Erhman vs. Price, and Wow! Milwaukee
A few decades ago, I was very much into early christian history. I was not so much a christian back then--I was not from a matter of faith-- but I was struggling as to how and why to reject that faith. After a few years of reading from Hans Kung to Burton Mack, I finally shelved the books, deciding there was not much more to learn. Fast forward thirty years-- the internet is not here-- Youtube is now here-- and one day I discovered all this new stuff-- this new research about the origins of Christianity. Now an atheist for many years, i was still hooked and dove back in, So to celebrate my birthday, this past October my wife and I drove to Milwaukee for the heavily anticipated debate between Bart Erhman, renowned secular biblical scholar, and Robert M. Price, renowned secular biblical scholar, debating the question “Was Jesus a myth?” It was interesting because both scholars take the position that creation and growth of Christianity can be explained and understood without resorting to the supernatural. This was to be a refreshingly different debate in the sense that most debates pit a secular historian to a Christian historian, or Christian “apologist” as they are known. But here we had two secular historians going after one another. Erhman, positing that there was a real, historical Jesus, whose followers believed had risen from the dead, and Price, who found it more likely that Jesus started out as a created demi-God who was later historicized-- put into an inaccurate historical context by later generations of Christians trying to validate their particular brand of Christianity.
The debate gathered even more interest due to the froth of controversy and consternation about Bart Erhman bubbling amongst the Mythicist protagonists in the past couple years. Erhman had always been on of the Mythicist heroes, if only because the force of his logic and research sliced and diced to shreds the arguments of Christian apologists. Yet something happened i around 2013-14 when Erhman wrote a book defending the historicity of Jesus. Most mythicists believed that Erhman went against the trajectory of his own thinking to defend the historical Jesus, and mythicists saw the defense as somewhat of a betrayal. In particular, one scholar, Richard Carrier, was not only scathing in his review, but also impolite in his language, and Bart Erhman took offense to this. Erhman as much said he would never debate Carrier, and thus a more jovial Price was the next logical choice. Either way, mythicists looked forward to the Erhman-Price debate, hoping that Erhman would either “come to Jesus” so to speak and admit the errors of his ways, or that Price would admonish him for abandoning the intergrity of his scholarship.
Needless to say, the debate was a dud. Erhman certain “won” on points. He was by far the more experienced debater. He came organized, prepared and stuck to his script. He also said nothing new. And it was an easy couple hours to earn money for his charitable purposes. Price was not as practiced a debater as Erhman, but this was no excuse. It was clear to me that Price came unprepared. He sounded either tired or confused. He did not rebut many assertions made by Erhman that based on my understanding were easily rebutted. His lack of preparation was woefully evident at the end, when given the opportunity to question Erhman, he simply said had no questions. By that time I wanted my money back. I and I am sure many others, could have handed him more than a few.
I tend to support the Mythicist viewpoint myself. However, I was disappointed in the debate not because Erhman walked away unscathed- he is still a great scholar- but that the Mythicist viewpoint was so poorly defended. in the after debate Q&A, Erhman point blank was able to tell the pro-mythicist attendees to just give it up and move on. He humiliated his hosts the Milwaukee Mythicist group, and in doing so, got his revenge, against those who opposed his view.
i think, however, that while Erhman won the battle, he did not win the war. Whether Jesus was a real man made into a God, or a God made into a man is a question that will not go away. And I would tell Erhman that it is not time to move on. Indeed, my own experience tells me that there will be much more research going on in the years to come before there is a conclusive answer to this question. i may just close up my books for now, then come back and look in about ten years. Hopefully it will not be a waste of time.