Rating: 
Summary: A mediterranean jewish peasant
Review: Crossan presents us his idea of the historical Jesus, beginning with a wonderful, though extremely dense analysis of first century Palestine and Mediterranean people in general. The first half of the book actually reads like an historical treaty about ancient history of the middle east, and actually doesn't even mention the name of Jesus once. A good dose of patience is therefore required.
Now, if Crossan's analitic abilities are impressive, his interpretaion of the historical Jesus, based on very controversial assumptions, to say the least, is rather shaky; at times he frankly looks biased.
Crossan would have us believe that the late "Gospel of Peter" predates the four canonical gospels, that Q actually existed in the form he imagines, that our Gospel of John is dependant on the synoptics and that the gnostic Gospel of Thomas is much earlier than Mark. Trival and unimportant as these assumptions may seem at first sight, they are essential for Crossan's analysis, so much that the absence of a couple of those would invalidate his conclusions.
It's a good book, but one shouldnt take it too serioulsy.
Rating:
Summary: Very readable and some excellent material re; 1st century
Review: Crossan sets out an exacting methology for determining the accuracy of the biblical accounts of Jesus. He then in many ways discards his own methology in order to arrive at his conclusions. He demonstrates an extrodinary hubris in the forward. He states that every search for the historical Jesus, from Switzer to Bultmann, to Dodd, all started with a notion of who Jesus was and slanted their work to find the Jesus they had pre-determined, except his own.A well written book, very readable, and wrong on almost everything. A good antidote to Crossan is N.T. Wright's The New Testament and the People of God and Wright's 2cd. volume Jesus and the Victory of God.
Rating: 
Summary: Are you a believer or a non-believer?
Review: Crossan's books are great for Christians who have a hard time swallowing the many supernatural stories about Jesus in the Gospels. If the laws of science are not violated now, why should we have to believe they were violated 2,000 years ago. My eyes were first opened when a college mythology teacher lectured on the life events that the Greek heroes had in common. Compare the lives of Heracles and Jesus - both had a God as their father and a mortal mother, both were threatened at an early age (one by Hera, one by Herod), both showed their gifts at an early age (Heracles stranged the serpent, Jesus in the temple), both faced a test before adulthood, both joined their God father after death, etc.) Crossan enables the rational reader to focus on what Jesus actually taught about making our lives better.
Rating: 
Summary: A major study of the historical Jesus that may frustrate
Review: Crossan's work is a "statistical" approach to the Jesus, i.e. Crossan works with degrees of statistical probability. Units of Jesus tradition that are early and well attested are taken as the basis for his reconstruction of Jesus. Crossan's innovative approach lies in the fact that he has expanded the base of the sources too so as to include extracanonical sources. For Crossan, Jesus was a cynic-peasant. Although he was Jewish, Palestine was sufficiently urbanized to allow for the infiltration of Greek ideas. Jesus lifestyle fits into the type of the cynic philosophers, who were anti-social and anti-establishment. Jesus began as a disciple of John the Baptist but soon became disillusioned. John was an apocalyptic prophet, whereas Jesus was a sapiental teacher of wisdom. For Jesus, the Kingdom was not an apocalyptic expression but a sapiental one. Jesus aligned the Kingdom with the conditions of this world. He declared that the Kingdom was for children, viz. peasants, nobodies, the destitute, beggars: "Jesus spoke of a Kingdom not of the Peasant or Artisan classes but of the Unclean, Degraded, and Expendable classes". The message was one of radical egalitarianism.
But Jesus was not merely a social reformer, he was also a magician. For him, magic went hand in hand with meal, miracle with table. Crossan here is dependent on Geza Vermes for the category of the charismatic or holy man, although he prefers the title "magician". The magician was he who can make divine power present directly through personal miracle rather than directly through communal ritual. As a magician and healer, Jesus represented an inclusive vision of Judaism, not an exclusive one: "Magic is to religion as banditry is to politics" (304). He and his followers shared a miracle and a Kingdom, and they received in return a table and a house: a shared egalitarianism of spiritual and material resources.
Why then was Jesus murdered? Crossan's method does not permit him an answer, but he does hazard a guess and speaks cautiously: Jesus (possibly) went to Jerusalem and his message of egalitarianism (possibly) exploded into indignation at the temple as the seat and symbol of all that was non-egalitarian. Jesus' action in the temple was (possibly) a symbolic destruction.
And what about the resurrection? The passion narratives and the resurrection in the gospels (both canonical and extracanonical) are inventions: pure fiction. The disciples of Jesus had no information of the trial, of where Jesus was crucified, or of what happened to his body. All we can say for sure is that Pilate crucified Jesus. Gospel narratives are constructed not from history but from Old Testament prophecy and on the basis of the ancient story model known as "Innocence Rescued": an innocent person is falsely accused and condemned, but before the sentence is executed there occurs a deliverance and the person is restored to a former or an even greater status than before.
Crossan's work is sophisticated and cannot possibly be given its full due in a short review. The wording on the cover of the book is unfortunate: "The first comprehensive determination of who Jesus was, what he did, what he said". I am sure that Crossan himself is not responsible for that unfortunate sales hype, although a little modesty is certainly in order. The strengths of the book are evident. The painstaking analysis of units of tradition is helpful in guiding the reader through the maize of Jesus traditions, although it must be said that merely because a tradition is early and well attested, its authenticity is not thereby guaranteed. Converesly, simple because a tradition is late, its inautheticity is not guaranteed. Further strengths of the book include the insights into Jesus from extracanonical gospels, comparative anthropological data, and the radical scepticism that informs Crossan's reading of ancient texts.
But there are gaps too. Crossan's distinction between Sicarii and Zealots, bandits and prophets depends on the assumption that Josephus DELIBERATELY confused them. In my view, Crossan has not given satisfactory reasons why Josephus would want to do this. Josephus was pro Roman but he was not anti-Jewish. Consequently, Crossan admits Jesus death under Pilate but fails to see any political ramifications. His assessment of social unrest helps to de-politicise Jesus and turn him into a first century hippy-guru-do-gooder. No mention is made of the views of S.G.F. Brandon, an important New Testament scholar who more than any other considered Jesus as a political figure. Crossan also fails to make explicit the connection between Jesus and the development of the Church that followed him. In fact, he forges a significant wedge between Jesus and the early tradition. From cynic to Christ? Yes, but how? Why? When? Where? Crossan's approach has limitations in that he will not hazard any guesses beyond his method. He concludes: "If you cannot believe in something produced by reconstruction, you may have nothing left to believe in". Strange words, considering the fact that the Church existed for centuries without historical reconstruction. Perhaps the ultimate test for every "Life of Jesus" is its picture of Jesus. Do cynic philosophers start religions, even if they happen to die tragically? Crossan recognizes this problem and consequently gives Jesus a multiple identity. Not only is he itinerant cynic, but magician, and social reformer, and sapiental teacher of wisdom--all in one. Does this add up to very much? Yes, if one thinks of Jesus as a religious figure. But, at the end of the day one must seriously ask: Can I WORSHIP Crossan's Jesus? For me, the answer, sadly, is no.
Rating:
Summary: Can I worship Crossan¿s Jesus?
Review: Crossan's work is a "statistical" approach to the Jesus, i.e. he works with degrees of statistical probability. Units of tradition that are early and well attested are taken as the basis for his reconstruction of Jesus. Crossan's innovative approach lies in the fact that he has expanded the base of the sources so as to include extracanonical gospels, and he also asks specifically about the originality of this or that story, and is confident that the results prove reliable.For Crossan, Jesus was a cynic-peasant. Although he was Jewish, Palestine was sufficiently urbanized to allow for the infiltration of Greek ideas. Jesus lifestyle fits into the type of the cynic philosophers, who were anti-social and anti-establishment, although he, unlike other cynics, concentrated his mission on the farms and villages of Lower Galilee. Jesus began as a disciple of John the Baptist but soon became disillusioned. John was an apocalyptic prophet, whereas Jesus was a sapiental teacher of wisdom. Apocalyptic did not feature as part of Jesus' message. The apocalyptic "Son of Man" figure was a later invention of the church. In Jesus' mouth it was merely a generic term for a person, only later did it assume a titular quality. The "Kingdom of God" IS well attested in the sources. For Jesus, the Kingdom was not an apocalyptic expression but a sapiental one. Jesus aligned the Kingdom with the conditions of this world. He declared that the Kingdom was for children, viz. peasants, nobodies, the destitute, beggars: "Jesus spoke of a Kingdom not of the Peasant or Artisan classes but of the Unclean, Degraded, and Expendable classes". The message was one of radical egalitarianism. But Jesus was not merely a social reformer, he was also a magician. For him, magic went hand in hand with meal, miracle with table. Crossan here is dependent on Geza Vermes for the category of the charismatic or holy man, although he prefers the title "magician". The magician was he who can make divine power present directly through personal miracle rather than directly through communal ritual. As a magician and healer, Jesus represented an inclusive vision of Judaism, not an exclusive one: "Magic is to religion as banditry is to politics" (304). He and his followers shared a miracle and a Kingdom, and they received in return a table and a house: a shared egalitarianism of spiritual and material resources. Why then was Jesus killed? Crossan's method does not permit him any answer, but he does hazard a guess and speaks cautiously. Jesus (possibly) went to Jerusalem and his message of egalitarianism (possibly) exploded into indignation at the temple as the seat and symbol of all that was non-egalitarian. Jesus' action in the temple was (possibly) a symbolic destruction. The passion narratives and the resurrection in the gospels (both canonical and extracanonical) are inventions: pure fiction. The disciples of Jesus had no information of the trial, of where Jesus was crucified, or of what happened to his body. All we can say for sure is that Pilate crucified Jesus. Gospel narratives are constructed not from history but from prophecy and on the basis of the ancient story model known as "Innocence Rescued": an innocent person is falsely accused and condemned, but before the sentence is executed there occurs a deliverance and the person is restored to a former or an even greater status than before. Crossan's work is sophisticated and cannot possibly be given its full due in a short review. The wording on the cover of the book is unfortunate: "The first comprehensive determination of who Jesus was, what he did, what he said". I am sure that Crossan himself is not responsible for that unfortunate sales hype, although a little modesty is certainly in order. The strengths of the book are evident. The painstaking analysis of units of tradition is helpful in guiding the reader through the maize of Jesus traditions, although it must be said that merely because a tradition is early and well attested, its authenticity is not thereby guaranteed. Further strengths include the insights into Jesus from extracanonical gospels, comparative anthropological data, and the radical scepticism that informs the reading of ancient texts. But there are gaps too. Crossan's distinction between Sicarii and Zealots, bandits and prophets depends on the (false) assumption that Josephus deliberately confused them. In my view, he has not given satisfactory reasons why Josephus would want to do this. Josephus was pro Roman but he was not anti-Jewish. Consequently, Crossan admits Jesus death under Pilate but fails to see any political ramifications. His assessment of social unrest helps to de-politicise Jesus and turn him into a first century hippy-guru-do-gooder. No mention is made of the views of S.G.F. Brandon. Crossan also fails to make explicit the connection between Jesus and the development of the tradition that followed him. In fact, he forges a significant wedge between Jesus and the early church. From cynic to Christ? Yes, but how? Why? When? Where? Crossan's approach has limitations in that he will not hazard any guesses beyond his method. He concludes: "If you cannot believe in something produced by reconstruction, you may have nothing left to believe in". Strange words, considering the fact that the Church existed for centuries without historical reconstruction. Perhaps the ultimate test for every Life of Jesus is its picture of Jesus. Do cynic philosophers start religions, even if they happen to die tragically? Crossan recognizes this problem and consequently gives Jesus a multiple identity. Not only is he itinerant cynic, but magician, and social reformer, and sapiental teacher of wisdom, all in one. Does this add up to very much? At the end of the day we must seriously ask: Can I worship Crossan's Jesus? For me, the answer, sadly, is no.
Rating:
Summary: Not for amateurs
Review: Crossan's work is a complex and thorough approach to the Jesus material in the New Testament, as well as to the socio-political period in which Jesus lived. In his preface, Crossan clearly outlines the assumptions that undergird his understanding of both; and I would caution any reader to keep those assumptions in mind. Taking that caveat into account, however, this is a brilliant magnum opus by an outstanding scholar; but one that will take considerable effort for someone not already familiar with the field to understand.
Rating:
Summary: Lots of information, but verbose and aggravating style
Review: Enjoys holding the reader hostage by introducing a term, but not defining it before dragging you through mountains of material. Example: "Patron" appears as a title on p 43. Not defined succinctly until twenty five pages later (and by a different author). Verbose academic piffle with polysyllabic overkill in the meantime, eg: "...a theory of social stratification as a cross-cultural model for the distributive process in human societies..." Makes you wonder what the guy would yell if the building was burning - it sure wouldn't be "fire"!
Rating:
Summary: a fair interpretation
Review: for the most part, I've always liked Crossans work and this is no exception. As I have started writing reviews, Ive noticed several differant categories of readers: minimalists, historians, fundementalist, athiest, anti-catholics, anti-semitists, spiritualists and so on. If Crossan is any of these, he is a historian. He is only argueing what he can textualy prove. This book is not argueing faith, but historical text and is by far useful in that context. Can anyone show us the real Jesus? Probably not. But Crossan gives us a fair reconstruction of part of his life and personality. I do not always agree with Crossan, but as a historian I recomend this book.
Rating:
Summary: The book that converted me to Christianity
Review: I do not claim to understand all of the subtleties of Crossan's scholarly methods, but it is his insistence on peeling away layers and centuries of mythology to seek the truth beneath that taught me that one does not have to check one's brain at the church door. That in itself was a revelation to me. Regardless of whether history vindicates Crossan or not, this book represents a path of inquiry that should be pursued further. The superstitions of the Middle Ages don't work anymore. I began the book as a curious atheist and finished it as a prayerful Christian.
Rating:
Summary: Scholarly, fascinating
Review: I find Crossans textual analysis most convincing and edifying. Other reviewers have described his technique, so I will not do so here. I find his context based arguments (medateranian jewish pesant) less convincing, but still thought prevoking. To a layperson (in every sense) this is a rigorous, well documented, careful work of original scholarship. For me the best part of the book, the part I go back to, is the list of things he is REALLY sure Jesus said. For the biographical details, Crossans's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography is I think better for all but the most committed. This is an accademic work, and not an easy read. The organization is non intuitive. I wish Crossan had followed the best of accademic tradition and pointed out where others disagree with him and over what. He acts taking the high road by not disparaging other scholars, but in reality he is making it difficult for those outside the accadamy to participate in the debate. If any reader of this review knows of work of similar quality, with differing conclusions I would be grateful for pointers.
|
