Rating: 
Summary: a must read perhaps only for Crossan enthusiasts
Review: I finished this rather lengthy work some two weeks ago and have had some difficulty in offering commentary upon it. In comparison with his many other books, which I find are not only theoretically reasonable (at least partially), but are very unified, cohesive and taut in exposition and presentation, this book seemed by comparison to be tedious, very esoteric, and long-winded. Some parts of it are going to be of interest only to a specialist in this field of study. The last 100 pages or so, when Crossan very thoughtfully expounds upon the Resurrection narratives of Gospel of Peter and the early influence of women, dovetail the exposition successfully, but several of the first 400 to 450 pages require considerable forbearance. I got the strong impression the author has been taken aback by criticism he has received among scholarly peers in the past, and consequently he went to great lengths to justify his assumptions, methods of research, and interpretations. As at least one other reviewer duly noted, there is a great deal of scholarly commentary about [other] scholarly commentary. I found myself either losing the forest for the trees, so to speak, or losing patience with all the pre-ambling. Somewhere around two-thirds of the way, there was a comment about another book having the effect of a series of intelligent notes but not really cohering properly. At the time I could not help but make the same observation about this work.For those who are considering purchasing a Crossan work for the first time, I might suggest his Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography could be a better investment in terms of getting more information/opinions in less research time. In spite of the considerable length of time spent with this book, I felt somewhat dissapointed.
Rating: 
Summary: Crossan does it again...
Review: I first encountered John Dominic Crossan through his seminal work, The Historical Jesus - The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant. It was the most enlightening and enjoyable discovery I have made in my readings on the historical Jesus. So, when I came across The Birth of Christianity I was more than a little excited to turn back the cover and that excitement only grew as I began to read. Once again, Professor Crossan evidences why he is the preeminent scholar in the study of the historical Jesus and early Christianity. His depth of knowledge, formidable intellect and engaging prose (which oftentimes borders on poetry) renders an extremely difficult subject (reconstructing what has become known as Christianity's "lost years"-- the 20's and 30's-- where we have virtually no written record of events) to a level of understanding we non-scholars can comprehend and, equally important, ponder. I continue to be astonished at the breadth of research Professor Crossan employs in his works and no where is it more evident than in The Birth of Christianity. His use of canonical and non-canonical sources and such diverse disciplines as cultural anthropology, sociology and pysychology is not only lucid but exhaustive. Crossan's goal: To reconstruct the time immediately following the death of Jesus; before Paul's involvement in early Christianity. As Professor Crossan succintly put its, "If you begin with Paul you will interpet Jesus incorrectly; if you begin with Jesus you will interpret Paul differently." The extent of that difference, in Crossan's view, will have a profound impact on our present understanding of nascent Christianity and the historical Jesus. Given what I kow of contemporary biblical scholarship, I would venture to say that the methodology employed by Crossan in The Birth of Christianity represents the cutting edge of modern exegesis and we non-scholars receive a double treat. We get not only the reconstruction, but the methodology used to create that construction...if you will, the "birth of reconstruction". Apparent throughout the book is Crossan's steadfast belief that if there is no credibility in the latter, there can be no verisimilitude in the former. I have long considered the study of early Christianity and the historical Jesus to be the ultimate detective story and Professor Crossan is undoubtedly its Sherlock Holmes, bringing a vast array of academic tools and an uncommon common sense to a daunting task. But beyond sifting the evidence in order to produce a learned construct of Christianity's earliest years, Crossan asks profound questions of his readers and those questions, taken together with his brilliant analysis, will render The Birth of Christianity a work that will be read by both scholar and non-scholar well into the next millineum, whenever critical and honest inquiry is desired. In short, the "lost years" have been found.
Rating: 
Summary: Thought-provoking
Review: I found the book interesting both in enlightening the issues it deals with, and in explaining how research is done that attempts to piece together a history from the bits and pieces that we have available. I particularly liked the author's directness in acknowledging the core assumptions that his thesis lives and dies with, and then presenting the information that led him to the conclusion. I find the reviews for this book that complain about how the author's conclusions end up following from his assumptions interesting since they are obviously doing what they accuse Crossan of - only without the intervening evidence or counter-argument to his evidence. The response to the book is as interesting as the book itself. My only criticism is that the book seemed longer than necessary; a few of the strands seemed to wander away from the main theme.
Rating:
Summary: Consistent with other works from Jesus Seminar Fellows...
Review: I must admit that Mr. Crossan treats the subject of the historical Jesus quest with much scholarly vigor. While I am convinced of his sincerity and genuine desire for truth, he continues to make the same mistakes that dominate the wealth of works produced by his pen and others of the Jesus Seminar. These mistakes originate with a presupposition of naturalism, leaving their versions of the evidence tainted from the very start. Crossan, Funk, Borg, and others disallow much evidence not by the application of sound research, but because their naturalistic worldview clouds their objectivity, perhaps as a result of not understanding the historian's craft. True historians attempt to examine the evidence without bias, letting it lead them to reasonable, plausible conclusions. True, conservative scholarship has its presuppositions as well. However, they have been much more careful to produce their works with an "evidence to ideology" flavor, instead of allowing the "ideology" to influence their outlook on the "evidence". I notice that your reviewers seem only to be reading liberal authorship. Perhaps to give them a more well-orbed view, they should try reading some more conservative works as well. A review of "Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus" by Dr. William Lane Craig is a great starting point. If you have difficulty with the trustworthiness of the NT, try reading "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels" by Craig Blomberg. Both texts are available at Amazon.com.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent for the theologian, scholar...
Review: I purchased this book with great expectations. The title and the author's credentials and reviews led me to believe I was ready, indeed eager to tackle it. I am a lay-reader, with a keen interest in the historical Jesus and the historicity of Christianity, especially as research reflects and illuminates my faith. While I commend Crossan for his scholarship, I feel strongly that he needs to edit and refine his material for the lay-reader. Much of these book is a dialogue between the author and his scholarly colleagues in theological circles, especially the Jesus Seminar. Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with such a dialogue, but the book shouldn't be marketed for the general public, except possibly as a reference source. The author needs to compare his writing and editorial style to recent books by Dr. Marcus Borg. Terms, historical personalities and theological works need to be clearly defined, with plenty of transition review between sections and chapters. Crossan deserves a wide audience, especially among lay-persons. This book is simply too advanced, and belongs primarily theology collections.
Rating: 
Summary: Crossan's approach deserves much greater criticism
Review: I read about half of this book and couldn't bear to go any further. Serious Bible scholars without the motive of removing faith from the Bible cannot take Crossan and his crowd seriously at all. While practically no seminary would ever even give Crossan air time, every secular college and university has latched on to this incredibly un-scholarly clan. Crossan begins with the premiss that Jesus is not the messiah and that He did not perform miracles. Any account in the Bible with a supernatural explanation is immediately disregarded. Here's one example: Jesus couldn't have been born in Bethleham, because he was called Jesus of Nazareth. I'm sorry, but no matter how much historical rhetoric you put behind the sects of the Nazarenes or the Herodian Jewish groups at the time of Jesus' life, this logic would never stand up in any other area of scholarship. Historical redactionism is a modern concept - rewriting history basically from our own perspective and current understanding. Interestingly, Crossan's form of historical redactionism is exactly what he projects on the church fathers, even though it is a modern invention. And yet we have allowed this most irresponsible work to have preminance with regard to Christianity, especially in the areas of history, religion and literary form criticism. In any case, I would only recommend this author and book to serious critics who are willing to challenge his presuppositions and not merely accept them blindly as most of secular acedemia has and to those who are serious Biblical scholars looking to understand what the anti-supernatural movement is spewing to the good American public.
Rating:
Summary: Hard slogging
Review: I respect Crossan, and after reading Who Killed Jesus, was eager to read this book (The Birth of Christianity). But I was disappointed. One big problem for me was that Crossan insisted on using his early dating of Gospel of Peter which affects his analysis. The early dating is hard to accept and Crossan should have presented more of a consensus view regarding the scriptures. Another problem was the directionless back-and-forth arguments with his colleagues and critics. It disrupted the flow; the book needed further editing. Also, there were so many excerpts which were part of the text that it became hard to follow who was writing. You had to have a sharp eye to catch the ending quotation marks. Crossan should have indented or italicized those many, many quotes by others. There is, however, a lot of information in there, but I would estimate that the informed reader would find 15% new and of interest.
You start out reading the book in good cheer. Then, after about 200 pages, you say, "okay, we're past the methods and practices, now let's read some history." But it keeps on being methods and practices along with disputes between scholars. Soon there's only 100 pages left and you say to yourself, "surely now we will get a clear, linear presentation of The Birth of Christianity." But it never arrives. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the Los Angeles Times review: "...a self-absorbed academic exercise, the product of a cramped and airless world in which theories feed on theories, scholars are endlessly commenting on the views of other scholars, and words intertwine without a footing in historical reality."
Also, way too much weight was put on fine analysis of the text which was then used as the base upon which theories were constructed. At times it seemed like Crossan was trying too hard. What's wrong with saying that in some instances there is no information and we can't conclude anything about what was happening in, say, 65 CE.
On the upside, there is a huge bibliography: about 480 entries for TBoC's 580 pages! There are appendices detailing the verse relationship between the four gospels, Thomas, GPet, Q, and other texts. (Really detailed.) And some good chapters on recent archeology.
The book is okay for somebody who already has a solid background (and opinion) on the first century. But it's not a good introduction for anyone in the early stages of learning about the early history of Christianity. For that, I'd recommend From Jesus to Christianity, by L. Michael White.
Rating:
Summary: Back to the Roots?
Review: I was raised Lutheran and have imbibed the Protestant idea that the Church is corrected and revived by going back to its historical roots. Of course, in accepting the "root" metaphor, I have in mind something strong and focused. What I learn from this book is that the "tree" of Christianity slims down to a sapling as we go back through time, and indeed, *which* sapling? It all gets hazy and seemingly contingent. Much is lost and can't be recovered. Much is speculative. Crossan does his best, but there's not much for him to work with, flog as he will. I begin to think that we root-worshippers had best consider the Church as valid in what it is, and not what it was during two privileged but shadowy decades. This is, I am told, a more Catholic and less Protestant view of the Church. Someone of Catholic background might face the problems of a historical approach without being as devastated as many of us.
Rating:
Summary: a bit cumbersome
Review: If Crossan has ever written a work for the scholarly impaired, Ive yet to read it. This book is the equivelant of the energizer bunny, it keeps going and going and going, but is well thought out and supported. Unfortunately this is a sequal to his The Historical Jesus and he expects that some of the readers of this book have read the other. This is not for beginners nor is it for those seeking spirituality, but is a lengthy reconstruction of the first generation of Christianity. This is recomended, as a good read for the historically minded.
Rating: 
Summary: More Method Than Meat
Review: If you are interested in or need some quick references for historical method purposes, this book is for you. However, if you are a lay person or an historian looking for meat to put on the bare bones of method, this book will be quite the disappointment. Perhaps my low rating is due to my expectations based on the book's title. I suggest that Mr. Crossan should have subtitled the book "The Method of Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus."
|
