Rating: 
Summary: Hardly a balanced overview of the "historical Jesus"
Review: "The Acts of Jesus," like its companion volume "The Five Gospels," is politically charged. Its compilers assert that they are rescuing the Jesus who lived and died in the first century from the theological whitewash painted onto him by Paul, Peter, and other early Christians. Supposedly they (the Jesus Seminar) have special insight. What they do is they examine all of the miracles, etc. of Jesus presented in the Gospels, and then rule on whether they are authentic or not. But when it comes down to it, they only admit what is politically acceptable to them as '90s college professors, and anything else that they don't like they throw out as "unhistorical," an invention of later Christians. Since some of their reasons for dismissing certain acts are specious at best, after a while one begins to feel rather jaundiced to this book. The most absurd is their assertion that Mary Magdalene was an important leader in early Christianity, equal to Peter and Paul, a claim which is based on NOTHING. Evidence? Perish the thought; the members of the Jesus Seminar are not historians, but crack theologians - J. Dominic Crossan is a member. This Mary stuff is a bow to modern feminism, and meant to support the indoctrination of female priests today. Perhaps they have peeled off the layers of whitewash that Peter and Paul put on Jesus, but the Jesus Seminar has only covered him back up with its own. The translation into "contemporary" English doesn't come off very well. Often it is rather stilted, and at its worst it is unbearably corny - like when Jesus says to one of his miracle beneficiaries, "Okay, you're cured!"
Rating: 
Summary: The best modern english translation of the Gospel
Review: As Jew married to a Christian, and who's children, given free will choose Christanity, I have always been put off by the New Testament either the King James or Revised Standard Edition. So it was a marvelous suprise to find this book, As soon as I read the introduction I knew this is a book I yearned for for 53 years. Here is the real Jesus, minus the overlay of a Christian sect using him to there own agenda. I have lived my life using many of the teachings of Jesus especially the sermon on the Mount. However, to convert to Christanity one needs to really understand the man. To me Jesus is not the Christ,created by Paul, Mary and Peter, but another great leader like Moses, Mohatma Ghandi, Mohammad, or Buddha. In that textual assumtion one can believe in Jesus and his teaching and not get caught up in theology. Too many Christians, like too many Jews, or Mohamadans profess their allegence to their faith but rarely follow it's teachings. Just imagine a world where we would all do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Hate,war, bigotry, man's inhumanity to their fellow man would vanish. Then one could truly beleive in a Messiah that changed the world. Now we can only understand the Acts of Jesus and try to practise what he preached.
Rating: 
Summary: Lack of Scholarship, Presence of Agenda!
Review: As the founder of the Jesus Seminar, Bob Funk is not only one of, but the leader of this extremely biased and under-qualified group of "scholars." This book is one in a series written by the Jesus Seminar to systematically disassemble the authenticity and historocity of the gospels and Acts. The denial of miracles, Christ's deity, Christ's resurrection, and the validity of scripture as a whole are central to the Seminars agenda. Beware of this book and the Jesus Seminar.
Rating:
Summary: Has the Fundies on the run!
Review: Fundementalist Christians hate this book because it reveals the real historic Jesus in modern critical light. They would rather believe in a Jesus that said "To be my disciple you must hate your father,mother,sister,brother, yea even yourself" then admit that the bible is a collection of fictional stories! Would Fundies test their faith by drinking poison or by letting a vemonous reptile bite them, as Jesus recommends, NO!, I didn't think so. Bill
Rating:
Summary: Clearest and most honest modern English translation ever
Review: Historically speaking, translations of the Gospels have obscured rather than elucidated their meaning and style. The 'characters' behind the compositions, their style, is typically lost in translation. The scholars version compiled by the Seminar allows the style and meaning of the original compositions to come through, in modern, unpretentious English, in a way which no other translation has ever done. Mark's grammatically rough Koine Greek comes through true to life, and Luke's superior compositional skills come through with clarity; The Acts of Jesus, like the rest of Funk's works, is set aside by its clarity, insight, and honesty. I would recommend it to anyone who is more interested in who and what Jesus really was rather than what the anonymous gospel writers in the late first century thought of him.
Rating:
Summary: The Voice of Jesus
Review: I bought the book just after it was published and have read it twice. I hear the words of Jesus from the Master's lips without someone else intrepreting them. Many of the gray or black sayings were really the same as what Jesus said except the inflection, the irony, the tempo, or precise wording had been lost. Followers of Jesus will only become more radical disciples after reading this. The words prod us, un-settle us, challenge us not to accept what is but to work for what can be. Readers are convicted by the quiet irony to bring equity for all people into today's world. The power of the book is in reading the gospels with new ears.
Rating: 
Summary: "Believers" are missing the whole point
Review: I can't believe all the wasted ink attacking these people. None of the historians reviewing the gospels is saying "If we don't think it happened, don't believe it." Every one that I've read (maybe 20 books) is only saying that, as historians, it's not their job to examine and analyze miracles (changing water to wine and coming back from the dead). That's the job of theologians. An historian's job is to compare the gospels and historical records and see what seems likely or unlikely. You want to believe in miracles? Fine. You believe Jesus was the son of God? Fine. Why waste your time attacking scholars on a subject they're, admittedly, not even trying to deal with. That being said, here's my problem with this book. Since three of the gospels tell (with slight variation) the same story, why have the text of Mathew, Mark and Luke included separately? The reader covers the same ground and analysis three times. It would have been much easier for the reader to combine the story of the synoptic gospels and read the analysis once. My other problem is the translation. If Jesus was charismatic, as these scholars claim, then HOW he said things was just as important as WHAT he said. There is not an ownce of beauty or inspiration in this translation. It is broken down to the simplist, most comman language. No one not already a Christian would be converted by this boring, pedestrian version.
Rating:
Summary: "Believers" are missing the whole point
Review: I can't believe all the wasted ink attacking these people. None of the historians reviewing the gospels is saying "If we don't think it happened, don't believe it." Every one that I've read (maybe 20 books) is only saying that, as historians, it's not their job to examine and analyze miracles (changing water to wine and coming back from the dead). That's the job of theologians. An historian's job is to compare the gospels and historical records and see what seems likely or unlikely. You want to believe in miracles? Fine. You believe Jesus was the son of God? Fine. Why waste your time attacking scholars on a subject they're, admittedly, not even trying to deal with. That being said, here's my problem with this book. Since three of the gospels tell (with slight variation) the same story, why have the text of Mathew, Mark and Luke included separately? The reader covers the same ground and analysis three times. It would have been much easier for the reader to combine the story of the synoptic gospels and read the analysis once. My other problem is the translation. If Jesus was charismatic, as these scholars claim, then HOW he said things was just as important as WHAT he said. There is not an ownce of beauty or inspiration in this translation. It is broken down to the simplist, most comman language. No one not already a Christian would be converted by this boring, pedestrian version.
Rating:
Summary: What would Jesus Do?
Review: I have read several of the Jesus Seminar series now and have many more on the shelf to read as well as books from some of the individual scholars. But what intrigues me about this volume is the cross reference work and foot notes that help me to better understand the context of the what Jesus did and what was done to him. After reading much of this volume, I can say that I was not disappointed in the thorough and logical way in which the case for the historical acts by and toward Jesus were developed. This book will find a prominent place on my reference shelf for those times when I need a detailed analysis to answer the question, "What would Jesus do?" A must have for any serious New Testament work.
Rating:
Summary: More "Scholarly" Tripe from the Jesus Seminar...
Review: I stated this in another review before, "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 Peter 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 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.
|
