This is the first of several reviews on parts of The Jesus Legend, by Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd. This is an examination of the trustworthy nature of the Gospels by two evangelicals and they begin by taking a look at epistemological foundations (or how we claim to know what we know).
The opening chapter on the historical method is an examination of the naturalism that controls historical interpretation of the gospels by many critics. In particular, it is the rule of analogy as defended by Ernst Troelsch that comes in for special and careful attention. The authors show that the naturalist "critical" method is actually a case of circular reasoning that ignores the evidence that ethnographers who study culture around the world note about the paranormal. Such evidence parallels the worldview of most of humanity past and present. The chapter is detailed and well footnoted. Eddy and Boyd argue instead for an open historical-critical method, where the possibility of the miraculous is kept as a possibility, even though it is an exceptional kind of category.
This opening chapter is well done and fully footnoted. The next chapter looks at claims of pagan influence on the presentation of Jesus, a topic that has come in for much attention recently and that we have blogged about in the past.
Does Boyd's Open Theism view "play" into this book?
The answer is No, not at all. It is not in play at all. dlb
Boyd's 'Open' Theism only intrudes to the extent that they have to call their new historical critical method espoused in the book the 'Open Historical Critical Method'!!!!
Friend:
Only because they are for being open to the involvement of God in the world and in history. Hardly the same thing.
dlb
Dr. Bock,
How would you handle some of the religious mindsets of Christians who wont have anything to do with Greg Boyd's work because of his convictions and stance on the nature of the future? I mean, what would you say to them? Also, aside from his open theism, couldn't it be without question that he has contributed some fairly useful works for the body of Christ?
The short answer to this is that an all or nothing approach to someone's work is rarely helpful. People with whom I disagree, often greatly disagree, do often also make observations or make points that are worth considering. It may be they ask a very good question that I give a different answer to. On other occasions, they might be right. Discernment is not the skill of rejecting all of what one says because something they say may not be correct, but being able to sort out judgments.
dlb
Post new comment