Desire of the Everlasting Hills : The World Before and After Jesus

Rating:
Summary: Great Book!
Review: I read a lot of these types of books, and this work shines. The author presents his insights into the Gospels with a real down-to-earth warmth, eschewing the frequent errudite style of many such scholars. In particular, I enjoyed his treatment of some of the "toned-down" translations of the New Testament; he presents some of the original, accurate language that really helps present Jesus in a much more human light than other books. I really can't recommend this one enough.

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful words, but questionable assumptions & conclusions
Review: I love Mr. Cahill's writing. His words are sometimes poetic, and often very inspiring. But some of his conclusions are suspect and must be read critically. Don't read this for an introduction into Jesus history; but do read if you can remain critical.

In some ways, he illuminates a sensitive Jesus, and a Jesus who is truly inspiring. But he bashes the Book of John so unfairly that I ended up questioning the legitimacy of most of what he wrote subsequent to that. For instance, he positions John as the book most often quoted by the anxious, uptight, and intolerant. He insinuates that John's book created the foundation for all subsequent crusades of intolerance, from the actual Crusaders to anti-Semitism. Anyone knows that that isn't what John is all about. Anyone knows that in the mind of a madman, any passage of the Bible can be made to serve perverse needs. Right now we see extremists justifying mass destruction in the name of Islam (which most Muslims are deeply troubled by). Islam is not to blame. Neither are St. John or John the Elder to blame for anyone who takes their message of divine love and uses it to justify hatred and violence.

Rating:
Summary: A Different Gospel
Review: The first chapter of the book was interesting history. I'll assume that he did a more honest job of it than the rest of the book. But in later chapters, Cahill discovers a Jesus of his own imagining. Cahill feels free to take scissors to the bible, cutting out the bits that he doesn't like.

To be fair, he is building upon the dark tower of higher textual criticism (HTC), which starts with the premise that the bible is NOT the inspired & inerrant Word of God. So HTC feels free to reject any part of the bible that seems difficult to reconcile with the rest of the bible, or whatever their interpretation is of the rest of the bible. This process automatically results in a bible that agrees with the conscious or unconscious prejudices of the redactor.

Cahill builds his Jesus using bits & pieces of the NT. How can we know that his guesses are correct? We cannot. Once the authority of the text is denied, anything goes. The result in this case is a Jesus that is not divine.

Christians should avoid this book. There is nothing in it that overshadows the blatant heresies found on most pages.

Rating:
Summary: Mr. Cahill's opinion on Christian origins and history...
Review: Mr. Cahill presents a good argument in this book. What he is argueing is hard to come up with though upon finishing. He seems to leave learge gaps, specifically as other reviewers have noted he does not with much of the 'after' Jesus Christ. The focus of this book seems to be on the credibility and cononizatin of the books of the bible. Though I think it is opinionated, Mr. Cahill does point out plainly that other books were considered for the canonization process and that the current 'Bible' is not all that was ever written in ancient times about Jesus Christ. He presents his arguements to lend credibility to the current canonized bible and does it well. A good book for anyone interested in the early history of the church. For a complete list of books/letters considered by the early Christians to be possibly added to the bible, see Halley's Bible Handbook. I valued this book as a great read and history of what happened during the early days of Christianity.

Rating:
Summary: Charlotte, NC
Review: This is the third copy I have purchased. Desire of the Everlasting Hills is a must for all bible scholars. It delivers a non-baised, straightforward discription of the times prior to Jesus and what occured directly after his resurrection. Mr. Cahill is a powerful writer that delivers a true understanding of what the days of Jesus were like. A great companion when reading the New Testement.

Rating:
Summary: An adequate book propelled by Cahill's selective opinions
Review: I think the "Jesus debate" of the past 10-15 years has largely been a good thing. Readers should be aware that it inspired the generally excellent PBS series a few years back, "From Jesus to Christ."

Cahill's book doesn't add very much to the discussion - he seems to have picked and chosen what he likes from certain scholars he prefers (Cahill is not a New testament scholar), and re-packaged them with his own lively personal opinions. For someone new to Christianity, but adequately educated, this book might have some provocative value. But for those of us who have labored long in the "Jesus of Faith" vineyard (i.e. who strive for a daily relational faith wherein we somehow try to incarnate Jesus' teachings for society) it certainly isn't essential.

And like other reviewers have noted, Cahill doesn't do full justice to the implications of John's Gospel for the Christian community. In its grand historical and symbolic narrative, John is the result of two generations' struggling under the Spirit's tutelage to make sense of the Incarnation, and reaching a magisterial conclusion as to what Jesus must mean in the largest sense, not only at the close of the first century but into the future as well.

Rating:
Summary: Cahill's Bait and Switch Book on Christianity
Review: I enormously enjoyed Cahill's earlier book, "How the Irish Saved Civilization," and was looking forward to this one. But I was disappointed. This volume with the susbtitle "Before and After Jesus" (which I take to be modeled on F.M. Cornford's "Before and After Socrates"), appears to be about the effect of Jesus or Christianity on Western civilization. It proved instead to be a synopsis of the New Testament from a vaguely liberal (but carefully orthodox) post Vatican II point of view. Only part of the last chapter deals with the historical effects of Christianity, and most of that is taken directly from Donald Kagan's "On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace." So if you are really interested in the effects of Christianity you would do better to buy Kagan's book than Cahill's.

Synopses of the New Testament have a long and not very reputable history. The first effort was that of Marcion in Rome in 135 A.D. (See John Knox's "Marcion and the New Testament.") Marcion undertook to eliminate the tensions and contradictions between the pro-Gentile and pro-faith oriented views of Paul and the pro-Jewish and pro-works oriented views of Peter by simply eliminating the Petrine, works-oriented texts from his proposed Christian "canon".

That did eliminate the tensions and contradictions, but it was untrue to the actual history of the church in a way that horrified the more conservative Roman church establishment. They declared Marcion a heretic and promptly published their alternative canon which included both such works-oriented texts as Matthew and the letter of James and such faith-oriented texts such as Mark and the authentic Pauline epistles. They also included the John and Revelation and (probably) edited and compiled Acts into its present form. Finally, they included the entirety of Hebrew scripture and declared that entire collection to be canonical. By so doing they (probably inadvertently) preserved a range of free choice for Christian belief. Despite the efforts of the later writers of the creeds, there would always remain a range of choice withing the Christian tradition which would make closure on any one consistent set of beliefs impossible. Yet Cahill is still trying to create a self-consistent synopsis. He does this by sticking closely to a conservative group of scholars (such as those behind the Anchor Bible Commentaries) and to Catholic scholars acceptable to the church. (He mentions the maverick Crossan but only to dismiss him.) Naive readers are given no inkling that they are being fed a straight dose of contemporary Catholic orthodoxy. For example, Cahill asserts in passing that both Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome, and that Peter was buried on Vatican Hill. One thing most church historians agree on is that there is not a shred of evidence that Peter ever left Jerusalem immediately before or during the Roman-Jewish war of 66-70 A.D. The most probably fate of Peter was that he died in the slaughter after Romans breached the walls of Jerusalem. The claim that he traveled to Rome is a myth created by the Catholic church as part of its effort to claim supremacy over other chruches, especially the one in Constantinople. The earliest claim that Peter died in Rome that I know of is made by Eusebius in the 4th Century A.D. Cahill even undertakes to deny that Paul asserted the doctrine of salvation by faith alone in a way that would contradict the doctrine of salvation by works. He does this by appealing to the love poem in Chapter 15 of First Corinthians, where Paul say love is greater than faith or hope. But none of these three are "works" in Paul's sense of the term. They are inner attitudes from which external works in accordance with the Law may or may not follow. So the reference is simply off the point of his argument. Luther's, Calvin's, and St. Augustine's readings of Paul stand vindicated. Finally, Cahill even reverts to church rellics to bolster his interpretation of the historical Jesus. He believes the Shroud of Turin and third and fourth Century icons enable him to determine what Jesus looked like. Of course the cloth of the shroud has been determined by Carbon 14 dating to have been made in the medieval era. Cahill's reasons for rejecting that finding are not convincing to anyone not already committed to the shroud on religious grounds. As for the third and fourth century icons, they seem plainly to be Hellenistic idealizations, like any Greek representation of a god. Cahill knows this, but tries to read the actual appearance of Jesus from them anyway. Cahill simply ignores the tradition of what he calls secular, academic" biblical scholarship, such as that of the "Jesus Seminar" in the Society of Biblical Literature. Anyone who takes account of it will find they have to be much more agnostic about the life, teachings, and appearance of the historical Jesus than Cahill supposes. Of course we have known since Schweitzer's "The Quest of the Historical Jesus" that the loss of the historical Jesus is actually a religious advantage, for it frees one's religion to be based on faith not ambiguous "fact." Since the book is so well written, I give it three stars. But the smooth prose coceals rather than reveals the ambiguities and conflicts in the historical record. So it stands condemned as a work which conceals the real challenges of faith from complacent and the comfortable. The book is an anodyne for the spirit, not a challenge for spiritual growth.

Rating:
Summary: Cahill Hits a Triple
Review: I went into this book with a jaundiced eye. I am not trusting of ANY New York Times Bestselling book that explore ANY aspect of Christianity. Perhaps it is my knee-jerk reaction to the horrendous treatment Christianity has received at the hands of the popular media.

Coming from this viewpoint, I was surprised at the respect Mr. Cahill afford's one of the world's great religions. He seems to understand the historical legitimacy of the New Testament (The Gospel of John excluded), and treats it accordingly. Mr. Cahill won my heart early on when he slammed the Jesus Seminar scholars. (To those of you who don't know, the Jesus Seminar is to Evangelicals, what Newt Gingrich was to any Democrat).

This is not to say Cahill is an Evangelical. He does things that a conservative Christian would not do. He slams the Gospel of John. He quotes his own translations of Scripture. And seems to justify some tendencies of liberal demoninations to "pick and choose" what they like and don't like about scriptural edicts.

Cahill's great strenghth is in explaining the "inter-tesimental" period of Palestine. In a lucid writing style he explains how the Holy Land became "Hellenized", and then conquered by Rome. It is a period Christians in general do not understand.

Cahill is also very strong on expaining Paul's theology. With great respect for Paul's intellectual skills, Cahill explains how Paul challenged a lot of cultural stereotypes in the Roman world.

The reason I did not give Mr. Cahill 5 stars is because he stumbled twice. His evaluation of the "Sermon on the Mount" was clumsy and uninspired. (The best analysis of the Beatitudes I have read is from Philip Yancey's book The Jesus I Never Knew.)

Cahill also got weak at the end when he wanted to figure out what the life, death, and resurection of Jesus was all about. While he was passionate about the need for Christians to serve the poor, the argument had the a "New Age" feel to it. To the Evangelical, serving the poor has the ultimate goal of converting them to thier faith. Thus, bringing them to heaven. To Cahill, the goal of feedig the poor is to - well, feed the poor.

Rating:
Summary: Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World Before and After
Review: Mr Cahill has done it again. In his third installment to the Hinges in History series, Desire..., he brings a new view to the history and story of Jesus and His times. It is interesting, enjoyable, insightful, and (as mentioned) written with a new view. It was very refreshing. I can't wait for numbers 4, 5, and 6. Highly recomended, just like his first 2.

Rating:
Summary: Cahill Ruffles Some Religious Feathers
Review: Cahill seems to have ruffled quite a few fundamentalist feathers with this particular volume. How could any self-respecting Christian not be upset to be labeled as belonging to a Messianic offshoot of Judaism? The whole point of this book, however, is perhaps to ruffle the rather puffed-up feathers of "corporate Christianity". It saddens me that many devout followers of Jesus try to separate his earthly teachings from the Judaism into which he was born and taught.

Cahill lets his own personal worldview seep through his rich, textured style. I fail to find this an unforgivable sin. Rather, I think-actually, I know-that what turned off a lot of Christians is Cahill's own translations of canonical and apocryphal scripture. A whitewashed Jesus could never have used harsh language, especially the occasional profanity, could he? I imagine that modern-day pharisees would be rather as put off by Cahill's interpretation of the Word Made Flesh as the original Pharisees were by Jesus' very presence.

Will those who timidly puruse this book kindly attempt a rereading? You will no doubt discover that Cahill does not say a fat paycheck is unforgivable. Rather, the selfish use of worldly riches for self-indulgences rather than helping out those in need of justice and mercy is more of a sin than an occasional weakness of the flesh brought on by aching loneliness.

Until a translation of the Holy Bible can be done without the doctrinal constraints of decades of Sunday School lessons, I must say that Cahill tries-as John Ciardi did with Dante's Inferno-to translate in the truest possible sense the shocking honesty of the man known as J'shua bin Joseph by all who truly knew him best.