Luke,

awesome interview. I don’t usually listen to the podcast, because I’m more interested in the truth of the historicity of historical records rather than the philosophic discussions.

But Robert Price is able to present his view that the historical archives must be critically examined, rather than accepted iff they fit within the current paradigm, i.e. Christianity. In this, he identifies himself as a historical scientist and rises above most other historians.

I feel it’s reasonable to expect typical historians to fail to think critically with respect to their historical theories. This is in contrast to rigorously applying critical thought to their theories and examining competing views, with a mind towards the truth, rather than any particular dogma. Again, I think it’s reasonable to expect this behavior, but not that it’s a reasonable application of the scientific method.

Science is about disproving theories and teasing out causal relationships between observations. Platt (1964) shook up the scientific world – not without controversy – with his article describing exactly this process. I think it’s fair to say that historians who fail to try and disprove their own theories; who search exclusively for evidence and correlation that supports their theories; who fail to invent robust and accurate methods of distinguishing valid sources from apocryphal; these are not scientists and their works need not be discounted beyond that: they are interesting, but non-scientific.

Luke can get almost anyone.

He’ll be resurrecting Mackie and Hume for a chat next. Which I guess would be kinda ironic.

But seriously, second the Michael Martin request!

You gotta love Bob Price. His sense of humor is great. Some scholars will put you to sleep but not Dr. Price.
Excellent interview–keep’em coming

Robert Price is great. He’s a lot of fun to listen to, and I’m looking forward to attending his debate next month with James White. It’s unfortunate though, because I get the impression that few scholars really take him seriously (even skeptics like Bart Ehrman seem to dismiss him). But I have a hard time disagreeing with most of his logic.

Congrats on another great interview. But really…where do you find the time to host interviews, write in depth blog posts, compose and give speeches, read, have a full time job and hang with babes? A 4 hour sleep schedule? Keep it up, Luke.

“Robert Price – How to Study the Historical Jesus” pretty much reminds me of “Kurt Wise – How to Study Evolution”.

I’d like to make a pitch for you to interview James Kugel, author of How to Read the Bible and The Bible As It Was.

If you have not read these, I highly recommend them for their great knowledge of how the biblical texts eventually became the Bible.

Let me start that though I disagree with Price on many items, I agree with him on others, and quite liked some of the things he said.

1. The reaction to hellfire preaching to children

I actively keep my kids away from this until they are older, for the same reason that I don’t threaten them with death and drunk driving until they are old enough. Children have special developmental needs that require care in exposing them to the real dangers of life and the life to come. See:
Stick or Carrot in Gospel Preaching?

2. Gordon Conwell

Interesting that your guest got his degree there, that’s where I am attending.

3. On feeling “had” by religion

Funny, that’s how I felt about evolution after studying it after my biochem degree. See:
On Leaving Evolution
Losing One’s Faith (in Evolution) In College
Conned by Evolution

4. On being Christlike

So essentially, your author has ‘degenerated’ from a believer into an Christian moralist/ethicist. Reminds me of How Churches Degenerate to Mere Social Clubs – that is

a. We preach Christ crucified
b. We preach Christ (but not the icky mad God who demanded crucifixion)
c. We preach (but not Christ, just moralizing)
d. We (we preach community of us)

5. On harmonizing different accounts

While evangelicals do try to harmonize the canon, they don’t try to harmonize all historical accounts of Jesus, hence the non-canonical books. They did at one time use logic to include and exclude books.

But the requirements for the Canon did not include easy harmonizations or non-contradictions. It was assumed that they were accurate from different points of view.

They do the same for manuscripts today – when there are differences, they note it when they’re not sure which is more authoritative. Evangelical scholars aren’t as dishonest as Price indicated, though I think he has a point

6. On validating historicity of the bible using other sources and archeology

Price makes a good point that Biblical archaeologists are not using pure induction, and this most certainly may affect where they look and how they interpret what they find.

However, due to the impressive historical record of the Bible (arguably), it may make sense to trust it over other ancient sources, as long as you are open to contradictory archaeological data.

7. Jesus is legend because his story is more like Buddha legends and mystery religions than anything we see in normal life

Price has a point, but he is also missing the unique claims of Christ, and as I mentioned separately, the centrality of the resurrection miracle to the entire Christian construct, as opposed to the less central miracles in Buddhism, or even the healing miracles of Jesus.

This makes the unique improbable claims of Jesus not directly analogous to other legend formations.

With regard to mystery religions:
Did Christianity Borrow from the Mystery Religions?

8. When to consider fringe views or question the orthodoxy

His observation is very true – when the existing generation entrenched in the current orthodoxy dies off, only THEN can a valid fringe view actually take root.

I hope this may happen with evolutionary orthodoxy and global warming nonsense.

See When It’s Wise to Question the Scientific Consensus

I do agree that New Testament historians are often apologists and not true skeptics, but I think that this was more true before the higher criticism movement of the early 1900′s.

A critical history view is fine, but I still think there is a legitimate, logical, and reasonable role for apologetic historical examinations. IF one assumes the Bible to be True, or as accurate a historical document as we have, it follows reasonably.

9. Solomon’s Temple?

I think that Price is making an argument from lack of evidence here (what is that called?). Just because no evidence is yet found does not mean that it did not exist. Religious leaders do not allow archaeological excavations on Temple Mount, where Solomon’s temple was supposed to exist, since it is “one of the holiest sites for Judaism and Islam.”

In fact, recently, a discovery was made that may be evidence for Solomon’s temple – it’s not much, but I would not jump to conclusions.
Solomon’s Temple Artifacts Found by Muslim Workers

But I may be duplicitous here – I do sympathize with scholars who doubt the golden age of islam – see Europe’s Dark Ages and Islam’s Golden Age – two historic fictions?

10. No historical Jesus?

Sounds like he’s done the baby/bathwater thing. Not sure why. He seems to argue that similarities to the OT or other mythic stories means that it is most likely that the Jesus stories are the same. If you are going on pure probability, he may be right.

I’m not sure that the uniqueness of Jesus, his reported teachings and resurrection, and his positive impact on the world since, however, makes pure ‘probability’ the best or only measure.

The lack of contemporary material for Jesus is a good point. He seems to think that much of the OT and NT contain interpolations, which may be true, but I’m not sure what that means for the accuracy of scripture or not.

11. Suspending disbelief to enjoy Christianity

That is the most interesting part of his interview. He personally seems to enjoy myth and symbolism, positive sentiment, and even the culture of intellectual and spiritual development that are part of healthy Christianity.

The fact that he does not believe is sad. He wants the fruit, but doesn’t want the root.

Again, all that work and no one is here to see it! :(

I have to agree with the comment above:

“Robert Price – How to Study the Historical Jesus” pretty much reminds me of “Kurt Wise – How to Study Evolution”

I’m currently listening to this podcast…but I must admit, it’s very difficult giving any credibility to Price after reading his effort in the book “Five Views on the Historical Jesus” (see here http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Jesus-Five-Views/dp/0830838686/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273659633&sr=1-1).

I do like what Price says about using sources in historical studies, rather than the fundamentalist approach to the Bible. Obviously, defending inerrancy isn’t going to stick in a history essay. A point well made.

But, he goes in the opposite direction! Any possible piece of evidence which makes a controversial suggestion, or denies something stated in a gospel as being historical, and it’s Gold in Price’s eyes.

Price says no one had any evidence of any Pauline epistles till “The Gnostics”, however Paul’s letters were quoted in the very early 2nd century, by Church fathers.