This recently posted book review of Robert Price’s new work, Jesus is Dead, vividly illustrates how scholars such as Price ultimately betray the scholarly guild. The reviewer points out occasion after occasion where Price simply dismisses those with whom he disagrees, rather than clearly and patiently interacting with their work. This academic methodological transgression also surfaces when it comes to engaging primary texts. If their content doesn’t suit Price, the strategy is to dismiss or ignore. This isn’t scholarship. It isn’t even clear thinking. It is bullgeschichte, a term Price himself coins in the book, as the reviewer notes. What a waste of time and ability.1
- For those unfamiliar with the pun Price (and I) am making here, scholars often use the German terms Heilgeschichte (“salvation history”) and religionsgeschichtlichte Schule (“History of Religions School”) to denote, respectively, a certain theme in biblical theology and a historical-evolutionary-parallelistic approach to the study of religion. Price coins the term Bullgeschichte to refer to books whose content promotes what I call paleobabble. I like his term for his own work. ↩
It appears that it’s more the application of HIS methods – with no footnotes, no biography, no index, no respect, no professionalism – that twist the kaleidoscope tube [and breaks it]!
An oxymoron strip-down atheistic proponent. He refers himself as a “Christian Atheist” according to Wikipedia? How can one be a Christian (a follower of Christ) and an atheist, unless one bends the very definition of a “Christian”? Why not, he is part of the Jesus seminar. I’ve seen this guy debate Gary R. Harbermas before on TV and his arguments were very weak. Only non-informed atheistic readers will run at this book and believe what it claims.