|
Review Summary: The Jesus Legend |
Date: 2008-11-09 |
|
| |
Details: The Jesus Legend is worth reading. It is well written, organized, and clear.
The authors quote from other sources often, and include lots of footnotes. Although the book is somewhat lengthy, that alone should not discourage anyone from reading it. It has something for everyone (both believers and non-believers), and the way it's written is very approachable.
There are a few shortcomings of the book. One of these is that the authors sometimes seem a little too zealous in supporting their various conclusions. This led to a few demonstrable contradictions.
The authors, at one point, wish to demonstrate that the literacy rate of the time and region was quite poor. At another point, they argue that literacy rates were actually quite high.
On pages 243-245, the authors assert that literacy rates were pretty good. On page 245 they ask, "Does this (the evidence they cite in the previous few pages) not indicate that reading and writing were potentially widespread in Palestinian Judaism during the Hellenistic period?" They go on to state that "there are even stronger grounds for concluding that literacy rates among Jews in Palestine were likely higher than the general first-century Greco-Roman population."
In contrast to this, the authors also argue that the same society did not have a high literacy rate. On page 428 they state, "It means we have to understand that, unlike written accounts produced within a highly literate context, the various episodes recorded in the Gospels very likely were intentionally written..."
Obviously it can't be both ways for the authors particular points at any given time.
Another contradiction arises when the authors try to argue that:
1) Jesus was not well known. Not even well known in Galilee.
And then later on that:
2) Jesus was actually very well known throughout the region.
Pg. 168 says "First, there is a problem with the assumption that if the Gospel accounts are true, Jesus would have been something of an international figure whom people in the first century would generally be aware of." They go on to state, "While the Gospels certainly speak of crowds occasionally following Jesus in Galilee, there is no reason to think that his reputation would have expanded much beyond this region." They continue, "But it is not even clear that Jesus would have captured the attention of most people in the region of Galilee."
In contrast to this, on pg. 174 the authors argue the exact opposite. In a peculiar move, they attempt to show that a letter from Serapion to his son in prison made a reference to Jesus.
The letter "recounts the woes that fell on the Athenians after murdering Socrates. He speaks of the hardships that fell on the Samosians after putting Pythagoras to death. And, most significant for our purposes, he refers to the mistake the Jews made when they killed "their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time."
The authors ask, "How many Jews, martyred before the destruction of Jerusalem, were known by pagans throughout the Roman Empire in the second or third centuries as "wise kings" --to the point of possibly being household names, on a par with Socrates and Pythagoras?
Again, it seems that the authors are too quick to support whatever view seems to work out for the moment. Obviously these two proposals (pg. 168 & pg. 174) cannot both be true. The authors present a contradiction.
This is one of the points upon which I think the book could have made a better case. But instead of making a stronger case, the authors undermine their own arguments, as well as their credibility, by the contradictions that they present within the book.
The authors also address the idea that Jesus was not unlike other savior figures (like Apollonius of Tyana, Perseus, Mithras, etc.). They seek to address how strong the ties actually are between Jesus and other purported god-men, and to show that Jesus was someone altogether distinct from any of those who were historically cited as being nearly synonymous.
The authors of the Jesus Legend ask this question in regards to this matter of similarity between Jesus and other god-men: "The question, however, is whether these are merely intriguing similarities or whether they represent telling parallels, suggestive of some direct, if unconscious, influence or even conscious borrowing."
I'm just curious as to what the difference is between an "intriguing similarity" and a "telling parallel." I think the authors try to downplay how strong the case actually is here. They mention in the book that early Christian writers (Justin Martyr, Tertullian, etc.) made mention of these "intriguing similarities" but then they neglect to inform the reader as to what they actually said. For good reason! Justin Martyr, for example, thought the similarities/parallels (or whatever word we want to use here) were so strong that the devil had actually copied the truths of Christianity before they had even happened. But the writers (Boyd & Eddy) don't tell you what the church fathers actually said. Why? Because it would weaken their case. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Probably the best refutation of the legendary/mythological hypothesis |
Date: 2008-05-04 |
|
| |
|
Details: Simply put, if you're only going to read one book for the Christian side of the mythological/legendary debate concerning Jesus, this is it. Boyd and Eddy do a great job of presenting the reliability of the Jesus tradition. Greg Boyd has had numerous debates with Robert Price (about 6 or 7 actually) on this very subject and much of what is covered in this book reflects that. For those of you who love heavily footnoted books like myself, you will find loads of them here also. For whatever it may be worth, I can only think of one other work (who's name is evading me at the moment) that has provided such a thorough examination of the writings of Josephus. Of course other ancient writings are examined as well. In my opinion, this is one of those books that no Christian should be without. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Excellent book |
Date: 2008-02-25 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: Is it legitimate to approach the Gospel stories with purely naturalistic presuppositions? Was primitive "Palestinian" Christianity replaced by Paul's "Hellenized" Christianity? Was Christianity nothing more than a new spin on the old paganism of surrounding cultures (e.g. the mystery religions, the hero myths)? What did Paul know about the historical Jesus? These and many other important questions are explored and addressed in this book. Great response to novel and sensationalist interpretations of early Christianity and the person of Christ. Written on a popular level but with extensive footnotes for further research. I definitely recommend it to anyone interested in researching the "historical Jesus." |
| |
|
Review Summary: Fair assessment and critique of "legendary Jesus" views |
Date: 2008-01-01 |
|
| |
Details: Boyd and Eddy have done an excellent job! In every chapter, the views they intend to criticize are first explained fully and fairly before being critiqued. Especially interesting is their forthright insistence on the primacy of religious and philosophical presuppositions that have shaped Jesus scholarship. By bringing these to light, Boyd and Eddy have been honest and faithful to what is really going on in Jesus scholarship. Also, their use of findings in the field of orality studies have proved to be a cogent check on hyper-literary standards that the Gospels necessarily fall short of.
The ONLY reason I gave this book four stars instead of five is because the binding is beyond cheap-- I am always kind to my books, and I never left this one open and face down or with a heavy object holding it open, yet the binding broke in about six places. Since a review is supposed to be about a book as a whole, I think taking away one star for this defect seems fair. Hopefully there will be a reprint that will use a better binding. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Legendary |
Date: 2008-01-01 |
|
|
| |
Details: The set of respectable ways to argue that Jesus was legendary or never existed just got a whole lot smaller. Two highly qualified scholars with impeccable credentials have granted the skeptics their wish: to subject the Jesus-myth arguments to critical scrutiny instead of simply dismissing them as 'anti-God' or 'just so much rhetoric'. Maybe now people like Robert Price and Earl Doherty wish they hadn't. Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy conduct such a thorough demolition of the Jesus myth and make such a strong case for the general reliability of the Gospels that, unless dramatic new discoveries come to light from the ancient world, I doubt anyone will be able on the available evidence to produce such an argument which withstands their criticisms. Skeptics will no longer be able to simply refer to 'the writings of Robert Price and Earl Doherty' and act as if that settled the issue of Christian origins. They will have to pass through Boyd and Eddy first.
From the reviews below it is evident that a major point of contention surrounding this book is whether it is a serious scholarly book or just 'conservative Christian propaganda'. The answer, of course, is that it is both: it is arguing for a conservative position vis a vis the reliability of the Synoptic Gospels, but the authors back this position up with scholarly arguments and extensive (even exhaustive) bibliography. The truth is that ALL scholars are apologists for one position or another, that is, they present positive arguments for their case and try to rebutt possible objections. If Boyd and Eddy are writing conservative Christian propaganda, then John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg are writing liberal Christian propaganda, while Burton Mack and Robert Price are writing skeptical/atheist propaganda. Let us say rather than each scholar argues as best he/she can and then it is up to other scholars and lay reader to judge whether or not they are convincing. If the arguments are good arguments, what does it matter the position they point to?
I will just make a few comments on the substance of the book, as the best word to describe it is 'exhaustive'. The authors try to address EVERY issue or question which arises with respect to determining the historicity of the Gospels and wrestle with the views of many other scholars. Less attention is given to the Jesus Seminar (whose views Boyd demolished in his Cynic Sage Or Son Of God?) and more to radical theorists such as Doherty, Price, Barker, Weeden, et al. With the exception of the important (indeed, according to the authors, most important) middle section of the book which deals with oral tradition, there is little new argumentation. Anyone who has read Meier, Sanders, Wright, Theissen, Dunn or Bauckham on the historical Jesus will find much of the material familiar. Indeed, it becomes obvious that serious scholars HAVE engaged and refuted most of the arguments which Jesus-mythers advance, but the lines of evidence are presented in piece-meal fashion in various parts of various books. Where Boyd and Eddy excel is bringing all this material together and putting it in dialogue with explicit statements and arguments of the Jesus-mythers.
It would be a mistake to think that this book is solely a defensive reply to the Jesus myth, however. The book also presents a constructive case for the reliability of the Gospels, again drawing from the best results of the last two centuries of historical study of the New Testament. Reading this book will acquaint you with all the critical tools and results one must be familiar with to offer a responsible historical assessment of these documents. That is no small feat. Indeed, I know of no other book (even Dunn's massive Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1), to which the authors are heavily indebted) that covers this amount of material. Add to this an important preliminary treatment of philosophical issues surrounding the question of miracle and divine action, and you have a historical Jesus book unparalleled in the history of scholarship. Its interdisciplinarity is its major strength.
Evaluations of the book's main argument will of course differ, but as far as I can objectively tell the authors succeed brilliantly in arguing that the Jesus of the Gospels is the Jesus of History, or at least as close as we'll ever come to him. Their presentation of skeptical arguments is meticulous and fair (quotations are always put in their original context and further points and arguments are referred to when appropriate) and the implications they draw from their original research in oral tradition are eminently logical. This book strengthened my faith in Jesus and greatly encouraged me with regard to the state of believing scholarship. In a word, it is blossoming. I cannot recommend this book highly enough. |
| |
|
out of 9 Reviews
