This book presents basic religious texts of a variety of religions, eastern and western, with a more or less objective presentation. However, I found the introductory materials for each religion to be overly academic at times, sometimes raising as many questions as it answered. If you're looking for an entry-level survey of what the world's religions believe -- an interpretation of the doctrines these scriptures lay out -- this may not be the best resource available.

I suspect this would make a fine textbook for a college-level survey of world religions, though I was familiar with several of them by the time I found this book. The layperson, looking for an introduction to what Buddhists, Muslims, or the Shinto actually believe, may be left scratching his or her head.

As a nontheist who thinks there was a historical Jesus, I often find myself caught between two extremes. On the one hand, I don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, was the son of God, etc. But on the other hand, I simply am not convinced by mythicist arguments that there was no historical Jesus. Central to the debate between these two competing positions is the issue of alleged extra-biblical references to the historicity of Jesus. That issue is the subject of Van Voorst's book, which he deals with in great detail. Van Voorst discusses alleged references to Jesus in virtually all of the non-Christian sources, as well as various Christian sources about Jesus outside of the New Testament. All of this combined makes the book the most comprehensive English lenguage review of alleged extra-Biblical references to Jesus written in recent memory.

With that said, I was frankly disappointed with the first chapter of the book, in which Van Voorst spends ten pages refuting the Christ-myth hypothesis. To his credit, Van Voorst is very familiar with the various books and essays which deny the existence of Jesus. He writes, "Some readers may be surprised or shocked that many books and essays--by my count, over one hundred--in the past two hundred years have fervently denied the very existence of Jesus" (p. 6). Nevertheless, he says, the Christ-myth hypothesis is not only rejected by virtually all New Testament scholars, but that the hypothesis has been almost completely ignored within the guild of New Testament scholarship since the 1940s. However, Van Voorst acknowledges that there is tremendous interest in the historicity of Jesus.

He has a very interesting and educational history of the Christ-myth movement. However, he apparently does not know that G.A. Wells, in his latest book THE JESUS MYTH, in which Wells *accepts* the historicity of Jesus based on the arguments of Burton Mack concerning Q. Van Voorst then, briefly, has occasion to criticize Michael Martin's defense of the mythicist hypothesis, given Martin's reliance on Wells.

Van Voorst then summarizes seven objections against Wells's (former) position that Jesus never existed. Many of these objections are downright comical.

1. "Wells misinterprets Paul's relative silence about some details in the life of Jesus: the exact time of his life; the exact places of his ministry, that Pontius Pilate condemned him, and so forth. As every good student of history knows, it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist. Arguments from silence about ancient times, here about the supposed lack of biblical or extrabiblical references to Jesus, are especially perilous."

Lowder's comment: it seems to me there is a double-standard on the part of conservative Christians. When discussing the historicity of Jesus, Christians will tell us that no historian takes arguments from silence seriously. But when defending the empty tomb, Christians will conveniently engage in arguments from silence (e.g., "The tomb was empty because there is no evidence of the Jewish authorities denying it.") Yet the same facts appealed to by Christians in their arguments from silence for the empty tomb--like the lame argument that the Jews never denied the empty tomb--can itself be dismissed on the grounds that 'first-century Jews typically viewed the empty tomb story as so weak or bizarre that they ignored it completely." What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

2. Wells dates the gospels around 100, which is too late. Mark was written around 70 while Matthew and Luke were probably written in the 80s. Van Voorst may well be right about his dating. But so, too, might Wells. What I find objectionable about Van Voorst's objection is that he gives no argument for it. *Why* should we accept Van Voorst's dating scheme for the gospels? Van Voorst never says.

3. The development of the Gospel traditions and the historical difficulties within them "do not necessarily mean wholesale invention, and difficulties do not prove nonexistence." But, to the best of my knowledge, Wells never argues that development of traditions and historical difficulties *necessarily proves* the mythicist hypothesis.

4. This one is a real howler: "Wells cannot explain to the satisfaction of historians why, if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it." This is an argument from silence! I agree that there is no evidence that the historicity of Jesus was questioned in the first century. But that fact does not, by itself, make it probable that Jesus existed. Even on the assumption that Jesus never existed, Christianity was a minority religion viewed as a cult by outsiders. Had Jesus never existed, there is no reason to suppose that anyone would have made an effort to show that. Indeed, I think it is even doubtful that it would have occurred to anyone to question the historicity of Jesus!

5. Despite Wells' objections to the contrary, non-Christian witnesses to Jesus, especially Tacitus and Josephus, are basically trustworthy because there is a "strong consensus" saying so. Does this mean that from now on that evolutionists can argue that evolution is true simply because a "strong consensus" of biologists says it's true? This is a really lame argument.

6. Another howler: "Wells and others seem to have advanced the nonhistoricity hypothesis not for objective reasons, but for highly tendentious, antireligious purposes."

7. "Wells and his predecessors have failed to advance other, credible hypotheses to account for the birth of Christianity and the fashioning of a historical Christ." I think this objection has some force.

In conclusion, while I think Van Voorst's book is useful as a comprehensive overview of extra-Biblical references to Jesus, his direct attacks on the mythicist hypothesis are mainly ineffective. His best objection to the mythicist hypothesis is that some of the extra-Biblical sources *do* provide independent confirmation of Jesus, an issue which he deals with ably in the remainder of the book.

This book is a great start into the research of all the writings about Jesus outside the New Testament Canon we all know. The book is written well, and is researched thoroughly. The footnotes alone are worth the read, but be prepared to want to buy several more books as a result of the excellent research.

The author starts with an overview of some classical writings including "Pliny the Younger", "Celsus", and "Tacitus". The second chapter goes into some of the classic Jewish literature that also refers to Jesus including the well-known Josephus passages. While some of this was new material for me, there were no real surprises. The information is presented well, with several commentary opinions regarding the passages. The author presents the information in a mostly neutral fashion and will often present both supporting and opposing views on the writings and their significance.

The sections on the Canonical Gospels were excellent. The focus is on the missing "source material" for the core Gospels. The Luke source, identified as "L", the "M" source which is reasoned to be part of the source for the unique material in the Gospel of Matthew, and the "Q" source for the sayings in Matthew and Luke. In Luke this source material is referred to directly in the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke: "Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the things that have been fulfilled among us...I too decided, after investing carefully from the first, to write an orderly account for you...". This implies that there were "many" others who wrote down information about the life of Jesus and the Gospel message. The other sources. "M" and "Q" are not as directly implied in the Gospels. The chapter is well done, and is mostly speculative, as the alleged source materials obviously are not available to us. Again, the information is presented well, and arguments and theories are postulated on both sides of the debate about their authenticity and relevance.

The last chapter focuses on the writings of mostly Gnostic origin, including the discovery of the Nag Hammadi writings. The book examines the authenticity and relevance of these writings and compares and contrasts them to the Gospels. The Gospel of Thomas is reprinted in full which is fascinating, as are parts of the Gospel of Peter, Secret Mark, the Ascent of James. A writing conspicuously absent from the book is the Barnabas text, although this writing is widely regarded as a fraud in most Biblical scholarly circles.

Overall, a very interesting read. The material was presented well, and was not dry but moved quickly and kept my attention throughout. A great start to this study of the wealth of information and writings about Jesus outside the New Testament.

Much to the dismay of those who'd prefer otherwise, Jesus is mentioned in several sources outside of the biblical New Testament. Robert Van Voorst does a top-notch job of evaluating each non-biblical reference on its own merits. Before assuming Van Voorst is another Christian apologist bent on finding things where none are to be found, it should be made known that he critically examines each writing to determine whether or not it has any historical worth.

Van Voorst covers the famous Testimonium Flavianum found in the work of Josephus (and the lesser known "James, the brother of Jesus" reference) and concludes that there is a core statement originally written by Josephus in the Testimonium Flavianum which has been tampered with by Christian scribes. This is the predominant view in scholarly circles today and Van Voorst does a fine job of giving the reasoning behind such a conclusion. The references to Jesus in other non-Christian writers such as Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus, Mara Bar Serapion, Lucian of Samosata, the Talmud, and others are covered on an individual basis to determine the background behind each one. Van Voorst makes an attempt to examine the intent of the writer and possible sources utilized by them to gather their information.

The book also covers mentions of Jesus made in the Gospel of Thomas and various sayings attributed to Jesus by the early church fathers that are not found in the New Testament. Van Voorst gives a good, basic overview of Q and its contents which a beginner would find very helpful.

Overall, this book is highly recommended to those seeking information on the references to Jesus found outside the New Testament in non-Christian writings. At the very least, this book demonstrates far beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth truly existed and that he was simply not some sort of mythical figure created by early Christians. It doesn't prove Christianity is true, but it lays the foundation for further investigation into who this Jesus of Nazareth was.

Dr Van Voorst has given us a rare glimpse into the early history of that then-new Jewish sect, the "Christians" by distilling, through textual analysis of two early copies of the Psuedo-Clemmentine Recognitions, a text probably atrriburted to Hegesippus and now lost in the original-the 'Anabathmoi Jacobou' or "Ascents of James". The work stands on its own as a wonderfuol bit of scholarship, and supports much of Robert Eisenman's work on James the Righteous. The story related is a narrative, probably poetically enhanced as much early Scripture seems to be, of a fateful public confrontation between the luminaries of the Jerusalem Assembly led by James (the Brother of Jesus) and the priestly authorities of the Herodian Temple over theological questions of messiahship and salvation (!). The debate, since the author is an early church apologist, goes to the new sect of "Christians" (Church of the Circumcision), and the narrative suggests that the entire population of Jerusalem was about to be baptized on the basis of the Scripturally-based arguments of James and the other Apostles, when "The Enemy", a man referred to as SAULUS in a marginal note in the Syriac copy of the Recognitions, incites a riot in the Temple courtyard with several of his followers, who seem to be a bunch of violent bullies who inflict bloodshed, injuries and deaths among all the people gathered. The end of the fight comes with James the Righteous, the Brother of Jesus, being pushed from the top of the Temple steps (hence "ascents") by "The Enemy" -Saulus/Saul- breaking both his legs, and the retreat of the Christians, with their injured leader, "towards Jericho" (Qumran is also that way from Jerusalem), and the Enemy and his henchmen being given warrants for the arrest of the members of the "Faithful" by the priestly authorities. If this sounds disturbingly familiar, it is because this is probably the precursor to the conversion story of Saul on the 'Road to Damascus' -the Sons of God at Qumran referred to their habitation as "Damascus"- and "Saulus" is known to Christians and Biblical scholars today as Saint Paul.
The episode related occurred sometime in the early 40's of the Common Era, and was apparently written down about 135 CE. I think we need to re-examine those Qumran scrolls....

This book includes many important primary sources of Christianity to convey a sense of the history and growth of Christianity. He breaks the history up into Biblical foundations (Old and New Testament), ancient Christianity, Medieval times, reformation, early modern Christianity, and modern Christianity. Within each era the division of the writings into Events, Institution, Teaching, Ethics, and Relations may be a bit artificial (for example is the beginning of Monasticism more about events, institution, or teaching?), but does help organize the readings. Some of the dates on the sources are not clearly given, but generally this is not a problem as the general era is clear.

Van Voorst should be congratulated for including womens' perspective throughout the history, and at least some writings from the Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which often seems neglected in this country. He often does a great job of pairing primary sources, for example pairing Anselm's scholastic argument on proving the existence of God with Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae. Everyone will probably find missing some of their sources (like Dante), but there is a chance of discovering new authors shaping Christianity (like Hildegard of Bingen). Whoever reads these texts will find some new understanding of how Christianity has grappled with some of the same historic issues of faith and works, but has also dealings with new topics such as bioengineering.

Some helpful insights given into translation techniques, but lacking some of the sophistication of other upper-level references. A good value--you get what you pay for--a lower-end, but certainly useful guide to common Greek vocabulary in New Testament text. More grammatical explanations would be helpful.