Dr Sarah highlights the terminal weakness in RG Price's approach to the question of a historical Jesus: Price seems to be arguing against Christian scholars that a historical Gospel Jesus didn't exist. It's counter-apologetics. That would be fine if he was clear that he was producing counter-apologetics against orthodox apologetics. But it is all but irrelevant for those arguing for or against a non-Gospel historical Jesus.
One good point to Carrier's OHJ is that Carrier defines what he regards as the most likely historical Jesus and most likely mythical Jesus, and uses them against each other when making his arguments. Might we assume that RG Price's most likely historical Jesus is the Gospel one? And he views that the best scholarship for that historical Jesus is Christian apologetics? Because otherwise why does he keep going back to them in his arguments?
One good point to Carrier's OHJ is that Carrier defines what he regards as the most likely historical Jesus and most likely mythical Jesus, and uses them against each other when making his arguments. Might we assume that RG Price's most likely historical Jesus is the Gospel one? And he views that the best scholarship for that historical Jesus is Christian apologetics? Because otherwise why does he keep going back to them in his arguments?
Statistics: Posted by GakuseiDon — Sat Mar 15, 2025 7:37 pm
