Summary
Title: Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost its Way
Author: Philip Jenkins
Publisher: Oxford University Press
ISBN: 0195156315
Pro:
• Does a good job at presenting a conservative reading of the New Testament canon
• Provides balance to the many who argue for including more gospels
Con:
• None
Description:
• Examines the contents and doctrines of so-called 'hidden' gospels not in the New Testament Canon
• Argues that there were good reasons for keep these gospels out and that they were of late creation
• Criticizes scholars who try to claim that these gospels should have been included in the canon
Book Review
For nonspecialists, the existence of “alternative” gospels is exciting, tantalizing, and perhaps even blasphemous. Philip Jenkins, however argues for the latter of the aforementioned views in his new book, making a case for the thesis that the four canonical gospels are themselves sufficient to inform us about the earliest Christian beliefs and communities.
Of course, the idea of revitalizing and reshaping a religion by the use of newly discovered, but more “authentic” texts, has an old and strong heritage. Indeed, it may be an inevitable and necessary component in the history of any religion which relies heavily upon written scriptures. Judaism itself was fundamentally reshaped by the “discovery” in the seventh century BCE in the Jerusalem Temple of what would become the book of Deuteronomy.
But the current existence and usage of the popular “lost” or “hidden” gospels does raise serious questions about the limits of the New Testament and the way in which scholars approach it. Are the documents in it really superior in some fashion to those which were left out? Do they represent the consensus of truth of the earliest Christians? Or are the critics right in arguing that they were excluded because of political and religious conflict between those who would establish an orthodoxy and those pursuing valid but ultimately heretical Christian lives?
It is this latter version which has gained dominance in American culture today, fueled by the work of groups like the Jesus Seminar. But according to Jenkins, these people are engaging in what might be called an “inverted fundamentalism.” Although they challenge and ultimately reject the absolute authority of the four canonical gospels and the traditions which they engendered, they turn around and ascribe a great deal of authority to the “lost” gospels like Thomas.
The value of those gospels as any sort of authority, however, stands or falls based on how early they were originally written. Very early texts can be viewed as legitimate sources about the beliefs and practices of early Christian communities (even if they were minority views), whereas later texts are more questionable. Jenkins, therefore, spends time discussing the chronological placement of the “lost” gospels and concludes that they are much later than most liberal scholars find — usually dating them to the second and third centuries at the earliest. Thus:
- “Though the rediscovered texts are very informative about the byways of early church belief, in very few cases do they reveal anything of significance about the times of Jesus and the apostles, or indeed about the first century of the Christian era. ...The vastly exaggerated claims made on behalf of these gospels are more revealing about what contemporary scholars and writers would like to find about the first Christian ages, and how these ideas are communicated, accurately or otherwise, to a mass public.”
- “The alternative gospels are thus very important sources, if not for the beginnings of Christianity, then for what they tell us about the interest groups who seek to use them today; about the mass media, and how religion is packaged as popular culture; about how canons shift their content to reflect the values of the reading audience; and more generally, about the changing directions of contemporary American religion.”
Jenkins does not only an excellent job in discussing the cultural and social reasons for why “heretical” perspectives on Christianity are so popular today, but also in presenting what is essentially a conservative case for how to view the New Testament canon and early Christian beliefs.
