What do you think?
Rate this book
The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus
Did Jesus claim to be the Messiah?
Did he promise to return and usher in a new age?
How did Jesus envision the Kingdom of God? The Five Gospels answers these questions in a bold, dynamic work that will startle traditional readers of the Bible and rekindle interest in it among secular skeptics. In 1985 the Jesus Seminar, comprising a distinguished group of biblical scholars, was founded by Robert W. Funk. They embarked on a new translation and assessment of the gospels, including the recently discovered Gospel of Thomas. In pursuit of the historical Jesus, they used their collective expertise to determine the authenticity of more than fifteen hundred sayings attributed to him. Their remarkable findings appear in this book.
Did he promise to return and usher in a new age?
How did Jesus envision the Kingdom of God? The Five Gospels answers these questions in a bold, dynamic work that will startle traditional readers of the Bible and rekindle interest in it among secular skeptics. In 1985 the Jesus Seminar, comprising a distinguished group of biblical scholars, was founded by Robert W. Funk. They embarked on a new translation and assessment of the gospels, including the recently discovered Gospel of Thomas. In pursuit of the historical Jesus, they used their collective expertise to determine the authenticity of more than fifteen hundred sayings attributed to him. Their remarkable findings appear in this book.
576 pages, Paperback
First published December 17, 1993
49 people are currently reading
802 people want to read
About the author
Robert W. Funk
60 books12 followersRobert Walter Funk (July 18, 1926 – September 3, 2005), was an American biblical scholar, founder of the controversial Jesus Seminar and the non-profit Westar Institute in Santa Rosa, California. Funk, an academic, sought to promote research and education on what he called biblical literacy. His approach to hermeneutics was historical-critical, with a strongly sceptical view of orthodox Christian belief, particularly concerning historical Jesus. He and his peers described Jesus' parables as containing shocking messages that contradicted established religious attitudes.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
July 27, 2019
This was a fascinating scholarly approach to spiritual or religious topics. As a professed Christian I was astounded by my emotional reaction to this intellectual, science/humanities based massive effort to learn and teach. With a system to remove as much bias and dogma as possible these scholars parse and dissect the four known "Gospels" of the New Testament of the Bible, along with the Gospel of Thomas. It was a fascinating lesson in very old history, language, culture and religion. I believe my faith has deepened from what I would have expected to be a challenge to it. Thank you to my clergy friend John for lending this tome to me.
May 19, 2017
"იესოს სემინარი", რომელიც მეოცე საუკუნის მეორე ნახევარში შეიქმნა, მართლაც საინტერესო წამოწყება იყო. ორასამდე მკვლევარი 15 წლის მანძილზე იკვლევდა ოთხ კანონიკურ + მეხუთე აპოკრიფულ თომას სახარებას. ეს წიგნი ერთერთი შედეგია ამ კვლევებისა - რა თქვა სინამდვილეში იესომ? მუხლობრივად განხილულია სახარებები და მინიჭებული აქვს - წითელი, ვარდისფერი, რუხი და შავი შეფერილობა. წითელი (ანუ ის, რაც იესომ "ნამდვილად" თქვა), ალბათ მაქსიმუმ 20%-ა.
ერთი სიტყვით, საინტერესო წასაკითხია.
ერთი სიტყვით, საინტერესო წასაკითხია.
May 24, 2021
This version of the “Five Gospels” is quite interesting. The Jesus Seminar obviously does not hew to the line of Orthodox Christianity regarding its understanding of what sorts of words and ideas can be properly attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. I read this book with considerable interest, especially given the fact that my outlook on the Gospels included in the Christian canon is that they are not properly regarded as anywhere close to infallible or inerrant. However, this in no way lends any necessary support to the views enounced in “The Five Gospels” by the collective scholarship of the Jesus Seminar.
Let me point out that it is quite instructive of the Seminar’s evaluation of the Gospel of John that nearly all of the words attributed to Jesus were rated black. They used a rating system whereby, according to the Seminar, words attributed to Jesus in the gospels were accorded ratings of black, gray, pink, or red. Black ratings are deemed to be words that were essentially foreign to Jesus, that he would almost certainly not have spoken, and did not reflect his views, whereas gray ratings were for words he would almost certainly not have spoken, but might be similar to some of his views, while pink ratings were for words that were likely either spoken by Jesus or significantly reflected his outlook, and (finally) the red ratings were reserved for words that Jesus most likely spoke or were very similar to what he spoke.
Of course, the Seminar took a stance regarding how Jesus really taught, what he believed (including about himself), and what he actually did, that is far afield from the Orthodox outlook regarding Jesus. I found some of their views to be quite dubious. Many “Bible” scholars, including some skeptics about the veracity of the gospels (such as Bart Ehrman), believe that Jesus was, somewhat in the footsteps of his predecessor, John the Baptist, an apocalypticist. I find it very questionable, as a mere biblical layman, to deny that Jesus actually believed that there was soon to come an arrival, by force and violence, of the “Kingdom of God” on earth, and that horrific cataclysms were destined to then take place. It is my understanding that Albert Schweitzer held such views about the “historical Jesus”.
In regard to this important issue, I will quote from “The Five Gospels” (page 134) as follows:
“For Jesus, the kingdom of God was not the inauguration of an apocalyptic era within history or the end of history following a cosmic catastrophe. Nor did Jesus speak of it in the nationalistic sense as a revival of David’s kingdom. Rather, in the judgment of the Seminar, Jesus spoke most characteristically of God’s rule as close or already present but unobserved; this view thwarts ordinary expectations, an approach that seems typical of Jesus’ style.”
How credible this view (as expressed by the Seminar) is, I am unable to decipher with certainty. Yet, there is so much in the Synoptic Gospels that refers to Jesus declaring the coming of a New Age, a Kingdom from God (by God) and resulting catastrophes at its arrival, that I have trouble believing that the gospel writers completely made up those claims that were specifically attributed to Jesus. The Seminar might be a bit off the main course of thinking about who Jesus actually was, including what his views and teachings were, as compared with the majority of modern commentators on what Jesus really taught. It is not to be credibly doubted that Jesus’ forerunner, the Baptist, was an ardent apocalypticist. Did Jesus really renounce all those adamant declarations by the Baptist? It is to be acknowledged that the Seminar represents a large number of Bible scholars, but it seems reasonable to suppose that scholars who held views fairly drastically inconsonant with the Seminar’s founders would likely not have participated in productions by the Seminar.
One thing of great interest to this reviewer is that, even though “The Gospel of Thomas” is not included in the Christian canon, in “The Five Gospels”, I found only one page in “John’s Gospel” that contained either a red or pink marking, whereas in “Thomas’ Gospel” there are, by my count, about 29 pages containing a red or pink rating for words that were attributed to Jesus. In other words, if the Seminar is anywhere even close to “the ballpark”, then almost nothing attributed to Jesus in John’s Gospel was actually spoken by Jesus, whereas numerous quotations attributed to Jesus by Thomas were actually reflective of words Jesus actually spoke. Now, many of the words in Thomas ascribed to Jesus are also found (similarly) in the “Synoptics”.
As for myself – and this is anathema to Fundamentalists – I fairly strongly hold the view that the vast majority of John’s Gospel, where words are attributed to Jesus, consists of the author’s personal views on who Jesus was and what he might have said if he’d discussed the particular issues addressed by the evangelist. The likelihood that the evangelist would have had either express memories of Jesus’ words or written references to supply entire pages of monologues by Jesus (especially given that this writing was done some 60 to 65 years after Jesus’ time on Earth) is so nearly unthinkable that a lack of credulity almost forbids any such view. I am not, for a moment, doubting that IF God were desirous of having such words written, he could have supplied (miraculously) the evangelist with what he was supposed to write. Justification for such a view (that God actually did this) might hardly be forthcoming.
Many quite devout “Christians”, while possibly failing to offer much regard for the Seminar’s “Gospels”, might nevertheless be realistic in acknowledging that much of what the gospel writers attributed to Jesus were largely words of the respective evangelist’s own predilections and understanding, rather than actual quotations from Jesus himself. Some devout ones, though, will have none of this and will bite the bullet all the way to a declaration that all the words written in the New Testament are infallible and inerrant. Whether or not this can intelligently be defended is for each person to decide for oneself. Surely, the most just and holy One, who oversees all, will not judge or condemn anyone on the basis of whether or not they regard a segment of human writing as being awarded with Divine infallibility or regard those writings as tainted by human fallibility, ignorance, and oftentimes deliberate misrepresentation.
If nothing else, for a spiritual seeker, “The Five Gospels” should encourage one to THINK and to QUESTION. Failing in either domain is to less-than-adequately fulfill one’s responsibility as a human being.
Let me point out that it is quite instructive of the Seminar’s evaluation of the Gospel of John that nearly all of the words attributed to Jesus were rated black. They used a rating system whereby, according to the Seminar, words attributed to Jesus in the gospels were accorded ratings of black, gray, pink, or red. Black ratings are deemed to be words that were essentially foreign to Jesus, that he would almost certainly not have spoken, and did not reflect his views, whereas gray ratings were for words he would almost certainly not have spoken, but might be similar to some of his views, while pink ratings were for words that were likely either spoken by Jesus or significantly reflected his outlook, and (finally) the red ratings were reserved for words that Jesus most likely spoke or were very similar to what he spoke.
Of course, the Seminar took a stance regarding how Jesus really taught, what he believed (including about himself), and what he actually did, that is far afield from the Orthodox outlook regarding Jesus. I found some of their views to be quite dubious. Many “Bible” scholars, including some skeptics about the veracity of the gospels (such as Bart Ehrman), believe that Jesus was, somewhat in the footsteps of his predecessor, John the Baptist, an apocalypticist. I find it very questionable, as a mere biblical layman, to deny that Jesus actually believed that there was soon to come an arrival, by force and violence, of the “Kingdom of God” on earth, and that horrific cataclysms were destined to then take place. It is my understanding that Albert Schweitzer held such views about the “historical Jesus”.
In regard to this important issue, I will quote from “The Five Gospels” (page 134) as follows:
“For Jesus, the kingdom of God was not the inauguration of an apocalyptic era within history or the end of history following a cosmic catastrophe. Nor did Jesus speak of it in the nationalistic sense as a revival of David’s kingdom. Rather, in the judgment of the Seminar, Jesus spoke most characteristically of God’s rule as close or already present but unobserved; this view thwarts ordinary expectations, an approach that seems typical of Jesus’ style.”
How credible this view (as expressed by the Seminar) is, I am unable to decipher with certainty. Yet, there is so much in the Synoptic Gospels that refers to Jesus declaring the coming of a New Age, a Kingdom from God (by God) and resulting catastrophes at its arrival, that I have trouble believing that the gospel writers completely made up those claims that were specifically attributed to Jesus. The Seminar might be a bit off the main course of thinking about who Jesus actually was, including what his views and teachings were, as compared with the majority of modern commentators on what Jesus really taught. It is not to be credibly doubted that Jesus’ forerunner, the Baptist, was an ardent apocalypticist. Did Jesus really renounce all those adamant declarations by the Baptist? It is to be acknowledged that the Seminar represents a large number of Bible scholars, but it seems reasonable to suppose that scholars who held views fairly drastically inconsonant with the Seminar’s founders would likely not have participated in productions by the Seminar.
One thing of great interest to this reviewer is that, even though “The Gospel of Thomas” is not included in the Christian canon, in “The Five Gospels”, I found only one page in “John’s Gospel” that contained either a red or pink marking, whereas in “Thomas’ Gospel” there are, by my count, about 29 pages containing a red or pink rating for words that were attributed to Jesus. In other words, if the Seminar is anywhere even close to “the ballpark”, then almost nothing attributed to Jesus in John’s Gospel was actually spoken by Jesus, whereas numerous quotations attributed to Jesus by Thomas were actually reflective of words Jesus actually spoke. Now, many of the words in Thomas ascribed to Jesus are also found (similarly) in the “Synoptics”.
As for myself – and this is anathema to Fundamentalists – I fairly strongly hold the view that the vast majority of John’s Gospel, where words are attributed to Jesus, consists of the author’s personal views on who Jesus was and what he might have said if he’d discussed the particular issues addressed by the evangelist. The likelihood that the evangelist would have had either express memories of Jesus’ words or written references to supply entire pages of monologues by Jesus (especially given that this writing was done some 60 to 65 years after Jesus’ time on Earth) is so nearly unthinkable that a lack of credulity almost forbids any such view. I am not, for a moment, doubting that IF God were desirous of having such words written, he could have supplied (miraculously) the evangelist with what he was supposed to write. Justification for such a view (that God actually did this) might hardly be forthcoming.
Many quite devout “Christians”, while possibly failing to offer much regard for the Seminar’s “Gospels”, might nevertheless be realistic in acknowledging that much of what the gospel writers attributed to Jesus were largely words of the respective evangelist’s own predilections and understanding, rather than actual quotations from Jesus himself. Some devout ones, though, will have none of this and will bite the bullet all the way to a declaration that all the words written in the New Testament are infallible and inerrant. Whether or not this can intelligently be defended is for each person to decide for oneself. Surely, the most just and holy One, who oversees all, will not judge or condemn anyone on the basis of whether or not they regard a segment of human writing as being awarded with Divine infallibility or regard those writings as tainted by human fallibility, ignorance, and oftentimes deliberate misrepresentation.
If nothing else, for a spiritual seeker, “The Five Gospels” should encourage one to THINK and to QUESTION. Failing in either domain is to less-than-adequately fulfill one’s responsibility as a human being.
April 25, 2008
Very controversial book, well, for starters it has that 5th Gospel in it. And, it talks a lot about the potential political and emotional persuasions that went into writing the New Testament. I found it fascinating though. I didn't take it all as...gospel, but it was a really interesting read.
January 5, 2008
I haven't read every word of this, but used it in Bible study. It can be controversial but is a useful springboard for discussion.
October 15, 2016
This book is the result of the collective work of The Jesus Seminar, a group of leading scholars in the field of biblical criticism. It contains a new translation of the four canonical gospels and of the Gospel of Thomas. The latter is a non canonical gospel which contains 114 sayings attributed to Jesus; some parts of this gospel are believed to be as old as the oldest canonical gospels (Mark and Luke).
Each utterance attributed to Jesus in the five gospels is color coded to indicate the evaluation of the scholars regarding its authenticity, as follows: red = Jesus probably said this; pink: Jesus could have said this; gray: Jesus probably did not say this; black: Jesus certainly did not say this. The color was assigned based on a voting scheme and weighed averages. Each group of verses is commented and the scholars assessment is explained. The first chapter explains the theory behind the analysis; it considers things like the number of independent sources that confirm the text, the historical context, and several other criteria.
In order to illustrate how the criteria work, I will mention a couple of examples. For instance, Mark 9:49-50 reads (all biblical quotations from the New American Standard Bible):
49. "For everyone will be salted with fire.
50a. "Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? 50b. Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."
Verses 49 and 50b are coded in gray, because many scholars believed these sentences were composed by Mark, since neither Matthew nor Luke have reproduced them. Those scholars who believed in an escathological element in the message of Jesus pulled the saying to the gray.
Verse 50a is coded pink because this saying is attested both by Mark and Q; Q (from the initial letter of the german word Quelle = source) is a hypothetical written "gospel" that is now lost but was used by Matthew and Luke, and explains many almost verbatim similarities between those gospels. Since neither the original form nor the context of the saying could be recovered it ended up with a weighed average score of 0.58, which makes it pink. This example tries to convey the high level of scholarly effort applied to the work.
Another example is found in Mat 28:18-21, where the words of Jesus appear in black, indicating that, in the scholars view, it is very unlikely that Jesus had said that:
18. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20. teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
This is called the great commission, but other commissions are found in Luke 24:47-48 and John 20:22-23. Since the three commissions are different, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus did not actually make these statements, but rather they show the understanding each of the evangelists had about the future of the Jesus movememnt.
Of course, the work of the Jesus Seminar is considered the devil's work by many christian denominations, particularly those fundamentalist ministries that believe in a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. However, for those who would like to understand who was the historical Jesus Christ (probably the most influential figure of the Western Civilization) this book is very helpful.
Each utterance attributed to Jesus in the five gospels is color coded to indicate the evaluation of the scholars regarding its authenticity, as follows: red = Jesus probably said this; pink: Jesus could have said this; gray: Jesus probably did not say this; black: Jesus certainly did not say this. The color was assigned based on a voting scheme and weighed averages. Each group of verses is commented and the scholars assessment is explained. The first chapter explains the theory behind the analysis; it considers things like the number of independent sources that confirm the text, the historical context, and several other criteria.
In order to illustrate how the criteria work, I will mention a couple of examples. For instance, Mark 9:49-50 reads (all biblical quotations from the New American Standard Bible):
49. "For everyone will be salted with fire.
50a. "Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? 50b. Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."
Verses 49 and 50b are coded in gray, because many scholars believed these sentences were composed by Mark, since neither Matthew nor Luke have reproduced them. Those scholars who believed in an escathological element in the message of Jesus pulled the saying to the gray.
Verse 50a is coded pink because this saying is attested both by Mark and Q; Q (from the initial letter of the german word Quelle = source) is a hypothetical written "gospel" that is now lost but was used by Matthew and Luke, and explains many almost verbatim similarities between those gospels. Since neither the original form nor the context of the saying could be recovered it ended up with a weighed average score of 0.58, which makes it pink. This example tries to convey the high level of scholarly effort applied to the work.
Another example is found in Mat 28:18-21, where the words of Jesus appear in black, indicating that, in the scholars view, it is very unlikely that Jesus had said that:
18. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20. teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
This is called the great commission, but other commissions are found in Luke 24:47-48 and John 20:22-23. Since the three commissions are different, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus did not actually make these statements, but rather they show the understanding each of the evangelists had about the future of the Jesus movememnt.
Of course, the work of the Jesus Seminar is considered the devil's work by many christian denominations, particularly those fundamentalist ministries that believe in a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. However, for those who would like to understand who was the historical Jesus Christ (probably the most influential figure of the Western Civilization) this book is very helpful.
December 22, 2013
This is the report of a study conducted by a group consisting of scores of credentialed Biblical scholars. The group spent six years analyzing the words attributed to Jesus in the five gospels--the four gospels included in the Bible as we know it and the recently-discovered Gospel of Thomas.
The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar cast color-coded votes on each word or phrase.
Red was employed for those words most probably spoken by Jesus. Pink was for words the scholars were less certain could be traced back to Jesus or were more certain had been modified in the transmission. Black was for words that were put in Jesus' mouth by his admirers (or his enemies, as the case might be) and are therefore inauthentic. Grey was for words that did not originate with Jesus though they may reflect his ideas.
The scholars used common recognitions--the Gospel of Mark predates Matthew and Luke and the latter two borrowed from it, for instance--and triangulated logical conclusions to come up with their final judgments. The first part of the book explains their methodology.
The book is remarkable not just for the conclusions the scholars came to, but for the depths of analysis reached on each phrase and the amazingly clear, in-depth reporting of the findings of the scholars by the authors.
I delighted in the detective work the scholars used to separate and define the historical Jesus from the Christ of faith.
If you are interested in the nut of what this remarkable sage was trying to convey and are open to discarding the veils pulled over his life and his work by the early Church, this book is for you.
Will this book diminish your faith or strengthen it? Ask yourself if Jesus can stand up to the scrutiny.
The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar cast color-coded votes on each word or phrase.
Red was employed for those words most probably spoken by Jesus. Pink was for words the scholars were less certain could be traced back to Jesus or were more certain had been modified in the transmission. Black was for words that were put in Jesus' mouth by his admirers (or his enemies, as the case might be) and are therefore inauthentic. Grey was for words that did not originate with Jesus though they may reflect his ideas.
The scholars used common recognitions--the Gospel of Mark predates Matthew and Luke and the latter two borrowed from it, for instance--and triangulated logical conclusions to come up with their final judgments. The first part of the book explains their methodology.
The book is remarkable not just for the conclusions the scholars came to, but for the depths of analysis reached on each phrase and the amazingly clear, in-depth reporting of the findings of the scholars by the authors.
I delighted in the detective work the scholars used to separate and define the historical Jesus from the Christ of faith.
If you are interested in the nut of what this remarkable sage was trying to convey and are open to discarding the veils pulled over his life and his work by the early Church, this book is for you.
Will this book diminish your faith or strengthen it? Ask yourself if Jesus can stand up to the scrutiny.
February 20, 2008
This book was amazing. It goes through and looks at everything Jesus says in the Bible and tries to say how likely it is that he actually said it. The words are color coded and there is explanation of why they classified it the way the did. I really appreciate that they also included the Gospel of Thomas. After reading this book, however, I had a difficult time deciding how I felt about the Bible and especially the Gospel of John (the Jesus seminar doesn't think Jesus actually said anything that is written in John). I was finding it difficult to trust in the Bible if it isn't literally Jesus' words. Then I read some of Marcus Borg's books (like "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time") and have discovered the beauty of the Bible again (and especially the book of John). The Bible can be taken seriously, but not literally. If you read "The Five Gospels" I would highly recommend reading Borg either before or afterwards.
April 9, 2012
While this is a good resource book for listing similar Biblical passages in the margins it really shows the flaws of historical Jesus research. The aim of this book was to give the general consensus of Biblical scholars in the mid 1990s about whether various sayings attributed to Jesus really came from him. While this book does that it does not seek to justify the conclusions which in fact cannot be justified in any rigorous way without using the analytical methods of decision theory. Presently each scholar forms a subjective opinion about what Jesus was "really" teaching based upon their own person weightings of the main themes in the New Testament and then conclude all Jesus sayings which are coherent with that theme "really" came from Jesus while those not in agreement did not.
Read
September 24, 2015This is effectively the result of a panel of experts, assembled by Funk, to determine the 'authentic' teachings of Jesus by voting on each one with coloured beads. This book contains both their own translation (the "Scholar's Translation") of the four canonical gospels and the Gospel of Thomas, coloured sayings of Jesus, and a guide to their methodology. Incredibly controversial, both within and without the field, the Jesus Seminar's work is best appreciated when compared to the work of others in the "Third Quest."
August 14, 2016
The historic slide through two thousand years toward the beginnings really resonates with me. Each layer interesting and important in its own way, and the educated guessing of Jesus' original words is inspiring and thought provoking. Cool stuff.
April 25, 2018
I can't comment as a scholar on the studies undertaken but it is interesting to read how much (or little) of what Jesus said can actually be agreed on by those scholars with the knowledge to debate the issue.
Dropped a rating star simply because this is a difficult read for a non-scholar.
Dropped a rating star simply because this is a difficult read for a non-scholar.
June 21, 2007
very interesting...i like how they used different color fonts as a quasi-lichert scale to show the "authenticity" of what was said.
August 16, 2007
A great commentary useful for gaining new insight into the gospel stories.
September 6, 2009
must read!!!!!!!! it is very important to us hehe.... four thumbs up!!!
November 30, 2010
Really interesting. You really should read it if you haven't and you have any interest in Christianity.
June 1, 2023
Notes while reading:
- Major question: what is Jesus and what is Christ? They are, despite the creeds that combine them, separate.
- “Jesus was not the first Christian…. The inclination of the evangelists and other Christians was to make Jesus himself affirm what they themselves had come to believe” (24).
- “Paul’s version of the gospel was in circulation when Mark composed his story of Jesus” (25).
- There is evidence that Mark knew oral gospel quoted by Paul. 1st written gospels: Sayings Gospel Q & perhaps early version of Thomas.
- First Christians were illiterate — wasn’t till people like Paul became involved that writing was part of Christianity. We don’t know if Jesus could read/write.
- “Jesus taught on his own authority and seems not to have invoked scripture to justify his pronouncements” (68). Added by evangelists/early Christians, searching for proof that new movement was anticipated.
- Early Christians wanted to distance themselves from baptizers, embarrassed that Jesus was baptized and mentored by John the Baptist (133).
- Israelites and Judeans avoided use of God’s name — Matthew, concerned with relations to Judaism, thus uses “Heaven” in place of God’s name (195).
- Jesus was likely not celibate; probably had a special relationship with at least one woman, Mary of Magdala (221).
- Major question: what is Jesus and what is Christ? They are, despite the creeds that combine them, separate.
- “Jesus was not the first Christian…. The inclination of the evangelists and other Christians was to make Jesus himself affirm what they themselves had come to believe” (24).
- “Paul’s version of the gospel was in circulation when Mark composed his story of Jesus” (25).
- There is evidence that Mark knew oral gospel quoted by Paul. 1st written gospels: Sayings Gospel Q & perhaps early version of Thomas.
- First Christians were illiterate — wasn’t till people like Paul became involved that writing was part of Christianity. We don’t know if Jesus could read/write.
- “Jesus taught on his own authority and seems not to have invoked scripture to justify his pronouncements” (68). Added by evangelists/early Christians, searching for proof that new movement was anticipated.
- Early Christians wanted to distance themselves from baptizers, embarrassed that Jesus was baptized and mentored by John the Baptist (133).
- Israelites and Judeans avoided use of God’s name — Matthew, concerned with relations to Judaism, thus uses “Heaven” in place of God’s name (195).
- Jesus was likely not celibate; probably had a special relationship with at least one woman, Mary of Magdala (221).
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 4, 2014
Jesus seminar and the sayings of Jesus recorded in the five gospels
This is a major work of Jesus seminar, a group of academics of leading universities and colleges that evaluated the authenticity of the parables, aphorisms and sayings of Jesus recorded in five gospels; Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Thomas. The gospel of Thomas is included in this analytical work because it is the only gospel that survived in full textual form. The other four gospels were derivatives and no original manuscripts were ever obtained. The early manuscript called Q, the oral tradition (from common lore), and Greek manuscript of Thomas preserved some sayings of Jesus for about 20 years before the first gospel of Mark was written in 70 C.E. The gospel of Matthew and Luke used the gospel of Mark, Q and oral traditions to write their own gospels at about 85 C.E, and John at about 100 C.E. This book evaluates the effect of the history and culture of ancient Israel, the Jewish customs and traditions, and the Old Testament on the sayings of Jesus. Having understood the nature of Jesus, the seminar evaluated if Jesus would have said such a parable in the manner that it exists in a given gospel. These scholars, free from ecclesiastical and religious control, prepared these gospels prior to writing the scholars version of New Testament, which is vastly different from King James Version, international version or the catholic version.
The growth of Jesus tradition started from 27 C.E., after Jesus' crucifixion. The first written gospels came into existence between 50 to 70 C.E. that included manuscript Q and the first Thomas editions. Rules of written evidence were formulated and adopted to guide the assessment of Jesus traditions. This simply measures the reliability of certain information. Jesus seminar also observed that the authors of the five gospels modify sayings and parables or invent new narrative contexts and in some cases edit sayings to conform to the beliefs of that gospel tradition. Evangelists/story tellers/apostles made up some words and then stated them as the words of Jesus. For example, Jesus says in Mark 4:35, "Let's cross to the other side," but the way Mark would like us to remember is that Jesus meant that "The time is up. God's imperial rule is closing in. Change your ways and put your trust in the good news."
Examples of the analysis of the seminar is as follows: Words commonly used in common lore and Greek scriptures are stated to have come from Jesus. But Jesus spoke in Aramaic and all the manuscripts are Greek translations. Here we need to assume that translations were accurately performed. The seminar also made certain assumptions, for example, sayings that refer to events after Jesus crucifixion is an invention, but those coming from the oral tradition is likely to be authentic. The oral memory best retains sayings and anecdotes that are especially short, provocative, memorable and often repeated. The earliest layers of the gospel tradition is made of single aphorisms and parables that circulated by word of mouth prior to the written gospels. Jesus' disciples remembered the core or gist of his sayings and parables but not his precise words except in rare cases. The seminar also made generalizations about Jesus' mannerisms and lack of assertiveness. For example, Jesus does not initiate dialogue or debate or does he offers to cure people. He rarely speaks about himself in the first person and he makes no claims to be anointed messiah. Quite often his answer did not answer the questions; his responses were typically enigmatic.
On the question of resurrection, (Matt 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27; and Luke 20:27-40), the scholars felt that Jesus did not say this because it was not in his characteristic to debate about the resurrection. The rabbis of that period debated that issue as illustrated in Dead Sea Scrolls and the traditions of Mishnah. Supper and the Eucharist (Matt 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26, and Luke 22:14-20.) Both Mark and Matthew have interpreted the cup of red wine representing the blood of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice, an important concept in Christian theological interpretation of Jesus' death. The scholars did not think this came from Jesus. Congratulations, poor! (Thomas 54; Matt 5:3; Luke 6:20 (source: Thomas, Q)); Luke 6:29 about turning the other cheek after giving up one's coat and shirt were rated as most likely saying of Jesus since this fits his fundamentals. Jesus consorted with poor, hungry, disadvantaged and persecuted. What goes in (Thomas 14:5; Mark 7:15; and Matt 15:11; source: Thomas, mark); eating common meal with pagans defiled the practicing Judean traditions. Jesus deliberately ignored or violated these traditions and Jesus definitely said this parable. Coming of God's imperial rule (Thomas 113:1-4; Luke 17:20-21; source: Thomas and Q): The seminar felt that Jesus most likely said this because this illustrates that he did not share the apocalyptic thought of John the Baptist.
Salt-less salt (Luke 14:34-35; Matt 5:13, and Mark 9:50a; sources: Q and Mark) and Hidden and Reveled - Thomas 5:1-2 were likely said by Jesus because they are well attested, memorable, short, succinct and paradoxical.
In the gospel of John, Jesus frequently speaks of himself in the first person using the emphatic phrase I AM. These are exalted terms but this is not characteristic of Jesus as implied by the synoptic parables and aphorisms. Jesus refers to the cosmic reality and calls himself omnipresent. This is commonly used in Upanishads, the ancient scriptures of Hinduism where this usually means "I Exist" and I am He, the Brahman, the God Almighty. John uses these phrases in the following verses: John 6:35; I am the bread of life; John 8:12; I am the light of the world; John8:58; I existed before there was Abraham; John 10:11; I am the good shepherd; John 11:25; I am resurrection and life; John 14:6; I am the way, and I am the truth and I am life; John 15:1; I am the authentic vine. The aphorisms are characteristic features of Johannine community and its efforts to influence the rest of the world into Johannine way of thinking Christianity.
This is a major work of Jesus seminar, a group of academics of leading universities and colleges that evaluated the authenticity of the parables, aphorisms and sayings of Jesus recorded in five gospels; Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Thomas. The gospel of Thomas is included in this analytical work because it is the only gospel that survived in full textual form. The other four gospels were derivatives and no original manuscripts were ever obtained. The early manuscript called Q, the oral tradition (from common lore), and Greek manuscript of Thomas preserved some sayings of Jesus for about 20 years before the first gospel of Mark was written in 70 C.E. The gospel of Matthew and Luke used the gospel of Mark, Q and oral traditions to write their own gospels at about 85 C.E, and John at about 100 C.E. This book evaluates the effect of the history and culture of ancient Israel, the Jewish customs and traditions, and the Old Testament on the sayings of Jesus. Having understood the nature of Jesus, the seminar evaluated if Jesus would have said such a parable in the manner that it exists in a given gospel. These scholars, free from ecclesiastical and religious control, prepared these gospels prior to writing the scholars version of New Testament, which is vastly different from King James Version, international version or the catholic version.
The growth of Jesus tradition started from 27 C.E., after Jesus' crucifixion. The first written gospels came into existence between 50 to 70 C.E. that included manuscript Q and the first Thomas editions. Rules of written evidence were formulated and adopted to guide the assessment of Jesus traditions. This simply measures the reliability of certain information. Jesus seminar also observed that the authors of the five gospels modify sayings and parables or invent new narrative contexts and in some cases edit sayings to conform to the beliefs of that gospel tradition. Evangelists/story tellers/apostles made up some words and then stated them as the words of Jesus. For example, Jesus says in Mark 4:35, "Let's cross to the other side," but the way Mark would like us to remember is that Jesus meant that "The time is up. God's imperial rule is closing in. Change your ways and put your trust in the good news."
Examples of the analysis of the seminar is as follows: Words commonly used in common lore and Greek scriptures are stated to have come from Jesus. But Jesus spoke in Aramaic and all the manuscripts are Greek translations. Here we need to assume that translations were accurately performed. The seminar also made certain assumptions, for example, sayings that refer to events after Jesus crucifixion is an invention, but those coming from the oral tradition is likely to be authentic. The oral memory best retains sayings and anecdotes that are especially short, provocative, memorable and often repeated. The earliest layers of the gospel tradition is made of single aphorisms and parables that circulated by word of mouth prior to the written gospels. Jesus' disciples remembered the core or gist of his sayings and parables but not his precise words except in rare cases. The seminar also made generalizations about Jesus' mannerisms and lack of assertiveness. For example, Jesus does not initiate dialogue or debate or does he offers to cure people. He rarely speaks about himself in the first person and he makes no claims to be anointed messiah. Quite often his answer did not answer the questions; his responses were typically enigmatic.
On the question of resurrection, (Matt 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27; and Luke 20:27-40), the scholars felt that Jesus did not say this because it was not in his characteristic to debate about the resurrection. The rabbis of that period debated that issue as illustrated in Dead Sea Scrolls and the traditions of Mishnah. Supper and the Eucharist (Matt 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26, and Luke 22:14-20.) Both Mark and Matthew have interpreted the cup of red wine representing the blood of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice, an important concept in Christian theological interpretation of Jesus' death. The scholars did not think this came from Jesus. Congratulations, poor! (Thomas 54; Matt 5:3; Luke 6:20 (source: Thomas, Q)); Luke 6:29 about turning the other cheek after giving up one's coat and shirt were rated as most likely saying of Jesus since this fits his fundamentals. Jesus consorted with poor, hungry, disadvantaged and persecuted. What goes in (Thomas 14:5; Mark 7:15; and Matt 15:11; source: Thomas, mark); eating common meal with pagans defiled the practicing Judean traditions. Jesus deliberately ignored or violated these traditions and Jesus definitely said this parable. Coming of God's imperial rule (Thomas 113:1-4; Luke 17:20-21; source: Thomas and Q): The seminar felt that Jesus most likely said this because this illustrates that he did not share the apocalyptic thought of John the Baptist.
Salt-less salt (Luke 14:34-35; Matt 5:13, and Mark 9:50a; sources: Q and Mark) and Hidden and Reveled - Thomas 5:1-2 were likely said by Jesus because they are well attested, memorable, short, succinct and paradoxical.
In the gospel of John, Jesus frequently speaks of himself in the first person using the emphatic phrase I AM. These are exalted terms but this is not characteristic of Jesus as implied by the synoptic parables and aphorisms. Jesus refers to the cosmic reality and calls himself omnipresent. This is commonly used in Upanishads, the ancient scriptures of Hinduism where this usually means "I Exist" and I am He, the Brahman, the God Almighty. John uses these phrases in the following verses: John 6:35; I am the bread of life; John 8:12; I am the light of the world; John8:58; I existed before there was Abraham; John 10:11; I am the good shepherd; John 11:25; I am resurrection and life; John 14:6; I am the way, and I am the truth and I am life; John 15:1; I am the authentic vine. The aphorisms are characteristic features of Johannine community and its efforts to influence the rest of the world into Johannine way of thinking Christianity.
March 22, 2019
As you can see, it took me a long time to make it through this book. It was given to me by the Episcopal priest who is my spiritual director. Her goal, always, is to get me to think about aspects of scripture and faith in ways I haven't before. While I feel a call to be a deacon, I have not as familiar with scripture as I need to be. I savored this book and read a verse every morning. In doing so, I worked my way through the four gospels of the New Testament. This is the work of the Jesus Seminar — a group of scholars who took on the controversial task of trying to analyze what Jesus really said, versus words given to him by the gospel writers. This book also includes the Gospel of Thomas, so it is obviously not mainstream. Some of the seminar members are scholars and clergy I respect, including Marcus Borg, author of several wonderful books including, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time. For this reason I stuck with it. There are some findings that I completely understand. Others that roused my skepticism. In all, worth the read.
July 7, 2020
This book has been on our bookshelf for years, just never felt the urge to pick it up.
This year I try to spend part of my morning doing a daily devotional and then taking some time to do some “spiritual journeying”.
After all, it is said “seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened”.
Prior to this book I read the book of Q. This books objective is to determine if Jesus really actually said what was in the Gospels.
This book translated the Gospels to try and present what was said in a way that we might hear it today. Which added to the emotion behind what Jesus was saying.
It appears to me that the authors of this book would not consider Jesus as the Son of God. So as I read, I would go back to my NIV Bible.
Honestly it was good to go back through the Gospels and read them again. I honestly have a different perspective.
Perhaps it all helps me to try and make sense of what all is going on around me in 2020.
This year I try to spend part of my morning doing a daily devotional and then taking some time to do some “spiritual journeying”.
After all, it is said “seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened”.
Prior to this book I read the book of Q. This books objective is to determine if Jesus really actually said what was in the Gospels.
This book translated the Gospels to try and present what was said in a way that we might hear it today. Which added to the emotion behind what Jesus was saying.
It appears to me that the authors of this book would not consider Jesus as the Son of God. So as I read, I would go back to my NIV Bible.
Honestly it was good to go back through the Gospels and read them again. I honestly have a different perspective.
Perhaps it all helps me to try and make sense of what all is going on around me in 2020.
February 11, 2020
Hard to review this. I was curious about it having heard about it in a course I studied. Academic experts rate which words attributed to Jesus in the bible they think might actually have been spoken by him. Hold my hands up and say I read about half of it but there is an awful lot and I think I got the gist of it sufficiently well for my purposes.
April 30, 2018
Definitely not my kind of book. I don't recommend it at all.
February 20, 2019
There's a lot of surprises in here.
August 22, 2019
just like to know more about what peopel aks
December 24, 2019
Excellent for it's methodological theory and innovative communitarian-epistimology--a fitting form given the social nature of textual preservation in the Early Community.
January 17, 2024
A great and unique effort to clarify what has historical and religious accuracy in the Bible. A monumental effort. Bravo.
March 2, 2016
Fascinating. An attempt by the Fellows of the Jesus seminar to apply historical research methods to the words attributed to Jesus in the 4 canonical gospels as well as the more recently discovered Gospel of Thomas (which has many parallels to the canonical gospels), to determine what he actually said or not. This is a bit dated, so it will be interesting to see where subsequent responses and further research may have led. Essentially the Fellows all voted, after discussion, on the likelihood of each particular passage attributed to Jesus having actually been said by him, as opposed to remembered concepts given their own language by the gospel authors, common wisdom attributed to Jesus by the authors, and words reflecting so thoroughly the theology of the author as to likely have little direct lineage to Jesus' own words. Results are color coded from black (no connection) through gray, pink, and finally red for near certainty. Certainly I would quibble some of the assumptions and some of the decisions (though these are Biblical scholars), but the evidence becomes pretty clear that the authors played free and loose with exact wording and interpretations at the very least.
January 3, 2011
An audacious, extensive multidisciplinary scholarly analysis of the canonical Christian gospels, in the order they were written (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John). The titular fifth gospel is the Gospel of Thomas, which receives its own assessment.
While providing the reader with scholarly context for the gospel stories, the book looks at *every quotation attributed to Jesus* and assesses how likely it is that He actually said such a thing.
As the analysis was done by the Jesus Seminar, literalists and apologists for tradition will find the book much to their disliking. Those unthreatened by the sometimes-surprising conclusions of modern study, will find it a bracing read... as long as they're reasonably well-versed (heh) in the Gospels to begin with. Not at all a book for beginners, who would be wise to read up on the gospels themselves, as well as commentaries and Christian writings aimed towards a more mainstream audience.
While providing the reader with scholarly context for the gospel stories, the book looks at *every quotation attributed to Jesus* and assesses how likely it is that He actually said such a thing.
As the analysis was done by the Jesus Seminar, literalists and apologists for tradition will find the book much to their disliking. Those unthreatened by the sometimes-surprising conclusions of modern study, will find it a bracing read... as long as they're reasonably well-versed (heh) in the Gospels to begin with. Not at all a book for beginners, who would be wise to read up on the gospels themselves, as well as commentaries and Christian writings aimed towards a more mainstream audience.
April 21, 2011
I always had trouble with the picture my old fundamentalist church put in my head of the way the evangelists wrote the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I had this kind of seance idea, where old Matthew would go into a semitrance with a pen in his hand, and out came the gospel. Like automatic writing during the heyday of spiritualism and mediums.
The Five Gospels does a superb job of explaining how you can peer through the familiar gospels in the New Testament and see line by line how they were built up into the versions we read today. As it does so, a huge panel of divinity scholars vote on how likely it is that Jesus really said that. As long as you don't take a shallow glance it, this should deepen your connection and involvement with Jesus in a way you may never have experienced otherwise... almost like living in those days.
The Five Gospels does a superb job of explaining how you can peer through the familiar gospels in the New Testament and see line by line how they were built up into the versions we read today. As it does so, a huge panel of divinity scholars vote on how likely it is that Jesus really said that. As long as you don't take a shallow glance it, this should deepen your connection and involvement with Jesus in a way you may never have experienced otherwise... almost like living in those days.
March 12, 2013
The Jesus Seminar's attempt to get closer to the words of the historic Jesus resulted in The Five Gospels. For people interested in the historicity of Jesus and the birth and growth of Christianity, this book is absolutely fascinating. The book's introduction is key to the Seminar's approach to historicity and authenticity--it lays the groundwork for understanding the times and cultures of the world during the first and second centuries CE.
I cannot recommend this book to highly for thoughtful Christians, who seek to find the historic Jesus.
I have indicated that I finished reading this book. I'm not sure I ever will truly finish it.
I cannot recommend this book to highly for thoughtful Christians, who seek to find the historic Jesus.
I have indicated that I finished reading this book. I'm not sure I ever will truly finish it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews