need of other attribution?” – That has nothing to do with my first point. The first point dealt with “facts” that HAVE been previously recorded. Non-previously-recorded “facts” could, indeed, be historical or they could be fiction. Come to think of it, I’m not even sure what a “non-recorded fact” would be. Isn’t that just an assumption based on connecting “recorded facts”?
2) Perhaps my wording is a little off on point to. The point dealt with the argument that if A is claimed by B, C, and D in that historical order then one cannot claim the reality of D while dismissing B and C’s claims as fictitious. If previous cultures claimed that their saviors returned from the dead (e.g., Osiris and, I believe, Dionysus), then one cannot simply dismiss their claims while promoting the claim of a later culture (e.g., Jesus), especially when notable similarities occur between all the claims.
3) I believe that, in his books and his podcasts (“the Bible Geek” and “the Human Bible”), you will find the frequent disclaimer that his claims are possibilities and not established facts. He points out weaknesses in historical arguments for an historic Jesus. He states that there might have been an historic Jesus or “he” might have been the historicizing of the Celestial Christ. Either way, most of the “evidence” for the existence of an historic Jesus can be shown to be potentially compromised by historic conflation, religious exegesis, and / or contradictory information provided by the source materials. This is far from a statement of absolute fact but hard and firm statement of “I don’t know for sure but neither do you.”.
Based on your recent response, I feel that I must ask a question that I have refrained from asking before. Have you actually read one of his books or was your blog a review of reviews? I haven’t entirely disagreed with the reviews. I find Dr. Price generally easy to listen to but rather a bit harder to read. Some of his points are beyond my knowledge to evaluate and some of his logic is less than perfect (whose isn’t?) but many of the points of which I do have knowledge, I find to be reasonably well thought-out and argued.
I suppose on some of these points we will have to agree to disagree just as I disagree strongly with some of your own work. You’ve done amazing work analyzing OT mythology yet you, self-admittedly, stop yourself from considering possibilities that deny the omni-ness of Yahoweh of the Elohim which I feel limits you severely.
By the way, don’t think that I don’t appreciate you taking the time to spar with me. I doubt that I’ll bother you often but it’s good to know that you’re there. Oh, do expect that you’ll hear from me after your book comes out (I’ve got it on pre-order). It sounds fascinating and inciteful but I’m almost positive that we’ll be disagreeing on many points.
I’ve read some of his articles. Perhaps they are different than the books. He’s become well known for his skepticism for a reason. But he’s no loose canon or Bill Maher! But I don’t get the sort of openness from him that you are portraying, at least in terms of what Boyd and Eddy are interacting with (their book is largely an interaction with Price).
The Egyptian parallels are poor ones. They aren’t the sort of bodily resurrection narratives (and of course the theology that extends from them) as the NT puts forth. Even the Baal Cycle (which has a closer relationship to biblical thinking via the relationship of Ugarit and the OT) is questionable in that regard (scholars still argue whether the Baal cycle actually has Baal dead or not). None of these items have human incarnation and bodily resurrection (and the NT in at least one instance has Jesus raising himself – another foreign element). The bottom line is that ancient religions all have gods dying or being killed but then they really aren’t dead (because they are gods), but that’s really not the same as the set of ideas put forth in the NT. Discussion of these “analogies” regularly leave out the incarnation element, which is inextricably linked to the NT talk of Jesus’ resurrection.
That’s a long way of saying the Egyptian parallels seem quite misguided — maybe they fit with Gnosticism (at least some versions) better.
Yep, I’m here! No ghost writers!
I agree that Dr. Price is no loose cannon. I’ve seen way too many loose cannons on both sides of the mythicism debate. I think that he deliberately throws theological grenades into the arena on occasion but most of them are actually reasonably well thought out and intended to break people out of patterns of thinking of which they might not even be aware – not unlike your own work with the Elohim and other such topics.
When it comes to parallels from other religions (and even within Christo-Judaism), I will have to seriously disagree with your stance.
The Osiris legend makes it very clear that his resurrection was physical and fleeting (just as was Jesus’, by the way). If Isis could could have gotten pregnant by him after his death, then she could simply have joined him in the afterlife to get pregnant. Instead, she had to return him to life to accomplish her pregnancy.
The Ba’al cycle makes it clear that Ba’al died in his initial fight with Yam (I believe) and with Mot. Of course, there is some confusion about his hows of his resurrection and why his sister Anat appeared to become him for a time. I’m pretty sure that the later confusion is tied into the harimtu legalities of Babylonia but I haven’t been able to detail that point any more solidly.
The norse religion, as well, points to physical, living gods and a physical resurrection of Balder in the post-Ragnorak new world. The fact that the norse gods were not naturally immortal but sustained themselves through a tree of life is a minor point, especially when one considers that the Greeks and, possibly, Canaanites had a similar idea that was almost certainly culturally-related to the judaic Tree of Life and the Elohim.
The idea that being a god nullifies the possibility of bodily resurrection is completely off the point. God as Jesus was still god and he attained a physical, living body. Claims that other gods attained physical, living bodies – enough to sire children with humans – have to be taken just as seriously or fictionally.
I have my limits, however. I doubt that I seriously disagree with you on the “Zeitgeist” movement. I haven’t heard many of their arguments but what I have heard has been so full of incorrect information that I’ve had to stop listening very quickly.
Finally, Dr. Price has frequently made a counter-point to the lack of a direct one-to-one correspondence between Jesus and other savior beliefs: beliefs change and evolve. If they didn’t, then all beliefs would be the same. Most scholars have absolutely no difficulty in proposing theological evolutions from one belief system to another (such as, say, from babylonian to akkadian to canaanite theologies or Mormonism from Protestantism from Catholicism from Early Christianity from Judaism). The idea that a one-time dying-and-rising god concept can evolve from a cyclic dying-and-rising god concept is fairly straight-forward when a culture develops an immediate eschatology belief which shatters the need for the cyclic system (hope I used eschatology right). Thus comparisons between one-time and cyclic concepts are not contradictory (an argument often) used for the uniqueness of Christianity). They are simply mutatory (evolutionary, if you must).
Where was Osiris’ incarnation as a man? Your response highlights my point – the incarnation element is simply skipped in these mythicist discussions. Same for Baal. And there are other ideas accrued to Christology that are not shared by ANE religions.
Osiris was also not raised “whole” (at least two stages – his penis went missing for a while as you recall). Osiris also needed help, contrary to what we read in John 10:17 (the NT does include this idea).
There are a number of disconnects. For a good scholarly overview of them, see: http://tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2007_58_1_07_Perrin_OsirisRising1Cor15.pdf
The short version is that if you’re going to argue comparisons, be consistent. I know of no mythicist who is (because they consistency simply isn’t there).
And as for Price, we’re getting far afield of the point of the original post. Two NT scholars, familiar with him and who have read his book, have (under peer review) joined the chorus of those scholars who don’t buy it.
I agree that we’ve gone on far enough with this point and I think that we can agree to disagree. I thank you for the discussion and we’ll pick up another topic some other time. I’m still waiting for your book and, if I ever finish (and publish) one of the books that I’m working on, then I’m sure that we’ll have lots to talk about.