This is a wonderful book to introduce people to the Hebraic roots of Christianity. It is clear and concise and has a good summary at the end of each chapter. It also has questions at the end of each chapter that can be used for a group study. The second half of the book gives evidence for Jesus being a Pharisee, and how that relates to modern New Testament interpretation. It is a great place to start and a valuable resource to have.

I read this in two evenings and have used it as a supplement for my Sunday school class. Great book for introducing Hebrew understanding into bible study.

This book comes with glowing endorsements from a number of serious, heavyweight scholars. Apart from the generous praise of these men, many of whom I respect highly, the author also has some impressive credentials himself. Consequently, as someone highly sympathetic to this genre, and having toured Israel a few times, I approached it expecting to be greatly blessed. I must say that although the majority of the material is helpful, there were several aspects of this book which left me frustrated and disappointed.

Firstly, it appeared that the author was merely quoting other people's scholarship. (I know we are all the product of multiple influences, but I couldn't help feeling that he hadn't contributed a single original thought anywhere in the book. A possible exception is page 24. See below.
This is a strange impression to get; I can't recall ever having felt the same about any other book). Perhaps this is why the other scholars praised him so highly; did they recognise their own material? The end result was that I couldn't take him seriously as an authority in his own right--just someone parroting the opinions of others.

Secondly, there were some awful blunders which ANY competent scholar should have weeded out in the reviewing stage--(if they ever read it in the first place). For example, on p. 24, he makes the claim that the apostle John was from a priestly family, based on John 18: 15. All this says is that, "This disciple was KNOWN to the high priest." (He might just have been the fish delivery man for all we know!!). On this flimsy foundation he makes several foolish claims. Firstly this was why John let Peter go into Jesus' tomb first on the morning of the Resurrection, so as not to be defiled by a dead body. But next comes an absurd error based on Acts 4: 6, which he links to St. John also. It says, "Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, JOHN, Alexander and the other men of the high priest's family." To the author this constitutes "proof" that the apostle John was of the high priest's circle. HOWEVER, if he'd bothered to read on, THE NEXT VERSE SAYS, "They had Peter and JOHN brought before them and began to question them." OBVIOUSLY, THIS ARISTOCRATIC PRIESTLY INQUISITOR JOHN OF VERSE 6 WAS NOT THE HUMBLE FISHERMAN JOHN BEING INTERROGATED BY HIM IN V. 7!!!!! John was a common name in the first century. When I read such massive blunders it totally removes all confidence in this man's scholarship. How he got all those letters after his name is a mystery to me.

Thirdly, sloppy handling of detail. On page 8 he talks of the Second Jewish War, but links the flight of the Christian community to Pella with that war, in 132 - 135 AD. It's not until page 69 that he corrects this error, rightly placing it in the First Jewish War of 66 - 70 AD.

Fourthly, what really bothered me was what I see as a dreadful theological statement on pages 36 -37. I quote, "The third misconception is the idea that New Testament believers have a "Better covenant" than God's Law. The passages from Hebrews, where this expression appears, are discussing the sacrificial system only, which is better in Christ, as God's Lamb, as opposed to a literal lamb. THE MANIFESTATION IS BETTER AND HAS CHANGED, BUT THE COVENANT ITSELF REMAINS THE SAME".
How can anyone claim that the New Covenant is THE SAME as the Old Covenant????? Hebrews clearly states that "By calling this covenant "New," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." Heb. 8: 13. No amount of semantics can twist the Bible into saying what he claims it says.
"For if there had been nothing wrong with that FIRST covenant, no place would have been sought for ANOTHER. But God found fault with the people and said : "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a NEW covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. IT WILL NOT BE LIKE the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt." (Heb. 8: 7 - 9). WHAT COULD BE CLEARER?' THEY ARE TWO DISTINCT COVENANTS.
I don't dispute for a moment that it is the same thrice holy God Who makes both covenants with His people--and that His holy attributes and standards change not. But, as just one example of many differences, the priesthood has changed in the New Covenant--this alone tells us that the Mosaic system has passed away. The writer to the Hebrews makes this crystal clear--that Jesus was not of the Levitical priesthood, but rather in the order of Melchizedek. If the Old Covenant were still in place, Jesus, coming from the tribe of Judah as He did, would be disqualified to act as our great High Priest.

Fifthly, he totally fails to distinguish between the LAW OF GOD as a general revelation of His nature and standards, and the LAW OF MOSES, the Covenant made with Israel on Sinai. Several passages are confusing and misleading when this vital distinction is lacking.

I could go on but I don't want to be reminded of all the other irritations of this book--like the annoying writing style and how the serious, scholarly tone of the review questions at the end of each chapter seem ridiculous in the light of its errors. (I did BEGIN to fill them in--honest!).

I probably sound sour, fault-finding and critical, please excuse this. But this is not a good book and I found myself filling its margins with many irate protests. And please understand that I am highly sympathetic to this line of teaching in general. It's just that this is not a good example of the genre. There are far better choices one could make.
To be fair, the second half of the book was far better. He confines himself to a summary of the teachings of the Pharisees, which was quite helpful. I enjoyed that half far more. But even then, after seeing his poor scholarship previously, I found myself wondering, "Can I trust this as an authoritative source?"
Really 1 and 1/2 stars is the best I can give, and that's being overly generous! Save your pennies for other writings, which won't drive you to distraction with their sloppy writing style, factual errors and schoolboy blunders.

Fascinating insights into what the scriptures mean. Dr. Moseley explains incidents in the life of Jesus and the early church from a 2000 years ago, Middle Eastern, approach; which is how they were written. I'm reminded of part of a Paul Simon song, "When I think of all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all."

It is concise and informative, as a guide should be. It is an appetizer for further information and the bibliography shows where you can find the main courses. There is no index but, being a short book, the detail in the table of contents suffices. There is a glossary, and, perhaps, the most unexpected feature is the fill-in-the-blank study questions at the end of each chapter.
With no wasted words, the author deftly sketches a picture of the various views of the Torah and the way Torah was taught and lived out in the time of Yeshua. The reader can grasp quickly the background behind the words and teaching methods Jesus used. The reader can understand some of the attitudes and experiences that underlie Paul's letters and actions. Quite remarkable for such a short treatise.
However, I had some problems understanding chapter four, "The Old and the New: Different Covenants". The author apparently assumes that believers in Jesus (Yeshua) are separate from God's Chosen people, the Israelites, and they, therefore, are obligated only by the Noachide Laws. It is unclear if he or his sources believe that obedience to the Noachide Laws will bring salvation. He gives no Scriptural basis that this Noahian Covenant is redemptive or obligatory. God's Chosen people apparently have a different means to salvation than other people in this world. He does not allude to the fact that the Mosaic Covenant also included the "stranger" or the "sojourner" who joined himself to Israel. He also states, without foundation, that "God gave all nations the same possibility of becoming his people, but only Israel was willing to accept his law, while the other nations rejected this opportunity." Perhaps he is basing this statement on later Rabbinic teaching. In any case history witnesses to the fact that Israel rejected her God. I would like to see this chapter completely rewritten.
Question 16 in chapter 6 uses the term "Old Testament" and I think it means "New Testament".
Chapter 5 about Law and Grace is synthesizing--bringing apparent opposites together. And the overview about the Pharisees is enlightening--makes you feel that you could meet one on the street and shake his hand and then converse about spiritual matters.