Scholars have rightly emphasized the Jewishness of Jesus, but as with anything, it is possible to go too far. Geza Vermes is a respectable scholar, but has determined to so "Judiacize" Jesus that he is no longer useful for Christianity.
The Changing Faces of Jesus offers some useful information; it also offers a recycling of many standard theories of liberal scholarship that we have refuted on this site. The interesting exception: Vermes has little patience for the idea of a Q document.
The thesis is no surprise: Paul and John represent evolved views of Jesus which the Synoptics lack. Vermes has still not made the Wisdom connection showing that the Jesus of the Synoptics is just as bold in his claims as in John, and matches what is said of him in Paul. Anything Christian like John 10:30 is "very un-Jewish and foreign to the Semitic mind" (which is sort of the point) and therefore must be inauthentic. In short, immensely begged questions lie at the heart of much of this.
I will also note that Vermes has added nothing new to his view on the Son of Man title. One of the few new arguments I observed is Vermes' take on the Sermon on the Mount, either Matt or Luke's version. He says of it: "Bitty and disjointed, it would have confused the audience." [26] I can't resist asking: "You mean like the book of Proverbs?" I also note that Vermes confuses the spreading of the Gospel to the Gentiles with the terms on which it was spread to the Gentiles.
With the findings of liberal scholarship simply assumed without argument, The Changing Faces of Jesus offers little for the student.
-JPH