This lecture having taken place in 2000 and this being 2024, it isn’t surprising that new ideas are coming to the surface. I recently listened to a conversation between Bart Ehrman’s cohost, Megan Lewis and Robyn Faith Walsh. Robyn was talking about her book, The Origins of Early Christian Literature, Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture. I have read and listened to a lot of JDC, but Robyn brings some new and thought provoking ideas. Another author, Candide Moss, also brings new ideas. Very skilled enslaved peoples with experience in rhetoric and in contact with other enslaved people with similar skills using common tropes of the era composing the gospels. I was so fascinated that I purchased and am well over halfway finished reading Robyn’s book and having found and listened to five or six interviews. Thanks TH-cam!
J.D. Crossan is clearly one of the greatest scholars on the historical Jesus. "The function of a birth story is to be an overture, not a first act" 57:14 brilliant!
Great lecture. While I sit more in line with people like Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, Dale Allison, EP Sanders etc., who argue that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, it's always good to hear plausible alternatives. It keeps everyone honest. I'd love to be a fly on the wall watching a dinner conversation between Richard Carrier (mythicist), Bart Ehrman (apocalypticist), Dom Crossan (non-violent resistor) and Mike Licona (evangelist). It would probably turn into a food fight haha!!
When people misunderstan grerk-roman literature that is filled by bits from Homer, Euripides and even Josephus. Thus happens when people do not understand it is a translation, dont speak greek and dont know the basics of antiquity. These stories are literature, fictional constructions.
Absolutely loved this lecture. Fascinating and riveting. I am only going into my second year study in Theology as a late comer mature student and I cannot wait. I always wondered who Jesus really was. From the earliest time I can remember I was full of questions about him and what he did and said and why. Thank you for uploading this.
Christianity wrong doctrine? Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says: * Jesus was not God. * Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins* * Jesus did not resurrect from death. I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus. * As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc). As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these: 1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed. 2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do? *A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross. *B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven. Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer. *That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
There is a good reason Mr. Crossan only lasted 12 years as a priest. Honesty, integrity and tells it as he sees it. His lecture on Parables tells it all ! A Giant in Jesus and NT studies, IMHO
Thank you for uploading this lecture. I liked especially his introduction that we should look to comparative anthropology, history writing, and archeology to understand better the setting of the gospel. . . . And after having heard so many descriptions of Jesus as apocalyptic prophets, it was good to hear a slightly different view that was well-argued.
@rolfme5499 - You describe a fringe view among scholars. There have been a few mythicists among scholars since 1850 who claimed Jesus or even Paul were fictional characters, but today, there are hardly any left of those. . . . For example, if we assume that there was a Paul who wrote the six authentic epistles, we have this Paul mentioning in first Corinthians the brothers of Jesus and in Galatians reluctantly admitting having met the brother of Jesus, James, in Jerusalem. And we have Josephus describing the fall of the high priest Ananius over his illegal execution of James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Messiah. Two independent sources for James, the brother of Jesus. And fictional characters don't have real brothers, so Jesus is not fictional.
@Achill101 Among intelligent people there is no discussion! Jesus is a fictional character made up by unknown professional liars! Saul of Tarsos was a professional liar! The texts attributed to Flavius Josephus are 3rd century christian forgeries! Fictional characters have fictional families! .
Dom treats the expansion of productivity as a tool for expanding the financial gulf between the rich and poor. Holland is a perfect example to the contrary. In 5 years, between 1707-1712 Dutch created 200,000 flooded acres into magnificent food production by the technology of wind mills. That productivity increased the quality of life and food availabilty of everyone. It always depends on the social vision of the people. Improved wealth and productivity does not have to primarily benefit the wealthy. It requires social leadership which, as Dom points out, is not always available.
This is definitely to me an enlightening lecture on the historical Jesus even delivered 21 years ago (can some verify the year please?). I think to truly benefit from it, we have to put our belief aside temporarily whether you are atheist or Christian. This lecture is not to prove if Jesus is God or not. We all can have our finally say.
I agree with Crossan that Jesus was non-violent and I wish more people in our current time embraced peace. One thing I have to say I disagree with Crossan on is his point about Jesus' view of John's message. It is certainly "possible" Jesus changed his mind about John's message after God did not avenge John's death... but honestly, I don't see any good evidence in the sources we have for that theory. At the end of the day, we will never know for sure, but I believe that Jesus shared some obvious similarities with John and may have believed even at his crucifixion that God's wrath would come soon... Paul certainly held different views than some of the other early Christians, but he mentioned the wrath of God in his authentic letters on multiple occasions. But whether or not Jesus changed his mind and no matter the reason for remaining peaceful, the overall point is the same- Jesus preached non-violent resistance and peace. Surely that is something both Christians and non-Christians can embrace in a world filled with so much violence today. Crossan's points in "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography" about the parables, the healing and sharing of food and the great struggles of the poor were fascinating. I encourage others to read that book. I am not sure whether Jesus was more of a Cynic, like Crossan has suggested or a sort of apocalyptic prophet, as EP Sanders Bart Ehrman have argued... but nonetheless, this subject is a very interesting one to study. So many of Jesus' teachings are inspirational regardless!
Jesus spoke for hours and hours day after day. We only have basic summaries of that in the bible. The people who followed Jesus were those who heard and saw him and were transformed by whatever it was they saw and heard. They didn't have any New testament mythology or resurection story they were responding to his words and healing.
What you fail to understand is that what Jesus said coincides with what the writers of the Old Testament wrote; and it did not come out of Judaism. Jesus did not teach Judaism; and there was no such thing as Christian Judaism. That's just ideological nonsense. Also, what we find written down in the Gospels is not myth, and every bit of it comes out of the Hebrew Bible.
Something just occurred to me while watching this vid, when someone asked Crossan about Jesus’s claim to being the son of God. He, Jesus, also says in the Gospels, “Call no one father for you have but one father who is in heaven.” (this might be a bit better translated as ‘call no one creator’ or ‘call no one your source’, but that’s kind of another subject). In a way wasn’t he proclaiming that we are all children and sons and daughters of God, and in doing so changing the relationship of everyone to everything, to God,… everyone’s understanding of themselves, and also maybe to some extent their relationship and outlook to the powers and hierarchies that be?
No. In the Old Testament era the average Hebrew male was known as the son of God. So, we are all sons and daughters of God. Also, Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man more than the Son of God. In the New Testament age there is only one Son of Man, and it is a claim to deity taken from Psalms 110 and Daniel chapter 7.
@@timw4383 In the Old Testamental literature and world nobody was called son of God besides the king. Look it up what God says to David about his son Salomon. I never ever heard one Rabbi tell me we are sons of God in this way. Its not Jewish at all
It is the divine question that brings the real debate. It isn't delusion as much as brainwashed. I mention this many times in my own vids. When you are told something as a child and educated about it continuously in your school followed by multiple days a week in your church---you believe it. This is what I ask the Christian (former Christian here). How much have you actually researched? And researching doesn't mean reading a book by one of your own and just agreeing with it because it matches your already programmed worldview. It means checking for legitimacy. All of us deconverts were once Christians. And we did the research and as I always tell my own people. If you do the research you won't be a Christian for very long. Cheers, DCF
I wish we could plug Mary, the mother of Jesus, into the slot - ''the one that Jesus loved". Later, from James, also plug the Blessed Virgin into the cognomen, ''Theophilos'. The miracle at Xana would be a sound foundation for this construction as a guest would never assume to amend wedding arrangements. She might be the power behind the scenes. Interesting transition after John the Baptist was eliminated. He turned it into a movement by many which could survive the loss of one or more heads.
We don't know. It might depend on his relation to John the Baptist who lived more in the desert: did Jesus stay with John's disciples for linger? . . . But the actual relation with John seems in the gospels overshadowed by a defense against contemporary claims Jesus would have been only a discipline and an inferior to John.
Anyone who wants to get an idea of what the historical Jesus was about should try reading the Qumran communities writings, (Flavius) Josephus, and Philo, the Nag Hammadi scrolls/books as well as a careful reading of parts of the new testament (taking out the magic bits and Pauls anti Jerusalem bias) , they won't find Jesus daily musings or his shoe size but they will find the real movement he lead after its previous leader was beheaded, and they will discover a lot of information about a what I think is a fascinating period in our history. It won't make up a complete picture by far but it will take the person nearer than any research done by anyone coming from a religious doctrine.
Michael S. Thomas josephus' writing is a knows interpolation inserted several hundred years after josephus had been dead...even if you want to still believe what the josephus forgery says, christs' supposed death occurred 70 years before josephus was born, so his having anything like first hand knowledge is impossible. Also: There is no contemporary writings by anyone who knew, saw nor heard jesus as a living person...sorry, there just isnt!!!
Your imaginary buddy Jesus is a fictional character made up by unknown professional liars! The text attributed to Flavius Josephus is a 3rd century christian forgery! .
I think there are some errors and false assumptions made. He states that hebrew custom and teaching that the buying and selling of land was discouraged. I think he has that mixed up with later feudalism where you were literally chained to your land, occupation and could not, with out the Kings permission leave or start a new occupation. JC taught a parable about land sale. The brief parable of the hidden treasure is as follows: Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found, and hid. In his joy, he goes and sells all that he has, and buys that field. Why would Jesus use the purchase of land in one of his parables if it was prohibited? Then there is the timing of the Gospel of Thomas. Most scholars believe that it was written no earlier than the second century. He states it was written in 50 AD
Land sales were possible for Jews, too, but only temporary ones IIRC. After some time, like in a jubilee year, the land had to be redistributed to its original tribe again. In a way, you could only buy the right to use the land for some years, not the land itself. . . . The argument for an early time of the Thomas Gospel is that it is an independent source of more Jesus' sayings, but that they are consistent with other Jesus' sayings and, therefore, probably not fabulation. That does not mean the actual collection is ancient, but that its sources were in Israel before 66AD when the Roman war began.
Scholars of history: Hey, if your empire has got to put down rebellions all the time, that means your policies are not working! Romans: What policies? Now pray for the wellbeing of our lord and saviour, Augustus Caesar!
I'm seeing a really strange conflict between what Crossan is saying and the subtitle text that pretends to tell what he is saying in the textural form. Can anyone explain this?(Edit): Apparently I had the closed captioning on - it seems that what the closed captioning is saying is really, really strange.
I have watched a few of Dominic’s lectures now and I am confused or he his, likely the former to be fair. He seems to have a weird opinion on the historical Jesus, which is weird in its self, but it is as if he doesn’t actually believe that Jesus the man was the son of God. He appears to believe in the message and not necessarily the messenger. I think he has philosophised a step to far and got lost.
Well, his approach is historical criticism; not theology. He is making a distinction between the historical man, Jesus of Nazareth, and the theological concept of Jesus Christ. The former is a man, likely born to a Jewish peasant couple in Nazareth, one of a number of siblings (James being historical, for example), whose life has been very broadly constructed using historical methods. The latter is a religious figure born of a virgin peasant woman in Bethlehem, thus fulfilling a criterion of messianic prophecy, and the God of Israel's only begotten son. The former is not theologically sufficient, while the latter is not historically consistent. He's an academic, not a preacher. His personal beliefs, whether religious or not, are entirely separate from his scholarly work.
You need to listen and read more of Don’s writings. He does not believe that Jesus was god or that Jesus is accurately represented in Christian literature. Jesus was a charcature of common views of roaming self described prophets. Bart Erman, professor of Early Church history is a former fundamentalist turned atheist. One has to be honest with real history of the church and be willing to make a decision as to whether the facts deserve the faith we place in the Jesus story. But as Christian’s, we can’t be content with a pablum based make believe history of the person of Jesus.
I keep thinking who does he remind me of. Ken Ham. It's something in his body movements. Now you'll never be able to unthink that thought. You're welcome.
Attempting to explain Christianity while standing under an illuminated pyramid would seem to imply that he's inspired by worldly wisdom rather than biblical revelation. 2 Cor 11:14..."And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."
I think his ideas about Jesus are the weakest I've heard. Historian Paul Maier seems to have a much greater grasp of the Jesus of history. His book "Genuine Jesus" is the best in this field by far!
to emphasize, to reconstruct, to define, The past interactively reconstructed by the present through argued evidence in public discourse. interactive, to interact
It is called (if I am not wrong) "hermeneutic circle". I am amazed how these new position of scholar were anticipated by some "liberation theologian" more than 40 year ago, of course without so much scholar backup which did not exist before. But the intuition was there
I'd suggest someone more conservative than N T Wriight - he agrees too much with Crossan on the social gospel emphasis. Other than Licona, I'd suggest James White. And maybe Dr. Robert Price rather than Carrier. Both Price and White have the chops. That would indeed be a lively conversation.Elaine Pagels would also be interesting. But no William Lane Craigs please!
Great idea But I think the only one throwing food would actually be Carrier ... probably in the direction of Bart LOL But the apocalyptic vs non-apocalyptic debate remains unsettled as far as I can see. Given the sources and all the layers it may be impossible to resolve to a consensus point unless new early manuscripts come in to tip the balance - if an early copy of the Gospel to the Ebionites or Hebrews or Nazoreans was found for instance.
Is the Holy Spirit historical? The 'words in red' are theologically "WHAT WOULD THE HOLY SPIRIT SAY?" Flesh and blood could not reveal, nor discern, nor see, nor hear, nor heal.
Religious training not modern logical historian based. He assumes jesus then hypothesizes the value of the religion. Actual unbiased scholars cant find jesus. They find greek myth.
He is a historian. He also has experience as a former monk. For some, that means he might have more insight than an "modern logical historian" (whatever that means).
*Christianity wrong doctrine* Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says: * Jesus was not God. * Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins* * Jesus did not resurrect from death. I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus. * As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc). As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these: 1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed. 2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do? *A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross. *B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven. Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer. *That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
Genesis is based right off the bat on two myths and continues in monomyths from there. Christianity and Islam are based downstream from there. Figure out why it's fake and what parts are real.
There is not and was not any such thing as Christian Judaism. That statement comes out of the ignorance and idealistic intent of Mr. Crossan and other secular scholars like him. Jesus never taught Judaism. He was against it. What Jesus taught was the Law and the Prophets. That is not Judaism. Judaism is a religious tradition built upon an interpretation of the text. Jesus taught the text not Judaism; and that is what got him killed. Crossan is an idealist who thinks that the way to understand the Hebrew Bible is to view it through the lens of Judaism. He is wrong. Judaism lacks understanding of the text and writer intent. Christianity and Judaism are polar opposites, were never one faith, and will never come together as one faith.
How do you know what got Jesus killed? was u their 2000 years ago? The only crazy thing about all of you smart Scholars is that all of y'all think the way that y'all interpret the Bible is the way that it really was. no one really knows what really happened. The Muslims think that Jesus was never crucified. they think it was someone else in his place.
wrong kid! jesus taught and preached only judaism! its the greek & westerners who took the jewish jesus and turn him into a man-god coming on earth..thats the reality truth son..the greek invented & fabricated their own bible using the hebrew texts which they officialy stole..duno where you got this fully irrational bias false view from..#you make no sense#
If you define Judaism as you want, you can easily prove that there was no Christian Judaism. . . . I prefer to follow the view that Judaism as Thorah-obeying religion had existed in Israel at least since the Hasmoneans and diversified until 66CE when the Roman War began. Christianity was part of that diverse Judaism, as were Saducees, Pharisees, and Essenes. But the war and the destruction of Jerusalem ended most forms of Judaism, only Christianity survived (mostly in the Greek speaking world) and the Pharisees who became the Rabbinical Judaism (mostly in the Aramaic speaking world, like Babylon).
@@Achill101: There is no form of Judaism in Christian text, in Christian's interpretation of the Hebrew text, or in Christian practice. What, in your view, are the similarities between the two?
@St.BernardProject St.B.Project : The death of Jesus is based on the text, not opinion. Muslims are Gnostics. This is why they believe Jesus was never crucified. It is the error of their Gnostic text.
I add the same reply as under your reply to my post: @rolfme5499 - You describe a fringe view among scholars. There have been a few mythicists among scholars since 1850 who claimed Jesus or even Paul were fictional characters, but today, there are hardly any left of those. . . . For example, if we assume that there was a Paul who wrote the six authentic epistles, we have this Paul mentioning in first Corinthians the brothers of Jesus and in Galatians reluctantly admitting having met the brother of Jesus, James, in Jerusalem. And we have Josephus describing the fall of the high priest Ananius over his illegal execution of James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Messiah. Two independent sources for James, the brother of Jesus. And fictional characters don't have real brothers, so Jesus is not fictional.
@Achill101 Jesus is a fictional character! Saul of Tarsos was a professional liar! The gospels were made up by unknown professional liars! The texts attributed to Flavius Josephus and Publius Cornelius Tacitus are christian forgeries! No historian mentions the events described in the gospels! The bible is a collection of lies and fairy tales! .
@sallymorrison3994 You are extremely stupid because religion has damaged your brain! You asked for one historian, I named two and now you complain! You do not know what Richard Dawkins thinks! There are no miracles! Obviously you are too stupid to understand science! Your imaginary buddy Jesus never existed! I knew that even before I read Carrier and Fitzgerald! You are an extremely gullible child! That's why you still believe in fairies and in fairy tales! Unlike you I am an intelligent and educated adult! And unlike you I have read the bible! Go and play with your doll! .
its really shocking that anyone agrees with this man. his points are poorly made and as he Admits they can easily be explained. he tried to make everything a parable so that he can make Yeshua in to who he wants him to be justas all those involved in the jesus seminar. the fact is this man has no authority to make any claims a about Yeshua. the historical Jesus is the one found in scripture. i pray you may not be decieved by this man so as to twist scripture and our Lord Yeshua into what you want him to be. the fact is you are a sinner who is in desperate need of a savior. YHWH himself entered his creation and died on the cross to pay your debt. ישוע is Lord. יהוה our God the triune God of scripture is Holy righteous and Just and i pray you all know him
![เปิดบ้าน พี่ตูน Bodyslam หลังใหม่คนแรก ที่ภูเก็ต l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/flFwcmyDQSk/mqdefault.jpg)
Love the overall macro and micro take from all angles he gives to his lectures. Brilliant.
@everttherandez7099
This " lecture " is meaningless gibberish!
.
This lecture having taken place in 2000 and this being 2024, it isn’t surprising that new ideas are coming to the surface. I recently listened to a conversation between Bart Ehrman’s cohost, Megan Lewis and Robyn Faith Walsh. Robyn was talking about her book, The Origins of Early Christian Literature, Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture. I have read and listened to a lot of JDC, but Robyn brings some new and thought provoking ideas. Another author, Candide Moss, also brings new ideas. Very skilled enslaved peoples with experience in rhetoric and in contact with other enslaved people with similar skills using common tropes of the era composing the gospels. I was so fascinated that I purchased and am well over halfway finished reading Robyn’s book and having found and listened to five or six interviews. Thanks TH-cam!
i do not agree with everything this man says but i think he is brilliant and i could listen to him all day .
J.D. Crossan is clearly one of the greatest scholars on the historical Jesus. "The function of a birth story is to be an overture, not a first act" 57:14 brilliant!
What a fascinating lecture. Thanks for posting.
th-cam.com/video/wWPEGb3l8J0/w-d-xo.html
I love his explanations.
Great lecture. While I sit more in line with people like Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, Dale Allison, EP Sanders etc., who argue that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, it's always good to hear plausible alternatives. It keeps everyone honest. I'd love to be a fly on the wall watching a dinner conversation between Richard Carrier (mythicist), Bart Ehrman (apocalypticist), Dom Crossan (non-violent resistor) and Mike Licona (evangelist). It would probably turn into a food fight haha!!
I would put NT Wright in Licona’s place. Licona’s history is not that great.
When people misunderstan grerk-roman literature that is filled by bits from Homer, Euripides and even Josephus. Thus happens when people do not understand it is a translation, dont speak greek and dont know the basics of antiquity. These stories are literature, fictional constructions.
Add James Tabor
Absolutely loved this lecture. Fascinating and riveting. I am only going into my second year study in Theology as a late comer mature student and I cannot wait. I always wondered who Jesus really was. From the earliest time I can remember I was full of questions about him and what he did and said and why. Thank you for uploading this.
Christianity wrong doctrine?
Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says:
* Jesus was not God.
* Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins*
* Jesus did not resurrect from death.
I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus.
* As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc).
As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these:
1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed.
2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do?
*A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross.
*B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven.
Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer.
*That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
Theology is not a study!
.
Yeah I agree. I don't think we'll ever know for sure. It's more about what hypothesis is the most plausible.
Outstanding. Thank you!
Thank you for posting.
There is a good reason Mr. Crossan only lasted 12 years as a priest. Honesty, integrity and tells it as he sees it.
His lecture on Parables tells it all ! A Giant in Jesus and NT studies, IMHO
Thank you for posting this!
Thank you for uploading this lecture. I liked especially his introduction that we should look to comparative anthropology, history writing, and archeology to understand better the setting of the gospel.
. . . And after having heard so many descriptions of Jesus as apocalyptic prophets, it was good to hear a slightly different view that was well-argued.
The only
Iuiiuuuuuuiui
@Achill101
Jesus is a fictional character!
The gospels were made up by unknown professional liars!
There is no apocalypse!
.
@rolfme5499 - You describe a fringe view among scholars. There have been a few mythicists among scholars since 1850 who claimed Jesus or even Paul were fictional characters, but today, there are hardly any left of those.
. . . For example, if we assume that there was a Paul who wrote the six authentic epistles, we have this Paul mentioning in first Corinthians the brothers of Jesus and in Galatians reluctantly admitting having met the brother of Jesus, James, in Jerusalem. And we have Josephus describing the fall of the high priest Ananius over his illegal execution of James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Messiah. Two independent sources for James, the brother of Jesus. And fictional characters don't have real brothers, so Jesus is not fictional.
@Achill101
Among intelligent people there is no discussion!
Jesus is a fictional character made up by unknown professional liars!
Saul of Tarsos was a professional liar!
The texts attributed to Flavius Josephus are 3rd century christian forgeries!
Fictional characters have fictional families!
.
Thanks for posting this, it was very interesting.
This is one of the latest JDC you tube videos!!!!!It was put on in 2012.Pease we need more JDC videos.
The best historical evidence of the turmoil in the first century I've ever heard
Was
no one noticed anything in the 20s or 30 in regard of a dead arameic speaking preacher as no one wrote a single word about him at the time.
great lecture with irish humor. love it
th-cam.com/video/wWPEGb3l8J0/w-d-xo.html
Dom treats the expansion of productivity as a tool for expanding the financial gulf between the rich and poor. Holland is a perfect example to the contrary. In 5 years, between 1707-1712 Dutch created 200,000 flooded acres into magnificent food production by the technology of wind mills. That productivity increased the quality of life and food availabilty of everyone. It always depends on the social vision of the people. Improved wealth and productivity does not have to primarily benefit the wealthy. It requires social leadership which, as Dom points out, is not always available.
Brilliant lecture on the historical background used to write 1st/2nd century fiction
Excellent talk!
thanksfor insightful teachings
This is definitely to me an enlightening lecture on the historical Jesus even delivered 21 years ago (can some verify the year please?). I think to truly benefit from it, we have to put our belief aside temporarily whether you are atheist or Christian. This lecture is not to prove if Jesus is God or not. We all can have our finally say.
I agree with Crossan that Jesus was non-violent and I wish more people in our current time embraced peace. One thing I have to say I disagree with Crossan on is his point about Jesus' view of John's message. It is certainly "possible" Jesus changed his mind about John's message after God did not avenge John's death... but honestly, I don't see any good evidence in the sources we have for that theory. At the end of the day, we will never know for sure, but I believe that Jesus shared some obvious similarities with John and may have believed even at his crucifixion that God's wrath would come soon... Paul certainly held different views than some of the other early Christians, but he mentioned the wrath of God in his authentic letters on multiple occasions. But whether or not Jesus changed his mind and no matter the reason for remaining peaceful, the overall point is the same- Jesus preached non-violent resistance and peace. Surely that is something both Christians and non-Christians can embrace in a world filled with so much violence today.
Crossan's points in "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography" about the parables, the healing and sharing of food and the great struggles of the poor were fascinating. I encourage others to read that book. I am not sure whether Jesus was more of a Cynic, like Crossan has suggested or a sort of apocalyptic prophet, as EP Sanders Bart Ehrman have argued... but nonetheless, this subject is a very interesting one to study. So many of Jesus' teachings are inspirational regardless!
Jesus spoke for hours and hours day after day. We only have basic summaries of that in the bible. The people who followed Jesus were those who heard and saw him and were transformed by whatever it was they saw and heard. They didn't have any New testament mythology or resurection story they were responding to his words and healing.
Sure, but Jesus wasn't speaking to you or me at all. Jesus Christ chose apostle Paul to speak and write to us.
Chris
yet they wrote NOTHING down about what they saw nor heard...odd.
Gerald Nichols
who says?? paul?? If someone today told you that jesus was speaking to him, would you believe him?? So why do you believe paul??
almost everyone in this time/ area was illiterate. as many have noted the gospels were written later by people elsewhere who were much more educated
What you fail to understand is that what Jesus said coincides with what the writers of the Old Testament wrote; and it did not come out of Judaism.
Jesus did not teach Judaism; and there was no such thing as Christian Judaism. That's just ideological nonsense.
Also, what we find written down in the Gospels is not myth, and every bit of it comes out of the Hebrew Bible.
Wonderful. Great lecture.
Is there a tennis match going on in the audience
may i please repost on my channel?
WHY DOES HE ASSUME THERE WAS A HISTORICAL JESUS?
Crossan never really makes any solid points; he just rambles on.
i think he is liberal
@ I think he is using Jesus to spread Marxism.
Because he's studying the Jesus in the past and the current Jesus.
Interesting and informative. Thank you.
Something just occurred to me while watching this vid, when someone asked Crossan about Jesus’s claim to being the son of God. He, Jesus, also says in the Gospels, “Call no one father for you have but one father who is in heaven.” (this might be a bit better translated as ‘call no one creator’ or ‘call no one your source’, but that’s kind of another subject).
In a way wasn’t he proclaiming that we are all children and sons and daughters of God, and in doing so changing the relationship of everyone to everything, to God,… everyone’s understanding of themselves, and also maybe to some extent their relationship and outlook to the powers and hierarchies that be?
No.
In the Old Testament era the average Hebrew male was known as the son of God. So, we are all sons and daughters of God.
Also, Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man more than the Son of God.
In the New Testament age there is only one Son of Man, and it is a claim to deity taken from Psalms 110 and Daniel chapter 7.
@@timw4383 Sorry but only the king is called son of God
@@antonius3745:
You don't know what you are talking about.
@@timw4383 In the Old Testamental literature and world nobody was called son of God besides the king. Look it up what God says to David about his son Salomon. I never ever heard one Rabbi tell me we are sons of God in this way. Its not Jewish at all
@@antonius3745:
That's Judaism, and that's why Jesus rejected it.
There's a lot that you people have gotten wrong.
I thought the comments would be full of Biblical quotes done by people angry that Crossan wasnt saying "here he is", I'm surprised.
the audience is likely made up of mostly "progressive" christians.. thus no need to demand the gospels are truly historical fact.
Since you brought it up .why isn't he saying here he is?
It is the divine question that brings the real debate. It isn't delusion as much as brainwashed. I mention this many times in my own vids. When you are told something as a child and educated about it continuously in your school followed by multiple days a week in your church---you believe it. This is what I ask the Christian (former Christian here). How much have you actually researched? And researching doesn't mean reading a book by one of your own and just agreeing with it because it matches your already programmed worldview. It means checking for legitimacy. All of us deconverts were once Christians. And we did the research and as I always tell my own people. If you do the research you won't be a Christian for very long. Cheers, DCF
I wish we could plug Mary, the mother of Jesus, into the slot - ''the one that Jesus loved". Later, from James, also plug the Blessed Virgin into the cognomen, ''Theophilos'. The miracle at Xana would be a sound foundation for this construction as a guest would never assume to amend wedding arrangements. She might be the power behind the scenes.
Interesting transition after John the Baptist was eliminated. He turned it into a movement by many which could survive the loss of one or more heads.
Extra ordinary spich good information
Was Jesus at Qumran or some such other desert community during his formative years?
Not likely. He came from a family of builder/carpenter class.
We don't know. It might depend on his relation to John the Baptist who lived more in the desert: did Jesus stay with John's disciples for linger?
. . . But the actual relation with John seems in the gospels overshadowed by a defense against contemporary claims Jesus would have been only a discipline and an inferior to John.
I got dizzy watching Crosson tilting back & forth, left to right, oops there I go again !
kingdom of God is within you.
th-cam.com/video/wWPEGb3l8J0/w-d-xo.html
Great points. Heck, invite them all haha!
Anyone who wants to get an idea of what the historical Jesus was about should try reading the Qumran communities writings, (Flavius) Josephus, and Philo, the Nag Hammadi scrolls/books as well as a careful reading of parts of the new testament (taking out the magic bits and Pauls anti Jerusalem bias) , they won't find Jesus daily musings or his shoe size but they will find the real movement he lead after its previous leader was beheaded, and they will discover a lot of information about a what I think is a fascinating period in our history.
It won't make up a complete picture by far but it will take the person nearer than any research done by anyone coming from a religious doctrine.
Michael S. Thomas
josephus' writing is a knows interpolation inserted several hundred years after josephus had been dead...even if you want to still believe what the josephus forgery says, christs' supposed death occurred 70 years before josephus was born, so his having anything like first hand knowledge is impossible.
Also: There is no contemporary writings by anyone who knew, saw nor heard jesus as a living person...sorry, there just isnt!!!
There is nothing about the writings of Paul that are anti Jerusalem.
Your imaginary buddy Jesus is a fictional character made up by unknown professional liars!
The text attributed to Flavius Josephus is a 3rd century christian forgery!
.
alguien podria poner subtitulos al español gracias
it's easier that you learn english - es mas fácil que usted aprenda inglés
I think there are some errors and false assumptions made.
He states that hebrew custom and teaching that the buying and selling of land was discouraged. I think he has that mixed up with later feudalism where you were literally chained to your land, occupation and could not, with out the Kings permission leave or start a new occupation. JC taught a parable about land sale. The brief parable of the hidden treasure is as follows: Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found, and hid. In his joy, he goes and sells all that he has, and buys that field. Why would Jesus use the purchase of land in one of his parables if it was prohibited?
Then there is the timing of the Gospel of Thomas. Most scholars believe that it was written no earlier than the second century. He states it was written in 50 AD
Land sales were possible for Jews, too, but only temporary ones IIRC. After some time, like in a jubilee year, the land had to be redistributed to its original tribe again. In a way, you could only buy the right to use the land for some years, not the land itself.
. . . The argument for an early time of the Thomas Gospel is that it is an independent source of more Jesus' sayings, but that they are consistent with other Jesus' sayings and, therefore, probably not fabulation. That does not mean the actual collection is ancient, but that its sources were in Israel before 66AD when the Roman war began.
Scholars of history: Hey, if your empire has got to put down rebellions all the time, that means your policies are not working!
Romans: What policies? Now pray for the wellbeing of our lord and saviour, Augustus Caesar!
I'm seeing a really strange conflict between what Crossan is saying and the subtitle text that pretends to tell what he is saying in the textural form.
Can anyone explain this?(Edit): Apparently I had the closed captioning on - it seems that what the closed captioning is saying is really, really strange.
I have watched a few of Dominic’s lectures now and I am confused or he his, likely the former to be fair. He seems to have a weird opinion on the historical Jesus, which is weird in its self, but it is as if he doesn’t actually believe that Jesus the man was the son of God. He appears to believe in the message and not necessarily the messenger. I think he has philosophised a step to far and got lost.
Well, his approach is historical criticism; not theology. He is making a distinction between the historical man, Jesus of Nazareth, and the theological concept of Jesus Christ. The former is a man, likely born to a Jewish peasant couple in Nazareth, one of a number of siblings (James being historical, for example), whose life has been very broadly constructed using historical methods. The latter is a religious figure born of a virgin peasant woman in Bethlehem, thus fulfilling a criterion of messianic prophecy, and the God of Israel's only begotten son. The former is not theologically sufficient, while the latter is not historically consistent. He's an academic, not a preacher. His personal beliefs, whether religious or not, are entirely separate from his scholarly work.
I think you need to just listen to his message and not worry about the eternal state of the man’s soul, he’s like 80 now.
You need to listen and read more of Don’s writings. He does not believe that Jesus was god or that Jesus is accurately represented in Christian literature. Jesus was a charcature of common views of roaming self described prophets. Bart Erman, professor of Early Church history is a former fundamentalist turned atheist. One has to be honest with real history of the church and be willing to make a decision as to whether the facts deserve the faith we place in the Jesus story. But as Christian’s, we can’t be content with a pablum based make believe history of the person of Jesus.
I keep thinking who does he remind me of. Ken Ham. It's something in his body movements. Now you'll never be able to unthink that thought. You're welcome.
Attempting to explain Christianity while standing under an illuminated pyramid would seem to imply that he's inspired by worldly wisdom rather than biblical revelation. 2 Cor 11:14..."And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."
I think his ideas about Jesus are the weakest I've heard. Historian Paul Maier seems to have a much greater grasp of the Jesus of history. His book "Genuine Jesus" is the best in this field by far!
Jesus such lewd and lucivious behavior It made Nero blush with with envy.
Where was this held?
The University of Northern Iowa
to emphasize, to reconstruct, to define, The past interactively reconstructed by the present through argued evidence in public discourse. interactive, to interact
It is called (if I am not wrong) "hermeneutic circle". I am amazed how these new position of scholar were anticipated by some "liberation theologian" more than 40 year ago, of course without so much scholar backup which did not exist before. But the intuition was there
I'd suggest someone more conservative than N T Wriight - he agrees too much with Crossan on the social gospel emphasis. Other than Licona, I'd suggest James White. And maybe Dr. Robert Price rather than Carrier. Both Price and White have the chops. That would indeed be a lively conversation.Elaine Pagels would also be interesting. But no William Lane Craigs please!
excellent,
I'm half Irish.
So what?
Great idea But I think the only one throwing food would actually be Carrier ... probably in the direction of Bart LOL
But the apocalyptic vs non-apocalyptic debate remains unsettled as far as I can see. Given the sources and all the layers it may be impossible to resolve to a consensus point unless new early manuscripts come in to tip the balance - if an early copy of the Gospel to the Ebionites or Hebrews or Nazoreans was found for instance.
Sure he d i d
Sure
Is the Holy Spirit historical? The 'words in red' are theologically "WHAT WOULD THE HOLY SPIRIT SAY?" Flesh and blood could not reveal, nor discern, nor see, nor hear, nor heal.
No, the Holy Spirit is not historical, because historians cannot account for Her with historical methods.
How can you "reconstruct" something if you don't know what it was?
Ed Reynolds : Surely you have been to school ?
@@richardho8283 Enough to know the job of a true historian, and that this academic is not doing it.
Religious training not modern logical historian based. He assumes jesus then hypothesizes the value of the religion. Actual unbiased scholars cant find jesus. They find greek myth.
He is a historian. He also has experience as a former monk. For some, that means he might have more insight than an "modern logical historian" (whatever that means).
unbiased like who
Where is the evidence for all this?
Why?
For which of his statements exactly?
"Yes, Jesus was an Irish imp of social justice. Read the shards."
good proof too!
History is not Theology. Theology is not History. However, both are Buddha.
*Gassho with a Deep Bow*
Interesting.
Jive....
Too many "Notes"
Hey John, was Jesus a Communist?????
Nope, a Jewish socialist. Got a problem with that, punk?
*Christianity wrong doctrine*
Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says:
* Jesus was not God.
* Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins*
* Jesus did not resurrect from death.
I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus.
* As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc).
As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these:
1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed.
2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do?
*A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross.
*B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven.
Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer.
*That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
positivismus - narzissmus..interaktiv, kontext- text, interdisziplinär, anthropologie, history, archeology, iron plow, plough, commercialized,
Lost me on the aristocrats give out loans then forclose on the peasants
a good sermon, but this has got nothing to do with history. Rev. Crossan is preaching for the choir.
Genesis is based right off the bat on two myths and continues in monomyths from there. Christianity and Islam are based downstream from there. Figure out why it's fake and what parts are real.
Crossan never knew Jesus, very sad for him, I know Jesus Christ I have seen him, I even took his picture of his face in the clouds. God bless you.
@Christian Cullen no but you will be Satan's peeon
That's called pareidolia.
@@jesusfappingchrist2094 maybe for you, I called it the appearing, and I love his appearing.
Wasn't it on a cheese toast? He likes appearing on those
@@richardverrall534 Jesus consist on everything
There is not and was not any such thing as Christian Judaism. That statement comes out of the ignorance and idealistic intent of Mr. Crossan and other secular scholars like him.
Jesus never taught Judaism. He was against it.
What Jesus taught was the Law and the Prophets.
That is not Judaism.
Judaism is a religious tradition built upon an interpretation of the text. Jesus taught the text not Judaism; and that is what got him killed.
Crossan is an idealist who thinks that the way to understand the Hebrew Bible is to view it through the lens of Judaism.
He is wrong.
Judaism lacks understanding of the text and writer intent.
Christianity and Judaism are polar opposites, were never one faith, and will never come together as one faith.
How do you know what got Jesus killed? was u their 2000 years ago? The only crazy thing about all of you smart Scholars is that all of y'all think the way that y'all interpret the Bible is the way that it really was. no one really knows what really happened. The Muslims think that Jesus was never crucified. they think it was someone else in his place.
wrong kid!
jesus taught and preached only judaism!
its the greek & westerners who took the jewish jesus and turn him into a man-god coming on earth..thats the reality truth son..the greek invented & fabricated their own bible using the hebrew texts which they officialy stole..duno where you got this fully irrational bias false view from..#you make no sense#
If you define Judaism as you want, you can easily prove that there was no Christian Judaism.
. . . I prefer to follow the view that Judaism as Thorah-obeying religion had existed in Israel at least since the Hasmoneans and diversified until 66CE when the Roman War began. Christianity was part of that diverse Judaism, as were Saducees, Pharisees, and Essenes. But the war and the destruction of Jerusalem ended most forms of Judaism, only Christianity survived (mostly in the Greek speaking world) and the Pharisees who became the Rabbinical Judaism (mostly in the Aramaic speaking world, like Babylon).
@@Achill101: There is no form of Judaism in Christian text, in Christian's interpretation of the Hebrew text, or in Christian practice.
What, in your view, are the similarities between the two?
@St.BernardProject St.B.Project : The death of Jesus is based on the text, not opinion.
Muslims are Gnostics. This is why they believe Jesus was never crucified. It is the error of their Gnostic text.
Seems like they WERE all astounded when Jesus rose from the dead. That's the whole point of the story.
That is obviously mythology or parable.
You really listen to his speeches, he always find a way to leave that part out. you don't too much hear him talkin about the resurrection of Christ
Jesus is a fictional character made up by unknown professional liars!
.
I add the same reply as under your reply to my post:
@rolfme5499 - You describe a fringe view among scholars. There have been a few mythicists among scholars since 1850 who claimed Jesus or even Paul were fictional characters, but today, there are hardly any left of those.
. . . For example, if we assume that there was a Paul who wrote the six authentic epistles, we have this Paul mentioning in first Corinthians the brothers of Jesus and in Galatians reluctantly admitting having met the brother of Jesus, James, in Jerusalem. And we have Josephus describing the fall of the high priest Ananius over his illegal execution of James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Messiah. Two independent sources for James, the brother of Jesus. And fictional characters don't have real brothers, so Jesus is not fictional.
@Achill101
Jesus is a fictional character!
Saul of Tarsos was a professional liar!
The gospels were made up by unknown professional liars!
The texts attributed to Flavius Josephus and Publius Cornelius Tacitus are christian forgeries!
No historian mentions the events described in the gospels!
The bible is a collection of lies and fairy tales!
.
sallymorrison3994
Obviously you are not familiar with real historians!
.
@sallymorrison3994
Ohh, you want to leave your infantile fairy tale world?
Richard Carrier
David Fitzgerald
There is a lot to learn ahead of you!
.
@sallymorrison3994
You are extremely stupid because religion has damaged your brain!
You asked for one historian, I named two and now you complain!
You do not know what Richard Dawkins thinks!
There are no miracles!
Obviously you are too stupid to understand science!
Your imaginary buddy Jesus never existed!
I knew that even before I read Carrier and Fitzgerald!
You are an extremely gullible child!
That's why you still believe in fairies and in fairy tales!
Unlike you I am an intelligent and educated adult!
And unlike you I have read the bible!
Go and play with your doll!
.
what a fruit
a subject of early Christian cornucopia, offered in a bland manner, cold auditorium setting.
lacking intimacy of spirit.
James anonymous : need to learn to be good students then live well ....
77 minutes of meaningless gibberish!
Religion damages the brain!
.
its really shocking that anyone agrees with this man. his points are poorly made and as he Admits they can easily be explained. he tried to make everything a parable so that he can make Yeshua in to who he wants him to be justas all those involved in the jesus seminar. the fact is this man has no authority to make any claims a about Yeshua. the historical Jesus is the one found in scripture. i pray you may not be decieved by this man so as to twist scripture and our Lord Yeshua into what you want him to be. the fact is you are a sinner who is in desperate need of a savior. YHWH himself entered his creation and died on the cross to pay your debt. ישוע is Lord. יהוה our God the triune God of scripture is Holy righteous and Just and i pray you all know him
" kingdom of god "
There are no gods!
This guy lives in an imaginary fairy tale world populated with fictional characters!
.
The accent!
Sorry - gotta leave.
If there’s anyone who gets who the real Jesus was it’s this man