Posts
Demonic Crossan is the expert on the “historical Jesus” but wrote a book that was severely flawed. Dominic Crosson’s book relies on several false dichotomies (types of justice, radical nonviolent God verses normal civilized God), dubious historical reconstructions, lops off large segments of scripture and fails to truly study the character of God. Instead, like pacifist LDS writers he uses his own ideology to create a God in his own image.
The Historical Jesus
The foundation of his argument is the nonviolent teachings
of the historical Jesus. But his interpretation rests on a house of cards. He
points to a general historical trend in the first two centuries AD that he
calls “the matrix,” or general cultural and societal attitudes within Jewish
society. Yet these attitudes are selectively chosen and amplified. For example,
he points to the attempt of Caligula to install a pagan statue in the temple (146-148).
In response, a crowd of Jews not carrying weapons gathered in the square to
oppose the action. This is supposedly an example of nonviolent resistance but
doesn’t account for how militant they seemed simply using the power of an angry
crowd. These Jewish people weren’t calmly nonviolent resisters proudly bandied
about by modern pacifists. They were militant agitators, that even without
weapons were on the verge of a violent and deadly riot. The unarmed Lamanite prisoners,
for example, were so violent the Nephites were forced to slay 2,000 of them
(Alma 57:13-14). Yet Crossan massages the incident to make readers assume the
example supports a nonviolent ideology. (For someone who builds their case on
the “historical” Jesus this sloppy understanding of history is especially egregious.)
His use of the Q source is even more dubious. This is the
name of the anonymous source that may have inspired Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Because Matthew and Luke both contain polished expansions of Markan
material using the same wording, many scholars conclude that Matthew and Luke
relied on the Gospel of Mark and a second, unknown, or Q source (Matthew 6:24 =
Luke 16:13; Matthew 7:7–8 = Luke 11:9-10). Yet some scholars argue that maybe Q
didn’t exist at all. Others think that perhaps Mark was first to write his
gospel but relied on some of Jesus’ unpolished sayings written in Aramaic, that may have
been from an earlier Q source and polished by Matthew and Luke. Others think
Mark was a later and abbreviated “summary” gospel. There is so much disagreement among
scholars concerning which source inspired what and when each was written that
it usually needs a chart to explain it. See the chart on this page for
example.
It’s all as plain as the sun in the sky!! Crossan takes this
~settled~ debate and looks at Jesus’ militant statements recorded by Matthew
and Luke deriving from Q. Combined with the idea that Matthew and Luke use Q to
“update” the original Jesus of Mark with militant statements he concludes that
Q had the unsanitized version of the radical nonviolence of Jesus that was changed to the normalcy of violent
civilization by Matthew and Luke (see 174-179 for example). The previous sentence sure is a mouthful, but simply stated without Crossan’s buzz words, he
claims the historical Jesus was corrupted with bad theology derived from
cultural attitudes of later writers. Crosson’s over reliance on Q to try and
separate a pure Jesus from a corrupted one within the gospels is unsatisfying
from an evidentiary standpoint.
Selective Theology
It is even weaker from a theological standpoint. His weak
arguments that reconstruct the so called, “historical Jesus” are used an excuse
to lop off entire segments of the Bible. He somewhat admits this problem when
he contends that Christians follow Jesus, not the Bible. Yet outside of living
prophets that add living eye
witness testimonies, the holy texts that describes God’s dealing with His
people are the only information we have about God. So Crosson claims to follow
Jesus, while he picks and chooses among the texts that authoritatively describe
Jesus.
For example, he talks a great deal about distributive
justice. He doesn’t account for the injustice that derives from nonviolent
impulses. If people stand idly by because of their vision of the historical, nonviolent,
redistributive Jesus, then their innocent “wives and…children should be
massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren” (Alma
48:24). Moreover, it’s immoral to have a personal choice by individuals impose
unjust and immoral consequences on others. For example, Patrick Mason and David
Pulispher used the example of Dallin Oaks talking down a mugger holding a gun as
evidence that people should adopt their non violent proposals. This is a heartwarming story
and I’m glad Elder Oaks didn’t need to use violence. Having someone hold a gun
on innocent family members and relying on a speech to save them from gunfire is
not a reasonable or safe standard for families. But pacifists expect their passive
standards from a selective reading of scripture to guide other’s foreign policy
and personal safety with innocent victims at stake.
Instead of acknowledging that different parts of the Bible
reflect different attributes of the same God, Crosson refers to “parallel
tracks” of a “bipolar” and “schizophrenic” God (71). At one disgusting point he
calls the God of the flood a “terrorist” (71).[1]
He claims that God was “sucked into” the escalatory violence of the world
(71-72), as though God isn’t in charge, he is simply led around by the nose and
provoked by His creations.
How Weak a Foundation
Unfortunately, Crosson’s attitude that judges God based on
his concept of nonviolence reminds me of LDS scripture and pacifists. They are
so interested in seeing a “God made in their own image” that they minimize and
misunderstand God (D&C 1:16). One LDS writer, David Pulsipher, complained
that God and His prophets lacked the “moral imagination” that the writer and
his favorite pacifists had.[2]
It is our job to understand the divine, not try to limit or diminish God
because he doesn’t have our “imagination.” (Also, see Helaman 16:22.)
In another instance, Pulispher and Patrick Mason suggest that we use modern scholarship to
dispute the historical accuracy of the Bible, thus “eroding any moral authority
that might be gleaned from scriptures that endorse human violence.”[3]
Unsurprisingly, just a few pages earlier the same authors cited Dominic
Crosson,[4]
who not only undermines any moral authority for violence but doubts the
character of God to such a degree that he calls him a genocidal terrorist. That
is putting the cart before the horse. It uses modern tools of scholarship,
themselves a reflection of cultural concerns, to dispute God, who commands us
to put aside small-minded cultural attitudes and follow Him.
Of course, the Bible isn’t a clear manual about God and mankind’s
concept of deity is often misunderstood and used to commit awful acts of violence.
Still though, Latter Day Saints should be especially wary of a methodology that
diminishes God’s character that reduces him to a figure head for an ideology. And an ideology that forbids the use of force actually perpetuates injustice. Rather than showing a schizophrenic
God, the Book of Mormon’s account of the destruction immediately preceding His
ministry and Christ’s teaching reveal a consistently loving God that recognizes
the need to use force. Right before Jesus’s personal ministry among the
Nephites he violently destroyed many cities (3 Nephi 9:3-12). Then he lamented
that His people didn’t listen to him (3 Nephi 9:13), and he offered a tender example
of how he would gather them as a hen gathered her chickens before offering the
Sermon on the Mount and turn the other cheek (3 Nephi 10:4-6; 3 Nephi 12:39).
Then he finished by reminding his audience of Isaiah's violent prophecies of a
militant God executing his “vengeance” (3 Nephi 21:14-21).
One version of God shouldn’t be believed over the other.
Both versions ARE GOD and worthy of study. We are reading about different
aspects of his personality, that is just, merciful and loving while God recognizes
the need to use violence, often as punishment that compels men to be humble
(Alma 32:13), and lead them to repentance and redemption (3 Nephi 9:17).
Dominic Crosson’s book relies on several false dichotomies,
dubious historical reconstructions, lops off large segments of scripture and
fails to truly study the character of God. Instead, like pacifist LDS writers he
uses his own ideology to create a God in his own image. I can’t recommend his
book unless you want to see the “playbook” that LDS pacifists attempt to run on
scripture.
[1] I
was seriously tempted to stop reading at that point. Terrorist is an
overwrought, emotional term and directed towards God it revealed a great deal
of Crosson’s character. I no longer wondered why he was a disgraced ex
priest.
[2] Pulsipher,
J. David (2021) "Defend Your Families and Love Your Enemies: A New Look at
the Book of Mormon’s Patterns of Protection," BYU Studies Quarterly: Vol.
60: Iss. 2, Article 6. 179-182)
[3] Patrick
Mason, David Pulsipher, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Ancer to an Age of
Conflict, (Deseret Book, 2021), 167-168.
[4] Ibid.,
150 fn 7.
No comments:
Post a Comment