No, Crossan is a historian, as opposed to, say, a writer of Christian apologetics.
I think you once claimed you knew the difference.
Crossan applied strict historical standards to all the documents related to biblical history.
Of course, from a religious perspective, as I warned you in the beginning, you won't like his results.
But that's real history, as opposed to religious apologetics.
I think I've explained all of this now several times.
Do you ever pay attention?
No, Crossan is a historian
***He’s a simple heretic, pushing his own idealogical excrement onto history. Such heresy catches weak fish like you in its net because you agree with it and don’t want to submit to Christ’s authority as God Himself.