John Dominic Crossan: History, Religion and Education under Fire
By Spencer D. Gear PhD
Outline of chapters:
1. Preface
2. Why would an evangelical Christian investigate an unorthodox scholar?
3. Welcome Derrida, Gadamer and Barthes to Crossanâs ideology
4. The death of the author
5. Barthes meant this by deconstruction
6. Crossanâs autobiographical background
7. Presuppositions dictate methods for examining the historical Jesus
8. The challenge of methodology
9. The impact of methodology on Crossanâs estimate of Gospel origins and content
10. Crossanâs estimate of the New Testament Gospels
11. The effects of Crossanâs stratification on methodology
12. Crossanâs presuppositions and their influence on his interpretation of
Jesusâ resurrection
13. Crossanâs understanding of the resurrection of Jesus Christ
14. Warning to evangelicals: Skating too close for comfort
15. Conclusion
16. References
Chapter 1. Preface[1]
John Dominic (Dom) Crossan of the Jesus Seminar fame deconstructs the Gospel texts with a creative freedom to add to or subtract from the material. He has no qualms about making the text say what he wants it to say. What presuppositions could drive such a person-centered manipulation of the text? A presupposition is âsomething that is assumed in advance or taken for granted.â[2]
This book deals with the subject of the book, which concerns the presuppositions, scope and aims of how Derrida, Gadamer and Barthes could influence Crossanâs postmodern, deconstructionist, reader-response[3] philosophy. Some definitions are needed here. âPostmodernâ relates to âa theory that involves radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history or languageâ.[4] A preface is âa preliminary statement in a book by the book’s author or editor, setting forth its purpose and scope, expressing acknowledgment of assistance from others, etc.â[5]
According to Dictionary.com, deconstruction refers to
a philosophical and critical movement, starting in the 1960s and especially applied to the study of literature, that questions all traditional assumptions about the ability of language to represent reality and emphasizes that a text has no stable reference or identification because words essentially only refer to other words and therefore a reader must approach a text by eliminating any metaphysical or ethnocentric assumptions through an active role of defining meaning, sometimes by a reliance on new word construction, etymology, puns, and other word play.[6]
We will show how this led to the death of the author of the text. Crossan was raised a Roman Catholic, taught at a major Catholic University for 26 years and left the priesthood to marry. The major influence on his conclusions was his idiosyncratic methodology of importing deconstructionist philosophy to remove the fixed meaning of a biblical text.
Reader-response is âa literary criticism that focuses primarily on the reader’s reaction to a text,â[7] Crossan regarded the New Testament Gospels as theological fiction. The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus were not historical facts but were parables of invention by the Gospel writers, the resurrection being a phantom. Evangelicals skate on thin ice when they engage in allegorical interpretation as it can be close to the postmodern, deconstructionist boundaries. The aim of this book is to investigate Crossanâs presuppositions, as objectively as possible, and it will be shown that Crossanâs method destroys the meaning of any text, including Scripture.
Chapter 2. Why would I, an evangelical Christian, investigate an unorthodox scholar?
Why would an evangelical Christian desire to investigate the teachings of an eminent historical Jesus scholar with prolific writings over the last four decades, but whose teachings are unorthodox? I use evangelical in the orthodox sense of those who
take the Bible seriously and believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. The term âevangelicalâ comes from the Greek word euangelion, meaning âthe good newsâ or the âgospel.â Thus, the evangelical faith focuses on the âgood newsâ of salvation brought to sinners by Jesus Christ.[8]
Could some teachings be active in our churches that require refutation like that by Irenaeus (ca. 120-200) in âAgainst Heresiesâ (1885); Athanasius (ca. 293-373) and his writings against Arianism (1892); and Kevin J Vanhoozerâs âremythologizingâ[9] Rudolf Bultmannâs (AD 1884-1976) who was promoting demythologization of the Gospels?[10] I pursued the study of Crossan in my PhD dissertation[11] as this Crossan method is a threat to biblical (evangelical) Christianity.
If you heard the following teaching from your evangelical pulpit or in small groups should you be concerned? This book contains only a few examples from John Dominic (Dom) Crossanâs many publications. Some are provocative and blasphemous to those who have a strong commitment to the authoritative Scripture:
(1) Crossan stated:
What those first Christians experienced as the continuing presence of the risen Jesus or the abiding empowerment of the Spirit gave the transmitters of the Jesus tradition a creative freedom we would never have dared postulate had such a conclusion not been forced upon us by the evidence.[12]
To which kinds of âcreative freedomâ could he be pointing? âForced upon usâ is a statement loaded with Crossanâs presuppositions. Would it be better to say it this way: These conclusions are Crossanâs and he forces them on the reader?
(2) Crossan was asked in a letter, âDo you yourself believe in miracles?â His response was:
âYes, but not as periodic intrusions in some closed natural order. I leave absolutely open what God could do, but I have very definite thoughts about what God does do. The supernatural or divine is not something that periodically or temporarily breaks through the normal surface of the natural or human world. The supernatural is more like the permanently hidden but perpetually beating heart of the naturalâ, was his reply.[13]
In his debate with distinguished apologist, William Lane Craig, Crossan explained the content of his presupposition concerning the supernatural:
The supernatural always (at least till this is disproved for me) operates through the screen of the natural. The supernatural is like the beating heart of the naturalâŠ. Miracles are acts of faith, which say, âHere the supernatural, which is permanently present, is made, as it were, visible to us.â That is how I understand miracles. That is not naturalism. It is a belief that the supernatural never forces faith.[14]
Of miracles, Crossan stated that where a doctor might announce at Lourdes, France that God had intervened, Crossanâs retort was: âItâs a theological presupposition of mine that God does not operate that way.â[15]
Chapter 3. Welcome Derrida and Gadamer to Crossanâs ideology
You may not have read much of Crossan or Derrida [pronounced der-ee-dah or phonetically, ËdÉr iËdÉ]. However, promotion of this deconstructionist ideology leads to the death of the author, ruin of the pastorâs message, and the trashing of anything you read or listen to. How could that be?
When you have âa creative freedomâ to invent what a text states and you, the reader, ultimately determine the meaning, what will become of the authoritative Scriptures, sound Bible teaching, and your favourite TV news bulletin? If the intention of the original author for the original audience is irrelevant, it leads to multitudinous meanings. Your understanding is as good as mine and mine cannot be challenged within this framework. German philosopher, Hans-Georg Gadamer, promotes a similar view of the âtension between the fixed textâ in law or Gospel and applying it to a concrete interpretation. For him, the law and Gospel are not meant to be understood historically but the claims made âmust be understood at every moment in every concrete situation in a new and different way. Understanding here is always application.â[16]
What is the difference between deconstruction, eisegesis and allegorical interpretation? I hope you understand how Crossanâs ideology, if accepted and promoted, is a mantra for the downfall of evangelical preaching and teaching.
Crossan presented an essay in which he endorsed French philosopher, Jacques Derridaâs (AD 1930-2004)[17] with Derridaâs statement: âI am trying, precisely, to put myself at a point so that I do not know any longer where I am going.â[18]
Do you understand the implications of this philosophy for a historical Jesusâ scholar and a preacher? Since he has no fixed point of reference, he has a âcreative freedomâ to do what he wants with the biblical text. This is evident in his statement concerning 1 Corinthians 15 and Joseph of Arimathea being âa fervent hope for the best rather than an historical description of what happened.â[19] This is contrary to the biblical evidence in Matt. 27:57-60; Mark 15:43-46; Luke 23:40-43, and John 19:38-42. Crossan followed Marianne Sawicki[20] in that philosophy, âI formulate it here as I see it,â[21] which is the theme of this book and of postmodern deconstruction. There you have his deconstructionist ideology in a nut shell. It is a profound step that leads to the rapid spread of interactivism in his worldview. It is blatant in its arrogance.
Derrida is regarded as the father of the deconstructionist movement. Although it is challenging to define, Derrida explained deconstruction as âthe interplay between language and the construction of meaning.â He considered deconstruction to be âan on-going process of questioning the accepted basis of meaning.â For him, deconstruction was a means of interrogating the relationship between law and justice. The very nature of deconstruction defies an âauthoritative definitionâ because he rejected the certainty of absolute truth or objective meaning and determined the origin of the meaning of words, for example, cannot be separated from their institution in writing. This is the foundation of deconstruction: âMeaning cannot be regarded as fixed or static, but is constantly evolving.â[22]
We could ask: Since Derrida was so influential in Crossanâs ideology, how does Derrida define deconstruction? Jing Zhai explained why Derrida was so evasive in defining his own ideology. He gave the example of painting a milk bottle red. Is that deconstruction or non-deconstruction at the same time? Zhai admitted it is difficult to define deconstruction. We see that with Derrida[23] and it will be evident that Crossan also promotes this view.
Even though Derrida published more than forty books and hundreds of articles in his lifetime, he failed to provide an authoritative definition of this concept. This was because of the self-defeating nature of deconstructionists, needing to use the language they criticise to provide a definitive definition. Deconstruction shuts the door on the language needed to define it. Zhai explained this failure of definition: âDeconstruction has to be understood in context. This kind of fluidity also prevents the possibility of defining deconstruction.â[24]
Language structure has already been the target for deconstruction to argue against, which shuts down the possibility of defining deconstruction with language. Another interesting feature of deconstruction is that it refuses an essence. Derrida wrote there is nothing that could be said to be essential to deconstruction in its differential relations with other words. In other words, deconstruction has to be understood in context. This kind of fluidity also prevents the possibility of defining deconstruction.
Keep that principle in mind. Crossanâs dependence on Derridaâs philosophy caused him to make statements such as, âEmmaus never happened. Emmaus always happens.â[25]
Catherine Turner, in her analysis of Derrida, made it clear that âdeconstruction is not a âmethodâ, and it cannot be transformed into one. One cannot âapplyâ deconstruction to test a hypothesis or to support an argument. Rather it is an ongoing process of interrogation concerned with the structure of meaning itself.â[26]
Chapter 4. The death of the author
In 1968, another deconstructionist promoter, Roland Barthes, acknowledged that a work may originate with an author but its destination was the reader. His pointed assessment was that âwe know that in order to restore writing to its future, we must reverse the myth: the birth of the reader must be requited, âone good turn deserves another,â[27] by the death of the Authorâ.[28] So for Barthes, the birth of the reader leads to the unthinkable death of the author.
Barthes âwas attempting to kill off the tendency in literary criticism and educational institutions to use the notion of the author, and his or her supposed intentions, to limit the interpretive possibilities of reading.â[29] Barthes left no doubt as to what he meant by the âdeath of the author.â
Do you understand the implications for the writings of, say, Matthew and the Apostle Paul if the authorâs intended meanings for their audiences were annulled and todayâs readers reconstructed their own meanings of Jesusâ teaching from Matt. 28:16-20?
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, âAll authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the ageâ (NIV).
Matthew 28:9-10 was created to reverse the teaching he copied from Mark 16:1-8. This was to help prepare the disciples for the message-vision they experienced, which was not an apparition. Matt. 28:16-20 was created by Matthew and the passion-resurrection tradition of the women appearing frequently after the crucifixion. What is that? The âritual lament is what changed prophetic exegesis into biographical story.â That is Crossanâs deconstruction of Matt. 28:16-20.[30]
5. Barthes meant this by deconstruction:
· âWriting is the destruction of every voice, of every point of origin.â[31]
· âThe image of literature to be found in ordinary culture is tyrannically centred on the author, his person, his life, his tastes, his passions.â[32]
· âLinguistically, the author is never more than the instance writing.â[33]
· âThe removal of the Author ⊠is not merely an historical factor, an act of writing; it utterly transforms the modern text (or â which is the same thing â the text is henceforth made and read in such a way that at all its levels the author is absent).â[34]
· âWe know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single âtheologicalâ meaning (the âmessageâ of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash.â[35] This researcher considers this is an impudent, shaking of his literary fist at God with the egotistical inference that âI [Barthes] know what texts mean and they donât coincide with a single theological message. God got it wrong with his insistence on fixed meanings such as: âAnd there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be savedâ (Acts 4:12 NET).â
· As indicated above, âOnce the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile. To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing.â[36] How will that deconstruction help us to understand the fresh outbreak of Covid-19 in the northern beachesâ region of Sydney? Can I take it literally that there has been a new cluster of cases, thousands of people tested for the virus, and borders between States closed and some people being quarantined?[37] For, Crossan a historical Jesus scholar, to promote this ideology aborts rational conversation on the meaning of words.
· âWriting ceaselessly posits meaning to evaporate it, carrying out a systematic exemption of meaning. In precisely this way literature, by refusing to assign a âsecretâ, an ultimate meaning, to the text (and to the world as text), liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse to fix meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases-reason, science, law.â[38]
Then add influences on Crossan of deconstructionists such as Gadamer and Ricoeur. All three of them have deconstructed the author in favour of the reader in understanding a text. Where does that leave the text? Relativism is here used to indicate multiplicity of meanings of words and concepts, instead of having one fixed and unequivocal meaning. This philosophy promotes free play with the text. Examples from Crossan include:
· âThere is not in my work any presumption that the historical Jesus or earliest Christianity is something you get once and for all forever.â[39] Crossan prefers the term reconstruction as synonymous with Derridaâs deconstruction.
· âNo past of continuing importance can ever avoid repeated reconstruction.â[40] Could he admit to the same for the terrorism disaster destroying the twin towers in New York City in 2001? Do you understand how deconstruction strips ordinary language of meaning?
· âThis ⊠presumes that there will always be divergent historical Jesuses, that there will always be divergent Christs built upon them.â The ultimate reconstruction is that âthe structure of Christianity will always be: this is how we see Jesus-then as Christ-now.â[41] This makes the message of the historical Jesus gobbledygook. Language becomes meaningless, unintelligible bunkum.
· âI insist that Jesus-reconstruction, like all such reconstruction, is always a creative interaction of past and present.â[42]
· âMark created the empty tomb story just as he created the sleeping disciples in Gethsemane.â[43]
· Jesusâ burial by friends âwas totally fictional and unhistoricalâ and the burial, probably by enemies, was in a shallow grave accessed by âscavenging animalsâ and the text has âfictional overlaysâ designed to hide information.[44] This researcher notes there is not a word in the four Gospels to affirm this perspective. It is a relativistic invention by Crossan and he explains his argument that âfurnished the creative matrix for the earliest passion and resurrection traditions.â[45] Thatâs Crossanâs deconstructionist view speaking.
An application of Crossanâs approach to reconstructed relativism is in his interpretation of Jesusâ appearance to people on the Emmaus road after his resurrection (Luke 24:28-32). For him, this was not an actual historical event, but âthat story is parable about loving, that is, feeding, the stranger as yourself and finding Jesus still â or only? â fully present in that encounter.â[46] Again, this is a deconstructionistâs invention.
His reconstructed, parabolic understanding of this resurrection appearance is encapsulated in his statement, âEmmaus never happened. Emmaus always happens.â For him, that is âan introductory definition of a parable: a story that never happened but always does â or at least should.â[47] That interpretation of Emmaus was repeated at least four times in Crossanâs writings.[48] Of this incident, he stated âthe symbolism is obvious, as is the metaphoric condensation of the first years of Christian thought and practice into one parabolic afternoon.â[49] The symbolism might be obvious to Crossan, but that is a dimension of his idiosyncratic, inventive, postmodern interpretation of what happened on the road to Emmaus, based on his reconstructive worldview.
The above analysis demonstrates that Crossanâs reconstruction of a text is designed to reread it for new meaning and his philosophy is that this must be done constantly by communities in new generations. He demonstrates this with his view of divergent Christs and the structure of Christianity on a foundation of âthis is how we see Jesus-then as Christ-now.ââ[50] This is a manifestation of Derridaâs deconstructionism where language is an âendless signifying chain.â[51] Imagine using that approach to gain an understanding of Crossanâs own writings? Itâs a self-defeating philosophy of language.
Chapter 6. Crossanâs autobiographical background
Crossan was born in Ireland in 1934 as a Roman Catholic and entered the monastic Servite Order in the United States, attended a Servite seminary in Chicago, and was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in 1957, two years later receiving his theological doctorate in Ireland.[52] He then taught in Roman Catholic biblical institutes and seminaries in Rome, Chicago and Jerusalem until he resigned from the priesthood in 1968, to marry and to be able to think critically according to his training and not be criticised for such reasoning. He taught biblical studies at the Roman Catholic, DePaul University (Chicago), for 26 years. The university appointment required that his published research be highly original and creative.
His reputation as a critical thinker and biblical scholar received international acclaim when he joined the Jesus Seminar in 1985 in the USA. He was co-director of this Seminar from 1985-1996, the aims of the Seminar (Funk 1985) being to âinquire simply, rigorously after the voice of Jesus, after what he really saidâ[53] in a way that could border on blasphemy for many and the scholars would do it in full public view with significant mass media attention. Crossan also was chair of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature USA from 1992 to 1998.
Over the last forty years, Crossan has published dozens of journal articles, eighteen books on the historical Jesus with titles such as The Historical Jesus (1991), Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (1994), Who killed Jesus? (1995) and The Birth of Christianity (1998), the latter three becoming national best sellers in the United States. The list of his popular-level publicity in print, radio and television is numerous, attracting national and international media attention (see, for example, Copan[54] 1998; Kohn).[55] My personal e-mail inquiry of Crossanâs major publisher, Harper Collins, stated that the publisher was not at liberty to reveal the authorâs salesâ statistics.
However, Crossan expressed that he ââwrote about one million words on the historical Jesus in the 1990s, had three more books on the Publishers Weekly list for several months apiece, and found myself translated into nine foreign languages including Korean, Chinese, and Japaneseâ,[56] In a brief biography of Crossan (2006-09), it was declared, âIn the last forty years he has written twenty-five books on the historical Jesus, earliest Christianity, and the historical Paul. Five of them have been national religious bestsellers for a combined total of twenty four monthsâ. The âscholarly core of his work is the trilogy.â[57] which was translated into Portuguese, Spanish, German and Italian. Note that he did not use a deconstructionist method to communicate details of his autobiography.[58]
He described his mass media exposure in the USA as including cover stories in the Easter 1996 editions of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. At that time, he made television appearances on A&Eâs âMysteries of the Bible,â PBSâs Frontline program, âFrom Jesus to Christ,â and an ABC [USA] news special with Peter Jennings. While he tried to be in the forefront of scholarly research, he also stayed on the cutting edge of âpopular interpretation.â[59]
How Crossan still demands mass media attention is seen in the May 24, 2010 edition of The New Yorker[60] in which the content of Crossan, The Historical Jesus, is mentioned with Crossanâs emphasis on Jesusâ commensality and social radicalism, the best known being Jesusâ status that contrasted âbetween John the Faster and Jesus the Feaster.â Jesus had a reputation of eating and drinking with the prostitutes and highwaymen, turning water into wine, and establishing a mystical union at a feast through the use of bread and wine. Crossan, as co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, was stated in Gopnikâs article as making a persuasive case for Jesusâ âfressingâ [a slang word meaning âto eat or snack, especially often or in large quantities,â[61] pointing to a radical lifestyle with table manners referring to his heavenly morals.
7. Presuppositions dictate methods for examining the historical Jesus
The rationale for my research was to pursue Crossanâs challenge that Gospel presuppositions dictate methods and models for examining the historical Jesus and early Christianity and that wrong presuppositions weaken or may invalidate a research project. The foci of this study will be some of Crossanâs controversial presuppositions of the resurrection tradition.[62]
Jesusâ resurrection tradition will be pursued for presuppositional triggers he uses to disguise his presuppositions. The presuppositions will be examined for validity using the hypothesis-verification model. Of necessity, this task will involve hermeneutical examinations of the canonical Gospel texts as well as extracanonical material.
Which view of the historical Jesus would be discovered if the first strata chosen were the New Testament Gospels as historical accounts, the resurrection tradition was not based on the Cross Gospel from the Gospel of Peter (GPet), Mark did not use âhis own theological creativityâ and the Gospels were not âconsummate theological fictions.â?[63]
Crossanâs views have had pervasive influence in both the academy and popular culture. His challenge to orthodoxy is represented by these kinds of statements:
· He stated that the Gospels are âconsummate theological fictionsâ that are âneither histories nor biographiesâ and âtell us about power and leadership in the earliest Christian communities.â[64]
· His methodology starts with cross-cultural anthropology where he tries to almost forget his previous knowledge of Jesus.[65]
· His postmodern emphasis maintains that âthere is not in my work any presumption that the historical Jesus or earliest Christianity is something you get once and for all forever.â[66]
To the above sayings can be added extracanonical documents, he supports such as The Gospel of Thomas (GThom), The Gospel of Peter (GPet), and The Didache (Did) as early documents to add to the strata of the canonical Gospels.
Chapter 8. The challenge of methodology
Crossan is one of the leading contemporary advocates of reconstruction of the Scriptures.[67] He admitted: âI believe, as a Christian, in the Word of God, not in the words of specific papyri or the votes of specific committees. But fact and faith, history and theology intertwine together in that process and cannot ever be totally separated.â[68] How is it possible to not believe in the Word of God inscribed on papyri and codices in the original documents and still take the Bible seriously?
Crossan himself issued the challenge to debate his methodology: âWhen I finally published The Historical Jesus in 1991, I intended not just to present another reconstruction of Jesus but to inaugurate a full-blown debate on methodology among my peersâŠ. There still (in 1998) is no serious discussion of methodology in historical Jesus research.â [69]
By way of an example âof methodological avoidanceâ in historical Jesusâ research, Crossan mentioned Bruce Chilton and Craig Evansâ 1994 publication in which they âedited a massive and very useful survey of current research on the historical Jesusâ but in over six hundred pages published by Brill of Leiden that âcost around $175,⊠there is no chapter on method or methodologyâŠ. There is after all, very little methodological scholarship in historical Jesus research to evaluate or survey.[70] In this regard, Crossan[71] is myopic, overlooking the methodological issues in Wright,[72] and Lewis and Demarest.[73] Meyer,[74] which is a reprint of a 1979 edition, has written on âJesus and critical history.â and Wright[75] considers Meyerâs research âis probably the finest statement on historical method by a practising contemporary New Testament scholar.â John W. Montgomery, in an earlier generation,[76] also addressed methodological issues in theology, although on a limited scale.
Chapter 9. The impact of methodology on Crossanâs estimate of Gospel origins and content
There have been challenges to Crossanâs scholarship including that by noted British historical Jesusâ scholar, N T Wright, whose assessment of the content of Crossan[77] was that it âis almost entirely wrong.â[78] Crossanâs challenge[79] to the content of biblical revelation was in statements such as âChristianity often asserts that its faith is based on fact not interpretation, history not myth, actual event not supreme fiction. I find that assertion internally corrosive and externally offensiveâ. Further, there are âtwo major disjunctive options that I summarize as prophecy historicized versus history remembered.â[80] He supports the âprophecy historicizedâ position to account for the origins of the passion-resurrection narrative. By âprophecy historicizedâ he is not referring to biblical texts as prophecies about Jesus, but it âmeans that Jesus is embedded within a biblical pattern of corporate persecution and communal vindication.â[81] He is using a metaphorical interpretation after the event that was read back into the biblical text. He understands Psalm 69 as âa general metaphor for lethal attackâ that was âactualized during the crucifixion of Jesusâ with the mention of gall and vinegar drink.[82]
The Chicago Tribune, July 17, 1994, published an article, âSearching for Jesus: Can this man change what Christians believe? John Dominic Crossan of DePaul University.â The writer summarised Crossan as saying that âJesus was a mortal man in the fullest sense of the term. He was conceived and born in the conventional way (no Virgin Birth), did not perform miracles (no Lazarus, no loaves and fishes, no lepers), did not undergo resurrection (no Easter) and after his execution, was probably eaten by wild dogs (no joke).â[83] Crossanâs response to the articleâs content was, âNo mistake in that, but no sense of parable either.â[84]
He adopts a metaphorical view of Jesusâ conception because he stated that he wanted to be an ethical historian. He does not accept the divine conception of Jesus or of Augustus as factual history. Instead, âI believe that God is incarnate in the Jewish peasant poverty of Jesus and not in the Roman imperial power of Augustus.â Is this being honest with the biblical text or is it an imposition on the text? Are presuppositions driving these conclusions? Has being âan historian trying to be ethical and a Christian trying to be faithfulâ involved a redefinition of the meaning of ethics and faithfulness?[85] What are some of Crossanâs presuppositions that draw him to this kind of conclusion?
Chapter 10. Crossanâs estimate of the New Testament Gospels
Crossan admitted that âmy endeavour was to reconstruct the historical Jesus as accurately and honestly as possible. It was not my purpose to find a Jesus whom I liked or disliked, a Jesus with whom I agreed or disagreed.â[86] However, what is his view of the Gospels? There are aspects of the Gospels that were never intended as history but as parable. He is not speaking specifically of Jesusâ parables but as historical incidents reconstructed as parable.[87]
Crossan states that his reconstruction is that the first followers of Jesus âknew almost nothing whatsoever about the details of his crucifixion, death or burial.â[88] What do we have in these accounts? We do not have âhistory rememberedââ but have âprophecy historicizedââ (emphasis in original). By prophecy he refers to units that are a backward look âafter the events of Jesusâ life were already knownâ and Christ’s followers âdeclared that texts from the Hebrew Scriptures had been writtenâ with Jesus in mind. Thus, prophecy âis known after rather than before the fact.â I find this to be a deceptive way to avoid the history of the Gospels and to reformulate the supernatural in prophecy. Since he redefines the supernatural, this kind of reconstruction is expected.
He is sceptical of âthe exact sequence of the events at the endâ of Jesusâ life because he claimed it âlacks multiple independent accounts.â[89] What are his presuppositions that cause him to reach this conclusion about the sequence of events about the end of Jesusâ life that surely must include the resurrection of Jesus?
Another dimension to Crossanâs methodology of the Gospels is his interpretation that the content of the Gospels includes parables by Jesus and parables about Jesus. He regards the Gospels as megaparables.[90] .
Chapter 11. The effects of Crossanâs stratification on methodology
His methodology involves âa triple triadic processâ that attempts to synthesise anthropology, history, and literature.[91] Weakness in one area imperils the integrity and validity of the others. His method demands âequal sophistication on all three levels at the same time.â[92]
This statement by Crossan desecrates the deity and holiness of Jesus. I find his assertions to be blasphemous (offensive to God and Christianity): âReligion is official and approved magic: magic is unofficial and unapproved religion. More simply: âweâ practice religion, âtheyâ practice magic.â Therefore, the effect for Crossan is that Elijah and Elisha are categorised with Honi and Hanina as magicians, as was Jesus of Nazareth. He wrote that âit is endlessly fascinating to watch Christian theologians describe Jesus as miracle worker rather than magician and then attempt to define the substantive difference between the two.â Therefore, he sees others as engaging in âan ideological need to protect religion and its miracles from magic and its effectsâ while he is free to describe the supernatural as magical.[93]
At the literary level, Crossan asserts there is âno textual Gospel of miracles similar to that textual Gospel of sayings.â His assessment is that there is a sixfold independent attestation in the primary stratum for Gospel sayings but no more than two fold for the miracles. This leads him to âalmost conclude that miracles come into the tradition later rather than earlier, as creative confirmation rather than as original data,â but he resists that conclusion by supporting a better explanation that âmiracles were at a very early stageâ but were âwashed out of the traditionâ behind Mark’s Gospel and John’s Gospel.[94]
Where are they to be found? He treats miracles such as the Gerasene demoniacâs story (Mk 5:1-17) as symbolic[95] and seeks affirmation of the miracles and other New Testament material.
The inventory of intracanonical and extracanonical materials is listed by Crossan in four chronological strata. The extracanonical material used is: First Stratum (AD 30-60); Second Stratum (AD 60-80): Third Stratum (AD 80-120); and Fourth Stratum (AD 120-150).[96]
While here summarising Crossanâs perspective on the various strata in formation of sources, this is not a significant emphasis of my study. It will be investigated only when it applies to Gospel origins and with particular application to the Cross Gospel of GPet.
Chapter 12. Crossanâs presuppositions and their influence on his interpretation of Jesusâ resurrection
In addition to the use of the extracanonical material in the strata, Crossan also is committed to the âmultiple independent attestationâ of the Jesusâ tradition. He states that his discipline âis to work primarily with plurally attested complexes from the primary stratum of the Jesus tradition.â[97]
However, there is a further factor that influences the Gospel accounts, textual âfreeplay, that is to say, a field of infinite substitutions.â[98]
He emphasises âthe tremendous importance of that first stratum. It is, in terms of methodological discipline, data chronologically closest to the time of the historical Jesus. Chronologically most close does not, of course, mean historically most accurate.â[99]
His methodology follows scholarship that over the last two centuries had emphasised âcomparative work on the Gospelsâ which has âestablished certain results and conclusions.â Based on Crossan[100] these conclusions (with presuppositions) include:
· There are Gospels inside and outside the New Testament â aspectual verbs as triggers.
· The four intracanonical Gospels do not represent a total collection or a random sampling, but were âdeliberately selected by a process in which others were rejected for reasons not only of content but even of formâ â the quantifier presupposition.
· The process involved âretention, development, and creation of Jesus materialsâ in both intracanonical and extracanonical sources. Note the creation of Jesusâ material. This is an intonation presuppositional trigger.
· The differences and discrepancies among the various Gospel accounts and versions do not result primarily from âvagaries of memory or divergences in emphasis but to quite deliberate theological interpretations of Jesus.â This is a projection trigger (information on presuppositional triggers is based on the research of Beaver & Guerts 2011).[101]
It is pertinent to note Crossanâs inclusion of Gospel of Peter (GPet) in his first stratum, i.e. closest to Jesus. N T Wright regards the pseudepigraphical GPet as âclearly much laterâ[102] than Crossanâs,[103] who placed it in the Cross Gospel’s first stratum (dated to AD 30-60). Wright considers the suggested date of composition GPet in the AD 50s to be âpurely imaginary.â[104]
When Matthew or Luke used Mark as a source for Jesus sayings and actions, why were these writers âunnervingly free about omission and addition, about change, correction, or creation in their own individual accounts â but always, of course, subject to their own particular interpretation of Jesusâ Crossanâ?[105]
Presuppositional projections seem jump out at this researcher from these kinds of assertions. What are they? Crossan admitted the importance of correct presuppositions when he stated that âgospel presuppositions necessarily dictate methods and models for research on the historical Jesus and early Christianity.â He understands that the Synoptic Gospels are absorbed, partially or totally, into Johnâs Gospel. His view was that one may want âto debate these specific presuppositions but one must have some set of gospel conclusions.â His assessment was that âany work done on a wrong presupposition will be seriously weakened or even totally vitiated.â[106]
Chapter 13. Crossanâs understanding of the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Concerning Christ’s resurrection, Crossan’s view[107] was that the apostle Paul did not consider Jesusâ resurrection as âa special or unique privilegeâ because he was Messiah, Lord, and Son of God. Crossan does not see that Jesusâ case would be a parallel to that of Elijah, taken up by God and with âwider communal or cosmic effects.â His perspective is that Jesusâ resurrection is âan apparition with cosmically apocalyptic consequences,â but it is an apparitional vision âof a dead man who begins the general resurrectionâ (emphasis in original).
Literary stratification or layersâ model causes him to state that âit is very simple to compose a single harmonized version of the former narratives [of the passion and burial stories] up to the finding of the empty tomb but flatly impossible to compose one for the latter traditions.â That is flatly impossible for a deconstructionist.
However he objects: âAn almost total discrepancy prevailed for what was, I would presume, even more important, namely the extraordinary return of Jesus from beyond the grave to give the disciples their missionary mandate and apostolic commission.â[108] âI would presumeâ is a presuppositional trigger that is âa construction or item that signals the existence of a presupposition in an utterance.â[109] For Crossan, âI presumeâ is associated with previous experience and something he allegedly knows.
Presuppose also means to assume, presume, or take for granted. We have, until now, existed on the assumption that our educations have prepared us as citizens to participate in a democracy. But relying on such an assumption has become increasingly problematic. Current research shows that middle school students are unable to discern between ads and news stories, and that high school and college students take evidence presented on the web at face value, without further investigation into authority and credibility of sources.[110]
The warning for evangelicals is we cannot take it for granted that a historical Jesus researcher and preacher will give the biblical text a literal meaning. We have to be ever vigilant.
Chapter 14. Warning to evangelicals: Skating too close for comfort
I close with a warning in using this idiom: For evangelicals, there is a legitimate use of allegory as seen in Galatians 4:24-31 with the âfigurativeâ use of Hagar and Sarah. Hagar was the slave woman who had a child to Abraham while Sarah, the free woman, had a child to Abraham. The two women represent two covenants (Gal 4:24).
But evangelicals are âskatingâ too close for comfort, or are âdangerously or uncomfortably nearâ deconstructionist hermeneutics?[111] John Bunyanâs Pilgrimâs Progress was written legitimately as an allegory of the Christian life. Allegorical interpretation has been called, typological or symbolic interpretation. The label doesnât matter but it is illegitimate if it removes the interpreter from the literal meaning of the text. The problem with allegorical interpretation is that it seeks to interpret every biblical passage allegorically.
Allegorical interpretation seeks a âdeeper, spiritualâ meaning from the text. Evangelicals do not make it as blatant as Crossanâs radical views of Jesusâ body being eaten by scavenging dogs or that Jesusâ resurrection was an apparition [a ghost]. They do it through allegorical interpretation. Developing that theme is for another time, but this should include a warning:
âAllegorizing makes a narrative convey ideas different to those intended by the original author. Thus, allegorizing is an arbitrary way of handling any narrative.â[112] The allegorical method was prominent in the church for its first 1,000 years when interpreters sought the âdeeper meaningâ of a text. That changed at the time of the Reformation when interpreters sought the plain meaning of a text.
Perhaps the most famous instance of allegorical interpretation is Origenâs explanation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10. In the allegorical view, the man who is robbed is Adam, Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The priest is the Law, and the Levites are the Prophets. The Samaritan is Christ. The donkey is Christâs physical body, which bears the burden of the wounded man (the wounds are his sins), and the inn is the Church. The Samaritanâs promise to return is a promise of the second coming of Christ.[113]
Another extreme example of allegorical interpretation would be, âaccording to the Old Testament Book of Jonah, a prophet spent three days in the belly of a fish. Medieval scholars believed this was an allegory (using the typological interpretation) of Jesus’ death and his being in the tomb for three days before he rose from the dead.â[114]
In examining the legitimate use of allegory, one must carefully study the context. The original hearers of the allegory may be determined by investigating the context. âIf the interpreter does not consider carefully the context, it is almost impossible to avoid bringing his own ideas into the allegorical imagery.â[115]
Chapter 15. Conclusion
This is what happens when the fixed meaning of a text is allowed to be used in freeplay:
âHow to Flee From a Big Fish, it’s obvious the prophet didn’t have a lick of sense. The belly of a fish was his 3-day home when obeying God was the better option. The book of Jonah is more than a “whale of a fish story”. The biblical story shows how God uses people, animals and natural elements to offer repentance to a sinful nation and a rebellious messenger.â[116]
Words, grammar and syntax are stripped of literal meaning, as with Crossanâs writings. Freeplay with the text strips it of literal meaning and replaces it by a readersâ understanding. Bye, bye literal interpretation and welcome the readersâ freeplay! So, â call it as I see it,â is following Crossanâs call: âSo I formulate it here as I see it.â[117] It is not what I recommend to arrive at a healthy interpretation of the newspaper, TV news, and university text books.
Chapter 16. References
Athanasius, Discourse 1, âAgainst the Arians.â Tr by John Henry Newman and
Archibald Robertson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4. Ed by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.) Rev. and ed. for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Accessed 23 December 2020. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm.
Barthes, Roland. Image Music Text, 1977. Tr by S Heath. London: Fontana
Press. Accessed 22 December 2020. https://grrrr.org/data/edu/20110509-cascone/Barthes-image_music_text.pdf.
Barthes, Roland. âThe death of the author.â Tr by R Howard. In R Barthes, The Rustle
of Language,1986, 49-55. New York: Hill and Wang. Accessed 22 December 2020. http://www.d.umn.edu/~cstroupe/handouts/8500/barthes_death.pdf.
Beaver, David I and Bart Geurts 2011. âPresupposition.â The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer. Accessed 5 January 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/presupposition/.
Best, V 2011. âDerrida for dummies. Tales from the reading roomâ (online),
December 1. Available at: http://litlove.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/derrida-for-dummies/ (Accessed 7 February 2023).
Bultmann, Rudolf Karl. New Testament & Mythology and Other Basic
Writings. Ed. and tr by Schubert M Ogden. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, (1957-62) 1984.
Cambridge Dictionary. (s.v. ârequite.â) Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press,
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/requite, accessed 2 September 2022.
Copan, Paul (ed). Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1998.
Crossan, John Dominic. Raid on the Articulate: Comic Eschatology in Jesus and Borges. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1976.
Crossan, John Dominic 1982. âDifference and divinityâ. In R Detweiler (ed), Derrida
and biblical studies, Semeia 23, 1 January, 29-40.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish
Peasant. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.
Crossan, John Dominic. âAlmost the whole truth: An odyssey.â The Fourth R. September/October, 6(5), 1993. Westar Institute. Accessed 5 January 2021. http://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/almost-the-whole-truth/.
Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (this is a shorter version of
Crossan (1991). San Francisco CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus. San Francisco CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998.
Crossan, J D. âHistorical Jesus as risen Lordâ, in Crossan, J D, Johnson, L T & Kelber,W H, The Jesus controversy: Perspectives in conflict, 1-47. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999.
Crossan, John Dominic 2006-09. âBiographical summaryâ. Accessed 5 January 2021, http://www.johndominiccrossan.com/Biographical%20Summary.htm.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction
about Jesus. New York, NY: HarperOne, 2012.
Crossan, John Dominic and Johathan L Reed. In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle
Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom. San Francisco CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004.
Crossan, John Dominic with Richard G Watts. Who Is Jesus? Answers to Your
Questions about the Historical Jesus. New York: HarperPaperbacks, 1996.
Derrida, J 1. âLetter to a Japanese friendâ. Tr by D Wood & A Benjamin. In P
Kamuf (ed), A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds, 270-276. New York: Columbia University Press (accessed 22 December 2020. http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derrida/letter.html.
Dictionary.com (2022. s.v. âdeconstructionâ).
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/deconstruction (accessed 2 September 2022).
Dictionary.com (s.v. âdeconstructionâ). https://www.dictionary.com/browse/deconstruction (accessed 2 September 2022).
Dictionary.com. (s.v. âfressâ). https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fress?s=t (accessed 2 September 2022).
Dictionary.com (2023, s.v. âprefaceâ). https://www.dictionary.com/browse/preface (accessed 11 February 2023).
Dictionary.com (2022. s.v. âpresuppositionâ). https://www.dictionary.com/browse/presupposition (accessed 2 September 2022).
âFollowing Jesus: A Life of Faith in a Postmodern World,â1985. Available at:
https://followingjesus.org/the-search-for-jesus/ (accessed 8 February 2023).
Gadamer, Hans-Georg 2004. Truth and Method, 2nd rev ed. Tr by J Weinsheimer & D
G Marshall. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Gear. Spencer D 2015, âCrossan and the resurrection of Jesus: rethinking
presuppositons, methods and models,â University of Pretoria, South Africa, supervisor Professor Ernest van Eck. Available at: file:///C:/Users/Spencer/Downloads/Gear_Crossan_2015-14.pdf (Accessed 3 February 2023).
Gopnik, Adam. âWhat did Jesus do? Reading and unreading the gospels.â The New
Yorker, 24 May 2010. Available at:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/05/24/100524crat_atlarge_gopnik#ixzz0oPc1o6ve (Accessed 5 January 2021).
Got Questions, âWhat is wrong with the allegorical interpretation method?â Available
at: https://www.gotquestions.org/allegorical-interpretation.html (Accessed 9 February 2023).
Irenaeus âAgainst Heresies,â in P Schaff (ed), Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol 1, ed by
A Roberts, J Donaldson, & A C Coxe. Tr by A Roberts & W Rambaut. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co, 1885, rev & ed for New Advent by K Knight. Accessed 22 December 2020. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm.
Johnson, Roger A. The Origins of Demythologizing. Leiden, The Netherlands:
Brill. Accessed 22 December 2020. https://brill.com/view/title/6335.
Kohn, R 1999. John Dominic Crossan and the historical Jesus: An interview, The
Spirit of Things (online) 18 July, Radio National Australia. Available at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/spirit/stories/s37440.htm (Accessed 29 May 2010).
Lewis, Gordon R and Bruce A Demarest, Integrative Theology, vol 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie Books (Zondervan Publishing House), 1987.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2022. s.v. âdeconstructionistâ),
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deconstructionist (accessed 2 September 2022).
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2022. s.v. âpostmodernâ),
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/postmodern (accessed 2 September 2022).
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2022. s.v. âreader-responseâ),
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reader-response, (accessed 2 September 2022).
Meyer, Ben F 2002. The Aims of Jesus (Princeton Theological Monograph Series). Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, (1979) 2002; citations are from the 2002 edition.
Mickelsen, A. Berkeley, 5th printing, 1974. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Montgomery, John W. Where is History Going? A Christian Response to Secular
Philosophies of History. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1969.
Montgomery, John W. The Suicide of Christian Theology. Minneapolis, Minn:
Bethany Fellowship Inc., 1970.
Montgomery, Martin, Alan Durant, Tom Furniss and Sara Mills. Ways of
Reading: Advanced Reading Skills for Students of English, 2007, 3rd ed. London and New York: Routledge. Accessed 21 December 2020. http://skimmelapenglish11.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/90923565/Montgomery_Ways_of_Reading.pdf.
Nguyen, Kevin and Sarah Thomas 2020. ABC News, Brisbane, âSydney’s northern
beaches coronavirus cluster grows to 90 after eight new infections recorded,â 22 December. Accessed 23 December 2020. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-22/sydney-nsw-northern-beaches-coronavirus-cluster-grows-to-90/13006258.
Oxford English Dictionary. (2022, s.v. âtoo close for comfortâ),
https://www.lexico.com/definition/too_close_for_comfort.
SIL International, (s.v. âGlossary of Linguistic Terms: Presuppositional Trigger,â)
Accessed 4 January 2021. https://glossary.sil.org/term/presupposition-trigger.
Syracuse University 2016. âLibrarianship and Democracy: Creating an Informed
Citizenry by Rachel Ivy Clarkeâ, 14 November, Accessed 4 January 2021, https://ischool.syr.edu/librarianship-democracy-creating-informed-citizenry/.
Turner, Catherine. âJacques Derrida: Deconstruction,â Critical Legal Thinking, 27
May 2016. Accessed 16 December 2020. https://criticallegalthinking.com/2016/05/27/jacques-derrida-deconstruction/.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion and
Authorship. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Wikipedia, âAllegorical interpretation of the Bible,â Accessed 9 February 2023.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretation_of_the_Bible,
accessed 9 February 2023.
Wise, Betsy, Quora, âWhat is the allegory about Jonah and the whale, in the Christian
Bible?â https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-allegory-about-Jonah-and-the-whale-in-the-Christian-Bible, accessed 9 February 2023.
Wright, N T. The New Testament and the People of God, vol 1. (Series in Christian origins and the question of God) Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1992.
Wright, N T. 1996. Jesus and the Victory of God, vol 2. (Series in Christian origins and the question of God, vol 2). London: SPCK.
Zhai, J 2015. âJacques Derrida and Deconstruction,â Not Even Past, 7 October.
Accessed 23 December 2020.https://notevenpast.org/jacques-derrida-and-deconstruction/.
Footnotes:
[1] This online book is compiled from my PhD dissertation at the University of Pretoria, New Testament Department, âCrossan and the resurrection of Jesus: Rethinking presuppositions, methods and models, available at: file:///C:/Users/Spencer/Downloads/Gear_Crossan_2015-18.pdf (accessed 28 February 2023).
[2] Dictionary.com (2022, s.v. âpresuppositionâ).
[3] Reader-response is âa literary criticism that focuses primarily on the reader’s reaction to a textâ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2022. s.v. âreader-responseâ).
[4] Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2022. s.v. âpostmodernâ).
[5] Dictionary.com (2023, s.v. âpreface.â)
[6] Dictionary.com, (2022. s.v. âdeconstructionâ).
[7] Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2022. s.v. âreader-responseâ).
[8] This is the definition provided by the National Association of Evangelicals, available at: https://www.nae.org/what-is-an-evangelical/ (Accessed 3 February 2023).
[9] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion and Authorship, 2010.
[10] Rudolph Bultmann, New Testament & Mythology and Other Basic Writing, 1984.
[11] Spencer D. Gear, 2015, âCrossan and the resurrection of Jesus: rethinking presuppositons, methods and models,â University of Pretoria, South Africa, supervisor Professor Ernst van Eck. Available at: file:///C:/Users/Spencer/Downloads/Gear_Crossan_2015-18.pdf (Accessed 28 February 2023).
[12] Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 1995, p. x.
[13] Crossan & Watts 1996, Who Is Jesus? p. 96, emphasis in original.
[14] Crossan in Copan 1998, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? pp. 45-46, emphasis in original.
[15] Crossan in Copan, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? 1998, p. 61.
[16] Gadamer, Hans-Georg 2004. Truth and Method, pp. 307-408,
[17] In Crossan The Historical Jesus, 1991, pp. 270-276
[18] Crossan 1982, âDifference and divinity,â p. 29, emphasis added.
[19] Crossan 1998, The Birth of Christianity, p. xxx.
[20] In ibid., p. xxvii.
[21] Crossan, Ibid., p. xxx.
[22] In Catherine Turner. âJacques Derrida: Deconstruction,â 2016.
[23] Zhai, J 2015. âJacques Derrida and Deconstruction,â Not Even Past, 2015.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Crossan, The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus, 2012, p.5.
[26] Turner, Catherine. âJacques Derrida: Deconstruction,â
[27] Cambridge Dictionary. (s.v. ârequiteâ), 2023.
[28] Barthes, The Rustle of Language, 1986, pp. 49-55.
[29] Montgomery, Martin, Alan Durant, Tom Furniss and Sara Mills, 2007, p. 170.
[30] Crossan, The Birth, 1998, p. 572, emphasis added.
[31] Barthes, Image Music Text, 1977. p. 142.
[32] Ibid., p. 143.
[33] Ibid., p. 145.
[34] Ibid., p. 145.
[35] Ibid., p. 146.
[36] Ibid., p. 147.
[37] Nguyen, Kevin and Sarah Thomas 2020. ABC News, Brisbane.
[38] Bathes, Image Music Text, p. 147.
[39] Crossan, The Birth, 1998, p. 45.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 1991. p. 423, emphasis in original.
[42] Crossan, J D. âHistorical Jesus as risen Lordâ, in Crossan, J D, Johnson, L T & Kelber,W H, The Jesus controversy: Perspectives in conflict, 1999, p. 5.
[43] Ibid., p. 11.
[44] Crossan, Jesus, p. 160.
[45] Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 1991, p. 397.
[46] Crossan, The Power of Parable, 2012, p. 4.
[47] Ibid., p. 5.
[48] See The Historical Jesus 1991, p. xiii; Jesus, 1995, p. 197; in Copan , Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? 1998 p. 153; Crossan, The Power of Parable, 2012, p. 5.
[49] Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 1991, p. xiii.
[50] Ibid., p. 423, emphasis in original.
[51] Best, V. 2011. âDerrida for dummies. Tales from the reading room.â
[52] These details are from Crossan, A Long Way from Tipperary, 2000.
[53] âFollowing Jesus: A Life of Faith in a Postmodern World,â1985, citing Robert Funk.
[54] P Copan, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? 1998.
[55] R Kohn, âJohn Dominic Crossan and the historical Jesus: An interview,â 1999.
[56] Crossan, A Long Way from Tipperary, 2000, p. xvi.
[57] Crossan, The Historical Jesus 1991; Crossan & Reed, In Search of Paul, 2004.
[58] Crossan, A Long Way from Tipperary, 2000.
[59] Ibid., xvi.
[60]Gopnik, âWhat did Jesus do? Reading and unreading the gospels,â 2010.
[61] Dictionary.com (s.v. âfressâ), accessed 2023.
[62] See Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 1991, pp. 104, 395-416.
[63] Ibid., 389-90.
[64] Ibid., 390, xxx; Jesus, 1995, p. 190.
[65] Kohn, âJohn Dominic Crossan and the historical Jesus: An interview,â 1999.
[66] Crossan, The Birth, 1998, p. 45.
[67] Ibid., p. 103.
[68] Ibid., p. 46.
[69] Ibid., p. 139.
[70] Ibid., pp. 139-140.
[71] Ibid.
[72] N. T. Wright, 1992, The New Testament and the People of God, vol 1., pp. 3-144; N. T. Wright, 1996, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol 2., pp. 8-11, 86-89, 122-144, 540-611, 660-662.
[73] Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A Demarest, Integrative Theology, vol 1, 1987, pp. 21-40.
[74] Ben F. Meyer, 2002, The Aims of Jesus, pp. 76-94.
[75] Wright, 1992, The New Testament and the People of God, vol 1., p. 98, n32.
[76] John W. Montgomery, 1965, Where is History Going? A Christian Response to Secular
Philosophies of History; Montgomery 1970, The Suicide of Christian Theology, pp. 267-313.
[77] Crossan, The Historical Jesus.
[78] Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol 2, p. 44.
[79] Crossan 1993, ââAlmost the whole truth: An odyssey.â
[80] Crossan, 1998, The Birth, 1998, p. 520.
[81] Crossan. ibid., p. 521.
[82] Crossan, ibid.,, p. 520.
[83] See Crossan A Long Way from Tipperary, 2000, p. 133.
[84] Ibid.
[85] Crossan, The Birth, 1998, p. 29, emphasis in original.
[86] Crossan, Jesus, 1994, p. xiv.
[87] Crossan, A Long Way from Tipperary, 2000, p. 134.
[88] Crossan, Jesus, 1994, p. 134.
[89] Crossan, Jesus, 1994, p. 196.
[90] Crossan, The Power of Parable, 2012, p. 6.
[91] Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 1991, pp. xxxvii-xxxix.
[92] Crossan, ibid., 1991, p. xxix.
[93] Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 1991, p. 305.
[94] Ibid., pp. 310-11.
[95] Ibid., p. 314.
[96] Ibid., pp. 427-34.
[97] Ibid., pp. 410, 434-50.
[98] Crossan, Raid on the Articulate: Comic Eschatology in Jesus and Borges, 1976, p. 34.
[99] Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 1991, p. xxxii.
[100] Ibid., p. xxx.
[101] David I.Beaver and Bart Geurts 2011. âPresupposition.â
[102] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 1996, p. 49.
[103] Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 1991, p. 429.
[104] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 1996, p. 49.
[105] Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 1991, p. xxx.
[106] Crossan, The Birth, 1998, p. 101.
[107] See Crossan âHistorical Jesus as risen Lord,â 1999, p. 29.
[108] Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 1991, p. 395.
[109] See SIL International, (s.v. âGlossary of Linguistic Terms: Presuppositional Trigger,â).
[110] Syracuse University 2016. âLibrarianship and Democracy: Creating an Informed
Citizenry by Rachel Ivy Clarkeâ,
[111] Oxford English Dictionary. (s.v. âtoo close for comfort), 2023.
[112] Mickelsen (5th printing, Interpreting the Bible, 1974, p. 231).
[113] Got Questions, âWhat is wrong with the allegorical interpretation method?â Accessed 9 February
2023.
[114] Wikipedia, âAllegorical interpretation of the Bible,â Accessed 9 February 2023.
[115] Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible, 1974, p. 232.
[116] Betsy Wise, Quora, âWhat is the allegory about Jonah and the whale, in the Christian Bible?â
[117] Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, 1998, p. xxx.
Spencer Gear