This dissertation examines the impact of theological worldview upon John Dominic Crossan's scholarly reconstruction of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Chapter 1 introduces the centrality of resurrection belief in historic Christianity, and outlines Crossan's redefinition of the resurrection as a metaphorical parable. Chapter 2 examines the understanding of Jesus' resurrection throughout Christian history, focusing particularly on developments after the rise of deism. It concludes with an examination of Crossan's metaphorical conception of the resurrection. Chapter 3 begins with a personal and academic biography of Crossan. The key section of the chapter deals with Crossan's theological worldview presuppositions, and offers a preliminary indication of how his worldview directs his conclusions concerning Jesus' resurrection. Chapter 4 analyzes Crossan's hermeneutics and methodology. It begins with a survey of Crossan's early work in literary criticism before moving into his extra-canonical research. The chapter offers a substantial review and critical analysis of his triple-triadic historical Jesus methodology, arguing that its structure and operation are both influenced by Crossan's underlying worldview presuppositions. Throughout, the chapter examines how Crossan's hermeneutics and methodology influence his understanding of the resurrection. Chapter 5 considers the role of theological worldview and the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament, the early church, and her opponents, with particular focus upon second-century Gnostic Christianity. It argues that Gnostic Christians did what post-Enlightenment Christians, including Crossan, have also done--redefined and reconstructed Jesus' resurrection in order to fit it into their existing theological worldview. Chapter 6 offers some closing thoughts about the relationship between theological worldview and the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It insists that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ as a literal historical fact lies at the center of historic Christianity. It suggests further that the resurrection-event transformed the theological worldview of Jesus' disciples and other early Christians, and continues to call for worldview transformation amongst those who would call themselves his followers today. This dissertation concludes that the single most important factor in Crossan's scholarly conclusions regarding Jesus' resurrection is his underlying theological worldview.

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)

Thesis (M.A.)--Catholic Theological Union at Chicago, 1999. / Vita. Appendix I.A brief history of the quest for the historical Jesus -- Appendix II. Historiography of the new quest and the third quest. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 170-176).

This thesis focussed on the matter of Judean ethnic identity in the first century CE. At first we pointed out that New Testament scholarship lacks an overall interpretive framework to understand Judean identity. There is not an appreciation of what informed the entire process of Judean ethnic identity formation in the first century, or at any period for that matter. This lack of interpretive framework is acute in scholarship on the historical Jesus, where the issue of Judeanness is most strongly debated. We investigated the reconstructions of John P Meier and John D Crossan, and attempted to identify what content, be it explicitly or implicitly, or by omission, do they assign to Jesus’ Judean identity. But as yet, we were not in a position to say just what kind of Judean Jesus was. We then proceeded by developing a Socio-Cultural Model of Judean Ethnicity. At first Sanders’ notion of covenantal nomism was explored and redefined to function primarily as an ethnic descriptor. We combined the notion of covenantal nomism with Berger and Luckmann’s theories on the sociology of knowledge, and saw that covenantal nomism could function as the Judean construction of reality. It is a convenient way to define the Judean “symbolic universe”. Dunn’s “four pillars of Second Temple Judeanism” was then reviewed, which looked at the importance of the Temple, God, Election and the Torah. The “new perspective” on Paul as developed by Dunn also proved useful, as he brought attention to the importance of traditional customs (e g circumcision and food laws), and how it served as “badges” for Judean identity. The approaches of Sanders and Dunn, however, lacked the insights of ethnicity theory. Ethnicity theory has identified two primary alternatives when it comes to ethnicity formation: constructionism and primordialism. We looked at the attempt of Jones to integrate the various approaches by her incorporation of the concept of the habitus. An overview of Duling’s Socio-Cultural Model of Ethnicity followed, which lists all the relevant cultural features and which emphasises the predominant constructionist approach. We integrated all of the above into our own proposed model, which we termed covenantal nomism. It is a pictorial representation of the Judean symbolic universe, which as an ethnic identity, was proposed to be essentiall primordialist. The model was then given appropriate content, by investigating what would have been typical of first century Judean ethnic identity. It was also demonstrated that their existed a fundamental continuity between Judea and Galilee, as Galileans were ethnic Judeans themselves and they lived on the ancestral land of Israel. Attention was then focussed on the matter of ethnic identity in Q. We investigated the stratification of Kloppenborg and suggested that the third stratum which refers to the Torah properly belongs to the polemical and apologetic strategy of the main redaction. After analysing the two stratums it was concluded that Q points to a community whose Judean ethnic identity was in (re)construction. Apart from the cultural features of name and land, all cultural features demonstrated strong elements of discontinuity with traditional covenantal nomism. The Q people were given an eschatological Judean identity based on their commitment to Jesus and the requirements of the kingdom/reign of God. / Thesis (PhD (New Testament Studies))--University of Pretoria, 2007. / New Testament Studies / unrestricted

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