What do you think?
Rate this book
Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea
The creation of the Christian Church is one of the most important stories in the development of the world's history, but also one of the most enigmatic and little understood, shrouded in mystery and misunderstanding.
Through a forensic, brilliant reexamination of all the key surviving texts of early Christianity, Geza Vermes illuminates the origins of a faith and traces the evolution of the figure of Jesus from the man he was—a prophet recognizable as the successor to other Jewish holy men of the Old Testament—to what he came to represent: a mysterious, otherworldly being at the heart of a major new religion. As Jesus's teachings spread across the eastern Mediterranean, hammered into place by Paul, John, and their successors, they were transformed in the space of three centuries into a centralized, state-backed creed worlds away from its humble origins. Christian Beginnings tells the captivating story of how a man came to be hailed as the Son consubstantial with God, and of how a revolutionary, anticonformist Jewish subsect became the official state religion of the Roman Empire.
Through a forensic, brilliant reexamination of all the key surviving texts of early Christianity, Geza Vermes illuminates the origins of a faith and traces the evolution of the figure of Jesus from the man he was—a prophet recognizable as the successor to other Jewish holy men of the Old Testament—to what he came to represent: a mysterious, otherworldly being at the heart of a major new religion. As Jesus's teachings spread across the eastern Mediterranean, hammered into place by Paul, John, and their successors, they were transformed in the space of three centuries into a centralized, state-backed creed worlds away from its humble origins. Christian Beginnings tells the captivating story of how a man came to be hailed as the Son consubstantial with God, and of how a revolutionary, anticonformist Jewish subsect became the official state religion of the Roman Empire.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 2012
51 people are currently reading
432 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 50 reviews
August 11, 2022
This is a brilliant book that I recommend to you all, even if you're not religious or a follower of Christianity.
This book traces the evolution of the figure of Jesus from a prophet in the tradition of other Jewish holy men of the Old Testament to a mysterious being who is consubstantial and coeternal with God and the Holy Ghost.
In the 300 years prior to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, St Paul, John, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and many others all added to the myth of Jesus that the man had become to them. Add three wise men in the form of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen and the scene was set for the first council of Nicaea called by Constantine the Great, the Roman Emperor.
The council's main accomplishment was to settle the issue of the divine nature of God the Son and his relationship to God the Father, largely because the heresy of Arianism was threatening to split the church in two or more parts. Most of the attendees were from the Eastern Church indeed it's accepted that only 5 people attended from the Western Church.
The basic question I have is, if Jesus did return and saw what the Roman Catholic Church had turned him into and how they'd used his teachings, would he even recognise himself?
This book traces the evolution of the figure of Jesus from a prophet in the tradition of other Jewish holy men of the Old Testament to a mysterious being who is consubstantial and coeternal with God and the Holy Ghost.
In the 300 years prior to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, St Paul, John, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and many others all added to the myth of Jesus that the man had become to them. Add three wise men in the form of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen and the scene was set for the first council of Nicaea called by Constantine the Great, the Roman Emperor.
The council's main accomplishment was to settle the issue of the divine nature of God the Son and his relationship to God the Father, largely because the heresy of Arianism was threatening to split the church in two or more parts. Most of the attendees were from the Eastern Church indeed it's accepted that only 5 people attended from the Western Church.
The basic question I have is, if Jesus did return and saw what the Roman Catholic Church had turned him into and how they'd used his teachings, would he even recognise himself?
April 18, 2017
After becoming an atheist, one of the things that fascinated me was why I, who had been studying for years to become a Roman Catholic priest, should have been once so convinced in my beliefs: how did these beliefs become so unquestionable? The obvious explanations involved combinations of complete submission to those in charge of me, brainwashing, acceptance that far greater minds than mine had thought deeply on these things so who was I to contradict them, etc. In liberating myself from these preconceptions, it was simpler to examine for myself the development of some of the ideas involving religion in general. One of the threads I followed was based on the realisation that at least the authentic epistles of Paul were all written well before any of the traditional Gospels were written — so, for example, when Paul is talking about the gospel, he must be referring to his gospel… What did this mean? Which ideas were the earliest? How did they influence each other?
The answers, of course are never simple. I did spend several decades reading, taking notes, and attempting to place these ‘ideas’ into some kind of chronological order, in order to help in my understanding. It soon extended to incorporate as many religious ideas as possible — I had quite some fun compiling the work — until almost 1,000 A4 pages had been accumulated. I ended up ‘publishing’ this compilation in four A4 books which can be purchased by accessing lulu.com on your computer (if anyone is interested). Faith I covers the period from the Big Bang to 500 BCE; Faith II covers the period 500 BCE to 500 CE; Faith III covers the period 500 CE to 1500 CE; and Faith IIII covers the period from 1500 CE to the Big Crunch…
I am telling you this because Geza Vermes’ book provides a similar, but limited period (from 30CE to 325 CE) chronological analysis, covering the earliest concepts of what would be later known as Christology. This book is a rather accessible introduction to Vermes’ lifetime work as an eminent Biblical Scholar, particularly relating to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is essentially a re-presentation of his unorthodox take on what he calls Christian beginnings. For Vermes, the essential qualities of the figure of Jesus, taken especially from the Synoptic Gospels, together with his understanding of pre-Christian concepts found in Jewish writings at the time of the beginning of the first century CE, is one of Jesus as a charismatic Messianic figure, a Jewish prophet, concerned about the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God on earth. As such, his was a purely Jewish concern, and the idea is presented by Vermes as a continuation of a Jewish tradition in this regard — hence it is presented first in his book: even though the Synoptic Gospels, which contain extra content, had not yet been written, they do betray these Jewish concerns.
The first variation on this idea comes from Paul, writing from a Greek Platonic perspective. Even though Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, he never actually met him. The first council of the new movement was held in Jerusalem in 48 CE; it was to result in its first schism, and it was generated by Paul. He ended up becoming the ‘apostle to the Gentiles’ (with a distinctly non-Jewish flavour — Paul argued that many if not all the Judaic requirements no longer applied) while the Jerusalem section remained tied to its Jewish roots. For Paul it was obvious that, after the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus, the earthly Kingdom of God had not eventuated, so his new urgent message was one of the (again) imminent return of Jesus. This concept was naturally based on a ‘spiritual’ conception of a returning Jesus-spirit — a concept which was readily taken up by the Gnostics as representing a kind of ‘divinity’of the spiritual realms… This Gnostic interpretation was to develop into a major widespread popular interpretation, typified by Marcion and Valentinus.
The above then briefly establishes two distinctive ideas which were argued about for decades. The Gospel of John is so different from the first three gospels (written, in order, first Mark, then Matthew, then Luke and the Acts of the Apostles) that it represents a more ‘theological’ take, particularly based on the famous first chapter where John refers to Jesus as the ‘Word’ (in Greek logos) and suggesting its eternal coexistence from ‘the beginning’ (despite Jesus having referred to himself as being inferior to the Father)… Vermes continues his selections of those works which dealt with the varying interpretations and implications in the early 2nd-century CE, including the beginnings of Christian anti-semitism (e.g. the epistle of Barnabas), the early apologists and scholars, then the more vociferous ‘anti heretics’ culminating in the major controversy of Arius versus Athanasius. Arius, apparently backed by many Eastern leaders, including the emperor Constantine, believed that Jesus was initially human and only later (possibly after his ‘baptism’ by John the Baptist, or after his death and resurrection) became divine. The faction backed ultimately by Athanasius (who had the backing of the Bishop of Rome), survived, but the bickering continued… The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE officially declared that Jesus was eternal, divine, and also human: that he was a divine person (one of eventually three persons forming the Holy Trinity) but that he (and he alone) had two natures: one divine and one human. This dogma was only the beginning of the problem, and the matter would preoccupy thinkers and theologians for centuries as the consequences were fine-sifted and reconsidered over and over again. But the ‘clarification’ of Nicaea was more significant in that it permitted Christianity to be eventually declared the only religion for the Roman Empire and its citizens, something which gave Christianity immense power and authority, and which it then went on to use ruthlessly and mercilessly against its real and imagined opponents.
Vermes limits his considerations to the bickering elements relating to the ‘official’ interpretation of the identity of Jesus. His conclusion is that this Nicaean ‘Jesus’ figure is so far from the original Jewish conception that the two are completely incompatible. Vermes does not question other aspects and historically related issues in much depth. He assumes, for example, that the Charismatic Jewish Jesus actually existed. I have a different opinion: the Joshua/Yeshua/Iesous/Jesus figure is a composite of all those who railed against the Roman occupation of Palestine — some good-deed people (providing meals and caring for the poor and needy, for example); some warriors (zealots, sword-bearing apostles); some anti-Pharisees; some pro-Qumran; some remnants of John the Baptist’s followers; some tolerant and submissive to the Roman occupation; etc). Many of these existed in various manifestations at the time, and in turn, many of these, especially if they were perceived as provoking anti-social behaviour or involved in destabilising actions and disordering to society, were summarily put to death by the Romans. All of these different persons became a unified Messiah figure initially, then a kind of Redeemer, and in both cases it was firmly believed that the brave new world they aspired to would eventuate in their own lifetime. The ‘imminent’ coming first of the Kingdom of God, then of the Second coming of Jesus, both failed to materialise, but by the time this was fully appreciated, the blending of the differing and often incompatible narratives had become enmeshed in high-level ratiocinations which, despite ‘clarification’ at Nicaea in 325 CE, nevertheless continued to provide discord and malevolence for centuries, and contributed not only to the flourishing of Christian antisemitism but also conducive to the promulgation of much persecution, torture and suffering, not only for ‘infidels’ and ‘pagans’ but also between Christians themselves. Two thousand years later, the Second Coming is still fervently awaited. It is well past the time when we should wake up and realise that it is all a con, albeit —perhaps precisely because it is — an immensely rich and powerful one.
If you are a believer, Vermes is a good place to start: by realising that the creation of the myths of Christianity are very much the product of humans, with little if anything factual, let alone spiritual, about the arguments they engendered. For non-believers, Vermes’ work presents various elements for consideration: how unreal, unbacked, inauthentic stories are used to establish a new reality in the thoughts and ratiocinations of intelligent commentators regardless. Reason and ratiocination is a prostitute: for the ‘right’ faction it can and will be used, regardless of any real relation to facts or reality, to justify even the most outrageous claims and actions. This problem is not one specifically linked to Christianity — all religions have similar problems, and all have just as many intellectuals to ‘explain’ and ‘rationalise’ their inconsistencies and their fantasies. Although all of them might argue infallible interpretations and understandings based on these falsities, it is obvious simply through observation of the existence of many, varied and proliferating groups, sub-groups, sects, etc., that there is not, nor can there be, anything absolute or infallible about any of them. How to relieve ourselves of these delusions? Our prostitute reason provides us with the only real answer: there are no gods; everything about them that is written or discussed or promulgated verbally, in song, in art or in architecture, is man-made.
The answers, of course are never simple. I did spend several decades reading, taking notes, and attempting to place these ‘ideas’ into some kind of chronological order, in order to help in my understanding. It soon extended to incorporate as many religious ideas as possible — I had quite some fun compiling the work — until almost 1,000 A4 pages had been accumulated. I ended up ‘publishing’ this compilation in four A4 books which can be purchased by accessing lulu.com on your computer (if anyone is interested). Faith I covers the period from the Big Bang to 500 BCE; Faith II covers the period 500 BCE to 500 CE; Faith III covers the period 500 CE to 1500 CE; and Faith IIII covers the period from 1500 CE to the Big Crunch…
I am telling you this because Geza Vermes’ book provides a similar, but limited period (from 30CE to 325 CE) chronological analysis, covering the earliest concepts of what would be later known as Christology. This book is a rather accessible introduction to Vermes’ lifetime work as an eminent Biblical Scholar, particularly relating to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is essentially a re-presentation of his unorthodox take on what he calls Christian beginnings. For Vermes, the essential qualities of the figure of Jesus, taken especially from the Synoptic Gospels, together with his understanding of pre-Christian concepts found in Jewish writings at the time of the beginning of the first century CE, is one of Jesus as a charismatic Messianic figure, a Jewish prophet, concerned about the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God on earth. As such, his was a purely Jewish concern, and the idea is presented by Vermes as a continuation of a Jewish tradition in this regard — hence it is presented first in his book: even though the Synoptic Gospels, which contain extra content, had not yet been written, they do betray these Jewish concerns.
The first variation on this idea comes from Paul, writing from a Greek Platonic perspective. Even though Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, he never actually met him. The first council of the new movement was held in Jerusalem in 48 CE; it was to result in its first schism, and it was generated by Paul. He ended up becoming the ‘apostle to the Gentiles’ (with a distinctly non-Jewish flavour — Paul argued that many if not all the Judaic requirements no longer applied) while the Jerusalem section remained tied to its Jewish roots. For Paul it was obvious that, after the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus, the earthly Kingdom of God had not eventuated, so his new urgent message was one of the (again) imminent return of Jesus. This concept was naturally based on a ‘spiritual’ conception of a returning Jesus-spirit — a concept which was readily taken up by the Gnostics as representing a kind of ‘divinity’of the spiritual realms… This Gnostic interpretation was to develop into a major widespread popular interpretation, typified by Marcion and Valentinus.
The above then briefly establishes two distinctive ideas which were argued about for decades. The Gospel of John is so different from the first three gospels (written, in order, first Mark, then Matthew, then Luke and the Acts of the Apostles) that it represents a more ‘theological’ take, particularly based on the famous first chapter where John refers to Jesus as the ‘Word’ (in Greek logos) and suggesting its eternal coexistence from ‘the beginning’ (despite Jesus having referred to himself as being inferior to the Father)… Vermes continues his selections of those works which dealt with the varying interpretations and implications in the early 2nd-century CE, including the beginnings of Christian anti-semitism (e.g. the epistle of Barnabas), the early apologists and scholars, then the more vociferous ‘anti heretics’ culminating in the major controversy of Arius versus Athanasius. Arius, apparently backed by many Eastern leaders, including the emperor Constantine, believed that Jesus was initially human and only later (possibly after his ‘baptism’ by John the Baptist, or after his death and resurrection) became divine. The faction backed ultimately by Athanasius (who had the backing of the Bishop of Rome), survived, but the bickering continued… The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE officially declared that Jesus was eternal, divine, and also human: that he was a divine person (one of eventually three persons forming the Holy Trinity) but that he (and he alone) had two natures: one divine and one human. This dogma was only the beginning of the problem, and the matter would preoccupy thinkers and theologians for centuries as the consequences were fine-sifted and reconsidered over and over again. But the ‘clarification’ of Nicaea was more significant in that it permitted Christianity to be eventually declared the only religion for the Roman Empire and its citizens, something which gave Christianity immense power and authority, and which it then went on to use ruthlessly and mercilessly against its real and imagined opponents.
Vermes limits his considerations to the bickering elements relating to the ‘official’ interpretation of the identity of Jesus. His conclusion is that this Nicaean ‘Jesus’ figure is so far from the original Jewish conception that the two are completely incompatible. Vermes does not question other aspects and historically related issues in much depth. He assumes, for example, that the Charismatic Jewish Jesus actually existed. I have a different opinion: the Joshua/Yeshua/Iesous/Jesus figure is a composite of all those who railed against the Roman occupation of Palestine — some good-deed people (providing meals and caring for the poor and needy, for example); some warriors (zealots, sword-bearing apostles); some anti-Pharisees; some pro-Qumran; some remnants of John the Baptist’s followers; some tolerant and submissive to the Roman occupation; etc). Many of these existed in various manifestations at the time, and in turn, many of these, especially if they were perceived as provoking anti-social behaviour or involved in destabilising actions and disordering to society, were summarily put to death by the Romans. All of these different persons became a unified Messiah figure initially, then a kind of Redeemer, and in both cases it was firmly believed that the brave new world they aspired to would eventuate in their own lifetime. The ‘imminent’ coming first of the Kingdom of God, then of the Second coming of Jesus, both failed to materialise, but by the time this was fully appreciated, the blending of the differing and often incompatible narratives had become enmeshed in high-level ratiocinations which, despite ‘clarification’ at Nicaea in 325 CE, nevertheless continued to provide discord and malevolence for centuries, and contributed not only to the flourishing of Christian antisemitism but also conducive to the promulgation of much persecution, torture and suffering, not only for ‘infidels’ and ‘pagans’ but also between Christians themselves. Two thousand years later, the Second Coming is still fervently awaited. It is well past the time when we should wake up and realise that it is all a con, albeit —perhaps precisely because it is — an immensely rich and powerful one.
If you are a believer, Vermes is a good place to start: by realising that the creation of the myths of Christianity are very much the product of humans, with little if anything factual, let alone spiritual, about the arguments they engendered. For non-believers, Vermes’ work presents various elements for consideration: how unreal, unbacked, inauthentic stories are used to establish a new reality in the thoughts and ratiocinations of intelligent commentators regardless. Reason and ratiocination is a prostitute: for the ‘right’ faction it can and will be used, regardless of any real relation to facts or reality, to justify even the most outrageous claims and actions. This problem is not one specifically linked to Christianity — all religions have similar problems, and all have just as many intellectuals to ‘explain’ and ‘rationalise’ their inconsistencies and their fantasies. Although all of them might argue infallible interpretations and understandings based on these falsities, it is obvious simply through observation of the existence of many, varied and proliferating groups, sub-groups, sects, etc., that there is not, nor can there be, anything absolute or infallible about any of them. How to relieve ourselves of these delusions? Our prostitute reason provides us with the only real answer: there are no gods; everything about them that is written or discussed or promulgated verbally, in song, in art or in architecture, is man-made.
June 18, 2022
It boggles the mind (well, at least to an atheist like myself!) how Jesus, who was first and foremost a charismatic 'rabbi' preoccupied with his own eschatological understanding of Judaism, came to be, not only hijacked by Gentiles, but also, turned into a demi-God in all but name. Beyond his rebranded persona, it's also the fact that a whole church would be highly successfully established and develop, complete with its whole new theology (and, even, granting itself a key role in the 'redemption' of its followers) which is no less baffling. How the heck did that happened?!
I had read How Jesus Became Christian: The Early Christians and the Transformation of a Jewish Teacher Into the Son of God. Barrie Wilson by Barrie Wilson, and, curious to learn more about the topic, I then decided to pick this up.
What Géza Vermes does here, is to narrate the story of early Christianity, from the death of Jesus up to the Council of Nicaea (AD 325). It's a tortuous history, rooted in very widely different cultures, but, that will nevertheless clashed to produce the rich intellectual ferment to which we owe what has fed so many quarrels that a Roman Emperor will have to intervene and set it all once and for all (an historical irony, which, by itself, is not without leaving thoughtful...). It's difficult indeed, more than 16 centuries on, to appreciate how truly shattering Nicaea have been:
'it is impossible to ignore the colossal difference between the Christ concept of Nicaea and the Christology that preceded the Council. The idea of consubstantiality never occurred to any of the leading representatives of Christianity prior to 325; it would have sounded anathema. By contrast, after 325 the claim of inequality between Father and Son amounted to heresy... Intellectual assent to dogma gained precedence over the heart's openness to charisma urged by the historical Jesus.'
It might be an enthralling romp through two centuries of what are crucial foundations, yet it doesn't mean that it's an easy read. As the author delves into the crucial texts of the times, and the biographical and cultural backgrounds of their originators, it can be, at times, easy to lose the plot, let alone overlook a few important trends! Nevertheless, despite its challenges, if you are really interested in how Jesus of Nazareth was turned into the 'Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit', then here is an absolute must-read!
I had read How Jesus Became Christian: The Early Christians and the Transformation of a Jewish Teacher Into the Son of God. Barrie Wilson by Barrie Wilson, and, curious to learn more about the topic, I then decided to pick this up.
What Géza Vermes does here, is to narrate the story of early Christianity, from the death of Jesus up to the Council of Nicaea (AD 325). It's a tortuous history, rooted in very widely different cultures, but, that will nevertheless clashed to produce the rich intellectual ferment to which we owe what has fed so many quarrels that a Roman Emperor will have to intervene and set it all once and for all (an historical irony, which, by itself, is not without leaving thoughtful...). It's difficult indeed, more than 16 centuries on, to appreciate how truly shattering Nicaea have been:
'it is impossible to ignore the colossal difference between the Christ concept of Nicaea and the Christology that preceded the Council. The idea of consubstantiality never occurred to any of the leading representatives of Christianity prior to 325; it would have sounded anathema. By contrast, after 325 the claim of inequality between Father and Son amounted to heresy... Intellectual assent to dogma gained precedence over the heart's openness to charisma urged by the historical Jesus.'
It might be an enthralling romp through two centuries of what are crucial foundations, yet it doesn't mean that it's an easy read. As the author delves into the crucial texts of the times, and the biographical and cultural backgrounds of their originators, it can be, at times, easy to lose the plot, let alone overlook a few important trends! Nevertheless, despite its challenges, if you are really interested in how Jesus of Nazareth was turned into the 'Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit', then here is an absolute must-read!
August 26, 2013
Vermes sets off to show that the Jesus proclaimed by the 1st Ecumenical Council is not the same as the Jesus portrayed in select New Testament writings. I say select because he discounts the Gospel of John and the all of the Pauline collection as distorting Jesus. Like the Ebionites pointed out in the Apostolic Constitutions he wants to proclaim Jesus is merely a man. So in that sense he book represents nothing new under the son. He is determined to show that the Jesus who is the Son of God is not part of the authentic tradition. Yet there is an organic development that takes place in history and the differinng steams of thought about Jesus are flowing side by side in the river which is the Christian movement. Obviously many in the ancient world would disagree with his read of history. Reading his book reminded me of a truth I learned long ago in geometry. If you slice through an orange about 1/4 of the way down from the top, are the two surfaces of the orange perfectly identical in circumference and radius? To the eye the answer has to be yes for they were perfectly joined together before you sliced them. But mathematically, since the orange is round and its out edge curved, the two surfaces cannot be identical. Only if the orange was shaped like a cylinder could the two surfaces be identical. Since the orange is a ball, each slice has to be slightly different. So too I think one could try to divide out history and show changes in emphases in Christology as being different from previous ideas, but there is continuity between generations and there is diversity within any one generation. So the picture is not quite what Vermes portrays. In any generation the different parties/ factions may have understood a same word differently, but they found common ground and common language to hold it all together. And along the way those versions of christology which couldn't share a unity with the organic body of thought which was unfolding fell away. The Christians were conservative and not trying to develop a new idea but trying to be in the continuous succession of thinking and sometimes they had to broaden their thinking to incorporate all of the previous ideas which were found to be acceptable.
December 15, 2012
I read this because I thought it might be a good way to get a crash course in the debates around the historic early Christian movement. I wouldn't say it was as smooth a ride as I hoped, but I think i achieved the objective in the end.
It was a short, but extremely dense read. I tend to do a lot of my reading at night, before I fall asleep and more often than not found myself needing to re-read large sections to grasp the llogical flow of the described theology. This was particularly the case in the first half, which assumes a more-than-passing familiarity with the New Testament (hardly unreasonably). I found I needed a copy of the Bible handy. The second half, however, opened up into a thoroughly enjoyable tour of early Christian thinkers, whom Vermes argues laid or reflected others' laying the eventual transformation of a charismatic Jewish movement to a full-blown Christian theology.
I'm hardly in a position to judge Vermes' theory, although once or twice I wondered that his conclusion that it was the opening of the movement to gentiles that caused a seismic shift wasn't necessarily borne out by his own analysis, but his extensive quoting from primary sources and referencing were fantastic, and the sequence he laid out showed a gradual and believable progression of ideas up to the trinity. Despite many years of Athiesm, I've never gotten the Nicene Creed out of my head, and it was fascinating to see how each line carried controversial meaning.
And it was great to flex some theology muscles again.
It was a short, but extremely dense read. I tend to do a lot of my reading at night, before I fall asleep and more often than not found myself needing to re-read large sections to grasp the llogical flow of the described theology. This was particularly the case in the first half, which assumes a more-than-passing familiarity with the New Testament (hardly unreasonably). I found I needed a copy of the Bible handy. The second half, however, opened up into a thoroughly enjoyable tour of early Christian thinkers, whom Vermes argues laid or reflected others' laying the eventual transformation of a charismatic Jewish movement to a full-blown Christian theology.
I'm hardly in a position to judge Vermes' theory, although once or twice I wondered that his conclusion that it was the opening of the movement to gentiles that caused a seismic shift wasn't necessarily borne out by his own analysis, but his extensive quoting from primary sources and referencing were fantastic, and the sequence he laid out showed a gradual and believable progression of ideas up to the trinity. Despite many years of Athiesm, I've never gotten the Nicene Creed out of my head, and it was fascinating to see how each line carried controversial meaning.
And it was great to flex some theology muscles again.
November 8, 2012
As a relatively new christian I found this book fascinating since in it Geza Vermes, noted on the blurb as "The world's leading Gospel scholar", shows how the image of Jesus changed and evolved in the 2-3 centuries after his crucifixion (and resurrection!). In the course of doing so, he introduces the reader to some of the great minds of early Christianity, people such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus and Origen. Interestingly many of these early Christian thinkers were later tarred as heretics! Based on his exposition of the changing views of Jesus it becomes apparent that the idea of the trinity did not become a coherent belief until two centuries after Jesus and that (according to Vermes), the prevailing views were either of Jesus as a charismatic prophet or Jesus as a kind of second and lesser God, subordinate to God the Father.
There is no doubting the impressive intellect and credentials of Geza Vermes. However, I suspect that he does have a Jewish bias in interpreting some of the evidence. For example, in several cases he dismisses evidence from the Synoptic Gospels (e.g. the nativity stories) that contradict his views, as being later interpolations, but presents no evidence that this is the case. In summarising Paul's view of Jesus he dismisses some parts of Paul's letters (which again are evidence against his views) as being inconsistent with the body of what Paul taught.
Now, to be honest, I don't believe that trinitarianism was the orthodox view of the earliest Christians and it isn't strongly supported by the Gospels, which for the most part offer evidence which is very ambiguous and open to interpretation. As Harold Brown, author of "Heresies" states "Undoubedly, many of the first Christians, if asked to describe the relationship between Jesus and the Father would have done so in adoptionistic terms....the formula of the Apostle's Creed was not explicit enough to ward off such a serious heresy as adoptionism...the words of the New Testament themselves are not explicit enough to form an adeuqate barrier against adoptionism i.e. thinking about Jesus as a supernaturally endowed mere human". However it is arguable that everything necessary for salvation is embodied in the Apostle's Creed and that knowing exactly "what" Jesus was is not that important. Wittgenstein made the point in "Culture and Value" (p36e) that maybe the whole point of the imperfections and inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts was so that we did not get so hung up on the words but embraced the spirit. Worth thinking about.
There is no doubting the impressive intellect and credentials of Geza Vermes. However, I suspect that he does have a Jewish bias in interpreting some of the evidence. For example, in several cases he dismisses evidence from the Synoptic Gospels (e.g. the nativity stories) that contradict his views, as being later interpolations, but presents no evidence that this is the case. In summarising Paul's view of Jesus he dismisses some parts of Paul's letters (which again are evidence against his views) as being inconsistent with the body of what Paul taught.
Now, to be honest, I don't believe that trinitarianism was the orthodox view of the earliest Christians and it isn't strongly supported by the Gospels, which for the most part offer evidence which is very ambiguous and open to interpretation. As Harold Brown, author of "Heresies" states "Undoubedly, many of the first Christians, if asked to describe the relationship between Jesus and the Father would have done so in adoptionistic terms....the formula of the Apostle's Creed was not explicit enough to ward off such a serious heresy as adoptionism...the words of the New Testament themselves are not explicit enough to form an adeuqate barrier against adoptionism i.e. thinking about Jesus as a supernaturally endowed mere human". However it is arguable that everything necessary for salvation is embodied in the Apostle's Creed and that knowing exactly "what" Jesus was is not that important. Wittgenstein made the point in "Culture and Value" (p36e) that maybe the whole point of the imperfections and inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts was so that we did not get so hung up on the words but embraced the spirit. Worth thinking about.
October 23, 2023
Loads of really good info throughout the book and really excels when it comes to painting a chronology of events and peoples.
July 5, 2017
A bit repetitive. A lot of its contents were covered in 'Jesus the Jew', Vermes's first book that gained widespread attention. Later chapters had less appeal to me as they deal with the writings of the Church Fathers. Those writings were a hard chore when I was an undergrad student, and they have not ceased to be a hard chore today. The book is still a good read though.
October 20, 2019
Első Vermes Géza könyvemnek az utolsó Vermes Géza könyvet választottam, egy hipotézisből és egy tényből kiindulva. A hipotézis az volt, hogy ebben a könyvben az író biztos összefoglalja majd előző munkáit, a tény meg az, hogy ez volt kéznél. Hipotézisem megerősítést nyert, Vermes valóban a könyv első negyedében (legalábbis amennyire meg tudom állapítani) áttekinti saját munkásságát, különös tekintettel az általa alaposan kidolgozott „zsidó Jézus” koncepcióra – vagyis hogy Krisztus tanításaiban sokkal (de sokkal-sokkal) több a karizmatikus judaizmus hagyományaira visszavezethető elem, mint azt a legtöbb Biblia-magyarázó elismeri. Ebből a fix pontból kiindulva áttekinti a kereszténység fejlődését, amit primitíven a következő stációkra lehetne széttagolni:
1. Jézus zsidó
2. Na jó, zsidó, de nem ez a lényeg.
3. Méghogy zsidó!? Te vagy a zsidó!!!
Jó, hát azért ennél egy picit bonyolultabban: Vermes elegáns, szellemes és helyenként egyenesen költői érvelése a jézusi tanokat egy folyamatosan változó, izgalmas gondolati rendszerként mutatja be, amit sorra termékenyített meg a hellenizmus*, a hermeneutizmus, és még annyi más kortárs elmélet. Ahogy az a Vermes által vizsgált szövegek vizsgálatából kitűnik, minél szélesebb körben vált népszerűvé, annál jobban elszaporodtak benne az új elemek, gyakran olyan mértékben, amit bízvást tekinthetünk az evangéliumi egyszerűségtől és tisztaságtól való eltávolodásnak – ugyanakkor ezzel párhuzamosan vált a kereszténység filozófiailag is érett, komplex vallási rendszerré**. És ahogy egyre összetettebbé vált, úgy tünedeztek fel a vadhajtások is – így a kereszténység, aki kezdetben az izraelitákkal és a rómaiakkal vitatkozott, a második század után kénytelen volt kvázi saját magával disputálni, különösen a Markion képviselte gnoszticizmussal. Ezekben a vitákban sorra kristályosodtak ki érvcsoportjai, hogy aztán, kizárva az ellenvéleményeket, sajnálatos módon eljussanak a merev dogmákig – köztük a híres-hírhedt homouszioszig. Köszönjük, nikaia-i zsinat, Arius meg az eretnek hívei pedig mehetnek a lecsóba. A könyv külön erénye, hogy nemcsak vallástörténet iránt érdeklődőknek nyújt örömet, hanem azoknak is, akik a tágabb értelemben vett emberi gondolkodás kacskaringói iránt érdeklődnek.
* Sok Biblia-kutató szerint nem a hellenizmus hatott a kereszténységre, hanem konkrétan Mózes hatott Platónra, úgyhogy náluk a pont. Ebben lehet valami, az legalábbis biztos, hogy Platón nyilván többet merített Mózesből, mint Mózes Platónból.
** Ennek a folyamatnak az ábrázolása különbözteti meg e művet Johnson kereszténység-interpretációjától: amíg Johnsonnál ez a folyamat egyértelműen torzulás, az eredeti tanok elferdítése, addig Vermes jóval komplexebben mutatja be ezt az utat, kiemelve, hogy a rivális vallásokkal való összecsapások során nem volt elkerülhető ez a változás.
1. Jézus zsidó
2. Na jó, zsidó, de nem ez a lényeg.
3. Méghogy zsidó!? Te vagy a zsidó!!!
Jó, hát azért ennél egy picit bonyolultabban: Vermes elegáns, szellemes és helyenként egyenesen költői érvelése a jézusi tanokat egy folyamatosan változó, izgalmas gondolati rendszerként mutatja be, amit sorra termékenyített meg a hellenizmus*, a hermeneutizmus, és még annyi más kortárs elmélet. Ahogy az a Vermes által vizsgált szövegek vizsgálatából kitűnik, minél szélesebb körben vált népszerűvé, annál jobban elszaporodtak benne az új elemek, gyakran olyan mértékben, amit bízvást tekinthetünk az evangéliumi egyszerűségtől és tisztaságtól való eltávolodásnak – ugyanakkor ezzel párhuzamosan vált a kereszténység filozófiailag is érett, komplex vallási rendszerré**. És ahogy egyre összetettebbé vált, úgy tünedeztek fel a vadhajtások is – így a kereszténység, aki kezdetben az izraelitákkal és a rómaiakkal vitatkozott, a második század után kénytelen volt kvázi saját magával disputálni, különösen a Markion képviselte gnoszticizmussal. Ezekben a vitákban sorra kristályosodtak ki érvcsoportjai, hogy aztán, kizárva az ellenvéleményeket, sajnálatos módon eljussanak a merev dogmákig – köztük a híres-hírhedt homouszioszig. Köszönjük, nikaia-i zsinat, Arius meg az eretnek hívei pedig mehetnek a lecsóba. A könyv külön erénye, hogy nemcsak vallástörténet iránt érdeklődőknek nyújt örömet, hanem azoknak is, akik a tágabb értelemben vett emberi gondolkodás kacskaringói iránt érdeklődnek.
* Sok Biblia-kutató szerint nem a hellenizmus hatott a kereszténységre, hanem konkrétan Mózes hatott Platónra, úgyhogy náluk a pont. Ebben lehet valami, az legalábbis biztos, hogy Platón nyilván többet merített Mózesből, mint Mózes Platónból.
** Ennek a folyamatnak az ábrázolása különbözteti meg e művet Johnson kereszténység-interpretációjától: amíg Johnsonnál ez a folyamat egyértelműen torzulás, az eredeti tanok elferdítése, addig Vermes jóval komplexebben mutatja be ezt az utat, kiemelve, hogy a rivális vallásokkal való összecsapások során nem volt elkerülhető ez a változás.
January 4, 2023
Frustrating. The author seems to have his own thesis, which is not developed or authenticated in any thorough or scholarly way - and it is this thesis that shapes the book's analysis. There are plenty of reasons for an apparent difference between Jesus's message and the formulation of the Council of Nicaea which don't involve some sort of ecclesial conspiracy, philosophical corruption, or doctrinal oversight.
The early chapters of the book are filled with poorly substantiated claims that ignore alternative possibilities, such as "without a proper grasp of charismatic Judaism it is impossible to understand the rise of Christianity" (p. 27). Actually, there is: A bodily resurrection by one claiming divinity, whose life story is reflected across the Hebrew Scriptures, whose initial followers attested to his story through miracles in Jesus's name, and whose teaching resonates with the longings of the human heart.
The formulation of the Trinity, an outcome of the Council of Nicaea in AD325, was the natural outcome of a church needing to define and formulate orthodoxy in response to alternative teachings. And, even a basic review of the phrase "In the name of..." used across the Hebrew Scriptures, connecting to the "...in the name of..." statement from Jesus himself in Matthew 28:19, will show that the classic trinitarian statement might have at least been tacitly understood by all first-century Jewish Christians. Likewise, a study of the use of the verb προσκυνέω across the synoptics is helpful.
I found many of the statements in the book frighteningly debatable. A chapter seeking evidence for the outcome of Nicaea from the synoptics (Vermes seems to have difficulty with John) would add some much-needed nuance to what is presented in absolute terms. In short - there is plenty of evidence that Paul and John remained true to Jesus's message, and that they represented Jesus in ways that early church leaders and witnesses recognised as reliable.
The early chapters of the book are filled with poorly substantiated claims that ignore alternative possibilities, such as "without a proper grasp of charismatic Judaism it is impossible to understand the rise of Christianity" (p. 27). Actually, there is: A bodily resurrection by one claiming divinity, whose life story is reflected across the Hebrew Scriptures, whose initial followers attested to his story through miracles in Jesus's name, and whose teaching resonates with the longings of the human heart.
The formulation of the Trinity, an outcome of the Council of Nicaea in AD325, was the natural outcome of a church needing to define and formulate orthodoxy in response to alternative teachings. And, even a basic review of the phrase "In the name of..." used across the Hebrew Scriptures, connecting to the "...in the name of..." statement from Jesus himself in Matthew 28:19, will show that the classic trinitarian statement might have at least been tacitly understood by all first-century Jewish Christians. Likewise, a study of the use of the verb προσκυνέω across the synoptics is helpful.
I found many of the statements in the book frighteningly debatable. A chapter seeking evidence for the outcome of Nicaea from the synoptics (Vermes seems to have difficulty with John) would add some much-needed nuance to what is presented in absolute terms. In short - there is plenty of evidence that Paul and John remained true to Jesus's message, and that they represented Jesus in ways that early church leaders and witnesses recognised as reliable.
July 18, 2017
"Nothing is unclear in Arius' thinking, which is perhaps not a true desideratum in theology, nor is anything left unsaid." This was Vermes' statement--in spite of the fact that he wrote earlier that all we know of Arius is what his "arch-enemy Athanasius" wrote about him.
I'm mostly okay with the "mystery of salvation" and probably am more so all the time as I age. I wondered if this book would shake my tentative faith but it hasn't. It's fine that Christianity developed over the first few centuries and is still developing and changing for our times. I hope I am more aware as I read Scripture now and look for the development from the charismatic Jesus to the Son of God in it.
Geza Vermes has written a very interesting autobiography "Providential Accidents" which really is the story of 20th century Europe through the life of one man. He was born Jewish, raised Catholic, and returned to Judaism later. No wonder his perspective is that of Jesus as a charismatic Jewish prophet. My husband and I had the privilege of meeting him and having dinner with him several years ago at a conference in Scotland where they were both speakers.
I don't like the idea of saying that any passage in Scripture that doesn't agree with one's thesis must have been interpolated later. I also found the quoting of Goethe as saying "Jesus felt purely and thought only of the One God in silence; whoever makes him into God does outrage to his holy will" to be a sad and presumptive ending for a book I felt worth reading.
I'm mostly okay with the "mystery of salvation" and probably am more so all the time as I age. I wondered if this book would shake my tentative faith but it hasn't. It's fine that Christianity developed over the first few centuries and is still developing and changing for our times. I hope I am more aware as I read Scripture now and look for the development from the charismatic Jesus to the Son of God in it.
Geza Vermes has written a very interesting autobiography "Providential Accidents" which really is the story of 20th century Europe through the life of one man. He was born Jewish, raised Catholic, and returned to Judaism later. No wonder his perspective is that of Jesus as a charismatic Jewish prophet. My husband and I had the privilege of meeting him and having dinner with him several years ago at a conference in Scotland where they were both speakers.
I don't like the idea of saying that any passage in Scripture that doesn't agree with one's thesis must have been interpolated later. I also found the quoting of Goethe as saying "Jesus felt purely and thought only of the One God in silence; whoever makes him into God does outrage to his holy will" to be a sad and presumptive ending for a book I felt worth reading.
June 16, 2022
I grew up in a country where there is a strong Christian presence on institutions and in the meaning of which we built our daily life. Christianity fills the emptiness of the world when providing a kind of micro-cosmology for our origins, being and death. Not only God exists as also He came to our planet in the body of Jesus. After all, did Jesus truly said and thought that he was a God?
As a Latin-American, it is quite odd thinking that a God walked on a specific place and spoke the language of this site. It seems unfair that God has chosen one people and one religion to express your desire and law.
This book provides an account of four centuries where words were transformed in myths, distorting its original meanings and purposes. Over the years, Jesus and his message were reinterpreted more and more, though in a way very different from the Jew called Jesus. The main point of the author is, as the most of his books, present Jesus as a man of his epoch, whom honoring the Judaism of his time. The assignment of the quality 'God' to Jesus, we read, is a later construction, representing more the wills of people and their rereading of some Scriptures.
As a Latin-American, it is quite odd thinking that a God walked on a specific place and spoke the language of this site. It seems unfair that God has chosen one people and one religion to express your desire and law.
This book provides an account of four centuries where words were transformed in myths, distorting its original meanings and purposes. Over the years, Jesus and his message were reinterpreted more and more, though in a way very different from the Jew called Jesus. The main point of the author is, as the most of his books, present Jesus as a man of his epoch, whom honoring the Judaism of his time. The assignment of the quality 'God' to Jesus, we read, is a later construction, representing more the wills of people and their rereading of some Scriptures.
February 19, 2019
Unfortunately, whilst this is a book trying hard to summarise the "journey" of Christianity, which Vermes describes as the movement from a charismatic eschatological historical Jesus to a dogmatic intellectual acceptance of Jesus as God at the Council at Nicaea, it lost me as a very general reader upon the way.
I do have a better understanding of the changing nature of Christianity over its first three centuries. However, I know that I will shortly forget all but the most basic shape of that transformation. This is due to the author deciding to quote extensively from the sources, which is usually an excellent approach in historical books, but which just meant that I got bogged down in phraseology that sounded extremely similar and very opaque as to the meaning. But I expect that this is probably the difficulty of the sources, which are translations from probably fragmentary works.
So, the overall shape of Vermes argument is well made, but it took this reader a lot of work to reach it.
I do have a better understanding of the changing nature of Christianity over its first three centuries. However, I know that I will shortly forget all but the most basic shape of that transformation. This is due to the author deciding to quote extensively from the sources, which is usually an excellent approach in historical books, but which just meant that I got bogged down in phraseology that sounded extremely similar and very opaque as to the meaning. But I expect that this is probably the difficulty of the sources, which are translations from probably fragmentary works.
So, the overall shape of Vermes argument is well made, but it took this reader a lot of work to reach it.
July 28, 2020
I do not agree with the tone of his conclusion, but it provides an accurate and very well thought out summary of the development of Christianity from the time of Jesus to Constantine. Jesus, the Jewish itinerant preacher to the dogmatic Son of God, took three centuries to become the central creed of the Hellenic East. What is regrettable is that since Vermes does not aim at discussing socio-economic or political development that provided the background with the history of religion, Christology of this era sounds as if it had been just intellectual mumbo-jumbo. Given cultural and social tension and blending of Hellenic and Semitic elements in Roman society, the development of Christian theology would have made more sense. That he did not choose to make more sweeping historical survey is a pity. Still, it is a minor problem.
October 4, 2020
Vermes presents a clear and concise development of Christology in the first few centuries. His thesis encompasses ideas of unity and diversity in the NT, evolutionary development between Jewish and Greek theology and all the usual trappings. Needless to say his is a non-confessional position.
In this book of scholarship worn lightly you will find many profound insights and clear arguments with seemingly inescapable conclusions... Which makes it all the more interesting for those of us who disagree with his main argument. Books like this make you want to learn more and systematize your thoughts and knowledge more clearly. Perhaps even to rethink some cherished dogmas which have never been exposed to scrutiny...
In this book of scholarship worn lightly you will find many profound insights and clear arguments with seemingly inescapable conclusions... Which makes it all the more interesting for those of us who disagree with his main argument. Books like this make you want to learn more and systematize your thoughts and knowledge more clearly. Perhaps even to rethink some cherished dogmas which have never been exposed to scrutiny...
July 12, 2017
This is an interesting and challenging book that, although I ultimately disagree with his core argument, has led me to re-read (and in some cases read for the first time) many of the oldest Christian sources in a new light. The case that Christianity moved from an apocalyptic Jewish sect to a greek inspired world faith is set out in impressive detail (although he uses himself as source material rather too often) but remains too much of an academic debate for me and leaves out the human story and often forgets to say what is consistent throughout. That said, I would recommend this to anyone with an interest in early Christianity.
October 12, 2025
As a Jew, who is extremely curious about the origins of Christianity and how the teachings of Jewish charismatic prophet evolved into the dogma of Christianity, this book was the perfect journey. I was fascinated by the evolution from the synoptic gospels to the Didache ( the writings of early Jewish Christians) to the musings of Paul who made the foundations of Christian dogma and theology , all the way to the writings of the brilliant Origen.
You would have to go elsewhere for an in-depth understanding of the gnostic gospels and other books that were banned as heresy.
After reading, maybe four or five books on the subject, this one was by far the best and the most insightful.
You would have to go elsewhere for an in-depth understanding of the gnostic gospels and other books that were banned as heresy.
After reading, maybe four or five books on the subject, this one was by far the best and the most insightful.
November 14, 2018
Interesting book, spoiled by author's obvious omissions. He discusses Pauline Christinaity by reference to Paul's writings that suit his agenda and yet avoids completely the person of Paul himself. How or why did a devout Jew who was involved in the death of a Christian martyr become one of the leading Christian apologists? There is no mention of Paul's conversion.
Likewise in discussing early Christianity the author makes extensive use of the texts of the synoptic gospels but completely ignore the Resurrection? How can a serious author have such a lapse.
Likewise in discussing early Christianity the author makes extensive use of the texts of the synoptic gospels but completely ignore the Resurrection? How can a serious author have such a lapse.
November 19, 2017
How Jesus Became Christ
A fascinating trip through Jesus' ministry and the first centuries of the Christian church. The random nature of how core Christian beliefs were cobbled together from a charismatic Jewish reformer is something to behold. The whim of an emperor or the speculation of a philosopher will have as much impact on the religion as anything the historical Jesus may or may not have done.
A fascinating trip through Jesus' ministry and the first centuries of the Christian church. The random nature of how core Christian beliefs were cobbled together from a charismatic Jewish reformer is something to behold. The whim of an emperor or the speculation of a philosopher will have as much impact on the religion as anything the historical Jesus may or may not have done.
February 8, 2020
I chose this book because I wanted to get an insight into the Christian church of the second century AD. I started reading from the beginning (bluff traditionalist that I am), but found it rather hard going and before long I was speed reading through to find what I wanted. I did learn some new stuff so job done as far as that was concerned. This is the first book by Geza Vermes I have read. I wish I could be more positive, but there is something in his style that just does not engage me.
August 26, 2018
As lucid a history of early Christianity as one could ever wish for. Written by one of the foremost experts on the historical Jesus, this analyses original sources from a linguistic, cultural, historical view to give a convincing exposition of the creation of a gentile theology from Jewish traditions. This is brilliant!
March 15, 2021
This is the book if you want to sort out all those early Church fathers and their particular nudges to the growing momentum of the church in its first three centuries. It is erudite, backed by extensive research and dense; not, then, an east read! There is an index so it makes a useful reference work once the main lines of argument have been absorbed.
October 24, 2018
An excellent book telling the history of Christianity from around the time of Christ's death through to the Council of Nicaea in 325AD.
Geza Vermes is probably the top authority on Christianity's relationship with the Jews.
Geza Vermes is probably the top authority on Christianity's relationship with the Jews.
June 4, 2020
Good for group discussion but a long slog. It would be tough without some extra reading regarding the New Testament in its cultural context.
May 1, 2021
Very, very enlightening.
August 22, 2022
Informative and learnt so much, good book,
August 15, 2023
Definitely not the book for beginners I was expecting, and the author definitely has more interest in the Jewish authors than the early church, otherwise pretty well written
July 26, 2024
Despite an exhaustive coverage of the known historical sources, it's still not clear why Christianity developed into a major religion rather than die off as so many other Jewish sects have done.
January 1, 2025
Říkal jsem si, že se dozvím, jak to asi začalo, ale kniha plná citací bez potřebné čitelnosti.
August 27, 2025
Enlightenment
In breathtakingly clear detail this wonderful book showed me how
a charismatic and peerless preacher came to be "promoted" to being God.
In breathtakingly clear detail this wonderful book showed me how
a charismatic and peerless preacher came to be "promoted" to being God.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews