https://www.amazon.com/Lord-Legend-Wrestling-Jesus-Dilemma/product-reviews/1608999548/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar
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.Yep.
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).
wow - 26 comments for that one review!
Mr.
Walters, I invite you to read my detailed review of Boyd and Eddy, The
Jesus Legend at
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/boyd_eddy.htm. Also, you
might want to look at my chapter on Greg Boyd in my book The Case
Against the Case for Christ. I believe Lee Salisbury is correct.
Incidentally, I am proud to count both Lee and Gregg as personal
friends.
And you need to take a close look at Salm. Among others, Phillip E. Davies thinks he is correct.
Robert M. Price
And you need to take a close look at Salm. Among others, Phillip E. Davies thinks he is correct.
Robert M. Price
Your quotations of Eusebius are out of
context and in any case do not prove that he actually interpolated
Josephus. There are references to the Testimonium in Christian
literature prior to Eusebius as well, see here:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/josephus.htm
Again, read the relevant sections of "The Jesus Legend", pp.167-169 for a cogent explanation of the 'silence' of secular writers about Jesus. Even though he worked wonders the most spectacular of these were done only in the presence of disciples and followers (walking on water, resurrection, etc.) Historians like E.P. Sanders and J.P. Meier are actually surprised there were any references to Jesus at all, given his geographical location, social status and abrupt death.
Again, read the relevant sections of "The Jesus Legend", pp.167-169 for a cogent explanation of the 'silence' of secular writers about Jesus. Even though he worked wonders the most spectacular of these were done only in the presence of disciples and followers (walking on water, resurrection, etc.) Historians like E.P. Sanders and J.P. Meier are actually surprised there were any references to Jesus at all, given his geographical location, social status and abrupt death.
Haven't read *this* book, but Boyd and Eddy deal with most of your criticisms in their other book "The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition ". In contrast, "Lord or Legend?" is supposed to be a layperson summary of the much more academic book "The Jesus Legend". The latter is a bit of a heavy read, but I highly recommend it. Boyd also deals with some of these issues in his book "Letters from a Skeptic", which has a few major shortcomings.
best wishes
Robert Price's review of Boyd
Another egregious case of Janus apologetics, facing both ways at once, is Boyd’s and Eddy’s argument that the resurrection of Jesus cannot have been borrowed from polytheistic mythemes. Their first step is to circumscribe a magic zone from about 165 BCE to 70 CE when there was no Jewish inclination, but rather the reverse, to accept Hellenistic influence. They figure that the Hasmonean victory over the Seleucid Hellenizers put an end once and for all to the temptation to Hellenize. Hellenization began to rear its ugly head again only after the Roman victory over Jews. This strikes me as a gratuitous assumption. Indeed, the fact that there is during their magic period much evidence of Jewish anti-Hellenistic Zealotry surely means the “danger” of influence continued. You don’t strengthen the fortifications when there is no enemy at the door. And no evidence of Hellenization? What about the astrology of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Ah, er, it’s not what it looks like! The presence of horoscopes at Qumran doesn’t mean the sectarians actually used or believed in them, say the apologists. Perish the thought! It was probably because they needed them to write scholarly refutations of them! And second- to third-century synagogues with mosaics of Hercules, Dionysus and the Zodiac? Purely decorative, that’s all. Come on! Obviously, you don’t decorate your house of worship with images of gods you find abhorrent! And this was just at the time Yavneh Judaism was getting stronger and stronger! Judaism just was not a solid monolith even at this time, much less in Jesus’ time.
No comments:
Post a Comment