What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus
Book by Wilson, A. N.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1992
20 people are currently reading
610 people want to read
About the author
A.N. Wilson
117 books243 followersAndrew Norman Wilson is an English writer and newspaper columnist, known for his critical biographies, novels, works of popular history and religious views. He is an occasional columnist for the Daily Mail and former columnist for the London Evening Standard, and has been an occasional contributor to the Times Literary Supplement, New Statesman, The Spectator and The Observer.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
July 17, 2012
I will admit that I'm a reader. Like any reader, I have been enthralled, sometimes even enraptured, by the words I've encountered in scores of good books. There have been very few, however, which changed my life. A.N. Wilson's profound biography, JESUS: A LIFE , is a book which changed my life.
Wilson spent his youth studying to be an Anglican priest. Somewhere along the line he lost his faith, only to later rediscover it. In the process of that journey, he swallowed, digested and spewed forth some of the most elegant observations on what modern humans can really know about the historical figure of Jesus.
His scholarship is second-hand and derivative, but it is proffered to the reader in an unvarnished, disinterested and completely straightforward manner. Wilson's aim is not to proselytize, apologize or sermonize. His sole purpose is to reconstruct what few facts have survived about a man who, although briefly notorious in a very small province of a very large empire, mattered little to history even in his lifetime.
The Jesus of the Gospels is almost certainly fictional. The Gospels were never intended as histories and they actually conform very closely to many other contemporaneous books in similar genres. Scholars are agreed, however, that many words attributed to Jesus are authentic. Wilson goes to great lengths in reconstructing the setting of the Galilean hinterlands which spawned Jesus, the culture which nurtured him, and the political climate of the Roman Occupation which elevated him from just another rabbi to the leader of the resistance. It is quite a story.
Wilson was never a militant atheist. Neither is he now a dogmatic Christian. He approaches the person of Jesus respectfully, without prejudice or preconception, and presents his findings with courage. Where he speculates about the interaction of religious and political forces in first century Palestine, he is scrupulous about marking it as speculative or unsubstantiated.
I fell in love with this book. It is accessible, lively and totally engaging. What's more, I found the demythologizing of the historical Jesus to be liberating. I actually found the human Jesus, a man of his age who would have felt a strong sense of camaraderie with Dr. King or Gandhi, to be figure I could respect and even admire.
Wilson wrote an equally engaging companion book called, "Paul, The Mind of the Apostle", which attempts to explain how the far more documented historical figure of Paul artfully manipulated the dead Jesus into the iconic Christ. It is also worth reading and is equally edifying. I won't bore you with the details of how a very small group of partisans in Jerusalem, led by the brother of the martyred Jesus, were left behind by a very canny, zealous and sometimes unscrupulous genius of a marketer. Suffice it to say, you will want to read "The Mind of the Apostle".
Whether you are a believer or not, "Jesus: A Life" is one book which you will never forget. I see no purpose in denying the factual existence of the historical Jesus, because he did leave a paper trail in the Roman world. And, of course, he almost certainly was not the same character recorded two and three generations later in the Gospels. But he did say some very interesting things -- teachings which ring absolutely authentic when subjected to the most rigorous systems of redaction criticism. Surprisingly, those teachings are almost exclusively about social justice, equality, the obligations of the powerful and the dignity of the powerless.
As I've said more than once tonight, I loved this book. And, to my utter amazement, I LOVED the Jesus who emerged within its pages. This Jesus is not crowned with diadems or ascending triumphantly into paradise. He is, in those haunting words of RFK's eulogy, "a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it."
I first read this book some twenty years ago and it still haunts me. In becoming acquainted with Jesus the man, I became comfortable with my own humanity. I stopped looking for God too high up and too far away. No doubt few of you will share my experience, but I do believe that most of you will benefit from sharing Wilson's pilgrimage to rediscover an actual human being who never wanted to be God, but merely to see God's justice prevail. Jesus did not die for your right to lord power over others. If he had any single purpose in risking martyrdom at the hands of the Romans, it was to empower his fellow Judeans against their occupiers. And it wasn't simply for the sake of a free Judea. It was for the cause of a just Israel.
I can live with that. It is marvelously, deliciously, transcendently human.
Wilson spent his youth studying to be an Anglican priest. Somewhere along the line he lost his faith, only to later rediscover it. In the process of that journey, he swallowed, digested and spewed forth some of the most elegant observations on what modern humans can really know about the historical figure of Jesus.
His scholarship is second-hand and derivative, but it is proffered to the reader in an unvarnished, disinterested and completely straightforward manner. Wilson's aim is not to proselytize, apologize or sermonize. His sole purpose is to reconstruct what few facts have survived about a man who, although briefly notorious in a very small province of a very large empire, mattered little to history even in his lifetime.
The Jesus of the Gospels is almost certainly fictional. The Gospels were never intended as histories and they actually conform very closely to many other contemporaneous books in similar genres. Scholars are agreed, however, that many words attributed to Jesus are authentic. Wilson goes to great lengths in reconstructing the setting of the Galilean hinterlands which spawned Jesus, the culture which nurtured him, and the political climate of the Roman Occupation which elevated him from just another rabbi to the leader of the resistance. It is quite a story.
Wilson was never a militant atheist. Neither is he now a dogmatic Christian. He approaches the person of Jesus respectfully, without prejudice or preconception, and presents his findings with courage. Where he speculates about the interaction of religious and political forces in first century Palestine, he is scrupulous about marking it as speculative or unsubstantiated.
I fell in love with this book. It is accessible, lively and totally engaging. What's more, I found the demythologizing of the historical Jesus to be liberating. I actually found the human Jesus, a man of his age who would have felt a strong sense of camaraderie with Dr. King or Gandhi, to be figure I could respect and even admire.
Wilson wrote an equally engaging companion book called, "Paul, The Mind of the Apostle", which attempts to explain how the far more documented historical figure of Paul artfully manipulated the dead Jesus into the iconic Christ. It is also worth reading and is equally edifying. I won't bore you with the details of how a very small group of partisans in Jerusalem, led by the brother of the martyred Jesus, were left behind by a very canny, zealous and sometimes unscrupulous genius of a marketer. Suffice it to say, you will want to read "The Mind of the Apostle".
Whether you are a believer or not, "Jesus: A Life" is one book which you will never forget. I see no purpose in denying the factual existence of the historical Jesus, because he did leave a paper trail in the Roman world. And, of course, he almost certainly was not the same character recorded two and three generations later in the Gospels. But he did say some very interesting things -- teachings which ring absolutely authentic when subjected to the most rigorous systems of redaction criticism. Surprisingly, those teachings are almost exclusively about social justice, equality, the obligations of the powerful and the dignity of the powerless.
As I've said more than once tonight, I loved this book. And, to my utter amazement, I LOVED the Jesus who emerged within its pages. This Jesus is not crowned with diadems or ascending triumphantly into paradise. He is, in those haunting words of RFK's eulogy, "a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it."
I first read this book some twenty years ago and it still haunts me. In becoming acquainted with Jesus the man, I became comfortable with my own humanity. I stopped looking for God too high up and too far away. No doubt few of you will share my experience, but I do believe that most of you will benefit from sharing Wilson's pilgrimage to rediscover an actual human being who never wanted to be God, but merely to see God's justice prevail. Jesus did not die for your right to lord power over others. If he had any single purpose in risking martyrdom at the hands of the Romans, it was to empower his fellow Judeans against their occupiers. And it wasn't simply for the sake of a free Judea. It was for the cause of a just Israel.
I can live with that. It is marvelously, deliciously, transcendently human.
September 18, 2021
The figure of Jesus Christ equally permeates the hallowed space of religious scholarship and the profane sphere of history like no other personage or divinity has ever done. A large chunk of the populace believe that he was the Son of God, died on the cross to atone the sins of humanity and that anyone who believed in him can have everlasting life in the kingdom of God which is yet to come. Obviously, what the believers make out of Christ is clearly at odds with the sayings and deeds of the historical Jesus, who ‘existed within an acceptable religious framework and was not setting out to found a new religion, still less to found a philosophical school’. His teachings were different from other teachers of religion in that he spoke in parables. Also, ‘he didn’t wish to deliver the people with a finished pattern which they could follow. The pattern was something which they must make for themselves’. This book is the result of a very relevant attempt to reconcile the historical Jesus with the divine Christ in light of the improvement in Biblical scholarship after 1950 as a result of new archeological and literary finds. A N Wilson is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and has held a prominent position in the world of literature and journalism. He is a great biographer and is also a celebrated and prize-winning novelist. However, he is not a Biblical scholar and his biographies of Jesus (this book) and Paul had been instrumental in flaring controversies up.
Wilson claims that the Apostle Paul had invented the Christianity with which we are familiar today. He transformed the Jewish rituals practiced by Jesus into a form acceptable to the gentiles in Asia Minor, Greece and Rome, where the nascent Christianity took root. The book presents the example of the Eucharist which is not at all a Jewish custom. Similarly, most of the fantastic tales associated with Jesus remind more of the mystery cults of the Mediterranean. There are two stages the gospels took, in assuming its present form. First is the oral tradition about Jesus being eventually written down, and then reshaped by the evangelists for their own particular audiences. An approximate date on which they took the present shape is also guessed at. Mark’s gospel was the first among them, which saw the light of the day in 60 CE, in Rome. Matthew came out in Antioch 85 CE, Luke in Corinth 80 CE and John in 100 CE. The historicity of gospels is a pressing point and addressed as such in the book, but no definite answer is given. We can never find the truth by modern historical techniques. Wilson treats them more as stories in which historical characters are woven in. Luke mentions a Roman census when Quirinius was the governor of Syria and Herod the king of Judaea. However, history tells us that Herod reigned between 37 - 4 BCE and Quirinius was not the Syrian governor in this period. Moreover, the census was held in anticipation of imposing a hated poll tax on the Jews and nobody was expected to travel to their ancestors’ places, who had lived centuries before. The book presents a lot many examples like these.
However, the author admits that the New Testament could well be closer in time to Jesus than was once supposed. The analogy is arresting. It is said to be like entering a room after a person has just left, with the impression of a head clearly visible against the cushion, a glass half-empty by the chair, or a cigarette still smouldering in the ash-tray. There are historians who convincingly argue that Jesus was never a living presence in history, but only as religious speculation. This can’t be true. What other evidence do they propose to get convinced, of a person who lived twenty centuries ago? We conceive of the historicity of Buddha or Alexander only through literary references dating very close to their supposed life spans. With this argument at our backs, we’d have to conclude that Jesus was a historical person.
As can be expected, the gospels contain some exaggerated accounts of Jesus’ deeds. Wilson mentions a few incongruities between the narratives of the four gospels which could only come about if the writers were genuinely confused about some of the finer aspects of a real, historical event. Also, it is likely that Jesus was not a carpenter at all, but rather a scholar. Besides, the author warns that the gospels are not balanced biographies, but are really Passion narratives. The other parts in it are just a prelude to the accounts of the last week of Jesus’ life. Subjectivity is the only criterion of gospel truth. This book also examines why Jesus soon became a thorn in the flesh of Jewish religious orthodoxy, which believed in strict observance of rituals for condoning their sins. Jesus granted God’s forgiveness to sinners who simply believed in and followed God in spirit and truth. This ran contrary to the theories of the Pharisees or Essenes who thought that only the pure deserved it.
The effort taken by the gospel writers in ameliorating the guilt of the Romans in condemning Christ requires special mention. This is an area which must be examined in more detail. They place all blame at the doors of the Jews who even demands that his blood be on them and their progeny. The governor Pilate is portrayed as forced to order Jesus’ crucifixion by the mob’s pressure. This incident paved the way for the growth of anti-Semitism in Christian lands, but it was only a bid to propagate the new religion of Christianity among Roman citizens. Convenient to their effort, the parallel church in Jerusalem headed by Jesus’ brother James was crushed in the outbreak of violence against Roman authority and the subsequent purge and destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.
As claimed, the book is indeed a dispassionate account of Jesus of Nazareth rather than Christ of Bethlehem. He presents some original concepts which are very bold. He proposes that Apostle Paul was the servant of the High Priest who was in the team that arrested Jesus at Gethsemane and who had his ear injured in the skirmish. This goes well with the fact that Paul was one of the persecutors of Christians in the beginning and only came round to adoring Jesus after a revelation on the road to Damascus. The book is very well researched and contains a good bibliography with an impressive index. However, the narrative is a bit terse which requires constant vigil from the readers.
The book is highly recommended.
Wilson claims that the Apostle Paul had invented the Christianity with which we are familiar today. He transformed the Jewish rituals practiced by Jesus into a form acceptable to the gentiles in Asia Minor, Greece and Rome, where the nascent Christianity took root. The book presents the example of the Eucharist which is not at all a Jewish custom. Similarly, most of the fantastic tales associated with Jesus remind more of the mystery cults of the Mediterranean. There are two stages the gospels took, in assuming its present form. First is the oral tradition about Jesus being eventually written down, and then reshaped by the evangelists for their own particular audiences. An approximate date on which they took the present shape is also guessed at. Mark’s gospel was the first among them, which saw the light of the day in 60 CE, in Rome. Matthew came out in Antioch 85 CE, Luke in Corinth 80 CE and John in 100 CE. The historicity of gospels is a pressing point and addressed as such in the book, but no definite answer is given. We can never find the truth by modern historical techniques. Wilson treats them more as stories in which historical characters are woven in. Luke mentions a Roman census when Quirinius was the governor of Syria and Herod the king of Judaea. However, history tells us that Herod reigned between 37 - 4 BCE and Quirinius was not the Syrian governor in this period. Moreover, the census was held in anticipation of imposing a hated poll tax on the Jews and nobody was expected to travel to their ancestors’ places, who had lived centuries before. The book presents a lot many examples like these.
However, the author admits that the New Testament could well be closer in time to Jesus than was once supposed. The analogy is arresting. It is said to be like entering a room after a person has just left, with the impression of a head clearly visible against the cushion, a glass half-empty by the chair, or a cigarette still smouldering in the ash-tray. There are historians who convincingly argue that Jesus was never a living presence in history, but only as religious speculation. This can’t be true. What other evidence do they propose to get convinced, of a person who lived twenty centuries ago? We conceive of the historicity of Buddha or Alexander only through literary references dating very close to their supposed life spans. With this argument at our backs, we’d have to conclude that Jesus was a historical person.
As can be expected, the gospels contain some exaggerated accounts of Jesus’ deeds. Wilson mentions a few incongruities between the narratives of the four gospels which could only come about if the writers were genuinely confused about some of the finer aspects of a real, historical event. Also, it is likely that Jesus was not a carpenter at all, but rather a scholar. Besides, the author warns that the gospels are not balanced biographies, but are really Passion narratives. The other parts in it are just a prelude to the accounts of the last week of Jesus’ life. Subjectivity is the only criterion of gospel truth. This book also examines why Jesus soon became a thorn in the flesh of Jewish religious orthodoxy, which believed in strict observance of rituals for condoning their sins. Jesus granted God’s forgiveness to sinners who simply believed in and followed God in spirit and truth. This ran contrary to the theories of the Pharisees or Essenes who thought that only the pure deserved it.
The effort taken by the gospel writers in ameliorating the guilt of the Romans in condemning Christ requires special mention. This is an area which must be examined in more detail. They place all blame at the doors of the Jews who even demands that his blood be on them and their progeny. The governor Pilate is portrayed as forced to order Jesus’ crucifixion by the mob’s pressure. This incident paved the way for the growth of anti-Semitism in Christian lands, but it was only a bid to propagate the new religion of Christianity among Roman citizens. Convenient to their effort, the parallel church in Jerusalem headed by Jesus’ brother James was crushed in the outbreak of violence against Roman authority and the subsequent purge and destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.
As claimed, the book is indeed a dispassionate account of Jesus of Nazareth rather than Christ of Bethlehem. He presents some original concepts which are very bold. He proposes that Apostle Paul was the servant of the High Priest who was in the team that arrested Jesus at Gethsemane and who had his ear injured in the skirmish. This goes well with the fact that Paul was one of the persecutors of Christians in the beginning and only came round to adoring Jesus after a revelation on the road to Damascus. The book is very well researched and contains a good bibliography with an impressive index. However, the narrative is a bit terse which requires constant vigil from the readers.
The book is highly recommended.
September 15, 2018
Your reaction to this remarkable book is going to depend on many things; if you have an interest in the real person behind the stories, whether or not you are a Christian, your world view and the place of God or religion within it and so much more. For my own part I am what you might call a hedge Christian. You have heard of hedge witches? Witches who practice outside a coven? Well, my version of Christianity is like that. As a child I was in awe of the mystery and profound sense of holiness I found within the church and my upbringing was steeped in Anglo-Catholicism.
I got out of the church habit as a busy teenager – I was too busy with school, sports and hobbies and it was too hard to go back to something I never felt quite good enough for. The evangelical Christians I met outside the home were all so good and I was not. Some of their views seemed odd and exclusionary and I couldn’t cope with that. However I never lost a belief in God or in Jesus and my entire life has been an argument between my faith and what others say my faith needs me to be.
I read the notorious Unlock Reality after all the fuss on Care 2 and thought “Yes, I think I get it.” This book is like Unlock Reality for grownups. Sometimes the language is unfamiliar to me; I had to look up Midrash for instance. Print is small, sentences are long and the research is painstaking but the book nevertheless is beautifully written following extensive scholarship on the author’s part. It says on the cover that “A.N.Wilson writes like an angel” and I am not entirely sure what that means. I do know that researching and writing this biography of the historical Jesus challenged his Christian faith to the point where he could no longer call himself a Christian and I am not at all surprised. If by Christianity, you mean the religion created, in the main, by St Paul and his adherents or the institution of the Church then reading this will reveal how little this had to do with Jesus the Man rather than the legend.
I could go on and on in this vein but I don’t want to spoil the adventure for other readers or incur the wrathful trolling of the Christianity police. Suffice it to say that there will be some surprises in this book as to events, actions and motives, the accepted chronology of the gospels, the likelihood of the Romans or the Jews being responsible for what happened to Jesus, the dreadful persecution of the Jews that has followed on from the Synoptic/Paulian party line, the authenticity of those synoptic gospels, the actions of Martin Luther towards the Letter of James, conflict in the early Church and much more.
It has certainly helped my understanding and my individual belief. I do not disbelieve. I do feel less depressed about my “hedge Christian” existence and more reconciled with conflicting aspects of my own personality. I am reading my Bible with new eyes, I want to read the Apocrypha now and I hope new scrolls surface one day with fresh evidence for how it really was for those first century Jewish followers of Jesus.
One telling passage in the final chapter of Wilson’s book really hit home:
“The truth is that Jesus remains too disturbing a figure ever to be left to himself. Christianity in all its multifarious manifestations, Orthodox and heterodox, has been a repeated attempt to make sense of him, to cut him down to size. The extent to which no saying or story of Jesus can, in fact, be taken to its logical conclusion without being contradicted by some other saying or fact is perhaps less a symptom of how imperfectly the Gospels record him than how oblique and how terrifying a figure he actually was in history. Terrifying, because he really does undermine everything.”
Read it, it probably won’t destroy your faith and it may well affirm it.
November 16, 2017
This book is an interesting composite—part biography, part interpretation of Scripture, part conjecture, and part common sense assumption. Wilson looks at Jesus’ life through first century archaeological and historical understanding though he makes on attempt to create a system out of the contradictory statements that come from the four Gospels; Jesus is presented as a Galilean _hasid_ who did not seem to have setting up a church in mind at all.
“It is out of Galilee, healers and shamans, of revolutionaries and freedom-fighters, of religiously independent northern, of rich frames and prosperous fishermen, that Jesus was to come.” (p 100)
A fairly delightfully disruptive read—questioning and open-minded, respectfully skeptical and speculative. Recommended.
“It is out of Galilee, healers and shamans, of revolutionaries and freedom-fighters, of religiously independent northern, of rich frames and prosperous fishermen, that Jesus was to come.” (p 100)
A fairly delightfully disruptive read—questioning and open-minded, respectfully skeptical and speculative. Recommended.
April 10, 2009
A.N. Wilson is a clever writer, but he isn't a biblical scholar, and his picture of the historical Jesus is not quite up to the mark, mathew, luke and john.
I get the impression that the author is a lapsed church attendee of the Jesus of faith, who needs to get closer to his target by viewing his historical first century Judaic setting.
I get the impression that the author is a lapsed church attendee of the Jesus of faith, who needs to get closer to his target by viewing his historical first century Judaic setting.
March 1, 2011
Fascinating, easy to reasd info (not like a textbook). Only thing to keep in mind is that the author presents an atheist view in which any magic or miracles must be explained away. Regardless, provides a wonderful and thought provoking perspective into the times.
March 23, 2016
Really is a good book. Doesn't dispute the divinity of Christ, but tried to figure out what might he had actually said and done without the theological embellishment.
March 29, 2020
An amazing amount of research went into this book.
June 2, 2012
Wilson is a good and well-respected biographer who has written other biographies of writers who have religious themes in their writings, namely C.S. Lewis and Leo Tolstoy. Jesus: A Life is a balanced look at the life of Jesus, especially for someone who is no longer a believing Christian. However, his main argument that Jesus is basically too Jewish to have been the Messiah is not particular original.
Wilson relies quite heavily on the work of the Jewish scholar, Geza Vermes.
Still Wilson is admirably sensitive to Christianity and Christians. Unlike John Dominic Crossan, he actually gives the benefit of the doubt to believers and allows for some veracity of the Christian mythos.
There are some specific issues that I think Wilson does not fully consider or develop.
If the Jewish followers of Jesus were "blasphemous", why is it hard to believe that they may have been harassed by the Jewish religious leaders?
Wilson asserts that the belief of the earliest Christians were different from later credal formulations, but he doesn't really back this up. Documents like the Didache show a remarkable similarity to documents like the Nicene Creed.
Wilson discounts the "agony in the garden" by appealing to Jesus' divinity? So why can't Wilson wrap his head around a fully human Jesus? I'm sure there is some ancient heresy that this falls under.
Even though Wilson has a background in Classics, he claims that any phrase or portion of the New Testament that cannot be translated back into Aramaic is probably not authentic? This is an odd standard and one that he needed to defend better.
He makes a rather thin claim about Jesus' belief in astrology because of Qumran, but doesn't definitively tie Jesus to the Qumran community or to astrology.
Wilson claims, as many do, that Jesus is not the founder of the Christian Church, but he also doesn't explain away the Petrine commission, the role of early disciples in first century controversies, and other similar scriptural passages.
He also seems to prefer John's Gospel to the Synoptics, but doesn't give any reason why this is so. I know this isn't a scholarly work necessarily, but I think that is a cop-out.
Wilson unnecessarily ties the institution of the Eucharist to the Church itself. Why? What about Jesus' ministry to the Gentiles, mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels that preceded John too. I also dont' but that Jesus didn't institute the Eucharist because he knew that he was going to be arrested.
Doesn't it make sense that if you were going to institute a New Kingdom and usher in the "reign of God" that this would be a good time to do so? How fitting a memorial this would be.
Wilson claims that there is no account of Jesus' crime, but fails to mention that both Josephus and Tacitus make reference to Jesus' death as a criminal as do the Gospels.
Finally, Wilson claims that Jesus was no a theologian, but there are various examples (the parables, Sermon on the Mount, debates with the religious authorities, where Jesus seems to be a quite able practitioner of theology and a sound religious teacher.
Wilson relies quite heavily on the work of the Jewish scholar, Geza Vermes.
Still Wilson is admirably sensitive to Christianity and Christians. Unlike John Dominic Crossan, he actually gives the benefit of the doubt to believers and allows for some veracity of the Christian mythos.
There are some specific issues that I think Wilson does not fully consider or develop.
If the Jewish followers of Jesus were "blasphemous", why is it hard to believe that they may have been harassed by the Jewish religious leaders?
Wilson asserts that the belief of the earliest Christians were different from later credal formulations, but he doesn't really back this up. Documents like the Didache show a remarkable similarity to documents like the Nicene Creed.
Wilson discounts the "agony in the garden" by appealing to Jesus' divinity? So why can't Wilson wrap his head around a fully human Jesus? I'm sure there is some ancient heresy that this falls under.
Even though Wilson has a background in Classics, he claims that any phrase or portion of the New Testament that cannot be translated back into Aramaic is probably not authentic? This is an odd standard and one that he needed to defend better.
He makes a rather thin claim about Jesus' belief in astrology because of Qumran, but doesn't definitively tie Jesus to the Qumran community or to astrology.
Wilson claims, as many do, that Jesus is not the founder of the Christian Church, but he also doesn't explain away the Petrine commission, the role of early disciples in first century controversies, and other similar scriptural passages.
He also seems to prefer John's Gospel to the Synoptics, but doesn't give any reason why this is so. I know this isn't a scholarly work necessarily, but I think that is a cop-out.
Wilson unnecessarily ties the institution of the Eucharist to the Church itself. Why? What about Jesus' ministry to the Gentiles, mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels that preceded John too. I also dont' but that Jesus didn't institute the Eucharist because he knew that he was going to be arrested.
Doesn't it make sense that if you were going to institute a New Kingdom and usher in the "reign of God" that this would be a good time to do so? How fitting a memorial this would be.
Wilson claims that there is no account of Jesus' crime, but fails to mention that both Josephus and Tacitus make reference to Jesus' death as a criminal as do the Gospels.
Finally, Wilson claims that Jesus was no a theologian, but there are various examples (the parables, Sermon on the Mount, debates with the religious authorities, where Jesus seems to be a quite able practitioner of theology and a sound religious teacher.
March 31, 2010
A.N. Wilson's attempt at a historical biography of the life of Jesus is well written and interesting. The roots of some esoteric belief systems like gnosticism are well explained here. Recommended reading for students of scripture who are well versed in the history of various canons. Not recommend for those seeking affirmation of mainstream belief. Contains lots of controversial subject matter on the life and formation of the Christian church and its schisms.
July 9, 2015
This was a very scholarly read, full of sound historical detail and speculation. Despite that it was most readable. The historical evidence for an historical Jesus was fascinating and I was amazed how much of the Gospels can be 'proved' historically and archaeologically. In the end what you 'believe' about Jesus may hang on faith but it was very interesting to read about the social and political situation at the time the New Testament events happened.
January 3, 2021
I read a few of the 'historical Jesus' books and articles during the 1990s, or whenever it was that they were so popular. I found most of them not only historically suspect, but also thinly veiled attempts at proselytizing by the authors.
This book was my favorite of the bunch.
This book was my favorite of the bunch.
November 26, 2022
I don’t know why A.N. Wilson is writing a life of Christ. Relies on shock value and speculative arguments and an immediate contempt for religion.
November 22, 2018
I am not sure how I feel about this book – whether I recommend it or not or what the real premise of it is. Wilson dissects the Gospels of the New Testament event by event – comparing their stories – along with some of Paul’s letters, trying to rationalize them, to find their weaknesses, faults, and truths. He makes guesses about what things mean, but the book has no point except as a sort of rumination.
One strength of the book is the way that Wilson threads the Old Testament stories into the Christian narratives to explain how Jesus became synonymous with the messiah, using the Old Testament stories as proof. Another strength is that Wilson throws a spotlight on outright myths – that 3 kings were at Jesus’ birth, that he was born in a stable and that animals were present – none of which is in the Bible, yet we have Christian narratives and pageants each year that include this cast of characters.
The book made me think. And one of the things I thought about was how the general consensus is that John the Baptist was sort of rough because he wore clothing made of goat hair or camel hair with a leather belt. Well, goat hair is woven into a very fine fabric called angora, and it is elegant. As for camel hair, it is woven into one of the finest and most expensive fabrics. And then, there’s that leather belt.
Wilson addressed the issue of Jesus’
wealth. His large home in Galilea, his expensive clothing that was auctioned when he was crucified.
What was lacking were Gnostic Gospels or any of the Gospels that were left out of the catholic Bible or discovered after it was put together. There’s no reference to Gospel of Mary or Gospel of Thomas which are pretty important in understanding Jesus message.
Another weakness in my opinion is there’s sort of a feeling in the book that there are “people” and there are “women.” I remember hearing in a documentary about Tiananmen Square – the narrator said, “At first there were a bunch of people milling around. And then the women started to arrive.” It’s such a subtle and powerful sexism – and it’s in this book.
Another weaknesses of the book is that Wilson’s exposure to Judaism is intellectual. He misunderstands the essence of Shekinah. He applies the word “hassid” to Jesus which is sort of baffling and he actually means “zadok” (righteous). For this reason, his writing about the rituals is suspect.
And the book sort of goes nowhere. It’s sort of a study guide to figuring things out yourself, and maybe that’s a strength. Otherwise, there’s no real belief, just a recycling of other people’s beliefs.
One strength of the book is the way that Wilson threads the Old Testament stories into the Christian narratives to explain how Jesus became synonymous with the messiah, using the Old Testament stories as proof. Another strength is that Wilson throws a spotlight on outright myths – that 3 kings were at Jesus’ birth, that he was born in a stable and that animals were present – none of which is in the Bible, yet we have Christian narratives and pageants each year that include this cast of characters.
The book made me think. And one of the things I thought about was how the general consensus is that John the Baptist was sort of rough because he wore clothing made of goat hair or camel hair with a leather belt. Well, goat hair is woven into a very fine fabric called angora, and it is elegant. As for camel hair, it is woven into one of the finest and most expensive fabrics. And then, there’s that leather belt.
Wilson addressed the issue of Jesus’
wealth. His large home in Galilea, his expensive clothing that was auctioned when he was crucified.
What was lacking were Gnostic Gospels or any of the Gospels that were left out of the catholic Bible or discovered after it was put together. There’s no reference to Gospel of Mary or Gospel of Thomas which are pretty important in understanding Jesus message.
Another weakness in my opinion is there’s sort of a feeling in the book that there are “people” and there are “women.” I remember hearing in a documentary about Tiananmen Square – the narrator said, “At first there were a bunch of people milling around. And then the women started to arrive.” It’s such a subtle and powerful sexism – and it’s in this book.
Another weaknesses of the book is that Wilson’s exposure to Judaism is intellectual. He misunderstands the essence of Shekinah. He applies the word “hassid” to Jesus which is sort of baffling and he actually means “zadok” (righteous). For this reason, his writing about the rituals is suspect.
And the book sort of goes nowhere. It’s sort of a study guide to figuring things out yourself, and maybe that’s a strength. Otherwise, there’s no real belief, just a recycling of other people’s beliefs.
November 2, 2021
I read this book a few years ago and I remember finding it absolutely fascinating. My second time reading it I was much less impressed and found the author to be an opinionated ass at times. The first time, I was very intrigued by the idea of the historical Jesus versus the Jesus portrayed through religion. I had never studied Jesus outside of a church setting so I really got a new perspective from the book. However, this time around, I'm living in a world where I am much more weary of people spouting their opinions as if they were facts and claiming anyone who disagrees with them to be misguided or, worse, deluded. The author starts the book by explaining how much of his theories are based on conjecture since there aren't a lot of historical records outside of the religious writings to draw upon when reviewing the life of Jesus, so in that way the author is transparent. Unfortunately, in this reading, I felt like he used that as license to tell us what other people's opinions were and how they supported his own. This included not just biblical figures like Paul and Mathew, but other religious scholars who have written about the Bible, as well as Jesus himself. There's conjecture and then there's putting words in other people's mouths to make them agree with your premise. So, I was torn on how to rate this book. It did explore big concepts from a new-to-me perspective that I found to be valuable, but it also one snarky dude's point of view. Tread carefully.
December 31, 2021
A compelling and deeply researched read, that ultimately strives to do an impossible task: reconstruct a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Wilson admits this is impossible and never quite settles on what to do with this impossibility, aside from increasingly risky claims and logical leaps, but he landed in a satisfying and deeply thought-provoking place for me as a Christian-adjacent progressive.
Note: this is not a book that will make you more Christian; I believe it made me less Christian. One of my major takeaways was how unlikely it is that Jesus ever meant to found a new world religion (as opposed to making his Jewish contemporaries better at Judaism) - a conclusion that seems to shatter the history of Christianity and place a conspicuous burden on Paul. Paul, it seems, is the one we have to thank for "Christianity," not Jesus, and this book did not give me confidence that that is a good thing.
Note: this is not a book that will make you more Christian; I believe it made me less Christian. One of my major takeaways was how unlikely it is that Jesus ever meant to found a new world religion (as opposed to making his Jewish contemporaries better at Judaism) - a conclusion that seems to shatter the history of Christianity and place a conspicuous burden on Paul. Paul, it seems, is the one we have to thank for "Christianity," not Jesus, and this book did not give me confidence that that is a good thing.
August 14, 2025
A.N. Wilson’s Jesus is certainly not a conventional pious biography—it’s an unorthodox, reimagining of the historical figure behind the Gospels - stripping away church dogma to reveal a man who was not a meek moral mascot, but a radical preacher confronting power, injustice, and the rigid legalism of his day.
One of the book’s most striking choices is the placement of Saul (Paul) at the arrest of Jesus, suggesting he was the man who lost his ear to Peter’s sword. It’s an audacious move, more novelistic than strictly evidential, but it lends a fascinating dramatic shape to Saul’s later conversion: from enemy at the scene to apostle of the very man he once opposed.
Wilson’s Jesus is a deeply human, political figure—driven by compassion, a fierce sense of social justice, and a vision of God’s kingdom utterly unlike the earthly empires around him.
One of the book’s most striking choices is the placement of Saul (Paul) at the arrest of Jesus, suggesting he was the man who lost his ear to Peter’s sword. It’s an audacious move, more novelistic than strictly evidential, but it lends a fascinating dramatic shape to Saul’s later conversion: from enemy at the scene to apostle of the very man he once opposed.
Wilson’s Jesus is a deeply human, political figure—driven by compassion, a fierce sense of social justice, and a vision of God’s kingdom utterly unlike the earthly empires around him.
March 4, 2023
Quite frankly, I don't understand the buzz around this book. It's a straightforward biography of Jesus, stripping him of his divinity to paint him as solely human instead (the man behind the myths, if you want). As an atheist myself, here's not a stance which particularly fazed me.
On the plus side, it's easy to read. It relies on historiography as much as upon the Gospels, but filtered to suit the views of the author.
All in all, then, if I surely found it satisfying to read I wouldn't go as far as to claim it to be profound or challenging (unless you are a Christian, that is...).
On the plus side, it's easy to read. It relies on historiography as much as upon the Gospels, but filtered to suit the views of the author.
All in all, then, if I surely found it satisfying to read I wouldn't go as far as to claim it to be profound or challenging (unless you are a Christian, that is...).
November 28, 2019
The author attempts to relate Jesus as a human person to his abilities to perform miracles. He says he doesn't believe Jesus is Lord, and works for 250 pages to prove his point. There is a lot in the book from the Pseudepigraphia and the Apocrphal Gospels of Thomas and others. While he does cite Josephus and Eusebius, the Bible he uses is the Catholic Jerusalem Bible. Most Protestants would stop reading this book after the first few chapters. Most Catholics would be outraged. I only finished it because I am a church librarian and need to know both sides of arguments.
September 17, 2025
Another book on the historical Jesus and another interesting read. Many of Wilson’s conjectures coincide with ideas expressed by the other authors so that I’m rather worryingly starting to think I’ve got a handle on the whole story. Obviously I continue to know nothing. Nevertheless, I’ve gone from thinking Jesus was a completely invented figure to believing him to be an interesting real person and thinker. I would certainly recommend this book to anyone interested in the subject, which should be anyone with an open mind.
July 15, 2023
A must read for anyone curious about what is really known about the person who was Jesus and how it all happened - Wilson guides you through a complicated subject in a really comprehensive way. The first few chapters are pretty complicated but very necessary for understanding the rest of it - it s a quick read and I guarantee you will learn a ton. This is not the story of Jesus as Tom’s in the 4 gospels, it is a detailed look at what is known about Jesse and what is unknowable.
July 27, 2023
Fascinating to hear Wilson's opinions as a historian. Not surprising to find that JC is whatever anyone wants him to be and the teachings in the Bible can be used by anyone to do anything.
If JC existed as a historic figure I agree with the conclusion of this book, that surely he would wish he'd never been born because of what has been said and done in his name.
The Bible is a masterclass of manipulation and obfuscation. Much like Brexit.
If JC existed as a historic figure I agree with the conclusion of this book, that surely he would wish he'd never been born because of what has been said and done in his name.
The Bible is a masterclass of manipulation and obfuscation. Much like Brexit.
February 6, 2024
Jesus is a shadowy figure historically, but he remains doggedly there, and, in spite of what the clergymen may tell us, we remain aware of him, not as a mystical presence, but not as a figure of pure legend either. He is more real than Robin Hood or King Arthur. 'Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away', he is reported to have said. It is a prophecy which has come true.
A N Wilson boldly examines the life of Jesus in this thought provoking work, aiming to separate Christ, the son of God, and Jesus, the figure in history.
In the introduction, Wilson explains his own relationship to faith and how he came to take on such a task as this. He was 'born' into Christianity, in the sense he was Christened young within a Christian family, before he had a choice in this path. He studied the religion for many years, before realising he struggled to call himself a Christian when he had so many doubts around its origin. I found this introduction to be really helpful and important before continuing with the book. I knew that Wilson was someone who had a deep understanding with the faith, whilst also being a disciplined and detailed academic, I felt that he would approach this subject without set prejudice or bias and would be fair in his analytical study of this historical figure.
In the same vein, it would be hard for me to give a fair review without outlining my own beliefs and why I approached this book to begin with. I am not Christened and do not have a particularly religious family, though did attend a Church of England primary school so have a base knowledge of the religion's history. However, while not strictly devout or religious, I have often turned to the New Testament and the figure of Jesus due to their literary, cultural and historical appeals. I have always found the figure of Christ to be inspirational, complex and intriguing, whether he is the son of God or not. For this reason, I was eager to read a book that could delve a little deeper into a man I consider so nuanced and fascinating.
Throughout the book, Wilson explores the early life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, analysing the various accounts across the Gospels, employing various methods in doing so. For one, I enjoyed how he distinguishes the use of subtle language choices and how certain words give more credence to stories than others. In another light, it was also interesting which 'myths' were debunked, such as the classic nativity scene we have all grown accustomed to, not actually featuring in the gospels, but rather a tale of Mary birthing Jesus in a cave like crevice in a mountain side that has bloomed into the Christmas card image we know today. Furthermore, Wilson also makes a great highlight of exploring how the gospels were originally supposed to be read and how they were more symbolical and poetic than how modern day readers may pick them apart today. Finally, it excited and intrigued me to read how much of a rebel and outsider Jesus was considered, whilst it also sparked many a thought on his own personal relationships with his mother and family.
There are a few frustrating elements where there just are no black or white answers, as so much is based on hearsay or intelligent probabilities. But this must be expected when dealing with a history so undocumented compared to today's standards.
I did enjoy this book as I certainly learnt a lot and walked away with a deeper understanding of the gospels and the figure of Christ, which was what I was hoping for. I would advise that this book is really only for people with an open mind. If you're anti-religion then you will just be looking to pick holes in anything not black and white (and this book certainly covers a lot of greys), while if you're devoutly religious you may find yourselves confronted with some difficult facts and opinions.
Wilson finishes the book with a rather poignant ending, imagining how Jesus would have reacted and felt to the way his name has been adapted to Christianity and the acts that have been committed, both good and bad, in his name. Certainly a thought provoking question that could warrant a second book of its own!
A N Wilson boldly examines the life of Jesus in this thought provoking work, aiming to separate Christ, the son of God, and Jesus, the figure in history.
In the introduction, Wilson explains his own relationship to faith and how he came to take on such a task as this. He was 'born' into Christianity, in the sense he was Christened young within a Christian family, before he had a choice in this path. He studied the religion for many years, before realising he struggled to call himself a Christian when he had so many doubts around its origin. I found this introduction to be really helpful and important before continuing with the book. I knew that Wilson was someone who had a deep understanding with the faith, whilst also being a disciplined and detailed academic, I felt that he would approach this subject without set prejudice or bias and would be fair in his analytical study of this historical figure.
In the same vein, it would be hard for me to give a fair review without outlining my own beliefs and why I approached this book to begin with. I am not Christened and do not have a particularly religious family, though did attend a Church of England primary school so have a base knowledge of the religion's history. However, while not strictly devout or religious, I have often turned to the New Testament and the figure of Jesus due to their literary, cultural and historical appeals. I have always found the figure of Christ to be inspirational, complex and intriguing, whether he is the son of God or not. For this reason, I was eager to read a book that could delve a little deeper into a man I consider so nuanced and fascinating.
Throughout the book, Wilson explores the early life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, analysing the various accounts across the Gospels, employing various methods in doing so. For one, I enjoyed how he distinguishes the use of subtle language choices and how certain words give more credence to stories than others. In another light, it was also interesting which 'myths' were debunked, such as the classic nativity scene we have all grown accustomed to, not actually featuring in the gospels, but rather a tale of Mary birthing Jesus in a cave like crevice in a mountain side that has bloomed into the Christmas card image we know today. Furthermore, Wilson also makes a great highlight of exploring how the gospels were originally supposed to be read and how they were more symbolical and poetic than how modern day readers may pick them apart today. Finally, it excited and intrigued me to read how much of a rebel and outsider Jesus was considered, whilst it also sparked many a thought on his own personal relationships with his mother and family.
There are a few frustrating elements where there just are no black or white answers, as so much is based on hearsay or intelligent probabilities. But this must be expected when dealing with a history so undocumented compared to today's standards.
I did enjoy this book as I certainly learnt a lot and walked away with a deeper understanding of the gospels and the figure of Christ, which was what I was hoping for. I would advise that this book is really only for people with an open mind. If you're anti-religion then you will just be looking to pick holes in anything not black and white (and this book certainly covers a lot of greys), while if you're devoutly religious you may find yourselves confronted with some difficult facts and opinions.
Wilson finishes the book with a rather poignant ending, imagining how Jesus would have reacted and felt to the way his name has been adapted to Christianity and the acts that have been committed, both good and bad, in his name. Certainly a thought provoking question that could warrant a second book of its own!
March 23, 2022
This is a great piece of writing, albeit it just wasn’t a page turner for me, despite being on a fascinating topic. Well researched and advanced on the topic, this is a useful place to start when comparing parallels and evidence between who can reliably be backed up as a historical figure and who is documented as a religious icon.
May 22, 2024
An excellent look at the historical Jesus, for both believers and non-believers. Each chapter could be a book in itself. The long-winded, somewhat academic sentences slowed me down as I believe they would anyone reading this in 2024.
August 21, 2025
I read this book once before, probably about 30 years ago or so, before I was tracking my reading online. It's an important book, relevant to anyone interested in Christianity's origins from a critical historic perspective.
Read
May 19, 2025I would encourage anyone who loves to read the gospels to read this book to become acquainted with the latest scholarship in this field of inquiry.
July 4, 2025
Interesting read.
July 23, 2025
I bought this book under the impression that it was a biography of Jesus. In a way it is, but it is also a book about the impossibility of such a biography, about what we can guess about the historical Jesus and how, in A.N. Wilson's view, the Church has created a religious Jesus that the actual Jesus would have abhorred.
Wilson explains firstly how Paul pretty much single-handedly created the Jesus of the Cross- the Son of God that we know and worship now. Then he goes on to explain what the Gospels were, how they weren't written as history but as religious texts to support the development of the early Church. In Mark especially, we see a text written by someone justifying the Church, and positioning it as a friend of Rome and an enemy of the Jews.
However that may be, we can begin to see through the fog of history and glimpse the "real" Jesus through careful textual investigation. How is this done? By various means: in Mark for example, Wilson points out passages where it is clear that the author is relaying a story which he doesn't understand - these parts of the Gospel we can surmise come from an earlier tradition. In a similar vein, we can search through the sayings of Jesus and track potential interpolations: if the Greek of the Gospels doesn't make sense in Aramaic (the language of Jesus), it may be a later interpolation.
We can look to the things we can surmise that Jesus actually said and the things he is reported to have done to try and get a sense of him. Firstly he never claimed to be the Son of God. He seemed, in the sayings that Wilson thinks may be authentic, to be emphasising an individual relationship with God rather than suggesting a creation of an institutional church with rules and laws. The Church we know now is a creation of the people that survived Jesus, not of the man himself.
Wilson also claims that the only way to make sense of Holy Week is to assume that Jesus was somehow connected to Jewish rebellion. We know through other sources that Jews were in constant ruction - prophets and rebels abounded during this time Jesus was active. Wilson points to the facts of Holy Week, where Jesus acquires a donkey colt on which to ride into town (in fulfillment of prophecy), and has a room to meet already organized (Wilson casts doubt on whether there was a Last Supper - John, the only Gospel that can be shown to have eyewitness accounts of what happened, doesn't mention a meal), as showing that the had a network of acquaintances in Jerusalem that went beyond his Disciples, acquaintances who were prepared to work for him.
Whether Jesus was actively engaged in rebellion against Rome, or whether he was caught up in a rebellion that was not his can't be known, but Wilson thinks that Jesus ended his life on the Cross thinking that his mission, his message, and his life had ended in failure.
Jesus is a book of opinions and surmises, but Wilson shows the reader how he makes the surmises and why he has the opinions, all the while explaining his sources (there are good notes and a decent bibliography in the edition I read). The mystery of Jesus' actual life will never be fully deciphered, but in Jesus, Wilson has built a possible life, all the while explaining why we have ended up with the Jesus of the Church that we have now.
Really well written, I can recommend Jesus as a great read.
Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au
Wilson explains firstly how Paul pretty much single-handedly created the Jesus of the Cross- the Son of God that we know and worship now. Then he goes on to explain what the Gospels were, how they weren't written as history but as religious texts to support the development of the early Church. In Mark especially, we see a text written by someone justifying the Church, and positioning it as a friend of Rome and an enemy of the Jews.
However that may be, we can begin to see through the fog of history and glimpse the "real" Jesus through careful textual investigation. How is this done? By various means: in Mark for example, Wilson points out passages where it is clear that the author is relaying a story which he doesn't understand - these parts of the Gospel we can surmise come from an earlier tradition. In a similar vein, we can search through the sayings of Jesus and track potential interpolations: if the Greek of the Gospels doesn't make sense in Aramaic (the language of Jesus), it may be a later interpolation.
We can look to the things we can surmise that Jesus actually said and the things he is reported to have done to try and get a sense of him. Firstly he never claimed to be the Son of God. He seemed, in the sayings that Wilson thinks may be authentic, to be emphasising an individual relationship with God rather than suggesting a creation of an institutional church with rules and laws. The Church we know now is a creation of the people that survived Jesus, not of the man himself.
Wilson also claims that the only way to make sense of Holy Week is to assume that Jesus was somehow connected to Jewish rebellion. We know through other sources that Jews were in constant ruction - prophets and rebels abounded during this time Jesus was active. Wilson points to the facts of Holy Week, where Jesus acquires a donkey colt on which to ride into town (in fulfillment of prophecy), and has a room to meet already organized (Wilson casts doubt on whether there was a Last Supper - John, the only Gospel that can be shown to have eyewitness accounts of what happened, doesn't mention a meal), as showing that the had a network of acquaintances in Jerusalem that went beyond his Disciples, acquaintances who were prepared to work for him.
Whether Jesus was actively engaged in rebellion against Rome, or whether he was caught up in a rebellion that was not his can't be known, but Wilson thinks that Jesus ended his life on the Cross thinking that his mission, his message, and his life had ended in failure.
Jesus is a book of opinions and surmises, but Wilson shows the reader how he makes the surmises and why he has the opinions, all the while explaining his sources (there are good notes and a decent bibliography in the edition I read). The mystery of Jesus' actual life will never be fully deciphered, but in Jesus, Wilson has built a possible life, all the while explaining why we have ended up with the Jesus of the Church that we have now.
Really well written, I can recommend Jesus as a great read.
Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au
January 26, 2009
Wilson is a good and well-respected biographer who has written other biographies of writers who have religious themes in their writings, namely C.S. Lewis and Leo Tolstoy.
This is a balanced look at the life of Jesus, especially for someone who is no longer a believing Christian. However, his main argument that Jesus is basically too Jewish to have been the Messiah is not particular original.
Wilson relies quite heavily on the work of the Jewish scholar, Geza Vermes.
Still Wilson is admirably sensitive to Christianity and Christians. Unlike John Dominic Crossan, he actually gives the benefit of the doubt to believers and allows for some veracity of the Christian mythos.
There are some specific issues that I think Wilson does not fully consider or develop.
If the Jewish followers of Jesus were "blasphemous", why is it hard to believe that they may have been harassed by the Jewish religious leaders?
Wilson asserts that the belief of the earliest Christians were different from later credal formulations, but he doesn't really back this up. Documents like the Didache show a remarkable similarity to documents like the Nicene Creed.
Wilson discounts the "agony in the garden" by appealing to Jesus' divinity? So why can't Wilson wrap his head around a fully human Jesus? I'm sure there is some ancient heresy that this falls under.
Even though Wilson has a background in Classics, he claims that any phrase or portion of the New Testament that cannot be translated back into Aramaic is probably not authentic? This is an odd standard and one that he needed to defend better.
He makes a rather thin claim about Jesus' belief in astrology because of Qumran, but doesn't definitively tie Jesus to the Qumran community or to astrology.
Wilson claims, as many do, that Jesus is not the founder of the Christian Church, but he also doesn't explain away the Petrine commission, the role of early disciples in first century controversies, and other similar scriptural passages.
He also seems to prefer John's Gospel to the Synoptics, but doesn't give any reason why this is so. I know this isn't a scholarly work necessarily, but I think that is a cop-out.
Wilson unnecessarily ties the institution of the Eucharist to the Church itself. Why? What about Jesus' ministry to the Gentiles, mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels that preceded John too. I also dont' but that Jesus didn't institute the Eucharist because he knew that he was going to be arrested.
Doesn't it make sense that if you were going to institute a New Kingdom and usher in the "reign of God" that this would be a good time to do so? How fitting a memorial this would be.
Wilson claims that there is no account of Jesus' crime, but fails to mention that both Josephus and Tacitus make reference to Jesus' death as a criminal as do the Gospels.
Finally, Wilson claims that Jesus was no a theologian, but there are various examples (the parables, Sermon on the Mount, debates with the religious authorities, where Jesus seems to be a quite able practitioner of theology and a sound religious teacher.
This is a balanced look at the life of Jesus, especially for someone who is no longer a believing Christian. However, his main argument that Jesus is basically too Jewish to have been the Messiah is not particular original.
Wilson relies quite heavily on the work of the Jewish scholar, Geza Vermes.
Still Wilson is admirably sensitive to Christianity and Christians. Unlike John Dominic Crossan, he actually gives the benefit of the doubt to believers and allows for some veracity of the Christian mythos.
There are some specific issues that I think Wilson does not fully consider or develop.
If the Jewish followers of Jesus were "blasphemous", why is it hard to believe that they may have been harassed by the Jewish religious leaders?
Wilson asserts that the belief of the earliest Christians were different from later credal formulations, but he doesn't really back this up. Documents like the Didache show a remarkable similarity to documents like the Nicene Creed.
Wilson discounts the "agony in the garden" by appealing to Jesus' divinity? So why can't Wilson wrap his head around a fully human Jesus? I'm sure there is some ancient heresy that this falls under.
Even though Wilson has a background in Classics, he claims that any phrase or portion of the New Testament that cannot be translated back into Aramaic is probably not authentic? This is an odd standard and one that he needed to defend better.
He makes a rather thin claim about Jesus' belief in astrology because of Qumran, but doesn't definitively tie Jesus to the Qumran community or to astrology.
Wilson claims, as many do, that Jesus is not the founder of the Christian Church, but he also doesn't explain away the Petrine commission, the role of early disciples in first century controversies, and other similar scriptural passages.
He also seems to prefer John's Gospel to the Synoptics, but doesn't give any reason why this is so. I know this isn't a scholarly work necessarily, but I think that is a cop-out.
Wilson unnecessarily ties the institution of the Eucharist to the Church itself. Why? What about Jesus' ministry to the Gentiles, mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels that preceded John too. I also dont' but that Jesus didn't institute the Eucharist because he knew that he was going to be arrested.
Doesn't it make sense that if you were going to institute a New Kingdom and usher in the "reign of God" that this would be a good time to do so? How fitting a memorial this would be.
Wilson claims that there is no account of Jesus' crime, but fails to mention that both Josephus and Tacitus make reference to Jesus' death as a criminal as do the Gospels.
Finally, Wilson claims that Jesus was no a theologian, but there are various examples (the parables, Sermon on the Mount, debates with the religious authorities, where Jesus seems to be a quite able practitioner of theology and a sound religious teacher.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews