historical Jesus according to John Dominic Crossan's first strata sources: A critical comment, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2002 by Ingolfsland, Dennis

I. INTRODUCTION

When John Dominic Crossan wrote The Historical Jesus ten years ago, there were undoubtedly many who thought that his idiosyncratic view of Jesus was just another fad. In the last ten years, however, Crossan has written no less than nine additional books1 and has contributed to several others.2 He has also written at least nine articles3 and has appeared in numerous videos,4 debates,5 teleconferences,6 and television programs.7 Most of these have been to promote his view of Jesus as a peasant Jewish Cynic.8 Since Crossan continues to be so influential in American Jesus studies, it may be good to take another look at the basis for his view of Jesus.

II. BACKGROUND

In The Historical Jesus, Crossan established a method by which to separate the core of what can be known about Jesus from the decades of tradition that allegedly accumulated after his death. Crossan's method consists of classifying biblical and non-biblical sources for the life of Jesus into "complexes" of texts with similar topics. For example, all texts related to Jesus' crucifixion were combined in one complex, all texts relating to Jesus' teaching on divorce are in another complex, etc.

Crossan then listed these complexes by "strata," depending on the dates he assigned to his sources.9 First strata sources are those written from AD 30-60, second strata sources date from AD 60-80, third strata sources from AD 80-120, and fourth strata sources date from AD 120-150.

Finally, within each stratum the complexes were grouped by the number of times each saying was attested, once, twice, three times or more. In Crossan's methodology, the data that was most often attested in the earliest strata was generally considered to be the most historically reliable. Data had to be attested at least twice in order to be considered. Crossan then used this data pool to determine what can be known about the historical Jesus.

While this method may sound reasonable, in actual practice it functions as a way to divide (or deconstruct) and conquer by eliminating evidence from consideration. For example, Crossan listed nine first strata complexes in which the phrase "Son of Man" occurs in an apocalyptic context.10 This would seem to be strong evidence to conclude that Jesus was known by his earliest followers as the apocalyptic Son of Man. Not so. Crossan points out that the phrase "Son of Man" occurs only once in each complex.

For example, complex "30 Revealed to James" lists three first strata passages that record Jesus' appearance to James.11 Of these three passages, only one refers to Jesus as the Son of Man. Since "Son of Man" is attested only once in this complex, it was excluded from consideration as evidence, even though Jesus is called "Son of Man" in eight other first strata apocalyptic complexes.

Even when the phrase "Son of Man" occurs more than once in a single complex, Crossan finds ways to explain why the evidence should not be counted. For example, the complex "2 Jesus apocalyptic return" consists of (1) 1 Thess 4:13-18; (2) Did. 16:6-8; (3) Matt 24:30a; (4) Mark 13:24-27 = Matt 24:29, 30b-31 = Luke 21:25-28; (5) Rev 1:7, 13; 14:14; and (5) John 19:37. While Crossan admitted that all of these passages, except for John 19:37, are references to the apocalyptic coming of Jesus in language that alludes to Dan 7:13, he argued, first, that the phrase "Son of Man" does not appear in 1 Thess 4:13-18, and was not originally in the [hypothetical] source behind the Did. 16:6-8 and Matt 24:30. Then, after arguing that the writers of Mark and Revelation were merely creating ideas of Jesus coming in the clouds out of their reflection on Zech 12:10 and Dan 7:13, Crossan concluded that "this whole stream of tradition, far from starting on the lips of Jesus, began only after his crucifixion with meditation on Zechariah 12:10, then moved on to combine Daniel 7:13 with that prophecy. . ."12

Even apart from the myriad of undemonstrated assumptions in these arguments, the fact still remains that at least three first strata sources independently refer to Jesus as the Son of Man,13 and two other first strata sources14 independently assert the apocalyptic return of Jesus in terms which allude to Dan 7:13-14. These sources are supported by numerous other independent sources in later strata. But this evidence was not seriously considered because Crossan classified the data in separate "complexes." If all nine apocalyptic Son of Man complexes15 had been combined into one, the result of Crossan's study might have been different.

This raises the question: What would happen if we were to follow Crossan's method of stratification and multiple independent attestation but without his sometimes arbitrary division of material into complexes? My hypothesis is that an entirely different picture of Jesus would emerge.

This study will therefore apply the criteria of multiple independent attestation to Crossan's first strata sources to see if the result supports his view of Jesus as a peasant Jewish Cynic. In other words, we will assume, for the sake of argument, that Crossan's first strata sources are valid. These sources include: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, Romans, the Gospel of Thomas, is the "Egerton Gospel,"17 Papyrus Vindobonensis 2325,18 Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1224,19 the "Gospel of the Hebrews,"20 the sayings Gospel Q,21 the "Miracles Collection,"22 the "Apocalyptic Scenario,"23 and the "Cross Gospel."24 The following is a sampling of information about Jesus multiply attested in these first strata sources.