Chapter 9 is old home day for Price: It’s the same topic he tackled with Ch. 8 of McDowell, and neither his arguments nor his attitude (nor his jokes) have improved since we answered him on that. In fact they’re worse on all counts this time, as he chooses here to forego the details and just rail on about how Carson has allegedly misinterpreted texts. One is the “only God can forgive sin” text we have referred a link for in another chapter. Another is John 8:46, where Price thinks Jesus isn’t saying he is absolutely sinless, but merely that he has committed no crime worthy of death. Really? Unfortunately that’s nowhere in the text of John 8, and the word used is the standard hamartia, which doesn’t mean just things worthy of death. Price is pulling that explanation out of The Land of the Talmud of Jmannuel.
Also featured: The standard canard that Jesus came to John, obviously to wash away his sins. Really? Part of the reason he thinks so is that same old Marcan priority humbug he hangs on to like a basketball covered with Gorilla Glue, but even under that rubric, Mark’s picture of Jesus as divine shows that he wasn’t in line at the Jordan for sin; the real purpose was the public recognition of his identity required in a collectivist society. And once again, the old Mark 10:18 canard. If Price ever comes up with a new argument, it’ll die of loneliness. And he has the nerve to say Carson isn’t respecting the “ancient context” of the passage? Price apparently knows as much about the “ancient context” (specifically the anthropology, but a lot else too) as he knows about the mating habits of Peruvian sand mites. If I were in his sneakers I’d get out of Bible scholarship and spend the rest of my life editing third-rate erotic/horror anthologies, as he is prone to do.
More proof of this: Price is backwards enough that he thinks Colossians 1:15-18 “poses a major problem for the Nicene Christology...” Oh really? That’s what we’d expect from someone who apparently thinks “Son of God” was intended as a title for Jesus in pre-existence. (It wasn’t.) Sorry, though, no; Colossians reinforces the eternality of the Word, it does not “threaten” it. Price should be embarrassed to be this out of the loop. John 14:28 is properly read under the same considerations; Price like many critics has never grasped the difference between the ontological aspect of the Trinity and the functional aspect.
There’s some raving about hell after that. If Price wants to deal with something other than “pat answers” maybe he can try this, but given his lack of anthropological prowess on Mark 10:18, I don’t think he’s prepared for it. Much less will he be prepared for a view that makes Gandhi’s “damnation” a fair and equitable one, since it doesn’t allow him to hold a pity party for persons he is only pretending to care about so he can act outraged.
Last gasp has to do with slavery. For some reason, Price doesn’t think Jesus’ approach of undermining the premises of slavery was effective; so much for Gandhi, then, as well as Martin Luther King. But I’d also add to Carson’s comments that it is silly to expect Jesus to say anything about slavery since he wasn’t within hearing distance of people who held slaves during his formal teachings. As for the rest of Price’s complaints, see here/. It takes a naïve, narrow-minded, and angry person to fail to see the depth of moral vision in the NT: But that’s about what we’d expect from Price, a still-fundamentalist who thinks that only a direct approach will do, and can’t grasp the subtleties of a process that undermines by way of re-education.