Rating: 
Summary: sensationalistic and pretentious, but interesting
Review: The so-called "Jesus Seminar", co-authors of this book, make the sensational claim that they can actually "hear" the voice of the historical Jesus in certain passages of the New Testament though not in others. Since historical attestation of the words of Jesus outside of religious works (i.e. canonical and extracanonical gospels) is non-existent, historians fall back on the phenomenon of multiple attestation (i.e. religious writings coming from seemingly separate traditions, i.e. John, the synoptics and/or Q, and, if you are willing to suppose a first-century source, the gnosticizing Gospel of Thomas, showing overlaps.) By diligent comparison of these sources, Bible scholars attempt to reconstruct the most probable authentic sayings at the points of overlap. This process is complicated, however, by the supposition that each independent tradition actually contains early and late strata, and that, according to the authors of this book, any eschatological or christological material in the Gospels must come from the later strata of the oral tradition. Furthermore, any incidental dialogue in miracle stories must also be made up, since it could not have survived an oral stage, and anything that fulfills Old Testament prophecy too closely must be looked at with suspicion. This leaves memorable one-line "zingers" as most probably going back to the historical Jesus, as well as parables that could have been remembered, as long as they are stripped of any "theological" flavoring. Once these criteria are set, the "seminar" votes on the sayings most likely coming from Jesus, and all of His words are given a red, pink, gray or black rating depending on their likelihood of originating with Him. This is all fine, of course, if your thesis is that the "historical Jesus" was an ordinary philosopher wanedering around Palestine who had absolutely nothing to do with the Savior of the Christian texts. This is a rather pretentious assertion considering the scarcity of independent, non-Christian texts. Moreover, once these points have been made in the introduction, the book becomes excruciatingly repetitious as the authors attempt to justify their rating of each individual passage according to the criteria. Moreover, their new translation, intended to sound to modern American readers as the original would have sounded to ancient Greek speakers, strips the texts of their time-honoured elegance and shocks the reader through Jesus' frequent exclamations of "Damn you...!"
Rating: 
Summary: The soul catches fire: the Bible as history of philosophy
Review: Plato said that philosophy was a conversation in which the soul catches fire. Bound in religious traditions that take the Bible literally and everything printed in red as the absolute words of Jesus, this conversation has not been allowed outside of some seminaries where liberal thinking is encouraged. This book brings to the public,in accessible form, the rudiments of the conversation that is Bible scholarship. Part of catching fire is being consumed in new thought. This book provides a portal to the process that New Testament scholars have used to deconstruct the language attributed to Jesus. The reader is given a way of thinking about history and its archival artifacts, namely the literature history inspires. Who was Jesus and what did he really say? That is a literary question as much as it is a theological one, and the reader is immersed in the discussion. Only if you are a religious fundamentalist who will have your cage irreconcilably rattled by the thought that the New Testament is literature, not absolute fact, will you not be eager to enter into the discussion with the scholars. Most of the text is the discourse the scholars conducted in deciding the major questions: "Did Jesus really say that?...did he say something like that?...Did someone else say this and attribute it to him?...and if so why?" Dissenting views are given. It is much like reading synopisi of the United State Supremem Court Hearings. And isn't that appropos? It is the hermenutical stance that ancient Talmud scholars took in trying to interpret the Torah. No absolute answers are given---that's why it's a conversation, and each reader will come away with an altered view of Jesus and his mission in the world, but no one will be able to dogmatically claim to KNOW having read this book. Fire consumes and purifies. This is a book of consuming inquiry and purifying possibilities, because it makes us rethink what we have been so bold for centuries to believe we knew
Rating: 
Summary: controversial, but not scientific or unbiased
Review: I read this book many years ago, before it had even been around long enough for there to be much controversy around it. Then and now, the question I think that must be answered is this: were the methods of the Jesus Seminar scientific? If their methods were scientific then any group of biblical scholars should be able to reproduce the research and come up with the same results. But I think everybody will admit that this is not the case.
Really, their whole premise is kind of rediculous when you think about it. If you do not believe that the Bible is a reliable source of information about Jesus, can you reconstruct a more accurate picture by eliminating the parts you don't like and then adding in some things from even more questionable sources (such as the Gospel of Thomas)? These people seem to think they can.
So, I would say that if you want to know about the real Jesus, buy a good study bible and decide for yourself which parts to believe instead of letting somebody else tell you. I recommend the Access Bible from Oxford (it doesn't have a conservative bias).
And if you want to read alternative scriptures, including gnostic gospels such as the one they promote in this book, there are better books than this one.
Rating:
Summary: It's a sin to tell a lie
Review: One thing distinguishes almost all of the critics of this edition, they are defending a lie. The lie is that all of the cannonical gospels are in accord in all basics and some pretend that they are in accord in detail. Anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear knows that this is simply not true. They also pretend that the gospels as we have them today are the result of an orderly compilation of complete works recieved in accurate form directly from the authors. This again is simply not true.
So, what is an honest person to do? Go along with the conventionalized lie and ignore what is staring us in the face or to try to understand the texts in all their variation and complexity? For people who honestly CARE about what Jesus taught and how his followers understood it the Seminar's work is a huge step forward. They have put in the work and argued their different opinions. They have honestly and openly recorded their work and are open to new findings. In a word and unlike their opponents, they have been completly HONEST.
As some have pointed out this is not the last word, there won't be a last word on this subject but it is better than just about any other scholarly attempt.
Why supposedly religous people would want to bear false witness and lie is, perhaps, a question that would also clear up some pressing problems of Christianity.
Rating: 
Summary: "Look out for the Scholars..." Mark 12:28 (pink)
Review: I have to admit I liked this book a great deal. It was very thought provoking, and that is what I wanted.
As anyone can note from the title, this is an attempt to add a new gospel to the canonic testaments of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Without saying as much, the book seeks to raise the standing of a newly discovered ancient 'book': 'the Gospel of Thomas'. The 1945 discovery of 'Thomas', a previously unknown gospel of about the same antiquity as the canonic gospels, demands a reassessment of the traditional canon. Some might say this reassessment is the job of scholars, and has already been accomplished with a dismissal of Thomas as derivative and heretical. This book presents an extensive argument against this conclusion, and makes it in an accessible manner for the lay reader,
The format of Thomas presents a significant problem. Thomas is not a narrative, but a list of 114 'sayings'. Thomas tells many of the canonic parables, but the Thomas versions are shorter and often bereft of any moral interpretation. 10 or 15 sound very much like 'Jesus', but are entirely missing from the canon. Many of the remaining 50 or so sayings invoke what scholars might call 'Gnostic' philosophy. Thomas fails to mention the resurrection story and includes only one mention of 'the cross.'
Fitting Thomas into any holistic understanding of Jesus will not be easy. In particular, a 'list of sayings' is far harder to trust than a coherent narrative. It is far easier for the man writing a copy to insert their opinions when no 'statement' need continue a thought from the prior paragraph.
Without making integration of Thomas into the canonic literature an overt goal, the 'Jesus seminar' simply sets out to see how much trouble one faces when applying a single standard to the four canonic gospels AND Thomas. The Jesus Seminar concludes Thomas is far more authentic than John.
The '5 Gospels' reports on this process leading to this conclusion. The 'conference' assumes one can deconstruct the 'real' voice of the historical Jesus by cross-referencing all available 'Jesus quotes' in the 5 documents. What we are going to do with the historic Jesus is politely avoided, but the clear assumption is the 'real' is good.
I had no idea how subtle a notion this goal turns out to be. By sticking strictly to the nominal goal: 'hear the historical Jesus speaking', a host of controversies can be sidestepped. The agnostic and atheist can 'hear' the historical Jesus. The same follows for the Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. All hear people talk through written texts. All can relate to the question, do a historical man's actual words speak through the evangelist (be they an individual or a community) and the host of people who copied the source prior to 'canonical' versions were provided institutional copy producing traditions.
This is also a 'lowest common denominator' strategy. While reading, it struck me this was a very 'safe' Jesus that the seminar could agree upon. The conventionality gets tiresome. It seems the 'safe' Jesus is a witty hippy sort of guy. Here are the 'top 5' (and I paraphrase):
1. Turn the other cheek (92% agreement)
2. If someone asks for your shirts, give him your coat, too (92% agreement)
3. Blessed are the poor (91%)
4. If someone asks you to carry his load for 1 mile, carry it for 2. (90%)
5. Love your enemies (84%)
Everything with the slightest aspect of mystery is dismissed.
1. He didn't use the 1st person pronoun "I", and if he did, it was in exactly the same unimportant way you or I use it. In other words, Jesus never said 'I am the light..." This entirely discounts the Jesus quotes in John.
2. He didn't talk about a cataclysmic end to the world as we know it.
3. He didn't talk about his death and resurrection, or the Solomon's temple being dismantled.
4. If he did say anything after the resurrection, no one wrote it down accurately.
The seminar simply didn't agree on the mysteries, and who should expect them? Given their backgrounds, at least 25% of the seminar were agnostic or atheist.
While reading the scholarly arguments, I wondered if I could authentically quote anything my wife has ever said. I'm sure she said 'I do' at some point, but would be hard pressed to 'quote' a story or piece of wisdom she has shared with me. It isn't for lack of listening! It is almost impossible to remember exactly what anyone said without making a point of writing it down 'in the moment'.
And, if it is written down, the individual units of text are always commonplace. I was often reminded of an old Victor Borge routine. The great pianist would stop playing a wonder Mozart piece and announce he had in his pocket a piece of paper with the first 'note' Mozart ever wrote. After carefully pulling it from his pocket and lovingly discussing it's history, he announces that he also has a scrap of paper with the last 'note' Mozart ever wrote. After retrieving this precious document, he looks at the two and says, 'Interesting, the first note as a 'C' and the last a 'D'. Mozart didn't get very far, did he?'
So there is the problem of trusting that someone got it written down fast enough combined with the fact all sentences are constructed of commonplace words. The two make textual deconstruction of 'original words' a speculative game. Old quotes might be worthless paraphrasing or outright fantasy. Alternatively, old quotes always reflect the commonplace phrases of a community, devoid of individual character. What we find important is the 'whole picture'.
So, nothing is really proven here. The authors carefully avoid the 'whole picture', suggesting everyone work that out on their own. I found it possible to suspend judgment long enough to get through all 5 'critiqued' gospels, but it was a bit of a struggle. I'm glad I kept pushing to get to the end. That 'end' is a reassessment of Thomas, and this volume is by far the best available.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting on many levels
Review: The Five Gospels is the end product of years of research, thought, discussion, and voting by the Jesus Seminar. Description of how decisions were made and the color coding of text for estimated authenticity were fascinating in themselves. the Jesus Seminar is much more tranparent about how it works and the weaknesses of their method than any scholarly group I am aware of. ENRON could learn from this. News reports that only a small precentage of accepted texts could be attributed to Jesus were somewhat misleading in that the seminar did not include common phrases and amphorisms that Jesus may have used but that were not unique to him. The story of the Gnostic Gopel of Thomas was intriguing. Or you can ignore the controversies and just read a careful modern translation that is much more understandable than most.
Rating:
Summary: Check your preconceptions at the door
Review: Even it you disagree with the conclusions, it is worth considering the work and thought of the Jesus Seminar scholars to help you get a fresh "take" on your own beliefs. If you can keep your blood presure under control, the translations are interesting and well thought out. You learn more than you think you need top know about the voting procedure and how the seminare opporates, but I guess from being criticised they felt they needed to be transparent. I find it exciting to attempt to locate the human man before he became the Messiah.
Rating:
Summary: Weird scholarship.
Review: This translation of the Gospels makes use of some good linguistic ideas, and is often fresh and lively. Some of the historical principles from which the fellows operate are reasonable. Mostly, though, this work is arrogant and silly. The arrogance is directed first towards those thousands of scholars who do not share JS views, whom they dismiss in insulting and unfair terms, secondly, towards the general public, whom they casually assume to be uninformed, or misinformed, fools (why else would we doubt the JS?), and most of all, towards the authors, editors, and compilers of the canonical Gospels. I do not share their contempt in any case. And I ultimately find the scholarly argument made here not only mistaken, but absurd, for at least five reasons. First, it is absurd to call Thomas a Gospel. Etymologically, Gospel means "good news;" Thomas introduces no news, good, bad, or indifferent. Historically, Gospel refers to the canonical four. Thomas does not resemble them in any way, other than borrowing some material and the name of a guru. (I listed 45 characteristics that the Gospels shared, and found that Thomas shared only half a dozen or so -- fewer than any other ancient work in my study.) Why, then, call Thomas a Gospel? Other than using the work as a "sharp stick to beat orthodoxy," the term does not fit. Second, some of the methods adopted here for determining if a saying is accurate are, as other reviewers have pointed out, clearly fallacious. "Sayings and parables expressed in 'Christian' language are the creation of the evangelists or their Christian predecessors." What would result we adopted that rule for the works of JS writers? We would have to conclude that none of the JS books, this one included, were written by their purported authors! This is not a rule that scholars use in any other case, because it would render all scholarship absurd, as it does here. "Only sayings and parables that can be traced back to the oral period, 30-50 C.E., can possibly have originated with Jesus." This is silly. My grandmother wrote poetry at age 95. If she were 15 years old in 33 A.D., she could have written a first-hand account of the ressurection in 113 AD! Why is it impossible that first-hand accounts of Jesus' life -- to say nothing of oral tradition -- could have been written 63 years before that date? Third, the fellows display a naive and ill-informed scientism. "The Christ of creed and dogma, who had been firmly in place in the Middle Ages, can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo's telescope." Yet Galileo himself affirmed that creed. Many astronomers (not all Christians) have even found the cosmos they saw through modern telescopes an aid to faith. Fourthly, the JS editors have a bit of a martyrdom complex. They complain about "inquisitors," "witchhunts" and "public attacks (criticism?) from those who lack academic credentials." But what about "attacks" on their methods and assumptions from leading scholars? (See John Meier, N. T. Wright, and E.P. Sanders, for powerful examples of such criticism.) They seem under the curious assumption that the "scholarly" method of dealing with informed criticism is to accuse one's critics of being in the thralls of "neo-orthodoxy," then treat the substance of the criticism with haughty silence. Fifth, the scholars find it "difficult to imagine" Jesus claiming to be Messiah, since he also taught humility. But it is possible to be both humble and believe one is called by God to accomplish great things -- Confucius is one example. Thus, for want of imagination, (or psychological reach, perhaps) they throw out a third of the evidence. For unwillingness to consider the supernatural, they throw out another third. And this is the "open-minded," "unbiased," and "dispassionate" way to do scholarship. I am honestly amazed that so many intelligent scholars can convince themselves that Thomas is a Gospel, and is similiar in important ways to the canonical Gospels. It reminds me of C. S. Lewis' comment on a similiar blunder by Bultmann, "After a man has said that, why must we attend to anything else he says about any book in the world?" If anyone has an answer to either question, please enlighten me. christthetao@msn.com
Rating:
Summary: The Message of Jesus - A New Paradigm
Review: You may not agree with their conclusions, but the Jesus Seminar sure asks some fascinating questions. How can the first written gospels purport to be literal accounts if they were written some 30 to 50 years after Jesus' death? What sorts of stories about Jesus would survive 30 years of oral tradition?How did the political infighting of the early church affect the gospels? What is the core of Jesus' message, Jesus' call to love our neighbor and destroy social injustice, or Paul's insistence on resurrection and redemption? Just the historical explanations of the "turn the other cheek" and "allow the children to come to me" incidents made the book well worth reading. Sometimes the Seminar may confuse absence of proof with proof of absence, but they really opened up my eyes and started me on a quest to know Jesus better.
|
