What do you think?
Rate this book
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant
Crossan, an adventurous New Testament interpreter, tellingly structures his book like a musical score. The music of its meaning comes only as the reader tries its parts--stories, critical quotes, speculative analysis, historical detail. Sources range from Kafka to Peter Beagle, Chesterton to Emily Dickinson, literary critics to biblical scholars, tho the writings of Borges & the sayings of Jesus hold center stage. Insights come madcap, wave on wave. Perhaps a rehearsal of dominant motifs says best what a linear summary could only distort. Our world is the playful creation of imagination & language is the basic game. Being--the whole story--is both shrouded & unveiled in the play of language, but words reveal most when they're knowingly at play, not speaking some solemn, final truth. What the myths create, parables the schemes of coherence that constitute religions & cultures & sustain ways of life are radically relativized by the mocking wisdom of paradoxes made into stories. In the interplay between best laid plans & reversed expectations (the 1st are last, the sinner a saint) some of the mystery is disclosed. For Crossan, Jesus & Borges are consummate parablers, geniuses at "comic eschatology"--standing traditions (of religion, of literature) on their heads & pointing Zen-style to a beyond only koans can say. Traditions domesticate & moralize, but parablers bring down the house with a joke that restores the fertility of chaos. God's story is finally comedy, tragedy exposed as an act. A rich, heady book; whether a symphony of revelations or just a cacophony of bright ideas depends largely on how you play it.--Kirkus (edited)
507 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1991
256 people are currently reading
2871 people want to read
About the author
John Dominic Crossan
67 books294 followersJohn 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews
April 13, 2013
As one who was raised as a fundamentalist christian, I can say this book was instrumental in changing the course of my life. Just as I was finding my way out of the church I heard the author, John Dominic Crossan, speaking on Fresh Air (NPR). As soon as I heard him I knew I had to read this book. This book is dense, but I was a religious studies major so I could swing with it. I imagine many laypersons would struggle a bit. The author has said that a layperson's version of this book would be, Jesus; A Revolutionary Biography (0-06-061662-8). I have seen the author speak many times. The author does not call himself an atheist. He is simply exploring Jesus as honestly and as academically as he can from a historical perspective; looking at all aspects of Jesus' time including cultural, social, religious, and economic. I cannot recommend this book enough. If you are interested in knowing who Jesus was without 2000 years of misinterpretation by scholars, subterfuge by the church, and insincerity by politicians, this is your book.
July 25, 2019
I read this book as a counterpoise to NT Wright’s magnificent Jesus and the Victory of God.
In very general terms, Crossan’s Jesus is deJudaized, Hellenistic, nonapocalyptic/noneschatological, a Cynic, and concerned with the establishment of the kingdom in the here and now; Wright’s Jesus is deeply Jewish, apocalyptic/eschatological, and concerned with the establishment of the kingdom in the here and now. Wright’s vision and his overwhelming scholarship are far more compelling than Crossan’s. Seen a certain way, both make extreme claims, but each of Wright’s is eminently supported and layered and is part of an elaborate, sensible structure, whereas Crossan’s too often seem to be mere suppositions and loose ideas based on close readings. Wright directly addresses Crossan’s book in the introduction to his, beginning with Crossan’s shaky chronology of sources: “Crossan’s chronological strata must be seen for what they are. Though he offers them as starting points, they are in fact conclusions….” And it is on this chronology that much of Crossan’s theories are based. He then considers Crossan’s mode of determining the historicity of a given NT statement: Crossan ranks veracity or historicity based on how early a given statement can be dated and how many independent attestations the given statement has. So something written in the 50s that appears in three different sources would grade high on this hierarchy and thus render it likely that it was historically accurate. First, Wright points out a few instances in which Crossan goes directly against his own methodology because following it would not support his thesis (and these are not minor issues either: the prediction of Jesus’ apocalyptic return and the Lord’s prayer are a couple items Crossan dismisses the historicity of in spite of multiple, early attestations) before noting in more general terms the flaws of such a system: “The number of times a saying happens to turn up in the records is a very haphazard index of its likely historicity…. By historical accident, we happen to have certain sources and not others. If we had a few more extra-canonical gospels, we might easily have several more parallels for material that at the moment appears unique to one document.” Wright then goes on to point out that Jesus in his ministry likely often said the same or similar things in many places at many times, so even accounts that are deemed dependent by Crossan could very well be independent. Finally, Wright dismantles the idea of Jesus as Cynic, an idea that (so I’ve learned) no longer has much of a following among scholars.
Anyhow, on to my thoughts.
I’ll begin with a general question about generalizations: Why use a generalization when you can analyze a particular? Shouldn’t a historian seek to peel away basic ideas and get to the complexities of a particular moment and event?
Crossan is overly reliant on applying abstract typologies and these often do not illuminate or connect all that well with the subject at hand. They’re just general ideas, drifting through the text to no purpose.
Considering protest movements, for example, Crossan is reliant on “a very convincing typology of popular movements of first-century Roman Palestine” from a scholar who provides a “programmatic guide” for viewing such movements. One page after this Crossan discusses Lenski’s typology for agrarian states and empires—not first-century-AD or Mediterranean agrarian states, just agrarian states in general. A few pages later, in discussing the attempt to produce generalizations for peasantry that cut across all global cultures he discusses a “model of cognitive orientation” of peasants put forth by another scholar. In the very next paragraph he cites a scholar whose work on contemporary Malaysian peasants can (supposedly!) be directly applied to protest movements in first-century Palestine. In a later chapter on prophecy, Crossan approvingly cites a scholar who boiled prophecy down to three types. In the chapter entitled Bandit and Messiah, Crossan begins: “Imagine this simplified typology of violence,” before going on to describe the way protesters, magicians, millennial prophets, and bandits behave in regard to violence, as individual actors are vaporized into these categories. Later he discusses a study by a scholar named Dyson whose analyses of five revolts yielded “common phenomena” that arises “from generally the same cause and following a basically similar model.”
Generally, basically, it’s all one to these guys, in their Casaubon-like search for a key to all social revolts.
According to Crossan: “Comparative Anthropology should never obscure discrete historicity, but neither should particular traditions and situations obscure human constancies and continuities.” Right when I read this I knew Crossan would be seeking sameness and that the rough edges of actuality might be rubbed away as nothing more than idiosyncrasies. He follows this pronouncement with the following:
“The Jews went back into their own ancient stories and thence ritually reenacted those great inaugural acts of Exodus from bondage in Egypt and arrival in the Promised Land. So also, worlds away and centuries later, the Melanesian natives, seeking emulate or manipulate the colonial Europeans whose cargo goods they coveted … proceeded to the cultivation of large gardens … for the reception of goods which would never come,” and prepared “flagpoles and ladders with which to get into touch with God.”
At this point in the text, around page 160, the goddamned Melanesians have been mentioned more often than Jesus has. Anyhow, the above displays where I diverge from Crossan: What stands out to me are the stark differences between these two cultures, how one culture’s response is radically different from the other’s. But to Crossan this qualifies as a so also….
Not to say this obsessive typologizing can’t be beneficial when used judiciously. Crossan observes that the oppressed are often extremely, violently sensitive about affronts to their traditions and practices. Take this passage from Josephus: “One of the soldiers, who had found a copy of the laws of Moses … fetched it out where all could see and tore it in two while he uttered blasphemies…. The Jews, learning of this, collected in large numbers….” You immediately think of that American soldier burning a Koran in Afghanistan and the corresponding violent outrage. And of course, there is the obvious analogy—so apparent but never mentioned because of equally obvious political reasons—between first-century Jews in the face of an overwhelming, crushing Roman power, and current-day Palestinians in the face of an overwhelming, crushing Israeli power. This will sound glib but I don’t care: Jesus stood against the Roman Empire of the first century; today, he would stand against the United States (and Russia, and Saudi Arabia, and Israel, and China, “against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in high places”; Ephesians 6:12).
Another major criticism of this book: Only half of it is about Jesus. Here are the things Crossan discusses in the first 200 pages instead of discussing Jesus: the patronage system in ancient Roman society; Galilee’s topography; agrarian revolts in general (an ahistorical survey); Stoicism and Cynicism; a deep dive into some intricacies of the Mishnah; coverage of Josephus’s writings so exhaustive that I became convinced that he was the real subject of this book; magicians and prophets as types; bandits and messiahs as types; rebels and revolutionaries as types; Melanesians; then finally, seemingly out of nowhere on page 225, Crossan begins to discuss Jesus, or rather, sentences that surround Jesus and whether this one or that one can be deemed historical.
It’s so extreme that even Crossan realizes it, as when informs the reader, on the crazy page of 218 of the following: “This book is concerned with Jesus of Nazareth….” Is it?! I suppose it might technically be concerned with him, but it is not primarily about him. In the very next paragraph we’re back to Crossan’s hobby-horse: unhelpful typologies: “Gurr distinguishes three basic levels or types of political violence.”
On a less significant note, I admit that for me Crossan’s thoroughly postmodern and politically correct worldview could be irritating. For example, when describing Jesus as charismatic, Crossan spends a few sentences making clear that he uses the term charisma to describe “a social relationship, not an attribute of individual personality,” because as we’re well aware at this point, an individual is incapable of having attributes of his/her own; no, an individual is merely capable of numbly reflecting overarching societal norms and patterns. I mean, I understand it’s worthwhile to emphasize the socialness of designations such as charismatic; it’s also okay to say that some people are simply more charming than others.
But let’s end positively. Some of Crossan’s work on the parables is quite illuminating, such as the parable of the mustard seed. The point, according Crossan, isn’t one of growth—the small mustard seed that becomes a large bush—but that the little mustard seed grows and becomes a weed-like bush that is not desirable. In fact, some see it as Jesus parodying the ancient image of the cedar of Lebanon as the kingdom of God. One scholar states: “It is hard to escape the conclusion that Jesus deliberately likens the rule of God to a weed.” According to Crossan, the audience who heard the parable about the birds being attracted to such a bush would know that birds kill your crops (also not desirable). It grows where it’s not wanted, it’s difficult to control, and it’s not desired by most: That’s what the Kingdom is like.
I also never read the Gerasene Demonaic parable this way: Legion, according to Crossan, can be read as the fact and sign of Roman power; Jesus sends it to the swine, and then the swine run suicidally off a cliff. What more could a first-century Jew want!
The coverage of the last supper is interesting as well: Jesus takes the food, blesses it, breaks the bread, and then equally shares the food. Take, bless, break, give: Crossan asserts that Jesus here acts as a servant in giving the food out; most of Jesus’ followers would never have experienced being served like this except by servants. Moreover, females tended to serve and prepare food in the ancient Mediterranean. Hence, Jesus took on the role not only of a servant but also a female. It’s just one more way in which Jesus went against the grain of the entire ethos of the ancient world.
In very general terms, Crossan’s Jesus is deJudaized, Hellenistic, nonapocalyptic/noneschatological, a Cynic, and concerned with the establishment of the kingdom in the here and now; Wright’s Jesus is deeply Jewish, apocalyptic/eschatological, and concerned with the establishment of the kingdom in the here and now. Wright’s vision and his overwhelming scholarship are far more compelling than Crossan’s. Seen a certain way, both make extreme claims, but each of Wright’s is eminently supported and layered and is part of an elaborate, sensible structure, whereas Crossan’s too often seem to be mere suppositions and loose ideas based on close readings. Wright directly addresses Crossan’s book in the introduction to his, beginning with Crossan’s shaky chronology of sources: “Crossan’s chronological strata must be seen for what they are. Though he offers them as starting points, they are in fact conclusions….” And it is on this chronology that much of Crossan’s theories are based. He then considers Crossan’s mode of determining the historicity of a given NT statement: Crossan ranks veracity or historicity based on how early a given statement can be dated and how many independent attestations the given statement has. So something written in the 50s that appears in three different sources would grade high on this hierarchy and thus render it likely that it was historically accurate. First, Wright points out a few instances in which Crossan goes directly against his own methodology because following it would not support his thesis (and these are not minor issues either: the prediction of Jesus’ apocalyptic return and the Lord’s prayer are a couple items Crossan dismisses the historicity of in spite of multiple, early attestations) before noting in more general terms the flaws of such a system: “The number of times a saying happens to turn up in the records is a very haphazard index of its likely historicity…. By historical accident, we happen to have certain sources and not others. If we had a few more extra-canonical gospels, we might easily have several more parallels for material that at the moment appears unique to one document.” Wright then goes on to point out that Jesus in his ministry likely often said the same or similar things in many places at many times, so even accounts that are deemed dependent by Crossan could very well be independent. Finally, Wright dismantles the idea of Jesus as Cynic, an idea that (so I’ve learned) no longer has much of a following among scholars.
Anyhow, on to my thoughts.
I’ll begin with a general question about generalizations: Why use a generalization when you can analyze a particular? Shouldn’t a historian seek to peel away basic ideas and get to the complexities of a particular moment and event?
Crossan is overly reliant on applying abstract typologies and these often do not illuminate or connect all that well with the subject at hand. They’re just general ideas, drifting through the text to no purpose.
Considering protest movements, for example, Crossan is reliant on “a very convincing typology of popular movements of first-century Roman Palestine” from a scholar who provides a “programmatic guide” for viewing such movements. One page after this Crossan discusses Lenski’s typology for agrarian states and empires—not first-century-AD or Mediterranean agrarian states, just agrarian states in general. A few pages later, in discussing the attempt to produce generalizations for peasantry that cut across all global cultures he discusses a “model of cognitive orientation” of peasants put forth by another scholar. In the very next paragraph he cites a scholar whose work on contemporary Malaysian peasants can (supposedly!) be directly applied to protest movements in first-century Palestine. In a later chapter on prophecy, Crossan approvingly cites a scholar who boiled prophecy down to three types. In the chapter entitled Bandit and Messiah, Crossan begins: “Imagine this simplified typology of violence,” before going on to describe the way protesters, magicians, millennial prophets, and bandits behave in regard to violence, as individual actors are vaporized into these categories. Later he discusses a study by a scholar named Dyson whose analyses of five revolts yielded “common phenomena” that arises “from generally the same cause and following a basically similar model.”
Generally, basically, it’s all one to these guys, in their Casaubon-like search for a key to all social revolts.
According to Crossan: “Comparative Anthropology should never obscure discrete historicity, but neither should particular traditions and situations obscure human constancies and continuities.” Right when I read this I knew Crossan would be seeking sameness and that the rough edges of actuality might be rubbed away as nothing more than idiosyncrasies. He follows this pronouncement with the following:
“The Jews went back into their own ancient stories and thence ritually reenacted those great inaugural acts of Exodus from bondage in Egypt and arrival in the Promised Land. So also, worlds away and centuries later, the Melanesian natives, seeking emulate or manipulate the colonial Europeans whose cargo goods they coveted … proceeded to the cultivation of large gardens … for the reception of goods which would never come,” and prepared “flagpoles and ladders with which to get into touch with God.”
At this point in the text, around page 160, the goddamned Melanesians have been mentioned more often than Jesus has. Anyhow, the above displays where I diverge from Crossan: What stands out to me are the stark differences between these two cultures, how one culture’s response is radically different from the other’s. But to Crossan this qualifies as a so also….
Not to say this obsessive typologizing can’t be beneficial when used judiciously. Crossan observes that the oppressed are often extremely, violently sensitive about affronts to their traditions and practices. Take this passage from Josephus: “One of the soldiers, who had found a copy of the laws of Moses … fetched it out where all could see and tore it in two while he uttered blasphemies…. The Jews, learning of this, collected in large numbers….” You immediately think of that American soldier burning a Koran in Afghanistan and the corresponding violent outrage. And of course, there is the obvious analogy—so apparent but never mentioned because of equally obvious political reasons—between first-century Jews in the face of an overwhelming, crushing Roman power, and current-day Palestinians in the face of an overwhelming, crushing Israeli power. This will sound glib but I don’t care: Jesus stood against the Roman Empire of the first century; today, he would stand against the United States (and Russia, and Saudi Arabia, and Israel, and China, “against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in high places”; Ephesians 6:12).
Another major criticism of this book: Only half of it is about Jesus. Here are the things Crossan discusses in the first 200 pages instead of discussing Jesus: the patronage system in ancient Roman society; Galilee’s topography; agrarian revolts in general (an ahistorical survey); Stoicism and Cynicism; a deep dive into some intricacies of the Mishnah; coverage of Josephus’s writings so exhaustive that I became convinced that he was the real subject of this book; magicians and prophets as types; bandits and messiahs as types; rebels and revolutionaries as types; Melanesians; then finally, seemingly out of nowhere on page 225, Crossan begins to discuss Jesus, or rather, sentences that surround Jesus and whether this one or that one can be deemed historical.
It’s so extreme that even Crossan realizes it, as when informs the reader, on the crazy page of 218 of the following: “This book is concerned with Jesus of Nazareth….” Is it?! I suppose it might technically be concerned with him, but it is not primarily about him. In the very next paragraph we’re back to Crossan’s hobby-horse: unhelpful typologies: “Gurr distinguishes three basic levels or types of political violence.”
On a less significant note, I admit that for me Crossan’s thoroughly postmodern and politically correct worldview could be irritating. For example, when describing Jesus as charismatic, Crossan spends a few sentences making clear that he uses the term charisma to describe “a social relationship, not an attribute of individual personality,” because as we’re well aware at this point, an individual is incapable of having attributes of his/her own; no, an individual is merely capable of numbly reflecting overarching societal norms and patterns. I mean, I understand it’s worthwhile to emphasize the socialness of designations such as charismatic; it’s also okay to say that some people are simply more charming than others.
But let’s end positively. Some of Crossan’s work on the parables is quite illuminating, such as the parable of the mustard seed. The point, according Crossan, isn’t one of growth—the small mustard seed that becomes a large bush—but that the little mustard seed grows and becomes a weed-like bush that is not desirable. In fact, some see it as Jesus parodying the ancient image of the cedar of Lebanon as the kingdom of God. One scholar states: “It is hard to escape the conclusion that Jesus deliberately likens the rule of God to a weed.” According to Crossan, the audience who heard the parable about the birds being attracted to such a bush would know that birds kill your crops (also not desirable). It grows where it’s not wanted, it’s difficult to control, and it’s not desired by most: That’s what the Kingdom is like.
I also never read the Gerasene Demonaic parable this way: Legion, according to Crossan, can be read as the fact and sign of Roman power; Jesus sends it to the swine, and then the swine run suicidally off a cliff. What more could a first-century Jew want!
The coverage of the last supper is interesting as well: Jesus takes the food, blesses it, breaks the bread, and then equally shares the food. Take, bless, break, give: Crossan asserts that Jesus here acts as a servant in giving the food out; most of Jesus’ followers would never have experienced being served like this except by servants. Moreover, females tended to serve and prepare food in the ancient Mediterranean. Hence, Jesus took on the role not only of a servant but also a female. It’s just one more way in which Jesus went against the grain of the entire ethos of the ancient world.
September 24, 2019
As usual I've read the later publication 'Excavating Jesus-Beneath the Stones', before dropping backwards into 1991 to tackle this one.
J.D.C. has a well researched and thoroughly historical picture of a Mediterranian Jewish Peasant in first century Palastine. Prof Crossan casts his net back into anthropological models of agrarian societies and their class divisions. For the first two hundred pages here, there is no mention of Jesus of Nazareth. However, I think this first half of the book is the more enjoyable. It is a stark image that emerges through the lens of Josephus and the Cynic philosophy of Diogenes of Sinope.
The second half is where the heavier Theology kicks in. A quote from Joseph Klausner from 1922, 'but in his ethical code there is a sublimity, distinctiveness and originality in form unparalleled in any other Hebrew code; neither is there any parallel to the remarkable art of his parables. The shrewdness and sharpness of his proverbs and forceful epigrams serve, in exceptional degree, to make ethical ideals a popular expression.
If ever the day should come and this ethical code be stripped of it's wrappings of miracles and mysticism, the Book of the Ethics of Jesus will be one of the choicest treasures of the literature of Israel for all time'.
I'm not sure that this Historical Jesus gets below those wrappings, no matter how expertly the multi layered NT texts are sieved down to their multi attested/independent sources.
J.D.C. has a well researched and thoroughly historical picture of a Mediterranian Jewish Peasant in first century Palastine. Prof Crossan casts his net back into anthropological models of agrarian societies and their class divisions. For the first two hundred pages here, there is no mention of Jesus of Nazareth. However, I think this first half of the book is the more enjoyable. It is a stark image that emerges through the lens of Josephus and the Cynic philosophy of Diogenes of Sinope.
The second half is where the heavier Theology kicks in. A quote from Joseph Klausner from 1922, 'but in his ethical code there is a sublimity, distinctiveness and originality in form unparalleled in any other Hebrew code; neither is there any parallel to the remarkable art of his parables. The shrewdness and sharpness of his proverbs and forceful epigrams serve, in exceptional degree, to make ethical ideals a popular expression.
If ever the day should come and this ethical code be stripped of it's wrappings of miracles and mysticism, the Book of the Ethics of Jesus will be one of the choicest treasures of the literature of Israel for all time'.
I'm not sure that this Historical Jesus gets below those wrappings, no matter how expertly the multi layered NT texts are sieved down to their multi attested/independent sources.
September 21, 2010
This dense and meaty book seeks to provide a historical context to events in Galilee and Judea during the first century C.E. The objective is to better understand not only who Jesus was, but the background and impact of the revolutionary message he brought to his fellow Mediterranean Jewish peasants (and ultimately to us). To find the Historical Jesus, Crossan argues that we must utilize scientific methodology (archeology, historical record, etc) while holding an appreciation for the theological significance of His life. The author references a great variety of ancient religious texts (both canonized and not) as well as vast academic resources to paint a complete religious and historical perspective of the time. His thorough and meticulous (even tedious) attention to detail gave me confidence in the credibility of his claims. (I did find it a bit perplexing though that Jesus didn't make an appearance until 225 pages in).
Crossan establishes criteria to measure the merits of historicity found in each of his sources. This criteria includes (1) a “chronological stratification” (when a text was written) and (2) “independent attestation” (how many separate sources confirm each event). For example a record written in 60 C.E. with events attested to by many different writers might be more likely to reflect actual details than a single source written during the 2nd century.
As might be anticipated when delving into ancient historical details, some of his conclusions contradict conventional wisdom regarding biblical events. In these cases Crossan often states; “That did not happen, but it was true nonetheless” p 394. He asserts that New Testament writers generally intended their messages to be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally. He warns not to put too much weight in a historical or literal reading of scripture or we may miss the point of the lessons being conveyed. For example Jesus teaches profound concepts by using simple parables, his frequent references to “a certain man” (KJV) refer to a hypothetical person. The genius in this technique is that it allows the reader to individualize the message to him or herself. I loved Crossan's comments about this in the wonderful story of the two travelers who encounter the resurrected Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24). After an in-depth explanation, Crossan states: “Emmaus never happened. Emmaus always happens”. If Emmaus “always happens” that means one of those travelers is always me. Reading the story this way opens up the lesson in a much more meaningful and personally profound way.
History and theology use different mechanisms for finding truth, when both are utilized in balanced ways, the message becomes more compelling to me. Reading this thoughtful book I found a greater understanding and appreciation of the Historical Jesus as well as His inspired teachings.
Crossan establishes criteria to measure the merits of historicity found in each of his sources. This criteria includes (1) a “chronological stratification” (when a text was written) and (2) “independent attestation” (how many separate sources confirm each event). For example a record written in 60 C.E. with events attested to by many different writers might be more likely to reflect actual details than a single source written during the 2nd century.
As might be anticipated when delving into ancient historical details, some of his conclusions contradict conventional wisdom regarding biblical events. In these cases Crossan often states; “That did not happen, but it was true nonetheless” p 394. He asserts that New Testament writers generally intended their messages to be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally. He warns not to put too much weight in a historical or literal reading of scripture or we may miss the point of the lessons being conveyed. For example Jesus teaches profound concepts by using simple parables, his frequent references to “a certain man” (KJV) refer to a hypothetical person. The genius in this technique is that it allows the reader to individualize the message to him or herself. I loved Crossan's comments about this in the wonderful story of the two travelers who encounter the resurrected Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24). After an in-depth explanation, Crossan states: “Emmaus never happened. Emmaus always happens”. If Emmaus “always happens” that means one of those travelers is always me. Reading the story this way opens up the lesson in a much more meaningful and personally profound way.
History and theology use different mechanisms for finding truth, when both are utilized in balanced ways, the message becomes more compelling to me. Reading this thoughtful book I found a greater understanding and appreciation of the Historical Jesus as well as His inspired teachings.
January 29, 2014
Crossan is one of the more rewarding popular interpreters of the Christian scriptures. Unlike most serious biblical scholarship, his books, while eminently serious, are lively and well-written. Most appreciated, other than his liberal political take on the figure of Jesus, is his bringing insights into the field from other disciplines: sociology, anthropology, economics, literary theory etc.
February 22, 2021
Crossan provides very little introductory context for the discourse in which he's conversing (Borg is better there), opting instead to back out and give hundreds of pages of historical context to the entire conversation. Interesting stuff, but a stronger narrative tie would have made the book more compelling to me. Crossan seems to prefer a more "objective" approach to scholarship, providing reams of research before offering any conclusions about it.
December 3, 2014
This book is essential reading for anyone who has an interest in Jesus, whether you are already invested, curious, or hostile, there's something in here that will deepen your understanding of Jesus as a historical figure.
The first 200 pages doesn't discuss Jesus at all. Rather, Crossan uses comparative archaeology and anthropology to show what life was like for first century Jewish peasants under Roman rule with a focus on the avenues of resistance to the power of Rome and the Jewish aristocracy that were available to them. In the second half of the book, Crossan examines the written records of Jesus' life in order to analyze what he believes the historical Jesus did and said. His methodology is to use only the earliest and multiply attested "complexes" (by which he means a narrative event, a specific teaching, or parable). The book concludes with Crossan demonstrating how Jesus fit into the cultural portrait of first century life that he produced in the first section.
The book is extremely well-researched and carefully argued, but it does have some weaknesses. The biggest is that Crossan does not flag his arguments and assumptions that are based on a minority opinion. Of course, early in the book, he says that in order to keep the book from growing out of control, he won't be engaging with people who disagree with him. However, there are a few places where more engagement would have made for a stronger book. For example, he dates parts of the Gospel of Thomas to c. 50 AD, about 100 years earlier than the majority consensus (of course, the consensus dating is primarily due to the assumption that the Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic work and that gnosticism appeared in the Jesus tradition relatively late). He also bases his argument for the construction of the passion narrative on his own contested theory of a "Cross Gospel". This isn't a problem per se, but the book would have benefited had he acknowledged that it was a controversial theory.
Finally, a caveat: this book is a dense, academic work. It should present no problems to people who are used to reading academic writing or to people who are willing to work a bit when they're reading, but approaching this book as a popularization of historical Jesus scholarship will lead to disappointment.
The first 200 pages doesn't discuss Jesus at all. Rather, Crossan uses comparative archaeology and anthropology to show what life was like for first century Jewish peasants under Roman rule with a focus on the avenues of resistance to the power of Rome and the Jewish aristocracy that were available to them. In the second half of the book, Crossan examines the written records of Jesus' life in order to analyze what he believes the historical Jesus did and said. His methodology is to use only the earliest and multiply attested "complexes" (by which he means a narrative event, a specific teaching, or parable). The book concludes with Crossan demonstrating how Jesus fit into the cultural portrait of first century life that he produced in the first section.
The book is extremely well-researched and carefully argued, but it does have some weaknesses. The biggest is that Crossan does not flag his arguments and assumptions that are based on a minority opinion. Of course, early in the book, he says that in order to keep the book from growing out of control, he won't be engaging with people who disagree with him. However, there are a few places where more engagement would have made for a stronger book. For example, he dates parts of the Gospel of Thomas to c. 50 AD, about 100 years earlier than the majority consensus (of course, the consensus dating is primarily due to the assumption that the Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic work and that gnosticism appeared in the Jesus tradition relatively late). He also bases his argument for the construction of the passion narrative on his own contested theory of a "Cross Gospel". This isn't a problem per se, but the book would have benefited had he acknowledged that it was a controversial theory.
Finally, a caveat: this book is a dense, academic work. It should present no problems to people who are used to reading academic writing or to people who are willing to work a bit when they're reading, but approaching this book as a popularization of historical Jesus scholarship will lead to disappointment.
March 7, 2011
Some points, among others, I took away from the book:
"Resort to prophesy is a universal response of beaten men." p. 104
Jesus' invocation of the Kingdom of God was not as an apocalyptic event. "Insofar as that perfect verb [eggiken], common to the Sayings Gospel Q and Mark, reflects the message of Jesus, it states that the Kingdom is at hand or near in the sense not of promise but of presence and that its power is made visible in the commonality of shared miracle and shared meal." p. 345
Jesus mission was house to house; was to establish a rural mission, not an urban one. Sitting down and eating with another was to give support through an understanding of the Kingdom of God.
Crossen's study on the origins of the passion and resurrection narratives: ("Jesus' closest followers knew nothing more about the passion than the fact of the crucifixion....[W]hat followed in one very literate and highly sophisticated stream of tradition was an intense search of the Scriptures....It discovered verses and images each of which could be applied to the passion as a whole but not, of course, to its individual details, for no such details existed in their memories....[T]hose individual scriptural connections and specific prophetic fulfillments could be organized into a coherent and sequential story....[O]nce such a narrative had been achieved, its historicity could be improved by more accurate verisimilitude and refined by more precise detail.) pp. 375-6
"Resort to prophesy is a universal response of beaten men." p. 104
Jesus' invocation of the Kingdom of God was not as an apocalyptic event. "Insofar as that perfect verb [eggiken], common to the Sayings Gospel Q and Mark, reflects the message of Jesus, it states that the Kingdom is at hand or near in the sense not of promise but of presence and that its power is made visible in the commonality of shared miracle and shared meal." p. 345
Jesus mission was house to house; was to establish a rural mission, not an urban one. Sitting down and eating with another was to give support through an understanding of the Kingdom of God.
Crossen's study on the origins of the passion and resurrection narratives: ("Jesus' closest followers knew nothing more about the passion than the fact of the crucifixion....[W]hat followed in one very literate and highly sophisticated stream of tradition was an intense search of the Scriptures....It discovered verses and images each of which could be applied to the passion as a whole but not, of course, to its individual details, for no such details existed in their memories....[T]hose individual scriptural connections and specific prophetic fulfillments could be organized into a coherent and sequential story....[O]nce such a narrative had been achieved, its historicity could be improved by more accurate verisimilitude and refined by more precise detail.) pp. 375-6
Read
December 1, 2021Bleah. Take your academic-ese and sit on it.
February 20, 2015
Finished and loved it. I love his consistent emphasis on the call for justice for all. It is amazing to me that such a scholarly text can still end up so evangelical. Many people object to Crossan, but I think his honest, straightforward willingness to admit his agenda and his assumptions is a fresh approach to scholarly criticism of biblical texts.
April 16, 2008
Crossan is hotly debated within the hardline Christian academic community..
He should be read, though...a dynamic take on a subject that sometimes is left in too much
dogma...
He should be read, though...a dynamic take on a subject that sometimes is left in too much
dogma...
April 24, 2017
I found this book worthy of a long list of adjectives, foremost being: challenging, provocative, thorough, respectable, and rich. I recognize that my experience and understanding of this book are likely a result of a combination of personal circumstances, wishes, etc. I haven't read other reviews of this book yet, but I'll be surprised if most others don't find it dry, pretentious, heretical, or have a number of other negative responses. For me, although it was one of the most difficult reads I've ever undertaken, it also informed me more and prompted in me more thought than possibly any other.
I was surprised by the fact that I read half the book before I read any direct information on--or even mention of--Jesus. The entire first half is a discussion--a detailed catalog, really--of Jewish and Roman thought, characterization of the two cultures, and their interplay. I was confused by this but as I began reading the second half I understood how valuable this would prove to be. That context is essential to the assertions and questions that Crossan offers.
Neither history nor theology are my profession and so I read this with a layman's understanding. That said, I've read a fair amount of history and I can't imagine a more rigorous, professional approach than Crossan's here. The book is dry and tedious in parts for this rigor, but it's all the more credible for it. As you might expect the material begs arguments over interpretation, but Crossan painstakingly itemizes the support for his conclusions and consistently points out competing views. He deals with tenets of Christianity so profound that to comprehend the book was to examine my understanding of faith and Christianity comprehensively and at the most fundamental level. The questions and speculation in the epilogue continue to resurface as I read each day's headlines, and color the way I think about my responses to world events.
On a simpler level, honestly, I almost gave up on the book a couple of different times as at times I just couldn't make sense of where I was in its flow or figure out what I was getting from it. It was a real slog at times. Another author may have made this material more accessible, but on the other hand the material and Crossan's conclusions invite such a nuanced and delicate consideration that I think simplifying the book would have meant sacrificing too much. I was worn out when I finished and glad to be moving on, but also happy that I had stuck with it.
Maybe other readers would have a more pleasant experience if they read something else at the same time (which I don't). And those with something more than a lay understanding of biblical historicity would certainly find this an easier read than I did. Even so, if you're interested in an intellectual, scientific (I think even the word 'secular' applies here, despite that Crossan professes Christianity) look at the archaeological and written record, and you're up for a real challenge--to your mind and perhaps even your faith--surely this book will help inform your understanding of Jesus, the community he lived in and spoke with, and the message he attempted to spread.
I was surprised by the fact that I read half the book before I read any direct information on--or even mention of--Jesus. The entire first half is a discussion--a detailed catalog, really--of Jewish and Roman thought, characterization of the two cultures, and their interplay. I was confused by this but as I began reading the second half I understood how valuable this would prove to be. That context is essential to the assertions and questions that Crossan offers.
Neither history nor theology are my profession and so I read this with a layman's understanding. That said, I've read a fair amount of history and I can't imagine a more rigorous, professional approach than Crossan's here. The book is dry and tedious in parts for this rigor, but it's all the more credible for it. As you might expect the material begs arguments over interpretation, but Crossan painstakingly itemizes the support for his conclusions and consistently points out competing views. He deals with tenets of Christianity so profound that to comprehend the book was to examine my understanding of faith and Christianity comprehensively and at the most fundamental level. The questions and speculation in the epilogue continue to resurface as I read each day's headlines, and color the way I think about my responses to world events.
On a simpler level, honestly, I almost gave up on the book a couple of different times as at times I just couldn't make sense of where I was in its flow or figure out what I was getting from it. It was a real slog at times. Another author may have made this material more accessible, but on the other hand the material and Crossan's conclusions invite such a nuanced and delicate consideration that I think simplifying the book would have meant sacrificing too much. I was worn out when I finished and glad to be moving on, but also happy that I had stuck with it.
Maybe other readers would have a more pleasant experience if they read something else at the same time (which I don't). And those with something more than a lay understanding of biblical historicity would certainly find this an easier read than I did. Even so, if you're interested in an intellectual, scientific (I think even the word 'secular' applies here, despite that Crossan professes Christianity) look at the archaeological and written record, and you're up for a real challenge--to your mind and perhaps even your faith--surely this book will help inform your understanding of Jesus, the community he lived in and spoke with, and the message he attempted to spread.
October 3, 2020
It is an unquestionable fact that Jesus was both an extremely important figure in human history, and one who has proven to be extraordinarily controversial. Attempted biographies of Jesus’ life sometimes paint dramatically diverse and even contradictory pictures of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
The book being reviewed here is one scholar’s efforts to offer a faithful account of the historical Jesus. How well does this scholar succeed? It is open to much controversy whether or not John Dominic Crossan offers us a remotely accurate assessment of the true nature of the subject of his biography. Was Jesus an apocalyptic prophet? Was he, rather, mainly a sapiential teacher or a sage? Crossan strives to place Jesus in the class of sages, as an itinerant teacher who taught via paradoxical sayings and parables. Crossan does not view the man Jesus as an apocalypticist who warned of the impending destruction of the present world that was to be replaced by the Kingdom of God on Earth.
I will quote Crossan from page 229:
“Once again, as with Paul at Corinth, we are dealing with divergent views of Jesus held within the Christian fold. The ‘Gospel of Thomas’ has Jesus’ own disciples personifying the wrong or apocalyptic viewpoint, and in 3:1 he even goes so far as to mock derisively ‘those who lead you’ into an apocalyptic and heavenly future.”
Crossan places much more emphasis on the “Gospel of Thomas” than he does on the writings of Paul. Crossan did not believe that Jesus’ references to “the Son of Man” referred to an apocalyptic figure, and he goes into considerable discussion to try to shore up his conviction that Jesus was not, in fact, an apocalyptic prophet, but was more of a sapiential teacher (a person who taught his followers the wisdom of God) and how they could, in the here and now, partake of the “Kingdom of God”.
I quote Crossan again (page 259):
“I have argued that John the Baptist was an apocalyptic prophet preparing his followers for the imminent advent of God as the Coming One but that Jesus, after having originally accepted that vision, eventually changed his response some time after the execution of John. He then emphatically contrasted a follower of John and a member of the Kingdom. He never spoke of himself or anyone else as the apocalyptic Son of Man, and a tentative hypothesis for the break between John and Jesus is that the latter no longer accepted the former’s apocalyptic message. That hypothesis will demand, of course, further testing. My final point here is that a difference between John and Jesus was discerned and expressed in the tradition itself….”
As for myself (as a lay reader, a non-scholar), I was not convinced in the reading the remainder of Crossan’s very detailed analysis that his hypothesis was at all firmly supported. Now, it is to be acknowledged that if Jesus was truly an apocalyptic prophet – as I personally believe him to have been – then it is very difficult to deny the charge that his prophetic outlook was erroneous. After all, in Matt. 24 it is stated that Jesus preached about a cataclysmic set of events occurring within the lifetimes of some of his listeners (in their generation). That sort of cataclysmic scenario never developed. Explaining this in light of the presumed infallibility of Jesus’ words requires such dubiously logical maneuverings as to render them inefficacious. Maybe it would be more rational and sensible to regard Jesus as an extraordinarily great spiritual teacher and a charismatic prophet, but one who was also, alas, beset with human limitations and serious deficits in the knowledge of Ultimate Reality. This view is logically defensible, but ascription of infallibility to the figure and the teachings of Jesus is so gravely beset with inconsistencies and even contradictions that it can hardly be regarded as credible.
In a different vein, Crossan quite clearly explains why Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem was completely untenable. On page 372 he has this to say about Luke’s account:
“That [Luke’s version] seems a brilliant explanation of why Jesus of Nazareth was born at Bethlehem, unless, of course, one knows anything of Roman history and Roman, or indeed any, bureaucracy… First, there never was a worldwide census under Augustus… [also] the Roman custom was to count you in the place of your domicile or work and not in that of your ancestry or birth….”
If there is validity to this assessment by Crossan, then Luke’s account of why Jesus was (supposedly) born in Bethlehem fails to concord with history. I do, of course, not accept Crossan’s claims merely on the grounds that he states the claims as a highly educated scholar. After all, numerous other scholars – possibly just as highly educated – reach different conclusions than does Crossan on any number of issues. However, so far as his analysis of Luke’s story of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is concerned, unless Crossan is seriously in error about Roman history and Roman policies, then Luke’s account is not credible.
Crossan’s views on who Jesus really was can sensibly be questioned and treated as dubious, especially given that other highly trained “Bible” scholars and historians arrived at very different conclusions. But Crossan’s description of Jesus can be found summarized on pages 421-422:
“The historical Jesus was, then, a peasant Jewish Cynic. His peasant village was close enough to a Greco-Roman city like Sepphoris that sight and knowledge of Cynicism are neither inexplicable nor unlikely. But his work was among the farms and villages of Lower Galilee….”
I do not accept Crossan’s depiction of the “historical Jesus”. I believe that the evidence we have (scanty though it might be) for what Jesus believed, what he taught, and what he did militates against the view that he was a Jewish Cynic who mainly taught doctrines of wisdom and how to properly engage in fellowship with one’s fellow humans. Jesus, I believe, was more like the “historical” account given by Albert Schweitzer, even if Schweitzer’s worldview did not endorse any form of the supernatural. Yet, he believed that the available evidence converged on a view of Jesus as a Jewish prophet who believed in and taught apocalyptic doctrines.
In this review of Crossan’s scholarly and somewhat tedious work concerning the historical Jesus, I will let Crossan have the last word. In his concluding words of the Epilogue to his book, he has offers these sensible thoughts (page 426):
“This book, then, is a scholarly reconstruction of the historical Jesus. And if one were to accept its formal methods and even their material investments, one could surely offer divergent interpretative conclusions about the reconstructable historical Jesus. But one cannot dismiss it or the search for the historical Jesus as MERE [capital letters are used here in place of italics] reconstruction, as if reconstruction invalidated somehow the entire project. Because there is ONLY reconstruction. For a believing Christian both the life of the Word of God and the text of the Word of God are alike a graded process of historical reconstruction, be it red, pink, gray, black or A, B, C, D. If you cannot believe in something produced by reconstruction, you may have nothing left to believe in.”
The book being reviewed here is one scholar’s efforts to offer a faithful account of the historical Jesus. How well does this scholar succeed? It is open to much controversy whether or not John Dominic Crossan offers us a remotely accurate assessment of the true nature of the subject of his biography. Was Jesus an apocalyptic prophet? Was he, rather, mainly a sapiential teacher or a sage? Crossan strives to place Jesus in the class of sages, as an itinerant teacher who taught via paradoxical sayings and parables. Crossan does not view the man Jesus as an apocalypticist who warned of the impending destruction of the present world that was to be replaced by the Kingdom of God on Earth.
I will quote Crossan from page 229:
“Once again, as with Paul at Corinth, we are dealing with divergent views of Jesus held within the Christian fold. The ‘Gospel of Thomas’ has Jesus’ own disciples personifying the wrong or apocalyptic viewpoint, and in 3:1 he even goes so far as to mock derisively ‘those who lead you’ into an apocalyptic and heavenly future.”
Crossan places much more emphasis on the “Gospel of Thomas” than he does on the writings of Paul. Crossan did not believe that Jesus’ references to “the Son of Man” referred to an apocalyptic figure, and he goes into considerable discussion to try to shore up his conviction that Jesus was not, in fact, an apocalyptic prophet, but was more of a sapiential teacher (a person who taught his followers the wisdom of God) and how they could, in the here and now, partake of the “Kingdom of God”.
I quote Crossan again (page 259):
“I have argued that John the Baptist was an apocalyptic prophet preparing his followers for the imminent advent of God as the Coming One but that Jesus, after having originally accepted that vision, eventually changed his response some time after the execution of John. He then emphatically contrasted a follower of John and a member of the Kingdom. He never spoke of himself or anyone else as the apocalyptic Son of Man, and a tentative hypothesis for the break between John and Jesus is that the latter no longer accepted the former’s apocalyptic message. That hypothesis will demand, of course, further testing. My final point here is that a difference between John and Jesus was discerned and expressed in the tradition itself….”
As for myself (as a lay reader, a non-scholar), I was not convinced in the reading the remainder of Crossan’s very detailed analysis that his hypothesis was at all firmly supported. Now, it is to be acknowledged that if Jesus was truly an apocalyptic prophet – as I personally believe him to have been – then it is very difficult to deny the charge that his prophetic outlook was erroneous. After all, in Matt. 24 it is stated that Jesus preached about a cataclysmic set of events occurring within the lifetimes of some of his listeners (in their generation). That sort of cataclysmic scenario never developed. Explaining this in light of the presumed infallibility of Jesus’ words requires such dubiously logical maneuverings as to render them inefficacious. Maybe it would be more rational and sensible to regard Jesus as an extraordinarily great spiritual teacher and a charismatic prophet, but one who was also, alas, beset with human limitations and serious deficits in the knowledge of Ultimate Reality. This view is logically defensible, but ascription of infallibility to the figure and the teachings of Jesus is so gravely beset with inconsistencies and even contradictions that it can hardly be regarded as credible.
In a different vein, Crossan quite clearly explains why Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem was completely untenable. On page 372 he has this to say about Luke’s account:
“That [Luke’s version] seems a brilliant explanation of why Jesus of Nazareth was born at Bethlehem, unless, of course, one knows anything of Roman history and Roman, or indeed any, bureaucracy… First, there never was a worldwide census under Augustus… [also] the Roman custom was to count you in the place of your domicile or work and not in that of your ancestry or birth….”
If there is validity to this assessment by Crossan, then Luke’s account of why Jesus was (supposedly) born in Bethlehem fails to concord with history. I do, of course, not accept Crossan’s claims merely on the grounds that he states the claims as a highly educated scholar. After all, numerous other scholars – possibly just as highly educated – reach different conclusions than does Crossan on any number of issues. However, so far as his analysis of Luke’s story of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is concerned, unless Crossan is seriously in error about Roman history and Roman policies, then Luke’s account is not credible.
Crossan’s views on who Jesus really was can sensibly be questioned and treated as dubious, especially given that other highly trained “Bible” scholars and historians arrived at very different conclusions. But Crossan’s description of Jesus can be found summarized on pages 421-422:
“The historical Jesus was, then, a peasant Jewish Cynic. His peasant village was close enough to a Greco-Roman city like Sepphoris that sight and knowledge of Cynicism are neither inexplicable nor unlikely. But his work was among the farms and villages of Lower Galilee….”
I do not accept Crossan’s depiction of the “historical Jesus”. I believe that the evidence we have (scanty though it might be) for what Jesus believed, what he taught, and what he did militates against the view that he was a Jewish Cynic who mainly taught doctrines of wisdom and how to properly engage in fellowship with one’s fellow humans. Jesus, I believe, was more like the “historical” account given by Albert Schweitzer, even if Schweitzer’s worldview did not endorse any form of the supernatural. Yet, he believed that the available evidence converged on a view of Jesus as a Jewish prophet who believed in and taught apocalyptic doctrines.
In this review of Crossan’s scholarly and somewhat tedious work concerning the historical Jesus, I will let Crossan have the last word. In his concluding words of the Epilogue to his book, he has offers these sensible thoughts (page 426):
“This book, then, is a scholarly reconstruction of the historical Jesus. And if one were to accept its formal methods and even their material investments, one could surely offer divergent interpretative conclusions about the reconstructable historical Jesus. But one cannot dismiss it or the search for the historical Jesus as MERE [capital letters are used here in place of italics] reconstruction, as if reconstruction invalidated somehow the entire project. Because there is ONLY reconstruction. For a believing Christian both the life of the Word of God and the text of the Word of God are alike a graded process of historical reconstruction, be it red, pink, gray, black or A, B, C, D. If you cannot believe in something produced by reconstruction, you may have nothing left to believe in.”
January 2, 2013
If I had a bookshelf for "books that helped shape my religious views," this would be on there.
Crossan offers an alternative view of Jesus of Nazareth--not as a religious figure or the de facto son of God--but as a historical and political figure. Crossan discusses the politics of the 1st Century Roman Empire, and what it meant to be a Jew living in Judaea at that time.
Throughout the course of the book, Crossan hypothesizes that Jesus was initially a follower of John the Baptist, that he was never buried in the tomb, that the Gospels were not meant to be taken literally, and various other arguments that are sure to offend faithful Christian readers. What's important to remember, though, is that Crossan is hypothesizing--this isn't proven truth. He is approaching the story of Jesus from a skeptical and scholastic perspective, and I applaud him for doing so. It is only by taking an objective or counterfactual approach that we improve our understanding of historical events.
Most intriguing, from my perspective, was the chapter that discussed would-be messiahs and political leaders who were killed or crucified around Jesus' time ("Native Revolts Against Rome"). This chapter, to me, illustrated that Jesus was not the first religious figure to be killed or martyred for his beliefs. In other words, from a historical perspective, Jesus is not as unique as many would have us believe. As a religious skeptic, I appreciated learning more about that.
Crossan offers an alternative view of Jesus of Nazareth--not as a religious figure or the de facto son of God--but as a historical and political figure. Crossan discusses the politics of the 1st Century Roman Empire, and what it meant to be a Jew living in Judaea at that time.
Throughout the course of the book, Crossan hypothesizes that Jesus was initially a follower of John the Baptist, that he was never buried in the tomb, that the Gospels were not meant to be taken literally, and various other arguments that are sure to offend faithful Christian readers. What's important to remember, though, is that Crossan is hypothesizing--this isn't proven truth. He is approaching the story of Jesus from a skeptical and scholastic perspective, and I applaud him for doing so. It is only by taking an objective or counterfactual approach that we improve our understanding of historical events.
Most intriguing, from my perspective, was the chapter that discussed would-be messiahs and political leaders who were killed or crucified around Jesus' time ("Native Revolts Against Rome"). This chapter, to me, illustrated that Jesus was not the first religious figure to be killed or martyred for his beliefs. In other words, from a historical perspective, Jesus is not as unique as many would have us believe. As a religious skeptic, I appreciated learning more about that.
October 26, 2007
when i read this i loved it. you gotta go out and read about the historical jesus.
but be aware that most historians writing about the historical jesus are actually christians too, in the sense that they carry the baggage and biases of judeo-christian culture and history. looking back, this is especially apparent with this author. but any source that exposes you to the gospel of thomas, Q, and other gospels that didnt make the bible, is worth a read if you havent been exposed to these gospels already.
i recently watched the movie Zeitgeist, you can watch it for free on google video, and it really brought up a lot of concerns for me about how reliable these kinds of historical accounts of jesus are. particularly, about the authenticity of the Josephus source that so many scholars rely so heavily on. i need to look into this further.
but be aware that most historians writing about the historical jesus are actually christians too, in the sense that they carry the baggage and biases of judeo-christian culture and history. looking back, this is especially apparent with this author. but any source that exposes you to the gospel of thomas, Q, and other gospels that didnt make the bible, is worth a read if you havent been exposed to these gospels already.
i recently watched the movie Zeitgeist, you can watch it for free on google video, and it really brought up a lot of concerns for me about how reliable these kinds of historical accounts of jesus are. particularly, about the authenticity of the Josephus source that so many scholars rely so heavily on. i need to look into this further.
February 9, 2013
The book is solid and presents good information (albeit not organized as well as it could be), interesting questions, and some decent arguments. However, Crossan doesn't deal with counter arguments and often doesn't support positions he takes.
This is not a good introduction to historical Jesus scholarship; it presumes a good amount of background information (e.g. it doesn't explain Markan priority or Q) and goes against the large scholarly consensus on some important points (e.g. Jesus's apocalypticism) which, even if wrong, should be understood.
Instead, I would recommend Crossan's more polished (and shorter) 2007 book God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now or Marcus Borg's Meeting Jesus Again For the First Time.
This is not a good introduction to historical Jesus scholarship; it presumes a good amount of background information (e.g. it doesn't explain Markan priority or Q) and goes against the large scholarly consensus on some important points (e.g. Jesus's apocalypticism) which, even if wrong, should be understood.
Instead, I would recommend Crossan's more polished (and shorter) 2007 book God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now or Marcus Borg's Meeting Jesus Again For the First Time.
December 14, 2008
Tough stuff, but worth it. Once you get a hang of Crossan, you come to love him. He sets the stage for Jesus in every possible way -- examining every aspect (market conditions, anthropology, social conflicts, science, etc...) of what it meant to exist in the dawning of the common era. Of the ten or so books that I read for my grad class on Jesus, this was the best.
January 13, 2011
Fascinating account that combines thorough historical research with archeology and solid Biblical scholarship. A lot of tenets of orthodox Christianity fall by the historical wayside, but one is left with a compelling story of a great teacher struggling against social intolerance and a brutal occupation. (I read it the week I was in Jerusalem.)
October 7, 2016
Slow going, but well worth it. The first half of the book is an in-depth details review of the literature (through the early 90s when it was written) followed, in its second half, with the application to the texts and understanding of Jesus' message and motivation with the context of the first century CE peasant understanding. Not for the faint of heart.
January 6, 2008
frankly, the hoops academia sets itself up to jump through in the name of "objectivity" are just silly. artifice at its blindest. the entire first 200 pages amount to defense of his "methodology." ugh, and unfortunately detracts from erstwise interesting stuff.
September 14, 2017
I will begin by stating that I’m an unabashed fan of Crossan’s work. He is opinionated and controversial, but those opinions are based in exceptional logical proof and scholarship. His ability to analyze text and his historical understanding of the New Testament period are outstanding. I read everything that he writes, and have seen him lecture live. I may not always agree with what he writes (who can say that about anyone), but I am fully conscious of the fact that I could not win any debate over his positions with which I’m uncomfortable.
This book is one of Crossan’s crowning achievements. He seeks to place in the context of history that which is true about Jesus. He does this with the utmost care. In his “Overture” that begins the book, Crossan lists what he believes are the actual sayings of Jesus. He describes at other points how he arrived at this conclusion, but such lists are interesting. This provides the background for his study. “It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography.” Nevertheless, he makes the attempt.
The chapter, “Poverty and Freedom” is incredibly interesting. Crossan summarizes the work of Vittorio Lanternari and Bryan Wilson, who studied religious protest movements in third world societies. They categorize the different groups in such movements into:
• Conversionists – Primary emphasis on response to the world
• Manipulationists – Respond to the world by changing perception
• Thaumatergists – God will ‘work specific miracles’
• Revolutionists – God will overturn the order of the world
• Introversionists – The world is evil and should be abandoned
• Reformists – God calls people to reform the world
• Utopians – God calls people to reconstruct the world
Crossan emphasizes the historical studies of Horsley, who paints a picture of peasant social unrest in the first decades of the common era, and therefore provides a context in which to evaluate the historical Jesus. Jesus is presented as a radical thinker, who sought to contradict the claims of the power structures (Jewish and Roman alike) and instead upend the world into a Kingdom of God.
Regarding Josephus, Crossan provides reason for skepticism and a way to interpret his writings. “That stunning application of Jewish messianism to Vespasian had saved Josephus’ life in Galilee. It is hardly likely, then, that Josephus would explain too clearly or underline too sharply the existence of alternative apocalyptic or messianic fulfillments before or apart from Vespasian himself; we will have to find apocalypticism and messianism between the lines of his explicit descriptions. My specific proposal is that the revolts described by Josephus as that of the Fourth Philosphy, or fo the Sicarii, are activist manifestations of apocalypticism or messianism. In other words, what was already described in this chapter and what will now be described belong to the same intellectual and social world. It is the world of retainer revolt, and it extends from scribalism to activism, from passive resistance to active terrorism, and from martyrdom to militancy. Ant its slogan was: No Lord but God.” (112) Later, Crossan wonders at the passages in which Josephus records the Jewish popular verdict that Herod’s armies were destroyed for his punishment of John the Baptist. It is an incredibly convincing piece of scholarship and highly recommended.
On the subject of miracles, Crossan’s notes are very thought provoking. He is confused about their attestation, something that he believes is quite problematic. “Miracles were, at a very early stage, being washed out of the tradition and, when retained, were being very carefully interpreted. A full proof of that assertion would demand wider studies on the four intracanonical Gospels than presently possible, but it is at least substantiated by the miracles under consideration. I hold, in summary, that Jesus, as magician and miracle worker, was a very problematic and controversial phenomenon not only for his enemies but even for his friends.”
In the end, there is far too much ground to cover in a simple review. This is a book I return to over and over.
See my other reviews here!
This book is one of Crossan’s crowning achievements. He seeks to place in the context of history that which is true about Jesus. He does this with the utmost care. In his “Overture” that begins the book, Crossan lists what he believes are the actual sayings of Jesus. He describes at other points how he arrived at this conclusion, but such lists are interesting. This provides the background for his study. “It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography.” Nevertheless, he makes the attempt.
The chapter, “Poverty and Freedom” is incredibly interesting. Crossan summarizes the work of Vittorio Lanternari and Bryan Wilson, who studied religious protest movements in third world societies. They categorize the different groups in such movements into:
• Conversionists – Primary emphasis on response to the world
• Manipulationists – Respond to the world by changing perception
• Thaumatergists – God will ‘work specific miracles’
• Revolutionists – God will overturn the order of the world
• Introversionists – The world is evil and should be abandoned
• Reformists – God calls people to reform the world
• Utopians – God calls people to reconstruct the world
Crossan emphasizes the historical studies of Horsley, who paints a picture of peasant social unrest in the first decades of the common era, and therefore provides a context in which to evaluate the historical Jesus. Jesus is presented as a radical thinker, who sought to contradict the claims of the power structures (Jewish and Roman alike) and instead upend the world into a Kingdom of God.
Regarding Josephus, Crossan provides reason for skepticism and a way to interpret his writings. “That stunning application of Jewish messianism to Vespasian had saved Josephus’ life in Galilee. It is hardly likely, then, that Josephus would explain too clearly or underline too sharply the existence of alternative apocalyptic or messianic fulfillments before or apart from Vespasian himself; we will have to find apocalypticism and messianism between the lines of his explicit descriptions. My specific proposal is that the revolts described by Josephus as that of the Fourth Philosphy, or fo the Sicarii, are activist manifestations of apocalypticism or messianism. In other words, what was already described in this chapter and what will now be described belong to the same intellectual and social world. It is the world of retainer revolt, and it extends from scribalism to activism, from passive resistance to active terrorism, and from martyrdom to militancy. Ant its slogan was: No Lord but God.” (112) Later, Crossan wonders at the passages in which Josephus records the Jewish popular verdict that Herod’s armies were destroyed for his punishment of John the Baptist. It is an incredibly convincing piece of scholarship and highly recommended.
On the subject of miracles, Crossan’s notes are very thought provoking. He is confused about their attestation, something that he believes is quite problematic. “Miracles were, at a very early stage, being washed out of the tradition and, when retained, were being very carefully interpreted. A full proof of that assertion would demand wider studies on the four intracanonical Gospels than presently possible, but it is at least substantiated by the miracles under consideration. I hold, in summary, that Jesus, as magician and miracle worker, was a very problematic and controversial phenomenon not only for his enemies but even for his friends.”
In the end, there is far too much ground to cover in a simple review. This is a book I return to over and over.
See my other reviews here!
March 2, 2023
Yeah, this ain't it. I'm reading this for a graduate-level class on the Quests for the Historical Jesus, so I've read other scholars on this topic and am familiar with the lingo. I have three main criticisms:
1: The style of the book. Like words like "Equiprimordial," or reading about how a certain pericope (Jesus and the Feast parable) "focuses its egalitarian challenge on society’s mesocosmic mirror?" Then this is the book for you! Other scholars before and after Crossan have managed to avoid such cumbersome language, so I don't know why he needs to use it (e.g. E.P Sanders' Jesus and Judaism, or N.T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God). Also, as mentioned in other reviews, Crossan doesn't mention Jesus until 1/2 way through the book, which is frankly just odd.
2: His methodology is entirely based on speculation. Basically, Crossan tries to group sayings of Jesus recorded in all sorts of early Christian literature according to their group. For instance, Jesus's saying about no person being greater than John the Baptist (Matthew 11:11) has a very similar saying in Luke and in the "Gospel of Thomas." Crossan holds that Matthew and Luke have a common source (called Q), so he sees two independent attestations of this saying among what he deems early, independent Christian writings (Q and Thomas), and therefore it likely is a legitimate saying of Jesus. The two biggest problems here are how he groups sayings and how he dates the literature. He often arbitrarily groups sayings together that have little commonality, and his dating is WILDLY controversial. You can find the occasional scholar who puts the gospel of Thomas in the same timeframe as John's gospel, but his premise that Thomas predates Matthew and Luke is unheard of! He consistently dates other apocryphal gospels (which conveniently portray Jesus more like Crossan wants to) MUCH earlier than any scholarly consensus, and he does this enough to skew all the results of his analyses.
3: He presupposes his radical political views onto Jesus and his followers. In the opening pages, he argues that Mediterranean honor/shame culture is a product of strict sexual views and sexual repression, and then that the myth of the Virgin Mary is the product of these sexual ideals. This is an extremely controversial analysis, to say the least, and these ideas are presupposed throughout his analysis. He also sprinkles in other Marxist-Freudian presuppositions throughout the book, arguing that pre-industrial societies had a "class-consciousness" opposed to the "pattern of exploitation" inherent to all organized society (263). As a political philosophy, this can be debated, but to presume that Jesus consciously fit into Crossan's egalitarian peasant Marxist mold is not only historically implausible (there's no evidence of ANY ancient person explicitly talking about class consciousness, much less a self-identified devout Jew!), it is also a gross example of reading our own ideology on an ancient culture.
A few final notes: There are some pros to this book. His desire to let early Christian literature speak for itself is admirable. Also, his methodology and formulas for authenticity are actually not so bad. But, all of the data he puts into these formulas are entirely speculative, and I would say almost entirely wrong. This is not a productive book for advancing knowledge of Jesus, and the fact that so few other scholars have followed him is a testament to this. Also, I called Crossan's worldview Marxist-Freudian, but I don't necessarily mean that pejoratively. I think this is descriptively the closest thing to his view; in the following link he talks about why he thinks the Lord's prayer is communist: https://www.christiancentury.org/arti...
All in all, this is not a good book and is wordy, political, and a waste of time. For a much better critical book, read E.P. Sanders. For a much better more conservative book, read N.T. Wright. Stay away from Crossan.
1: The style of the book. Like words like "Equiprimordial," or reading about how a certain pericope (Jesus and the Feast parable) "focuses its egalitarian challenge on society’s mesocosmic mirror?" Then this is the book for you! Other scholars before and after Crossan have managed to avoid such cumbersome language, so I don't know why he needs to use it (e.g. E.P Sanders' Jesus and Judaism, or N.T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God). Also, as mentioned in other reviews, Crossan doesn't mention Jesus until 1/2 way through the book, which is frankly just odd.
2: His methodology is entirely based on speculation. Basically, Crossan tries to group sayings of Jesus recorded in all sorts of early Christian literature according to their group. For instance, Jesus's saying about no person being greater than John the Baptist (Matthew 11:11) has a very similar saying in Luke and in the "Gospel of Thomas." Crossan holds that Matthew and Luke have a common source (called Q), so he sees two independent attestations of this saying among what he deems early, independent Christian writings (Q and Thomas), and therefore it likely is a legitimate saying of Jesus. The two biggest problems here are how he groups sayings and how he dates the literature. He often arbitrarily groups sayings together that have little commonality, and his dating is WILDLY controversial. You can find the occasional scholar who puts the gospel of Thomas in the same timeframe as John's gospel, but his premise that Thomas predates Matthew and Luke is unheard of! He consistently dates other apocryphal gospels (which conveniently portray Jesus more like Crossan wants to) MUCH earlier than any scholarly consensus, and he does this enough to skew all the results of his analyses.
3: He presupposes his radical political views onto Jesus and his followers. In the opening pages, he argues that Mediterranean honor/shame culture is a product of strict sexual views and sexual repression, and then that the myth of the Virgin Mary is the product of these sexual ideals. This is an extremely controversial analysis, to say the least, and these ideas are presupposed throughout his analysis. He also sprinkles in other Marxist-Freudian presuppositions throughout the book, arguing that pre-industrial societies had a "class-consciousness" opposed to the "pattern of exploitation" inherent to all organized society (263). As a political philosophy, this can be debated, but to presume that Jesus consciously fit into Crossan's egalitarian peasant Marxist mold is not only historically implausible (there's no evidence of ANY ancient person explicitly talking about class consciousness, much less a self-identified devout Jew!), it is also a gross example of reading our own ideology on an ancient culture.
A few final notes: There are some pros to this book. His desire to let early Christian literature speak for itself is admirable. Also, his methodology and formulas for authenticity are actually not so bad. But, all of the data he puts into these formulas are entirely speculative, and I would say almost entirely wrong. This is not a productive book for advancing knowledge of Jesus, and the fact that so few other scholars have followed him is a testament to this. Also, I called Crossan's worldview Marxist-Freudian, but I don't necessarily mean that pejoratively. I think this is descriptively the closest thing to his view; in the following link he talks about why he thinks the Lord's prayer is communist: https://www.christiancentury.org/arti...
All in all, this is not a good book and is wordy, political, and a waste of time. For a much better critical book, read E.P. Sanders. For a much better more conservative book, read N.T. Wright. Stay away from Crossan.
October 12, 2018
Wow...I went from reading Paul Johnson's Jesus: A Biography from a Believer (which I did NOT love, review here), to reading this book. I disliked Johnson's book because of its obvious decision not to apply any kind of critical analytic effort to the life of Jesus - instead, Johnson was content to recount a selection of stories from the four Gospels and to apply his own conjectures to "what kind of a person Jesus was". Not terribly convincing, and really poor scholarship as far as I'm concerned.
And then I read this book, hoping to get a more dispassionate, fact-based and analytic view on Jesus's life. And boy did I get that. This book is like reading a series of seminar papers on the world of Palestine at the time of Jesus. As impressive as the research behind it is (and it is quite impressive), the prose in this book is so dry you could use it in place of those little silica packets they put in goods to ship them across the Pacific. This book could singlehandedly* solve the problem of rising ocean levels. This book makes the Gobi look like the Amazon. This book is super dry.
It's also pretty interesting. The author, John Crossan, basically starts by pointing out that there are a billion different "biographies" of Jesus, which paint at least a billion different pictures of what he was like. That shows the huge gaps between what we actually know about Jesus as a person, and probably relates to why people around the world have found him relatable from so many different contexts; Jesus is a sort of empty vessel into which all kinds of different people have found it convenient to pour their own selves, so that he ends up looking like them.
Given that state of affairs, Crossan tries to step back from the actual historical person of Jesus and look at some of the broad currents that characterized the world (early Roman period Palestine) in which Jesus lived, and to use those broad themes - political, economic, cultural, social - as lenses through which to look at the actual reports of what Jesus did and said, and what others did and said about him. The result is pretty convincing, but it does mean that the first third or so of the book (200 pages maybe) isn't about Jesus at all, at least not directly. Instead, it's about the culture of shame and pride that predominates broadly in Mediterranean cultures, with reference to anthropological studies of Berber tribes and Corsican farmers. It's about the economics of peasant agriculture and imperial taxation, with references from across the globe. And it's about peasant uprisings and rural banditry in Roman-held territories from 100 years before Christ to hundreds of years after his death. I feel like I wanted a book about Jesus and instead got a survey book of Mediterranean life for the past 2,000 years!
The second half of the book is more directly focused on Jesus, but even there it's pretty weedy. Crossan uses a (I assume standardized within the field of serious Jesus study) system of identifying "complexes" of stories surrounding Jesus - take, as an example, the "feeding the multitude" story. He only accepts stories for which there are multiple attributions, and by that he doesn't mean that it shows up in more than one Gospel, since those, especially the synoptic gospels, are transparently based on each other. Instead, he arrays a series of sources, including non-canonical gospels that he makes the case as having been the principal sources for those books that eventually made it into the Bible. (I'm no expert in biblical historiography, but he is, so I'm not going to argue the point.)
He then identifies the selections about Jesus's life and teachings that are multiply sourced, and uses a method of "find the differences" to get at a) where the individual authors' biases and focuses were likely to be, and then extrapolating from those points to identify what the original story must have had in common, given that it then diverged in two or more directions. It probably goes without saying, but he discards the fantastic elements of the stories, but seeks to use them to understand what it was the authors were trying to use Jesus to teach. For believers I'd imagine that would be a tough pill to swallow; I found it perfectly reasonable.
The picture he derives of Jesus from this method is an interesting one: he sees Jesus as something of a social radical, whose main message was about breaking down social barriers and living communally. He portrays Jesus as a bit of a charlatan, in the sense that his "gift", and the thing that garnered him social support, was his healing ability. Crossan doesn't attribute this healing to anything mystical, any more than most of us believe that the faith healers on television actually have divine power to cure untreatable illness. Instead, he thinks Jesus used astute psychological judgments and the power of persuasion to "heal" people of various things, and received bread in exchange. So: a huckster perhaps, but a useful one, given the well-documented efficacy of placebos.
This book was a real slog to get through, especially the first half. I will say though that the second half, being more directly focused on Jesus, was a little easier. But I definitely felt like I'd just finished a semester-long course on Jesus in a religious studies program, rather than having just read a book. Interesting for sure and I'm glad I read it, but not exactly what I was looking for. If you want to go deep on an academic view of the life of Jesus; this is that book. If you want a 400 page NYT-bestseller type of book on the life of Jesus, this is not that book. Choose accordingly.
And then I read this book, hoping to get a more dispassionate, fact-based and analytic view on Jesus's life. And boy did I get that. This book is like reading a series of seminar papers on the world of Palestine at the time of Jesus. As impressive as the research behind it is (and it is quite impressive), the prose in this book is so dry you could use it in place of those little silica packets they put in goods to ship them across the Pacific. This book could singlehandedly* solve the problem of rising ocean levels. This book makes the Gobi look like the Amazon. This book is super dry.
It's also pretty interesting. The author, John Crossan, basically starts by pointing out that there are a billion different "biographies" of Jesus, which paint at least a billion different pictures of what he was like. That shows the huge gaps between what we actually know about Jesus as a person, and probably relates to why people around the world have found him relatable from so many different contexts; Jesus is a sort of empty vessel into which all kinds of different people have found it convenient to pour their own selves, so that he ends up looking like them.
Given that state of affairs, Crossan tries to step back from the actual historical person of Jesus and look at some of the broad currents that characterized the world (early Roman period Palestine) in which Jesus lived, and to use those broad themes - political, economic, cultural, social - as lenses through which to look at the actual reports of what Jesus did and said, and what others did and said about him. The result is pretty convincing, but it does mean that the first third or so of the book (200 pages maybe) isn't about Jesus at all, at least not directly. Instead, it's about the culture of shame and pride that predominates broadly in Mediterranean cultures, with reference to anthropological studies of Berber tribes and Corsican farmers. It's about the economics of peasant agriculture and imperial taxation, with references from across the globe. And it's about peasant uprisings and rural banditry in Roman-held territories from 100 years before Christ to hundreds of years after his death. I feel like I wanted a book about Jesus and instead got a survey book of Mediterranean life for the past 2,000 years!
The second half of the book is more directly focused on Jesus, but even there it's pretty weedy. Crossan uses a (I assume standardized within the field of serious Jesus study) system of identifying "complexes" of stories surrounding Jesus - take, as an example, the "feeding the multitude" story. He only accepts stories for which there are multiple attributions, and by that he doesn't mean that it shows up in more than one Gospel, since those, especially the synoptic gospels, are transparently based on each other. Instead, he arrays a series of sources, including non-canonical gospels that he makes the case as having been the principal sources for those books that eventually made it into the Bible. (I'm no expert in biblical historiography, but he is, so I'm not going to argue the point.)
He then identifies the selections about Jesus's life and teachings that are multiply sourced, and uses a method of "find the differences" to get at a) where the individual authors' biases and focuses were likely to be, and then extrapolating from those points to identify what the original story must have had in common, given that it then diverged in two or more directions. It probably goes without saying, but he discards the fantastic elements of the stories, but seeks to use them to understand what it was the authors were trying to use Jesus to teach. For believers I'd imagine that would be a tough pill to swallow; I found it perfectly reasonable.
The picture he derives of Jesus from this method is an interesting one: he sees Jesus as something of a social radical, whose main message was about breaking down social barriers and living communally. He portrays Jesus as a bit of a charlatan, in the sense that his "gift", and the thing that garnered him social support, was his healing ability. Crossan doesn't attribute this healing to anything mystical, any more than most of us believe that the faith healers on television actually have divine power to cure untreatable illness. Instead, he thinks Jesus used astute psychological judgments and the power of persuasion to "heal" people of various things, and received bread in exchange. So: a huckster perhaps, but a useful one, given the well-documented efficacy of placebos.
This book was a real slog to get through, especially the first half. I will say though that the second half, being more directly focused on Jesus, was a little easier. But I definitely felt like I'd just finished a semester-long course on Jesus in a religious studies program, rather than having just read a book. Interesting for sure and I'm glad I read it, but not exactly what I was looking for. If you want to go deep on an academic view of the life of Jesus; this is that book. If you want a 400 page NYT-bestseller type of book on the life of Jesus, this is not that book. Choose accordingly.
August 24, 2024
ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT BOOKS ON JESUS IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS
John Dominic Crossan (born 1934) is a New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, Professor Emeritus at DePaul University, and former Catholic priest known for co-chairing the Jesus Seminar.
He wrote in the Prologue to this 1991 book, "I knew... before starting this book that it could not be another set of conclusions jostling for place among the numerous scholarly images of the historical Jesus currently available... This book had to raise most seriously the problem of methodology and then follow most stringently whatever theoretical method was chosen. My methodology for Jesus research has a triple triadic process: the campaign, the strategy, and the tactics, as it were. The first Triad involves ... using cross-cultural and cross-temporal social ANTHROPOLOGY... using Hellenistic or Greco-Roman HISTORY, and ... using the LITERATURE... concerning Jesus. All three levels, anthropological, historical, and literary, must cooperate fully and equally for an effective synthesis." (Pg. xxviii-xxix)
After discussing Honi the Circle-Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa, he observes, “Terms such as ‘hasid’ or ‘rabbi’ and emphases on prayer or legal observance are all part of the rabbinization process necessary to have these popular and famous magicians included in the rabbinical corpus. But we ARE dealing with a type of wonder worker who operates with certain and secure divine authority not mediated through or dependent on the normal forms, rituals, and institutions through which the divine power usually operates.” (Pg. 157)
He argues that for the author of Mark’s gospel, “acceptance of the humble and hidden, suffering and rejected Jesus was an absolute prerequisite to being accepted by him in the imminent apocalyptic consummation. It was Mark, therefore… who created the suffering and rising Son of Man and placed all those units… on the lips of Jesus.” (Pg. 259)
He argues, "I have argued that the apocalyptic judge's title, the Son of Man, did not stem from Jesus himself or even from the common voice of all those early Christian communities. It is not present... in the apocalyptic expectations of Paul... But it did arise very early in the tradition..." (Pg. 255) He suggests, "despite the fact that the Lord's Prayer must be a very early summary of themes and emphases from Jesus' own lifetime, I do not think that such a coordinated prayer was every taught by him to his followers... I repeat, however, that there is nothing apocalyptic about the Lord's Prayer, and it serves... as a beautiful summary of the themes and emphases in Jesus' vision of the kingdom of God." (Pg. 294) He summarizes, "major strands are coming together... The second strand comes from the tension seen in this book's first part between what might be termed the yuppies and the hippies of the first century... [The] final strand is Jesus' invocation of the kingdom of God not as an apocalyptic event in the imminent future but as a mode of life in the immediate present." (Pg. 303-304)
Unfortunately, he also endorses the so-called 'Secret Gospel of Mark' (Pg. 328-330), which is most likely a forgery by its 'discoverer' Morton Smith (see Stephen C. Carlson's book, "The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark').
He summarizes, “Jesus’ Kingdom of nobodies and undesirables in the here and now of this world was surely a radically egalitarian one, and, as such, it rendered sexual and social, political and religious distinctions completely irrelevant and anachronistic.” (Pg. 298) He states, “My wager is that ‘magic and meal’ or ‘miracle and table’ … is the heart of Jesus’ program.” (Pg. 304)
He admits, "I have... no plural attestation LINKING the Temple's symbolic destruction and Jesus' execution. I will make, however, one tentative and possibly unmethodological proposal. I am not sure that poor Galilean peasants went up and down regularly to the Temple feasts. I think it quite possible that Jesus went to Jerusalem only once and that the spiritual and economic egalitarianism he preached in Galilee exploded in indignation at the Temple as the seat and symbol of all that was nonegalitarian, patronal, and even oppressive on both the religious and the political level... and the soldiers would have moved in immediately at any disturbance. None of that can be grounded in this book's methodology, so it must be taken very carefully." (Pg. 360)
Of Jesus' dead body, he says, "But all of these industrious redactions set out to solve one simple problem. Nobody knew what had happened to Jesus' body. And the best his followers could initially hope for was that he had been buried out of Jewish piety... But no amount of damage control can conceal what its intensity only confirms. With regard to the body of Jesus, by Easter Sunday morning, those who cared did not know where it was, and those who knew did not care. Why should even the soldiers themselves remember the death and disposal of a nobody?" (Pg. 394)
)
Crossan explains a “Cynic” as follows: “The deliberate and anticultural poverty of the Cynic could entail not only vagrancy but also itinerancy.” (Pg. 85) Later, he notes, “It involved… life-style and not just mind-set in opposition to the cultural heart of Mediterranean civilization, a way of looking and dressing, of eating, living, and relating that announced his contempt for honor and shame… They were hippies in a world of Augustan yuppies…” (Pg. 421-422)
He concludes, "The historical Jesus was, then, a peasant Jewish Cynic. His peasant village was close enough to a Greco-Roman city like Sepphoris that sight and knowledge of Cynicism are neither inexplicable nor unlikely... His strategy... was the combination of free healing and common eating, a religious and economic egalitarianism that negated alike and at once the hierarchical and patronal normalcies of Jewish religion and Roman power... Miracle and parable, healing and eating were calculated to force individuals into unmediated physical and spiritual contact with God and ... with one another. He announced, in other words, the brokerless kingdom of God." (Pg. 421-422)
Crossan explains a “Cynic” as follows: “The deliberate and anticultural poverty of the Cynic could entail not only vagrancy but also itinerancy.” (Pg. 85) Later, he notes, “It involved… life-style and not just mind-set in opposition to the cultural heart of Mediterranean civilization, a way of looking and dressing, of eating, living, and relating that announced his contempt for honor and shame… They were hippies in a world of Augustan yuppies…” (Pg. 421-422)
He adds, "This book, then, is a scholarly reconstruction of the historical Jesus... But one cannot dismiss it or the search for the historical Jesus as MERE reconstruction, as if reconstruction invalidated somehow the entire project. Because there is ONLY reconstruction. For a believing Christian both the life of the Word of God and the text of the Word of God are alike a graded process of historical reconstruction... If you cannot believe in something produced by reconstruction, you may have nothing left to believe in." (Pg. 426)
Crossan's "methodology" is somewhat artificial (and at various places in the book, he does not follow it himself), and one can certainly disagree with certain points (e.g., Jesus' familiarity with the Cynic philosophy); still, the extensive background information in this book is remarkable (he doesn't even start to deal with Jesus until about halfway through the book!), and this book is absolutely "MUST READING" for anyone interested in the historical Jesus.
John Dominic Crossan (born 1934) is a New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, Professor Emeritus at DePaul University, and former Catholic priest known for co-chairing the Jesus Seminar.
He wrote in the Prologue to this 1991 book, "I knew... before starting this book that it could not be another set of conclusions jostling for place among the numerous scholarly images of the historical Jesus currently available... This book had to raise most seriously the problem of methodology and then follow most stringently whatever theoretical method was chosen. My methodology for Jesus research has a triple triadic process: the campaign, the strategy, and the tactics, as it were. The first Triad involves ... using cross-cultural and cross-temporal social ANTHROPOLOGY... using Hellenistic or Greco-Roman HISTORY, and ... using the LITERATURE... concerning Jesus. All three levels, anthropological, historical, and literary, must cooperate fully and equally for an effective synthesis." (Pg. xxviii-xxix)
After discussing Honi the Circle-Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa, he observes, “Terms such as ‘hasid’ or ‘rabbi’ and emphases on prayer or legal observance are all part of the rabbinization process necessary to have these popular and famous magicians included in the rabbinical corpus. But we ARE dealing with a type of wonder worker who operates with certain and secure divine authority not mediated through or dependent on the normal forms, rituals, and institutions through which the divine power usually operates.” (Pg. 157)
He argues that for the author of Mark’s gospel, “acceptance of the humble and hidden, suffering and rejected Jesus was an absolute prerequisite to being accepted by him in the imminent apocalyptic consummation. It was Mark, therefore… who created the suffering and rising Son of Man and placed all those units… on the lips of Jesus.” (Pg. 259)
He argues, "I have argued that the apocalyptic judge's title, the Son of Man, did not stem from Jesus himself or even from the common voice of all those early Christian communities. It is not present... in the apocalyptic expectations of Paul... But it did arise very early in the tradition..." (Pg. 255) He suggests, "despite the fact that the Lord's Prayer must be a very early summary of themes and emphases from Jesus' own lifetime, I do not think that such a coordinated prayer was every taught by him to his followers... I repeat, however, that there is nothing apocalyptic about the Lord's Prayer, and it serves... as a beautiful summary of the themes and emphases in Jesus' vision of the kingdom of God." (Pg. 294) He summarizes, "major strands are coming together... The second strand comes from the tension seen in this book's first part between what might be termed the yuppies and the hippies of the first century... [The] final strand is Jesus' invocation of the kingdom of God not as an apocalyptic event in the imminent future but as a mode of life in the immediate present." (Pg. 303-304)
Unfortunately, he also endorses the so-called 'Secret Gospel of Mark' (Pg. 328-330), which is most likely a forgery by its 'discoverer' Morton Smith (see Stephen C. Carlson's book, "The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark').
He summarizes, “Jesus’ Kingdom of nobodies and undesirables in the here and now of this world was surely a radically egalitarian one, and, as such, it rendered sexual and social, political and religious distinctions completely irrelevant and anachronistic.” (Pg. 298) He states, “My wager is that ‘magic and meal’ or ‘miracle and table’ … is the heart of Jesus’ program.” (Pg. 304)
He admits, "I have... no plural attestation LINKING the Temple's symbolic destruction and Jesus' execution. I will make, however, one tentative and possibly unmethodological proposal. I am not sure that poor Galilean peasants went up and down regularly to the Temple feasts. I think it quite possible that Jesus went to Jerusalem only once and that the spiritual and economic egalitarianism he preached in Galilee exploded in indignation at the Temple as the seat and symbol of all that was nonegalitarian, patronal, and even oppressive on both the religious and the political level... and the soldiers would have moved in immediately at any disturbance. None of that can be grounded in this book's methodology, so it must be taken very carefully." (Pg. 360)
Of Jesus' dead body, he says, "But all of these industrious redactions set out to solve one simple problem. Nobody knew what had happened to Jesus' body. And the best his followers could initially hope for was that he had been buried out of Jewish piety... But no amount of damage control can conceal what its intensity only confirms. With regard to the body of Jesus, by Easter Sunday morning, those who cared did not know where it was, and those who knew did not care. Why should even the soldiers themselves remember the death and disposal of a nobody?" (Pg. 394)
)
Crossan explains a “Cynic” as follows: “The deliberate and anticultural poverty of the Cynic could entail not only vagrancy but also itinerancy.” (Pg. 85) Later, he notes, “It involved… life-style and not just mind-set in opposition to the cultural heart of Mediterranean civilization, a way of looking and dressing, of eating, living, and relating that announced his contempt for honor and shame… They were hippies in a world of Augustan yuppies…” (Pg. 421-422)
He concludes, "The historical Jesus was, then, a peasant Jewish Cynic. His peasant village was close enough to a Greco-Roman city like Sepphoris that sight and knowledge of Cynicism are neither inexplicable nor unlikely... His strategy... was the combination of free healing and common eating, a religious and economic egalitarianism that negated alike and at once the hierarchical and patronal normalcies of Jewish religion and Roman power... Miracle and parable, healing and eating were calculated to force individuals into unmediated physical and spiritual contact with God and ... with one another. He announced, in other words, the brokerless kingdom of God." (Pg. 421-422)
Crossan explains a “Cynic” as follows: “The deliberate and anticultural poverty of the Cynic could entail not only vagrancy but also itinerancy.” (Pg. 85) Later, he notes, “It involved… life-style and not just mind-set in opposition to the cultural heart of Mediterranean civilization, a way of looking and dressing, of eating, living, and relating that announced his contempt for honor and shame… They were hippies in a world of Augustan yuppies…” (Pg. 421-422)
He adds, "This book, then, is a scholarly reconstruction of the historical Jesus... But one cannot dismiss it or the search for the historical Jesus as MERE reconstruction, as if reconstruction invalidated somehow the entire project. Because there is ONLY reconstruction. For a believing Christian both the life of the Word of God and the text of the Word of God are alike a graded process of historical reconstruction... If you cannot believe in something produced by reconstruction, you may have nothing left to believe in." (Pg. 426)
Crossan's "methodology" is somewhat artificial (and at various places in the book, he does not follow it himself), and one can certainly disagree with certain points (e.g., Jesus' familiarity with the Cynic philosophy); still, the extensive background information in this book is remarkable (he doesn't even start to deal with Jesus until about halfway through the book!), and this book is absolutely "MUST READING" for anyone interested in the historical Jesus.
June 28, 2024
In this dense scholarly work, most of the text is background material and uses comparative anthropology to give a rounded picture of life in Palestine in the 1st century CE. It was a hard existence for a peasant under the Roman yoke and oppressed by upper-class landowners and Herod the Great’s successors. Rebellions and messiah claimants occurred both before and after Jesus’ ministry and execution ca. 30 CE.
There is little historically trustworthy information about Jesus in this book because, in fact, not much has been discovered so far. The Gospels are not reliable in terms of biography. At the end of hundreds of pages of scene-setting, Crossan concludes Jesus was a peasant Jewish Cynic. Cynicism was a school of Greek philosophy that went against the grain of established society. Crossan quotes Leif Vaage’s description of Cynics: “The standard uniform of the Cynics was a cloak, a wallet, a staff. Typically, their life included barefooted itinerancy viz. indigence, sleeping on the ground or in the baths and other public buildings, a diet of water and vegetables. They were found usually in the market place. They begged.” Cynics opted for a life of poverty and freedom from the constraints of normal society.
Jesus is believed to have grown up in Nazareth, which was only four miles from Sepphoris, a Hellenistic-Jewish city that was the capital of Galilee. He could’ve come in contact with Cynics there. If he was a Cynic, he was a highly motivated one, since as he is portrayed in the Gospels, he also was a prophet who claimed to be the Messiah (Christ, or “anointed one).
There is little historically trustworthy information about Jesus in this book because, in fact, not much has been discovered so far. The Gospels are not reliable in terms of biography. At the end of hundreds of pages of scene-setting, Crossan concludes Jesus was a peasant Jewish Cynic. Cynicism was a school of Greek philosophy that went against the grain of established society. Crossan quotes Leif Vaage’s description of Cynics: “The standard uniform of the Cynics was a cloak, a wallet, a staff. Typically, their life included barefooted itinerancy viz. indigence, sleeping on the ground or in the baths and other public buildings, a diet of water and vegetables. They were found usually in the market place. They begged.” Cynics opted for a life of poverty and freedom from the constraints of normal society.
Jesus is believed to have grown up in Nazareth, which was only four miles from Sepphoris, a Hellenistic-Jewish city that was the capital of Galilee. He could’ve come in contact with Cynics there. If he was a Cynic, he was a highly motivated one, since as he is portrayed in the Gospels, he also was a prophet who claimed to be the Messiah (Christ, or “anointed one).
December 22, 2022
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant is a book by John Dominic Crossan, an American New Testament scholar and historian of early Christianity. In the book, Crossan examines the historical Jesus, the person believed by many to be the founder of Christianity, and presents a portrait of him as a Mediterranean Jewish peasant who challenged the social and religious norms of his time.
Crossan draws on a wide range of sources, including the Gospels of the New Testament and other historical and cultural materials, to explore the life and teachings of Jesus. He argues that Jesus was a radical figure who challenged the power structures of his time and advocated for social justice and equality for the poor and marginalized.
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant is considered a classic work in the field of Jesus studies and has been widely debated and discussed by scholars and lay readers alike. It offers a unique perspective on the life and teachings of Jesus and encourages readers to consider the social and cultural context in which he lived.
Crossan draws on a wide range of sources, including the Gospels of the New Testament and other historical and cultural materials, to explore the life and teachings of Jesus. He argues that Jesus was a radical figure who challenged the power structures of his time and advocated for social justice and equality for the poor and marginalized.
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant is considered a classic work in the field of Jesus studies and has been widely debated and discussed by scholars and lay readers alike. It offers a unique perspective on the life and teachings of Jesus and encourages readers to consider the social and cultural context in which he lived.
July 6, 2023
This is a beautiful treatment of the life of Jesus and what he might have been trying to accomplish with his mission.
Crossan uses the the methodology of the Jesus Seminar to assess what from the Bible was likely said by Jesus and what was likely added after his death. Using this method, Crossan then speculates what Jesus's mission and purpose might have been.
Crossan is not an iconoclast seeking to destroy the concept of Jesus. He is a Biblical and Theological scholar who is trying to build an accurate understand of what Jesus was trying to accomplish in his day and what he meant to the people of his time. He contrasts that with what the image of Jesus has become, and how the church might have gotten it wrong.
It is a beautiful book. If you are a skeptic, this book will not convert you. However, it might just help you to see that what Jesus was attempting 2000 years ago was honorable and good, and does not bear much resemblance to the Jesus or the mission of modern Christianity.
Crossan uses the the methodology of the Jesus Seminar to assess what from the Bible was likely said by Jesus and what was likely added after his death. Using this method, Crossan then speculates what Jesus's mission and purpose might have been.
Crossan is not an iconoclast seeking to destroy the concept of Jesus. He is a Biblical and Theological scholar who is trying to build an accurate understand of what Jesus was trying to accomplish in his day and what he meant to the people of his time. He contrasts that with what the image of Jesus has become, and how the church might have gotten it wrong.
It is a beautiful book. If you are a skeptic, this book will not convert you. However, it might just help you to see that what Jesus was attempting 2000 years ago was honorable and good, and does not bear much resemblance to the Jesus or the mission of modern Christianity.
February 13, 2020
I suppose my low-rated review here has most of all to do with the title; this is NOT “the life of a Mediterranean peasant,” not even close. If I had been LOOKING for a heavily-academic analysis of the socioeconomic and religiopolitical textual allusions and sevenfold theories of threefold analytical methodologies of blah blah... well, this would be the book. I was in fact, however, looking for “historical Jesus, the life of a peasant”—so I was not so happy with this book. It does float some interesting thoughts (“Magic as Religious Banditry,” anyone?) but I cannot say it’s an interesting read.
August 15, 2025
Crossan is a wonderful writer. While his writing is not showcased as magnificently in this monumental work as in some of the installments he intends for lay audiences, this compendium of knowledge is still tremendously well presented. I rate this 5 stars not because I agree with - let alone understand - everything he discusses, but because together we strolled the matrix of history that all seekers of biblical understanding must acknowledge before claiming to understand Jesus the Galilean, the Lord Jesus Christ, Jashu, or whomever he actually is. This work seems to me a sincere effort to find out.
Read on my friends!
Read on my friends!
Read
January 16, 2021NOT an easy read. Dry. I did not finish.
More than one would expect from a text book, this tome feels more like a graduate thesis or peer review paper with all the requisite annotations and bibliography.
I've read, reviewed and graded plenty of papers in my day -- as well as defending my own -- and now prefer reading books solely for enjoyment. And, this ain't it.
I write more of a warning to the prospective reader of form than a review here. I have no opinion of content and have left the rating blank.
More than one would expect from a text book, this tome feels more like a graduate thesis or peer review paper with all the requisite annotations and bibliography.
I've read, reviewed and graded plenty of papers in my day -- as well as defending my own -- and now prefer reading books solely for enjoyment. And, this ain't it.
I write more of a warning to the prospective reader of form than a review here. I have no opinion of content and have left the rating blank.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews