How to Read the Bible and Still Be a Christian: Is God Violent? An Exploration from Genesis to Revelation

by John Dominic Crossan

The acclaimed Bible scholar and author of The Historical Jesus and God & Empire —“the greatest New Testament scholar of our generation” (John Shelby Spong) —grapples with Scripture’s two conflicting visions of Jesus and God, one of a loving God, and one of a vengeful God, and explains how Christians can better understand these passages in a way that enriches their faith. Many portions of the New Testament, introduce a compassionate Jesus who turns the other cheek, loves his enemies, and shows grace to all. But the Jesus we find in Revelation and some portions of the Gospels leads an army of angels bent on earthly destruction. Which is the true revelation of the Messiah—and how can both be in the same Bible? How to Read the Bible and Still be a Christian explores this question and offers guidance for the faithful conflicted over which version of the Lord to worship. John Dominic Crossan reconciles these contrasting views, revealing how different writers of the books of the Bible not only possessed different visions of God but also different purposes for writing. Often these books are explicitly competing against another, opposing vision of God from the Bible itself. Crossan explains how to navigate this debate and offers what he believes is the best central thread to what the Bible is all about. He challenges Christians to fully participate in this dialogue, thereby shaping their faith by reading deeply, reflectively, and in community with others who share their uncertainty. Only then, he advises, will Christians be able to read and understand the Bible without losing their faith.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Christianity, Theology, Christian, Spirituality, Faith

272 pages, Paperback

First published March 3, 2015

About the author

John Dominic Crossan is generally regarded as the leading historical Jesus scholar in the world. He is the author of several bestselling books, including The Historical Jesus, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, The Birth of Christianity, and Who Killed Jesus? He lives in Clermont, Florida.

John Dominic Crossan was born in Nenagh, County Tipperary, Ireland in 1934. He was educated in Ireland and the United States, received a Doctorate of Divinity from Maynooth College in Ireland in 1959, and did post-doctoral research at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome from 1959 to 1961 and at the École Biblique in Jerusalem from 1965 to 1967. He was a member of a thirteenth-century Roman Catholic religious order, the Servites (Ordo Servorum Mariae), from 1950 to 1969 and was an ordained priest in 1957. He joined DePaul University in Chicago in 1969 and remained there until 1995. He is now a Professor Emeritus in its Department of Religious Studies.

Reviews

[Howard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Justice v Judgement

I am a Christian; however, I have struggled most of my adult life with the dichotomy of God as described in the Bible. On the one hand we have the loving creator God who gave us everything and whose son preached love and nonviolence. On the other hand we have the avenging God of the flood, periodic wrath against his people, and ultimately the sword wielding Jesus of death in Revelation. "Put bluntly, the nonviolent Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount seemed annulled and dismissed by the later Jesus in the book of Revelation." [p 9] John Dominic Crossan has done a masterful job showing how and why that dichotomy repeatedly exists in the Bible.

Crossan's compelling argument is that God provides us radical love and distribution of resources but civilization continually subverts His will into our quest for more, more, more. "[W]e see that as in the Old Testament so in the New, as with Torah so with Paul, a rhythm of assertion-and-subversion is emphatically present. A vision of the radicality of God is put forth, and then later, we see that vision domesticated and integrated into the normalcy of civilization so that the established order of life is maintained. Furthermore, both elements are cited from, in one case, the mouth of God and, in the other, the pen of Paul."[p 27]

God's will for us is a world of justice. "There are, however, two forms of justice - the justice of distribution and the justice of retribution; a distinction of supreme importance for both the Bible and this book. In fact, I will go a step farther and argue that distributive justice is the primary meaning of the word 'justice' and that retributive justice is secondary and derivative. In the bible, it is primarily about a fair distribution of God's world for all of God's people. For example, when the Bible cries out for justice, can one really think it is demanding retribution? Give justice to the weak and orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. (Ps 82:3-4)" [p 17]

One ramification of this radical idea can be found when re-reading the story of Adam and Eve. The words "'sin', 'disobedience', and 'punishment', let alone 'fall' never occur anywhere in Genesis 2-3." [p 44] When bad things happen to us (short of natural causes such as earthquakes or hurricanes) it is "not external punishment but an internal consequence"[p 116] of our break from God. "[I]f there is no such thing as divine punishments, but rather only human consequences, then there is no such thing as divine forgiveness, but rather only the possibility of human change; and there is no such thing as divine mercy, but rather only the time within which change is still possible before it is too late." [p 126]. Too late, not because of God's wrath but because mankind has become so good at killing and destruction.

An important tool Crossan uses is "matrix" - that is, the context of time and culture of the stories. He compares the story of the Garden of Eden with that of Gilgamesh, one of the earliest written stories from Mesopotamia. Later he compares the story of Cain and Abel with the Sumerian story of "'Dumuzid and Endkimdu: the Dispute Between the Shepherd-God and the Farmer-God'"[p 60]. (Recall that Abel was a shepherd and Cain a farmer.) In the New Testament he compares the words used to describe Jesus with those that describe Caesar. While some Christians may dismiss this look at context Crossan argues "[t]he alternative to matrix meaning is Rorschach reading or inkblot interpretation, which is when an ancient text means whatever your modern mind decides it means." [p 236]

We see in the New Testament the stark difference between the Roman world view and the Christian one. Both wanted peace, but the method of establishing that peace could not be more different. "Roman imperial theology was structured around this quite clear and explicit sequence: religion, war, victory, peace, or, in the briefest summary as mantra and motto: Peace Through Victory." [p 190] This is the normalcy of civilization we have seen play out over and over again through thousands of years. God's program, on the other hand is "peace through [distributive] justice." [p 202]

Similarly, in the New Testament, Crossan points out, the description of Jesus as "Divine, Son of God, or God Incarnate" matches the words to describe the Roman Emperor Augustus. Context is everything. "Only after you discern what it meant to transfer those titles from emperor to peasant and Palatine Hill to Nazareth Ridge then, can you assert either belief or disbelief now." [p 237] That context also shows how radical the claim of Jesus' divinity was.

By walking back through the Gospels Crossan shows how Jesus' vision of peaceful, non-violent resistance, as shown in Mark, one of the earlier Gospels, is subverted through rhetorical violence in the later Gospels of Luke and Matthew and their common source "Q". "[Matthew] puts all of that invective in the mouth of the historical Jesus after having earlier recorded him - the new Moses giving a new law from a new Mount Sinai - as solemnly forbidding agner, insult, and name-calling {5:21-22) and demanding, 'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you' (5:44). I ask as before for John's Gospel: Did Jesus change his mind, or did Matthew change his Jesus?" [p 178]

Crossan demonstrates this heartbeat of assertion of God's plan and the subversion of civilization very clearly in Paul's letters. I think it is settled scholarship that Paul did not write all the letters ascribed to him. "Seven were certainly written by Paul... A further three were probably not written by him... And a final three were certainly not written by him: 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus." [p 24] Paul's views on slavery and the equality of women were subverted by later authors writing in his name. In his original letters it is clear Paul understands that women have every right to be leaders in the movement; in fact, a woman was one of his traveling companions. Likewise, when a friend's slave runs to Paul after being mistreated by his owner, Paul converts the slave to Christianity and tells the owner one Christian cannot own another. In later letters in Paul's name are given over to a set of instructions to both slaves and owners outlining each's responsibilities. Finally, in Paul's name, a letter is written to slave owners only with no direct address to slaves. "Colossians subverted and denied the Pauline letter to Philemon on slavery. That was an early warning of how Pauline radicality on certain basic values would be de-radicalized back into Roman normalcy." [p 216]

"Those six letters not written by him [Paul] are not just post-Pauline and pseudo-Pauline letters but are actually anti Pauline letters. They represent the subversion of which the seven authentic letters were the assertion. Jesus, as we saw, was suberted over two stages - by rhetorical violence in the Gospels and by physical violence in Revelation. This happened similarly with Paul: he was de-radicalized and re-Romanized in two stages." [p 220]

Now I know that fundamentalists will disagree with this approach loudly and forcefully. And atheists will use the book as an argument for ignoring the Bible altogether. But for me it puts the heart of God's message to us front and center and shows how civilization continually subverts His will for a world of peace through justice. This book has given me a framework to understand what has troubled me for years.

I've quoted Crossan extensively, but bear with me and let him have the last word:

"If, therefore, you agree with this book that there are no divine punishments but only human consequences... then the challenge to our species is clear. Governed not by chemical instinct but by moral conscience, can we control escalatory violence before it destroys us? Can we abandon violence as civilization's drug of choice? Can we opt deliberately for peace gained through justice and abandon, as a fatally bankrupt option, that mantric chant of peace gained through victory?" [p 244]

"Furthermore, if you find the term 'God' or 'civilization' distracting, I suggest you look at that ... as simply the clash between a radical and a normal vision for the future of human life on earth. The radicality of nonviolent resistance versus the normalcy of violent oppression, and the radicality of peace through distributive justice versus the normalcy of peace through victorious force seem to apply equally to the first century then, our twenty-first century now, and all the centuries in between." [p 244]

[James (JD) Dittes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hands down the most provocative title of a book that I'll read this year, Crossan here is focused on the Bible's bi-polar approach toward violence. Two singular examples anchor his argument.

First, there is the example of Jesus whose "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem four days before his crucifixion featured him riding a peace donkey, winking at the traditions of the conquering hero. Yet in the Book of Revelation, Jesus appears again riding a white horse. Are the writers here describing the same guy/God?

Then there is the example of Cain, the first murderer. Following the murder investigation, God puts a mark on Cain that will punish anyone who seeks vengeance for Abel's death, a protection that Cain's grandson, Lamech, will claim is seventy times seven times as strong for himself.

Is this the same God who threatens the lives of children and nursing mothers in retribution for their sins as the Babylonians approach later in the Old Testament?

Crossan's thesis is that these aren't the same gods--that they demonstrate the recurring theme of radical nonviolence being superseded by community-sanctioned violence. Again and again, within the same book, different writers first challenge social norms and then integrate radical teachings (about women and slavery, as well as violence) into more traditional applications.

Crossan is at his best when he is defining the matrices of the cultures in which various books of the Bible were written. The covenants given to Abraham and Israel, he shows, follow the same format as those of the Hittites, giving blessing and sanction in equal measure. The later sanction-heavy Jeremiads of the Old Testament follow the more violent Assyrian covenental forms. The 'son of god' and 'glad tidings of great joy' that elevated Octavian Caesar to a form of god also described Jesus of Nazareth.

But in order to prove his point, Crossan takes logical steps that I, personally, am uncomfortable with--dismissing the authority of books like Revelation and Colossians, along with their violent, misogynistic messages.

Crossan has a point of hammering his points home over and over again, which I found grating. His scholarship is sound, but his preaching can be overbearing at times.

This is an intellectually stimulating, engrossing read from start to finish, worthwhile for all who take seriously their fascination with the Bible, and their commitment to nonviolence and pacifism.

[Adam Ross · Rating 3 out of 5]

Crossan is one of those scholars who is unspeakably brilliant and endlessly frustrating in equal measure. This book ends up being quite typical in that respect. His thesis is that Jesus is the measure of the Bible; it is Jesus that shows us what is accurate and inaccurate everywhere else, and in that thesis he and I are in agreement. And in fact the first two-thirds of the book, largely concerned with the Old Testament, is full of profound insights.

But it is when we come to Jesus and Paul that he and I have something of a parting of the ways. For him, the book of Revelation is a slander against God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, full of violence and bloodlust and thus must be rejected. Crossan seems to grant fundamentalists too much power over the text here, as he misses the fact that the violence in Revelation is subversive; John is not surrendering the nonviolent Jesus of the gospels to the violence of empire. He is, in fact, reconciling the ministry and death of Jesus with the violent expectations of the Old Testament, and he turns every one of these violent texts inside out. Revelation is not simply nonviolent, it is anti-violent, and part of its rhetorical genius is its use of violent imagery to communicate a nonviolent reality.

Likewise, with Paul. For Crossan, the Paul of the authentic letters (Romans, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, 1 Thessalonians) is steadfastly against violence and patriarchy. On this we agree. But his discussion of pseudo-Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thess.) and non-Paul (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus) is rather dreadful. He views these letters as strongly patriarchal and forbidding women from leadership in the church, despite the fact that these interpretive arguments are far less than convincing. In fact, Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 & 2 Timothy strongly advocate for female leadership in the church when their context and translation problems are correctly understood. That does not mean they have to have been written by Paul, but that at least with regard to the women question, they and Paul are of a mind.

[Rebekah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Through exploration of the historical context, or, more specifically the cultural ‘matrix’, as he puts it, of the writers of Scripture, Crossan grapples with key questions concerning violence, God and love as understood and expressed over time throughout the Old Testament and New Testament of the Christian Bible. This has taken him on a theological journey which focuses on the complexities concerning competing visions of violence and nonviolence in light of Jesus Christ. I found it to be an in-depth historical exploration of the culture(s) in which the writers of Scripture dwelled and engaged with, without being too technical or boring. What made this particularly interesting to me was how he would link texts and ideas that were present in the time and place of the Scripture writers as influencing factors concerning the formation of the biblical texts. This led to rich and insightful connections to issues of violence and injustice today. He also raised several challenges and questions concerning different understandings - or perhaps ‘confusion’ is the better word - of the human-divine relationship, one that is present in the competing voices of Scripture. It has certainly given me much to think about regarding engagement with Scripture in relation to Christian living and Christian hope.

[Paul Patterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A challenging book on how to reconcile the violence in the Bible with the character of God. Crossan's formula invites us to explore a pattern of assertion vs. subversion, the radicality of God vs. the normalcy of Civilization, - found in all the major Biblical divisions: the prophets, the priests, the Deuteronomists, the wisdom tradition, Jesus, Revelation and Paul. It is a rather dense read but more than worth the effort. One litmus test is to discern whether the Scripture being read favours distributive justice to retributive justice, and if it is commensurate with the teaching of the historical Jesus. Discerning that distinction however is dicey and Crossan makes many higher critical assumptions that are debatable. This book will likely please progressives but enrage biblical literalists. That said it holds together logically and enables a reader to maintain the goodness of God.

[Catrina Berka · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoy the way Crossan approaches biblical issues but this book was DEEP and I don’t have the right scuba certifications to join him. The summary of the book’s analysis is essentially, “love and justice MUST go hand-in-hand.” I can get on board with that message but feel like I had to slog through a lot of deep theological analysis to get there.

[Orville Jenkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Crossan performs his expected thorough and clear, readable analysis of the streams of thought that seem to portray two different portraits of God in the collection of documents over several centuries that now constitute what we call the Bible. Crossan's book was originally published in 1989 and may be available only from used book vendors. I bought it through Amazon.

God's Violence vs God's Justice
The author focuses on the problem of God's violence and conflicts in different portraits of God perceived in the Old Testament texts. I expect this book will be helpful especially to those who have given up on trying to make sense of the Bible in terms of our understanding of the Bible's deep fairness and justice themes of the Bible.

Crossan addresses the problem of character that troubles so many readers by exploring the portrayals of God in regard to violence in the biblical testimony. He examines the writings in light of the eras in which each was written and the prevailing historical and political situation and the major empires of the region used as models for the CVovenant metaphor of Israel with Yahweh. Central to this is the ancient concept of Covenant found among all the ancient peoples of Anatolia and Mesopotamia.

Two Imperial Characters
He provides a very enlightening description of the differences between the the character of the Hittite and the later Assyrian empires as reflected in their Covenants with the rulers and peoples they conquered or related to as conquered peoples or vassals.

The Hittites were known for their benevolent character and fairness in relationship to conquered or vassal rulers, while the Assyrians were known for violent and cruel repression and domination. This throws great light on how we see the covenant model reflecting these two different formats of relationship in portrayals of the Israelite tribes' relationship to their God.

His outline of key differences between the political, economic and cultural character of two great Empires and how these are reflected in their covenants is very enlightening. The different character of these two empires and the more violent and repressive character of the Assyrians clarifies greatly the differences we see between different portrayals in biblical writings of Yahweh and his relationship to his people Israel.

Covenant Character
The Covenant metaphor is a powerful, central concept in the Old Testament writings. The two different Covenant models at the various times can explain much of the dissonance we modern readers see and feel when the Covenant metaphor is used to portray God as the ruling suzerain and Israel as the vassal relating to the covenanted descendants of Jacob.

We find in the later developments in proclamations by the high prophets, God's character was a core value in their call back to faithfulness to the Covenant with Yahweh.

He explores how later empires, including the Roman Empire at the time of Christ, may be helpful in understanding the themes and images in the book of Revelation, with all its violence.

Crossan writes not only as a skilled and able scholar and clear-headed writer, but as a devoted believer and lover of the biblical texts. Crossan's incisive overview of the biblical texts places those texts in their historical and cultural context, bringing them to life.

Cultural Character
These texts have a historical and cultural character in whose terms they speak. Discernment will enable us to make responsible application to our very different place in history and the unique worldview context in which we live and think. Crossan brings the Covenant and Gospel message to life that makes sense across cultures.

This title will be especially appreciated by readers unfamiliar with the broader history of that region and that ancient time reflected in the biblical texts.

[Christian Thompson · Rating 2 out of 5]

I ended up just skimming the rest of this book. Just completely disagree with his argument of the historical Jesus and biblical Jesus being different figures. Logic doesn’t really track and there are far better, more orthodox explanations for reconciling violence within the Bible. Pretty disappointed by this one ngl.

[Jeremy]

My "zero stars" rating isn't an indication that I thought this was a poorly written book. In fact, just the opposite. This was a highly engaging book and Crossan has an excellent writing style. The contents are thought provoking, and for some perhaps life changing. The problem is, I'm not convinced by Crossan's arguments. But the even greater problem is that I wish I was, which makes it very difficult to rate the book.

The insurmountable issue for me is that Crossan bases his thesis on the idea of the historical Jesus. I say "idea" not because there wasn't an historical Jesus, but because trying to separate out the Jesus of history from the Jesus of faith is a fool's errand. I think Luke Timothy Johnson was correct when he critiqued Crossan and the rest of the Jesus Seminar in his book The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels. For anyone not familiar with Johnson, I think in the context of biblical scholarship he is conservative, but by no means is he a fundamentalist. Johnson's critique of the quest for the historical Jesus is that when we start picking and choosing what we think the historical Jesus actually said then we end up with a Jesus who ends up looking a lot like us. If social justice is important to us, then we find a Jesus who advocates social justice. If we want a radical Jesus who disrupts the temple and the palace, then we'll find him. The historical Jesus, it turns out, is too malleable to be useful.

In the end, I finished Crossan's book glad that I had read it, even if I wasn't fully persuaded by his thesis.

[Rachel · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is about reconciling the nonviolent and violent God we seem to see in the Bible. The Bible contains nonviolent teaching and actions by Jesus when he was here on earth the first time, but His return in Revelation has a decidedly violent description of what happens to His enemies. The author has some interesting ideas and makes some good points, but I disagree with his founding principle. The way the author reconciles those two things is stated in the second chapter,"We sometimes say, in hyperbolic shorthand, that the Bible is the word of God. Actually, of course, we should say more accurately that the Bible contains the word of God." The author's main argument is that God the Father is a nonviolent God of distributive justice and anytime God the Father or Jesus become violent it is because humans have put their spin on it. The radical nature of God's ideas has been tempered by the normalcy of civilization. The biggest problem I have with this is that if that is the case how does one know which is the correct Jesus, the violent one or the nonviolent one? The author raises that point but doesn't really answer the question; at least not right away. I stop reading after the second or third chapter.

[Dimmy-jimmy · Rating 1 out of 5]

too much theology ,he made the seem like you need phd to understand it

[Jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is challenging and really, why should one expect that understanding the contradictions in the Bible should be easy? Crossan is trying to help us come to terms with the mixed messages of violence and love--or the two forms of justice: distributive and retributive that the Bible demonstrates. His answer is that the Bible must be understood in the context in which it was written. "There is a struggle between God's radical ideal for us, which I call the radicality of God, and the standard coercive ways that cultures in fact operate, which I call the normalcy of civilization." "What is at stake is whether the vision of Jesus and God portrayed in the final book of Revelation trumps the other perspectives found earlier in the Bible." Crossan examines the writings of Paul in which his early and authentic letters preach the radical idea that: "there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus..." vs the later writings,probably not written by Paul, in which these radical ideas are subverted and denied. Crossan's explanation is that Christianity was in the process of being acculturated to Rome: "God's radicality is regular dialed back toward civilization's normalcy throughout the Christian Bible." For Crossan, the bottom line is that: "the meaning of the Bible's story is in its middle, in the story of Jesus in the Gospels and the early writings of Paul; the climax of its narrative is in the center; and the sense of its nonviolent center judges the (non)sense of its violent ending."

[Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a challenging book to complete, and I might have given up had it not been for my target! It was however worth the effort and made me think carefully about the Bible and the historical Jesus within. When read with other works from Crossan and Sheehan it adds significantly to my overall understanding.

[Austin Wrathall · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have very mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand, Crossan gives scholarly insights into many Bible passages and offers strong evidence that God’s messengers in every era promoted non-violence and love only to have subsequent writers always backtrack on that divine message.

However, Crossan also fails to account for all the divine violence found in the Bible, skipping over perhaps the most heinous and problematic example, the slaughter of the Canaanites in Joshua. He frankly explains the errors found in traditional modern understandings of the Bible, but fails to replace them with reasons to continue in the faith.

At times, Crossan hints that the answer to the book’s titular question is “just don’t be a Christian, at least in the traditional sense of the word. Believe in a human, non-messianic Jesus who served goodness more than God per se and don’t take too many Biblical writers to be God’s messengers.”

At other times, he seems to wish he could explain Biblical violence away, but can’t, so he rambles on about historical context rather than tackling the central, thorny problem. Many long-winded passages seem to follow the old adage “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls—t.” There were many times I would complete a long explanation of “matrix” only to still be left wondering how that was supposed to help me understand troubling Bible passages about divine violence.

In the end, this book about the problem of evil in the Bible meets the same fate as books on the problem of evil on earth. It makes some interesting arguments, but fails to explain the inexplicable.

[Jon Beadle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good, but not great. His matrix explaining the radicality of God and the normalcy of civilization - world he discovered in scripture itself - is brilliant. His many attempts to write off certain things as historical and others as sheer misinterpretations, are simply the arguments of modernity, making Dom and others like him unable to become part of the solution for western civilization.

[Max · Rating 3 out of 5]

You better like circular arguments

I usually like Crossan's writing because of the heavy historical influences. But this relied heavily on overly repetitive circular arguments. It made for a very long and boring read. To summarize, which the author chooses to take liberties with far too often, it was meh.

[Trish Judson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Couldn't make myself read it after gleaning that his answer was to pick and choose what parts of the Bible were true depending on whether on not it agreed with his beliefs about the nature of God and His desire for "distributive justice ".

[Trey Mustian · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was very disappointed in this book. I found it dense and far too scholarly for the implication of its title.

[John Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really like the thesis of the book, seeing within the text of Scripture the assertion (of the good and beautiful) and then the subversion (the return to the negative aspects of civilization) again and again all throughout scripture. In the New Testament what is given with one hand is taken back with the other. Jesus' God is presented as non-judgmental, merciful, unconditionally loving, healing, forgiving and inclusive. The kingdom will come nonviolently, like a seed, through enemy love, serving and giving, for the kingdom is not of the world. But elsewhere Jesus and how he presents God is envisioned as judgmental, vengeful, unforgiving, conditionally loving, punishing and exclusive. The kingdom can only comes through the greatest act of divine violence, Jesus must embrace the way of the world, brutality and force are the only way to get anything done.
The most tragic thing is the subversion wins again and again, it is the fly in the ointment, everything beautiful is smeared in excrement and rendered void. For example we see Paul's inclusion of woman, they're fellow apostles, church leaders, they prophecy in church, etc... but then in 1 Cor, inserted awkwardly, utterly out of context, is a verse that woman are not permitted to speak in church, which utterly contradicts what just went before it (woman speaking in church) and is the antithesis of Paul's constant testimony in the true Pauline letters. This one interpolation over turned and negates everything else, the negative won through most of church history. Some sexist man copying Paul's letter just couldn't stomach Paul's inclusiveness and with a tiny addition overturned everything Paul stood for, it is utterly disgusting. Then the pastoral epistles widely understood by almost all scholars to be forgeries, not only subverted Paul on his stance towards woman, but also towards slaves.
So yes, how to read the Bible and still be a Christian, recognize the beautiful and good, adhere to it, and don't allow the subversion and negation of the good which is soon to follow to annihilate it. Instead recognize it for what it is, a the subversion, a return to the ways and mentality of the world, the return to normalcy. This Dr Jackal and Mr Hyde runs through the entire scripture, its not a contrast of the Old Testament God, with the New Testament God, both are presented a bi-polar, good and evil. Also with Jesus' message which is beautiful and good, it is about Being Kingdom people NOW, bringing in the Kingdom, not awaiting for the son of man to come on a white horse and kill all our enemies.

One thing Crossan has given me a tiny bit of hope concerning, is maybe I'll find some way of abstracting the leaven of the eschatological violent and apocalyptic Jesus predicting the worldwide genocide that Son of Man would soon inflict upon that generation, from the Synoptic Gospel's dough. It seems an impossible task, but what if Jesus was consistent, what if he didn't contradict and violate every principle and good ethic he gave? What if this was instead the church, especially the writer of the Gospel of Matthew, who in their hatred of the Jews around the fall of Jerusalem, and eagerly expecting the Son of Man to descend and slaughter everyone but the faithful few elect.

[Neil Purcell · Rating 5 out of 5]

OK, I’m dictating this so please forgive typos and incorrect usage as it occurs. First let me say that I’ve read several books by Dominic Crossan, and he does tend to make some of the same points in each of his books, but they’re all really well written and insightful, and despite my lack of faith, I continue to read with great interest about scripture and Christian beliefs and find that his work is accessible and worthwhile for even the non-believer.

Crossan”s main idea is that our God is a nonviolent, just, and loving God. Giving many examples, the author shows how in both the Old Testament and the New, there are assertions of God’s radical justice, and love for humanity and the world. Also, there are statements in subversion of those assertions. Further, there are statements in explicit negation, reflecting a see-saw struggle in which the normalcy of civilization resists and rejects the bits that conflict with cultural norms (on slavery, the role of women, etc). Thus it is necessary for reader, to be aware of this basic tension throughout the old and the new between these ways of understanding the nature of the God of the Bible.

Crossan’s advice: Christian readers should keep in mind as they read the Bible that Christ is the focus and the lens for interpretation, and that the historical Jesus is our best guide to understanding the nature of Christ and God. And for Crossan, the historical Jesus was clearly committed to non-violence, to peace, to Mercy and distributive justice for the poor and depressed, and to a kingdom of God on earth in which we loved our enemies strangers, neighbors as we loved ourselves. I find that version of Jesus to be far more appealing than the violent son of man slaughtering billions of people at the end of time. Even an atheist would have to admire a Christianity that reflected such a vision and such principles, would welcome such a kingdom, and would wish to be in communion with such people.

Crossan is a scholar but his writing is very clear and a pleasure to read. Whether staying a Christian is a concern for you, or not, this is brilliant and oddly inspirational reading.

[Cathryn Conroy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Violence. Vengeance. Viciousness. Randomly open a Bible, and chances are you'll find this and more on any given page. But there is also love, forgiveness, and supreme understanding. What a dichotomy!

It doesn't take a very close reading of the Bible to realize that God is both violent and nonviolent, and the same goes for Jesus. God got so angry at humanity that he killed everyone—save for Noah and his family—in a great flood. We think of Jesus Christ as embracing nonviolence with the Sermon on the Mount being an excellent example, but then there is the convoluted Book of Revelation, which is dripping in blood and murder led by none other than Jesus. Jesus rides a donkey on Palm Sunday exuding peace and love and a white horse with a sharp sword in his mouth in the Book of Revelation. Huh? How can this be?

Author John Dominic Crossan has attempted to square all this divine violence, largely through extensive historical context, in a cleverly titled book that unfortunately falls a bit short of the promising premise. Heavy with erudite theology, the book is no doubt a seminarian's delight, while the typical layperson may have to struggle a bit as I did. But just enough of it is understandable, if not downright intriguing and thought-provoking, that I'm giving it four stars. Basically, it alternated between being utterly confounding and absolutely fascinating.

Bonus: Fun, weird, odd tidbits are sprinkled throughout, such as why "Mary" became a favorite name for newborn females in the first-century Jewish homeland, a succinct and point-on explanation of the confounding Book of Revelation, and a fascinating explanation of which individual the number "666" represents (and it's not the devil).

Just know this is not an easy read and will take a bit of work to get through it.

[Katie R. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not my favorite Jesus book - I didn't get what I expected, and what I got was a bit over my head. I was expecting an analysis on words of the bible, and instead, I got historical background on how parts of the bible were written (created). I liked the history, but the way it was written took me away from the historical Jesus instead of bringing me closer. I believe I understand why the author wrote it like this, but he made a large assumption - some people take the bible literally, regardless of the history, and this book would fall on deaf ears. I, however, do not, and reading this solidified that belief even further, but that's not what I was looking for. I was looking for an answer to the titular question - how do you read the bible and still be a Christian? - and I don't believe he ever answers the question. The author comes close in the epilogue, but still, I feel dissatisfied. I did like the parts on Paul and learning about some of the early female Christian figures, though.

Reading through some other reviews, I'd like to add - yes, the author supports the belief that God is kind and loving, and that a violent God is actually the twisting of man's words. But isn't it all man's words? If it is all God's words, that he is a contradicting God, and the titular question cannot ever be answered... Lots to ponder... I'd say it comes down to faith. But the faith in a higher power and the faith of the Christian religion/s are two very different things.

For those interested, here's what I think. It's all true, but the bible was crafted as a tool to spread the word, and like man-made things, parts of it become corrupted. The best example of this are Paul's letters, certain and uncertain.

[Sharon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book once and for all dispels the notion that the Bible is the inerrant "word of God," unless God has some kind of undiagnosed personality disorder. Crossan places the stories of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Paul firmly in the matrix of their time and place in history. In doing so he shows the constant pull of the forces of civilization, empire, and peace through violence, against God's radical dream of an Earth whose resources are fairly and non-violently distributed among all its people. So, in the Hebrew scriptures and in John's Revelation in the Christian scriptures in particular, we get a picture of the violent retributive justice from heaven which comes as a result of we humans failing to carry out God's dream of nonviolent distributive justice on Earth.
This dichotomy is especially notable in the letters attributed to Paul. Scholars generally agree that 7 were certainly written by Paul, 3 were probably not written by him, and 3 were certainly not written by him. Hence we have the stark contrast of the Paul who dismisses the patriarchy and hierarchies of civilization's normalcy, with the anti-Paul who wrote that slaves must obey their masters and women must be silent in church. The same thing happened to the stories told about Jesus in the four Gospels, but the divisions are less clear cut, with the pull back to the status quo of civilization interspersed with the radicality of God's message of distributive justice.
This short book cleared up a lot of my questions, especially how different people could claim to be reading the same book(s) and yet come away with entirely different pictures of who Jesus was and whether his message was one of radical inclusivity or radical punishment.

[D.M. · Rating 4 out of 5]

In part two of my Christian trilogy that is making up the later half of the summer of 2025, I was curious how another ex-Roman Catholic (see Karen Armstrong) could help me make sense of the bizarre-if taken out of context-Christian Bible (all 66 books or 73 if reading the Catholic version). The first important observation is that treating all of the books as one narrative is a choice not required, and perhaps best avoided, if trying to actually understand the totality of the Christian tradition. Further, we are gravely misguided if we read any of the books without considering the matrix (Dominic Crossan’s term) in which it was written. Specifically, what would a reader at the time of writing understand by terms like ‘son of God’ or ‘resurrection.’
Crossan asks us consider the books of the Bible as favoring
Distributive versus retributive justice, despite many examples easily pulled to highlight the ‘wrath of God.’ The author suggests we consider a theological Assertion and then notice its subversion in later sections. These subversions may very well be intentional add ons designed to undercut a message too radical for the time. Crossan sees this most with the Radical Paul contrasted with a reactionary anti-Paul in later epistles erroneously attributed to Paul. Crossan argues that the historical Paul was anti-slavery and believed in gender equality (or at least a much greater role for women). Later epistles stating the opposite are an intentional subversion of the more radical message of the original epistles. I like the idea of that but in no place as a history enthusiast to confirm or reject. From Crossan’s lips to God’s ears.

[Georgianne · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read little bits of this book each morning while I had coffee. I couldn't read more than a few pages at a time because I had to really think about what was written. I found the book engrossing and educational and exactly what I had hoped to learn about, but at the same time, some of it was academic -- or theological -- in language so that I often had to reread a page several times. Not because I didn't understand the language/words, but because ... well, okay, fine, maybe I'm a bit slow, but I had to really think about what it all meant. Ask myself if I understood what Crossan was saying. For example: "Sanction as curses takes up about 254 of 674 lines (38%) from Esarhaddon's exercises in dynastic paranoia. In answer to this chapter's first question, those Assyrian-style suzerain-vassal treaties--with their heavy emphasis on Sanction rather than History, and, within Sanction, on curses for infidelity rather than blessings for fidelity--are the contemporary metaphor, model, and matrix for the Deuteronomic vision of covenant." That makes perfect sense if you're in the middle of reading the book, but still, it takes me a few minutes, some back-page turning, and several sips of coffee to fully process that paragraph. I'll probably refer back to this book repeatedly as I read my way through the Bible itself, though. Also, as a side note, I enjoy Marcus Borg's books.

[Ruth Board]

Crossan's book is an exemplary example of the scholarship for which he is so well known. The first and last parts of the book provide clear explanations of his thesis of the significance of the historical Jesus to an understanding of the Bible. Much of the main body of the work imparts the extensive research which underlies his discussion of distributive justice as distinct from retributive justice, the radical nature of nonviolent resistance versus the normalcy of violent oppression, and assertion of the peace of God contrasted with the normal submission of civilization. Time as a construct is described as centered around Jesus, rather than from beginning to end. In one respect, the extensiveness and expression of Crossan's knowledge of historical material underlying his premises is both a strength and a weakness. That is because the detailed research in Greek and Roman documents, the writings of prophets, and historical literature etc., is so extensive that one can get lost in the documents and yearn to return to concepts he has presented. Nevertheless, the ideas resound with an appeal of rationality and new understanding of the importance of the historical Jesus.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

I fully understand, but I am still disheartened by, the negative commentary in the reviews. I can identify with each one that I read, having had many similar thoughts of my own. If you want to read this book and have it confirm what you have believed your whole life, what your parents or pastor told you, or what you learned in seminary, you will be, understandably, disappointed. Instead, approach this book with curiosity. Avoid trying to force your views into his and simply understand his view for what it is: His. I think you will find a very recognizable and useful understanding of what he believes God's plan is (still) and what we humans (still) do to subvert it. In fact, I think you will find that we are so helpless to change that we are in need of someone to rescue us. This book seems to be a historians way of explaining how these patterns are recognized both now and from the beginning our Bible.

Read on my friends!

[Jessie Heckenmueller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Crossan is clearly a brilliant guy. The book was challenging to read; however, that was often not a bad thing as it required me to more fully dive into the material. He is sometimes sassy which always made me chuckle and created some comic relief. The summaries at the end of his chapters were immensely helpful to maintain the flow. I was surprised he did not cite more of his sources but assume it is because much of what he talks about is simply head knowledge for him. I read this group with a group of people which helped with the difficulty of the material. I am still full of questions and don't feel confident in the answer to Is God Violent, but I really appreciated his thoughtful approach - particularly the idea of assertion and subversion as a heartbeat. I am thankful I read it.

[Annunziata · Rating 1 out of 5]

Awful. This book put me to sleep. I read it halfway through and abandoned it. The author goes on for pages about Mesopotamia and mythology. Some of the chapters seem more like a braggadocious attempt to display how much knowledge of the history the author has or did research on. Even more insulting than the state of boredom this book puts you in is the wildly inappropriate use of the notations B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era). Know your audience Mr. Crossan. As a Catholic, I expect, and frankly demand, that any book about Christianity, God or Jesus use the proper notations B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini). This book will promptly be deposited into my office’s shred bin on Monday morning.

[Joe Henry · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Matrix" is a big word with Crossan. He says you have to read and understand the Biblical material against the political and cultural background against which it is written. That's the matrix. That's not a new idea, of course, but he does such a good job of showing how that works from earliest material to the most recent--and not just 1st century CE.

The other major idea is the radical God being normalized to the culture. For example:
Distributive justice is proclaimed by the radical God, but it is normalized to the culture as retributive justice.
The "donkey Jesus" in the gospels versus the Jesus on a white horse in Revelation.

Insights to keep in mind and build on.