Customer Reviews

The Gospel of Jesus

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I thoughourly enjoyed this book. That said, let me also mention my approach to my own Christianity, which is open to other views and honest reflection in addition to the ability to attempt to accept the reality of the times in which Jesus lived. This is Robinson's approach.

If you are of the ilk where you consider anything other than the gospel accounts as beyond the pale or the New Testament without any flaw or agenda from its authors, then this may be a book difficult for your views...I believe this is borne out in at least one other reviewer's review. However, if you can accept to see Jesus in his historical context and accept the reality of his human side as well as the Gospels writers intentions and attitudes for writing their particular Gospels, then you will enjoy this book.

Robininson, in a very readable manner, provides background and a scholarly approach to Jesus in context without getting bogged down in "high-brow" academic writings. Be warned however, that he is honest in his approach to his subject matter as a historian and not as a theologian. If an academic and historical context in which to view the gospels (as well as the elusive "Q Gospel") is to your interest, then you have a book that will suit you fine. If you are the type where anyone attempting to present the humanity of Jesus as a first century Jew without the trappings of theology, then this may not be the book for you.

What Robinson does in this very accessible book is to boil down a great deal of scholarship into a readable, powerful and fascinating book that will challenge you and change your view of what Jesus really meant when he called people to follow him. Robinson challenges the easy-believism so prominent in Evangelicalism and reveals why following Jesus involves MUCH MORE that just believing things *about* him or "trusting" in him. Excellent!

Normally I would award five stars to a work so scholarly and challenging. But thanks to the efforts of the publisher's publicist, many readers are going to feel somewhat disappointed. The publicist assures that in this book, Robinson will "address such provocative questions as: "What can we know about Jesus's [sic] childhood and youth? What was his family like? What sort of education did he receive? How observant a Jew was he? What do we know about his sex life? What do we know about his relationship to Mary Magdalene?" The answers for all these questions, except His religious observance or non-observance, seem to be "virtually nothing." True, Robinson does concentrate on an additional question posed by the publicist, namely "What message did Jesus really preach?" In fact, this is the burden of his entire book, and to answer this question, Professor Robinson draws extensively on his reconstruction of "Document Q". This is a controversial if brilliant example of Biblical scholarship. I am 95% in agreement with it, but I know there are other experts who would (a) not rate "Q" so highly and (b) not treat it with the same degree of overwhelming importance as Robinson does. If I have been a little hard on Robinson's magnum opus, thanks to its publicist, you can also blame the publisher for failing to provide an Index, surely a sine qua non for a Biblical thesis such as this.

This was a disappointing read. Perhaps I was expecting too much. Robinson is an established scholar, so I presumed the book might be a little weightier, something more scholarly and a little less evangelistic. I was also hoping Robinson might help me get a grasp on what seems (as I read more about Jesus) increasingly ungraspable, the "true" teaching of the prophet from Nazareth.

As Robinson notes, Jesus was not a trained theologian. He had no programmatic philosophy and taught extemporaneously through question and answer and through stories and aphorisms. His ministry was short-lived, and no one took the time to record what he was saying. This has led to the very unsatisfying 2000 year argument over what Jesus really meant. Robinson reduces Jesus' message to God reigning: "Trust God to look out for you by providing people who will care for you, and listen to him when he calls on you to provide for them." While this is certainly a healthier and saner way to live than through suspicion and fear, the idea can be posited without recourse to the divine: Trust your conscience, rather than a deity. As Robinson notes, Jesus' day was full of God talk. It's the way people of that place and time understood the world. If you prefer, you can trust in a natural law of reciprocity, which is what the Buddhists have in karma, in which skillful behavior (that which reduces or avoids suffering) creates conditions suitable for future skillful behavior. Like generates like.

The more surprising disappointment was Robinson ignoring what is perhaps the most important act in Jesus' teaching career. Robinson makes the case that Jesus' way of living and his actions speak as clearly as his statements about his gospel. This seems perfectly reasonable and Robinson provides many examples. But he is strangely silent on the Temple. If, as Robinson argues, Jesus' gospel was about living in the here and now, the experience of god reigning in the present through each and every person, an immanent reciprocity of loving kindness, why then did Jesus act so provocatively? How is this an example of God reigning? How was Jesus providing for others by overturning tables and mentioning the destruction of the Temple? Perhaps because Jesus wasn't just living in the moment, but planning for the future Kingdom? Perhaps because he wanted to precipitate it's coming? Perhaps because he imagined God working through him in this way to bring the Kingdom to fruition?

Moreover, if Jesus' message was simply "love all," why was there such antipathy toward him? How could anyone generate enough hatred to want someone killed simply for asking people to love one another? Are you prepared to have someone put to death for this? Why were the authorities ready to execute rather than simply to send him away with a flogging? Could it be that Jesus was not such a light-hearted soul of nature, but rather had a touch of the smug, that he irritated many by violating the Jewish dining laws, by suggesting that even the wicked would have a place in God's kingdom, and by suggesting that he had a direct line to God (and by implication that they did not)? Were his actions at the Temple the most dramatic examples of his propensity to piss people off? In other words, was Jesus the kind of guy that was always in your face? Was he a religious fanatic? His family certainly thought something was wrong with him.

Robinson argues that Jesus was not expecting an immediate cataclysm, that he was not, as EP Sanders best describes him, a "radical eschatologist." He uses an odd bit of logic to make his case. Jesus, he says, wasn't waiting for God to act since Jesus' entire message would have been invalidated with the passage of time. How then to explain Matthew, who promises that "the Son of Man is about to come" and that "some of those standing here...will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom," and the very real concern in the early church that members were dying even though Jesus hadn't yet reappeared. This was a major issue for the early church, which suggests that at least at that time Christians believed Jesus' return was imminent. That it was in fact not imminent appears to have had little negative consequences for the church, at least for the recruitment of members.

#

Someone really needs to tell Robinson that it is not possible to quote from a piece of literature that does not exist. Apparently this escaped his notice since all he does is quote from a text he appears to have conjured up from hot air and an lot of speculation.

For example, he says "This whole discussion of John and Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q" (p 126) and then he's off again, quoting from a text that doesn't exist.

That's right. No single fragment ever found, and not a single mention of any such document anywhere, at any time, in the ancient world. But that is no problem for Robinson! No, apparently he can guess what this possible document might have said and then quote from that!!! I've never read anything like it in my life.

Look, the fact is that the idea of a 'sayings gospel' sprang full blown into the mind of Bultmann because his intellectual milieu was simply drenched, soaked in existentialism. Here is Bultmann, boring on about it: Heidegger's existentialist analysis of human existence seems to be only a profane philosophical presentation of the New Testament" Bultmann "New Testament and Mythology and Other Basic Writings" p 23,

For pity's sake, we have had decade after decade of biblical scholarship on the subject. None of which Robinson seems to have read. Anyway, the consensus is that the single greatest mistake Bultmann made was to ignore the culture and Jewishness of Jesus. And there is certainly no reason to shove early 20th century intellectual fads onto a Second Temple Jew.

Which of course means that the whole shaky edifice has crumbled to the ground.

Even more painful scholarship: "The Gospel of Thomas presents a version closer to what Jesus actually said" (p 68). Well, that would be a little hard for the Gospel of Thomas to do since recent scholarship has proved it was written about a hundred years after the earlier gospels. As Nicholas Perrin proves in his recent book of biblical scholarship, "Thomas, the Other Gospel" that Thomas dates no early than 170 AD.

Perrin shows how Thomas was derived from Tatian. And, actually, this does fit much better with Thomas than speculations about an early 'sayings' gospel. It explains the use of catchwords. It explains how Thomas promotes poverty, vegetarianism, and a horror of sex. After all, Tatian opposed marriage, and Syriac Christianity took its distinctive shape from Tatian. It also ties in well with Tatian's contention of God's ultimate unknowability.

But Robinson's not just wrong each about early Christianity. He can't even get the basic facts of ancient society right.

Here he is again in yet another painful mistake: "It is estimated that in the Roman Empire 10 to 15 percent of the population was literate" (p 63). That's a fact that is hotly debated--as he should know, especially for certain areas---but most of all it may have no relevance to the situation among the Second Temple Jews. Simon ben Shetach, in about 100 BC, said that every child was to attend school.

Second Temple Jews had what amounted to a class of sacred scribes who appear to have carried around with them small notebooks.

Yet Robinson thinks he has insight that tells him that "the real Jesus was not only in his way otherworldly--he was worlds apart from us" (p 11). Actually, it's Robinson that seems otherworldly, living in a fairy tale land of made up documents and bad scholarship.

Maybe I made the mistake of trying to read this for personal benefit. The teachings of Jesus as described in this book kind of represent a vague philosophy of love of God and love of neighbor. You have to sift through a lot of prose until the author actually talks about what Jesus taught about something. I also feel it downplays and even sorta ignores the inherent Judaism of Christ and the underlying christologies of the four Gospels.

With that said..

If you're looking for a more secular, less theological exposition of Jesus' sayings, it really doesn't get any better than this book. The author does a fantastic job of telling you what kind of life style Christ demanded of his followers without mixing it up with modern notions of the Gospel, or framing it in doctrine. To say it in jive: My dude takes it back old school. Back to Palestine. No preaching. No high-falutin crap. Just Jesus, straight raw.

Magnificent book. It has been clear for a long time that the Gospels and the letters of Paul do not give the real Jesus. I will mention only two things for ignoramuses liked J.T. Hobbes.
1. Paul never met Jesus, so why does his version have any authority?
2. We know that the earliest Christians were led by James of Jerusalem, the brother of Jesus. The Gospels do not mention him and the Epistles mention him unfavorably. His group knew the most about the real Jesus and they were considered heretics.

It is clear that what the churches teach is false. Prof. Robinson has constructed what Jesus was really about from the Q source. Even Robinson, however, should acknowledge that whatever Jesus intended and hoped for were defeated -- both by his death and lack of resurrection and by the churches which claim him.

What if you took a document that no one has seen, no one has a copy of and may in fact have never actually existed. Then you use that document, giving it priority over other, better documented sources to redefine a major religion. That is essentially what we see in "The Gospel of Jesus", by James M Robinson. Dr Robinson is an expert in the field of early Christian documents, Dead Sea scrolls and Q aka the Sayings Gospel Q. Q is a hypothetical (although quite plausible) source that the writers of Matthew and Luke may have accessed when writing their respective gospels. The idea is basically that material they have in common with Mark came from Mark, but material they have in common with each other but not with Mark came from Q. Like I said... quite plausible.

But that is not what this book is about. Rather, the Dr Robinson makes the assumption that the Saying Gospel Q is real and seemingly that it has been fully reconstructed and then goes on to apply its content to Christian thought. What did Jesus really teach? What was he really like? What was his relationship with John The Baptist? Was he divine? What about the miracles, virgin birth and resurrection?

Finally, there is a short discussion of how the reader should react to this "new" gospel.

This is not a forum for debate so I will only mention a few issues that I have with the presentation of material. The reader should keep in mind that Q is hypothetical, even though Dr Robinson repeatedly refers to it as though he had an original copy on his desk. After four decades of work on it, I am sure it is 'real' enough to him. But should it be quoted and included in endnotes along with the other gospels?

Be aware that Q is given precedence over all other writings. Where Luke or Matthew contain differences from Q+Mark, it is explained away as a later addition inserted to support developing Christian thought.

And, to me, at least, it seems that ideas are introducted that are not supported in the four gospels,Q, or any other document, like the idea the Jesus was a convert of John.

It seems to me that Q is the authors "baby" and he doesn't like any competition. And it be sure, I am not calling his baby 'ugly'.

This book is easy to read, though, not filled with a lot of word studies or technical references. It is simply Dr Robinsons understanding of the earliest days of the faith, his "Authentic Teaching of Jesus". Some people will find the ideas here agreeable with their beliefs while others will find Robinsons gospel to be severly watered-down. Just read it with your eyes and mind open.

This is a book that is very strongly influenced by the Jesus Seminar and the Gospel of Thomas. Written in a simplified manner, it discusses the 'true mission' of Jesus, drawing on the 'Q' document as a gospel. He discusses various aspects of Jesus, such as Jesus was probably illiterate, Paul was more learned than Jesus because he drew on the OT & greek writers more than he did, the miracles are wrongly emphasized to make theological points, son of man REALLY should be son of humanity (human being), Nazareth in Aramaic is really Nazara, etc. But despite this latest disputed view of the gospel taken as objectivity, he draws some good distinctions about the message of Jesus verses the story about Jesus. He just does this so, SO slowly, unraveling the myth of Jesus to get to how his message can impact your life, that I almost abandoned the book. Perhaps not to offend the potential believer reading his book? The author knows this because in the last chapter he begins with "First let me express appreciation to those of you who have gotten this far - you are really here! Not everyone made it - you are the hardy ones."

The author tries to strike a balance between the evangical Christian and the agostic secular Christian in his dissection of Jesus. This made me feel at times like...does he know who he is writing for? I get by the end the author must be a Unitarian, and Jesus was one too!

Because the Jesus Seminar without even mentioning it, had a strong impact on the book and it is taken as definative, I feel a bit deceived. For example the author tosses out at one point that the gospel writers drew inspiration from the OT for the Jesus narratives, yet does not elaborate on the point as to why he thinks that is? The idea vanishes as quickly as it appeared. This and other points stick out when reading it, so it spoiled the few gems of the work. For me, just reading the introduction (a summary of jesus' message) would have been sufficient.

Robinson has given the world a great gift, the gift of truth. This is one book I would rate as "Must Read". Whether you are a Christian or not, read this book. If you are a fundamentalist, please read this book. You owe it to yourself and the rest of us who are conversant with church history.