Customer Reviews

Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The X Files tells us that "The truth is out there" and anyone who has enjoyed this series knows that its appeal to (post?)modern Americans is its vast conspiracy involving aliens, repressive and secretive institutions, supernatural phenomena, the concealment of the truth for sinister reasons and lone rebels who risk life and limb to uncover the truth. Moulder and Scully are our heroes seeking to find what has been hidden from our eyes -- the truth -- and thereupon free us from our ignorance and darkness. It makes a great television show, but its appeal and success lies in the fact that at least some Americans suspect that there are dark forces out there oppressing us. The success of the movie the Matrix, a clever retelling of an ancient gnostic myth, shows this as well.

In "Hidden Gospels" Philip Jenkins ably shows how these type of conspiracy stories help to explain the ongoing appeal of the possibility of hidden gospels. For many Americans, today and yesterday, the possibility that there is a hidden gospel in which the "real Jesus" will finally be revealed -- free from all the alleged distortions of St. Paul, the Evangelists, ecumenical councils and historic Christianity, especially the Catholic Church -- is too seductive to relinquish.

Jenkins successfully shows that the discoveries of Qumran & Nag Hammadi and the subsequent body of scholarship produced on account of them do not represent a significant contribution to that which was already known. For example, Jenkins shows how many of the Nag Hammadi texts were already well-known and popularly disseminated in the 19th Century.

Having dealt with the question of their relative novelty, Jenkins then considers the reasons for their ongoing appeal. He concludes that a variety of factors have given rise to the success of hidden gospel industry. These include changes in the society and scholarly institutions, current ideological tastes, clever self-promotion of showmen-scholars and the financial interests of mass media and publishing houses. All of these factors contribute to a credible explanation for the enduring appeal of this pursuit.

The truth is out there -- and Jenkins has found it. Anyone interested in biblical studies and their popularization will do well to read this important and incisive study.

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.

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.

Philip Jenkins' HIDDEN GOSPELS is an examination of the current fads of presenting non-canonical gospels as exciting, illuminating finds. Everyone has heard before, usually about the Gospel of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi in 1947, that some recently found document will show us what Jesus really taught, and how traditional Christianity bears little resemblance to the faith. The work might be seen as a complement to Luke Timothy Johnson's similar work THE REAL JESUS (San Francisco: Harper, 1997); where Johnson sought to reassure readers that the canonical gospels and epistles are trustworthy historical sources, Jenkins aims to show how the non-canonical writings are not.

Jenkins begins by explaining earlier waves of non-canonical mania, noting that the same views held today by groups like the Jesus Seminar were briefly entertained by earlier scholars but ultimately discarded just to rise again at the end of the 20th century. He also explains exactly what these non-canonical sources are. Since the Gospel of Thomas is the darling of the Jesus Seminar crowd, it takes a central place in his discussion. Many points of the Gospel of Thomas, he says, may in fact be authentic, and find corroboration with the hypothetical source of the synoptic gospels, Q. However, it was undoubtedly completed as a very late date (end of the 2nd century) and is filled with gnostic additions.

Having already brought up the subject of Gnosticism, Jenkins then gives a history of the movement, and makes the prudent conclusion that, whatever it was, it was not the original authentic Christianity. Using sources like the Pauline epistles and the writings of Polycarp and Ignatius, Jenkins says it is obvious that the liturgical, repentant church that came to shine as Christian orthodox was in fact the continuation original movement started by Jesus. Gnosticism, on the other hand, shows up only in the 2nd century and its leaders bend over backward to prove they have any claim to historicity.

Why are these claims so popular, that the non-canonical gospels tell the true story and maybe Gnosticism was the real deal? Jenkins notes the current influence of feminism on scholarship; some academics don't feel orthodox Christianty treats women correctly, and so it is out to show that heterodox traditions--which supposedly asserted the equality of the sexes--is the right way. And a rejection of tradition spread from these discontented academics to the public by way of a media that loves scandalous news.

My only real complaint about the work is that it is full of truths the public needs to hear--next time you hear a friend talking about how the evil patriarchal Catholic Church squashed Jesus' real teachings, this is the antidote--but it may be too brainy for laymen. Academics, on the other hand, will find the book far too lightweight. Perhaps we are still in need of a guide showing the waywardness of non-canonical sources that can be fearlessly given out to any fellow on the street.

This book needs to be taken for what it is. It's not a refutation of the Jesus Seminar and its findings, at least not primarily.

Rather, it is a sociological study of the modern "Quest for the Historical Jesus," including theories as to why it has taken the turns it has. This quest is not really a search for truth, as it is for self-validation of mores and principles deeply ingrained in the heart of modern, democratic man (eg. individualism, freedom from dogmatic strictures, etc.).

I think this book is an excellent companion to Luke Timothy Johnson's "The Real Jesus." (Johnson's book should be read for a specific critique of the Seminar and its methods.) The only fault I find with "Hidden Gospels" is Jenkins's tendency to repear himself over and over. This tendency is better syited to a classroom lecture rather than a book, I believe.

I wouldn't classify this book as a "must read," as I would Johnson's, but it's an excellent read nonetheless.

Like Johnson, I don't know if Jenkins can be said to have a conservative bias. If so, I don't see why on earth he ever would have left Catholicism for Anglicanism. The Anglican Communion isn't exactly known for moral conservatism or dogmatic conviction. I think this is why orthodox Christians, especially Catholics, find him so appealing. "Why would a 'liberal' support 'conservative' positions unless they were genuinely true?"

With cleverly disguised works of pseudo-scholarship like "The da Vinci Code" making the bestseller lists, "Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way" is a well-needed wake-up call for those wanting a clearer understanding of American religion, and the directions it has been, and is, heading.

While reputed Jesus "scholars" run through various media outlets declaring their newfound pet theories on the Nazarene to be the latest sensation since The Beatles, Philip Jenkins has provided the public with a much needed jolt back to reality. This book should be read by anyone gullible enough to swallow such ridiculous notions as the claim that Jesus ran off to India to start a family with Mary Magdalene. Likewise, it should be read by those who believe less ludicrous, but still equally false claims regarding the priority of the Gospel of Thomas and the seeming infallibility of the Jesus Seminar.

Jenkins provides bushels of reminders regarding the fact that the importance of Thomas and other radical claims made by the left-wing of biblical "scholarship" are not "new discoveries" now available due to recent archaeological finds. Rather, the Jesus Seminar and other radicals provide textbook examples of attempts to create a Jesus in their own image or a Jesus that will make them some money: "Jesus the Vegetarian", "Jesus the Mushroom Cult Leader", and "Jesus the Cynic philosopher" are all feeble attempts made by current "scholars" attempting to sell as many copies of their latest books before the unsuspecting, biblically and historically illiterate, public comes to their senses.

Jenkins condemnation of the inability, or unwillingness, of the mainstream media to provide balanced reporting on the latest claims relevant to early Christianity is right on the mark. Book publishers, newspapers, TV networks, and talk show hosts often aren't interested in the facts nearly as much as they are in getting a few bucks or a front row seat for a good battle between the "good scholars" and the "bad, oppressive, traditional Christians". If you're the type who doesn't like it when the facts interfere with your beliefs, then I'd suggest skipping this book. For the rest of us, Jenkins has provided a refreshing return to the real world.

The reviewer that wrote there is "nothing new" in this book is seriously in error as he/she dismisses it as a prototypical defense of Catholic Christianity. First, Jenkins does NOT claim that the Gnostic Gospels are heretical because they were composed later than the canonical Gospels. Instead, he claims that portions of the Gnostic writings, especially in Thomas, are quite early but were edited by persons within a Gnostic community. It is not the date of the Gospels that makes them heretical, its that the Gospels were composed by persons who subscribed to beliefs that were at odds with those held by the earliest Christian communities.
Second, Jenkins does NOT accept the automatic authority of catholic tradition and the canonical Gospels without question. In fact, one section of the book deals with precisely why the four Gospels were chosen over others and that Constantine had nothing to do with their canonization. In short, the two star reviewer must not have read this book all that closely, for his views are flat out incorrect.
The book is great for what it is, a sober account on how the search for Jesus has indeed "lost its way". One can disagree with Jenkins on many points, as I do, yet still appreciate his insights on the highly popular views held today by those involved in the Jesus controversy. It is readible and clearly worded, allowing the central message to be grasped by all who read it.

My recent interest in reading books concerning the search for the "Historical Jesus" is rather ironic since I believe I have to go no further than the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to find the Jesus of history. Today's more radical Jesus scholars, as exemplified by the Jesus Seminar, put very little stock in the canonical gospels (except what is considered part of the imaginary "Q" gospel) and instead appropriate more dubious sources, like the Gospel of Thomas and other apocryphal works, to construct a Jesus more to their liking. Philip Jenkins does a masterful job in bringing these issues to light. He exposes many of the ultra-liberal scholars as being on a par with the most rabid conspiracy theorists. ("Here is the Jesus THEY don't want you to see!") Of particular interest is the discussion of the media factor, and how popular media latches on to more radical ideas because there is nothing inherently "interesting" about more orthodox ideas about Jesus. Thus, the likes of Crossan, Funk, and Mack get to have their 15 minutes of fame (and greatly increased book sales), while more conventional Bible scholars are mired in the obscurity of academia. Unfortunately, as the radical edge receives more publicity, the mainstream consensus of Jesus scholarhip will have a tendency to drift further to the left.

This book is an extremely worthwhile purchase for anyone interested in the modern quest for the historical Jesus as it gives a much needed corrective to the radical left of the Jesus Seminar and their ilk.

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.

Professor Jenkins has given us a brilliant response to the so-called "Jesus Seminar" theorists. Beginning with an in-depth analysis of the gospel of Thomas and Q, Dr. Jenkins exposes the anachronistic methods of the self-proclaimed Jesus scholars guided by their presuppositions alone. Rather than doing the work of objective historians following the facts, these hacks have seized upon our distrust of authority and Protestant assumptions in order to recreate the early church into their own image.

Dr. Ray Guarendi refers to the "new atheists" who do not claim to deny God but instead claim that they believe in God but, "he thinks just like I do." This is God created in the image of man rather than the God of scripture. It is the self-guided (misguided) presupposition that we bow to know authority but our own understanding. Here is the lie of the garden wrapped in a pretty package for resale to the modern world.

Dr. Jenkins exposes this lie for what it is with careful historical analysis of what we know and do not know about the early church. And, once again, the words of Solomon ring true, there really is nothing new under the sun. There is little in these recent "findings" of ancient texts that we did not already know. Popular culture has accepted the Jesus Seminar as gospel truth not because the facts speak for themselves but because the modern mind wishes to accept them. They think just the way modern culture thinks, and so, they believe, it must be true.

Packed with examples of the fallacies of the Jesus Seminar, _Hidden Gospels_ is a rich and rewarding expose. Comparing the history of the creation of the canon from the words of the Jesus Seminar to the objective history of its formation challenges not only the Jesus Seminar but Protestant assumptions as well. The role of the church in the formation of the canon cannot be denied. And so, the Protestant standing on "sola scriptura" must rest scripture firmly on the shoulders of mother church. Without that firm foundation, the winds and waves of Jesus Seminar doctrine is sweeping them away. The connection between Protestantism and the Jesus Seminar thinking cannot be missed.

At last a response to the Jesus Seminar with depth and teeth. Any who have followed this movement or the "DaVinci Code" offshoots will find this book a helpful remedy and vaccine against the distortions so popularized today. Highly recommended.