verts not just some ideologies but all ideologies.”rnAnd he coneludes, “the historicalrnJesus is a bulwark against the reductionrnof Christian faith . . . to ‘relevant’rnideology of any stripe. His refusal to bernheld fast by any given sehool of thoughtrnis what drives theologians onward intornnew paths; hence the historical Jesus remainsrna constant stimulus to theologicalrnrenewal.” Now, with the best will in thernworld, I find these apologia nothingrnother than constructi e theologv garbedrnas history, theological apologetics claimingrnthe authority of dispassionate scholarship.rnWhy ask history to settle questionsrnthat Meier himself specifies asrnfundamentally religious? And sincernwhen do matters of fact have any bearingrnon the truths of faith? Real historians dornnot give reasons such as these for writingrnhistorical biography. They do not havernto.rnJohn Dominic Crossan’s The llistoricalrnjesus gives us a very different book.rnWhile Meier concerns himself with issuesrnof method, analysis of sources, and,rnabove all, a broad account of the receivedrnscholarly literature, Crossan wishes tornpresent something other than a referencernwork. He gives us an intensely powerfulrnand poetic book, one by a greatrnwriter who is also an original and weightyrnscholar. Crossan’s life of Jesus is a pronouncement,rnnot merely an assessment,rnof the development of an academic discipline.rnHe covers the many categoriesrninto which Jesus has been east: visionaryrnand teacher, peasant and protester, magicianrnand prophet, bandit and messiah,rnrebel and reyolutionary. }{e moves on tornJohn and Jesus, kingdom and wisdom,rnmagic and meal, death and burial, resurrectionrnand authority.rnThe upshot of this eloquent story is:rn”That ecstatic vision and social programrnsought to rebuild a society upyyard fromrnits grass roots but on principles of religiousrnand economic egalitarianisms, withrnfree healing brought directly to the peasantrnhomes and free sharing of whateverrnthey had in return. The deliberate conjunctionrnof magic and meal, miracle andrntable, free comparison and open commensality,rnwas a challenge launched notrn’v lironi(l( •-rn^ BOSNIA,rn•r USA.rnClirunides (iift Subscription hasrnloni; been a popular choice as a ^itH forrnt:imil and friendv. And now, ourrnspecial rates makt; giving Climnicles arnconsiderable v^lilfe, too. (JAve arnone-year sobscriptimi to Chroniclesrnfor onl> $24—you .save $6 or in^’rrnotT the cover price.rnT()OK])KMII> I’lll)M-.( I I . T ( l l l IKI-.hrn1-800-877-5459rnJu^l cumplctc find niail thi ..ilriiiiinpi>ii!|ii-n .•iili v<l iii>(>ui nanii.-rnFORKION ORDERS ADDS6 PER SL’BSCRIFTION. U.S. HUNDS ONLY. CHRONICLES SELLS EOR S2 SI) A COPY,rnSEND TO: CHRONICLES * PO. BOX H(K) * Ml. MORRIS, [L 6l(J.S4rnjust at Judaism’s strictest purity regulations,rnor even at the Mediterranean’s patriarchalrncombination of honor andrnshame, patronage and clientage, but atrncivilization’s eternal inclination to drawrnlines, invoke boundaries, establish hierarchies,rnand maintain discriminations.”rnClearly, we are in the hands of a masterrnpreacher, but a historian? I think not.rnWhoever heard of a historian who endsrnhis book with a sermon, and a politicalrnone at that?rnDenying a pure and narrow historicalrnmotive, Crossan concludes, “This bookrn. . . is a scholadv reconstruction of thernhistorical Jesus. And if one were to acceptrnits formal methods and even theirrnmaterial investments, one could surelyrnoffer divergent interpretative conclusionsrnabout the reconstruetible historical Jesus.rnBut one cannot dismiss it or the searchrnfor the historical Jesus as mere reconstruction,rnas if recon.struction invalidatedrnsomehow the entire project. Becausernthere is only reconstruction. For a believingrnChristian both the life of thernword of God and the test of the Word ofrnGod are like a graded process of historicalrnreconstruction. . . . If you cannot believernin something produced by reconstruction,rnyou may have nothing left tornbelieve in.” Here Crossan betrays therntrue nature of his work: history in form,rntheology in all else—substance, intent,rnand result.rnCardinal Joseph Ratzinger makes thernpoint in a variety of important and authoritativernpapers that, for the Christianrnfaithful, at issue in the identity of the historicalrnJesus is the Christ of faith. If thernquestion is theological truth, can the answerrnclaim the status of secular fact?rnCrossan’s somewhat strident concludingrnsentences imply that it can, andrnMeier’s characteristically more prudentrnremarks say as much. Meier and Crossan,rnboth masters of their craft, actually validaternRatzinger’s insistence: let theologyrnbe theology, while (for exegetical, notrntheological purposes) addressing issuesrnof history. No historical work explains itselfrnso disingenuously as does work onrnthe historical Jesus: from beginning, middle,rnto end, the issue is theological. Butrnhow can theological truth about supernaturalrnreality and historical fact concerningrnthis world’s events be expectedrnto meet? For religious faith speaks inrnthe present tense about eternity—howrnthings are and must always be—whilernhistorical facts tell us merely what was,rnonce upon a time trn34/CHRONICLESrnrnrn