Rating: 
Summary: More fuel for the conservative fire...
Review: The premise here is NOT that the Gospels are "flawed" but that they are -- to use the marvellous analogy of John Shelby Spong, a "midrash". In the classic Jewish sense, a midrash is a story created around Biblical text to evoke a particular religious impression. The truth or lack thereof of a midrash is less important than the spiritual impression it leaves on its reader.Whether or not Jesus literally spoke certain sayings and parables, Spong might tell us, is less important than the impressions of God's love that Christians believe he revealed. Andrew Greeley has written on the parables that their primary intention is to show us how insanely God is in love with all His people. I can agree with a sentiment like that, and probably, so would a Jesus Project scholar. However, those impressions are precisely what is lacking from "The Five Gospels". Instead, they focus on the literal text -- which is the least interesting, least significant part of the Gospels. In that sense, this book opens up an unnecessary vulnerability for liberal Christianity. Conservatives are ever-ready to charge that liberal Christians somehow believe "less" than they do, and this book offers little evidence otherwise. Of course, liberal scholars of all religions know that whether or not a myth is literally TRUE is less interesting than the value that myth adds to the religion. But Funk et al have made little effort to make that point here, perhaps to the greater detriment of their cause. So, yes, this book is a valuable addition to any Christian library. The authors approach their subject matter with faith and the bravery to examine even their most sacred myths. But it's difficult, in this context, for their faith to show through amidst their line-by-line dissection of the text. There is scholarship here, indeed, but, in the end, precious little Christianity.
Rating: 
Summary: Fundamentally flawed
Review: The authors of The Five Gospels assert that the Gospels contain both true and invented sayings of Jesus, and that the authors generally can distinguish between them. In this book, they purport to identify the true sayings of Jesus. This is an extraordinary book, but not because the authors have identified the true sayings of Jesus. It is extraordinary because the entire book is a protracted exercise in begging the question. This again might not be so extraordinary, except that it is perpetrated by some fifty-four Ph.D.'s, twelve Th.D.'s, and a handful of other doctorate degree holders. Altogether seventy-two doctorate degree holders collectively have foisted on the public an error of logic about which a well-educated high school graduate would be embarassed. As the reader will recall, the error of reasoning which is called "begging the question" is one in which the author assumes what he sets out to prove. The way in which these authors beg the question is to postulate what they call "rules of evidence," according to which they will evaluate the record of Jesus' sayings as presented in the Gospels. As they put it, "The Jesus Seminar formulated and adopted 'rules of evidence' to guide its assessment of gospel traditions." (p. 16) True rules of evidence are procedural rules to insure the just determination of questions without a disproportionate expenditure of time and money. For example, Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides, "All relevant evidence is admissible . . .. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible." However, these authors' so-called "rules of evidence" are the their assumed conclusions to their inquiry. Here are two representative "rules of evidence" asserted by the authors: "Words borrowed from the fund of common lore or the Greek scriptures are often put on the lips of Jesus." (p. 22) "The evangelists frequently attribute their own statements to Jesus." (p. 23) With "rules of evidence" like these, the authors' examination of the gospel texts is merely a working out of the implications of their assumptions. Typical is the authors' conclusion with regard to Luke 7:36 through 7:50, (the account of the anointing of Jesus by a sinful woman): "All the words put into Jesus' mouth are the fabrication of the storyteller." (p. 304) This book is not without interest -- most importantly because it is powerful evidence that no one need be awed by the credentials of any authors. Here, some 500 years of college and graduate school education collectively have produced a large silliness. By the bye, the book is called the Five Gospels, because the authors consider a late and meager "Gospel of Thomas" to be equal in authority with the four canonical Gospels. If you are looking for new light on Jesus, the "Gospel of Thomas" as well as The Five Gospels will be a disappointment.
Rating: 
Summary: A fresh and exciting translation
Review: You may agree or disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the Jesus Seminar, but the translation is fantastic. Done fresh from the best sources and made to have the impact of the actual documents in the time they were written, it strips away the hysterical piety that has plagued the approved versions we've all grown up with. "Congratulations, you poor!" The Beatitudes shine with a new light. We even see Jesus say "Damn"! (a truer translation of the pious "woe"). The best part is seeing the people in my Bible study group groan when I open this book and then nod in thoughtfulness when I read it to them. My pastor, who is a professor of theology at a nearby Nazarene university, is intrigued by the work and testifies to the accuracy of the translations.
Rating:
Summary: Blackballing the words of Jesus
Review: A committee is an animal with six or more legs and no brain. The Jesus Seminar formed a committee and passed out multi colored balls for the committee members to vote on Jesus' words in accordance with the "Five Pillars of Scholarly Wisdom". Red balls meant "I think Jesus said it", Black meant "I don't think Jesus said it". Pink and Grey indicated varying degrees of uncertainty. One legal ground for invalidating a jury's verdict is that the jury made its decision by lot. The rationale for this legal requirement is that such decisions are highly suspect, not the product of detached reflection, and very likely wrong-headed. The Jesus Seminar made their decisions in a manner which would rightly be rejected in any court of law in the United States. Having said all this, if you can ignore the hubris and faulty scholarship of the Jesus Seminar, the book itself can be thought provoking and interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Hello, inevitability.
Review: In light of the leaps and bounds that have been made in modern years in perfecting historical research methods and the increasing emphasis on religion as a social subject instead of a divinely inspired theology, this book was completely unavoidable. Eventually, some group of scholars was going to have to get together and seriously and solemnly discuss the question: "who was Jesus and what did he really say?". Then those same scholars would have to try to work in a reasonable and fair manner to come to some kind of consensus that was completely free of religious biases. It was a herculean task to be sure and I do not envy these bold men and women who have taken the first real stand on the dividing line of history and fiction. They have drawn much criticism from faith centered scholars and church orginizations for their unorthodox stance. However, those of us who prefer to think reasonably rather than dogmatically will see that the Jesus seminar has a point. We do not HAVE to like what they say (even though I do), we do not HAVE to agree with everything they say (I don't), but we who are reasonable must agree the idea behind this book is sound. It is a profound book, it is a well written book, and it is an important book. To read it is to become part of one of the essential turning points in Jesus scholarship today. Everyone should at least flip through it and read a little, even that small effort can greatly expand one's knowlege of Jesus. It is written so that the fairly intelligent lay person can understand it. Its only obstacle of readability is its length which is easily solved by its encyclopedic format. One can flip through reading at whimsy or just look up the sayings they find relevant. It is very very intresting and, at the very least, quite useful.
Rating:
Summary: Nothing new, or more controversial than what's come before
Review: "They're voting on Jesus," cry the detractors of the Jesus Seminar -- many of whom couldn't name a single member, nor could they claim to have read any of the works published by the group. Well, in a nutshell, no they aren't. They are voting on specific texts, purely in relation to the historicity of the act reported. They are specifically *not* voting on the faith statements made. That would be redundant, as there's already enough contradiction and ambiguity to feed that fire (Was Jesus born in Nazareth or Bethlehem? Did he cleanse the temple at the beginning of his public ministry, or at the end? Do contradictions like this affect the faith statement made by the gospel authors telling us of these acts? NO!) I see this book for what it is: a current attempt (in a long line of similar attempts) to better understand who wrote the books of the Christian Bible and how they came to be. It would seem to me, as one of the "custodians of the faith and traditions of the Church," that we should welcome study of this sort. It would also seem that we should champion those who choose to make their methods and conclusions open and subject to inspection, unlike many previous renditions of the same activity. I don't agree with many of the conclusions of the Seminar, and I think their voting methodology is somewhat flawed. I do agree that it is essential, as someone who values what I believe to be God's message to us (and, further, as someone who is specifically charged to spread that message), that we get it as close to correct as we can. Correctness, in this case, includes critically examining the available evidence to see exactly what the authors said, why they said it, how they said it, and whom they were addressing. Many decry the inclusion of the gnostic Gospel of Thomas in this study. They seem unaware (or indifferent) that there were *many* "gospels" (and other writings) in circulation during Christianity's first three centuries, and that the current canon was closed not because God opened up the heavens and told us to get our act together, but because the emperor Constantine ordered the creation of 50 copies of the Christian scriptures. Who's going to be the one to tell the most powerful man on Earth (who's also footing the bill), "Sorry, we haven't yet decided what to include"? So they voted on it. Canon closed. If that doesn't strike one as more arbitrary, and less honorable, than what the Jesus Seminar is doing, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I find the book useful as a reference, and I welcome a more intensive study of other extracanonical writings. I desire to learn the teachings of Jesus as fully and accurately as I can, and if I have to slog through some material with which I disagree to do that I am more than willing to do so.
Rating:
Summary: A step forward
Review: A very long overdue at the life of that most misunderstood man, Jesus. I'm not sure I agree with the scholars all the time, but their method is basically right on, and this seems like a big step in the right direction.
Rating:
Summary: Not convincing
Review: One of my concerns with this book is that it is not what it claims to be. This book and the work of the Jesus Seminar as a whole, claims to be "scholarly." The members of the Jesus Seminar paint themselves as bold crusaders for the "truth." Robert Funk, the editor of this title, even goes so far as to cast himself in the role of a modern day Galileo- suffering persecution for the truth. He has made it his life's work to free the "historical Jesus" from the constraints of orthodoxy in order to help launch a new era in which the real "historical Jesus" is liberated from religious and political (i.e., conservative) propaganda. I myself am all for scholarly investigation into the person of Jesus Christ. Mr. Funk however, has never done anything of the sort. Mr. Funk admittedly feels that he has an ax to grind with his own fundamentalist childhood. From the issues Mr. Funk has with his childhood, spring the biases that pervade his "scholarship" and skew his viewpoint. According to Mr. Funk, modern science renders unacceptable the supernatural world picture contained in Scripture. Mr. Funk seeks to reject orthodox views of the crucifixion, resurrection, miraculous birth and divine infancy of Jesus. He does so on no basis of evidence or proof. He does this on faith alone. These are the assumptions and that he lays as a foundation for his further "study". All are subjective and unproven; some strikingly arbitrary. That said, he attempts to put this questionable, third century text on the same ground as the canonical gospels. I am not convinced. Take my advice: don't waste your time here.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't think this is objective
Review: This book is a good summary of one strain of modern biblicalcriticism, but should not be taken as the summa of the discipline.Funk et al wrote this book in order to increase their public stature and advance their theological and political agenda. The introduction is particularly disturbing; by describing themselves as the persecuted underdogs, the Seminar is attempting to manipulate the reader into sympathizing with them as people, rather than letting the scholarship speak for itself.
Rating:
Summary: Book is useful but the arithmetic is terrible
Review: This translation of the five gospels is very useful for study, and the colors are an interesting guide to the opinions of the committee. However, I wonder how Robert Funk got through high school math. He classifies several sayings as Black, when the consensus of the Fellows was clearly for a Gray rating. And the Seminar continues to use a faulty algorithm. There is no truth set, independent of the five manuscripts themselves, from which the Fellows or any of us can educate ourselves to become true experts.
| 
