What do you think?
Rate this book
Appointment in Jerusalem
Biblical historian Max Dimont, author of the classic JEWS, GOD, AND HISTORY, explores the mystery surrounding the predictions Jesus made abouthis fate. Examining the gospel, Dimont recreates the drama in three acts using his knowledge of the events recorded in the Bible. Thoughtful and fascinating, APPOINTMENT IN JERUSALEM, examines the questions that have surrounded religion for centuries. Who was Jesus, the Christian messiah ora member of a Jewish Sect? Dimont's insight is intelligent and surprising.
- GenresNonfictionReligion
144 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1991
33 people are currently reading
52 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 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 8, 2023
The Six Faces of Jesus
I commend this book to those seekers of the true faith. A faith that separates facts and fictions, history from legend. There is much to be learned in this well written, easy to comprehend book. Please leave preconceived notions at the frontispiece.
I commend this book to those seekers of the true faith. A faith that separates facts and fictions, history from legend. There is much to be learned in this well written, easy to comprehend book. Please leave preconceived notions at the frontispiece.
March 27, 2015
Dimont describes “seven faces” of Jesus that he bases in the Gospels as well as modern scholarship. “Is Jesus the Christian messiah, the literal son of God as averred by the devout? Or was he a Jewish messiah, the son of man, stripped of his Jewish garments and robed posthumously in Christian vestments? Was he a Zealot who tried to wrest the throne of David from the Roman oppressors by force? Was he a ‘plotter’ who masterminded his own crucifixion and resurrection in the sincere belief that he was the messiah? Was he an Essene, a member of an obscure Jewish religious sect that practiced a primitive form of Christianity a century before his birth? Or is Christianity the creation of another Jew, Paul, who shaped the historical Jesus in his vision of a theological Christ? Or was he a ‘Gnostic Christian,’ a libertine practicing occult pagan rites as some of them, or none of them? But no matter who avers what, no one disputes Jesus was a Jew.” What starts as a promising book ends, in my view, as a poorly executed journalistic summary fit for a television special just before a program on the existence of UFOs.
Dimont is certainly well read. He points out a number of interesting items (I’m assuming he sourced these from experts). For intestnce, “Matthew’s and Luke’s belief in Mary’s virginity rests upon a misreading of Isaiah. Believing Isaiah had prophesied that the messiah would be born of a virgin, these two evangelists claim such a birth for Jesus. Alas, Matthew and Luke were not great Hebrew scholars. The word Isaiah uses is almah, which does not mean ‘virgin’ but only a ‘young woman,’ who may or may not be a virgin. The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah, which Isaiah does not use.” Additionally, he points out some interesting differences in the Gospel accounts themselves. “Though John states in his Gospel that Pilate personally scourges Jesus and hands him over to the Roman soldiers to be mocked, he now has Pilate declare that Jesus is not guilty after all. Whereas in the three synoptic Gospels it is Pilate who orders the crucifixion, in John’s Gospel Pilate tells the Jews to do it themselves.”
Dimont discusses at length the trial of Jesus and relies heavily on the work of an Israeli justice.“There was but one way for the Jews to secure an acquittal of Jesus on charges of sedition, says Justice Cohn, and that was for the Jewish leaders to persuade Jesus to plead not guilty to any accusation. And thus it came about that Jesus was detained and an informal, unofficial hearing was held before an undisclosed number of justices, just as the Gospel of John states…The high priest knew, says Justice Cohn, that such an assertion by Jesus before Pilate would be equal to a confession of treason and would spell death for Jesus. With his refusal to heed the advice of the high priest to deny all messianic aspirations and all claims to the throne of King David, there was no choice but for the high priest to turn Jesus over to the Romans, says Justice Cohn.”
The final part of the book starts with some interesting observations, but really goes off the rails. Dimont explores fully the thought that Jesus and his followers were Zealots. “First, there is Simon, openly so acknowledged by Luke, who calls him ‘Simon, the Zealot.’ Mark tries to hide this fact by calling him ‘Simon the Canaean,’ which is Aramaic for ‘Zealot.’ Then there is Judas Iskariot, whose name is usually explained to mean ‘Judas, the man from Keriot.’ But, scholars point out, there is no such town. The name, they say, means ‘Judas, the Sicarii’ – that is, Judas the Daggerman…Simon Peter was also known as Simon bar Jona, usually explained to mean ‘Simon, the son of Jona,’ since bar means ‘son.’ But ‘bar Jona’ can also spell baryon…meaning ‘open country’ in Aramaic. Because the Zealots fled to the hills in the ‘open country’ of Galilee when pursued by the Romans, they were also known as baryonim.” That is an interesting point. He then goes on, however, to depict Jesus as masterminding the cruicifixion. “Now for the second step. To get Jesus off the cross before he died, the planners had to act fast. He had to be placed in a tomb, not a grave, if he were to survive. At this point entered mystery man Joseph of Arimathea, whose function it was to get Jesus off the cross quickly and into a tomb where he could get medical attention, recover, and have a safe hiding place for three days.” As evidence for this he wonders what Mary was doing. “Certainly Mary, being Jewish, would not have come to anoint a buried corpse or to sprinkle it with spices. The tomb, as stated, was a grave. To disturb a body in a grave, whether in the ground or in a tomb, would have been a desecration, a heinous Jewish offense then and now, as well as in all Christendom today.” Logically, however, this seems to me a fatally flawed line of inquiry. If he lived, why didn’t he go on to declare himself the Messiah and rule as a real person? Why were his visitations so rare? Why was Paul’s visitation ecstatic rather than corporeal? If Jesus survived rather than was resurrected, one would think he would’ve made personal use of his manipulation, rather than relying on the reports of others and never putting in an appearance to the masses himself. Unfortunately, Dimont doesn’t really discuss the possibility that this “face” of Jesus might have logical difficulties.
In the end, there are some interesting points in this book. However, it really isn’t that much better than something you might watch on the Discovery channel.
See my other reviews here!
Dimont is certainly well read. He points out a number of interesting items (I’m assuming he sourced these from experts). For intestnce, “Matthew’s and Luke’s belief in Mary’s virginity rests upon a misreading of Isaiah. Believing Isaiah had prophesied that the messiah would be born of a virgin, these two evangelists claim such a birth for Jesus. Alas, Matthew and Luke were not great Hebrew scholars. The word Isaiah uses is almah, which does not mean ‘virgin’ but only a ‘young woman,’ who may or may not be a virgin. The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah, which Isaiah does not use.” Additionally, he points out some interesting differences in the Gospel accounts themselves. “Though John states in his Gospel that Pilate personally scourges Jesus and hands him over to the Roman soldiers to be mocked, he now has Pilate declare that Jesus is not guilty after all. Whereas in the three synoptic Gospels it is Pilate who orders the crucifixion, in John’s Gospel Pilate tells the Jews to do it themselves.”
Dimont discusses at length the trial of Jesus and relies heavily on the work of an Israeli justice.“There was but one way for the Jews to secure an acquittal of Jesus on charges of sedition, says Justice Cohn, and that was for the Jewish leaders to persuade Jesus to plead not guilty to any accusation. And thus it came about that Jesus was detained and an informal, unofficial hearing was held before an undisclosed number of justices, just as the Gospel of John states…The high priest knew, says Justice Cohn, that such an assertion by Jesus before Pilate would be equal to a confession of treason and would spell death for Jesus. With his refusal to heed the advice of the high priest to deny all messianic aspirations and all claims to the throne of King David, there was no choice but for the high priest to turn Jesus over to the Romans, says Justice Cohn.”
The final part of the book starts with some interesting observations, but really goes off the rails. Dimont explores fully the thought that Jesus and his followers were Zealots. “First, there is Simon, openly so acknowledged by Luke, who calls him ‘Simon, the Zealot.’ Mark tries to hide this fact by calling him ‘Simon the Canaean,’ which is Aramaic for ‘Zealot.’ Then there is Judas Iskariot, whose name is usually explained to mean ‘Judas, the man from Keriot.’ But, scholars point out, there is no such town. The name, they say, means ‘Judas, the Sicarii’ – that is, Judas the Daggerman…Simon Peter was also known as Simon bar Jona, usually explained to mean ‘Simon, the son of Jona,’ since bar means ‘son.’ But ‘bar Jona’ can also spell baryon…meaning ‘open country’ in Aramaic. Because the Zealots fled to the hills in the ‘open country’ of Galilee when pursued by the Romans, they were also known as baryonim.” That is an interesting point. He then goes on, however, to depict Jesus as masterminding the cruicifixion. “Now for the second step. To get Jesus off the cross before he died, the planners had to act fast. He had to be placed in a tomb, not a grave, if he were to survive. At this point entered mystery man Joseph of Arimathea, whose function it was to get Jesus off the cross quickly and into a tomb where he could get medical attention, recover, and have a safe hiding place for three days.” As evidence for this he wonders what Mary was doing. “Certainly Mary, being Jewish, would not have come to anoint a buried corpse or to sprinkle it with spices. The tomb, as stated, was a grave. To disturb a body in a grave, whether in the ground or in a tomb, would have been a desecration, a heinous Jewish offense then and now, as well as in all Christendom today.” Logically, however, this seems to me a fatally flawed line of inquiry. If he lived, why didn’t he go on to declare himself the Messiah and rule as a real person? Why were his visitations so rare? Why was Paul’s visitation ecstatic rather than corporeal? If Jesus survived rather than was resurrected, one would think he would’ve made personal use of his manipulation, rather than relying on the reports of others and never putting in an appearance to the masses himself. Unfortunately, Dimont doesn’t really discuss the possibility that this “face” of Jesus might have logical difficulties.
In the end, there are some interesting points in this book. However, it really isn’t that much better than something you might watch on the Discovery channel.
See my other reviews here!
December 12, 2017
Are you really think that everything "good" came from Jews? Give me a break!
That is an interesting book with a lot of probable facts, quite well-known though, for those who follows the subject.
It's not a surprise that at the end, you will "find out" that it's three Jews who "saved" and "established" a Western civilization - Moses, Jesus, and Paul...
Well, no doubt... But from the time this book was published (1991), and all the history that followed, I'd be really careful to be overly proud about, really.
That is an interesting book with a lot of probable facts, quite well-known though, for those who follows the subject.
It's not a surprise that at the end, you will "find out" that it's three Jews who "saved" and "established" a Western civilization - Moses, Jesus, and Paul...
Well, no doubt... But from the time this book was published (1991), and all the history that followed, I'd be really careful to be overly proud about, really.
March 13, 2019
Some Good Points 3.5 Stars
He makes some good points. He also makes some speculative points. Good discussion to get you thinking about how it all started.
He makes some good points. He also makes some speculative points. Good discussion to get you thinking about how it all started.
March 25, 2022
Definite bias
I decided to read this, hoping sincerely that both sides of evidence and facts would be presented equally…they were not.
I decided to read this, hoping sincerely that both sides of evidence and facts would be presented equally…they were not.
July 26, 2016
A really good read condensing a lot of theory regarding Christianity into only a few pages while remaining very objective. I think this book is a very good starting point for anyone who would like to know more about the history of Jesus. It also has a very good bibliography for further research
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews