For the moment here is how Crossan differentiates the apocalyptic vs sapiential Kingdom of God ( my boldings)

The apocalyptic is a future Kingdom dependent on the overpowering action of God moving to restore justice and peace to an earth ravished by injustice and oppression. Believers can, at the most, prepare or persuade, implore or assist its arrival, but its accomplishment is consigned to divine power alone. And despite a serene vagueness about specifics and details, its consummation would be objectively visible and tangible to all, believers and unbelievers alike, but with appropriate ly different fates. 

The sapiential Kingdom looks to the present rather than the future and imagines how one could live here and now within an already or always available divine dominion. One enters the Kingdom by wisdom or goodness, by justice, virtue or freedom. It is a style of life for now rather than a hope for the future. This is therefore an ethical Kingdom, but it must be absolutely insisted that it could be just as eschatological as was the apocalyptic Kingdom.

Now each scholar is free to define what he understands as the boundary between sapiential worldview and apocalyptic

And apparently Crossan describes Jesus as eschatological but NOT apocalyptic.

And does Crossan’s description of the sapiential Kingdom necessarily conflict with Ehrman’s description of apocalyptic worldview, described here ** you do not have permission to see this link **

I would say generally ‘no’ in terms of vindication, imminence and dualism; but maybe ‘yes’ in terms of pessimism in that Ehrman contends that in the apocalyptic view

There was no thought here of being able to improve the human condition through mass education or advanced technologies.  The righteous could not make their lives better, because the forces of evil were in control, and those who sided with God were opposed by those who were much stronger than they. 

I mentioned I would comment on Robert’s

 
You also find in the stories of Jesus’ ministry a pervasive dualism of the apocalyptic worldview that is not really present in Isaiah or earlier writings of the Hebrew scriptures.

I do not recall Crossan mentioning in the book proper any comments on dualism (this is one of the  themes Bart lists as characteristic of apocalypticism). However in the appendix Crossan lists the ‘Beelzebub Controversy’  and according to the notes there, Crossan lists it as historical. So as far as I can determine, there does not appear any  conflict between these two scholars on that point. 

Similarly, you would like to interpret 4Q521 as purely symbolic language, but it needs to be read in the light of so many other texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls that cannot but be taken literally about the coming battle between the sons of light and the sons of darkness, etc.  

I think you recall my interpretation correctly, I take that verse in a way similar/consistent as I interpret mark 11:23 and is 55:12 and rom 8:22; Do you interpret all these in a consistent manner?

But to return to topic of thread, I am not sure how Crossan interprets any of the above, literally or symbolically and even if he interprets them one way or another, I do not know if that indicates a definitive indication of sapiential vs apocalyptic worldview for Jesus of Nazareth.