There are several debatable assumptions underlying the work of Prof. Crossan (”Seeking Jesus,” Jan. 21). First, he denigrates the historical reliability of the canonical Gospels in favor of the spurious ones, presumably because the latter are older and the former are theologically biased. Even though the canoni-cal documents have theological emphases, they were accepted as accurate by the early Church, which was two millennia closer to the historical Jesus of Dr. Crossan`s quest than he is. The other texts were known not to comport with the facts.
Second, there seems to be a tacit assumption that the super-natural is impossible or at least unknowable. To maintain that accounts of Jesus` healing of lepers were not factual is to say either the authors were deluded or they intended to deceive. Crossan argues that such stories refer ”not so much (to) the dis-ease itself that`s cured-it`s the sickness of being . . . ostracized.” That anyone could seriously suggest the writers of Mark or Luke had such a meaning in mind is unbelievable.
Some researchers find 20th Century themes throughout the Bible while overlooking those of the authors themselves. The accounts speak of
supernatural events. What`s the point in having a non-supernatural Chris-tianity? In 1 Corinthians, St. Paul says, ”If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” He says this a few lines after arguing for the historical reality of Jesus` resurrection, explaining he would be guilty of misrepresenting God had he said Christ was raised from the dead if that were not the case.
