Are John Dominic Crossan's writings accepted by the Roman Catholic church?

Answer 1

The Catholic Church's articles of dogma and faith, and its Canon law on dogmatic approval, say a lot about official heresies about Christology and Mariology, they also generally disavow eschatology. What this means is that the Catholic church has VERY LITTLE to say about the historical Jesus as a matter of what Christians have to believe; they must believe the supernatural and salvational claims of Jesus Christ and the Pope; they need not believe anything in particular about ancient Palestine or the Universe as a whole.

For this reason, John Dominic Crossan is neither endorsed nor condemned by the Catholic Church; he still considers himself a Catholic in good standing and holds to the Apostolic creed and Catholic dogma as a matter of supernatural faith, but this does not entail a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ or belief that he did miraculous acts in the past.

Many Catholics, including Jesuits, Bishops, etc. hold views on the historical and supernatural Jesus that contradict, often strongly, the views of John Dominic Crossan and some of the scholars on whom he relies. This includes the current Pope, who wrote a book on the historical Jesus with a radically different methodology than Crossan. However, as the Pope is infallible only on matters of faith and morals, and not science or history (and even then only when speaking intentionally Ex Cathedra) it is not considered heretical or against Canon law to contradict the historical beliefs of the Pope.

John Dominic Crossan is a man who left the priesthood to marry. His studies and conclusions are wildly at odds with what the Catholic Church has always believed and taught. To be "accepted by the Roman Catholic Church" writings must normally have both an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat. I am quite sure that none of Mr. Crossan's writings have either, so the answer to your question would be in the negative.

Answer 2

John Dominic Crossan is a man whose resignation from the priesthood to marry and pursue academic studies was accepted by the Catholic Church, and he is therefore in communication with the Church as a practising Catholic. His writings do not carry the Church's Impramatur and are therefore not actually endorsed by the Church.

Rather than blindly accept Church doctrine, Crossan is a gifted scholar who has sought to learn about the historical Jesus and the history of early Christianity. In my view he sometimes he makes minor errors by too readily accepting the New Testament gospel account. For example he accepts that John the Baptist died early in the mission of Jesus, whereas it seems John was executed in 35 or 36 CE. This colours his understanding of the personality of Jesus and therefore his understanding of the mission of Jesus.