Ch. 12 contains little we have not already dealt with, so we’ll have a lot of bullet points here. Links will also have updated chapters in my next book, Defending the Resurrection, and since we’ll have a lot more in there, we’ll refer the reader there frequently for this chapter.
Price offers the usual canard in which we are told we can’t read 1 Cor. 15:3-10 in light of the Gospel narratives because – well, just because Price says so, that’s why. No actual argument is offered, though we can probably assume that a typical “Gospels are too late” canard would be offered given the chance (and Price offers little of worth on that either; see Ch. 1 reply).
Amazingly, though in Ch, 6 Price had gone on about “spiritual resurrection” in one direction, he now goes off on it in the opposite direction, as we mentioned he did in our Ch 6 reply. See article here for replies to this standard canard re “spiritual” resurrection in Paul, which includes some corrections to Price in a former life.
Price drags out the ptoma of the “Joseph of Arimathea was a fake” argument; see reply here. See also here. See Defending the Resurrection as well for material on the alleged “evolution” of Joseph across the Gospels; the reason Criag doesn’t take this idea seriously, as Price complains, is because it is a foolish argument. Price also badly overstates the problems of availability of information after 70 AD – there may have been no version of the Congressional Record, but there were certainly family members, and people who had lived long enough to know Joseph was not real, and people in Arimathea, and leaders like Paulus and Agrippa in a position to know. (And of course, Price neglects the honor-challenge dimension that would prompt rebuttals, and there’s no reason to date Mark past 70 AD, or even 55 AD, Price’s no-argument-to-the-contrary notwithstanding.)
Price also drags out Ronald McDonald’s ptoma -- no, not that one, though I sometimes mistake the two given the similarity of their scholarship. I mean here. Price also draws a lot of “pun parallels” with names in the Bible, but all are either simply Price stretching words to strain a parallel (eg, “Timaeus” somehow connects to “timyah,” or “beggar,”) or ignores the fact that names listed were in common use (so Jews named Zaccheus had to avoid giving alms to avoid people making a big deal about the pun?). These are no more meaningful than Price’s own name (he represents the “price” of being an ill-educated apostate from fundamentalism).
Despite Price – who thinks merely presenting them is an argument – there is no value to sources like The Apocryphon of James and the Toledeth Jesu as presenting “variant traditions” of Jesus’ burial. See DTR for the point on Acts 13:27-29, or August-September 2009 E-Block.
Further arguments assume Markan priority, which we deny, and so see no reason to answer further where Price depends on it. He certainly won’t be “interrogating” Marcan priority as a concept any time soon.
Price’s appeals to OT stories as sources for the NT reveal a manifest misunderstanding of NT literary composition. See the rebuttal to McDonald plus here for rebutting principles. Price is under the impression that if he can find a reason for the Gospels to be crafted or redacted a certain way, he has automatically proven ahistoricity, and that is simply a non sequitur.
Price’s dealings re the testimony of women are grossly misdirected and misinformed; see upcoming chapter in DTR. He also repeats the “Papias can’t be trusted because of what he said about Judas” canard we addressed in another chapter, and the “Ps. 22 meant animals” argument we also linked to a reference for elsewhere.
Price can’t help himself, even going so far as to resurrect the Abiathar canard and the John 18:13 ”that year” canard. Does Price think debate on this issues ended with Baur?
It is hard to understand why Price thinks the Gospel writers put words from the Psalms in Jesus’ mouth for the occasion. Does it never occur to him that a Jew educated in the Scriptures was just as capable of coming up with the right words from the Scriptures? Indeed, to be able to do so was a mark of honor. And again, Price erects a false dichotomy: Either it must be an “eyewitness account” or it was created wholesale out of the OT with no history. Price is too deadened by his former fundamentalism to see that these options are not mutually exclusive.
Price devotes a mere sentence or two each to defending various options for what happened to Jesus’ body. We refer the reader to chapter-length refutations in the upcoming DTR.
To return to the hub page, click here.