Moorcock's plot, therefore, is multifaceted; the opening up of Glogauer's past and what brought him to travel back in time to the early first century, and what happens to him in that time period. The two coincide in that understanding his past and his thought processes is essential to understanding what he does; Moorcock's explanation of one individual's mental processes is fascinating, though perhaps more disjointed than necessary (even if Glogauer is a typical neurotic Jew... the last part being a plot-necessity, in fairness). Of course, we know all about one plot; indeed, it's one of the most famous stories in the Western world, indeed possibly the most famous. The other is rather more particular, and whilst sex-obsessed it also covers a series of discussions in which Moorcock manages to elucidate a philosophy and psychology with hints of Jung, among others; detailed and academic, it works rather well as a contrast to the first-century "present" of the novel.
Glogauer's character is the real purpose of the novel, his choices forming the crux and nexus of it, the centre of the whole thing; everything he does is analysed in terms of his past and the tales of the Gospels, giving the three very different interpretations equal weight, until the reader isn't sure what to believe about him. Moorcock's ability to keep the story fresh and interesting despite the reader full-well knowing how it will end is incredible, and that's one of the real strengths of the novel: even in the face of a disjointed and at times truly terrible writing style, Moorcock keeps things compelling.
It's not a perfect book, of course - as I said, the writing style is disjointed and hard to follow, at times throwing things in that are straight-up cod psychology; and it's a little annoying in the neurotic self-analysing Jungian semi-agnostic Jew as a central character, something that's been a trope for far too long. It's also a little annoying in the politics of Pilate, which really don't work as compared with the history; Moorcock should have done a little more research there, though that might be the nitpick of an ancient historian.
All in all, thought-provoking, and interesting, but perhaps not enjoyable or good in the traditional sense of the term, this novel has more Philip K. Dick about it than I'm used to in Moorcock's work... and that's not altogether a good, or bad, thing.