THE JESUS LEGEND
A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition
By Paul Rhodes Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd. Baker Academic. 480 pages
ISBN 978-0-8010-3114-4.
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.
