My Midterm

Question #2 - Crossan paints a picture of who he thinks the "historical Jesus" was.

1). Describe Crossan’s specific "research methodology"
2). Describe Crossan’s actual findings, focusing on the "biographical" details of the "historical Jesus" (what the "historical Jesus" might have taught, Jesus as the philosopher)
2a). Was he a cynic (define)?
2b). Was he a faith healer and what do we mean by that?
2c). Was he a Marxist before his time as Christians involved in Liberation Theology contend?
2d). Was he a radical revolutionary?
2e). What does Crossan say Jesus taught, and what about his teachings led to his own death?
3). Do you like the philosophy of the historical Jesus as presented by Crossan?

Answer:

Crossan offers his view of the historical Jesus based on his research methodology of what he felt in fact happened in Galilee and Jerusalem during the first part of the 1st century C.E. He starts by stating that the four canonical gospels disagree with each other, especially if you compare them in parallel, or side-by-side with each other. He feels that they just the four do not represent all the early gospels that exist or for that fact even reflect a good sampling of what was available. He feels that they are just a premeditated collection that suites only a specific purpose, the ones the early Christians wanted to convey, and not necessary what Jesus said or did.
For Crossan’s method in determining the historical Jesus, he developed three independent vectors. Where its vectors would cross, is where he felt accuracy would be found. Furthermore the three vectors provided an internal discipline that would be required to reach it. The first vector is what Crossan calls “cross-cultural anthropology.” This is determined by what is found common across history for the equal environmental and scientific types. Thus he compares what others have found about the people, times, relationships and culture that are relative to the same geographical area and time period. With these he can compare against what is written about Jesus. The second vector is the “Greco-Roman and especially Jewish history” that too was relative to the time period of Jesus. It included what was taking place; politically, as a society, in the status roles of people, the teachers, the politicians, and the social deviants. Crossan especially draws on materials from Josephus a first century Jewish historian. The third vector is “the literary or textual,” in which he pursues two basic strategies in which he uses the most conceivably original materials. The first is the earliest development stage of the tradition, sources he found between the 30 and 60 C.E. and the second is the intentional avoidance of a source that may only have a single independent testimony.

Crossan compares and contrasts cynicism with what Jesus was doing. In general, the cynic’s of this time period had a speculative disbelief in what was considered as the common cultural principles and assumptions. Jesus and his missionaries shared some common parallels with that of the cynics’, however they were not. Crossan points out that both the cynics and Jesus believed in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people, which was a very alluring philosophy for the lower classes. Both of groups advocated life-style changes in the way they acted and communicated their beliefs. Even both groups used their form of dress and traveling gear to represent their message. Each group also had their own distinctions. The Cynic’s used their dress and gear to embellish their non-acceptance of societies material worth’s, helping to complete their view of being completely autonomous. Everything they would require could be held in a simple wallet (knapsack) and a staff. This helped to characterize their nomadic position with a “no wear to hang their hat” message since they were piously pursuing a specific goal. Jesus one the other hand had his missionaries avoid carrying a wallet (knapsack) or staff. This would not be required because the driving force of his movement was healing and open commensality which in itself would foster a complementary form of repayment in a place to stay and something to eat. Furthermore the message communicated not autonomy but dependence (we shouldn’t do it alone, we need each other.) In addition Jesus’ missionaries were rural in nature spreading their mission of rebuilding the lower class people from house to house. As such they shouldn’t declare a nomadic and autonomous life-style but instead one of communal reliance. Another major difference was in the people they interacted with and what they were trying to influence. Jesus focused on rural populations, where as cynics concentrated on the more urban population. Finally, Jesus was organizing a shared community type movement; the cynic’s looked toward only moving toward their own personal viewpoints.

Crossan proposed that the historic Jesus was literally a faith healer and not a physical healer at all. In a sense, he would heal but not physically, but socially. Being able to cure a disease would be advantageous, however, the ability to heal an illness by understanding their suffering, and by enclosing their suffering with love, acceptance and respect was also a boon. Crossan believes that Jesus was not capable of physically healing at all; rather he healed illness by refusing to accept a disease’s traditional “uncleanness” and the social rejection that came with it. Jesus instead would force others to accept person with the illness, thereby healing the effects of an illness without really curing the disease. His miracles were not physical but social. Crossan used the example of the healing of a leper from the Gospel of Mark to illustrate the point. Crossan starts by pointing out that the translated word used for disease of leprosy in the New Testament really didn’t indicate the form of leprosy we know today. Instead it was more or less diseases of the skin. In this case a leper who met Jesus had leprosy (a disease of the skin) and an illness; he was thought unclean and therefore isolated and rejected. As long as the disease persisted the effects of the illness would also be there. If the disease was gone, so then would be the effects of the illness. What Jesus did was not cure the disease but instead eliminate the effects of the illness not allowing traditional or formal sanctions be put on the diseased person (no longer being isolated and rejected, but brought into the Kingdom of God.)

Jesus fully realized the class and power struggle that faced Jewish society. As such he was organizing at a group level a united community that promoted equality among all. For Jesus the Kingdom of God was open for all, not just a few select individuals. In particular Jesus saw the Kingdom as a shared community of healing and eating, of spiritual and physical resources that were available to all regardless of class, gender or social position. It involved more than just words and ideas. It was truly a life-style change. Jesus essentially confronted society’s patronage and clientage, gender and kin, by his practice of open commensality (eating.) Therefore, he could have been considered to be of Marxist qualities by the Christians involved in Liberation Theology had contended.

Jesus was a radical revolutionary, but not in the sense of one who physically opposed Jewish or Roman leadership. His opposition came in the social changes he spoke of and practiced. Jesus was often dancing a fine line between slightly concealed and obvious resistance. Jesus had a keen vision and freely taught what the Kingdom of God on earth should look, feel and act like. This was further re-enforced by his actions. The most radical of his ideas was that of open commensality which became an act of his belief in human equality and its place within social, political, and economical rights and privileges of people of all classes. This practice served as a miniature model of the basic rules of association and socialization he wished to communicate. This was for him how the Kingdom of God would start here on earth. This, theory/philosophy was radical, as it challenged the moral values that had been rooted in traditional honor and shame culture. In addition Jesus’ practice of healing further challenged the patronage and clientage principles of his time.

Crossan explains that historical Jesus was an uneducated common lower class Jew, who had an exceptional ability to communicate verbally. Historical Jesus taught and lived out the concept of the Kingdom of God. Jesus viewed the Kingdom as a radically different type of community, unlike the current one for it fostered equality for all regardless of class or gender. Each person could openly interact with one another and with God. In Crossan’s view, historical Jesus attacked family values, but only so as they related to an abuse of power / authority which mirrored in miniature society. This ties back in with his view of equality of everyone under God. The basic ideas of eating and healing were thus symbolic of different social experiences. It was his ideas that challenged the current cultures values. Adoption of the Kingdom of God would allow individual the ability to take control of their lives, hopes and dreams. Many lower class individuals were ready to accept what Jesus was preaching. Therefore, it was Jesus’ claims about boundaries, cultural norms, religious authority, and political leadership that conflicted with the religious leaders that ultimately made him dangerous and eventually led to his death.

Crossan attempts to present what he feels is the philosophy of historical Jesus. What I liked most was the philosophy and perhaps the most common message that continuously appeared in his writing, that of the “Kingdom of God.” This is an awesome concept that writers of the canonical gospels also believed. It is easy for me to understand how the “Kingdom” view would be a serious threat to the beliefs of the religious leaders of his time (since they had a different agenda.) On a different note, I did find it interesting that while Crossan was trying to speak historically, he often interjected phrases such as “I presume..” and “It is not impossible that…” to advance his findings. These seem to convey opinion rather than fact.