Episode 53: Disunity of the Bible Part 2 with Guest Robert Price

We'd been wanting to talk to Bob Price for a while. Interesting stuff he has to say -- can't wait to read the book.

I'm listening to this right now. Love Robert Price.

Ah, Robert Pryce is where I actually got the idea of Jesus perhaps not actually dying on the cross. He has some pretty radical ideas, but has the radical proof to back them up

I enjoy reading Price (Haven't read his last two books but have read the previous ones), but I'm generally not persuaded by his conclusions. I see value in having radical questions raised so as to put pressure on the mainstream for the work to be done. I don't agree that he has the proof to back up his conclusion, because many of his conclusions must be reached by taking on a sort of conspiracist's mindset. Reading his tenuous connections between one thing and another in order to reach a conclusion feels to me a lot like the tenuous connections drawn by the moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists or the 9/11 "truther" conspiracy theorists.

I've seen Price going further and further down a progressively more minimalist and more conspiratorial road as time goes on. I really do hate to say it, because while I disagreed I did enjoy his first couple of books, but as he becomes more radical he's turning into a crank.

Have always enjoyed reading his books and listening to his Bible Geek episodes. Nonetheless, as many fans of his don't know, he seems to be a passionate right-winger and listener to Fox New's - The Bill O'Riley Show. How do I know? His "Rants" on The Bible Geek, he says, are based on the O'Riley program. No problem. For the heck of it, a couple years ago, I challenged his view of George Bush's religious status as just a plain "moderate" Methodist, nothing more he says(his story to CFI's DJ Grothe's interview and also a The Bible Geek episode). I also included my support of the Methodist's church skepticism to the war. Well, to my surprise, he simply went crazy with a right -wing diatribe. Yes, the sort of thing O'Riley does to his guests who aren't quite "American" enough. So petty for someone so smart, I thought. Needless to say, while he remains an entertaining critic of the bible, I am lesser impressed with him as a person.

As a side-note, I made inquiry to Bart Ehrman as his view of Price as a biblical scholar. Ehrman, while a little reserved, said he did not know him well but thought Price's view of the historicity of Jesus was a little off.

For anyone interested, I did save that diatribe.

Wow.... I somehow wouldn't have pegged him as an O'Reilly sort. Thank you for relating your question to Ehrman. I've wondered for some time what he thinks of some of the "Jesus Myth" advocates, though it would have been great to get more elaboration from him. I suspect that either it's part of the unwritten "Scholar's Code" among the more reputable guys or his perhaps his personal sense of diplomacy to refrain from making strong statements with respect to other scholars.

For the record, I'm pretty much in sync with Ehrman's understanding of Jesus. Not that he's unique in the "Apocalyptic Prophet" view, which is essentially the same as E.P. Sanders "Eschatological Prophet". I continue to read the perspectives of other scholars who have reached different conclusions in order to keep my thinking on the subject fresh, but to date, this is what resonates for me.

Early on I was actually leaning toward Price when his point that "so many scholars have reached so many different conclusions" left me agreeing that maybe no one actually has a clue, but that was in his phase of being unable to actually reach any conclusions ("man of an uncertain past" position). Since then he is at odds with that assessment, as he is moving toward a seemingly firm conclusion of mythicism not just for Jesus but now for Paul. At this point I don't even agree with his original position because I've come to think that some of these widely varying positions are more obviously driven by the ideology of the scholar, and I do think that it is possible for some fairly decent conclusions to be reached if ideology is minimized. I tend to (subjectively, I realize) think based on my own judgment that the "eschatological prophet" camp appears to be less ideologically centered than, say, J.D. Crossan who amazingly find a Jesus who just happens to fit his liberation theology or Luke Timothy Johnson who finds a resurrected savior of humanity that is fully compatible with his evangelical background or even a mythical Jesus who is much easier for someone such as Earl Doherty to swallow.

Sort of like Ehrman's "Criterion of dissimilarity", the mere existence of an actual historical Jesus is certainly a bit more work to fit into an agnostic/atheist's (i.e., Ehrman, Vermes, etc) world than a mythical one, and more particularly, an eschatological prophet who was wrong about the end of the world and wrong about a number of other things seems very hard to jive with E.P. Sanders' inexplicable Christian worldview. I can't say that I know exactly what sort of Christianity Sanders embraces (clearly a liberal one, of some sort), but I am perplexed by his ongoing (last time I checked) use of the label "Christian" while believing in a fully human, non-divine Jesus who wasn't virgin born, didn't know that the world wasn't actually about to end, and may not have even been resurrected. On the other hand, could we speculate that he may be one of those who actually adjusted his Christianity to fit what he's concluded through his scholarship but for whatever reason just can't bring himself to that last hurdle of discarding those last scraps of Christianity altogether, whatever bits he still is holding?

Whenever I listen to Robert Price, I am always plagued with the question, "Do you really believe your conclusions are true, or are you simply offering us reasons to doubt the dominant paradigm?"

After this interview, I was plagued even more than usual.

I enjoy listening to him, but he's such a goddamn name dropper! For those of us who left biblical scholarship behind decades ago, it's hard to know whether he is citing the fringe scholars or the mainstream. Certainly his conclusions about the Marcionite influence are not widespread, and his description of the manner of their influence & inclusion in the New Testament sounded remarkably like a "Zeitgeist" conspiracy theory.

Price tends to dominate a discussion, so pairing him with more traditional scholar for a tandem interview would require Herculean traffic cop skills. Nonetheless, that kind of dialogue could shed 3-dimensional light on the various controversies.

That was great to The Bible Geek on the show. One of the best things about Robert M Price is he is very accessible. I submitted a question a few months ago and was pleased to have it answered in his podcast. And he does great voices, the Irish priest, Monty Python, etc. If you really want to know all sides of him, go to robertmprice.mindvendor and dig through his "columns". That's where you will find the right-wing stuff. I was shocked when I found the first one and I started to craft a letter, but then decided it was not worth it. I admire his work on Christian doctrine and he rarely mixes his politics with it, so I'll leave him to opinions.

At this point I have to say I feel a little discomfort with CFI's inclusion of Price as attested with his attendance at a past CFI summer program, Prometheus Books, and at least two rather "soft" interviews with DJ Grothe. Since he seems to make up things on the fly (BS) I feel the organization that I contribute to should be more cautious. At very minimum peer reviewed would be an appropriate place to start, as they do at major universities. Oh wait, he's not associated with one. We can only hope that one day either Princeton or Harvard might hire him. Or maybe not.

New episode!

Downloading now, will listen to it later tonight. Judging by the comments, this should be interesting...

I haven't finished listening to all the episode but while I find Robert Price's theory to be interesting, I'm not sure I'm convinced. I'm not even an expert and I've already noticed a number of mistakes he makes. Price makes the assumption that Paul didn't write about the life of Jesus because he just made his whole view on Jesus up as a Gnostic religion or something but Price is forgetting his biblical scholarship that the majority of scholars agree Paul's letters were written first and the gospels were written later. Paul didn't include quotes from the gospels because they didn't exist yet, not because he was making the whole thing up. And Paul does mention the life of Jesus in Phillipians chapter two. As Ehrman points out in Lost Christianities, Paul is actually anti-Gnostic. The Gnostics believed that the key to salvation was understanding the secret meaning of Jesus' teachings and rejected the resurrection as hearsay whereas Paul believes the resurrection is essential to salvation. The Gnostics also believed that having sex within marriage was a sin because the world was a sinful illusion whereas Paul advocates sex within marriage only. Since the letters of Paul were written before Acts, then Acts is correcting Galatians, not the other way around as Price claims. Paul's views are also different from Marcion's so I doubt Marcionites wrote it. While Paul thought that Gentiles didn't have to follow the old law, he didn't think it was evil and he still believed Jews had to follow it and while the Marcionites and Gnostics believed in multiple gods, Paul insisted numerous times there was only one god. I'll post more later when I get home from college as I have to go to class now but a good book on the teachings and life of Paul is The First Paul by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan of Jesus Seminar-fame.

I just finished listening to the episode and I have to say I was disappointed in Price's theories as I wasn't convinced any and I kept noticing more holes and contradictions in his argument. Like Price wants to argue that the majority of the NT was written by Marcion, who was anti-Jewish and wanted to create a new god for Jesus and Paul to worship, yet at the same time argues that Acts is trying to Judaize Paul. Why would Acts try to Judaize a character who they wanted to be against the religion of the Jews? Price also ignores all the pro-Jewish verses in the gospels, like Matthew chapter five where Jesus is pro-Jewish law and all the Jewish prophecies. Matthew itself is actively trying to link Christianity with Judaism, but why would it do that if it was written as an anti-Jewish Marcionite religion? Then he argues that all the characters in Acts are fictional but at the same time argues that Simon Magus was real and is actually Paul but doesn't back this up with evidence. Price also asserts that John is pro-Gnostic but doesn't present evidence to back this claim up. Yet as I said in my previous post, the Gnostics were anti-resurrection while John is pro-resurrection and it's even more pro-resurrection than the Synoptic gospels. And aren't there verses where Paul is speaking against the Gnostics and condemning Christians who think they've already been saved? I can't remember where it was but I remember Ehrman mentioning this in Lost Christianities. It's definitely an original hypothesis but it sounds more like a Dan Brown conspiracy to me.

so, i'm interested in checking out the bible geek podcast, but i can't find a feed anywhere. does anyone have the feed url?

Neon Genesis wrote:I just finished listening to the episode and I have to say I was disappointed in Price's theories as I wasn't convinced any and I kept noticing more holes and contradictions in his argument. Like Price wants to argue that the majority of the NT was written by Marcion, who was anti-Jewish and wanted to create a new god for Jesus and Paul to worship, yet at the same time argues that Acts is trying to Judaize Paul. Why would Acts try to Judaize a character who they wanted to be against the religion of the Jews? Price also ignores all the pro-Jewish verses in the gospels, like Matthew chapter five where Jesus is pro-Jewish law and all the Jewish prophecies. Matthew itself is actively trying to link Christianity with Judaism, but why would it do that if it was written as an anti-Jewish Marcionite religion? Then he argues that all the characters in Acts are fictional but at the same time argues that Simon Magus was real and is actually Paul but doesn't back this up with evidence. Price also asserts that John is pro-Gnostic but doesn't present evidence to back this claim up. Yet as I said in my previous post, the Gnostics were anti-resurrection while John is pro-resurrection and it's even more pro-resurrection than the Synoptic gospels. And aren't there verses where Paul is speaking against the Gnostics and condemning Christians who think they've already been saved? I can't remember where it was but I remember Ehrman mentioning this in Lost Christianities. It's definitely an original hypothesis but it sounds more like a Dan Brown conspiracy to me.

i don't think you listened closely. i'm not trying to hammer you, i'm just sayin'. i don't know that it would be helpful to go through each place on which i think you're mistaken. that could easily lead to you getting into a debate with me over this stuff, and it's not my idea, so i have no desire to attempt to defend it. that said, i think if you listen to the podcast again at least the criticisms listed here will go away, which is not at all to say that i think you'll agree with him.

For The Bible Geek Podcast

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/biblegeek.htm

"Paul didn't include quotes from the gospels because they didn't exist yet, not because he was making the whole thing up. And Paul does mention the life of Jesus in Phillipians chapter two."

I agree, and I don't generally see Paul's overall sparse mention of specifics regarding the life of Jesus (the mythicists either dismiss these as interpolation or allegorize them) as necessarily indicative of a mythical Jesus.

First, I expect that Paul had very limited exposure to these stories. Discounting the embellishment in Acts of Paul's extensive interaction with the apostles (his own letters disagree), Paul went about his own mission with little more than his "spiritual vision" to inform his ministry. We see that in his own letters, virtually every reported contact with other "apostles" involves some sort of conflict. Paul's "visions" didn't appear to have informed him on the life of Jesus.

Second, even if Paul had somehow acquired a great deal of information regarding the life of Jesus, that information seems utterly unimportant to Paul's theology, because for Paul the key to his theology was centered entirely around the resurrection (Jesus was the "first fruit" of the resurrection) and was not at all concerned with the actual teachings of Jesus, excepting the eschatological perspective that was only reinforced by Paul's belief in Jesus' resurrection as the "first fruit" of the coming resurrection of believers (i.e., the start of the coming kingdom / end of the world / eschaton).

Neon Genesis (above) points out some features of the Gospel of John that contrast with gnostic thought. I'll go further and refer to Elaine Pagels who makes an interesting argument in one of her books (damned if I can recall the title at the moment) that some form of the Gospel of Thomas (a gnostic book) preceded G. John and that the G. John was aiming to counter that particular gnostic message in a number of places.

Lausten wrote:For The Bible Geek Podcast

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/biblegeek.htm

ah, i didn't realize it was something you had to buy.

The format has been changing a lot in the last few months. At one time the audio archives were gone, then they came back, now they seem to be gone again. But I never paid for anything. I have seen some audio and video available for purchase, but keep checking back, I think he is just in the middle of technical upgrades right now.

qaelith.2112 wrote:

Second, even if Paul had somehow acquired a great deal of information regarding the life of Jesus, that information seems utterly unimportant to Paul's theology, because for Paul the key to his theology was centered entirely around the resurrection (Jesus was the "first fruit" of the resurrection) and was not at all concerned with the actual teachings of Jesus, excepting the eschatological perspective that was only reinforced by Paul's belief in Jesus' resurrection as the "first fruit" of the coming resurrection of believers (i.e., the start of the coming kingdom / end of the world / eschaton).

Also, just because Paul doesn't know a lot about the life of Jesus that doesn't mean he made the character up. It simply means he didn't know a lot about the life of Jesus. If I go to other forums and spread the good news about this wonderful podcast called Reasonable Doubts, but I don't give any details about the life of the hosts of the podcast, that doesn't mean the podcast hosts don't exist and I just made them up. It's just I don't know the details of the lives of the Doubtcaster hosts. Even if Paul did know a lot about Jesus' life, that still doesn't mean he made the whole thing up just because he didn't write about it as much. If we had letters from Paul where he tried to convert Gentiles without telling them about the life of Jesus, it would certainly be suspicious, but the churches Paul is writing to are already established churches with converts and thus presumably as they're already Christian believers, presumably Paul didn't include the details because the people he's writing to already know the details.

The canon gospels don't include the details of how crucifixion works, but that's not because the gospels just invented crucifixion and the process of crucifixion is all made up. It's because the authors are presuming their audience already know about the process and how it works because the audience is already familiar with it. But this begs the question that if Paul was a Gnostic, why didn't he include any quotes from Gnostic gospels? It's not like the Gnostics were totally disinterested in the life of Jesus. The Gnostics not only had their own gospels but their own mythology and were practically their own religion. Even the book of Jude quotes from non-canonical sources but we don't see Paul ever quoting from Gnostic mythology. So, if the lack of mentioning the canon gospels means Paul made it up, isn't it just as suspicious that Paul doesn't mention anything about the Gnostic mythology if he had Gnostic leanings? Also, if we accept that Galatians was written before the gospels, wouldn't Galatians chapter 2 be counted as evidence that Jesus existed? I'm not using this as proof for the inerrancy of the bible but wouldn't Galatians chapter two at least confirm the existence of a historical Peter and James?

Jim wrote:

Lausten wrote:For The Bible Geek Podcast

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/biblegeek.htm

ah, i didn't realize it was something you had to buy.

Go to thebiblegeek.org for the new free podcasts. Not many on there yet though.

Moses wrote:Go to thebiblegeek.org for the new free podcasts. Not many on there yet though.

yea, i think of something different when i use the word 'podcast' than a flash video that is supposed to be viewed on the site through a browser. i was thinking of something to which i could subscribe to download and take with me. ustream is a vlog to me, and that's not what i was wanting.
i just mean something different when i talk about "podcasts."

Jim wrote:yea, i think of something different when i use the word 'podcast' than a flash video that is supposed to be viewed on the site through a browser. i was thinking of something to which i could subscribe to download and take with me. ustream is a vlog to me, and that's not what i was wanting.
i just mean something different when i talk about "podcasts."

Exactly. By definition, a ustream video isn't a podcast. I think "vlog" is probably the most apt word for it. The common understanding of a podcast is an RSS feed with an audio enclosure.

qaelith.2112 wrote:

Jim wrote:yea, i think of something different when i use the word 'podcast' than a flash video that is supposed to be viewed on the site through a browser. i was thinking of something to which i could subscribe to download and take with me. ustream is a vlog to me, and that's not what i was wanting.
i just mean something different when i talk about "podcasts."

Exactly. By definition, a ustream video isn't a podcast. I think "vlog" is probably the most apt word for it. The common understanding of a podcast is an RSS feed with an audio enclosure.

It actually used to be a podcast but he switched to ustream a few weeks ago. The link didn't used to go straight to ustream, there were hundreds of free podcasts still available but I guess they're gone now. Too bad cause there was some good stuff.

Hey Doubtcasters,
If you liked Grizzly Man, (ya?), you'll also really get a buzz from Encounters at the End of the World!

P.S.
Hey Momma H. Is there a way to make linkys appear in blue so that folks can see when someone has gone to the trouble to insert one? That would be a nice improvement. Just sayin' as they say.

Me again.

This morning, while looking up a few of the more demeaning verses about women in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians for a post in another forum, I remembered one of the doubtcasters mentioning something to the effect that "liberal" Christians tend to focus more on the red-letter text attributed to Jesus while more fundy/evangelical types tend to focus more on the rigid and uptight Paul.

Just wanted to say that I attended the Southern U.S. style Church of Christ (I can still hear the thumps) a minimum of three times a week from birth until I joined the military after high school, and my experience absolutely concurs!

In retrospect, only a few verses of Jesus were ever emphasized and the more "socialist" ones were almost never mentioned, while it was as if Paul was the real founder of the faith and his words were the ones that real Christians - the cognoscenti - would study and quote from.

Good grief, Charlie Brown. I feel so lucky to have escaped.