Scan barcode
intrepid_bibliophile's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
4.5
parkerpisspoet's review
5.0
interesting book exploring theoretical applications of modern gender theory.
knittingknerd's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
oldmansimms's review
3.0
An examination of the early years of what would eventually be Christianity, that wavers between too esoteric and too basic. The authors have tried to make their references and analysis accessible to laypeople who are not immersed in Biblical scholarship, but it doesn't always work - for instance, they pull a lot of detail from the various apocryphal gospels or other materials found in places like Nag Hammadi (like the gospels of Truth, Thomas, or Mary) with a little bit of background information on these, but it would have been useful to discuss in more detail what differentiates these from the canonical gospels - surely that must have some bearing on their reliability as sources, and what did or did not become canon (and why) must be an interesting counterpoint to whatever the authors claim as the practices of Jesus's followers in the years following his death. But this is either assumed to be common knowledge for the reader, or simply ignored; either way, a missed opportunity.
The book's central thesis seems to be to break the impulse to treat Christianity as a fait accompli and work backward with the historical information available to find Christianity in embryo, but instead to ignore that and work forward, building a picture of proto-Christian movements from scratch. Much of the information presented is fairly interesting, with a lot of emphasis on "Jesus movements" as resistance to or reaction to Roman occupation (especially after the destruction of the Jewish Temple). Some sections work better than others - for instance, the chapter examining the role of Paul in the early church (less prominent than generally believed, according to the book) was quite interesting, while a different one on the role of women in the early movements was a little shakier (as an example, one letter attributed to but likely not written by Paul declaring that women should not speak in meetings is used as evidence that women were preaching, since why would the writer have to say so if they weren't? ...which wasn't entirely convincing to me).
All in all, an interesting book, but probably one intended for readers already a little deeper into Biblical scholarship than I am. In which case, it may be less engaging, since those readers will be correspondingly more familiar with the arguments presented already. But, I'm sure there is an audience that this will hit a sweet spot for.
Thanks to NetGalley and HarperOne for the ARC.
The book's central thesis seems to be to break the impulse to treat Christianity as a fait accompli and work backward with the historical information available to find Christianity in embryo, but instead to ignore that and work forward, building a picture of proto-Christian movements from scratch. Much of the information presented is fairly interesting, with a lot of emphasis on "Jesus movements" as resistance to or reaction to Roman occupation (especially after the destruction of the Jewish Temple). Some sections work better than others - for instance, the chapter examining the role of Paul in the early church (less prominent than generally believed, according to the book) was quite interesting, while a different one on the role of women in the early movements was a little shakier (as an example, one letter attributed to but likely not written by Paul declaring that women should not speak in meetings is used as evidence that women were preaching, since why would the writer have to say so if they weren't? ...which wasn't entirely convincing to me).
All in all, an interesting book, but probably one intended for readers already a little deeper into Biblical scholarship than I am. In which case, it may be less engaging, since those readers will be correspondingly more familiar with the arguments presented already. But, I'm sure there is an audience that this will hit a sweet spot for.
Thanks to NetGalley and HarperOne for the ARC.
openmypages's review
3.0
“History tends to preserve only the voices it wants to hear.”
—————————
I'm always interested in learning more about history and have always been obsessed with Roman history and I am a fairly well read Catholic, so I had high hopes for this new angle on both topics. I'm not sure that this one scratched the itch I had though, much of the Roman history was a re-run for me but if you don't know that part, you will learn a lot. I did find it quite interesting that there was less of an organized movement than I had envisioned with the apostles and early preachers following Jesus's death. The information the authors provide makes perfect sense though, in a society where the average person would not be literate, the need for written structure for Jesus's teachings is logical. While our New Testament writers eventually eek out their stories and Paul is writing his letters, the authors present early "Christianity" as a fairly piecemeal movement with many small insular groups perpetuating the words of Jesus rather than large groups coming together and moving in the same direction. I guess it's even more remarkable that Christianity grew and coalesced and became something more enduring.
A bit surprising for me, although it's certainly seeing ancient history through a modern lens, was the discussions of gender roles and how Jesus did not support the patriarchal, society established rules. I feel like I hear the argument and agree with it but could totally see how "the Church" would refute a lot of this. I was also surprised about how Paul was viewed in his time and how there was a concerted PR "fixer" type clean up on his role and teachings.
—————————
I'm always interested in learning more about history and have always been obsessed with Roman history and I am a fairly well read Catholic, so I had high hopes for this new angle on both topics. I'm not sure that this one scratched the itch I had though, much of the Roman history was a re-run for me but if you don't know that part, you will learn a lot. I did find it quite interesting that there was less of an organized movement than I had envisioned with the apostles and early preachers following Jesus's death. The information the authors provide makes perfect sense though, in a society where the average person would not be literate, the need for written structure for Jesus's teachings is logical. While our New Testament writers eventually eek out their stories and Paul is writing his letters, the authors present early "Christianity" as a fairly piecemeal movement with many small insular groups perpetuating the words of Jesus rather than large groups coming together and moving in the same direction. I guess it's even more remarkable that Christianity grew and coalesced and became something more enduring.
A bit surprising for me, although it's certainly seeing ancient history through a modern lens, was the discussions of gender roles and how Jesus did not support the patriarchal, society established rules. I feel like I hear the argument and agree with it but could totally see how "the Church" would refute a lot of this. I was also surprised about how Paul was viewed in his time and how there was a concerted PR "fixer" type clean up on his role and teachings.
socraticgadfly's review
1.0
I have enough familiarity with Westar/Jesus Seminar etc. that I wasn’t holding my breath over this book, BUT?
It’s as bad as Bart Ehrman’s recent stuff. No, ultimately it’s worse. And, much of the second half of it is basically a channeling of Karen L. King, without disclosing her own willfulness in setting herself up as a mark for a forgery.
Add in tendentious theological, exegetical and hermeneutic claims, the lack of an index and more, and this is one-star dreck. (Contra one other one-star reviewer, the Jesus Seminar had started downhill a while back; this is just the worst in a trend.)
First, claiming that because Sophia is feminine in Greek this opens “new ways of looking at Jesus” is laughable. (Ditto for Hokmah being feminine in Hebrew, of course.) I immediately thought of Mark Twain saying that a maiden is sexless in German but a turnip is not.
Claims that Rome has a focus on making conquered nations feel like semi-barbarians by violence? The Republic had a long period of forbearance with Greece, and even elsewhere, worked to co-opt the leadership class, not crush them. Slaves “transported” to Rome? Sure, because that’s where the most rich people were. Rome did NOT have an Assyria-like policy of deliberately moving whole groups of people.
People moving for work? Sure. Happens today!
The “Roman soldiers” Jesus and John the Baptizer talked to? Syrian auxiliaries, actually.
Gets Markan version of “clean and unclean foods” parable wrong! Humor isn’t the point; equality of Gentiles is.
Gets the “betrayed” vs “arrested” of Paul on the Last Supper wrong, or just ignores the “arrested” to try to offer more cosmic meaning.
Pharisees weren’t “relatively new” at time of Josephus., not with a pedigree of more than 200 years.
Insinuates pre-69 Vespasian already had an eye for the throne. Really? NEVER heard that before. Also claims Vespasian was a “plebian.” WRONG! He was a knight, the equestrian class.
Also a lie re Vespasian, and Titus? The claims that Romans never destroyed temples of other religions. It wasn't "temples," but in 54 CE Suetonius Paulinus (not the historian) is reported as destroying many Druid sacred sites in Britain, on Anglesey, as part of a brutal suppression. Druid groves were destroyed elsewhere.
Weirder yet is the talk about some Christian subgroups, like claiming that Hebrews 13:9-16 is about a subgroup that called itself “the altar.” No, really.
Claiming I Peter 1:1 and James 1:1 is about Christians who were “aliens,” rather than, as is the common interpretation, that it refers to the Jewish diaspora. But, if you’re going to date I Peter at 150CE, you’ll make such statements! (Personally, I can see I Peter as being as late as 125, and the persecution it references being what Pliny the Younger discusses with Trajan. It’s possible it refers to earlier bits of persecution under Diocletian.)
Of course, if you’d like to date 1 Peter as late as 150 to put it later than Gnostic writings, you’ll do that!
That said, there are somewhat refreshing ideas, such as calling groups of Christians in different cities “clubs,” like dyers or weavers. Or like followers of pagan gods. That said, it seems to go too far to even take the Pauline passage about “one God and Father of us all” as “the father of the club.” And, that was the only halfway good thing here.
Translating “Christians” as “followers of the Anointed” when they note that Roman religious and political tradition didn’t have anointing (although Greek did). Then claiming that Christiani/-oi as used in Latin (or imperial Greek?) was an official imperial term? (Herms in the ancient Greek world, for example, were anointed.)
Yes, “baptizo” can mean to wash or to bathe. Qumran shows this. BUT, these were still ceremonial washings, even if we don’t use the word “baptize” as a transliteration. (Interestingly, Christian “baptisms” are compared to those of Isis etc., but Qumran isn’t referenced.)
“Gnostic” may not be exactly right, but a Nag Hammadi work such as Testimony of Truth shows that there were differences between so-called Gnostiicism and early pre-orthodox Christianity. Note how it refers to the Lord threatening Adam and Eve with death for seeking gnosis. Strawmans Gnostic vs proto-orthodox division without noting schools within Gnosticism and how most scholars talk about these sehools, or “heresies!”
Also cites Karen King without noting the big kerfuffle over Gospel of Jesus’ Wife, namely, her being a sucker for a forgery. And, talking about “Secret Revelation of John” rather than normal academic title “Apocryphon of John.”
Then, near the end, getting into what we’ll call traditional biblical scholarship, the authors accept the traditional authorship of I Clement and Ignatius, even though good traditional scholarship of the last 50 years rejects it more and more.
And, OTHER problems. I’ve NEVER seen Hegesippus spelled with a double-s before.
And, in discussing early martyrdom, the authors never wrestle with Candida Moss. (That’s probably because it would undercut their take on traditional Xianity not being in opposition to Gnosticism.)
Dates the Pastorals post-Marcion, also on tendentious grounds.
Finally, there’s no index to this book. That normally costs a star by itself and sealed the one-star rating.
It’s as bad as Bart Ehrman’s recent stuff. No, ultimately it’s worse. And, much of the second half of it is basically a channeling of Karen L. King, without disclosing her own willfulness in setting herself up as a mark for a forgery.
Add in tendentious theological, exegetical and hermeneutic claims, the lack of an index and more, and this is one-star dreck. (Contra one other one-star reviewer, the Jesus Seminar had started downhill a while back; this is just the worst in a trend.)
First, claiming that because Sophia is feminine in Greek this opens “new ways of looking at Jesus” is laughable. (Ditto for Hokmah being feminine in Hebrew, of course.) I immediately thought of Mark Twain saying that a maiden is sexless in German but a turnip is not.
Claims that Rome has a focus on making conquered nations feel like semi-barbarians by violence? The Republic had a long period of forbearance with Greece, and even elsewhere, worked to co-opt the leadership class, not crush them. Slaves “transported” to Rome? Sure, because that’s where the most rich people were. Rome did NOT have an Assyria-like policy of deliberately moving whole groups of people.
People moving for work? Sure. Happens today!
The “Roman soldiers” Jesus and John the Baptizer talked to? Syrian auxiliaries, actually.
Gets Markan version of “clean and unclean foods” parable wrong! Humor isn’t the point; equality of Gentiles is.
Gets the “betrayed” vs “arrested” of Paul on the Last Supper wrong, or just ignores the “arrested” to try to offer more cosmic meaning.
Pharisees weren’t “relatively new” at time of Josephus., not with a pedigree of more than 200 years.
Insinuates pre-69 Vespasian already had an eye for the throne. Really? NEVER heard that before. Also claims Vespasian was a “plebian.” WRONG! He was a knight, the equestrian class.
Also a lie re Vespasian, and Titus? The claims that Romans never destroyed temples of other religions. It wasn't "temples," but in 54 CE Suetonius Paulinus (not the historian) is reported as destroying many Druid sacred sites in Britain, on Anglesey, as part of a brutal suppression. Druid groves were destroyed elsewhere.
Weirder yet is the talk about some Christian subgroups, like claiming that Hebrews 13:9-16 is about a subgroup that called itself “the altar.” No, really.
Claiming I Peter 1:1 and James 1:1 is about Christians who were “aliens,” rather than, as is the common interpretation, that it refers to the Jewish diaspora. But, if you’re going to date I Peter at 150CE, you’ll make such statements! (Personally, I can see I Peter as being as late as 125, and the persecution it references being what Pliny the Younger discusses with Trajan. It’s possible it refers to earlier bits of persecution under Diocletian.)
Of course, if you’d like to date 1 Peter as late as 150 to put it later than Gnostic writings, you’ll do that!
That said, there are somewhat refreshing ideas, such as calling groups of Christians in different cities “clubs,” like dyers or weavers. Or like followers of pagan gods. That said, it seems to go too far to even take the Pauline passage about “one God and Father of us all” as “the father of the club.” And, that was the only halfway good thing here.
Translating “Christians” as “followers of the Anointed” when they note that Roman religious and political tradition didn’t have anointing (although Greek did). Then claiming that Christiani/-oi as used in Latin (or imperial Greek?) was an official imperial term? (Herms in the ancient Greek world, for example, were anointed.)
Yes, “baptizo” can mean to wash or to bathe. Qumran shows this. BUT, these were still ceremonial washings, even if we don’t use the word “baptize” as a transliteration. (Interestingly, Christian “baptisms” are compared to those of Isis etc., but Qumran isn’t referenced.)
“Gnostic” may not be exactly right, but a Nag Hammadi work such as Testimony of Truth shows that there were differences between so-called Gnostiicism and early pre-orthodox Christianity. Note how it refers to the Lord threatening Adam and Eve with death for seeking gnosis. Strawmans Gnostic vs proto-orthodox division without noting schools within Gnosticism and how most scholars talk about these sehools, or “heresies!”
Also cites Karen King without noting the big kerfuffle over Gospel of Jesus’ Wife, namely, her being a sucker for a forgery. And, talking about “Secret Revelation of John” rather than normal academic title “Apocryphon of John.”
Then, near the end, getting into what we’ll call traditional biblical scholarship, the authors accept the traditional authorship of I Clement and Ignatius, even though good traditional scholarship of the last 50 years rejects it more and more.
And, OTHER problems. I’ve NEVER seen Hegesippus spelled with a double-s before.
And, in discussing early martyrdom, the authors never wrestle with Candida Moss. (That’s probably because it would undercut their take on traditional Xianity not being in opposition to Gnosticism.)
Dates the Pastorals post-Marcion, also on tendentious grounds.
Finally, there’s no index to this book. That normally costs a star by itself and sealed the one-star rating.
redheadorganist's review
challenging
informative
medium-paced
3.5
Some chapters were boring and long-winded, others were quite interesting. The conclusion saved the book for me and made it interesting enough to be worth the read. All in all a thought provoking book.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death
lmshearer's review against another edition
challenging
informative
slow-paced
3.0
Much of this book was a slog. Definitely more focused on the history and anthropology of the first two centuries after Jesus' death and resurrection and pretty dry, even for this Bible nerd. I found the second part to be the most interesting with the exploration of how gender roles were viewed and thus contextualize much of the New Testament letters.