Jesus & The Gospels
About the author
John Dominic Crossan’s birth place is Nenagh, Ireland. He was born in the year 1934 and got his education in his home country and then the United States of America. He also has a Doctorate of Divinity which he acquired in 1959 from the Maynooth College in Ireland. In 1961 he finished his post-doctorate research in Rome after three years at the Pontifical Biblical Institute. He is a former Catholic priest and was mostly associated with the so-called Jesus Seminar which was an organization of Biblical scholars. After resigning from priesthood he married. He however continued writing about the history of Jesus and how he disagrees with the Biblical narrations. His ideology is that these narrations were not true but were carefully selected and cunningly presented to the current world. He establishes the difference between real Jesus stories and the post resurrection Biblical narrations by looking at the life of Jesus before His death and resurrection Bible versions.
During his early years, he was involved in deep researches trying to unearth the true history of Jesus. His interest in research led to his change in mind and resort to seeking more information about the character of the so-called Jesus. His massive knowledge of the Bible and having served for many years in Church related duties made him dispute that Jesus was a true figure. In his recent works he goes on to posit that historians only came up with the term Jesus to make their story believable hence justify their intensions to have everyone believe in the concept of Jesus as the savior. He is currently a Professor Emeritus at the DePaul University in Chicago.
1. Summary Of The Book
The book basically disagrees with the idea that everything that happened in Jesus’s life could be as presented in the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Crossan believes that there is much more that is hidden from the believers who have been made to stick to the narrative of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John as the whole story about Jesus. The book therefore intents to dispute that Jesus’ life if at all He existed, could be as exactly presented in these four Gospels. He posits that what is presented in the first four books of the New Testament is not what God really said but rather, what the writers of the books thought God meant through the accounts of those who purport to have been around during the life and death of Jesus (Crossan,1994). He compares the four Gospels to any version of a previously true story interpreted in the writer’s own thinking of what the real story was. He equates what is written in the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John to be same to history which, according to him, may be interpreted or constructed to suit the needs of the story tellers.
Therefore, in his book, John Dominic Crossan goes back into history and brings the real picture to the world as opposed to the picture portrayed by the New Testament first four books. He argues that Jesus was just a common man with no links to God as presented by the Four Gospels. Further, the book brings out an argument that the story of performing miracles, the burial and the resurrection are all fictional as during the times of Jesus, those who rebelled against the Roman rulers were truly crucified but they never received any decent burial as portrayed by the Bible (Crossan,1994). They were thrown out in the open and probably eaten by dogs or buried in shallow grave. This makes it hard to believe what the Bible tells when it states that Jesus was buried into a deep tomb which was later covered with a large stone.
He also argues that the story of Jesus being born to a virgin was all made up to suit the intentions of composers of what he calls the four mega-parables of Mathew, Mark Luke and John in the New Testament.
To add on the above, while the Bible in the New Testament presents Jesus as the son of God, the reality presents Jesus as a peasant, common person who just grew during a certain period. He states that Jesus was never sent by God but was just a man fighting for social justice in a society that treated people differently. Lastly, the book presents the books argues that there is no way Jesus , whom he says was an illiterate, peasant could preach such hard, radicalized messages in a time whereby rebellion was met with the fullest of force from the political class (Crossan,1994).
Further, he disagrees with the New Testament notion that Jesus who had caused a scene in Jerusalem was left untouched when the truth could be that He was most likely to be killed than left alive when he chased people from the temple. Eventually, Crossan disputes the fact that someone made a request to the authorities to have Jesus’ body buried. He qualifies his disagreement by saying that even if someone who had the courage to ask for the permission existed, nobody would care to request Jesus’ burial and even if the request was to be made, there was no way such a person could reach the top officers to ask for the permission. Generally, according to Crossan, the tales in the four Gospels were nothing to be believed hence his reason for researching and writing the book to inform readers that if they must believe in God, it should be from their inner conviction but not based on edited mega-parables (Crossan, 1994) from a specific group of individuals whatever name they call themselves.
2. Three Points Crossan Makes About The Historical Jesus. Crossan’s Interpretation Of Specific Passages
The death and resurrection of Jesus. John Crossan pointed out that when the four Gospels are read continuously from first to the last, the story appears same. However, when read one by one then compared, the truth comes out (Crossan, 1994). For instance, the Bible in Mathew 12:40 says that Jesus would resurrect after three days just the same way Jonah came out of the huge fish. Christians believe that Jesus was kept in the tomb for from Friday noon to Sunday morning. This is totally misleading as it appears to be falsely presented to suit the intentions of the drafters. If one counted the days from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning which is a period Christians wait for to celebrate Easter, one would be left with more questions than answers. Jesus Himself was quoted Biblically saying the verse above but the truth of the matter says something contrary to what the drafters of the Gospels want readers to believe, that Friday to Sunday was three days. Crossan thus seems to have a point in the sense that there is no way the days could add up hence the committees that decide to narrate the Gospels were only interested in forcing us to do what they thought was proper to do (Crossan, 1994). Secondly, Dominic Crossan posits that the narrations were not accurate but were just presented to make the story more appealing. This may be true as for instance, there is no way Jesus could talk of rising after three days then he does so in less than the days he stated. As such, this raises questions as to who between the writers of the Gospels and the historical Jesus was telling the truth. Further, John 20:1 says that, on day one of the week Magdalene went to where Jesus’ body was kept. What then could be the first day of the week? Is it Sunday or Monday? This does not make sense at all (Crossan, 1994). Further, Crossan (1994) disputed that there was anything divine about Jesus’s death. To Crossan, Jesus’s death was for his rebellion and that was the ultimate punishment for rebels and thus it had no Biblical relevance.
How different from others’ interpretations
Thus, Crossan’s view differs from the views of Ladd (1993) who does not focus on the exact dates of real happenings but on the importance of the death as narrated by the Gospels. To Ladd (1993), death and resurrection of Jesus Christ had the only importance of sealing or codifying all the works of Jesus into one final and everlasting establishment. Further, while Crossan argues that the historical Jesus’s death had nothing to do with humanity, Ladd’s view is that by Christ’s death and resurrection, the promise of an everlasting life was fulfilled as Jesus came in form of a man, died just like any other man, but eventually, opened a way for those who believed in the teachings of the Word (Ladd, 1993).
The request for burial. The Gospels of Mathew 27:58; Mark 15:43, Luke 23:52; and John 19:38 all talk of how a man went to Pilate to request for Jesus’ body to be buried. While some mention the name and status of the man, there seems to be no proper information being relayed about this man Joseph. Further, as Crossan argues, it would be impossible, during such a time or Roman rulers, that a trouble maker would be given to anyone for a decent burial (Crossan, 1994). This, Crossan says was the best way to award those who rebelled against the Roman rulers and there is no possibility of such a grant. Additionally, there is no way a man from anywhere could dare go to a Roman ruler to request for the burial of a man who was killed for his radical teachings. Dominic Crossan further alleges that it would have been even imaginary to think that bodies of dead rebels could be allowed to be buried in heavily guarded tombs as alleged by the Bible. It is historically recorded that such persons were either thrown to be eaten by dogs or if lucky, were buried in shallow tombs or grounds (Crossan, 1994). Therefore, Crossan disagrees with the caring and merciful character of the Roman rulers that the Bible presents.
Differences with other theologists view. While Crossan presents a tough administration as it really was to the extent that it would never favour a rebel, Gear (2015) presents it as an event which had to happen for God’s ultimate objective to happen. Therefore, understanding how divine matters happen may be difficult to prove through history as it is highly possible, that God, who is eternal, would like everything in his plans to be made comprehensible through history. As such, some of the acts of God to fulfill His mission cannot entirely be historically recorded as some were beyond human understanding.
Jesus’ miracles. According to Christians, Jesus performed uncountable miraculous works. Crossan on the other side says this may be true but it does not portray the actions as more different than the acts of magicians (Crossan, 1994). As such, Crossan sticks to the idea that there is no difference between the historical Jesus and the local magicians. This is what Christians have totally disagreed with and instead preferred the word miracle to magic. Consequently, Crossan posits that if there was nothing being made up to suit the interests of the few drafters, why would there be a preference of the word miracle to magic when the two mean the same thing? To Crossan this was inappropriate and selective presentation of what really happened (Crossan, 1994). Miracles as portrayed by the Gospels or magic as Crossan puts it, included the turning of water into wine in John 2:1-11, Catching many fish John 21:1-12 and the fig tree miracle as narrated in Mark 11:12-26 among others were nothing different from magic that any other common man could do.
How different from others view. Crossan only disagrees with the Christians choice of the word miracle over the word magic. As such, he equates actions of magicians to those of Jesus but the truth as argued by theologists such as Ladd (1993), present Jesus miraculous deeds as supernatural and with a meaning contrary to magic performed by ordinary persons.
How author’s interpretations tie with his understanding of Jesus. Generally on the three points raised above, it would be prudent to note as follows. Crossan understands Jesus as an ordinary person with no link to the real God. As such, his interpretations of the preceding actually ties with his thoughts as he has satisfied his doubts by linking what really happened based on verifiable historical accounts as opposed to stage-managed biblical narrations. Crossan has managed to link his narrative to what he believes really happened by looking at the Bible from the happenings behind the scenes than the Biblical mega-parables. He has been able to prove the merciless nature of Roman rulers, the overall social status of those who were not in power and properly linked the same to what would have happened to someone like Jesus if at all he existed as portrayed by the Bible.
3. Strengths Or Weaknesses Of The Author’s Narrative.
The author’s argument is strong especially when it comes to the exact dating of the events presented in the Bible and the way Christians do their things. The difference in how events are put in the Bible and how Christians do in reality puts the drafters on the spot. Secondly, the author brings the real picture of the events that can be identified with the happenings of the period. For instance, there is no way a rebel would be treated differently in a society that commanded respect especially for the administration. Thirdly, the author explained why he thinks the drafter of the Gospel were only interested in passing on their own narrations in form of mega-parables (Gear, 2015). It can be evidently seen that each writer, who was apparently inspired by God wrote the same story differently. This is totally unimaginable hence Crossan has made clear almost all of his points. However, the author’s idea that Jesus was not a son of God has not been satisfactorily presented (Gear, 2015). It can be equated to future historians from all over the world writing for instance that former United States President Barrack Obama really existed. No matter how long it may be, say 2000 years, there shall always be someone who would confirm that Obama’s existence was real and unquestionable. Therefore, to dispute that Jesus was the Son of God, Crossan has to do a lot more than just thinking that all peasants would at all time, be too intimidated to rise against bad leadership or social injustice (Gear, 2015).
4. Conclusion
This study therefore agrees and also disagrees with Crossan in the following ways. Firstly, the paper agrees with the author on the point that there is some information that was not presented in the four Gospels of the New Testament. The study also agrees that each narrator may have used his own choice of words to present the same story but the study disagrees with Crossan on the conclusion that each Gospel narrator did so to distort the true meaning of the word. Further, the study disagrees with Crossan on the point that Jesus was not the son of God and also that He was a magician just like any other person during that period. The disagreement on the preceding is because first, the different narrations caused by the narrators’ choice of words or ways of narration do not mean the issue being narrated on never existed. Secondly, it would be erroneous to conclusively say that someone who performs magic for amusement would be similar to someone who does the same for other incomprehensible reasons.
References
Crossan, J.D., (1994). Jesus: A revolutionary biography. Harper Collins Publishers.
Ladd, E.G., (1993). A theology of the New Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Gear, D.S. (2015). Crossan and the resurrection of Jesus rethinking presuppositions, methods and models. A Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Philosophaie Doctor at the department New Testament Faculty of Theology, University of Pretoria
