 |
| |
| |
|
The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan And N.T. Wright in Dialogue
|
|
|
Average Rating:  out of 8 Reviews
|
Price: $19.00
|
|
Sale: $8.00
|
| |
|
Manufacturer: Fortress Press
|
|
EAN (European Article Number): 9780800637859
|
|
Number of Items: 1
|
| |
|
|
|
Binding: Paperback
|
|
Author: Robert B. Stewart::John Dominic Crossan::N. T. Wright
|
|
Publisher: Fortress Press
|
|
Dewey Decimal Number: 232.5
|
|
Publication Date: 2006-01
|
|
Reading Level: 220
|
|
|
| |
|
Description: Two of today's most important and popular New Testament scholars, John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright, here air their very different understandings of the historical reality and theological meaning of Jesus' Resurrection. The book highlights points of agreement and disagreement between them and explores the many attendant issues. This book brings two leading lights in Jesus studies together for a long-overdue conversation with one another and with significant scholars from other disciplines. The contributors include: John Dominic Crossan N. T. Wright Robert Stewart William Lane Craig Craig Evans R. Douglas Geivett Gary Habermas Ted Peters Charles Quarles Alan Segal
|
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
Customer Reviews
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Crossan Falls Short |
Date: 2008-10-22 |
|
| |
Details: The Resurrection of Jesus: The Crossan - Wright Dialogue, presents a lively and charitable exchange between two of the most well-known scholars on a topic worthy of the utmost care and consideration by all who encounter its implications. The dialogue itself (an edited transcript from the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum) covers the first quarter of the book. The remaining chapters are submissions from noted resurrection scholars which juxtapose the differing views of Wright and Crossan on such matters as hermeneutics, epistemology, and a host of other topics relevant to any thoughtful resurrection discussion. Given the book's broad scope, the following critique will focus narrowly on the underpinning aspect of Crossan's position which he refers to as "mode" and "meaning," and which he more thoroughly explains in his essay, Bodily-Resurrection Faith (included as an appendix to the book).
In his essay, Crossan defines mode as the difference between something literal (actual/factual) and something metaphorical (fictional/parabolic); additionally, meaning is defined as the resulting implications for one's own life and how the corresponding impact it has on the world. To explain the purpose of the distinction between mode and meaning, Crossan writes, "We can argue whether it [the Road to Emmaus passage in Luke 24) was intended and/or should be intended as fact or fiction, history or parable. And we could never get beyond the discussion of mode..." (172). He further asserts that such scenarios squelch opportunities for what he considers a more significant discussion of meaning.
With due respect to Crossan's opinion, readers exercise fairness to the text when they allow the biblical writers to speak for themselves. Prior to determining whether the respective content is fact or fiction, one should look exclusively to the writer's intent as the defining factor. Incidentally, Luke states his intent at the outset of his historical exposition of Jesus' life: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:1-4). By the author's admission, that which was recorded concerns matters of actuality which find support in the personal investigation of eyewitness testimony. Given the unmistakable clarity of this fact, the reader who interprets the text apart from the author's explicit intent is bound to invent fiction on their own.
Jesus' closest apostles, Peter and John, also note the factual initiative upon which their own writings stand: "We did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty (2 Peter 1:16); "...which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life" (1 John 1:1). Furthermore, Jesus Himself underscores the significance of objectivity and verifiability in terms of His post-resurrection identity, "...Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24:39b). The emphasis on physicality in such passages leaves no room for purely metaphorical interpretive methods.
In addition to displaying little regard for the biblical author's own intent, Crossan manufactures what seems to be a false dichotomy in the form of a necessary distinction between mode and meaning, wherein meaning is detached from mode and the former carries greater weight in the final analysis. Such is endorsed in spite of the fact that corresponding conclusions regarding meaning require no substantive objective basis for evaluation and are liable to entirely misrepresent the author's intent. The danger in divorcing mode from meaning in this manner is the inevitable exchange of an objective interpretative framework for one of subjectivity which is guided by the spurious presuppositions of the respective reader.
In stark contrast to such an approach, the Apostle Paul implies no such distinction in his resurrection writings, particularly in the gospel creed of 1 Corinthians 15, where he states, as fact, Christ's death, burial, resurrection. Certainly, if Paul had reason to doubt the literal authenticity of this foundational truth-claim, a man of his conviction would passionately dispute it vice proclaim it. N.T. Wright, in his seven-hundred page resurrection treatise, The Resurrection of the Son of God, also uses this passage to argue persuasively against purely metaphorical interpretations of Jesus' resurrection. He begins by asking whether the statement, "Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day," was intended as an historical claim in the objective, investigative sense, or was rather intended to metaphorically depict a subjective religious experience. In support of the former position, he cites the finite list of resurrection witnesses presented in the creed. Wright concludes that if Paul had otherwise intended Christ's resurrection appearances to be solely indicative of an ongoing experience in the hearts of Christians everywhere, he could not have coherently maintained that he was "last of all" to witness this supernatural, yet still physical, finite sequence of events.
Regarding Crossan's peculiar hypothesis that the resurrection appearances were merely apparitions vice physical manifestations, he again seems to evade the text by disregarding Jesus' own words ("Handle me and see..." Luke 24:39), along with the creedal attestation that Christ appeared to "more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time" (1 Cor 15:6). Additionally, when evaluating the likelihood of a single apparition appearing to more than five hundred onlookers at once, the apparition-resurrection hypothesis must take on miraculous proportions in order to maintain any semblance of plausibility, thereby ushering in a host of supernatural difficulties which it was purportedly designed to solve.
When evaluated against the numerous, incontrovertible textual detonations as to the nature and actuality of Jesus' resurrection, Crossan's assertions to the contrary find little, if any, support.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Fine Collection of Scholars |
Date: 2008-08-18 |
|
|
| |
Details: "The Resurrection of Jesus" feautures a discussion on the topic between the generally conservative scholar N.T. Wright and the very liberal scholar John Dominique Crossan. I personally think Wright pulls off a clear victory but I should point out in fairness that I am in general agreement with Wright. I wish Crossan and Wright would have included more discussion over specific details supporting or not supporting the Resurrection of Jesus. That said, their discussion was polite, at times included humor, and its format (as opposed to a debate) was interesting to read. Several other scholars ranging from historians to philosiphers weigh in on the topic or write about the two main scholars. Craig Evans writes about Crossan and Wright. Gary Habermas writes on theological trends. Alan Segal defends liberal historical views on whether the Resurrection can be verified while William Lane Craig makes much more conservative arguements. Several others contribute as well.
On the whole, interesting. I especially liked the fact that Wright, Habermas, and Evans were included in the same volume. Overall, I recommend it to those interested in the topic. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Excellent |
Date: 2007-07-09 |
|
| |
|
Details: I have not actually read the book, but I was present for the debate (actually sitting next to the gentleman for whom the conference was named) and highly recommend a record of the procedings. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Hard not to biased one way or the other... |
Date: 2007-03-26 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: I have read all of Marcus Borg's books and some of Crossan's. The somewhat flippant comment by Mclelland about Crossan, is *not* an accurate portrayal of what they know and believe about Jesus. I suggest the reader do their own reading of these authors and draw their own conclusions. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Hey, want to find out if the resurrection was real? |
Date: 2007-03-08 |
|
|
| |
Details: This book centers on a debate between two of the most famous biblical scholars, The subject is whether the resurrection of Jesus Christ actually happened. On one side, N T Wright, is an Anglican bishop who argues that the resurrection was a true, historical event. Dominic Crossan, famous for helping to form the Jesus Seminar, believes the opposite.
And it's very, very interesting to see just how their positions hold up in a conversation between the two.
It's also a shortcut way to judge the various arguments for yourself. Both Wright's book on the resurrection and Crossan's "The Historical Jesus" are long and full of scholarly details.
In addition to the debate, there is a short history of biblical scholarship over the last two hundred years and a number of essays on the subject of the debate, some pro, some con.
For a quick and easy way to find out about the current state of biblical scholarship, this book fits the bill.
|
| |
|
| |
Similar Products
|
|
|
| |
This Product is similar to and may be found in the Following Categories:
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
