| ||||||||||||
 Trade In this Item for up to £0.50
Trade in The Resurrection of Jesus: The Crossan-Wright Dialogue for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £0.50, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Plus, get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Authors
Discover books, learn about writers, and more.
Product Description
Product Description
Two of today's most important and popular New Testament scholars, John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright, here air their very different understandings of the historical reality and theological meaning of Jesus' resurrection. The book highlights the points of agreement and disagreement between them and explores the many attendant issues. The book brings two leading lights in Jesus studies together for a long-overdue conversation with one another and with significant scholars from other disciplines. Along with Crossan and Wright, contributors include William Lane Craig, Craig A. Evans, R. Douglas Geivett, Gary R. Habermas, Ted Peters, Charles L. Quarles, Alan F. Segal and Robert B. Stewart.
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product)
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
This book is an interesting read for those wishing to acquaint themselves with the currant scholarship and the direction in which studies on the resurrection of Jesus is going. The book is a useful and insightful introduction into the views of N.T.Wright and Dom Crossan who represent the currant polar-opposites in contemporary scholarship. Wright stands at the one end, which says the NT not only gives us access to what the disciples believed about Jesus and what happened to him-post resurrection, and that the language of the resurrection narratives is far more than merely linguistic license in conveying a message of the continuing Kingdom which Jesus proclaimed. His claim is that the NT gives us not only access to their beliefs or a mere `abstract' mode of meaning but a real(concrete)event that they could not have made up, due to the ideas and concepts around at the time (see his book The Resurrection of the Son of God ch.1-4) that would not have facilitated such a mutation of beliefs. On the other hand Crossan-whose thesis is that the parables Jesus told and parables about Jesus share a synthesis of language and that Resurrection is parabolic. He states:
By mode, I mean the difference between something which is literal and something which is metaphorical (Jesus is a peasant, Jesus is the lamb of God), or between something which is actual or factual and something which is fictional or parabolic (the Good Samaritan, for example). That is what I mean by mode...By meaning, which applies to both the literal and the metaphorical, I mean, "what are the implications of this for your life?" p24.
So both Wright and Crossan represent both ends of the spectrum and as an introduction it is a good book, and I doubt it was ever intended to be anything other than that! The subsequent chapters consist of a variety of authors who take the two positions and expand upon the tools and the texts employed and also look at the methods of the opposing position. It is also clear that the position of Wright is substantial more convincing and founded upon a much stronger argument. For example Crossans expositions of the gospel of Peter are, (in this scholars view) extremely fragile and thin (see Apocryphal Gospels by Hans-Josef Klauck, p.82-9 for an excellent independent view). Crossan also in his works argues that Jesus would most likely have been dumped in Gehena for the dogs to eat, and that people like Jesus who were crucified were rarely buried. However the discovery of the entombed ankle bone of Yehohanan ben (son of) Hagkol destroys that thesis.
The only criticism I would say is that this book assumes that the reader is well enough informed of the currant debate to imbibe correctly the scholarship that is expressed. I find the opposition to this book strangely loose and unjustified. The book simply introduces the reader into the debate and the respective voices. I suspect those that didn't like it didn't understand it for what it was and, like most -post-enlightened minds found its arguments far to strong and far to unnerving to be taken seriously.
By mode, I mean the difference between something which is literal and something which is metaphorical (Jesus is a peasant, Jesus is the lamb of God), or between something which is actual or factual and something which is fictional or parabolic (the Good Samaritan, for example). That is what I mean by mode...By meaning, which applies to both the literal and the metaphorical, I mean, "what are the implications of this for your life?" p24.
So both Wright and Crossan represent both ends of the spectrum and as an introduction it is a good book, and I doubt it was ever intended to be anything other than that! The subsequent chapters consist of a variety of authors who take the two positions and expand upon the tools and the texts employed and also look at the methods of the opposing position. It is also clear that the position of Wright is substantial more convincing and founded upon a much stronger argument. For example Crossans expositions of the gospel of Peter are, (in this scholars view) extremely fragile and thin (see Apocryphal Gospels by Hans-Josef Klauck, p.82-9 for an excellent independent view). Crossan also in his works argues that Jesus would most likely have been dumped in Gehena for the dogs to eat, and that people like Jesus who were crucified were rarely buried. However the discovery of the entombed ankle bone of Yehohanan ben (son of) Hagkol destroys that thesis.
The only criticism I would say is that this book assumes that the reader is well enough informed of the currant debate to imbibe correctly the scholarship that is expressed. I find the opposition to this book strangely loose and unjustified. The book simply introduces the reader into the debate and the respective voices. I suspect those that didn't like it didn't understand it for what it was and, like most -post-enlightened minds found its arguments far to strong and far to unnerving to be taken seriously.
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
It's a bit of a cheat, frankly, to subtitle this work `John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in dialogue', when only one-sixth of the book is actually that. Once the dialogue - which never really gets going - is over, what emerges is a series of essays on aspects of the resurrection. On this, Wright is a critical realist - he holds that the Gospels themselves are to an extent historical sources, amenable to careful critical appraisal using the tools of scholarship. He therefore believes that an analysis of them allows us to state with confidence that something much along the lines of what is described in them probably happened at the resurrection. For Crossan on the other hand, the resurrection - probably not a fact-based account - has meaning today, whatever it was trying to convey at the time of writing. This distinction is memorably formulated in Crossan's dictum that `Emmaus never happened. Emmaus always happens'. Contrasting positions indeed. Few of the contributing authors support Crossan unreservedly, though Alan Segal, from a Jewish perspective is - perhaps unsurprisingly - concerned to argue for the resurrection as a faith-based concept rather than one rooted squarely in history.
The overall tenor of the essays makes the book, in the end, look like a cloak - an excuse - for an exercise in doctrinaire conservatism. There are some good contributions - Charles Quarles' argument for the late composition of the Gospel of Peter, for example, some helpful clarification of the two scholars' respective methodologies from Bob Stewart, and some helpful reminders of the future, `new creation' dimension of the resurrection (Ted Peters). But the rest is pretty unimaginative and predictable. I'm not sure we learn anything new about either author's position from this `dialogue', and readers new to their thought would be better starting with their earlier works, where each speaks for himself without the sometimes dubious benefit of `interpreters'.
The overall tenor of the essays makes the book, in the end, look like a cloak - an excuse - for an exercise in doctrinaire conservatism. There are some good contributions - Charles Quarles' argument for the late composition of the Gospel of Peter, for example, some helpful clarification of the two scholars' respective methodologies from Bob Stewart, and some helpful reminders of the future, `new creation' dimension of the resurrection (Ted Peters). But the rest is pretty unimaginative and predictable. I'm not sure we learn anything new about either author's position from this `dialogue', and readers new to their thought would be better starting with their earlier works, where each speaks for himself without the sometimes dubious benefit of `interpreters'.
0 of 3 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
This is a series of essays reflecting on a debate between Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright on the Resurrection of Jesus. Neither is totally convincing ( and I have read most of Wright's book on the Resurrection) and here they fail to define their differences systematically. I have to say that I am not sympathetic to Wright when he argues that there are no other historical explanations for what the gospels tell us than a supernatural one of a risen fleshly Jesus. One could write a whole book on dead people who have been seen alive by others after their recorded deaths. The gospels are late, fragmented and contradictory and a historian would simply be happy to leave the question open, as is the case with the vast majority of events in the past. There are thousands upon thousands of miracles ( both pagan and Christian) recorded in ancient sources and the historian has no way of differentiating between those ( if any ) which are 'real' and those which are the result of imagination and hope. I don't think many historians would be happy with the way Wright uses history in his account. Yet Crossan is weak when he says that there was no burial. Why not have a burial, the removal of the body by Caiaphas, the hushing up of the guards by a bribe, and the leaving of a priest or priests in the tomb (these figures are recorded in each of the gospels and must be explained in a better way than saying they were just angels) to tell the visiting women that Jesus has risen but they must go back home ('he has gone before you into Galilee' e.g. out of Caiaphas' jurisdiction) in order to see him? It would certainly serve Caiaphas' problem of avoiding further unrest from Jesus' followers. Evidence for all this can be found in the gospels but I would still not regard it as solid enough to say that it was what happened.
For me this book was worth buying for one essay alone, that by Alan Segal. He sorts out the differences between the risen Christ as conceived by Paul (the earliest testimony) and as 'seen' by the disciples and shows that there are two different traditions which are often wrongly conflated as one (e.g. that Paul saw a fleshly Jesus). He takes Wright and his supporters to task for misusing history. The most sensible and learned contribution to the debate I have read for ages.
For me this book was worth buying for one essay alone, that by Alan Segal. He sorts out the differences between the risen Christ as conceived by Paul (the earliest testimony) and as 'seen' by the disciples and shows that there are two different traditions which are often wrongly conflated as one (e.g. that Paul saw a fleshly Jesus). He takes Wright and his supporters to task for misusing history. The most sensible and learned contribution to the debate I have read for ages.
Would you like to see more reviews about this item?
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
