Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I have read many rgprice posts. But I do not recall reading proof for claims such as the following [full context above], in part:
"...entirely and wholly unfounded...no question...forged....There should really be no question about this among any serious scholars at this point....."

Such absolute claims I have not seen evidence for.
Certainly, many serious scholars do think differently. Is that disallowed or dismissed by rgprice?
Is rgprice more serious, more scholarly, than all of them?

Self-publishing may be easy.
(I give credit to LC for submitting an article to a scholarly journal. Would that he had given the patient response due consideration.)

Yes, there is a problem in the field of "biblical scholarship". Firstly recognize that there is no such real field as "biblical scholarship". There is no degree in "biblical scholarship". There are people with divinity and theology degrees who call themselves biblical scholars. What are the qualifications? What is the curriculum?

Are there people, like the late J. P. Meier, who are considered "biblical scholars" that trust the bible with all their heart? Absolutely. Yes, you are right SG. There are many, many "biblical scholars" who do not agree that the works of the NT are forgeries. That's a major part of the problem...

My Duke U. 1990 Ph.D. was from the Religion (now called Religious Studies) Department of the School of Arts and Sciences--not the Divinity School--and my dissertation is available online for inspection. Also various publications.
If you think my curriculum and qualifications, there, and at Brandeis U., are worthless in the face of your self-presumed excellence, so you may think.
(I disagreed with Prof. Meier on halacha vis-a-vis Qumran, though some of his other work is valuable--despite your irrelevant deflection.)

Rookie move.

Is religious studies absolutely worthless? Probably not...

I've not majored in religious studies, only taken two college courses. Those were introductory, so I can't really say. From what I saw, religious studies provided zero objective assessment of any religion. It was more a matter of knowing that the claims of religions are and how those religions affect people's lives and shape society.

Understanding the origin and development of a text is not a religious question. It is a matter of literary forensics. Do you learn forensics in religious studies? What scientific processes are taught in a religious studies program?

Theology/divinity/religious studies programs are not sciences. Understanding the origin and development of anything requires scientific inquiry.

Does getting a chiropractic degree teach you some medical information? Yes. Does it make you a doctor? No.

Religion, fundamentally, is quackery.

So, you, rgprice, are "scientific," and I am not?

Rookie move.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:15 am Self-publishing may be easy.

Ouch man....talk about hitting below the belt with a book judged by its cover...

I highly recommend RG Price's books. He's found more allusions to the Torah than even the author of Matthew did, and they changed how I think about the gospels forever.

The fact that you don't have to pay $199 to the Moody Bible Institute to buy them is a feature, not a bug, as far as I'm concerned.

I have no objection to anyone who wishes to pay to read the rgprice book.

I'm not saying that you are not, I'm saying that divinity/theology/religious studies programs do not teach methodologies for objective assessment of religious doctrines, beliefs, claims, texts, etc. That is not the purpose of those programs.

Specific individuals may bring their own objective methodologies to the study, just as Darwin used his own intellect along with "some" of the tools he learned in seminary school to develop the theory of evolution by natural selection. But make no mistake, in order for Darwin to correctly develop his theory he had to go against many of the things he had been taught in seminary school.

Yes, he may have learned how to dissect and classify and make notes in his seminary program on naturalism, but nothing in his education prepared him to explain that species changed over time through a process of selection. He had to bring his own powers of observation and logic to bare in spite of having been taught an entirely different way to look at the world.

So yes, there are people who study the Bible with theology degrees who make real advances in the field, but its not generally because of their education, it is because of their interest in spite of their education. And this is one of Ehrman's flaws. He still fundamentally works within the framework he was given in seminary school.

rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:03 pm ... nothing in [Darwin's] education prepared him to explain that species changed over time through a process of selection. He had to bring his own powers of observation and logic to bare in spite of having been taught an entirely different way to look at the world.

• It's noteworthy that Darwin's 'revelations' came in the Galapagos Islands, ie., in a way/essentially, "outside the square"

In the same 'frame' (as both recent discussion in this thread and further to the Darwin analogy), an Augustinian friar was, contemporaneous to Darwin, conducting one of if not the greatest series of scientific studies ever: Gregor Johann Mendel's pea studies, involving 25-28,000! plants, was also one of the most industrious activities ever undertaken by one person.

The analogy is further relevant in that Mendel presented his studies in 1865 and published them in German in 1865,* but Darwin never heard about them (before he died in 1882).

* Mendel's scientific article was perceived as essentially being about hybridization rather than inheritance, so had little impact, and was cited only about three times over the next thirty-five years. Mendel's findings had to be rediscovered in the early 20th century.

Ironically, Mendel stopped his scientific activity when he was promoted to abbott and became swamped by administrative activities.

eta
And then there's the phenomenon known as the Mendelian paradox: Mendel's reported data are, statistically speaking, too good to be true, yet "everything we know about Mendel suggests that he was unlikely to engage in either deliberate fraud or in unconscious adjustment of his observations."

rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:03 pm [O]ne of Ehrman's flaws. He still fundamentally works within the framework he was given in seminary school.

He still fundamentally can display an atavistic tendency to go into full apologist mode and try to make data/arguments go away!

1. "Discussing Evidence For Crucifixion of Historical Jesus w/ Dr. Bart Ehrman". YouTube.
2. "Carrier vs Ehrman: Evidence For Crucifixion". YouTube.