What do you think?
Rate this book
Beyond the Passion: Rethinking the Death and Life of Jesus
For most Christian believers, what is truly remarkable and important about Jesus is not his life, but his resurrection from the dead. They may believe that Jesus' death is significant not as the end of Jesus' life, but as the first half of the saving event that comprises the Christian the death and resurrection of Jesus. For Christians, this great divine cosmic event, around which all of human history pivots, is what saves us from our sins. Apart from this, the death of Jesus would simply be the meaningless end to an interesting but insignificant life. In this lively and provocative work, Patterson reconstructs early Christian assessments of Jesus' significance and also questions basic assumptions about modern interpretations of Jesus' death. He emphasizes the importance of Jesus' life in relation to his death and resurrection. And he challenges individualistic notions of how Jesus' death relates to Christian ethics.
- GenresTheology
161 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 2004
11 people are currently reading
24 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
October 30, 2021
I just finished "Beyond The Passion: Rethinking the Death and Life of Jesus," by Stephen J. Patterson.
Using M.L. King as an analogue: if we only ever spoke about his assassination, it's location, how it happened, how and where he was burried we would miss his message. This begs the "how much more" must we speak about Jesus life and ministry? Patterson does this in three sections titled victim, martyr and sacrifice.
The first chapter, Victim, begins by painting a picture of the Roman environment Jesus would have grown up in. Pax Romana...by any means necessary. The shadow cast by Augustus would have been everywhere in Jesus' culture. (This was very good historical work, better than one usually finds in a systematic treatment of a subject.) Patterson speaks to patron and client relationships in Roman culture and also how they are reflected in Jesus' teachings. He progresses to show how in the work of Luke and Paul we can find hints--hints to us but not to the first readers--of how Christ as Lord and peace and security, for example, would have been seen as a threat to empire when taken serious this is still a threat to empire. Acts 17:7 says Jesus is president and Trump/Biden was/is not. Never was. This first chapter is phenomenal. Patterson reads like Martin Hengel's (The Crucifixion and The Atonement) just-the-facts style mixed with a lot of opinion and attitude.
The second chapter, Martyr, kicks off speaking about how Jesus was a victim but also a Martyr which can be seen in His saying His followers are to take up their cross and follow Him.
The first thing that captures my eye here is that in 4 Macc. We have a story of Eleazar, a Jew, who upon threat of torture refused to eat unclean meat and die. His action was a model for the young and in this sense it was vicarious "for others." He prays at death that his punishment a satisfaction, his blood a purification and his life be taken as a ransom for theirs. In the tradition of martyrs a death is vicarious in that it is to be emulated. Ite benefits are experienced through imitation.
"To be moved by such a death," [a Martyr], "is to be moved by the life that lead to it," p 68.
Now the third chapter, sacrifice. It seems that the writers objective is to eliminate any concept of an objective atonement. I find his proposal compelling, though I was already leaning hard to the subjective side. I'll try to lay out some points he mentions along the way but really if this is interesting--and how can it not be?--buy the book. A sacrifice in Hellenistic culture would mean that the peeps can eat meat. It would only be because of a sacrifice that meat other than fish is eaten. Eating meat of a sacrifice was to be seen and to be someone in the empire. This was the empire who killed Jesus. To refuse to partake of sacrificed meat would have also been to refuse one's place in the Patronage system. The insult ran up and down (unless one was at the top and called Caesar which explains how Constantine got traction).
This was very interesting. If anything I would want Patterson to have spent more time speaking about the life of Jesus which we should be focused on. There's so much here and a lot of it very good.
#BeyondThePassion #StephenPatterson #StephenJPatterson #Atonement #WorkOfChrist #LifeOfChrist #BiblicalScholarship #BiblicalTheology
Using M.L. King as an analogue: if we only ever spoke about his assassination, it's location, how it happened, how and where he was burried we would miss his message. This begs the "how much more" must we speak about Jesus life and ministry? Patterson does this in three sections titled victim, martyr and sacrifice.
The first chapter, Victim, begins by painting a picture of the Roman environment Jesus would have grown up in. Pax Romana...by any means necessary. The shadow cast by Augustus would have been everywhere in Jesus' culture. (This was very good historical work, better than one usually finds in a systematic treatment of a subject.) Patterson speaks to patron and client relationships in Roman culture and also how they are reflected in Jesus' teachings. He progresses to show how in the work of Luke and Paul we can find hints--hints to us but not to the first readers--of how Christ as Lord and peace and security, for example, would have been seen as a threat to empire when taken serious this is still a threat to empire. Acts 17:7 says Jesus is president and Trump/Biden was/is not. Never was. This first chapter is phenomenal. Patterson reads like Martin Hengel's (The Crucifixion and The Atonement) just-the-facts style mixed with a lot of opinion and attitude.
The second chapter, Martyr, kicks off speaking about how Jesus was a victim but also a Martyr which can be seen in His saying His followers are to take up their cross and follow Him.
The first thing that captures my eye here is that in 4 Macc. We have a story of Eleazar, a Jew, who upon threat of torture refused to eat unclean meat and die. His action was a model for the young and in this sense it was vicarious "for others." He prays at death that his punishment a satisfaction, his blood a purification and his life be taken as a ransom for theirs. In the tradition of martyrs a death is vicarious in that it is to be emulated. Ite benefits are experienced through imitation.
"To be moved by such a death," [a Martyr], "is to be moved by the life that lead to it," p 68.
Now the third chapter, sacrifice. It seems that the writers objective is to eliminate any concept of an objective atonement. I find his proposal compelling, though I was already leaning hard to the subjective side. I'll try to lay out some points he mentions along the way but really if this is interesting--and how can it not be?--buy the book. A sacrifice in Hellenistic culture would mean that the peeps can eat meat. It would only be because of a sacrifice that meat other than fish is eaten. Eating meat of a sacrifice was to be seen and to be someone in the empire. This was the empire who killed Jesus. To refuse to partake of sacrificed meat would have also been to refuse one's place in the Patronage system. The insult ran up and down (unless one was at the top and called Caesar which explains how Constantine got traction).
This was very interesting. If anything I would want Patterson to have spent more time speaking about the life of Jesus which we should be focused on. There's so much here and a lot of it very good.
#BeyondThePassion #StephenPatterson #StephenJPatterson #Atonement #WorkOfChrist #LifeOfChrist #BiblicalScholarship #BiblicalTheology
November 19, 2019
I'm not sure I've ever read a book that is so well researched, but also so profoundly wrong. I recognize that I am biased because I profoundly disagree with the author at nearly every level, but the author's analysis and use of sources was disappointing to say the least. His portait of Jesus as a proto-Marxist peasant hippy was rather unconvincing.
I think that the author's analysis is horribly reductionist. The author repeatedly identifies what is a legitimate facet of the significance of the life and passion of Jesus, and then assume or assert that because this facet is true that's the only thing that's true. E.g. Because Jesus preaching is anti-imperial, Jesus is basically just an anti-imperial revolutionary (who happens to be Jewish, I guess).
Patterson is also replete with unhelpful assumptions about the ancient world and early Christianity. For example, he seems to assume that ancient people didn't really believe in demonic possession or if they did this was really just a cover for anti-colonialism. He also tends to assume that all ancient mediterranean cultures and religion is basically the same. Second Temple Judaism is just one religious system among others that are all basically the same.
Patterson repeatedly makes the typical liberal theological move of taking traditional terminology and then redefining it so that he can still affirm the term even though he rejects the definition that everyone else uses. For example, Patterson seems to have the gall to say that Jesus' death is vicarious because it gives us an example to follow. He does the same thing with resurrection, sacrifice, and others.
Finally, Patterson seems to treat all orthodox perspectives on Jesus' passion as childish and unreflective wish-fulfillment. The way that he caricatures such views and then dismisses them as the foolish musings of the stupid is offensive and intellectually irresponsible.
Now, I did agree with Patterson that it is unhelpful to radically separate the death of Jesus from his life. However we understand the death of Jesus, we must do so in a way that takes account of his life. I also agree with his analysis of the anti-imperial message of Jesus and early Christianity, I just think that he makes this the only thing that's really going on.
I think that the author's analysis is horribly reductionist. The author repeatedly identifies what is a legitimate facet of the significance of the life and passion of Jesus, and then assume or assert that because this facet is true that's the only thing that's true. E.g. Because Jesus preaching is anti-imperial, Jesus is basically just an anti-imperial revolutionary (who happens to be Jewish, I guess).
Patterson is also replete with unhelpful assumptions about the ancient world and early Christianity. For example, he seems to assume that ancient people didn't really believe in demonic possession or if they did this was really just a cover for anti-colonialism. He also tends to assume that all ancient mediterranean cultures and religion is basically the same. Second Temple Judaism is just one religious system among others that are all basically the same.
Patterson repeatedly makes the typical liberal theological move of taking traditional terminology and then redefining it so that he can still affirm the term even though he rejects the definition that everyone else uses. For example, Patterson seems to have the gall to say that Jesus' death is vicarious because it gives us an example to follow. He does the same thing with resurrection, sacrifice, and others.
Finally, Patterson seems to treat all orthodox perspectives on Jesus' passion as childish and unreflective wish-fulfillment. The way that he caricatures such views and then dismisses them as the foolish musings of the stupid is offensive and intellectually irresponsible.
Now, I did agree with Patterson that it is unhelpful to radically separate the death of Jesus from his life. However we understand the death of Jesus, we must do so in a way that takes account of his life. I also agree with his analysis of the anti-imperial message of Jesus and early Christianity, I just think that he makes this the only thing that's really going on.
September 29, 2014
Anyone who is interested in Jesus --- whether as a changing icon of Western Civilization or as a savior --- would like this book. It is well written and even passionate in the sense that Mr. Patterson is warmly involved in his topic.
At first, I resisted the book because I thought it might be in the vein of those books that seek the "historical" or "pre-Gospel" Jesus. In my opinion, this search is supported by too few clues, and I distrust the versions of historical context that they propose. Also, these books provide too much room for the authors' imagination to wander onto paths that they are predisposed to follow --- for example, Jesus as the founder of social justice, or as feminist, or as supporter of the struggle for LGBTQ rights. (This is not to say that such books are not quite valuable. They can provide insights that one might not find elsewhere. And they challenge --- which is always a good thing.)
Mr. P's first chapter on Christ as Victim does wander around in this respect. I thought that the history of the crucifixion is likely more complex than Mr. P. describes and that he therefore shared in the propensity to write or re-write the history as he wanted it read. Later, however, I simply accepted the chapter as an introduction to the Hellenistic-Roman world --- especially when Mr. P. spoke of the patronage system.
But Mr. P's later chapters on Christ within the tradition of the Righteous One (e.g., Isaiah's suffering servant), as martyr, and as sacrifice are excellent. At some point, I began to realize that the life of Jesus that the subtitle of Mr. P's book refers to is the paradox of the "life that led to death" or, even better, how the "life that led to death" was interpreted by the early Christian communities to make sense of the crucifixion. That is, how they took the preexisting paradigms of, say, martyrdom and sacrifice, and put Jesus' life within their context. What a lovely job Mr. P. has done. What interesting theories of the crucifixion as sacrifice or atonement for the ways of a prostitute and other sinful and ritually impure persons so that these dregs of the ancient world are brought into God's kingdom. What an interesting distinction, vis-a-vis the early Christian cells, between the locative and the utopian sacrifices and the ultimate divorce of Christianity from the Hellenistic-Roman culture and the anger and disgust it provoked. What a nice explication of Saint Paul's concept of the resurrection and of how the yearning love for Jesus on the part of those low class persons whom he had loved led naturally to an expectation, in the context of that world, that the beloved Jesus had risen.
I would guess that probably all of Mr. P's ideas have found forums elsewhere. I would add that not only lowly persons, but also persons of wealth and status, had and have a yearning love for acceptance and the one who does the accepting. Nonetheless, what is so nice about Mr. P's book is its passion, its concision, its sense that all he writes about is terribly important. Bravo.
At first, I resisted the book because I thought it might be in the vein of those books that seek the "historical" or "pre-Gospel" Jesus. In my opinion, this search is supported by too few clues, and I distrust the versions of historical context that they propose. Also, these books provide too much room for the authors' imagination to wander onto paths that they are predisposed to follow --- for example, Jesus as the founder of social justice, or as feminist, or as supporter of the struggle for LGBTQ rights. (This is not to say that such books are not quite valuable. They can provide insights that one might not find elsewhere. And they challenge --- which is always a good thing.)
Mr. P's first chapter on Christ as Victim does wander around in this respect. I thought that the history of the crucifixion is likely more complex than Mr. P. describes and that he therefore shared in the propensity to write or re-write the history as he wanted it read. Later, however, I simply accepted the chapter as an introduction to the Hellenistic-Roman world --- especially when Mr. P. spoke of the patronage system.
But Mr. P's later chapters on Christ within the tradition of the Righteous One (e.g., Isaiah's suffering servant), as martyr, and as sacrifice are excellent. At some point, I began to realize that the life of Jesus that the subtitle of Mr. P's book refers to is the paradox of the "life that led to death" or, even better, how the "life that led to death" was interpreted by the early Christian communities to make sense of the crucifixion. That is, how they took the preexisting paradigms of, say, martyrdom and sacrifice, and put Jesus' life within their context. What a lovely job Mr. P. has done. What interesting theories of the crucifixion as sacrifice or atonement for the ways of a prostitute and other sinful and ritually impure persons so that these dregs of the ancient world are brought into God's kingdom. What an interesting distinction, vis-a-vis the early Christian cells, between the locative and the utopian sacrifices and the ultimate divorce of Christianity from the Hellenistic-Roman culture and the anger and disgust it provoked. What a nice explication of Saint Paul's concept of the resurrection and of how the yearning love for Jesus on the part of those low class persons whom he had loved led naturally to an expectation, in the context of that world, that the beloved Jesus had risen.
I would guess that probably all of Mr. P's ideas have found forums elsewhere. I would add that not only lowly persons, but also persons of wealth and status, had and have a yearning love for acceptance and the one who does the accepting. Nonetheless, what is so nice about Mr. P's book is its passion, its concision, its sense that all he writes about is terribly important. Bravo.
July 6, 2015
A great read!
You can read my full review here-
http://teaandtheology.com/book-review...
You can read my full review here-
http://teaandtheology.com/book-review...
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews