Reading Robert M. Price "Deconstructing Jesus"

[_Philo Sofee]

I just finished this interesting book. Anyone else read it yet? If so, what are your thoughts?

[_Kishkumen]

I just finished this interesting book. Anyone else read it yet? If so, what are your thoughts?

I read it a while ago. I enjoyed it very much. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man is another good title by Price. Its subject is essentially the same.

[_sock puppet]

I've not read Price. I understand that it is a rather unorthodox view of Jesus, and ascribes attributes to Jesus that are unconventional. The commentary I read about both works of Price mentioned above noted how varying the portrayals of Jesus are becoming.

Seems Jesus can now be whomever you want him to be.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I just finished this interesting book. Anyone else read it yet? If so, what are your thoughts?

I don't believe that anyone named Robert M. Price ever existed. It's a rather elaborate myth that has developed over time. This is something that is commonplace in the literature that covers the sociology and anthropology of religion.

In a more serious vein, I have not read the book you mention. I have only read Price's chapter in The Historical Jesus: Five Views. I was not too impressed with his essay. The other authors in the book reviewed Price's essay, and while they couldn't agree on much (they run the gamut from extremely liberal to extremely conservative), they all agreed that Price was out to lunch with his mythicist position. I'd have to say I agree with their assessment.

I do find it fascinating the number of ex-Mormons and disaffected Mormons who are sympathetic to the mythicist position.

[_Ceeboo]

Hello AS

I don't believe that anyone named Robert M. Price ever existed. It's a rather elaborate myth that has developed over time. This is something that is commonplace in the literature that covers the sociology and anthropology of religion.

I do find it fascinating the number of ex-Mormons and disaffected Mormons who are sympathetic to the mythicist position.

Go figure!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[Guest]

I have only read Price's chapter in The Historical Jesus: Five Views. I was not too impressed with his essay. The other authors in the book reviewed Price's essay, and while they couldn't agree on much (they run the gamut from extremely liberal to extremely conservative), they all agreed that Price was out to lunch with his mythicist position. I'd have to say I agree with their assessment.

I do find it fascinating the number of ex-Mormons and disaffected Mormons who are sympathetic to the mythicist position.

I like the mythical Jesus idea, largely because I know from close reading of ancient sources for much better attested figures that such figures are usually presented in a manner that imbues them with a mythological aura. Plutarch's Lives, for instance, are loaded with fiction.

I always fall down on the side of Jesus having existed, but asking the myth question renders some interesting insights, when it is done well. When done sloppily, which it often is in skeptic literature, it is pretty risible stuff.

Price tends to err a little too much in the direction of sounding like a simplistic skeptic. I know he isn't, but he does sometimes sound like one.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Price tends to err a little too much in the direction of sounding like a simplistic skeptic. I know he isn't, but he does sometimes sound like one.

He is also keenly aware that he is in a very very tiny minority and it doesn't bother him a whit, which is why I find him charming. I think he has a lot of theoretical issues that I'd never agree to that brings him to his mythicist position. Most people just tend to focus on the end product and ignore the path he takes to get there.

[_Philo Sofee]

Thank you all for sharing your ideas. I was just wondering.....I find I agree with a lot of what you all say, but lean more toward what Kishkumen noted about the mythical Jesus. Not set in stone, but the history certainly does not agree with the sources. The way the Bible has been handed down to us is seriously problematical in my opinion.

[_Kishkumen]

He is also keenly aware that he is in a very very tiny minority and it doesn't bother him a whit, which is why I find him charming. I think he has a lot of theoretical issues that I'd never agree to that brings him to his mythicist position. Most people just tend to focus on the end product and ignore the path he takes to get there.

Exactly. Scholars are too concerned about being right. I think of scholarship more like scientific experimentation. We explore avenues of thought to see where they take us. If we have sufficient humility, we will not fulminate at those who disagree, bend the results dishonestly, and we will always be open to the possibility that we got it wrong. May the grand discussion carry on!

I have a deep affection for Price. I disagree with his politics, but I respect him very much as a brilliant mind who knows the secondary literature of his field at an astonishing depth and breadth. He also has proper humility and humanity when he is dealing with those who see things differently. He does not encourage baiting or ridiculing believers. He simply does not believe.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Thank you all for sharing your ideas. I was just wondering.....I find I agree with a lot of what you all say, but lean more toward what Kishkumen noted about the mythical Jesus. Not set in stone, but the history certainly does not agree with the sources.

Like Stak says, Price has to take a lot of theoretical positions to arrive at his conclusions. It's those theoretical positions which force/allow Price to read the sources the way he does and in most cases simply reject them in their entirety. Doing work on the historical Jesus is always going to have a large focus on methodology.

I do understand that sometimes one learns more from people who take a very different viewpoint on things. For example, I probably learned more from John Dominic Crossan, with whom I disagree vehemently, than any other author working on the historical Jesus. However, I didn't get much from Price because I just don't think his assumptions lead to good history. In fact, I think for the most part his methodology consistently applied would necessarily lead to large swaths of ancient history being nullified, which I don't think is warranted.

The way the Bible has been handed down to us is seriously problematical in my opinion.

Yes, there are problems with the Bible's sources and with how it has been transmitted. However, it's not a monolithic set of problems and not all parts of the Bible are equally affected. Just to pick two examples, there are serious historical and archaeological problems with the book of Joshua. But, I think you would be hard pressed to find ancient historical documents that have as few problems as the Corinthian and Galatian epistles (they are contemporary, autobiographical, lengthy, they show little concern for whitewashing, etc.).