What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of his Life and Teaching
A new 'life' of Jesus written by one of the outstanding scholars of his generation, it offers a complete resource on the 'Historical Jesus' debate. With an overview of the various positions taken on who the historical Jesus was, Casey provides a helpful and accessible tool for understanding how the historical Jesus has been received and understood, with attention paid to the contortions in evidence in the last century to prove that Jesus was not Jewish.
576 pages, Paperback
First published October 28, 2010
4 people are currently reading
97 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 18, 2017
This was an interesting book. I read it for an online course I was taking. The author takes the standpoint that the "first, original" Gospel was in Aramaic and predates the mythical "Q" Source upon which some believe Matthew and Luke are based. He also makes the case that "his" Aramaic Gospel was a primary source of "Q" [sounds kinda like Star Trek, doesn't it? hahahah] and Mark, as well as Matthew and Luke. It did get a bit long in the tooth, in parts, and he clearly thinks quite highly of himself.
It was interesting to read in that he seemed to hold both conservative and liberal Christians in disdain as well as atheists in how each group interprets the Gospels. He admits to having been a "Christian" of sorts at one time before walking away from Christianity. He points out what he sees as being fallacies of those who take a stance with which he disagrees; it was kind of amusing to read, on the one hand.
It was also equally interesting how much the author claimed that Jesus actually did that was reported in the Synoptic Gospels, as well as the author's claims that Jesus did perform various miracles via the power of God. Yet, at the same time, the author claims that Jesus never physically rose from the dead and that He was buried in a common pauper's grave, somewhere. It was just odd [funny] that the author would claim that Jesus performed many miracles via the power of God, yet after four hundred-plus pages the author then denies that God had the power to raise Jesus' body from the grave.
Early on in the book he 'lays the groundwork', as it were, to explain the criteria he uses to defend what he believes to be 'authentic and true' reporting of Jesus' acts and words in the Synoptic Gospels; he also talks about other criteria that are used by others in an attempt to determine what Jesus may or may not have said or done [yet he feels these other criteria are less valid and more prone to mistakes and errors of various sorts].
I think the "biggest weakness" and "oddest part of the book" is how the author claimed he translated verses from the Greek into Aramaic and then back into English to get 'the truest translation' of verses from the Synoptic Gospels. The reader can only trust that the author is not lying or making things up when he goes from Greek to Aramaic to English. Granted, the verses are very similar in what the translations say, but he still sees "significant differences" between his translations and the Greek versions/translations. In the end, though, his Aramaic translations are still his interpretations based on his opinions and perspectives, which does not necessarily make him any more correct or incorrect than other translations. It clearly does in his own mind, considering how often he denigrates others and their attempts at translating the Synoptic Gospels.
Overall, it was an interesting book, despite having portions that were excessively boring [and in which the author seemed to be trying to 'prove' his thesis without really adding to the overall narrative of the book itself]. I thought the author did have some interesting points to make about why he felt the primary Gospel was originally Aramaic instead of any other language [the biggest weakness with this theory being the fact that no Aramaic Gospel has ever been found; his Aramaic Gospel is like the mythical "Q" document in nature - it does not exist and no mention of it existing can be found, either]. I am glad that I read the book, though, despite my disagreement with some elements of it [especially the last chapter and the "epilogue"].
It was interesting to read in that he seemed to hold both conservative and liberal Christians in disdain as well as atheists in how each group interprets the Gospels. He admits to having been a "Christian" of sorts at one time before walking away from Christianity. He points out what he sees as being fallacies of those who take a stance with which he disagrees; it was kind of amusing to read, on the one hand.
It was also equally interesting how much the author claimed that Jesus actually did that was reported in the Synoptic Gospels, as well as the author's claims that Jesus did perform various miracles via the power of God. Yet, at the same time, the author claims that Jesus never physically rose from the dead and that He was buried in a common pauper's grave, somewhere. It was just odd [funny] that the author would claim that Jesus performed many miracles via the power of God, yet after four hundred-plus pages the author then denies that God had the power to raise Jesus' body from the grave.
Early on in the book he 'lays the groundwork', as it were, to explain the criteria he uses to defend what he believes to be 'authentic and true' reporting of Jesus' acts and words in the Synoptic Gospels; he also talks about other criteria that are used by others in an attempt to determine what Jesus may or may not have said or done [yet he feels these other criteria are less valid and more prone to mistakes and errors of various sorts].
I think the "biggest weakness" and "oddest part of the book" is how the author claimed he translated verses from the Greek into Aramaic and then back into English to get 'the truest translation' of verses from the Synoptic Gospels. The reader can only trust that the author is not lying or making things up when he goes from Greek to Aramaic to English. Granted, the verses are very similar in what the translations say, but he still sees "significant differences" between his translations and the Greek versions/translations. In the end, though, his Aramaic translations are still his interpretations based on his opinions and perspectives, which does not necessarily make him any more correct or incorrect than other translations. It clearly does in his own mind, considering how often he denigrates others and their attempts at translating the Synoptic Gospels.
Overall, it was an interesting book, despite having portions that were excessively boring [and in which the author seemed to be trying to 'prove' his thesis without really adding to the overall narrative of the book itself]. I thought the author did have some interesting points to make about why he felt the primary Gospel was originally Aramaic instead of any other language [the biggest weakness with this theory being the fact that no Aramaic Gospel has ever been found; his Aramaic Gospel is like the mythical "Q" document in nature - it does not exist and no mention of it existing can be found, either]. I am glad that I read the book, though, despite my disagreement with some elements of it [especially the last chapter and the "epilogue"].
March 8, 2020
Grumpy and obnoxious. Starts with a helpful survey of past scholarship on the historical Jesus. Many good insights from Aramaic. Casey is worth reading for occasional insights, but he is not going to inspire many people to follow his opinions.
August 1, 2014
This was a text book I had to use for a religion class at University of Omaha, Nebraska. It is a historical look at Jesus Christ. As a Christian I found this book to be horribly offensive. The main premise is that scripture is not inspired. Casey claims that much of Matthew and Luke were copied from Mark and creative writing fills in the gaps in knowledge.
This book is decidedly anti-Christian. While there may be some interesting historical fact, you can be sure it's sprinkled into lots of rhetoric designed to discredit the validity of the Bible. Most of the comments that I found most offensive were not historically based. They were commentary by Casey such as "Christians have historically needed to feel superior..."
I found this class at UNO and this book to be so disappointing. If a class was offered that was designed to tear down any other religion there would no doubt be a public outcry. It seems we are still immersed in open season on Christianity and Christians.
All of that aside, I also find that Casey rambles in an unorganized jumble of thought.
This book is decidedly anti-Christian. While there may be some interesting historical fact, you can be sure it's sprinkled into lots of rhetoric designed to discredit the validity of the Bible. Most of the comments that I found most offensive were not historically based. They were commentary by Casey such as "Christians have historically needed to feel superior..."
I found this class at UNO and this book to be so disappointing. If a class was offered that was designed to tear down any other religion there would no doubt be a public outcry. It seems we are still immersed in open season on Christianity and Christians.
All of that aside, I also find that Casey rambles in an unorganized jumble of thought.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews