What do you think?
Rate this book
From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ
How did Jesus of Nazareth become the Christ of the Christian tradition?
"Magisterial. . . . A learned, brilliant and enjoyable study."—Géza Vermès, Times Literary Supplement
In this exciting book, Paula Fredriksen explains the variety of New Testament images of Jesus by exploring the ways that the new Christian communities interpreted his mission and message in light of the delay of the Kingdom he had preached. This edition includes an introduction reviews the most recent scholarship on Jesus and its implications for both history and theology.
"Brilliant and lucidly written, full of original and fascinating insights."—Reginald H. Fuller, Journal of the American Academy of Religion
"This is a first-rate work of a first-rate historian."—James D. Tabor, Journal of Religion
"Fredriksen confronts her documents—principally the writings of the New Testament—as an archaeologist would an especially rich complex site. With great care she distinguishes the literary images from historical fact. As she does so, she explains the images of Jesus in terms of the strategies and purposes of the writers Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."—Thomas D’Evelyn, Christian Science Monitor
"Magisterial. . . . A learned, brilliant and enjoyable study."—Géza Vermès, Times Literary Supplement
In this exciting book, Paula Fredriksen explains the variety of New Testament images of Jesus by exploring the ways that the new Christian communities interpreted his mission and message in light of the delay of the Kingdom he had preached. This edition includes an introduction reviews the most recent scholarship on Jesus and its implications for both history and theology.
"Brilliant and lucidly written, full of original and fascinating insights."—Reginald H. Fuller, Journal of the American Academy of Religion
"This is a first-rate work of a first-rate historian."—James D. Tabor, Journal of Religion
"Fredriksen confronts her documents—principally the writings of the New Testament—as an archaeologist would an especially rich complex site. With great care she distinguishes the literary images from historical fact. As she does so, she explains the images of Jesus in terms of the strategies and purposes of the writers Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."—Thomas D’Evelyn, Christian Science Monitor
288 pages, Paperback
First published August 24, 1988
102 people are currently reading
623 people want to read
About the author
Paula Fredriksen
22 books96 followersPaula Fredriksen, the Aurelio Professor of Scripture emerita at Boston University, since 2009 has been Distinguished Visiting Professor of Comparative Religion at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, she also holds two honorary doctorates in theology and religious studies. She has published widely on the social and intellectual history of ancient Christianity, and on pagan-Jewish-Christian relations in the Roman Empire. Author of Augustine on Romans (1982) and From Jesus to Christ (1988; 2000), her Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, won a 1999 National Jewish Book Award. More recently, she has explored the development of Christian anti-Judaism, and Augustine’s singular response to it, in Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (2010); and has investigated the shifting conceptions of God and of humanity in Sin: The Early History of an Idea (2012). Her latest study, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (2017), places Paul’s Jewish messianic message to gentiles within the wider world of ancient Mediterranean culture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
March 13, 2016
In what is probably the best assessment of early Christianity I have ever read, Paula Fredriksen analyzes each gospel and epistle in order to draw out the unique, rich worlds and worldviews that they present. By beginning with a discussion of the gospels in reverse-chronological order, Fredriksen draws out the surprises and asymmetries that exist in the Christian tradition. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the extremely early high-Christology of the Pauline epistles that takes a backseat when Mark debuts. Ultimately, like much of mainstream scholarship, Fredriksen locates Jesus primarily in the realm of Jewish apocalypticism. What makes this book a must-read is how rigorously she presents the case. While there are a few minor quibbles the can be had with her historical analysis (I personally had some questions about her dating of Mark and her handling of Judas), her reconstruction of Jesus and his world remains stronger and more compelling than any other I have read thus far.
March 22, 2020
This reads like a textbook, which is sometimes fun for me because it reminds me of grad school and I guess I miss suffering through really boring textual analyses. As one would expect, it is very dry and uses big words. Parousia! That's a fun new one! It just means 2nd Coming. In this text you'll find phrases like "Paul's denationalized, apolitical, pneumatic messianic eschatology." That's just going out of her way to sound pedantic.
On to the content. Fredriksen writes from an academic, not a Christian, perspective. This was a pretty new experience for me as a reader. She writes from the supposition that the gospels and Paul's writings are NOT inspired or holy, but the writings of individuals trying to validate their beliefs and make sense of their historical context. I dismiss a lot of her arguments on the basis of my personal beliefs. But it was still really useful to read an analysis of the scriptures from that perspective and to understand more of the historical context and especially the Jewish condition of Jesus's era. She centered her argument on what she defined as the main problem with new Christianity in the first century: How did this new religion reconcile the idea that Jesus-- a Jewish teacher speaking mostly to Jews who claimed he was fulfilling Jewish prophecy-- was soundly rejected by his Jewish audience and believed instead by Gentiles? She looks at the culture of Jesus's day, the political climate between Jews and Romans, and compares the different scriptures pertaining to Jesus's ministry.
This book definetly gave me a deeper understanding of the context of the gospels. Mark was the first gospel written (though written after Paul's writings) and he, like Paul, believed Jesus would return promptly-- as in within his lifetime-- and the temple had just been destroyed which for him was a clear sign of the impending apocalypse. Paul had not encountered Jesus in the flesh, but the resurrected Jesus. It follows, therefore, that his writings were largely concerned with the resurrected Jesus and life in the Spirit rather than the corporeal. Matthew, Luke, and John were written further removed from Jesus's death, to 2nd and 3rd generation Christians. For those audiences, the 2nd coming hadn't come yet and was therefore not so impending. Matthew's writings suggest that Jewish rejection of Christ is just a continuation of a pattern. Jews historically rejected the prophets of the past, so it logically follows that they would reject the Messiah.
I loved her point about the historical resilience of the Jewish people. Historically, Jews suffered a lot of defeats. One would think it would have caused Jews to lose faith or to think God had abandoned them. But the prophets always redirected the Jews by claiming that exiles and defeats were actually signs of God's relentless pursuit of his people. This belief carried into Christianity. Persecution is actually a sign of faith.
Politically, the Passover was a charged time during Roman occupation, because Jews were awaiting their Messiah. Romans actually posted extra military support around the temple each Passover because they expected uprisings and revolts. The pharisees served as go-betweens with the Jewish people and Roman authority, so they would have found the figure of Jesus threatening, not just because of his insults and disdain for the Pharisees, but because he was stirring up the masses and drawing negative Roman attention.
Finally, the book introduced some interesting parallels I hadn't considered before: the prophet Samuel announcing King Saul and David with John the Baptist heralding the new Davidic king, also, Satan tempting Jesus uses the same taunt that later onlookers at the cross employ ("if you are the Son of God, then...").
I loved that this book made me think deeper about the gospels and my own beliefs. Plus, the big words are great brain food. One more: kerygma! It means preaching in Greek, related specifically to oral proclamations about Jesus by the earliest Christians.
On to the content. Fredriksen writes from an academic, not a Christian, perspective. This was a pretty new experience for me as a reader. She writes from the supposition that the gospels and Paul's writings are NOT inspired or holy, but the writings of individuals trying to validate their beliefs and make sense of their historical context. I dismiss a lot of her arguments on the basis of my personal beliefs. But it was still really useful to read an analysis of the scriptures from that perspective and to understand more of the historical context and especially the Jewish condition of Jesus's era. She centered her argument on what she defined as the main problem with new Christianity in the first century: How did this new religion reconcile the idea that Jesus-- a Jewish teacher speaking mostly to Jews who claimed he was fulfilling Jewish prophecy-- was soundly rejected by his Jewish audience and believed instead by Gentiles? She looks at the culture of Jesus's day, the political climate between Jews and Romans, and compares the different scriptures pertaining to Jesus's ministry.
This book definetly gave me a deeper understanding of the context of the gospels. Mark was the first gospel written (though written after Paul's writings) and he, like Paul, believed Jesus would return promptly-- as in within his lifetime-- and the temple had just been destroyed which for him was a clear sign of the impending apocalypse. Paul had not encountered Jesus in the flesh, but the resurrected Jesus. It follows, therefore, that his writings were largely concerned with the resurrected Jesus and life in the Spirit rather than the corporeal. Matthew, Luke, and John were written further removed from Jesus's death, to 2nd and 3rd generation Christians. For those audiences, the 2nd coming hadn't come yet and was therefore not so impending. Matthew's writings suggest that Jewish rejection of Christ is just a continuation of a pattern. Jews historically rejected the prophets of the past, so it logically follows that they would reject the Messiah.
I loved her point about the historical resilience of the Jewish people. Historically, Jews suffered a lot of defeats. One would think it would have caused Jews to lose faith or to think God had abandoned them. But the prophets always redirected the Jews by claiming that exiles and defeats were actually signs of God's relentless pursuit of his people. This belief carried into Christianity. Persecution is actually a sign of faith.
Politically, the Passover was a charged time during Roman occupation, because Jews were awaiting their Messiah. Romans actually posted extra military support around the temple each Passover because they expected uprisings and revolts. The pharisees served as go-betweens with the Jewish people and Roman authority, so they would have found the figure of Jesus threatening, not just because of his insults and disdain for the Pharisees, but because he was stirring up the masses and drawing negative Roman attention.
Finally, the book introduced some interesting parallels I hadn't considered before: the prophet Samuel announcing King Saul and David with John the Baptist heralding the new Davidic king, also, Satan tempting Jesus uses the same taunt that later onlookers at the cross employ ("if you are the Son of God, then...").
I loved that this book made me think deeper about the gospels and my own beliefs. Plus, the big words are great brain food. One more: kerygma! It means preaching in Greek, related specifically to oral proclamations about Jesus by the earliest Christians.
December 23, 2023
In choosing to rate Paula Fredriksen’s From Jesus to Christ (Second Edition) four starts I realize it is almost not important which is right. Hers is well thought out and organized book. I most fear that a particularly fundamentalist reader will not have the patience to finish. To begin From Jesus to Christ and not finish it is to miss one of the best summations I have read in any similar book.
I make no claim that hers is entirely break though scholarship. How much of her analysis is new or original to her, is not important. Professor Fredriksen has written a very readable, accessible treatment of the historic problems faced by each writer of the Gospel and how each set of variations and points of view address possible problems unique to the time and realities that that author might have been considering.
Professor Fredriksen makes clear that her purpose is to harness the best contemporary historical analysis of the New Testament for the purpose of analyzing not Jesus but rather the evolving narrative of the Christ Story as told by John, Luke, Mathew and Paul. So tied to the state of research is she that in her introduction she states that were she to re-write her book, she would make adjustments based on more recent analysis. Her approach is based on the contemporary historic understanding of the creation of Christianity as a standalone religion rather than a cult within either Judaism or a variation on Greek religion.
Her goal is to track across the different “Gospels of” John, Luke, and … to identify the reasons for the differences in the biographies in the life of Jesus and by discussing how those variations identify how each writer used their versions to address the problems of making clear the historic road from Jesus to miraculous conclusion; Christ.
At the small end of the problems are petty issues like get the historic Jesus of Nazareth to be born in Bethlehem and to therefore better fit preexisting prophecies. When the NT begins the use of Jesus and The Christ, matter. So too are the particulars in the exact sequence of events from His entry into Jerusalem and the revelation of the resurrection. A slightly more difficult problem was the nature of The Christ as a divine being who’s lineage is directly from God, or as the human descendant a of David.
The critical and lingering questions involved the relationship between the living Jesus and the Jews who could have known the living person and later generations who upon hearing the ‘Good News” were not impressed and did not come into what was not yet a church but a cult beginning to branch away from the founding religion.
Parenthetically, a weakness in her argument is that she never asks of the pagan population what issues had to be addressed to convert them. She accepts Paul among other as they claim to have converted all pagans pretty much on contact. That there may have been more to it than a few meetings, study sessions or letters among the non-Jews and conversion just happened; is not a discussion upon which she lingers.
I make no claim that hers is entirely break though scholarship. How much of her analysis is new or original to her, is not important. Professor Fredriksen has written a very readable, accessible treatment of the historic problems faced by each writer of the Gospel and how each set of variations and points of view address possible problems unique to the time and realities that that author might have been considering.
Professor Fredriksen makes clear that her purpose is to harness the best contemporary historical analysis of the New Testament for the purpose of analyzing not Jesus but rather the evolving narrative of the Christ Story as told by John, Luke, Mathew and Paul. So tied to the state of research is she that in her introduction she states that were she to re-write her book, she would make adjustments based on more recent analysis. Her approach is based on the contemporary historic understanding of the creation of Christianity as a standalone religion rather than a cult within either Judaism or a variation on Greek religion.
Her goal is to track across the different “Gospels of” John, Luke, and … to identify the reasons for the differences in the biographies in the life of Jesus and by discussing how those variations identify how each writer used their versions to address the problems of making clear the historic road from Jesus to miraculous conclusion; Christ.
At the small end of the problems are petty issues like get the historic Jesus of Nazareth to be born in Bethlehem and to therefore better fit preexisting prophecies. When the NT begins the use of Jesus and The Christ, matter. So too are the particulars in the exact sequence of events from His entry into Jerusalem and the revelation of the resurrection. A slightly more difficult problem was the nature of The Christ as a divine being who’s lineage is directly from God, or as the human descendant a of David.
The critical and lingering questions involved the relationship between the living Jesus and the Jews who could have known the living person and later generations who upon hearing the ‘Good News” were not impressed and did not come into what was not yet a church but a cult beginning to branch away from the founding religion.
Parenthetically, a weakness in her argument is that she never asks of the pagan population what issues had to be addressed to convert them. She accepts Paul among other as they claim to have converted all pagans pretty much on contact. That there may have been more to it than a few meetings, study sessions or letters among the non-Jews and conversion just happened; is not a discussion upon which she lingers.
November 4, 2023
The more historians tie early Christianity to contemporary Judaism, stripping it of Hellenism, the crazier it seems.
September 20, 2024
This is a really thoughtful, meticulous, but relatively easy to read reconstruction of the various versions of Jesus presented in the pauline letters and the four canonical gospels, and how they came to be. Fredriksen contextualizes the different texts in their religious, social and political history, and does a really good job at showing how different they really are from each other: from the mere biographical dates about Jesus' life and death given by each of the four (and Paul, who is genuinely uninterested in the biography of Jesus) to the christological positions they hold. Even if you're not interested in trying to find a glimpse of the real historical Jesus beneath all these layers on layers of tradition, this is a great book to learn how and in what circumstances a jewish apocalyptic group got transformed into a new religion: christianity.
The progressively worsening relations between the jewish community in Palestine and later in the diaspora and the evolving Church play a major role in Fredriksen's reconstruction. She makes it very clear that anti-judaism is practically baked into any "high christological" position: If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and has himself the status of god, at least since the resurrection or even as in the Gospel of John since the beginning of everything, than you have to denounce the jewish religious beliefs as false, if not inherently evil (they were preached the true gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God and Saviour, but didn't take it up). This, for me, is the most difficult knowledge I gained from reading this book: I'm surprisingly fine with learning that Jesus most likely didn't think of himself as the Son of God, or even as the messiah, but that seeing in him the Son of God makes anti-jewish propaganda practically inevitable for the writers of the gospels (and most of the NT canon), at least historically, throws some serious shade on the whole christian enterprise for me. Fredriksen tackles this problem openly in her last chapter: She argues that the detailed and as unbiased as possible reconstruction of the historical contexts of Jesus on his way to the trinity is something like a christian duty. She hopes that it opens up the way christians conceptualize their relationship to Judaism, but also to the orthodoxy of their own church(es). I will be thinking about this for a long time.
The progressively worsening relations between the jewish community in Palestine and later in the diaspora and the evolving Church play a major role in Fredriksen's reconstruction. She makes it very clear that anti-judaism is practically baked into any "high christological" position: If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and has himself the status of god, at least since the resurrection or even as in the Gospel of John since the beginning of everything, than you have to denounce the jewish religious beliefs as false, if not inherently evil (they were preached the true gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God and Saviour, but didn't take it up). This, for me, is the most difficult knowledge I gained from reading this book: I'm surprisingly fine with learning that Jesus most likely didn't think of himself as the Son of God, or even as the messiah, but that seeing in him the Son of God makes anti-jewish propaganda practically inevitable for the writers of the gospels (and most of the NT canon), at least historically, throws some serious shade on the whole christian enterprise for me. Fredriksen tackles this problem openly in her last chapter: She argues that the detailed and as unbiased as possible reconstruction of the historical contexts of Jesus on his way to the trinity is something like a christian duty. She hopes that it opens up the way christians conceptualize their relationship to Judaism, but also to the orthodoxy of their own church(es). I will be thinking about this for a long time.
April 26, 2023
Si la historia es importante para la iglesia, entonces la historia sin distorsiones es muy importante, y solo al cumplir con esta obligación con integridad puede la iglesia continuar el mensaje proclamado por los primeros apóstoles, ampliado por Pablo y reflejado en los evangelios, que el plano horizontal del ser humano y el plano vertical de lo divino se reunió en la cruz de Jesús de Nazaret.
March 8, 2019
BOOK REVIEW: From Jesus to Christ by Paula Fredriksen
There is history, and then there is interpretation of history. Paula Fredriksen presents her three-tiered method in understanding the first century Jewish mind in her book, ‘From Jesus to Christ’. The book is firstly a historic response to how the ancient Jews dealt with theodicy and the apparent covenental inconsistencies of God, circa, the exiles and foreign occupations.
In chapter 3, Fredriksen explains her method as, descriptive, historical and explanatory conduits that provide a way to understand theodicy, through the death of God’s Messiah. From here on, she unpacks the Jewish expectation of Messiah and how the synoptic evangelists interpreted Jesus.
Fredriksen asks an interesting question regarding Pauline Christology; she compares the Markan account of Jesus clearing out the temple (Mark 11) with the Johannine account (John 2) to ask, Why did Paul not refer to the exalted perspective of John’s account as a fulfilment of prophecy? Surely this would have been an event of great significance, especially given the integral nature of the Temple to Jewish identity? In fact, Fredriksen goes on to comment that the sheer size of the temple, and the crowd that gathered, would have have made (this highlighted event in the gospels) nothing more than a minor disturbance, not even worthy of sparking Roman interest. What does Jewish nationalism and identity have to do with Jesus? Well, Jesus certainly wasn’t a Christian, and therefore needs to be understood within his cultural heritage.
For Fredriksen, good history equals good theology, it is tempered with the understanding that “...fear of false familiarity, is the beginning of historical wisdom.” By this, she alludes to the decoupling of our theologies surrounding the historical, Jewish Jesus and the Christological retrospection of the gospels and Paul.
The author’s ability to maintain a sense of neutrality, and commitment to historicity, make ‘From Jesus to Christ’, a valuable read for the beginner and intermediate. She respects the gospels for what they are; evangelical persuasions with an agenda and a message.
The death of Jesus signified the end of his mission and the beginning of the Christological interpretations. Her views, therefore, present the reader with helpful definitions of history. Interpretation of that history, and what forms the grounds for good theological reflection.
Thus, it is important to recognise that a Jewish understanding of the apocalypse, is highly influenced by theodicy and atonement. Whereas Christological interpretations of the apocalypse, focuses on the figure of Jesus and the second coming. This, is very much the anticipation of Christian eschatology , both early, and of late.
I thoroughly enjoyed ‘From Jesus to Christ’, at times it can be academic but the author possesses an ability to summarise each chapter in a helpful, simple-to-understand, way. Fredriksen only really approaches the, ‘What does this mean for us?’ question, in the last page of the book. Which is a relief, if the reader wants a historical book, that isn’t desperate for a, ‘self-help’ book on Jesus. Highly recommended.
There is history, and then there is interpretation of history. Paula Fredriksen presents her three-tiered method in understanding the first century Jewish mind in her book, ‘From Jesus to Christ’. The book is firstly a historic response to how the ancient Jews dealt with theodicy and the apparent covenental inconsistencies of God, circa, the exiles and foreign occupations.
In chapter 3, Fredriksen explains her method as, descriptive, historical and explanatory conduits that provide a way to understand theodicy, through the death of God’s Messiah. From here on, she unpacks the Jewish expectation of Messiah and how the synoptic evangelists interpreted Jesus.
Fredriksen asks an interesting question regarding Pauline Christology; she compares the Markan account of Jesus clearing out the temple (Mark 11) with the Johannine account (John 2) to ask, Why did Paul not refer to the exalted perspective of John’s account as a fulfilment of prophecy? Surely this would have been an event of great significance, especially given the integral nature of the Temple to Jewish identity? In fact, Fredriksen goes on to comment that the sheer size of the temple, and the crowd that gathered, would have have made (this highlighted event in the gospels) nothing more than a minor disturbance, not even worthy of sparking Roman interest. What does Jewish nationalism and identity have to do with Jesus? Well, Jesus certainly wasn’t a Christian, and therefore needs to be understood within his cultural heritage.
For Fredriksen, good history equals good theology, it is tempered with the understanding that “...fear of false familiarity, is the beginning of historical wisdom.” By this, she alludes to the decoupling of our theologies surrounding the historical, Jewish Jesus and the Christological retrospection of the gospels and Paul.
The author’s ability to maintain a sense of neutrality, and commitment to historicity, make ‘From Jesus to Christ’, a valuable read for the beginner and intermediate. She respects the gospels for what they are; evangelical persuasions with an agenda and a message.
The death of Jesus signified the end of his mission and the beginning of the Christological interpretations. Her views, therefore, present the reader with helpful definitions of history. Interpretation of that history, and what forms the grounds for good theological reflection.
Thus, it is important to recognise that a Jewish understanding of the apocalypse, is highly influenced by theodicy and atonement. Whereas Christological interpretations of the apocalypse, focuses on the figure of Jesus and the second coming. This, is very much the anticipation of Christian eschatology , both early, and of late.
I thoroughly enjoyed ‘From Jesus to Christ’, at times it can be academic but the author possesses an ability to summarise each chapter in a helpful, simple-to-understand, way. Fredriksen only really approaches the, ‘What does this mean for us?’ question, in the last page of the book. Which is a relief, if the reader wants a historical book, that isn’t desperate for a, ‘self-help’ book on Jesus. Highly recommended.
July 12, 2010
I found this book to be very interesting. The author analyzes how the teachings and life of Jesus were interpreted depending upon when the writer (Saint Paul, or the authors of Mathew, Luke, Mark and John) were writing. The first generation of Christians really believed that the kingdom of God was at hand and the apocalypse was near. As time wore on and the world (obviously) did not end, subsequent Christian gospel writers modified their philosophy accordingly.
December 5, 2022
A fantastic presentation of the Historical Jesus by one of the greatest living scholars on the topic of Early Christianity.
I especially enjoyed the "reverse chronology" as it really did help make the causal chain clearer, and helped minimise the temptation to impose a teleology to said chain.
I especially enjoyed the "reverse chronology" as it really did help make the causal chain clearer, and helped minimise the temptation to impose a teleology to said chain.
December 31, 2009
This book was very interesting, but I wouldn't say it was for the "general reader" unless that reader is very well educated and prepared for scholarly vocabulary like "Parousia" and "irenic."
October 29, 2019
It is strange perhaps, but when I read this book I cannot help but think about Lee Smolin's theory of time as also changing since it is part of creation, or the postgenomic critique against Dawkins' theory of genes as the 'atoms' of evolution, because also genes are affected by evolution. They are not evolution's 'carriers'. The reason for thinking about this is that there is that what is infallible in this book, and one's like it, is the current historical method. It is methodologically sound to use the best we have of how to get to history and then apply it to the sources that we have, but with very critical books such as this I would like to see a little more self-critical evaluation about method and understandings of history as well.
What it boils down to is that there is very little in terms of history in the Gospels and what is there has remained more or less incidentally. What the Gospels are, are books written precisely for the Gospel writers community, justifying their particular interpretation of Christianity against all others, and particularly against Judaism. The Gospel are anti-Jewish since the challenge that the early church faced was that the Jews did not believe in Jesus as Christ.
I read From Jesus to Christ with great interest and find it a very well written and informative book. I think it is a little too sceptical and makes a bit too much out of two of its main assumptions (the ones mentioned above). Firstly, if the early church was so set against all other interpretations of Christianity, then why did they keep the four Gospels AND Paul in what became their scripture? They were not stupid, they noticed that there were differences, but they rejected Tatians Diatessaron anyway. Secondly, at least what I learnt about, for example, John Gospel is that John makes a distinction between the people, the Jews, and the religious leaders in his Gospel. Can't remember now if there was that middle group 'the Jews' or not now, but anyway, a if there is a distinction to be made in the people who should have received the Gospel and John blames only the third groups, highest in the hierarchy, is the Gospel anti-Jewish then? What about the two other groups? Are they blamed for the death of Jesus in the same way? Maybe they are, Fredriksen would know, because her knowledge of the New Testament is certainly impressive.
I take on board a lot of (for me) provoking critical questions and challenging thoughts. I bring with me a deeper understanding of the Gospels as well as a much greater understanding for the (probable) context in which the Gospels were written. I also bring with me what the view of history was in the early 2000s that judged the Gospels to be 'bad' history in that sense and therefore unreliable sources to the historical origin of that movement called Christianity. I do wonder if there is only one way to skin a cat though...
What it boils down to is that there is very little in terms of history in the Gospels and what is there has remained more or less incidentally. What the Gospels are, are books written precisely for the Gospel writers community, justifying their particular interpretation of Christianity against all others, and particularly against Judaism. The Gospel are anti-Jewish since the challenge that the early church faced was that the Jews did not believe in Jesus as Christ.
I read From Jesus to Christ with great interest and find it a very well written and informative book. I think it is a little too sceptical and makes a bit too much out of two of its main assumptions (the ones mentioned above). Firstly, if the early church was so set against all other interpretations of Christianity, then why did they keep the four Gospels AND Paul in what became their scripture? They were not stupid, they noticed that there were differences, but they rejected Tatians Diatessaron anyway. Secondly, at least what I learnt about, for example, John Gospel is that John makes a distinction between the people, the Jews, and the religious leaders in his Gospel. Can't remember now if there was that middle group 'the Jews' or not now, but anyway, a if there is a distinction to be made in the people who should have received the Gospel and John blames only the third groups, highest in the hierarchy, is the Gospel anti-Jewish then? What about the two other groups? Are they blamed for the death of Jesus in the same way? Maybe they are, Fredriksen would know, because her knowledge of the New Testament is certainly impressive.
I take on board a lot of (for me) provoking critical questions and challenging thoughts. I bring with me a deeper understanding of the Gospels as well as a much greater understanding for the (probable) context in which the Gospels were written. I also bring with me what the view of history was in the early 2000s that judged the Gospels to be 'bad' history in that sense and therefore unreliable sources to the historical origin of that movement called Christianity. I do wonder if there is only one way to skin a cat though...
May 25, 2023
This is very dense book, but it is absolutely brilliant. Fredriksen's writing style requires a high level of reader focus, indeed full attention and concentration; I often found myself having to read some paragraphs several times, but it’s certainly worth it in terms of insight.
Fredriksen argues that the Apostle Paul viewed faith in Jesus as an alternate path for Gentiles to salvation, unlike many historians who argue that Paul viewed, what would become, Christianity, as a successor to Judaism, Fredriksen argues that Paul's faith in the Jewish Covenant was unshaken. Paul didn't believe that Gentiles were required to adhere to the Covenant to attain salvation, but Jews had to. The lashing punishments Paul received in various synagogues were an evidence of his desire to remain Jewish and not to be expelled from synagogues.
Fredriksen also argues that Jesus was likely a Pharisee, she marshalled several points to evidence this, including Jesus's sayings on "house of prayers" suggesting that Sadducees who controlled the Jewish priestly classes and the Temple advocated animal sacrifice which the Pharisees later opposed. She suggested that the earlier gospels showed the scribes and priests opposing Jesus whereas the later gospels single out the Pharisees for blame. As only Pharisaic Judaism survived the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem 70 CE, they were the one remaining Jewish voice, worshipping the same God, but not accepting Jesus as the Christ or Messiah. On this one point, I found Fredriksen less persuasive than other historians who suggested closer alignment between Jesus's movement and the Essenes or the Jews of the Dead Sea Scrolls who advocated communal ownership, celibacy and were vehemently opposed to the Pharisees and their non literal interpretations of the Bible.
Fredriksen examined three questions closely and how the Apostle Paul and the four gospels dealt with them. First the issue of the end the ages and the arrival of God's Kingdom, second was why most Jews rejected Jesus and how his message received traction with the “God fearer” Gentiles and lastly is the issue of differences amongst the followers of Jesus. Fredriksen showed the changing narratives on all three areas from the earliest teachings of Paul on to Mark immediately after the Jewish War on to Matthew and Luke, almost two generations after Paul and then on to John at the end of the First Century. Fredriksen's analysis of the four gospels, taking the reader to their time and the surrounding challenges was fascinating and demonstrated how and why stories changed over time.
There is a lot more there and I will certainly read again!
Fredriksen argues that the Apostle Paul viewed faith in Jesus as an alternate path for Gentiles to salvation, unlike many historians who argue that Paul viewed, what would become, Christianity, as a successor to Judaism, Fredriksen argues that Paul's faith in the Jewish Covenant was unshaken. Paul didn't believe that Gentiles were required to adhere to the Covenant to attain salvation, but Jews had to. The lashing punishments Paul received in various synagogues were an evidence of his desire to remain Jewish and not to be expelled from synagogues.
Fredriksen also argues that Jesus was likely a Pharisee, she marshalled several points to evidence this, including Jesus's sayings on "house of prayers" suggesting that Sadducees who controlled the Jewish priestly classes and the Temple advocated animal sacrifice which the Pharisees later opposed. She suggested that the earlier gospels showed the scribes and priests opposing Jesus whereas the later gospels single out the Pharisees for blame. As only Pharisaic Judaism survived the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem 70 CE, they were the one remaining Jewish voice, worshipping the same God, but not accepting Jesus as the Christ or Messiah. On this one point, I found Fredriksen less persuasive than other historians who suggested closer alignment between Jesus's movement and the Essenes or the Jews of the Dead Sea Scrolls who advocated communal ownership, celibacy and were vehemently opposed to the Pharisees and their non literal interpretations of the Bible.
Fredriksen examined three questions closely and how the Apostle Paul and the four gospels dealt with them. First the issue of the end the ages and the arrival of God's Kingdom, second was why most Jews rejected Jesus and how his message received traction with the “God fearer” Gentiles and lastly is the issue of differences amongst the followers of Jesus. Fredriksen showed the changing narratives on all three areas from the earliest teachings of Paul on to Mark immediately after the Jewish War on to Matthew and Luke, almost two generations after Paul and then on to John at the end of the First Century. Fredriksen's analysis of the four gospels, taking the reader to their time and the surrounding challenges was fascinating and demonstrated how and why stories changed over time.
There is a lot more there and I will certainly read again!
December 24, 2019
At the annual SBL convention recently I spoke with Dr. Carl Holladay (former Professor of New Testament at Emory) after his critique of Paula's book, When Christians were Jews: The First Generation. I commented something along the lines of "the long shadow of F. C. Baur." He said that Paula's theology was a combination of Baur, Hans Conzelmann and Bart Ehrman. It makes perfect sense. If you can start with a presupposition of Baur's Paul/Peter opposition, add a good dose of gospel redaction criticism and then Ehrman's apocalyptic Jesus, then you have a recipe for Paula's understanding of the early Christian movement. Trouble is, that same recipe can cook up other interpretations, equally tasty. One soup is as good as another. It's just a matter of personal taste.
This is what redaction criticism gets you: not the author's take of a historical event but a take on how the author's church or audience retrojected its apology for its own theology. So we are not really reading history (not much anyway), but we get an insight into the church a generation or two after the church began. Paula doesn't like the word "church" because she sees it as a historical anachronism. She prefers simply "community" or something similar.
A newer book, From Jesus to Christ, picks up on these same themes and expands on them to explain how Paul wrested the Jesus movement away from the exclusively early Jesus movement and turned it into a Gentile, anti-Jewish movement. She can do this by maintaining those three presuppositions mentioned earlier and some selective Bible verse picking and some arguments from silence she throws in for good measure.
I'm not saying From Jesus to Christ is totally worthless because there are some good insights into early Jewish Christianity and the soil from which it sprang, i.e., second temple Judaism and its multi-cultural world of Greek and pagan thought. There are some really good observations along the way. I just don't buy the whole package. Looking forward to reading her work on Paul: The Pagan Apostle.
This is what redaction criticism gets you: not the author's take of a historical event but a take on how the author's church or audience retrojected its apology for its own theology. So we are not really reading history (not much anyway), but we get an insight into the church a generation or two after the church began. Paula doesn't like the word "church" because she sees it as a historical anachronism. She prefers simply "community" or something similar.
A newer book, From Jesus to Christ, picks up on these same themes and expands on them to explain how Paul wrested the Jesus movement away from the exclusively early Jesus movement and turned it into a Gentile, anti-Jewish movement. She can do this by maintaining those three presuppositions mentioned earlier and some selective Bible verse picking and some arguments from silence she throws in for good measure.
I'm not saying From Jesus to Christ is totally worthless because there are some good insights into early Jewish Christianity and the soil from which it sprang, i.e., second temple Judaism and its multi-cultural world of Greek and pagan thought. There are some really good observations along the way. I just don't buy the whole package. Looking forward to reading her work on Paul: The Pagan Apostle.
September 3, 2025
This was a great read, and maybe the deepest academic and critical analysis of the texts which make up the New Testament I’ve encountered so far. One aspect of this book which I really appreciated was the structure Fredriksen adopts for her analysis, which really helped to illuminate and draw out the various images of Christ which she has identified throughout the works of Paul and the Gospels.
She begins in the first section by reviewing each work in reversed chronological order: John, Luke-Acts, Matthew, Mark, Paul, giving a basic overview of the different ways that each author depicted its subject, namely Jesus and his message. She then spends the middle section of the book analyzing the historical context in which the Gospels originated, analyzing Hellenistic metaphysics, Jewish theology and eschatology, and then finally how both intersect with the life of Jesus himself, culminating in a brief reconstruction of how the historical Jesus’ life and ministry may have played out. Finally she moved back through the source material, this time in chronological order: Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke-Acts, John in order to further historicize and compare the competing images of Christ produced by each author.
All of this results in a brilliant and thoroughgoing account of the earliest Christian texts, how they originated, what they can tell us about the competing faith communities that each represented, and how the Christians of the first century adapted to the challenges posed by their participation within a Jewish Apocalyptic movement which failed both in converting many Jews and in their predictions of an imminent eschatological event.
The book tends to read like a little bit like a textbook rather than a narrative, which can sometimes come off as a little dry, but if you can get past that, the content is well worth it.
4/5
She begins in the first section by reviewing each work in reversed chronological order: John, Luke-Acts, Matthew, Mark, Paul, giving a basic overview of the different ways that each author depicted its subject, namely Jesus and his message. She then spends the middle section of the book analyzing the historical context in which the Gospels originated, analyzing Hellenistic metaphysics, Jewish theology and eschatology, and then finally how both intersect with the life of Jesus himself, culminating in a brief reconstruction of how the historical Jesus’ life and ministry may have played out. Finally she moved back through the source material, this time in chronological order: Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke-Acts, John in order to further historicize and compare the competing images of Christ produced by each author.
All of this results in a brilliant and thoroughgoing account of the earliest Christian texts, how they originated, what they can tell us about the competing faith communities that each represented, and how the Christians of the first century adapted to the challenges posed by their participation within a Jewish Apocalyptic movement which failed both in converting many Jews and in their predictions of an imminent eschatological event.
The book tends to read like a little bit like a textbook rather than a narrative, which can sometimes come off as a little dry, but if you can get past that, the content is well worth it.
4/5
September 27, 2019
Parts of this book were exceptional, especially the early chapters where she spends a lot of time explaining and demonstrating the processes used by scholars to look deeply at the scriptures in a completely neutral way.
The writing is pretty academic with lots of Greek, Latin and French terms. Sometimes the sentences get long and complex; especially when they are broken by long parenthetical references to a multitude of scriptural cross references.
That said, there is a lot of good material if you are looking to understand where, when, why and how the gospels and the genuine letters of Paul were written.
Also this was written 1988 and a number of the other, more-recent books I have read correct and/or update some things Fredriksen shares.
The writing is pretty academic with lots of Greek, Latin and French terms. Sometimes the sentences get long and complex; especially when they are broken by long parenthetical references to a multitude of scriptural cross references.
That said, there is a lot of good material if you are looking to understand where, when, why and how the gospels and the genuine letters of Paul were written.
Also this was written 1988 and a number of the other, more-recent books I have read correct and/or update some things Fredriksen shares.
December 29, 2022
"The church, by claiming faith in Jesus as the unique occasion of divine revelation, thus lays upon itself the obligation to do history. And to 'do history' means to undertake, with as much information, sympathy, and realistic imagination as possible, the reconstruction of the religious, social, political, and cultural context in which Jesus of Nazareth lived and died. It entails, further, the renunciation of a simplistic reading of identity-confirming narratives. ... Bad history, for the church, results in bad theology, the subtle Docetism of anachronism. It marks the retreat from a fully and truly human Jesus, one who acted meaningfully and coherently at a particular moment of human time." (p.214f)
October 14, 2017
This is an excellent historical view of how the image of Jesus changed, using as evidence the Order in which the books of the New Testament were written. The first book written was The Acts of the Apostles, better known as he Book of Acts. About the last book written was The Gospel of John, which crystallizes the modern view of Jesus as the Son of God.
The book is erudite and well referenced, but eminently readable. It was made into a disaster of a TV series which does not follow the book. Read the book. Whether or not the reader is a Christian, it makes for interesting reading.
The book is erudite and well referenced, but eminently readable. It was made into a disaster of a TV series which does not follow the book. Read the book. Whether or not the reader is a Christian, it makes for interesting reading.
August 28, 2025
This scholarly work goes into great historical detail in regards to the Jewish and Hellenistic culture in which Jesus lived and preached. The author Paula Frederiksen closely examines how Jesus' teachings would have affected the local populace and why the Jewish people rejected much of his message and the subsequent Christian claims that Jesus was the Messiah.
She closely examines the four gospels, as well as the writings of Paul, and shows how they differ in their approach and conclusions.
The book is an interesting, albeit difficult read.
She closely examines the four gospels, as well as the writings of Paul, and shows how they differ in their approach and conclusions.
The book is an interesting, albeit difficult read.
July 3, 2023
A lot of speculative thought in the vein of the historical Jesus movement. Some redeeming historical work here and there, but mostly assumes the conclusion from the open gates. As one theologian once quipped, the "historical Jesus" slowly ends up looking more and more like the ones searching for him. That includes, apparently, those who actually knew Christ like His disciples and those who met him, like the apostle Paul.
January 15, 2019
A very detailed book requiring considerable concentration. It covers the various images of Jesus presented in the genuine letters of Paul and the Gospels, demonstrating how each was dependent on the time it was written, the expectation of imminent parousia, and developing Jewish-Christian relationships. Well worth the hard work it takes to get through.
August 21, 2024
Fredriksen is always a joy to read and this work (now over two decades old) is just as well-written as her latest books. As this is the second edition, I recommend any reader check out the volume's introductions to see where she has changed or nuanced her views since the publication of the first edition.
March 3, 2021
I had high hopes but oh damn. Some good parts but they’re buried under a huge pile of meh parts. Maybe I’m spoiled after reading Bart D Ehrman. If you want a book like this but much better (imo) then read How Jesus became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee.
December 2, 2021
Remarkably helpful book that contextualizes the disparate images of Jesus that one might discern how the Christ becomes specifically compelling to particular ages while gaining an enduring universal patina.
May 19, 2019
Some interesting ideas, some of them possibly fresh, but in general her assertions are not clearly argued from the evidence.
Read
March 13, 2021The second edition adds a section on the historical Jesus. Be sure to read the second edition. I read both and wouldn't want to have missed that new material.
April 15, 2021
More text book than book.
January 2, 2024
The print is too small to catch my focus on the academic text. I think I could have finished otherwise.
March 21, 2024
How did the early church deal with the failure of Christ to return soon and the non-belief of most Jews?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews