When historical Jesus’ scholar, John Dominic Crossan, stated that Jesus’ resurrection appearances were apparitions and not physical appearances, was it possible to test this conclusion? To what degree are a scholar’s conclusions affected by his presuppositions? Crossan’s definition of history was that it ‘is the past reconstructed interactively by the present through argued evidence in public discourse’ (Crossan 1999:3). The outworking of this view was that the New Testament Gospels are regarded as megaparables, fictitious creations. His application of this view was, ‘Emmaus never happened. Emmaus always happens’ (Crossan 2012:5). A pattern emerged in which Crossan stated that he was using a method of postmodern interactivism (Crossan 1998a:42). But how is this discerned and articulated with as objective a methodology as possible? What do presuppositions of postmodern, reconstructive, interactivism do to Crossan’s conclusions regarding Jesus’ resurrection appearances? Here the parameters were restricted to literary and historical dimensions of Crossan’s speech acts. The problem investigated was to seek to identify Crossan’s presuppositions and methods in his study of the resurrection of Jesus to determine if they were valid or not when the Gospel evidence on the resurrection was considered. A presupposition-hypothesis method was used to test for verification or falsification, using a critical realist epistemology. A research gap indicated a need for a more objective model to isolate a researcher’s presuppositions of Jesus’ resurrection. The Beaver and Geurts framework (2011) was chosen that led to probability and not certainty about the content of presuppositions. Presuppositional ‘triggers’ were identified from Crossan’s resurrection data. The hypothesis tested was: J D Crossan's presuppositions and methods, in his study of the resurrection of Jesus, are not valid when the Gospel evidence on the resurrection is taken into consideration. Twenty-three presuppositions were discovered and these were developed into 18 hypotheses, three of which were tested: Hypothesis 9: The divine manifestation of Christianity for a postmodern world is deconstruction (his term is reconstruction) and it is not done once for all, but is reinterpreted for each generation’s issues. It was found that reconstruction mutilates the voice of the author by imposing an a priori metaphorical dogmatism on the text. Crossan’s postmodern, reconstructive, interactive hermeneutic was shipwrecked on the ‘rocks’ of contradiction, inconsistency and a self-defeating methodology. Hypothesis 10: The New Testament resurrection narratives are not historical documents. Crossan defined history as a postmodern reconstructionist and reached postmodern, reconstructive conclusions, thus using a question begging logical fallacy. He also did not apply this methodology consistently. Hypothesis 12: It does not matter what a person believes about whether Jesus’ tomb was empty or not; the importance is its meaning, which is independent of factuality. Crossan imposed his own understanding of the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection through his use of free play, relativistic, multivalent, postmodern, nonsupernatural stratagem on the text. Thus, Crossan’s idiosyncratic meanings replaced objective, hermeneutical testing of the text of Scripture. Therefore this dissertation’s hypothesis was verified. / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2015. / tm2015 / New Testament Studies / PhD / Unrestricted

`Resurrection' can be approached from several angles. The most common angle is what this study avoids: pressing for a `yes' or a `no' answer as to whether `Jesus really rose from the dead'. That is, demanding a definitive and final outcome from the discipline of historical-critical research. This study treats resurrection as a symbol. Symbols intrinsically generate multiple meanings. Historical, hermeneutical and gospel-critical parameters are the constraints within which reflection on the symbol of resurrection must take place, and the validity of perspectives be established. John Dominic Crossan's view of the resurrection is the focal point of discussion in this thesis, for two reasons. (1) He has clearly mapped out his method. (2) He occupies a middle position, by interpreting resurrection metaphorically and theologically. This sets him apart from those who interpret the resurrection literally and historically and those who accept the negative or uncertain outcome from the side of historical-critical inquiry as the death sentence for Christian faith. / New Testament / M.Th. (New Testament)

`Resurrection' can be approached from several angles. The most common angle is what this study avoids: pressing for a `yes' or a `no' answer as to whether `Jesus really rose from the dead'. That is, demanding a definitive and final outcome from the discipline of historical-critical research. This study treats resurrection as a symbol. Symbols intrinsically generate multiple meanings. Historical, hermeneutical and gospel-critical parameters are the constraints within which reflection on the symbol of resurrection must take place, and the validity of perspectives be established. John Dominic Crossan's view of the resurrection is the focal point of discussion in this thesis, for two reasons. (1) He has clearly mapped out his method. (2) He occupies a middle position, by interpreting resurrection metaphorically and theologically. This sets him apart from those who interpret the resurrection literally and historically and those who accept the negative or uncertain outcome from the side of historical-critical inquiry as the death sentence for Christian faith. / New Testament / M.Th. (New Testament)

Why has the resurrection once again become the centre point of a new storm brewing in both popular and academic culture? Because of the combination of a realisation of death, and of human beings’ need to interpret its (death’s) mysteries; a question innate to the human experience. In a fear-filled world where war, terrorism, and economic collapse bring the question of death (and the afterlife) to the fore, people are asking – perhaps more than ever – what happens after we die. This popular fascination with the end, with death, and with what (if anything) lies beyond it, has also influenced the theme and the direction of academic work in the theological field. For this reason an informed analysis of the resurrection debate has become necessary – a process of analysing the different strata of understanding as it relates to current resurrection research. Any consideration given to gender or power, birth or burial, money or food is made in an effort to situate the debates being studied. Could a reason for these still varied conclusions on the subject be that those writing on it are not equipped for the task of analysing and interpreting history and historical method? In order to be able to begin answering this question, one of this study's main objectives is to learn and apply the approach of historians – outside of the community of Biblical scholars – to the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead; thus providing interaction with philosophers of history related to hermeneutical and methodological considerations. The method proposed here is a combination of historiography and an ethics of understanding, with the use of Correspondence theory (in which history is described as knowable, and some hypotheses as truer than others in a correspondence sense). This study wants to address both the different questions and analyses of the debate by asking: What if we see things differently? What if we were to ask a different set of questions? In order for this to be possible, we need to develop an ethics of interpretation – instead of asking the expected questions, this study aims to ask: What interests and frameworks inform the questions we ask and the way in which we interpret our sources? How does scholarship echo (and even participate in) contemporary public discourses about Christian identity? These questions will be attended to through three intersecting practices – critical reflexivity, complemented by the use of the two related practices of textual re-reading and public debate. However, these are not methodical steps in a linear progression, they are mutually interacting practices that draw on each other; raising new possibilities for the way in which we historically reconstruct the Jesus movement, allowing us to enter into the public debate about Jesus and eschatology in a way that takes the ethical possibilities and consequences of our reconstructions of Christian origins and identity seriously. For, though fragmentary and broken human words may be, they nevertheless possess a capacity to function as the medium through which God is able to disclose himself. Copyright / Dissertation (MTh)--University of Pretoria, 2010. / New Testament Studies / unrestricted