Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

Interesting interview. In future I do hope Robert Price has someone on like Bart Ehrman to debate the issue about whether Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet (which seems to be Ehrman’s position) or whether he was a wisdom prophet (as Miller implied that he and the Jesus Seminar had decided).

I’m somewhat familiar with Ehrman’s position, which seems to me convincing, and Miller did go through some intriguing evidence on the other side. A few small questions came up for me, however, in listening to him:

(1) A good deal of the anti-apocalyptic-prophet argument was put onto the “Q” document, which itself does not exist except in reconstruction. How much weight can we really give to a document which itself is something of a scholarly fiction?

(2) Miller at one point said that some of the argument against Jesus’s being an apocalyptic prophet was that his apocalypticism was so at odds with his more peaceable wisdom sayings. But this seems to me very thin beer; many present-day religious leaders typically make both kinds of statements all the time: statements of love and peace, and statements of hatred and conflict. It concerns me also that the wisdom interpretation could potentially be a whitewash. After all, the popular interpretation of present-day sainted figures like Gandhi, Mother Teresa and Lincoln have them as peaceable and wise figures, however we know that they had their share of controversial positions. Further, we know that apocalypticism was very much in the tradition of Jewish prophecy during that period.

So while there may be good scholarly evidence for the position that the historical Jesus was a pacifist wisdom prophet, I didn’t find the arguments that Miller put forward for it terribly persuasive. I’d like to hear more, and a back-and-forth might be illuminating.

“point of inquiry is the radio show and pod cast of the center for inquiry - a think tank advancing reason, science and secular values in public afairs and at the grass roots.”

What, pray tell has any of this got to do with “reason, science and secularism”? You made him say it at the start of the show don’t go letting him talk about faith, speculation and religion!

Subject mater aside I don’t think I want any more of this back slapping and self congradulation either. After listening for more than a year to “reason, science and secularism” that’s what I want. I do not want uncritical faith speculation I will not be listening! More bible? No thanks, and please do not speak for me.

I’m more familiar with Bob’s position (he doesn’t believe there was a historical Jesus or if there ever was, he’s too buried in myth to find. That is almost an exact quote), but it would be interesting to hear Bob debate Bart Erhman.  I agree with Bob’s position. However, like I said else where, I have yet to listen to this PoI episode.

Great interview. Robert M. Price is entertaining as always.

And alaskanese, they were advocating approaching the bible with reason. Fundamentalism is probably the biggest opponent of “reason, science and secularism” in the States, so geting the fundies to think critically regarding the bible is a worthy cause.

dougsmith. Yes those points seem to be based on wery questionable premises (but that’s to be expected when dealing with the historical Jesus). And there are other arguments for the apocalyptical prophet that wasn’t mentioned. Paul is for example an advocate of the imminent end, so that type of thought must have been already in thr Christian community before the Jewish war.

And if Bob is going to get a biblical scholar to argue against the wisdom teacher position, he should bring Dale C. Allison.

mus pontuis

If this was a discussion about a historical figure as you say then the phrase “the message of jesus about the kingdom of god” would not have come up now would it.

Belief in the supernatural, not reason nor science or secularism is inseparable from biblical schcolarship. Indeed life as a BS would be a very sad and empty life without. This is just nothing to do with reasons, science or secularism it is doing POI of CFI no service.

If the difference between fundies and RJ Millar is how he takes his bible “seriously not literally” then it is still not reason, science or secularism. I don’t like his smuge giggle about those foolish fundies either.

Nor would we have had to listen to all the back slapping either if this was a serious….. anything.

If this was a discussion about a historical figure as you say then the phrase “the message of jesus about the kingdom of god” would not have come up now would it.

Sure it would. There is nothing faith-based in that phrase. The historical person Jesus had some crazy ideas about an utopia that the scholars call “the kingdom of god”.

Belief in the supernatural, not reason nor science or secularism is inseparable from biblical schcolarship. Indeed life as a BS would be a very sad and empty life without. This is just nothing to do with reasons, science or secularism it is doing POI of CFI no service.

Of course you can study religious texts like the bible from a purely reasonable/scientific/secular stance. Do you think that people like Robert Price or Joseph Hoffman can’t study the bible because they lack belief in the supernatural?

If the difference between fundies and RJ Millar is how he takes his bible “seriously not literally” then it is still not reason, science or secularism. I don’t like his smuge giggle about those foolish fundies either.

I don’t know whether Miller is a man of faith or not, but at least he is trying to get the fundies to think more critically about the bible. That is a worthy cause.

“point of inquiry is the radio show and pod cast of the center for inquiry - a think tank advancing reason, science and secular values in public afairs and at the grass roots.”

What, pray tell has any of this got to do with “reason, science and secularism”? ....

I think this will work out great with 3 interviewers, with different focuses:
a. science and public policy—Chris Mooney
b. reason, skepticism, and the paranormal—Karen Stollznow
c. secularism and the challenges of religion—Robert Price

I am reminded of Michael Schermer’s book
[Why People Believe Weird Things]

Robert Price engages in debates , arguing that the New Testament is not literally true. I think this is an important part of “converting” people to secularism (and reason).

FWIW, Mus Ponticus has this right. Their discussion of the historical Jesus was without any admixture of religious faith, indeed they made the point that the sort of scholarship one sees in the university is diametrically opposed to the crackpot theories one gets from fundamentalist interpretations of scripture, which are based on faith and presupposition rather than dispassionate investigations of the evidence.

One can and should look at religion, and religious notions like the supposed “kingdom of God”, from an objective, scientific and historical standpoint to try to understand them as social and political phenomena. I do understand that not everyone will be interested in every subject, but personally I find discussions of the history of religion quite interesting.

Interesting interview….

I agree—however D.J. interviewed some folks with whom he disagreed (like Michael Behe)
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3306/
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/search/566c99ababe0e7862ab85b1bf0e44f4a/

I agree with another poster that this particular interview was too collegial—these guys know each other too well and are too much friends. Price knows the answers to the questions he is asking and he knows what Miller will say.  They cover interesting material but it doesn’t come across as an “interview” where Price himself is learning something.  It’s more two experts discussing the Jesus seminar.

I’m interested in another book by Miller called [ Born Divine: the Births of Jesus and Other Sons of Gods] which hits a topic we have discussed elsewhere on the forums.

Both Miller and Price emphasize a point raised by Daniel Dennett in a debate with Hitchens, Harris, Dennett on one side and D’Souza et al on the other:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4626
Dennett notes that clergy learn in seminary that the Bible is not literally true, and how to preach to the congregation so they don’t lose their faith—and how this “dissonance” tears some of them apart.  It sounds like these folks in the Jesus Seminar were delighted to find each other and have a forum where they didn’t have to hide the truth…

It sounds like these folks in the Jesus Seminar were delighted to find each other and have a forum where they didn’t have to hide the truth…

Yes and no. Like they said, this is stuff that scholars have known about for a long time. So they haven’t been hiding this stuff, is just that the professional believers (priests) don’t let people know about this stuff for a very good reason.

Bob should interview Dennett on that fascinating topic. Can we make suggestions here?

I agree with another poster that this particular interview was too collegial—these guys know each other too well and are too much friends.

That’s probably true. Although I’m a fanatical Bob Price follower, so I can’t look critically at anything he sayS

Interesting interview. In future I do hope Robert Price has someone on like Bart Ehrman to debate the issue about whether Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet (which seems to be Ehrman’s position) or whether he was a wisdom prophet (as Miller implied that he and the Jesus Seminar had decided).

I’m somewhat familiar with Ehrman’s position, which seems to me convincing, and Miller did go through some intriguing evidence on the other side. A few small questions came up for me, however, in listening to him:

(1) A good deal of the anti-apocalyptic-prophet argument was put onto the “Q” document, which itself does not exist except in reconstruction. How much weight can we really give to a document which itself is something of a scholarly fiction?

(2) Miller at one point said that some of the argument against Jesus’s being an apocalyptic prophet was that his apocalypticism was so at odds with his more peaceable wisdom sayings. But this seems to me very thin beer; many present-day religious leaders typically make both kinds of statements all the time: statements of love and peace, and statements of hatred and conflict. It concerns me also that the wisdom interpretation could potentially be a whitewash. After all, the popular interpretation of present-day sainted figures like Gandhi, Mother Teresa and Lincoln have them as peaceable and wise figures, however we know that they had their share of controversial positions. Further, we know that apocalypticism was very much in the tradition of Jewish prophecy during that period.

So while there may be good scholarly evidence for the position that the historical Jesus was a pacifist wisdom prophet, I didn’t find the arguments that Miller put forward for it terribly persuasive. I’d like to hear more, and a back-and-forth might be illuminating.

I had the same feeling. As for Q, I was thinking that since Q is not an ordinary gospel per se, and it’s a collection of sayings, then it’s obviously quite limited. If we’re going to ditch everything that’s not to be found in Q, well, then I guess that’s going to be quite a bit. For all I know, Q is simply a collection of what some people thought was worthwhile to keep irrespective on his other opinions.

Another thing is that Paul, quite independently of Mark certainly expected the world to end (hence his position on marriage, which would be even more ludicrous if he didn’t expect the end).

It has to be said though, that an interview like this can’t go too deep, and there may be other good reasons for this view, but I got the distinct feeling that there’s some image improving going on.

In any case, I’m happy with the subject, and would like to see more on critical theology.

I thought it was a great episode too and I would also like to hear more.