tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6010328157501385045.post2309956808536536317..comments2022-02-28T07:14:46.286-06:00Comments on Tawapologetics: John Dominic Crossan Profile, Part II - Major ClaimsTawa Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909215567000575187noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6010328157501385045.post-13148700235513066162017-07-24T13:47:27.858-05:002017-07-24T13:47:27.858-05:00Jon:
Great question. I will answer as best I can...Jon:<br /><br />Great question. I will answer as best I can, and point you to a couple additional sources.<br /><br />Structuralism, like many aspects of post-modern theory, is essentially contested - in other words, not everyone (proponent or critic) will agree on definition or application. I am confident there are many structuralists who would not embrace the contours I identified. <br /><br />That said, however, I am pretty confident that I have reflected Crossan's understanding accurately. I've included a couple of quotations from Crossan below, from a section of my dissertation on Crossan's methodology and conclusions. For reference, my dissertation can be found here - http://digital.library.sbts.edu/handle/10392/2847 - and you are looking for pages 106-116.<br /><br />Structuralism, according to Crossan, holds that “reality is structure and especially linguistic structure, that reality is the structure of language.” Crossan rejects historical objectivism, the view that history relates “a world out there objectively present before and apart from any story concerning it,” in favor of the structuralist view that “story create[s] world so that we live as human beings in, and only in, layers upon layers of interwoven story.” Reality, Crossan says, “is neither in here in the mind nor out there in the world; it is the interplay of both mind and world in language. Reality is relational and relationship. Even more simply, reality is language.” Structuralism is not, however, world-denying, or inherently skeptical. Crossan does not argue that we cannot come to know reality; rather, he argues, “what we know is reality, is our reality here together and with each other.” <br />Crossan’s structuralism has grave implications for traditional religions, propositional religious truth, and transcendental experience.<br />"If there is only story, then God, or the referent of transcendental experience, is either inside my story and, in that case, at least in the Judaeo-Christian tradition I know best, God is merely an idol I have created; or, God is outside my story, and I have just argued that what is ‘out there’ is completely unknowable. So it would seem that any transcendental experience has been ruled out, if we can only live in story." <br />Tawa Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00909215567000575187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6010328157501385045.post-15747378069145528972017-07-21T11:20:23.144-05:002017-07-21T11:20:23.144-05:00"...Crossan believes that there is no history..."...Crossan believes that there is no history beyond language—history is not a concrete reality consisting of actual past events, but rather is constructed through language about past events."<br /><br />Can you provide a quote from Crossan to support this? While I do not have a great familiarity with Crossan or structuralism, what little I have read seems very inconsistent with your argument here. That is, they do not deny that there is a reality and history independent of language, but that our understanding of history and reality are dependent upon and limited to the structure of our language(s). Jonnoreply@blogger.com