What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels
This now classic book is a significant corrective to several recent developments in the study of the historical Jesus. In contrast to depictions of Jesus as a wandering Cynic teacher, Geza Vermes offers a portrait based on evidence of charismatic activity in first-century Galilee. Vermes shows how the major New Testament titles of Jesus-prophet, Lord, Messiah, son of man, Son of God-can be understood in this historical context. The result is a description of Jesus that retains its power and its credibility.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1972
32 people are currently reading
603 people want to read
About the author
Géza Vermes
83 books54 followersGéza Vermes was a Jewish Hungarian scholar and writer on religious history, particularly Jewish and Christian.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
February 14, 2018
“Your God was a jew. Christ was a jew like me.” –Leopold Bloom to a group of hecklers, in Ulysses.
This book is another suggestion from my friend Laurie, the mysterious woman from New Zealand who wrote a number of fascinating reviews on Amazon in 2008 then disappeared from view. About Jesus the Jew she says, “Nobody who hasn’t read it should utter even a single sentence containing the word ‘Jesus’.” I wouldn’t go quite that far (the woman tends to go over the top). But it’s a compelling book.
About Jesus, Martin Buber said, “We Jews know him in a way—in the impulses and emotions of his essential Jewishness—that remains inaccessible to the Gentiles subject to him.” (That’s an interesting phrase, “subject to him.”) Before Jesus became the focus of a huge world religion, he was a wandering teacher and healer. Vermes thinks he fit firmly into a tradition, that of a Galilean Hasid, or holy man.
Vermes doesn’t hazard a guess at his appearance, but the great Guy Davenport, in his book The Logia of Yeshua (a translation of the sayings of this wandering teacher) did. “The falsest myth about him may be the Romantic and Sunday school pictures of him as a pious matinee idol with a woman’s hair, neat beard, and flowing robes. History can tell us that he wore trousers of the kind we call Turkish, that he most certainly had oiled sidelocks and a full beard. A man so out-of-doors would have worn a wide-brimmed traveler’s hat, a caftan, or coat. His sandals are mentioned by Yohannan.”
Vermes devotes much of the early book to the fact that Jesus was a Galilean. Galilee was surrounded on all sides by other peoples and separated from Judea. It was a kind of isolated outpost. Political radicalism was common there, so that when Jesus later came up for trial among the Romans, the fact that he was a Galilean was a strike against him (although one person said, “Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he?”). Galilee was a rural area of small towns, so Jesus’ imagery tends to be pastoral (“Consider the lilies of the field”), and when he went to Jerusalem later he was like a rube going to the big city. Similarly, Galileans tended to be less learned and less “people of the book,” so devoted to the Torah that they ignored human feeling. They were more likely to be intuitive teachers rather than great scholars. It was characteristic of a Galilean Hasid that he would heal people on the Sabbath rather than being strict about the law. Taking care of human beings was more important than rigidly following some code.
One thing that struck me when I recently reread the Gospel of Mark was how much of the early part of it was devoted to healing, not teaching. According to Vermes, most diseases, if not all, were considered the work of demons—what we might call psychosomatic illness today—so a great deal of Jesus’ healing involved speaking directly to demons, ordering them out of a person’s body or telling them to quit tormenting this person. Jesus reserved hands-on healing for illnesses that were strictly physical, like blindness or deafness, and he used saliva as a healing aid. It was believed to have medicinal properties.[1] But the wandering healer, casting out demons and healing in other ways, was not unheard of in Jesus’ day. And there are instances of other healers doing all the things that he did, including—in the Old Testament—Elisha and Elijah raising people from the dead.
Vermes devotes over half of his book to the various designations that people applied to Jesus: prophet, lord, messiah, son of man, son of God. He places all of these terms within the Jewish tradition, and mentions places where other men were called the same things. This is not the most exciting part of the book, but Vermes does the work of a historian, methodically making his case. The word messiah, for instance, meant many things to many different people; Vermes names a number of possibilities, several of which involved the messiah being a military or political figure. People weren’t expecting a person like Jesus, with his kind of message (“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”).
Vermes feels—as most scholars do—that Mark is the most historically reliable Gospel, and that some of the stories in Matthew and Luke, especially the birth narratives, were invented by the writers. It was common in ancient times to attribute virgin birth to a remarkable individual, and of course Matthew tries to have it both ways, saying that Jesus was born of a Virgin but is descended from David through Joseph. The birth stories seem to Vermes tacked on and obviously legendary.
That leads, of course, to the ultimate designation for Jesus, Son of God. If we dismiss the Virgin birth—as Vermes does—the question is, what does that expression mean? That was a koan for me when I was trying to practice Christianity; I couldn’t get my head around it.
That Jesus had a special relationship with God I have no doubt. It seems to me to be the same relationship that all the great saints and mystics had, not just in Christianity but in all faiths. Jesus was at one with God. We are all, it seems to me, at one with God in reality, but we turn away from that fact, deny it, are afraid of it, do anything to get away from it. We can’t really get away. In Him we live and move and have our being, as Paul said. If we realized that—by which I mean made it real—our lives would be much different.
Jesus did realize it, perhaps as no one else ever has. His wish was for us to realize it too.
[1] My father was a dermatologist in the Pittsburgh of my youth. We patronized a couple of Italian barbers named DeMaria, and they let my father know that, back in Italy, barbers were also doctors. My father was very concerned with ringworm of the scalp, and would not let those barbers use clippers on my brother and me. One time the elder barber—big Jerry—told him that back in Italy barbers treated ringworm with spit.
www.davidguy.org
This book is another suggestion from my friend Laurie, the mysterious woman from New Zealand who wrote a number of fascinating reviews on Amazon in 2008 then disappeared from view. About Jesus the Jew she says, “Nobody who hasn’t read it should utter even a single sentence containing the word ‘Jesus’.” I wouldn’t go quite that far (the woman tends to go over the top). But it’s a compelling book.
About Jesus, Martin Buber said, “We Jews know him in a way—in the impulses and emotions of his essential Jewishness—that remains inaccessible to the Gentiles subject to him.” (That’s an interesting phrase, “subject to him.”) Before Jesus became the focus of a huge world religion, he was a wandering teacher and healer. Vermes thinks he fit firmly into a tradition, that of a Galilean Hasid, or holy man.
Vermes doesn’t hazard a guess at his appearance, but the great Guy Davenport, in his book The Logia of Yeshua (a translation of the sayings of this wandering teacher) did. “The falsest myth about him may be the Romantic and Sunday school pictures of him as a pious matinee idol with a woman’s hair, neat beard, and flowing robes. History can tell us that he wore trousers of the kind we call Turkish, that he most certainly had oiled sidelocks and a full beard. A man so out-of-doors would have worn a wide-brimmed traveler’s hat, a caftan, or coat. His sandals are mentioned by Yohannan.”
Vermes devotes much of the early book to the fact that Jesus was a Galilean. Galilee was surrounded on all sides by other peoples and separated from Judea. It was a kind of isolated outpost. Political radicalism was common there, so that when Jesus later came up for trial among the Romans, the fact that he was a Galilean was a strike against him (although one person said, “Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he?”). Galilee was a rural area of small towns, so Jesus’ imagery tends to be pastoral (“Consider the lilies of the field”), and when he went to Jerusalem later he was like a rube going to the big city. Similarly, Galileans tended to be less learned and less “people of the book,” so devoted to the Torah that they ignored human feeling. They were more likely to be intuitive teachers rather than great scholars. It was characteristic of a Galilean Hasid that he would heal people on the Sabbath rather than being strict about the law. Taking care of human beings was more important than rigidly following some code.
One thing that struck me when I recently reread the Gospel of Mark was how much of the early part of it was devoted to healing, not teaching. According to Vermes, most diseases, if not all, were considered the work of demons—what we might call psychosomatic illness today—so a great deal of Jesus’ healing involved speaking directly to demons, ordering them out of a person’s body or telling them to quit tormenting this person. Jesus reserved hands-on healing for illnesses that were strictly physical, like blindness or deafness, and he used saliva as a healing aid. It was believed to have medicinal properties.[1] But the wandering healer, casting out demons and healing in other ways, was not unheard of in Jesus’ day. And there are instances of other healers doing all the things that he did, including—in the Old Testament—Elisha and Elijah raising people from the dead.
Vermes devotes over half of his book to the various designations that people applied to Jesus: prophet, lord, messiah, son of man, son of God. He places all of these terms within the Jewish tradition, and mentions places where other men were called the same things. This is not the most exciting part of the book, but Vermes does the work of a historian, methodically making his case. The word messiah, for instance, meant many things to many different people; Vermes names a number of possibilities, several of which involved the messiah being a military or political figure. People weren’t expecting a person like Jesus, with his kind of message (“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”).
Vermes feels—as most scholars do—that Mark is the most historically reliable Gospel, and that some of the stories in Matthew and Luke, especially the birth narratives, were invented by the writers. It was common in ancient times to attribute virgin birth to a remarkable individual, and of course Matthew tries to have it both ways, saying that Jesus was born of a Virgin but is descended from David through Joseph. The birth stories seem to Vermes tacked on and obviously legendary.
That leads, of course, to the ultimate designation for Jesus, Son of God. If we dismiss the Virgin birth—as Vermes does—the question is, what does that expression mean? That was a koan for me when I was trying to practice Christianity; I couldn’t get my head around it.
That Jesus had a special relationship with God I have no doubt. It seems to me to be the same relationship that all the great saints and mystics had, not just in Christianity but in all faiths. Jesus was at one with God. We are all, it seems to me, at one with God in reality, but we turn away from that fact, deny it, are afraid of it, do anything to get away from it. We can’t really get away. In Him we live and move and have our being, as Paul said. If we realized that—by which I mean made it real—our lives would be much different.
Jesus did realize it, perhaps as no one else ever has. His wish was for us to realize it too.
[1] My father was a dermatologist in the Pittsburgh of my youth. We patronized a couple of Italian barbers named DeMaria, and they let my father know that, back in Italy, barbers were also doctors. My father was very concerned with ringworm of the scalp, and would not let those barbers use clippers on my brother and me. One time the elder barber—big Jerry—told him that back in Italy barbers treated ringworm with spit.
www.davidguy.org
July 23, 2007
This book was incredible. Mr. Vermes is an outstanding academic who charts out the historical context of the man that was Jesus, how he fit into the Judaism of his day, and what exactly is it that he was doing. Vermes then goes on to outline the gross distortions that have ensued over the centuries, starting with the so-called gospels (in actuality treatises on Jewish Oral Law) all the way to the image of the man himself, now deified, removed from the Judaism he so fervently practiced. As a convert to Judaism coming from a Catholic background, books like this are excellent ways to understand the gap between the religion in which I grew up, and the way of life I now lead. This is a must-read for anyone with a curiosity for the historical Jesus, and his ties to Judaism, past and present.
April 6, 2018
Contents:
Preface
Bibliographical aid to the general reader
Part I: The Setting
1. Jesus the Jew
2. Jesus and Galilee
3. Jesus and charismatic Judaism
Part II: The Titles of Jesus
4. Jesus the prophet
Excursus: prophetic celibacy
5. Jesus the lord
Excursus: ‘lord’ and the style of the Gospel of Mark
6. Jesus the Messiah
Excursus I: Jesus, son of David
Excursus II: the metaphorical use of ‘to anoint’
7. Jesus the son of man
Excursus I: the cloud, a means of heavenly transport
Excursus II: debate on the circumlocutional use of ‘son of man’
8. Jesus the ‘son of God
Excursus: ‘son of God’ and virgin birth
Postscript
List of abbreviations, Notes, Acknowledgements, Reference index, Index of names and subjects
On the overall pleasure principle this probably hovered between 2 – 2.5*s. However I liked the concept of the book – viewing Jesus the man within the context of the time he was living and within the Jewish state he inhabited.
Geza Vermes, a Hungarian Jewish historian claims his book is accessible to scholars and laymen alike. (I’m definitely in the latter category). I’m really not sure about that: I struggled with Part II and Jesus’ titles, especially the ‘son of man’. At this point I was fast losing the will to live! Vermes’ exploration of the “circumlocutional use of ‘son of man’” rather says it all.. (Dickens talked about the Circumlocution Office in Bleak House I seem to recall. Pity it had to stray away from home)!
I did learn from this book. Somehow knowing that the author was Jewish added more weight to his respect and assessment of J.C. I learnt more about Galilee and the Galilean outlook, so distrusted by the Jewish establishment. But (that should read BUT) all the Jewish semantics killed the fun for me.
Unfortunately they had rather more serious consequences for JC.
Preface
Bibliographical aid to the general reader
Part I: The Setting
1. Jesus the Jew
2. Jesus and Galilee
3. Jesus and charismatic Judaism
Part II: The Titles of Jesus
4. Jesus the prophet
Excursus: prophetic celibacy
5. Jesus the lord
Excursus: ‘lord’ and the style of the Gospel of Mark
6. Jesus the Messiah
Excursus I: Jesus, son of David
Excursus II: the metaphorical use of ‘to anoint’
7. Jesus the son of man
Excursus I: the cloud, a means of heavenly transport
Excursus II: debate on the circumlocutional use of ‘son of man’
8. Jesus the ‘son of God
Excursus: ‘son of God’ and virgin birth
Postscript
List of abbreviations, Notes, Acknowledgements, Reference index, Index of names and subjects
On the overall pleasure principle this probably hovered between 2 – 2.5*s. However I liked the concept of the book – viewing Jesus the man within the context of the time he was living and within the Jewish state he inhabited.
Geza Vermes, a Hungarian Jewish historian claims his book is accessible to scholars and laymen alike. (I’m definitely in the latter category). I’m really not sure about that: I struggled with Part II and Jesus’ titles, especially the ‘son of man’. At this point I was fast losing the will to live! Vermes’ exploration of the “circumlocutional use of ‘son of man’” rather says it all.. (Dickens talked about the Circumlocution Office in Bleak House I seem to recall. Pity it had to stray away from home)!
I did learn from this book. Somehow knowing that the author was Jewish added more weight to his respect and assessment of J.C. I learnt more about Galilee and the Galilean outlook, so distrusted by the Jewish establishment. But (that should read BUT) all the Jewish semantics killed the fun for me.
Unfortunately they had rather more serious consequences for JC.
May 22, 2021
This is a scholarly Jew's attempt to classify Jesus the Christ as one of many 1st century Galileean miracle-workers -- nothing more. An example of poor scholarship is the attempt to explain the virgin birth of Jesus by reinterpreting the word 'virgin' which Vermes claims could mean a prepubescent person (plus a few other alternative meanings in 1st century Palestine). Therefore, the Christian belief in a miraculous virgin birth came about because it misunderstood the range of meaning of a first century word, the error conveniently bolstering Church dogma!
In scholarship the rule is the simpler explanation is to be preferred over the obtuse. Vermes consistently opts for the latter. A plethora of logical circumlocutions are also employed, as is the erecting of straw men to be summarily knocked down, for instance, by noting a disparity of "Son of Man" passages in the Gospel accounts, and concluding with the statement: "These figures must mean something" (PG. 178). The insinuation is left unrecorded.
Vermes shows a broad knowledge of 1st century Jewish culture. But, his contemporary sources for Christian belief come largely from liberal scholars; conservative Christian beliefs are given short shrift.
Of course, you cannot expect someone to report positively on a belief system that undermines their own belief system, and Vermes avoids this trap. His explanations are disappointing and lightweight -- I was hoping for something deeper, along the lines of Morison's 'Who Moved the Stone?' Unfortunately, this work is in the same caliber as G.B. Shaw's 'Why I Am Not a Christian.' NOT Recommended.
In scholarship the rule is the simpler explanation is to be preferred over the obtuse. Vermes consistently opts for the latter. A plethora of logical circumlocutions are also employed, as is the erecting of straw men to be summarily knocked down, for instance, by noting a disparity of "Son of Man" passages in the Gospel accounts, and concluding with the statement: "These figures must mean something" (PG. 178). The insinuation is left unrecorded.
Vermes shows a broad knowledge of 1st century Jewish culture. But, his contemporary sources for Christian belief come largely from liberal scholars; conservative Christian beliefs are given short shrift.
Of course, you cannot expect someone to report positively on a belief system that undermines their own belief system, and Vermes avoids this trap. His explanations are disappointing and lightweight -- I was hoping for something deeper, along the lines of Morison's 'Who Moved the Stone?' Unfortunately, this work is in the same caliber as G.B. Shaw's 'Why I Am Not a Christian.' NOT Recommended.
April 15, 2016
El libro expone la versión estrictamente histórica de la vida de Jesús de Nazaret, de manera amena pero rigurosa; respetuosa sin caer en el proselitismo más mínimo, a pesar de estar escrito por un creyente. Un par de veces el autor se adentra en explicaciones que mejor estarían dirigidas a expertos que al público generalista, pero en general es un libro muy informativo para aquellos que quieran aproximarse a la figura de Jesús sin miedo a sentirse que lo quieren convencer de nada.
Es de agradecer especialmente que el autor no describe solo a la persona de Jesús, su origen, familia, sociedad.... como hacen la mayoría de pseudo-expertos. César Vidal nos habla de la persona y sobre todo de su obra, de su Palabra, que -al fin y al cabo- es lo que nos han querido dejar tanto Él como los autores de los Evangelios. Hablar de la persona, como si fuera algo ajeno al mensaje que nos transmitíó, sería la mayor de las faltas de respeto.
Es de agradecer especialmente que el autor no describe solo a la persona de Jesús, su origen, familia, sociedad.... como hacen la mayoría de pseudo-expertos. César Vidal nos habla de la persona y sobre todo de su obra, de su Palabra, que -al fin y al cabo- es lo que nos han querido dejar tanto Él como los autores de los Evangelios. Hablar de la persona, como si fuera algo ajeno al mensaje que nos transmitíó, sería la mayor de las faltas de respeto.
March 30, 2021
Very interesting. I always like to learn more about the Jewish traditions, they shed so much light on the background of the scriptures.
I always feel rather ashamed when I read Jewish books: they have such great knowledge and insight, and we Christians seem to think that we know everything better and have ignored all that . It makes me feel as if we've built a large castle in the air without any foundation.
I enjoyed the picture of the historical Jesus that emerged from this book very much. Vermes describes him as a charismatic exorcist, such as existed more in those times. Someone who has a close relation to God, a good and just person, more focused on the essence of religion and not on the rules, and thus naturally not so well liked by authorities.
I always feel rather ashamed when I read Jewish books: they have such great knowledge and insight, and we Christians seem to think that we know everything better and have ignored all that . It makes me feel as if we've built a large castle in the air without any foundation.
I enjoyed the picture of the historical Jesus that emerged from this book very much. Vermes describes him as a charismatic exorcist, such as existed more in those times. Someone who has a close relation to God, a good and just person, more focused on the essence of religion and not on the rules, and thus naturally not so well liked by authorities.
June 1, 2017
¡¡¡ LER !!!
A tese do autor é simples, Jesus era Judeu, um Judeu Piedoso, e, também, um Mestre, um Professor, um Rabi, ou Rabino, Judeu.
E o que o autor faz é explicar o que se sabe de ciência certa sobre Jesus e, também, o que no seu entendimento os ensinamentos de Jesus tiveram de original e as razões que justificam que essa originalidade não tenha sido bem aceite por muitas pessoas da comunidade a que Jesus pertencia.
Gostei muito!
December 26, 2018
An excellent look at the life and times of the Galilee in which Jesus grew up and lived.
Some startling revelations!! Some sections are very academic and, hence, a bit challenging to read, but, it is worth the effort.
From Mr. Vermes:
“…unable or unwilling to establish and admit the historical meaning of words recorded by the evangelists, orthodox Christianity has opted for a doctrinal structure erected on the basis of an arbitrary interpretation of the Gospel sayings, a structure which must by nature be vulnerable to reasoned criticism.” pp. 224-225
Some startling revelations!! Some sections are very academic and, hence, a bit challenging to read, but, it is worth the effort.
From Mr. Vermes:
“…unable or unwilling to establish and admit the historical meaning of words recorded by the evangelists, orthodox Christianity has opted for a doctrinal structure erected on the basis of an arbitrary interpretation of the Gospel sayings, a structure which must by nature be vulnerable to reasoned criticism.” pp. 224-225
May 30, 2017
It now seems very strange that I have not come across this author before. I may have seen his name in some footnotes here and there, but I knew nothing of him. Only after I had read an article about him in a Polish political magazine, I took interest in his work. A Jew, a former Catholic priest, a sceptic, a historian - his personage alone was very promising. And this book lives up to that promise! It is a clear and thorough discussion of the historical Jesus, the evolution of his cult and how it related to his actual teaching. Presented in an unbiased way, faithful to the historian's craft, this book is a real intellectual feast.
November 4, 2014
Acute linguistic analysis of the Scriptures attempting to perceive Jesus as part of a particular culture.
February 13, 2018
Fué una lectura única ya que es pesada si no se tiene un conocimiento más amplio de dogmas religiosos.
En cuanto a redacción está bien documentado la investigación histórica de su vida 👼 ✝ ✡
En cuanto a redacción está bien documentado la investigación histórica de su vida 👼 ✝ ✡
December 18, 2023
W swojej przełomowej książce Vermes analizuje ewangelie i inne teksty źródłowe by znaleźć odpowiedzi na to kim był historyczny Jezus. W pierwszej części (składającej się z trzech rozdziałów) autor przedstawia życie, czasy, miejsce i kontekst jego działalności. Pierwszy rozdział przedstawia i analizuje jakich informacji dostarczają ewangelie na temat jego pochodzenia, rodziny, zajęć, nauczania, reakcji na niego, a także śmierci i zmartwychwstania. Rozdział drugi przedstawia Galileę (ojczyznę Jezusa) i jej znaczenie dla historii, polityki i religii. W trzecim rozdziale Vermes pochyla się nad charyzmatycznym judaizmem (chasydejczykami) tamtego okresu. Właśnie z tym nurtem (z jego uzdrowicielami, egzorcystami i świętymi mężami) łączy Jezusa, porównując go do takich charyzmatyków jak Chanina ben Dosa czy Choni Zakreślający Koło (ha-Me'agel).
Druga część książki to analiza różnych tytułów, które były i są stosowane względem Jezusa: prorok, pan, Mesjasz, syn człowieczy i syn Boży. Każdy z nich zostaje przebadany pod kątem obecności w ewangeliach, reakcji Jezusa i postronnych na niego, a także jego występowania w językach obecnych w tamtym czasie (aramejski, hebrajski i grecki) i innych pismach (Biblii, apokryfach, zwojach z Qumran i innych).
Lektura niełatwa (przede wszystkim druga część), ale za to bardzo interesująca. Nie znam się bardzo na temacie, więc nie jestem w stanie powiedzieć na ile tezy Vermesa wciąż się trzymają (oryginalne wydanie z 1973), ale po przeczytaniu jestem w stanie zrozumieć dlaczego ta książka była takim przełomem w postrzeganiu osoby historycznego Jezusa - wg. autora, chasydejskiego świętego męża, którego głównym celem była odnowa judaizmu i działanie wewnątrz tej społeczności, a nie prozelityzm wśród nie-żydów (chociaż słyszałem też opinie, że Jezus należał/wywodził się raczej z faryzeuszy). Jeśli chodzi o polskie wydanie, to jestem zaskoczony, że taką książkę wydał u nas Znak i to w 2003 r. Tłumaczenie czyta się dobrze, chociaż bez większej straty można sobie darować słowo od wydawcy i posłowie autorstwa Michała Czajkowskiego (księdza) - raczej można się domyślić dlaczego. Okładkę polskiego wydania [rudy Żyd (chyba) Aszkenazyjski] skomentuję jedynie krótkim xD
Podsumowując, bardzo interesująca książka, warta przeczytania przez każdą osobę zainteresowaną postacią historycznego Jezusa oraz początkami chrześcijaństwa. Polecam
Druga część książki to analiza różnych tytułów, które były i są stosowane względem Jezusa: prorok, pan, Mesjasz, syn człowieczy i syn Boży. Każdy z nich zostaje przebadany pod kątem obecności w ewangeliach, reakcji Jezusa i postronnych na niego, a także jego występowania w językach obecnych w tamtym czasie (aramejski, hebrajski i grecki) i innych pismach (Biblii, apokryfach, zwojach z Qumran i innych).
Lektura niełatwa (przede wszystkim druga część), ale za to bardzo interesująca. Nie znam się bardzo na temacie, więc nie jestem w stanie powiedzieć na ile tezy Vermesa wciąż się trzymają (oryginalne wydanie z 1973), ale po przeczytaniu jestem w stanie zrozumieć dlaczego ta książka była takim przełomem w postrzeganiu osoby historycznego Jezusa - wg. autora, chasydejskiego świętego męża, którego głównym celem była odnowa judaizmu i działanie wewnątrz tej społeczności, a nie prozelityzm wśród nie-żydów (chociaż słyszałem też opinie, że Jezus należał/wywodził się raczej z faryzeuszy). Jeśli chodzi o polskie wydanie, to jestem zaskoczony, że taką książkę wydał u nas Znak i to w 2003 r. Tłumaczenie czyta się dobrze, chociaż bez większej straty można sobie darować słowo od wydawcy i posłowie autorstwa Michała Czajkowskiego (księdza) - raczej można się domyślić dlaczego. Okładkę polskiego wydania [rudy Żyd (chyba) Aszkenazyjski] skomentuję jedynie krótkim xD
Podsumowując, bardzo interesująca książka, warta przeczytania przez każdą osobę zainteresowaną postacią historycznego Jezusa oraz początkami chrześcijaństwa. Polecam
May 1, 2021
Géza Vermes (1924–2013) oli maineikas uskonnonhistorioitsija, joka kunnostautui varsinkin Kuolleenmeren kääröjen tutkimuksessa. Vermes oli juutalaisesta perheestä, mutta hänet kastettiin lapsena katoliseksi ja jopa vihitiin katoliseksi papiksi. Myöhemmin Vermes kuitenkin luopui kristinuskosta ja palasi ei-uskonnolliseksi juutalaiseksi. Voidaan siis sanoa, että Vermes kokeili kaikkea paitsi kansantanhuja.
Jesus The Jew kertoo nimensä mukaan Jeesuksesta juutalaisuuden näkökulmasta. Vermes esittelee Jeesuksen osana Galilean ajanlaskun alun poliittista liikehdintää ja karismaattista juutalaisuutta. Lisäksi hän omistaa omat lukunsa Jeesuksen eri nimityksille: profeetta, herra, messias, ihmisen poika, Jumalan poika. Tiivistäen Vermes myöntää, että Jeesusta voidaan pitää profeettana, mutta kiistää, että Hän olisi pitänyt itseään messiaana tai Jumalan poikana muuten kuin korkeintaan kuvainnollisessa mielessä. Se, että kristinuskossa Jeesus Kristusta pidetään lihaksi tulleena Jumalana, on Vermeksen mielestä myöhempää lisäystä, joka ei kuulunut Jeesuksen eikä apostolien uskoon.
En ole teologi, mutta itse en voinut olla kiinnittämättä huomiota siihen, että kaikesta huolimatta Vermesin päälähde on Uusi testamentti. UT:sta Vermes hylkää ne kohdat, jotka tukevat hänen käsityksiään, ja hylkää ne, jotka ovat ristiriidassa niiden kanssa. Vaikka Vermes käyttää muitakin lähteitä, esim. Kuolleenmeren kääröjä ja juutalaisten kirjoituksia, painopiste on vahvasti UT:ssa. UT:n kirjojen iästä Vermesillä on sellainen erikoinen käsitys, että evankeliumit olisivat jotenkin varhaisempaa aineistoa kuin Paavalin kirjeet. Asia on nykykäsityksen mukaan toisin päin. Vermesin tulkintametodi vaikuttaa hieman tarkoitushakuiselta ja näin ollen hänen päätelmistään ei voi sanoa kuin "voihan se olla noin, mutta voi olla olemattakin".
Vermeksen kunniaksi on sanottava, että hän kirjoittaa Jeesuksesta ihan kivasti ja kunnioittavasti, vaikkei Hänen jumaluuttaan myönnäkään.
Jesus The Jew kertoo nimensä mukaan Jeesuksesta juutalaisuuden näkökulmasta. Vermes esittelee Jeesuksen osana Galilean ajanlaskun alun poliittista liikehdintää ja karismaattista juutalaisuutta. Lisäksi hän omistaa omat lukunsa Jeesuksen eri nimityksille: profeetta, herra, messias, ihmisen poika, Jumalan poika. Tiivistäen Vermes myöntää, että Jeesusta voidaan pitää profeettana, mutta kiistää, että Hän olisi pitänyt itseään messiaana tai Jumalan poikana muuten kuin korkeintaan kuvainnollisessa mielessä. Se, että kristinuskossa Jeesus Kristusta pidetään lihaksi tulleena Jumalana, on Vermeksen mielestä myöhempää lisäystä, joka ei kuulunut Jeesuksen eikä apostolien uskoon.
En ole teologi, mutta itse en voinut olla kiinnittämättä huomiota siihen, että kaikesta huolimatta Vermesin päälähde on Uusi testamentti. UT:sta Vermes hylkää ne kohdat, jotka tukevat hänen käsityksiään, ja hylkää ne, jotka ovat ristiriidassa niiden kanssa. Vaikka Vermes käyttää muitakin lähteitä, esim. Kuolleenmeren kääröjä ja juutalaisten kirjoituksia, painopiste on vahvasti UT:ssa. UT:n kirjojen iästä Vermesillä on sellainen erikoinen käsitys, että evankeliumit olisivat jotenkin varhaisempaa aineistoa kuin Paavalin kirjeet. Asia on nykykäsityksen mukaan toisin päin. Vermesin tulkintametodi vaikuttaa hieman tarkoitushakuiselta ja näin ollen hänen päätelmistään ei voi sanoa kuin "voihan se olla noin, mutta voi olla olemattakin".
Vermeksen kunniaksi on sanottava, että hän kirjoittaa Jeesuksesta ihan kivasti ja kunnioittavasti, vaikkei Hänen jumaluuttaan myönnäkään.
September 23, 2021
Geza Vermes is a Jewish scholar of whom I've only recently taken an interest. To remedy that I plan on reading through all of his works on Jesus and early Christianity in order of publication. This amounts to about a dozen books. Vermes passed away in 2013, fortunately a volume entitled The Vermes Quest: The Significance of Geza Vermes for Jesus Research was published in the Library of New Testament Studies series evaluating his work and his contribution to historical Jesus scholarship. Once I've finished reading Vermes's books I plan on concluding with reading that one.
A little about Vermes. He and his family is of Hungarian Jewish descent and converted to Catholicism in his youth due to the rising tide of anti-Semitism. Despite their conversion his parents were killed during the Holocaust. Vermes became a Catholic priest but endured rejection because of his Jewish heritage, he eventually reconverted back to Judaism and became one of the premier historical Jesus scholars.
In his first book, Jesus the Jew, Vermes begins by flipping the usual way that scholars examine the life of Jesus by dealing with ancient Jewish writings first and attempting to formulate what we can derive from them and then bringing in the biblical texts to see where they agree and disagree. Also unlike most scholars of the early 1970s (when Jesus the Jew was published) Vermes situates Jesus as an ancient Palestinian Jew, specifically a Galilean Jew emphasizing the his Jewishness. He concludes his work by positing that Jesus was a charismatic, miracle-working Galilean, an ancient holy man.
A little about Vermes. He and his family is of Hungarian Jewish descent and converted to Catholicism in his youth due to the rising tide of anti-Semitism. Despite their conversion his parents were killed during the Holocaust. Vermes became a Catholic priest but endured rejection because of his Jewish heritage, he eventually reconverted back to Judaism and became one of the premier historical Jesus scholars.
In his first book, Jesus the Jew, Vermes begins by flipping the usual way that scholars examine the life of Jesus by dealing with ancient Jewish writings first and attempting to formulate what we can derive from them and then bringing in the biblical texts to see where they agree and disagree. Also unlike most scholars of the early 1970s (when Jesus the Jew was published) Vermes situates Jesus as an ancient Palestinian Jew, specifically a Galilean Jew emphasizing the his Jewishness. He concludes his work by positing that Jesus was a charismatic, miracle-working Galilean, an ancient holy man.
December 23, 2024
Antichristliche, pseudowissenschaftliche Vergeltungs-Literatur eines schein-objektiven jüdischen ("jüdisch-orthodoxen"?) Ex-Katholiken!
Er hätte (vorher) demütig lesen sollen GOTTES nachbiblische (Joh 14:16,21,26)
a) Autobiograhien Seiner einzigen & letzten Selbstinkarnation (Jesus Christus: "Jugend Jesu - Das Jakobus-Evangelium"),
b) HILFEN: Exegesen, ANTIchrist-Zeit (7 bzw. 3,5 Jahre! M.E. 2026-2033!), WISSENSCHAFTLICHE Erklärungen...
c) (Endzeit-)Offenbarungen zu Menschheitende (m.E. 2033!) & 3. Weltkrieg (m.E. 2026: Gerd Gutemann: "2020-2028" [m.E. 2025-33!, M Kahir, Kurt Eggenstein, Walter Lutz!]
an: Jakob Lorber, Bertha Dudde, Leopold Engel, Gottfried Mayerhofer, Max Seltmann!
Er hätte (vorher) demütig lesen sollen GOTTES nachbiblische (Joh 14:16,21,26)
a) Autobiograhien Seiner einzigen & letzten Selbstinkarnation (Jesus Christus: "Jugend Jesu - Das Jakobus-Evangelium"),
b) HILFEN: Exegesen, ANTIchrist-Zeit (7 bzw. 3,5 Jahre! M.E. 2026-2033!), WISSENSCHAFTLICHE Erklärungen...
c) (Endzeit-)Offenbarungen zu Menschheitende (m.E. 2033!) & 3. Weltkrieg (m.E. 2026: Gerd Gutemann: "2020-2028" [m.E. 2025-33!, M Kahir, Kurt Eggenstein, Walter Lutz!]
an: Jakob Lorber, Bertha Dudde, Leopold Engel, Gottfried Mayerhofer, Max Seltmann!
December 24, 2018
Vermes presents some fresh ideas from a perspective outside the typical NT studies realm. His familiarity with the rabbinic material is especially helpful, but it seems like he assumes that it is a trustworthy source of NT context. He also floats back and forth between the events of Jesus life and the evangelists’ take on them, without providing much rationale for that which he considers authentic or not. His argumentation is at times simplistic but this book is a good and relatively easy read for those studying the historical Jesus.
November 21, 2018
Occasionally some of the arguments about the authenticity of elements of the Gospels felt a bit circular, which I suspect is an occupational hazard in this kind of endeavour. Overall, though, the account of the Aramaic subtext of the New Testament, and the picture of Jesus as a Galilean Hasid, struck me as very convincing.
June 13, 2020
عيسى اليهودي هو احد الكتب المشهورة للراحل اليهودي المجري جيزا فيرميس. يحاول من خلاله تسليط الضوء على اكثر الالقاب و الاوصاف التي يستخدمها المسيحيون في نعت عيسى و تبيان صلتها بالتراث اليهودي.
الكتاب عسير على الفهم من اول مرة و يحتاج الى قراءة ثانية.
ليس مترجما الى العربية و حصلت عليه مستعملا عن طريق الامازون.
الكتاب عسير على الفهم من اول مرة و يحتاج الى قراءة ثانية.
ليس مترجما الى العربية و حصلت عليه مستعملا عن طريق الامازون.
January 14, 2026
A phenomenal academic overview placing Jesus within his proper historical context. I believe that the historical Jesus must, in a sense, be rescued from layers of religious dogma in order to be examined clearly, and this book succeeds in doing just that!
September 9, 2023
Vermes covers the relevant background of Jesus before tackling his various titles through a textual criticism lens. Some arguments are convincing, but the broad lesson is how limited biblical scholarship is by the material available.
July 11, 2024
Excelente
Un libro excelente que nos enseña de principio a fin la vida judía del señor, quien regresara a reinar tal como se fue. Jesús el judío
Un libro excelente que nos enseña de principio a fin la vida judía del señor, quien regresara a reinar tal como se fue. Jesús el judío
December 10, 2025
Truly i tell you that prof vermes is a lingustic genius…
January 6, 2024
This book is an attempt to approach the study of the person of Jesus objectively and historically. Vermes' thesis is that Jesus, far from being the Christ of the Christian confession, was actually a miracle working Rabbi in the tradition of Charismatic Judaism. Positively, this book offers an intricate presentation of first-century Palestinian Judaism that sheds light on the cultural and linguistic characteristics of Jesus and the Gospels. Yet, beyond this, the book is not convincing. The book is plagued by a rigid historicism that does not allow for the possibility of anything in the teaching of Jesus or the Gospels to be novel. Vermes claims that he is being "objective" but it is questionable as to whether this is true or even desirable. The Gospels are theological and historical works. To approach them in one way without the other will undoubtedly lead to misunderstanding and not do justice to them as sources. While admitting Jesus' healings and exorcisms because they are in line with his thesis, Vermes never makes mention of Jesus' preaching of the kingdom of God which, by Vermes' own criteria of determining authenticity in the Gospels, was most assuredly central to the preaching of Jesus. Not to mention the well-attested fact that Jesus had twelve disciples, again indicating that Jesus preached the eschatological restoration of Israel. This also makes Vermes' rejection of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah suspect. Vermes must resort to claiming that it was Jesus’ enemies and disciples who accused him of being the Messiah, all the while Jesus was denying it. This makes little historical sense as an explanation for one who claims to be so historically unbiased. Indeed, Vermes' explanation for Jesus' trial and crucifixion is left near unexplained by Vermes' thesis. The line of development from Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom to his arrest and crucifixion as ‘King of the Jews’ is so seamless and well-attested in the Gospels; it is difficult to imagine this is not what happened unless one has a preconceived bias. Though Vermes believes he has penetrated the Gospels to reveal the “historical” Jesus underneath, we remain unconvinced. His thesis may seem compelling when he is allowed to set the historical parameters, but when considered against the larger testimony of the Gospels and history, it seems Vermes has fallen victim to deciding the outcome of his study before it ever began.
December 29, 2019
Una evaluación poco benévola para un autor que, pese a sus credenciales como estudioso del cristianismo primitivo, termina redactando una obra "políticamente correcta" sin delinear con precisión el mundo y el personaje centrales de su obra.
Como estudioso que he sido de los "orígenes olvidados del cristianismo" (ahí está, precisamente mi colección de ensayos dedicados a este tema), puedo decir que el autor que nos ocupa careció de las herramientas metodológicas para abrirse camino en el berenjenal que representan los Evangelios, y a los cuales, aunque aplica el criterio de contextualización para entender el mensaje original de Jesús en el mundo que vivió, omite lamentablemente aplicar el más importante: el de disimilaridad, consistente en discernir y descartar los pasajes neotestamentarios originales de los que la tradición posterior agregó para justificar la intención teológica y, con ello, desdibujar la predicación original de Jesús.
Pierde al lector en exegesis inútiles sobre pasajes a los que no aplica el criterio anterior para discernir su historicidad o adecuación posterior, y con ello aleja al lector del estudio del evangelio más "histórico", el de Marcos, dando más peso a Evangelios más tardíos y, por ende, más "trabajados" teologicamente, como el de Juan, dejando de hacer comparaciones entre ellos para discernir la historicidad más cercana al Jesús histórico.
Muy veladamente afirma el mensaje escatológico del Nazareno, sin atreverse a ser contundente en afirmar que, en sus orígenes, Jesús fue tan solo un profeta apocalíptico que, llevado de su fervor, pagó con su vida el predicar un mensaje fallido.
No recomiendo esta lectura, al considerarla poco segura en mostrar el rostro original de Jesús de Nazaret, y en la cual el autor titubea en sus afirmaciones, optando por un circunloquio exegético que confunde y termina por aparentar no querer ofender, buscando mejor "quedar bien" con la tradición, haciendo perder el tiempo al lector deseoso de certezas históricas.
Saludos!!!
Como estudioso que he sido de los "orígenes olvidados del cristianismo" (ahí está, precisamente mi colección de ensayos dedicados a este tema), puedo decir que el autor que nos ocupa careció de las herramientas metodológicas para abrirse camino en el berenjenal que representan los Evangelios, y a los cuales, aunque aplica el criterio de contextualización para entender el mensaje original de Jesús en el mundo que vivió, omite lamentablemente aplicar el más importante: el de disimilaridad, consistente en discernir y descartar los pasajes neotestamentarios originales de los que la tradición posterior agregó para justificar la intención teológica y, con ello, desdibujar la predicación original de Jesús.
Pierde al lector en exegesis inútiles sobre pasajes a los que no aplica el criterio anterior para discernir su historicidad o adecuación posterior, y con ello aleja al lector del estudio del evangelio más "histórico", el de Marcos, dando más peso a Evangelios más tardíos y, por ende, más "trabajados" teologicamente, como el de Juan, dejando de hacer comparaciones entre ellos para discernir la historicidad más cercana al Jesús histórico.
Muy veladamente afirma el mensaje escatológico del Nazareno, sin atreverse a ser contundente en afirmar que, en sus orígenes, Jesús fue tan solo un profeta apocalíptico que, llevado de su fervor, pagó con su vida el predicar un mensaje fallido.
No recomiendo esta lectura, al considerarla poco segura en mostrar el rostro original de Jesús de Nazaret, y en la cual el autor titubea en sus afirmaciones, optando por un circunloquio exegético que confunde y termina por aparentar no querer ofender, buscando mejor "quedar bien" con la tradición, haciendo perder el tiempo al lector deseoso de certezas históricas.
Saludos!!!
May 9, 2024
Apoya *sus* puntos de vista con excelente documentación.
February 24, 2019
El problema principal de este libro es identificar el Jesús histórico con el Jesús de los Evangelios.
Otorgar veracidad a lo narrado en los sinópticos por el hecho de dar cumplimiento y coincidir con lo anunciado en el Antiguo Testamento es olvidar la posibilidad de acomodación intencionada del Evangelio como legitimación posterior.
Salvado lo anterior, encontramos una interpretación fundamentada del Jesús de la fe y de sus enseñanzas, que siempre es inspirador y profundo.
Asimismo, valoro positivamente la exposición del contexto histórico y el detalle de las diferentes escuelas del judaísmo y su relación con Jesús.
Otorgar veracidad a lo narrado en los sinópticos por el hecho de dar cumplimiento y coincidir con lo anunciado en el Antiguo Testamento es olvidar la posibilidad de acomodación intencionada del Evangelio como legitimación posterior.
Salvado lo anterior, encontramos una interpretación fundamentada del Jesús de la fe y de sus enseñanzas, que siempre es inspirador y profundo.
Asimismo, valoro positivamente la exposición del contexto histórico y el detalle de las diferentes escuelas del judaísmo y su relación con Jesús.
Read
December 4, 2016Although the author makes an attempt to simplify, I still found it to be quite technical at times. However, it was still a fascinating study of aspects of the historical Jesus. Especially some of the background to His life and times - the characteristics of Galileans, how they spoke, the vernacular they used as well as their customs and history. All in all a good read just don't power through it (it could be done in a day or two).
September 6, 2015
Unfortunately, this book is not meant for the lay reader but for academics and theologians with knowledge of ancient linguistics and doctrinal controversies.
March 28, 2014
Crucial reading for a comprehensive approach to spirituality.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews