Review of "Render Unto Caesar: The Struggle Over Christ and Culture in the New Testament" by John Dominic Crossan
A perennial challenge for followers of Jesus is the question of how to respond to the surrounding culture in which one’s life is lived. Ought the Christian to thoroughly reject the majority culture as some groups have historically done (think of the Amish)? Or do the Scriptures proclaim that certain cultures or states can effectively be “sacred”? In my American context, there exist many prominent religious voices pushing the rejection of secular culture and a retreat into fundamentalism. At the same time, such voices also offer near unwavering support to certain political systems and figures. Such a phenomenon has produced a substantial number of books, especially over the past few years.
Into this context comes John Dominic Crossan’s new book Render Unto Caesar: The Struggle Over Christ and Culture in the New Testament. In this book, Crossan reviews various ways that the New Testament approaches the issue of acculturation (whether Christians should assimilate into the dominant culture). Crossan structures his book around three postures: demonization (Revelation), canonization (Luke-Acts), and radical criticism (Crossan’s reconstruction of the historical Jesus).
The core of the book largely explores these three postures in the aforementioned texts. His exploration of Revelation centers around the ways in which the author of that book challenged his audience to firmly reject their surrounding pagan culture, including involvement in Greco-Roman social clubs, guilds, and other settings in which cultic activities might occur. This challenge is found first in the severe consequences threatened in the letters towards the beginning of the book, and is renewed through the graphic, if not pornographic, imagery for Rome in the visions. I find that Crossan largely hits the mark on this front, as Revelation is far from ambiguous in its hostility towards the surrounding culture (although, I would argue that its hyperbolic language reflects a radical critique in ancient garb rather than a serious call for violence – there are some hints in the narrative that war imagery is meant non-literalistically).
Crossan’s chapters on Luke-Acts suggest that Luke was attempting to present a Christianized vision for Rome. He draws attention to various points in this dual-narrative where we witness what may be an apologetic for Christians towards a potentially Roman audience, namely clarifications that riots surrounding the movement’s early leaders (Jesus, Peter, and Paul) were instigated by others and that these leaders submitted to Roman authorities. This “defense before Rome” view is not uncommon in Luke-Acts scholarship, and there certainly is a bit of a case to be made (even though it ultimately rests, like many reconstructions, on an assumed audience). I am not partial to this view, and instead prefer the notion that Luke-Acts exists as an internally-focused document for the Christian community itself. My belief is that it was written to provide a written preservation of cultural memory within early Greek Christian communities with the intent of inspiring Jesus-followers to follow the moral examples set by Jesus, Peter, and Paul.
Readers who are familiar with prior works by Crosson will be familiar with the core of his arguments regarding the historical Jesus. For those who are not, in brief: Crossan regards the New Testament as including many statements made by the authors but in the name of Jesus. A reconstruction of the historical Jesus, for Crossan, must primarily consult sources outside of the New Testament. With reference to Josephus’s discussion of “Jesus called Christ”, Crossan argues that the historical Jesus must have been an advocate of non-violent resistance who adopted a sustained enough criticism of Roman authorities to warrant his own execution, but whose movement must have adhered to non-violence because his followers were not executed en masse. I find his argument in this regard quite convincing, even with my usual skepticism towards “historical Jesus” reconstructions (in brief: there is too little “external” data to create a robust picture without reference to early Christian writings).
On the whole, Render Unto Caesar is an interesting book from a notable scholar with some intriguing discussions and some debatable conclusions. I am most appreciative for Crossan’s drawing out of the polyphonic nature of the New Testament’s approach to acculturation. Jesus-followers, especially those from more conservative backgrounds, may be unnerved by such a discussion in no small part due to how folks generally understand the scriptures to function. However, the multiplicity of human voices included in a divinely inspired scripture should be seen as a strength. At the very least, they offer models and dialogues for the people of God to use when discerning how to respond to the wider society around us today.
This book might be most fruitfully used in college level or seminary courses, especially those courses that address the intersection between politics, culture, and faith. Crossan does not require facility with the biblical languages, but his discussions assume some broad familiarity with folks like Josephus and other ancient authors. It is likely not the best resource for small group or Sunday school study, given the number of academic theories and data under review.
Note: I received an advanced copy of this book from the publisher. I produced this review in advance of the book's publication. My comments in this review were not shaped based on the early access provided by the publisher.