ETS 2003, Atlanta, Georgia
Excavating Jesus or Inventing a Jesus?
16
proven answers are impossible to provide.
63
In Excavating Jesus, the authors are much too quick to make assertions at the level of
certainty based on the their interpretation of the findings given the current state of research
both in terms of scope and completeness. Their conclusions too, are driven by a combination
of a minimalist view of the text combined with the constructs of historical criticism and so-
cial-science criticism. Wright`s admonition about the role of archaeology as a tool, is an ap-
propriate reminder here, when the tool becomes the dominant item of the conclusion, it then
is most often a bias or predisposition of the author.
64
One other observation must be made regarding one of the major presuppositions of
Crossan and Reed relating to the cultural world of the gospel accounts. Speaking on the is-
sue of literacy, they comment about Jesus at length:
But, more important, Luke presumes that Jesus is not only literate [based on the narra-
tive in 4:16-30], but learned. He does not simply begin to teach (Mark 6:2), he stood
up top read (Luke 4:16). Luke, himself a learned scholar,
65
takes it utterly for granted,
as do many modern scholars, that Jesus was literate and learned. This is very unlikely.
The best general work on ancient literacy in the Mediterranean basin concludes about a 5
percent literacy rate. The best specific work on ancient literacy in the Jewish homeland
concludes about a 3 percent literacy rate. In that world, as mentioned earlier, literacy
was the prerogative of elite aristocrats, trained retainers, and scribal experts. If Jesus
was an illiterate peasant, as one would expect from his Nazareth origins, that does not
mean he could not think, does not mean he did not know his tradition, and does not mean
he could not teach. It just means he did not read. It just means that he was more likely
to concentrate on the core of his tradition than on its footnotes.
66
Two things are at work here. First of all, the assumption made by the authors is that the con-
63
Wright, What Archaeology Can and Cannot Do, p. 72.
64
Ibid., p. 74.
65
Who, according to the Crossan and Reed, is apparently wrong in his factual information at least as often as he
is correct.
66
Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, p. 30-31. It should be noted that the very sociological models used to
determine the literacy rate among people who lived in a particular area 2000 years ago is itself open to a great
deal of debate. Additionally, the assertion that many modern scholars assume the literacy of Jesus is to skew
the evidence. Most evangelical scholars would affirm literacy, based on the gospel texts, but non-evangelicals
overwhelmingly agree with the author`s assertion.