When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation

Written by Paula Fredriksen

Narrated by Matthew Lloyd Davies

A compelling account of Christianity’s Jewish beginnings, from one of the world’s leading scholars of ancient religion

How did a group of charismatic, apocalyptic Jewish missionaries, working to prepare their world for the impending realization of God's promises to Israel, end up inaugurating a movement that would grow into the gentile church? Committed to Jesus’s prophecy—“The Kingdom of God is at hand!”—they were, in their own eyes, history's last generation. But in history's eyes, they became the first Christians.

In this electrifying social and intellectual history, Paula Fredriksen answers this question by reconstructing the life of the earliest Jerusalem community. As her account arcs from this group’s hopeful celebration of Passover with Jesus, through their bitter controversies that fragmented the movement’s midcentury missions, to the city’s fiery end in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, she brings this vibrant apostolic community to life. Fredriksen offers a vivid portrait both of this temple-centered messianic movement and of the bedrock convictions that animated and sustained it.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Brilliance Audio
• Release date: Dec 4, 2018
• ISBN: 9781721333431

Reviews for When Christians Were Jews

[Micah Evans · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The author provides good historical background and details, but she buries her main point to the epilogue. This is the main reason for the 3star rating.

For those who are follower of Jesus. Be warned, while this book contains some good insight and historical data, the author is not a Christ follower and therefore her opinion must be considered with extreme discernment. Thai book is NOT for immature Christians.

[Philip Donald · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

There were some interesting bits of information, especially her reading from Josephus, but her analysis of the Gospels was a bit flat, interpreting the apocalyptic sections as history reporting. Her interpretation of Paul shows a particular lack of insight into the history of the movement and the beliefs of Jews of the time, even as divergent as they were at the time. She would do well to explore the genesis of the idea of the expectation of the end by early Christians as a later Western myth, rather than what early Christians were actually expecting.

[Jan Adamovic · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

It is a good story-telling but its foundational facts are not very well reasoned and can be easily demolished.

Generally, the book is trying to portray Jesus as a false prophet, Jesus narratives as contradictory and full of surprising and almost inexplicable twists to their changing situation, and Gospels as non-historic narratives with the only intention to persuade their respective audiences.

The book fails on many, both historical and theological, grounds:

1. Many contradictions she states are not contradictions at all. For example, Paul's journey to Damascus, him getting blind but Christ being revealed to him at that moment - she pits Acts and Galatians against each other as if they were incoherent together which is untrue.

2. She uses wrong dating (e.g., Acts as the 2nd century source) or at least she does not provide evidence for using this dating nor does she try to reason pros and cons of this dating. This is essential as her narrative is highly dependent on late dating of the Book of Acts. There is a plenty of reasons against that (for example, Colin Hemer's book 'The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History').

3. She has serious issue understanding the prophecies. Prophecies are not forecasts. They have conditional nature, it is sufficient to open the Old Testament to see that. For that matter, even books by Jewish authors such as Abraham Heschel do good job showing this.

Most importantly, this book's main failure is to explain why Nazarenes whose Messiah had just died were at all able and willing to spread this message, it does poor job demonstrating Jewishness of Jesus and his claims (or gospel claims), and also weak job on the parting of the ways.

If you want to know more on this topic, there are plenty of better books - Marvin Wilson's Our Father Abraham or books by Richard Bauckham or even Geza Vermes for that matter.

[Jedidiah Wilson · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

As someone who went to seminary, this contradicts so much research. Extremely biased and picks and chooses what parts of the gospels are historical and which are not based on assumptions without good data. If I could give 0 stars I would.

[William Piergiovanni · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

The author reports contradictions in the New Testament, where there are no contradictions. These are assumptions. Assumptions are the mother of all error.

[boris · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Very good book a lot of information about the first people that started preaching what jesus teach them,and who they were.

[Windhawk2019 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

An excellent close and careful reading of the gospels, laid upon a solid understanding of the contemporary Jewish and Roman world. Highly readable, this is a well researched and detailed work, yet flows and maintains a gripping narrative of how the first followers thought they were going to be the last.

[Angelina Hernandez · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Great insight about the history in the times of Jesus.

[Edgar Sala · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

Someone that doesn’t know about the Bible, talking about it. What can go wrong?

Honestly, this book is a misrepresentation of second temple Judaism, the life of Jesus and the neo testamentary time. You cannot take seriously someone that examines the whole biblical corpus as disconnected works from each other and wants to find so-called contradictions in places where even atheist would agree that there are non. Besides, many of her comments are factually mistaken. It feels more like a pseudo-academical work created just to smear the first believers in Jesus Christ as God and Messiah.

Honestly, if this is the average level of the academia, then they’re are lost. I still can’t fathom what I’ve just read. I honestly recommend to avoid this book, unless you want to know which kind of pseudo-academic arguments people want to believe nowadays.

[weronika.fernandes · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

The author states that the Gospel of Luke was written in the 2nd century and gives no explanation why she thinks that. She then builds a whole house of cards on that assumption.

In contrast, many historians attest that it must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70. Since it was written before Acts, and since Acts finishes with a description of Paul’s ministry toward the end of his first captivity in Rome (the year 63), this Gospel can be dated at the latest at the end of 62 or the beginning of 63.

This is similar to her suppositions for the other gospels, holding that as they talk of the 2nd temple destruction, ie a prophecy that was fulfilled, she thinks they can't be written before the event took place. This is shoddy scholarsat best.