Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Overview of Gospel Research and Current Cliches
Review: A solid, excellent, easily readable and informative book on current notions about the Jesus of history, and about research in New Testament studies. When so many foolish ideas are floating around about what we know or don't know about Jesus Christ, books like this are needed. They help the public put things in some kind of perspective. Jesus is not simply a subject of secular study right now, he is a target. I recommend this book.
Rating: 
Summary: As the French say, Helas! helas!
Review: A superb demolition of the radical biblical scholarly world. However, it is written in such a boring, academic way that those who most need to read it will not. I wish those on the right side of things were as talented as those on the wrong side. Liberals and radicals always have an edge: utopian ideas are always exciting; the truth is usually boring. Congratulations to Prof. Jenkins but perhaps he or someone else could have done a more effective job of showing that Religious Studies should be more correctly called Irreligious Studies.
Rating:
Summary: Refreshing...
Review: Having studied, for a number of years, the very same texts Jenkins discusses in this book (see some of my other reviews), it dawned on me over time just what the agenda was behind those very scholars touting the texts as 'gospel' truths. Just as they accuse the 'orthodox' of political power mongering, so too are they in the end doing the very same thing. Mr. Jenkins has expressed quite clearly what I too discovered. While the texts do reveal much about the early Christian movement, they do not tell us anything new about the times of Jesus. They tell us about the life and times of second and third century 'Christians'. Rather than an orthodox Church suppressing a 'true' Christianity, it is more likely the other way around: these groups splintered from a Church already in existence. And the texts we have reveal this -- not the early days of The Way. Mr. Jenkins does a good, and in my opinion objective, job reporting the realities of the entire industry (and it is truly a powerhouse of an industry). There is an agenda and the results of their scholarly findings look remarakbly similar to the current popular beliefs of our age. Showing the other side of the coin, this book reveals just what is misleading, even wrong, about the claims. For a long time I too was immersed in these texts and I too wanted to believe they were more representative and that the Church as we have it today in its various splinters was in fact a religious mechanism for political control (though I do believe there are some truths in this). But the reality is that these texts are not 'all that'. They, and the methodologies used in studying and presenting them to the mainstream, are flawed. This is a book that lucidly and without sensationalism lays bare the facts. It presents the facts on the texts themselves but it goes deeper and reveals what is behind the current studies on these very texts. It is highly recommended to ensure that you don't buy this current wave of scholarship (which, as Mr. Jenkins reiterates, is far from 'new') hook, line and sinker. If you don't wish to have your beliefs shaken then this book may not be for you. But, if you are a seeker of facts in order to establish your own opinion, you won't be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: Jesus Seminarians, eat your soup!
Review: Hidden Gospels is like a bowl of split pea soup: nourishing, filling, but not what you would order at a fancy French restaurant. This bowl of history soup is just the cure if you have bought into radical Jesus theories. With caution, balance, fine judgement, and scholarly courtesy, (qualities often missing from works of the Jesus Seminar, still less the even more fringe stuff) Jenkins writes an excellent general survey of modern errors in the "search for Jesus." He concludes (rightly, I think) that the Gnostic and other "new gospels" have little if anything to say about Jesus, and that they are inferior to the canonical Gospels, both as historical sources and in terms of social merit. (Actually I think he goes too easy on Thomas, but that is another story.)
Probably the greatest contribution of this book is its discussion of the radical Jesus theories as modern myth, and the social forces that create that myth. He discusses not only scholars, such as Crossan, Funk, Mack, Pagels, and King, but also how their ideas "filter down" to the masses through junk novels, television, and movies. (A pity he didn't write this book after The Da Vinci Code and Pagel's new Thomas book; though it is always interesting to see people blunder into a trap publicly laid and waiting.) Jenkins argues that the Gospels are superior to the Gnostics in terms of historical believability and social value. It is indeed ironic that the very people who blame Christianity for being mysogenist, distrustful of the body, and hierarchical, prefer Gnostic writings that (he suggests, and I also suspect) were probably the source of these qualities in later Christianity.
Elaine Pagel's best-selling new book, Beyond Belief, could almost have been written to illustrate Jenkins points. Jenkins reads hundreds of scholars with whom he disagrees, and carefully, politely points out their errors. Pagels, by contrast, could not be troubled to name a single scholar who dissents from her views, even such respected and careful historians as John Meier, N.T. Wright, or Jenkins himself. Nor do the Jesus Seminar' popular "Five Gospels" or "Complete Gospels" answer their critics. Radical biblical "scholarship" seems to be a hothouse phenomena, flourishing in a highly protected environment. Hidden Gospels is in part an explanation of this odd phenomena.
The main defects of this book have to do with Jenkin's methodological conservatism. The book is sometimes repetitive, the style sometimes ponderous. His refutations of Crossan and company are not as witty and fun as, say, N.T. Wright. Also, while Jenkins is wise to appeal to "consensus scholarly views," I wish he would have discussed the Gospels and Gnostic writings directly more than he does. (A fault he shares with Pagels.) Personally, I think the best argument for the Gospels, and against the Gnostics, is the works themselves. I can't see how anyone who has read both sets of documents can confuse them. Hidden Gospels, despite its styllistic flaws, is a vitally important and high-quality historical study. I hope future skeptical historians, and their publishers, will carefully consider the points Jenkins makes before throwing intellectual cotton candy like "Hidden Gospel of Thomas" or "Complete Gospel" at us, 99%air. Try the soup instead. author, Jesus and the Religions of Man
Rating:
Summary: Jesus Seminarians, eat your soup!
Review: Hidden Gospels is like a bowl of split pea soup: nourishing, filling, but not what you would order at a fancy French restaurant. This bowl of history soup is just the cure if you have bought into radical Jesus theories. With caution, balance, fine judgement, and scholarly courtesy, (qualities often missing from works of the Jesus Seminar, still less the even more fringe stuff) Jenkins writes an excellent general survey of modern errors in the "search for Jesus." He concludes (rightly, I think) that the Gnostic and other "new gospels" have little if anything to say about Jesus, and that they are inferior to the canonical Gospels, both as historical sources and in terms of social merit. (Actually I think he goes too easy on Thomas, but that is another story.)
Probably the greatest contribution of this book is its discussion of the radical Jesus theories as modern myth, and the social forces that create that myth. He discusses not only scholars, such as Crossan, Funk, Mack, Pagels, and King, but also how their ideas "filter down" to the masses through junk novels, television, and movies. (A pity he didn't write this book after The Da Vinci Code and Pagel's new Thomas book; though it is always interesting to see people blunder into a trap publicly laid and waiting.) Jenkins argues that the Gospels are superior to the Gnostics in terms of historical believability and social value. It is indeed ironic that the very people who blame Christianity for being mysogenist, distrustful of the body, and hierarchical, prefer Gnostic writings that (he suggests, and I also suspect) were probably the source of these qualities in later Christianity.
Elaine Pagel's best-selling new book, Beyond Belief, could almost have been written to illustrate Jenkins points. Jenkins reads hundreds of scholars with whom he disagrees, and carefully, politely points out their errors. Pagels, by contrast, could not be troubled to name a single scholar who dissents from her views, even such respected and careful historians as John Meier, N.T. Wright, or Jenkins himself. Nor do the Jesus Seminar' popular "Five Gospels" or "Complete Gospels" answer their critics. Radical biblical "scholarship" seems to be a hothouse phenomena, flourishing in a highly protected environment. Hidden Gospels is in part an explanation of this odd phenomena.
The main defects of this book have to do with Jenkin's methodological conservatism. The book is sometimes repetitive, the style sometimes ponderous. His refutations of Crossan and company are not as witty and fun as, say, N.T. Wright. Also, while Jenkins is wise to appeal to "consensus scholarly views," I wish he would have discussed the Gospels and Gnostic writings directly more than he does. (A fault he shares with Pagels.) Personally, I think the best argument for the Gospels, and against the Gnostics, is the works themselves. I can't see how anyone who has read both sets of documents can confuse them. Hidden Gospels, despite its styllistic flaws, is a vitally important and high-quality historical study. I hope future skeptical historians, and their publishers, will carefully consider the points Jenkins makes before throwing intellectual cotton candy like "Hidden Gospel of Thomas" or "Complete Gospel" at us, 99%air. Try the soup instead. author, Jesus and the Religions of Man
Rating: 
Summary: Not a serious work but has some value
Review: I am an educated layman with an interest in Q, the Gospel of Thomas, and Gnosticism. I find the work that various scholars are doing in these areas fascinating but also a little speculative, and I looked forward to reading Philip Jenkins' critique of the work. I was therefore disappointed to find that his book is primarily a popular survey and contains essentially no academic-quality discussion of the issues. I was not at all surprised that Jenkins takes conservative positions in the book; what did surprise me is how reluctant he is to say what exactly his positions are. This is true for many specific historical issues such as the date and authorship of various NT and apocryphal texts, and even more true for major spiritual and social issues such as the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven and the role of women in the church. He was also very sparing in his citation of "mainstream" scholars, and, though he implies that they are busily working over the same issues as the "fringe" scholars (liberals, feminists, and seekers, i.e. New Agers and other free-thinkers) with whom he is mostly concerned, he never gives any account or indeed any idea at all of what the mainstream scholars have been doing for the past thirty years. One of the funniest parts of the book is where he bemoans how the fringe scholars (especially the members of the Jesus Seminar) have dominated most popular media (TV and press) coverage of NT issues in recent years. He notes how the programs and articles are always careful to show a semblance of balance and always include mainstream as well as fringe scholars, but they always let the fringe scholars set the agenda and have the last word. It is hardly a mystery why this is. The media is looking for news. Could it be that the mainstream scholars have nothing new to say? The titles of the book are not very descriptive. Their content is roughly as follows: 1 Finding and Seeking - here's the problem (no real content)
2 Fragments of a Faith Forgotten - interest in NT apocrypha in the US in the 19th and first half of the 20th century
3 The First Gospels? Q and Thomas - like it says
4 Gospel Truth - other apocryphal texts, especially other Nag Hammadi texts
5 Hiding Jesus: The Church and the Heretics - the rise of organization and orthodoxy
6 Daughters of Sophia - The feminist perspective on NT and the early church
7 Into the mainstream - penetration of fringe people and ideas into mainstream institutions (churches, academia, society at large)
8 The Gospels in the Media - TV and press coverage of NT issues
9 The Next New Gospel - now you know (no real content) I actually found the book fairly informative. The author tells a lot about who the fringe people are, what they think, and what books they have written. (The footnotes at the end of the book contain a huge amount of bibliographical information.) I especially appreciated the information about the work of women scholars and church members in chapters 2, 6 and 7. For me reading Jenkins is a lot like reading the great heresiologists (Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Epiphanius). The orthodoxy is kind of dull but the heresies are really interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Orthodoxy vs, heresy
Review: I never realized, when I began reading about the Nag Hammadi scroll discoveries, that there were so many divergent opinions about them, and about their relevance to Christianity as it is practiced today. It appears that even the Biblical "experts" cannot agree on a dating for many of these items, and this author takes the position that much of the dating is based, not upon research, but upon the preconceived religious leanings of the dater. I'm just a layman, and this is all very confusing to me, because I am reading about these things purely from a historical point of view, rather than a religious or political position. There seems to be a chasm between the "liberals" and the "conservatives" in the field, with the former arguing for earlier dates which would put the documents much closer to the time of Jesus, while the latter say they were composed much later, after the Church was already fairly well organized. I don't know which group is correct, but I do enjoy a good debate, and this book certainly provides one. I look forward to reading more works on this most interesting subject.
Rating: 
Summary: Nothing new in this book
Review: In 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, a jar of ancient scriptures was found.These, and some other documents, have been lumped together and called "Gnostic gospels." There is ongoing debate over the relationship of these various documents to early Christianity.Some claim they throw light on early Christianity, while others dimiss them as "heretical" writings.Jenkins belongs to the latter camp. He argues that the "Gnostic gospels" are heretical because they were written after the "true" gospels.He doesn't advance any new information, and there is no reason why his speculations should be more accurate than those of anyone else.Jenkins mentions the respected scholar Walter Bauer, who claimed that there existed various Christian groups until orthodoxy was imposed by Constantine in the 4th century.Jenkins says: "After Bauer, it was no longer possible to accept without question the automatic primacy of the Catholic tradition and the canonical gospels." Jenkins then goes ahead and accepts these propistions without question! In his discusssion of the "Gospel of Mary" Jenkins wants to downplay the role of women in the early church.The author sheds no new light on early Christianity, he simply adopts the debatable claim that the Church of Rome was the one and only true church.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding
Review: In recent years, much attention has been given the claims that certain non-Canonical gospels and documents, such as the Gospel of Thomas, provide valuable information on the teaching of Jesus Christ. As Prof. Philip Jenkins shows, the obsession to find additional "gospels" is not a modern preoccupation but goes back even before the Nag Hammadi find in 1945. Parts of what is now known as the Gospel of Thomas were known for years. Some of the partisans in favor of Thomas assert that it is as old as, if not older than, the earliest synoptic Gospel. Because of the "mystical" and non-eschatological character of most of it (and other such works), the argument is made that it preserves the "real" teaching of Jesus: not the divine person of Christian orthodoxy, but the wandering sage, dispensing wisdom that just happens to coincide with so much of the modern temperament - mystical, egalitarian, feminist, etc. However, the claim that Thomas was written prior to 150 AD is week, and it is almost certain that the large majority of other gospels are dated much later than that. So when all is said and done, the claims of the Jesus Seminar and other radical scholars to find authentic sayings of Jesus in such works are without foundation. The best part of the this book is its comprehensive nature. Prof. Jenkins places this question in theological, biblical, historical and sociological perspective. As he shows, there is nothing new about the claims that the non-Canonical gospels preserve other sayings of Jesus. Long before anyone heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some had argued that Jesus was an Essene. But the pace has accelerated. Recent television programs give prominence to radicals like Crossan instead of more main-stream scholars, giving the unsuspecting viewer the impression that orthodox Christianity is "hiding" some truths about Jesus that would be subversive of the faith. I have one minor criticism of this work. Prof. Jenkins refers throughout the book to certain scholars, such as John P. Meier of Catholic University (author of A Marginal Jew) as "conservatives." Meier is no Crossan, but it is quite a stretch to use this term to describe him. While Meier accepts the historicity of much of the Gospels, he rejects substantial portions of it. Although the Roman Catholic Church has become more friendly toward higher criticism in recent years, it was quite shocking to see that Meier's work received the imprimatur of the Church.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth Will Prevail...
Review: In this excellant work of biblical scholarship, Dr. Philip Jenkins In this excellent work of biblical scholarship, Dr. Philip Jenkins attempts to stem the tide of bogus Jesus scholarship that is so en vogue over the last few decades. It's a very noble cause, one that has been woefully ignored by wide swaths of academia. While it's intentions are very positive, it's chances for victory over the "new thought" are very much in doubt, as groups such as the Jesus Seminar have crafted a very savvy way in which to gain attention and approval for their radical assertions. Using a liberal and investigative press machine, a change in social attitudes over the last 30 years, and new radical ideas emanating from increasingly secular academic environments, the minimalist theologians have built a very powerful engine of disinformation. Luckily, to those who still care about the truth and are willing to actually research these things, we still have thousands of gifted writers and academics such as Dr. Jenkins. Radical New Testament theology, as thoroughly examined by Jenkins, is a multi-faceted organism that has one goal in mind, the destruction of orthodoxy. Many in the movement see orthodoxy as a heretical throwback to the early centuries of Christianity, where, they claim, an increasingly hierarchal church apparatus hijacked the true words of Jesus and developed into the Catholic Church. To support this conclusion, which is absolutely false, the radicals utilize the apocryphal gospels, such as Thomas, Mary Magdalene, and many others. These gospels present a different view of Christianity promoted by various regional sects of Christianity in the early centuries. The radicals hold these books high, saying that the church tried for centuries to destroy these works, because it hurt the image of the structured church they were attempting to build. Nothing can be further from the truth. Jenkins points out that the development of the one church was fairly constant from the disciples on, whom Jesus has appointed as his successors. These non-canonical works were produced by rebels living centuries later, and were rejected by numerous church councils. The church considered them and rejected them because gospels such as Mark and Matthew clearly came before and were more connected with the original words of Jesus. So, in reaction, groups like the Jesus Seminar have attempted to degrade the synoptic gospels, casting doubt on almost everyone of their assumptions, while still relying on works that came hundreds of years later and have almost no cultural connection to first century Judah. Jenkins writes at length at the shoddy infrastructure and foundation of the new theology. Yet, he asks, why are these people so successful? A number of factors come into play here. One, groups like the Jesus Seminar and writers like Elaine Pagels understand that the Christianity they propose is a much more acceptable one to many readers, a religion with no rules that lets people wander from one philosophy to the next. It's buffet religion, with no basis in the gospels or early church doctrine. This makes it very attractive to liberal interest groups that hate the Catholic Church and conservative Protestant denominations for their faith in orthodoxy. Also, radical theology gains power because of the fact that it is new. These relatively few scholars claim to use secret texts that have been recently discovered, even though Jenkins shows that new gospels have been popular for centuries. The idea of long hidden texts finally coming to light, and the rebellion against stodgy old conservatives is a great boon to these new "scholars". The best part of the book is Jenkins examination of this clique of new scholars, who, again are relatively few compared to the large groups of actual professional New Testament scholars. The Jesus Seminar, which wields such power, has only 20 to 30 active members, all of whom are liberal minimalists. Interesting that their landmark book, "The Five Gospels", is dedicated to people like Galileo, indicating they have a strange messiah complex when it comes to Biblical scholarship. Their motives are also suspect because of their obvious political views, such as R. W. Funk's callous pronouncements deriding any kind of faith in orthodoxy. Why should a small group of self-styled experts, all coming from the same political and social background, wield such power? That is the question Jenkins poises, and it is troubling to those who still have faith in the works of the church fathers and the system that they helped create.
|
