Rating: 
Summary: Makes Jesus research exciting and relevant
Review: A very readable book on a perennially provocative personality. Fredriksen combines captivating novel-like writing (in the Interludes) with deep scholarly insight on Jewish-Christian history, the Scriptures, and theology. A must read for those seeking an understanding of Jesus which makes sense to modern ears, religious or otherwise.
Rating:
Summary: Something well done is art, such is this book
Review: And excellent historic work that is an effortless read. So much so that Fredriksen's lyrical weave-of-words makes her scholarly prose a work of art. I have read many fine efforts that search for better understanding of the life and death of historic Jesus. This is the best.
Rating:
Summary: A seminal work of scholarship.
Review: As far as I'm concerned Paula Fredricksen provides a fresh and convincing thesis in this work en route to capturing the historical Jesus.To say that I was impressed with her even-handed academic approach would be a gross understatement. With the care and meticulousness of an anthropologist at dig site, Fredricksen excavates for the historical Jesus working from a premise that denies the all too obliged notions of the "apocalyptic messiah" or Gallelian sage. It is with this approach that she acquires the foundation for a clear and bias-free perspective( or at least as bias-free as it it possible to get). She treats the historic record with the exacting precision and care of a surgeon, and arrives at the historical Jesus not through the prizm of the narratives (the Gospels) or through that of his proverbs, but through the seemingly inexplicable occasion of his death. Frederiksen is perhaps most to be complimented on her evaluation of the variations of Jesus depicted between the Gospels; not using these inconguencies to dismiss them, but offering them as items to be used to juxtapose against other documents that reflect the 1st century Jesus (the dead sea scroll for example). This is an impressive technique, which has the result of more accurately capturing the historical Jesus. Above all of this, the book is very cogent and not a difficult read. This is perhaps its best quality.
Rating:
Summary: A new look at the historic Jesus
Review: Biblical scholarship, both Old and New Testaments, fascinates me. It is with a great deal of pleassure, then, that I read works devoted to this subject, particularly if they are understandable to a layman such as myself. This newest work is a perfect example of the best type of writing in this field: it breaks new ground for me, and I understand it because the writing isn't geared only for the "inner circle" of scholars in the field. The author delves deeply but clearly into the times and the sources, and supports her hypothesis quite strongly. I know that there are probably many people who disagree with what she states, but she has her ground and she stands it well. I take no sides in the ongoing controversy; I just enjoy reading all sides to the arguments, and this work is an excellent addition to the literature on the subject of the historic Jesus. Whether or not the author is correct in her position we will never know, because of the 2000 year time difference from the life to the writing, but we can speculate, and the author does her speculating well. This is a book well worth reading; you don't have to agree with its conclusions to admire the scholarship that went into composing it.
Rating: 
Summary: Significant contribution to the historical-Jesus debate
Review: Fredrickson yields a portrait of the historical Jesus as an eschatological (apocalyptic) prophet who preached the imminent Kingdom of God, a message that cohered with his mentor, John the Baptist. She argues that the Nazarene was in no way a social reformer or revolutionary; he was purely eschatological, expecting God to inaugurate the Kingdom on earth, and not just "soon" but "now". By naming the precise date of the Kingdom's coming (perhaps that very Passover itself) Jesus galvanized crowds gathered in Jerusalem, who enthusiastically embraced his proclamation of the coming Kingdom and hailed him as the messiah. "It was this combustible mix of factors -- the excited popular acclaim, in Jerusalem at its most densely populated pilgrim festival, when Pilate was in the city specifically to keep his eye on the crowd -- not his teaching as such, nor his arguments with other Jews on the meaning of sabbath, purity, or temple, that led directly to Jesus' execution as King of the Jews". Fredrickson denies that Jesus ever spoke against the Torah's purity laws and sabbath regulations. She believes that these particular Gospel accounts are based on caricatures which demonize the Pharisees. More to the point, they make nonsense of later controversies in the church. If Jesus had actually "declared all foods clean" (Mk. 7:15), then why was Peter (who knew Jesus) apparently ignorant of it? After all, it was Paul (who never knew Jesus), twenty years later, who had to persuade Peter and James that it was now all right to disregard purity codes and sabbath stipulations (Gal. 2:11-14/Acts 15:1-20), which would be unfair to impose on Gentiles. (And in the end, James only compromised, insisting that Gentiles had to obey at least some purity laws (Acts 15:19-20).) In other words, Fredrickson believes that Paul was the one to abrogate the Torah's purity and sabbath codes. The Gospel stories showing Jesus doing this are inventions which retrojectively vindicate the Gentile mission. There is a problem with this line of thought. If the Gospel writers wished to vindicate the Gentile mission, they would have portrayed Jesus abrogating not only purity laws and sabbath regulations, but THE sacred commandment of all -- circumcision. Circumcision, purity, and sabbath were the three issues Paul combatted on behalf of his Gentile converts, but circumcison was by far the most controversial. But in the Gospels, Jesus is silent on the issue of circumcision. And no surprise, for there is no reason he would have had a problem with this fundamental Jewish practice. But he would have had a serious problem with purity laws and sabbath regulations -- despite what Fredrickson believes. Few peasants and artisans from Galilee had the money necessary to keep kosher, nor could they afford to take time off from working in the fields. And they were hardly enamored with the expensive sacrifical requirements for the Jerusalem temple -- taxed to death as they were by the Romans and their Herodian puppets. Just as Paul later nullified circumcision, purity, and sabbath for the Gentiles, so too Jesus nullified purity and sabbath for the Jewish peasantry. While Fredrickson is correct to place Jesus in the context of future eschatology -- as is E.P. Sanders, Tom Wright, and John Meier -- she fails to acknowledge that Jewish eschatological figures were, by definition, revolutionary, both religiously and politically. (See William Herzog's "Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God" for the best book on the historical Jesus.) But all in all, a good book, and a significant contribution to the field of Jesus studies.
Rating:
Summary: Thought Provoking!
Review: Fredriksen (Boston Univ.) builds her account of Jesus and the early Jesus movement around two facts. First, the Roman prefect Pilate executed Jesus by crucifixion, a form of execution typically applied to political insurrectionists. Second, the Roman authorities did not execute the followers of Jesus as political insurrectionists. How, then, does the Roman crucifixion of Jesus make sense? Fredriksen proposes that while knowing that Jesus was not a political insurrectionist, Pilate used his crucifixion to restrain the potentially insurrectionist Passover crowd in Jerusalem, which had eagerly anticipated God's impending redemption and liberation, announced by Jesus. Jesus was thus crucified as Pilate's means of calming the turbulent Passover crowd, but Pilate had no need to crucify the followers of Jesus as well. Fredriksen supports this hypothesis by giving special attention to some historical themes in John's gospel. She doubts, however, that Jesus was interrogated by either the Jewish High Priest or Pilate. The book is eminently readable and characteristically honest about its speculative moves in historical interpretation. Fredriksen is also honest about her Humean skepticism of miracles. The book will benefit students from the upper-division undergraduate and graduate levels, as well as teachers. A recent related work is Dale Allison's Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (1998).
Rating:
Summary: Allow One A Brief Rave
Review: Her books should be required. They are well written, thoroughly researched and incisively argued. Even if you do not agree with all she says, you will challenged and inspired by it.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent.
Review: Her books should be required. They are well written, thoroughly researched and incisively argued. Even if you do not agree with all she says, you will challenged and inspired by it.
Rating:
Summary: Looking at the muddy field
Review: I was very impressed by the humanistic approach of the author. I especially liked the way that she raised and then answered such profound questions as why only Jesus, and not his disciples, was crucified by the Romans for sedition, and what interrogation, if any, probably took place between Jesus and Pilate. She wrote that discovering what happened in His last days was much like a sportscaster looking at a muddy football field, a few days after the game, and trying to tell from the 'record' the sequence of specific plays. Her best reconstruction of the 'record' is very well explained. Its a really interesting and scholarly book. Highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Helpful, but disappointing
Review: If I had not read many other scholarly works on the historical Jesus, I might have liked this book much more. Compared to the meticulous detail of Dom Crossan, for example, her methodology seems weak (though it could just be the writing style which fails to give sufficient detail). She criticizes "other scholars" without giving their names nor addressing any specifics regarding their methodologies, assumptions, evidence or conclusions...only generalities. She also spends much time dealing with purity issues, on which she may well be right, but it seems tangential to her primary interest, and comes across as a bit of a personal diatribe, for whatever reason. On the favorable side, she does pull together a string of evidence for her hypothesis congruent with a set of "bedrock facts." Her fundamental criterion regarding Jesus as a Jew is adequately documented. Unfortunately, some of the other evidence is speculative or not well documented, and other parts of it cite text that she, as a scholar, has already described as evangelical redaction. I also found a number of internal contradictions that were mildly disturbing. In summary, she has some worthwhile things to say, but needs to be more careful and meticulous in her methodology.
|
