What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
In this new English language translation of Den ok�nde Jesus (The Unknown Jesus), Cecilia Wass�n and Tobias H�gerland consider Jesus as an apocalyptic prophetic figure within the context of first-century Judaism and reconstruct the life of Jesus from his birth to his death, with a focus on understanding him in the context of his own time and place. Engaging critically with the sources, they examine Jesus' life in order of events and draw together the threads of scholarly discussion on the history, archaeology and geography of first-century Galilee, forming a complete picture of Jesus' world suitable for non-specialists and university students.
Wass�n and H�gerland provide a strictly historical reconstruction, distinguishing between the rhetorical aims of the New Testament texts and the information about the past that these texts contain. They enhance the texts surrounding Jesus in the context of first-century Galilee with historical and archaeological reflections and discussion, including penetrating insights from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Illustrated throughout with photographs taken by the authors specifically to offer insights into the world of Jesus and the New Testament writings, Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet provides a deeply informed introduction to Jesus in his first-century context.
Wass�n and H�gerland provide a strictly historical reconstruction, distinguishing between the rhetorical aims of the New Testament texts and the information about the past that these texts contain. They enhance the texts surrounding Jesus in the context of first-century Galilee with historical and archaeological reflections and discussion, including penetrating insights from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Illustrated throughout with photographs taken by the authors specifically to offer insights into the world of Jesus and the New Testament writings, Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet provides a deeply informed introduction to Jesus in his first-century context.
224 pages, Paperback
Published January 14, 2021
2 people are currently reading
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 24, 2021
While I find the summary of scholarship to be interesting, in the end this book feels a bit boring & not especially insightful or interesting. I prefer when I read these books that the authors have a bias that leans towards a sympathy with the spiritual world, rather than being materialistic secular skeptics. While I do not doubt their scholarship (or that of other skeptics such as Bart Ehrman), it's something about their style that gives the book a strange feel to me. I am a former Traditional Roman Catholic who become disaffected by specific fictions held up by imperial orthodoxy. However, it seems to me there is something real here, so when authors treat these subjects in a kind of meaningless profane way, it seems like they don't understand their subject matter or that they have contempt or pity on Christians, which is really annoying.
Much of this book is dry commentary on the Gospels (NRSV) and they present many of their commentaries as pure fact. However, the process of giving commentary on scripture is a wholly mystical and unique process. It's kind of like someone who says they're in touch with the spiritual world & people listen to them, it's not something scholarship can really address since it's an interior process that can't be put into words. Scholars can comment on documents & things like that, but the actual interior spiritual life of people is wholly beyond scholarship.
I like scholarship when they're just presenting texts and archaeology, but they're really wading outside of their area when they start dabbling in their own interpretations. For example, on p. 194 they state as fact that a prophecy was not fulfilled. Well, who says? You can interpret anything mystically or allegorically (or using numerology & symbolism), as Christians absolutely believe that this was fulfilled & they read the interpretation differently (with different Christians giving different interpretations). For example, traditional Catholics see "the abomination of desolation" as all the modern popes who reside in the Vatican since 1958. Does this make it wrong? Well no, since you can't really prove beliefs & interpretations like this to be right or wrong. This becomes entirely speculation & their own opinions on a topic, something they should've left out, since the world is already full of speculation, opinion, and interpretation. Most of what is called "religion" is totally outside of the scholarly world, as it's based on interior inspirations, so if anything it's in the realm more of priests & psychologists.
This type of self-assured secular scholarship might appeal to those who are looking for something to confirm their own biases, but for those who are looking for something a bit less speculative, this book was disappointing.
Much of this book is dry commentary on the Gospels (NRSV) and they present many of their commentaries as pure fact. However, the process of giving commentary on scripture is a wholly mystical and unique process. It's kind of like someone who says they're in touch with the spiritual world & people listen to them, it's not something scholarship can really address since it's an interior process that can't be put into words. Scholars can comment on documents & things like that, but the actual interior spiritual life of people is wholly beyond scholarship.
I like scholarship when they're just presenting texts and archaeology, but they're really wading outside of their area when they start dabbling in their own interpretations. For example, on p. 194 they state as fact that a prophecy was not fulfilled. Well, who says? You can interpret anything mystically or allegorically (or using numerology & symbolism), as Christians absolutely believe that this was fulfilled & they read the interpretation differently (with different Christians giving different interpretations). For example, traditional Catholics see "the abomination of desolation" as all the modern popes who reside in the Vatican since 1958. Does this make it wrong? Well no, since you can't really prove beliefs & interpretations like this to be right or wrong. This becomes entirely speculation & their own opinions on a topic, something they should've left out, since the world is already full of speculation, opinion, and interpretation. Most of what is called "religion" is totally outside of the scholarly world, as it's based on interior inspirations, so if anything it's in the realm more of priests & psychologists.
This type of self-assured secular scholarship might appeal to those who are looking for something to confirm their own biases, but for those who are looking for something a bit less speculative, this book was disappointing.
August 17, 2022
This book is not exclusively focused on Jesus as apocalyptic prophet, contrary to what the title suggests. It is a general introduction to the historical Jesus question, covering such bases as brief overviews of Second Temple Judaism or the Synoptic problem.
The chapters directly dealing with Jesus's apocalypticism are 5-7: The prophet leader/ The Kingdom/ In conflict with Satan.
The approach is strictly historical and therefore espouses a thoroughgoing methodological naturalism, rejecting on principle the existence of angels and demons, the possibility of miracles and even the existence of God. Everything is therefore demythologised, and Jesus's healings are deflated (for instance, Peter's stepmother probably suffered from malarial fever, which comes and goes.)
The authors come to the same conclusions about Jesus as Albert Schweitzer did at the turn of the twentieth century (thought I don't remember him being mentioned), but of course their scholarship is much more advanced, including a lot of data from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and relevant extrabiblical sources such as 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra.
Though this is not stated in the book, I think one might deduce from the information presented in it that the historical Jesus (a man who admittedly may not have any devotees among the various Christian or Jewish denominations) was in favor of the death penalty. Indeed, he was totally Torah-observant, and the Torah sometimes enjoins the death penalty. But even more specifically, "Gentiles were strictly prohibited from entering the [so-called, but actually gender-neutral] women's court [in the Jerusalem Temple] and violation carried the death penalty. An inscription in Greek warning gentile visitors of this has been found" (p37.) But when Jesus "cleansed" the Temple, there is no mention of him attacking this inscription with a double flying kick (like Bruce Lee in Fists of Fury destroying the "No dogs or Chinese allowed" sign) and no logion of his protesting this harsh measure against Gentiles, a silence which strongly contrasts with his anger at the merchants and the moneychangers.
Of course, virtually no-one goes to the historical Jesus for moral guidance, as everyone has their own New-Model Jesus, dating back to the Reformation, the Council of Nicea or the Gospels themselves, which started the whole process. But it's quite funny to think that the numerous denunciations of the death penalty as "un-Christian" are historically unfounded.
On the topic of the historical Jesus, I preferred Maurice Casey's "Jesus of Nazareth", but if you are looking for a shorter, up-to-the-minute treatment, this is highly recommended.
The chapters directly dealing with Jesus's apocalypticism are 5-7: The prophet leader/ The Kingdom/ In conflict with Satan.
The approach is strictly historical and therefore espouses a thoroughgoing methodological naturalism, rejecting on principle the existence of angels and demons, the possibility of miracles and even the existence of God. Everything is therefore demythologised, and Jesus's healings are deflated (for instance, Peter's stepmother probably suffered from malarial fever, which comes and goes.)
The authors come to the same conclusions about Jesus as Albert Schweitzer did at the turn of the twentieth century (thought I don't remember him being mentioned), but of course their scholarship is much more advanced, including a lot of data from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and relevant extrabiblical sources such as 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra.
Though this is not stated in the book, I think one might deduce from the information presented in it that the historical Jesus (a man who admittedly may not have any devotees among the various Christian or Jewish denominations) was in favor of the death penalty. Indeed, he was totally Torah-observant, and the Torah sometimes enjoins the death penalty. But even more specifically, "Gentiles were strictly prohibited from entering the [so-called, but actually gender-neutral] women's court [in the Jerusalem Temple] and violation carried the death penalty. An inscription in Greek warning gentile visitors of this has been found" (p37.) But when Jesus "cleansed" the Temple, there is no mention of him attacking this inscription with a double flying kick (like Bruce Lee in Fists of Fury destroying the "No dogs or Chinese allowed" sign) and no logion of his protesting this harsh measure against Gentiles, a silence which strongly contrasts with his anger at the merchants and the moneychangers.
Of course, virtually no-one goes to the historical Jesus for moral guidance, as everyone has their own New-Model Jesus, dating back to the Reformation, the Council of Nicea or the Gospels themselves, which started the whole process. But it's quite funny to think that the numerous denunciations of the death penalty as "un-Christian" are historically unfounded.
On the topic of the historical Jesus, I preferred Maurice Casey's "Jesus of Nazareth", but if you are looking for a shorter, up-to-the-minute treatment, this is highly recommended.
September 24, 2021
This is an interesting introduction and overview of the historical Jesus situating him as an apocalyptic prophet within first century Judaism. The authors attempt a reconstruction of the life of Jesus from birth to his death and the subsequent expansion of Christianity. Wassen and Hagerland engage with current scholarship and often offering their own perspective even when disagreeing with respected scholars like Dale Allison and James Dunn. Highly recommended.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews