• Summary
• Full Review
• Our Rating of this book

Summary

Recommended

Publisher's Abstract: 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 points of agreement and disagreement between them and explores the many attendant issues.

The contents of this book revolve around the discussion that took place between N.T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan during the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum on March 11, 2005 regarding the resurrection of Jesus. During the dialogue, N.T. Wright summarized the arguments in favor of the historicity of the resurrection that he presented in his The Resurrection of the Son of God while Crossan espoused his views that the NT writers were speaking metaphorically when referring to Jesus' resurrection. The two prominent scholars discussed each others' views during the Forum, and that dialogue is reproduced at the beginning of the book (following an introduction by the book's editor Robert Stewart). In addition to the dialogue, there are 8 essays written by various New Testament scholars and/or philosophers, and an appendix which contains an essay by Crossan ("Bodily-Resurrection Faith") that espouses his views of "resurrection" in the New Testament. I recommend that the reader skip ahead and read this appendix first as it serves to better ground the reader into the arguments that Crossan presents during the dialogue.

As for the various essays that follow, Craig Evans has a piece documenting the contributions of both Crossan and Wright to New Testament scholarship in general. Evans in the end briefly discusses why he is more sympathetic to the views of Wright. Robert Stewart follows with a summary of the views of both Crossan and Wright including such topics as how texts should be read, the approach to historical understanding, and the resurrection of Jesus. This is a very helpful essay for anyone desiring a brief treatment of Crossan and/or Wright's general methodological approaches. Gary Habermas has an essay entitled "Mapping the Recent Trend toward the Bodily Resurrection Appearances of Jesus in Light of Other Prominent Critical Positions." I personally found this to be the most valuable essay in the book, as it gives an excellent overview of the trends of modern scholarship regarding Jesus' resurrection. Habermas states that there has been an increasing trend in recent scholarship to view the post-mortem appearances of Jesus as bodily in contrast to the scholarship of several decades ago. Similarly, despite a relative increase in the promulgation of alternative theories to the resurrection (e.g. the subjective visions theory) in recent scholarship, such approaches still clearly comprise a minority position. Philosopher R. Douglas Geivett follows with an essay about "The Epistemology of Resurrection Belief", where he argues that the historicity of Jesus' resurrection cannot be ascertained merely from historical studies, but must also include other metaphysical considerations, such as whether or not God exists. Geivett here criticizes Wright for concluding that the resurrection is historical based on historical considerations alone. Geivett is certainly justified in claiming that metaphysical considerations, and accompanying that, worldview presuppositions, are crucial to this debate (as the real dividing line for most regarding this subject seems to be essentially how one answers the question of whether or not miracles are possible). Nevertheless, some would argue that the strength of the evidence of Jesus' resurrection is enough to make belief in miracles rational. I personally would deem it certainly one of a multitude of factors to consider in the debate about whether there exists a supernatural realm. So, at the end of the day, I agree with Geivett's premise that other factors outside of historical considerations have to enter into the equation, but I doubt that Wright, or, for that matter, any of the other contributors to this book would disagree with that. Charles Quarles follows this with a look at the Gospel of Peter, critically analyzing one of Crossan's key pillars that it contains a post-resurrection narrative that predates those found in the canonical Gospels. Alan Segal then argues for the possibility that Paul taught a spiritual resurrection, in contrast to the Gospels, and concludes that the resurrection is a matter that should be left to faith, and that it is misplaced to try to prove it historically. William Lane Craig then follows with a brief, 10 page essay, expressing his sympathies for Wright's case and making suggestions of how the arguments in his book could have been slightly modified and enhanced to make his argument even more compelling. Finally, Ted Peters closes with an essay entitled "The Future of the Resurrection", which includes a brief look (once again) of the approaches of Crossan and Wright and a discussion of how Jesus' resurrection ties in with the future hope of all of his followers.

Thus there is a good mix of conservative, moderate, and liberal views of the resurrection in this volume. Several parts of the book, as can be seen from the above summary, were merely summarizing and discussing the views of Crossan and Wright, and on topics not always limited to the resurrection itself. However, in terms of actual data analysis, the book in several places lacked a good concentration of actual substance. The dialogue between Wright and Crossan had some valuable material in it, and served as a good source for people wanting Wright's massive volume summarized in only a few pages. One particular item of discussion I thought was intriguing was regarding Wright's argument that the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances of Jesus, while neither alone would have been sufficient to produce the belief in Jesus' resurrection, taken together they would be sufficient to produce such a belief. In response Crossan made the excellent point that an empty tomb and post-mortem visions of Jesus by the disciples would not be sufficient to produce belief in his resurrection. Rather, this would more likely than not have led the disciples to believe that Jesus had been exalted rather than resurrected. This is a point we've made elsewhere on this site (see e.g. here). But, the argument of Crossan serves only to validate the assertion that the post-mortem appearances of Jesus could NOT have been mere visions (at least in the way visions are typically characterized). Instead, as Wright pointed out in response, it is plausible that the disciples would have come to the conclusion that Jesus had been resurrected if he appeared in the comparatively mundane way that is described in the Gospels, i.e. breaking bread, consuming fish, leaving physical evidences of his visitation, etc. [36-39]

In conclusion, I'd recommend this book, as I think there is some valuable material in it, particularly the dialogue between Crossan and Wright, and the essays by Habermas and Quarles. It is also a good read for anybody wanting good discussions and summaries of what these two scholars believe and their methodological approaches to the texts. But, because this book is as much about Crossan and Wright as it is about presenting scholarly essays about the resurrection (and there is not always overlap between the one subject and the other), it is not, as a whole, one of the best books out there on the resurrection.