Rating: 
Summary: Dangerous and Disturbing
Review: Although the author's research and credentials are beyond question, or maybe because of this, I found this work very dangerous. The chapter purpoted to find Jesus beneath the gospels is intellectually dishonest. The author spends 6 chapters clearly demonstrating how tles and saying of Jeasus were edited and redacted to serve the belief of the authors, but completely fails to mention even the possibility that the Rabbinic Authors who wrote of the Galilean Hasidim would edit and revise these tales for their purposes.
Would it be inconcievable to think that the Jerusalem authorities would compare these men and provide them with certain attributes in an attempt to undercut the growing popularity of the Jesus movement in the outer reaches of the Jewish population?
More disturbing than this dishonesty is the underlying theme in the book that the early church is responsible for setting off a chain of events that led to the Holocaust! While it is understandable for Mr. Vermes to search for a reason for an event that senselessly took both of his parents, this underlying polemic against the Christian Religion skews the results of his work and lessens reliabity.
Rating: 
Summary: Do you want the truth???
Review: Bottom line. If you want to hear provactive revisionist history that caters to liberal and emerging episcopalian herecy on par with the ordination of practicing homosexuals, then this book is for you. Some people are interested in hearing the alibis of why Jesus is not the traditonal christ and how A CENTURY AFTER JESUS' ADVENT ON THE EARTH HIS APPOINTED CONTEMPORARIES GOT HIS MESSEGE (and who he actually was) ALL WRONG, BUT LOW AND BEHOLD!!! A SENSATIONALIST SCHOLAR 20 CENTURIES LATER FINDS OUT WHO THE REAL JESUS IS!!!! This man must be the most fascinating blend of sheer brilliance and stark stupidity. Seriously folks. Geza has far more scholarly qualifications that I do, so in the the name of argumentum ad hominem, I have no ammunition. But in the sense of a master narrative, this is hogwash. Literal, soupy, rusty-bucket hogwash. People who like this book, are those who are secular humanists who are hungry for an alibi to not accept Jesus as the New Testament would have him shown as. Love. Omnisciency. Omnipotence. Yet incredible sacrifice. This book looks to deconstruct the fabric of Christianity with modern pseudo-intellectual tactics. Perhaps I am not of established calibur to combat this spaz, but two thousand years of epistomology, orthodoxy, sacrametal grace, and Gods promised hand on the church trumps this pathetic little pluralistic, brilliant man. Atheists, Nihilists, Agnostics, Gnostics, Antinomians, Pluralists, Revisionists, and especially mormons . . . If you want to know who the real Jesus was, you don't go to your pastor and ask, and you definitely dont do a search on the web. You open the O.T. and start reading, because The Messiah appears all throughout the dead sea scrolls which this fruitloop translated. You can also find Jesus in the N.T. without the idiotic hermeneutical narritve of this a$sclown. This book is a decadent, elaborately designed BUFFET OF CRAP.
Rating: 
Summary: Vermes, but better.
Review: I have read previous Vermes books just to find fault, to object at his placing more weight on certain 'facts' than seemed justified. They were enjoyable. They included many colorful stories not generally available. But, he often seemed too edgy, even bitter. In this book, however, he is thoughtful and considerate. He still places too much weight on his comparisons of Jesus to the charismatic Honi the Circle drawer and Hannina ben Dosa. This book is wee worth the read.
Rating:
Summary: Helpful
Review: In a series of brilliant expositions of biblical and extra-biblical source materials, Professor Vermes gently takes the reader from the Christ of faith to a reasonable approximation of the historical Jesus. Written in language easily accessible even to the most novice of New Testament students, this book will prove a valuable aid to any open-minded, honest and inquisitive biblical scholar.
Rating:
Summary: A book with much bias and little charisma
Review: Note: For those pressed for time, the last 2 paragraphs summarize this review. Geza Vermes attempts to present a historical view of Jesus by stripping away the idea divinity and exposing the man that lies beneath. He examines several NT gospels in an effort to demonstrate where church rhetoric begins and the real Jesus ends. While this approach to the topic is exceedingly appropriate, Vermes conducts his investigation with obvious bias. This bias often occurs in his descriptions of early Christians that are condescending with little to no factual justification. For example; pg. 27- "His words met with the same uncomprehending reaction whether they address... the Jewish leader Nicodemus...or dense and slow-witted groups of his own disciples."
-neither the Jewish man nor the disciple groups understood the teachings, but the adjectives describing the supporters of Jesus are disdainful while Nicodemus is designated only as a leader. pg. 49- 'Gentile Christians required a course for primary school pupils in which the simplest details had to be spelled out.'
-Offers no proof or explanation of these "courses", "details" or elements of misunderstanding, yet insults the collective intelligence of gentile Christians. pg. 144- 'Members of the Jesus movement were under "moral rather than legal" obligation to divest possessions.'
---------------> Vermes labels "religious communism"
Compared to: "The Qumran-Essene sect represented by community rule... common ownership was obligatory... and not just optional"
--------------->Vermes describes as "strict"
-A good example of favoring Jewish to Christian movements despite diametric evidence. Members of the Jesus movement were morally inclined to divest possessions while the Essenes demanded it by law. Yet the adjectives attributed to Christians are heavy handed, especially when compared to the admittedly dictatorial Jewish group. Vermes labels the Jesus movement "religious communism" and the Essene movement "strict". His own accounts of the groups imply the opposite (moral vs. legal obligation). Still the Christians receive an acrimonious label in relation to the more demanding Essene movement. These are examples I found flipping through the book. I think they do well to illustrate the presence of Vermes' bias especially with regard to Christian versus Jewish figures and movements. However, Vermes work is not without valuable insights. The reader is provided with interesting observations regarding the different titles ascribed to Jesus throughout the gospels. He elaborates on how Jesus is referred to as lord, son of man, Christ, messiah, son of God... He discusses what these descriptive terms would have meant in Jesus' time providing insights into their historical context. Vermes also points out how Jesus' titles become more and more 'divine' (for lack of a better word) as the gospels progress from Mark to John. These interesting observations are however, small consolation for an otherwise flawed and biased work of literature. Anyone who has read this book can attest to the utter abuse of the word "charisma." It is used repeatedly without restraint throughout the book. Vermes relates all works of wonder; by Jesus, the disciples, prophets and "holy men" as stemming from their charisma. The disciples and Jesus are charismatics, surrounded by a charismatic atmosphere, the Jesus movement possesses charisma, charismatics, charismataz, charismatastics, charisma-matata...(I digress). It never ends. The notion that supernatural events stem from charisma alone is laughable. Bill Clinton may be charismatic, yet we remain cautiously skeptical as to how he might produce miracles. Vermes would do better to argue against the occurrence of "works of wonder" and attribute them to legend. Instead he concedes their existence and calls them "charismatic deeds" without explaining what constitutes a charismatic deed or how it differs from an act of God. Ultimately he succeeds only in ignoring the problem and weakening his perceived ability to address critical issues. (See page 173) Vermes' goal is to present Jesus as a man, not divine, not the Son of God, just a very charismatic Jewish man. But in his attempt he discredits himself as a historian by displaying bias and avoiding interpretation of critical issues. No accurate historical investigation can be conducted in the shadow of prejudice. This book consistently favors one group over another and therefore relinquishes its claim to historical accuracy. Ultimately, Vermes' predisposition to the topic is the books downfall. As is the case with so many other works about this compelling and enigmatic figure. If you want to learn about the historical context in which Jesus lived read Josephus (a Jewish historian of Jesus' day). If you want to understand how accounts of Jesus change in the New Testament, read the synoptic gospels (starting with Mark and ending with John) and develop your own impressions. There is no good reason to study another man's biased interpretations when you can come up with your own!!!
Rating:
Summary: Prejudice, prejudice, prejudice...
Review: The author tries to portray himself as a "detached historian", but in my view has too many things that bring him down to the level of mere personal hostility toward Christianity, somehow associating it in his mind as a cause of anti-Semitism and Holocaust. He exhibits lack of any kind of respect and understanding of Christ's spiritual teachings, ignoring the most important points of his message and outright ridiculing the others. How can a learned scholar write on a topic like that with so little respect for it? That man has a clear agenda that is written all over this book. Books like that are dangerous, because they bring to the uncertain the reason (sometimes very convincing) to believe in what is wrong. Faith is not something you can trample on with intellectual speculations, even backed by degrees and years of learning. How can a writer claim impartiality regarding a topic like this? If it were indeed the truth, he wouldn't have a right to write a book about Jesus. You can be detached writing about anything but Jesus.
Rating: 
Summary: A Book on History From A Jewish Perspective
Review: The first comment I would like to make on this book is that if you are looking for a book which approaches the figure of Jesus Christ from a Christian Apologist perspective, this book is not for you.
Geza Vermes' approach to Jesus Christ is made very plain in the introduction: he is attempting to find the "historical" Jesus through interpretation of the New Testament, the works of contemporary writers of the time period such as Flavius Julius, and through an analysis of the culture and historical events of the time period and how that shaped the Jewish culture of the time.
He does this through an examination of Jesus in a very nontraditional manner: his focus begins with the Jesus of John and works toward the gospel of Matthew. Liturgical scholars and even the casual reader of the Bible can see a different focus given by each of the different writers of the Gospels, this difference is explained in depth by Dr. Vermes. He thoroughly explains Jewish religious traditions of the time period and ties these in to specific dialogue in scripture in order for a reader of the Bible to attempt to see this religious document through the eyes of a Jew or Greek reader of the time period.
Again, this is not a Christian apologetic work and it does not profess to be. Geza Vermes attempts, through this book, to explain Jesus Christ through the culture and events of the people he was spreading the Good News too: the Jews of Judea and Palastine.
Rating:
Summary: Biased Attack on Christianity
Review: This book has a very simple premise: all Christian sources, despite their demonstrable antiquity and proximity to the events of the life of Christ, are suspect. Anti-Christian sources, on the other hand, even when remote from the events and of a second-hand nature, are taken as (if you pardon the expression) gospel.
Of course, if you make this assumption, you will clearly leave very little of the traditional vision of Jesus standing. This is not a rational book, but a biased attack on Christianity, designed more to ridicule than to enlighten.
A clear example of this is the characterization of the Jesus in John's gospel as of an ET. Now, I have to admit that, at some level, this is a correct description. But it is also unnecessarily offensive.
Another aim of this book is to show the author's Extraordinary Brilliance. He loves quoting Himself: "As I once lightheartedly remarked, adapting the terminology of Nancy Mitford, the Galileans did not speak U-Aramaic, i.e., the language of the of the Jerusalem upper classes."
This is not really a scholarly work: the bibliography section is very short and most of the works quoted in the relatively short note section are, of course, by the Author Himself.
In summary, despite the Author's vast Knowledge and Intelligence, this is a totally useless book.
Rating:
Summary: An extraordinary book
Review: This book in written in a lively style, and with deep insight into New Testament studies. The most striking perspective in the book, to me, is the progressive divinization of Jesus. Geza Vermes (writing from a Jewish perspective) thinks that Jesus did not think of himself as divine, but that his resurrection led his disciples, and specially Paul to reach the conclusion that he was made a divine being after his death. The Gospel of Mark belongs to that period, since it gives no account of a divine conception of Christ. The later gospels, Matthew and John do, and in the second century the Gospel of John established the divine pre-existence of Jesus before the creation of the world. Geza Vermes' view that Paul did not see Jesus as God is also shared by leading Catholic scholars like Jerome Murphy-O'Connor.
Rating:
Summary: The right approach to an important topic
Review: This book was very smartly written, and although one may not agree with all the conclusions or assumptions, I was very satisfied with the historical approach taken. It may appear obvious to many, but from a historian's point of view it seems necessary to explore the nature of Jesus not only in the context of New Testament documents but also with regards too all historical sources, Christian and non-Christian, written at the time. And although some books do this, Vermes also takes an essential additional step of reviewing what was written in the New Testament in the context of how words and terminology were likely used and understood at that time (in this case, 1st century northern Israel) and in the Jewish context. Given that Jesus and his disciples were all Jewish and thought of themselves as Jews, the emphasis on this context appears critical in forming a full understanding.
|
