What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus: Nativity - Passion - Resurrection
The Nativity, Passion and Resurrection are the three defining episodes in the life of Jesus, forming the foundations of the Christian tradition. But what is the truth behind these epoch-making events?
Geza Vermes is one of the world's most respected bibilical historians. Bringing together his three acclaimed works on the life of Jesus in one volume, this book examines the circumstances surrounding the miraculous birth of Jesus, from the prophetic star to Herod's murderous decree; looks afresh at the arrest, trial and execution of this Jewish charismatic; and finally analyses Jesus' crucifixion and the subsequent sightings of him by his disciples.
Drawing on the New Testament, Jewish documents and sources from classical literature and history, these works separate myth from fact to penetrate the deeper meanings of the story of Christ.
479 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 1, 2010
15 people are currently reading
53 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 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 18, 2021
I liked his other book Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels better. That book provided a lot of details that I didn't know already about the Jewish context around Jesus' time.
This book is somewhat similar, but here you can really detect the overtone of frustration in his words. Understandably, as the Jews have suffered a lot under Christians, but he seems to see antisemitism everywhere and often writes as if the authors of the gospel deliberately scapegoated the jews. Even so, I found it interesting to read the gospels with different eyes, and could see that sometimes he does have a point.
The two books by Géza Vermes that I just read were my first introduction to Scripture critic, I never before really read much about it. Thus the content was a bit shocking to me: all sorts of things were (according to Vermes), not historical, but added later for theological reasons. He describes this rather convincing, so much so that I now have a hard time reading the gospels without thinking: "this is probably not actually said by Jesus".
On the other hand, in some cases his line of reasoning is like: "This bit doesn't fit my theory, hence it was inserted later". I don't find such things all that convincing.
Also, at times he quotes Scripture to make his point, but he does that in such a way that I feel that he really missed the point of that verse. For example, to prove that Jews did not believe in life after death, he quotes (among other things) Job 14:14, but in my opinion that verse does not definitely state that there is no life after death, it leaves the question open. In my opinion we should be open to the fact that faith can evolve. What was a question once, can become more clearly defined later.
The end of the book, about the resurrection was rather disappointing. He sets out to show all the flaws in the gospels and all the contradictory statements, and how it is really impossible that the pharisees would believe that the disciples would steal the body, so obviously the whole story about the bribes was inserted later, and so on. But.. after breaking down all that, he leaves us really empty-handed with the question why Christianity started then, in the first place. Where did the disciples get such courage and such strange ideas, if that was so unlikely? Also, why would witnesses always agree? Is that really how things work? I think modern police investigators know (or should know), that memory is quite fallible, and it is to be expected that people differ in various details.
At some point in the book, he quotes several other theologians, who disagree with him, and most notably N.T. Wright, so at this recommendation, I will now start reading The Resurrection of the Son of God
This book is somewhat similar, but here you can really detect the overtone of frustration in his words. Understandably, as the Jews have suffered a lot under Christians, but he seems to see antisemitism everywhere and often writes as if the authors of the gospel deliberately scapegoated the jews. Even so, I found it interesting to read the gospels with different eyes, and could see that sometimes he does have a point.
The two books by Géza Vermes that I just read were my first introduction to Scripture critic, I never before really read much about it. Thus the content was a bit shocking to me: all sorts of things were (according to Vermes), not historical, but added later for theological reasons. He describes this rather convincing, so much so that I now have a hard time reading the gospels without thinking: "this is probably not actually said by Jesus".
On the other hand, in some cases his line of reasoning is like: "This bit doesn't fit my theory, hence it was inserted later". I don't find such things all that convincing.
Also, at times he quotes Scripture to make his point, but he does that in such a way that I feel that he really missed the point of that verse. For example, to prove that Jews did not believe in life after death, he quotes (among other things) Job 14:14, but in my opinion that verse does not definitely state that there is no life after death, it leaves the question open. In my opinion we should be open to the fact that faith can evolve. What was a question once, can become more clearly defined later.
The end of the book, about the resurrection was rather disappointing. He sets out to show all the flaws in the gospels and all the contradictory statements, and how it is really impossible that the pharisees would believe that the disciples would steal the body, so obviously the whole story about the bribes was inserted later, and so on. But.. after breaking down all that, he leaves us really empty-handed with the question why Christianity started then, in the first place. Where did the disciples get such courage and such strange ideas, if that was so unlikely? Also, why would witnesses always agree? Is that really how things work? I think modern police investigators know (or should know), that memory is quite fallible, and it is to be expected that people differ in various details.
At some point in the book, he quotes several other theologians, who disagree with him, and most notably N.T. Wright, so at this recommendation, I will now start reading The Resurrection of the Son of God
July 10, 2010
Another fascinating book from Vermes that looks at the potential historical life of Jesus, focusing on the Nativity, Crucifiction and Resurrection. Vermes paints an extremely believable picture of the origins of the myths of Christianity through an outstanding knowledge of the world and culture Jesus was born into, and the history of the early church.
Essentially, he finds a lot to fault in the veracity, and indeed, even the level of agreement between the various sources. His final conclusion on a way to view the resurrection makes a great deal of sense, although I'm far from convinced it would be something recogonised by the various actors in the story.
Essentially, he finds a lot to fault in the veracity, and indeed, even the level of agreement between the various sources. His final conclusion on a way to view the resurrection makes a great deal of sense, although I'm far from convinced it would be something recogonised by the various actors in the story.
September 3, 2023
Surprisingly easy to read. This collection was informative in understanding the mode of thinking used in textual criticism. In terms of content, I liked Nativity the most since Vermes makes his boldest assertion in the first book. The other conclusions I have seen before.
April 5, 2014
I have to start out by saying that I am a Vermes enthusiast. Although I used a multitude of sources in my own novel, The Testament Of Marcellus, I returned to Vermes consistently as a touchstone for my own portraits of Jesus, Pilate, Herod and other figures of the New Testament.
He has written powerfully and insightfully about the content of Jesus' teaching, and those books, especially "Jesus The Jew" and "The Authentic Gospel Of Jesus," are perhaps his most important work.
Here he discusses areas of the New Testament which do not come directly from Jesus himself, but which are narratives concerning his birth, death and resurrection, added to the body of his teaching in order to flesh out "the story of Jesus."
Vermes' great subtlety as a writer and his skill as an analyst of 1st Century documents can often go over the heads of readers. We have to recall that this was a man who studied the Dead Sea Scrolls for 30 years, and produced a magisterial translation of them into English (I believe it is still the only complete translation in English).
Fundamentalists are unlikely to be impressed by this scholarly book. It is not so much that Vermes debunks the legends, as that he tries to put them in context, explain the anomalies (Gospel accounts are often contradictory) and clear the way for us to make a decision about what really happened.
Very highly recommended to all lay people who are interested in this subject.
He has written powerfully and insightfully about the content of Jesus' teaching, and those books, especially "Jesus The Jew" and "The Authentic Gospel Of Jesus," are perhaps his most important work.
Here he discusses areas of the New Testament which do not come directly from Jesus himself, but which are narratives concerning his birth, death and resurrection, added to the body of his teaching in order to flesh out "the story of Jesus."
Vermes' great subtlety as a writer and his skill as an analyst of 1st Century documents can often go over the heads of readers. We have to recall that this was a man who studied the Dead Sea Scrolls for 30 years, and produced a magisterial translation of them into English (I believe it is still the only complete translation in English).
Fundamentalists are unlikely to be impressed by this scholarly book. It is not so much that Vermes debunks the legends, as that he tries to put them in context, explain the anomalies (Gospel accounts are often contradictory) and clear the way for us to make a decision about what really happened.
Very highly recommended to all lay people who are interested in this subject.
Read
July 28, 2011Well researched. Probably more for the reader who specialises in this subject rather than your general interest reader. Did think that the author nit picked a bit. Specially towards the end.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews