Customer Reviews

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?: A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

It is true that Crossan did not substantially engage many of Craig's arguments for the ressurection. Instead, he offered orthodox Christians (who presumably have been sheltered from such ideas) a paradigm shift: "It's metaphorical, the Gospel writers didn't really mean it that way." True, the debate and essays following do create more of an all-star, rather than world series, atmosphere. Yet the book does bring together some real stars, and they do put on a good display, in my opinion, baring on the most important spiritual questions we can ask.

Not all of the complaints below need to be taken seriously. "Buckley was biased. He called Crossan a puff of smoke." Who were you expecting, Barbara Walters? The man calls his show Firing Line: where there's fire, there's bound to be smoke. Crossan is a big scholar; he can take care of himself. "Craig got to go first, and last, too." Life is indeed unfair. Still, what you get here is three top scholars on both sides, each given time to develop their ideas. Not exactly a kangaroo court. "They spoke past each other. Crossan said the Gospels are metaphor, and Craig failed to reply." Not so. Crossan advanced his argument explicitly, and Craig even more explicitly refuted it. Not that it took much refuting. With the Gospels, it is obvious we're not dealing with Homer or Bunyan: precisely why they continue to cause such a fuss.

Miller wrote an interesting essay on how different an apologetic appears to those "inside" a group as opposed to those "outside." I did not find the particular example he gave, of Islamic apologetics, that strong, for the simple reason that from earliest times Islam has held that conversion "out" ws deserving of death. (The day before I first wrote this, I got an e-mail from a friend in Nigeria about a student of his whose uncle tried to knife him for converting to Christianity.) In a closed society, your apologetic doesn't have to carry all the weight of persuasion. (Can you imagine publicly debating the credibility of Muhammed in a Muslim country?) But even in the case of Humanism, it is striking to me that this debate, in which top scholars attacked a core belief of Christianity, was held in a church, and published by a Christian publisher. It is also striking that, as Blomberg points out, Crossan shows little or not familiarity with "evangelical" scholarship. (Unlike, to his credit, Lowder and his Internet Infidel friends.) Yet the secular media and academic worlds go to the likes of Crossan for expertise, or reassurance, as the case may be. In which direction, then, should the force of Miller's argument about tunnel vision and self-referential apologetics be turned?

In these discussions, comparative religion is usually brought in as an ally by the skeptical side, as here by Borg and Miller. But I think it actually offers powerful arguments for the truth of the Gospel. Those interested in the relationship between Christianity and other religions, and its implications for this discussion, might take a look at my recent book, Jesus and the Religions of Man.

First off, let me say that I listened to the orriginal tapes, and haven't read the book so I missed the additional comments that some are mentioning.

I agreee with other reviews that it was fairly one-sided but that is largely due to the fact that Crossan didn't seem to take the debate serious. It was obvious that Craig had read up and studied Crossan's works and came prepared. Crossan on the otherhand was woefully unequiped. (I'm told that it is common in bebates between liberals and conservatives that the liberal won't have read up on the conservative, but the conservative will do his/her homework on the liberal's position.) In his after-debate interview, Crossan claimed that he wasn't their to debate but just to present his case, but personally I think that was damage control after a sound beating.

Crossan made many dogmatic statements, but when questioned on them, was unable/unwilling to defend them. All he was say is that "credible scholars" back his statements. When pressed he didn't give any names. (It seems the "'credible' scholars" he is refering to are his fellows on the "Jesus Seminar".) He never did adequately address Craig's challenge of his bias towards Naturalism. He responce seemed to me merely playing with terms. Eccentually "I'm not a Naturalist, though I believe that the supernatural only ever works through the natural." (Not a direct quote, but the idea of his response.)

Craig, on the other hand, came ready to debate. He set up his arguement well and stated his case clearly. Also, he soundly challenged Crossan's points (though seldom if ever answered by Crossan). Craig definately did his research into Crossan's ideas and came prepared. Craig, I think, was wanting an intelectual debate and was not ready to engage in the exchange of dogmatic statements that characterizes the "Jesus Seminar"'s fellows. However, he did soundly demolish the basic foundations of most of Crossan's arguement. At times I almost pitied Crossan as some of Craig's refutations of Crossan's points would have been brutal had they not be given in such a "winsom" way. He very politely tore apart Crossan's ideas without touching him personally. I was a little dissappointed when Craig didn't answer a few of Crossan's minor points though. I thought that his comparison of Crossan's idea of believing in Christ even if he's just a metaphore and Peter Pan's philosophy was particuarly crushing.

At times Buckley does come off a little un-biased. He is a known conservative so it shouldn't have been surprising to Crossan. However, in this case (because of his after-debate comments) I believe that he wasn't trying to side against Crossan, but instead was challenging him to engage in an intelectual debate instead of just making dogmatic statement with little or no factual evidence.

Over all, I enjoyed it (though I'm not as conservative as Craig). I thought it was a good example of many modern liberal scholars who like to make statements with or without evidence. One particular example (taken from Crossan's works) is the idea of the teachings of James that SUPPOSEDLY contradict Paul's writtings. He supports these ideas but eventually has to admit that they no longer exist nor is there any evidence of them left. My question is if there is no evidence that they existed, how can he (Crossan) tell us what they said or even show that they existed?! Must be nice to get paid to make up stuff and claim it as authoritative

WILL THE REAL JESUS PLEASE STAND UP? (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998) is a transcript of the debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan. The book contains responses to the debate by two conservatives (Craig L. Blomberg and Ben Witherington III) and two liberals (Robert J. Miller and Marcus Borg). Finally, Craig and Crossan each offer some concluding reflections on the debate.

Given that Craig and Crossan hold diametrically opposed views of Christian origins, this debate could have been an excellent opportunity to learn why each camp rejects the empirical claims of the other. Whereas the conservatives presented arguments for their positions (and point-by-point objections to Crossan's position), the liberals simply did not take the debate very seriously. Not only did Crossan fail to engage Craig on the specifics of his case, Crossan refused to engage in any historical argumentation. Instead, Crossan argued that the New Testament documents--including their accounts of resurrection--should be taken as metaphor. Now, even if that is true--and conservatives will obviously disagree--it was simply poor argumentative strategy on Crossan's part to neglect the empirical claims advanced by Craig. Given that Crossan denies the truth of each of Craig's four historical claims--burial by Joseph of Arimathea, empty tomb, post-resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith--I think Crossan did a disservice to his audience by failing to defend his objections to each of Craig's four historical claims.

To make matters worse, the two liberal commentators on the debate (Miller and Borg) *also* refused to interact with Craig's arguments for the historicity of the resurrection. Miller, in the introduction to his commentary, mysteriously declares, "[I]nstead of responding directly to Craig's argument, I will step back from it and analyze its format, message, and audience" (p. 77). Say what? Borg's commentary is slightly better; Borg argues that the original understanding of resurrection--represented by 1 Corinthians 15--"does not depend upon something having happened to Jesus' corpse" (p. 123). Yet Borg, like Miller and Crossan himself, declares as irrelevant whether the resurrection is literally, historically true.

Given their understanding of "resurrection," the liberals simply could not bring themselves to take Craig's apologetic arguments seriously. While that is certainly their prerogative, they never should have agreed to participate in this project if they were not fully committed to exploring the *full scope* of the topic. Someone needs to tell Crossan, Miller, and Borg that the concept of debate is based upon a *clash of ideas*; if they are not willing to directly clash with the arguments of their opponents; they should not agree to participate! If Crossan was only interested in debating whether Jesus' resurrection was a physical resurrection which depended upon an empty tomb, he should have refused to participate in a debate format where the truth of certain historical claims would be an issue. By participating in a debate but never really debating, Crossan has now managed to give the impression that he did not refute Craig's arguments because he can't refute Craig's arguments. This is, of course, false; there are excellent reasons for rejecting Craig's historical arguments. (See my forthcoming reply to Craig's arguments for the historicity of the empty tomb.) But the vast majority of Crossan's Evangelical audience will never hear those reasons because Crossan couldn't be bothered to state them, either in the debate itself or in his concluding comments.

Turning to the debater's concluding reflections, I was not impressed by the fact that Craig got to give his opening statement first *and* that his concluding reflections appeared last. Of course, Craig's and Crossan's concluding reflections were presumably written simultaneously and independent of one another, but in a debate where no one side had the sole burden of proof, Crossan's concluding reflections should have appeared last in the volume.

In conclusion, given the liberals' refusal to fully participate in this debate, I can't recommend this book to anyone, even as an introductory text. There are better introductory books available on the views of both Craig and Crossan.

Craig rightly reproves Crossan for what he regards his vague and mythological belief. If Jesus is not risen, we are wasting our time when we worship him. Crossan believes that Jesus' resurrection is a symbolical way to say that he empowers our lives; however he justly corrects Craig when the latter claims that the "majority" of scholars believe that Jesus claimed to be God. The beauty of the debate also lies in the contributions given by the other scholars. Surprisingly the two Christians, Blomberg and Whitherington, criticized Craig several times. Craig, however, was able to rebuff these criticisms and to keep the pressure on Crossan in his closing remarks. I liked Miller's argument that evidentialist apologetics works best for "insiders," (people who are already believers) though Craig was able to mention how several dozen people, in his last debates, came to Christ as a result of his arguments. It would have probably been better to say, which Miller didn't, that apologetics works best for undecided people (plenty of those out there!) and that therefore we still need it and will for a long time.
Craig's 4 contentions never refuted by Crossan:
1) Jesus was buried
2) His tomb was found empty
3) His disciples claimed to have seen the risen Jesus
4) The resurrection best explains the nature of these visions.
By the way, Craig is Not saying that it is irrational NOT to believe in the Resurrection!!! He is saying that Jesus' resurrection is the MOST plausible and logical explanation of the events surrounding that famous Passover about 2000 years ago.
I also recommend Pinchas Lapide's The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective

Though thought-provoking at times, this exchange ultimately falls flat on the unwillingness (which many will interpret as inability) of the liberals to give more than a cursory, self-satisfied justification of their views. One would assume from their half-hearted effort that the liberals have no "facts" to back themselves up, but that is not my understanding of their position. The few factual arguments they did raise were ruthlessly shot down by Craig. And they barely tried refuting Craig's own factual assertions, so Craig could only point out their omissions and could not develop the debate any further.

There are some illuminating thoughts here, especially from the responses and Craig's concluding reflections -- thus, three stars. But those looking for "meat" should look elsewhere. I liken this book to an "all-star game" -- neat concept, but not to be taken too seriously.

One concluding note: even to this "conservative" reader Buckley's partisan "mediating" was inappropriate and distracting. His smug comments about Jesus making Crossan disappear "in a puff of smoke" and his attack-dog questioning of Crossan made the "debate" look like a 2-on-1 mugging. Craig would have done just fine by himself.

As a conservative (not fundamentalist), I found this book to give good insight into the beliefs of extreme liberals. I can't say I didn't have misconceptions. SO in that aspect I found the debate extremely helpful.

The major problem with this book is the liberals themselves. William Lane Craig and Claig Blomberg simply destroy the liberals in terms of arguments put forth. That is the problem -- the liberals do a good job of expressing their views and beliefs, but they spend a very minimal amount of time actually putting forth arguments for their beliefs. Here is a brief summary of the book:

William Craig's opening statement -- Bill does his standard debate arguments. Solid foundation, yet still quite simplistic. A good opening for the conservatives.

John Crossan's Opening -- He talks about his perspectives a lot, but put forth's almost no factual data.

William's response -- Craig criticizes Crossan's metaphorical interpretation a bit, and goes over his original arguments in a bit more detail.

Crossan's response -- Again, Crossan puts forth little new empirical facts and claims. Disapointing.

Discussion -- They talk a bit. The moderator is too biased...he is a conservative and shows it.

Closing statements -- Craig criticizes some points that Crossan put forth in the chat; Crossan gives no actual data.

Robert Millet's essay -- Robert gives good insight into that apologetics are usually designed for the people they represent (i.e. Christian apologists impress Christians much more than athiests). He also attempts to criticize the account of people raising from the dead in Matthew. The fatal flaw is that it's fine that Millet isn't convinced but WHY DIDN'T HE THEN RESPOND TO WILLIAM'S ARGUMENTS IF THEY WERE SO UNIMPRESSIVE!?

Craig Blomberg's essay -- Craig reviews the debate. Craig is suprisingly critical of William, but since Will won the debate so much it is still evident (in the essay and debate) that Will won.

Borg's essay -- Borg gives great insight into his belief's, and it was very interesting, but puts forth little data.

Witherington's essay -- Withington demonstrates using the Bible that the Bible does show that the resurrection was not metaphorical, but instead literal. The problem is, is that the Jesus Seminar rejects most of the Bible so it is irrelevant.

Closing -- Crossan again puts forth little data but talks about his beliefs. William does his standard good job of puting forth evidence.

----------- This book was very interesting and worth a reading, though the liberals put forth very disapointing arguments. Conservatives win. Woorah.

This is the famous debate in print form between Craig and Crossan. I've already reviewed the content of the original debate on the audiotapes sold by Amazon. The 5 stars are for the interesting interaction between conservative and liberal New Testament scholars. Included in the book are responses from two noted scholars from the Jesus Seminar (Marcus Borg and Robert Miller) and two noted evangelical scholars (Ben Witherington and Craig Blomberg). At the end of the debate are final thoughts from Crossan and Craig.

Borg's section champions a form of fideism in that he sees no problem between the belief in Jesus as Christ and the possible fact of an occupied tomb the first Easter Sunday. Borg argues that one can still go on believing in Jesus because of people's post-crucifixion experiences of him. I agree with Craig here that this position is totally irrational. To believe in Christ even if his body was still in the grave is the desperation that modern liberal theology wants the man in the pew to believe in. A more intellectually honest answer would be that a person should not believe in Jesus as Christ if Jesus was still in the tomb.

Robert Miller's section is mainly an airing of his pet peeves on why apologetics does not work for non-believers. He outlines an Islamic apologetic to bring forth these points. He then points out what he takes as contradictions within the Resurrection narratives. Craig totally devastates his case though in the final section. Craig even shows that Miller made a textbook case of an informal fallacy known as hasty generalization.

Ben Witherington and Craig Blomberg add more background and scholarly expertise and corrections to Craig's argument. But Craig clearly takes these issues up in his final section.

Crossan's final section deals with some biographical issues on the debate and issues a challenge to conservative scholars like Witherington and Blomberg to list things that they find historically doubtful about the gospels. Apparently, if Witherington and Blomberg do not produce such a list then they are not being intellectually honest scholars.

Finally, Craig's section perfectly summarizes the various sections and shows that none of the scholars who oppose his position has done anything to rebut his arguments.

This was a great book and I agree with the general observations of the vast majority of the reviewers. That is, Craig won hands down. Crossan didn't really even enter the debate which surprised and disappointed some reviewers. But it's really not surprising at all. Crossan's arguments (or lack there of) come directly from the work of the Jesus Seminar. And Crossan's utter defeat illustrates that the Seminar's work is of little value in disproving the Gospels and the mainstream Christian interpetation of them as largely accurate, HISTORICAL accounts of Jesus' life.
Rather, the Jesus Seminar must be looked upon as an experiment in liberal theological thought. It was a chance for liberal scholars to come together and develop a consensus unburdened by critical peer review from their more conservative, and for the most part more mainstream, more distinguished peers.
The result was a new pardigm for interperting the NT. Briefly, the consensus was that it is all symbolism and metaphor. This new paradigm is a logical outcome based on the assumptions, membership, and methods of the seminar. But when brought out into the light of day, it is very awkward and even ridiculous.
The seminar serves a worthwhile purpose as an experiment and "anchor" at the extreme liberal end of the spectrum. But not much else.

"Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up" features a debate between liberal and conservative Christians regarding the nature of Jesus. The participants are Dominic Crossan a prolific liberal New Testament scholar and the leading contemporary apologist for mainstream Christianity William Craig. William Buckley moderated the debate. The debate transcript is followed by comments from both liberal and conservative scholars regarding the debate and issues raised within it.

High profile debates such as these between liberal and conservative Christians are few and far between. Given that Craig and Crossan are the best known and arguably most capable representatives of the respective camps this should have been a classic. Although Craig was engaging, Crossan for the most part appeared evasive and refused to participate in any substantive discussion. Crossan is well known for making many controversial statements regarding the historic Jesus, however, when Craig raised some of these claims, Crossan largely failed to acknowledge or support them.

I found Crossan's performance disappointing. Although I do not often agree with him, I do think some of Crossan's ideas are interesting and would have enjoyed a discussion of them. Crossan's weak showing made many of his more grandiose claims - and by association those of the Jesus Seminar - appear somewhat vacuous. Though from my perspective, the objective of these types of discussions is not necessarily to win, I think all but the most ardent Crossan supporters will concede that he was intellectually and rhetorically overwhelmed by Craig.

Despite the debate's flaws the book is still a worthwhile read for those interested in Christian apologetics or the historic Jesus. Readers seeking some background for the debate can refer to "The Five Gospels" by the Jesus Seminar and "Jesus under Fire" a response by mainstream/conservative Christians. Readers seeking an overview of contemporary scholarship regarding the historic Jesus should see "Jesus, The Victory of God" by N.T. Wright and "The Jesus Quest" by Ben Witherington.

This book contains a transcript of the debate between William Lane Craig (conservative Christian) and John Dominic Crossan (liberal Christian) on the topic of Jesus and the resurrection. The book also includes responses to the debate from two conservative and two liberal scholars. This part of the book was the most interesting because the participants actually interacted with the arguments of Craig and Crossan.

As for the debate itself, Crossan often seemed to give the impression that he didn't really want to be there. He rarely made any attempt to refute any of Craig's arguments. Meanwhile, Craig tried to coax some fight out of Crossan by repeatedly focusing on his primary arguments for his belief in the resurrection of Jesus. Unfortunately, Crossan never steps up to the plate to even try to "win" this debate. Any debate judge would have to give this one to Craig on the sole basis of Crossan's lack of effort. Crossan could have made this much more beneficial to members of both sides of the debate if he only would have "argued" a little.