Rating: 
Summary: A fresh look at the Gospels
Review: This is sure to renew interest in the Gospels, unless you're a hidebound conservative (see reviews posted previously). I finally feel that I can make some sense of these works which used to seem bizarrely uneven to me. I'm going to make this a text in my Introduction to Literature class: I've always been appalled by students' biblical illiteracy, and this book provides me with the most comprehensive and interesting view of these works that I've seen, along with Helms' "Who Wrote the Gospels?" For those interested in literature and history, not those blinded by dogma.
Rating: 
Summary: Grossly uneven work
Review: This collection of the four canonical gospels plus the Gospel of Thomas (all newly translated) is the fruit of several years of research and discussion by the Jesus Seminar, a group of scholars brought together to disseminate the gospels in order to discover the "historical" Jesus over and against the "Jesus of faith". The book can be summarized as comprising three features: An introduction to historical criticism of the gospels, with a rundown and explanation of the rules followed by the Jesus Seminar in order to discover which words were actually spoken by Jesus; the translations themselves; and the running commentary explaining the reasoning behind each decision.The introduction is accessible and informative. Generally, the claims made are not sensational in the sense that many of the Seminar's critics would make out. However, it is here that they reveal their working assumptions, and I cannot overstate how misconceived these assumptions are. It is not that they are entirely unfounded, but rather they are half-truths turned into hard-and-fast rules which when applied can only mislead. For example, members of the Seminar observe that Jesus' sayings often cut across the religious and political grain. Therefore, one of the rules becomes (unjustifiably): Jesus only ever said things that cut across the religious and social grain. The result: Jesus is gagged. He is simply not allowed to say anything in agreement with the religion or politics of his day. Therefore, he never quoted Scripture. If it isn't radical, new or totally out-of-step with the culture, Jesus didn't say it. The reasoning is all circular. How shall we resist concluding that all the Jesus Seminar's findings were determined from the very start? They begin with the assumption that Jesus never spoke in anything but parables or aphorisms (or at least that it is impossible for anything more than that to have survived oral transmission), that he never said anything that agreed with the religion or politics of his day, that he never initiated dialogue or debate, and that he never spoke about a coming kingdom (just four of the many rules). How do we know he didn't do any of these things? Well, the Jesus Seminar's research proves it, of course! How does it prove it? By assuming all these things in the first place, and rejecting anything that doesn't conform. The actual translation is rendered as casually as possible, in an attempt to reflect adequately each of the evangelists' unique styles. The principle they follow is a good translation shouldn't sound like a translation at all. Unfortunately, they shoot themselves in the foot, for the language and phraseology employed frequently sounds ridiculously crass, and we are painfully aware that we are reading a translation, and at times a very bad one, akin to reading one of those evangelical paraphrases that were so popular in the seventies. The system for distinguishing the words of Jesus from later fabrications and additions is by means of four different typefaces: red (Jesus said this, or something quite like it); pink (Jesus probably said this, or something like it); grey (Jesus probably didn't say this); black (Jesus did not say this). The idea is, of course, borrowed from red-letter editions of the Bible, in which all the words (supposedly) spoken by Jesus are in red. Alongside the text is a commentary in which the editors (Robert Funk and Roy Hoover) explain the reasoning behind each decision (determined by the votes of members of the Seminar). The commentary more or less follows through on the assumptions delineated in the introduction, whose shakey and uncritical nature we have seen. The format is a little difficult to follow, for the comments are added in between chunks of text, rather than added in footnotes, which makes it a little difficult to read the whole text. The format, however, is the least of the Jesus Seminar's problems. I have no objection to historical criticism, and wish any true scholar luck in his quest to find the "historical Jesus". It is not the unconservative conclusions which I find so reprehensible here: It is the flawed methodology and the blindness of the Seminar to its (ironically) uncritical and unreliable assumptions and presuppositions. If this is serious scholarship, I am afraid it seems we are in an academic climate where anything goes.
Rating: 
Summary: Do not waste your time on this book!
Review: I wouldn't waste my time reading the book by Funk. However, if anyone is interested in what Jesus really said, then I would highly recommend reading "What did Jesus Really Say?" by Misha'al ibn Abdullah. It ISBN number is 1888782099.
Rating:
Summary: What Do You Really Think?
Review: One can often decide whether a book is "worth reading" by the amount of controversy surrounding it. Judging by the emotionalism vented against the work of Funk and Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, I would think any serious, curious readers would want to look at this book --if for no other reason than to find out what all the fuss is about. It's a shame such an attempt at rational, dispassionate biblical scholarship should have been received in such a tepid way by the general public who, frankly, understand very little about biblical scholarship, methodology, linguistics, historiography, genre, etc. For the reader whose mind remains fluid, whose horizons have not been rendered brittle and narrow by faith and emotionalism, this book will present many interesting insights about not only the authorship of the canonical gospels and the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, but also explains how the 72 scholars arrived at the conclusions presented in this volume, particularly the phrasing of the text (SV) and how the opinion of the Jesus Seminar was reached. Also interesting for the lay-reader, armchair philosopher and others are the few unabashed statements about how the early Church leaders tampered with the several gospels, though this is not a point the Jesus Seminar dwells upon. As an introductory book that is easy to read and understand, I recommend it to any person unafraid to think critically, beyond the box, about the nature of not merely the canonical gospels and their message and origins, but also the humanity --the divine humanity-- of what inspires so much of what informs human consciousness and awareness in whatever form, be it parable, fable, myth, or other borrowed story. While I was writing my doctoral thesis I became less and less concerned about the trappings of traditional lore and became more interested in just what the original cultural and historic importance of these texts were in their own time, and what they might convey for our own lives today. I think Profs. Funk and Hoover and the other Jesus Seminar members have, with this book, made an important step, and the results --clear and easy to understand-- are accessible to any person wishing to enrich a personal understanding of the history and meaning of these gospels; to any study group, Unitarian Universalist or otherwise. Where there is visceral emotionalism amok there can be no reason. No reason no peace. No peace, no understanding. No understanding, no light. No light.... Well, just look around. This book isn't the light of the world and does not pretend to be. It is the work and opinions of some learned men of our time, i.e., a group of biblical scholars. It is not a gospel unto itself. In spite of that it is a volume I would include in any library intended for the study of Christianity and its development in the first millennia of the common era with respect to the canonical gospels. This book could only frighten or offend those who have transcended all objectivity and insist upon maintaining a status quo that represents the worst kind of myopia. Read this book and decide what YOU think.
Rating:
Summary: What do ducks say?
Review: Before I answer the question of this review's title, let me ask another, possibly more pressing question: Who is this Robert Funk and what has he been up to? Funk was, once upon a time, one of the world's premier scholars in Biblical Greek. That was before he started fiddling with dubious fourth and fifth century Gnostic texts. Ever since, Mr. Funk has been trying to fit the square peg of his interpretation of these jumbled texts into a round hole of some kind of faux-existentialist/anti-supernaturalist "theology." Hence the book before us. Mr. Funk and his pals at the Jesus Seminar have played with some beads and called it scholarship. The pseudo-science of hypothetical textual criticism has always amused me as being a rather far-fetched area in which to strike up a career. How much more comically absurd then is this "annotated text." One gets the sense while reading this color-coded "Bible" that the deck was stacked (or at least the jar was filled) well in advance of any trully critical analysis of the texts in question. Therefore, the answer to the question of my title is also a pretty good answer to my second question as well. I cannot recommend this book as anything more than an unintentional humorous parody of scholarship.
Rating:
Summary: Not to be taken seriously
Review: By completely misunderstanding the scriptures (the Gospels were written not merely to record the sayings and deeds of Jesus but to express their experience of Him, their understanding of who He was) and the understanding of the first few centuries of the church (which would never have occurred if they thought he was only a charming social revolutionary {politician} and not a divine figure), this small group of extremists with questionable credentials (one was the scriptwriter for that other great theological work, the sleazy movie "Showgirls") takes it upon themselves to pare the scriptures down to a bare minimum that eliminates anything divine. I don't have a problem with agnostics and atheists and unitarians using the gospels anyway they want. People have been constructing Jesus in a multitiude of images for centuries. It won't affect my own faith. My disgust with this has to do with their use of the method of a small group of people voting oin what is true and not and then presenting this to the public as if this was a valid method of research or scholarship. Without a single conservative, moderate, or person blessed with faith in the risen Christ in this group, the results were a foregone conclusion. It is like asking a group of Arabs what they think of Israel or asking a panel of NRA members how they feel about gun laws. Duh!
Not to be taken seriously. As the members of this group are just unitarians who don't have the guts to give up their academic jobs (and salaries) in theology departments to pursue a more honest living, you can dismiss these books entirely. As usual, theology departments with tenured professors are so far from the life of faith in their little ivory towers that once in awhile they need to break out and do something provocative just to reassure themselves that their lives of endless drudgery with grad students have some purpose and significance.
Rating: 
Summary: Invaluable resource for the serious student of the gospels
Review: As someone who wrote my doctoral thesis on the search for the pre-Easter Jesus many years ago, I rejoice to see so many good scholars finally taking this task seriously. I would "vote" on many of the sayings of Jesus differently, but the really valuable part is not what color the majority chose, but the interspersed commentaries on each saying. These are far more useful than the vast majority of commentaries in the English language. When I was actively teaching and preaching, I seldom used any English language commentaries. The only ones I actually used were in German. The scholarship in most commentaries is just too superficial. They often skip (!) the one verse in a passage that makes it come alive. I just wish that Strack-Billerbeck's Kommentar Zum Neuen Testament Aus Talmud und Midrasch were available in English. These two scholars have complied all the rabbinical sayings from before and after Jesus' time that correspond to each verse of the gospels. But if you are limited to English, you have hitherto had very little fresh, stimulating commentary to draw on and the Five Gospels fills that void. Even if you disagree with the "votes" of the scholars, you will still find yourself challenged by the detailed and useful commentary they provide.
Rating:
Summary: If this is Jesus why bother?
Review: The Jesus of "The Five Gospels" is reduced to a charismatic social revolutionary. No miracles, no resurrection, no reason to be a follower. If this is Jesus then why not stay home Sunday and watch "Meet The Press"? The thinking in this book represents what is being taught in many seminaries and is the reason that the mainline churches are losing members.
Rating:
Summary: Debunk Jesus? I'd Like to Debunk Funk!
Review: "Scholarly tripe". That's what this is. The Jesus Seminar is a pompous and arrogant group claiming that they have it right when their research is skewed from their starting point. They Jesus to be a mystic, or a sage, if even that. Christians, remember to take into account their worldviews, many of them are true blue atheists and agnostics. Non-Christians, don't believe what you hear when they call themselves a cross section of NT scholars. The scholarly efforts here are so minimal, they are based on assumptions that the laws of nature cannot be violated. With that, they go so far as to say prophecy cannot occur, therefore the Gospels were written AFTER fulfilled prophecy, therefore they are in the same line with 2nd century apocryphal Gospels. The inclusion of the Gospel of Thomas proves that. However, where do they get these ideas? Would the apostles go to their deaths for a few wise sayings? No, these acts HAD to occur for Jesus' followers to actually have reason to go to their deaths. It only makes sense, would you go to your death for someone's measly sayings that happened to be catchy and liveable by? Jesus would not have been crucified for saying some weird things, that is not the Jesus of scripture. The Christ of faith IS the Jesus of history, they are grounded on eachother and rely on eachother. Crossan, Funk, Borg and all the rest claim that what they say is actually a cross section of NT scholarship. Doesn't make sense to me, especially seeing that the number of people actually DOING something on the seminar goes to around 75 while the typical more conservative seminar has thousands. Funk really made me mad this time, NT Professors are trying to teach proper Biblical and Theological thought, and you got guys like Funk making their jobs ten times harder with all this stuff. If you want to learn a better history of Jesus, not what the Jesus Seminar claims Him to be, then read the now 3, almost 4 part series "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus" by John P. Meier, a fabulous Catholic scholar, or "The Jesus Quest" by Ben Witherington. And most of all, read "Jesus Under Fire". That will explain what isn't explained here about the Jesus Seminar.
Rating:
Summary: Fun Facts
Review: This is just some true facts taken from Answers in Action Website about the Jesus Seminar: 200 members; fewer than 40 published in the field; 74 contributed to The Five Gospels. No one is from a conservative school. Authenticity is determined on a sliding scale by means of color-coded voting beads. The Five Gospels is printed in colors to signify the results of the voting. Red type indicates passages "are considered by the Seminar to be close to what Jesus actually said." Pink sayings "less certainly originated with Jesus." Gray passages "are not his, though they contain ideas that are close to his own." Black portions, which predominate throughout the gospels, "have been embellished or created by his followers, or borrowed from common lore." The methodology for detecting an "authentic" Jesus saying:
A direct quote must be short and "punchy" A thought must run against the social and religious grain of the day An action must be in the style of contemporary "wise men" of the day Parables must not have explicit applications A word or passage must not contain Old Testament quotations A passage must not contain contextual connections Any prophecy is immediately deemed invalid Any miracle is immediately deemed invalid They attribute fewer than 20% of the sayings as authentic to Jesus. Of the Lord's Prayer, they attribute only "Our Father" as "close to what Jesus said." After six years of meetings and papers, the cannot say with certainty that Jesus said anything recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or the Gnostic pseudo-gospel, Thomas. Only 16 sayings attributed to Jesus in these gospels are affirmed as "close" to authentic by the Seminar. The Seminar was unable "to find a single saying they could trace back to the historical Jesus" in the Gospel of John. The Seminar denies that any of the following New Testament teachings are authentic to Jesus:
Jesus promised to return to earth Jesus' death was vicarious, atoning for sin Jesus was the Messiah Jesus was supposed to suffer Jesus resurrected Jesus was virgin born Jesus ever performed miracles Jesus was the Son of God, God Himself THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION (OR STATEMENT)! 1. Does it make sense that men and women would be willing to die because they dared to spread the message of a Jesus who never claimed to be the Messiah and who was never raised from the dead? 2. A sage is not a threat. A crucified, risen, returning Christ is. 3. A Jesus who spent his time spinning parables and Japanese koans. . . or a bland Jesus who simply told people to look at the lilies of the field . . . would threaten no one, just as the university professors who create him threaten no one. 4. The Jesus Seminar assumptions would require the assumption that someone, about a generation removed from the events in question, radically transformed the authentic information about Jesus that was circulating at that time, superimposed a body of material four times as large, fabricated almost entirely out of whole cloth, while the church suffered sufficient collective amnesia to accept the transformation as legitimate. 5. It is not good history to ignore the massive weight of manuscript evidence attesting to the validity of the Bible. It is ludicrous to raise the Gospel of Thomas, for which there is only one known manuscript, to the level of the other four gospels, which were copied and distributed throughout Africa, Asia and Europe and for which scholars have collected hundreds of ancient manuscripts. 6. The Jesus of the Jesus Seminar is a non-Jewish Jesus. To put it metaphorically, the Seminar has performed a forcible epispasm on the historical Jesus, a surgical procedure removing the marks of his circumcision. In robbing Jesus of his Jewishness, the Jesus Seminar has finally robbed him of his religion. 7. Scholars of religion have rightly come to be suspicious of theologically driven scholarship. We should be equally suspicious of a-theologically driven scholarship, or any ideologically driven scholarship, political or otherwise. 8. Who would want to crucify a laconic sage, even one whose discourse is "distinctive"? And why? PITHY QUOTES FROM THE SEMINAR "It is time for us [scholars] to quit the library and study and speak up . . . . The Jesus Seminar is a clarion call to enlightenment. It is for those who prefer facts to fancies, history to histrionics, science to superstition" (Robert Funk, founder). [Jesus was] "a secular sage who satirized the pious and championed the poor. . . . Jesus was perhaps the first stand-up Jewish comic. Starting a new religion would have been the farthest thing from his mind" (Robert Funk, founder). "The gospels are now assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is embellished by mythic elements that express the church's faith in him, and by plausible fictions that enhance the telling of the gospel story for first-century listeners" (Robert Funk, founder). "The historical Jesus was, then, a peasant Jewish Cynic" (John Dominic Crossan, fellow). RECOMMENDED READING IN RESPONSE TO THE JESUS SEMINAR AND OTHER REVISIONIST CHRISTOLOGIES
| 
