I was initially excited about reading the Four Witnesses. I saw it on Amazon.com and thought that it would be great. OK, I'll admit, I really just bought it for the cover. What a mistake. You really shouldn't judge a book by its cover. I honestly believed that this would be a fresh study of the gospels, or at least something that didn't fit the mold of much of the other liberal and ultra conservative ho-hum books I've read. Unfortunately, it's the same textual critical method we've seen a thousand times dressed up like something new and exciting. That was a let down. My second disappointment is that he very rarely looked at what the individual gospels have to say about Jesus apart from the other three (because if you rely on textual criticism, you can't come up with anything else because Mark used "Q" (whatever that is, because no one really knows), Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q, Luke probably used Matthew, and John is just off in his own little world, all according to the "party line"). What made this even more disappointing is that Jones has the most obtuse writing style (if you can call it style) that I've ever had the displeasure of coming across. I agree with a previous reviewer that he is constantly telling us what he's going to tell us (you're still getting introductory material well into pages in the 50's, and its only a 300 page book), but I would add that he never really tells us that which he says he's going to tell us, or at least, he never proves what he's trying to tell us. Additionally, he uses some really strange names for the books of the Bible in an effort to free it from the shackles of tradition, or some garbage to that effect. Some of these names seem to be of his own invention, and they're just really silly (Beginnings, Escape, Ritual Laws, Census, and Second Law for the first five). Of course, this is a totally pointless exercise because he puts the traditional name right next to it so that we wind up with (Escape [Exodus] 12:1). My question is if you're just going to repeat the "real" name of the book right after your "updated" name, why have it all, particularly when you spend so long trying to justify making the switch in the first place? Additionally, he uses only his own translations of texts. I don't like it when people use their own translations of texts. It's much easier to allow personal bias or theological agendas to creep in. I really don't like it when the average pastor/priest, armed with only a dictionary and a lexicon, tries to do it. Leave that work to the professionals, or at least those with qualifications. That I know of, Jones has no qualifications as a translator. In fact, he doesn't list any credentials at all, save that he is now in one of the most important offices of the Anglican Church (Whoptydo) and wrote this book in John Whesley's Study (what does that have to do with anything other than a neat aside...and besides Whesley was a great church leader, not a scholar). Lastly, and this is my personal pet peeve, he cites no one. No scholars, no church fathers, no theologians, not his aunt, no body. It's funny. I bought this and Ann Wroe's Pontious Pilate at the same time and I was equally disenchanted with them. I must have been having a bad week that week. In any case, let me just advise you to not go with this book. It really isn't worth it, except for the really cool cover art, but even that isn't so cool once you look at it up close.

I found this book on a shelf. It looked intriguing, and I read it. (In fact, the author says his book was written for for, among others, such a reader.) To be more specific, I am interested in religion and in the relationship between early Christianity and Judaism. I am Jewish and have heard something of what Judaism has to say about the relationship between the two religions. I haven't read much in depth about it and, even more unfortunately, haven't really listened to what Christian scholars might have to say on the subject.

Griffith-Jones's book did have something of what I wanted. The book considers each of the New Testament Gospels, together with other books of the New Testament, chiefly Acts and Revelation. Interspersed with each discussion is a historical section which considers Roman, Jewish and Christian sources discussing the period and place which Griffith Jones associates with each Gospel.

There is a great deal in the book about the interplay between early Christianity and the synagogue. Griffifth-Jones does a good job, I think, in describing the Second Temple and its practices, the calamity of its destruction by the Romans 30 years or so after the life of Jesus, and the difficulties faced by the early Christians. There is also good discussion of the dynamics between the church and synagogue, with some peoplein the synagogue opting to follow Jesus, others being ambivalent and uncertain, and others, and the synagogue as a whole, declining to do so. This is interesting and valuable and I would like to know more. The appeal of Christianity is, understandably enough, explained by the author. This is what I wanted to hear, but I also would like to hear the Jewish side.

There is also a good discussion of the decision the early Christians had to make about whether there message was primarily directed to Judaism or whether the message was world-encompassing with a mission and message for non-Jews as well. This is important and insightful, as far as both religions are concerned and Griffith-Jones discusses it well.

Although it is not the focus of the book, there is much here that Christians and Jews can share and discuss in an attempt to better understand each other. This is valuable and I learned something from hearing it from an informed and obviously deeply Christian voice.

The textual interpretations of the Gospels are interesting in themselves, if something too long and not well organized. As one would expect, they are more evangelical and religious in tone than the historical discussion. In some instances, I am not sure how the historical information the author presents informs or illuminates his reading of his Gospel. He doesn't always explain the connection well. Bythe time the author gets to the Gospel of John, the connection, at least for me, was almost entirely lost.

I found the discussions of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke more illuminating, as to their purpose and audience, that the author's discussions of Mark and John.

The book is long and challenging to read. Although written for laypersons, it is difficult. There is a lot of repitition. This was probably done to allow the reader to keep track of what is being said, but too often it gets in the way. Stylistically the book is uneven.

This book will require effort to read. It did teach me something of what I wanted to know and helped me understand and appreciate the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. This is a subject that those in both traditions could well take to their hearts.

The Four Witnesses is a fascinating book which anchors the writings of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Paul deeply into the culture and events -- and even the language structure -- of each of their current times. Griffith-Jones points out elements in the Old Testament and other revered teachings which influenced their thought processes. "Who do you say I am?" becomes ever more a matter of conjecture as each of these writers tries to make Jesus out to be completely Godly, a man who became Godly, or half-man, half-God like the current myths of Hercules, a hero of the downtrodden, or a man who appeals to the peacekeeping elite. It's a shame that Griffith-Jones is so difficult to read. A)He uses British vernacular, B) his work is so scholarly as to leave some of us laymen in the dust and C)he gives everything his own new names (ex.: Old Testament becomes Old Order). However, this book is so graphic in detailing the struggle to simply survive in these times that you become completely immersed in History. You're right in the thick of it as traditional Judaism is wrenched in half by a series of circumstances to become the Jews and Christians separately and irrevocably. This book was perfect preparation for my first year of seminary studies.