I recently finished reading How Jesus Became Christian by Barrie Wilson, Ph.D. The book wasn't half-bad but to be honest, I really wasn't impressed. The book was a bit repetitive. And even though I agreed with many of its claims, I didn't find the book very compelling and wished that Wilson gave a stronger argument. For a more detailed and thorough study of some of this material I would recommend Robert H. Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls or the writings of Geza Vermes
The central point of How Jesus Became Christian is the "radical" idea that Jesus (as) was Jewish. He was circumcised. He kept kosher. He observed the Sabbath and celebrated Passover. Basically, he was a Jewish rabbi who kept the Torah and taught his followers to do likewise. He had no intention of founding a new religion but was merely promoting a new understanding of the Torah among Jews.
If we accept the above, then that suggests that the Jewish Christian groups like the Ebionites, Nazarenes, 0r the Jerusalem Church led by James, the brother of Jesus are more faithful representatives of Jesus' teaching than the Pauline Christians which eventually became dominant. Another way to frame this is to say that, in certain respects, the more faithful followers of Jesus had more in common with modern-day Muslims than modern-day Christians.
Wilson then goes on to argue that Paul's version of Christianity was better able grow and survive because of its similarities it shared with the mystery religions which were then popular in the Hellenized ancient world.
If you've never heard any of this before, you might find this book illuminating. But if you have heard this before, I'd definitely recommend some of the more in-depth books out there instead.
The central point of How Jesus Became Christian is the "radical" idea that Jesus (as) was Jewish. He was circumcised. He kept kosher. He observed the Sabbath and celebrated Passover. Basically, he was a Jewish rabbi who kept the Torah and taught his followers to do likewise. He had no intention of founding a new religion but was merely promoting a new understanding of the Torah among Jews.
If we accept the above, then that suggests that the Jewish Christian groups like the Ebionites, Nazarenes, 0r the Jerusalem Church led by James, the brother of Jesus are more faithful representatives of Jesus' teaching than the Pauline Christians which eventually became dominant. Another way to frame this is to say that, in certain respects, the more faithful followers of Jesus had more in common with modern-day Muslims than modern-day Christians.
Wilson then goes on to argue that Paul's version of Christianity was better able grow and survive because of its similarities it shared with the mystery religions which were then popular in the Hellenized ancient world.
If you've never heard any of this before, you might find this book illuminating. But if you have heard this before, I'd definitely recommend some of the more in-depth books out there instead.
