Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
John Dominic Crossan (born 17 February 1934) is an Irish-American New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity and former Catholic priest who was a prominent member of the Jesus Seminar, and emeritus professor at DePaul University.
The main proponent of the theory is John Dominic Crossan. He chaired the historical Jesus section of the Society of Biblical Literature and was co-director of the Jesus Seminar. [1] The theory is based on research previously done by John Kloppenborg on the Q source, William Arnal on the Gospel of Thomas, and Stephen Patterson on the Common ...
John Dominic Crossan (born 1934), Irish-American religious scholar This page was last edited on 28 December 2019, at 23:29 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative ...
Howard Clark Kee, writing in The Cambridge Companion to the Bible (1997) and citing Helmut Koester and John Dominic Crossan as examples, states: Some scholars have advanced the theory that these so-called apocryphal gospels actually include texts and traditions that are older and more reliable than those in the canonical New Testament writings. ...
John Dominic Crossan, based on his unique position that the Gospel of Peter contains the oldest primary source about Jesus, argued that the burial accounts become progressively extravagant and thus found it historically unlikely that an enemy would release a corpse, contending that Jesus' followers did not have the means to know what happened ...
John Dominic Crossan states that Tacitus "retrojected" the title procurator which was in use at the time of Claudius back onto Pilate who was called prefect in his own time. [39]
John Dominic Crossan, who considers Secret Mark to be not only authentic but also the model of the canonical Gospel of Mark Morton Smith summarized the situation in a 1982 article. He argued that "most scholars would attribute the letter to Clement" and that no strong argument against it had been presented.
[15] [144] [145] John Dominic Crossan stated that the trend has continued and summarized the situation by stating that many authors writing about the life of Jesus would "do autobiography and call it biography". [15] [146] More recent scholarship has challenged this view that reconstruction of Jesus has to be a self-portrait. For instance ...