John Dominic Crossan on the Resurrection of Jesus

Abstract

Abstract John Dominic Crossan's reconstruction of the events of Easter is based upon idiosyncratic presuppositions concerning sources and methodology, which would not be accepted by any other major NT critic. Concerning Jesus’ burial, Crossan is unable to make a plausible case for regarding Mark's account as historicized prophecy, nor does he render doubtful the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea's role in the burial. With respect to the empty tomb, Crossan fails to sustain his hypothesis that the Markan account is rooted in the Gospel of Peter and that the female dramatis personae are residue from the prior Secret Gospel of Mark. Crossan is largely silent concerning the appearances traditions, adopting the long‐refuted interpretation of the appearance stories as legitimations of authority. Finally, Crossan is unable to provide any convincing explanation of the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection. On the whole, Eddy finds Craig's critique of Crossan to be convincing. His critical comments, then, are to be construed as suggestions for refining and polishing an already strong argument. He begins by noting two points at which revision of the argument might be considered. Next, he briefly discusses several points at which further support and/or development of the argument could be profitable. Finally, he raises several issues related to the very important question of ‘presuppositions’.