My Posts

Post #14 - Basic Summary of Crossan’s Perspective on the Life of Jesus

1). Offer a basic summary of his main ideas
2). What is the philosophical position of this religious leader

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.” The second vector is the “Greco-Roman and especially Jewish history” that too was relative to the time period of Jesus. 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 starts his new view based on stories of two that would become son’s of God based on their stories. He then compares how one, Octavius (divi filius) whose fictional ancestral line traces back to one of a divine mother and a human father, to another, Jesus who had a divine father and human mother. Crossan then springboards from this onto how only two of the canonized gospels provide an explanation for how Jesus was born and about his early years and then jump to his adult life. Crossan contends that these provide prevailing proposals and premises to introduce and summarize Jesus. In the first case the story took mythology over actual history to tell the story of how Octavius became Augustus. In the second, Crossan lays out his evidence for Jesus in the same vein.

Crossan then begins to explain how he feels that the gospels themselves have different visions of Jesus’ life that are seen when comparing them side-by-side in a successive order. He starts by comparing versions of Jesus as an infant. Luke’s version of Jesus has stories of shepherds in the fields, angels, an inn and a stable/manager, and then later succeeding to Jesus being presented in a Temple. Matthew’s version tells of the acts of Herod, pagan wise men, the slaying of infants and a subsequent journey into Egypt.

Crossan then proceeds to tell how the birth of Jesus and that of John the Baptist are told. Each version placing Jesus above John. He ties this stories back to prior Old Testament accounts, with Matthew’s version closely resembling that of Moses at his birth. Even more interesting is how Luke and Matthew’s create different versions of the infancy stories. Luke’s version details more information about the mothers, whereas Matthews deals with the fathers. Abruptly the versions from infancy / early childhood to Jesus as an adult. The stories pickup with John the Baptist actually baptizing Jesus. After John’s death Jesus moved in a different direction than John’s. Crossan says that John’s version was looking more toward an apocalyptic God making changes. Jesus on the other hand was more eschatological and looked to change the way society dealt with people. Jesus proclaimed a different type of Kingdom of God. It dealt more with the here and now in this world. It was a change in life-style that offered hope today and challenge the current days view on morality.

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.)

Crossan would classify Jesus as a 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 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 actually 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 further detailed how Jesus and his missionaries shared some common parallels with that of the cynics’ of his time. 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. 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. 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.