Engaging Crossan's Ideas:
To finish off this mini-series on the lovable Irish scholar, John Dominic Crossan, today we will interact with his scholarly arguments and conclusions (outlined in Monday's blog post).
CHRISTIAN
RESPONSE
Structuralism
/ Metaphor:
Crossan’s embrace of structuralism
(the belief that language constructs reality) is self-referentially
absurd. As many philosophers have noted,
if structuralism were accurate, it would mean that we could cure HIV by simply
ceasing to talk about it—no language of HIV = no infected patients = no further
deaths from AIDS. Indeed, we could also
conveniently do away with unpleasant historical realities like the Crusades,
the Inquisition, the Black Plague, American slavery, and the Holocaust. As nearly everyone is aware, there is a real
physical world beyond us, that exists and has objective properties that hold
regardless of my particular beliefs.
Words may have significant power and influence, but they do not change
historical reality—they might alter the way people
understand history, but that is not
the same thing as constructing reality.
Religious
Pluralism:
Given Crossan’s belief that there
is no life after death, no salvation, and no resurrection, the extent to which
religions are ‘equally valid and effective’ is limited to personal
self-transformation. That is, on the one
hand, a triviality; on the other hand, it is not how religions understand
themselves. Rather, the world’s great
religious traditions (Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam) articulate
unique and exclusive truth-claims about reality, human nature, the human
predicament, and the solution to our problems.
Like other pluralists, Crossan can only insist that religions are
fundamentally equal by rejecting the way that most religious believers
understand their faith—he redefines the unique religions out of existence (a
recurring theme in Crossan’s scholarship).
Furthermore, Crossan’s underlying claim that religious traditions
contain a response to the same divine reality is refuted by the mutually
contradictory claims they actually make: e.g., divine reality is an impersonal
all-pervasive force in Hinduism, but a transcendent personal being in
Christianity.[1]
Divine
Consistency:
Crossan’s ‘divine consistency’ is
intentionally deceptive, and masks an unbiblical naturalism. He tries to maintain a Christian stance by
affirming divine activity and Jesus’ miracles, yet defines both out of
existence—God only works through the
fabric of the natural (never via direct intervention), and Jesus only ‘healed social illness’ by accepting the
outcast, but never ‘cured physical
disease’ because that is impossible.
Crossan’s naturalism trivializes
the ministry of Jesus, and renders the rise of early Christianity astoundingly
incomprehensible. Table fellowship with
lepers and prostitutes would have been insufficient either to get Jesus killed
or to mobilize an enduring movement.
Furthermore, given excellent work by biblical scholars and contemporary
researchers, it is more reasonable to believe that Jesus did in fact cure
physical disease in the first century and that, furthermore, God continues to
do the same around the world today.[2]
Historical
Jesus, Sources & Conclusions:
Crossan’s unorthodox conclusions
concerning the Jesus of history are dependent upon his unsustainable assertions
regarding historical Jesus sources.
Without those source-claims, Crossan’s reconstructed Jesus (including
his view of the resurrection) is a house of cards. But those source-claims are tendentious,
specious, and widely-rejected by scholars across the theological spectrum,
including many highly skeptical scholars.[3]
First, it is broadly conceded that Secret Mark is a non-existent source, a
forgery foisted upon academia by Morton Smith.[4]
Second, Crossan’s contentions regarding
The Gospel of Thomas are circular and
false. Crossan first argues that Thomas is independent of the canonical Gospels in its entirety. He then acknowledges elements of Thomas which are also present in the
canonical Gospels (e.g., the sower of seeds, in Thomas 9). Finally, he
argues that, because Thomas is
independent of the canonical Gospels, those elements must therefore be placed
in the earliest stratum of the Thomas
tradition in order to deny potential dependence of Thomas upon the Synoptic tradition.
One assumption (independence) produces a conclusion (an early date)
which then supports the original assumption.
Furthermore, there are good textual and historical reasons for dating Thomas to the late 2nd
century, rather than the mid-1st century. Perrin persuasively argues that Thomas is dependent upon Tatian’s Diatessaron, while the early church
fathers show no awareness.[5]
Third,
scholars have conclusively demonstrated that Crossan’s hypothesized Cross Gospel is without textual or
testimonial foundation.[6]
The
Resurrection & Life After Death:
Crossan gives no logical or
evidential support for his presupposed worldview belief that human life ceases
at death. His rejection of Jesus’ bodily
resurrection is driven exclusively by that unexamined worldview presupposition. There is, however, good reason to believe
that death is not the end of us—evidence from near-death experiences (NDEs) is
strong and persuasive.[7] Furthermore, Crossan’s reconstruction of
Jesus’ resurrection as a metaphor or symbol does tremendous violation to the
biblical texts and the historical church.
Crossan is unable to account for the conversion of Paul the violent
opponent or James the skeptical relative; nor can he account for Jesus’
appearances to groups of disciples (grief hallucinations are private events,
not shared experiences). If one is not
committed to Crossan’s structuralism, naturalism, and post-mortem extinction,
there will be literally no reason to take his stance on Jesus’ post-mortem fate
seriously.
Conclusion
John Dominic Crossan is one of the most
witty, kind, and gentle biblical scholars one could hope to meet. His unorthodox conclusions do not undo his
intelligence or sincerity. However, an
examination of Crossan’s scholarship demonstrates that all of his conclusions
are built upon tendentious and unsupported worldview presuppositions.
[1]The most cogent critique of religious pluralism is to be
found in the work of Harold Netland, particularly his Encountering Religious Pluralism: The
Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission (Downers Grove, IL: IVP,
2001).
[2]See, e.g., Graham H.
Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker: A
Historical and Theological Study (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999);
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the
Eyewitnesses: The Gospel and Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2008); and Craig S. Keener, Miracles:
The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2011).
[3] See, e.g., F. Neirynck,
“The Apocryphal Gospels and the Gospel of Mark,” in The New Testament in Early Christianity, ed. Jean-Marie Sevrin
(Leuven-Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1989), 133; idem., “The Historical
Jesus: Reflections on an Inventory,” Ephemerides
Theologicae Lovanienses 70 (1994): 233; Hans-Martin Schenke, “The Mystery
of the Gospel of Mark,” The Second
Century 4 (1984): 71; Raymond E. Brown, “The Gospel of Peter and Canonical
Gospel Priority” New Testament Studies
33 (1987): 321-43. Surveying the academic landscape, Gerald O’Collins and
Daniel Kendall conclude, “Apart from one or two sympathetic reactions, scholars
generally have remained quite unconvinced by Crossan’s 1988 lengthy and
tortuous attempt to rehabilitate the Gospel
of Peter and claim that its core (his ‘Cross Gospel’) served as the sole
source for Mark’s story of the passion and resurrection.” See O’Collins and
Kendall, “Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?” Biblica
75 (1994): 237-38.
[4]For Smith’s claims, see Morton
Smith, The Secret Gospel: The Discovery
and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to Mark (New York: Harper
& Row, 1973); and idem, Clement of
Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1973). For the lengthiest refutation of Smith’s claims, see Stephen C. Carlson,
The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith’s Invention
of Secret Mark (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005).
[5]For a fuller treatment,
consult Craig A. Evans, Robert L. Webb and Richard A. Wiebe, Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible (Leiden:
Brill, 1993); Perrin, Thomas and Tatian;
and Raymond E. Brown, “The Gospel of Thomas and St. John’s Gospel,” New Testament Studies 9 (1962-1963):
155-77.
[6]See,
e.g., Tawa J. Anderson, “The Myth of the Metaphorical Resurrection” (Ph.D.
dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2011); Raymond Brown,
“The Gospel of Peter and Canonical
Gospel Priority,” 333.
[7]See, e.g., Gary R. Habermas
and J. P. Moreland, Beyond Death:
Exploring the Evidence for Immortality (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1998).
No comments:
Post a Comment