|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion The Jesus LegendA case for the historical reliability of the Synoptic Jesus traditionGospel reliabilityTHE JESUS LEGEND Despite being a paperback and having a catchy title, The Jesus Legend is a rather meaty, though tasty, morsel. On a number of pages there is more footnote than main text as the authors bring together an impressive range of bibliography to deal with such branches of knowledge as philosophy, historical method, psychology, anthropology, and theology. In the case of Boyd, I found myself asking the question how a pastor could have read so much! (No offence intended to pastors.) This book, then, is for serious readers, but deals with questions that are of relevance to all Christians. The basic case made is that it is historically probable that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) provide an essentially reliable representation of the life of Jesus. This position need not entail that they are always completely reliable, only that they are at least generally so. Though they make their case using standard historical method, the authors are willing to admit that this method may fall short of representing the full truth, which might be known through other means (e.g. faith). One of the most useful parts of this book is a clear depiction of the thought system the authors are challenging. They call this system the ‘Legendary-Jesus Thesis’, a title which allows for a range of degrees of scepticism towards the gospels, united by the view that the gospels are generally unreliable. In the introduction they identify eight major lines of argument that constitute this sceptical system: (1) methodological naturalism, assuming that miracles cannot happen; (2) the view that early Christian ways of thinking about Jesus were quickly affected by Greek (Hellenistic) thought patterns; (3) that there are many parallels to the Jesus story in myths of other societies (e.g. virgin birth); (4) that early non-Christian sources are generally silent about Jesus; (5) that Paul is not interested in Jesus as a historical figure, only as a divine figure; (6) that early Christian oral tradition was what they call ‘free-form fabrication’; (7) that the gospels show themselves to be unreliable when compared with known history; (8) that the burden of proof depends on those who would maintain the gospels to be reliable. The rest of the book consists of a vigorous analysis and refutation of these eight arguments, and a rigorous demonstration that almost or exactly the reverse of these eight positions is more reasonable. There is not space here to explain all the arguments used. However, one of the most interesting sections is that which argues for the reliability of early Christian oral tradition. This argument is based at least in part on discoveries that some long narratives can be preserved intact in oral cultures. A second factor is the demonstration that during an oral recitation the person reciting can be corrected by the audience if a mistake is made. Thus if one of us tries to recite a range of Christmas carols by heart we will get much further if we have an audience reminding, correcting, and prompting us. In the same way, those in early Christian congregations relating stories about Jesus would have had the conservative force of the congregation acting upon them to help preserve the narrative from innovation. The gospels did not arise from ‘Chinese whispers’. Christians have much to learn from the way these authors have analysed their opponents’ position. If there is one weakness in this book, it is only a weakness relative to the British situation. A significant proportion of the authors’ energy is spent refuting extreme sceptical positions alleging such things as that Jesus did not exist, or that almost nothing at all can be known about him. These positions appear to be more common amongst certain pockets of academia in the USA, but are thankfully not currently widespread amongst British scholars, even if these extreme positions sometimes find expression in popular discourse. Thus, a part of the book presently has less use in Britain, where the intelligent reading population is more content to damn the gospels with faint praise. But there is also much in the work that needs to be heard in Britain too. This book was published shortly after Prof. Richard Bauckham of the University of St. Andrew’s brought out his significant work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans, 2006). There is surprisingly little overlap between these two books, but both make significant and original contributions presenting a range of sophisticated arguments for the reliability of the gospels, which need to be distilled and to find their way into the apologetic treasury of Christians generally. Dr. P.J. Williams,
|
|
