Crossan is an excellent scholar and ex-priest.  He wrote two major books essential for studying the historical Jesus. One was about the4 historical jesus

There are almost as many versions of the historical Jesus as there are seekers of the historical Jesus; a fact Crossan himself is acutely aware of. Crossan's Jesus has been criticised as just another reflection of a liberal theologian's face in the bottom of a deep well, but I contend that in the case of Crossan's historical Jesus, this is an unjust criticism.

Crossan builds his historical Jesus from texts selected on the basis of multiple attestation and stratification. The theory being that texts which are independently used by more than one source, and/or belong to the earliest strata of Christian writings are more likely to bear true witness to the authentic Jesus of history than texts that have been added later for the political or theological purposes of their authors. Crossan uses a triangular focus of historical, literary and social methods applied to both canonical and non-biblical texts to deconstruct the traditional Christ reconstruct a very plausible Jesus of history. The Jesus that Crossan eventually portrays is a Mediteranean peasant Jewish cynic who is seen in the context of the Roman empire rather than simply in the context of early Judaism. He emerges not from the early Christianity of the canon, but from the contemporary society in which he lived.

Jesus' practices, according to Crossan, bear similarities to those of the Greek Cynics. Cynicism was a Greco-Roman form of eschatology that manifested as a practice more than a theory; it was a total lifestyle that dictated the ways of dressing, eating, living and relating to others. GrecoRoman cynicism was centred in the towns, in particular the market places where the cynics would address the crowds. Greek cynics were known to carry with them a knapsack or wallet, symbolising their self -dependent lifestyle, in addition to their cloak and staff.

Jesus, however was not a Greek cynic. It is not even clear whether he knew of Greek cynicism, but he appears to have practised a 'home-grown' Jewish version cynicism. This Jewish cynicism was practised in the villages and rural districts and Jesus specifically instructed his followers not to carry a knapsack or money, thus symbolising their dependency on the commensality of community. Jesus' mission included free healing and common eating. Through it he promoted a religious and economic egalitarianism that subverted the hierarchical and patronal structures of Roman power and Jewish religion.

Crossan shows Jesus' concerns to be those of the underclass of society. In Roman society, sin, sickness and taxation were inextricably linked; excessive taxation left the poor hungy and desperate, but the power structures blamed sinfulness for the people’s plight. It was a vicious circle, because forgiveness for sins was a monopoly of the temple, and temple services meant further taxes. Breaking this monopoly through the forgiveness of sins freely given, Jesus was undermining the religious and political structures of society. Jesus' miracles set his power and authority on a par with, if not superior to, the temple. Like that of the magicians, his personal, individual power was seen as standing against the communal, ritual power of priests and rabbis, and, as such, it challenged the legitimacy of centering spiritual power in the temple. Similarly subversive was Jesus' portrayal of a 'brokerless' kingdom. The Roman empire operated through a brokerage system, whereby society was structured in terms of patrons and clients. Jesus' egalitarian community, with its practice of commensality, makes no allowance for brokerage; patrons and clients are valued equally, again subverting the religious, social and political structures of the time. By never settling, always remaining transient, Jesus avoided being interpreted as yet another broker for God. His teaching was that there should be no mediator between humanity and the divine, nor between humans. Through parables, miracles, healing and eating, individuals were drawn into unmediated physical and spiritual contact with God and with each other.

For Jesus and his followers the kingdom, or better, the reign of God, had indeed arrived when those around him sat at an open table and joined in the subversion of all hierarchies: political, social, religious and even cultural. This Jesus gave little reflection on the important questions as seen by religious authorities. He had scant regard for advancing or safeguarding tradition; instead he transgressed the boundaries and radicalised the teachings, forcing new questions to be asked and new perspectives to be taken.

Was Crossan's Jesus of history divine? Crossan would answer 'Yes' providing divinity is understood as relational and interactive, not as objective and essential. Jesus is divine in that, through him, many caught sight of the transcendent.

Crossan's Jesus is a compelling figure that cannot be lightly dismissed. But like the canonical Jesus who comes to divide (Matthew 10:34ff), Crossan's Jesus, if heard, is set to divide the Christian community. For what does a hierarchical, patriarchal church do when its Head is shown to denounce hierarchies of all kinds? How can a church respond when the One it deems the divine mediator, is seen to reject the need for mediation? How does a church that prides itself on tradition and spends much of its energy and resources advancing that tradition and patrolling the boundaries less heretics transgress them, follow a Mediterranean peasant Jewish Cynic?

His other book is a massive research on the socio-economic period of jesus's arena.  His approach is a good historical-critical method.

The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, 1991

The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened Immediately after the Execution of Jesus (1998).

I read them both and depend on them as resources.

Well, I find that I have kind of a love/hate thing going on with the mythicist position. Many of the threads on the subject are very well thought out but at the same time, they are not really providing evidence against an historical jesus so much as informing us of the lack of evidence for the dude having existed.

I tend to think that he probably did not exist as a single individual. More likely, many stories of many people were combined into a single narrative. Some of those people may well have walked the earth right around the time.

If you think about this, it should be obvious that Caesar, Pilate and Herod were real existing people. There is plenty of contemporary evidence of them and what they did. The thing is that there is no contemporary evidence for some of the things that are attributed to them. Heck, we found Herod's grave back in the late 70's. How real could a biblical figure be if we actually have his bones in a museum somewhere?

Against that, what about the slaughter of the innocents? Surely that would have to be documented in the ancient sources. Well, it isn't. No mention in Suetonius or either of the Pliny sources. So that is at least doubtful. In fact, I question whether it would have been allowed by Pilate had word reached him. Sure, the Romans were known to be rather brutal when it occurred to them but even they had rules for where the line must be drawn. If Herod tried to pass that edict (even if the actual record no longer exists), it would have played a role in the local economy, which matter would have been of concern to Pilate.

On the other hand, did some insane wandering preacher dude rip through the temple and overturn tables before he was arrested? That could conceivably have escaped the notice of contemporary historical sources, especially if it was more common than a single incident. Look at what we have as protests today. Are some things so depressingly common that they merit little notice?

Then too, who can say with any authority what really happened a couple hundred years ago? The early church fathers were writing about stuff that they obviously could not have had first hand knowledge of. All that they had to work with were stories that had been handed down over time.

Really, George Washington was a real dude who did real things. However, his life story is filled with things that did not happen. He did not cut down a cherry tree. He did not throw a silver dollar across a mighty river.

He did do a number of things that are not pushed in American schools (and I suspect that the international crowd has even less reason to be aware of the details of his life). He specialized in killing sleeping enemy troops. The battle of Trenton being the one example that does get play in US schools, although the fact that the Hessians were asleep at the time tends to get glossed over. He did claim a victory in the battle of the Gowanus marsh despite the fact that he was routed there and only built a fake camp in Jamaica plain to cover the fact that he evacuated his troops in the middle of the night (also known as running away).

If we are so unsure of the details of the only American general to hold six star rank, why assume that we know far more about some dude who lived 18 centuries earlier?

Thanks for laying that out. What do you think of the contention that Paul remained a Jew?

Curious, what verse does he refer to himself as christ?

No I meant where atheiextr said that paul refered to himself as christ.

Do you think you can check out the intention of the gospel writers thread and look at one of my questions about a rebutal to a christian?

A misreading of 1st Corinthians 1:12 formented by confirmation bias.

Soz.

It certainly would have a better chance of getting through. However I wonder is the aim to disseminate the truth or simply to win converts?