RNA Q and A with controversial biblical scholar who visited Moorhead less than a year ago

John Dominic Crossan

Controversial biblical scholar and Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan spoke at Concordia last November, addressing the topic “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.”

Like Crossan himself, the Jesus Seminar has been controversial among Christians. Its participants voted on the historic authenticity of sayings and events attributed to Jesus in the New Testament Gospels. Their work flew in the face of more traditional interpretative methodology and raised hackles.

The Religion News Service recently conducted an interview with the former Roman Catholic priest. Here’s an excerpt:

“Q: You call the Lord’s Prayer Christianity’s “greatest prayer,” but also say it can be prayed by followers of all religions. Why would non-Christians recite it?

“A: Any religion’s greatest prayers should be addressed to the whole world. If a prayer only speaks to you, that’s fine. But I would like to hear you speaking to all of us. The Lord’s Prayer is the greatest because it comes from the heart of Judaism and the lips of Christianity—but speaks to the conscience of the world”

“Q: You also call it Christianity’s “strangest” prayer.

“A: Ask a Christian what’s the most important things about Christianity, and see if you find those in the Lord’s Prayer. When Christians emphasize what’s most important for them, it’s usually not in the Lord’s Prayer, and they almost never mention that “give us this day our daily bread” means exactly that—that everyone has a right to the material basis of life. It’s “strange” in that there’s a huge discrepancy between what most people think Christianity is really about and what Jesus thinks Christianity is really about.”

Read the full story: http://www.religionnews.com/index.php?/tenminutes/10_minutes_with_john_dominic_crossan1/

One thought on “RNA Q and A with controversial biblical scholar who visited Moorhead less than a year ago

  1. Crossan is a prime example of radical “historical critical” Biblical interpretation. As compaired to” historical grammetical”,(which also naturally includes concerns for context), asks the question; “what does this mean”?, Radical “historical critical” asks the question; “how can this be?” The former is open to objectivity, whereas, the later is vulnerable to subjectivity and bias, which generates more of the same. (error begets error.)

Comments are closed.