Customer Reviews

Jesus

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

 

 

I liked the way the author did not dimiss miracles and covered what was probably meant by the "Kingdom" first.

Despite plattitudes that Jesus was the most influential person to have ever lived (the problem being that what exists of his genuine output is rare, and his status as a saint was even at the time pretty ambiguous) - I think this is a portrait which combines facts and impressions with a definite direction and conclusion. The role of St Paul and many of the saints like Peter or lack thereof is revealed. We also get a digest of the search for the historical new testament.

A bit dated, this is an easy read and makes most of what is known available to readers. I'm not sure whether it glorifies or insults Christ but I feel wiser about him in having read this work.

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

This is a superb book, reviewing the gospels from a historical standpoint that is neither preachy nor dismissive. Grant boils down the contradicting mess of the gospels and picks out the salient points that appear to have meant the most to Jesus. He reminds us that everything Jesus did, that we now take for proof of divinity and compassion was done to ensure the spreading of his message that: The Kingdom of God is Now and I (Jesus) am personally bringing it to the people on behalf of my father (God). He backs up this claim with ample proof and good prose. This book is inviting and just the right length, right when you have had about all of the Jesus you can take Grant comes to his conclusion and ends his book on a high note. Lovely.

This has got to be one of the best books I have read on the subject of the historical Jesus. Grant stays mostly impartial throughout the book, although he does continuously put things in light of his own view of Jesus, who he believes was an apocalyptic preacher. Frankly, after reading this book, I'm quite surprised more scholars DON'T proffer this view.
As to an earlier reviewer's claim of misinformation, the fact is that the most recent Bible scholarship agrees with Grant on most of those issues. I sincerely wish that Grant will update his text in the next edition to include more recent scholarly work.
What I most liked about this book was the lack of pushing a political or religious agenda. Many many books about the "historical" Jesus start with a claim and then try to find the evidence to back it up. Grant seems to do what all good historians should: look at all the evidence and derive a conclusion from it. Of course, from a strictly historical point of view, things must be interpreted through a naturalist world view, and this is what will most likely offend most traditional Christians who take the supernatural aspects of the Gospels as literal events inside history. Overall, this is a very interesting read if you would like to learn more about the history behind the Gospels.

Clearly Michael Grant must be in possession of the time machine to be able to make such a bold assertion concerning loving one's enemy and turning the other cheek, "indeed even Jesus did not fulfill it regularly himself." (page 28). I think this statement says it all about the historical worth of the book. How could one trust the author's opinion of Jesus when he states such nonsense that is not supported by any historical source whatsoever? From the aforementioned statement in page 28 the author's biased view of Jesus is made apparent.

I have enjoyed books by Michael Grant in the past. I have on my shelves editions of Roman Myths, Tacitus' Annals, The Twelve Caesars, etc. His book, Jesus, originally published in 1977, and recently republished in 2004 with Rigel Publications, has proved to be a deep disappointment.

Reminiscent of Steve Allen's On the Bible, Religion, and Morality, Michael Grant appears to be another very bright author who has fallen hook, line & sinker for just about every heretical or currently in-vogue view of Christ & Christianity for the past 200 years.

To be brief, I will only cite 12 such instances in the first chapter, The Dawning Kingdom of God, from the Rigel edition:

1. Grant says that Jesus' birth at Bethlehem is "very doubtful." --page 9
2. Grant ascribes to the view of multiple authors for Isaiah ("Second Isaiah")--pp 11, 13
3. "the Psalms of David, traditionally though wrongly attributed to the authorship of the king of that name in about 1000 BC..." --page 12
4. "many of the Old Testament passages quoted in the New Testament as prefigurations cannot possibly, to the objective eye, be interpreted in any such sense..." --page 13
5. The gospel of Mark is named as "the earliest" of the gospels to be written. --page 14
6. "not everything that Acts reports is sober history." --page 14
7. "the Book of Daniel (c.160 BC) (is written by) an unknown author." --page 16
8. Jesus made a number of "erroneous forecast(s)" --page 19
9. Jesus' expectation of the coming of the Kingdom "proved to be mistaken", "He turned out to be wrong", "Jesus, too, had been wrong. His ministry was based on an error." --all these quotations come from just one page, page 20.
10. "there is no reliable evidence that Jesus ever believed it would be himself who would come again. For his apparent references in the Gospels to such an even are posthumous and inauthentic." --page 23
11. "the author of John's Gospel, at a considerably later date, is still able to write as if he who will come at the end of the world will not be Jesus at all but another figure altogether whom he describes as the Counsellor (Paraclete) or the Spirit."--page 24
12. Concerning loving one's enemy and turning the other cheek, Grant says, "indeed even Jesus did not fulfill it regularly himself." --page 28

In summary, Grant doubts Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, attested by two of the evangelists, Matthew & Luke; he holds to multiple authors of the book of Isaiah the prophet; he doubts the Davidic authorship of many of the Psalms; he casts aside the many quotations of the Old Testament by the New Testament as being fulfilled in Christ; he holds to the current in-vogue belief that Mark is the earliest gospel (though the most ancient tradition holds the gospel of Matthew with this honor); states that parts of Acts are not "sober history"; again, subscribes to the current in-vogue view that Daniel was written four centuries later than the age in which it was claimed to have been written.

Most telling, however, is the low esteem Grant holds for the founder of the Christian faith, Jesus Christ Himself. He baldly says that Christ made mistakes, was a hypocrite--not holding to His own profession of loving one's enemies. He states that Jesus was deluded in believing the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand.

There are just too many issues to deal with in Grant's book for a short critique. On each and every page, one finds one denial after another of articles of faith every Christian of every persuasion would find disturbing, wrong and even blasphemous.

For those intimidated by the likes of Grant, let me suggest a good place to start. Josh McDowell, of Campus Crusade for Christ, authored two books in the 1970's. They were called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" and "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict." Both books have been combined in recent years into one volume: "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Nelson Publishing. The second half of this book deals primarily with the higher critical schools of thought. McDowell, of course, is an Evangelical, so as a Roman Catholic, I would urge some caution considering McDowell's views on parts of the Old Testament. However, apart from that, I heartily recommend his effort as an antidote to the plague that is Michael Grant's Jesus.

--John Paul