Customer Reviews

Jesus: A Life

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Wilson starts off by telling us that everything in the four Gospels is mythological and none of it is historically reliable. He then spends the rest of the book constructing his own historical biography of Jesus, using (of course) the four Gospels as his sources. Isn't there a contradiction here? Some of his insights and observations are provocative, while others struck me as just silly -- e.g., that the apostles mistook Jesus' lookalike brother for their resurrected teacher, or that the "angels" in the empty tomb were other family members of Jesus who had simply moved the corpse for reburial! (When they said Jesus was going to Galilee, Wilson says, they only meant that his body was being transported there. If so, this is the most consequential misunderstanding in history.) The book is a quick, provocative read, but I think you'd be better advised to check out the works of Bart Ehrman (a skeptic) or Luke Timothy Johnson (a believer). Either of them offers more serious scholarship than Wilson's book.

This is a beautifully written, entertaining, and quite profound work. But I give it only three stars because the last chapters on the Passion and Resurrection are a more than a bit flaky.

For me, the major themes of Wilson's book are that Jesus did not set out to create a religion, and that he never claimed to be the Son of God. These themes (hobby horses?) don't get in the way much when Wilson is recounting the life of Jesus. But they prove to be a real impediment to his understanding of the Passion, Resurrection and Christ's role in creating the Christian religion.

While discussing Christ's life proper, Wilson sometimes goes out on a limb. For instance, he insists that Jesus was not born in a manger. His arguments for this point of view are substantial, but they aren't so convincing as to make us want to disbelieve the explicit testimony in Luke to the effect that Mary wrapped up Christ and "laid him in a manger." Luke repeats this detail two more times in the next few sentences of his Gospel. Why in the world should we believe Wilson who lived two thousand years after the event, and disbelieve Luke, who was a relative contemporary of Christ? No historical argument, no matter how cleverly couched, is more convincing that Luke's simple, straight forward testimony.

Nevertheless, Wilson is a good writer, who digs under the surface of events and sees much of what is important in the Bible. He writes beautifully and convincingly about the central import of love and forgiveness in the Bible, and is openly accepting of most of Christ's miracles.

The real problem comes in the end, when the discussion turns to the import of Christ's life. In these passages, Wilson insists that Christ is not the Son of God. But Mark opens his Gospel by saying "Here begins the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." And there are numerous other references throughout the Bible to much the same purpose. Again, Wilson insists that there is no evidence for the trinity in the Bible, but in Matthew, Christ says his disciples should "baptize men everywhere in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." And Wilson says that Christ never intended to create a church, but Jesus explicitly asks his disciples in Mark 16 to "Go forth to every part of the world, and proclaim the Good News to the whole creation."

Wilson is not a fool, and his problem is not that he misses these obvious passages in the Bible. Rather, he buys into a lot of contemporary scholarship which attempts to say which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not. This is a very risky business, as it is very difficult to convince a reader that contemporaries or relatively contemporaries of Christ did not know what they were talking about, and that some scribbler, no matter how intelligent or learned, living 2000 years after the fact does know what actually happened. Worse, Wilson often fails to tell both sides of the case. For instance, he cleverly says that Jesus never explicitly stated that he was the Son of God, but neglects to point out passages where Christ implies as much, or where other authorities explicitly state that he is the Son of God. To be convincing, you need to both present arguments for your side, and show why arguments to contrary are false.

In most cases, Wilson is a sympathetic and moving writer. But in some cases he has a tin ear for the facts. For instance, he can't understand why Christ should be worried about his upcoming death if he knows that he will be resurrected. Wilson uses this argument to try to convince the reader that Christ was not sufficiently all knowing to understand that he would be resurrected. I myself am a Christian, and believe that I will "live" after I die. This does not mean that I would be unconcerned to learn that I was about to undergo an ordeal as painful and humiliating as a Roman crucification.

Nevertheless, this book is beautifully written, often quite moving, and in spirit often close to what I believe to be Christ's actual message. It also contains a number of "fun facts" or interesting theories that made me smile or sent me happily thumbing through my Bibles.

If you are interested in a reading a series of books on Christ's life, I would recommend this one. If you are interested in reading only one book on Christ, then I don't think this would be a good choice. A reason to overrule my rating would be if you have found other book's on Christ's life to be hopelessly boring or heavy handed. This book is neither, and should keep you interested and involved throughout all but the last two or three chapters. You might also find this book interesting if you have never read a book on Christ by an intelligent skeptic before, and want to read an entertaining one just for the sake of rounding out your education. There may be other skeptics who have done a better job than this, but Wilson is way above the norm for the genre.

Wilson makes a convincing and careful case for his view of Jesus as man, versus Jesus as divine myth. Historically and logically he makes some grand leaps, but cautiously points out when he does so. He accomplishes two things: first, he separates the contemporary Jesus from the mythology that has been built up around him. This is perhaps his most solid contribution. Secondly, he peels away the Christ of the gospels from the biblical and historical evidence. This effort is less successful and much less likely to be well received by the more polarized believers and non-believers alike. For those of us in the middle--in the "maybe, maybe not" Agnostic camp--the result is more comforting. Wilson reassures us that we will never "know" the truth--as opposed to the Truth.

Engaging, easy to read and follow, I recommend this book to the historical reader first, the religious student last. Wilson's thorough research is not for the faint of faith. Those wavering on the edge are sure to be troubled. Anyone unwilling to explore the scholarly approach to the historical Jesus is wasting time and money. Wilson's book is not for either. Faith must always offer its own promise. Ultimately, I suspect Wilson's work is likely to be a litmus test for one's initial beliefs--which is the unstated theme that suffuses this book

Wilson has done a great job merely pointing out that as far as history is concerned we know nothing of Jesus. The Gospels as well as the other New Testament documents are obviously not historical in nature as none of the authors even claim to be historians and they do claim to BELIEVE that Jesus was god in the flesh! Nothing could be less historical or more mystical.

Wilson is also fair in telling the reader right up front that his ideas are just that. Because there is so little HISTORY regarding Jesus, no one, including Wilson can offer more than a guess.

Religionists that already BELIEVE in this or that, of course, care little about history or truth. This book is not for anyone that has already made up his or her mind that belief is all that is necessary. It is for those of us that have always wondered how much history tells us about Jesus. The answer is in. History tells us nothing! Your guess is as good as Luther's or Augustine's.

Wilson's book is a well-written partial reconstruction of Jesus' life from a relatively neutral perspective. He offers very little that is startling, but many of his ideas are thought provoking and interesting. There's good information about the setting and customs of 1st Century Israel, although the subject has been handled better and at more length by many other authors.

It isn't sufficient, nowadays, to simply say that Jesus was a Jew and let's understand him in that context. Wilson does a good job at this level, but doesn't take it beyond. Today thanks to Vermes, Chilton. Schonfield, Meier, and others, everyone knows that. Given that, where do we go from there? Was he a Jewish Zealot? An Essene saint? A Rabbi par excellance? For us to truly benefit and increase our understanding of Jesus and his life, we need to know what kind of a Jew he was, not simply that he was a Jew.

One of the commendable virtues of this book is that Wilson identifies a theory as a theory, and doesn't try to masquerade it as a fact. Usually his theories have a reasonable evidentiary platform, so I found them interesting if not necessarily valid

There is a hint of anti-Church sentiment here, but what scholar examining the words of Jesus and looking at the deeds of the Church can help but express some such sentiments.

This book isn't for everyone. A novice would do better with a more scholarly text (e.g., Marcello Craveri's Life of Jesus; Ian Wilson's Jesus - the Evidence; J.R. Porter's The Jesus of History, The Christ of Faith). More advanced students will enjoy the book. Scholars may find it too simplistic and lacking an overall philosophy or outlook.

This remarkable book accomplishes two difficult tasks that may seem at odds to those who have not read it: it decisively dethrones any remaining New Testament claim to historical validity while defending the life and teachings of the real Jesus against the institutions that have grown in their influence by putting words in the man's mouth. It is difficult to imagine a more impressive feat.

A. N. Wilson has written an informative and entertaining series of essays on Jesus of Nazareth. He is fascinated by Jesus, yet absolutely convinced that he was no God, just an unusually interesting, and caring, prophet. He couldn't have performed miracles, gospels or no, because miracles are impossible. Nevertheless, he is intrigued by the fact that a worldwide religion was sparked by this most unusual man.

Like so many "historical Jesus" authors, he attempts to sort out what was myth (a lot, according to him) and what was historical. Of course, like all the others, what he comes up with is more open to criticism than what he started with. And since believers will sensibly ignore his analysis as hopelessly biased, those open to Wilson's method will find the book rewarding and stimulating.

If you want to read a superior book about Jesus, one that doesn't pre-suppose the impossibility of miracles, but still treats the New Testament to thoughtful critical analysis, I would recommend Raymond Brown's books (especially "Death of the Messiah"). For an introduction, Robert H. Stein's "Jesus The Messiah" is filled with essential and sensible analysis, especially concerning how an author's "predisposition" (on miracles) fundamentally colors his approach, no matter how learnedly he tries to hide this fact.

Mr. Wilson has subsequently issued another volume, "Paul" which has all the readability, but, alas, all the limitations, of this book.

This book suceeds admirably in capturing is primary subject: its author, A. N. Wilson. As for Jesus, try another book.

Wilson frequently adjusts facts to fit his story line. Paul's "as though I were a child abnormally born" processes through his imagination and comes out as a confession that Paul's Gospel "is quite different from the beliefs and practices of Jesus' own friends and family." (Never mind that he said just the opposite.) He discovers that Jesus had a home, after all, and that Peter "made a substantial profit" in his fish business. (Perhaps he found a scribal copy of his W-2 form?)

Wilson shows little feel for the available evidence from First Century Palestine. Paul reports that hundreds have seen the risen Christ. Roman historians do not mention these witnesses, therefore, Wilson deduces, Paul is making it up. By contrast, when real historians speak of the period, they point out that even for central facts about mainstream Jewish religion, they may need to rely on reports that are 150 years after the fact. In such circumstances, making an argument from ignorance ("No confirmation, therefore it must not be true") is like asking why none of the apostles appeared on Oprah.

At times Wilson appears to be competing with Bertrand Russell for who can shock people by saying the silliest bon mot. "One could name dozens of figures who have been of far greater influence on the human race than Jesus," Wilson says. Then he names one dozen, four of whom were deeply committed followers of Jesus, four of whom reacted against Jesus, and all of whom together may or may not have equalled the influence of the Sermon on the Mount.

Wilson plays Sherlock Holmes. "It is a curious number, 500." "The devils didn't go out of the demoniac and into the pigs. No, clearly, his shrieks frightened them," and they all rushed down the hill and plunged into the lake. At times like that, he reminds me a bit of Inspector Cleauseau negotiating his way across the lobby of a Swiss hotel. He doesn't quite know the language, his credentials are mostly bluff, and he asks questions (in a pretentious tone) that are over-clever and under-wise at the same time. But I grant the spectacle is entertaining.

Not that Wilson is a stupid man. Despite himself (as he says of the Gospel writers), on occasion a snatch of eloquence or even good sense peeps through the bluster. He speaks of "another layer in (John's) endless layers, another ingrediant in its inexhaustible richness and fascination as a literary text." "No saying or story of Jesus can be taken to its logical conclusion without being contradicted by some other saying or fact." But then the sun drops behind another cloud of subjectivity and wild imagination. Perhaps his atheism is partly to blame. Trying to find a historically and psychologically explanation for the birth of Christianity that fit the materialistic paradigm was one of the great cottage industries of the 20th Century. Wilson seems to hope that he'll be the lucky one to hit the jackpot.

But he lacks the scholarly tools, or temperament, to make a serious attempt. I read this book just after finishing N. T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God, which is a genuine work of scholarship. By contrast, scholars call Wilson's NT works "wrongheaded and muddled" (Luke Johnson) and "silly and pretentious" (Richard B. Hays). Wright is also patronizing, but he has some excuse: he really knows something about 1st Century Israel. The difference is extraordinary. If you want to learn something about history, read Wright. If you want a poetic interpretation of Jesus, this book has its moments, but Chesterton's Everlasting Man is superior.

My first Wilson biography was of C. S. Lewis. An aquaintance of Lewis noted that for all Wilson's literary talent, his portrait of the man was "almost unrecognizable." Both men were Oxford grads, Anglican and atheist as different times, and talented writers whose native language was English. Jesus, of course, was different on all counts. This biography is subjective and mistaken to a corresponding degree -- unless, of course, you read it as an autobiography.

Author, Jesus and the Religions of Man

It's very obvious why those who fervently believe in the contemporary Christian church's teachings would object to this book. It exposes to the light many of the dearly held beliefs of fundamentalist Christians and shows them for what they are - stories, exaggerations, myths built upon other myths, wishful thinking, etc. Yet throughout the book, the actual person of Jesus is treated with great respect and admiration.

Although the author takes liberties interpreting the events written about in the Gospels, he is meticulous about qualifying his guesses as such. This does not detract from the book at all. Many of his theories, such as the risen Christ being merely one of his brothers (how come nobody seemed to recognize him right away?), were very similar to my own theories of what may have actually happened.

A great deal of historical research went into this book, but it is written like a fast-paced mystery novel. I found the book to be quite thorough, although I do look forward to reading the author's book about Paul the Apostle to learn more about the person who is actually responsible for Christianity as we know it today.

I would highly recommend this book!

This fascinating book is best seen as a prelude to Wilson's biography of St. Paul, which develops several of the themes touched upon here. Wilson is a respected novelist and biographer whose life of Tolstoy was particularly well received. As a non-academic, he is free to make leaps and take risks that (while deplored by scholars) enable his fortunate readers to grasp the living realities that lay, or might have lain, behind Wilson's subject.
Wilson approaches Jesus as a rational biographer/historian, without imposing any particular dogma (unless one considers post-Renaissance rationalism to be a dogma). Starting with the relatively non-controversial theories of Biblical critics and historians of religion, which are lucidly explained, Wilson applies his own intelligence and understanding of human nature to suggest where the historical Jesus probably differed from the "Christ" figure that has been handed down to us.
Certainly, Wilson's *Jesus* will frustrate Christian believers who may be uninterested in questioning Jesus' divinity. But open-minded readers who want to begin to understand the origins of Christianity will enjoy this book immensely. Recommended follow-up volumes are Wilson's *Paul* and Mack's *Who Wrote the New Testament?*