Fortunately, the hecklers in the crowd answered for him: 'Price! Price!'
They were, of course, referring to Robert M. Price. And what an illustrious figure - Professor of Theology and Scripture Studies at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary in Miami Gardens, Florida!
I'm not joking.
Really.
9 comments:
Thanks for that Mike - I just checked out the Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary Statement of Beliefs, haven't laughed so hard all day!
Although now it just makes me feel kind of sad...
http://www.jctseminary.org/portaljcts/Catalog/Beleifs/tabid/72/Default.aspx
Nic
I'm particularly attracted to the notion of Jesus as our 'Way-Shower', in case we get dirty en route.
nico said...
"I just checked out the Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary Statement of Beliefs, haven't laughed so hard all day!"
"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh." - Robert Anson Heinlein
I think Price's position is not actually "that Jesus was an amalgam of Mithraism and other Greek mystery religions". I think that he would give a more comprehensive answer including Jewish Midrashic interpolation...
But before you dismiss him please read at least one of his many books for example "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" or listen to his debates or free audio podcasts. I think you will be amazed about the depth of his knowledge.
He does meet the Habermas' criteria for a notable NT scholar...
BTW, it is easy to find more academics who do not believe in historical Jesus, just use google..
---
Robert Price's academic background:
Degrees:
Doctor of Philosophy, New Testament; Drew University, Madison NJ; May 1993
Master of Philosophy, New Testament; Drew University, Madison NJ; October 1992
Doctor of Philosophy, Systematic Theology; Drew University, Madison NJ; May, 1981
Master of Theological Studies, New Testament; Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton MA; May 1978
Bachelor of Arts, Philosophy and Religion; History; Montclair State College, Upper Montclair NJ; May 1976
Affiliations:
Society of Biblical Literature
The Westar Institute (Jesus Seminar; Paul Seminar; Canon Seminar)
Member, Schleiermacher Colloquium (AAR)
Editor, The Journal of Higher Criticism
Member of the Editorial Staff editorial staff for Free Inquiry, The Humanist, and Secular Nation.
Professor of Biblical Criticism
for The Center for Inquiry Institute
Professor of Scriptural Studies at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary
Mike Paget you should really check your facts before you put your words in print. You cannot claim the pressure of a debate here. This is a good example of you not researching Robert Price before commenting. Quote Mike ‘They were, of course, referring to Robert M. Price. And what an illustrious figure - Professor of Theology and Scripture Studies at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary in Miami Gardens, Florida I'm not joking. Really.’ The trouble with this is you weren’t joking.
Again at the Critical Mass Blogg http://criticalmasspodcast.blogspot.com/2008/10/which-makes-more-sense-aftermath.html you posted this comment: ‘I'm also sorry we couldn't get the mp3 to you immediately as we hoped (not promised) to do. we haven't posted it yet either.’ This was in response to Alan Conradi ‘We will get video and audio of the debate up asap (they couldn't give us the MP3 afterwards as they had agreed to).’
Mike ‘promised’ is your word not Alans. So please be careful. You have taken a word 'agreed' and change it to 'promise'.
Mike Quote: ‘I recently asked an atheist to name one contemporary historian at a reputable university who believed that Jesus was an amalgam of Mithraism and other Greek mystery religions. To be fair, it was in a debate - both of us were petrified and wished we had prepared much harder.
Fortunately, the hecklers in the crowd answered for him: 'Price! Price!’ End Quote. Again Mike when you 'quote' audience comments at your debate make sure the quotes are accurate. You have a great way of taking what people say and misrepresenting it. In response to the question you asked the audience answered ‘Robert Price’. No one answered for Alan You can be very misleading in what you say. You can be assured Alan is very versed in Robert Price. The trouble is by you asking the question showed you were not aware of the true answer. Robert Price is only one of many.
Mike you still misrepresent the term atheism. You need your own definition to put forward arguments, but most good Christian apologists do not resort to lame definitions especially when the term has been defined.
Thanks for jumping in, Allie! The more the merrier, I say.
With the Price stuff - it seemed to me that it was the audience who leaped in. There's nothing wrong with that, as along as it's all in good fun. And all I heard was 'Price!', which is fine, as a I usually refer to academics by their last names, too. But I was looking for a credible source, a historian from a reputable university. You're quite right - I hadn't heard of Robert Price! But then I'd never heard of Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, either. I'm not sure if 'not knowing' someone is a critique of me or them!
As for the 'lame definition' assertion: I'm not trying to re-define atheism, only to understand the definition you guys are using. Here's a comment I made at Alan's blog:
I do not object your right to offer this definition for 'weak atheism': "we don't claim to know there is no god, but we also don't believe". What I object to is the notion that this (a) makes sense and (b) somehow represents a kind of epistemic neutrality.
The second half of the claim is 'we don't believe that there is a god'. Notice that the Austin guys get this right: they don't try the disastrous rhetorical trick of saying, 'we have no belief(s) about god.' That's because they understand that to say 'we don't believe that there is a god' entails certain beliefs about god, such as non-existence.
The difference between the first clause and the second is one of justification. Classically, knowledge entails that something be true, be justified, and be believed. If you believe that there is no God, but do not claim to know that there is no god, then it means one of two things. On the one hand, you could believe that the non-existence of god is false (i.e. not true), and so your belief would not be knowledge. But this would be a logical contradiction (because you would be believing in the non-existence of god and disbelieving in it at the same time). Or you could believe that you cannot justify your belief in the non-existence of god.
But this second case is obviously false, too, as you evidently try very hard to justify your non-belief in god. From this I can only conclude that the statement "we don't claim to know there is no god, but we also don't believe" is illogical - it is nonsense.
Furthermore, to say "we don't belief in a god" entails a whole set of other beliefs. For example, that religion is a natural phenomenon. That morality is non-absolute. And so on.
In other words, without having to move beyond atheism into humanism or naturalism, one belief becomes a whole set of beliefs - in other words, a belief system.
As for Christian apologetics literature... I actually have very little. I own Alister McGrath's book, 'The Dawkins Delusion'. Oh, and I've just bought, but haven't read, Tim Keller's 'The Reason for God.' That's it. I don't want to repeat other people's arguments ad nauseam. Besides, I don't know if anyone has actually written about this more refined definition of atheism that you guys are using.
Anyway, I hope you see that I'm not trying to assert anything at all. I really want to understand your perspective, without putting words in your mouth! At the same time, if something doesn't make sense logically to me, that just makes it pretty much impossible to understand!
Mike you should be familiar with who you are talking about before you dismiss them a priori.
An appropriate introduction to Bob Price's work:
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm
Mmmm.
Actually, this is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about, Lloyd.
Price is a lecturer (don't get too excited by the word professor, everyone is a professor in the US - its called title inflation) in a dodgy little joint called Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary. This is an institution so august that their website spells 'beliefs' as 'beleifs' and is run by the 'Universal Foundation for Better Living.'
Price publishes in which major, peer reviewed journals. Oh, oops, no, he publishes online. Like my 10 year old cousin.
And, worst of all, he argues for NT as midrash. Oh dear. Wright, Dunn, Neusner et al have all demonstrated the fallacy of this argument. As Wright writes,
'First, midrash proper consists of a commentary on an actual biblical text. It is not simply a fanciful retelling, but a careful discussion in which the original text itself remains clearly in focus. It is obvious that the gospels do not read in any way like this...midrash never included the invention of stories which were clearly seen as non-literal in intent, and merrily designed to evoke awe and wonder. It was no part of Jewish midrash, or any other Jewish writing-genre of the first century, to invent all kinds of new episodes about recent history in order to advance the claim that the scriptures had been fulfilled.'
So, back to question one: got anyone with credibility?
Mike wrote:
"Price publishes in which major, peer reviewed journals. Oh, oops, no, he publishes online. Like my 10 year old cousin."
Dr. Price has published in:
-Journal for the Study of the NT
-Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation
-Journal of Psychology and Theology
-Reformed Journal
-Themelios
-Evangelical Quarterly
-Journal of Ecumenical Studies
-Religion & Intellectual Life
-Christian Scholar's Review
-Journal of Religion & Health
-Mount Olive Review
-Skeptical Inquirer
-Saint Luke's Journal of Theology
-Religious Studies
-Theological Digest & Outlook
-Journal of Higher Criticism
-Journal of Unification Studies
-Journal for the Critical Study of Religion
-Review of Rabbinic Judaism
-Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought
And quite a few other peer reviewed Journals since seventies. If you have followed peer reviewed Christian Journals, chances are you have read his articles.
Mike wrote:
worst of all, he argues for NT as midrash.
Please tell us where you have actually read his view. I stated earlier "he would give a more comprehensive answer including...". Once that is established we can address the issues and even investigate claims like "midrash never included the invention of stories" you quoted.
Mike wrote:
back to question one: got anyone with credibility?
Let's drop the ad hominems "dodgy little joint called Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary", be respectful here and follow the evidence.
Post a Comment