I wonder if anyone else has read Crossan's book? I am pretty liberal in my theology and find the "historical Jesus" a study worth pursuing. I like the approaches taken by Marcus Borg, Bart Ehrman, and NT Wright. But too often I find Crossan conjecturing too much, expecting Jesus' story to fit common sense.

If God's ways are not man's and we can't be certain about reconstructed history then I think it's awfully tough to conclude that the resurrection was completely fabricated as a physical event to describe an inner reality shared by the apostles. We can't prove historically one way or the other, but at some level the resurrection must remain a mysterious artcle of faith. I think demythologizing everything doesn't just take away the stuff that's hard to believe, it also removes the ability of Christianity to speak to the ineffible human experience of God.

So, I've removed most of Crossan's books from my reading list. I wonder if anyone else has had the same reaction or maybe wants to convince me I'm off-base here?>

Posted by: Daniel | January 12, 2007 2:33 PM

I agree with you Daniel about Crossan. I am a much bigger fan of historians like NT Wright, Dunn, and Sanders who start with the historical context of 1st century Judaism and build their interpretation exegisis off of that foundation. Theologically, this has important implications, and may affect one's personal political vision as well.

A great tragedy in biblical scholarship is how so many conflate political conservatism with "traditional" or "orthodox" interpretations of resurrection, incarnation, etc. Politically, I am a proud liberal. Theologically - and historically - I side with Wright or the "Scientific theologian" John Polkinghorne (who has written quite a bit on the historical jesus) over the likes of Crossan and Borg.

This does not make me any less progressive in my politics. Quite to the contrary, a Jewish understanding of God's realtionship to the world provides me with greater inspiration and impetus to work for justice here and now. Wright follows - correctly in my view - Schweitzer and Sanders in emphasizing how Judaism at the period was very eschatological, emphasizing the coming of God's reign in highly metaphorical and cosmic imagery.

By contrast the more "Gnostic" or even dualistic vision espoused by the likes of Crossan, the Da Vinci Code, and the Jesus Seminar often leads people to look within for a divine spark as a way to escape the present fallen order. This is more influenced by Greek philosophy.

The Jews of 1st century palestine, and by extension, Jesus, had a very different vision. This vision is one in which Jesus and his followers are charged with bringing God's reign to the Earth and redeeming all of Creation, not offering a self-help program on how to escape it and "find oneself."

Crossan and his followers are too quick to dismiss Paul, the Synoptics, and John in favor of later texts like Thomas (which Crossan believes was written earlier, though we have no documentary evidence of such a conjecture.) Most baffling is his dismissal of early christian belief in the concrete reality - infused with metaphorical meaning of course, but concrete nonetheless - of the Resurrection. Paul's earliest letters (the earliest Christian documents we presently have) clearly state belief in a concrete resurrection. Historically, we have no compelling reason to deny that the earliest Christian communities, in which Paul was a critical leader, believed in it too.

Crossan also contradicts himself in his dismissal of the empty tomb stories. He claims to follow the historical principle that if a story or quote is consistent throughout many documents, it is more credible than stories that appear in only one. The empty tomb is found in all canonical gospels, yet he still dismisses it.

A bit chatty, I know, and I apologize. A good book on all this is Anglican Bishop Tom Wright's "The Challenge of Jesus." He is not a conservative evanjelical for us all to be afraid of, but rather has been an outspoken advocate of debt relief, criminal justice and prison reform, action on climate change, and redistributive justice. He has openly condemned the U.S. and Britain's involvement in Iraq and approaches to the War on Terror. And he still has a solid, biblical faith.

In general, I think this is important for progressive christians and historians (and progressives in general) to remember: it's perfectly possible (even necessary, I think) for theologically traditional Christians to accept the bible as an authority and to be politically progressive at the same time. The gospels, and 1st century Judaism, were all about active engagement with the world in bringing about God's will on Earth as it is in Heaven, using Jesus' life and word as a guide. The Gnostic message called for retreat into oneself. I think today, we need more of the former and less of the latter, especially from liberals.>

Posted by: jon | January 13, 2007 5:15 PM

I think it is mistaken to characterize Crossan's take on Jesus as Gnostic. He pictures Jesus as a magician/healer, a political, religious and social radical liberationist and a spiritual philosopher. Jesus life and teachings inspired different accounts in different groups , all of which Crossan believes validly inform a fulsome historical understanding of Jesus and all of which which ,by their contradictions and occasional mythologizing show that none can be relied on as completely historically accurate.
Also Crossan goes to great lengths to familiarize himself and his readers with the culture of the Mediterranean region and with the culture in Israel and Galilee at the time.
Nothing I have read by Crossan has presented Jesus as a Gnostic, and even a "canonical" gospel has Jesus say that the Kingdom of God is within. Crossan shows Jesus as both voice for non-authoritarian justice, and a deeply considered example of how to live a just, courageous and spirit filled life.>

Posted by: Joseph T | January 15, 2007 6:52 AM