Responding to NT Wright’s response to the critics of his resurrection book, John Dominic Crossan registered three agreements and three points in what he called an amicus curiae brief. The agreements:
1) “Resurrection” means the general bodily resurrection. To say Jesus is raised is to say that the general bodily resurrection has begun. Resurrection is about the eschaton breaking in. The eschaton is God’s “spring cleaning” of the world, and thus must necessarily have to do with bodies. Martyrs are destroyed bodily, and their vindication must be equally bodily.
2) Resurrection means creation is transformed, that God is not going to destroy the earth.
3) This is all a frontal attack on Caesar’s claims to lordship, though Christ’s lordship takes a different form from Caesar’s. For Caesar, victory was the condition of peace. For Christ, justice is the condition of peace.
The disagreements:
1) Crossan wants to make more of the harrowing of hell as a necessary aspect of God’s estblishment of justice in the resurrection. If Jesus rises alone, leaving all those unjustly martyred in the tomb, justice is not done.
2) In place of Wright’s “two-stage” resurrection, Crossan wants to talk about the beginning of a process. Resurrection means that a process of renewal of the creation is already begun, and that we are called to be participants in this process. This is an innovation in the tradition, according to Crossan. (This isn’t right; Noah too is called to be a participant in the process of renewal of the creation.)
3) The key to resurrection faith is not simply Jesus’ appearances + the empty tomb. Rather, Jesus prepared the disciples for the inbreaking of the eschaton in the resurrection by announcing during his lifetime that the kingdom had already begun.
All this, however, comes along with Crossan’s refusal to affirm that the tomb was empty, and his consistent claim that Jesus’ appearances were “apparitions.” As Wright correctly pointed out, the NT itself shows awareness of the distinction between apparitions and bodily appearances, and never describes the resurrection as an apparition.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
