Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan

by William Lane Craig, John Dominic Crossan, William F. Buckley Jr., et al.

Book Overview

Based on a debate between John Dominic Crossan and William Lane Craig, this book provides a forum for evangelicals and members of the Jesus Seminar to dialogue. This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0801021758
• ISBN13: 9780801021756
• Release Date: January 1998
• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Length: 192 Pages
• Weight: 0.60 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.5" x 5.5" x 8.5"
• Age Range: 18 years and up
• Grade Range: Postsecondary and higher

Customer Reviews

Puts the "Jesus Seminar" in proper perspective

This was a great book and I agree with the general observations of the vast majority of the reviewers. That is, Craig won hands down. Crossan didn't really even enter the debate which surprised and disappointed some reviewers. But it's really not surprising at all. Crossan's arguments (or lack there of) come directly from the work of the Jesus Seminar. And Crossan's utter defeat illustrates that the Seminar's work is of little value in disproving the Gospels and the mainstream Christian interpetation of them as largely accurate, HISTORICAL accounts of Jesus' life.Rather, the Jesus Seminar must be looked upon as an experiment in liberal theological thought. It was a chance for liberal scholars to come together and develop a consensus unburdened by critical peer review from their more conservative, and for the most part more mainstream, more distinguished peers.The result was a new pardigm for interperting the NT. Briefly, the consensus was that it is all symbolism and metaphor. This new paradigm is a logical outcome based on the assumptions, membership, and methods of the seminar. But when brought out into the light of day, it is very awkward and even ridiculous. The seminar serves a worthwhile purpose as an experiment and "anchor" at the extreme liberal end of the spectrum. But not much else.

I almost pitied Crossan

First off, let me say that I listened to the orriginal tapes, and haven't read the book so I missed the additional comments that some are mentioning.I agreee with other reviews that it was fairly one-sided but that is largely due to the fact that Crossan didn't seem to take the debate serious. It was obvious that Craig had read up and studied Crossan's works and came prepared. Crossan on the otherhand was woefully unequiped. (I'm told that it is common in bebates between liberals and conservatives that the liberal won't have read up on the conservative, but the conservative will do his/her homework on the liberal's position.) In his after-debate interview, Crossan claimed that he wasn't their to debate but just to present his case, but personally I think that was damage control after a sound beating.Crossan made many dogmatic statements, but when questioned on them, was unable/unwilling to defend them. All he was say is that "credible scholars" back his statements. When pressed he didn't give any names. (It seems the "'credible' scholars" he is refering to are his fellows on the "Jesus Seminar".) He never did adequately address Craig's challenge of his bias towards Naturalism. He responce seemed to me merely playing with terms. Eccentually "I'm not a Naturalist, though I believe that the supernatural only ever works through the natural." (Not a direct quote, but the idea of his response.)Craig, on the other hand, came ready to debate. He set up his arguement well and stated his case clearly. Also, he soundly challenged Crossan's points (though seldom if ever answered by Crossan). Craig definately did his research into Crossan's ideas and came prepared. Craig, I think, was wanting an intelectual debate and was not ready to engage in the exchange of dogmatic statements that characterizes the "Jesus Seminar"'s fellows. However, he did soundly demolish the basic foundations of most of Crossan's arguement. At times I almost pitied Crossan as some of Craig's refutations of Crossan's points would have been brutal had they not be given in such a "winsom" way. He very politely tore apart Crossan's ideas without touching him personally. I was a little dissappointed when Craig didn't answer a few of Crossan's minor points though. I thought that his comparison of Crossan's idea of believing in Christ even if he's just a metaphore and Peter Pan's philosophy was particuarly crushing.At times Buckley does come off a little un-biased. He is a known conservative so it shouldn't have been surprising to Crossan. However, in this case (because of his after-debate comments) I believe that he wasn't trying to side against Crossan, but instead was challenging him to engage in an intelectual debate instead of just making dogmatic statement with little or no factual evidence.Over all, I enjoyed it (though I'm not as conservative as Craig). I thought it was a good example of many modern liberal scholars who like to make statements with or without ev

The Winner to be Announced!

The winner of this debate will be announced at a later date: judgment day.This is the second debate involving Craig, the first being a debate with an evolutionist, a Nobel prize winning biochemist. There too, Craig outdebated this gentleman as he does here with Crossan. He puts forth arguments which the other side ignores to contend with. He also challenges the other side to put forth evidence which they say they have and will and yet don't.It seems to me that this is typical. The liberal element is so creative and imagnitive. It's like the mysterious "Q" of gospel fame, who supposedly has so much formative influence on the gospels. Where is this evidence? Anyone can dream up some scenario or another of what happened, but to stick with what we have is Craig's brilliance.I also enjoyed Bukckley's contribution and moderatorship. It contributed to to the flavor and fabric of this well done debate. This is excellent taste of what it's like to debate historical-critical methodology. It's like trying to nail down jello. Always on the move, never pinned down.

A Great Debate About THE Great Debate

The transcript of the live debate is good, but the written comments (by other scholars after the debate) are GREAT. Buckley was biased towards Craig's position during the live debate, but both sides get to present their best points, especially in the comments after the debate. It's rare to see respected scholars on Both sides in one book like this one. Crossan and Craig have very helpful remarks at the end of the book.