Rating: 
Summary: textbook approach to fundimental(is not)ism
Review: At times I felt trapped in an academic torture chamber. Crosson meticulously made sure I had enough background understanding before letting loose with theories of "how we got here from there". He turned my previous understanding of my Christian faith upside-down, like clods of soil in a field that has been fallow. Great book for readers that are patient enough to let ideas grow.
Rating: 
Summary: Wouldn't waste a minute reading it.
Review: Calling Crossan "the world's foremost expert on the historical Jesus" is like calling Clinton "the epitome of morality today." Get real.
Rating: 
Summary: Lots of scholarship; what was it about?
Review: Crossan's book is full of scholarship, his own and that of other scholars in various fields. I learned a great deal about a the Commonl Meal Tradition, the Essenes, the Didache and the the Cross Gospel. But I am not sure I know what the book's subtitle says it was supposed to be about: what happened between the death of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels.Crossan is careful and thorough in his research. But I was always looking for some chronological summary of what actually did happen. I believe that the strands he explains in quite detail are supposed to come together. I think a re-reading of the book may do that. I also believe that there are presentations made, especially as regards the Jewish concern for justice, the purpose of the Lament, the life of the Essene community and the life of the communities of the Didache, that presents a picture of different elements of first century Christian life. But what I think is missing is a simple portrait tying all this together.
Rating:
Summary: Christianity as Philosophy, not Theology
Review: Crossan's erudition is astounding. I have rarely read such mastery of such disparate disciplines as we find in "Early Christianity". I find his arguments regarding the nature of post-crucifixion/pre-Pauline Christianity wholly convincing and his commentary on Paul especially so. Why indeed would Paul argue against the things he did unless they were taking place? What I find confusing in this and other of Crossan's works is how he can still consider himself a Christian? He strips Christianity of its metaphysical trappings yet still calls what's left a religion. If Jesus was a man of great holiness but not the son and co-equal of God then there is no Trinity, and thus there is no Christianity as it has come to be understood since the Council of Nicea. If we choose to worship Jesus as the wisest or godliest of men only, as Crossan seems to,then Bertrand Russell's critique of Jesus in the context of such episodes as the Gadarene swine and the tree that would not bear fruit out of season might lead us to his conclusion that Buddha or Socrates have a better claim on that title. As an agnostic myself, I have struggled for years with he question of faith. Crossan has provided me with much to consider, as has Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and others. But with them, I can see a line from their arguments to their conclusions, even if I don't agree with them. With CrossanI cannot. That's why his book, despite its clear brilliance, gets four stars and not five.
Rating:
Summary: Crossan is Crossan
Review: Crossan's methodology is grounded in thorough synectical research. Archeology, anthropology, history, psychology and logic play important roles on his writing. He is throrough and precise, so most of his books are lengthy tomes. He is a rather liberal theologian who meticulously researches and presents his case. However, if you are a Fundamentalist and/or not openminded, skip this author, a former monk and professor at a Chicago Catholic University (DePaul). But despite his strong research, Crossan sometimes allows his personal nihilistic view of miracles and supernatrual intervention to mar his otherwise interesting work, for instance in describing a miracle he indicates that he does not believe that it ever had happened, and that none like it ever did or could happen. His arbitrary disbelief sets aside his otherwise openmindedness. That being said, if you can are openminded and can put that sort of thing aside, there is a great deal to be learned from his research and writing. I have read most of his books, big and small and have enjoyed them all.
Rating: 
Summary: Good scholarship
Review: Dr. Crossan's exhaustive research into the the spread of Christianity is excellent. However, much of his interpretations and conclusions are guess work not supported by concrete evidence/fact but subjective hypotheses.
Rating:
Summary: 26 chapters capturing the dark years of early Christianity
Review: I am always delighted to see someone write about the "historical Jesus" who actually knows something about history!! (i.e. not proposing that Jesus was a dinosaur or a mushroom or what have you) And to him, that would mean, "History is the past reconstructed interactively by the present through argued evidence in public discourse."... i like this guy.. Alert! This is not a terse introductory work on early Christianity. It is VERY thorough and scholarly, well researched in every aspect. What I like about Crossan (judging by this, I haven't read his other books yet!!) is that though I might not always agree with him, he atleast has a methodology, be it anthropological, archaeological, etc. used to corroborate his argument. True or not, he is always supported by research sources and in this book uses "cross-cultural anthropology." Though to any fundamentalist I speculate he would seem heretical in his 'butchering' of the gospels ( he was co-director of the Jesus Seminar who only deemed 18% of the words attributed to Jesus authentic if I remember correctly ) he is respected by me as a reputable scholar. And he did spent 20 years of his life as a monk in a Roman Catholic medieval order--he knows his gospel. And I suggest that you familarize yourself with the gospels prior to reading his work as well...in preparation to do ALOT of comparing. Since the book is so deep, I would bet that if this topic is not of your deep interest, you may likely not finish it. That's not to say its boring or no good, I'm glad I read it. The only reason I emphasize this is because it took me a decent diuturnity to fully complete its near 600 page content. However even Crossan assents that Qumran was inhabited by Essene sectarians, who were the possessors of the Dead Sea Scrolls library. (I don't know but after reading Golb's book I can't see how anyone still grasps this theory) Other topics include his theory by which he is somewhat known, a hypothetical document, 'The Cross Gospel,' (along with the Gospel of Peter's relation to the Passion-resurrection narration) which some but not the majority of other scholars advocate, & it still certainly remains possible. One thing he does NOT do is theological apologetics. Instead, as I said before, he merely develops his methods and draws his conclusions from those. I think his epilogue was a great way to end the book (even though I didn't quite fully agree w/ what he had to say), and actually a bit unexpected. In conclusion, there's not much bad that I can say about this book.
Rating:
Summary: 26 chapters capturing the dark years of early Christianity
Review: I am always delighted to see someone write about the "historical Jesus" who actually knows something about history!! (i.e. not proposing that Jesus was a dinosaur or a mushroom or what have you) And to him, that would mean, "History is the past reconstructed interactively by the present through argued evidence in public discourse."... i like this guy.. Alert! This is not a terse introductory work on early Christianity. It is VERY thorough and scholarly, well researched in every aspect. What I like about Crossan (judging by this, I haven't read his other books yet!!) is that though I might not always agree with him, he atleast has a methodology, be it anthropological, archaeological, etc. used to corroborate his argument. True or not, he is always supported by research sources and in this book uses "cross-cultural anthropology." Though to any fundamentalist I speculate he would seem heretical in his 'butchering' of the gospels ( he was co-director of the Jesus Seminar who only deemed 18% of the words attributed to Jesus authentic if I remember correctly ) he is respected by me as a reputable scholar. And he did spent 20 years of his life as a monk in a Roman Catholic medieval order--he knows his gospel. And I suggest that you familarize yourself with the gospels prior to reading his work as well...in preparation to do ALOT of comparing. Since the book is so deep, I would bet that if this topic is not of your deep interest, you may likely not finish it. That's not to say its boring or no good, I'm glad I read it. The only reason I emphasize this is because it took me a decent diuturnity to fully complete its near 600 page content. However even Crossan assents that Qumran was inhabited by Essene sectarians, who were the possessors of the Dead Sea Scrolls library. (I don't know but after reading Golb's book I can't see how anyone still grasps this theory) Other topics include his theory by which he is somewhat known, a hypothetical document, 'The Cross Gospel,' (along with the Gospel of Peter's relation to the Passion-resurrection narration) which some but not the majority of other scholars advocate, & it still certainly remains possible. One thing he does NOT do is theological apologetics. Instead, as I said before, he merely develops his methods and draws his conclusions from those. I think his epilogue was a great way to end the book (even though I didn't quite fully agree w/ what he had to say), and actually a bit unexpected. In conclusion, there's not much bad that I can say about this book.
Rating:
Summary: Good but haven't we heard most of it before
Review: I enjoy Crossan's excellent works on the historical Jesus - or rather the attempts to find such a person. But he has become somewhat redundant, seemingly raising arguments or reviewing ideas introduced in previous works. Crossan continues to look for something he admits he cannot find - historical evidence for the person of Jesus and the early Jewish followers who first believed in him. Since there is no concrete evidence (the Gospels are not historical) he attempts to reconstruct an original view from two sources:
(1) the social and anthropological conditions of the time and (2) the events and institutions that emerged from this hidden time. It's is as if there were a nuclear holocaust and 1000 years lated one investigates the origins of flight by studying first the science of the early 20th century and then the wreckage of air craft from the 22nd century. Some conclusions can be reached using these methods. Communion can be seen as an evolution of an ancient Seder meal to a commemorative dinner to a lusty community meal before it was institutionalized into a sacrament reserved for the Church. The work is difficult at spots - Crossan can be relentlessly tiring at time. Perhaps the saddest thing about his unending toil on this project is that so few will be affected by what he says or discovers or conjectures. Most will blindly "go with faith" without considering the foundations upon which it rests. And Crossan, who still somehwo calls himself a "Christian", will continue plodding onward.
Rating:
Summary: Good but haven't we heard most of it before
Review: I enjoy Crossan's excellent works on the historical Jesus - or rather the attempts to find such a person. But he has become somewhat redundant, seemingly raising arguments or reviewing ideas introduced in previous works. Crossan continues to look for something he admits he cannot find - historical evidence for the person of Jesus and the early Jewish followers who first believed in him. Since there is no concrete evidence (the Gospels are not historical) he attempts to reconstruct an original view from two sources:
(1) the social and anthropological conditions of the time and (2) the events and institutions that emerged from this hidden time. It's is as if there were a nuclear holocaust and 1000 years lated one investigates the origins of flight by studying first the science of the early 20th century and then the wreckage of air craft from the 22nd century. Some conclusions can be reached using these methods. Communion can be seen as an evolution of an ancient Seder meal to a commemorative dinner to a lusty community meal before it was institutionalized into a sacrament reserved for the Church. The work is difficult at spots - Crossan can be relentlessly tiring at time. Perhaps the saddest thing about his unending toil on this project is that so few will be affected by what he says or discovers or conjectures. Most will blindly "go with faith" without considering the foundations upon which it rests. And Crossan, who still somehwo calls himself a "Christian", will continue plodding onward.
|
