Analysis of John Dominic Crossan's Book "Jesus: a Revolutionary Biography"

In his book, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, Dominic Crossan critically and radically challenged the traditional view of Jesus of Nazareth. Crossan subjected the four Gospels into critical evaluation and he employed the method of historical criticism in his attempt to find out whether the main Gospel claims are based on factual matters or not. In the final analysis Crossan challenged and refuted many biblical accounts on Jesus Christ in the Gospel. For instance, he laid bare the many inconsistencies in the biblical account on the Birth of Jesus Christ, and he went on to show that the accounts are spurious and not based on historical facts (Crossan, 1-25). In this book, Crossan also claimed that Jesus Christ was a critic of the tradition that he inherited, and that, he would, most likely, critic how Christianity has interpreted him for the last two millennia. But what impacts would Crossan’s interpretation of the Bible have on the traditional view of Jesus Christ? Would Crossan’s interpretation of the Bible weaken the Christians faith in Jesus Christ, or would it make the Christian’s faith in Jesus Christ stronger? Would Christianity stand if Crossan’s interpretation of the Bible is correct? These are the questions that this paper answers.

While Crossan’s interpretation of the Gospels undoubtedly challenges and refutes some Christian dogmas that form the basis of Christian believes in Jesus Christ, the interpretation would not, however, substantially change the Christians’ traditional image of Jesus Christ, or weaken their faith in Jesus. We would still be Christians even if Crossan were right. There are a number of reasons why Crossan’s interpretations of the Gospels would not substantially affect the Christian’s faith in Jesus Christ or alter Christianity in any substantial way.

To begin with, it is important to note that most of the refutations that Crossan make on the Gospels, are on the historical aspect of the Gospel, whether or not the Gospel constitutes an historical account of what, actually, took place in the Life of Jesus Christ. And in his investigations, Crossan concluded that most of what we are told of Jesus Christ is not a historical account of what happened, but rather, a skewed account of what the writers of the Gospels wanted us to hear and to believe (Crossan, Prologue xiii-x1v). Crossan goes on to argue that Christian’s faith is merely a belief in the historical Jesus as the manifestation of God ( Crossan, 244). But while the Christians would be surprised to know that what they have all along believed is not based on historical facts, this would not substantially affect their traditional image of Jesus Christ or their faith in Jesus because, faith is not merely based on historical facts. Faith rather is a deep spiritual experience that is not based on historical data.

Sheliermacher concurs with this view when he asserts that faith is a’’ feeling’’ (Alvarez, n.d). What Alvarez essentially means in this quotation is that faith is more than dogmas, and it is a deep personal experience. Faith in Jesus Christ, therefore, is a spiritual experience, and although historical facts acts as some basis of our faith, once one has a spiritual experience of Jesus Christ, a change in historical data or dogmas would not substantially affect one’s faith. Even with the interpretations of Crossan, therefore, the Christians would have the traditional image of Jesus Christ as the son of God.

This fact is corroborated more by Clifford in his view of Religion as an evolving phenomenon‘’ Religion as Cultural System’’ (Clifford, 88). Since from earliest stages of man, in the Stone Age, man has exhibited some religious tendencies, and human Religion as a human phenomenon has undergone many changes within the course of history. This anthropological fact shows that even with the disapproval of many historical accounts of Jesus Christ in the Gospels, the Christian faith would undergo some kind of evolution, and this evolution would not make Christianity to be dismissed by the Christians. Christians would still keep their faith in Jesus Christ, but with some modifications. But these modifications would not substantially impact negatively on Christianity as a Religion as to alter the traditional image of Jesus Christ among the Christians.

Secondly, Crossan’s interpretation on the Gospels of Jesus Christ would not weaken Christianity as a Religion because the main basis of Christian believes is not the literal meanings of the content of the Bible, but rather the message behind the literal meanings. The Bible is full of Myths and untrue stories that a meant as mere tools or instruments of communicating the message of God. For instance, the creation account that we find in the book of Genesis is purely a myth that is used to pass the vital message that God is the creator. But the account of creation given in the book of Genesis is no way an historical or scientific explanation of what actually happened during creation. But even though many Christians take this story of creation in the book of Genesis as a true account of creation, they, nonetheless, don’t lose their faith when they realize that the account isn’t a true explanation of how creation took place. They still continue to believe that God is the creator of the Universe. Even if Crossan’s interpretations were right, therefore, Christians wouldn’t lose their faith in Jesus Christ as the son of God because, this is the main message in the Gospels. Christianity would continue to survive even with Crossan’s interpretations of the Bible.

Thirdly, Christianity is not based on false beliefs and some Christian denominations; the Catholic Church in particular, encourages its members to subject their beliefs into critical reasoning. The Catholic Church teaches that faith and reason do not conflict, and it even allows historical criticism, the method that was used by Crossan, in terpreting the Bible (Alvarez, 6). So, the Church is not afraid of investigating even the truth behind what Crossan calls the ‘’ reconstructed historical Jesus’’ (Crossan, 223). The Catholic Church is of the view that truth, whether scientific, historical, or any other form of truth will enhance its teachings rather than weaken it. This in essence means that the historical findings on biblical matters should enrich and strengthen the teachings of the Church, instead of weakening it.

In conclusion, we would still remain Christians even if the interpretations of Crossan were right. Christianity as a Religion would remain intact. Although the interpretations would be met by surprise and disbelief by the Christians, the interpretations would not substantially affect the faith of the Christians. The interpretations of Crossan would neither negatively impact on Christianity, nor would it spur interest in Christianity and lead to more people becoming Christians. Crossan’s interpretations of the Gospels would, however, enrich the teachings of the Christianity on Jesus Christ, their founder, by bringing to right some knowledge on the life of Jesus that we weren’t aware of.