Customer Reviews

Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Paula Fredriksen offers the best historical account of the passion. Jesus, she says, wasn't killed for black magic, Torah-disputes, parables, nor even his outrageous demonstration in the temple. As offensive as these were to many, they wouldn't have resulted in crucifixion. Authorities knew that Jesus was essentially a harmless nuisance: Antipas left him alone, because (unlike the Baptist and other prophets) he didn't convene mass rallies in the desert; and Pilate didn't move against him on account of the triumphal entry, because he'd been long aware that Jesus really posed no threat to Roman power (John's gospel correctly indicates he'd been in Jerusalem before). The demonstration in the temple, moreover, would have hardly been noticed by anyone during a festival. But during his last trip to Jerusalem, in the days between his triumphal entry and last supper, Jesus fueled alarming amounts of messianic enthusiasm. The author suggests that Jesus stepped up the apocalypse's timetable from "soon" to "now" -- proclaiming that this passover would be the last before the kingdom arrived -- with increased amounts of crowds and pilgrims acclaiming him the messianic liberator. Pilate finally acted against Jesus to set an example for the masses and prevent riots.

In many ways this book owes to E.P. Sanders' reconstruction of Jesus the eschatological prophet obedient to Torah, but while for Sanders Jesus was killed for acting against the temple, Fredriksen believes he was executed because Caiaphas was nervous about Pilate's itchy trigger-finger when dealing with popular prophets. This is a sound contribution to historical-Jesus studies and should be read by anyone remotely interested in the field.

The words that come to mind having absorbed the arguments of Paula Fredriksen in "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" are "common sense". In her book she has not fallen prey (like so many in historical Jesus studies) to the predatory gaze of "method" neither has she been overly waylaid along the way by a need to pander to various "audiences" either contemporary or ancient. She has done history - Jewish history - and, in my opinion, done it well. Her Jesus is "a prophet who preached the coming apocalyptic Kingdom of God." She follows this tack not least because it enables Jesus to cohere with his immediate mentor, John the Baptist, and the movement that "sprang up in his name" - the first Christians. Fredriksen believes that in many ways what Jesus preached was revolutionary only in the sense that he talked about God's kingdom NOW rather than SOON - it was a matter of TIMETABLE and not CONTENT. Thus, Fredriksen contributes another Jesus to the current round of thoroughly Jewish Jesuses.

A key and noteworthy aspect of Fredriksen's work is the insight that the itinerary of John, as against the Synoptic Gospels, may be closer to the truth. That is, Jesus was known in Judea and Galilee rather than just Galilee. This allows her to say that Jesus, being known in and around Jerusalem, could be seen as a one man threat in a sense, rather than the leader of a revolutionary movement or army. Thus, when the time came to do away with Jesus his followers were left alone since they were never perceived as the threat Jesus was. This threat was due to Jesus ability to galvanise the crowds with his imminent eschatological message, a message which at his final Passover may well have been tinged with a crowd more and more convinced of his possible messianic credentials. Thus Jesus was executed by Pilate as a political insurrectionist.

So what other examples of scholarly common sense might we find in this book? Well, the insight that searching for the historical Jesus now requires knowledge of the historical Galilee and historical Judaism. Further, the suggestion that Jesus is not the all-seeing, all-knowing individual some scholars (and many readers) assume him to be. Why can't Pilate's action against Jesus have caught him by surprise, for example? Further, but by no means finally, that Jesus' messianic identity might well be in some way concretised in the consciousness of those following Jesus before the crucifixion and, indeed, act as a fatal impetus towards it.

So here we have a book of eminent common sense which attempts what was seemingly becoming thought impossible - a reasoned and reasonable view of the historical Jesus which attempts to make sense of our historical evidence without fuss, bluster or fanfares of publicity. I judge that Fredriksen has done as good a job as we can expect against the current background of research - and in a way that is both readable and enjoyable. As a current postgraduate student specialising in the historical Jesus,I recommend this book to every reader interested in the subject.

As far as I'm concerned Paula Fredricksen provides a fresh and convincing thesis in this work en route to capturing the historical Jesus.

To say that I was impressed with her even-handed academic approach would be a gross understatement. With the care and meticulousness of an anthropologist at dig site, Fredricksen excavates for the historical Jesus working from a premise that denies the all too obliged notions of the "apocalyptic messiah" or Gallelian sage.

It is with this approach that she acquires the foundation for a clear and bias-free perspective( or at least as bias-free as it it possible to get). She treats the historic record with the exacting precision and care of a surgeon, and arrives at the historical Jesus not through the prizm of the narratives (the Gospels) or through that of his proverbs, but through the seemingly inexplicable occasion of his death.

Frederiksen is perhaps most to be complimented on her evaluation of the variations of Jesus depicted between the Gospels; not using these inconguencies to dismiss them, but offering them as items to be used to juxtapose against other documents that reflect the 1st century Jesus (the dead sea scroll for example). This is an impressive technique, which has the result of more accurately capturing the historical Jesus.

Above all of this, the book is very cogent and not a difficult read. This is perhaps its best quality.

The book is so extraordinary as to be almost unique among the Quest for the Historical Jesus literature. Whatever one may think of its conclusions, it is powerfully written and exquisitely argued. But its strongest accomplishment for me was that it recreates the Jewish milieu of the First Century with cinematic power. The grandeur of Herod's enlarged Temple, the multitudes in Jerusalem for the various feasts, the impact of ritual and sacrifice upon the life of Jews not only in Palestine but throughout the Roman Empire -- all of this is beautifully described. Of course Jesus is placed within it, and our sense of him as part of this complex Jewish world is greatly increased and deepened. The bibliography is rich. The ideas are challenging. I don't personally agreed with the conclusions at the end, but I keep the book nearby, checking it on any number of questions as to purity laws, customs, etc. I actually check other biblical scholars against it. I hope Fredriksen gives us more books. Her gifts are great. Is this still brief? Ah, well, it's a rave. I was true on that score. Anne Rice, New Orleans, La.

Regardless of what one thinks of Fredriksen's hypotheses, this is serious scholarship and should not be belittled by an intemperate Jehovah screed or fatuous pedantry over the usage of "enormity".

It seems to me that the questions of whether Jesus's message is apocolyptical or ethical, and whether or not the resurrection was contrived to explain away an unexpected crucifixion, boil down to the perennial debate about whether Cristianity should be represented by a cross or a crucifix. Frankly, I rather prefer to think of the Jesus who, being a prophet of the people chosen by God to deliver His message, preached that if we don't love, keeping all the other commandments won't get us to heaven.

Now, I don't think this agrees with Mrs. Fredriksen's thesis, but it doesn't diminish my regard for this well reasoned, well researched and well written book.

Paula Fredriksen's "Jesus of Nazareth" makes the reader pause to consider the reasoning behind Jesus' crucifixion. Christians believe Jesus had to die to serve as the "ultimate sacrifice", if you will, for the sins of mankind. However, Ms. Fredriksen causes the reader to ponder why crucifixion had to be the method of death, and more importantly, if Jesus was such a "threat" to Roman rule over Judea why weren't his disciples and follwers also executed. The book also examines when and how He came to be recognized as and called Jesus the Christ. This is not a book to be selected for "leisurely reading". It is definitely for someone who studies Christianity and realizes the importance of examining the history surrounding events when attemting to gain better insight into why certain events occurred in the manner in which they did.

The quest for historical Jesus has become a bit like that Saturday Night Live sketch in which a gaggle of girls at a slumber party breathlessly debates which film actor makes the sexiest Savior. Some scholars argue for Jesus the apocalyptic Jewish teacher, others for the existential religious thinker, still others for the passionate social revolutionary.

Here Paula Fredriksen focuses instead on the one incontrovertible fact about Jesus' life--his death--and presents her readers with a murder mystery. Why, she asks, was Jesus crucified--a form of execution that Rome reserved solely for political (not religious) insurrectionists? She finds her answer, surprisingly enough, in the Gospel of John, perhaps the most stylish ("In the beginning was the Word...") but least "historical" of the New Testament's Jesus narratives. Most scholars discount John as history because its chronology doesn't "fit in" with the other gospels.

Like any good mystery novelist, Fredriksen unpeels her story like an onion and throws in a few red herrings along the way. By the final chapter, the reader can't wait for her to stroll into the parlor like Hercule Poirot and tie together her threads of deduction. Meanwhile, Fredriksen presents a readable, pagan-friendly survey of modern Bible scholarship that presumes no prior knowledge of Scripture or religious history. Neophytes may want to keep a copy of the Good Book handy, though, as well as a dictionary to look up words like "eschatology."

Biblical scholarship, both Old and New Testaments, fascinates me. It is with a great deal of pleassure, then, that I read works devoted to this subject, particularly if they are understandable to a layman such as myself. This newest work is a perfect example of the best type of writing in this field: it breaks new ground for me, and I understand it because the writing isn't geared only for the "inner circle" of scholars in the field. The author delves deeply but clearly into the times and the sources, and supports her hypothesis quite strongly. I know that there are probably many people who disagree with what she states, but she has her ground and she stands it well. I take no sides in the ongoing controversy; I just enjoy reading all sides to the arguments, and this work is an excellent addition to the literature on the subject of the historic Jesus. Whether or not the author is correct in her position we will never know, because of the 2000 year time difference from the life to the writing, but we can speculate, and the author does her speculating well. This is a book well worth reading; you don't have to agree with its conclusions to admire the scholarship that went into composing it.

Paula Fredriksen succeeds where so many of her colleagues fail: recapturing the Jewishness of Jesus. She accomplishes this feat simply by placing him within his Jewish context, accompanied of course by very in-depth and rigorous research into the historical settings of Judea and Galilee, collectively known to us as Palestine. She quite correctly criticizes scholars such as Crossan who Hellenize Jesus by making him into some sort of wandering Cynic sage, although at other times she is quite dismissive of arguments contrary to her own. However, given the scope of the subject and the limited time involved, perhaps we may forgive such a tendency as perhaps inevitable. ALthough I agreed with her main thesis, she immerses herself in overly rank speculation towards the end. I personally do not feel it necessary to posit John's itenerary rather than the Synoptics to explain why Jesus' followers were not crucified. Also, although all scholars do this, I seriously question the tendency to speculate far beyond what is necessary to explain the limited facts we have. Of course, some speculation (one might even say "much") is inevitable given the subject matter and the questionable nature of many of the facts involved, but to seek to explain every bit of questionable evidence just to fully flesh out one's theory seems wholly unnecessary to me. Either way, though, if you are interested in the actual Jesus of history, then you would be hard pressed to do better than this book.

This is my first Paula Fredriksen book, and it proved delightful to read from cover to cover. She presents a very well reasoned and researched work exploring the life and times of Jesus, who came to be called Christ. Came to be called Christ because Paula digs deep into the heart of ancient Palestine and into the depths of the documentation we have of the time, primarily in the gospels and Josephus' works to explain how exactly this Jesus came to be the Christ.

She combs the Jewish scriptures to explain what was meant to label a person "Messiah" in the context of a disaffected and disheartened population subject to occupation and tyranny despite their promises from God to possess forever their promised land of milk and honey and live a life of peace and justice. One of the problems, of course, is its very location: Palestine was the heart and center of the ancient world and was a key strategic point between Europe, Asia Minor, Africa, Arabia, and the Far East. No foreign power could resist its temptations and the Jews were the victims of the never-ending struggle for imperial power for centuries. Out of these circumstances grew a religious idea of a conquering anointed one who would forever guarantee peace for God's people and extend peace and justice literally to the entire world from its heart, Israel. At the same time in the Gentile world, a religious vacuum was being created as old ideas grew just that, old, and opened people's minds to a new religion promising what these people craved: supernatural understanding of the cosmos, spiritual salvation, the revelation of mysteries. The time and place were right for an itinerant prophet, a peaceful man of God, a wise Son of Man to be proclaimed to Jews and Gentiles alike as the savior, the Christ, of the entire world.

The book addresses its main topic: why did Jesus die of crucifixion? Being inseparable from the label of Christ, Fredriksen begins by explaining from Paul's epistles and the evolution of the gospel material how the first Christians came to be convinced that Jesus was the Messiah. No one knew of a suffering Messiah, so a reconstruction of the life and identity of Jesus as well as a reinterpretation of the Jewish scriptures was required. Being rich in poetry, history, and prophecy it wasn't difficult for the first believers to seek their answer to the experience of Jesus in their scriptures. In them they found justification for a suffering Messiah who became a servant, one who would first appear in peace but disgrace, yet return in glory and power. Paul's mission to the Gentiles and their ready response to it (refer to previous paragraph) was further confirmation that this Jesus was indeed the Messiah who would soon end the present world and usher in the kingdom of God.

After laying this solid foundation, describing ancient temple Judaism (Prelude 2, "The Temple" is absolutely a fantastic aside novella Fredriksen inserts), the Roman occupation, the early years of Christian teaching and writing, Fredriksen tackles her ultimate question: why was Jesus crucified? Crucifixion was reserved for political insurrectionists, violent revolutionaries; not peaceful "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" prophets. And why only him, why not his followers too? Jesus was in the mold of John the Baptist, calling for repentance, warning of supernatural judgment, proclaiming the coming kingdom; however he didn't take up arms, he didn't rally zealous revolutionaries, so what threat was he to Rome? Fredriksen narrates a growing expectation among the people about Jesus. They admired, were "astonished" at his teachings, flocked to hear him in the Temple, listened intently to this prophet. Did Jesus ever claim to be the King of Israel? Ultimately we cannot know, but the evidence suggests that he didn't, historical anachronism put this label into Jesus' mouth retrospectively. But the growing expectation among the people that a coming liberator, one "like a Son of Man", was indeed coming to free Israel caused more and more people to wonder if Jesus was the one, was this the one spoken of by the prophets. One fateful Passover this expectation and the accompanying chatter grew loud enough for the chief priests and Pilate to unequivocally notice and something had to be done before a riot of the people occurred. Neither Jesus nor his followers were perceived to be the direct threat, it was the people who loudly wondered whether Jesus could be their coming King.

The chief priests and Pilate decided to quickly silence this rumor and settle the people. On the Friday of Passover, these excited Jews, wondering about a supernatural Passover liberation from God, woke up to find their "King of the Jews" nailed to a cross outside the city. And so it ended.

The utter shock of the crucifixion of this peaceful prophet on the part of his followers led them to the scriptures. In them they became convinced that the crowds were right: this man was indeed the King of Israel and would soon return, bringing judgment to the world and freeing the people of God. They preached the message, many believed, and a new religion was born.

Fredriksen has written a wonderful book. I recommend it highly. Her chapter on the crucifixion is so well done and is such a beautiful narration of a compelling and emotional human drama, my spine was chilled and I too, like the crowd, was "astonished". You must read this.