Rating: 
Summary: Puts the "Jesus Seminar" in proper perspective
Review: This was a great book and I agree with the general observations of the vast majority of the reviewers. That is, Craig won hands down. Crossan didn't really even enter the debate which surprised and disappointed some reviewers. But it's really not surprising at all. Crossan's arguments (or lack there of) come directly from the work of the Jesus Seminar. And Crossan's utter defeat illustrates that the Seminar's work is of little value in disproving the Gospels and the mainstream Christian interpetation of them as largely accurate, HISTORICAL accounts of Jesus' life.
Rather, the Jesus Seminar must be looked upon as an experiment in liberal theological thought. It was a chance for liberal scholars to come together and develop a consensus unburdened by critical peer review from their more conservative, and for the most part more mainstream, more distinguished peers.
The result was a new pardigm for interperting the NT. Briefly, the consensus was that it is all symbolism and metaphor. This new paradigm is a logical outcome based on the assumptions, membership, and methods of the seminar. But when brought out into the light of day, it is very awkward and even ridiculous.
The seminar serves a worthwhile purpose as an experiment and "anchor" at the extreme liberal end of the spectrum. But not much else.
Rating: 
Summary: HAVE WE REVERTED TO THE DARK AGES?
Review: This was billed as a debate-It was not-it was, instead an example of the Dumbing Down of Acadamia. Jesus, as later Roman and Jewish historians noted, (Tacitus, Usebius, Herodotus and others) was viewed by the Conservative, and Brutal Romans and the Priestly Hierarchy as a rebellious, seditious, radical, liberal, leftist. Conservative Governments, supported by conservative businesses want no interference with their greedy plans from those with a sense of justice. Recall that Republican President general D. D. Eisenhower and general Douglas McArthur warned that the conservative Japanese and German arms manufacturers-the military industrial complex instigated WW II. In Rome and Judea the wealthy Conservative senators, Generals, Royal Families, Herodian Kings and priests controlled the economy and Jesus' protection of the disenfranchised was seen as a threat to the wealth producing policies of Rome and Judea. Jesus knew that the Priests were stealing from the people by owning land a thing banned
Now comes Jesus. Who was he? A revolutionary? Simply a toleranct and liberal man seeking social justice, or a genuine prophet, Messiah, or Man-God? Did Jesus really say and do all of the things the evangelists, (who were not the apostles) writing some 35-90 years after Jesus' death, say he said and did? Why did the early church after Constantine try to destroy sacred books rediscovered in 1945-1947-the Nag Hammadi Codex's and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Crossan and Craig disagree on virtually everything in their books, but the real difference is that Craig's positions are the result not of deep synectical research and knowledge, but of his preconceived religious beliefs. Faith is a great thing but academic debates are about science not belief. Academic debates are based on hard evidence-what can be proven, not what is, through faith, believed! Debates are an intellectual exercise.
John Dominick Crossan, with whom I seldom agree, but respect as a researcher, is a solidly grounded research oriented Theologian. The debate, unfortunately, was rigged because Wm F. Buckley who was to serve as "moderator" was actually a third debater on Craig's side. Both of them must fear Crossan deeply to stoop to such a strategem. It is not just the stock market which lacks character.
A lot has been made of the attitude of Crossan and Borg in ignoring most of Craig's so-called "evidence". They did so, however, because the only evidence Craig produced were the gospels, themselves, which were in the things in question. Such tactics are unworthy of use in an academic debate environment or in a court room. Jesus may have been all the things the evangelists say he was, but using the very gospels in question as proof is not in the least valid evidence because they are the materials under scrutiny.
It is great to believe that Jesus is God. That is a matter of faith, but bringing one's faith to a scientific debate is ludicrous. I believe in God, but I would not attempt to prove that He exists because there is no scientific way to do that right now, so because I am secure in my belief, I do not need to prove it to anyone. Those who truly believe do not need public proof and those who do not believe cannot be convinced sans scientific evidence and it appears that God does not, at least at this juncture, wish for there to be any "Proof". In a true academic debate Buckley and Craig would have been dismissed, and lost.
As for the personal attacks on the men of the Jesus Seminar, they are unwarranted and egregious. They, as a body, do not do not hate Christianity, several of them are religious professionals-ministers, priests, etc.) and they are not evil men, nor are they all atheists, but they are researchers who are trying to get at the truth. Would you rather be taught by Dark Ages alchemists than scientific researchers? Judging from much of the response, few understand the nature of academic debating. Debates are one means of teaching and learning I was disappointed in this book because instead of trying to get at the truth Buckley and Craig were evangelizing and conspiring-not a good roll-model for young students to witness-corruption in academia. The book's most interesting reading was the commentary by Borg and other theologians. The rest of the debate and the response to is was more like the rantings of immature and moronically ill-informed people who do not want to know or hear truth.
Rating:
Summary: consider this an all-star game, not the championship match
Review: Though thought-provoking at times, this exchange ultimately falls flat on the unwillingness (which many will interpret as inability) of the liberals to give more than a cursory, self-satisfied justification of their views. One would assume from their half-hearted effort that the liberals have no "facts" to back themselves up, but that is not my understanding of their position. The few factual arguments they did raise were ruthlessly shot down by Craig. And they barely tried refuting Craig's own factual assertions, so Craig could only point out their omissions and could not develop the debate any further.There are some illuminating thoughts here, especially from the responses and Craig's concluding reflections -- thus, three stars. But those looking for "meat" should look elsewhere. I liken this book to an "all-star game" -- neat concept, but not to be taken too seriously. One concluding note: even to this "conservative" reader Buckley's partisan "mediating" was inappropriate and distracting. His smug comments about Jesus making Crossan disappear "in a puff of smoke" and his attack-dog questioning of Crossan made the "debate" look like a 2-on-1 mugging. Craig would have done just fine by himself.
Rating:
Summary: Should Have Been a Classic
Review: Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up features a debate between liberal and conservative Christians regarding the nature of Jesus. The participants are Dominic Crossan a prolific liberal New Testament scholar and the leading contemporary apologist for mainstream Christianity William Craig. The debate was moderated by William Buckley. The debate transcript is followed by comments from both liberal and conservative scholars regarding the debate and issues raised within it.
High profile debates such as these between liberal and conservative Christians are few and far between. Given that Craig and Crossan are the best known and arguably most capable representatives of their respective camps this should have been a classic. Although Craig was incisive and engaging as always, Crossan for the most part refused to participate in any substantive discussion. Crossan is well known for making radical statements regarding Jesus and New Testament scholarship, however, when Craig raised these claims, Crossan not only failed to support them but avoided even acknowledging them. Crossan's weak performance made his and the Jesus Seminars grandiose revisionist statements appear unfounded.
Each reader will have their own opinion regarding the outcome of the debate. In all fairness, however, all but the most ardent Crossan fan will probably concede that Craig intellectually and rhetorically overwhelmed his opponent.
Despite the one-sided nature of the discussion it is still an interesting read if for no other reason that to expose the intellectual vacuity of many of Crossan and the Jesus Seminar's views. Readers seeking some background on the issues covered in the debate can refer to The Five Gospels by the Jesus Seminar and Jesus Under Fire a response by mainstream/conservative Christians.
|
