Monday, May 16, 2011

Did Anyone Listen to the Scaer Resurrection Debate?

I listened to part of it. I really like Scaer as a theologian and a biblical exegete (and that was long before he asked me to speak at Ft. Wayne!). I just felt like there were a bunch of points he should of made that he didn't. But maybe he did make those points and I didn't hear them. Most of all, I wanted him to point out that there are clear proofs that the empty tomb narratives aren't made up (i.e. women at the tomb, etc.) and that the Gospels are written in a historical genre (actually most scholars I've read describe them as being written in the form of the philosophical biography common in the Hellenistic world known as the "Bios"). Therefore comparing them to cultic myth of a dying and rising god (like James Fraiser and Wilhelm Bosset) isn't really appropriate. Also, the guy they got to debate him is a bit of a joke. His other scholarly endeavor (beyond using outdated rationalist arguments against the NT witness) is a H.P. Lovecraft scholar. He apparently edits a journal called "Cthulhu's Crypt" or something like that.

5 comments:

  1. Wow, H.P. Lovecraft was a loon. Loonies run together.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I listened to it. I enjoyed it. Dr. Price only seemed to have one argument though. It reminded me of Luther talking about the Scholastics of his day. "To the fathers, to the councils" This guy's cry was "Interpolation. Interpolation."

    Scaer's argument for Matthean priority from Mark 10 was cool.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Steven. I'll have to listen to more of it. I find Scaer's arguments for Matthean priority generally quite convincing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jack,

    Where can one listen to this debate?

    Thanks,
    John

    ReplyDelete
  5. John- Here's the link:

    http://www.tabletalkradio.org/content/podcasts

    ReplyDelete