CROSSAN’S HISTORICAL JESUS AS HEALER, EXORCIST AND MIRACLE WORKER Preven F GRrarrerv Abstract No single Jesus profile in the last decade has generated more scholarly discussion and public interest than that of John Dominic Crossan. It is, however; not generally emphasised, that in his construction Jesus was also a healer, exorcist and miracle worker. This study consists of a critical discus- sion of the evidence, method and interpretive framework employed by Crossan. From an alternative construction of cross-cultural interpretation by means of medical anthropology, it is argued that on the basis of Crossan’s evidence, it is impossible to conclude that Jesus was a healer or exorcist. However, such research provides a framework for appreciating the historicity of the type of healing, exorcistic and miracle stories ascribed to Jesus. No single Jesus profile in the last decade has generated more scholarly discussion and public interest than that of John Dominic Crossan. For that reason it is an honour to participate in this discussion, and to engage with one of the leading scholars in this field of research. s for my own view, historical Jesus research is fundamentally historical-anthropological enterprise. The sources not only contain stories about past events, they contain cultural stories about cultural events from the past, and unless sufficient attention is paid to bridging the cultural and historical gaps, misunderstanding is to be expected. Cross-cultural dialogue is not an option in this research, it isa requisite. One does not have to agree with or accept the reality value of a story in order to understand it, appreciate it or engage in dialogue. ‘The same principle applies to dialogue across scholarly gaps. Dia logue is not conducted only with like-minded scholars. It helps when scholars agree on every point, but that can easily become a monologue. ‘The challenge is bigger when the differences are greater: [hope that my interaction with Prof Crossan will carry the signs of the kind of dialogue that I propose for historical Jesus research: taking one’s conversation partner seriously without necessarily agreeing with everything, ©Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden Revicion & THroLocy 10/384 (2003)244 Pieter F Craffert 1, Crossan’s Jesus In Crossan’s reconstruction, the historical Jesus was ‘a peasant Jewish cynic’ (1991:421). Cynics were itinerant preachers, who appealed to the public in theory and in practice for adopting a lifestyle that resisted social oppression, materialism and domination. They were completely self-sufficient, carrying their belongings in a knapsack and living life of counter-cultural resistance.' Itis not generally emphasised, however, that in Crossan’s construction Jesus was also a healer, exorcist and miracle worker.* This is a historical claim or; if you like, a claim about Jesus as a historical figure. What does he mean by calling Jesus a healer, exorcist and miracle worker? What evi- dence does he provide or use for maintaining such a claim? How does he describe Jesus’ performances of these miraculous deeds or, better, how does he understand Jesus’ healings, exorcisms and miraculous deeds as historical events? Despite calling Jesus a healer, exorcist and miracle worker, Crossan finds that no single story in the gospels is about any such event in the life of Jesus. In fact, besides elaborating on how one author probably used another when retelling such a story, Crossan does not describe what could have happened there in the villages of Lower Galilee or what the social dynamics of such activities were. In other words, none of these stories (healings, exorcisms and other nature miracles) refer to any histori- cal event, but were creations of his followers. In Crossan’s (1994a:20) own words, ‘a large amount of the deeds of Jesus were created within Exegetical Christianity. They believed in the historical Jesus so much that they kept creating more and more of him out of biblical type and prophetictext’. In order to understand how Crossan arrived at such a position, itis necessary to understand two aspects of his research: his view on the data (sources) of historical Jesus research and his interpretive framework for understanding the data. Although these nwo might seem to be unre- lated, on a deeper level they are tightly connected. 2. Crossan’s Evidence For Crossan, a single complex (set of texts) that contains a command to the disciples ‘to heal’ plus nine units from the rest of the gospel material constitutes the original material about Jesus as healer, exorcist or mira-Crossan’s Historical Jesus 245 cle worker, To grasp his reasoning it is necessary to first understand his method of historical research (in other words, why he identifies certain texts as original or authentic material). 2.1 An ‘Interdisciplinary’ Method ‘The best reconstruction of the historical Jesus, Crossan (1998:149) claims, when there is a tight linkage between ‘the earliest textual layer of the text’ (emphasis mine) and the ‘sharpest image of context’. He calls this s insights from archaeology, his interdisciplinary method, which utili anthropology, history, for example. Stage 3 cons age between stage | (context) and stage 2 (text). Regarding the text (stage 2), he works with the earliest layer. This is based on at least two gospel presuppositions that are fundamental to his work. One is the two-source hypothesis: that Mark was written before Matthew and Luke; and that the latter used both Mark and another hypothetical source called Q in scholarly circles (Qis an abbreviation for the German Quelle [source}). The so-called Q Gospel consists of those sections in Matthew and Luke where they agree with each other but differ from Mark (see 1998: 109-114). This is probably the most widely supported viewpoint on the relationship between the synoptic gospels today. As Crossan points out, it is important to ask which texts a scholar isusing and in whatway. Ina study with Reed (Crossan & Reed 2001:12- 13), he explains the importance of this position by means ofan example of witnesses toa motor accident. Ifa reporter obtained his information from bystanders and told the next two informants about it and the fourth obtained his data from the preyious three, in a court of law there would be only ‘one not-exactly-an-eyewitness and three sincere echoes’. This metaphor is important: it matters how many independent witnesses there are toan event. 's of the tightest link- The second presupposition is that of a stratified tradition, which is based on the general wisdom that ‘every story and word of Jesus has been shaped by the eyes and hands of the early church’ (Borg 1987:9). As Crossan (1998:140) explains: All the gospel texts, whether inside or outside the canon, combine together three layers, strata, or voices. There is, as the earliest stratum, ‘the voice of Jesus’. There is as the intermediate stratum, ‘the anony- mous voices of the communities talking about Jesus’. There is, as the latest stratum, ‘the voices of their [the gospels'] authors’.246 Pieter F Crafjert In order to follow my argumentit is important to keep the above wo aspects distinctly separate. ‘The first is the stratification of texts and the second the stratification of the tradition, 2.2 Text Stratification and Tradition Stratification Determining the relative age (stratification) of sources/texts isa matter of formal moves. For example, as far as the two-source hypothesis goes, Matthew and Luke made use of material and traditions from other sources (Mk and Q) that are older than what they have produced. Although it is not directly relevant to the present argument, Crossan’s acceptance of the common sayings tradition is another example. By comparing the say- ings in the Gospel of Thomas with those in the Q Gospel, the parallel material points to a common sayings tradition that was used by both, and therefore must have been older (see 1998:239-254). Stratification of the tradition, however, is something different. The identification of the strata in the tradition (the voice of Jesus, of the community and of the evangelists) by definition assumes. picture of what could not have been part of a particular stratum.’ For example, without a picture of what belongs to the early church or to post-Easter overlay, everything can belong to the first stratum. This is not the place for a full discussion of this issue, which, as we all know, is the criterion of dissimilarity or dif ference (see Theissen & Merz 1998:115—116; Theissen & Winter 1997: 11— 19). My interest is in how Crossan overcomes the difficulties. Crossan is fully aware, to use the words of Allison (1998:19), that coming into textual tradition is not always the same as coming into being; in other words, early texts do not equal early tradition, For Crossan (1998:250) says: “The stratification of a writing’s composition is not the same as the stratification of a tradition’s history (italics his). In concrete terms it means that even if the Q Gospel were to be excavated today and could be dated to as early as 30 or 35 CE, it does not necessarily mean we have original Jesus material ‘Jesus’ voice’). However, in Crossan’s arguments about original Jesus material, a mixing or identification of fext strata and tradition strata takes place. In other words, despite the above acknowledgement, for Crossan early tex- tual material equals early or original Jesus material. Material from the first textual stratum that appea more than one independent source is assumed to be original. A lengthy detour through a number of examples will show that, despite his claim that it is also supported by gospel re-Crossan’s Historical Jesus 247 search (in other words, more than an assumption), that is not entirely correct. First, Crossan’s (see 1998:97) explicit rejection of Wright's point (that a hypothesis about Jesus is necessary in order to determine the tradition strata) is based on the argument that no hypothesis is needed in order to determine the text strata. But Wright's (see 1996:87) point is not about strata in the text, but about strata in the tradition.’ Unless it priori accepted that early textual strata also provide ‘Jesus’ voice’ (the first stratum of the wadition), early textual strata do not secure the historical Jesus (and a hypothesis is needed about what distinguishes these tradition strata from one another). ‘The second example comes from Crossan’s explanation of his meth- odology. He (see 1998:101) clearly states that his methodological focus is on the earliest stratum or layer of the tradition— in other words, the ‘voice of Jesus’. But this remark is made at the end ofa paragraph about the use of sources (Q and Mark), which is only about the textual strata. The arguments that if it is accepted that later gospels totally absorbed the earlier ones used as sources, then ‘the problem of the historical Jesus pushes you back and back along the absorptive path to the earliest stratum of the tradition’ (emphasis mine) (Crossan 1998:101)." This is the case, of course, if it is assumed that early text strata equals early tradition strata The third example comes from a section titled ‘Criteria are not method’, Crossan (1998: 146) very effectively angues against the selective use of the criteria of authenticity (by Meier) and states that Meier's use of crite not ‘methodological enough to discriminate accurately between the vai ous layers of the tradition. He ends up honestly unable to combine what are not only divergent but even opposing strata of the Jesus tradition’ (emphasis mine].’ Then Crossan adds: ‘Without method, there will be no self-critical inventory of texts for the historical Jesus level’ (emphasis mine). Not only is the inventory of text in this sentence explicitly linked tothe historical Jesus level (‘Jesus’ voice’) but surely an inventory of texts is not the same as the strata of the tradition? Obviously, unless it is assumed that early text strata equals early tradition strata. The last example comes from Crossan’s (see 1998: 149) discussion of the text component of his method. He states that it is possible to argue with scholarly discipline and academic integrity what the earliest dis- cernible stratum of the tradition is. The rest of the paragraph, however, deals with gospel or text strata. In fact, he claims that this is what two hundred years of gospel research shows. But surely the gospel research248 Pieter F Craffert he is referring to is about identifying the sou and strata in the texts and not in the tradition? Obviously, unless it is assumed that textual strata equals tradition strata. What this gospel research shows is that some texts or text segments are older than others. What has not been argued is that those older textual units are also older tradition units. Ina sense itis superfluous to have gone through all this, because right at the beginning of his Jesus book Crossan clearly states that th assumption: ‘my method pos- tulates that, at least for the first stratum, everything is original until it is argued otherwise’ (Crossan 1991:xxxii). What I have shown here is that wherever he has argued it, it is simply a repetition of that assumption. What Crossan’s methodological discipline also means is that he will not use material which, according to his method, does not belong to the early stratum." But that material does not inherently have qualities other than that used by other scholars. It might be older, but just for that reason alone it is not necessarily the voice of Jesus. It should be emphasised that the aim here is not to try to score points against Crossan by showing that his reconstruction is based on an assumption, The nature of the evidence and the problem is such that all Jesus scholars have to make certain assumptions." (Iwill point out shortly what [ think that assumption should be.) 2.3 Conjunction of Text and Context As stated above, the second leg of Crossan’s method is finding the tight- est link between the identified earliest layer of the text and the sharpest image of the context. Ifthe text speaks from and to the ‘situation of the 20s in Lower Galilee’, that is the ‘best reconstruction’ possible today (Crossan 1998:149). In my view, Crossan has the principle right, but the application wrong. First, what is right. Finding the tightest link between the texts and the sharpest possible first-century Lower Galilean context is the best historical Jesus reconstruction that can be hoped for today. What this principle affirms is that the best possible reconstruction is to be found in the process between texts and contexts. If such a link can be estab- lished, say, for the stories about Jesus walking on the sea (see below), that is as good as historical knowledge about Jesus can be. If the same can be done with other parts of the tradition, that is what can be known about Jesus as historical figure. But, then, neither the context nor theCrossan’s Historical Jesus 249 material should be limited in advance on grounds outside the process. Neither a section of the wider context nor assumed original or authentic material should exclude certain elements from this process in advance, because it assumes exactly such a process. Therefore, what is wrong is that this method is not valid on/y for Crossan’s inventory of the early textual strata which he assumes to be original," and the sharpest available context is not only his constructed context, Allison (see 1998:36) remarks that most historical Jesus scholars have probably been using an explanatory model or matrix (context) all along by means of which the authenticity of traditions has been identified (and claimed they were the results of using criteria of authenticity). As argued above, in principle there is no difference between Crossan as- suming that only the earliest swwatum of the text should be tested and scholars from the third quest wishing to test only the synoptic gospels. One can even agree with Crossan that in most instances what the third questers take as hypothesis or context is totally inappropriate. But so is his ‘sharp image of context’, which although constructed by means of Lower Galilean archaeology, Judeo-Roman history and cross-cultural anthropology (see Crossan 1998:15 1-235), is still of very limited scope. Many more aspects of that world are excluded than are included. His discussion on the possible situation of landless peasants in Lower Galilee during the first century is very thorough and that may, indeed, account for some of the gospel texts. But itis virtually useless for understanding the healing and exorcism stories (or the story of Jesus walking on the a). What about all the worldview elements and aspects of the cultural ystem that are necessary to understand these elements in the tradition? Coming to first-century Judaism, Crossan limits his discussion to three elements of Jewish thought (righteousness, justice and purity) and thereby excludes as possible context everything about folk religious practices (such as the role of human beings (holy men) in mediating divine power in different ways, amulets, curse tablets and other magical rites and an- cestor veneration and the cult of the dead). The point is not that Crossan’s context is wrong. Itis indeed appro- priate for the small number of texts that he has identified as original and for understanding the peasant situation in the early twenties in Lower Galilee. It is just inappropriate for the greatest portion of gospel material, What the above principle does say is that such an interpretive process250 Pieter F Craffert is the best we have to construct an authentic Jesus image. Put differently, what it says is that finding an authentic picture of Jesus is the product of acomplex interpretive process and is not based on the original material assumed in advance.'* Flushing out material that has been added onto the tradition along the line can only be done within and internally to this process. To be sure, what Lam suggesting is that this process does not turn it into authentic or original material but ensures the best ‘authentic’ image that can be hoped for in the present circumstances. ‘Too many scholars operating by means of the interpretive principle above find it impossible to get rid of the positivistic heritage of search- ing foran authentic kernel. It should be clear that this argument is not opposed to the idea that an assumption has to be made. My assumption is that ifwe can come up with a description that can account for Jesus’ social type, profile and biography that is well established historically and cross-culturally, fits the first-century Mediterranean Galilean setting, and can account for the underlying traits, stories and deeds ascribed to him in his lifetime and continued to make sense in the life of his followers after his death, we can be confident it isas good as a historical Jesus image can get. The een this assumption and Crossan’s is that this is not arbi- trarily based on, say, the shortest or the longest or the earliest textual strata (or simply on the assumption that the synoptic gospels are au- thentic, as the third questers do), but on the fact that such a picture has to fitin many places and account for the widest possible database: Crossan (see 1998:44, 93, 96, 130) strongly emphasises the importance of presuppositions in historical Jesus research, and I quote: ‘Conclu- sions and decisions about the historical Jesus are built, by everyone, atop their presuppositions about the gospels... Wrong presuppositions, wrong conclusions. Same judgment for me and everyone else’ (1998:96). Perhaps he is right about this after all. 2.4 The Words and Deeds of the Historical Jesus en the above method, Crossan (see 1991:304; 1998:325) identi single complex only (called ‘mission and message’) which he not only considers the most important unit for understanding the historical Je- sus, but also the evidence that Jesus was a healer, exorcist or miracle worker. It reads like this: ‘Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals, nor two tunics. Whatever house you enter, eat what is set before you; heal the sickCrossan’s Historical Jesus 251 in it (italics mine] and say to them, “The kingdom of God has come upon you." For Crossan, this group of sayings, which merely mentions healing as part of a command to Jesus’ followers, constitutes the indirect evi- dence that he was a healer, exorcist and miracle worker. This is sup- ported by nine complexes containing stories about healing, exorcism or other miracles.!* (These items will be discussed in more detail in the next section.) Although in terms of his methodological rigour (of multiply attested complexes from the early strata) these nine units are original (the only original ones), Crossan finds that ‘no single healing or exorcism is securely or fully historical in its present narrative form, although historical kernels may be discernible in a few instances’ (Crossan 1998:302). The obvious first question is whether he found no tight link- age between these units (stories) and his first-century Galilean context? Furthermore, in not a single instance are we told what these historical ‘kernels’ are, or how they were actually identified. One wonders what kinds of events they were in the life of the historical Jesus. In other words, what is absent is information about the nature and dynamics of these kernels in the life of Jesus. Up to this point the discussion has been about which material Crossan uses, which should be used, but nothing about what to do with it or how touse it, 3. Crossan’s Interpretative Framework What does Grossan make of the evidence? What does he mean when he claims that the historical Jesus was a healer, exorcist and miracle worker? To my mind, the more serious problem with Crossan’s construction is with the interpretive framework used in each case. Even where he iden- tifies these nine original complexes that supposedly belong to the voice of Jesus, they are interpreted in such away that Jesus did not heal, he did not exorcise and the nature miracles did not belong to his biography. 3.1 Jesus as Healer In his understanding of things, even if all the healing stories in the gospels were to be taken as original, Crossan makes it clear that Jesus did not heal because he could not cure any disease (except, as Crossan252 Pieter F Graffert (1998:302, 331) emphasises, perhaps ‘sometimes indirectly cure disease’), A specific understanding of the illness-disease distinction in medical anthropology, which functions as interpretive framework, prevents Crossan from taking any of the healings as actual events in the life of Jesus. 3.1.1 The Interpretive Framework of Iiness and Disease In several studies he states that medical anthropologists and cross- cultural studies of indigenous healing make a distinction between curing disease and healing illness (see Crossan 1998:294), He (1994b:82) is quite explicit about how this distinction should be understood: I presume that Jesus, who did not and could not cure that disease or any other one, healed the poor man’s illness by refusing to accept the disease’s ritual uncleanness and social ostracization ... By healing the illness without curing the disease, Jesus acted as an alternative bound- ary keeper in a way subversive to the established procedures of his society. With this Crossan (1998:33 1) is also saying what Jesus was doing in his healing miracles: his healings were merely ideological, symbolic, and material resistance to oppression and ex- ploitation. Such resistance cannot directly cure disease, as vaccines cant destroy viruses or drugs can destroy bacteria, but resistance can heal both sickness and illness and thus sometimes indirectly cure disease. Icis lear that he thinks the stories are about people with specific diseases (Jesus ‘did not and could not cure that disease or any other one’) and that Jesus could not cure diseases and therefore what he actu- ly did was offer therapeutic comfort. As Crossan (1991336) says, ‘for disease you are better off with the doctor and the dispensary, but for illness you are better offwith the shaman and the shrine’. His example of Aids confirms this understanding where he refers to the movie Phila- delphia with Tom Hanks in the leading role: ‘f The movie was not about the disease, which for Hanks could not be cured, but about illness, for which healing was possible’ (1998:294).!° Butwhy assume those people healed by Jesus suffered from diseases (which Jesus could not cure)? Because in his view of things, illness is equated with disease (everybody who isill also has a disease) and heal-Grossan’s Historical Jesus 253 ing only takes care of the experience of illness (and in most cases leaves the disease unaflected— obviously, unless a medical practitioner isaround who can also take care of the disease with his/her vaccines or drugs— thus also cure the patient). The implication is clear: real bodily sickness, is caused by disease and for that you need a medical doctor, and since Jesus was no medical doctor, he could only take care of their illness. 3.1.2 Perspectives from Medical Anthropology and Cross-Cultural Interpretation In my view, Crossan’s interpretation of the distinction in medical anthropology between illness and disease and between curing and healing is really to short-circuit an important analytical tool." It not only misconstrues illness, but also understands healing in a very spe- cific way. What medical anthropology and cross-cultural research show is that both illness and healing are much more complex than the above presentation suggests, ‘There are people who have a disease but who are not ill, and there are many people who are ill but do not have an identifiable disease. Research shows that 50 to 70 per cent of patients who visit their family physician are ill, but have no disease or are complaining without an ascertainable biological base (see Kleinman, Fisenberg & Good 1978:25 1— ; Weiner & Fawzy 1989-23; Brown & Inhorn 1990:190). Itis equally clear that almost 90 per cent of patients who visit traditional healers have non-life-threatening diseases, self-limiting diseases or conditions with no biological or organic cause (see Kleinman & Sung 1979:16). Almost 50 per cent of these fall into the last category, and traditional healers are extremely efficient in treating these patients. There is no doubt that such healers are rather ineffective when it comes to life-threat- ening diseases or injuries. Such patients in any case usually end up on the mortuary list rather than the patients’ list. Each society has its own causes, explanations and treatments for this (50 to 70 per cent) category of conditions and one should not make the mistake of thinking that these people are not really ill.!? Itis more reasonable to assume that the patients actually healed by Jesus belonged to the 50 to 70 per cent category of patients who were sick but had no identifiable disease. Like patients the world over, they described their experience of the sickness (their illness) in culturally specific ways (such as demon possession).'*254 Pieter F Craffert ‘There is consequently also a short-circuit on the healing side. Stud- ies show that not only the 50 to 70% of sickness conditions, but also biologically based conditions are strongly affected by both the healing influence of the medical practitioner and the (often) placebo effect of the medicine. For example: When preoperative patients received a visit from an anesthesiologist who emphasised nonmedical means to control postoperative pain, who expressed concern, and who offered a frank explanation of what pain to expect, the patients required half_as much narcotic and were dis- charged two days earlier (Brody 1988:150-151). A sympathetic doctor can influence not only ‘deterioration’ of the body (going into anaesthesia) butalso recovery. Why not an angry neigh- bour ora traditional healer? Ina recent study of 200 patients with physical complaints but no identifiable disease, doctors at the University of Southampton in Eng- land told some patients that no serious disease had been found and they would soon be well; others heard that the cause of their ailment way unclear, ‘Tivo weeks later 64 per cent of the first group had recov- ered, but only 39 per cent of the second group had recuperated (Brown 1998:72). In another recent study of more than 2.000 patients, the death rate cut by half among patients who took propranolol regularly com- pared with those who took the medication less regularly. But in the same study patients who took placebos regularly also had half the death rate of those who took them less regularly —even though the nyo groups of placebo users were similar medically and psychologically (Brown 1998:71). Studies show that between 35 and 60 per cent of the efficacy of modern biomedicines for any case can be ascribed to placebo (Moerman 1991:129). Why would patients recover more quickly when treated with care by an anaesthesiologist, but not when treated by a tra- ditional healer? Why would a sugar pill by an oncologist cause loss of hair buta demon sent by an angry neighbour not cause blindness? Why can patients live longer after a heart attack because of the regular intake: of placebos, but a traditional healer like Jesus of Nazareth, of whom high expectations were held and who was accompanied on his journeys from village to village in Galilee by the stories of his healing power, not have such an effect (even if people had a disease)? The point Tam making is rather simple: it is preci ly medicalCrossan’s Historical Jesus 255 anthropological and cross-cultural studies that show that traditional healers are effective for most conditions that they treat. Why should it be different for a taditional healer in firs-century Galilee? If this is anything to go on, Crossan’s verdict about Jesus should be changed to something like this: Jesus probably healed a number of people (most of them were suffering from the 50 per cent of conditions that did not have biological or organic causes) and, given the dynamics of the stories and the reputations that accompany such healers, probably healed most of the patients who were brought to him. 3.1.3 Crossan’s Gospel Evidence: So What is It About? [tis difficult to continue the discussion at this point, since [think Crossan fundamentally misunderstands the insights from medical anthropology.” Even ifevery single story were to be taken as authentic or original (in the sense that the debate understands it), it is impossible, on the basis of his framework to take any of the stories as an actual healing event in the life of Jesus. They are re-interpreted to mean that Jesus acted as an alterna- tive boundary keeper in providing social comfortto people. There are only three healing stories that, together with the Beelzebul controversy, Crossan (1991:332) takes ‘as not only typically but actually historical’, Howeyer, in not one of these ‘original’ stories in his inventory does Crossan help us to understand the ‘event’ in the life of the historical Jesus or how the historical figure actually oper- ated. None of these is about an actual healing or what Jesus actually did or what happened to the patient. What we do find in Crossan’s work are extensive discussions of the tradition history of stories as he sees them, in other words, explanations of how one text could have used another (if it used that other text). The only clue he gives is in the following sum- mary remark: ‘But you cannot ignore the healings and the exorcisms, especially in their socially subversive functions’ (1991;93). But what then were the things that Jesus actually did? Crossan does not tell us. 1 suspect they were the socially subversive functions and the religio- politically subversiveness (see 1991:324). Despite such claims, there is nota single event that Crossan finds which belongs in the life of Jesus. There is no explanation of why impression of the impact of these us look at the individual units The first is the healing of a leper.*! There are many discrepancies and how he healed, One obtains no. tivities on his life or biography. Let256 Pieter F Crafjert among the various texts, most of which can never be solved if the ques- tion is which one isactually correct? Did Jesus touch the leper or didn’t he? Grossan (see 1991:321-323) describes a possible process through which the original story developed into the common source which was used in two opposite directions by the various gospels. This is pure tradition history, because we hear nothing about the actual event. Did Jesus actually heal a person who was described by his society as being a leper, and what actually happened? The second example is the healing of a paralytic” Although for Crossan a ‘single historical event’ lies behind these texts, the discussion is about the tradition process. ‘I think, in other words, that the transmis- sion had moyed, already in the common source behind both Mark and John, from event to process, from curing sickness, to forgiving sins, to wondering about questions of divine power’ (1991:325). Nothing is said about the historical event or what could have happened. Ifthe ‘original’ texts do not contain historical information, on what basis is it claimed that Jesus was a healer? Aswith the previous two examples, the third (healing the blind man) is mainly a discussion of the way in which Mark and John used the same source, Crossan takes time to explain that John had difficulty in using the miracle (he could have left it aside or changed it as they all did?) but says nothing at all about the ‘traditional event’ A physical event for one man becomes a spiritual process for the world (Crossan 1991:326). Unfortunately, in none of the examples does Crossan explain what Jesus really did that was experienced as ideological, symbolic and mate- rial resistance. We are not told what happened in the life of Jesus there in Galilee and what the cultural dynamics of such a process of instigat- ing resistance were. 3.2 Jesus as Miracle Worker In the so-called nature miracles a similar interpretive framework in a different garb prevents Crossan from taking any of these as referring to or as historical events in Jesus’ lifetime. Put differently, his lack of a proper cross-cultural framework prevents him from reading these stories as belonging toa different cultural system. Let us start with an example ofa reading in a proper cross-cultural framework. When analysing the story of Jesus walking on the sea, Malina (1999:356) shows that it has ‘all the hallmarks of historical verisimilinideCrossan’s Historical Jesus 257 and should be ranked asa historically authentic episode’. He interprets it asa report ofan ASC (alternate state of consciousness] experience’ and shows how such a report fitted into the worldview of the day (where the sea, like other natural phenomena, was considered to be subject to non-visible, person-like cosmic forces) and their experience of reality, Walking on the sea (not the water) showed Jesus’ place in the hierarchy of cosmic powers. One does not have to agree with Malina’s interpreta- tion in order to see that he did what anthropologists normally do with such ‘weird’ or extraordinary stories: he interpreted itwithin its cultural \ ils might be wrong (but that is a different debate) but the principle is sound. Back to Crossan’s (1994b:181) thesis about the only three (original) nature miracle stories. The alternatives that Crossan regards as the point of these stories are ‘control over nature’ or a symbolic message about leadership. They were not about episodes in the life ofa historical figure but symbolic messages about leadership. All Jesus’ nature miracles before his death and all the risen apparitions afterwards should be grouped together and analysed in terms of the authority of this or that specific leader over this or that leadership group and/or over this or that general community. The story of Jesus’ wansfiguration, which comes from Mark and was used by Matthew and Luke, is the result of retrojecting onto the life of Jesus a story about him being accompanied by two heavenly beings (a story Mark manipulated in order not to tell about the resurrection (see Crossan 1991:389). ‘The symbolic message of the stories of the miraculous catch of fish (im Lk 5:2-9 and Jn 21: 2-8) is the same: without Jesus, nothing and with Jesus, everything. The benefactor of the message is Peter, whose authority is confirmed (see 1994b; 182-183). ‘This same message is encrypted into the stories about Jesus walking on the water. In Crossan’s (1991:405) view, this story i putting their belief in and experi narrative. Crossan makes it perfectly clear that most of the stories under con- sideration here have nothing to do with Jesus the miracle worker. As stated above, the alternative is not to claim they actually happened (because with God everything is possible), but to adopt a cultural system within which such stories make sense. sily specific way of ence of the resurrected Jesus into a uch an alternative does not come258 Pieter F Graffert because it requires cross-cultural and historical research." 3.3 Jesus the Exorcist The only report about an exorcism that can be considered original (the Beelzebul controversy in Mk 3:22-26 par), according to Crossan’s method (see 1991:318), is nota report about an exorcism, but mentions Jesus’ exorcisms in the context ofa dispute about his authority or the source of his power. In whose name is he performing his deeds? In Crossan’s view (1994b:89). ‘there are no examples of independently attested stories about demonic expulsions’ (despite all the references to exorcisms in the gospels). Therefore, there is no exorcism story that can be used for describing Jesus’ exorcisms. ‘The only example discussed extensively by Crossan is the Gerasene demoniac (Mk 5:1-17), which is not ‘an actual scene from Jesus’ li ‘was almost certainly created long after Jesus’ life’ (Crossan 19! 90, 89). [Lisa story of an individual being cured, but the point that Crossan (1991:314) emphasises is the symbolism: “The demon is both one and many; is named Legion, that fact and sign of Roman power; is con- signed to swine; and is cast into the sea.’ This constitutes a symbolic story about Roman colonialism and the exorcism of Legion is a brief ‘performancial summary of every Jewish revolutionary’s dream’. This example is important because in Crossan’s (1991:317-318) scheme of things it serves as a paradigm for Jesus’ exorcisms: In discussing Jesus’ exorcisms, therefore, two factors must be kept always in mind. One is the almost schizoid position of a colonial people Another is that colonial exorcisms are at once less and more than revolution; they ate, in fact, individuated symbolic revolution. The basis of his interpretation of the Gerasene demoniac as the para- digm for social resistance to colonial oppression is the argument of a close connection hetween possession and oppression, For that reason, hie argues that in discussing Jesus’ exorcisms the position of a colonial people should always be kept in mind. Jesus’ exorcisms, in so far as they actually happened, are ‘colonial exorcisms’ or ‘individuated symbolic revolution’ (Crossan 1991:317-818), This argument inevitably forces the connection between possession and oppression as if oppression caused possession. ‘The Marcan story might well be a litera y creation making such aCrossan’s Historical Jesus 259 link, but the question is whether one example should be made the paradigm for understanding all Jesus’ exorcisms. To my mind, Lewis's (see 1986:23-50) evidence points ina different direction, namely that in societies where it is accepted asa culturally appropriate or normative experience and response, possession can be used as an explanatory principle for a variety of societal and individual problems. What the examples (by Lewis) show is that possession can be used as a culturally approved explanation for many different problems, including but not exclusively for forms of oppression. Therefore, in societies where this, explanatory principle operates rely, people can, indeed, utilise it fora new experience of colonial oppression (as Crossan’s other example from the former ‘Northern Rhodesia’ [sic] shows), but that does not mean that all stories about exorcisms are covert deeds of political protest. Most demon possession stories in the gospels (and those mentioned by Lewis and others) have nothing to do with political oppression. One of the normal cultural mechanisms for dealing with ‘invaders’ (whether in the body in the form of sickness or in society in the form of oppression) is demon possession and should therefore be analysed in its totality, Pos- session of whatever kind is the mechanism, exorcism is the remedy, and both are provided by the culture. If Crossan is right in linking Legion with colonial domination, it is not because all exorcisms should be in- terpreted in that way, but that even political oppression can be dealt with by means of the same cultural mechanism. There could thus have been, and probably were, many other kinds of demonic possessions and various kinds of exorcism in Jesus’ life. 4. Concluding Remarks Crossan subscribes toa very limited database or inventory of texts and to a specific interpretive framework for dealing with Jesus as healer, exor- cist and miracle worker. It is difficult to see how Crossan (or any other historian), on the basis of his evidence, can claim that Jesus was a healer, exorcist and miracle worker— even in terms of his description of Jesus the healer as social therapist or Jesus the exorcist who did not actually exorcise demons from possessed people. Furthermore, even ifit can be indicated that all the gospel stories about healings, exorcisms and other miracles are ‘original’ (in the sense required by current research), his specific interpretive framework prevents him from taking any of these as actual cultural events in Jesus’ lifetime.260 Pieter F Craffert I cannot see why they would have settled for ideological and symbolic resistance if traditionally agrarian societies like theirs knew social figures who could actually heal people and exorcise and control demons and travel to other worlds to provide food and control spirits and intervene in heavenly affairs and interact with ancestors on a regular basis. This is what shamans do the world over, for example, and what they did in the ancient world, About no other figure in antiquity dowe have so many reports about healings, exorcisms and other excep- tional deeds. There is an excellent match with similar kinds of stories attributed to shamanic figures today. Instead of looking at cross-cultural research on such figures and arguing how the cultural mechanisms worked in the Israelite tradition of the first century, historical Jesus research is trying to find ways of saying why Jesus could not have done any of the things the sources say he did (that is, when read from a modern point of view). The more we know, the more we see, and perhaps we do not see, because we do not know enough. From my perspective one of the disconcerting aspects of current his- torical Jesus research (especially that claiming to be interdisciplinary) is that quotations from anthropological and other cross-cultural research are used freely without noticing what anthropologists are doing. The tide against the ethnocentric treatment of others (‘the primitives’) turned several decades ago. Anthropologists no longer take a story about a shamanic trip asa literal trip by a soul, but take it seriously by means of cross-cultural interpretation (one such method is the use of the cross- cultural model of ASCs). No anthropologist takes literally the stories about shamans who are responsible for the catch of fish or the provision of game, as people who went out there to herd the fish or animals. But anthropologists do take them seriously within the cultural system with its own dynamics and customs. Nowadays no anthropologist will under- stand shamanic journeys or ancestral interventions or traditional healings as mythological stories, argue about the (im) possibility of such ‘events’, or treat them as mere stories of their imagination (created to tell some- thing significant about the figure), It is realised today that every such story exists within a particular cultural system and that such systems. represent different reality systems (see Craffert 2001), Such interdisciplinary research forces us to rethink what we under- stand by ‘event’, Ifanthropologists were to interpret similar stories about such a figure in a traditional society, they would realise that the ‘events’ were ‘cultural events’, Even the day after an exorcism or a healing or some other ASC experience (such as an encounter with ancestors), thereCrossan’s Historical Jesus 261 would be more than one story (or a story with elements from different participants)—most of which could not have been tape-recorded or video- recorded (many of the stories are of such a nature that they cannot be videotaped or photographed—unless taking pictures of people in an alternate state of consciousness is sufficient evidence). Even if today we understand, for example, the visitation by an ancestoras such an event by means of the cross-cultural model of ASCs, itremains an ‘event’ that can have a serious and profound effect on the life of an individual or a community. In South Africa there is the well-known story of Nonggawuse, who convinced the Xhosa people to destroy all their cattle and crops in 1856. A visitation by ancestors had convinced her that whites and en- emies would be blown into the sea if they were to follow the orders. Even ifthe ‘event’ can be understood today as a typical ASC experience, that is not all there was to it, because it had severe societal implications when an estimated 30 000 people starved to death (see Benyon 1986:162). ‘Therefore we also have to look at the cultural dynamics of such ‘events’. ‘Terms such as ‘events could be seen’, ‘memorised’ and ‘recalled’ need rethinking in many instances. Perhaps we are reading many of these stories for something they were never intended to be and that the that is, as stories within our view of realit Therefore, even ifwe can link stories in the various gospel sources, it is futile to ask what actually happened or which is correct, [take them as cultural versions of a cultural event that, to begin with, was not of the type that could have been videotaped. Even if, say, an exorcism could be videotaped, the reports afterwards (the exorcism story) would contain many elements that a videotape cannot capture (such as the paticnt’s claim that he heard the demon say certain things or that he saw something, or elements added by the bystanders or the exorcist). Historical interpretation of the figure of Jesus of Nazareth cannot be of the nature of listing everything he said and did, but in the first instance of understanding the stories within their cultural setting. Unless we start there, we are bound to conduct an investigation about something that did not exist. An interdisciplinary approach also forces us to rethink ‘historiography’ as an interpretive and cross-cultural enterprise. Find- ing the hest possible links between the sharpest constructed elements of context (as Crossan has done so well for the peasant situation in Lower Galilee) and the material is as good as it gets. With the existing material it is impossible to say whether Jesus healed ten lepers, two blind and three deaf persons, or where he did it and when. The sensibilities for262 Pieter F Craffert this cultural context and the nature of interpretive historiography create the insight that understanding a historical figure is not only possible on the basis of authentic material. What is possible, however, is to construct an authentic picture of a figure who operated within a world different from our own, to understand the cultural dynamics of what people expe- rienced with such a figure around, and to realise that we do not have to think about thove stories in terms of whether they happened as described, Our task as historical Jesus scholars becomes that of cross-cultural dialogue. Department of New Testament PueTER F CRaArFert University of South Afri PO Box 392, Pretoria, 0003 Republic of South Africa Email: craffpf@unisa.ac.za ‘Crossan finds in Jesus sending out missionaries a close parallel to urban cynicism: as rural itinerants they were to ‘rebuild peasant society from the grass roots up’ (1994b:118) and they were to do that on the basis of open commensality, ‘Here is the heart of the original Jesus movement, a shared egalitarianism of spiritual (healing) and material (eating) resources,’ he states (1994b:107). In his view, a Jewish peasant cynic is not an ancient social type but a modern scholarly construct (see 1998:334), *He (1994b:177) states, for example, that throughout his life, Jesus per- formed healings and exorcisms for ordinary people—a point confirmed by his aim that Jesus was a well-known healer, exorcist and miracle worker (1991:311, 347). Elsewhere he (1998:302) claims that ‘Jesus was both healer and exorcist, and his followers considered those actions miracles’. Crossan (1994b:93) emphasises that ‘Jesus was not just a teacher or a preacher in purely intellectual terms, not just part of the history of ideas... [fall he had done was talk about the Kingdom, Lower Galilee would probably have greeted him with a great big peasant yawn.” “This is what Wright (see 1996:87) means when talking about a historical hypothesis about Jesus which must already be presupposed in order to decide about strata in the tradition (the different ‘voices'). The Jesus Seminar (see Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:25) illustrates the same point in one of their rules for sorting out Jesus-words: only sayings that can be waced to the oral period between 30 and 50 CE can possibly have originated with Jesus, The yardstick for deciding is that words which can be demonstrated as having first been formulated by the gospel writers are then eliminated, But knowing what could have been formulated by the early church presupposes knowledge of what could not belong to Jesus and vice versa, In both instances a picture of what could or could not have been part of his life (or of the early church) must be presupposed.Crossan’s Historical Jesus 263 ‘Crossan (1991:xxxii), for example, also states: ‘Chronologically most close does uot, of course, mean historically most accurate ... a unit from the fourth stratum could be more original than one from the first stratum’. lt should be noted that [am not taking sides with Wright in this debate, but am tying to analyse Crossan’s argument, As will become clear below, I do not think a debate about ‘original or authentic material’ is necessar *Allison (1998:19) also politely remarks that Crossan’s stratigraphical method ‘might mislead one into supposing that there is a correlation between the date when a documentappeared and the age of the traditions preserved in that document’. ‘It should be remembered that for those on the Schweitzerstrasse the criteria of authenticity are not used to determine sources and tradition history but to weed out the post-Easter overlay. “J D Crossans Kombination van Alter- und Unabhingigkeitsargument wire demnach zuniichst kein Echtheitskriterium im strenge Sinne, wohl aber cin Mittel zur Einschiitzung des Quellenwerts einer Uberlieferang und kann daritber hinaus negativ als Unechtheitskriterium eingesett werden’ (Theisen, and Winter 1997:15). "Crossan (1991:xxxiii) agrees that in theory a unit found in the third stratum might be original, but he would not consider that, because it falls outside the internal discipline of his method. For example, most scholars in the third quest assume that the synoptic gospels, once pruned ofall the post-Easter additions by means of their criteria of authenticity, give them access to the historical Jesus (see Sanders 1993:61; Wright 1996:xvi; Theissen & Merz 1998:61). “Mn a reformulation of the criteria of authenticity in what is called the ‘plausibility of context’ (Kontext plawsbilitid) and the ‘plausibility of influence” (Wirkiongsplausibilitdt) Theissen and Merz (1998:11) take two eriteria together as a historical criterion of plausibility: what is plausible in the Jewish context and makes the rise of Christianity understandable may be historical’ (see also Theissen & Winter 1997:217 ple is the same: material that has a tight fit with the context can be considered authentic. This by the way, is also the principle followed by scholars in the third quest. You start with a hypothesis (which is based, among others, on historical reconstruction) and material that can be verified against that hypothesis (context) is taken to be authentic. “Elsewhere [ (Craffert 2001) have argued for a cable-like interpretive process that claims that historical knowledge about Jesus is not based on a linear, chain-like process (these units of authentic material (small snippets or the synoptic gospels) plus this sharp context provide the historical Jesus). The validity of the construction—an authentic historical and cultural image of _Jesus— rests on the persuasive power of an integrated interpretive cable- like process and not on individual elements. An ‘authentic’ construction is the result of a complex interplay between a variety of fibres of the cable w include the texts, context and Jesus’ social type. ‘Found, for example, in Gos Thom 14:4; Lk 10: 1, 4-11 = Mt 10:7, 10b,264 Pieter F Graffert 12-14; Mk 6:7-13 = Mt 10:1, 8-10a, 11 = Lk 9:1-6. MOF the thirty-two items in his miracle inventory, only nine have multiple attestation and therefore, according to his methodological discipline, may be considered original (see 1991:320). One is the Beelzebul controversy (Mk 22-27; Lk 11:14-15, 17-18 par) which, strictly speaking, is not an exorcism story. Three are nature miracles, which, as will be shown, in his view, are wetti- ally credal statements about ecclesiastical authority. They are: the sea: Jn 6:16-21; Mk 6:45-52 = Mt 14:22-27; Mk 4:3 23-27 = Lk 8:22-25; the feeding of the multitudes: Ju 6:1-L Mt 9:36, 14:13b-21 = Lk 9:11-17; Mk 8:1-10 = Mt 15:32-39; Lk 24:13-33, 35; and what Crossan calls Fishing for humans: Mk 1:16-20 = Mt 4:18-22, Lk -A-I1, Jiu 21:1-8, Since this latter complex comes from the second stratum, the other miracle story from the first stratum, which Crossan does not discuss, will be considered (Jesus’ transfiguration: Mk 9:2-10 = Mt 17:1-9 = Lk 9:28— 36). Of the remaining five, three are seen as events that were transformed in the tradition to convey some kind of process. The other two are described as esus walking on processes creating events, Although ‘event’ for Crossan (1991:320) is the tual and historical cure of an afflicted individual as a moment in ti clear that he does not consider them stories about actual curings but as h or interventions in the social world. Process refers to a ‘wider socioreligious phenomenon that is symbolized in and by such an individual happening. But just as event can give rise to process so process can give rise to event’, “This is indeed a case (although very limited) about the complexity of sickness experiences, Obtaining support and finding meaning in the face of a fatal sickness can indeed be seen asa healing experience. But to make that the paradigm for what traditional healers are doing is missing the point. “Not only has this distinction been criticised for its ethnocentric applica- tions (where healing is a replacement for primitive medicine and curing for bio- medicine) but it has also been used in ways different from what Crossan implies (see Hahn 1984; Graffert 1997). "The list of ‘culture-bound syndromes’ is almost endless. Research shows that the prevalence of even something as serious as cancer is determined by aultural factors (see Dubos 1977:37-38). Why would someone with anorexia nervosa or hypertension be considered seriously sick, but not someone with demon possession in another cultural system? “Whatever the cause of sickness, it is always culturally and individually constructed by the patient as illness (see Kleinman, Eisenberg & Good 1978:252) Tt is not self-evident that modern medicines always work for the reason that they are used, Some studies, including one by the US Office of Technological Assessment, suggest that only about 20 per cent of modem remedies in common use have been scientifically proven to be effective (see Brown 1998:68). ® A simple test would be to apply his understanding of the illness-disease distinction to stories in medical anthropology about traditional healers and to argue the same case for other traditional healers. The whole field of medical anthropology in protesting against this and the development of the so-calledCrossan’s Historical Jesus 265 integrative model of health, disease is an attempt to move away from such understandings "Eg in Mark 1:40-45 par and in the Egerton Gospel 1135-47. © Eg in Mk 2:1-12 and Jn 5:1-7, 14. Not only are such experiences common to most people on the planet today, but they were fairly common in biblical times. In fact, biblical people lived ina culture that accepted and experienced what is called polyphasiccon- sciousness: many more states of consciousness (such as dreams or visions) were taken as real and were often experienced, Such cultures also provide the rituals and prescriptions for the how, when and who of these experiences (Laughlin, McManus & d’Aquili 1990:155). A pattern of monophasic consciousness refers to the enculturation of people in Western cul- tures that gives dominance to ego-consciousness. Within such a culture ‘the only ‘real world’ experienced is that unfolding in the sensorium during the ‘normal’ waking phase ... and is thus the only phase appropriate to the accrual of information about selfand world’ (Laughlin, McManus & d’Aquili 1990:155). 2\Although they belong to the first stratum in his judgment they are of a specific nature: processes dramatically or symbolically incarnated in events (see 1991:434): they are ‘actually credal statements about ecclesiastical au- thority, although they all have as their background Jesus’ resurrectional vie- tory over death’ (1991:404), For a culturally sensitive reading of the transfiguration narratives, see Pileh’s (1995) study. ind illness (see eg Weiner & Fawzy 1989) BIBLIOGRAPHY Atuison, D C 1998. fesus of Nazareth: millenarian prophet. Minneapolis: Fortress. Benyon, J 1986. Die Britse kolonies. In Cameron, 1. Nuwe geskiedenis van Suid Afrika in woord en beeld. Kaapstad: Human & Rousseau. Bor, M J 1987. Jesus a new vision: spirit, culture, and the life of discipleship. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Bropy, H 1988. The symbolic power of the modern personal physician: The placebo response under challenge. The Journal of Drug Issues. 18(2):149— 161 Brown, P J, & InHoRN.M C 1990. Disease, ecology, and human behavior. In Johnson, T M & Sargent, C F (eds). Medical anthropology: contemporary theory ‘and method. New York: Praeger. Browy, WA 1998. The placebo effect. Scientific American, January:68-73. Cxarretr, PF 1997. Opposing world-views: The border guards between tradi- tional and biomedical health care practices. South African Journal of Ethnology 20(1):1-9, Grarreer, PF 2001, Historical anthropological Jesus research: the status of authentic pictures beyond authentic material. International Context Group: Meeting. Pretoria. Crossan, | D-1991. The historical Jesus: the life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. San Francisco: Harper.266 Pieter F Craffert Cxossay, J D1994a. ‘The historical Jesus in earliest Christianity, In Carlson, J & Ludwig, RA (eds). Jesus and faith: a conversation on the work of John Domenic Crossan, New York: Orbis. Grossaw, J D-1994b, Jesus: a revolutionary biography. San Francisco: Harper: Grossan, | D 1998. The birth of Christianity: discovering what happened in the years immediately after the execution of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. CROssan, J D, & ReED, JL QOL. Excavating Jesus: beneath the stones, behind the texts. San Francisco: Harper. Dunos, R197. Determinants of health and disease. In Landy, D (ed). Culfier, disease, and healing: studies in medical anthropology. New York: Macmillan. Funk, RW, Hooyer, RW anb Tis ests SeMiNar. 1993. The five gospels: the search {for the authentic words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan. Hany, RA 1984. Rethinking ‘illness’ and ‘disease’, Contributions to Asian Stusies 18:1-23, Kietman, A & SuNG, LH (eds) 1979. Why do indigenous practitioners suecess- fully heal? Social Science and Medicine 130:7-26. KLEmMan, A. EISENBERG, L & Goon, B, 1978, Culture, illness, and care: clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Annals of Internal Medicine 88:251-58. Laucittix, CD, McMANts, J & D’AQUILL, EG 1990, Brain, symbal & experience: towards a newrophenomenology of human consciousness. Boston: Shambhala, Lewis, 1M 1986. Religion in context: cults and charisma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mauiva, BJ 1999. Assessing the historicity of Jesus’ walking on the sea: insights from cross-cultural social psychology. In Chilton, B & Evans, G A. Authen= ticating the activities of Jesus. Leiden; Brill. Morewax, DE 1991. Physiology and symbols: the anthropological implic tions of the placebo effect. In Romanucci-Ross, L, Moerman, DE & Tancredi, TR (eds). The anthropology of medicine: from culture to method (second edi- tion). New York: Bergin & Garvey, Puc, J J 1995. The transfiguration of Jesus: an experience of alternate reality. In Esler, PF (ed). Madelling early Christianity: social-scientific studies of the New Testament in its context. London: Routledge. Saxprrs, EP 1993. The historical figure of Jesus. London: Penguin, TuEISSEN, G & Merz, A 1998. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. London: SCM. Tireassen, G & Wovter, D. 1997. Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung: Vom Differenzkriterium zum Plausibilitatskriterium, Géuingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wormer, H & Fawzy, fF 1989. An integrative model of health, disease, and iness. In Cheren, S (ed). Psychosomatic medicine: theory, physiology, and prac- tice, Volume 1. Madison: International Universities Press. Waricit, TN 1996. Jesus and the victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress.Copyright of Religion & Theology is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.