Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels

by Craig A. Evans

Modern historical study of the Gospels seems to give us a new portrait of Jesus every spring--just in time for Easter. The more unusual the portrait, the more it departs from the traditional view of Jesus, the more attention it gets in the popular media. Why are scholars so prone to fabricate a new Jesus? Why is the public so eager to accept such claims without question? What methods and assumptions predispose scholars to distort the record? Is there a more sober approach to finding the real Jesus? Commenting on such recent releases as Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, James Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty, Michael Baigent's The Jesus Papers and the Gospel of Judas, for which he served as an advisory board member to the National Geographic Society, Craig Evans offers a sane approach to examining the sources for understanding the historical Jesus.

Genres: History, Religion, Christianity, Theology, Biblical Studies, Christian, Nonfiction

290 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Craig A. Evans (PhD, Claremont Graduate University) is Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. He is a frequent contributor to scholarly journals and the author or editor of numerous publications.

Reviews

[BJ Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Dominic Crossan writes a biography of Jesus and he has the man come away looking like a skeptic. He portrays almost a Jewish version of Carneades. Reza Aslan writes a biography of Jesus and has the man coming away looking like, well... a zealot. His Jesus is almost the exact opposite in every way to the so-called conclusions drawn by the Jesus Seminar. I have said that many of these biographies tell us a lot more about the author than they do of Jesus himself. This isn't an original idea. As far back as a hundred years ago, real scholars were leveling the exact same criticism against Bultmann and his ilk.

How can this be? How so many scholars (or so-called scholars) look at the exact same material and draw such vastly different conclusions from it? That question is beautifully answered here by Craig Evans. Point by point, chapter by chapter, Evans addresses many of the common mistakes, faulty scholarship practices, and biases that are common to many scholars like Ehrman, Crossan, and such. He looks at things like trying to impose the views of fringe 2nd-4th century writings on the early church, holding to a standard of criterion for the gospels and epistles far more stringent than any other writings anywhere in antiquity, imposing anachronisms or the views from cultures that would have had no place in 1st century Palestine, and so on. He uses many examples from current scholarship, but he does more than that. Evans gives the reader the tools so that we might be able to spot when similar errors might appear in future works.

Evans also includes a chapter dealing with nonscholarly errors that have had been popularized in our time like Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and the Davinci Code. He then finishes up with a short chapter on why we can be relatively certain that the larger picture of Jesus painted in the Synoptics and John is both reliable and accurate. I really want to give this book five stars, but I do not know how valuable it would be for someone who does not have a familiarity with many of the scholarly works he addresses. Almost every example he uses comes from a book I have read. I am not sure how much would be lost on someone who has not extensively read Crossan, Borg, Ehrman, et al. So I am posting this as four stars... but it really should be five.

[Rod Horncastle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been holding off a while in writing this review. I was hoping to read the whole book again. There's some seriously amazing stuff in here. Craig A. Evans is my new hero. (and I just found out he used to live near me, and teach near me - can't believe I missed out on chatting with him daily).

All Christians should be aware that all Biblical truth is being quickly done away with by bad scholars and media hoopla. We must defend our Biblical beliefs with the best research and science that is available (and some that isn't - We have the Holy Spirit for a reason!)
This is not a battle that we will win, we must prepare to lose confidentially with love and logic on our side. Remember what stopped the Nazi's from their onslaught of humanity? It sure wasn't media, scholarship, love or truth - but brute power. Here's a fun comment from John MacArthur:

"The Bible is like a Lion; you don't defend it - you simply let it out of it's cage."

And that is exactly what Craig Evans is doing with his books. Getting the Truth of the Bible out so it can defend itself.

When chatting with atheists I have come across almost every challenge in this book (and often by atheist teenagers with mediocre schooling, yet somehow they know every argument against the Bible and Jesus.)
The problem is they have no idea what Mr. Evans knows and has carefully and exhaustively researched. They only know what the Jesus Seminar and Richard Dawkins has force-fed them with their very impressive propaganda. How hard is it to sell someone exactly what their rebellious heart wants to hear? That is why they are winning - for now!

And yet this book helps us put up a loving fight for the truth. It will show you what an honest scholar finds when he looks into the life and facts of Jesus. The discussions on the Extra-canonical Gospels are hilarious as well. And yet people are desperately prioritizing these bits of foolishness.

I could go on all day about how much I loved this book. I won't - now go read it.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fabricating Jesus is written for a wide audience, from anyone who has been confused by much of the popular writing on Jesus recently (e.g. Da Vinci Code) to skeptics to scholars. After reading it I would highly recommend it to people who have not read much in historical Jesus scholarship for it provides a good entry into that realm.

The first four chapters are the very best. In chapter one Evans shows examples of both old and new skeptics, illustrating how their theories on Jesus fall short. Then in chapter two he answers some initial questions often debated in scholarship, ending with a discussion of methods to determine what parts of history are authentic (i.e. true). Chapters 3 and 4 provide numerous arguments against other gospels (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, etc.), showing that they come from much later than the canonical gospels and thus do not provide good information on the historical Jesus.

These chapters really are the basis for the rest of the book. When he discusses the diversity of early Christianity, as some scholars have claimed earliest Christianity was extremely diverse only to be crushed into orthodoxy later, much of it rests on the earlier chapters showing that this alleged diversity comes from later gospels that shed little to no light on earliest Christianity. Much of the chapter on early diversity is then a study of the New Testament and an effort, successful in my opinion, to harmonize Paul and James (and the other writers).

This book is a very helpful resource for any person who seeks to understand early Christianity and how the New Testament was put together. At numerous places there are box quotations from the sources outside the New Testament that Evans cites; he does not just leave the reader with a citation but provides the text so the reader can read it for himself. This makes it a great reference for pastors and others to go to when questioned by skeptics.

Finally, Evans chapters on Josephus and his chapter refuting the popular-level writings on Jesus of recent years (Da Vinci Code, Holy Blood Holy Grail, etc.) are great.

Overall, I highly recommend this book.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author shows that there is no reason to fabricate a new Jesus when his own fabricated Jesus proves the others are wrong. I always hate when authors sneak in the Book of Acts and the Book of Daniel and pretend they are anything but fan-fiction as this author does. The author is so deep into the Bible as reliable history that he doesn't realize that his argument are ultimately 'the bible says so therefore it is true.'

Are all Christian apologists' book as weak as this one? I keep searching and find nothing but rubbish.

[Rafael Gomez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Isn't it incredible how anything about Jesus sells! So it's never a surprise when, just in time, every Easter, scholars roll out new "portraits" of Jesus. Time and Newsweek are always eager to comply - dousing their front pages with claims of "new finds" that change everything. There's a predictability to this - The kinkier and weirder the portrait, the more it departs from the historical, traditional view of Jesus, the more attention it gets in the popular media.

This book gets into a lot of "whys" that surround all the hysteria. Why are scholars so predisposed to put together new Jesus stories? And why does the public glom on to them so readily - often without asking any hard questions?

Evans gets into all the recent Jesus "mush" - like Bart Ehrman’s "Misquoting Jesus", James Tabor’s "The Jesus Dynasty", Michael Baigent’s "The Jesus Papers" and "The Gospel of Judas", for which he served as an advisory board member to the National Geographic Society.

His main premise is that people like Ehrman and Pagels, and the rest, are not Hebrew scholars, so they have little or no grasp of the 1st century Judaic culture that Jesus lived in.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book (had to read this for a seminary class I'm taking this fall)! For those who question the rationale behind the Christian exclusion of ancient texts like The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Phillip from the canon of scripture, this is a must-read. Many recent scholars have placed the wish before the evidence in arguing for the use of books like those I mentioned in establishing the historic portrait of Jesus. Evans clearly and rationally deals with their arguments and (sometimes non-existent) evidence, and demonstrates the clear historical rationale for depending on the four canonical gospels for our historic portrait of Christ. It may not be trendy to read material which defends traditional viewpoints on historical Christianity, but in this day where attempts to undermine the Jesus of scripture (whether viable and scholarly or not) have become accepted in the mainstream, perhaps the most rebellious thing to do is to venture a confident and clear defense of orthodoxy.

[Demetrius Rogers · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really good solid stuff here. But, the work suffered from a lack of cohesiveness. The book came out in 2006 when everything written seemed to be a response to Dan Brown's DaVinci Code. So instead of presenting a unified product, Evans spends his time shooting clay pigeons out of the sky. We jumped from topic to topic to topic as Evans took aim and handily dispelled of each misguided notion. Not the most engaging read, but a good book to keep for quick reference.

[Stephen Bedard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not only a fantastic look at the historical Jesus and a response to some recent critical theories, this book is a model on how to do apologetics.

[Brian · Rating 2 out of 5]

While I can agree with Mr. Evans on some sections of the book (such as Jesus not being a Cynic), the "scholarly research and claims" that he says are often lacking in other authors and colleagues is very much the same lacking understanding in many of his own ideas. He often jumps to conclusions and makes illogical claims which he feels are "matter of fact" but really only agree with his own beliefs and allows him to push his own narrative. At times Mr. Evans seems as though he is someone who is open to interpretation and discussion, but at the same time he quickly shuts down logical conclusions that allow for more discussion on many topics that deserve further understanding. For someone who claims a wider understanding of Aramaic than his colleagues I also find it interesting (or perhaps not) that he continues to push the common poorly translated Greek translation rather focusing on the Aramaic words of Jesus which taken in context (something he claims to care about) give rise to entirely different interpretations and understandings of what Jesus actually said according to the gospels. Like many books in this field, those who agree entirely with his narrative will love it. For everyone else, I would skip it.

[Caedmon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fabricating Jesus - How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. By Craig A. Evans. InterVarsity Press, 2006. 290 pages. Hardback

"Fabricating Jesus", a book written by Craig A. Evans and published by InterVarsity Press, is a helpful and thoughtful summary of the distortion of the Gospels by modern authors, and a well-reasoned defense of the historical Jesus.

Written for the “non-expert” (p. 14), Evans’ book does a sound job of explaining the current academic and popular discussion of the person of Jesus in terms and phraseology well-understand by the average layperson, without sacrificing scholarship or thoughtful commentary.

An obvious strength of the book is Evans’ extensive knowledge of the material. Throughout the book he provides a plethora of information on the early Greek texts, canonical and non-canonical, as well as a thorough grasp and understanding of the men who have, in Evans’ mind “distorted or neglected the New Testament Gospels (p. 16)” in their “never-ending quest to find something new and to advance daring theories that run beyond the evidence (p. 16)”.

It is interesting to note the tone with which the author approaches his opponents. When confronting an erroneous idea from an equally thoughtful scholar, Evans will explain his arguments in terms of likelihood, probability, and the evidence. This discussion on the author’s part is more in line with a polite disagreement, undertaken with civility and assuming a measure of equality. Yet, when Evans starts discussing Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code or Michael Baigent’s The Jesus Papers, his civility becomes a scathing sarcasm. When introducing The Jesus Papers to the reader, Evans calls it “utterly ludicrous” (p. 204) and concludes his description of it with “Beam me up, Scotty”.

As can be seen, Evans does a thorough job of critiquing the opponents of the traditional, historical view of Jesus (including a book-long critique of the Jesus Seminar and the works that it has produced), the non-canonical books that have been offered up in history as being on par with Scriptural canon (The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Peter, to name a few) and the puerile and decidedly false publications about Christ offered up to the popular culture (i.e. The Da Vinci Code and Margaret Starbird’s writings).

Yet for all of its strengths, Fabricating Jesus does have a couple of obvious weaknesses. While not of utmost importance, one could say that Evans’ book is too repetitive. In other words, it reads at times like a set of stand-alone lectures, rather than a smooth-flowing book.

More seriously, though, is Evans apparent unwillingness to admit to the cause of so many authors’ refusal to accept the traditional view of Jesus, especially in light of the evidence. When talking about how scholars approach the canonical Gospels, Evans notes that they are “surprisingly uncritical in their approach to extracanonical Gospels (p. 98)” He then notes that “Apart from the all-too-common human desire to challenge authority, it is hard to explain why scholars give such credence to documents that reflect settings that are entirely foreign to pre-A.D. 70 Jewish Palestine and at the same time reflect traditions and tendencies found in documents known to have emerged in later times and in places outside of Palestine (p. 98)”. While the spiritual state of such scholars cannot be known by men, is it not possible that the cause really is easy to explain and that “Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19, ESV)? Men do not accept the historical Jesus because men do not want to believe in the historical Jesus.

In conclusion, Fabricating Jesus is an insightful treatment of the current and ongoing discussion of the person and work of Jesus and adequately achieves its aims of explaining the topic in an engaging and confusion-clearing way.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A SUPPORTIVE VIEW OF THE GOSPELS, AND REJECTION OF “SLOPPY” RECENT VIEWS

Craig A. Evans is Professor of Christian Origins at Houston Baptist University; he wrote in the Preface to this 2006 book, “As I became acquainted with more and more New Testament scholars… I became aware that many of them lacked training in the Semitic background of the New Testament… Most knew little of early rabbinic literature and the Aramaic paraphrases of Scripture. This deficiency on the part of so many New Testament scholars helps explain the oddness of much of the work of the Jesus Seminar… For example, the Seminar does not understand what Jesus meant by his reference to ‘kingdom of God.’ … [This book] takes a hard look at some of the sloppy scholarship and misguided theories that have been advanced in recent years… Some of it, frankly, is embarrassing. [This book] is written at a popular level and is intended primarily for nonexperts who find much that has been said about Jesus in recent years terribly confusing.” (Pg. 12-14)

In the Introduction, he adds, “[This book] inquires into the thinking and the methods of scholars and popular writers. What presuppositions do they hold?... Why do they move from valid observations to audacious conclusions? Indeed why and how do they fabricate a Jesus different from the one we find in the New Testament? Are these scholars actually using sound historical method?... First, this book is written to assist anyone who is confused by the while theories and conflicting portraits of Jesus, the claims that he really didn’t see himself as the Messiah or as God’s Son, or that the New Testament Gospels are not trustworthy, or that other sources are better or at least equally valid, and so forth. Second, the book is written for people who are interested in Jesus … but are baffled by the strange books that have appeared in recent years…. Third, it is written for skeptics… Finally, this book is written to defend the original witnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus… it is time to give them a fresh hearing.” (Pg. 16-17)

He acknowledges, “I was a Christian before going to seminary and graduate school, and I still am after completing school… My academic life has not resulted in the loss of faith. Aspects of my faith have changed, to be sure… There are aspects of theology that remain uncertain, historical details that remain unclear. But then again, I have found that that was the way it was for Jesus and his earliest followers. Maybe not having pat answers for everything is what faith is all about.” (Pg. 12-13)

Perhaps surprisingly, as he explains the famous ‘Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?’ trilemma of C.S. Lewis, he notes, “The appeal makes for good alliteration … but it is faulty logic… those who adhere to this line of argument commit the fallacy of excluded middle… they overlook other viable alternatives. At least two other alternatives are possible… A fourth alternative is that Jesus … may be Israel’s messiah… and perhaps the greatest prophet who ever lived. He could even be called God’s son, but not in the trinitarian sense… this more or less agrees with Ebionite Christianity, a form of Jewish Christianity that … did not hold to what theologians call ‘high Christology’… the view that Jesus is divine… A fifth alternative is that we really don’t know who Jesus was, what he really said and did, what he thought of himself… The New Testament Gospels may well present Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and as God’s Son, but for all we know, that is nothing more than the theology of Christians who lived in the second half of the first century, Christians who had never met Jesus and never heard him teach.” (Pg. 20-21)

He asserts strongly, “The truth of the Christian message hinges not on the inerrancy of Scripture or on our ability to harmonize the four Gospels but on the resurrection of Jesus. And the historical reliability of the Gospels does not hinge on the inerrancy of Scripture or on proof that no mistake of any kind can be detected in them. [Bart] Ehrman’s struggle with faith… grows out of mistaken expectations of the nature and function of Scripture, mistaken expectations that he was taught as a young, impressionable fundamentalist Christian.” (Pg. 31)

As to whether Jesus was illiterate, he points out, “Jesus is frequently called ‘teacher’… The terminology of ‘teacher’ … creates a strong presumption in favor of Jesus’ literacy… On occasion Jesus himself refers to reading Scripture. He asks Pharisees… ‘Have you never read…’ … Jesus’ rhetorical and pointed ‘have you not read?’ seems to be distinctive of his style and surely would have little argumentative force if he himself could not read… in the Gospel stories… Jesus’ literacy is never an issue… Jesus’ ability to read appears to be a given, but not an issue. The upshot of all of this is that whatever the literacy rates were in late antiquity, it is more than likely that Jesus himself could read.” (Pg. 38)

He notes, “the ‘Clementine Letter’ and the quotations of ‘Secret Mark’ embedded within it are a modern hoax, and Morton Smith almost certainly is the perpetrator. Several scholars have for years suspected this to be the case, but the clear, recently published color photographs of the document have given experts in the science of detection of forgeries the opportunity to analyze the handwriting of the document and compare it with samples of the handwriting of the late Professor Smith. The evidence is compelling and conclusive: Smith wrote the text… Yet some scholars have made bold claims about the origins, dates and meaning of the New Testament Gospels on the basis of this spurious writing.” (Pg. 97)

He rejects John Dominic Crossan’s suggestion that Jesus was a ‘peasant Jewish cynic”: “Jesus criticized some of his critics, but he was not crude, nor did he suggest that religious faith was pointless… Furthermore, Jesus proclaimed God’s rule and urged his disciples to look to God for deliverance. Jesus longed for the redemption of his people and believed deeply that the God of Israel would fulfill the prophecies and promises of old. These hopes and beliefs are not consistent with Cynic ideology. Thus, I remain completely unpersuaded by the Cynic thesis.” (Pg. 111-112)

He suggests about the ending of Mark, “Most Bibles continue with verses 9-20, usually in brackets or in a note at the bottom of the page. This is done because these verses… are not found in the oldest manuscripts. Scholars suspect---rightly so---that they were added two or three centuries after the publication of Mark. The Gospel of Mark did not originally end at verse 8 but contained at least one more paragraph (which may have been known to Matthew) in which the appearance of Jesus to the women and to the disciples was described. What happened to Mark’s original ending, we will probably never know.” (Pg. 182)

He summarizes, “In my view, even though the Gospels are written from a perspective of faith in Jesus, they are reliable. Faith and truthful history are not necessarily at odds… It is not necessary to claim that the Gospels are inerrant, though for theological reasons many Christians accept them as such, and that every saying and deed attributed to Jesus is true to history. But claims that the Gospels are unreliable, full of myth or legend, are so biased that knowledge of what Jesus really said and did cannot be recovered are excessive and unwarranted… Indeed, there is evidence early on that the words of Jesus were considered on par with Scripture, which in a Jewish context is remarkable. Given such a high regard for Jesus’ words, it is not likely that early Christians would have freely invented sayings and attributed them to Jesus.” (Pg. 234)

He concludes, “The true story of the historical Jesus is exciting and inspiring. The true story may well be an old story, but it is far more compelling than the newer, radical, minimalist, revisionist, obscurantist and faddish versions of the Jesus story that have been put forward in recent years. Ongoing archaeology and ongoing discovery and study of ancient documents will continue to shed light on this old story. These stories may require an adjustment here and there. But thus far these discoveries have tended to confirm the reliability of the Gospels and disprove novel theories. I suspect that ongoing honest, competent research will do more of the same.” (Pg. 235)

This book will be of great interest to those seriously studying the Gospels.

[Joe Fogarty · Rating 2 out of 5]

Fabricating Jesus is a popular level book written to address “some of the sloppy scholarship and misguided theories that have been advanced in recent years” (p. 14). Dr. Craig Evans writes to address the many false arguments presented in contemporary books by modern scholars. The book shows how these modern-day “specialists” try to argue that it’s necessary to rely on second- and third-century sources, as opposed to the reliable first-century New Testament Gospels. In eleven chapters, Dr. Evans looks into the thinking and the methods of these so-called scholars and popular writers, showing how they end up presenting the world with a fabricated Jesus.

In chapter one, Evans examines both old-school skeptics, such as Robert Funk and James Robinson—and the new-school skeptics, Robert Price and Bart Ehrman. Dr. Evans traces their journeys into skepticism and how they struggled with their faith due to a “rigid fundamentalism.” Owing to this strict view of the Scriptures, Evans shows how these men now teach that the NT Gospels are unreliable because they contain errors. This leads Dr. Evans to write: “The truth of the Christian message hinges not on the inerrancy of Scripture or on our ability to harmonize the four Gospels but on the resurrection of Jesus” (p. 31). I find this troubling as it is from the inerrant Scriptures that we learn of the resurrection of Christ. I would like to know where Dr. Evans stands in his view of inerrancy (does he agree with The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy?), as I don’t remember him speaking about the original autographs and how they are inerrant—and hence the need for what we call textual criticism. The same concern came to mind at the end of the book where Dr. Evans wrote: “It is not necessary to claim that the Gospels are inerrant, though for theological reasons many Christians accept them as such, and that every saying and deed attributed to Jesus is true to history” (p. 234). Dr. Evans seems not to hold as high of a view of inerrancy as I would have suspected. In Chapter two, Evans addresses and answers modern day assertions made by liberal scholars (i.e. Jesus was illiterate), many of which are so silly and absurd, I was surprised that they could be serious. A real strength to the book occurs in chapter three, where Dr. Evans introduces the reader to the extracanonical writings, which modern day scholars are seeking to use to create a historical portrait of Jesus. Likewise, he gives a lengthy examination of the Gospel of Thomas showing how it originated in the late second century. In chapter four, he continues to examine more of the extracanonical gospels such as the Gospel of Peter, the Egerton Gospel, the Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Gospel of Mark; showing how these are likewise late and not reliable for understanding the historical Jesus. Chapter five was helpful in that Evans set Jesus in his correct historical context and remedies all Cynic false assumptions attributed to Jesus. Chapter 8 was also beneficial in that Evans demonstrated how Josephus, Philo, and other sources from late antiquity provide accurate accounts of historical figures such as Pontius Pilate. Chapter nine and ten lead to the real strength of Evans’ book, as it arms readers with answers to many of the false claims propagated in the popular literature of our day (i.e. DaVinci Code). Finally, Evans concludes his book in chapter eleven by presenting his audience with the real Jesus.

[Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Proving anything about Jesus is a bit like proving anything about gravity: sure, you can point to evidence, but when it comes to hard and fast proof, well, at some point you just need to believe. Thus, Fabricating Jesus is a tough book to write. How do you respond to people who have been critical of the historical Jesus? Indeed, how does one do that when most of the evidence comes from the Bible, and most of the people who try to poke holes in the Biblical Jesus are doing so because they don't believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. What you end up with is a group of people who attack Jesus because they disbelieve the Bible, and another group of people who defend Jesus because they do believe the Bible. The tricky point is proving anything about Jesus without using the Bible.

Mr. Evans has done his best to defend the Biblical Jesus. I assume it is his best because I don't know why he would publish something that isn't his best. He attacks popular writers who have attacked Jesus, and he combats their errors through scholarship and logic. The problem with this is that you end up with parts of a book that are dense and scholarly and really ought to be developed further and placed in a theological journal. Except he is not targeting professional theologians (so much); he is targeting readers of the popular books that have attacked the Biblical Jesus. I'm guessing a number of the readers who have been swayed by those anti-Jesus books will lose interest in Mr. Evans defense quite quickly on account of all that scholarship. That, I do believe, is called a conundrum. But if he hadn't written the book with such scholarship, it wouldn't be an effective defense at all. That, I also do believe, is what is called another conundrum.

Stuck between a rock and hard place, addressing an audience that isn't likely to buy into his arguments, Mr. Evans has done a fair job. I wonder if most readers will be like me: the type who already firmly believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and have no qualms in believing the Biblical portrayal of Jesus. I tend to think that if you don't already believe in the Biblical Jesus you most likely won't be swayed by this book. Why? Mostly because those readers have already hardened their heart and have already rejected God.

So while a fair book, I don't consider this book great. Insightful for people wanting to discover some evidence about Jesus, and for those who are game to learn more about the Bible and Jesus, but perhaps not likely to sway many people.

[G0thamite · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great work by a truly well-rounded New Testament scholar. He is well acquainted with Semitic languages as well as the Greek and Roman influences on 2nd Temple Judaism. His work exposes wild speculations and ill-founded conclusions reached by some scholars on the person of Jesus and the nature of the gospels. An antidote to anyone curious about The DaVinci Code, alternate Jesus theories and Gospel criticism.

[Josh · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a useful read exposing and debunking many of the modern attempts to reconstruct an "historical Jesus" in antithesis to the New Testament Gospels' presentation of Jesus. My only critique would be that at times Evans appears to give more weight to what historical research reveals about Jesus than the Scriptures as God's infallible revelation of Jesus. But he is certainly not in the same school as the critics whose work he deconstructs.

[Arabicstudent · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very readable and Evans responds to so many of the weak arguments of sceptical scholars and the rubbish published by some popular authors. And Evans is so much more of an authority in this important area of Jesus scholarship and research. Well recommended for anyone who enjoys apologetics and wants to know more about the wealth of evidence for the historical Jesus.

[Cody · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not always engaging, but it does provide material and analysis which is helpful for combating the Jesus of the Jesus Seminar and similar radical contemporary scholars, as well as non-scholars like Dan Brown. As such, I recommend owning it for at least the reference materials.

[Adam Godbold · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very solid. However, in my estimation, he unnecessarily concedes too much regarding inerrancy.

[J. Amill Santiago · Rating 4 out of 5]

Craig Evans (Ph.D., D. Habil.) is a formidable New Testament scholar. As of the moment of this writing he holds the position of Distinguished Professor of Christian Origins at Houston Baptist University. He has even lectured at Oxford, Cambridge, and Yale and worked right alongside the famous critical scholar Bart Ehrman under the commission of National Geographic Society in order to assist with the interpretation of the then-newly discovered Gnostic document known as the Gospel of Judas in 2005. In short, Evans has had a legendary career as a scholar.

In Fabricating Jesus, New Testament scholar Craig Evans (Ph.D.) basically does what the title of the book suggests: he examines some of the claims made by critical New Testament scholars about the historical Jesus. Then he assess such claims, and corrects them in light of all the available textual, historical, and linguistic evidence.

However, for better or for worse, the book is significantly dated, because much of his criticism is aimed at the then-infamous Jesus Seminar—a group of highly skeptical New Testament scholars. Such movement, although never officially disbanded, lost preeminence within scholarly circles by the turn of the century and as of today, no longer holds an important place within academic discussions of New Testament studies. In large part, this is due to the fact that within New Testament studies, the major presuppositions and affirmations of the Jesus Seminar have been widely rejected by the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars.

Perhaps the most interesting and relevant discussion Evans brings to the table is the nature of late Gnostic traditions such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary and the like. Every time that one of these documents gets discovered, there's always a lot of fuss in the media, and then everybody forgets about them because it always comes to light the fact that all of these non-canonical documents were produced very late in relation to the events of the New Testament (dating from the middle of the second century to the beginning of the fourth century in many instances), and because when closely examined, they carry linguistic and stylistic marks of Gnostic movements that did not exist during the first century.

Although these documents do not tell us anything valuable or meaningful about the events of the New Testament, they do tell us something about what certain sects beloved in further centuries. From a historical stand point, it is fascinating.

Evans also dedicated some pages to then-popular fiction and non-fiction books with wild claims about the origins of Christianity, such as The Da Vinci Code. Again, these types of discussions make the book dated, but in 2005, these sort of silly books making ludicrous claims about the historical Jesus were really popular.

In any case, the book is a worthwhile read. Very straightforward, compelling, and modest in its approach.

[Alana · Rating 4 out of 5]

It took me entirely too long to read this, but in my defense I was reading it while also keeping track of a toddler, which means having very small snatches of time to really devote to focusing on a book. As this one, while actually fairly well-done as far as being intelligent to the lay person, is a relatively scholarly work with a lot of references to types of scholarship, research, science, etc, it required more focused attention than I've had for a book lately, which meant I couldn't only read a few paragraphs at a time and do it justice.

After having it overdue at the library twice now, I finally finished it. I have to say, it's actually quite fascinating. While the author makes no mystery of his own biases, he for the most part does a good job of treating other works and research fairly, giving credit where due, but promoting skepticism where warranted. He is brutally honest when some schools of thought are less than truly scholastic and calls out harshly some cases that a downright falsehoods. He references his own works a little more frequently than I would prefer in the explanatory notes (but as he very honestly states, his intention was not to clog up the narrative with all of his notes, so he didn't print them all, but does point to where a complete list is located online, for those interested, so there may be a more varied list of works referenced). There are a few moments when he finds some "researchers" methods and conclusions outright ludicrous and makes no bones about it, but does offer a description of these works so that the curious can go investigate for themselves if they are so inclined.

Basically, he goes through the apocryphal writings, other "gospels", etc, from a scholarly standpoint and walks through all the relevant facts, especially when it comes to origin dates. There are comparisons to similar writings of the time, whether by other Jewish authors, Gnostics, etc, and gives compelling evidence for his conclusions on each. His scholarship is obviously well respected as he was invited to be included in the investigations into the" Gospel of Judas" by National Geographic, so whether you believe in Jesus as Messiah or not, Evans' writing should give you a solid grasp on the authenticity of the Gospel accounts one way or another.

I recommend it if you're at all interested in the real story of study of the ancient texts, beyond what The Da Vinci Code may tell you (something he goes into detail about toward the end of the book, after establishing his credibility very thoroughly). It's not a heavy work, but not lightweight either. Worth it if you're remotely curious about how "accurate" or "authentic" the synoptic gospels really are.

[Adam Sanchez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe I’m still in recovery from my former evangelicalism, but I still think Evans’ work is a great work of Bible apologetics and a reliable reporting of the scholarship.

Evans is writing ‘to defend the witnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus’ and he asserts that, ‘[w]hen put to the test, the original documents hold up quite well’ (17). The first chapter deals with the situation that some people have undertaken biblical studies in university and have lost their faith because their preconceived portraits of Jesus differ from the ones critical scholars present. Evans points out rightly that this has much to do with the modernist-fundamentalist conflict within conservative Protestant Christianity. This leads to the problem of misguided faith: these individuals are ‘placing [their] faith in the wrong kind of thing’ (21). It also leads to misguided suspicions, or ‘the unreasonable assumption that Jesus’ contemporaries ... were either incapable of remembering or uninterested in recalling accurately what Jesus said and did, and in passing it on’ (21).

Against misplaced faith, Evans insists that what Peter and the apostles proclaimed was Jesus’ resurrection, not that the Bible is inspired and inerrant. In other words, even though inauthentic scribal glosses in the New Testament books do exist, ‘[n]o important teaching hangs on any one of them’ (30). In contrast to Funk’s assertion that we cannot rest our faith on the faiths of Peter and Paul, Evans insists that Peter and Paul (and others) are foundational witnesses and eminently important in the study of the historical Jesus.

The second chapter deals with the methods of those critical scholars and presents what Evans takes to be the best method of historical Jesus scholarship. Evans notes the Jesus Seminar’s minimalist conclusion that only eighteen percent of Jesus’ sayings in the NT actually originate with Jesus, and he argues that this results from ‘cramped starting points and overly strict critical methods’ (34). Their cramped starting points are that (1) Jesus was illiterate, (2) the interest in scripture had to do with the early church and not with Jesus, (3) Jesus was not interested in eschatology, and (4) Jesus did not understand himself to be Israel’s Messiah. After explaining his case against these starting points, Evans wants to draw a clear line between being critical and being sceptical, stating that ‘[s]ome scholars seem to think that the more skeptical they are, the more critical they are. But adopting an excessive and unwarranted skeptical stance is no more critical than gullibly accepting whatever comes along’ (46). With that noted, he presents six criteria that can be used to determine the authenticity of any tradition about Jesus: (1) coherence with known historical circumstances, (2) multiple attestation between at least two independent sources, (3) the embarrassment that would be caused to the early church by reporting something contrary to what the church taught, (4) the dissimilarity between sayings or deeds of Jesus and either Jewish or Christian traditions, (5) sayings or deeds that reflect the Hebrew or Aramaic languages or first century Palestine, and (6) a catch-all criterion of coherence or consistency with the other criteria.

Having dealt with the methods, chapters 3 and 4 move onto the tools and deals with ‘Questionable Texts,’ including the Gospel of Thomas (at length), the Gospel of Peter, the Egerton Gospel, the Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Gospel of Mark. At the end two detailed chapters, Evans concludes that none of these writings ‘offer early, reliable tradition, independent of what we possess in the New Testament Gospels’ (99). Rather, they are ‘late and almost always reflect a context far removed in time and place from first-century Palestine.’ In the case of Secret Mark, he shows that this document is actually a forgery.

All of this prolegomena leads into the various problems of placing Jesus into alien contexts, of privileging Josephus’s writings over the Gospels, of mistaking the early church debate over the Gentiles for Christological controversies depicted in the Questionable Texts, and the more ‘ridiculous’ speculations of untrained authors. Evans closes with chapter 11, a positive summary of who he thinks the reliable canonical Gospels portray Jesus to be.

Chapter 10 deals with the more ‘ridiculous’ claims about Jesus, obtained by reading ancient documents as coded messages and accepting legends, hoaxes, and forged documents. This might be the weakest and least interesting chapter, but maybe a necessary one nonetheless. It is uninteresting because it deals, not with trained scholars, but with the imaginings and speculations of anybody who wants to make a name for themselves. It is somewhat weak because, when it finally does deal with a trained scholar, James Tabor, Evans’ problem with Tabor’s work is, partly, that Tabor rules out the miraculous. He has more natural grievances with his work, but a bias in favour of miracles seems just as problematic (or at best irrelevant) as a bias against miracles.

Another criticism is that Evans’ writing can be a bit verbose, in contrast to the relative ease with which one can read, say, Ehrman. There’s nothing wrong with doing the hard work of actually working through this book relatively slowly, but the drawback is that, since this is addressed mainly to popular rather than scholarly audiences, one gets the impression that Evans is talking down to his reader. While I’m not offended by this, many bloggers have complained that Evans’ work seems to treat his opponents with ridicule, and it’s not hard to see why.

Some have criticized this book for unjustifiably privileging canonical texts over the Christian apocrypha (CA). I do not think Evans is guilty of *unjustified* preference for *what happens to be* canonical material. His contention is that the canonical gospels provide the earliest traditions on the historical Jesus, whereas the CA appeared much later. The problem Evans has with the CA is that they use the canonical gospels and later traditions as sources, which is a point in favour of the antiquity of the canonical gospels and the lateness of the CA. Since the CA are late and they contain various combinations of pre-existing traditions and later traditions, they provide little of value to a reliable reconstruction of the life of Jesus.

With that said, I might have appreciated a chapter on the reliability and antiquity of the canonical gospels themselves, as I believe these issues were in fact taken for granted and treated inadequately.

Some have also criticized Evans for his presentation of scholarly opinion on the various Questionable Texts. For example, Tony Burke points out on his blog that the claim of forgery of Secret Mark has been challenged recently. Since this is a popular book, I might be willing to excuse this feature. On the one hand, if there is significant academic disagreement as to whether or not the Questionable Texts are indeed questionable, then he should have more responsibly stated these and responded to them, for the sake of those like me who would not know better. On the other hand, if there is relatively little academic disagreement on this, then it might not be worth mentioning at all.

Maybe I will have to study the apocrypha myself and read more Ehrman on some of these points, and if I did, maybe my opinion of this book would change. But in the meantime, I find that it’s a fairly solid work that makes good use of the methods and data, and presents it in a relatively accessible manner.

[Pamela Mogen · Rating 5 out of 5]

The faithful, Bible-believing Christian is constantly bombarded with new, breathlessly reported news articles or books that purport to debunk the person of Jesus and/or the accounts of him given by the Bible. The authors of these have names that are usually followed by advanced university or seminary degrees that intimidate the person in the pew and even the well-informed layman with the convoluted arguments and charges born of over 100 years of "higher criticism"aimed at destroying the faith received, changing Christianity into something it is not and never was, and establishing bona fides in the liberal intellectual world. We have long been at their "mercy."

Although there have been many books written in defense of the received understanding of the faith, they have either not stood up to the range of learned babble of a century of higher criticism or have simplified their defenses to such a degree that a layman is never as well-armed as the critics. Fabricating Jesus has made great strides in leveling this playing field.

Author, theologian, and scholar, Craig A. Evans is the real deal and his book makes it possible to understand the origins of higher criticism and the tenuous grounds on which the various theories stand. He tells "the rest of the story" in layman's (but not simplified) terms, weighing the degree with which these alternate scriptures and theories comport with the evidence.

Fabricating Jesus is just what those in the pew and those on the cultural front lines of apologetics have needed for a long time. Although I would not recommend that a layman take on a debate with Bart Ehrman and his ilk on the basis of this book alone, he will be able to laugh instead of cringe when ever the next book or article inevitably appears and have a resource to share with those who might be shaken.

[Evghenii · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well written and organized response to the 20-21 century attack on the historical Jesus. The author compares the historical Gospel accounts and extra-Biblical “gospels” that seem to find its way to the modern public space. A well organized explanation to why these so-called Gospels are only an attempt to distort the image of Jesus and thus challenge the historical orthodox core Christian doctrines. Highly recommend this book.

[Justin Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is worth owning for the extensive extrabiblical citations and references alone, but Evans also presents a compelling case against some of the overly skeptical Jesus scholarship one encounters today.
I’m not convinced by Evans’s thesis that Jesus expected or hoped for the repentance of Jerusalem prior to Holy Week, or that he had plans for governmental administration of his kingdom on earth with his disciples.

[Dusty · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was not as easy of a read as I hoped. This book takes on various re-interpretations of Jesus, mostly based on non-canonical gospels (such as the Gospel of Thomas, Secret Mark, etc), and pokes holes in them. Some chapters are clear enough for a layman, others were harder to get a handle on. The main thing I walked away with was that the canonical gospels are the earliest dated material and that attempting to date other gospels earlier is founded on, at best, shaky supposition.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little repetitive at times, though this is a reasonable dismantling of a lot of the sensationalism around "Jesus scholarship." I appreciate that Evans took the time to quote his primary sources more often than these types of books usually do. Nothing groundbreaking of you're already familiar with the subject, but a handy book I would recommend as an introduction to a lot of the sensationalism that occurs.

[David Tee · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read just about everything this author writes. he is articulate, knowledgeable, and knows more than 20 languages. This is an excellent book to read and helps you find material to defend your faith against atheist attacks

[W. Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

A detailed critique of many popular but misleading works on Jesus from a scholar who is well-versed with the ancient and relevant sources. Full of scholarly arguments but written in a way that is readable for most lay people.

[Shawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book answered a lot of questions I didn't have (I know Dan Brown is a fiction writer) but there was a lot of good information in the pages. Evans makes his scholarship very accessable.

[Justin Dewell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Evans gives a organized summary of modern study surrounding Jesus.