Freethought & Rationalism Archive

neilgodfrey · 12-23-2009, 02:08 AM

I've begun a new series of blog posts on some aspects of Eddy and Boyd's "The Jesus Legend, Taking Eddy and Body Seriously.

I was checking what they had to say about 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 being an interpolation, and because I was wanting to explore the subject in depth I had the excuse to check their arguments and their supporting citations carefully. It turned out that in the process of reading just two pages I discovered:

one instance of plagiarism
a footnote reference turning out to be supporting a view inconsistent, even opposite, what E&B used it for
oversimplifications and misrepresentation of opposing arguments
a failure to even mention let alone address published arguments contradicting their assertions -- even though they cited the relevant authors and works for other reasons
a tendency to simply cite other authors as having the arguments readers need without actually explaining to readers a summary of what those arguments are

In my first post I've discussed in detail the plagiarism, the false footnote, and the suppression of opposing arguments from these two pages. Had expected to cover the lot but it started taking way too long.

Oh yeh, I also cited where Eddy and Boyd declare that their methodology and epistemology (that calls for a belief in miracles and anything "supernatural") is the backdrop to all their arguments throughout their book. Maybe it is here that we can find a charitable explanation for their shoddiness and intellectual not-quite-honesty when it comes to presenting post Enlightenment, naturalistic, rational arguments in support of their thesis.

I wouldn't normally care about bad books, but when they are cited so widely as the beez kneez to answering all the nonhistoricity-of-Jesus arguments, they deserve to be shown up for what they really are.

N

Toto · 01-07-2010, 01:24 AM

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

with more to come...

Thanks for reading this book and tracking through the footnotes to expose the shoddiness of this book.

Robert Price's review

Quote:

What is the task of biblical criticism? It is to advance the understanding of the Bible by applying new methods to the study of the text. One hopes to learn more and new things abut the text. By contrast, what is the task of Christian apologetics? It is essentially one of retrenchment. It wants to turn the clock back on criticism and in effect to learn less about the Bible, to undo all that critics consider progress. The apologist makes minimal concessions to critical method, using it opportunistically to try to vindicate the Bible as the kind of prop he needs it to be for the sake of his faith. The apologist who pretends to be a biblical critic is like the medical missionary headed for the wilds of Africa or Amazonia: he is sacrificing his time and comfort for the gospel’s sake when he would, given his druthers, be doing something else. One senses on every page that the Christian apologist wishes that the Higher Criticism of scripture had never been invented (by Satan) to confuse matters. Just as the TV repairman would ideally rather be sitting home watching TV than out fixing it, the apologist does what he thinks he has to do (as a secret agent behind enemy lines), though he would much rather be simply preaching the gospel. But then again, that is what he is really doing anyway. And that much would be perfectly clear even if every single critic-vs.-apologist debate (and even the book under review here) did not end with a bald-faced evangelistic invitation.

It is dangerous to introduce a damning quote that the nasty reviewer may turn back upon the quoters. Here is one such: “this methodology exhibits a tendency ‘to press toward conclusions that seem to be established a priori, either on theoretical grounds or because the data may prove uncongenial.’” (Snyder on Hezser on Harris) (p. 242). This book takes, in the traditional style of historical apologetics, a completely deductive a priori approach, trying to nibble away at critical methods and conclusions with quibbling and caviling objections that are often beside the point. The authors appropriate the rhetoric of post-colonial critics to make it look like only Dead White Males would scruple to accept miracle claims. Like “Womanist” “theologians,” Eddy and Boyd have claimed the laurel wreath of “victim” for fundamentalism so as to dignify credulity as a method. It would be a Eurocentist, ethno-biased slur to “people’s religion” the world over if we did not broaden the analogy of present-day experience (with which to judge past event claims) to include that of various Pentecostals, Third World shamans, and New Agers. The viewpoint of such a “confederacy of dunces” the authors dub a “democratized epistemology.” That is just the sleight-of-hand that Intelligent Design Creationists employ to get their quack science included in public school curricula. In fact, the approach of Eddy and Boyd is reminiscent of Intelligent Design propaganda at a number of revealing points, as we shall see.

Our apologists, though certainly more widely read in many relevant fields than any predecessor (certainly more than the pompous N.T. Wright), manage to have learned nothing important from it. For one thing, and it is perhaps the main thing, Eddy and Boyd simply cannot bring themselves to grasp the difference between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. They insist that the only reason critics refuse to acknowledge any miracle stories as probably true is that said critics are a stuck-up elite with an anachronistic commitment to a quaint creed of naturalism and/or Deism. ...

12-23-2009, 02:08 AM	#1
neilgodfrey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Darwin, Australia Posts: 874	Taking Eddy and Boyd seriously I've begun a new series of blog posts on some aspects of Eddy and Boyd's "The Jesus Legend, Taking Eddy and Body Seriously. I was checking what they had to say about 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 being an interpolation, and because I was wanting to explore the subject in depth I had the excuse to check their arguments and their supporting citations carefully. It turned out that in the process of reading just two pages I discovered: one instance of plagiarism a footnote reference turning out to be supporting a view inconsistent, even opposite, what E&B used it for oversimplifications and misrepresentation of opposing arguments a failure to even mention let alone address published arguments contradicting their assertions -- even though they cited the relevant authors and works for other reasons a tendency to simply cite other authors as having the arguments readers need without actually explaining to readers a summary of what those arguments are In my first post I've discussed in detail the plagiarism, the false footnote, and the suppression of opposing arguments from these two pages. Had expected to cover the lot but it started taking way too long. Oh yeh, I also cited where Eddy and Boyd declare that their methodology and epistemology (that calls for a belief in miracles and anything "supernatural") is the backdrop to all their arguments throughout their book. Maybe it is here that we can find a charitable explanation for their shoddiness and intellectual not-quite-honesty when it comes to presenting post Enlightenment, naturalistic, rational arguments in support of their thesis. I wouldn't normally care about bad books, but when they are cited so widely as the beez kneez to answering all the nonhistoricity-of-Jesus arguments, they deserve to be shown up for what they really are. N

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.