Crossan Ch 1-2 Reflection

Crossan opens the revolutionary biography of Jesus with different comparisons. It can only be assumed that Crossan believes some of Jesus narrative was influenced by previous writers’ work. He compares Jesus, the son of a poor carpenter, to Octavious, the son of almighty Caesar. Octavious and Jesus were quite similar. Crossan points out here that the Greek writers that wrote about Caesar made the accounts of Caesar and Octavious more “flowery.” By flowery, I mean they wrote in poetry and prose and were heavily influenced by previous written narratives such as the Iliad and the Odyssey, They were both thought of as the son of God. Crossan then asks why the gospels Mathew and Luke have stories of Jesus’ birth. Both are short depictions of what the birth was like. But there is a gap of time missing, from birth to adulthood that we do not have any recollection or written story of. So why were the infancy narratives included? There are numerous stories in the Old Testament where the unable give birth despite medical problems. One of these stories is John, the style of writing and situations are similar. The birth narratives of John an Jesus are very similar, and they both prophesize about a new day. The next comparison is Moses and Jesus. Moses was saved from the river by his mother, who hid him in a basket. Moses was prophesied to lead the exodus, therefore the king basically had a warrant out for Moses, much like when king Herod sent out to kill all children in Bethlehem. Moses infancy story follows a simple pattern. First there is a sign, then fear, then consultation, then a massacre. Jesus’ follows the same exact pattern; however it is much less obvious to us since we focus more on Jesus actual life. The next pattern Crossan reviews is Jesus virginal birth. It is very similar to when Amram and Miram were divorced and remarried. The pattern is Divorce, reassurance, and remarriage. Joesph and Mary were reassured by god, like Miriam, that their marriage was pure. Crossan notes that gospels Matthew and Luke us the past to solidify the future. By adding old testament and other epic poetry into the mix, Jesus can be more easily identifiable with others. The plan makes Jesus relatable while adding new lessons to the mix. The author continues with the bashing of a story in Luke where Jesus is seen as a shining student. This is impossible, because Jesus, since he was a carpenters son, would not have been able to read. This story points out that sometimes we can’t trust oral history.

I think it is important to question the sources that we read from, and this evidence proves that Jesus narrative may not be word for word what Jesus actual life story was like. I think it is important to pick the pieces apart to try to get to the nitty gritty, the bones of the real story, so we can derive lessons from there, instead of building lessons on morphed, disfigured, poetic misrepresentations. Crossans evaluations makes me wonder: what was Jesus life really like, and how simple did he live? Were his miracles less than miracles?