Our discussion in class this morning struck a resonant chord with me, particularly due to my consistent exposure to the methods in which academics study philosophers, or any academic for that matter. More often than not, when reading one particular scholar for an extended period of time, the professor will first direct students toward her or his metaphysical scholarship. For example, reading Plato makes a lot more sense when one is familiar with his Theory of Forms.
In no way am I comparing Plato with Crossan; I'm simply expressing the usefulness of operating on the same metaphysical assumptions of the scholar in which one is studying. It gives the student a much greater capacity for a charitable and insightful read of the author.
This is very important because if every piece of scholarship we read is not given a charitable interpretation, it would make everything scholarly work pessimistic.
ReplyDeleteRighty, and I think that is a key concept in class. Crossan does not believe that the supernatural can happen, and this makes him discount New Testament accounts that relate to the supernatural.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not this is a valid method is a totally different story. I guess, for the time being, I'll sit bitterly quiet of Crossan's method.
Here's an alternative to that unhappy, teeth-gritting procedure, Stephan, which might stand you in good stead in your future ministry (whatever form that takes).
DeleteImagine you are speaking with someone who does not share your taste for the miraculous and magical features of your branch of Christianity, understood literally. Suppose you want to bring this person to an understanding of the importance of Christian principles, but find (like many people in the modern world and throughout history) that the person is uninterested in what she takes to be fantasies and fairy tales of the gospel stories. You might well be prepared to use Crossan's historical/journalistic method of reconstructing history to help her see, for example, the sources of the Christian principles of justice and equality, and you might also be prepared to speak with her about the power of literature, and how it is that myth can be literally false as history, yet absolutely true in a more fundamental sense.
Matt, that really does make sense. I can understand that by viewing the gospels in a literary context, it could help someone to understand the principles of Christianity.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what am I to do if I believe that Jesus' central message is that the world is sinful and in need of a messiah? I suppose I see both as equally important and I'd find it hard to express this through literature.
Though, many scholars date the the gospels much earlier than Crossan does, so I believe with that as a starting point, the historical-critical method of examination might prove fruitful.
"However, what am I to do if I believe that Jesus' central message is that the world is sinful and in need of a messiah?"
ReplyDeleteWhy do you need to do anything at all? We are merely asking, with Crossan, the prior question of who Jesus was and what he did and said, to the extent that we can know this objectively. The subsequent question of just what that means for us today (whether, for example, the literary trope of messiah-hood is the proper or most fruitful way to interpret Jesus going forward), is a related but separate matter for you to work out for yourself. Clearly some people in Jesus' time and after thought of him that way, and others did not, though both groups took him very seriously. Once we do our best with the historical record, you can make your own choices about it. Understand that it is not my job to threaten your religious convictions in any way; as a professor in a public, secular college my only role is to insist that you think critically, then make your own decisions.
The dating of the canonical gospels is not a matter of great dispute among biblical scholars, though as with all things there are some dissenters from the general consensus. But even if they were earlier than Crossan says, we would still have to do the same analysis of event/oral transmission/redaction to understand them -- and it would remain the case that their scribal writers were of a very different class from the illiterate Jesus and his peasant followers.