In Evans’ text, the author is willing to take on many of the modern critics and skeptics of the day, so as to prove the faulty research upon which the criticism stands. He states early on in the beginning of the text that, “I find that loss of confidence in the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels is often occasioned by misplaced faith and misguided suspicions” (21). Evans then begins to attack the skeptical views of Funk, Robinson, Price and Ehrman. The core message that Evans delivers over and over again is that the criticism of the scholars is often “skepticism masking itself as scholarship” (46).
The author does well at showing the faulty viewpoints of the extracanonical gospels (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Secret Gospel of Mark, etc.) as he points to the late origin of many of these texts and thus proves that a historical validity cannot be used. Evans is quick to show the reader that what is at stake is the false fabrication of Jesus according to a “distorted” picture of the historical Jesus (62). A major fault of Evans would be his one-sided view of the extracanonical gospels. He is quick to give the fallacies of the extracanonical gospels, but not willing (perhaps because of length) to give the defense for the extracanonical gospels.
As Evans continues to compare the historical Jesus seen by the fabricated scholars, he constantly shows the truth of the canonical gospels and gives the reliability of the canonical gospels. One aspect that strengthens his argument is his willingness early on within the first chapter of the text to discuss some of the major textual problems, such as Mark 16:9-20. In all of the passages comprised of possible textual problems, none of them alter the teaching of Jesus or salvific truth (29-30). In proving the reliability of the canonical gospels, Evans discusses the “authenticity criteria” (historical coherence, embarrassment, multiple attestation, etc.) used to prove the authenticity of the gospels (48-50). A perhaps troubling or problematic statement that he makes in the final chapter needs to be more well defined. In discussing new archaeological research and discoveries, he states that “these discoveries 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” (235). The reader can only assume after reading Evans’ defense of the canonical gospel that he is stating this to show how archaeological discovery over the years has lent credibility to the gospel truth. The problem is that he leaves the statement open-ended so as to leave questioning for the reader or skeptic as to whether the canon could perhaps be opened due to a new discovery.
One of the more interesting discussions within his text was concerning the popularized book, The Da Vinci Code. This is a book that many in the postmodern and relativistic era of today have bought into as far as “misplaced faith” and “misguided suspicions”. In fact, Evans himself states that the book “says more about the gullibility of modern society than it does about Dan Brown’s skills” (204). A proper conclusion of Evans’ text would have been to point to the prominence of new faulty research and scholarship, and recapitulate the main thrust of his text; which was the proper canonical gospel interpretation of Jesus in light of extracanonical mistruths. There is no doubt that Evans made his point clear and provided Scriptural and historical evidence for his defense of the canonical gospels in light of the extracanonical gospels, diminished deeds, skeletal sayings, etc.
Evans’ book is definitely a great apologetic foundation for the authenticity of our present day canonical gospels. He accomplished his aim of the text which was to point to the need for more adequate scholarship, displace extracanonical mistruths, and point to the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the overarching theme of the gospels. Though, Evans states that the text was intended for “nonexperts”, the aim of his audience appears to be the academic circle of scholars, skeptics and some students (14). With the abundance of the ancient “alternative gospels” today, there is a greater fascination and appreciation for the canonization made by the early church (98). This text is a must read for anyone interested in coming to terms with the misguided historical research of the Jesus Seminar and the abundance of fictional texts accepted as canonical truth in today’s generation. ( )

I've posted a series of section by section reviews of chapter one of this book on my Vridar blog site -- they are all collected

http://www.deinde.org/story/2006/11/2... ( )

http://www.tutak.com/?p=170 ( )