Phillip Johnson is a goofball. Read his books, and you can
tell he's a sweet guy with a third rate intellect who is good at
getting free lunches from all those wacky Xain
know-nothings who populate JesusRadio.
For one thing, the (goofy) quote above. Did the Greeks even
know about crucifixion? Did Socrates ever say this in
any source we have?
But who among you cares?
According to Herodotus (485-425 B.C.), the greatest Greek historian who is also known as the Father of History, crucifixion was first used among the Persians which was probably derived from the Assyrian practice of impalement. From the Encylopaedia Britannica:
"Crucifixion, an important method of capital punishment, particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Jews, Carthaginians, and Romans [was practiced] from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD. Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor, abolished it in the Roman Empire in AD 337, out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous victim of crucifixion. ... [The earliest recording of a crucifixion was] in 519 BC [when] Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political opponents in Babylon" (1993, Vol. 3, page 762).
Perhaps, as you say, Johnson's is a third-rate intellect and his quote is mushy.
I still see a decided connection between the observations of Socrates on good men indicted by evil men -- such as Themistocles, Cimon, Miltiades, and Pericles -- during his exchange with Callistes.
It would also appear -- given Socrates' own decisions not to escape prison, allow himself to be tried and meet his death with all due dignity -- that his own death served to evidence what men of the world inevitably do to men who seek and who love and who bend their wills as best they can in perfect obedience to Truth.
First off, I don't think you could even last five minutes in a debate with Mr. Johnson. So, don't flatter yourself by belittling others.
Second, I think that you make the common mistake in thinking that "crucify" strictly means "put to deat by being nailed to a cross". Granted this is one of the definitions, however it also means "to mortify or subdue the flesh". In the Greek translation, it is likely that this is what Socrates/Plato meant.
Third, I believe this quote (or a close match, depending on translation/writer) is found in The Republic (or possibly in The Apology?). I do remember this line specifically, because it struck me as being fairly prescient to the event up to and surrounding the death of Jesus Christ.
Lastly, please remember that Socrates himself was "crucified" (in the mortifying the flesh sense) by being forced to drink Hemlock. In some regards, the comment could be construed as Socrates recognizing his own fate, rather than a premonition of the death of Jesus Christ. Coincidently, Socrates was killed because he refused to acknowledge (or even to argue/rebut) the false charges leveled against him. Whether or not this points to a larger problem of human nature --to destroy truly noble/pious people or ideas-- is another issue. Though this would partially explain the rise in Darwinism, as it appears to be a defect in some humans who attempt to explain away the possibility of G_d.
Poor souls...
I wouldn't put it quite that bluntly, but I have to concur
Phillip Johnson dropped into the talk.origins newsgroup about ten years ago, and I and several other folks had conversations/debates with him for a bit over a week, before he finally ran off.
I was *not* at all impressed at his level of knowledge, nor his critical thinking skills, nor his ability to put together a logical argument (nor rebut one).
Most of his screeds against evolution are classic examples of the "straw man" fallacy, where you attack a distorted, inferior version of your opponent's position, then sit back and pat yourself on the back for ripping apart such an easy scarecrow.
As is usually the case with straw man errors, it was done honestly -- Johnson does not realize that he has a poor, misshapen understand of what evolution actually claims (and does not claim), nor does he realize that his scientific and mathematical abilities are little beyond the high school level.
As a result, his murky understanding of evolution (and science in general) leads him to honestly believe that the simplistic, silly model of evolution he has in his head means that evolution itself is simplistic and silly. Instead, it just means he doesn't have a real grasp on the subject -- rather like a radical liberal denouncing Republicans because they want to deny lunches to schoolkids...
Johnson is clearly a skilled lawyer, however, which means that he has the ability to make arguments that *sound* convincing, even if they are not truly sound. (Note that courtroom arguments are not about finding the truth, they are about convincing a jury.)
You condemn the statement, confess you don't know the answer yourself, and then plead for someone to inform you in the hope that the answer will confirm your knee-jerk condemnation?
Who's being goofy? Who has a third-rate intellect?
Why, you of course. By your own pathetic confession.