What do you think?
Rate this book
Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus
The death of Jesus is one of the most hotly debated questions in Christianity today. In his massive and highly publicized The Death of the Messiah , Raymond Brown -- while clearly rejecting anti-Semitism -- never questions the essential historicity of the passion stories. Yet it is these stories, in which the Jews decide Jesus' execution, that have fueled centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. Now, in his most controversial book, John Dominic Crossan shows that this traditional understanding of the Gospels as historical fact is not only wrong but dangerous. Drawing on the best of biblical, anthropological, sociological and historical research, he demonstrates definitively that it was the Roman government that tried and executed Jesus as a social agitator. Crossan also candidly addresses such key theological questions as "Did Jesus die for our sins?" and "Is our faith in vain if there was no bodily resurrection?" Ultimately, however, Crossan's radical reexamination shows that the belief that the Jews killed Jesus is an early Christian myth (directed against rival Jewish groups) that must be eradicated from authentic Christian faith.
238 pages, Paperback
First published June 5, 1995
43 people are currently reading
306 people want to read
About the author
John Dominic Crossan
68 books295 followersJohn Dominic Crossan is generally regarded as the leading historical Jesus scholar in the world. He is the author of several bestselling books, including The Historical Jesus, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, The Birth of Christianity, and Who Killed Jesus? He lives in Clermont, Florida.
John Dominic Crossan was born in Nenagh, County Tipperary, Ireland in 1934. He was educated in Ireland and the United States, received a Doctorate of Divinity from Maynooth College in Ireland in 1959, and did post-doctoral research at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome from 1959 to 1961 and at the École Biblique in Jerusalem from 1965 to 1967. He was a member of a thirteenth-century Roman Catholic religious order, the Servites (Ordo Servorum Mariae), from 1950 to 1969 and was an ordained priest in 1957. He joined DePaul University in Chicago in 1969 and remained there until 1995. He is now a Professor Emeritus in its Department of Religious Studies.
John Dominic Crossan was born in Nenagh, County Tipperary, Ireland in 1934. He was educated in Ireland and the United States, received a Doctorate of Divinity from Maynooth College in Ireland in 1959, and did post-doctoral research at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome from 1959 to 1961 and at the École Biblique in Jerusalem from 1965 to 1967. He was a member of a thirteenth-century Roman Catholic religious order, the Servites (Ordo Servorum Mariae), from 1950 to 1969 and was an ordained priest in 1957. He joined DePaul University in Chicago in 1969 and remained there until 1995. He is now a Professor Emeritus in its Department of Religious Studies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
April 29, 2019
Not a bad book to read during Holy Week, John Dominic Crossan's Who Killed Jesus? is a fascinating and well-written – if ultimately unconvincing – argument for his views of the historicity of the passion narratives.
In short, Crossan essentially wrote this book to dispute claims in Raymond Brown's epic commentary of the passion narratives, Death of the Messiah. That leads, especially early on, to some gratuitous attempts at smackdowns – or as close as you get to them in scholarly discourse, anyway.
The bulk of Crossan's argument is that the five known passion narratives – the four canonical gospels plus the Gospel of Peter, a text discovered about a century ago in Egypt – come to us with a layer of anti-Jewish resentment caused by first-century conflicts between Jesus followers and fellow Jews who rejected the Jesus movement, and that this resentment, though harmless when Christians were an ostracized subgroup within a marginal religious tradition at the edge of a powerful pagan empire, became a deadly and virulent anti-Semitic infection when that empire adopted the Christian texts as authoritative.
Surrounding that argument, Crossan essentially walks through the passion narratives, filtering them through his provocative thesis that of the five, the earliest is actually the Gospel of Peter, whose "original stratum" is a text he calls the Cross Gospel. Crossan makes some good points, and it's easy in the midst of the book to be taken in by them, but additional research into what other scholars think of the argument show why Crossan has remained largely alone in this contention despite arguing it for the better part of three decades: Although no one can say for certain when GPet was written, its fantastical imagery – a talking cross, Jesus and angels as tall as mountains, a seemingly docetic emphasis on Jesus only appearing to die (docetism was the second-century heresy that argued Jesus only appeared to be human) – argues for a later composition, after the Gospel of John, not so early as to predate almost the entire New Testament. Crossan several times argues there are revisions to the gospel that come later, that were obviously influenced by the canonical tests, but that's a bit of a circular argument or special pleading.
What's especially striking about the book is that despite the time Crossan spends talking about the Gospel of Peter, it's not all that necessary for his own arguments about what is and isn't historical in the passion narratives. He argues that Brown's standard of anything in the gospels "not implausible" being considered basically historical is too broad, and that a historian ought to say what they think is the best, relatively speaking, historical reconstruction of events. I tend to agree with Crossan, although this leads him to dismiss much of the passion narratives as "prophecy historicized" – or narratives of events constructed based on prophecy, as opposed to actual descriptions of historical occurrences. I'm not sure I'd go as far as he does, especially when it comes to dismissing outright the historicity of the burial and resurrection (he thinks Jesus' body was either left on the cross or buried in a shallow grave and in either case eaten by dogs and birds), but he makes a good argument for his assumptions and conclusions, which is all you can ask as a reader.
A middle ground might be that the broad strokes of the passion narratives are historically true, but many of the sayings from the cross and specific events – such as the darkness, earthquake and tearing of the veil in the Holy of Holies – are written into the story to provide the necessary prophetic antecedents. Of course, that requires the reader to assume a close match with OT prophecies is proof of NT construction and not proof of Jesus fulfilling OT prophecies; I tend to lean toward the former. I believe that Jesus' death and resurrection spurred his followers' to read their bibles with fresh eyes and see a slew of passages they now saw as pointing to him, and writing their stories of what they saw or heard about him accordingly. Crossan argues similarly, although with a complete rejection of any historical bodily resurrection.
Overall, Who Killed Jesus? is a solid popular-level entry into the world of historical Jesus scholarship. Those with little knowledge of that universe of reconstructions would find this fairly easy to get through and likely learn a lot about the assumptions and methods of that school of scholarship – and likely learn a lot about themselves and how many of those methods they are likely to accept or reject. Historical Jesus studies are controversial and polarizing, even among scholars of the New Testament and early Christianity, and Crossan's book is a good example of why – which makes it an important book to read for those wanting a better handle on the issues in play.
In short, Crossan essentially wrote this book to dispute claims in Raymond Brown's epic commentary of the passion narratives, Death of the Messiah. That leads, especially early on, to some gratuitous attempts at smackdowns – or as close as you get to them in scholarly discourse, anyway.
The bulk of Crossan's argument is that the five known passion narratives – the four canonical gospels plus the Gospel of Peter, a text discovered about a century ago in Egypt – come to us with a layer of anti-Jewish resentment caused by first-century conflicts between Jesus followers and fellow Jews who rejected the Jesus movement, and that this resentment, though harmless when Christians were an ostracized subgroup within a marginal religious tradition at the edge of a powerful pagan empire, became a deadly and virulent anti-Semitic infection when that empire adopted the Christian texts as authoritative.
Surrounding that argument, Crossan essentially walks through the passion narratives, filtering them through his provocative thesis that of the five, the earliest is actually the Gospel of Peter, whose "original stratum" is a text he calls the Cross Gospel. Crossan makes some good points, and it's easy in the midst of the book to be taken in by them, but additional research into what other scholars think of the argument show why Crossan has remained largely alone in this contention despite arguing it for the better part of three decades: Although no one can say for certain when GPet was written, its fantastical imagery – a talking cross, Jesus and angels as tall as mountains, a seemingly docetic emphasis on Jesus only appearing to die (docetism was the second-century heresy that argued Jesus only appeared to be human) – argues for a later composition, after the Gospel of John, not so early as to predate almost the entire New Testament. Crossan several times argues there are revisions to the gospel that come later, that were obviously influenced by the canonical tests, but that's a bit of a circular argument or special pleading.
What's especially striking about the book is that despite the time Crossan spends talking about the Gospel of Peter, it's not all that necessary for his own arguments about what is and isn't historical in the passion narratives. He argues that Brown's standard of anything in the gospels "not implausible" being considered basically historical is too broad, and that a historian ought to say what they think is the best, relatively speaking, historical reconstruction of events. I tend to agree with Crossan, although this leads him to dismiss much of the passion narratives as "prophecy historicized" – or narratives of events constructed based on prophecy, as opposed to actual descriptions of historical occurrences. I'm not sure I'd go as far as he does, especially when it comes to dismissing outright the historicity of the burial and resurrection (he thinks Jesus' body was either left on the cross or buried in a shallow grave and in either case eaten by dogs and birds), but he makes a good argument for his assumptions and conclusions, which is all you can ask as a reader.
A middle ground might be that the broad strokes of the passion narratives are historically true, but many of the sayings from the cross and specific events – such as the darkness, earthquake and tearing of the veil in the Holy of Holies – are written into the story to provide the necessary prophetic antecedents. Of course, that requires the reader to assume a close match with OT prophecies is proof of NT construction and not proof of Jesus fulfilling OT prophecies; I tend to lean toward the former. I believe that Jesus' death and resurrection spurred his followers' to read their bibles with fresh eyes and see a slew of passages they now saw as pointing to him, and writing their stories of what they saw or heard about him accordingly. Crossan argues similarly, although with a complete rejection of any historical bodily resurrection.
Overall, Who Killed Jesus? is a solid popular-level entry into the world of historical Jesus scholarship. Those with little knowledge of that universe of reconstructions would find this fairly easy to get through and likely learn a lot about the assumptions and methods of that school of scholarship – and likely learn a lot about themselves and how many of those methods they are likely to accept or reject. Historical Jesus studies are controversial and polarizing, even among scholars of the New Testament and early Christianity, and Crossan's book is a good example of why – which makes it an important book to read for those wanting a better handle on the issues in play.
June 5, 2017
In this book John Dominic Crossan, a well respected New Testament scholar, claims that the stories in the Gospels portraying the Jews as responsible for Jesus’ death are non-historical, which he uses to try to cleanse Christianity of its anti-Judaism and subsequent anti-Semitism leading to the holocaust. In other words he claims that anti-Judaism is not a valid historical viewpoint. He has developed a conception on what counts as historical or not in the gospels to help in this endeavor. He also writes against Raymond E. Brown’s views in Brown’s The Death of the Messiah. Crossan argues against Brown’s history, or what he believes his history to be.
In the prologue Crossan juxtaposes his and Brown’s methodolgy. Crossan takes the position that most of the passion stories in the Gospels are prophecy historicized. Crossan only admits that the real (to him) history makes up only about ten percent of what is written in the gospels. Chapters one through seven cover the analysis of Jesus’ crime, arrest, trial, abuse, execution, burial, and resurrection. Crossan relies heavily on The Gospel of Peter, claiming it was written earlier than the canonical gospels. This goes against Brown’s opinion. In the final chapter Crossan spells out his point of view and what he thinks it means for faith. The main conclusion is that the parts of the gospels that tarnishes the Jews are not historically accurate, thereby exonerating them of the crime of deicide.
I will not go into any details of his arguments, but will offer up some comments on some of what he says. Page numbers in parentheses are from the HarperSanFrancisco paperback edition.
Crossan quotes both Josephus and Tacitus (5) as evidence for a historical Jesus. There are at least two problems with this. One is that being ancient historians they are not always accurate. The second is possibly more important. Both writers could just be quoting Christian texts available at the times they wrote in.
With the fig tree incident (62-3), where Jesus made the tree wither I could not help but conclude that the biblical Jesus did not care about the environment.
He wants to argue that the Gospel of Peter is early than the canonical gospels. He states based on this gospel that “Rome is Christian.” (91). If this were so, it would indicate that the Gospel of Peter was later than the canonical gospels, counteracting his claim for the reverse.
After quoting a passage in the Gospel of Peter, he tells us it is “Absurd, of course.” (97) If this passage is absurd, why not the whole gospel and the rest of the New Testament, the gospels included.
He quotes Josephus about an incident with Pilate and the Jews, where the Jews “fell prostrate” before Pilate for “five whole days.” (149) This is absolutely preposterous, just like a good deal of all biblical stories.
I take issue with Crossan’s whole approach. He wants to claim that the texts of Jesus’ passion that reflect negatively on the Jews are prophecy being taken as history, but when they do not it is prophecy becoming history. It seems awfully suspicious to do this, especially when any history claimed in the gospels is suspect because there is not any independent verification for it. His whole approach is a case of cherry picking. His aim is admirable—to counteract anti-Semitism based on Jesus’ passion stories. But, if the passion did not happen because there was no historical Jesus, the best way to counteract the passion stories’ anti-Judaism is to acknowledge that it is myth, and so has no basis as history, which is a much more compelling reason that picking and choosing which is history and which is not.
The book is interesting enough. I found it intriguing how Crossan lays out his case, but ultimately fails. So, I would have to give the book a fair to good rating overall.
I could recommend the book for those who might be interested in someone attempting to pick history out of the minefield of gospel texts, both canonical and not. If one has no experience with the Gospel of Peter, like me, it might hold some interest there. If one is looking for a valid theory based on biblical texts, be prepared to be disappointed if you are willing to take a critical approach about biblical history.
In the prologue Crossan juxtaposes his and Brown’s methodolgy. Crossan takes the position that most of the passion stories in the Gospels are prophecy historicized. Crossan only admits that the real (to him) history makes up only about ten percent of what is written in the gospels. Chapters one through seven cover the analysis of Jesus’ crime, arrest, trial, abuse, execution, burial, and resurrection. Crossan relies heavily on The Gospel of Peter, claiming it was written earlier than the canonical gospels. This goes against Brown’s opinion. In the final chapter Crossan spells out his point of view and what he thinks it means for faith. The main conclusion is that the parts of the gospels that tarnishes the Jews are not historically accurate, thereby exonerating them of the crime of deicide.
I will not go into any details of his arguments, but will offer up some comments on some of what he says. Page numbers in parentheses are from the HarperSanFrancisco paperback edition.
Crossan quotes both Josephus and Tacitus (5) as evidence for a historical Jesus. There are at least two problems with this. One is that being ancient historians they are not always accurate. The second is possibly more important. Both writers could just be quoting Christian texts available at the times they wrote in.
With the fig tree incident (62-3), where Jesus made the tree wither I could not help but conclude that the biblical Jesus did not care about the environment.
He wants to argue that the Gospel of Peter is early than the canonical gospels. He states based on this gospel that “Rome is Christian.” (91). If this were so, it would indicate that the Gospel of Peter was later than the canonical gospels, counteracting his claim for the reverse.
After quoting a passage in the Gospel of Peter, he tells us it is “Absurd, of course.” (97) If this passage is absurd, why not the whole gospel and the rest of the New Testament, the gospels included.
He quotes Josephus about an incident with Pilate and the Jews, where the Jews “fell prostrate” before Pilate for “five whole days.” (149) This is absolutely preposterous, just like a good deal of all biblical stories.
I take issue with Crossan’s whole approach. He wants to claim that the texts of Jesus’ passion that reflect negatively on the Jews are prophecy being taken as history, but when they do not it is prophecy becoming history. It seems awfully suspicious to do this, especially when any history claimed in the gospels is suspect because there is not any independent verification for it. His whole approach is a case of cherry picking. His aim is admirable—to counteract anti-Semitism based on Jesus’ passion stories. But, if the passion did not happen because there was no historical Jesus, the best way to counteract the passion stories’ anti-Judaism is to acknowledge that it is myth, and so has no basis as history, which is a much more compelling reason that picking and choosing which is history and which is not.
The book is interesting enough. I found it intriguing how Crossan lays out his case, but ultimately fails. So, I would have to give the book a fair to good rating overall.
I could recommend the book for those who might be interested in someone attempting to pick history out of the minefield of gospel texts, both canonical and not. If one has no experience with the Gospel of Peter, like me, it might hold some interest there. If one is looking for a valid theory based on biblical texts, be prepared to be disappointed if you are willing to take a critical approach about biblical history.
April 11, 2020
I want to start out by saying that the epilogue in this book is quite good, and that over time Crossan has furnished me with core ideas and values that I return to repeatedly to center my own studies. That being said, the rest of this book is my least favorite Crossan work. I think he was too caught up in the polemics of his stance against Brown. As a former teacher of composition, trained to some degree in rhetoric and linguistics, I kept noticing bald statements in his writing that really put him beyond the pale for me of acceptable argument. He does not seem to recognize his wild swings to a sort of authorial omniscience, where, for example, he completely dismisses the possibility of ANY sort of historicity in stories like the flight of the disciples. The earliest writing about Jesus is within the potential space of human memory. I personally remember things from 40-60 years ago, not claiming perfection, memory is not completely reliable, but the point is, Crossan was not THERE and cannot dismiss ALL human memory out of hand. He then becomes just like the literalists that he decries, claiming an authorial omniscience that is godlike in its own hubris. I'm not objecting to all his ideas, just his claims of omniscience to the degree that he rejects all possibility of human memory to the same degree that others claim every word happened. I would rather call the process (my own terminology) "memory theologized." Crossan, for me, has been at his best when his writing is moderated by co-authors. I will continue to read him, but I won't be in a hurry to return to this particular book.
February 5, 2009
Very difficult to follow at times. VERY intellectual and complex in the reasoning and research presented, but compelling. The teaser title of "roots of anti-semitism" is buried under the author's constant commentary and comparison with another author's book. Thought-provoking in terms of when the gospels were written, whether they were historical events presented later or old testament prophesies presented as predictions coming true during the age when the gospels were written. Also interesting weaving of non-canonical gospels (Gospel of Peter, et al.)in posing alternate possibilities of the events from Jesus' arrest to resurrection.
December 22, 2014
Was a good book, but rather confusing at the same time. The book title is rather tantalizing but SPOILER ALERT: the answer is not a surprise. As for Crossan's stated intent, to discuss the origin of antisemitism... he never really does except barely in passing. What it is is a study and analysis of the NT.
April 28, 2024
J.D Crossan, lays out a persuasive analysis of the anti-Judaism within Christian Scripture and offers a scholarly way of understanding how these lethal stories came to be. Crossan’s main contribution, for me, was his observation that the events of the passion narrative must be understood through the tension of history remembered (what actually happened) and prophecy historicized, which results from searching scriptures “to create what happened as prophetic fulfilment.” I recall James Carroll, saying something similar in “Constantine’s Sword,” referring to the process of historicization as the result of ‘memory circles’ that sought to bring comfort to Jesus’ mourners, but Crossan’s analysis is more cogent. Through his analysis, Crossan observes that the characterization of Jesus driving the money-lenders out of the Temple is inaccurately remembered as a purification, that Pontius Pilate, known historically as a brutal governor, was unlikely to have acquiesced to a shouting crowd, that Jesus, a “peasant nuisance nobody” was unlikely to have merited the attention of Pilate, and the Christian scriptures tended towards greater levels of anti-Judaism as they move further away from the actual historical events. Crossan suggests this change was due in some measure to the deteriorating relationship between The Jewish followers of Jesus and the mainstream Jewish community. In the prologue to his book – and repeatedly - Crossan asks his readers to “think now of those passion-resurrection stories of ours as heard in a predominantly Christian world. Did those stories of ours send people out to kill.”
May 2, 2025
This is the second book by Crossan that I have read (Render Unto Caesar was the other). Since I learned so much from and was challenged by that one, I thought I would try this one. I was not disappointed.
Crossan carefully parses through the passion and resurrection narratives to determine which bits are likely historical, and which are likely not. Along the way, he argues that the original stratum of the so-called Gospel of Peter pre-dates and acts as a source for the passion narratives in the canonical gospels.
Since Crossan does history, and does so to a consistent standard, some of his conclusions may be, let's say, uncomfortable for some readers. For me, that discomfort was one of the things I appreciated most about reading this book. It forced me to imagine the historical Jesus and consider his true mission: to show us a better way, or a new creation (if you like the cosmic angle) where we can imagine what things can truly be like if God sits on the throne. It was worth a try for me to put that into words, at least. It's a classic thimble and ocean problem.
I will seek out more Crossan books because they challenge me in the right ways, meaning I am forced to rethink some of my long-held assumptions and use my imagination to make sense of the swirling metaphors presented in the bible.
Crossan carefully parses through the passion and resurrection narratives to determine which bits are likely historical, and which are likely not. Along the way, he argues that the original stratum of the so-called Gospel of Peter pre-dates and acts as a source for the passion narratives in the canonical gospels.
Since Crossan does history, and does so to a consistent standard, some of his conclusions may be, let's say, uncomfortable for some readers. For me, that discomfort was one of the things I appreciated most about reading this book. It forced me to imagine the historical Jesus and consider his true mission: to show us a better way, or a new creation (if you like the cosmic angle) where we can imagine what things can truly be like if God sits on the throne. It was worth a try for me to put that into words, at least. It's a classic thimble and ocean problem.
I will seek out more Crossan books because they challenge me in the right ways, meaning I am forced to rethink some of my long-held assumptions and use my imagination to make sense of the swirling metaphors presented in the bible.
August 6, 2008
As well as looking at anti-Semitism, Crossan addresses Christ's atonement and resurrection. It seems that many scholars who profess to be Christians do all they can to undermine our faith in Jesus Christ.
August 23, 2008
Crossan is a top-notch Jesus historian. Unlike some of his larger tomes, this is very readable.
April 29, 2013
Whew! I am finally done. This book was well researched and documented, but reading it was very much like studying a textbook.
April 14, 2014
Helpful to read alongside the Gospel of John.
May 1, 2015
An excellent look at the Passion narrative which attempts to answer the question. Is it History remembered or Prophecy historicised.
April 27, 2016
Uneccessarily ambiguous and text book boring. You’re better reading the old Pope's book then this nonsense.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews