Customer Reviews

JESUS OF NAZARETH

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I have read a lot of books on the historical Jesus in my situation as a postgraduate student specialising in this area - and Dale Allison's "Jesus of Nazareth" is easily in the top 5 I have ever read. It holds to that research programme which regards Jesus as an eschatological figure based on the belief that since his mentor, John the Baptist, was, and since his followers, the first Christians, were, then he must also have been. It follows this belief through with a pulsating argument based on religious parallels and methodological sifting of the Gospel texts.

Interesting then that this book begins by totally destroying the argument of John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar who find a diametrically opposed and non-eschatological Jesus. But then we see that Allison is attempting to show that reasoned and reasonable treatment of these resources leads to the conclusion that an eschatological explanation for Jesus (or apocalyptic as Crossan would want to say) is the only one which makes sense of the majority of the Jesus tradition. Indeed, this is a criterion for Allison: if the tradition is basically misleading, then what historical use can it really be? Thus follows a masterful sifting of the eschatological traditions about Jesus in comparison with other religious parallels which leads Allison to argue even that Jesus was an ascetic expecting the end - his persuasive argument leads the reader to seriously consider the proposition.

In summary, this book is brilliant, easy to read and very, very persuasive. Its conclusions make sense of the majority of the Jesus traditions and are based on strong methodological foundations. Allison is realistic about what can and cannot be claimed for Jesus and I believe that this book sets this out in clear and ringing tones. A "must read" for those interested in the historical Jesus.

Dale Allison has written a fine book here. In the tradition of Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer, he has joined E.P. Sanders on the barricades to defend a view of Jesus as an eschatological/apocalyptic prophet.

The entire volume is very well written and argued; in particular I heartily applaud both its destructive criticism of John Dominic Crossan and its refutation of Marcus Borg as against Sanders. (Both Crossan and Borg think Jesus was altogether noneschatological.)

If I had to pick on one flaw, I would single out the following: I do not see that Allison makes clear the crucial difference between (a) announcing prophetically that the Messianic Age _is_ at hand and (b) announcing non-prophetically one's own _expectation_ to that effect. In particular I do not see that Allison has dealt with the gospels' own reports (in e.g. Mark 13) that Jesus himself did not claim to _know_ the "day or the hour." Yet even on the most skeptical view of the gospels, passages that attribute ignorance to Jesus can surely not be dismissed as late additions. The issue is probably less important to me than it will be to Christians, but since the Messianic Age did _not_ dawn at that time, we should probably be a bit careful about making Jesus a false prophet!

If I had to find a _second_ nit to pick, I'd probaby settle on Allison's emphasis on Jesus's asceticism. His remarks here are a fine corrective to a tendency in the opposite direction, but on the whole I think Allison goes a bit too far.

Nicely done, though, and a valuable attempt to recover the eschatological dimension of Jesus's life and teaching. If Allison is essentially right -- and I think he is -- then, contra the assertions of some other scholars, most of the material in the Christian gospels is historical.

In reading the Gospels, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that Jesus was an eschatological prophet. He preached the coming end of the world and the need for repentance in the facing of the coming judgment.

Recently, a number of scholars (such as D. Crossan, M. Borg and S. Patterson) have argued that these eschatological elements of the Gospels were not part of Jesus' teachings but were added by the later church. Dale Allison (who is a professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) makes short work of their arguments in this important contribution to Jesus studies.

According to Allison, Jesus likely believed in what is today called millennialism -- a long period of time in which mankind would experience "heaven on earth." Jesus taught that a millennial kingdom would shortly arrive and this would involve a constellation of other events, such as the gathering of the twelve tribes, a time of tribulation and the resurrection of the dead. Allison also discusses various millennial movements throughout history and relates them to Jesus' teaching.

Allison believes that Jesus expected these events to take place shortly, probably in his lifetime. Since this didn't happen, Allison appears to think that Jesus was in error. Unfortunately he doesn't engage those texts which suggest a contrary interpretation, such as Mark 13:32. As Allison himself argued in his article "Eschatology" in the 1992 work DICTIONARY OF JESUS AND THE GOSPELS, "Jesus' expectations were probably more contingent and indeterminate than many have supposed." (p. 207.) It is certainly possible that Jesus believed that his coming inaugurated "the end," but the actual timing of the events which constitute the end was unknown.

The final chapter is entitled "Jesus the Millenarian Ascetic." Although a welcome corrective to the "Jesus the party animal" approach common today, it goes somewhat beyond the evidence.

I often tell people that if there is one book to read about Jesus, this is it. Dale Allison develops Schweitzer's apocalyptic prophet in view of millenarian movements, outlining 19 characteristics shared by apocalyptic groups and cargo cults -- all of which happen to fit the Jesus movement like a glove. He gets Crossan out of the way in chapter one (not a difficult task), and then explains the advantages of Sanders over Borg. Mistaken prophecies like the temple's destruction and replacement ("in three days"), and Judas Iscariot's reign over one of the twelve tribes of Israel, point to authenticity. Against Caird and Wright, the author shows that Jesus' apocalyptic language, about which he was wrong, was intended literally. He locates Jesus as an ascetic (a celibate), a notion many people find as unattractive as eschatology. Allison concludes: "Jesus was the millenarian prophet of judgment, the embodiment of the divine discontent that rolls through all things; the prophet of consolation and hope who proclaimed the last would be first, making the best of a bad situation. But his generation passed away, and they all tasted death. Like all apocalyptic prophets, he was wrong; reality took no notice of his imagination." This is Schweitzer's legacy, and those who fight it are swimming against the tide.

The author doesn't mean to imply that Jesus was wrong about everything. There's wheat and chaff in anyone's religion. Jesus empowered people socially while misleading them eschatologically. He was wrong about the apocalypse, but perhaps for the right reasons, wanting God to defeat evil, redeem the world, and hold humanity responsible. This is one of the few studies that allows Jesus his human inconsistencies and failings, and for that reason alone convinces.

Allison effectively attacks the contention of the Jesus Seminar that Jesus never taught a future judgment and future kingdom. He argues that Jesus lived in a time of apocalyptic expectation, got his start with John the Baptist, and gave rise to an apocalyptic movement. Thus much of the gospels' report of Jesus may well be historical.

Dale Allison has enriched us with a provocative and stimulatinglook at Jesus. He has given a contemporary defense of theSchweitzerian view of Jesus, namely that Jesus must be seen as a first century Apocalyptic prophet. Using Q as his support, he dismantles the contored view of Jesus by the likes of John Crossan et al. And for this he should be praised.

The weakness of the book though is one of the main thesis'. That Jesus taught a future utopian reign on earth. To support this idea Allison commands two main pillars of argument. The weakest is the idea that it has been the general feeling of the Jews and the gentiles alike of a future Millennial time. Besides the fact that it is usually not a good idea to base one's argument on the consensus of the masses' it can easily be argued that Jesus in the NT taught a unique view of the kingdom of God. That through his first advent on earth God's kingdom has broken in concretely and saturates the planet today. And through his second advent the final form of the kingdom will be evident, with no interim period. Allison's second pillar is arguing for example that Mark 13 et al should be seen in literal imagery. His brave interaction with the opposite fence of scholars (who see these eschatological passages as primarily metaphoric-which is the intended meaning of the synoptic author using OT judgment imagery) is not convincing.

For a powerful indirect refutation of Allison's exegesis of the eschatological texts consult N.T Wright's 'Jesus and the victory of God'.

All in all, Allison's work should be read for it's honesty and brevity...