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

Features

• Cover Type: Paperback with 192 pages
• Published by: Baker Academic February 1, 1999
• Written in: English
• ISBN 10 Number: 0801021758
• ISBN 13 Number: 978-0801021756
• Book Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.3 x 0.5 inches
• Weighs: 8.8 ounces

From Library Journal
This book, which presents a recent debate between a former co-chair of the Jesus Seminar and an Evangelical scholar, as well as follow-up responses by four other New Testament scholars, brings the reader effectively and movingly into the heart of the contemporary fideist-evidentialist debate about the reality and meaning of Jesus' life and teachings. Editor Copan (Who Was Jesus?, Word Pub., 1996) gives Craig's conservatism the last word, but readers of many different convictions will find ample food for thought here.
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Product Review
"Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? gathers together an unprecedented range of persons involved in the contemporary study of Jesus. Placing these key voices on the stage together, so to speak, gives us a feel for the texture of the discussion that belies typical us-and-them, black-and-white categories. The result for the reader is unparalleled access into how historical assumptions, faith commitments, and philosophical premises shape how we read 'the historical Jesus'." -- Joel B. Green, Asbury Theological Seminary

"Genuine dialogue between evangelicals and members of the Jesus Seminar is very rare. This book is notable for the fairness of its format, and the forthright nature of the exchange, which is candid yet always civil in character. One could hardly find a better representative of the Jesus Seminar than John Dominic Crossan, and William Craig may be the best apologist for orthodox Christian faith at work today. The additional commentators and the final summaries of Craig and Crossan are extremely helpful. What the debate format may cost in clarity and precision is more than made up for by the liveliness of the exchange. An exciting, helpful book." -- C. Stephen Evans, Professor of Philosophy and Dean for Research and Scholarship, Calvin College; author of The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith

"Much current discussion of Jesus seems to be a dialogue of the deaf. In this book the different positions start listening to each other, probing, challenging, explaining, exploring. The informal setting of the dialogue is far more revealing, and truly interesting than the average scholarly monograph. This book will help people to get to grips with what is really going on, and what is really at stake, in the contemporary debate." -- N. T. Wright, Dean of Lichfield, author of Jesus and the Victory of God

"The debate by William Lane Craig, a leading evangelical apologist, and John Dominic Crossan, a founder of the Jesus Seminar, found in Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? provides a helpful introduction to the issues involved in the modern discussion of the historical Jesus. The additional articles by four representative scholars responding to the debate help raise the key issue of whether 'the resurrection of Jesus' refers to something that happened to Jesus (Craig) or to his followers (Crossan)." -- Robert H. Stein, Ernest and Mildred Hogan Professor of N.T. Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; author of Jesus the Messiah

"Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? offers readers a clarifying and insightful comparison and contrast between the Jesus Seminar, on the one hand, and evangelical theologians, on the other. This book brings into sharp relief the contours of the debate and should serve well the Christian community-conservative and non conservative alike." -- Craig A. Evans, Professor and Director of the Graduate Program in Biblical Studies, Trinity Western University, British Columbia, Canada; author of Jesus, Studying the Historical Jesus, and Jesus in Context

Reader Reviews
WILL THE REAL JESUS PLEASE STAND UP? (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998) is a transcript of the debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan. The book contains responses to the debate by two conservatives (Craig L. Blomberg and Ben Witherington III) and two liberals (Robert J. Miller and Marcus Borg). Finally, Craig and Crossan each offer some concluding reflections on the debate. Given that Craig and Crossan hold diametrically opposed views of Christian origins, this debate could have been an excellent opportunity to learn why each camp rejects the empirical claims of the other. Whereas the conservatives presented arguments for their positions (and point-by-point objections to Crossan's position), the liberals simply did not take the debate very seriously. Not only did Crossan fail to engage Craig on the specifics of his case, Crossan refused to engage in any historical argumentation. Instead, Crossan argued that the New Testament documents--including their accounts of resurrection--should be taken as metaphor. Now, even if that is true--and conservatives will obviously disagree--it was simply poor argumentative strategy on Crossan's part to neglect the empirical claims advanced by Craig. Given that Crossan denies the truth of each of Craig's four historical claims--burial by Joseph of Arimathea, empty tomb, post-resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith--I think Crossan did a disservice to his audience by failing to defend his objections to each of Craig's four historical claims. To make matters worse, the two liberal commentators on the debate (Miller and Borg) *also* refused to interact with Craig's arguments for the historicity of the resurrection. Miller, in the introduction to his commentary, mysteriously declares, "[I]nstead of responding directly to Craig's argument, I will step back from it and analyze its format, message, and audience" (p. 77). Say what? Borg's commentary is slightly better; Borg argues that the original understanding of resurrection--represented by 1 Corinthians 15--"does not depend upon something having happened to Jesus' corpse" (p. 123). Yet Borg, like Miller and Crossan himself, declares as irrelevant whether the resurrection is literally, historically true. Given their understanding of "resurrection," the liberals simply could not bring themselves to take Craig's apologetic arguments seriously. While that is certainly their prerogative, they never should have agreed to participate in this project if they were not fully committed to exploring the *full scope* of the topic. Someone needs to tell Crossan, Miller, and Borg that the concept of debate is based upon a *clash of ideas*; if they are not willing to directly clash with the arguments of their opponents; they should not agree to participate! If Crossan was only interested in debating whether Jesus' resurrection was a physical resurrection which depended upon an empty tomb, he should have refused to participate in a debate format where the truth of certain historical claims would be an issue. By participating in a debate but never really debating, Crossan has now managed to give the impression that he did not refute Craig's arguments because he can't refute Craig's arguments. This is, of course, false; there are excellent reasons for rejecting Craig's historical arguments. (See my forthcoming reply to Craig's arguments for the historicity of the empty tomb.) But the vast majority of Crossan's Evangelical audience will never hear those reasons because Crossan couldn't be bothered to state them, either in the debate itself or in his concluding comments. Turning to the debater's concluding reflections, I was not impressed by the fact that Craig got to give his opening statement first *and* that his concluding reflections appeared last. Of course, Craig's and Crossan's concluding reflections were presumably written simultaneously and independent of one another, but in a debate where no one side had the sole burden of proof, Crossan's concluding reflections should have appeared last in the volume. In conclusion, given the liberals' refusal to fully participate in this debate, I can't recommend this book to anyone, even as an introductory text. There are better introductory books available on the views of both Craig and Crossan.