ETS 2003, Atlanta, Georgia
Excavating Jesus or Inventing a Jesus?
4
layers upon layers of occupational debris are stacked atop the ancient site.
10
Regarding the
gospel accounts the authors note:
... there is now a massive consensus that the words and deeds attributed to Jesus in our
New Testament gospels fall into major layers built successively one upon (that is, over,
under, around, the through) another. Think of them as, first, the original layer, coming
from Jesus` own words and deeds in the 20`s; next, as the traditional layer, coming from
the tradition`s adoption, adaptation, and creation of those materials in the 30`s, 40`s or
even later; and, finally, the evangelical layer in the gospels we now possess from the
70`s through the 90`s.
11
The authors acknowledge that the results historical critical methodology to their understand-
ing of the layering process noting the roles of Form Criticism, Source Criticism, Redaction
Criticism, and Tradition Criticism. However, they do note, it is probably source criticism,
above all else, that forces and grounds the problem of exegetical layering.
12
Naturally, it
goes without saying that both reject any notion of inerrancy of the text as traditionally un-
derstood. As Farnell notes, dependency [of the gospel writers and their accounts] hypothes-
es arose as companions of the abandonment of plenary, verbal inspiration of the Gospels.
13
While Crossan and Reed admit that they may not agree on all of the details of layer-
ing
14
they do agree that the layering model is crucial for excavating Jesus.
15
However,
Reed, in another recent book, seems to view the entire historical critical method on which
their exegetical layering is dependent, with a highly skeptical eye, stating:
With rare exceptions, notably the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls or Nag Hammadi
10
Crossan and Reed, Excavating, p. 16.
11
Ibid., p. 36-37 (italics in the original). In this view the original layer would be primarily oral tradition, while
the traditional layer would be the Q Gospel and other sources. To maintain their affirmation of the indepen-
dence of The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter and the Didache, they add the disclaimer, it is not just a
question of being later than an earlier text, but of being directly dependent upon it. Obviously all dependent
texts are later, but not all later texts are dependent.
12
Ibid., p. 13.
13
F. David Farnell, The Case for the Independence View of Gospel Origins, in Three Views on the Origins of
the Synoptic Gospels. Robert L. Thomas (ed). (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel, 2002): 294.
14
Ibid., p. 14
15
Ibid.