This book relies so heavily on positions established in earlier books that much of it will likely be missed by those who haven't kept up with Crossan's work. The enormity of this book, too, owes to a lot of detail better relegated to appendices. It's only appeal will be to other scholars, primarily those who might want to dispute Crossan's positions. BIRTH OF CHRISTIANTY does not strike the balance HISTORICAL JESUS did between scholarly rigor and common digestibility. Moreover, it does not, and does not seek to, establish the efficacy of historical Jesus inquiry and/or Crossan's method per se. The best encapsulation there resides in Chs. 5 & 6 in WHO KILLED JESUS? Because Crossan's work can be cumbersome and overwrought, it is unlikely that most of the dismissive critics reporting here have actually grasped his effort. Furthermore, because they are dismissive, it is unlikely they have made the attempt. I would suggest few of his demonizers have read this one at all. The "naturalist" critique is too generalized especially, missing the explicitness with which Crossan, Borg et al announce their presumptions at every turn. More pertinently, they use all the overtly secular methods available to contemporary historiography to interrogate issues of temporal historicity. When agreeing that Jesus must have been a extra-natural healer, or indicating that an event in his life associated with a miracle actually happened, they are at pains to maintain those extraordinary experiences must be encountered on their own terms. Those miracles and healings are not "explained away," and Crossan excoriates those who make the attempt. His work is to peel away stories of events that accrued AFTER the fact, not to invalidate what he finds to have actually occurred before redaction. He does not allow his historiography to step outside its bounds to "debunk" widespread experience of the miraculous Jesus. "Conservative" scions would do well to go to equal lengths to ensure their allegiance to the miraculous Jesus does not serve to "debunk" historiography, but rather to explicate the Christian meaning residing in the historicity of events Crossan and others seek to establish.