Rating: 
Summary: An unforgettable Story
Review: I think this book is an enlightment to one's spiritual stage in life and teaches us the true faith of christianity. Whether people may think it is anti-semetic or not, the truth remains. The fact that it occured can not be hidden nor would it be forgotten to the christians. Overall to me the book was a good guide to those saught to learn. I give great credit to the author.
Rating: 
Summary: Why write this book?
Review: John Dominic Crossan multiplies his works by mutating one scholarly volume into several "popular" spinoffs, including the present work. The problem with "Who Killed Jesus?" is that, despite its title, which promises an enthralling true-life mystery, the book fails as a "popular" work. Crossan proposes in his introduction to answer another scholarly work, which he finds too sympathetic to the theory of historical origin for the Gospels, by pointing out that many of the incidents involving the death and resurrection of Jesus are really adaptations of Old Testament prophecy. Such an "answer" is perfectly suited to an essay in a scholarly journal, but certainly not to a monograph intended for the "masses". Moreover, as in most Crossan texts, the author quotes long, undigested passages from his sources, which is quite tedious to the general reader. As to the content of the volume, the case for the composition of the gospels based on Old Testament prophecy has been made succinctly, and quite disturbingly, by other modern, liberal NT scholars, (even though they cannot explain how, if the prophecies are the source of fictions about Jesus, they are more clearly "plagiarized" in Matthew than in Mark, although Matthew is agreed to be the later author), but in the present volume, this thesis is mired in polimics and is further bogged down in Crossan's premise that an early version of the second-century Gospel of Peter fragment is the source of the canonical gospel narratives. I ask again: "Why write this book?"
Rating:
Summary: Who Killed Jesus?
Review: Just finished reading a wonderful book: "Who Killed Jesus?" by John Dominic Crossan (1996,Harper, San Francisco). Crossan is a former Catholic priest. At the time the book was published he was professor emeritus of religious studies at DePaul University in Chicago, and co-director of the Jesus Seminar. In his book Crossan develops several theses: 1. The followers of Jesus constituted one among the diverse group of Jews extant at the time of Jesus, such as the Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots,etc., with the difference that they carried Jesus' message to the Gentiles. 2. The Gospels are not a true biographical relation of the life of Jesus. They are "prophesy historicized" rather than "history remembered." 3. By the way in which they were written, the Gospels place the blame for Jesus' death on the Jews and exonerates the Romans. Therefore, the seeds of anti-Semitism are imbedded in the Gospels. 4. Christianity didn't really take off until Constantin converted, which gave Christians the powers with which they would persecute dissenters. The book draws not only on the four canonical Gospels, but also on the Gospels of Peter and of Thomas, and on the writings of Tacitus, the Jewish historian Josephus, and others. This is a very important book. You'll enjoy it.
Rating:
Summary: A good writer who has reached the wrong conclusions
Review: Let me start this review by focusing on the positive areas of this book. Dr. Crossan writes in an understandable, and easy-to-read style. For the most part, he doesn't use complicated jargon in an attempt to impress. He is usually gracious in his comments directed toward his main opponent (Raymond Brown) throughout this book and he doesn't resort to name-calling. Having said all that, let me make it very clear that I find Dr. Crossan's thesis to be very, very false in almost every way.
On the inside flap of the book it states that Christianity has held "the belief that the Jews killed Jesus." Nothing could be further from the truth. All four gospels clearly state that Jesus was crucified by the Roman authorities. While you may think Crossan completely exonerates the Jewish authorites of any responsibility, he clearly does not. On page 147 he states, "I take it as historical that Jesus was executed by some conjunction of Jewish and Roman authority." I've got news for Dr. Crossan - Christians have believed this for almost 2000 years. I'm afraid that those marketing this book (or Crossan himself) were unaware of this blunder and thought a little controversy would increase sales.
Crossan's entire thesis is dependent on his argument that the Gospel of Peter was written in the 40's C.E. and is the original source of the passion story. This theory has been rejected by the entire scholarly community. The Jesus Seminar, which Crossan co-founded, even rejected his theory on the Gospel of Peter at their 1996 meeting. I find it utterly unbelievable that a writer (of the Gospel of Peter) in the area of Palestine who was writing only 15 years after the event would be so ignorant of the political and social customs surrounding the trial and execution of Jesus while the later writers (Mark, Matthew, etc.) would be far more knowledgeable when being further distanced both geographically and chronologically.
He believes that after being crucified, the body of Jesus was probably thrown in a pit and consumed by wild animals rather than being buried in a tomb. Crossan picks and chooses which information from his sources is historical and which is myth without using consistent rules. He treats the book of Acts as very reliable when it comes to recording the martyrdoms of early Christian leaders (p. 117), but completely disregards the rest of its testimony pertaining to other details. He also fails to adequately address the earliest and most compelling evidence which contradicts his theory - the writings of Paul (i.e. 1 Corinthians 15) which state that Jesus was buried. This, despite the fact that Paul was personally acquainted with those who knew Jesus (Peter, John, James) as ascertained from Galatians 1 & 2.
I could go on and on with the problems in Crossan's thesis, but I doubt if anyone has read this far as it is. If you are looking for a thorough response to Crossan's thesis, I would recommend "Cynic Sage or Son of God" by Gregory Boyd which directly interacts with Crossan's work and is also available from Amazon.com.
Rating:
Summary: A good writer who has reached the wrong conclusions
Review: Let me start this review by focusing on the positive areas of this book. Dr. Crossan writes in an understandable, and easy-to-read style. For the most part, he doesn't use complicated jargon in an attempt to impress. He is usually gracious in his comments directed toward his main opponent (Raymond Brown) throughout this book and he doesn't resort to name-calling. Having said all that, let me make it very clear that I find Dr. Crossan's thesis to be very, very false in almost every way.On the inside flap of the book it states that Christianity has held "the belief that the Jews killed Jesus" when nothing could be further from the truth. All four gospels clearly state that Jesus was crucified by the Roman authorities. While you may think Crossan completely exonerates the Jewish authorites of any responsibility, he clearly does not. On page 147 he states, "I take it as historical that Jesus was executed by some conjunction of Jewish and Roman authority." I've got news for Dr. Crossan - Christians have believed this for almost 2000 years. I'm afraid that those marketing this book (or Crossan himself) were unaware of this blunder and thought a little controversy would increase sales. Crossan's entire thesis is dependent on his argument that the Gospel of Peter was written in the 40's C.E. and is the original source of the passion story. This theory has been rejected by the entire scholarly community. The Jesus Seminar, which Crossan co-founded, even rejected his theory on the Gospel of Peter at their 1996 meeting. I find it utterly unbelievable that a writer (of the Gospel of Peter) in the area of Palestine who was writing only 15 years after the event would be so ignorant of the political and social customs surrounding the trial and execution of Jesus while the later writers (Mark, Matthew, etc.) would be far more knowledgeable when being further distanced both geographically and chronologically. He believes that after being crucified, the body of Jesus was probably thrown in a pit and consumed by wild animals rather than being buried in a tomb. Crossan picks and chooses which information from his sources is historical and which is myth without using consistent rules. He treats the book of Acts as very reliable when it comes to recording the martyrdoms of early Christian leaders (p. 117), but completely disregards the rest of its testimony pertaining to other details. He also fails to adequately address the earliest and most compelling evidence which contradicts his theory - the writings of Paul (i.e. 1 Corinthians 15) which state that Jesus was buried. This, despite the fact that Paul was personally acquainted with those who knew Jesus (Peter, John, James) as ascertained from Galatians 1 & 2. I could go on and on with the problems in Crossan's thesis, but I doubt if anyone has read this far as it is. If you are looking for a thorough response to Crossan's thesis, I would recommend "Cynic Sage or Son of God" by Gregory Boyd which directly interacts with Crossan's work and is also available from Amazon.com.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad assumptions, unwarrented conclusions
Review: My education at UCLA wasn't all that good. Much of what the professors taught as "stable, reliable, scientific facts" have subsiquently turned out to be incorrect. The one thing I did learn was a love for logic. I learned how to spot fallacious reasoning, unwarrented jumps (nonsequitors), and best of all ***unsubstantiated asumptions***. This book is really a collection of the last two items. I was truly disapointed by the number of suspect assumptions made by the author, and the enormous conclusions derived from these assumptions. Basically, to accept his argument, you must accept the proposition that (A) the gospels are only propoganda for Christianity, and (B) therefore contain little factual value. If you do not accept (A) or (B) the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Moreover, to love this work, you must believe that a historical fact should be erased from the record if it is dangerous to any one group of people. This is the historical revisionist argument wrapped in sympathy.
Rating: 
Summary: Wonderful book
Review: Some of the other reviews need to be ignored by people unfamiliar with the topic. To say, as one of the reviewers did, that Christianity has never claimed that the Jews killed Christ is either ignorant or naive. As I don't know the person, I cannot comment either way. The Gospels are an infamous source of anti-semetism and anyone who has studied theology in an academic setting knows this to be fact.
As for the book being "another angle on Mel Gibson's film," well of course the Gibson film is flawed in many resepcts, particularily historicity. And Crossan's book is an "angle" on the Bible, not a film.
The book is exceptional and I would recommend it without hesitation.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting approach and courageous effort!
Review: The book definitely represents a very interesting approach towards 'historical Jesus', which was very unexpected for me. The author supports his reasoning with convincing research that takes a very different, from established, look on Jesus crime, arrest, trial, abuse, execution, burial and and resurrection. The epilogue, where the author talks about himself and how his personal history could have affected his view, very well worth mentioning. Although I would highly recommend this book I have two reasons for caution. First, although the author intends this book for wide audience, it pretty much reads as scholarly work, meaning it is not an easy read. This point is also confirmed by many references to the other book on this subject that the author is constantly argues with. Second, although the subtitle of this book is 'roots of anti semitism', this book is not really about it. Yes, relationship between Jews and Jesus plays very important role in this book. Bot not the main role as somebody could expect from the cover.
Rating:
Summary: roots of anti-semisism?
Review: The title of the book says that it is going to expose the roots of anti-semitism in the Gospel stories, but the only thing that the book does is tries to disproove Brown's death of the Messiah. Though it has one or two good points about anti- Judiaism compared to anti-seminism, it doesnt say very much about anti-semitism. Its more about trying to disproove prophesy.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant!
Review: This is a well-reasoned, carefully written discussion of the passion narrative with conclusions important for the development of the western world to the present.
|
