Ehrman v. Bob Price debate?

[Peter Kirby]

Yes the funny thing about most publishers is that you will both see less of the revenue and the book price will be determined 'rationally', which means that it will be priced higher than $20 in most cases.

Yet you will get no respect for turning down such a sucker's bargain. It's essentially labor as a form of conspicuous consumption; it is respectable precisely because it is so wasteful.

[neilgodfrey]

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/ . . . .


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.

Can anyone explain this? So it would be impossible to limit himself to five speaking gigs a semester if he accepted a lower fee?

[neilgodfrey]

Does Bart Ehrman waive fees -- including fees to read his blog -- if someone shows receipts for their donations to other charities they consider preferable to his?

[Peter Kirby]

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/ . . . .


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.

Can anyone explain this? So it would be impossible to limit himself to five speaking gigs a semester if he accepted a lower fee?

I think he's saying that the market clearing price for "5 gigs per semester" of Ehrman is about $5000. If the price were lower, the demand would exceed the supply, and some form of artificial rationing would have to be imposed (rather than a free market solution--raising the prices and letting the "goods" go to those willing to pay). That would be unfair (apparently), so the fee of $5,000 is settled upon as a fair way to ration access to speaking gigs from the E-man. (And, we're reminded, it's for charity.)

Naturally, that is more than what is actually said in the quote... but if there is a logic to it, this kind would suggest itself.

Does Bart Ehrman waive fees -- including fees to read his blog -- if someone shows receipts for their donations to other charities they consider preferable to his?

You might have to ask him specifically.

[neilgodfrey]

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/ . . . .


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.

Can anyone explain this? So it would be impossible to limit himself to five speaking gigs a semester if he accepted a lower fee?

I think he's saying that the market clearing price for "5 gigs per semester" of Ehrman is about $5000. If the price were lower, the demand would exceed the supply, and some form of artificial rationing would have to be imposed (rather than a free market solution--raising the prices and letting the "goods" go to those willing to pay). That would be unfair (apparently), so the fee of $5,000 is settled upon as a fair way to ration access to speaking gigs from the E-man. (And, we're reminded, it's for charity.)

Naturally, that is more than what is actually said in the quote... but if there is a logic to it, this kind would suggest itself.

Interesting. Quite a contrast to Noam Chomsky's "speaking fees" and unfair decisions he faces in turning down invitations he cannot physically commit to.

[neilgodfrey]

You might have to ask him specifically.

I prefer that approach but since he has failed to respond to any of my previous queries . . . .

[Blood]

I predict it would be a lot like the Christopher Hitchens-William Dembski debate, with Ehrman as Dembski, stating, "I agree with 95% of what Bob writes."

[Tenorikuma]

Ehrman's gotta be a millionaire with his book royalties. Price probably needs the speaking fees just to keep the electricity on.

Unless you are a very widely read scholar like J D Crossan, I heard that there is not really very much money in academic book sales, even when dum'ed down fo' us ever' day fo'ks to understan'.

Well, both Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted were on the New York Times bestseller lists. How Jesus Became God came close.

I don't think Crossan's books have seen the same success among general audiences.

[Peter Kirby]

Ehrman's gotta be a millionaire with his book royalties. Price probably needs the speaking fees just to keep the electricity on.

Unless you are a very widely read scholar like J D Crossan, I heard that there is not really very much money in academic book sales, even when dum'ed down fo' us ever' day fo'ks to understan'.

Well, both Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted were on the New York Times bestseller lists. How Jesus Became God came close.

I don't think Crossan's books have seen the same success among general audiences.

(PS-- I just read the original context again. Yes, DC Hindley might show his age a bit when apparently considering Ehrman some kind of small fry in book sales next to Crossan.)

And the only #1 bestseller ever to be written about Jesus is known by the title Killing Jesus.

Ehrman's recognition is well known, but it shouldn't be considered at the expense of others. Nor is the NYT Bestseller list necessarily the best way to make comparisons, given that it's only a sample of the top 15 bestselling non-fiction books in a given week. It will leave a lot of data out of the general picture, if trying to measure the impact that someone made with the public at their peak.

Which is to say, there may not be a lot of publishing phenoms as big as Ehrman had in recent years in the religious studies world, but that doesn't mean there still isn't something of a pecking order for what does get picked up by general audiences.

And Crossan does rank among the few with a wide impact (which tends to be surprising whenever it happens with these kinds of books, let alone a book that isn't deliberately written to sell copies to the masses), as has been widely recognized informally, especially in the early to late 90s. Let him tell it:

http://www.johndominiccrossan.com/Who%20Is%20Jesus.htm

Besides my work with the Jesus Seminar, during the 1980's I continued to publish the results of my own research, basically for other scholars. But then an amazing thing happened. In 1991 I published a major book, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, a summary of my research into Jesus' life and work. I assumed that other scholars would read it, and that the general public would never even hear of it. But Peter Steinfels of the New York Times mentioned it in a front page article around Christmastime, and his story was picked up by many other newspapers. By June, to my great surprise, the book was at the top of Publisher's Weekly religious bestseller list. A briefer version, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, was on the same top-ten list for eight months in 1994. (It was pushed downwards by the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, which proves that God has a sense of humor.) The unexpected popularity of these books shows a deep and widespread public interest in the figure of Jesus.

That doesn't mean that Crossan has sold more copies than Ehrman (he hasn't). But at the time he did. Until this century, Crossan was certainly "bigger" than Ehrman. It's funny how he's now being ranked as someone lesser than, not even on the same plane as. Nobody would have said something like that 20 years ago. (PS-- Never mind--I lost the context of the comment--where the correction is necessary.)

[Ben C. Smith]

And Crossan does rank among the few with a wide impact (which tends to be surprising whenever it happens with these kinds of books, let alone a book that isn't deliberately written to sell copies to the masses), as has been widely recognized informally, especially in the early to late 90s. Let him tell it:

http://www.johndominiccrossan.com/Who%20Is%20Jesus.htm

Besides my work with the Jesus Seminar, during the 1980's I continued to publish the results of my own research, basically for other scholars. But then an amazing thing happened. In 1991 I published a major book, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, a summary of my research into Jesus' life and work. I assumed that other scholars would read it, and that the general public would never even hear of it. But Peter Steinfels of the New York Times mentioned it in a front page article around Christmastime, and his story was picked up by many other newspapers. By June, to my great surprise, the book was at the top of Publisher's Weekly religious bestseller list. A briefer version, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, was on the same top-ten list for eight months in 1994. (It was pushed downwards by the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, which proves that God has a sense of humor.) The unexpected popularity of these books shows a deep and widespread public interest in the figure of Jesus.

That doesn't mean that Crossan has sold more copies than Ehrman (he hasn't). But at the time he did. Until this century, Crossan was certainly "bigger" than Ehrman. It's funny how he's now being ranked as someone lesser than, not even on the same plane as. Nobody would have said something like that 20 years ago. (PS-- Never mind--I lost the context of the comment--where the correction is necessary.)

I was in college when The Historical Jesus came out, and there was a course offered on the book itself, not long after it came out; the course was taught by an eccentric History professor I had already taken courses from before. I signed up for that course immediately, even without knowing at that time who exactly Crossan was.

Ben.