I got made fun of a lot for reading this book, as was well deserved, I'm sure. But I made it pretty far in a Christian-centric world to have never learned the whole story, in order, in its basic popular US protestant interpretation. I have no interest at this time of reading the actual Bible, mostly because I did read the Old Testament in its entirety and hundreds upon hundreds of pages of rules and genealogies about ten years ago and never want to repeat that experience of boredom and unmet expectation. But yes-- So many great (& mundane) books, paintings, architecture, people, and histories all allude to the story of Jesus's life, teachings, death, and resurrection that I often find myself almost nauseatingly familiar with the main points, but also at a loss to understand world art/people/events because I lack basic knowledge of the foundation to which these works react, adding spin, re-interpretation, contextualization and complexity. So overall, this book was exactly the light, easy-to-read background narrative that filled in the blanks for 'the idiot' like me who kinda missed the whole Sunday school boat, as a Jew, a 'no gods no masters' anarchist, and a petulant, pissed off & left out stage manager for my public high school's rendition of Godspell (I had no clue what was going on! it still burns!).
It must be said that this book is not the neutral recounting it purports to be. First off, the authors believe in Jesus and Christianity. That's fine; I would prefer a "Christians believe that ..." added to the "X happened" but nbd. The annoying part comes when they slide in their sect's interpretations and present them as widely accepted facts, occasionally refuting other Christian belief systems-- for example, stating that the Bible clearly explains that 'the body and blood of Christ as bread and wine thing' is symbolic, which is a basic tenet of Protestantism but sneakily dismisses the many practicing Catholics who believe deeply in that transfiguration. It is annoying to read an introductory book that so casually teaches its own biases to an audience that isn't expected to know better (and probably wouldn't, if I hadn't hopped along on several church visitations with an art history class in Rome a few years back). What else did I miss? I would wish that "The Idiot's Guide to Jesus" wasn't limited to one narrow and un-objective interpretation of Jesus, but I was looking to get the predominant US vision and I did, so ok, fine. I've seen enough Via Dolorosas and Passion paintings to know there are other ways to understand events. Now I just gotta watch that movie.