Customer Reviews

Lord or Legend?: Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

In Lord or Legend Boyd and Eddy are not out to prove with absolute certainty that the Bible is accurate, because they understand in reality it is impossible to prove anything about the past. They do however, present the historical evidence that is found for Jesus as not just a man, but as Christ and also evidence for the reliability of the Bible. Though they are both pastors, they have great insight that goes beyond their faith. I think this book can help Christians and non-Christians see Jesus from a different perspective then maybe they have before. It is great that someone from the Christian circle is not afraid to jump into historical and often secular discussion about Jesus. Lord or Legend? is a question we all should not be afraid to explore. I think this book is a great start to a discussion about who Jesus was historically and what that means for us now.

Boyd and Eddy present excellent arguments for the credibility of the Gospels and the divinity of Christ in this book. They address all of the major claims against the reliability of Scripture with honesty and humility, admitting that they have also had their doubts in Christianity but that its truth stands up against critical examination. Boyd and Eddy do not even claim that the historical evidence proves with absolute certainty that every aspect of the Gospel's portrait of Jesus is historically accurate, but they do claim that if one remains open to the historical possibility of that portrait they will find this to be the most historically probable understanding available. Form this open outlook the authors approach such topics as belief in the supernatural, the theology and culture of first-century Judaism, the accounts of the apostle Paul, the genre of the Gospels in relation to Jewish oral traditions, the historical veracity of the Gospel texts, the credibility of the Gospel authors, the consistency and plausibility of Scripture, and the literary and archeological evidence of the Gospels. In each of these discussions Boyd and Eddy compare the claims of Scripture and the arguments against it with historical evidence and logical reasoning apart from their beliefs as Christian men and provide extremely credible conclusions for the divinity of Christ. This book is great for anyone, Christian or non-Christian, who is willing to approach the historical life of Christ with an open mind and see where the evidence leads.

Gregory A. Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy co-authored "Lord or Legend?" for "critically minded laypeople" in hopes that their research would "provide a solid intellectual foundation" to their faith, and they are true to their mission. The book's content is very academic in nature, covering two specific areas of study: 1) earliest religious beliefs and mythology and 2) the historical reliability of the Gospels in the Bible. This book was a challenging piece for me, and I consider myself to be a voracious and eclectic reader. Not only were the authors intellectual experts in their field--ancient historical veracity-- but their vocabulary sprang from a veritable dictionary tucked away in each mind. More than once, I found myself re-reading a sentence to grasp its message.

Due to my Christian upbringing, I have seldom had cause to consider some of the arguments touted by naturalists, so Boyd and Eddy's work was a trip into uncharted territory for me. Indeed, some of the opposing positions and interpretations of Jesus' story were absolutely fascinating! For example, Boyd and Eddy tackle "The Discrepancies within and between the Gospels" with surprising integrity, bringing to light apparent contradictions I never knew existed.

The authors also weave a fascinating thread of Jewish history and religious customs throughout their analysis of the "Lord or Legend?" debate. And since their use of the historical-critical method closely studies topics such as oral tradition, textual reconstruction, and literary corroboration, the peppered anecdotes and authors' personal insights help ease the cerebral focus of the text.

Because Boyd and Eddy so convincingly refute, or at least reasonably explain away, nearly every legend theorists' argument, I was almost relieved to read their concession that the "Testimonium Flavianum" we have today is, in all probability, a reconstructed version of Josephus's original. The authors had previously, however, established that Josephus, the single most important Jewish historian in ancient times, indisputably acknowledged Jesus' very existence. So the slight allowance for the Christian interpolation in the "Testimonium Flavianum" does little to alleviate the authors' unashamed (and valid!) bias.

"Lord or Legend?" is an invaluable volume for readers seeking intellectual, compelling arguments for and against the historical veracity of the Jesus story. Boyd and Eddy gave me a greater appreciation and understanding of the struggle some have for accepting Jesus as God, while deepening my own beliefs for accepting Jesus for Who He said He is. As they so eloquently put it, "No story could be imagined in which a lover sacrificed more for a beloved who deserved it less."

I was at odds for the longest time while pondering the dilemma of the Gospels' accuracy, yet these two professors made one of the best intellectual arguments I've read for the validity of the Gospels, and the truth that the Gospels foretell. I recommend this book to any skeptic--like myself--who has been waiting a while for a true and intellectual argument for the inherency of the Gospels. If there were more believers in God that were *this* intelligent, the world would be utterly and radically different right now (for the better).

Boyd and Eddy did a superb job foraging in the ivory towers of academia and making the very lofty subject of the historical Jesus a much easier (and shorter!) beast to tackle. This book is a great start for people interested in the topic, as it takes many of the popular arguments for and against the historical reliability of Christ, and discusses them in brief, laconic and understandable ways. Boyd and Eddy get to the point as there is no fluff and needless simile; just very straightforward exp...more Boyd and Eddy did a superb job foraging in the ivory towers of academia and making the very lofty subject of the historical Jesus a much easier (and shorter!) beast to tackle. This book is a great start for people interested in the topic, as it takes many of the popular arguments for and against the historical reliability of Christ, and discusses them in brief, laconic and understandable ways. Boyd and Eddy get to the point as there is no fluff and needless simile; just very straightforward explanations. Obviously, the book is a clear defense for the historical Jesus, but does this in very honest and fair ways.

Boyd and Eddy say that this book is for the critically-minded layperson. However, even such people might find this book to be somewhat of a brain bender. I would still recommend it to anyone interested in the subject as it's a relatively short read.

The first couple books I read about the historical Jesus were the popular ones by Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell, The Case for Christ and More Than a Carpenter. I find those books are both good but with certain flaws, particularly important points that they jump over without much detail. I later read Craig Blomberg's academic treatise The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, which is thorough but perhaps too detailed for some. "Lord or Legend" splits the differences, giving a concise treatment in under 200 pages that nonetheless tackles all the major issues swirling around the topic in recent years. It is also simply more up-to-date than Strobel and McDowell.

The first half tackles approaches to Bible scholarship. One major theme that Strobel and McDowell never touch is the reliability of oral transmission. No one knows exactly when the gospels were written, though we give 70 A.D. as the date that "most scholars agree on". But could the sayings and doings of Jesus have been recorded that long after his death? In fact, scholars have studied the transmission of sayings through oral tradition and found that they remain reliable for much longer periods than that. Boyd and Eddy also tackle the claim that Paul didn't believe Jesus was a real human being--a ridiculous assertion but one that's gained a remarkable amount of traction in recent years. They carefully list the many reasons why this claim doesn't hold up. There's a good, long discussion about the idea of Pagan influences on the gospels that cuts that argument down to size as well.

The second half takes on specific issues within the gospels themselves. It hits all the major points that anyone would expect: dealing with contradictions, archaeology, and extra-biblical sources that mention Jesus. The discussion of the Testimonium Flavinum is particularly even-handed. I also enjoyed the chapter on biblical archaeology and its mention of a dozen discoveries in the Middle East related to the gospels, such as the "Jesus boat" in the Sea of Galilee.

As others have mentioned, these two authors are at pains to be fair about major issues and to acknowledge evidence when it doesn't go the way they want it to. They also pack the book with excellent references and suggestions for further reading. And they are just plain good writing. "Lord or Legend" should be in every Christian's library along with the armor of God and the helmet of salvation.

Lord or Legend? is a great introductory book to the historical Jesus. In Lord or Legend? Boyd and Eddy make a case for the historical reliability of the portrait of Jesus painted by the gospels. In making this case Boyd and Eddy expose the myth of the 'neutral' and 'unbaised', historical critical method utilized to disprove the historicity of the gospels and their account of Jesus. Boyd and Eddy demonstrate how the historical critical method and its supporters come to the text of the gospels with their own theological bagage and faith-based presuppostitions, such as a disbelief in miracles. The historical critical method which they apply to the text is then used to disprove the reliability of the gospels based on these presuppostitions. The solution that Boyd and Eddy propose is an 'open' historical critical method which attempts to come to the text unbaised and free of faith-based presuppositions.

First of all, I should state my bias. I was Born Again in 1962, and am striving to be as pleasing as possible to my wonderful Lord Jesus Christ. Over the years, I have read perhaps a dozen apologetic books. It was a great pleasure to read "Lord or Legend?". It is one of the best, and perhaps the best, apologetic book, I have ever read. I can see that the authors spent much time researching this topic, and there are many new points I had not heard of before, such as the fact that the Four Gospels arose in an orally dominant culture, and there are good reasons for believing that oral transmission can actually be more accurate than written transmission. As the authors state: "But this discovery of the crucial role of individual tradents suggests that we can no longer conceive of the traditional material about Jesus being transmitted in the early church apart from the strong influence of original eyewitnesses. This renders it virtually impossible to conceive of the oral traditions in the early church veering too far from the historical events observed by eyewitnesses." The book is very well written with copious footnotes (13 pages of footnotes!), and comes with an "Index of Scripture and Ancient Writings" and a good General Index. I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors. If you are a born-again Christian (and there are really no other kinds of Christians), you will love this book. It carefully and meticulously puts to rest any lingering doubts about the historicity of the Son of God. You will be blessed by reading this book as I was. A well earned and well deserved 5 stars! I can't wait to read their next book.

Lord or Legend? is written by two avowed Christians, one a pastor and the other a professor of biblical studies at a Christian university. Needless to say, they conclude that Jesus is Lord, and not legend, and along the way they try to justify their beliefs by advancing historical arguments for the case of Jesus as Lord. They claim "the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the portrayal of Jesus within the Gospels is historically accurate (p. 13)."

The book is extremely well organized, but at its core, there are some fundamental errors which take this book out of the realm of history and into the realm of faith. For example, Boyd and Eddy uncritically assign the writing of the Gospels to the 1st century, and then conclude that the proximity of the writing of the gospels to the life of Jesus favors the historicity of Jesus. Of course, this neglects the considerable evidence that not all the gospels are 1st century texts, and indeed, there is convincing evidence that only Mark is a 1st century text. Hence, the argument for proximity is considerably weakened.

Boyd and Eddy consistently maintain that the Jewish people in 1st century Israel were exclusionary, and thus the Greek legends could not have influenced the story of Jesus. Of course, this ignores the Sadducees, who according to Josephus, were a major influence at this time, and who were decidedly non-exclusionary. In fact, downright Hellenistic. It also ignores the influence of Stoicism which is clearly present in the gospels and which enjoyed an empire-wide popularity in the 1st century.

In a curious chapter about archeology, Body and Eddy believe that ancient jars with a cross on them found in Bethsaida and dated to the mid 1st century establishes Christianity as a well functioning religion by that time. The fact is, however, that the sign of the early Christians was the fish, not the cross, and it was not until centuries later that the icon became the cross.

In a similar fashion, Body and Eddy argue that the finding of the remains of a crucified man is proof "against the argument...that victims of crucifixion would have been granted a proper burial in a private family tomb (p. 140)." Yet the fact that thousands were crucified and only one body has ever been found, attests to the rarity of this practice, and the fact that the only crucified remains do not conform to the gospel accounts (hands pierced) surely must give pause.

This is not a bad book, but it certainly isn't a history book, and I have some problems with what appears to be an attempt to masquerade as an historical account. There's lots of good material here and the Christian apologetic arguments are all well presented.

The book's title suggests Drs. Boyd and Eddy have wrestled with the dilemma of the historicity of Jesus. I beg to differ. Their book is anything but an unbiased objective wrestling with this perplexing question with which many conscientious theologians do wrestle. This book rehearses only the Baptist arguments while dismissing alleged contrary arguments to allege that Jesus was a historical figure, not a legend.

The authors assert biblical accuracy because of the quantity of New Testament manuscript attestations. They say, "We possess roughly 5,500 ancient Greek manuscripts." Dr Bart Ehrman, noted theologian trained in the Baptist tradition gives a more forthright perspective saying, "what is striking is that we find no two of these copies (except in the smallest fragments) agree in all of their wording. There can be only one reason for this: the scribes who copied the texts changed them. Nobody knows how often they changed them, because no one has yet been able to count all of the differences. Some estimates put the number at around 200,000, others 300,000.....there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. "The New Testament" page 481 by Dr. Bart Ehrman. Quality, not quantity should be the measure of manuscript attestation and by this measure the New Testament comes up severely lacking.

The authors believe the gospel writers are eyewitnesses. If so, I wish they'd explain how Luke was an eyewitness or found an eyewitness of Gabriel telling Mary she would conceive. Who was the eyewitness of Jesus' temptation by the devil? Who was the eyewitness of Jesus' blood sweating prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane while all the disciples slept? Who was the eyewitness of the Sanhedrin's interrogation of Jesus or Pilate's private questioning of Jesus while the disciples fled? The many gospel incidents where no eyewitnesses were present leads to reasonably suspect a 2nd or 3rd century scribe filled in the story with what he imagined, i.e. fiction.

If Matthew and Luke were eyewitnesses, why did they have to plagiarize 90% of Mark? Then when Matthew and Luke did add original information such as the genealogies of Jesus, the respective genealogies are laughably contradictory and incoherent.

How could eyewitnesses have Joseph, Mary, and Jesus in two different places at the same time? Matthew has Joseph, Mary, and Jesus fleeing to Egypt immediately after Jesus' birth for fear of Herod's plan to slaughter all children under the age of two. Luke is unaware of Herod's death squad and has Mary wait out her forty days of purification in Bethlehem. They then present Jesus at the temple in Jerusalem where Simeon and Anna prophesy over Jesus, every one rejoices and Jesus' family returns to Nazareth.

The authors present Josephus' Jesus Testimony as a reputable non-Christian reference to Jesus' historicity. However, the authors ignore the following reasons reputable scholars reject it as a later fraudulent insertion.

First, Josephus' writing style was to write chapter upon chapter about the most insignificant people whereas Boyd and Eddy would have us believe Josephus changed his writing style and wrote a miniscule four sentences about this Jesus crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Secondly, the Jesus Testimony is totally out of context. The preceding and following paragraphs describe Romans killing Jews. The alleged Jesus testimony of a "wise man ...who wrought surprising feats...Pilate...condemned him to be crucified" is inserted between these two paragraphs, an incongruous illogical place for such a happy testimony.

Thirdly, the first sentence of the paragraph following the Jesus testimony states, "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..." Why would Josephus call the Jesus Testimony "another sad calamity"? No, Romans killing Jews was the "sad calamity" in the preceding paragraph and Romans killing Jews in the following paragraph is obviously "another sad calamity."

Who in all probability inserted the Jesus testimony? Who would be a better candidate than Eusebius, the Father of Church History, who acknowledged,"however, it may be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness." (Evangelical Demonstration Book III, page 124). Eusebius' excuses lying, "It will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment." The Preparation of the Gospel, volume 2, page 619, published by Baker Books. Eusebius, the Father of Church History sets the standard for much of what passes for Christian apologetics.

A major oversight of these authors is not mentioning Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (20 BCE - 45 CE). Philo was a Hellenistic Jew living in Alexandria. Origin preserved Philo's theological writings, which have astounding parallels to John's gospel and Paul's epistles (thoroughly set forth in Benson's "The Origins of Christianity and the Bible" Chapters 25 and 26). Philo wrote about a God of love, Jews who sin go to hell, gentiles who come to God go to heaven, God is a trinity, God creates through His word, God holds all things together by His word, the word is the first begotten Son of God, God draws man through His word, the word is the appointed judge of man. Sound familiar? Philo was contemporaneous with Jesus, yet in all Philo's writings he does not once mention anything about a Jewish Messiah in Jerusalem, a Jesus of Nazareth, a crucifixion, a resurrection, Jewish saints coming out of their graves, an earthquake, or an eclipse. Philo's silence is deafening!

Philo's writings preceded both the epistles and the gospels. The many and profound similarities suggest Philo's strong influence, possibly plagiarized contributions to the gospel of John and much of Paul's thought. It seems more than coincidental that the oldest fragment of the gospel of John was found in Philo's home country of Egypt.

Why do these authors fail to mention the first century Galilean historian Justus of Tiberius? He wrote a history of Palestine covering the time of Christ's alleged existence. Justus' work has perished, but Photius, a ninth century Christian scholar, who was acquainted with it, says: "He (Justus) makes no mention of Christ, of what things that happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did" (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33).

The authors chapter "Excavating Jesus" is simply superficial. Archaeological investigations have proved Nazareth was vacant from the Assyrian siege in 730 BCE until at least the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Artifacts found in Nazareth are 2nd and 3rd century Roman, not Hellenistic as promoted by the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of the Annunciation where the angel Gabriel allegedly announced to the Virgin Mary her pending conception stands atop Roman burial tombs. Even assuming Nazareth existed at the time of Mary's conception, would a devoted Jew have lived in proximity to corpses, a violation of Jewish laws of purity (Num 5:3)? If Nazareth was not settled until the 2nd century, how could there be a 1st century Jesus of Nazareth?

Drs. Boyd and Eddy argue that the supernatural experiences portrayed in the gospels are no excuse to reject the gospel's plausibility. They say, "you will find that the world is full of reported experiences of the miraculous." Yes, televangelists Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn, and Pat Robertson continuously report miracles (?).

Drs. Boyd and Eddy could quickly solve the dilemma of Jesus' historicity and avoid all the work of writing this book by simply acting upon the eyewitness reported words of Jesus, "Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son" (John 14: 12-13).

Allegedly, the Son of God said what He meant and meant what He said. If so, Jesus clearly defined what it means to believe in Him. The evidence for believing in Jesus demands doing the works Jesus did. If Drs. Boyd and Eddy are believers according to Jesus' definition they would heal the blind and the deaf, raise the dead, turn water into wine, cast demons out of the demon oppressed into pigs, etc., etc., etc.: CASE CLOSED! Jesus is proven to be not only a historical figure but also the resurrected Savior who truly is "the same yesterday, today and forever" (Heb 13:6). Drs. Boyd and Eddy can proclaim James' "prayer of faith" and heal whoever is sick (James 5:14-15).

It would be great fun to sit in on a conversation with Dr. Boyd, Dr. Eddy, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Jefferson wrote America's Declaration of Independence. Paine's Common Sense written in 1776 inspired the American Revolution. Both Jefferson and Paine were also students of Christianity and the bible.

Jefferson said in an undated letter to a Dr. Woods, "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

Paine concluded, "The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion." The Age of Reason, Part II (1796).

No American belittles the intellectual capacity of a Jefferson or Paine yet Drs. Boyd and Eddy politely refer to such "legendary-Jesus theorists" and skeptics as "radical" with "clever" arguments.

If the reader desires further consideration to the question of Jesus, Lord or Legend, they must read "The Origins of Christianity and the Bible" by Andrew Benson, "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty (Google Doherty's website), "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" and "Misquoting Jesus" by Dr Bart Ehrman, "The Myth of Nazareth" by Rene' Salm (www.nazarethmyth.info), "The Jesus the Jews Never Knew" by Frank Zindler, "Deconstructing Jesus", "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" and "The Pre-Nicene New Testament" by Dr. Robert Price. Both Ehrman and Price were trained in the Baptist tradition. Excepting The Myth of Nazareth, all are available through Amazon.

I'm sure Drs. Boyd and Eddy are fine Christians but in my humble opinion they have busied themselves with stuffing round pegs in square holes.