James Crossley's blog Contact: jgcrossley10 - AT - yahoo - DOT - co - DOT - uk

Friday, October 28, 2005

JSHJ: Resurrection

I've just received my offprints and the latest issue of Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (3.2, June 2005) focused on the issue of resurrection and particular Wright's big book on the subject. I thought it would just be the 4 responses to Wright from the BNTC with Wright in turn repsonding but Robert Webb and JSHJ have gone much further than that to my pleasant surprise. It is a whole themed issue with a few more articles well worth noting. Here are the contributions:

Dale C. Allison, Jr, 'Explaining the Resurrection: Conflicting Convictions'

Gary R. Habermas, 'Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?'

David J. Bryan, 'The Jewish Background to The Resurrection of the Son of God by N. T. Wright'

James G. Crossley, 'Against the Historical Plausibility of the Empty Tomb Story and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus: A Response to N. T. Wright'

Michael Goulder, 'Jesus' Resurrection and Christian Origins'

Larry W. Hurtado, 'Jesus' Resurrection in the Early Christian Texts: An Engagement with N. T. Wright'

N. T. Wright, 'Resurrecting Old Arguments: Responding to Four Essays'

Craig A. Evans, 'Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus'

JSHJ have got opinion from right across the spectrum here. Fans of Wright and enemies of my position will be happy to note Wright's ferocious response to me. I'm probably (probably) not going to respond much on this blog to Wright's comments as I 'm pretty sure I'll be putting them in print (in paper form as opposed to blog). If anyone else thinks Wright has failed to answer my questions and is not convincing then feel free to leave any comments you so wish. And anyone who thinks I am unconvincing etc. on past form I'm sure you won't need any prompting in comment leaving. Incidentally, the Dale Allison article critically reviews all the articles in the journal. More on all this once I've properly read through the lot. But 8 articles on resurrection including contributions from two major recent authors on the subject sounds pretty good to me. I'm sure Loren at least will enjoy (?) this lot.

Also, the web version of JSHJ isn't up yet but presumably will be shortly.


Blogger Loren Rosson III said...

Thanks for posting this, James. I can't wait to get a copy of this issue and read.

October 28, 2005

Blogger Jim said...

Yes thanks! Sounds a good read- though I don't subscribe. If you have an electronic copy of your paper I would love to read it if you can email it.

October 28, 2005

Blogger Stephen (aka Q) said...

Well, that's embarrassing! I'm referring to my comment on your previous post. I didn't realize you are that James Crossley, and there I was explaining Christian origins to you.

I'll have to pick up this volume of the JSHJ.

October 28, 2005

Blogger Peter M. Head said...

Resurrection. Just what Manchester United needs. But maybe that is not too plausible. Eh?


October 31, 2005

Anonymous steph said...

But they aren't dead - and they're very flesh and blood and muscle. They'll rise again though - that's a dead cert.

November 01, 2005

Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Those interested in the study of the historical Jesus seem to make the assumption that Jesus existed. Am I right?

Geoff Hudson, 233 The Long Shoot, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV11 6JH, UK, Tel. 024 7673 7417, geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (A transparent 100%er who has walked the tightrope)

November 04, 2005

Blogger James Crossley said...

I don't think it is an assumption. there are a few independent and very early sources. I also think there is a fair bit of material esp. on Law observance (Sabbath, food and purity) which is much more at home in Jewish debate and not the kinds of things (as far as we know, granted) that the early Christians were involved with. Jesus, I would argue, is easily recoverable as a Jewish prophet and interpreter who did not come close to wanting to start off a new religion, who did not think of himself as divine, who did not see Sabbath and so on as out of date, and who was not raised from the dead. That said, with those views in a Christian dominated subject I suspect I'm in a minority!

November 09, 2005

Blogger Steven Carr said...

The Bishop of Wright's book on the Resurrection is a very big book.

Where does he find space to quote Paul saying 'The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.' Surely this is very relevant to the discussion of whether or not the early Christians believed Jesus became a spirit and should be quoted in such a very big book.

November 19, 2005


Post a Comment

<< Home