Rating: 
Summary: Jesus Seminar v.s. Christians: Seminar defeated!
Review: After having seen documentary, after TV special, after A&E special, after TV interview, I finally found the book that takes the Jesus Seminar to task. Throughout the 1990's, seventy academics came together and published books on Jesus. They a priori exclude miracles and are known to promote unreliable, legendary Gospels such as the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. Another example is that Crossan (who with Robert Funk, founded the Jesus Seminar) says that the dogs that roamed the execution grounds probably ate Jesus' body and thus it was never buried. One last preliminary example is from the book, "The Jesus Seminar and its Critics," by Robert Miller (a contributor to this book), "For many Christians this belief (that Jesus claimed to be the incarnate Son of God who came to earth to save us from sin) is the essence of Christianity and the standard of orthodoxy. Since this way of understanding Jesus is so fundamental for so many Christians, it is crucial that we set it in proper perspective by recognizing that it is not a historical description of Jesus, but an affirmation of belief in his supernatural origin and divine mission." Even in this quote is the sharp (false) dichotomy to formulate a Jesus of history (the man who walked about ancient Israel who was not divine) and the Christ of faith (the divine one who is experienced today by Christians). Anyway, on to the debate.The Debaters Dr. William Lane Craig Position: Research professor at Talbot School of Theology Ph. D - University of Birmingham, England (Philosophy) Th. D - Universität München (University of Munich), Germany (Theology) Dr. Craig defends the traditional Christian position that God raised Jesus from the dead and so validated his personal claims to be God. Dr. John Dominic Crossan Position: Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, DePaul University, Chicago S.S.L., Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome D.D., Maynooth College, Ireland Dr. Crossan denies the resurrection as a real historical event. The Debate. Dr. Craig opens with a strong presentation of the evidence regarding the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. He forms his argument in this fashion: "Contention I: The real Jesus rose from the dead in confirmation of his radical personal claims to divinity. Contention II: If Contention I is false- that is, Jesus did not rise - then Christianity is a fairy tale in which no rational person should believe." (page 25) To see further details of Dr. Craig's argument, see my review of, "Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann." Dr. Crossan Dr. Crossan presents the presuppositions of liberal scholarship, the issue of Jesus of history vs. Christ of faith and the use of literal language (i.e. reporting of historical events) vs. metaphorical language (i.e. a fable that is fictional but which communicates moral values). Dr. Crossan seems to have some sort of subjectivist view here; at another point he says, "The point is this: Where do we find our God? (To paraphrase) Do find him as the divine powerful Emperor Augustus I or the meek, born in a stable Jesus. Dr. Crossan's politically correct Christianity (embracing pluralism, abandoning truth and history for myth and subjectivism) is clear in his closing paragraph. He says there is a scenario where a Christian says to a Buddhist, all your stories about Buddha are false, but the stories about Jesus (e.g. virgin birth and resurrection) are true. Crossan puts it this way, "I don't think that can be said any longer, for our insistence that our faith is fact and that others' faith is a lie is, I think, a cancer that eats at the heart of Christianity." (page 39) The ensuing dialogue is not very debate-like. Crossan simply refuses to grapple with Craig and just keeps asserting (sans evidence) that his is simply another interpretation and that arguing over whose interpretation is true is foolish etc... Dr. Craig made two interesting points; one in his rebuttal and one in the dialogue. First, that Crossan in his sharp (and I think unjustified) dichotomy between the Jesus of history (fact) and the Christ of faith (interpretation) essentially makes the term "Christ" meaningless (e.g. the Christ of the National Socialist Party in Germany, the Christ of the Mormons, the Christ of David Koresh or even the Christ of Jim Jones). Second, in the dialogue, Crossan, when pressed by Craig it seemed that Crossan considered theological questions (i.e. the existence of God) outside the realm of fact. It seems that he is embracing deism in favor of Christianity. The rest of the dialogue is spent discussing mechanics. This section could have been better; the moderator (William F. Buckley. Jr.) didn't seem to help in directing the conversation to important matters. The Responses Following the format (I don't know in what order the debates occurred or were published though) of, ""Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann," there are two scholars (Ben Witherington III and Craig L. Blomberg) who support one of the debaters (Craig) and vice-versa (Marcus Borg and Robert J. Miller). I note that Marcus Borg and Robert J. Miller are both Fellows of the Jesus Seminar. Miller's essay addresses the issue of who Christian apologetics are directed to (he concludes that apologetics are really intended for Christians) and has some examination of the resurrection narratives in an effort to prove that Gospels are of a mythological genre rather than a history genre. Blomberg provides detailed examination of both sides and suggests improvements. I can understand how Blomberg found the dialogue frustrating! Miller's piece attempts to show that the Gospels are not intended to be in the history genre. Miller's most foolish, nay heretical statement is that the truth of Easter does not depend on the historicity of Christ's physical resurrection. Dr. Craig ends with a powerful response that addresses all of the scholars and takes them apart; he shows that i) Jesus' physical resurrection is true and that ii) Christianity depends upon i).
Rating:
Summary: Who is the historical Jesus?
Review: Craig and Crossan both provide opening addresses, and rebuttals before the two debaters participate in open dialog with Buckley as moderator. Craig presents four lines of evidence which provide "adequate inductive grounds for inferring Jesus' resurrection." He defends all four (Jesus' burial, empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and the disciples' belief in Jesus' bodily resurrection) by appealing to confirmatory evidence and the acknowledgement by the consensus of critical New Testament scholarship that these are all established historical facts. As amazing as it may sound, at no point does Crossan, or any of the four respondents (Robert Miller, Craig Blomberg, Marcus Borg, & Ben Witherington) even challenge the historicity of these facts. Nor do they challenge that these facts are accepted by the consensus of scholarship, nor that they provide sufficient grounds to infer the resurrection, nor do they suggest any alternate explanations for even one of these facts. I wish that the scholars who deny the resurrection would address these problems rather than avoid them; it's difficult to get excited about a debate when one side refuses to argue.
Rating: 
Summary: I almost pitied Crossan
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: Increased Respect For The Jesus Seminar
Review: I probably read this book too early before reading enough other material by members of the Jesus Seminar. Consequently, to make up for this deficiency I focused especially on the response by Marcus Borg. As far as the debate between Crossan and Craig was concerned, I thought it was won by Craig. After having read the entire book, however, I was left with an increased respect for the contributions of the Jesus Seminar.
Rating:
Summary: Pretty good -- sour grapes aside.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: The Debate is a Disappointment
Review: The book in its entirety is really quite interesting mainly because of the responses by Blomberg, Borg, Miller and Witherington. In comparison the debate between Craig and Crossan is a disappointment, especially the performance by Crossan.
Rating: 
Summary: A debate requires two participants
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Puts the "Jesus Seminar" in proper perspective
Review: This book is a written transcript of a debate between Christian theologian William Lane Craig, and a member of the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan. Also contributing with comments are Marcus Borg, Robert Miller, and Ben Witherington. As for the "debate" itself, Crossan's embarrassing lack of any ability to reason or provide any evidence for his views, and those of the Jesus Seminar, simply display how weak the position of the Jesus Seminar is.
The subject of the debate is Jesus Christ, the message of the Gospel, and specifically the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Crossan's main point is of course that the message of the Gospel and the words attributed to Jesus are symbolic, and do not reflect a real person or events. While this position is pretty typical of those who attempt to undermine the Gospel, Crossan demonstrates that he has no basis for these beliefs. Craig on the other hand provides excellent logic, reasoning, and evidence which verifies that in fact Jesus was a real person, and that the events of the New Testament were not only factual, but also meaningful to our lives today.
The book is written well, with a variety of styles. Both Craig and Crossan submit essays, and rebuttals, and the transcript of a debate between them, facilitated by William Buckley, is a fascinating exchange, and really defines the basic premises of Christians and those who oppose Christianity: the Jesus Seminar.
Also of note are the essays submitted by others on the subject. This book is a must read for anyone who is interested in what the true meaning of the Gospel is, and how far from it the Jesus Seminar is. A great read highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: No contest: Craig/Gospel 1 - Crossan/Jesus Seminar 0
Review: This book is a written transcript of a debate between Christian theologian William Lane Craig, and a member of the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan. Also contributing with comments are Marcus Borg, Robert Miller, and Ben Witherington. As for the "debate" itself, Crossan's embarrassing lack of any ability to reason or provide any evidence for his views, and those of the Jesus Seminar, simply display how weak the position of the Jesus Seminar is. The subject of the debate is Jesus Christ, the message of the Gospel, and specifically the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Crossan's main point is of course that the message of the Gospel and the words attributed to Jesus are symbolic, and do not reflect a real person or events. While this position is pretty typical of those who attempt to undermine the Gospel, Crossan demonstrates that he has no basis for these beliefs. Craig on the other hand provides excellent logic, reasoning, and evidence which verifies that in fact Jesus was a real person, and that the events of the New Testament were not only factual, but also meaningful to our lives today. The book is written well, with a variety of styles. Both Craig and Crossan submit essays, and rebuttals, and the transcript of a debate between them, facilitated by William Buckley, is a fascinating exchange, and really defines the basic premises of Christians and those who oppose Christianity: the Jesus Seminar. Also of note are the essays submitted by others on the subject. This book is a must read for anyone who is interested in what the true meaning of the Gospel is, and how far from it the new age, liberal, rubbish of the Jesus Seminar is. A great read highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Debate on the Resurrection in Book Form
Review: 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.
|
