Discussing Resurrection with a Liberal Historian (Dr. John Dominic Crossan)

hello and welcome to the discussion this channel is here to serve as a platform for scholarly discussions about some of the most significant questions regarding the historical Jesus early Christian history the philosophy of religion and thoughtful theology my name is nahoa and I'm here to ask those questions to seek truth openly and critically and to share the journey with you right now we're continuing to focus on early Christian history of course the Jesus movement did not die with its leader rather there arose a belief that although Christ was killed he was also exalted a number of people came to Proclaim that God raised Jesus from the dead but what did that mean to various people in the ancient world and what does resurrection mean for us today should we act on it as a metaphorical Vindication of Jesus message or as a literal revivification of Jesus corpse how do Western Christians differ from Eastern Christians and our beliefs about all this these are some of the questions we'll get into the scholar joining and teaching us today earned his doctor of divinity from St Patrick's College in Maynooth Ireland and he was a Catholic priest for about a decade in the Catholic monk for about two decades now he's Emeritus professor of religious studies at DePaul University in Chicago his reconstruction of the historical Jesus centers around Jesus as a Mediterranean Jewish peasant who preached and practiced his vision of God's rule as immediately and universally accessible he rebuked social norms expressed the rule of the father as a present unbrokered reality and modeled non-violent resistance of Injustice that Injustice includes when he was killed on the cross now to affirm that he was raised from the dead means we choose to follow his way of peace and participate with him in making the world a more just place at least that's my attempt to summarize key elements of a lifetime of my guest perspective anyways I have been absolutely intrigued and challenged preparing for this interview so without further introduction Dr John Dominic Crossen how are you and thank you nihor for having me and for that very good summary thank you yeah I mean you're such a prominent figure in historical Jesus studies and New Testament studies I'm genuinely honored to have you on we're going to talk about the meaning of Resurrection you know like I said differing Traditions within Christendom Prophecy historicized in the gospels if we have time but first we're going to start with something a little different usually I ask my guests personal questions at the end but you suggested that it would be important to to ask them up front to understand your life so we can do that right now all right let me say two things about me that are important to understand and these I had nothing to do nothing to do with they were done to me so that I'm not claiming any Merit I grew up in Ireland in the Republic of Ireland where Roman Catholicism was like the wallpaper of the country you know nobody said no you have to believe this you have to this is literal you could do the Stations of the Cross and you learned that Jesus um uh Veronica wiped the face of Jesus and nobody said now pilate really did condemn Jesus but Veronica that's kind of Legend nobody did that so I was able to kind of experience this first of all in a country that wasn't how am I put it this disputing about literalism it just wasn't there I mean it wasn't my virtue or anything else the Republic of Ireland being Irish and being Catholic was the same thing honestly they hardly differentiated between politics and religion okay the second thing is this because the small countries small towns of Ireland couldn't afford to have a decent High School if you're going to high school at all by the way you had to go to a boarding school unless you lived in Dublin or one of the few big cities we were living in the Wilds of Donegal in a place called Bali Buffet end of the Earth so I had to go to a boarding school the boarding school still retained the old British education system that had been established to teach them how to run an Empire five years of Greek five years of Latin every day so before I ever got to the Bible or any of this stuff I was reading you know Virgil in Latin The Aeneid in Greek and nobody was telling me you know you have to believe don't believe that this God did that and you nobody did that I was able to absorb these stories kind of make up my own mind you know like a kid would who's up to his eyes in the tensions and conjugations and all that stuff what do I think about Venus I so by the time series by the time I got to read the Old Testament and the New Testament I was kind of inoculated against literalism not against taking it seriously really not but it didn't come in until I came to this country and really began really after I was educated and everything else and how my doctorate and came back participated in the Jesus seminar began to realize there's all sorts of people who take this all literally not seriously which I I did too believe me but literally and I discriminate and I know how to discriminate because I I learned how to do it with Virgil and Homer the Old Testament the New Testament the Roman Imperial theology so I didn't start off fighting literalism and that's why my whole drive has not been really to fight literalism but to do good history um that's what I'm interested in that doesn't mean I do it I mean you know I'm not saying that intending to do it regarding it of course not but basically I'm not getting my I'm not getting my position in opposition to theirs I really am it I'll do it if somebody asks me what do I think about do I think this happened or I think that of course but that that's important simply to know in order to assess my position that's all doesn't prove endings just the way the the look of the draw the way I was born where I lived and what happened to me now you have all of your books behind you um and you've been publishing for basically half a century so this question about what you've changed your mind on throughout these years whether from uh personal conversations and experiences or from your studies uh just what's something significant you've changed your mind on and I'm especially excited to ask this question to you oh well let me take the the example that we will be talking a lot about Resurrection I don't think I realized seriously enough the distinction between Ascension and resurrection that is apotheosis to use the Greek terms of apotheosis and anastasis I simply and secondly I don't think I don't think I didn't recognize that when we were talking about Resurrection in the western world we were only talking about the Western world there was that blindness that we all have that there's a whole other Christianity that's called it Eastern Christianity which in this case not in every case crucifixion looks pretty much the same in both places and so does Nativity is radically different I'm really saying this profoundly different and I learned that you know the way I learned a lot of things practically I was taking I was part of the four people Marianne Marcus Borg Sarah and myself who are leading 40 people in the first 20 well in the first 15 years of of this Century in search of Paul around turkey and by accident really we ended up of course in a lot of Eastern Orthodox Churches you can't bypass goremi can bypass Cappadocia simply to get from one place to the other so of course we were beginning to see the Eastern vision of Resurrection we're literally seeing it and beginning to realize it's not just this place this is the way it is everywhere in eastern Christianity and then of course every night on these um pilgrimies were taking people Marcus and I gave a half hour lecture every night and I tried to correlate what we were seeing during the day about Paul mostly with what we were talking about at night and so if we spent the day say a Cappadocia looking at images of the Eastern Resurrection I had to kind of face how do I do first Corinthians 15 tonight what are we imagining so like so much of my life honestly rightly or wrongly it was forced upon me by circumstances it wasn't that I had a magnificent Revelation oh we should really talk about Eastern resurrection and when Tom Wright writes this huge big book about Resurrection he never even mentions it well if I'd written a huge big book about it at that time neither would I so okay I learned the hard way by seeing it and realizing it was everywhere all over Eastern Christianity and then we went looking for the course and before we were writing the book we we didn't just run into it we went looking for it all the way from I'm going to say Spain to Syria we managed to get to the Syria in 2010 probably the last time you could do it without a flight jacket and Moss go all the way to Egypt so we began to see this is a totally different vision of let me let me put it this way neutrally of Easter I'm using that as a neutral term for the moment then the west and we have to recognize it and discuss it now you and your wife have written a beautiful book called resurrecting Easter and and where you talk about this the differences between Eastern uh Eastern Orthodox depictions in artwork and iconography of the Resurrection or of the Easter event for neutrality and how that compares or and contrasts with Western depictions of a more individual easter event so let's talk about that you you you the subtitle is basically how the East preserved and the West lost the original vision of Easter so so tell us more about how you think Eastern Orthodox Christianity understood and preserved that original communal meaning of Resurrection or anastasis and how the West kind of lost that okay and I back up a little bit to the the writing of the book originally when we were doing this this would be the years 2000 to 2015 we were going every year to Turkey and since our way was paid to the pilgrims that we spent a week before a week afterwards exploring all of this stuff I was really focusing to be honestly on on the Eastern stuff but then very often when I lectured on it before the book was written people would say yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah what about the Western stuff give us some history of it so when I wrote the book by that time I figured I I can't just talk about these I'm going to talk about the west and the East and the subtext is going to be something like this I think this is not just a exercise in art history comparative art history or that I'm going into art history instead of biblical studies I think that the West has lost something by going individual that by that I mean Jesus coming out of the Tomb totally alone all by himself magnificent powerful triumphant nobody there thank you for that image you can see the soldiers are down below kind of either looking up and seeing it or because in Matthew's gospel they kind of lie about it the person is they saw it and they lie and said well we were asleep somebody must have stolen the body so they're seeing it and Jesus is ascending and I think you can see the women in the distance coming to the tomb as they were too late so this is the Ascension and anyone in the Greco-Roman world I should emphasize this not just the Jews are the Messianic uh christics anyone in the Roman world who looked at that would probably see yeah this is an apotheosis I think this guy whoever he is is ascending up to The Gods Must Be a very famous person um and yeah he's kind of not dressed fully so that's what I tip he's been divinized as a word all of that makes sense so anyone in the Western in the Western World of the first century Greeks Jews Romans would say this is an apotheosis all right so that's one option now it's possible I think for somebody to argue that could happen I mean the whole first century World believe it could happen they really did so in the middle of the second century when just murder is arguing I arguing in favor of Christianity of course he challenges the Romans by saying well look you guys believe that people can Ascend into heaven Ascend notices his word you claim it for all of these people mostly male by the way he only mentions one woman and even your Emperors you claim your Emperors Ascend into heaven how come you pick on us poor guys who we say Jesus did it's a heck of an argument by the way it really is a good argument they can't come back and say well that's not possible we just don't believe they can come back and did get this and Chelsea's saying you're you're Jesus isn't worthy of sending it to heaven but they don't debate the possibility and neither of course could Justin claim uniqueness he is ready to do what Paul did okay Augustus is up in heaven Jesus is up in heaven who's doing more for you now there is a real good honest to God first century debate who's doing more fear the emperor up in heaven are Jesus so if you think of Ascension that would sort of be the obvious thing to claim and my suspicion is actually that the earliest interpretation watch my language interpretation of Easter using neutral language again are what happened was Ascension that Jesus had ascended into heaven we get back maybe for the arguments for that now let me turn to another interpretation another interpretation of what happened this is what we call Resurrection the Greek term is anastasis thank you very much for showing it you can see the Greek written up above that as usual in all of these images this is a modern image saying hey anastasis in three capital letters regontals the resurrection there's no doubt this is what it is this is the resurrection it's not Jesus just holding hands with people now if you look at that image and it's a typical image it's probably a modern warn but the ancient ones are look much the same Jesus is resurrecting he has a cruciform Halo as you can see I don't I can't see I don't think he has the wounds visible in this one but many many of them they are the ones that is hands and feet he's standing on the bifold gates of Hades Hades not hell hate is the place of the dead again cruciform he's giving a left hand to Eve and a right hand to Adam and that one the two-handed sort of equal opportunity Resurrection doesn't appear much before say 1250. before that Jesus tends to be focusing mostly on Adam and poor Eve is waiting her turn as it were in the background you can see to our left John the Baptist you always kind of know him because he needs a shave and a haircut and although this has been cropped I think the two figures immediately to our left viewer left of John the Baptist would be David and Solomon David would be crowned and bearded Solomon crowned and unbearded they're certainly there though it's been cropped badly um let me see over on the other side is uh the first martyr of the Old Testament Abel you can see he's got his staff the other character I'm not certain who it is it may be a local Saint I don't see him identified sometimes these have names this is the typical Eastern full as I call it the Equal Opportunity Resurrection and what I must insist on Adam and Eve ain't just two people Adam and Eve as you well know of course represent the human race they are our ancestors in the biblical tradition so if you want to be mentioned universality here we have resurrection and it means taking the human race now let me insist again out of Hades Night Out of Hell usually there's a figure down below those Gates very often left out and in some images and it shows Hades as the gatekeeper of Hades Hades is a place and here is is also the person he's a jailer he's not a bad guy his job is to keep everyone in who gets it and that nobody out so the vision is that Jesus comes in flattens poor old haters under those two gates you see the locks and bars are flying off in all directions and he liberates the human race from death not from hell that's what the Western does later and gets itself into all sorts of theological trouble so these and thank you for getting them up so early because this is the core we have these two images now what struck me with them was not well hey we got a western way of doing it like they have Latin and an Eastern way of doing it and they have Greek and what's the difference no big deal well it's huge it's huge because the Western one looks awful like Justin Essentia even though of course it's called Resurrection so is Easter an Ascension a resurrection and what will be the implications of that and the final question I had and was forced on me in evening lectures in the early 200s excuse me Dominic which would Jesus excuse me sorry sorry which would Paul have imagined so I had to ask myself okay if the Corinthians after reading as it were First Corinthians 15 said to Paul now you speak about the execution of Jesus and no we know all about that we've seen crucifixions you don't have to draw us a picture but you keep talking about this Resurrection thing that's not a word we know yeah yeah we know Ascension we understand that that's in our tradition you keep using this word Resurrection anastasis now could you draw us a picture Paul could you kind of just see us what the heck you're talking about you know we have some idea about most of the things you're talking about what Paul as a word have drawn something like the individual Western one or something like the universal Eastern one and my answer quite clearly and I don't think it's prejudicial why is the Easter one because Paul is a Pharisee and the basic most untraditional let me be blunt for a sake belief is the general Resurrection anastasis necrone so Paul could not imagine couldn't even use the term Resurrection Just for Jesus that would make no sense be like you arrive if we use the word say the senate or the House of Representatives and we just went one person so I think in other words the Eastern is more in continuity and conformity with Paul's Vision than the Western and that's of course the thesis of the book that's wonderful now you mentioned um what Resurrection means to various people including Paul a Pharisees so let's let's talk a little bit about that um okay we have kind of modern connotations of what Resurrection meant but tell us that in Antiquity in the ancient world if someone hears Resurrection God raised Jesus from the dead or he's been declared the Son of God by the resurrection of the Dead not from the dead but of the you know a gnosticist necron like you said what did that mean to Jews including Pharisees like Paul essenes like the people behind the qumran Scrolls and Sadducees like the people Jesus is debating sometimes what did that mean to Gentiles especially of course Pagan I mean Romans and Greeks and then to the early Christian Community who or to an early Christian Community who affirmed Resurrection who was composed of Gentiles and Jews and I I corrected myself from the early Christian Community because you said there were various ways of expressing belief in the exaltation of Jesus and Resurrection was just one of them that's your view but anyways with that said tell us what what you think this is for people that's fine no I said I'm not going to pick up the term I I had to pick it up myself because I was using resurrection and keep at the back of your mind and let's talk away that most of that first century world if they had heard the story let's say you heard a story about the finding of an empty tomb and visions of the person who had been in the Tomb most people open-minded let me let me say people are not going to say me that's stupid open-minded people would say well we're talking about an Ascension whether we believe it that are not we know what's being discussed any Roman would know it in a Greek word know it any Jew would know put that aside now let's focus on this word Resurrection here's what's going on in most of the Old Testament up to I'm going to put a round date on it around 160. 150 BCE before Jesus it was taken for granted that the way God Ran the world as it were were in the deuteronomic theology by sanctions here on this Earth you were good you were rewarded you were bad you were punished that's the way it was that really worked and most of the whole Old Testament is written with that presumption it really is how do you know a good King well he should live long but oops how about Josiah or a bag how would you know a bad King will he get killed fast oops that didn't quite work for Manasseh and then there was Joe but leaving that aside the basic idea was Justice was maintained by God in this world now what happened I think we can dated was the maccabean martyrs where was the justice of God when you were looking on the battered tortured executed bodies of a martyr don't tell me they're being punished for their sins other word so by the time of Daniel bedtime Daniel is written I mean and the time say of second Maccabees a belief began to which the Pharisees would become air that there had to be a Divine sanction process in the next life because it kind of wasn't working down here so in one sense it took Deuteronomy and simply moved it from this life into the next and they said for the justice of God there will have to be a general resurrection that is every single person who had ever lived would have to rise from the dead yep out of the Seas out of the belly of of beasts wherever and they did that not for God's Amusement but for a general Judgment of everyone who had ever lived and then they would be processed as it were into either Heaven or Hell that is the scenario I don't think it was universally accepted of course but was accepted by fervent people under the strains of the post alexandrian World post the world of Alexander the Great to understand how how can we have a just God running the world when you've we've had Alexander's macedonians and then we've had the Romans there has to be the anastasis necron now Resurrection is just a shorthand for that Resurrection judgment sanctions okay that's the pharah's sake belief in the first century they they couldn't understand if you said well what about Resurrection for one person no that would be absurd that's not what it is that's an Ascension they would say don't get confused this is about the end of time and God cleaning up the mess of an unjust world how did Paul who was a Pharisee remember he he tells us he was a fire so he so he believed that then he runs into these I call them by the way a very careful term I call them Messianic christiques I don't call them Christians they are Jews who are Messianic christiques Messianic is simply an anglicized word for the Hebrew and Aramaic word Messiah and Christ as you know is simply the Greek word so I don't call them Christians they haven't been invented yet as it were as is outside Judaism but they're christics they're messianics so in any way Paul Paul's conversion and you cannot have I do not believe a human being having a 100 conversion I think that's called the psychotic break of course plot has a huge conversion it's from being a non-messianic Pharisee to being a Messianic Pharisee but what in the name of the Lord is a Messianic Pharisee it's somebody who says now I'm going to quote Paul let's see as you expect wow what if this General Resurrection at the end of time has already begun well why why would it have already be gone Paul I mean you know it's at the end of time it's a it's a it's a once and for all zap boom bang crash strike of lightning yeah but the world I'm saying the world I'm not just saying the Roman Empire but the world through the Roman Empire has executed the Messiah the Son of God the Lord of Glory do you understand says Paul what has happened how how can God even postpone for a minute the the Justice the Injustice of that so when you read First Corinthians Paul starts off as you well know with this huge emphasis on the resurrection excuse me on the execution of Jesus the execution of Jesus not just by the Roman Empire though it has a course by the Roman Empire but by the world represented by the Roman Empire in his own time and place and he ends it by saying that Jesus is the first fruits of those who have slept the anastasis is necronas you know she uses so now now we've got something that no Pharisee ever thought of but a Messianic Pharisee has that Resurrection is why do you saying Paul is it an ongoing process like I mean does that mean that's already started with Jesus then his Heaven and Hell these are my questions is heaven and hell's going on on Earth right now is the general judgment an ongoing process I don't think Paul ever gets to think all of that in one way he gets away with by thinking it's all going to be over and consummated within his own lifetime so he he doesn't have to answer the question that you and I have to answer excuse me Paul we're two thousand years later how is resurrected life going for you how's the world doing under under Resurrection is anyone hearing it has anything changed are we if anything worse off now than we were in the first century and could it be that we have let Jesus drift off into heaven instead of understanding as you Paul insisted that if we're in between the first fruits and the Harvest Feast let's say then the Harvest is ongoing it's an ongoing process your metaphor says that so that's the sort of stuff we really have to be asking how do we live within Paul's metaphor of the Harvest because there's no such thing as first fruits and then two thousand years later come on Paul you that'll work when you're thinking fast but not for us so that's the sort of questions that came out for me from the book I don't know if they're fully even developed in the book I I can't tell you to be honest we're along the last 20 years I've been clear on each step of this because it's an ongoing process of trying to think my way through it thank you for that response and it's delightful to hear you talk because you have so much energy and and passion when you when you speak so it's great we're still continuing kind of how Paul spoke about the resurrection Paul's Book of Jesus as the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in First Corinthians 15. in the evangelists they wrote about Jesus passion and Resurrection as the Fulfillment of various eschatological hopes Resurrection itself is a key element in many Jews expectations of the last days including Pharisees such as Paul in light of this virtually all Scholars agree the resurrection had an immense eschatological significance in early communities it confirmed that the new Messianic age of righteousness had come and that we are to both experience God's Rule and spirit now as well as await its imminent consummation where we will be raised like Jesus how how much of this portrait do you agree with I know you've long maintained that Jesus was an eschatological but not apocalyptic preacher so maybe elaborate on that for us please okay all right as you've outlined it I would disagree with anything but let me take those two words because honestly I think my fellow Scholars have mystified those words beyond all human comprehension and I'm saying this not just from writing but you know I spent the first 20 years of this Century lecturing in churches and this is what I found out eschatologic eschatological is is like a blur word that minds of people just blank out at its worst it means this is something about way off in the future never going to happen probably so forget it eschatological the group means the last now some recently Harvard scholar was able to write in politics the end of History oh wow that's that's what that's what Jesus was talking about but the question of eschatology is is God's rule operational here and now in the world are not if it's something eschatological in the sense of way off in the future sometime then I'm going to say kiss and goodbye I couldn't care less it's like the long stretch of all those people who for two thousand years are announcing end of the world news at 10. and they've always been wrong and why should I ever listen to any of them now the eschatological challenge and this is out of Judaism it's already present in the Torah any other prophets would have said if we actually live Torah and convince the world to live Torah we will be living in the eschatological age because this is when God's rule rules the world so I accept that the vision is not just well you know if we all were a little bit nicer and if we all just were sweeter to one another everything would be lovely no the eschatological Vision I read also as an evolutionary mandate I really mean that I mean what I mean by that is if you watch what we're doing to the World on the evening news that's where you see eschatology coming home we are making the world uninhabitable and it's God's word you know God so loved the world good old John's gospel that everyone knows God so loved the world and I'll send it of course me and you in it but not you and I first and then forget the world God so loved the world so eschatology is this is my interpretation of Jesus the challenge of Jesus is you guys have been waiting for God to do it for you God has been waiting for you to do it with God it's a covenantal deal guys what made you think God would do it for you to be a bank crash and someday God would clean up your mess so as I understand it eschatology is cooperation with God to clean up the mess of the world because we can't do it by ourselves because we're making it up now if somebody says to me I'm sorry I don't believe in God so that's all very sweet and I couldn't care less about the Bible or Jesus or Paul I will say with dead seriousness let's talk about evolution and by Evolution I mean what everyone means by evolution do you think we're getting away with messing up the world forget God are there sanctions From Evolution are there sanctions from making the world uninhabitable so I want to insist that the vision that I see in eschatology I see in a totally secular world if somebody wants to live in it don't think that announcing the death of God frees you May free you from eschatology but it doesn't free you from evolution evolution is doing its thing and if you think God is working behind Evolution that's fine I'm not debating that at the moment at the moment I am saying that evolution is here and no matter what you think about God or if you don't think anything about God that gravity still works you know with or without God so I I want to be very careful that that's eschatology for me now apocalypse apocalypsis is a Greek word that simply means Revelation as you know that's why the last book in the New Testament the book is called the apocalypsis or the what's apocalypse is about could be about anything really but in the first century under the Romans where Empires getting bigger and bigger and bigger despite Daniel chapter 2 and chapter 7. you thought the macedonians were the worst now you got the Romans if anyone said I have an apocalipsis it was probably going to be about eschatology it was probably going to be soon God is going to do it if you didn't have that message then probably nobody was listened to your apocalypses but as I understand the message of Jesus and the message of Paul is you're not waiting for God to do it for you God is already here and available and I would think for those who take the Torah and the prophet seriously always was by the way any Prophet would say that you guys live the ideal of Torah and God will be with you but God won't do it for you in other words does God say I will beat your swords in the plowshares and I will beat your Spears in the pruning hooks you will do it I will help you my vision will help you my spirit within you will Empower you but oh boy I'm not going to do it for you so that's the way I see the difference Jesus is absolutely eschatologic so is Paul now Paul by the way and maybe Jesus Paul certainly thinks this is all going to be over soon but Paul's whole vision is not Jesus is common you know look busy no Paul gives can go on you can be wrong about the time as if a doctor said you know when the covert virus arrived ought to be over in three months no that would have been wrong about time but if that doctor had said you guys should wear a mask I think the doctor would be right about the mask but wrong about the time so yeah maybe Jesus was wrong too I'm tired of arguing that with people fine if Jesus said it's all going to be over soon he was wrong get over it everyone you said will be over soon up to today has been wrong for 2 000 years so I can accept that they're all wrong about the time but they weren't wrong about the vision that's really helpful you said a lot of things there maybe I can try to encapsulate that I mean that Jesus and Paul the the priority for us to understand them should be that they taught the kingdom as being basically synergistic to use a somewhat modern theological term or you know participatory where we are participating with God now instead of waiting for God to bring it about soon and without our actions is that a fair summary no that's perfect no you're when you summarize you really do it I mean I will say one thing to help it's the way I distinguish John the Baptist from Jesus of Nazareth I take that especially from what their enemies who dislike both of them equally said they said John fast and he's a nut not case Jesus feasts and he's a glutton now I'm leaving out the name calling but I think they got it right because you fast in preparation for something that is coming God's coming to do it you feast in celebration for something that's here you know so I think Jesus is not saying God's kingdom is here relax I think he is saying with all due respect to John and he does act with all respect to John John's wrong John thought we're waiting for God and that's where God didn't come that's why God didn't come to save John you guys have to admit that you must participate with God and I think anyone who knew the Torah as a covenant should know that I mean it's I mean the Covenant if you and I make a deal I give you this book if you give me ten dollars that's a covenant that's a you know quid pro quo as a word it's a participation two people so the Covenant with Israel involves God in them the idea that God was going to do it I'm going to be very blunt now that apocalyptic vision is what happens to a prophet when he loses his faith okay maybe that's too strong certainly loses his hope and definitely loses his nerve you're no longer ready to work with God despite the Romans despite Empires getting stronger despite everything that's going against you you're still working with God no no we give up we're waiting for God to do it for us that's great now let's talk about um your metaphorical interpretation of the Resurrection but before we do that I just want to say that I know a number of Christians more conservative Christians have not been charitable to your metaphorical interpretation and I also know that you consistently declare that the priority for Christians should be how we act in light of of the Resurrection as opposed to the debate over whether or not the resurrection is literal learning from you and strangely from Dr Dale Allison whose scholarship is very different from yours has led me to accept this priority and I think Matthew um towards the end of The Sermon on the Mount Matthew 7 21 to 27 also implies that how you act on Jesus is most important more important than whether you come to him and say Lord Lord so I appreciate that for sure I don't want to attack your position but I you know I still want to question about it since it intrigues me so and offer some respectful objections yeah to be honest with you I I don't mind people being unchargeable I would like them to be accurate and I would like them to have read me if they talk about me now nobody has to read me at all it's out there but if somebody wants to talk about my position I do expect they have read me at least and not just read me in the 1991 when this target Jesus came out God that's how many years ago now I don't know anyway it's a long time ago so let me think about that for a while here's what's important for me I I live in a post-enlightenment world when I'm reading pre-enlightenment people I try to understand their world so in the first century for example I I've read pretty much all the Contemporary texts of the first century most of them not always in the original language but a lot of them I visited most of the sites I've been almost everywhere like that song I'd be in everywhere I visited most of the museums all over the place now I'm not going to claim I could really understand the first say no no no but I have a sense of it and the sense is that the first century is a pre-enlightenment world and everyone in there more or less accepts miracles Marvels not just the Jews and not just the Christians they do if you read the texts Caesar Augustus has ascended into heaven before Jesus got a chance so yeah so I am then for sorry if I might but in um please yeah virtually everyone agreed um in Miracles virtually all of the greatest ancient historians in their histories or you know annals of History they report Miracles and Supernatural occurrences and Omens and you know all this but Resurrection isn't um isn't a widespread belief like Miracles is a widespread belief so okay virtually all pagans agree or some agree in an afterlife a sort of Hades kind of thing a shield kind of thing or you're maybe wispy or you're just non-existent you die you're gone at death and then not even all Jews believed in Resurrection Pharisees did but Sadducees didn't and so if you know maybe that's some pushback that um everyone was willing to believe in some miracle but not everyone maybe even most people were not willing to believe in some kind of Resurrection okay good let me take you up from there and now if I don't really come back just as you say but in again you know it's a conversation yes that's true I think anyone could debate or Ascension but Resurrection you're right I think you got a fair example that's you know a story of um the actor with Paul at Athens everything's going fine he mentions the word resurrection that he just laugh at him I mean if they even understand it I I not if Ascension is universal Resurrection is not even Jewish it's one sectarian group as you just said the Pharisees the Sadducees dismissed they thought it was rubbished they would have said where's that in the Bible yeah maybe you could catch your fingernails in Daniel but not much I mean they were right the size they could have said to the Pharisees you guys claim to be great traditionalists but where's that in the tradition and of course the Pharisees had the polar oil oral tradition to get out of it because no it's not there it's a brand new explanation maybe 150 years old I do not know and nobody knows what percentage if you took a poll in the first century Jews would have said we believe in the resurrection not Jesus now but the general Resurrection I don't know the Pharisees did and the Pharisees were popular with the Ordinary People but to be fair they didn't get a very good shake from the christics so let's remember that now I think you're right if if anyone in the first century said Resurrection and wasn't using it as simply a synonym for Ascension but meant it in the pharisaic sense most people the vast majority of the world would simply laugh at them because what you're claiming is that God has already begun has already begun a cleanup of the world that's going to happen in the future he's already begun it by let us say symbolically raising the whole human race now think of that for a second try and think of it literally look at that image that you showed me earlier Paul excuse me Jesus is taking Adam and Eve out of Hades now if you simply look at that and you're not going to get any image of that before around the year 700 by the way but imagine it how would you take that literally how could you take that literally God has liberated the human race from death okay I actually believe that utterly I think the vision of Jesus liberates the human race from death and the fact that we haven't taken it seriously is why that's where the human race is slowly but steadily heady to the extinction of itself I don't quite know how long it will take I don't know if we'll learn fast enough to stop it but it's absolutely meaning for me and we're in the middle of it and it doesn't make a difference whether you believe it or not any important whether you believe believe in global warming or not it doesn't make any difference whether you believe in it or not don't believe in gravity if you if you want but don't jump off a 30-story building just in case so I want to insist that there's a vision there that cannot be taken literally but must be taken with absolute deadly seriousness as a metaphor hmm that's that's what's at stake that's why it's not enough for me to say well do you accept it or not how how are you inside it is the question I'm asking how are you literally inside it and I I know the the answer in the New Testament is you can only do it if you have the spirit of it you can't do it simply by trying to imitate you can't do it by saying what I like that but I think I'll try and live like that it's not that's not strong enough you have to take the spirit of Resurrection inside you if I could use an example supposing I I didn't it wasn't Martin Luther King I never did I suppose and I said to him I really admire you Martin I would love to have your spirit could I have your spirit let's get rid of my own you know cardless spirit and I'll take your spirit and Martin said to me yeah but if if you if you get that you could end up in jail oh could I end up dead oh yeah oh and I'm backing off hard could I have just maybe five percent of your spirit just enough to be kind of decent but not you know I enough to be comfortable not enough to be courageous I think this this is the way I actually see it so it's it's much more powerful than me was we have to accept it we have to say Lord Lord we have to absorb the free gift it is a free gift it's like a free download to your computer but you have to say yes of course even to a free download there's no such thing as a free gift but only a free offer so you accept it because that's the only way that'll be be powerful enough and that's the way I see the the vision itself coming but but to be honest with you now in this case that I think it's a metaphor no I don't think in any way shape or form Adam and Eve came out of anywhere hand in hand with Jesus nor do I think literally Jesus if you had been there and watching the tomb that morning would you have seen Jesus going up alone neither would you have seen him coming out with Adam and Eve I'm sorry so every time I see a Christian saying asking not a dumb question if you had a camera there on front of the Tomb could you have seen at least a light flash or something would you have seen Jesus coming out I can imagine that sure sure I can I can't imagine putting a camera in front of the Eastern Vision I don't know how to do it where do you do it down in Hades so I'm looking at these two as two powerful metaphors and when somebody says to me and they do nahoa or you mean it's just a metaphor I have to quit because metaphor creates reality for me and I don't know what else does it it's the way you imagine the future and the site deliver the course I can imagine all sorts of Futures and no intention doing anything about them that's just daydreaming but if I imagine the future and then live accordingly For Better or For Worse I will create that future and if enough of us do it we will create that future and it may save us or it may destroy us so that's that's why metaphor for me is you know I it's far more par for the discussions about literal are metaphorical by people who I know don't mean matter for the same way I do hmm I mean I I can definitely respect that even if um I haven't been convinced that it's that it's metaphorical um no maybe a question could be what reason in your eyes is there for thinking that the early Christians who affirmed Resurrection interpreted their own language of a narcissist metaphorically and is also is there any Jewish precedence for are there are there any Jewish precedents for kind of a metaphorical Resurrection because in my limited understanding Jews who affirmed Resurrection thought of it as a literal bodily phenomenon at the at the end of time you know in the in the last days um you have an article on the Jewish context of resurrection and you cite second Maccabees wherein Martyrs stretch out their hands and cry out these I got from heaven and from him I hope to get them back and you you um you say that here we find a full and clear assertion of bodily Resurrection emphasized almost to the point point of absurdity but therefore all the more unavoidable so I'm curious if there's any you know beside like uh in contrast to this if there's any Jewish precedence for metaphorical Resurrection you know and I I presume you're right that they are taking that literally but but let me be very clear I don't know that and neither do you hmm because it's I I don't know it I mean that I I'm not using that as a refuge when I'm reading first century stuff there's times I can kind of glimpse that will maybe Ordinary People would have taken this literally but philosophers or maybe even the educated wouldn't for example when I'm reading the opening chapters of Livy now he's living under Augustus okay he's writing history the history of the Roman Empire whoa you better be very very careful Libby so when he goes back to talk about Mars he says well you know this is more poetry but what could be worthy of the history of Rome than poetry then he comes down to what everyone knows that Augustus claims that uh um Aeneas and helped by V and Jesus who is the father of Aeneas whose mother is Venus takes them and their son all the way from doomed Troy to find the Roman race and says the Augustine Port the name of the sun is Julius Julius I think julas the founder of the Julian line now here's me poor olivi I'm writing the history I know that it's supposed to be named ascanius huh I thought I would just like not to get killed please and say well I don't think that's true I think most people who saw the statues the images that were all over the place of little Jewelers be led by the hand for the left hand the Venus took it literally I think they probably did I don't know for sure I really don't but I see livius trying not to get in trouble by saying well who can tell about something which is so old oh that's lovely and he's only talking about what um I don't know maybe 700 800 years so I'm not using that kind of a refuge yeah who can talk but I really want to say when people read ancient texts all of them not just the not just the biblical ones I don't know when people read the speeches for example um agricola's great speech about Romans making a desert and calling it peace did he really think him that kargakos had made that speech put I don't know so I'm not going to insist that you must any of us must and neither will I claim if you take this literally you're not a Christian or something like that or you're absurd are you stupid or anything like that because when we're dealing with ancient texts from pre-enlightenment texts now there's one other thing nahua I'm living in America at the moment I find there are millions of people claiming things that I don't think happened I don't know if they believe in them are we just using them for you know metaphorical purposes I won't get into policy because you know what I'm talking about I don't know if I'm dealing with a pre-enlightenment mind that believes whatever it hears whatever it reads whatever it sees so I don't know it and neither does anyone else so my solution is this I spend a whole evening one time debating with Tom Wright and I said let me imagine that everything you claim about the resurrection is correct and the defining of the empty tomb and the vision of Jesus we're all literal just like you today now I want to debate what's the difference if I claim it's metaphorical in terms of life and we board everyone because the rest of the evening we spent agreeing but now we could have spent the evening May arguing that I don't think the tomb was found empty I think that's a mark in creation and Tom would have argued with very good arguments of course to a draw that no it happened we could have spent the whole evening doing that I am convinced that part of this process is Scholars not wanting to get into trouble by saying what it really means so let's debate one side the other side because we know it's going to be a draw if a text says this happens and you claim well it's a unique Miracle like resurrection and I claim something else no it's going to be a draw if there is any neutral person up there they'll probably say well the most it's a draw it's maybe unique and how can you argue about against a unique thing you can't if it only happened once in the world the way we know about stuff is generally speaking if I claim there was no Dawn you're going to use the argument that it happened every morning and I'm claiming one morning there was no Dawn which was Nike for 24 hours you're probably not going to believe it but your argument is going to be statistical I can't use the statistics it gets happened only once so I would think the wisdom would be if you take it literally then live accordingly if you take it metaphorically then live accordingly and if you want to debate maybe you might want to ask how come when I take it metaphorically and you take it literally we end up with the same conclusions about how we should live isn't that strange you think it'd be very different I say well it's a metaphor so I don't have to really take it very seriously it's just a metaphor won't work you live by metaphor if you don't live by this one you live by some other one I understand that and I I can respect that position I'm you say like you don't know and and really no one knows um kind of whether or not someone interprets something metaphorically or literally I'm curious what do you think would falsify us can I stop you there for a second I'm not saying I'm not saying that I'm sure honestly there were people in the first century that took it literally I'm sure I mean you know if somebody was reading you this and you you were illiterate say you'd have tremendous respect for the the written word that you couldn't read I'm sure there was huge number of people who responded to the written words which they heard orally in the same way as many people today respond to social media or television I saw it there it must be true I'm sure but that doesn't tell me whether I live by what I would call religiously Divine consistency that I could take it for granted that God doesn't pull tricks unique tricks that I can find consistency I put that in another way evolution is consistent you can figure it out and see what's happening it's another way of putting it so what bothers me and this is what I'm afraid of is that this discussion about which now in which side you come down on is is not accidentally a red herring so that we don't talk about the implications because it's only implications to get you into trouble Jesus was was not crucified for his for his opinions he was crucified for activism the Romans did not crucify philosophers they really didn't they might put their boot them out of town every now and then but they didn't crucify them they didn't think they were important enough activists however were something else I don't mean violent people I mean we were called activists people who were stirring up stirring up the people in the Roman phrase stirring up the people so I I think we might have worked out a marvelous way after 2 000 years of avoiding implications by being very elegant erudite Scholars not asking stupid questions it's a perfectly honest fair question do you think this should be taken literally or metaphorically but in a pre-enlightenment world far more was taken literally then you or I would take literally so I mean I really want I really want to insist on this let me say it once more Augustus is up in heaven Jesus is up in heaven take both literally is it a clash take both metaphorically there's a Clash so I can see the argument you say Resurrection is unique that you're quite true that's a Pharisee option but that's not the way it's been interpreted it's been interpreted as essential I don't see Jesus coming out of the Tomb is the way any Pharisee would have understood Resurrection they wouldn't so even if we're talking literally now we talk literally just for the argument if this is what we're talking about it ain't Resurrection so I'm willing to say the Western tradition with all its emphasis on Jesus coming out alone can be called Resurrection but nobody in the first century would have understood it I'm not talking about belief they wouldn't even have understood what you're talking about if you showed him that picture and said to any of them what's that any of them including the Pharisees would have said that's an Ascension it's about Jesus being a unique person so holy they was taken up to God like Moses um okay let's talk about the implications of kind of um being a Christian and choosing to place faith in Jesus if we sort of interpret his resurrection metaphorically if if Jesus body decayed long ago and there is no literal afterlife in which an immaterial Soul resides now then it seems like his lasting Legacy is that he was a wonderful model of non-resistant violence to Injustice so we Christians are to live like him but what about the language of in in the Pauline Epistles at least of living in him and with him being reconciled through him and transformed by him how do we interpret and live how do we interpret and experience this kind of language and live accordingly from a metaphorical position and this is just a question out of genuine curiosity no no it's very good and I'm gonna try and answer it honestly the way I think Paul would I think if you said excuse me Paul I should live like Jesus and Paul would say you don't get it at all do you you can't live like Jesus unless you have the spirit of Jesus excuse me paulip what how do I get the spirit of Jesus he would say your ordinary spirit is the spirit of the world it's my term the normalcy of civilization you're going to have to get rid of that spirit hmm I don't I don't get rid of a spirit that's that's me okay now I love you using a modern example because that's the way I see it this way I understand Paul imagine a heart transplant or I mean you know heart transplant today you get rid of your old heart a new heart comes in and unless you reject it then you live on okay I will use the same thing a new operating system to your computer or one's gone new ones back I really prefer the old one too bad try and get it back okay Paul is operating with what I would call a spirit transplant our spirit download and this is what Grace is as far as he is concerned God has this as an open gift available to anyone at any time any place always but of course you have to accept it I can't give you a free gift I can only give you a free offer if you wanted you have to say I accept now we have a free gift so as far as Paul is concerned this is Grace is a free download from God available to anyone but Paul would say you know if you want to see the implications of it take a good look at Jesus do you see what it costs him this is what a free download can do to you this is what a heart transplant can do to you that is why he's going to talk about in Jesus Jesus in me it's a it's a mutuality no I've had people say oh it's all Mystic no it's not Mystic it means that your body is no longer controlled by your spirit so you might do something very very dangerous you might get yourself in trouble you might like Paul get yourself executed no I'm not talking the Christians should although I can get executed I really am it but I am saying that to be a Christian is to oppose the normalcy of civilization which has always been exactly the way it was in the first century except now much much much worse and therefore that opposition is far more needed so of course not it's a spirit transplant that's the best words I can use for Paula and that's why Paul would say I live now and not die but Christ lives in me that sounds like oh that's lovely people say it's mystical but the whole point see of bodily Resurrection is this is about our bodies it's about our bodies in this world and this world on our bodies it so Resurrection is about bodily stuff it's not about all our spirit will be somehow you know so as far as I'm concerned I find Paul's language maybe the only adequate language for his own Vision at least and I think his vision is correct it's a radical change and so when I look again come back to my Eastern vision I see what he has already he has taken up the human race out of death okay I understand that because I think that's where we're going that's not apocalyptic that's just reading the evening news and watching the world I think we're doing a very good job now there's a vision of how we might get out of death that's the vision of the eastern and not just getting Jesus out of death the idea that Jesus got out of death and if you believe in that you'll get out of death I think Paul would cringe at that hmm okay so I wouldn't I don't contrast metaphorical with real because in the Christian tradition there are a variety of there's a variety of symbolism and metaphors that are established in the tradition uh baptism and communion for example unless unless you're a Catholic and you think that you know the communion is the real presence but at least for Protestants which is the tradition in which I am growing up um baptism and communion are metaphorical and symbolic but it I don't think a Catholic could object to that and say oh so you think it's just metaphorical you think it's it's only a metaphor you'd have to give a more robust theological uh objection at the very least so my point is that I don't automatically contrast metaphorical with real but in these cases the metaphor is grounded in believed historical events so baptism is is um grounded in Jesus death you're symbolically going down and being buried with Jesus and communion is grounded in what's believed to be the last supper so but Resurrection would be a metaphor that doesn't seem to be grounded in a literal individual Occurrence at some point in history and so that would make it um dis analogous that would make it importantly different in a respect so or or do you think that the metaphor of Resurrection is grounded in a historical event well yes and let me explain why and first of all I I do think by the way that that thank you for bringing that up I think Protestants and Catholics blew the Reformation by each side going down on that no no for a Catholic to say it's real but it's not metaphorical that's absurd because the realest thing in the world is a metaphor if I take this metaphorically and operate on it from for baptism or communion it changes me that's reality and then I think Christians are Catholics by coming down to this idea it's real not metaphorical push Protestants say no it's metaphorical not real I'm going to say with all due respect and I'm speaking metaphorically a plague on both your houses you know really it's one another into a corner that's absurd of course when you have water poured on you and all the rest of it of course it's metaphorical but the metaphorical is to change your life totally or as you just had a bath and if you take the body and blood of if you take Bread and Wine into your mouth and you don't unite yourself with the body and blood human being when a human being dies body and soul separates when a human being is executed by the end blood separates that's what you're committing yourself to you're committing to a life a life of Justice even at the risk of death if you're not doing that then you're having a bath in the first case and a little sip of wine and some bread in the second so let's get that out of the way first so yes yes I would stay transubstantiation takes place of course they box themselves up with theology and lost the meaning because none of them took metaphor seriously they really didn't I mean they said they did anyway now come back to what you said I think that after the execution of Jesus historically speaking there were visions of Jesus actually even if they said there weren't I would have expected there should have been because it is a normal part of intense grieving whenever somebody is instantly are terribly or unexpectedly taken from you I would expect that after 9 11 there must have been even if we don't know it or not I don't know this by the way but I say there must have been people who really experienced their loved ones who disappeared I'm singing especially disappeared forever never heard of again never seen again who would have experienced them as really present as much as another person right in the room Visions are as far as I'm concerned a normal part of our they're hardwired into our brains like dreams now the content of a vision is another question and the content of a dream is of course another question and if you have a dream or a vision of Jesus and Jesus says to you sell all you have give to the poor and you do it all right that's that's something else but so there were visions I'm convinced there were and if somebody wants to argue that they found an empty tomb as I said to you I don't think that's a historical event and even if it was it wouldn't prove anything as you well know anyone could explain that in all sorts of different ways I think Mark created that to avoid visions I do think there were Visions now they have to be interpreted what does that mean what does a vision our visions are people having visions all of which I take to be historical and valid people have visions they can date them Luther had Visions Augustus had Visions Paul had visions I've never had one but I spent my whole life with this in any case so maybe I wouldn't have visions but that gives them then they have to interpret a vision and I'm back where I started I'm sorry one interpretation would of course have been and the easiest one and I suspect the immediate one essential Jesus is with God and therefore you could conclude we should obey him we should do what Jesus said we should anything he wants to draw that's theology that's up to you or you could say well he's coming back soon well what's he doing but that's one now the extraordinary thing is and I don't think it was there before Paul because I can't find it securely before Paul said no it's not an Ascension it's a resurrection and all of them to do with that the resurrection for example is nowhere in the in the document that Scholars call Q The Source used by Matthew and Luke besides Mark it's not there there's nothing about execution and Resurrection there I can't find it before Paul I can find for example in Mark chapter 9 a perfect perfect example of an essential that we call it the Transfiguration you even have Moses and Elijah were already ascended into heaven in Jewish tradition ready to meet Jesus and then coming down from the mountain the mountain you have an Ascension coming down Mark says don't tell anyone until that Resurrection under Jesus is risen that's mark turning Ascension at the resurrection so I think that yes there were Visions that's the historical I don't know if you wanted to say grounding or whatever term you want to use but whatever that requires interpretation and it did require interpretation and those who are back now where we started all right that's that's great um we we've covered a lot and while I often want to just you know butt in or say something I I think we can move on to no no it's totally fine it's wonderful um I want to talk about something that's really intriguing and I don't know if you coined the term but a prophecy historicized uh let's see if I can find it yeah so prophecy historicized people can go through your work you talk about it all the time I think most extensively in your book the birth of Christianity um yeah and you go over how especially in the passion narratives um it's not that history kind of it's not the history occurred and then people interpreted interpreted it through the lens of scripture it's that early Christians searched the old searched the Jewish Bible they searched their own scriptures and then constructed and crafted a passion narrative through that with with maybe historical nuggets but it's primary you you kind of give a rough estimate of like 80 percent um versus 20 history um yeah yeah which I know is very rough but I'm curious if you could give if there are any examples of Prophecy historicized in the resurrection accounts oh are there I don't think so I'd have to think about no because Paul says according to the scriptures First Corinthians 15 that he would he died according to the scriptures well as I guess you might be able to get the prophecies for that and he rose again according to the scriptures a lovely parallelism and then you say okay I've the first half of that I've I could come up with dozens in fact the whole history of the Jewish people being tortured and executed but could be you know incarnated as it were embodied in Jesus but all of a sudden I've got he's going to rise after three days according to the scriptures oh dear I'm I'm not big on how that happens especially the three days I mean maybe you can find something but nothing compared to the execution one so I don't know if if we have his prophecy historicized because I don't think there's anything about Resurrection anywhere in the New Testament before you get to that tiny thing in Daniel and second second Maccabees is not in the Jewish Old Testament of course so no I I I don't see it really according to the scriptures I he I don't know quite what he's seeing and I I the part of the one of the big difficulties is whether uh is that Paul is that pure Paul and then when he gets into the apparitions he's getting you know what he's what he's learned of course from Peter and everyone else did he learn that little couplet from Peter or is that his own Messianic um pharisaic interpretation that death and Resurrection go together and in the Pharisee tradition that that's what he's talking about that he would rise because in the Pharisee tradition the resurrection of the death comes comes so I I don't know I I don't know whether that's his his summary of phariseeism but I don't I don't see the examples what do you think of the possibility that this he was raised um in three days according to the scripture and according to the scriptures that results from a sort of mid-drashic interpretation so for our audience at least in my understanding and you can correct me um mid-drash was a um it's a form of Jewish interpretation where they take a little verse or passage throughout the the Old Testament and they combine it to create some theological truth or some Doctrine a lot of the beliefs about the Messiah come from mid-rash they'll take a little thing from Isaiah a little thing that might be like foreshadowing and so maybe when early Christians said unbelieved and even when the Risen Jesus in the gospels says you know to the Emmaus disciples he he opened their eyes to the scriptures and when he often says that the scriptures say the son of man must die and after three days rise he's taking a little thing from maybe Genesis where you know with um with Abraham and his son Isaac in the three-day trip and um you know how that's kind of viewed as a foreshadowing of Jesus and Hebrews and even in irenaeus he's taking something from Hosea which talks about you'll rise in three days he takes a little bit from Daniel and Isaiah maybe the suffering servant maybe the son of man and Daniel who after a time and a time and like a half a time or something two and a half you know times who comes back and he's restored like a little bit of mindrash everywhere to come to a a Doctrine like scriptural searching in midrashic style to come to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead that's a very tentative suggestion but I'm curious what you think of that um I have no problems at all with it as early Christian exegesis at all but whether comes from Jesus I mean and Emmaus Emmaus is one of the most magnificent examples of a not a mid-rashic but a metaphorical story of course Jesus explains the scriptures and it warms people's hearts but it's when they take in the stranger into their house and eat with them that Jesus appears and then he's gone that is about as metaphorical a resurrection account and his major evidence that they could think metaphorically not not always but at least that's one example I don't know if Luke takes it literally I suspect he does Luke takes a heck of a lot literally Luke thinks that the resurrection Jesus could eat could eat I think Paul would be screaming I think that is a scream when his professional uh body and blood does not hurt the kingdom of heaven or something yeah I think I I think that's good evidence that Luke can create a metaphor so is the story of Legion and Mark but I have no problem with all of that any more than I have with them constructing the whole execution scene and it's profoundly theological because it means that all the sufferings of the Jewish people have been sort of embodied in Jesus he doesn't just die as one suffering servant he dies as the Incarnation of the suffering of his people of the and therefore to be honest with you when I read all this what I call Prophecy historicized in the account of the crucifixion of Jesus I am all set for finding it in the resurrection of Jesus and therefore I'm not ready to find Jesus with or without scripture doing it alone if I find him raising the whole human race well that's even better in a resurrection than an execution which incarnates the whole Jewish people suffering and maybe the suffering of All Peoples because the Psalms are prayers that anyone can pray really who has ever suffered in many cases there's nothing particularly Jewish about them except the implication may be of God you might say but somebody who cries out in pain and the sounds doesn't have to be a Jew so the Psalms could be the prayers of all the pain of all the world and then that gets me ready for the resurrection is the Salvation of the whole human race Liberation from Death so I would find that would go together quite well for me um Dr Mark goodacre argues against history remembered and against prophecy historicides he goes against the view that it was just plain remembering if historical details right you know historical recollection and he also goes against that virtually all of the passion narrative was constructed from the scriptures he says there was a a back and forth like an interplay um there were the when we read the passion narratives we still see a lot of of history and he kind of um says that even if you get rid of even if you get rid of all the verses that you Dr Crossen would kind of say these are based in scripture like they offered him wine mixed with myrrh which you know is you would say it's constructed from Psalm 69 verse 22 or dividing up his clothes they cast lots to see like Psalm 22 if you got got rid of all that you would still have a certain man from Cyrene Simon the father of Alexander and Rufus passing by on his way to the Country Way in from the country and you know he was forced to carry the cross you'd still get Jesus going to the place Golgotha um you would have his crucifixion of course you would have it be the third hour you would have the uh titulis I think the the king of the Jews and so this is more than just a Bare Bones summary like what you would see in Joseph this or tacitus there's it's still very specific and Dr goodacre views this as evidence that there is a lot of history but of course it is it there was history then it was interpreted through the lens of scripture and then that was kind of how it was expressed where it's both balanced I don't know if I'm doing the best job or a superlative job of explaining it but I think hopefully you can see what I'm saying and Dr Dale Allison in chapter 5 of constructing Jesus he kind of cites him approvingly I'm curious if you've ever heard this suggestion that's basically like a balance between your view and maybe something like Dr Raymond Brown's view um if you have heard it and if you have or if this is the first time what you think of that um I don't want to even bother arguing with it to be honest with you I mean I loved arguing with Ray Brown because his position was clear I would find arguing with that would be like being battered to death with ping pong balls you know I mean it's neither one thing nor the other I mean I would prefer somebody to say the whole thing happened there that the the the story was kept the women watched and they saw them dividing the clothes and the you know the whole thing happened that way and God was engineering it so everything happened according to the Psalms at least that's kind of a you know it's the sort of things I think we Scholars do to keep ourselves busy I'm just not interested in the in it anymore no I mean I mean it's neither one thing or the other I think what we have to face and this is the real question did we have well let me back off Mark is the source for Matthew and Luke therefore if we only had those three we would only have the story of the execution as in mark now we have to decide about John I think I think John has an independent tradition but he knows only the execution story from the synoptics and His function is to put Jesus in charge of his own execution which he does magnificently I think we have only one tradition derived from Mark of the execution of Jesus that's my position we don't have it in true we don't have it anywhere else that I know of before those sources therefore are we dealing with Mark focusing on Mark for the moment with a report of something that happened that basically somebody was watching the execution and they could tell me about it there's nothing impossible about that somebody could be as a word saying this happened this happened that happened it's possible but then you have to say and the whole thing was programmed by God to agree with the scriptures or programmed by Jesus as in John's gospel as it were John's gospel has Jesus programmed me the whole thing and when he's when he's finished he says okay it's over now I'm off I'm out of here Jesus is programming his own execution I don't believe that for a second and I think it is a I'm sorry to be be very blunt with you a vacuous position it's a far more profound position that the earliest Christians looking at the sufferings of Jesus and looking at the sufferings of their own people incarnated embodied all that suffering with Jesus so he died as the embodiment of the sufferings of their people maybe I'm prejudiced but I find that much much more profound than this idea that maybe this happened maybe that happened and I I that's fuzzy I I can't even know how to discuss it because it's it's like cotton wool it disappears when I try to hold on to it so I I really would much prefer and loved writing a book against Ray Brown because he was so clear I knew exactly what his position was but I wouldn't know how to even argue this and I apologize to Dr Mark goodacre if I've kind of fuzzied up his um you know his view uh we can take that as well probably me it's probably me um but I did I did you know remember I spent a summer writing who killed Jesus in response to Ray Brown and it was magnificently easy because Rey gave you all the arguments for something so you didn't have to do any research he told you all the arguments for something then at the end he said but it could be this I'm sure it could always be something else but he'd give you all the arguments where it should be this so when I read through all of it and including maybe this is a direct quotation I thought it was really more obvious that the people were trying to do this but you know if I had if I had four if I had even three independent Witnesses and I'm taking it for granted that you agree with this by the way stop me if I'm wrong that Matthew and Luke are copying for Mark so we don't have three witnesses to the crucifixion but one and two two plagiarists then I would be perfectly happy to say well we must have a record out because we have it in Mark we have it pretty similar in Matthew with some changes pretty similar again and look with some changes and John may be a fourth one so we have four witnesses to the execution and they're pretty much the same with you know allowable changes so yeah this must be what happened and however you explain it it came out exactly according to the scriptures if I had four I'd have no choice I have four independent Witnesses I don't know if all your audience knows there's a consensus of scholarship that Mark is the source for Matthew and Luke Ray Brown would agree with that by the way he would not agree that John is independent so he has two vectors on the execution I have nothing against that if I believed as a scholar that John was totally independent I would say so I'll be perfectly happy to figure that whatever they agreed I have something to to build on don't and probably really have to explain is why before we get to mark we can't get a history of what happened it ain't in Paul except he was executed of course I mean he's in The Gospel According to queue how come for almost 40 years nobody said down the story of the execution of Jesus this happened that happened this happened until you get to mark and then it's all perfect as you said it's according to the hours so it I don't find it the most important thing to be honest with you but I think my own opinion is a more profound theology I'm willing to say that that doesn't make it right but it does make it I find more interesting all right thank you for that there's again a lot I'd say but we're we're approaching an hour and 40 minutes so let me okay ask a final major question um okay what do you think I'll just be it'll be blunt what do you think occurred historically from The Garden of Gethsemane to the cross through the Easter visions and the development of various communities and literature that is to say if you were there recording everything with the camera what would you have seen okay here's the best I can do and I I'm watching time I Think Jesus was invited to come up to Jerusalem invited by his followers in Jerusalem who probably said something like if you're serious about this God's rule movement take it out of the hick towns of Galilee come up to the Capitol and we'd run a double demonstration against Roman occupation and high Priestly collaboration now that's I think what happened that's why he went up this time and something happened that if he went up before never happened RV hadn't gone up often before then I went up this time he went up to witness to God's rule on Earth they said to him I think we can protect you you have enough followers here who will protect you during the day in the temple they want to catch you of course we know that we can protect you and every night get out of the city out of the city to Bethany you'll be safe by day you'll be safe by night you won't get killed he doesn't go up as I see it to get himself killed either as a model of a curious atonement or as a model of extreme suffering Protestant or Catholic but he he goes up knowing he could get killed of course he knows what happened to John the Baptist he knows the danger but it's if you're serious about God's movement it ain't frugality it's for Jerusalem and all the pilgrims that will take it out now what happens you can read it in Mark's gospel even though I don't take that every day Mark keeps repeating every night he goes out to Bethany right every day the authorities want to kill him the authorities want to kill him the authorities want to arrest him they can't because of the crowd they can't because of the crowd then I don't need John the but I don't need Judas the traitor maybe he did maybe he didn't but if I'm Caiaphas I figured out what's happening every night he gets out of the city it takes me about till Thursday night that's using our our account he comes in on Palm Sunday in our accounting demonstration of Pam Sunday against Rome demonstration on what we call Easter Monday against the high Priestly Authority in the temple makes this demonstration gets away with it why isn't he dead by our Pam Sunday because the crowd's protecting him there's a danger of a riot and that's the most volatile thing at Passover as we know so kaifus Knows by say Thursday night exactly where to get them in the dark halfway between Jerusalem and um what do you call it um Bethany Gardner of Gethsemane is exactly where the roads go around either the North or the south of the the hill the so that's where we get them we get them there and we get them crucified for anyone knows anything about it we've taken the pilot and pilate is knowing the volatile danger of anything at Passover would be quite willing we tell him he says King of the Jews and if he's if he's talking about King of the uh the kingdom of God maybe if he's talking about the kingdom of God he thinks he's the king that pirate buys that pilate executes him or as Josephus sums it up the first man among us handed them over the pilot that's exactly what happened now I don't know whether that is simply a good scenario that Mark made up because he knows a good story but it makes absolute sense why Jesus gets away with a demonstration on Sunday using our language now and on Monday and his executed immediately because the crowd is on his side and he gets out of the city at night everything I read in that story tells me Jesus goes up expecting knowing the danger of being executed but expecting to get away with it and he almost does get away with it that's my scenario and then from from his death to the um kind of the Easter Visions which you you have a chapter in your book called okay yes you know how like how many years was Easter Sunday so tell us a little bit about that yeah I'm sorry the other question is so that's that's the excuse now what about the burial here's the problem for me how secure am I of the burial here's here's the problem for me working backwards if I begin with John I find an absolutely fabulous burial as Ray Brown said the whole tomb is filled with the ointment there's hardly enough room for the body it's it's not the burial of a king it's the very love of God it's almost like John saying how would you burial how would you bury Jesus Son of God magnificently now a backup into Matthew and Luke I don't find them doing anything except fixing up Mark I don't think there's any independent tradition they just want to make the tomb a little better so I get back to Mark A hurried burial by a Pious Jew like Tobit for example who doesn't want to leave the body there is it possible of course it's possible uh could he bribe somebody or with or without permission from Pila could he bribe the guards to get the body of course he could is it possible that there was a hurried burial by a Pious Jew of course it's possible do I think it happened no I think that's hope it's not history because I don't think the Romans the Roman power would have allowed it now if somebody argued whether could have bribed the guards and the guards would allowed to take down the body it's absolutely possible if I had a consistent burial then I might I might take it but I think it's an act of hope I don't think they knew what happened to the body of Jesus I think the hope is surely some Pious Jew would have done it because we we know we didn't do it but some Pious Jew would have buried the body and then Matthew and Luke they said do it in his own tomb and John eventually in the garden tomb I don't find plausibility of a tradition in the burial tradition I think it's grounded as I said in Hope rather than in event if I could put it that way and I understand it I would think any loved ones who's by who's beloved person has disappeared as it were into the mall of power would want to say surely surely surely so that now I think what happened and I would expect it to happen is visions and the more I think that Jesus as the word disappeared into what I call the more of power not winding the tournament doing kind of a martyred site I think that makes more and more sense to me that Visions were almost absolutely predictable and if you want to say that women were more likely to have visions of beloved ones than men that's the statistics that's what any psychiatrist will tell you in in a situation like this so now we have visions and we're back of course the beginning as I said now we need to interpret visions and there's two models two metaphors I think this is about the end I I really appreciate this um you know I I again I'm honored to have you on you're such a great scholar do you have any final thoughts for me for the audience just anything you want to share well I have one final thought to the audience about you you are a brilliant interviewer yeah thank you no let's just be very clear you did your homework very carefully and very honestly openly and it was an absolute pleasure talking to you for two hours and I talked to an awful lot of interviewers and I not saying anything against anyone but I'm saying you're as brilliant as I've been interviewed by and I want to thank you very much nahua for that you're welcome and again thank you so much um well to our audience to you Dr John John Dominic Crossing peace peace and peace to you and to all of us

Channel: Nahoa Life

Views: 10,233

Keywords:

Id: 3ENarJgzY64

Length: 108min 43sec (6523 seconds)

Published: Sat Aug 05 2023