Comments on Crossan's book

John Dominic Crossan's Jesus a Revolutionary Biography is an old but fascinating work. I agree with much of what Crossan wrote, but not everything.

Crossan's views are highly unorthodox. His take on the purpose of Jesus is at odds with mainstream scholarship. Crossan believes Jesus was a social revolutionary. In contrast, most scholars consider him an apocalyptic prophet. Ehrman's evidence favoring the latter view appears persuasive. Like John the baptist, whom Jesus associated with, and the christians who lived soon after his death, Jesus was almost certainly an apocalypticist.

Likewise, while chapter 6 (The Dogs beneath the Cross) is one of the most brilliant and insightful chapters ever written, it is not perfect.

Crossan rightly concludes The Last Supper never happened; it is just another invention by early christians (albeit well before the gospel writers, as Paul mentioned it). Crossan noted absence of references to such an event in key christian literature. In addition, "the last supper" doesn't pass the criterion of dissimilarity. The early christians wanted to make it appear that Jesus, as an omniscient being, anticipated his approaching death and left final instructions. Therefore, "the last supper" is best interpreted as an invention.

Crossan believes Jesus was arrested immediately after the temple ruckus, which is very credible. However, his view that Jesus was led away to be crucified immediately, without a trial, is unlikely. Common soldiers or centurions weren't authorized to inflict the death penalty summarily and on their own initiative. Without input from higher authority, things could've gotten out of hand. Almost certainly, Pilate was in Jerusalem at the time. He came with reinforcements from Caesaria to discourage trouble during passover. Since Pilate was there, it was easy to bring an accused person to him for a cursory trial.

It should also be noted that Jewish police or Temple guards initially arrested Jesus. They were closer to the disturbance than the Romans in the Antonia fort. Most of the disciples escaped but the jewish guards caught Jesus and Judas Iscariot. To the Jewish leaders, Jesus was a rabble rouser who had to be eliminated. Jesus had been caught overturning tables but that didn't warrant execution. The Jews--who couldn't inflict the death penalty themselves--wanted him charged with a capital crime. As Erhman concluded, Judas gave his captors the information they needed. He told them Jesus considered himself the King of the Jews. That was sedition, a capital offense.

The next day the Jews brought Jesus before Pilate, who asked if he was king of the jews. Jesus did consider himself the coming king after "the son of man" arrived, so he didn't deny the charge (he couldn't "sin" by lying). So Jesus was then flogged and crucified. The fact the accounts say Jesus was executed for considering himself a king argues he wasn't crucified immediately for causing a ruckus. There are other problems with Crossan's chapter 6.

Crossan shows how the "crown of thorns" was an invention stemming from an older tradition (recorded c 100 CE by Barnabus) as were other things. But the part about Roman soldiers mocking the "king of the jews" seems historically plausible. It wasn't based on the Carabas farce. Gospel writers wouldn't have used that. Carabas wasn't from the Old Testament hence did nothing to "fulfill prophecy." It's likely the claim of a nobody like Jesus to be king humored Roman soldiers, who mocked him.

The central point of chapter 6--that Jesus wasn't given a decent burial but was eaten by scavenging dogs or crows--is brilliantly argued and presented. It's noteworthy that Ehrman, who originally dismissed Crossan's view, later came to accept it.

Addendum: A summary execution of Jesus, unauthorized by Pilate, is also unlikely because the gospel accounts pass the criterion of dissimilaity. Gospel writers wanted to blame the death of Jesus on the Jews not the Romans. If Pilate had no involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus why would Mark, John etc mention Pilate at all? If their purpose was to blame the Jews it made no sense to make up a story about Pilate sentencing Jesus to death. As prefect, Pilate represented Roman authority. The Gospel authors would've preferred to avoid any hint of Roman complicity so the Jews would appear entirely and unambiguously at fault.* Mark and later authors included Pilate's role because that was the original, correct account they inherited.

* It would've been unwise for gospel writers to antagonize the Romans since they wrote at or near the apogee of Roman power.