"Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way"

[Amazing Rando]

I just read a book by Phillip Jenkins, professor of religion at Penn State, that challenges the recent spate of scholarly emphasis on the noncanonical and/or Gnostic gospels. The book is remarkable on several points- it shows that what the public perceives as a fresh emergence of alternative traditions about Jesus in the last 35 years is really nothing of the sort. Jenkins shows that people had been expecting and trumpeting very similar theories as far back as the Enlightenment. Truly there is nothing new under the sun.

A second strength of this book is that it challenges the ideas of revisionist pressure groups like the Jesus Seminar, and shows how, in remarkably ironic fashion, modern day theological "liberals" who attempt to destroy orthodoxy while still remaining within the nominal pale of "Christianity" would be quite at home among the second and third century Gnostic heretics, who share many of their spiritual ideas and methodologies.

Anyone read this book? What do you think?

[Meh_Gerbil]

I just read a book by Phillip Jenkins, professor of religion at Penn State, that challenges the recent spate of scholarly emphasis on the noncanonical and/or Gnostic gospels. The book is remarkable on several points- it shows that what the public perceives as a fresh emergence of alternative traditions about Jesus in the last 35 years is really nothing of the sort. Jenkins shows that people had been expecting and trumpeting very similar theories as far back as the Enlightenment. Truly there is nothing new under the sun.

A second strength of this book is that it challenges the ideas of revisionist pressure groups like the Jesus Seminar, and shows how, in remarkably ironic fashion, modern day theological "liberals" who attempt to destroy orthodoxy while still remaining within the nominal pale of "Christianity" would be quite at home among the second and third century Gnostic heretics, who share many of their spiritual ideas and methodologies.

Anyone read this book? What do you think?

Sounds like one to read.

I'm amazed at how quickly people embrace the Gnostic gospels and other non-canonical texts while at the same time giving no credence to the gospels contained within the canon.

The very notion that these gospels were found wanting in the past, and therefore excluded, isn't even considered a real possibility in favor of some weird conspiracy theory about True Christians (Gnostics) being suppressed by some power hungry church that chose gospels based on whatever books would give them the most power.

Two thousand years of church history and the witness of the church fathers is cast aside in the rush to grasp onto some discredited heretic from the 4th century -- or a few fragments found in the dust.

Whatever.

[Amazing Rando]

Sounds like one to read.

I'm amazed at how quickly people embrace the Gnostic gospels and other non-canonical texts while at the same time giving no credence to the gospels contained within the canon.

The very notion that these gospels were found wanting in the past, and therefore excluded, isn't even considered a real possibility in favor of some weird conspiracy theory about True Christians (Gnostics) being suppressed by some power hungry church that chose gospels based on whatever books would give them the most power.

Two thousand years of church history and the witness of the church fathers is cast aside in the rush to grasp onto some discredited heretic from the 4th century -- or a few fragments found in the dust.

Whatever.

:rofl: You'll find a common theme among both popular and supposedly scholarly writings is that of the "conspiracy of the orthodox," in which the church systematically "suppressed" those views that dissented from orthodoxy. It's a terrific book if you're looking for a reference to refute the spurious claims of the primacy of the Gnostic gospels. Among the people whose conclusions and methodology Jenkins cuts up in the book are JD Crossan, Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Bishop John Spong, and Elaine Pagels. The book is a perfect companion, in my opinion, to Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus, which is getting a bit dated now (1991). Jenkins' book is newer (2001) and responds to more recent stuff.

[MuggleOrSquib]

There was some suppression of heterodoxy by the Orthodox. Nestorius (who at the time was still considered orthodox) drove all sorts of heterodox Christians out of Constantinople when he was Patriarch.
Of course, this behavior wasn't limited to the Orthodox. For example, Athanasius was exiled by Arian emperors.
The loss of any Western copies of Gnostic gospels other than those found at Oxyrhyncus and Nag Hammadi may or may not be due to suppression. Certainly there was no effort to copy questionable documents, so many of them may have simply disappeared over the centuries.
Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[Cowthulu]

I read this book a couple of years ago and found it extremely interesting. Jenkins said something akin to the Gnostics making up gospels for everything they had. It was a very helpful resource at one time when a Gnostic was challenging my thinking.

[Rubens]

At the risk of turning this into another DaVinci Code thread, I saw the recent BBC special hosted by the man with the cunning plan Tony Robinson (Baldrick/ Blackadder) called "The Real Da Vinci Code". The special did well to expose the willing lies behind Baigent/ Leigh/ Dan Brown et al's attempt to make converts from the Magdelene Heresy. Whilst the Priory of Sion bit was easy, the Gnostic Gospels presented more of a challenge to Robinson, and he didn't go into great detail on the invalidity of them.

Without being able to easily get my hands on the book you mention AR, can I ask you at least;
- how many Gnostic Gospels are there accepted as existing?
- what is the date range commonly accepted for these Gospels?

My take on the GG's has always been drawn from the Book of Hebrews, namely that persecution of Jewish converts was rife and many were considering apostacy back to Judaism to avoid meeting with a messy end. Am I right in suggesting that the GG's were basically deliberate Jewish meddling to smear the character of Jesus Christ?

Blessings all

[Amazing Rando]

Without being able to easily get my hands on the book you mention AR, can I ask you at least;
- how many Gnostic Gospels are there accepted as existing?

If you'd like to read some of the Gnostic and other apocryphal gospels, go check out http://www.gospels.net. There are at least a dozen there on that site.

- what is the date range commonly accepted for these Gospels?


Depends. If you ask folks like the Jesus Seminar, they'd date the Gospel of Thomas at about AD 50-60, dating rejected by most mainstream scholars. Many members of the JS and other groups, like Elaine Pagels for example, have their own "pet" gospels they love. As Jenkins points out in this book, these individual scholars will assign the earliest possible dating to their favorite gospel in hopes of overturning the authority of the canonical gospels. If you ask the mainstream scholars in the Society of Biblical Literature, the canonical gospels are the only ones that have even a reasonable chance of being written in the 1st century. Since the Gnostic heresy was flourishing during the lives of folks like Irenaeus and Tertullian, the the earliest likely date for any of these gospels (except perhaps Thomas) is about AD 150.

[A-Man]

This looks great, I just put it on my Amazon.com wish list.
Thanks.

[Rubens]

Is this book a secular or Christian publication?

Curious, because I checked the largest Christian bookseller in the region here and they did not have it. But they had The Gnostic Gospels by that Elaine Pagan person. Work that out.

Thanks for the Gospels.net link. I have just been reading the infancy Gospel of Thomas. It's an absolute larf. Apparently, the 5 year old Jesus was a sadistic, egotistical, Bart Simpson type who abused his deity in the same way Harry Potter would put spells on people he doesn't like. If I may, some excerpts;
Next, he was going through the village again and a running child bumped his shoulder. Becoming bitter, Jesus said to him, "You will not complete your journey." (2) Immediately, he fell down and died.
(2) Then, Jesus said, "I know that the words I speak are not mine. Nevertheless, I will be silent for your sake, but these people will bear their punishment." And immediately his accusers became blind.
When Jesus saw what had happened, he became angry and said to him, "You godless, brainless moron, what did the ponds and waters do to you? Watch this now: you are going to dry up like a tree and you will never produce leaves or roots or fruit.And immediately, this child withered up completely"
As he was growing frustrated, the teacher struck him on the head. Then, Jesus became angry and cursed him. Immediately, he fainted and fell on his face.
And this
but Joseph was distressed. He instructed the boy's mother, "Do not let him out the door because the people who anger him will die."
Indeed! Way to handball everything to the wife, eh Joseph?

And I thought my kids misbehaved. I'd say Joseph and Mary weren't popular with the neighbors.

[Minnesota]

So, what should the modern day theological "conservative" make of the following observations?

"Jenkins characterizes Deuteronomy as a "successful forgery" (p. 23) and asserts that the evangelists may have "invented stories" to be more relevant. He also says-with apparent reference to the birth stories in Matthew and Luke-that as time went on "mythological and supernatural elements" about Jesus accumulated (p. 79)."

Dennis Ingolfsland

Crown College, St. Bonifacius, MN

Copyright Evangelical Theological Society Sep 2003

[Amazing Rando]

Is this book a secular or Christian publication?

It's a secular publication, however Jenkins himself is a Christian of deep convictions. He's professor of religion at Penn State.

Curious, because I checked the largest Christian bookseller in the region here and they did not have it. But they had The Gnostic Gospels by that Elaine Pagan person. Work that out.

Bizarre! Pagels gets absolutely skewered in Jenkins' book.

Thanks for the Gospels.net link. I have just been reading the infancy Gospel of Thomas. It's an absolute larf. Apparently, the 5 year old Jesus was a sadistic, egotistical, Bart Simpson type who abused his deity in the same way Harry Potter would put spells on people he doesn't like. If I may, some excerpts;

:rofl: Glad you got some kicks out of it! Infancy Thomas is an absolute riot. Probably written by some monk with too much time on his hands.



And I thought my kids misbehaved. I'd say Joseph and Mary weren't popular with the neighbors.

:lmbo:

[Amazing Rando]

So, what should the modern day theological "conservative" make of the following observations?

"Jenkins characterizes Deuteronomy as a "successful forgery" (p. 23) and asserts that the evangelists may have "invented stories" to be more relevant. He also says-with apparent reference to the birth stories in Matthew and Luke-that as time went on "mythological and supernatural elements" about Jesus accumulated (p. 79)."

Dennis Ingolfsland

Crown College, St. Bonifacius, MN

Copyright Evangelical Theological Society Sep 2003

That's taking him somewhat out of context. I take it this critique is from an evangelical publication? Jenkins is no fundamentalist, in that he's receptive to many of the well-established conclusions of biblical criticism. He does believe deeply in the authority and inspiration of the canonical gospels, but one certainly could not characterize him as an "inerrantist" or anything. Does this make one a "theological liberal?" Depends on your point of view I guess. :nsm:I don't think so.

[jason]

Is this book a secular or Christian publication?

Curious, because I checked the largest Christian bookseller in the region here and they did not have it. But they had The Gnostic Gospels by that Elaine Pagan person. Work that out.

Thanks for the Gospels.net link. I have just been reading the infancy Gospel of Thomas. It's an absolute larf. Apparently, the 5 year old Jesus was a sadistic, egotistical, Bart Simpson type who abused his deity in the same way Harry Potter would put spells on people he doesn't like. If I may, some excerpts;

And this

Indeed! Way to handball everything to the wife, eh Joseph?

And I thought my kids misbehaved. I'd say Joseph and Mary weren't popular with the neighbors.
I always wondered where they got that idea from the Twilight Zone from, that the Simpsons later took off.

Now we know, they knocked off the infancy gospel of Jesus.

Jason

[Jaltus]

The Gospel of Thomas is dated to around 150 AD. It is pretty clear that it grabs certain stories from the canonical gospels and changes them in order to fit its own theology, which tends toward Gnosticism.

And while the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a kick, look for the Acts of John.

[Rubens]

I always wondered where they got that idea from the Twilight Zone from, that the Simpsons later took off.

Now we know, they knocked off the infancy gospel of Jesus.

Jason

:rofl:

[Amazing Rando]

The Gospel of Thomas is dated to around 150 AD. It is pretty clear that it grabs certain stories from the canonical gospels and changes them in order to fit its own theology, which tends toward Gnosticism.

And while the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a kick, look for the Acts of John.

I agree!

[Adrift]

I agree!
I read it a couple years ago and loved how it juxtapozed the post-modern view of Christianity and the NT with the more common sholarly view. It amazes me to no end that such intelligent intellectuals, philosophers, and scholars can super-impose modern western humanism on people who lived 2000 years ago in the mid-east, and do so with a straight face. I don't know... maybe I'm missing something. I'm currently reading "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?" Which is a debate between evangelical William Lane Craig and former Jesus Seminar co-chair John Crossan. What I like about both these books is that they don't come across full on "preachy" i guess. There's enough wiggle room in both books to come to a logical conclusion on your own (though they're both obviously slanted towards a traditional point of view).