The Jesus Seminar and Their Critics
A recent post on the dicussion boards has labelled the Jesus Seminar as heretical and, therefore, not worth responding to. The contributor who made this accusation then virtually deleted all input from them as irrelevant and refused to deal with the subject matter being discussed.
I find this not only disturbing as it goes against everything that this board is intended for but disturbing because it shows a complete ignorance of who this group is and what they do.
As this contributor's lack of knowledge in this area is now apparent and he is one of the better read of the Christians posting here, I have decided to post some information about this group to enlighten those of our believers who may be under similar misperceptions or delusions. This will probably make it onto the site in this format as the number of Christians who know nothing more about the Jesus Seminar other than what their undereducated preachers tell them is astounding. We have seen members of this community badmouthing this group from day one and only because they are unfamiliar with how or why the group works and not due to any tangible information that is damning.
First, let's look at the word heretical and see what it means. We will then see if it can be applied to a group like the Jesus Seminar.
heretical \He*ret"i*cal\, a. Containing heresy; of the nature of, or characterized by, heresy.
her·e·sy (hr-s)
n., pl. her·e·sies.
1. a. An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from
or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
b. Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.
Interesting, isn't it? By this definition of heretical, the contributor who labelled the Jesus Seminar as heretical who is himself a Lutheran, would ALSO be considered heretical.
In any event, it appears that it is proper to label the Jesus Seminar as heretical but at the same time it is proper to label anything that is not sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church as heretical, as well.
Does this help us in our conversations? No. Does this establish the Jesus Seminar as unreliable when it comes to the historical study of the gospels? Not at all. Does this mean that the Jesus Seminar has opinions that differ from the Roman Catholic Church? Absolutely. If they didn't, there would be no reason for the group in the first place as the RCC has a large number of scholars looking to further its cause already well in place.
So... who is this heretical group? What are their aims? What do they look to bring to the field of biblical research? Let's find out.
Much of the information that I will pull from this article can be found on the net at some
of the following sites:
http://westarinstitute.org - home of the Jesus Seminar
http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/quest.html
http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/miller1.html
http://home.epix.net/~miser17/jsem.html
http://home.fireplug.net/~rshand/reflections/messiah/seminar.html
http://www.midtod.com/bestof/jesus.phtml
I will also consult opposing sites:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/jesussem.html
http://www.integrityonline15.com/jpholding/tekton/JPH_HICA_01.html
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/bible/jsuf.htm
So... with these sources in hand, let's begin.
I think it only proper to give the Jesus Seminar the first crack at explaining who they are and what their intentions are/have been. For this, we turn to their site.
Who are the scholars of the Jesus Seminar?
From http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/fellows.html
The Fellows of the Westar Institute are scholars with advanced degrees in biblical studies, religion or related fields. Since the beginning, more than two hundred Fellows have participated in the Jesus Seminar and other Westar projects, including the Paul Seminar, Canon Seminar and the recently begun Acts Seminar. At various stages of the projects, different Fellows have been involved in the research and deliberations.
In other words, these are people who have spent years studying the Bible in a scholastic setting. These are not lay people or necessarily non-believers but scholars.
Let's look at a selection of some of the more popular members, first:
Robert Funk, Director of the Westar Institute
and founder of the Jesus Seminar (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Funk/funk.html)
Robert W. Funk is a distinguished teacher, writer, translator and publisher in the field of religion.
A Guggenheim Fellow and Senior Fulbright Scholar, he has served as Annual Professor of the American School
of Oriental Research in Jerusalem and as chair of the Graduate Department of Religion at Vanderbilt
University. Robert Funk is a recognized pioneer in modern biblical scholarship, having led the Society of
Biblical Literature as its Executive Secretary from 1968–1973. His many books include The Five Gospels:
The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (1993) and The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic
Deeds (1998) (both with the Jesus Seminar) and Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium (1996).
In other words, this man has spent nearly four decades in the field of biblical studies as a student and educator. What is not mentioned is that he was formerly a pastor before being defrocked for his stance on the historical Jesus.
John Dominic Crossan, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, DePaul University, Chicago (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Crossan/crossan.html)
John Dominic Crossan has written over a dozen books on the historical Jesus in the last twenty five
years, three of which have become national religious bestsellers: The Historical Jesus (1991), Jesus: A
Revolutionary Biography (1994), and Who Killed Jesus (1995). A former co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, he is
chair of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature, an international scholarly
association for biblical study based in the United States.
Crossan began his advanced education of the Bible in 1945, making this his 56th year of study on the subject. What is not mentioned is that he spent 6 years as a Servite Monk (a Roman Catholic order) in the States in the 50s before getting his doctorate of theology from Maynooth College in Ireland.
Marcus Borg, Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State
University (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Borg/borg.html)
Nationally and internationally known in both academic and church circles, Marcus Borg is the author,
co-author, or editor of twelve books, including Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, the best-selling
book by a contemporary Jesus scholar, and The God We Never Knew, named by Publishers Weekly as one of the
ten best books in religion of 1997. He has been national chair of the Historical Jesus Section of the
Society of Biblical Literature and co-chair of its International New Testament Program Committee. His
books have been translated into German, Dutch, Korean, Japanese, and French. He has lectured widely
throughout North America, including the Chautauqua and Smithsonian Institutions, and overseas (England,
Austria, Germany, Belgium, Hungary, Israel, and South Africa).
What is not mentioned is that Borg grew up and remains to this day a devout Lutheran.
Quoting from his website (http://www.united.edu/portrait/)
God is real.
The Christian life is about a relationship with God as known in Jesus Christ.
It can and will change your life.
Here is some other information, showing the diversity of scholars in the group:
The Seminar has been accused of being composed of only American scholars. Here are scholars who teach around the world:
Andries van Aarde (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Aarde/aarde.html) - Chairperson, Department of New Testament Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa
Robert Bater (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Bater/bater.html) - Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Religion and Culture, Queen's Theological College and Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Willi Braun (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Braun/braun.html) - Assistant Professor in the Nancy and William Turner Chair in Christianity, Department of Religion, Bishop's University, Quebec, Canada
Lloyd Geering (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Geering/geering.html) - Lecturer, St. Andrew's Trust for the Study of Religion and Society, and Emeritus Professor of Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Heinz Guenther (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Guenther/guenther.html) - Emmanuel College of Victoria University, Toronto
Larry Kalajainen (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Kalajainen/kalajainen.html) - Senior Pastor, The American Church in Paris
Gerd Lüdemann (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Luedemann/luedemann.html) - Professor of New Testament at Georg-August-University, University of Göttingen, Germany
L. Bruce Miller (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/LBMiller/lbmiller.html) - Senior Minister of Robertson-Wesley United Church; Lecturer in Comparative Religions and Theology, University of Alberta and St. Stephen's College, Edmonton, Canada
Johann Strijdom (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Strijdom/strijdom.html) - University of South Africa, Pretoria
As we can see, the Seminar does have global representation and cannot be said to have a bias towards American scholarship or culture.
The claim has also been made that the Jesus Seminar is representative of a specific theological position that is less than admirable. The claim pins differing positions on the Seminar ranging anything from heretical and valueless to anti-Christian. Let's examine some of the schools attended by the fellows of the Seminar as well as their occupations:
Valerie A. Abrahamsen, a holder of Th.D. (theology doctorate) from Harvard Divinity School, (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Abrahamsen/abrahamsen.html) - An active Episcopalian, she sings in the choir of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul in Boston and serves on several diocesan committees.
Richard L. Arthur (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Arthur/arthur.html) holds an S.T.B. from Harvard Divinity School and a Th.D. from the Graduate Theological Union.
Robert Bater (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Bater/bater.html) holds S.T.M. and a Ph.D. from the Union Theological Seminary in New York. He teaches at Queen's Theological College in Ontario, Canada.
Edward F. Beutner (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Beutner/beutner.html) is a member of the Catholic Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin and holds a Ph.D. from Graduate Theological Union.
Marvin F. Cain (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Cain/cain.html) is a former Lutheran Minister (retired) with a Ph.D. from Duke University.
Ron Cameron (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Cameron/cameron.html ) teaches at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut.
Joanna Dewey (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/JDewey/jdewey.html) teaches at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Susan M. Elliott (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Elliott/elliott.html) is a Pastor at the Zion United Church of Christ in Sterling, Colorado.
Lloyd Geering (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Geering/geering.html) is an ordained Presbyterian minister.
Clayton N. Jefford (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Jefford/jefford.html) works at the Saint Meinrad Seminary in St. Meinrad, Indiana.
Gregory C. Jenks (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Jenks/jenks.html) is the former Rector of St. Matthew's Anglican Church, Drayton, Australia.
William Doane Kelly (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Kelly/kelly.html) has pastoral duties at four pastorates and Religious Education in churches in Western New York, Central New York, and Northeastern Pennsylvania.
Davidson Loehr (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Loehr/loehr.html) is minister at the First Unitarian Universalist Society of Albany, New York.
Edward J. McMahon II (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/McMahon_II/mcmahon_ii.html) is a professor at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas.
L. Bruce Miller (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/LBMiller/lbmiller.html) is Senior Minister of Robertson-Wesley United Church in Edmonton, Canada.
Culver H. Nelson (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Nelson/nelson.html) is Founding Minister Emeritus at the Church of the Beatitudes in Phoenix, Arizona.
Rod Parrott (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Parrott/parrott.html) is employed at the Disciples Seminary Foundation.
Daryl D. Schmidt (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Schmidt/schmidt.html) is Professor of Religion and Chair of the Department of Religion, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas.
Bernard Brandon Scott (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Scott/scott.html) is Darbeth Distinguished Professor of New Testament at the Phillips Theological Seminary, University of Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Dennis E. Smith (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/DSmith/dsmith.html) is Professor of New Testament, Phillips Theological Seminary, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Hal Taussig (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Taussig/taussig.html) is a Pastor at the Chestnut Hill United Methodist Church in Philadelphia, PA.
William O. Walker, Jr. (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Walker/walker.html) is Professor of Religion and Dean of the Division of Humanities and Arts Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas.
James E. West (from http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/West/west.html) is Pastor, First Baptist Church of Petros, Tennessee and Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology.
As we can see, there is representation of nearly all of the sects of Christianity - from Universal Unitarian to Methodist to Baptist to Catholic to Anglican to Episcopalian to Lutheran. That it could be suggested that ministers and educators from these very different denominations could all have a similar theological agenda is simply ludicrous and now thoroughly dispelled.
Now we know who the Jesus Seminar fellows are. They are pastors, ministers and educators. They are, by and large, practicing Christians who see a very large difference between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith.
Now... what else do Jesus Seminar detractors have to say about the group?
The following is from Leadership U. (http://www.leaderu.com/index.html) an online apologetics warehouse. The article is titled, The Jesus Seminar and is written by Jimmy Williams who fancies himself as a scholar, though he has never achieved a Ph.D. nor a Th.D. while the people he critiques have. Let's look:
The piece opens with misinformation within the first couple of paragraphs. Williams states:
The initial two hundred has now dwindled to about seventy-four active members.
While not an important error and while it doesn't prove the Seminar correct, it does set
the tone for the article. The truth of the matter from the JS site:
At its inception in 1985, thirty scholars took up the challenge. Eventually more than two hundred
professionally trained specialists, called Fellows, joined the group.
Williams apparently has his information backwards and instead of the group dwindling, it grew. That there is a core of active members does not mean that the extended group is still not over 200.
In the article, Williams describes the members of the group:
Of the remaining active participants, only fourteen are well-known scholars in New Testament studies.
Another twenty are recognizable within the narrow confines of the discipline, but they are not widely
published beyond a few journal articles or dissertations. The remaining forty are virtually unknowns, and
most of them are either at Harvard, Vanderbilt, or Claremont College, three universities widely considered
among the most liberal in the field.
Now, we have already been over this and I have listed numerous seminaries and Christian universities that the fellows of the Seminar either attended or teach at. While Williams is trying to paint the Seminar into a picture of being comprised of unknown liberal scholars, we have already proven that this is not the case. Williams dishonesty here is not surprising, however, as his intention is to discredit the group so that their findings of the group do not need to be considered. This is one of the most common apologetic tactics and one that makes the practice of apologetics a dishonest one. Williams is only doing his job in his dishonesty and so we cannot fault him for this. We can, however, disregard his slander.
Williams is not done, however. He goes on to point out another issue that we have already
dispelled:
Nearly all of these scholars are American. European scholarship is nearly non-existent and, that being
the case, it would be inaccurate, if not deceiving for the Jesus Seminar participants to present
themselves, their work, and their conclusions as a broad, representative consensus of worldwide New
Testament scholarship.
As has been pointed out above, the Seminar has global representation. With scholars from France, Germany, England as well as those who have attended European universities and seminaries, we find another of Williams' claims debunked.
He's still not done, though.
This group has brought into question the very authenticity and validity of the gospels which lie at
the center of Christianity's credibility. If what the Jesus Seminar espouses is historically accurate, the
sooner the naive Christian community can be educated to these facts the better, according to these
scholars.
What Williams has failed to point out is that the members of the Jesus Seminar are also members of the "Christian community" (as if there was one cohesive body that could be described in this fashion). What we find in this paragraph is the entire reason why Williams disagrees with the group. We can be assured that had the group followed the same methods and included the same scholars but had voted in favor of including all of the sayings of Jesus as authentic that Williams would be singing a different tune, indeed. He would be touting the group as the greatest thing to come along since the reformation.
Williams attacks the Seminar in regards to three positions that the group used to determine the historicity of the gospels.
1. Prophetic statements. Predictions by Jesus of such things as the destruction of the Temple, or of Jerusalem, or His own resurrection are later literary additions or interpolations. How do we know this? Because no one can predict the future. So they MUST have been added later by zealous followers.
This is not so much of an objection to the Seminar's conclusions but to the study of
history. History is always written after the fact, giving the authors of history the opportunity to
embellish. We know that there was a theological bias among the authors of the gospels (they were, after
all, proclaiming the good news) and this is really all that one needs to consider. The possibilities are
broken down like this:
A. Jesus predicted the future.
-OR-
B. The writings were composed after the events that Jesus supposedly predicted had happened, and to
make Jesus appear divine, the author had Jesus predict the event.
Of the two, B is the more likely. This makes this objection moot as the Seminar's goal was to find the most likely history and not preserve tradition.
2. Miracles. Since miracles are not possible, every recorded miracle in the Gospels must be a later elaboration by an admiring disciple or follower, or must be explained on the basis of some physical or natural cause (i.e., the Feeding of the 5,000: Jesus gave the signal, and all those present reached beneath their cloaks, pulled out their own "sack lunches," and ate together!).
To be honest, I am not sure what Williams is arguing against here. There are two problems with his line of thinking, though, and we will correct both of them.
#1- the book that Williams was critiquing here is called The Five Gospels and discusses the sayings of Jesus. As anyone who has opened the Bible knows, none of Jesus' sayings can be thought of as miracles.
#2 - when doing historical research, one must remove all traces of the supernatural as elaborations of the author. If we are to start accepting Jesus' miracles as prima facie simply because they are in the Bible, we must also accept as true miracles which happened in other religious texts and histories. Since this does nothing to tell us what happened in history - the purpose of the Jesus Seminar's work - miracles cannot be thought of as historical.
#3- Claims of Jesus. Christ claimed to be God, Savior, Messiah, Judge, Forgiver of sin, sacrificial Lamb of God, etc. All of these, say the Jesus Fellows, are the later work of His devoted followers. The historical Jesus never claimed these things for Himself, as Funk infers in his above-mentioned statements. Reality isn't like this. It couldn't be true.
This is rather a weak representation of the position that the Seminar takes on these pronouncements and we will shortly dispatch with this point. In the earliest source material, Q, we find no such pronouncements. In the Gospel of Mark, we find no such pronouncements. In the two middle gospels, GMatthew and GLuke, we find some. By GJohn, however, we practically find Jesus walking down the street introducing himself as god. If this is not the stuff of legend development than nothing is. Williams failed to deal with these considerations in criticizing the Seminar not because the conclusions don't make sense but simply because he doesn't like them. He doesn't like them because they are a threat to his faith.
Williams continues of his misrepresentation of the Jesus Seminar by criticizing their use of Q (the second source for GMatthew and GLuke) and the Gospel of Thomas. We will deal with these in turn.
Williams has little to say on the subject of Q. The only reason that I could see for this
is that he has only a rudimentary understanding of this subject. His one statement from the article that
I find worthy of a response is:
Outside of the Synoptic gospels, there is no written documentary evidence to substantiate Quelle.
I would like to point out that there is no need for outside evidence as all of the evidence needed for accepting the existence of Q are the canonical gospels and the Gospel of Thomas. The canonicals give us Q in GLuke and GMatthew while GThomas gives us the genre of the sayings gospel.
On the Gospel of Thomas, Williams is even more disingenuous. He states:
This Gospel of Thomas has now been studied for forty years, and the overwhelming conclusion of
scholars worldwide has been that the document carries many of the identifying marks of a Gnostic literary
genre, from a sect prominent in Egypt and the Nile Valley during the second, third, and fourth
centuries.
This is not only untrue it is a lie if Williams is aware of modern scholarship, at all.
First, here is the position that the Seminar takes:
* The Gospel of Thomas has provided a new and important source for the Jesus tradition.
* The Gospel of Thomas consists of 114 sayings without a narrative framework.
* Thomas represents an earlier stage of the tradition than do the canonical gospels.
* Thomas represents an independent witness to the Jesus tradition.
All of the above statements are believed to be true by a huge number of scholars, today. GThomas is a monumental find for the field of biblical scholarship and study of early Christianity. GThomas is a sayings gospel with no narrative. GThomas represents a stage before the narrative gospel came into vogue. GThomas is not dependent on the synoptic gospels.
Is GThomas Gnostic? No. It is no more Gnostic than Plato's Republic which was found in the same cache of texts as the Gospel of Thomas. I am in disagreement with the Seminar on this but this is a subject for a different post.
For further study on the Gospel of Thomas and its value to biblical study, I would suggest leading Thomas scholar, Stevan Davies remarkable Gospel of Thomas homepage.
Williams continues in his attack of the Jesus Seminar by positing an early date for GLuke and Acts of the Apostles. While a case can be made for an earlier date, the concensus among modern scholars is that Luke and Acts were composed in the 80s and 90s. Williams can try to discount this by asserting earlier dates (which he does) but he offers nothing that can be considered evidence for the earlier dates. In my companion piece to this, Dating And Authorship of the Gospels , I have covered why the later date is the more acceptable of the two.
Williams goes on to attack the Seminar's position on the development of Christology - that Jesus became more supernatural as time went on. Anyone who is familiar with the gospels and their order of writing - Mark, Matthew, Luke and then John - can see the development clearly. Williams suggests that Paul had spoken of an advanced Christology but we find no such mentions of an historic Jesus in Paul nor do we find any knowledge of the gospels by Paul nor vice versa making this assertion meaningless.
I find nothing more to comment on in regards to Williams work and feel confident that he has been soundly refuted.
The next piece of work that we will examine belongs to one J.P. Holding. Those who have familiarized themselves with my site will already recognize the name, though it is not this individual’s real name. Holding is an apologist of the absolute worst kind, going to all sorts of ridiculous lengths to defend such ideas as biblical inerrancy. I am sure that somewhere in the maze that Holding calls a website there is more dealing with the Jesus Seminar but the section that we will be examining is http://www.integrityonline15.com/jpholding/tekton/JPH_HICA_01.html.
On this page, Holding is dealing with the subject of harmonization. Somehow, the topic is
switched after a few paragraphs and the subject becomes presuppositions. The only thing that we are given
which connects the two subjects is this one sentence:
There is a popular set of presuppositions that generally go along with the anti-harmonic point of
view.
In other words, those of us who do not see it as possible to harmonize the conflicting tales of the gospels (that would be anyone who has read the gospels objectively) usually have a number of presuppositions. Somehow, this is applied to the Jesus Seminar and Holding launches into a tirade against this group. It is this type of baseless categorization that has drawn my criticism of Holding before and we see that he is up to his old tricks.
Regardless of the stereotyping, let’s examine the presuppositions that Holding accuses the Jesus Seminar of having:
General Assumption #1. If it is only mentioned in one Gospel, it is doubtful that it happened.
This is nothing more than an argument from silence at its core. Of course, the corollary and logical next steps would be that if it is mentioned in 2 Gospels, it may have happened; 3, it probably did happen, and if it is in all four, it definitely happened; so that would mean that the Resurrection definitely happened! But of course, critics never take these next steps because it upsets the apple cart.
What we are dealing with here is attestation. Holding doesn’t argue against this
presupposition as much as he tries to apply this very reasonable rule to a situation that contains
conflicting evidence. Let’s read what the rule that Seminar uses when searching for historical
information:
Sayings or parables that are attested in two or more independent sources are likely to be old.
Note that the rule is neither categorical nor absolute. It is simply a guide on how to evaluate evidence. This same rule is used in courtrooms around the world. Corroborated evidence is more likely believed than evidence which rests on its own authority.
General Assumption #2: If it reflects the needs, likely questions, or problems of the early church, it is doubtful that it was said or done by Jesus. Instead, the words and deeds were written back into the Gospel records.
In the words of the Seminar: "Sayings and parables expressed in 'Christian' language are the creation of the evangelists or their Christian predecessors...The Christian community developed apologetics statements to defend its claims and sometimes attributed such statements to Jesus." (pp. 24-5) No matter how fancy you say it, the bottom line is : The Gospels writers were liars. They invented sayings of Jesus to address problems in the church.
I am not at all surprised that Holding uses such language. Holding does not use the word liar because this represents the position or the conclusion reached by the Seminar. Holding uses this word because it invokes the proper emotional response from his less than critical readers. This is nothing but apologetics and needs no response. The truth of the matter is that the gospels were written with an agenda and the Jesus Seminar realizes the need to see through this smokescreen to get to what is likely to be historical.
General Assumption #3: If it reflects something that was already being taught in Judaism or some other philosophy at the time, it it doubtful that it was said or done by Jesus.
The Seminar puts it this way: "Words borrowed from the fund of common lore or the Greek scriptures are often put on the lips of Jesus." (p. 23) This is rather a stringent demand to place upon any literary work. To their credit, the Seminar does not ALWAYS say that such quotes are invented; they admit that at times Jesus may have used common lore and proverbs when speaking. (Actually, that Jesus did use common lore and such should be taken as authenticating the Gospel records; but in the wild world of the Seminar, this is not the case.) Skeptics often take this argument a bit further by asserting that elements of the Gospels (the virgin birth, for example) were borrowed from other religions or fables.
That this is true is simply common sense. We can see from the Gospel of Matthew’s use of obscure verses from the Old Testament that are presented as prophecies by the author in his gospel, that the Old Testament was searched for sayings and actions which could be attributed to Jesus. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that a Galilean peasant would be so familiar with Jewish scripture that he would be able to quote Zechariah or Jeremiah before there was a fixed Jewish canon.
As a side note, the question is not whether or not the gospel authors used other religions or fables in their stories. The question is how much did they use and from which other religions or fables.
General Assumption #4: If it has a miraculous element, it didn't happen.
Holding does not attempt to refute this and so we will pass over it.
General Assumption #5: The Gospel writers added to or expanded upon Jesus' sayings with their own interpretations or comments, or attributed their own statements and/or stories to the Gospels.
This is easy to assume, but difficult to prove. The Jesus Seminar creates a variety of scenarios to explain how certain parts of the Gospels have been thusly altered, generally using elements of Assumptions 2 and 3.
Actually, this is quite easy to prove. For one, it is quite simple to look at parallel passages and see the expansion of a saying which originated in GMark in GMatthew or GLuke. For two, there is a sufficient number of passages in which the gospeller has added some narrative to a saying for one reason or another. Expansion and addition is one of the easier things to find in the gospels.
General Assumption #6: Many saying of Jesus are invented for the occasion. (p. 30)
The Seminar applies this mainly to non-teaching words of Jesus. For example, where Jesus exorcises a demon and says, "Come out of him!" this is regarded as just being storytellers' license to fit the situation. (This is really rather petty - and may we ask what one does say to a demon one is trying to expel? "Upsy-daisy, demon!" perhaps?) It is also said that such sayings could not have been transmitted orally, in the context of a larger story, so they cannot be relied upon - ignoring the possibility that the story itself may have been transmitted in writing, or that oral tradition can indeed be reliable to the required extent!
The reason for this should be obvious and the response to it is quite simple. Oral traditions do not preserve little sayings like the one mentioned above but remember the general idea of a story.
General Assumption #7: Only sayings and actions that fit a specified portrait of Jesus are authentic.
The Seminar has a host of criteria in this regard which we will not recount here. However, it is noteworthy that one admonition to their members is to beware of finding a Jesus that is congenial to them - is this not what they are doing when they set arbitrary criteria beforehand? (Obviously, for them, this wipes out all of Jesus' claims to divinity.)
This is about as vague as it could possibly be but the gist of Holding’s point is that the scholars of the Seminar have only applied to Jesus that which fits a preconceived picture of Jesus. This assumes knowledge of the scholars’ motives and intentions. Since we know that Holding is not omniscient, we can completely disregard this statement as the ranting of someone with a preconceived idea of who and what the members of the Seminar are. We have already dealt with such a mischaracterization from Jimmy Williams above and pass over this. As such, we have dealt with Holding and consider him refuted.
The last page that we will be looking at is by one Gregory Koukl and sits at http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/bible/jsuf.htm.
The logic and reasoning displayed in this piece are among the lowest level that I have encountered in my four years on the internet and it is simply to close the circle that I have included this article here. There is nothing in it that we have not covered but I want the readers to be aware of the depths that the Seminar’s critics will go to slander them. Let’s begin.
Not surprisingly, we will see that Koukl has used Jimmy Williams’ paper and in some cases quotes it is nearly word for word without giving mention to the source. In most circles, this is known as plagiarism.
Koukl begins his piece by asking who belongs to the Jesus Seminar.
Who Are the Scholars?
Journalists frequently refer to the 74 "scholars" of the Jesus Seminar as representing the mainstream of biblical scholarship. Being a bona fide scholar, though, means more than just having a degree. Generally, a scholar is one who demonstrates a mastery of his discipline and who makes an academic contribution to his field.
By this definition, only fourteen members of the Seminar qualify, including scholars like John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg. Twenty others are recognizable names in the field. One quarter of the group, though, are complete unknowns (one is a movie producer), and half of them come from a cluster of three ultra-liberal schools: Harvard, Claremont, and Vanderbilt.
This looks remarkably like something I read from Jimmy Williams’ piece on the same subject:
Of the remaining active participants, only fourteen are well-known scholars in New Testament studies. Another twenty are recognizable within the narrow confines of the discipline, but they are not widely published beyond a few journal articles or dissertations. The remaining forty are virtually unknowns, and most of them are either at Harvard, Vanderbilt, or Claremont College, three universities widely considered among the most liberal in the field.
We have dealt with this above. This is not only an unfair assessment of the Seminar, we have shown that it is untrue. Further, I wonder why someone’s popularity among lay people gives them more authority or better insight into the historical Jesus than someone who has been too busy studying the source material to make a name for themselves?
I turn to Robert J. Miller, a member of the Seminar for some 14 years, to respond to this charge (from http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/miller1.html):
Well, wait just a minute. Since I don't wish to embarrass anyone, I will use myself as an example. I am not in a "relatively undistinguished academic position." I am in an absolutely undistinguished one. I teach at a college that is so obscure I've yet to meet anyone in the SBL who's heard of it. I teach 12 hours a semester, almost all in introductory courses. My college does not grant sabbaticals. I have very little time for scholarly research and writing. I am, in short, an academic working stiff. Which makes me like most of you. I am much more representative of the rank and file of the SBL than those in distinguished positions (which means, of course, positions on graduate faculties at elite schools).
In other words, the Seminar does contain an excellent cross-section of scholars, as the majority of them are, for lack of a better term, nobodies who spend their time working at university.
Unfortunately, what we see here is another example of the low morals of the apologist. Instead of dealing with the issues presented by the scholars, we see an attack on the people’s character or qualifications. Further, I find it incredibly ironic that the people that Koukl is criticizing all have Ph.D.s in the field that he was only able to get a bachelor’s degree in. (Source: http://www.str.org/about/koukl.htm).
In any event, we will deal with the things that Koukl has to say as opposed to his method of discarding his position due to his undereducation.
His next section is on the beliefs of the Jesus Seminar:
What Does the Jesus Seminar Believe?
The Jesus Seminar meets twice a year to dissect biblical passages. Their goal: separate historical fact from mythology. So far, they have rejected as myth the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the virgin birth, all Gospel miracles, and a full 82% of the teachings normally attributed to Jesus--all dismissed as legendary accretions with no historical foundation. For example, only two words of the Lord's Prayer survive as authentic: "Our Father."
So far, we have not been given the answer to this question. We have been told about the results that the Seminar came to as a result of voting and consensus. This in no way represents what the Jesus Seminar believes as the Seminar is not a single mind that can believe anything. There may be some things that the majority of the Seminar agrees with but there is very little complete consensus, if any.
Moving on:
An article in the L.A. Times [2] entitled, "Scholars Cite Lack of Resurrection Evidence," also carried this subtitle: "Controversial Jesus Seminar evaluates New Testament, but members affirm that event's religious significance does not hinge on the historical record."
According to this piece, there are two things the Jesus Seminar has to say about the resurrection of Jesus. First, it never happened. There's no historical evidence for it. Second, it doesn't matter. Christians can still celebrate Easter with its symbolic message of hope and new life.
Here, Koukl disingenuously relates the headline of a newspaper article to the beliefs of the Jesus Seminar. As we have seen above, the Seminar is comprised of members of several major denominations of Christianity, thus a wide range of beliefs would be represented.
That there is no historical evidence for the resurrection does not equate to “it never happened.” The first is a true statement no matter how one dresses it up. There is no evidence.
The second statement, that the lack of evidence shouldn’t matter and that Christians can still celebrate Easter should be no surprise to anyone. There are plenty of Christians in the world who do not believe in a literal, physical resurrection of Jesus and see the value in the symbolism of the event.
Finally:
Robert Funk calls Jesus a "secular sage who satirized the pious and championed the poor." He then adds, "Jesus was perhaps the first stand-up Jewish comic. Starting a new religion would have been the farthest thing from his mind."
Isn't that an odd thing to say about Jesus? Jesus didn't rise from the dead. He didn't work miracles. He didn't give us the greatest teaching in the world. Instead, He was a stand-up comic, according to the founder of the Jesus Seminar.
Here, we see Koukl trying to elicit an emotional response from his listeners (this is the transcript of a radio show). Did Funk say anywhere in this piece that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? No. He said that there was no historical evidence for it. Did Funk say that Jesus didn’t work miracles? No. He made no such statements here. Did Funk say that he didn’t give us the greatest teaching in the world? No. He said nothing of the kind.
What we have hear is simply more apologetics. Koukl is simply trying to make Funk look bad in the eyes of his listeners by putting words into his mouth that would obviously upset the pious believer. I find this dishonest and utterly typical of Seminar detractors. They continuously avoid dealing with the findings by inventing straw men to break down.
Moving on we reach the part where presumptions and assumptions are heaped on the Seminar. One of the key statements made by Koukl which I had to chuckle at was:
The place the Seminar begins is carefully concealed from the public at large, but it's the most critical issue.
I wonder... if the place that the Seminar begins at is so carefully concealed from the public, how did Koukl come by this information?
He then characterizes the Seminar’s position thusly:
Their reasoning goes something like this: It's impossible for the Gospels to be historically accurate, because they record things that simply can't happen, like dead people coming alive again and food multiplying--miracles, in other words. We live in a closed universe of natural order, with God (if there is a God) locked out of the system. If miracles can't happen, then the reports in the New Testament must be fabrications. Therefore, the Gospels are not historical.
Talk about your straw man! Nowhere in the books by the Jesus Seminar nor the issues of their monthly publication, Forum, have I read anything that even remotely resembles this charicature. What’s more, this was written before the Seminar ever published its findings on the acts of Jesus so we have to wonder where Koukl got this information if he did not simply invent it. The Seminar has made no statements regarding a god or the universe. It is unfortunate that apologists have to resort to lying to make the Seminar look bad but this is what Koukl has done here.
Moving on, Koukl attacks the Seminar’s bias and makes an absolutely ridiculous statement about Christian bias:
Does Their Bias Make Them Open-minded or Closed-minded?
Philosopher J.P. Moreland points out that Christian scholars have a point of view, like everyone else. The Christian's bias, though, doesn't inform his conclusions the same way biases inform the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar.
Amazingly, the Christian bias doesn’t impact Christian conclusions while the Seminar’s biases (whatever those might be) DOES impact their conclusions. I suppose that someone forgot to inform Koukl that the fellows of the Jesus Seminar are largely Christian, representing all major sects. How, then, shall we judge such an inane statement from Koukl? Well… let’s read his reasons:
Because people like Robert Funk start with the "scientific" view that there can be no miracles, their bias arbitrarily eliminates options before the game even gets started. Funk must conclude the Gospels have been tampered with because his philosophy demands it. He can't consider any evidence for a resurrection because he's closed his mind to the possibility of miracles.
As was noted above, the issue of miracles is not addressed in the only work available from the Seminar at the time this artice was written. Further, this article was supposed to be about the Jesus Seminar and all we are seeing is an attack on Robert Funk, the founder of the group. I wonder if anyone has ever told Koukl that Funk comprises one half of one percent of the Jesus Seminar? 1 out of 200 scholars who have worked on the various projects does not represent the whole group. I wonder if Koukl would even care. I am betting that he wouldn’t as this would throw a wrench in the works of his slander.
But we are not done with the absolutely hysterical things that Koukl has to say:
A Christian is not so encumbered. He believes in the laws of nature, but is also open to the possibility of God's intervention. Both are consistent with his world view. This means he can be faithful to the evidence, unhindered by a metaphysical view that automatically eliminates supernatural options before even viewing the evidence.
While this is completely tangential to the subject at hand, we find that Koukl is giving the Christian – and he apparently means every single last one of them – incredible reasoning skills that allow them to not be biased towards their world view. What Koukl fails to realize or mention is that the acceptance of the possibility of miracles eliminates the “laws” of nature and turns them into “guidelines” of nature. A miracle is, after all, a violation of some law of nature.
Next, we see that Koukl has not finished with his slander about the Jesus Seminar’s bias:
The believer has a greater chance of discovering truth, because he can follow the evidence wherever it leads. The bias of the Jesus Seminar, on the other hand, makes it close-minded and dogmatic.
This has to be the single most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard come from an opponent of the Seminar. What this boils down to is simply this:
If you unquestionably believe that the gospel accounts are true, you will find the truth. But, if you study the gospels with a critical eye, you are biased, close-minded and dogmatic.
I will let readers judge this statement for themselves.
Going forward in this piece, I find nothing else worth responding to. Koukl has done the job of debunking himself for me so I will simply draw my section on him to a close by stating that I am grateful for his self-refutation.
Here, I would like to encourage everyone to go to their local library and check out a copy of The Five Gospels and/or Acts of Jesus and read the introductions. Find out for yourselves if the Jesus Seminar is truly looking to make us all into non-believers and if that is even an issue that they address. Having read both of these books, I can assure you that this is not the case but my words should not be any more powerful of a convincer than my opponents. This is a matter that you can only decide for yourself and it is a shame that the people that I have dealt with above would seek to determine this for you.
If you believe in a god, you believe that this god gave you a brain for a reason. You believe that you are to use this brain to discover what is true and what is false. Do not let these charlatans or even the Jesus Seminar decide this or any issue for you. Use the power of your reason and your logic and apply these things to this and all issues.
Thank you for reading this far. We have covered a lot of ground and if you have made it this far, I appreciate the fact that I have not wasted my time.
back