Jesus' Crucifixion - John Dominic Crossan

I would be remiss if I did not speak of the theory of John Dominic Crossan concerning the death of Jesus. Crossan's ideas have influenced many American New Testament scholars, but few scholars accept all of his ideas, since, as you will soon see, they are novel if not far-fetched. But his views make the opinions of the three scholars we are reading for this course seem very mainstream by comparison.

The key component of Crossan's theory of the composition of the "Passion Narrative" of the events surrounding Jesus' death is the belief that the operative principle in its composition is "prophecy historicized". Most New Testament scholars, even most historical critical scholars, believe the basis of the Passion Narrative is "history remembered." That is the accounts are based on the what the participants remembered happened during that time. The degree of historical accuracy that a scholar attributes to these accounts depends on how faithful that scholar believes the memories of the people involved were to the actual events. Most historical critical scholars assume that with the passage of time and the oral handing down of these stories that the accounts of Jesus' death might be modified to meet the needs and concerns of Christians in the decades following Jesus' death. The more conservative scholars believe that these accounts are faithful to the events as they actually happened. The more liberal (skeptical) scholars believe substantial alteration has occurred, even to the point that the gospel writers themselves rewrote the stories to make these accounts state the theological points they believed to be most important.

We have seen how the three scholars we are reading all believe that the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are largely legend and created when Christians searched the Jewish scriptures for passages they could interpret as prophecies about the coming of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Based on those prophecies, the gospel writers composed their narratives (since they probably had very little information of the event to work with). Crossan says the exact same thing happened with the Passion Narratives.

Crossan deals with this topic in most of the books he has written in the past 20 years, but he addresses it in detail in: Who Killed Jesus? (1995). Crossan is convinced that the disciples had virtually no knowledge whatsoever of the events surrounding the death of Jesus, other than the inescapable fact that he was crucified. How then did the disciples discover what occurred after they fled the scene the night before? They examined the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) for prophecies that might explain what transpired. Every place in any of the Passion Narratives that parallels a passage of Jewish prophecy, this did not end up in the text because the events were a fulfillment of prophecy. Rather, Crossan says the events were created by the disciples and other early Christians on the supposition that if a particular passage of prophecy might apply to the death of Jesus, then the event was created in the narrative to reflect that prophecy, assuming it must have happened that way. For instance, Psalm 22, "My God why have you forsaken me?" Sounds like something someone might say when being crucified. Therefore, Jesus must have said it while dying. Good idea, write that into the story. Crossan believes the entire Passion Narratives were composed in just this fashion. Not all at once, but gradually over time.

Here are some additional examples of how Crossan believed this phenomenon functioned. The reference to three hours of darkness while Jesus was on the cross comes from Amos 8:9-10, "On that day ... I will make the sun go down at noon ... I will make it like the mourning for an only son" (Who Killed Jesus?, page 3). The reference to Jesus being very agitated in Mark 14:33-35 is similar to 2 Samuel 15:30 (David pleading before God), therefore, Crossan is sure that the David passage gave rise to the Mark passage (the prophecy dictated what must have happened therefore, report it as having happened even though they knew they did not have confirmation from any eye-witness (Who Killed Jesus?, page 77). Mark 15:36, "Someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick and give it to him to drink" corresponds to Psalm 69:21, "they gave me vinegar to drink." Mark 15:24, "they divided his clothes among them casting lots" corresponds to Psalm 22:18, "for my clothing they cast lots." John 19:34, "one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear" corresponds to Zechariah 12:10, "when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child." Or consider the fact that Jesus was crucified between two bandits plus the fact that he was buried in a wealthy man's tomb and see these in light of Isaiah 53:9, "They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich."

I think you should be getting the idea now. Crossan says traditional Christianity had it all wrong. These events did not happen to Jesus to fulfill prophecy. Rather since these numerous prophecies seem applicable to Jesus and what may have happened to Jesus, then they must have happened (so the early Christians supposed), even though they had no eye-witness accounts of the crucifixion events to verify their conclusions. Crossan believes the early Christians arrived at all of their information about the crucifixion through various prophetic writings. Since no one connected with Jesus was present at the crucifixion (they had all scattered), there were no witnesses that were sympathetic to Jesus to remember these events, and therefore there was nothing seen to remember.

So, what does Crossan believe actually happened to Jesus? He says Jesus was crucified, left on the cross for a while and probably munched on by dogs, and finally tossed into a common grave with the remains of others who had been crucified.

Another creative theory from Crossan worth mentioning is his belief that the author of the Gospel of Mark created the story of the empty tomb. Certainly there had been stories of people claiming to see Jesus alive from early on, as referenced in Paul's letter 1 Corinthians, chapter 15. But the empty tomb idea was created by the author of Mark (says Crossan) as a way of demonstrating that Jesus as risen was absent from the church until his return.

Most New Testament scholars (even scholars skeptical of the Gospels' historicity) do not buy the idea that the author of Mark created the empty tomb story. That theory requires that the author of the Gospel of John had access to a copy of the Gospel of Mark and that does not seem likely at all (Crossan's theory raises more questions than it answers). Likewise, even the more skeptical scholars are prone to believe that there are some historical reminiscences behind the gospel accounts of the crucifixion. Crossan's idea that nothing is known about what took place at Jesus' crucifixion has not found many sympathizers. Crossan gets very creative in his biblical interpretations. But where he gets most creative, he finds himself largely alone among scholars.

.