I don't know why, but in the translation I read the style came across as quite different. The main story felt translated, but the interludes in Yershalaim were flawless. I don't know if it's to do with the nature of the story being told (i.e. contrast with the dark farce of the main story), if Bulgakov deliberately adopted a different style for the Master's writing, if it was something the translator did, or even if there were two different translators.

Also, I liked the human perspective of Jesus. It's hard for a lot of authors to explore what Jesus might have been like as a man because he's been so religiousified. I guess it's safer in an atheist country to strip away the religious baggage of the last two millennia, have Jesus declare that the gospel-writers were full of crap, and imagine him as a human being. Calling him by the name he'd've been known by to his friends (rather than to his posthumous worshippers) was a good move from that point of view.

The most notable difference between Bulgakov's Yeshua and the New Testament Jesus came early on – he tried to persuade Pilate not to kill him. This establishes from the outset that the Biblical character is being subverted.