Customer Reviews

Resurrection of Jesus

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

First a clarification: I am a conservative Christian who chooses to believe that the Gospels are accurate accounts of the life of Jesus - at least of the tiny percentage of his life that the evangelists have chosen to report. That choice puts me firmly on the side of Tom Wright when it comes to the contents of this book.
Most who read this book will have a bias one way or the other. If like Crossan readers choose to believe that the Gospels are highly skewed accounts of the life of a Jewish peasant, who happened to win the attention of a lot of disillusioned people at a period of great national pain, and then got himself crucified for his troubles, then they will prefer Crossan to Wright. But if like Wright they believe that there must have been much more to this Jew, and that his death had an intrinsic meaning rather than one imposed by the need to create a myth, and that the resurrection is not just an esoteric concept developed to suit his followers but an event that actually happened, then Wright will be their preference.
If you have not made up your mind about Jesus, buy this book. The great thing about it is the clear mutual respect these two highly regarded scholars have for each other. There are no sarcastic put downs, no arguments ad hominem here, just carefully considered presentations of two very different points of view. Frankly I think Wright wins the debate easily, but that probably says more about me than about the quality of Crossan's arguments. But for serious people who want to gain insights into the current state of discussions about the historical Jesus, this is a good starting point.

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.

Many thanks to the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
for making this dialogue possible. It was done in "real time,"
with opportunity for Frs. Crossan and Wright not only to state
their own positions, but to discuss them with each other.
They treated each other with dignity and respect, but did
not hesitate to make clear their profound differences.
N.T. Wright has also been in dialogue with Marcus Borg,
another member of the Jesus Seminar. If only there were more
evangelical theologians who could go "head to head" with
scholars like Crossan and Borg.

The debate was a lively exchange, but I can't honestly say I knew what it was about until I had read the rest of the book. The issue of the debate, ostensibly, was whether the Resurrection of Jesus was a literal, bodily coming-back-from-the-dead historical event, as Wright asserts in his writings, or a metaphor employed by early Christians, the position assigned to but not argued by Crossan. If you were present at the live debate but hadn't read their work, you would have learned that Wright thinks what happened on Easter, three days after the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, is of great importance and that Crossan thinks what happened that day is of relatively less importance, but you would not have learned WHAT either man believed happened, or didn't happen, that day! This is because they both strangely avoided stating their beliefs outright about the issue they were debating.

They were apparently emulating the debating style of American presidential candidates, circling around each other repeatedly on parallel planes without staking a position that could be challenged by the other. Crossan, in particular, was evasive. Their swords never once clashed. It was a cordial affair with polite exchanges of mutual admiration, but it was not very satisfying.

I'll deal with Wright, an Anglican bishop from England, first. Based on the size of his tome, The Resurrection of the Son of God, he has a great deal to say about this subject. I'm willing to presume he has done significant research and thinking as well.

Instead of asserting what he did believe and defending it, Wright recounted a litany of popular "alternative" theories he claims to have brilliantly refuted. These theories are nonfundamentalist explanations that have been proposed for the empty tomb story of Mark and the appearances of the resurrected Christ told in the later Gospels. Wright addressed each alternative theory as though he were proudly fondling a shelf full of trophies, one at a time, cherishing the memory of each conquest.

I have two basic problems with Wright. First, he asserts that because the alternative theories he lays out don't work, it must be true that Jesus came back to life, literally and bodily. He reaches this conclusion without seriously vetting the probability that THAT proposition is or is not true. Sometimes it's hard to think clearly about religion, so I'll use a simile to explain the problem I have with this.

Let's suppose Wright is looking for a lost sock, which his Aunt Mabel claims vanished before her eyes. So Wright carefully examines each of the six drawers in his bedroom, does not find it, and concludes, "Well then, that proves the sock literally disappeared, just as Aunt Mabel said. It vanished. Poof! Just like that!"

You may say, as I would, "Whoa! Now wait just one minute here, Wright. Socks don't disappear! Socks are made of molecules, of matter, and matter doesn't just disappear into thin air. That can't happen! That would violate laws of nature."

Wright would retort, "Yes, but you see, what you don't understand is that Aunt Mabel SAID it was the one and only disappearing sock in the entire universe. So what you know from your experience with OTHER socks doesn't apply to this sock. Look, I've examined each and every one of these drawers. Thoroughly, so thoroughly in fact that I can prove the sock is not in drawer one, or drawer two, or drawer three... Check them yourself and you'll see I'm right. I have proved, conclusively, the sock is not in any of these six drawers. That leaves only one possible inference: Mabel was right!"

I'll come back to this point. The other problem I have with Wright is that he oversimplifies opposing views, then shoots them down as too simple to be true. For instance, he argues against the possibility that the Resurrection stories were invented by the early Christian community by characterizing the theory as a conspiracy concocted by Christ's disciples to promote their own significance, then he sets about to prove that theory is unsupported by the weight of the evidence. That's fine as far as it carries him, but that's not very far. He doesn't address the more subtle explanation that the Resurrection stories developed as oral tradition in an evolutionary fashion among early Christians during the 40-50 years after Christ's death, and that their evolution may have been accelerated by the Roman siege of Jerusalem that culminated in the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

What the earliest Christians knew about the Resurrection is critical to an understanding of its historicity. If they didn't know of Easter when it happened, ca. AD 30, then the only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that the Resurrection must have been a narrative that developed in later decades. An understanding that the Resurrection evolved as a story over time does not presuppose a purposeful conspiracy.

Jewish tradition held that the True Messiah could not be slain, so there would have been a perfectly logical reason for the Resurrection narrative to have developed as it did among Jesus' followers. It seems to me the logic of early Christians was not the mundane, "We believe Jesus isn't dead, therefore he must be the true Messiah," but rather the exalted, "We believe Jesus is the true Messiah, therefore he can't be dead."

Another possible influence on the evolution of the story that Wright did not address is that, during and after the war, demoralized Jews and persecuted Christians alike were desperately in need of a hero who would emerge triumphant over the Romans, and the story of Jesus' resurrection surely would have represented victory. The Resurrection represented not JUST victory over the Romans, certainly, but that would have been an appealing element to the story in the context in which it arose, if indeed it was added to early Christian lore post-Mark.

This is not a theory that's peculiar to ancient Jewish culture, but a theory about all humanity of all times. We have many modern analogues from which to draw information about how the accomplishments of a martyred leader are amplified post mortem in story-telling. Many kings, spiritual leaders, and even American presidents have been transformed from ordinary to extraordinary after death.

The popular image of Abraham Lincoln, during his first term of office, was that of a folksy, backwoods rube who bade his time telling bucolic jokes and handing out patronage to visitors rather than attending to matters of public finance and war. Within a few months after his assassination, his story was transformed into the legend of a great leader. By 1900, he was our National Martyred Saint (north of the Mason-Dixon line, that is), an infinitely wise and honest man who had out-generaled his generals, outfoxed every other politician in Washington, a hero who like Moses had led the slaves to freedom. 20th century beneficiaries of this phenomenon include Lenin and Mao, who were as close to divine beings as communism would allow. I'm not comparing any of these men to Jesus, but rather arguing that the transformation of history into legend through exaggeration is a natural part of what we do when we honor the memories of beloved fallen leaders. (Nor is it my intention to dishonor Lincoln, whom I admire.)

Wright doesn't pay due respect to this natural human tendency when he characterizes the opposing view as a "conspiracy theory" that supposes Jesus' disciples deliberately colluded to invent the Resurrection story to inflate His - and their own - importance. No one in American "conspired" to transform Abe Lincoln from country bumpkin to revered martyr; it's a process that happens through storytelling, by the consensus of public opinion.

There's no reason to believe human nature was fundamentally different 2,000 years ago than it is today. In a populace that was largely illiterate, in which there were few written texts and no chronicling of day-to-day life, oral storytelling was the currency by which information flowed, and oral storytelling is far more susceptible to rapid mutation than written works. The Resurrection story appears to have evolved from a voice and flash of light that were heard and seen by certain persons but not by their companions (as told by Paul in the mid-50's), to an empty tomb (as told by Mark in the 60's), and finally to an empty tomb and physical, resurrected body that interacted with living persons (Matthew, Luke and John in the 70's, 80's and 90's).

Following this same thread, Wright does not deal seriously with Paul's apparent lack of knowledge, when he wrote his epistles in the 50's, of the Resurrection stories of the post-war Gospels. I'm speaking not of the Gospels themselves, of course, but of the R stories therein. Had those stories existed by ca. AD 50, surely if any Christian knew of them, Paul would have, and surely (I think) Paul would have recounted them in his first letter to the Corinthians, who had expressed doubts about the Resurrection. Paul discusses the Resurrection there at length, but only in terms of visions of the risen Christ such as he experienced on the road to Damascus and, in explaining the nature of the Resurrection to the Corinthians, he expressly distinguishes the earthly body we inhabit during life from the spiritual body we will have in God's Kingdom. In short, Paul tells us that God has no use for actual human bodies in heaven. Paul made no mention in his letters of an empty tomb or of Jesus' post-Easter meanderings in Galilee.

By the time the post-war Gospels were reduced to writing, the Jesus story included His resurrection; that much we know. But WHEN, between AD 30 and AD 70, that part of the Jesus narrative emerged is unclear to me. I'd hoped to learn more about that, to the extent more is to be known, but this debate did nothing to illuminate the subject. Perhaps there is no further information to be learned about this. But if that's the case then I'm all the more puzzled by Wright's ultimate conclusion, which I'll turn to now.

Wright argues (in his writings, though strangely not during the debate itself) that because the alternative explanations -- conspiracy, cognitive dissonance of the disciples, the body was never buried, etc. -- don't hold water, what most probably happened WAS a bodily resurrection, just as the post-Markan Gospels recite. That seems to me quite a leap over the Grand Canyon, after the careful step-by-step analysis to which Wright proudly subjects the "alternative" explanations! Wright could not and I believe he would not have made that leap based on reason alone.

He doesn't address at all the effect that our post-Enlightenment understanding of natural law (people dead three days do not come back to life) might have on the likelihood of his "most-probable" conclusion. I understand that the Resurrection stories describe an event which, by its own terms, was unprecedented in human history, but that very fact should cast doubt on the likelihood of the story's truth.

If Wright served on a jury in the trial of a man charged with committing murder by thinking evil thoughts, and the defense showed through expert witness testimony that it is scientifically impossible to murder a person with one's thoughts, would he ignore that evidence in weighing whether the defendant had been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Perhaps the prosecution puts on a strong case that demonstrates the defendant had a motive to wish the victim dead, and that the defendant gave a voluntary confession admitting he wished the victim dead, and the coroner testifies that there was no apparent medical reason for the victim to have died. Apparently Wright would vote to convict the man on these facts, as scientific evidence of the crime's impossibility would apparently carry no weight at all.

How does one go about weighing one's belief that something did happen against evidence that the thing is impossible? I don't know. That's why I read the book. I wanted to understand this conundrum and naively thought two of the most highly respected theologians on earth may have the answer. I don't know HOW this can be done, but I do know that if one honestly wishes to weigh the likelihood that life was breathed anew into dead human cells, failure to expressly acknowledge that universal laws of the natural world would have to have been violated to reach the conclusion that it happened is disingenuous. The truth, apparently, is that the Resurrection can be explained ONLY as a leap of faith, NOT as a reasoned conclusion based on the evidence. Honesty requires that that fact be acknowledged, and a mind as keen as Wright's would have done so if he were able to be objective.

This objection is by far the most central to the doubts held by a large and growing number of Christians who have thought seriously about the Resurrection. Wright contributes to historical Jesus scholarship by skillfully demonstrating the flaws of some popular "alternative" theories of the Resurrection narrative, but he should have stopped short of declaring that a literal, bodily Resurrection is the "most probable" explanation without seriously having explicated the weaknesses of THAT result.

Wright's tenor is that of an advocate who has a very personal stake in the outcome, rather than that of a scholar. His standard of scrutiny dramatically eases when he turns from an examination of others' theories to an examination of his own beliefs. Wright's credibility as an historian is hampered by his inability to set aside his a priori worldview as an evangelical Christian. I would respectfully suggest he stick to his knitting as a theologian.

Crossan is much easier to critique, because he dodged the assigned topic of the debate entirely. He seems a congenial, intelligent fellow but he doesn't engage Wright on the historical issues at all, and argues that belief in a literal, bodily Resurrection is not essential to Christianity. I have no particular problem with Crossan's position, necessarily, but whether what did or didn't happen on Easter is important is an entirely different issue from what did or didn't happen.

In the end, Crossan corrals Wright into conceding that there are indeed more important questions than whether the Resurrection is to be taken literally or metaphorically, such as whether one lives one's life according to Christ's teachings. And on that friendly note, the debate abruptly ends. Crossan did not engage in one iota of debate on the historicity issue. A lively discussion, but on a different topic than was advertised.

The commentary following the transcript of the debate examines more thoroughly the theories Crossan and Wright have posited in earlier writings on the historicity issue. Apparently Crossan did not want to attempt to defend his position that Jesus' body was never buried or perhaps was buried only in a shallow, mass grave. If he believed his theory had any merit, he didn't think it merited discussion in a debate that necessarily concerns the question: "What happened to the body?" Crossan had read Wright's book, of course, so perhaps Crossan felt that Wright had effectively refuted Crossan's no-burial theory. What Crossan thought is pure conjecture, I admit, but it's all I can venture because Crossan expressed no assent to or dissent from Wright's assertions about the historical issues.

I'm not sure whether Wright won the debate by default by reason of Crossan's changing of the subject, or whether Crossan won because his relentless efforts to change the subject proved successful. Both men are far more courageous stating their beliefs in print than in person. Is Bishop Wright really the champion of the intellectual Christian Right, or is that just a righteous pose? What does Crossan mean when he protests so emphatically that he believes the Resurrection was "very real" but in a strictly metaphorical sense? They both seemed a bit embarrassed by the whole affair. Does the Resurrection do that to all theologians?

If you are interested in learning more about the range of current thought concerning the Resurrection generally, this book is a good read, more because of the essays that follow the debate than the debate itself. But DO NOT read this book with the expectation that if, as I am, you're undecided about the historicity of the Resurrection, it will persuade you one way or the other.

"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.

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.

When this book first appeared, I purchased it with great anticipation. Crossan and Wright are respected and respectful scholars, both with a reputation for digging deeply. But they sit on opposite sides of the fence.

To set the stage, there is no mention of an empty tomb in Paul's writings, and the earliest Christian tradition contains no description of the resurrection itself. By the time the Gospels were written, it would have been very hard to certify what the tomb had contained. Tombs in that period were not permanent places of burial but only temporary places where the body decayed, leaving the bones, which were then either pushed to the back of the tomb or collected in ossuaries. In other words, no evidence existed to prove or disprove the claim of bodily resurrection by the time the claims were committed to writing.

Did it happen? How?

Wright believes in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the empty tomb. He puzzles, as a historian, why anyone would continue to belong to the Christian movement in the first century and regard Jesus as the Messiah, unless the stories were regarded as literally true. Crossan, on the other hand, understands the resurrection as a metaphor for Jesus' continued presence in the church. Bodily resurrection, to him, means "the embodied life of Jesus," which continues to be experienced by believers today.

Sound like an interesting discussion? The dialogue between the two lasts all of 18 pages, and is rather uninspiring. The rest of the book contains commentary by other authors, where at least we appear to get a real peek into the minds of Crossan and Wright.

Disappointing.

This scholarly work contains the conference dialouge between Crossan and Wright - two well respected scholars of the New Testament, as well as supporting papers by other scholars. The main topic of discussion is an examination of the evidence - historical, theological, philosophical - of the nature of the resurrection of Jesus. While both scholars take the view that the resurrection is a critical component and foundation of Christianity, they differ on whether the resurrection event was allegorical or literal.

Taking the allegorical approach, Crossan notes many of the challenges associated with a fleshly resurrection, as well as scriptural and cultural support for an allegorical reading of the resurrection event. Wright, on the other hand, offers persuasive arguments for a literal interpretation of the resurrection. Both scholars provide well reasoned positions, and the supporting papers by other scholars will get you thinking.

This is a scholarly work, and reads like one. There are lots of footnotes and terms that aren't typical conversational English. If you have interest in the subject, you will find the book extremely interesting.

This was an enjoyable read although there are better books out there on the resurrection of Jesus than this one. The debate portion of the book was somewhat lackluster because J.D. Crossan didn't seem really interested in arguing against N.T. Wright's position on the resurrection of Jesus. What's so frustrating about this is that Crossan does not believe in Jesus' bodily resurrection but prefers not to talk about that point but instead move the dialogue to theologizing about overcoming the evil principalities of this world. In Crossan's published works he argues against the empty tomb tradition and obviously believes that Jesus did not rise but he does not really go into his reasons for his own view in this dialogue. Instead we have Wright making his case and critically questioning Crossan but we don't get really anything new out of this. As one who has read Wright and others on the resurrection, I was disappointed.

What made this a 4-star review rather than a 3-star one was the contributing articles. Some did not add much but others like Habermas' article on mapping the recent trends in NT scholarship concerning the resurrection were fascinating. Alan Segal also writes a good article (though one I disagree with vehemently) against Wright's argument for the resurrection. In fact, Segal came out so strongly against Wright's position that perhaps a dialogue between the two would have made a better book. The other contributors tended to further illuminate the positions of Wright and Crossan as New Testament scholars.

I just got this book and it is more than 800 pages, so I haven't read it yet. But looking at the table of contents and reading the first few chapters, it appears to cover the topic entirely and sensibly.