Customer Reviews

Cynic Sage or Son of God?

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

In this book, Boyd clearly demonstrates the massive difficulties facing the theories of historical revisionists such as John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack regarding the origin of Christianity.

Boyd gives an overview of historical Jesus research and then summarizes the main arguments of his two opponents, Crossan and Mack. He then proceeds to show why the theories of Crossan and Mack are almost certainly false. Boyd argues convincingly for the canonical gospels and Paul's writings being much more reliable sources than the Gospel of Peter or Gospel of Thomas for information on Jesus.

Finally, Boyd dismantles Crossan's theory that Jesus' body was thrown into a common grave after crucifixion and eaten by wild animals. He explains how the resurrection of Jesus gives a much better explanation for the origin of Christianity than a theory which has Jesus eaten by dogs.

If you enjoyed Luke Timothy Johnson's, "The Real Jesus", then you will love this book. Boyd takes Johnson's arguments a little further and Boyd is a little narrower in focusing specifically on Crossan's and Mack's views.

G.Boyd presents a systematic and powerful refutation of the Cynic thesis propounded by John Dominic Crossan and Burton L. Mack, both popular spokesman for the Jesus Seminar started Robert Funk to propagate revisionist theories of the New Testament.

A good introduction to the entire 'Quest' for the historical Jesus precedes outlines of both Mack's and Crossan's views after which follows a superb firing away at the very foundations of these maverick Jesus Seminar scholars. From the very start, Boyd shows that the Jesus Seminar is built on extremely thin-ice; Bultmann's (the 'Father' of Gospel-demythologization) naturalistic premises are clearly exposed as an unwarranted presupposition IMPOSED upon the reading of the Gospels. The Seminar's undue emphasis on extra-canonical sources is then shown to be insufficiently critical as to their validity as accepted Christian documents and early-dating. Other methodological problems are also discussed (e.g. circular reasoning, historical fallacies - "Were there really Cynics in Galilee?", etc.)

Boyd then produces superb rebuttals of the Seminar's views of the work of the Apostle Paul, Luke and Mark. Anyone wanting an introduction to the historical and sociological background to what these NT writers produced will find few explanations more concise and readable. The final chapter must've been a joyful breeze for Boyd (as it should be for all Christ-lovers). He casually brushes aside the strained explanations of the Resurrection faith of the early Church. Surely nothing other than the bodily resurrection of Jesus could've produced the spirit of joy and determination by the Church witnessed in those days.

Overall, a must-have for any lover of apologetics, historical method, textual analysis and just anyone desiring a deeper understanding of the way the NT was produced. The tons of notes at the back of the book are also tremendously helpful, and portrays Boyd's humility throughout the creation of this fabulous book. He states clearly at his introduction that he isn't seeking to make any contribution to NT scholarship. He has simply drawn upon the work of such greats as Wright, Hengel, Hemer, etc. and systematically packages his findings against the Jesus Seminar, thus proving that everything we need against anti-Christian literature is both adequate with respect to intellectual strength and already abundantly available.

This book is a whirlwind of detail and exploration into a very thorny topic of research. Boyd has provided his reader with a very thorough assessment of the quest for the historical Jesus. Boyd includes in this text a delineation of the historicity of what has occurred in the search of the historical Jesus over the last 200 years or so. Boyd has also discussed how these trends have permeated modern scholarship and the detrimental affects which have occured as a result. Several members of the ever popular Jesus Seminar group are discussed at great length, as well as the problems and ramifications of their writings upon higher biblical criticism and in particularly the person of Jesus. In this text, Boyd discusses dating, criticism, interpretation, and trustworthiness of the Biblical texts (i.e. Gospels and the Book of Acts). He has provided his reader with a careful detailed analysis of liberal scholars and their conclusions and then he systematically refutes their assessments. In other words, Boyd's counter arguments are very thorough and strong. The endorsements for this book are a regular who's who of scholarship (i.g. C. Stephen Evans, Clark H. Pinnock, D.A. Carson, Craig L. Blomberg, Ben Witherington III, and Gary R. Habermas). If you are wanting a very detailed work regarding the historicity of Jesus that is strong in its content and put together very well, then this is a book that you should add to your collection. I highly recommend it.

I have read several books on this topic recently. In general, this book was good. The reason I rated it as a 4 instead of 5 is that he sites excellent examples of the historicity of the New Testament, but there isn't really an epilog, where he ties it all up.

Much of the discussions respond to what John Dominic Crossan and other Jesus Seminar advocates say. Greg Boyd begins the book by looking at arguments by Crossan and others, and discusses whether they are historical. I think the author was effective in providing biblical accounts, for the purpose of justifying those events as historical and not just bedtime stories.

One of the most convincing themes I received from the book was the argument about the timeline, which Crossan states must have been around the second century. In the book, Boyd justifies the writings as coming from the first century, around 50-60 AD. Among other reasons for confirmation of this biblical timeline was the destruction of the Jewish temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Had the New Testament books been written after that, they would surely have noted such a cataclysmic event in Jewish history, but no mention of that destruction occurs in the Bible.

This book starts with founders of the concepts presented in the Jesus Seminar. Liberal scholars, such as Bultmann, contributed to the way in which Crossan and others think. This book explains the evolution of the views those founders of the Jesus Seminar acquired and then explains why their logic on these issues is flawed.

Overall, the book made me feel more confident about the historical value of the Bible. After reading the book, I think more of the New Testament as documented fact about the time of Jesus. The author reinforces the Bible as a history-based narrative of the events as they unfolded and paints Jesus in a light of being Son of God, who was in fact, raised from the dead.

The title "Cynic Sage" has very specific characteristics, which come from those like Crossan. Boyd again disspells these assertions and shows why such a title is inappropriate for Jesus.

I encourage anyone to read this book.

I tend to be leery of straightforward apologetic books because, as I've noted before, they tend to breed false confidence. Not so with this compact, masterful refutation of Crossan and Mack's outlandish theories about Christian origins. Though Boyd is a systematic theologian and not a New Testament scholar by his own admission (p.13), his grasp of the secondary literature is second to none, as his 112 pages of Notes and Bibliography (to say nothing of his judicious quotation in the main body of the text) demonstrates.

The main strength of this book is the way Boyd systematically (no pun intended) presents both the current form and the evolution of the views of the scholars (Mack and Crossan) he is criticizing. Not content to simply score points off individual quotations from their most popular books, Boyd probes much deeper into their less well known, earier publications to uncover the various 'tributaries' of research that have led to their current views. This is immensely helpful in understanding where Crossan and Mack are 'coming from', so to speak, and for the scholar who thinks that they are wrong in many respects it helps to pinpoint exactly where they went wrong in their methodology. The perspective on Jesus research of the first two chapters is especially helpful as well.

To say that Gregory Boyd demolishes the arguments of Mack and Crossan would be an understatement. Even Luke Johnson's critique of the Jesus seminar falls far short. In tight, lucidly argued chapters Boyd demonstrates the fallacious reasoning underlying most of the fundamental tenets of the Jesus Seminar approach to Christian origins: the attempt to read the sociological situation of the 'community' of the Gospel writer off the texts, as if they tell us more about the social situation of the Gospel than about Jesus (but this is merely assumed, not demonstrated), the intensely problematic layering of the hypothetical Q document to reveal a sapiential, non-eschatological 'core' of the original sayings of the Cynic Jesus, the further misuse of Q in inferring an isolated Q community with no knowledge of or interest in Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection, etc.

Though Boyd admits that his work is more destructive than constructive, he does highlight possible avenues for examining more thoroughly the Gospels and Acts as reliable historical sources. This involves a more realistic model of the means and the purpose of transmitting the Jesus traditions, the consistency of the patristic testimony to the provenance of these documents, internal details of the text which might betray eye-witness testimony, etc. Much new and exciting work has been done recently in this field, by James Dunn (A New Perspective on Jesus), Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the Eye-witnesses), Samuel Byrskog (Story as History-History as Story), etc. and it seems like we might finally be able to move away from the mistaken assumptions of early form and historical criticism.

To be sure, some parts of the book are better than others. Boyd is definitely at his best when engaging directly with the arguments of Mack and Crossan, as opposed to when he is making more directly apologetic arguments (his chapter on the Resurrection, for exmaple, is pretty much your standard historical/apologetic fare from the likes of Craig, Habermas, etc. which is not to say that it is not of use or that it is bad scholarship, but simply that it is rather limited). Overall, though, it is an excellent work on (rather than of) New Testament scholarship. Boyd takes his opponents' views absolutely seriously and always presents them fairly by putting them in context and paying attention to the nuances in the various arguments.

Finally, the interdisciplinary nature of this work should be noted. Christians need more of this kind of work and less specialized New Testament study in historical apologetics. We need people who can see the big picture and are astute to philosophical, psychological, anthropological and other issues arising from the study of Christian origins. By the way, Boyd is coming out with a brand-new 500 page book called "The Jesus Legend: A case for the historical reliability of the Synoptic tradition" which (one hopes) will be more constructive and expand on the already excellent work in evidence here. I can hardly wait.

One of the most frustrating aspects of modern debate is when certain groups make basic conclusive assumptions and then tautologically "support" those assumptions with the appearance of scholarship. Generally they follow that up by accusing their critics of being anti-intellectual.

Boyd does a very good job of pointing out the logical fallacies of the Burton Mack-JD Crossan arguments, which rely on making initial assumptions contrary to all historical records, discounting every source that the majority of scholars through history have studied in detail, leaning heavily on new "sources" (Gospels of Thomas and Peter) that appear to support their thesis of Jesus as some sort of counter-culture new age secular philosopher, and then using those assumptions to "support" their arguments.

Well, I am the Wizard of Oz. If you doubt that, I point you to my arguments to that effect, and my statements, which prove it.

Regrettably, I read this book hoping to gain another perspective in the name of honest inquiry. Alas, I was disappointed. Just as Crossan gives a rather left-slanted interpretation, so does Boyd give a right-leaning one. Please don't be fooled -- that although, like Crossan, Boyd presents a well-written book, he also fails to offer anything up rather than assumption. Perhaps Boyd's thinking is skewed by his born-again fundamentalism. Perhaps, like many literalists, he allows his own strict conservative views to intervene with his own brand of logic.

In his defense, Boyd should at least be read for the "conservative slant" if nothing else. He does a good job at presenting his audience with a fine example of conservative Biblical interpretation.

If you're a fundamentalist however, you'll probably disagree with my assessment.