Customer Reviews

Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Grant has managed to treat the life of Jesus as one would treat any historical figure. He has sidestepped centuries of interpretation and misinterpretation, and presents a portrait of Jesus based on the actual historical evidence. It is not the Jesus we are used to, and Grant's own interpretations challenge many common assumptions

Michael Grant's book is so vivid, provides so many cultural details, and engages so much practical data, that it was like boarding a time machine to actually travel back to first-century Galilee to follow Jesus around and observe the life around him.

Grant analyzes aspects of contemporary Galilean, Judean, Aramean and Roman culture in the gospels and other literature, to draw a powerful detailed -- yet easly readable -- character profile of Jesus and his teachings. He probes the gospels, supplemented by contemporarty sources, to draw out a detailed view of the psychology and self-concept of Jesus.

This skilled critical writer establishes strongly the authenticity of some events and teachings commonly dismissed in some circles of thought. Highlighting some ignored aspects of the gospels, Grant's comparative approach to the 4 gospels easily portrays the overarching goal and purpopse of all Jesus' actions and teachings -- the urgency of ushering in the Kingdom of God. This guiding focus explains many aspects otherwise considered anomalies in the gospel accounts.

Grant compares Jesus to the themes, goals and character of the Qumran teachers, Galilean sages and Old Testament prophets. He provides an extensive analysis of Jesus' relationship to John the Baptist. He establishes the unique aspects of Jesus' teachings, as well as the similarities with the developing rabbinic forms of the time. Notable differences are Jesus' unique self-confidence, assurance of his unique relationship to God and his novel personal authority.

Grant pointed out aspects of the political and geographical setting, as well as cultural dynamics I have never seen dealt with in other texts. These bring out a total presence and vibrance in the gospel texts rarely achieved by a New Testament scholar.

In spite of my extensive studies and avid interests in these topics, having read dozens of relevant books, I felt projected in a new way into the physical presence of Jesus in a vivid local Galilean setting, as though it was a movie set painstakingly created for authenticity.

The great mystery of history is how the life and teachings of an obscure Jewish Rabbi inspired a world religion. Speaking as an historian, Michael Grant examines the life of Jesus, eschewing the spiritual, and puts forth the plausible opinion that Jesus's Ministry was based on the belief that the Kingdom of God --the end of the world as we know it -- was at hand. The Jews, or at least the elect of the Jews, would be liberated from oppression, the oppressive Gentiles would be punished, and God would rule. Jesus, he speculates, went knowingly to his death to further the imminent apocalypse.

Grant's views help explain Jesus's indifference toward worldly things. Why worry about possessions, religious laws, and rendering taxes unto Caesar when the end is near? This leads the author also to maintain that Jesus's Ministry was based on a mistake -- the end didn't come, and hasn't yet come -- and that he was "a total failure turned into enormous triumph" after his death. As a person, Jesus comes across as somewhat abrupt and intolerant, especially with his intellectually-challenged disciples.

These are pretty strong and controversial views but Grant maintains his historical detachment throughout. One can never be sure whether he is a believer or not. I thought the book would have been better had it included more background on the four gospels -- Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John -- which are almost the only sources Grant used to interpret the life of Jesus (he finally gets around to doing so briefly near the end of the book.) He perhaps presumes more familiarity with the Bible than some of us, including this reader, may have. But all in all this is a most interesting book and the interpretation of Jesus is very convincing.

Smallchief

Lest there be any confusion about this book, I just want to make two initial points:

FIRST, Grant does NOT argue that all of the miracles were merely symbolic. He accepts the healing miracles as real, historical events. In addition, he thinks it's possible that some of the "nature" miracles might also have really occurred. On the other hand, he also argues that *some* of the "nature" miracles might be examples of hyperbole typical of the time and place, or might have started life as parables (such as the story of the fig tree, which is presented as a miracle in Matthew and Mark, while Luke seems to present a version of it as a parable).

What I think may have confused some readers was Grant's observation that, to Jesus, the miracles both *signaled* (i.e., symbolized) the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven and were *part of* the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven. In other words, by healing the sick (for example), Jesus gave a signal that the Kingdom was arriving and also helped the Kingdom to arrive (by helping to create a world without sickness).

SECOND, nothing in the book suggests that Grant is an atheist. (Or perhaps I should say "was an atheist," since this book was first published in 1977.) It's pretty clear, though not explicitly stated, that Grant did not believe that Jesus was God. But that has nothing to do with whether he was an atheist.

This is a fascinating effort to look at Jesus in the way that a modern historian would look at any figure from the ancient world. Even if you're a devout Christian, this book will provide some very interesting interpretations of Jesus' mission and message.

This is an excellent work by the great classical scholar Michael Grant, a champion of Western Civilization. Writing with a deep knowledge of the ancient world in which Jesus of Nazareth lived, Grant offers a convincing naturalistic portrait of him.

The greatest strength of Grant's book is its status as a serious and lengthy biography of Jesus written from the standpoint of an historian. Almost every other available biography of Jesus is written by a Christian theologian of some sort or another. Even liberal, skeptical, naturalistically-minded theologians or other Christian scholars harbor deep emotional bonds to Jesus, such that they occasionally describe him as "the Lord," or allow him at least an occasional miracle, or idealize him to perfection or near-perfection. Grant steers clear of this. Moreover, unlike many liberal Jesus scholars in more recent decades, Grant does not dubiously resort to the newly discovered Gospel of Thomas, or to other Gnostic gospels, as sources for his portrait of Jesus. Nor does Grant, when examining the resurrection story, deny the probability of an empty tomb, as most liberal Jesus scholars today do. Instead, he accepts the strong tradition that the tomb of Jesus was found empty on the third day. But he concludes very reasonably that someone or other "had taken the body" (p. 176).

One of the best parts of Grant's book, in my view, is a chapter titled "What Were the Miracles?" Other readers, I notice, have also found that chapter especially compelling. In it, Grant systematically analyzes the miracle stories of the gospels. He gives many persuasive naturalistic explanations for the events in question, for example, cases in which the suggestive power of Jesus, working in tandem with the superstitious beliefs of the common people, cured them of "hysterical and obsessive ailments, paralysis," etc. In other words, hypochondria and psychosomatic afflictions were the root causes of such problems. I might add that some or most such "healings" may well have been only partial or temporary; we have no follow-up medical reports. Likewise, Grant writes that "the 'lepers' were not necessarily lepers at all," but were probably people afflicted with "less serious diseases of the skin." As for the few "resurrections" of the dead that Jesus is supposed to have performed, Grant suggests they were coma-resuscitations if anything real at all. One simply must realize that premature announcements of death were quite common in antiquity, before modern hi-tech equipment permitted the monitoring of the vital signs of sick people. Grant also wisely concludes that these "miraculous" acts of Jesus were relatively few in number, later multiplied by rumor and hero-worship to the dozens related in the gospels. As for the several non-healing, "nature" miracles (Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, etc.), Grant lays bare their symbolic and fictional character. (See also Randel Helms's book Gospel Fictions on the borrowing of Old Testament passages in these cases.) And finally he mentions the serious contradictions involved in the gospel accounts of the secrecy surrounding all the miracles. He writes: "This widespread disbelief [by many Jews at the time, that the acts of Jesus were really miracles] is probably the cause of Mark's continual insistence that Jesus required his healings to be kept secret. There is obviously something wrong about these accounts, since it is incredible that Jesus, after performing his cures (as we are told) in public, should then have ordained and expected that they should be kept secret...."

Grant does not analyze the 21 epistles or letters of the New Testament in his discussion of the miracle stories, but if he had, he would have found in them additional reasons to doubt the number and impressiveness of the actions of Jesus later described and exaggerated in the gospels as miracles. Not one of the 21 epistles mentions any miracle performed by Jesus in his lifetime. It seems probable that the strange and excitable author of the Gospel of Mark (the first gospel written, about A.D. 70), or his immediate source, was the one who added many of the miracle stories to the earlier and somewhat less sensational oral traditions about Jesus.

Grant's 1977 Jesus book seems to be rarely cited in the scholarly Jesus literature, perhaps because he was not a Christian or fellow New Testament scholar. This neglect, and the weak reasons for it, suggest that more people should rediscover his book. Please read a copy - or at least that fascinating "Miracles" chapter - soon.

Excellent book. Michael Grant writes in a clear and concise way about how much we know about Jesus and how we can decide what parts of the Gospels are historical and what parts are mythical. If you believe in the Bible literally, you may have trouble with this book, but if you want to know what parts of the Jesus story are history and what parts are not, you will find this book fascinating

Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Author, Michael Grant. 264 pages. 1977.

I picked this book up for free at a local library give away last year. I finally got around to reading it. I picked it up because I was familiar with the writer's work on the Roman Army and wanted to see what he brought to the table on this topic.

This book review has been one of the most difficult I have written. Partly because this book was very good, thought provoking, and I thought the author did a very good job of meeting his objective. The topic (Jesus Christ) and the narrow approach (looking only at the Gospels) of this book make it a difficult subject to actually write about. While much has been written about Jesus Christ by many people from many different approaches; I have found that too often we think we know what Jesus said and what he meant. But truthfully it too often turns out that it is usually only what others have said about him or what others have said he meant. This is especially true in the religious circles. And there has been so much that in a real sense the historical Jesus has been lost in the imagery.

Imagery which has been piled on by both the religious proponents and the secular pro/opponents. Peeling back this imagery, these attributions and viewing the historical man and his actions in the context of his times and locale is quite difficult. The greatest reason for this difficulty is the work of his followers themselves. They have so changed the world in his name that getting a real sense of the pre-Christian society in the Roman Near East or even of the society he preached, walked, and lived in is extremely difficult. And Jesus Christ was a product of his time and of his locality. Much of what he said, preached, and much of what he did followed norms for holy men in and around Galilee in that era.

Comparing his words and actions with contemporaries and near contemporaries you can easily fail to see the radical and revolutionary aspect of what he was doing. Many other holy men preached about the end times, the coming of the kingdom, repentance, and some even could have worked miracles. But only Jesus affirmed that he, and he alone was initiating the Kingdom of God. This was a radical statement and it is in that statement or rather the evaluation of that statement that I diverge from the author of this book in regards to his evaluation.

From a historians perspective yes, this part of the mission statement has not come to pass. But if you correctly understand Jesus' admonishments to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's because earthly things matter not in the light of the impending Kingdom but fail to see the that the kingdom of God was truly established when Jesus descended in death and rendered death itself obsolete you have missed the key aspect. I suppose though that this is the difference between a historians approach and a theological approach. Not at odds necessarily but each could be viewed as incomplete on its own.

Separating the theological, and focusing only on Jesus in the Gospels, and in a historical context the image of Jesus is surprising. He is not the meek and mild image beloved of greeting cards but rather a sharp tongued fiery personality who has no time for compromising or wheeling and dealing. The Kingdom is too important for anything else and the time for the Kingdom is at hand! He can easily move among those whom Judaism of that time views as unclean, undesirable, or scandalous because he has no such earthly ties or restrictions and views such as folly in the face of the Kingdom. He comes across as charismatic with a courage bordering on suicidal, which can in fact be seen as the truth. He knew he was going to die if he continued as he was doing and he did not flinch; rather he narrowed and sharpened his rhetoric and actions. Tossing aside theology, Jesus stands as the single greatest example of the humanist ideal. He, through his preaching, his example, his charisma and courage shows us all what a single person is capable of ... changing the world.

It perhaps the narrowing of the topic to the Gospels which has made this the most difficult review to write. There is a gap between the life and death of Jesus, the writing of the Epistles and other letters, the separation of Christianity from Judaism into its own faith group, the writing of the Gospels, the growth and formalization of the Church, the standardization of the canon. The author alludes this several times in the text. The intervening periods of time and the experiences of Jesus' followers does have an impact on what is written, subtracted, added, omitted, and nuanced in these scriptures. Essentially it must be remembered that although the author is approaching these texts from the point of view of a historian and treating the texts therefore as historical source documents he also correctly states that they are primarily a spiritual text. The accuracy/validity of the history is always secondary to the spiritual/theological. To believe otherwise is to not understand the vary thing Jesus was actually preaching about ... the imminence of the Kingdom and therefore the unimportance of earthly things and attachments. In his own words, "My kingdom is not of this world."

Michael Grant's work is still the best short book on Jesus the man. The basic story is quite simple. There was a Galilean itinerant preacher and faith healer named Jesus(Jeshua a not uncommon name of the time). Probably innocently he found himself in trouble with the Roman government and the conservative religious establishment in Jerusalem. He was crucified (a hideous but not uncommon fate). His body turned up missing. His followers claimed he rose from the dead. All the rest is a question of faith or the lack of it.
Grant, who espouses no religious doctrine in the work, simply subjects the earthly life of Jesus to the same historical analysis he would apply to any other figure of the ancient world, and shows how much we know about his life, placing it in the context of his times. He shows that if we apply that criteria to Jesus as we do to other personalities of his era there is no reasonable basis to doubt his historic existence. Grant marshalls the evidence in a matter of fact manner and draws his conclusions in much the same way as he would if he were writing about Socrates or Bhudda or any other figure whose message comes down to us through third parties.
On the one hand I would not recommend this work to committed Jesus deniers who,in my mind, are similar to Holocaust deniers, "truthers", and "birthers" so dedicated to their own conspiracy theories that they have no ability to recognize simple truth. On the other hand strict religious fundamentalists will likewise not profit from a reading of this work. I am a practising Roman Catholic, one of my dearest friends is an atheist. We both found Grant's work to be both persuasive and succinct. Fair minded persons from all backgrounds will profit from reading this work.

Michael Grant (1914-2004) was an English historian and classicist, who was the author of numerous famous works (e.g., The Twelve Caesars, History of Rome, The Roman Emperors). In this 1977 book (written right after his book Saint Paul), Grant applies his extensive historical knowledge and technique to the gospel accounts of Jesus.

He begins with the statement, "The most potent figure, not only in the history of religion, but in world history as a whole, is Jesus Christ: the maker of one of the few revolutions which have lasted. Millions of men and women for century after century have found his life and teaching overwhelmingly significant and moving. And there is ample reason, as this book will endeavor to show, in this later twentieth century why this should still be so."

The book contains observations such as the following: "Many Jews, certainly, disbelieved in Jesus' healings.... This widespread disbelief is probably the cause of Mark's continual insistence that Jesus required his healings to be kept secret. There is obviously something wrong about these accounts, since it is incredible that Jesus, after performing his cures (as we are told) in public, should then have ordained and expected that they should be kept secret--which, as the evangelist himself admits, was obviously impossible."

He rejects the suggestion (so popular these days) that Mary Magdalene had been Jesus' mistress. "Indeed, on the subject of Jesus' sex life we have no information whatever. It is possible that he voluntarily embraced celibacy, at least during the last phase of his life, in accordance with a certain, somewhat peripheral, Jewish tradition which considered holiness incompatible with marriage. But there is no good reason to suppose that he foreshadowed the sour attitude of Paul to sexual intercourse, which may have been based on personal sexual difficulties."

He concludes the work on the note, "After his career, then, had ended in total failure, Jesus, when his life was over, converted that failure into immeasurable victory. This tremendous change was ascribed, in the last chapter, to certain unforeseeable curcumstances which had arisen during the years and generations following his death. Yet that was by no means the whole reason for Jesus' gigantically widespread posthumous acclamation. This enormous reversal was due also to altogether exceptional features of his own character."

This book will be of considerable interest to anyone interested in the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

This book provoked many feelings, from curiosity to hate. Perhaps this is just what Michael Grant expected or wanted. He should be commended for taking on such a controversial subject. The inclusion of works other than the Bible, however, would have given the book a greater historical impact. Unfortunately, Michael Grant fails to follow his original thesis of fully explaining the Gospels in a historically correct fashion. The one constant in the book is Grant's writing style, it reads easily. Read the book it will either make one a better Christian or cause one to seek a new religion either way it will be an experience.