Likewise, Price does not do a good job of articulating his meta-theory (that there are so many possible explanations fitting the evidence that we can’t claim the certainty scholars have been), and thus gives the impression of constantly contradicting himself by defending several completely different theories, of varying merit. For example, he has even attacked the historicity of Paul, and regardless of what you think of that, such a position is still more radical than merely questioning the historicity of Jesus. Although I know Price does not mean to say that Paul definitely did not exist, but that his existence is at least questionable, but Ehrman might simply conflate everything and conclude Price is a nut job even more extreme than the real crazies, by assuming, for example, that “Paul did not exist” is a premise in Price’s overall case against historicity. That would be a mistake, but it would be a mistake Price must partly take the blame for, having not consistently made his meta-position clear.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/255/comment-page-1#comment-4461
You've always had a problem in your criticisms of Carrier (from This Joyful Eastertide especially as I recall) believing that Carrier is being dishonest by arguing for the relative merits of different skeptical cases even though Carrier is much more specific about this than Price is. Might I then assume you are just taking a mindless moment to watch one skeptic criticize another regardless of the actual content of what they are saying?
ReplyDelete