The Jews in the Time of Jesus: An Introduction

by Stephen M. Wylen

Explores the history and religion of the Jews in the late Second Temple and early rabbinic era, emphasizing those aspects of early Judaism that are significant to Christians seeking to understand the context in which Jesus lived and taught. †

Genres: History, Religion, Judaica, Nonfiction, Jewish

215 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1995

About the author

Stephen Wylen is a rabbi, author, and educator dedicated to Jewish scholarship and community leadership. Ordained in 1980 after studying at the Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion, he has served in various congregations across the United States, including Seattle, Huntington, Scranton, Wayne, and several interim positions before joining CKI in 2018. A passionate teacher, he has authored several books on Judaism, including Settings of Silver, The Book of the Jewish Year, and The Jews in the Time of Jesus. Believing in the synagogue as the heart of Jewish life, he seeks to make Jewish teachings accessible to a broad audience.

Reviews

[Debbie · Rating 1 out of 5]

If I'd been able to read the Intro before buying this book, I never would have bought it. I believe that the Bible is accurate, but I wanted some further background on Bible Times. This author believes that we have to sort through the myths and legends in the Bible to find what truly happened. He claims that early Christians didn't care about Jesus' teachings, only the Salvation message. Yet the Gospels record many of Jesus' "how to live in the here and now" teachings and not just his death and resurrection. This shows that early Christians DID care about this information.

If you prefer a "pick and choose what you like" approach, then you might like his running commentary on what he thinks is accurate and what isn't. For example:

We have the details of how Moses and the nation of Israel received the Law in Exodus. The contents of the first five books of the Bible are attributed to Moses throughout the Bible. However, on page 22, this author waves his hand and dismisses this with, "Jewish tradition--the pious Jewish assumption shared also by Christians--says that the Torah existed since the time of Moses, who brought it down from Mount Sinai, when God had dictated these five books. Historians doubt this." (He thinks it was written much later.) He throws around the phrase "many scholars" and "historians" on a frequent basis. Well, I know "many scholars and historians" that don't agree with his claimed timing of the writing of the Torah.

On page 58, he stated "Most historians perceive the Oral Torah as a post-Maccabean innovation, a flexible response to difficult and changing times. The traditions of the Pharisees were an attempt to update the Torah for the "modern" world of their time." He believes that the Pharisees were trying to boost their authority by claiming the traditions went way back. He apparently thinks no one noticed that they'd never heard these "traditions" before or, at least, that no one was able to leave a record that the Oral Torah/traditions of the Pharisees were a "modern" fake. Any evidence against his position will be dismissed as fakes or lies. But unless he dismisses any "pious Jew or Christian" as worthy of being called a historian, his claim of "most historians" backing his position is again not accurate.

Anyway, I tried to read this for any factual information despite his obvious bias. Unfortunately, his tendency to re-write "the facts" to suit his viewpoint made me doubt the accuracy of anything he stated. I quit around page 60. I don't recommend this book as the information in it is too strongly affected by his bias. It's certainly not as generally accepted as he'd like you to think.

[Lee Harmon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is now fifteen years old, but it remains one of my favorites, and I wanted to share it. Stephen Wylen is a rabbi at Temple Beth Tikvah, Wayne, NJ, and I so enjoyed his book that I asked him to contribute a back-cover blurb for my own book. He did even more: he contributed a full review: http://www.thewayithappened.com/revie.... I’m indebted to him, but luckily, his is an easy book to recommend.

Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, and this book does a great job of describing the world Jesus lived in. His world can hardly be understood without some background of Jewish history, both political and religious. The two are interrelated: As the Jews were surviving the period of the Maccabees and Hellenistic integration, they were also seeing the age of prophecy transition into Messianism and Apocalypticism. Wylen spends a great deal of time discussing first-century Judaism: the Synagogue, Sabbath observance, ritual purity, and so on. Jewish understanding of God, Satan, Logos, and their practice of prayer and worship differed from neighboring nations, but did not escape subtle influences. Judaism itself was also fragmented, between Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots and Pharisees.

Wylen also discusses the trial of Jesus. From what the Mishnah tells us about Jewish law there are some problems with the trial story as it stands. For example, the gospels say that the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy, yet none of Jesus’ words or deeds are blasphemous according to Jewish law. Nor could Jesus have been tried on a capital offense in the manner told in the gospel. According to the Mishnah there were many judicial rules designed to protect defendants accused of a capital crime. The trial had to be held before a full court. The sentencing and hearing had to occur during daylight hours. They could not convict on the day of the trial, as described.

For these reasons and more, Wylen concludes Jesus must have been tried by a kangaroo court called together by the high priest Caiaphas, acting on orders from the Romans. Pilate then convicted Jesus of being a revolutionary and sentenced him to crucifixion, just as he slaughtered numerous other innocent Jews.

Wylen delves into why Jesus was killed, whether Pilate was guilty or innocent, how the crowd felt about Jesus, and how much of the passion story is historically true. An excellent and informative book, written in an easy-to-understand style.

[Jon · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book sets out to provide the context for Jesus's life--that is, to provide readers with a sense of the Second Temple period in Palestine. He rightfully points out early on the trouble that exists in any such study and that has existed throughout--that scholars often say more about their times than about the time they are studying. Anti-Jewish works were the order of the day in the 1800s; modernists corrected this to an extent, but still had their own contemporary biases in trying to find the real Jesus. Contemporary historians have moved toward trying to present Christ as a Jewish man in a Jewish setting--what would a carpenter's life have been like at the time? But even when confronting this question, there is the issue of which historical sources to trust. Do we take the New Testament at its word or the Jewish writers of the Mishnah, Talmud, and Midrash? None of these were written strictly at the time of Jesus but rather anywhere from twenty to several hundred years later, depending on the source. Contemporary sources can be found, but they are usually from small Jewish sects that did not represent mainstream views. Can these be trusted themselves?

Wylen kicks off his discussion of the Second Temple period with a short summary of the Biblical narrative leading up to the building of the Second Temple. It's interesting to think of several of the biblical books as being written at the start of this period and as being a response to the events that are happening. Prophecy ends with Malachi soon after the Second Temple, much to the chagrin of many of the Jews. In its place comes apocalyptic works, most of which don't end up in the final scriptures (as Wylen relates, the Torah was the most accepted as scripture in the Second Temple period, the Prophets with a lesser degree of acceptance as time goes on, with the Writings not being finalized in the Jewish Old Testament until around 100 CE); the author credits Ezra as a likely authority in terms of editing the Torah and other books into their final form during this period (although this ignores the references to kings such as Hezekiah restoring the holy books--I would assume the Torah--to the center of practical application in their own time [other scholars see the time of Ezra, and the Great Assembly of Priests, as being the final period of Old Testament canonization, including all the Prophets and Writings]). It would only be after Jesus that scripture writing would return--in the form of the Talmud for the Jews and in the form of the New Testament for Christians. But even there, the writing would be more a matter of interpretation of previous scripture than of new revelation. Of further interest would be the introduction of the interpreters to the Jewish public reading of scripture, as most Jews by now spoke Aramaic and did not always have a firm grasp of Hebrew. These translations often took the form of true interpretations, though, as commentary often was added.

The next chapter turns to the Hellenistic world, especially as it affected the Jewish religion and as the Jewish religion affected it. That the Jews did not wholly assimilate to the Greek is unique among the Middle Eastern cultures, and this has a lot to do with the belief in one God, as opposed to a pantheon that could be easily added to (or "translated"--some Greeks saw the Jewish God as Zeus). That the Jews lacked idols was unique also. Jewish thinkers were seen as quite wise, and a good number of people converted of a sort (again, unique, as one doesn't convert when there are more than a single god--one just adds to the pantheon). These God-fearers did not circumcise (something the Greeks abhorred, unlike most Near Eastern cultures), but they adopted a belief in the one God of Judah; it is to them that much of the New Testament is addressed (as in Acts 15). Jews also moved out into the Roman Empire, losing sometimes the ability to speak Hebrew or Aramaic and thus getting most of their Bible from a Greek translation. Paul was probably most fluent in Greek, the author says, as evidenced by the Septuagint's influence on his letters (as we see in his choice of certain words and even some of his ideas). Fully 10 percent of the Roman Empire might have been Jewish, the author says. But these Hellenized Jews disappeared by the Middle Ages. What happened? We don't know. They may have been subsumed by Rabbinic Judaism or by Christianity. Indeed, the popularity of Jewish culture fell by the wayside as the Jews became more and more trouble within the empire. Their unwillingness to join in with civic rites because of the latter's steeping in paganism led to a separation and to some resentment, especially as the Jews began to push for more rights--and eventually participated in several armed rebellions. An interesting aside dwells on the Pharisees, who, the author says, were actually quite missionary in their attempts to convert Gentile believers to Judaism (the Sadducees by contrast were not); once Christianity became the official religion of Rome, it became illegal to proselytize as a Jew.

Much of the first century's Jewish history is dependent on the Macabees, the subject of the next chapter. While relations between Greek and Jew were quite cordial during the period of Greece's empire, for a short period they were not so. The Greeks generally let local people continue to administer their own affairs, but for this brief period Antiochus IV decided to forcefully Hellenize the Jews, removing the high priest for one of his own, outlawing the Torah, and forcing them to eat pork. Enter a small group of rebels called the Macabees who successfully led a revolt. What I did not know was that the original Zadok (Aaron-descended) line of the priesthood was moved, at this time to Egypt, where an alternate Jewish temple was set up with high priest Onias. When Jerusalem was restored to Jewish control, this priest was not brought back--the Zadok line ended. As such no high priest thereafter was seen as fully legitimate. (The Egyptian temple was destroyed by the Romans at the same as the Jerusalem temple.)

The lack of legitimacy for the high priest helped lead to the formation of various Jewish sects, each claiming rightly understanding of the Torah and the priesthood, including the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Two Pharisaic doctrines became central to later teachings of the Jews and Christians. First was the oral law, which would be the basis for the Mishnah and the Talmud. The other was the belief in the resurrection, which is most clearly discussed in the Old Testament in Daniel, a book the Sadducees would have rejected. Christ too would preach this doctrine. Greek ideas about the immortal soul would creep into Judaism (possibly around this time) and Christianity [in the next century] and change this doctrine.

There is, in the next chapter, some discussion of Jewish education. Simon bar Shetah is said to have introduced compulsory education for Jewish boys, though some historians doubt the accuracy of this claim. The idea is significant, however, because if this is so, then Jesus likely would have received formal religious (and literary) education.

The Sanhedrin's origin is unknown, but its power structure is recounted in the Talmud. Some doubt that this structure was actually in place until the destruction of the Temple, for it gives the Sanhedrin power even over the high priest. Nevertheless, the president of the Sanhedrin (the Nasi) became eventually Rabban (Our Rabbi) by title. This president was a Pharisee. (The Pharisees and Sadducees shared power on the Sanhedrin, but the Pharisees, having the majority, wielded greater power. So while the Sadducees made up the high priests, the Pharisees were the ones who oversaw the ritual functions of those priests and also interpreted the law and set up civil authority.)

In describing Judaism, Wylen says that it was not so much a religion (as we think of it today) as a "way," just as Christianity was called "The Way." Grounded in traditions and rituals that had to do with daily life, it was central to one's being. To Wylen, the idea of Satan comes out of gnosticism, for Judaism focused on one God only. Angels were a later creation of the religion and were still seen as below God. Satan was the lesser being that in Gnostic circles would have been the counterposing god of evil. [Of course, Satan is called the god of this world, so in that sense, it would fit with gnosticism. But the idea that Satan never appears in the Old Testament seems flawed, early Genesis being a prime example. But it is true that he does not seem to play as prominent a role as in the New Testament.]

Liturgical prayer, Wylen says, was not part of the First Temple set of ceremonies. Prayer then was spontaneous. It was only with the Second Temple that such prayers became common and that after the first century. [Again, I'd be prone to point to scripture, where Christ warns against repetitive use of prayers. But my bet would be the Wylen would say that such scriptures are anachronisms, creations of second-century writers, put into Jesus's mouth.]

Wylen sees the synagogue, whose origins he denotes are mysterious, as being largely a place for public reading of scripture and explanation during the first century. The popularity of the synagogue would take off after the destruction of the temple. The synagogue could also be used as a community center and hostel for travelers.

Concerns about ritual purity weighed heavily on first-century Jews. Whereas earlier generations had seen this largely as a priestly function, the Pharisaic teaching that all were priests of a sort meant that all people had to be ritually clean. And thus, ritual washings became part of daily life.

A chapter on the writings of the time discusses the difficulty of reconstructing history from them. We have writings of later years, which include the Jewish Mishnah; in the author's view, the New Testament; the apocrypha from the Second Temple period; apocalyptic writings from various Jewish sects; the writings of Philo; and the nonreligious writings of people like Josephus. Each has its agenda, and most were not concerned primarily with history. The Mishnah is viewed in Judaism as being the oral law put down in print by the rabbis. Lacking complete sentences and often without much logical order (it is "oral" tradition and thus based around that rather than around how we would write), one often has to know the whole to know the part. Nevertheless, its major themes delineate themes that were of concern to the Jews of the time, themes that in many ways go along with those in the New Testament, such as purity. The oral law was about delineating the "gray" areas of the law. The Mishnah notes what different rabbis think and what the majority thinks. In some ways, its being written out was a response to the destruction of the Temple. Although the rabbis claim it as oral law descended all the way back to the times of Moses, many date its teachings to the Second Temple period.

This scholar does not believe the Pharisees were as important as the New Testament and the Mishnah imply that they were, as both were written (in the writer's view) after the temple's destruction as that sect gained ascendancy. Looking at apocryphal writings we see works that concerned particular sects but that often spoke of events to come that were actually historical at the time (Wylen does not believe, one gets the feeling, that such a thing real prophecy exists), a discussion of the present evil, and a prediction of coming greatness for the people of the sect. Greatness was almost always seen as something imminent, not as something millennia into the future. (We can see this in Phillip's explication of Isaiah to the eunuch: the book is, for him, primarily about Jesus.)

Wylen raises similar problems with the trial of Jesus. Mishnah teachings would make the trial illegal (such trials had to occur during daylight hours and had to take place over two days--one day for trial, and one day for conviction--and would not have occurred on a holy day). So either the Mishnah is an idealized version of legal practice written two centuries later, or the history is wrong. Wylen sees the likely answer as both. He says it's more likely that the high priest was in cahoots with the Romans, since he'd have been appointed by the Roman-appointed Herod. The Romans would have seen any Jew garnering crowds and talking of a new kingdom (literal or metaphorical) as a threat. For Wylen, the idea that Pilate washed his hands to show his unwillingness to convict Jesus is a fiction, as the practice was a Jewish custom, not a Roman one, and Pilate was not otherwise one with a moral compass that would have kept him from killing innocent Jews. Also problematic are the crowds around Jesus, one for him, one against, and one absent--these, for him, are simply literary devices, like a Greek chorus. (One could probably find arguments against each of these points. First, the trial court was a kangaroo court and the claim of blasphemy it made is not, even in the scripture, seen as proper. The events occur the day before the first holy day, if one takes into account different ways of counting the Passover, a controversy at the time. Pilate may have washed his hands precisely because it was a Jewish custom, as he was before a Jewish audience when he did it, and his "conscience" scripturally is spurred by his wife's bad dream, not by personal compunction. Likewise, crowds can differ depending on situation, as they do even for politicians today. Crowds riot over Trump's election, both for and against.)

Wylen's chapter on the sects of Judaism is perhaps one of the most informative. He focuses on four main ones: Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, and Pharisees. The priests were chiefly Sadducees; the Sadducees were the powerful and the high class, and they favored those in power (namely the Romans and Herodians); they controlled the Temple. They were not popular with the people. They accepted the Torah only as scripture and did not accept the oral traditions of the Pharisees. As such, they did not believe in angels or the resurrection. They did not believe in divine providence.

Essenes were a group that believe everything was divine providence. They eschewed civilization, living in the wilderness. They had their own solar calendar, not accepting that of the majority of Jews. They believed strongly in a world of good versus evil, Rome of which was part of the latter. And they believed in two Messiahs, one priestly and one royal, and a final prophet.

Zealots, Wylen sees, as being only in existence right before the rebellion around 70 A.D. As such, he sees the rebel groups we call zealots of the time of Jesus as not being an organized sect. Rather, if we believe part of what Josephus says (who saw them as an organized philosophical group), they were simply people who believed in no ruler but God and often were like Pharisees in their other views.

Wylen spends the most time discussing the Pharisees, for it is from them that Rabbinic Judaism descends. Seen as wise among the people and largely supported by them, the Pharisees were also likely despised by the masses and despisers of them, much the same that intellectuals are often looked up by to and look down upon others today (and vice versa). They believed in divine providence over history but not over individual actions, which means that they viewed repentance and obedience to the law as important. They were progressives when it comes to scriptural interpretation, often looking to apply the law to modern contexts and, thus, creating and sustaining an oral law tradition to accompany the written scriptures. This also meant that they accepted such beliefs as that in the resurrection. The Pharisees worked with Roman authorities rather than against them, but not necessarily as part of the governing elite. This positioned them well for power in the post-Temple period. The Pharisees did not separate themselves from other Jews but rather lived and worked among them--and attended synagogues. (Though one sect, the Haverim, were so picky as to separate themselves out from other Jews who did not follow the same practices.) Overall, the Pharisees did tend to separate themselves from Gentiles, however, because they came to see priestly laws as applying to all Jews--the nation is a called out as priestly one. Hence, laws concerning ritual purity, including various washings, came to be applied to all, and others laws regarding eating, tithing, Sabbath keeping, and marriage only to other Jews were also promoted.

Another chapter details the work of Hillel and makes various comparisons to the sayings of Jesus, showing how the two actually parallel each other in many ways. (The complication, of course, is that while Jesus postdated Hillel, Hillel's sayings weren't put to paper until after Jesus's sayings were, so who copies whom is an open question. But the easy point is that Jesus and Hillel came from similar traditions.)

The next chapter looks at various "roles" that one might play in the first century and how Jesus would have fit into each. For example, Wylen does not look at Jesus as being a prophet except in the form of a preacher, as the age of prophets ended several hundred years before Christ (he disregards the idea of New Testament prophets). For Messiah, Wylen looks at the meaning, "anointed one" and denotes that the anointed was always king and priest in Israel/Judah; the connotations that Christianity adds were not present for Jews in the first century, though there was an interest at the time in the resurgence of a Jewish state and physical king that would overthrow Rome rather than a king not affiliated with the Davidic line (as in Herod) (indeed, many Christians expected Jesus to found such a kingdom, as the Bible makes clear--it was only after his death that they began to understand his Messiahship in a different form, as a sin-taker). "Son of man" means simply one from Adam, a human being--it's a way of talking of yourself in the third person. But it, too, came to have greater connotations, such that the absence or inclusion of capitalization can suggest something different. Nor was Jesus a philosopher, which was a Greek idea, though some Jews looked upon wise Jewish teachers are comparable figures. Nor does Wylen see him as a rabbi, a concept that arose much later--or even a teacher of the law, as a rabbi would have been at this time (for to Wylen, Jesus mostly provides wise teachings, not biblical interpretations--this is the meaning of Jesus speaking by his own authority). So what was Jesus to a Jew at the time? Wylen sees him likely as fitting into the tradition of miracle worker/healer/charismatic rejected by the mainstream Jewish leaders, of which there are several later Jewish teachers who founded specific branches of Judaism (Hasidism, for example).

A final chapter looks at how the Jews and Christians separated and why. Both religions developed quite a bit in the wake of the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., Judaism especially. Jewish leaders reorganized under the Hillellian Phrarisee Yahanan ben Zakkai, who put together a new Sanhedrin of seventy-one leaders. The influence of the Pharisees became fully felt as it became the basis for the rabbinic Judaism that followed. Following Zakkai's death, Gamaliel II took over the leadership--it was his grandfather who trained Paul. The Bar Kokhba rebellion, some sixty years after the Temple's destruction, probably helped seal the separation, as its leaders was seen by much of the Jewish leadership as the Messiah, a hope that proved unfounded but that doubtless alienated Christians who already had a Messiah.

Ran out of space. Full review at shortstoryreader.blogspot.com.

[Zhelana · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a good little book about a time period we don't actually know much about given how central it is to the lives and beliefs of so many people, both Jews and Christians. The author starts the book by saying he is going to try not to be partial to either Jews or Christians and treat them as the historical evidence demands. In the end, however, he is a little partial to the Jews and takes issue with even some central tenants of the Christian faith (for example, the Jewish leadership did have laws to put a man to death for breaking local laws. The only reason Jesus may have been sent to Pontius Pilate to condemn him is if he was initially taken to an illegal gathering of Jews rather than actually to the Jewish leadership for his trial). That said, if the history doesn't support the narrative, the author didn't shy away from criticizing Jewish stories, either. There's an entire chapter on Hillel which doesn't come out looking too great, either. He does do something quite interesting and compare Jesus and Hillel as the two founders of two different strains of Judaism (arguing that early Christianity was just a strain of Judaism for a good part of its ancient history). This was, IMO, the strongest chapter of this book and I found it absolutely fascinating.

[Evelyn Fonseca · Rating 2 out of 5]

As other reviewers have said, this book is heavily biased which is a shame. I picked up this book because I was interested in learning more about Jewish culture during the time of Jesus. Instead, this book (written by an orthodox Rabbi) discusses Jewish and early Christian beliefs. But the author's obvious bias shows through on almost every page which makes this a frustrating read. I read up to chapter 2 and put it away. I leafed through some sections that sounded interesting but it's clear that the author wanted to get his (debatable) point across that Christianity is based on pagan, traditions and gnostic beliefs. I give it 2 stars for the history I found interesting, but I'd rather stick to Josephus for that.

[Jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting historical perspective about the Jewish culture, history, and heirarchy in the 400-year window surrounding the time of Jesus. He challenges some of the narratives that Christians use, sometimes effectively and sometimes ineffectively. While it is a scholarly text, it is still accessible for the average reader. Definitely provides some new perspectives on the scriptures. Our theological study group found it made for good discussion.

[Kathryn White · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this concurrently with an in-depth study of the Book of Hebrews. It was helpful and informative for ascertaining context of specific scriptural texts.

[Steven Rossi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good enough, especially when discussing Judaism, though a little too unfair toward the NT or Christianity broadly

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent introduction to the topic of the Jewish world in which Jesus lived. The book is easy to read, acknowledging that it is going to avoid dense scholarship in favor of a conversational narrative, although Wylen takes care to present various viewpoints when available, and name check scholars whose work delve into further, more specific rabbit holes (included in the Reader's Bibliography).

The picture Wylen puts together of first century Judaism is fantastic, and does a great service to both Judaism and Christianity, showing how historical events (many commemorated still by modern Judaism) pave the way to the conditions of life in Judea during those years. To understand the Jewish world of the Era is to understand the context of what Jesus said and did, and while this is admittedly an introduction, there is enough here to get a good idea, with prompts should one wish to learn more. As a bonus, not only does the book explore the soil from which Christianity would bloom, Wylen shows how modern Judaism, rabbinical Judaism, grows from the same ground, and at times from similar concerns.

Armchair historians, and both Jews and Christians interested in learning about this period in history, and about the modern origins of their faiths, will find much to like, and think about, in this book.

[Len Vandegrift · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, Wylen, a Reform rabbi, sets the birth of Christianity against the background of first century Judaism. This is refreshing as both orthodox and critical discussions of Jesus, the apostles, and the New Testament are often decontextualized and provide only limited insight into the material being addressed. Wylen has his biases certainly, but his writing is often unimpassioned and balanced. In other words, he tries to maintain an even-handed, academic approach that is effective for Jewish and Christian readers alike, as well as anyone interested in surveying the history of that time. This book is not a page-turner, but readers who want to improve their understanding of early Christianity, first century Judaism, and the close relationship between the two faith traditions will be well-served in reading it.

[AGC · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's been a while since I've read this book, so I don't remember the writing style, the things I learned in it are still in my memories. This book is very insightful about how the beliefs, rituals, and culture changed during those centuries in history between the Old and New Testaments where the Bible does not cover and the times of the New Testament, and gives a pretty clear account of the events of those times.

[William T. · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book was well written but lacked sufficient attribution to discern opinion from, theory, from disputed theory, from scholarly consensus. However, the author did frequently state what was debated and what was consensus.

I especially liked the history of the Jews detailed in the book as well as his frequent olive branches to Christians and Jews.

I would definitely recommend, and have recommended, this book for a better understanding of what Jesus was probably like and maybe even believed.

[John Turney · Rating 2 out of 5]

At first, I found the book to be informative. Then things I disagree with started cropping up. The real kicker came when the author agreed with "the scholars" that Jesus only went to the temple once in His life. The Bible clearly states He went when He was 12, when He started His ministry, during His ministry He went after His brothers left to go, on the day called Palm Sunday, every day until He was crucified. If the author got that wrong, how many more errors occur?

[Doug Payne · Rating 2 out of 5]

A definite bias against Christianity and inspiration of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.