From what I read of him I think he's a great scholar. He played a big part in reversing the previous "apocalyptic first" paradigm on a serious literary basis. At least for that the "mythologist school" is greatly indebted to him, even if their conclusions regarding the "historical Jesus" are quite opposite.
John Dominic Crossan
by kgfreeperson 18 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
kgfreeperson
One thing he said that keeps coming back to me--from memory so I hope doesn't distort his meaning: does our belief in a second coming reflect our inability to accept the first? He points out that Jesus was resisting imperialism, but also resisting violence. The second coming, with its images of incredible and terrifying violence may, he suggests, be our wish for God to get it right this time. To recognize that killing all those who have displeased him is the only way to bring justice to the world.
I might have been a religious person if I had studied when young with John Crossan. -
rick_here
Leolaia is probably right that Crossan isn't a "postmodernist" (what's that supposed to mean? No one agrees)!
Narkissos also more correctly identifies Crossan's theology with a "myth school." I'd link Crossan to the "De-Mythologizing" liberal theology of: Rudolph Bultmann. Imo, the Jesus Seminarians are up-to-date "Bultmannians for today."
But I don't want to debate any of this stuff.
One good thing about liberal theology is that it always asks you about where yer at(?). As an existentialist belief-system, it's gonna do that. (A point well worth considering).... -
Euphemism
Leolaia is probably right that Crossan isn't a "postmodernist" (what's that supposed to mean? No one agrees)!
The term 'post-modernism' doesn't have a meaning. You, as the reader, provide meaning through your interpretation of the term.
Of course, this definition of the term 'post-modernism' also lacks meaning, since you, as the reader, provide significance through your interpretation of the definition of the term.
Also, that proviso regarding the definition of the term lacks meaning, since you as the reader... etc, etc, etc.
-
rick_here
Euphemism,
I think I know what you said (for me anywayz).
But could you plz repeat that again?
I can't guarantee I'll go with what you meant, thoh.
Know what I mean???
As long as it means something to somebody....
Ahhhh, nevermind!
It all depends, you know.
Right?
Do you?
Do I?
Huh?
yeah, that
;) -
Narkissos
Narkissos also more correctly identifies Crossan's theology with a "myth school." I'd link Crossan to the "De-Mythologizing" liberal theology of: Rudolph Bultmann. Imo, the Jesus Seminarians are up-to-date "Bultmannians for today."
In contrast with what I would call the "myth school" (e.g. E. Doherty, and less dogmatically R.M. Price), Crossan believes in a historical Jesus, but identifies him not with the futuristic apocalyptic traditions (as was commonly done from Schweitzer to, say, Theissen) -- rather with a "present Kingdom of God" gospel as reconstructed from the earliest strata of Q. He is clearly indebted to Bultmann as to historical methodology (history of forms, history of traditions) but I think his hermeneutical paradigm is quite opposite. Bultmann's theology was an existential neo-paulinism, which didn't care for a historical Jesus and especially his supposed teachings.
-
rick_here
Narkissos-
I've been kinda busy and generally agree with your last post (seeing that you know your theology)! Sorry, so slow.
I don't really want to go into Christological differences among the theologians but would like to ask you one thing about Bultmann and Crossan: Would you say they are similar in their views on the resurrection of Jesus? From what I can recall (offhand) they are/were very much alike in this....
Just replying, for the most part.
(thanx, if you have time to reply, etc.) -
Narkissos
about Bultmann and Crossan: Would you say they are similar in their views on the resurrection of Jesus?
From what I read of both: I think they are similar as exegetes, that is, in their approach of Jesus' resurrection in the texts -- from the apparition stories to the empty grave (of course they differ in detailed conclusions as they don't use the same tools and material in reconstructing the traditions).
But Bultmann was not only an exegete. He was also a theologian, trying to make sense of the post-paschal Christian faith along his well-known Heideggerian paradigm. So he tried to translate the mythological faith of the early Christians in the resurrection of Jesus into an existential "eschatological decision". His interest in the historical Jesus from this theological perspective was near to null. What mattered to him was the nude event of Christian faith in the resurrected Christ. Not what (was) happened, but that (dass) something happened.
On the other hand, I feel that Crossan and contemporary scholars are not so much interested in building a dogmatic theology on some philosophical basis (times have changed). Crossan is interested in the historical Jesus, and the stories of the resurrection are only the aftermath. I guess Crossan, in sharp contrast with Bultmann, would rather build any theology of his own on the "original sayings" of Jesus (as he reconstructs them) than on Christian beliefs about Jesus. Q1 vs. Paul...
-
kgfreeperson
While I was buying Christmas books for my family, I bought Crossan's "In Search of Paul" for myself. I'm really enjoying it, although struggling with the poorly remembered history not very well learned almost 40 years ago!
I would be delighted to find that anyone here was also reading it and interested in discussing it.