Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?

Edited by Paul Copan

Reviewed by Henry E. Neufeld

Buy Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?

I recently reviewed The Meaning of Jesus by Marcus Borg and N. T. Wright. I was attracted to that book because it involved an open and honest debate between two very divergent views on the historical Jesus.

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? is based on a similar intention, but it is much less successful. In my view, it is nearly totally unsuccessful in terms of dialogue, though there is some good information. I didn't see too much which was not available in better form in the works of the individual authors. It is based on a debate between John Dominic Crossan and William Lane Craig, moderated by William F. Buckley, Jr. Responses were solicited from Marcus Borg, Craig Blomberg, Robert Miller and Ben Witherington III. The selection of responses is good and provides varied viewpoints.

It consists of a transcript of the debate with some footnotes added. There are 18 minute opening statements from Craig and Crossan, followed by nine minute rebuttal statements. Then there is a dialogue including Buckley, and short concluding remarks. The book includes written responses (not part of the original debate) from Craig Blomberg, Robert Miller, Marcus Borg, and Ben Witherington III, and written conclusions from Craig and Crossan.

Craig is clearly the best debater. This is not surprising considering his training in philosophy and his calling as an apologist. I have appreciated Craig's books, and I must say that even though I think he formulated the best position from the point of view of debate, I would rather read one of his books. I would also say that Craig won the debate on points. Crossan even states that he did not attempt to answer all of Craig's points, but rather to educate the audience. That is fine in one sense, but it also leaves open the claim that Craig beat up Crossan in the debate.

The most unfortunate choice of participant was William F. Buckley, Jr. He gave no evidence of actually understanding the debate. Despite being moderator he participated in the debate. When the dialogue portion began, he almost immediately jumped on Crossan over his claim to be a Christian. That's why I really don't know quite what you're doing here under these auspices. (49) Crossan states that he knew Buckley would participate and that he would not be neutral, but I don't think this justifies essentially creating a two-on-one situation. Buckley doesn't seem to have anything real to contribute, yet he sure can muddy the waters.

Crossan is in error, I think, to participate in a debate for the purpose of spending his time educating the audience. The overall impression is not that Crossan is a fine scholar providing useful information but rather that he can't respond to the points that Craig is making. I also don't think that Crossan quite succeeds in his goal of education. I suspect the audience had a hard time following his understanding of resurrection. I'm certain they had a hard time understanding why it is meaningless to ask whether God existed during the Jurassic age [sic].

Of course, it's useful to note that Craig also misconstrues Crossan's position on supernaturalism, though he reaffirms his view of what Crossan is saying to the end, despite corrections from Crossan himself, from Borg and from Blomberg (who does not agree with Crossan's position. Crossan states that the supernatural operates behind the mask of the natural which Craig regards as simple naturalism. I don't agree. In terms of evidence it might be the same, but it is not actually the same assertion.

I think Crossan's worst moment is when he engages in a thinly veiled personal attack on Craig Blomberg (148-155). Crossan divides scholars into three camps:

1. those who hold essentially everything in the gospels to be historical
2. those who essentially take a point by point approach
and
3. those who claim to be in group B, but are actually in group A

He asks that group C provide some list of what it considers unhistorical in the gospels. He keeps saying that he hopes group C doesn't exist, but he cites quotes from Craig Blomberg in support of his accusations against group C.

Now I have a problem with claiming that one uses critical methodology and then determining that everything is, in fact, totally historical. I don't think they mix in that way. But one of my own problems with historical Jesus research these days is that it tends to give positive answers to questions for which there is inadequate evidence. From a historical point of view, I would suggest that only a small portion of the gospels are historically demonstrable and only a small portion can be demonstrated to be unhistorical, with the vast majority falling into an "uncertain" category. So Crossan's list would be hard for me to make. I do agree that Blomberg has a logical problem with his position as cited by Crossan on page 151 (ref. page 104 & 105) that the gospel writers didn't distort falsify or invent anything while nonetheless noting "variation" in their accounts. This does not lead back to a lack of honor (154) on the part of the hypothetical group C.

I would suggest that this book would have accomplished more as a collection of essays by the various authors (excluding the moderator). The debating scenario itself, and the time spent in discussing who failed to address whom. On points, William Lane Craig clearly won. But his points have not been addressed. And even though I agree with him that there must have been an empty tomb (as opposed to Crossan's mass grave) and though I accept on faith that there was a resurrection, I don't think he has successfully made a historical case for that.

I would recommend spending your time reading works by any one of the various contributors to this work, rather than reading the book itself. The debating atmosphere contributed little to the advance of understanding.

Buy Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?