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

Introduction

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 to critical evaluation and employed the method of historical criticism in his attempt to determine whether the main Gospel claims are based on factual matters or not. In the final analysis, Crossan challenged and refuted many biblical accounts of Jesus Christ in the Gospel. For instance, he exposed the many inconsistencies in the biblical account of the Birth of Jesus Christ and demonstrated that these accounts are spurious and not based on historical facts (Crossan, 1994, pp. 1-25). In this book, Crossan also claimed that Jesus Christ was a critic of the tradition he inherited, and that he would, most likely, critique 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 Christians' faith in Jesus Christ, or would it make the Christian faith stronger? Would Christianity stand if Crossan’s interpretation of the Bible is correct? These are the questions that this paper addresses.

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

While Crossan’s interpretation of the Gospels undoubtedly challenges and refutes some Christian dogmas that form the basis of Christian beliefs in Jesus Christ, the interpretation would not, however, substantially change the Christians’ traditional image of Jesus Christ, nor weaken their faith in Jesus. We would still be Christians even if Crossan were right. There are several reasons why Crossan’s interpretations of the Gospels would not substantially affect the Christian faith in Jesus Christ or alter Christianity in any significant way.

Faith Beyond Historical Facts

To begin with, it is important to note that most of the refutations that Crossan makes on the Gospels are on the historical aspect of the Gospel—whether or not the Gospel constitutes a historical account of what actually took place in the Life of Jesus Christ. In his investigations, Crossan concluded that much 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 believe (Crossan, 1994, Prologue, pp. xiii-xiv). Crossan goes on to argue that Christian faith is merely a belief in the historical Jesus as the manifestation of God (Crossan, 1994, p. 244). However, while Christians might be surprised to learn that what they have long 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 transcends historical data.

Schleiermacher 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; it is a deep personal experience. Faith in Jesus Christ, therefore, is a spiritual experience, and although historical facts act 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, Christians would retain the traditional image of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

Religion as an Evolving Phenomenon

This fact is corroborated by Clifford in his view of religion as an evolving phenomenon in "Religion as Cultural System" (Clifford, 1973, p. 88). Since the earliest stages of humanity, in the Stone Age, humans have exhibited religious tendencies, and religion as a human phenomenon has undergone many changes throughout 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 lead to Christianity being dismissed by Christians. Christians would still keep their faith in Jesus Christ, but with some modifications. These modifications would not substantially impact Christianity negatively enough to alter the traditional image of Jesus Christ among Christians.

The Message Beyond the Literal

Secondly, Crossan’s interpretation of the Gospels of Jesus Christ would not weaken Christianity as a religion because the main basis of Christian beliefs 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 are meant as mere tools or instruments of communicating the message of God. For instance, the creation account found in the book of Genesis is purely a myth used to convey the vital message that God is the creator. But the account of creation given in Genesis is not a historical or scientific explanation of what actually happened during creation. Even though many Christians take this story of creation in 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 continue to believe that God is the creator of the Universe. Even if Crossan’s interpretations were correct, 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.

Faith and Reason

Thirdly, Christianity is not based on false beliefs, and some Christian denominations, particularly the Catholic Church, encourage their members to subject their beliefs to critical reasoning. The Catholic Church teaches that faith and reason do not conflict, and it even allows historical criticism, the method used by Crossan, in interpreting the Bible (Alvarez, 2000, p. 6). Thus, the Church is not afraid of investigating even the truth behind what Crossan calls the "reconstructed historical Jesus" (Crossan, 1994, p. 223). The Catholic Church holds the view that truth, whether scientific, historical, or any other form, will enhance its teachings rather than weaken them. This, in essence, means that historical findings on biblical matters should enrich and strengthen the teachings of the Church instead of weakening them.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we would still remain Christians even if Crossan’s interpretations were correct. Christianity as a religion would remain intact. Although the interpretations might be met with surprise and disbelief by Christians, they would not substantially affect the faith of the Christians. Crossan’s interpretations would neither negatively impact Christianity nor spur interest in Christianity leading to more people becoming Christians. Instead, Crossan’s interpretations of the Gospels would enrich the teachings of Christianity on Jesus Christ, their founder, by shedding light on aspects of Jesus’s life that were previously unknown.

References

• Alvarez, R. (n.d.). Faith as a Feeling: Schleiermacher's Perspective.
• Alvarez, R. (2000). Faith and Reason in the Catholic Tradition.
• Clifford, J. (1973). Religion as Cultural System.
• Crossan, J. D. (1994). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne.