Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict

by James Crossley, Robert J. Myles

'Precise, clear, accessible, and important. I can think of no better introduction to the historical Jesus for the general reader, no clearer statement on the legacy of the Jesus movement in the sweep of subsequent history, or a more worthy challenge to contemporary scholarship on Jesus and the rise of Christianity.' Neil Elliott, author of Liberating The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle

What made the Jesus movement tick? By situating the life of Jesus of Nazareth in the turbulent troubles of first-century Palestine, Crossley and Myles give a thrilling historical-materialist take on the historical Jesus. Delivering a wealth of knowledge on the social, economic, and cultural conflicts of the time, A Life in Class Conflict uncovers the emergence of a fervent and deadly serious religious organizer whose social and religious movement offered not only a radical end-time edict of divine reversal and judgment but also a promising new world order ruled in the interests of the peasantry. The movement's popular appeal was due in part to a desire to represent the values of ordinary rural workers, and its vision meant that the rich would have to give up their wealth, while the poor would be afforded a life of heavenly luxury. Tensions flared up considerably when the movement marched on Jerusalem and Jesus was willingly martyred for the cause. Crossley and Myles offer a vivid portrait of the man and his movement and uncover the material conditions that converged to make it happen.

Genres: Religion, History, Nonfiction, Christianity, Politics, Biblical Studies

306 pages, Kindle Edition

Published February 24, 2023

Reviews

[xenia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Despite Crossley and Myles' claims of a historical materialist framework, Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict mostly consists of a literary analysis of the Bible.

The book begins strong, outlining the failure of previous scholarship to situate Jesus's upbringing in a gentrifying Galilee. They concede that, yes, while gentrification generates jobs (for temp workers and slaves), it consolidates wealth and power for the urban elite. Such civic projects in Galilee were driven by Herod the Great, a sympathiser to the Roman Empire. Crossley and Myles' suggest that these projects were likely met with anger, rather than gratitude, by the poorer Jews living in Galilee—a sign of their continued marginalisation and persecution by a foreign imperialist power.

Rather than develop on these fantastic points, Crossley and Myles turn to a close reading of the Bible for the subsequent chapters, detailing the different representations of Jesus in the writings of John, Mark, Matt, and Luke. It's fascinating seeing how Jesus, a historical figure, becomes a deity, whose divine purpose is contested across two centuries of writing, however, I fail to see how this is historical materialist in the slightest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought historical materialism was examining how the contradictions between productive forces and productive relations engender class struggle?

At various points throughout the book, Crossley and Myles refer back to their chapter on Galilee to link the Jesus movement to class struggle. This feels lazy and incomplete. What are the socioeconomic conditions of the places Jesus visited? If the Jesus movement was itinerant, then their actions and sayings must connect to the particulars of the places they visit. A single chapter analysing Galilee is not enough to extrapolate a universal alienation felt by Jews in the Roman Empire. It's not nearly enough to explain why Rome felt so threatened by the Jesus movement.

I also see a missed opportunity here to connect Jesus to other anti-imperialist, anti-statist, and (for lack of a better word) anti-rich movements. Crossley and Myles repeat that Jesus was not an exceptional man, but someone moulded by his socioeconomic conditions. If this is true, then the Jesus movement is not exceptional either, and should be connected to other movements popping up around the same time and place.

Another irk is the Leninist terminology that peppers the book. I can't tell if Crossley and Myles are being cheeky or if they genuinely believe that Jesus and his 12 apostles were the central committee of an apocalyptic vanguard party, whose end goal was the dictatorship of the peasantry. Like, come on, 20th century Russia is so fucking different from 1st century Rome, it's not even funny—it's reductive and it makes Marxism look like a farce. You can appreciate the Russian revolution without sounding like a tankie.

It's not all bad. Amongst the later chapters is an engaging section concerning patriarchy in the Roman Empire. Crossley and Myles note that divinity and status were tied to masculinity, and masculinity was displayed by dominating, feminising, and therefore humiliating others. You can see this in their art. There's a statue that depicts the Roman Emperor Claudius grabbing a fallen Britannia's by her hair, raising his fist up to strike her. They argue that the Jesus Movement created a counterhegemonic masculinity, which involved serving the people, a inversion of the status quo that marked them as deviant and defiant. The issue, they note, is that the hierarchical structure of Roman masculinity isn't destroyed, merely inverted. Furthermore, masculinity remains the path towards divinity. What I wish they'd elaborated on was the Jesus Movement's adoption of decadence narratives to depict the urban elites as weaklings dressed in soft clothes and divorced from nature—another form of subjugation tied to feminisation, and protofascist logics.

There's also a gripping chapter near the end that reframes Jesus's imprisonment and execution by the Roman Empire as a response to peasant unrest, spurred by the agitations of the Jesus movement on Passover (a Jewish holy day that celebrates emancipation from Egyptian slavery). Crossley and Myles argue that Jesus was designated not simply a criminal, but an insurgent—crucified alongside other seditious persons who threatened Roman hegemony over Judea. This chapter showed me how well Crossley and Myles can reframe the Bible through a historical materialist lens—which makes my disappointment over this book only stronger.

My last question is: what are we meant to take away from all this? Crossley and Myles argue against Jesus being an egalitarian liberal, which they see as a projection of present day values onto the past. Instead, they argue that Jesus was more like a benevolent dictator, who, together with his 12 apostles, would rule over the Kingdom of Heaven, where the poor and the meek would thrive, rather than the rich and corrupt. There was nothing democratic about the Jesus movement. Additionally, it only concerned Jews. It was a nationalist movement. They further note that while Jesus is known for hanging out with sinners, such a term did not designate sex workers, thieves, and the like, back then. Sinners designated bankers, rent collectors, and profiteers. A sinner was a rich person. While Jesus helped the poor and sickly, he sought out the rich for their support and charity. In other words, he was a moraliser, who condemned the money grubbing bureaucrats, bankers, and foreigner rulers, with their soft decadent clothes. While the development of Christianity beyond Judaism expands Jesus's message beyond nationalistic boundaries, its moralism remains—a moralism that expects deliverance through the recruitment of the rich, and the always-arriving/yet-to-arrive apocalypse of the rich. The poor remain objects of pity, followers rather than actors—historical detritus (that we must care for and protect and cuddle with uwu~). I think Crossley and Myles' subject matter is worth exploring, but I'm left with a strong, so what? Am I meant to be inspired by by this queer lil Jesus man who hung out with the repentant rich? Warned of him as a despoiler of class power? Am I meant to see the potential for revolution thriving beneath Jesus's feet in the disgruntled masses, the masses who aren't depicted all that much because we're too busy doing close readings of the Bible? Am I just expecting too much from everything I'm reading of late? Probably.

Forgive them father, for they do not know what they do.

[C. Hansen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Public review (a more thorough will be coming in the Canadian-American Theological Review)

This is perhaps one of the most exemplary biographical volumes to come out in the last 20 years on the historical Jesus. Historical Jesus studies of the past (save a few notable exceptions) have been long mired in a near allergic reaction to sociological analyses of early Christianity and of Jesus in particular, and it is not hard to see why, given Jesus is mostly the confessional center for a lot of NT scholars, and, more broadly, the field of historical Jesus scholarship long functioned under "Great Man" models of history, this idea of how heroic individuals shape history. This volume stands as a corrective to such (neoliberal) views. Angela Y. Davis once noted in her book "Freedom is a Constant Struggle" (Haymarket 2016) that, "It is essential to resist the depiction of history as the work of heroic individuals in order for people to recognize their potential agency as a part of an ever-expanding community of struggle" (2).

This volume greatly accomplishes such a task, and does so in a thoroughly compelling way. Of all the Marxist works I have read on the origins of Christianity and on Jesus (Machovec, Kautsky, Kalthoff, Lenzman, Kryvelev, Robertson, Mongar, Chiakulas, etc.) this is perhaps the most fully engrained, and truly Marxist (historical materialist) analysis of Jesus and his life, and, personally, I think that as far as biographies of Jesus are concerned this is probably the best they can get.

I will admit to being inordinately skeptical, so there are of course lots of points where I simply don't think much (read 99%) of the Gospels are historical (sorry, not even John the Baptist's baptism of Jesus). I also don't think Q existed or similar. So, of course, Crossley and Myles come to rather radically different conclusions than I would, but that is irrelevant to the quality of the volume ultimately. Even where I firmly disagree with them, their cases are still well argued and entirely plausible. I have always been partial to historical materialist understandings of Jesus, and this one as a millenarian prophet, and a failed revolution (which did not bring about the theocratic dictatorship of God, or the systemic economic changes it wished) is, I will say, the most convincing I have read.

I think that this volume is, perhaps, going to go down as one of the most notable biographies of Jesus to have been published. I consider it a strong corrective to the works of past scholars like Sanders, who consistently framed Jesus as this special and unique individual.

As I said, Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict is a must read and belongs on every scholar and lay person's shelf. Whether you are an academic of the field, a lay Christian, or clergy, you should be reading this volume and seriously considering it.

[Rory · Rating 4 out of 5]

Might have been nice to get more context for first-century Jerusalem, along the lines of the earlier chapter on gentrifying Galilee, but I accept that may be a topic for another book. Speaking of, I’d be keen to see the last chapter expanded into its own volume – let Crossley and Myles really dig into Paul, figure out what that fucker’s deal was

[Erin Crane · Rating 3 out of 5]

My 3 star rating mainly comes from my interest fading in and out depending on the topic covered or point being made in this book. If I were 100% interested I think I’d give it 4 stars because it’s pretty accessible (at least for someone raised Christian) and well organized. I’d still dock a star for a couple complaints I have.

Thought provoking stuff/highlights:
1. Overall this is the first time I’ve read something that comes at Jesus’ life from a completely agnostic perspective. I was introduced to many new ways to view what did or didn’t happen and why this gospel says one thing and this one another. Examples: the idea that later writers felt the need to explain Jesus’ baptism, the potential competition between John the Baptist and Jesus, and the idea that Jesus was speaking of an earthly kingdom.
2. Jesus put in the context of the time was helpful. Millenarianism was a broadly popular view, especially among peasants at the time. Jesus was part of a Jewish insurrectionist history that also continued after him. I wish we got more information (it’s unclear if there just isn’t any) about what the expected supernatural intervention would look like in the minds of Jesus and his followers.
3. The unique part of Jesus’ movement was the strategic nonviolence which was connected to the also unique “mission to the rich” pillar of the movement.

Bothersome stuff:
1. Sometimes the authors said that a position they held was “clearly” the case when it was not clear to me. I needed more evidence than they gave me. I might still agree with them, but I just felt they didn’t do enough to make the case. One example is the importance of maintaining the image of masculinity even though their movement was nonviolent.
2. The thread of “class conflict” did not feel consistently present. There were chapters that felt tangentially connected to that theme if at all, which is odd when it’s the subtitle of the book. Sometimes the authors were more wrapped up in expounding on what did or didn’t really happen in Jesus’ life.

[Sarah Maguire · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found it hard to rate this fairly. The book is a frustrating mix of helpful, scholarly insights and clumsily provocative self-positioning. The most obvious example was the repeated reference to the Jesus movement as 'the party' and the twelve apostles as the 'politburo'. I will further digest my thoughts on this later.

[James Magrini · Rating 5 out of 5]

Readers seeking an historical reconstruction of Jesus, which might be relatable to our contemporary experience of faith, such as encountered in the writings of Marcus Borg (Jesus: A New Vision, 1994), will not find it in Crossley’s and Myles’ exhaustive study. The research is grounded in historical facts and probabilities, not in identifying, discerning, and interpreting religious symbolism, as is consistent with the theology of Tillich. Instead, the focus is on the search for revealing “Jesus’ life-living conditions” as opposed to working to showcase Jesus as a “great man” or paradigmatic individual and teacher (Karl Jaspers, 1962).

The book does an excellent job locating and grounding Jesus within a shared historical context, providing an understanding of the inner-workings of the (material conditions) of the mechanisms of “ideological Imperial Apparatus” and “Repressive Imperial Apparatus” of first century Judaism under Roman state control – Jesus is shown to be an historical product of his age. It offers an intriguing and engaging analysis, making a coherent case for what I’ll refer to as the confluence and influence of social-political-economic forces on the emergence and ultimate failure of Jesus’ ministry, an historical form of religious “millenarianism.” The book follows the entire Gospel narrative as found in Mark’s early Gospel, with its late additions, which is a book often cited as a stark example of apocalyptic eschatology. Throughout the analysis the authors reveal crucial details regarding the practice of Judaism as it influences the views and actions of Jesus.

The Jesus movement, according to the authors, is not merely concerned with overturning the imperial Roman rule, but also with re-interpreting, re-envisioning the players within the reigning ideological context within which they were embedded. Thus, there is a sense of “mimicry” and “re-production” – a new staging (re-staging) of the historical spectacle with different actors assuming starring roles – the oppressed become the oppressors, now in terms of divine justice and retribution.

Crossley (2010), referencing Stephen D. Moore’s scholarship, states, “there are two polarizing positions in post-colonial Biblical criticism and Mark’s Gospel in particular: a hardline anti-imperial literature or literature which replicates the imperial and colonial ideologies even if it attempts to resist them” (p. 39). Crossley and Myles, as opposed to an Either/Or approach, embrace a (hermeneutic) Both/And model of interpretation, they adopt both views in their reading: The Jesus movement opposes the imperial (hierarchical) rule of Rome and simultaneously works to “replicate it in terms of the religious. The movement replicates and mimics the culture of the colonized…replacing oner system of domination with another system of domination and thereby maintaining the power structures in a different guise” (p. 40). In such instances, a complete “twisting-free” or transcendence of the oppressive and undesirable historical conditions is not quite achieved, for the hierarchy of power and power-relations is left intact.

This is a solid representation of where the new direction in New Testament scholarship is headed – specifically, “Historical Jesus.” It shares certain traits with earlier books, e.g., D. Crossan’s Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (1990), Funk and Dewy’s Gospel of Jesus (2015), and Hoover’s Profiles of Jesus (2005). But Crossley and Myles unabashedly adopt a “critical” (philosophical-historical) view that is both materialist and ideological (Marx/Foucault) – focused on the so-called “social construction of the subject.” It is more of a social and historical biography, a scholarly “life of Jesus,” which is unconcerned with validating or determining the historical legitimacy of Jesus’ words and sayings in the Gospels, as related to the work of the Jesus Seminar.

In this book, “method” is not discussed in any detail, and since the value of the study is dependent on the implementation of and adherence to method I note that Crossley – in his 2010 book Reading the New Testament – does discuss the interpretive method referred to as “social scientific criticism,” which interestingly includes history, literary criticism, and economics (see Crossley, 2010, pp. 9-32)! In short, the method is mixed or interdisciplinary and is situated under the broader auspices of postcolonial theory – i.e., a form of philosophic critical theory (e.g., Frankfort School).

However, unlike more traditional versions of critical theory, the writing is clear and highly accessible and hence makes the book’s content understandable to many more readers than would, say, Foucault’s dense writings on culture, power, and discipline. So, this book takes readers beyond the familiar interpretive modes common to Historical Jesus studies: Pre-critique, Source critique, Form Critique, and Redactive Critique. For example, to reiterate, the authors enlist the writings of Marx, Engles, Gramsci, and Eagleton, et al, in defense of their general thesis, recall that the distinction between Ideological State Apparatus and Repressive State Apparatus emerges form the Marxist (structuralist) critique of Althusser (“Lenin and Philosophy”)

Serious readers of Marx will have warranted concerns and pushback in relation to the “fallacy of anachronism”. In addition, the authors’ conclusions, which as stated are the result of an interdisciplinary (hermeneutic) approach, must be approached with some caution. For as Beilby and Eddy (2010) observe, “certain interdisciplinary models [potentially] impose data on the Jesus tradition and bring with them ideological determinist or reductionist conclusions” (p. 43). I raise these brief points for “researchers”; as a retired academic, such concerns are somewhat insignificant, for I am reading for personal erudition and enjoyment!

In conclusion, I note that the political-economic strife that the authors explore, documenting the dichotomy and potential reversal of values, is related intimately to what Nietzsche presciently proposed in Genealogy of Morals as related to “Christian morality” (the “priestly” master-slave reversal). As stated at the outset, related to New Testament scholarship, readers will find the authors’ position drawing inspiration from both J. D. Crossan and E. P. Sanders. Indeed, going back to the 1700s, the conclusions of the authors share similarities (sans hyperbole) with H. S. Reimarus’ book on the historical Jesus.

I highly recommend Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict.

Dr. J. M. Magrini
Former: Philosophy/College of DuPage

[Dean Summers · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict is a Marxist assessment of the Jesus movement which aims to demonstrate that Jesus had less to do with the Jesus movement than you have been led to believe. To do that, the authors, James Crossley and Robert Myles, set out on a quest for the historical Jesus. In their quest, they are looking for new insight into the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth, who lived in Galilee in the early years of the Roman Empire, who was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate, who is said to have been raised by God alive from the dead.

For sometime now, scholars have been working real hard to get past the Gospels to glimpse "the historical Jesus." As far back as 1906, Albert Schweitzer proved it can't be done. The Gospels are grounded in eyewitness testimony, but they are not depositions. They are stories. They are stories crafted by storytellers whose purpose was not to inform, but to inspire. To achieve their purpose, they wove hard facts with poetry and parable. The poetry and parable is woven in with the hard facts so expertly there is no separating them one from the other.

In the Gospels, Jesus is not presented as an historical subject to be studied. He is presented as a certain Someone who meets you face to face, who says, "Come, follow me." Behind the Gospels, there is no other Jesus. What you see is what you get. When you meet the Jesus of the Gospels, you can choose to follow him (as Schweitzer did), or you can choose to dismiss him, or disdain him, or admire him in certain respects. But there is no use searching the Gospels for some other Jesus. Even so, Crossley and Myles sound the call: "Once more into the breach!"

The authors do offer a fine overview of the social, religious, economic, and political realities in Galilee and Judea during the Roman occupation. And they do bring Jesus and his disciples into real life by situating them in their historical context and by laying out the options they had available to them for responding to the challenges they faced.

However, as I've explained, the quest for the historical Jesus is fundamentally flawed. But here we are on yet another quest. The allure is, in part, the romantic notion that the quest is like a search for buried treasure--that it is a kind of archeological expedition that requires digging through accumulated layers of debris and sifting the soil in order to discover a few shards of anything that might help with the work of historical reconstruction. For a critique of the quest as archeology, see Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Baukham.

As would-be archeologists, practitioners of the art of historical Jesus research want you to believe their endeavor is more a science than an art. It's not. It's an exercise in imagination. Crossley and Myles say so themselves: "Again, we are left with the limitations of a disciplined historical imagination for reconstruction, but such attempts are not without merit" (p. 201).

I agree there is merit to a disciplined historical imagination for reconstruction. But the quest is more about invention than it is about reconstruction. When the dust settles, who is revealed is not the one and only historical Jesus but only one among a growing crowd of historical Jesuses.

Crossley and Myles repeat the unfounded accusation that the Gospel of John is a racist diatribe against Jews. It is not. The impression that it is comes from hearing "Jew" as a racist slur. The Gospel of John was most likely written by a Jew for an audience that included Jews. In the Gospel of John, the word "Jew" is never a racist slur, except in the mouth of Pontius Pilate and in the notice he ordered nailed to Jesus' execution stake. Otherwise, when you see "Jew" in the Gospel of John, read "the Judeans," and listen for the political overtones.

In their final chapter, Crossley and Myles refer to the Gospel of John to offer a rationale for rejecting Christianity and for holding Christians in contempt: ". . . behind every case of fascism there is a failed revolution" (p. 255); . . . we can push the notion of the Jesus movement's failed revolution further for a moment by detecting some of the chilling 'fascist-like' tendencies that gestated toward the end of this early period. We need go no further than John's Gospel . . ." (p. 260). There are fascist expressions of Christianity, but they do not derive from the Jesus movement or from the Gospel of John.

In their quest for a Marxist Jesus, Crossley and Myles gloss over the first three hundred years of a movement that could never have arisen from the ashes of the failed revolution they imagine. Those who followed Jesus beyond the cross, followed him into a life of total surrender to the God of life and love, whose spirit nurtures compassion, forgiveness, reconciliation, generosity, and truth-telling, extending even to outsiders, even to the enemy, even in the face of violent opposition.

Now that's a revolution! It is an ongoing revolution. And it has not failed. You do need to know where to look for it. The Gospels can help you with that.

[John Mihelic · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict – Crossley & James

I enjoyed reading this materialist approach to the life of Jesus. It was a good exploration of both what his life would have been like and the world he lived in, as well as the construction of the gospels and the epistles. The author did a really good job putting the construction of the books of the bible in context in looking at similarities and differences in the stories between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and examining how that represented what might have been going on in the larger “Jesus Movement” that sprang forth 2000 years ago. Even as an atheist, this book made me want to go back to the original text to look at it with fresh eyes.

[Matthew D · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this reading of the historical Jesus. I thought it did well to dispell some of the ideas of "free love hippie Jesus" while also establishing that the millenarian movement was quite radical from a class perspective. In fact, Jesus and his followers were even more opposed to accumulation of wealth than I originally thought, as a card carrying socialist.
I thought some of the allusions were cheeky but sometimes a little hamfisted. Declaring the disciples as "the vanguard party" is such an example.
Seeing a comparison of the gospels was quite interesting. I feel this is also a really difficult topic to breach. Using mostly religious books, and the help of Josephus, to recreate the life of Jesus is difficult so hats off to the authors.
Overall, I enjoyed the book.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Another one I had to read via speech-to-text so what I was able to absorb was probably more limited compared to if there had been an audiobook available. The constant citations and verse references unfortunately made it more difficult to follow.

I appreciated some of the overall points made, but not sure how much I was able to absorb and retain. It did not feel accessible to anyone without a religious background or those already familiar with the life of Jesus. I did find it interesting how much the author noted the potential for bias and points of conflicting or lack of information in the gospels as it was not a perspective I've heard before.

[Maxwell Stewart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Provides a lot of fascinating historical context for the early Jesus movement and tracks the formation of differing oral and textual traditions with efficiency and clarity. Still too fixated on the “what happened” in relation to class over questions of theological significance to class conflict, though this is more of a personal preference than a reflection on the quality of the scholarship

[Reid Belew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really amazing look into the material conditions of 1st century Galilee and how those conditions may have fueled and molded the early Christian movement. I didn’t get all the way finished, but I got the bulk of it.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would agree with the authors that this book is for the “educated non-specialist”. However, what the books lacks in literary flair, it makes up for in detail, depth and analysis. A good Marxist overview of the historical “Jesus movement”.

[Alan Marr · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a challenging and provocative book. I liked it but I'm not sure it will be of much use to me because it lacks one important thing. There is no index of topics or Bible references. I was sorry about that.

[Kim Siever · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very informative, but quite academic. Definitely a book one needs to read more than once or to refer to over and over again.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting analysis of the historical context around Jesus and the dynamics that formed early Christianity

[Will · Rating 4 out of 5]

An up-to-date, enlightening, and iconoclastic examination of the historical Jesus from a contemporary Marxist perspective. Some of the Marxist analysis and references were ham-fisted and anachronistic; I physically winced whenever the twelve apostles were referred to as a "politburo" or the Kingdom of God referred to as the "Dictatorship of the Peasantry". Moreover, the concluding chapter about the failure and co-optation of the Jesus movement's revolution - arguably the most interesting and prescient aspect of Christianity - was very brief and underdeveloped. Still recommended as an informative counterweight to most mainstream portraits of the historical Jesus.