Ehrman v. Bob Price debate?

[maryhelena]

What could they possibly say that you haven't heard from them before?

[cienfuegos]

What could they possibly say that you haven't heard from them before?

I would like to see Ehrman respond to a competent critique of historicist assumptions. It's easy enough to take down the "low hanging fruit" (Carrier, 2014), but a more sophisticated argument might be more of a challenge. Also, Price has been mostly gracious about Ehrman while critical of his Jesus historiography. Either in person or in writing, I think the exchange of ideas would be very interesting. And to tell you the truth, I'm not sure I have heard everything from Price, yet. I have been listening to the Bible Geek during my morning commute and there's usually a new gem here and there in most episodes (you have to stomach his claims to be a conservative Republican, though). I recently listened to one with his take on the Garden of Eden story, very interesting. Besides, he talks in funny voices a lot.

[toejam]

What could they possibly say that you haven't heard from them before?

Well, I'm as much fascinated with the history and personalities involved in the study of Christian Origins as much as I am in Christian Origins. I think Price says it well in the video - both he and Ehrman are of similar age and demographic, both have had similar "faith" journeys - from evangelical teenagers/young adults, to liberal Christians, eventually to atheism. Both's primary focus in their work has been Historical Jesus. So why is it that they're coming to such different views on that point? That in itself is a fascinating question somewhat independent on the question of Jesus. I'd be fascinated to see how they handle themselves in person.

[toejam]

I asked Ehrman on his blog/forum whether he was aware of Price's challenge and this was his response:

http://ehrmanblog.org/debates-for-a-price-for-members/

QUESTION:

Robert M. Price posted on his FB wall a few weeks ago that he was considering starting a Kickstarter campaign to raise money to debate Ehrman. Looks like things might be going ahead? Ehrman said on ‘The Skeptic Fence’ podcast a few months back that he’d be OK with debating Price. Reading between the lines, it looks like that they may made some sort of verbal agreement? Dr. Ehrman, are you aware of this challenge??

RESPONSE:

Ha! No, I’m afraid we haven’t made any kind of arrangement – Bob hasn’t said anything to me about this. But before pursuing the matter, I should probably provide a little bit of background and context.

For those of you who don’t know, Robert Price is a mythicist, one of those small minority of human beings who does not think Jesus actually existed. In their opinion it is not simply that there are lots of myths and legends told about Jesus that are not historical; it is instead that the man himself never lived. This is a tiny but remarkably vocal group of people, and the vast majority of them are not scholars. Bob is an exception. He is the only full-bore mythicist that I’m aware of who actually has a PhD in the relevant field, New Testament studies.

Like me, Bob started out in evangelical Christian circles. He did two PhDs at Drew university, one in Systematic Theology, and then a second in New Testament. But he became disenchanted with the Christian faith and then left it altogether.

Bob is intelligent and is massively published in a range of fields. Probably his best known work in terms of NT scholarship is called The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.

Anyway, Bob is a good guy, and although we’ve never had a serious face-to-face (I’m not sure we’ve actually ever met personally) we have talked and communicated. And even though we heartily disagree on the matter of whether Jesus existed (with 99.9% of the human race, I think he did…), we respect each other’s work and, well, demeanor.

As some of you know, I do not respect the demeanor of other mythicists (some of whom are atheist fundamentalists, as unpleasant as many Christian or Jewish or Muslim fundamentalists – or worst than most in their self-righteous vitriol). I simply will not share a stage with some of them. But I wouldn’t mind sharing a stage with Bob.

Now, you may be wondering why he has to raise money in order to have a debate with me. There’s a very simply reason. I charge a lot for this kind of thing.

Before skipping the rest of this post in disgust, let me explain why. In fact, I’ll even give the details, in all their gory reality. I typically charge $5000 or $6000 (or more – depending on the situation) for a speaking engagement, whether that is a lecture or a debate or whatever (more than one lecture costs a bit more: $1000 more per lecture, plus all of my expenses of course). I do this for two reasons, the first of which some people do not find satisfying, the second of which, hopefully, everyone will. So keep reading.

The first is rather pragmatic: I can get this much. I’ve had agents tell me that I can actually get a lot more, but this is pretty much what my going rate is. People who get a bit miffed at me charging this much really seem not to think about it much. I’ve never met anyone yet who tells their employer to pay them only 10% of what they are worth, or what the job is worth, or what the market demands. For some reason people think it should be different for a scholar of early Christianity, that I should simply do so for less because, well, because I *should*…..

From my point of view, though, I don’t do it for less because if I did so, I would be on the road every week giving talks everywhere, and would never be home. In fact, I limit myself to five speaking gigs a semester, and accept only the ones that can pay my fee.

But here’s the second reason I charge this much. I give every dime of my speaking fees to charity. To charge less would be to raise less money for charity. That can’t be good. So as a rule I don’t do it.

In case you’re wondering, here’s the deal. I’ll basically accept most (not all) invitations for that fee. Most of the time that involves giving a lecture for a university, or a church, or some other organization, or doing a debate sponsored by one organization or another. But sometimes it is something altogether different. Sometimes I simply get invited by someone who wants to spend an evening with me, or who wants me to talk to a group of their friends and / or neighbors, and are willing to pay $5000 to make it happen. So long as they pay my speaking fee, I do it (if my schedule allows).

So, well, if you want me to spend an evening with you or you and your friends, you should feel free to ask! I’ll even do the dishes. The money all goes to the same charities that I support on the blog, dealing with issues related to hunger and homelessness.

In answer, then, to the question: if Bob wants to raise funds to get me to debate him, I’m happy to do that, just as I’m happy to give a lecture in a church, or to hang out with a bunch of people in someone’s living room. I actually would not *enjoy* having a debate on whether Jesus existed – there are lots of other things that I’m personally far more interested in. But if this is simply a (VERY) occasional thing, that would be fine. As would most things at this price.

[toejam]

So in other words, it seems he would do it if the asking price is met, but he's not looking forward to it LOL.

[maryhelena]

So in other words, it seems he would do it if the asking price is met, but he's not looking forward to it LOL.

Thanks for putting the question to Ehrman re a debate with Price.

Loved his answer....and his honesty.

Wow - re the money going to charity.

[MrMacSon]

I asked Ehrman on his blog/forum whether he was aware of Price's challenge and this was his response:

http://ehrmanblog.org/debates-for-a-price-for-members/

QUESTION:

Robert M. Price posted on his FB wall a few weeks ago that he was considering starting a Kickstarter campaign to raise money to debate Ehrman. Looks like things might be going ahead? Ehrman said on ‘The Skeptic Fence’ podcast a few months back that he’d be OK with debating Price. Reading between the lines, it looks like that they may made some sort of verbal agreement? Dr. Ehrman, are you aware of this challenge??

RESPONSE:

Ha! No, I’m afraid we haven’t made any kind of arrangement – Bob hasn’t said anything to me about this. But before pursuing the matter, I should probably provide a little bit of background and context.

For those of you who don’t know, Robert Price is a mythicist, one of those small minority of human beings who does not think Jesus actually existed. In their opinion it is not simply that there are lots of myths and legends told about Jesus that are not historical; it is instead that the man himself never lived. This is a tiny but remarkably vocal group of people, and the vast majority of them are not scholars. Bob is an exception. He is the only full-bore mythicist that I’m aware of who actually has a PhD in the relevant field, New Testament studies.

Like me, Bob started out in evangelical Christian circles. He did two PhDs at Drew university, one in Systematic Theology, and then a second in New Testament. But he became disenchanted with the Christian faith and then left it altogether.

Bob is intelligent and is massively published in a range of fields. Probably his best known work in terms of NT scholarship is called The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.

Anyway, Bob is a good guy, and although we’ve never had a serious face-to-face (I’m not sure we’ve actually ever met personally) we have talked and communicated. And even though we heartily disagree on the matter of whether Jesus existed (with 99.9% of the human race, I think he did…), we respect each other’s work and, well, demeanor.

As some of you know, I do not respect the demeanor of other mythicists (some of whom are atheist fundamentalists, as unpleasant as many Christian or Jewish or Muslim fundamentalists – or worst than most in their self-righteous vitriol). I simply will not share a stage with some of them.

A lot of this preamble by Ehrman is poisoning-the-well1 about mythicism using argumentum ad populum, & a combined ad hominem & ad lapidem fallacy2 directed at mythicists

• 1 Ehrman may not have done it deliberately or overtly maliciously; it seems to be a common commentary of his; defensiveness.
  
  2 dismissing an argument as absurd or false without demonstrating it is false, often with ridicule or in a bullying manner.

It's a pity Robert Price hadn't approached Bart Ehrman directly, primarily before his announcement.

But I wouldn’t mind sharing a stage with Bob .....


... In answer, then, to the question: if Bob wants to raise funds to get me to debate him, I’m happy to do that ... I actually would not *enjoy* having a debate on whether Jesus existed – there are lots of other things that I’m personally far more interested in. But if this is simply a (VERY) occasional thing, that would be fine. As would most things at this price.

This is a good outcome of toejam's question to Ehrman.

It would be great if the debate happens, b/c it is likely to be a respectful, topic-centered debate.

I wonder if the sign off "at this 'price'." is an intended pun?

[toejam]

^The title of the post was 'Debates for a Price'... so clearly a pun.

[toejam]

A further response from Price on his FB blog:

"Whoa! My friends, let me make something clear: I have not "challenged" Bart to a debate and would not. I was approached by a third party who said he wanted to arrange an exchange between the two of us, which would of course be a privilege. This person proposed the Kickstarter, not me. Please don't imagine I challenged Bart to a throw-down to vindicate the glorious doctrine of Mythicism. Nothing of the kind. But if it turns out that we share a stage, that's more than fine with me."

[DCHindley]

I have watched some of Dr. Price lectures on YouTube. You may think knowledge can only come from a fictional book on myths but my vast insight says otherwise.

'vast'[?]

He's employing hyperbole (i.e., he's kidding), Perseus Ω.

Like we've never heard that kind of thing here?

DCH