Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue

I have not actually read the book, but I was present for the debate (actually sitting next to the gentleman for whom the conference was named) and highly recommend a record of the procedings.

This book centers on a debate between two of the most famous biblical scholars, The subject is whether the resurrection of Jesus Christ actually happened. On one side, N T Wright, is an Anglican bishop who argues that the resurrection was a true, historical event. Dominic Crossan, famous for helping to form the Jesus Seminar, believes the opposite. And it's very, very interesting to see just how their positions hold up in a conversation between the two. It's also a shortcut way to judge the various arguments for yourself. Both Wright's book on the resurrection and Crossan's "The Historical Jesus" are long and full of scholarly details. In addition to the debate, there is a short history of biblical scholarship over the last two hundred years and a number of essays on the subject of the debate, some pro, some con. For a quick and easy way to find out about the current state of biblical scholarship, this book fits the bill.

Many thanks to the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary for making this dialogue possible. It was done in "real time," with opportunity for Frs. Crossan and Wright not only to state their own positions, but to discuss them with each other. They treated each other with dignity and respect, but did not hesitate to make clear their profound differences. N.T. Wright has also been in dialogue with Marcus Borg, another member of the Jesus Seminar. If only there were more evangelical theologians who could go "head to head" with scholars like Crossan and Borg.

First a clarification: I am a conservative Christian who chooses to believe that the Gospels are accurate accounts of the life of Jesus - at least of the tiny percentage of his life that the evangelists have chosen to report. That choice puts me firmly on the side of Tom Wright when it comes to the contents of this book. Most who read this book will have a bias one way or the other. If like Crossan readers choose to believe that the Gospels are highly skewed accounts of the life of a Jewish peasant, who happened to win the attention of a lot of disillusioned people at a period of great national pain, and then got himself crucified for his troubles, then they will prefer Crossan to Wright. But if like Wright they believe that there must have been much more to this Jew, and that his death had an intrinsic meaning rather than one imposed by the need to create a myth, and that the resurrection is not just an esoteric concept developed to suit his followers but an event that actually happened, then Wright will be their preference. If you have not made up your mind about Jesus, buy this book. The great thing about it is the clear mutual respect these two highly regarded scholars have for each other. There are no sarcastic put downs, no arguments ad hominem here, just carefully considered presentations of two very different points of view. Frankly I think Wright wins the debate easily, but that probably says more about me than about the quality of Crossan's arguments. But for serious people who want to gain insights into the current state of discussions about the historical Jesus, this is a good starting point.

An excellent study. I read it twice and took copious notes and used it in studies with a lively group of adults.