How Jesus Became Christian

by Barrie Wilson

Re-creating the world of Jesus Christ, a provocative new study looks at how a young Jewish rabbi has been transformed into the god of a religion he would never have recognized, examining the rivalry between two points of view--one informed by the teachings of Matthew, one by the vision of Paul--in a study that reveals the differences between Christianity and Judaism, as well as the origins of one of the world's great religions. 20,000 first printing.

Genres: Christianity, History, Religion, Nonfiction, Theology, Historical, Judaism

304 pages, Hardcover

First published March 4, 2008

Reviews

[Brian Griffith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Like many of us, Barrie Wilson wants to know "How did the Jewish Jesus of history become the Gentile Christ of faith? How did early Christianity become a separate religion from Judaism? What really accounts for Christian anti-Semitism?" He seeks answers partly by comparing different accounts within the scriptures -- Paul's own accounts compared with Luke's version of the same events in Acts, or Jesus' teaching about the Jewish law compared to Paul's. The results are fascinating, and come close to demolishing any justification for a wall between Christianity and Jesus' own Jewish faith.

Where Jesus pushed the spirit of the Torah beyond external deeds to deal with the inner conflicts behind deeds, later Christians presented Christ as invalidating the Old Testament law. Where Jesus urged "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matt. 5:19), Paul, with his independent revelation argued that the entire law of Moses was needless. Since Abraham had faith before the law appeared, everything which happened since (until Jesus) was irrelevant. Now, Paul claimed, anyone who continued to observe the Jewish law was "under a curse," and "No one will be justified by the works of the law" (Gal. 2:16). At least, as Wilson points out, Paul did not try to cite Jesus himself as the source of this teaching.

The book holds much more, but let me quote one among several conclusions: "What we have today in Christianity is largely Paulinity, a religion about the Gentile Christ that covers over the message of the Jewish Jesus of history. Second, it involved a hostile differentiation, with scathing attacks by the Proto-Orthodox on anything Jewish. Third, the cover up resulted in the entrenchment of anti-Semitism, directed against Judaism and the Jewish people" (p. 255)

In looking over Wilson's research, there's just one factor I'd like to add in explaining the hostile division of Gentile Christianity from Jesus' Jewish faith. That is the factor of war. Where Jewish nationalists rose in revolt against Roman colonial rule (twice, in the 70s and 130s AD), Gentile converts sought to prove their loyalty to Rome by distancing themselves from the rebels. While Rome crucified the Jewish nation, many Gentile Christians tried to deny they ever knew the accused.

[Turbulent_Architect · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've always been a sucker for historical Jesus research. Barrie's central thesis is that early Christianity contained two distinct movements: On the one hand, the Jesus movement under James, which saw itself as a sect of Torah-observant Jews; on the other, the Christ movement under Paul, which broke off from Judaism and represented a different and rival religion. On his reading, the Book of Acts is the locus of a kind of cover-up whereby the Christ movement retroactively grafted itself onto the Jesus movement, thus securing legitimacy for itself and changing the course of history. Barrie's thesis is obviously provocative and certain bits and pieces of it are convincing. That said, I think he overstates his case quite a bit. The book is also a bit of a slog. As many others have noted, its content is repetitive and its tone often bitter and unscholarly. It would have benefited from being cleaned up and condensed into a couple of essays.

[Dawn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Although Wilson offers an intriguing point of view, I found his tone so bitter that the entire book came across sour. Before progressing further, I should note that I am not a Bible scholar, and I like to keep my religious beliefs to myself. I was a Classics major in college, so I'm familiar with the time period and can pick my way through New Testament Greek, but that's the end of my qualifications.

Wilson starts strongly with a solid look at the political and religious context of the historical Jesus' time, but then it starts to get sour. His thesis is that Paul and his followers pulled the ol' switcheroo by swapping a Gentile Christ figure for the actual Jesus who was crucified c. AD 30--that the Paul faction made a conscious effort not only to cover up their switcheroo, but to vilify Judaism in order to solidify their own position. The end effect of this book is not so much an examination of how a Jewish teacher became the central figure for a Gentile religion, as how anti-Semitism became such a driving force in Christianity.

What I wanted from this book was a balanced look at how early Christianity developed its understanding of Jesus as the Christ. What I got was a conspiracy theory that made The Da Vinci Code (which is quoted in the book!) sound credible. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the history of Christianity hasn't been all flowers and happiness, but one can't deny that Christianity has made a positive impact on millions of people throughout history--an impact that would never have occurred without Paul's alleged switcheroo.

If you're none too happy with modern Christianity (as Wilson seems to be--he says in the prologue that he was raised Episcopalian and converted to Judaism), you might find an understanding voice here. However, if you're looking for a balanced presentation of the subject, give Wilson's book a miss.

[Marisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would have given this book more than 3 stars had the tone of it been different and had it been a monograph or essay of about 100 pages.

I read the first half of the book really quickly, as the book, in essence, is non-academic and therefore extremely readable for the everyday audience. However, the author was so bloody repetitive and belabors his points, causing me great ire and frustration at times (especially throughout the second half of the book).

Furthermore, even though I agreed with the author's overall thesis, the fact that he termed the beginning of Christianity as we now it today as a "conspiracy theory" and kept on referencing The DaVinci Code only delegitimized himself in my eyes. Plus his biased agenda permeated the entire reading.

The author used to be Christian and converted to Judaism, as he found Judaism closer to Jesus' actual teachings. I agree with him. But his tone was so bitter, especially with Paul. "Jesus Christ" and Jesus of Nazareth are two different people. Jesus Christ essentially never existed, as Christianity was founded by Paul, not by Christ. But the author bashes Paul quite unfairly, and I don't even like Paul. His tone after awhile merely frustrated me.

Yes, Paul, born into a Jewish family, used this Jewish Messiah and Judaism to create his own religion, while simultaneously delegitimizing Judaism and ignoring the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (anyone who has studied Christian history knows these basic facts). But I wouldn't call this or the later changings a conspiracy. Maybe Paul believed in what he was doing, to some extent. The way he went about things was wrong, but he filled vacuums that existed, and future leaders, maybe some power-hungry, did the same by altering and combining Hellenistic polytheism and Judaism, while bashing the latter. Paul obviously took advantage of a bad situation, and the Book of Acts, along with other writings in the New Testament, are simply fables, lies, equivocations, at best. Conspiracy? I think not.

I agree that the root cause of anti-Semitism can be found in the history of religion and in the Bible. However, there are many complex reasons for anti-Semitism around the world, and to simply talk about the root psychological reasoning behind anti-Semitism without mentioning in an aside of other complexities throughout history is dishonest.

Wilson blames anti-Semitism for the main reason why the Torah is not followed by Christians and even why the Old Testament God is not loved as much as the New Testament God. I don't disagree with him, but simultaneously, the Old Testament God is sometimes a selfish, vindictive jerk. And maybe Paul and some of his followers, Jewish or not, found that some Torah laws were antiquated or just plain old stupid. But because the author has converted from one monotheism to the other, he doesn't understand that some of his readers will look at these religions and rules and laws as equally ridiculous, regardless of how much we know of their origins.

Read this book because you will learn some interesting things. You can stop reading at about page 150 because you will get the point and save time. I agreed with the author, but he simply annoyed me. Maybe he won't have the same effect on you. Nevertheless, these facts and his thesis won't change anything, for the faithful will still remain faithful, as I guess faith rests not only in illogicality but in simple lies.

[Aurélien Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

How Jesus, a Jewish rabbi preaching the Torah and thinking of himself as the Messiah, came to be turned into Christ that is, a cosmic leader and core to a whole new religion (Christianity as we know it) that has
rejected Judaism to the point of fuelling anti-Semitism throughout its history? The question -baffling, we have to admit- is far from new. In fact, anybody interested enough in early Christianity should fully know by now how crucial in such a twist was, not only Paul's own mysticism but, also, the various political and social events that led to the success of his mystic interpretation over others, far more faithful to the rabbi's primeval message. Barrie Wilson then, no matter how interesting and deep, has nothing new to contribute here.

His answer, that he labels under the quite pompous name of 'Jesus cover-up thesis' (yes, it has a funny ring of conspiracy theory, which is unfortunate because it is an otherwise serious essay) just gathers for a wide audience the numerous arguments, both historical and theological, that have been brought over and over (ever since Paul preached!) to denounce such a betrayal and hijacking. Here we go again, then, learning how Paul and his followers have forged a cult of personality, stripping Jesus of its Jewishness and (ironically) granting him pagan features to turn him into something the poor Galilean would have not recognised.

Nothing new certainly. None the less, such great display of a broad erudition on the topic, brought thus brilliantly to lay readers, makes for a fascinating read. It's a very good page turner, widely accessible and with a clear argumentation, smoothly flowing from beginning to end even if too repetitive at times. A pertinent and very enjoyable book.

[Lee Harmon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a long overdue review of a great new book. Wilson highlights the tension of Christianity’s founding movement, and asks the question: Was Jesus a Jew or a Christian? Paul’s brand of Christianity, especially, Wilson finds anti-Semitic, in stark contrast to the Gospel of Matthew and its reliance upon Torah. Paul, Wilson theorizes, hijacked Jesus for himself, turning Christianity into a Gentile religion.

Wilson’s portrayal of conflicting religions—the “Jesus movement” of the Jews, and the “Christ movement” of Paul—makes for fascinating reading. Paul experienced a mystical vision of the Christ, and everything he teaches flows from that deep, spiritual, ongoing connection between Christ and Paul. What used to be so simple became a complex theology, Paul’s message that all could be saved in Christ resounding throughout the Roman world.

Wilson discusses the book of Acts and its “revisionist history,” entwining Paul’s world with the Jesus movement as if they are one and the same, and concludes that there is simply no corroborating evidence for the Acts version. Instead, Paul’s letters betray an entirely different atmosphere. The Book of Acts invented history, and the version of Christianity we know today is better labeled “Paulinity.” The Jesus movement slowly faded away. In effect, the Jesus Cover-Up Thesis contends that early Christianity effectively killed off the historical Jesus. In the epilogue, Wilson encourages recovering the human Jesus and rediscovering his Jewish roots.

A thought-provoking and well-written book, definitely worth reading.

[Kealan O'ver · Rating 3 out of 5]

Written simply and the author has a tendency to repeat himself and clearly has an axe to grind.
It does however give a pretty good overview of Judaism around the time of Jesus and the murky early history of Christianity and that's what I was looking for.

Some of the reviews unnecessarily comment on the fact it quotes the Da Vinci Code. It doesn't quote it, it mentions the fact that the theory of Jesus' lineage was popularised in the early 00's because of it. This is a fact. The Da Vinci Code most certainly popularised this line of thought. I myself hadn't heard of it until I read it. Doesn't mean its saying the book is good.

Also more points deducted for saying that Petra featured in 1980's Raiders of the Lost Ark when it was in fact 1989's Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Jeez!

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Readable account of the Christification of Jesus. The book takes a look at why the Christianity we know today won out over rival claims. Wilson describes the historical and political context in which Yeshua, rabbi and leader of the Jesus movement, becomes Christ the Savior of modern day Christianity.

Wilson, a convert from Episcopalian to Judaism, writes from a less than neutral position. He speaks of the Proto-Orthodoxy (early Christianity) pillaging Judaism of its culture and history and promotes to a certain degree an air of conspiracy as the fledgling religion takes flight.
But it is this passionate position-taking that makes the book an interesting read.

[Akis Kalaitzidis · Rating 3 out of 5]

A nice review of Early Christianity written for the layperson. Enjoyed it.

[Paul C. Stalder · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wilson presents a compelling argument, but relies on a number of assumptions I'm not sure are warranted. For example, he suggests that Paul's failure to mention the Jerusalem Conference in his letter to the Galatians calls into question the historicity of the event in Acts. That is one explanation, sure, but there are of course others that could be put forward. Wilson did start his book by making sure his readership was aware that he was presenting an exhaustive argument, just an introduction. I didn't expect it to be this surface level, however. The actual idea that Wilson presents is fascinating, and his perspective on Christianity offers new angles to the discussion. I leave this book wanting a fuller discussion of the Jesus Cover-Up thesis presented within, but satisfied with Wilson's intro.

[Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a 'must read!' It gives a reminder that the Jesus we understand today is a view given by St Paul, a man who did not meet Jesus, and whose view of him was rejected by Jesus' brother James.
A worthwhile investment of time.

[Marla · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am so happy to have found this book! This paradox has plagued me throughout my life: "how did Jesus the Jew become the Gentile Christ?"
Just as I suspected, it has to do with powerful people rewriting history to their advantage and stealing someone else's popularity for their own gain.
Stay tuned; will let you know what I learn. So far, Paul apparently has a lot to answer for. (Interestingly, I have never liked or trusted that man!) I will also learn how and why Christians first started spreading anti-Semitism.

[Rene Carlos · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are authors who are worth reading on this subject; authors who are recognized as authorities within the academy. I suggest the following: Bart D. Ehrman, Dale B. Martin, Elaine Pagels, and L. Michael White. When one quotes from The DaVinci Code in order to help make or substantiate an idea, then one should begin looking elsewhere.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting exploration of how a radical Jewish preacher and Messiah claimant from Galilee was transformed into a divine figure and putative 'saviour' of all mankind in the centuries following his dramatic rise to prominence and even more sudden death at the hands of the Roman occupiers. Wilson explores how that essentially Jewish prophet was transformed into something very different by those seeking a complete break with Jesus/Yeshua's own Jewish heritage and teachings. Wilson explores how it came to be that four gospels were selected out of the many Christian Gospels and other writings to become the official New Testament in the fourth century CE and how other 'heretical' writings were then sought out and destroyed by the official church in Rome. Wilson makes a clear distinction throughout the book between the so-called 'Proto-Orthodox' followers of Paul and largely composed of gentile converts in the Greek-speaking eastern Mediterranean region, and those led by Yeshua's own brother James in Roman-occupied Palestine whom he terms the 'Jesus movement' and who were later known as Nazarenes or Ebionites. He explores the divisions between the two groups on both theological questions and issues related to the applicability of Jewish laws to gentile converts. Wilson looks at the fact that Paul grew up in largely gentile Tarsus (in what is now Turkey, though largely Greek-speaking at the time) and was clearly aware of many of the existing gentile cults involving 'Dying-Rising Gods' and sees this as a key factor in his incorporation of his mystical Christ figure into the ranks of Dionysus, Mithras and Osiris. The eventual marginalisation and extinction of the Ebionites can be seen as the disappearance of Jesus's original message, based on radical social change and the formation of an earthly 'Kingdom of God'. This original message had been carried on by those who knew Jesus intimately including his siblings, rather than Paul who never even met the living Jesus, as even he himself admitted. Well worth a look for any readers interested in the origins of Christianity and in distinguishing between the flesh-and-blood Jesus of history and the divine (or semi-divine?) figure of the Christ which became the dominant tradition down to the present.

[Todd Ewing · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wrestled be ween giving this book 3.5 and 4 stars. On the one hand, this is an excelent dissection of early materials of the early first century before and after Christ. I recognizes and demonstrates how Jesus, a Galilean rabbi of the first century, was slowly transformed into a divine figure and how the apostle Paul's message basically hijacked an earlier understanding of the actual Jesus. He points out the Ebionite movement, which most likely captured the original teachings of jesus and the early Jerusalem community centered around James. Wilson calls them the "Jesus Movement" and then shows how the later Gospel writers and the author of acts shifted that to follow a Pauline emphasis, which Wilson calls the "Christ Movement." The problem I have with this book is not its scholarship, but that Wilson is Jewish and at times this book turns into an apologia for Judaism, even to the point of preaching a small sermon on the Lord's Prayer at the end, emptying it of later Christian ideas. He also speak about how the "Christ Movement" created a "cover up" as if what happened was a nefarious plot. Not likely. We simply have to recognize that one movement won out over the other for historical, political, and sociological reasons. I think Paul and his followers believed what he was teaching and when the "Jesus Movement" was shattered after the destruction of Jerusalem, it slowly lost out. Great scholarship, but his religious bias shines through. Indeed he seems to be trying to hijack Jesus for Judaism.

[Kristi Duarte · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a must-read for anyone interested in the historicity of Jesus and Christianity. Barrie Wilson delves into the political and religious context of the historical Jesus' time, and provides a solid argument of why St. Paul hijacked Jesus's character and fabricated his own religion (now called Christianity.)

If you are at all interested in getting closer to the truth about Jesus's original faith and what happened to the disciples after the crucifixion, and if you have an open and inquisitive mind, read this book.

Highly recommended!

[Tina T. · Rating 5 out of 5]

How Jesus Became Christian by Barrie Wilson is a bold, intellectually engaging examination of one of the most consequential transformations in religious history. Rather than approaching Jesus through traditional doctrinal lenses, Wilson situates him firmly within first century Judaism, inviting readers to consider how a Jewish rabbi’s teachings were later reshaped into the theological foundations of Christianity as we know it today.

[Peter Klok · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have read lots of Bart Erhman and this is in the same category. Wilson has a way of writing that somehow helps you to remember what you have read.
If you do not want to lose your old-time religion, do not read it.

[Keith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow - A very, very thought provoking book that says how the teachings of Jesus, as carried on by Jesus’s brother James(Jesus Movement) is very different from Christianity as known today and created by Paul and Bishops of Nicea to make the religion more attractive to non Jews.

[Linda Schiavone · Rating 4 out of 5]

The information and references were excellent although a bit repetitious. It needs to be read with an open mind and a desire to question long held beliefs.

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's an interesting thesis put forward, but the paucity of documents means it can only remain a thesis.

[Neil Jenkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

A compelling argument that the biggest religion inn the world is based on Paul and not Jesus. I agree

[Soroush · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very intriguing book. The main question that the author examines and answers throughout the book is the following.
"How did a young rabbi become the God of a religion he wouldn't recognize, one which was established through the use of calculated anti-semitism?"

Of course, at first glance, this question may seem quite loaded, filled with flawed assumptions. However, throughout the book, Wilson unlocks this question and decompresses it in order to convey his theory, which according to him is the only theory that coherently explains the persistent Christian anti-semitism.

He labels his theory, The Jesus Cover-Up Thesis. According to Wilson his thesis contends that "early Christianity effectively killed off the historical Jesus." He states, "the transformation [of a young rabbi to a god-human christ] brought about by the Christification process [which he explains in his book] was so successful that the religion of historical Jesus was replaced by the cult of Christ." According to Wilson, the originator and the first proponent of this cult was Paul, whose vision was the beginning point of a new religion, a religion completely different from the religion of Jesus. Wilson says,

"... the early church 'killed off' the historical Jesus, focusing, instead, on the worship of the Christ. the myth of the christ was so effective that it is very difficult now to reconstruct the contours of the authentic teachings, sayings, and doings of the historical Jesus. To get at the Jesus of history, we have to leap over Paul and try to peel away the layers of Christifying efforts to see the Jewish, human Jesus underneath. No wonder that the heroic task of the twentieth-century biblical scholarship - the quest for the historical Jesus - has proven so difficult. The prism of Paul and the Christifiers stands in the way, blocking our view."

Furthemore, "according to the Jesus Cover-Up Thesis, the guilt dynamic, lashing out at the witnesses, [mostly the Jews and Torah-observing followers of the historical Jesus] provides explanation for the sustained attack on Judaism throughout Christian history."

Overall, this book is very interesting. It paints a coherent historical big picture to answer the main question that I stated right at the beginning.

If you are interested in reading a book about early Christian history from a not-so-familiar scholarship perspective, I would recommend this book. I believe Jews, Christians and Muslims would all find somethings that are very interesting and perhaps eye-opening in this book.

Wilson at the end of his epilogue section states,

"A valiant Jewish challenger to Rome's Imperial power. A potential Jewish Messiah. A teacher with great insight. That was how Jesus' earliest followers in Jerusalem viewed him - Jewish, as they were. This is not a modern invention. It was the original view of Jesus."

[Jos · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite interesting, but limited. I had no idea of Barrie Wilson's personal faith choices when I started this book, but the tone of it left me searching for an answer to exactly that question. Let's start with what is good about it. The overall hypothesis - namely, that there were various competing 'Christianities' during the first 2 to 3 centuries, and that Paul represented a less than straight-arrow version of the beliefs of Jesus but ended up providing the skeleton for 'churchianity' and christianity, is highly likely and appears to be close to what most historic scholars believe is the most probable version of the facts.
My first feeling of caution came as the author did not adequately warn against his own hypothesis. Too often, he quotes passages from the New Testament, while not undergirding this quote with a historical, text-critical justification: why is this passage more (or less) historical than others? Historical textual criticism is an exercise in levels of probability, and I do not find enough of this self-critical reflection. What Wilson is doing, is to take the historically most probable facts about Jesus and Paul, and string them into a hypothesis about what must have happened. This was both what attracted me about this book, but ultimately also what put me off. It is attractive, since the evidence for conflicting christianities during the first centuries presents us with a very different flux in history, one that probably highly differs from the one that is presented in Acts or in church history. We can, therefore, try to piece together other possible paths, but these are ultimately no more than guesswork. The author gives us one of these versions. I think much of his version sounds probable: the Ebionites represented the actual Jesus movement, while Paul's Christ movement represented a conflicting movement that was in actual fact first a very different religion, and only later - after Paul's and James' death - came to be 'unified' on paper only.
Yet the tone against Pauline Christianity, and for the Judaic-Christian Ebionite movement is such that it takes away from his argument. Not enough attention is given to the other influences during this time, and too much is given to juxtapose the two movements and vilify Paul. It is a worthwhile thesis, but insufficiently presented. His bias, which I did not know at the time I read this, does shine through: he converted to Judaism and appears to have become a 21-st century Ebionite. Power to him, but it left me wanting more versions: this is but one of many versions that we should see in the future. Let's hope more ancient documents are discovered, and more reflection will go on to piece all of it together, hopefully in a more objective way.

[matthew harding · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wilson's thesis, while interesting, wasn't as compelling as I first assumed. He places far too much weight on the Ebionites as proto-Christians (or followers of the Jesus movement and therefore a remnant of an earlier Jewish-centered sect of rabbi Jesus) and his entire argument seems to hinge on the writings of Paul being central to the production of the gospels; however, Dunn and others suggest that while Mark's gospel doesn't predate Paul's writings, there are pre-Markean segments (Mark 2:11-3:6 for instance) that predate Mark and that show Jesus not as a teacher of the law as understood by the Pharisee sect, but as a teacher who is calling Sabbath law, and table law into question by violating the precepts of the Pharisees. Wilson would like to show Jesus as a teacher who actually increases the standards of the law as understood by the sect of the Pharisees, but these pre-Markan segments undercut this thesis. What is compelling about Wilson's work is his thesis that Paul was pushing far away from the original teachings of Jesus to create a Christ cult. His ideas led me right to Dunn's book, Jesus, Paul and the Law for further study. The second half of Wilson's book tends to spend more time with Marcion's writings and brings in Gnostic ideas--something that should have come in during the first section of the book because the Gnostics are often named, but never put into context--and is more concerned with showing how anti-Semitism infiltrated Christian teachings. Perhaps if he put less weight on a (later) maligned and marginalized Marcion and more on the teachings of what he calls the Proto-Orthodox movement (he does spend a bit of length with Ignatius)his argument would have been stronger. Anyway, it's definitely worth the read as it leaves you pondering over several questions, which is always delightful. I will add this: Wilson cites several of Dunn's works in his bibliography and Jesus, Paul and the Law is among them. If Wilson had actually read Dunn's work wherein Dunn effectively argues that Paul was continuing a process Jesus started of stepping away from the Pharisees' halakic rulings (laws), he would have probably never published his book, or, at the very least, he would have grappled with Dunn's compelling thesis.

[Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting area for me because I am interested in how ideas disseminate. I wasn't that interested in the theology.
That said, the book was interesting if a tad too repetitive. There is a more than pedagogical redundancy to his arguments and he beats on the same issues over and over.
The evolution that the author explains makes plenty of sense. There are basically two religions mixed into a hybrid to make Christianity as it is practised today: Judaism and the mystic Christ worship. While he attributes the cross breeding to The Book of Acts, I was left wondering why Paul even referenced Jesus.
There are many interesting bits that I didn't know, like the role of Jesus' brothers, that the Christian church grew out of those who attended synagogues but weren't Jewish, that Jesus is the Greek version of Joshua and many other things.
So many of us assume that the form of institutions we see today have always been the way they are now. This is an interesting read for that.
I was more than halfway into the book when I went back and read the Intro and saw that the author was a former Episcopalian and is now Jewish, which kind of refutes his argument that the Jews had trouble getting converts.
That tainted some of his harping on the anti-semitic theme. I view "anti-the-other-guy" as being a normal strategy that any off shoot would take to differentiate itself in the marketplace. So it should be expected from the new Christians. Same as the Protestants were anti-Catholic when they started.
The net of this book is we have to rewrite the old Limerick to:
Roses are reddish
Violets are bluish
If it wasn't for Paul
Everyone would be Jewish.

[Jane Walker · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have some background in formal theological study, and I'm not a believer in any religion. Whether that makes me an "ordinary reader" in Wilson's phrase, I don't know. But he doesn't seem to know who his readers are either, and his style is often irritating.
That "Paul invented Christianity" is hardly a new idea. But Wilson expands this into what he calls the "Jesus Cover-Up Thesis" - a phrase he uses over and over again, with increasing inaccuracy. Wilson is a convert to Judaism, and the first part of the book is an interesting exposition of Jesus the Jew, and what it means to be Jewish. But I soon started to get uneasy about his selection of material. All we know about Jesus comes from the Gospels. Wilson relies entirely on Matthew, acknowledging his debt to Mark and the Q source. We know that Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, and depicts Jesus as entirely a Torah-observant Jew. However, he also uses Matthew to show how Christians turned against the Jews. Luke and John don't come into it, perhaps because they were later and represented the "Christified" religion of Paul.
Wilson's central claim is that the book of Acts is fiction, written to present a false picture of the two strands, the Jesus Movement led by Jesus's brothers and the Pauline Christ religion, coming to an accommodation. This, he claims, is a lie. Pauline Christianity drove out its competitor and in the process heaped vilification on it and is responsible for anti-Semitism ever since. Wilson's tone becomes increasingly strident and bitter.
Much more could be said. The book has the merit of making one think and argue, at least.

[Jc · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really wish this was better than it is. Dr. Wilson does a nice job of describing the world of ~100bce to 200ce Judaism. He also describes fairly well the various factions that made up what became Christianity during it 300+ year infancy and their relationship to diaspora Judaism and the Greco-Roman pagan world. Especially well described is the rift between the early Jewish Jesus following factions and the later, largely gentile, Christ-worshiping groups that mostly replaced them. However, the author stumbles back and forth when talking about the documentary evidence, making a confused case for the origins of some of the NT writings, as well as confounding the reality and politics of the sayings contributed to Jesus, to Paul, and to others (for all of which evidence of them even existing is actually weak to non-existent). E.g., he both quotes certain "sayings" of Jesus as if they are factual truth and then shows how those same sayings were created out of whole cloth to win particular political/theistic arguments -- and makes both these points often within the same sentence. So, clumsily written, and a bit too credulous, yet still a good brief introduction to the history of early christian thought for those who are just starting to wonder what really happened that kicked off the christian movement.

[Bruno de Maremma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Warning! I disliked the author's anecdotal style so much that I had a hard time reading to the end. However it is worth the effort.

I used to joke with friends that christianity was the most successful jewish cult in history.

However, as the author points out, the Jesus cult actually died out a long time ago. In his book he describes Jesus, quite rightly, as being a proselytizing teacher who taught strict observance of Torah and who believed that the Jewish god was coming within his lifetime to overthrow the Hellenistic culture of their rulers and establish a new world order.

Christianity on the other hand was actually an entirely new religion, invented by Paul. Paul's religion became substituted for the teachings of the rabbi Jesus.

Paul 'christified' the original cults teachings, tacked on a divine birth and resurrection to fit in with other popular mystery religions of the time.

The author goes on to describe how the seeds of anti-semitism were built right in to the new religion as it usurped jewish historical texts while refuting the need to follow the Torah or have its initiates circumcised.

Interesting reading.

[Helaine · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot of what Barrie Wilson has to say about the Jesus Movement vs. the Christ Movement has been presented in many other volumes by Biblical scholars. However, two things stood out for me in this book: Wilson uses repetition to make his points--the reader meets the same explanation about certain points several times throughout the chapters. It does make the points stick with the reader even though it is annoying at times. Secondly, Wilson portrays Paul in a much more venimous vein than other scholars I have read. Many others have indicated that they believe Paul did have some type of revelation that set him on his religious mission, but Wilson doesn't seem to believe in Paul's innocence in this regard and discounts just about everything said about Paul and his mission in the Book of Acts including Paul's Jeruselem meeting with James where theyseemingly determined that James would preach to Jews and Paul to Gentiles.