Scan barcode
tinido's review
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
4.5
This is a really thoughtful, meticulous, but relatively easy to read reconstruction of the various versions of Jesus presented in the pauline letters and the four canonical gospels, and how they came to be. Fredriksen contextualizes the different texts in their religious, social and political history, and does a really good job at showing how different they really are from each other: from the mere biographical dates about Jesus' life and death given by each of the four (and Paul, who is genuinely uninterested in the biography of Jesus) to the christological positions they hold. Even if you're not interested in trying to find a glimpse of the real historical Jesus beneath all these layers on layers of tradition, this is a great book to learn how and in what circumstances a jewish apocalyptic group got transformed into a new religion: christianity.
The progressively worsening relations between the jewish community in Palestine and later in the diaspora and the evolving Church play a major role in Fredriksen's reconstruction. She makes it very clear that anti-judaism is practically baked into any "high christological" position: If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and has himself the status of god, at least since the resurrection or even as in the Gospel of John since the beginning of everything, than you have to denounce the jewish religious beliefs as false, if not inherently evil (they were preached the true gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God and Saviour, but didn't take it up). This, for me, is the most difficult knowledge I gained from reading this book: I'm surprisingly fine with learning that Jesus most likely didn't think of himself as the Son of God, or even as the messiah, but that seeing in him the Son of God makes anti-jewish propaganda practically inevitable for the writers of the gospels (and most of the NT canon), at least historically, throws some serious shade on the whole christian enterprise for me. Fredriksen tackles this problem openly in her last chapter: She argues that the detailed and as unbiased as possible reconstruction of the historical contexts of Jesus on his way to the trinity is something like a christian duty. She hopes that it opens up the way christians conceptualize their relationship to Judaism, but also to the orthodoxy of their own church(es). I will be thinking about this for a long time.
The progressively worsening relations between the jewish community in Palestine and later in the diaspora and the evolving Church play a major role in Fredriksen's reconstruction. She makes it very clear that anti-judaism is practically baked into any "high christological" position: If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and has himself the status of god, at least since the resurrection or even as in the Gospel of John since the beginning of everything, than you have to denounce the jewish religious beliefs as false, if not inherently evil (they were preached the true gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God and Saviour, but didn't take it up). This, for me, is the most difficult knowledge I gained from reading this book: I'm surprisingly fine with learning that Jesus most likely didn't think of himself as the Son of God, or even as the messiah, but that seeing in him the Son of God makes anti-jewish propaganda practically inevitable for the writers of the gospels (and most of the NT canon), at least historically, throws some serious shade on the whole christian enterprise for me. Fredriksen tackles this problem openly in her last chapter: She argues that the detailed and as unbiased as possible reconstruction of the historical contexts of Jesus on his way to the trinity is something like a christian duty. She hopes that it opens up the way christians conceptualize their relationship to Judaism, but also to the orthodoxy of their own church(es). I will be thinking about this for a long time.
josiahrichardson's review
2.0
A lot of speculative thought in the vein of the historical Jesus movement. Some redeeming historical work here and there, but mostly assumes the conclusion from the open gates. As one theologian once quipped, the "historical Jesus" slowly ends up looking more and more like the ones searching for him. That includes, apparently, those who actually knew Christ like His disciples and those who met him, like the apostle Paul.
jesssalexander's review
3.0
This reads like a textbook, which is sometimes fun for me because it reminds me of grad school and I guess I miss suffering through really boring textual analyses. As one would expect, it is very dry and uses big words. Parousia! That's a fun new one! It just means 2nd Coming. In this text you'll find phrases like "Paul's denationalized, apolitical, pneumatic messianic eschatology." That's just going out of her way to sound pedantic.
On to the content. Fredriksen writes from an academic, not a Christian, perspective. This was a pretty new experience for me as a reader. She writes from the supposition that the gospels and Paul's writings are NOT inspired or holy, but the writings of individuals trying to validate their beliefs and make sense of their historical context. I dismiss a lot of her arguments on the basis of my personal beliefs. But it was still really useful to read an analysis of the scriptures from that perspective and to understand more of the historical context and especially the Jewish condition of Jesus's era. She centered her argument on what she defined as the main problem with new Christianity in the first century: How did this new religion reconcile the idea that Jesus-- a Jewish teacher speaking mostly to Jews who claimed he was fulfilling Jewish prophecy-- was soundly rejected by his Jewish audience and believed instead by Gentiles? She looks at the culture of Jesus's day, the political climate between Jews and Romans, and compares the different scriptures pertaining to Jesus's ministry.
This book definetly gave me a deeper understanding of the context of the gospels. Mark was the first gospel written (though written after Paul's writings) and he, like Paul, believed Jesus would return promptly-- as in within his lifetime-- and the temple had just been destroyed which for him was a clear sign of the impending apocalypse. Paul had not encountered Jesus in the flesh, but the resurrected Jesus. It follows, therefore, that his writings were largely concerned with the resurrected Jesus and life in the Spirit rather than the corporeal. Matthew, Luke, and John were written further removed from Jesus's death, to 2nd and 3rd generation Christians. For those audiences, the 2nd coming hadn't come yet and was therefore not so impending. Matthew's writings suggest that Jewish rejection of Christ is just a continuation of a pattern. Jews historically rejected the prophets of the past, so it logically follows that they would reject the Messiah.
I loved her point about the historical resilience of the Jewish people. Historically, Jews suffered a lot of defeats. One would think it would have caused Jews to lose faith or to think God had abandoned them. But the prophets always redirected the Jews by claiming that exiles and defeats were actually signs of God's relentless pursuit of his people. This belief carried into Christianity. Persecution is actually a sign of faith.
Politically, the Passover was a charged time during Roman occupation, because Jews were awaiting their Messiah. Romans actually posted extra military support around the temple each Passover because they expected uprisings and revolts. The pharisees served as go-betweens with the Jewish people and Roman authority, so they would have found the figure of Jesus threatening, not just because of his insults and disdain for the Pharisees, but because he was stirring up the masses and drawing negative Roman attention.
Finally, the book introduced some interesting parallels I hadn't considered before: the prophet Samuel announcing King Saul and David with John the Baptist heralding the new Davidic king, also, Satan tempting Jesus uses the same taunt that later onlookers at the cross employ ("if you are the Son of God, then...").
I loved that this book made me think deeper about the gospels and my own beliefs. Plus, the big words are great brain food. One more: kerygma! It means preaching in Greek, related specifically to oral proclamations about Jesus by the earliest Christians.
On to the content. Fredriksen writes from an academic, not a Christian, perspective. This was a pretty new experience for me as a reader. She writes from the supposition that the gospels and Paul's writings are NOT inspired or holy, but the writings of individuals trying to validate their beliefs and make sense of their historical context. I dismiss a lot of her arguments on the basis of my personal beliefs. But it was still really useful to read an analysis of the scriptures from that perspective and to understand more of the historical context and especially the Jewish condition of Jesus's era. She centered her argument on what she defined as the main problem with new Christianity in the first century: How did this new religion reconcile the idea that Jesus-- a Jewish teacher speaking mostly to Jews who claimed he was fulfilling Jewish prophecy-- was soundly rejected by his Jewish audience and believed instead by Gentiles? She looks at the culture of Jesus's day, the political climate between Jews and Romans, and compares the different scriptures pertaining to Jesus's ministry.
This book definetly gave me a deeper understanding of the context of the gospels. Mark was the first gospel written (though written after Paul's writings) and he, like Paul, believed Jesus would return promptly-- as in within his lifetime-- and the temple had just been destroyed which for him was a clear sign of the impending apocalypse. Paul had not encountered Jesus in the flesh, but the resurrected Jesus. It follows, therefore, that his writings were largely concerned with the resurrected Jesus and life in the Spirit rather than the corporeal. Matthew, Luke, and John were written further removed from Jesus's death, to 2nd and 3rd generation Christians. For those audiences, the 2nd coming hadn't come yet and was therefore not so impending. Matthew's writings suggest that Jewish rejection of Christ is just a continuation of a pattern. Jews historically rejected the prophets of the past, so it logically follows that they would reject the Messiah.
I loved her point about the historical resilience of the Jewish people. Historically, Jews suffered a lot of defeats. One would think it would have caused Jews to lose faith or to think God had abandoned them. But the prophets always redirected the Jews by claiming that exiles and defeats were actually signs of God's relentless pursuit of his people. This belief carried into Christianity. Persecution is actually a sign of faith.
Politically, the Passover was a charged time during Roman occupation, because Jews were awaiting their Messiah. Romans actually posted extra military support around the temple each Passover because they expected uprisings and revolts. The pharisees served as go-betweens with the Jewish people and Roman authority, so they would have found the figure of Jesus threatening, not just because of his insults and disdain for the Pharisees, but because he was stirring up the masses and drawing negative Roman attention.
Finally, the book introduced some interesting parallels I hadn't considered before: the prophet Samuel announcing King Saul and David with John the Baptist heralding the new Davidic king, also, Satan tempting Jesus uses the same taunt that later onlookers at the cross employ ("if you are the Son of God, then...").
I loved that this book made me think deeper about the gospels and my own beliefs. Plus, the big words are great brain food. One more: kerygma! It means preaching in Greek, related specifically to oral proclamations about Jesus by the earliest Christians.
123honeybee's review
2.0
I had high hopes but oh damn. Some good parts but they’re buried under a huge pile of meh parts. Maybe I’m spoiled after reading Bart D Ehrman. If you want a book like this but much better (imo) then read How Jesus became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee.
ruthiella's review
3.0
I found this book to be very interesting. The author analyzes how the teachings and life of Jesus were interpreted depending upon when the writer (Saint Paul, or the authors of Mathew, Luke, Mark and John) were writing. The first generation of Christians really believed that the kingdom of God was at hand and the apocalypse was near. As time wore on and the world (obviously) did not end, subsequent Christian gospel writers modified their philosophy accordingly.
More...