Hal Taussig

I can't claim any background in theology, but since my undergraduate years (I don't want to say how many decades ago that was), I've had a layperson's interest in the early history of what because the Christian church. In particular I've enjoyed explorations of noncanonical texts: books like Paegel's [book:The Gnostic Gospels|110763] and Bart Ehrman's [book:Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew|107273] and [book:Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who show more Changed the Bible and Why|51364]. After Jesus, Before Christianity is another such title and makes a useful addition to the accessible literature on this topic.

After Jesus, Before Christianity emerged from an ongoing, multi-year study group that sought to identify, discuss, and research what we might call "pre-Christian Jesus texts." They open by observing that too many histories of the Christian church are retrospective, how-we-got-here tales ending in the Christianity(ies) of our time—rather like those charts of early homonids that make "modern man" seem foreordained in the fossil record. But in theology as in evolution, contingency is everything. There are any number of possible evolutionary "trees" (Darwin advocated for the image of a bush, growing in multiple directions, not a tree moving steadily upward). There are also any number of possible Christianities, including "Christianities" that remained "Judaism" and Christianities that are nothing like the various forms of the faith that exist today.

So the group behind After Jesus, Before Christianity began with the earliest texts it could find, moving forward through history, examining both commonalities and differences. (Surprise! There are many more differences than commonalities.) Using the body of noncanonical texts and the better known canonical ones, they've identified six recurring themes in the religious communities that sprung up in the two centuries after Jesus. None of these is shared by all groups, but they emerge often enough to give some sense of the various Jesus faiths that existed in the immediate aftermath of Jesus' life. These are—
• resistance to the Roman Empire
• challenging of gender norms
• the creation of families of choice, rather than biological families
• identification with Israel
• diverse organizational structures
• persisting oral traditions

This makes for fascinating, genuinely thought-provoking reading. I can't attest to the scholarly accuracy of each of the book's claims, but most of them seem reasonable enough and grounded in specific textual examples. On the other hand, one discussion moves from the Gospel of John to John's Revelation without noting that these are almost certainly not the same "John." So, read and enjoy, but, as Sue Monk Kidd suggests in the introduction, treat this material as interesting questions, not a definitive history.

I received a free electronic ARC of this title for review purposes; the opinions are my own. show less

It's books like this that leave readers wanting more. Much, much, much, more.

This book seems a little confused about its goals (is it a challenge to traditional theology? A new sort of history? Something else?), but the general idea seems to be to show the sort of thinking that was going on in the early Christian church. Such a book must be graded on three factors: the books it includes, the quality of the translations, and the material surrounding the translations.

Start with the show more translations, since we can be most objective here. For starters, the translation of the canonical New Testament books is not the New Revised Standard Version; it's the Open English Bible. Frankly, that strikes me as a "FAIL!" right there. The NRSV is widely acknowledged to be the best scholarly Bible now available in English. The failure to use it seems to indicate some sort of genuine problem.

The Open Bible doesn't even have footnotes, and while Bible readers generally will skip the footnotes, they really belong in there.

Of course, the translations of the other books could be better. I decided to check that. The easiest item to check was the [sayings] Gospel of Thomas, since I have three other translations in my library. It's worth comparing two of these. The first of these is from A New New Testament. It's logion 1:

And he said, "Whoever finds the meaning of these saying will not experience death."

And here is the translation given by Bruce M. Metzger for Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum:

And he said: He who finds the explanation (ερμηνια) of these words will not taste death.

One may disagree with the inclusiveness, or lack of same, and the renderings of these translations. But note the Greek word in the Metzger translation. It's there because the Gospel of Thomas is in Coptic, but interspersed with Greek words. This is surely significant -- and the New New Testament doesn't even tell us where it happens. This consistent lack of footnotes is a real problem.

What about the selection of books? Early Christianity was noteworthy for the tremendous number of heretics floating around -- Gnostics, Marcionites, just plain wackos; later, there were the Arians and the Monophysites. Some of these groups -- the Gnostics in particular -- produced some very strange writings. (The book tries to plaster over the Gnostics, and in one sense, it may be right; there may not have been such a sect. But the crazy books were real.)

Most of the crazier items have been omitted. The Gospel of Thomas has some Gnostic tinges, but nothing like their other works. The Acts of Paul and Thecla is mostly orthodox except for its praise of a female preacher. The Odes of Solomon have at least some resemblance to genuine Christian thought.

But where are I Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letter of Barnabas? These books were actually considered to be canonical by some early orthodox Christians; Eusebius mentions discussions over their inclusion, and two of the three oldest New Testaments in existence, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus, include portions of them. Any claim to showing the range of early Christian thought which omits these documents goes out the window.

Finally, there is the issue of reader helps. The books have introductions, which is good. But I've already mentioned the lack of footnotes. And how about some notation of parallels? One can look up parallels between the canonical gospels in any decent synopsis. But how is a reader to know if a statement in the Gospel of Truth parallels the canonical gospels, or Thomas, or anything else?

Sure, a lot of people who know the Bible well will be able to recognize those parallels. But those who know the Bible well are already mostly Christian, and grew up in the tradition that recognized 27 particular New Testament books. If people are to adopt a new Biblical canon, they surely need information that isn't found here.

And what a ridiculous list of recommended readings. How can anyone talk about the Gospel of John without mentioning C. H. Dodd? And must the introduction talk down to the reader by answering such elementary questions?

This review sounds relentlessly negative. I should stress that I think there is value in the idea here. Readers deserve access to the materials surrounding the formation of the Christian church. This book makes an attempt to supply that. But I'd consider it, at best, a first draft. When this is done right, it will have better translations -- with footnotes and cross-references. It will include I Clement and Hermas and probably a few other things. And it will have reader helps that actually help.

Let's hope it happens soon. show less

I don't like this book, and this is one of the few books that I don't recommend. The New New Testament includes the regular New Testament books, but interspaced between them are selected additions from the first through third Christian century texts.
These texts, originally left out of the official books of the New Testament, are somewhat interesting. However, the lure of using them to alter or contest the Christian message is just too great. Where I do not disapprove of them being published show more on their own, to be interleaved with the New Testament canon can lead to confusion, especially among new Christians, who are not able to distinguish these messages from the Gospels, Acts, Letters and Revelations.
The various authors of this New New Testament, especially Hal Taussig, propose that there was no real Gnostic heresy, and seems to think that at one time there was an official Gnostic Church as a separate branch of Christianity stomped down by Orthodox and Roman Catholic clerics. What Gnostic thinking does is search for “special knowledge” in Biblical and religious scriptures that gives them personally a leg up in salvation.
Many forms of Gnosticism are still with us today. Those who search for bizarre Bible Codes of secret messages, or who use odd and eccentric mathematics to predict the end of times, are people who seek to find hidden meaning unknown to normal people. It is a form of “One Upmanship” over the unthinking herds. They seek to transform the physical world for a spiritual world, based on personal enlightenment that comes from secret or mystical research and knowledge. In a way, Simon the Magician (Act 8:9-24) was one of these early gnostics. Although he wanted to pay for the ability to use Christianity as a form of magic and self aggrandizement, what he was willing to pay for with cash is what many Gnostics desire to do with vain research for secret meanings.
While these ancient writings in the New New Testament are from people new to Christianity, they are also somewhat contaminated. These writings, many partial or incomplete, are from people who have brought with them into their new Christian understanding some of their spiritual and religious teachings from pagan religions and animistic beliefs. They are confusing to Christians today who don’t recognize the rather obvious references to Issus worship, Mithratic beliefs, Egyptian and Greek mythology or Eastern spiritualism there.
What would be an interesting project would be to add these texts to the scriptural writings of these ancient religions, and see how some of them considered Christianity an outgrowth branch or cult of their own pagan beliefs and teachings. Does the Thunderer deserve to be placed next to the Gospels? I don’t think so. But it would be rather more interesting to place the text next to some of the classic works on Egyptian and Greek goddess worship, and see how this text is perhaps more closely aligned with Issus or Artemis scriptures than it is with Christianity.
For those who want to use these writings to find hidden meanings, mystical codes and secret personal messages from God, go ahead. These writings are, I think, made for this. And if you are the sort of Christian who looks for special meanings in the Bible for selecting numbers for lottery tickets, then this also may be a treasure trove for you. And if you are anti-Christian, and don’t believe the Christian message, this is also a good resource for taunting and confusing your neighbor Christians.
But for new Christians, and for normal Christians, this is not a good book to read. It isn’t bad, it is just confusing and subtle. But it pulls away from the plain message of redemption and salvation, into coded messages and promises of hidden meanings. Christianity and the Christian message are not so dark and smokey. show less

The Thunder: Perfect Mind is a Coptic poem found in the Nag Hammadi library in just one surviving version. This book introduces a new translation of the text with several essays investigating the nature of this poem.

The Thunder: Perfect Mind has a suspicious popularity for a text that is otherwise so obscure. Plenty of artists have used it, along with occultists who often draw parallels to The Daughter of Fortitude speech received by John Dee and Edward Kelly in one of their Enochian scrying show more sessions. Unfortunately, this book does not recognize the extremely suspicious parallels between the two texts, especially considering that Thunder: Perfect Mind was completely lost when Dee and Kelly received a poem with so many blatant similarities. Had it not been for this historical anomaly I imagine people would be apt to call Daughter of Fortitude plagiarism.

Instead the book focuses on de-Gnosticizing Thunder as the term Gnostic itself is under plenty of recent scrutiny. It deeply examines socio-cultural issues in translation and in the context of the probable time the poem was written. Then it examines notes of performance and pop-culture use of Thunder. Finally a heavily annotated facing page translation from Coptic to English is included which is a great resource for translators and fans of the poem alike. All of these sections are well written and illuminating in their examination of the text and I loved pondering the content, especially in the context of the absent magical discourse surrounding Thunder.

Overall this is a great book for wrestling with one of the most complex poems of the Nag Hammadi find. There's plenty of thoughtful content and examination of just why this poem is so significant. I only feel that if you mention advertisements for Prada, then you can mention Dee and Kelly. show less