Philo Sofee wrote:Thanks for the heads up. Hope Price is feeling well for it. Ehrman is too spooked to debate Carrier, so debating Price is a good thing. Good for the rest of us.
I don't know about that, Ehrman just wrote: October 23, 2016 "The only person in America with a PhD in a relevant field who takes this view is Richard Carrier, to my knowledge. He, however, is not trained in early Christian literature and history." https://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-exist- ... ert-price/
Ehrman isn't too spooked to debate Carrier. Carrier has some good arguments, but he is rude and juvenile in many of the presentations I have watched. He seems to want to appeal to undergraduates in their late teens.
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
huckelberry wrote:I was wondering if any persuit of the idea of Marcion creating Paul occurred. I cannot help but think that a bizarre idea. Why would the churches that rejected Marcion accept strange new letters claiming to be from 100 years earlier from Marcions presentation? It has been a commonplace to observe Paul being referred to in early writing. Has commonplace habit been overlooking important points?
Thanks, huckelberry, I was wondering the very same thing. Like you, my mind runs to early references to Paul and his writings: Polycarp and Clement as well as slightly later works (but perhaps more-or-less contemporary with Marcion) that illustrate that Paul is already an important figure (e.g. Epistula Apostolorum). I am very skeptical that "Marcion invented Paul" can reasonably be argued as a more elegant solution to the historical question than a historical Paul. Does "Marcion invented Paul" provide a better answer to any question than does "Marcion really liked Paul?"
Another question just occurred to me as I was writing the above: shouldn't we expect a Paul invented by Marcion to exhibit more knowledge of the sorts of Jesus traditions we find in the gospels (particularly Luke)? This strikes me as an odd omission if Marcion had any interest in establishing some sort of apostolic authority for his fictional character. I haven't really given this much thought -- it's just a 'from the hip' question for which there may be an obvious answer.
Bret, I could find no information yet about the Price, Ehrman debate reporting on the event. Mary linked to comments Bart had looking forward to the debate. He noted some common ground and good will despite being clearly on opposing side of the particular proposal.
there was a presentation of a Price debate with an Evangelical believer which I watched the initial Price presentation. He concentrated on observations about how rapidly religious enthusiasm can generate marvelous miraculous stories and how hard such stories can be to correct. Price was interesting and making good points. He was of course countering the common Christian apologetic device of saying there wasnot time for big story invention for the gospels and people would correct them if they started. Price obseved that a few days is pleanty of time and it can be hard to stop.
In that case Prices project is much easier than to show Jesus actually did not exist. It is far more probable to propose that some exaggurated miracles stories developed about Jesus. I know of no way to actually demonstrate that no stories about Jesus were inventions.
huckelberry wrote:In that case Prices project is much easier than to show Jesus actually did not exist. It is far more probable to propose that some exaggurated miracles stories developed about Jesus.
That sounds reasonable. It appears that Price's position may be more 'mainstream' than I had imagined. (I admit I'm not at all familiar with Price, and aside from an article or two haven't really read any Ehrman either.)
Really looking forward to watching. I liked Robert's approach in the clip I linked to. Not sure about Paul being invented by Marcion (not in the above clip), but I am intrigued by the suggestion that James and Jesus (in Josephus) refers to the sons of Damneus... If I recall correctly some of the rabbinic sources refer to men by this name connected to the high priesthood. Always intrigued me.
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov