Ari Dives Into The Abhorrent Mythicist Void

Over at Ari’s Blog of Awesome, there is a post reviewing Robert Price’s contribution to the volume Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth. Ari describes it as “one of the most frustrating essays” in the volume, and having previously reviewed a chapter Price wrote for another volume, I am not surprised.

Still trying to decide whether it is worth clicking through? Well here is the equivalent of a thousand-word sample, in the form of a pictorial representation of what Ari thinks Price’s arguments amount to:

Click through for more.

  • Anonymous

    Dr. McGrath, what do you think of Ari’s discussion of Dr. Craig’s book defending the historicity of the resurrection? Would you say he is in the mainstream of critical scholarship there?

  • beallen0417

    Dr. McGrath, what do you think of Ari’s discussion of Dr. Craig’s book defending the historicity of the resurrection? Would you say he is in the mainstream of critical scholarship there?

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Anyone defending the historicity of the resurrection is not doing critical historical scholarship, mainstream or otherwise. I think it is generally accepted that William Lane Craig is as a rule not doing mainstream critical scholarship.

    Is this Evan? Shall we try conversing again – new blog, fresh start?

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    Anyone defending the historicity of the resurrection is not doing critical historical scholarship, mainstream or otherwise. I think it is generally accepted that William Lane Craig is as a rule not doing mainstream critical scholarship.

    Is this Evan? Shall we try conversing again – new blog, fresh start?

  • Anonymous

    Dr. McGrath, yes, same as always. Disqus didn’t allow me to use the same name, so I stuck with this one. I have always felt happy to respond to you, and it’s your blog, of course you have the right to respond to me.

  • beallen0417

    Dr. McGrath, yes, same as always. Disqus didn’t allow me to use the same name, so I stuck with this one. I have always felt happy to respond to you, and it’s your blog, of course you have the right to respond to me.

  • Landon Hedrick

    Richard Carrier just reviewed this book on his blog, and he claimed that Price’s chapter was one of the papers well worth reading.  In fact, he says that it’s a “must-read.” (One of four such chapters in the book.)

    He also had quite a few critical comments about the volume and editor.

  • Landon Hedrick

    Richard Carrier just reviewed this book on his blog, and he claimed that Price’s chapter was one of the papers well worth reading.  In fact, he says that it’s a “must-read.” (One of four such chapters in the book.)

    He also had quite a few critical comments about the volume and editor.

  • http://twitter.com/AwesomeAri Ari

    Thanks for the link. The title of the essay lends itself too easily to word play.

    Hi Evan, Craig’s book is just as much about the “Son Rises” as the “historical arguments”. The review is part of a blog series I intended to have on different approaches to the resurrection (see the tab on my page).

  • http://twitter.com/AwesomeAri Ari

    Thanks for the link. The title of the essay lends itself too easily to word play.

    Hi Evan, Craig’s book is just as much about the “Son Rises” as the “historical arguments”. The review is part of a blog series I intended to have on different approaches to the resurrection (see the tab on my page).

  • http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/ Tim O’Neill

    “Richard Carrier (has) claimed that
    Price’s chapter was …. a “must-read.”

    Gosh, there’s a shock.  Should we take that with the same grain of salt as Carrier’s recent assessment of one of his own contributions to a similar volume as a “tour de force”?

  • http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/ Tim O’Neill

    “Richard Carrier (has) claimed that
    Price’s chapter was …. a “must-read.”

    Gosh, there’s a shock.  Should we take that with the same grain of salt as Carrier’s recent assessment of one of his own contributions to a similar volume as a “tour de force”?

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath
  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath
  • Landon Hedrick

    Wow, I’m interested in seeing how the back-and-forth develops from here between Carrier and Hoffmann! 

  • Landon Hedrick

    Wow, I’m interested in seeing how the back-and-forth develops from here between Carrier and Hoffmann! 

  • Landon Hedrick

    Carrier’s response to Hoffmann is up as a comment on his original blog post.

  • Landon Hedrick

    Carrier’s response to Hoffmann is up as a comment on his original blog post.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X