Jesus Seminar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
A series of articles on

Jesus Christ and Christianity
Christology
Chronology
Ministry
Miracles
Parables
Names and titles
Relics

Non-religious aspects
Background
Historicity
Greek • Aramaic
Race

Perspectives on Jesus
New Testament view
Christian views
Religious perspectives
Jewish view
Islamic view of his death
Yuz Asaf
Historical Jesus
Jesus Seminar
Jesus as myth
Criticism

Jesus in culture
Popular culture
Dramatic portrayals
Images

This box: view • talk • edit

The Jesus Seminar is a research team of about two hundred academic New Testament scholars founded in 1985 by the late Robert Funk under the auspices of the Westar Institute.[1] The seminar's purpose is to use historical methods to determine what Jesus, as a historical figure, may or may not have said or done. They produced new translations of the New Testament plus the Gospel of Thomas to use as textual sources. They published their results in the books The Five Gospels (1993) and The Acts of Jesus (1998).

The seminar's reconstruction of Jesus portrays him as a wandering sage who did not found a religion or rise from the dead, but preached in startling parables and aphorisms, often turning common ideas upside down and confounding the expectations of his audience.

While the seminar's treatment of Jesus as a historical figure and the gospels as fallible historical artifacts is not controversial in New Testament studies, the fellows based their conclusions partially on the premise that Jesus did not preach an apocalyptic end of the world. Many other scholars maintain the image of Jesus as an apocalyptic figure.

Contents

[edit] Use of historical methods

The scholars attending attempt to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus. They try to ask who he was, what he did, what he said, and what his sayings meant using all the evidence and available tools. Their reconstruction is based on social anthropology, history and textual analysis. The key feature is the rejection of eschatology. They use cross-cultural anthropological studies to set the general background, narrow in on the history and society of first-century Palestine, and use textual analysis (along with more anthropology and history) to focus on Jesus himself. They use a combination of primary sources, secondary sources, and archaeological evidence. Their methodology, which was developed by a team of scholars (who expounded papers for the review of other Fellows and published many in Forum) and is explained in The Five Gospels (the four canonical gospels plus the Gospel of Thomas), involves canvassing the records of the first four centuries for traditions about Jesus and sifting them by criteria such as multiple attestation, distinctiveness, and orality.

[edit] The Scholars translation

The Seminar began by translating the gospels into modern American English, producing the "Scholars Version." This translation uses current colloquialisms and contemporary phrasing match the author's style if not their literal words. The goal was to let the reader hear the message as a first-century listener might have. The translators avoided other translations' archaic, literal translation of the text, or a superficial update of it. For example, they translate "woe to you" as "damn you" because it sounds like someone today would really say. The authors of The Five Gospels allege that some other gospel translations have attempted to unify the language of the gospels while they tried to preserve each author's distinct voice.

[edit] Seminar proceedings

The Jesus Seminar, like the translation committees who created the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the Novum Testamentum Graece, chose voting as the most efficient means of determining consensus in an assembled group. The system also lent itself to publicity, which the Seminar actively pursued.

The Fellows used a "bead system" to vote on the authenticity of about 500 statements and events. The color of the bead represented how sure the Fellow was that a saying or act was or was not authentic.

  • Red beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like the passage. (3 Points)
  • Pink beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus probably said something like the passage. (2 Points)
  • Grey beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage, but it contains Jesus' ideas. (1 Point)
  • Black beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage—it comes from later admirers or a different tradition. (0 Points)

The consensus position was determined by the average weighted score, rather than by simple majority. This meant that all opinions were reflected in the decisions. The voting system means that the reader can second-guess each vote. The Five Gospels defines not only the result of the vote (red, pink, gray, or black) but also how many polls were necessary to reach a conclusion (if any were necessary at all) and why various fellows chose to vote in different ways.

Attendees, however, did more than vote. They met semi-annually to debate the papers presented. Some verses required extensive debate and repeated votes.

[edit] Sayings of Jesus

The first findings of the Jesus Seminar were published in 1993 as The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus .[1]

[edit] Criteria for authenticity

The seminar looked for several characteristics that, in their judgment, identified a saying as authentic. These criteria include the following:

  • Orality: Is it the sort of short, catchy phrase that can survive intact from the speaker's death until decades later when it was first written down? If so, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "turn the other cheek."
  • Irony: Does it present opposites or impossibilities? For example, "love your enemies."
  • Trust in God: Does it demonstrate Jesus' absolute trust in God the Father? For example, "don't fret."
  • Multiple attestation: Does it appear in more than one gospel? For example, "Congrats, poor," which appears in Matthew, Luke, and Thomas.

[edit] Criteria for inauthenticity

The seminar looked for several characteristics that, in their judgment, identified a saying as inauthentic, including self-reference, leadership issues, and apocalyptic themes.

  • Self-reference: Does the text have Jesus referring to himself? For example, "I am the way, and I am the truth, and I am life" (John 14:1-14).
  • Framing Material: Are the verses used to introduce, explain, or frame material, which might itself be authentic? For example, in Luke, the parable of the good samaritan is framed by scenes about Jesus telling the parable, and the seminar deemed Jesus' words in these scenes to be "black."
  • Community Issues: Do the verses refer to the concerns of the early Christian community, such as instructions for missionaries or issues of leadership? For example, Peter as "the rock" on which Jesus builds his church (Matthew 16:17-19).
  • Theological Agenda: Do the verses support an opinion or outlook that is unique to the gospel, possibly indicating redactor bias? For example, the prophecy of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) was voted black because the fellows saw it as representing Mark's agenda of speaking out against unworthy members of the Christian community.

[edit] Authentic sayings, as determined by the seminar

The Red sayings (with % indicating the weighted average of those in agreement), given in the Seminar's own "Scholar's Version" translation, are:

1. Turn the other cheek (92%): Mt 5:39, Lk6:29a
2. Coat & shirt: Mt5:40 (92%), Lk6:29b (90%)
3. Congratulations, poor!: Lk6:20b (91%), Th54 (90%), Mt5:3 (63%)
4. Second mile (90%): Mt5:41
5. Love your enemies: Lk6:27b (84%), Mt5:44b (77%), Lk6:32,35a (56%) {compare to "Pray for your enemies": POxy1224 6:1a; Didache 1:3; Poly-Phil 12:3}
6. Leaven: Lk13:20–21 (83%), Mt13:33 (83%), Th96:1–2 (65%)
7. Emperor & God (82%): Th100:2b–3, Mk12:17b, Lk20:25b, Mt22:21c (also Egerton Gospel 3:1-6)
8. Give to beggars (81%): Lk6:30a, Mt5:42a, Didache1:5a
9. Good Samaritan (81%): Lk10:30–35
10. Congrats, hungry!: Lk6:21a (79%), Mt5:6 (59%), Th69:2 (53%)
11. Congrats, sad!: Lk6:21b (79%), Mt5:4 (73%)
12. Shrewd manager (77%): Lk16:1–8a
13. Vineyard laborers (77%): Mt20:1–15
14. Abba, Father (77%): Mt6:9b, Lk11:2c
15. The Mustard Seed : Th20:2–4 (76%), Mk4:30–32 (74%), Lk13:18–19 (69%), Mt13:31–32 (67%)

[edit] Some probably authentic sayings, as determined by the seminar

The top 15 (of 75) Pink sayings are:

16. On anxieties, don't fret (75%): Th36, Lk12:22–23, Mt6:25
17. Lost Coin (75%): Lk15:8–9
18. Foxes have dens: Lk9:58 (74%), Mt8:20 (74%), Th86 (67%)
19. No respect at home: Th31:1 (74%), Lk4:24(71%), Jn4:44 (67%), Mt13:57 (60%), Mk6:4 (58%)
20. Friend at midnight (72%): Lk11:5–8
21. Two masters : Lk16:13a, Mt6:24a (72%); Th47:2 (65%)
22. Treasure: Mt13:44 (71%), Th109 (54%)
23. Lost sheep: Lk15:4–6 (70%), Mt18:12–13 (67%), Th107 (48%)
24. What goes in: Mk7:14–15 (70%), Th14:5 (67%), Mt15:10-11 (63%)
25. Corrupt judge (70%): Lk18:2–5
26. Prodigal son (70%): Lk15:11–32
27. Leave the dead (see also But to bring a sword, Nazirite): Mt8:22 (70%), Lk9:59–60 (69%)
28. Castration for Heaven (see also Origen, Antithesis of the Law#Adultery) (70%): Mt19:12a
29. By their fruit (69%) (see Antinomianism): Mt7:16b, Th45:1a, Lk6:44b (56%)
30. The dinner party, The wedding celebration: Th64:1–11 (69%), Lk14:16-23 (56%), Mt22:2-13 (26%)

[edit] Overall reliability of the five gospels

The Seminar concluded that of the various statements in the "five gospels" attributed to Jesus, only about 18% of them were likely uttered by Jesus himself (red or pink). The Gospel of John fared worse than the synoptic gospels, with nearly all its passages attributed to Jesus being judged inauthentic[2]. The Gospel of Thomas includes just two unique sayings that the seminar attributes to Jesus: the empty jug (97) and the assassin (98). Every other probably-authentic or authentic saying has parallels in the synoptics.

[edit] Acts of Jesus

In 1998 the Jesus Seminar published The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus.[3]

According to the front flap summary: "Through rigorous research and debate, they have combed the gospels for evidence of the man behind the myths. The figure they have discovered is very different from the icon of traditional Christianity."

According to the Jesus Seminar:

The 10 authentic ("red") acts of Jesus are:

  1. The Beelzebul controversy: Luke 11:15-17
  2. A voice in the wilderness: Mark 1:1-8, Matt 3:1-12, Luke 3:1-20, Gospel of the Ebionites 1
  3. John baptizes Jesus: Mark 1:9-11, Matt 3:13-17, Luke 3:21-22, Gospel of the Ebionites 4
  4. Jesus proclaims the good news: Mark 1:14-15
  5. Dining with sinners: Mark 2:15-17, Matt 9:10-13, Oxyrhynchus Gospels 1224 5:1-2
  6. Herod beheads John: Mark 6:14-29, Matt 14:1-12, Luke 9:7-9
  7. Crucifixion: core event considered authentic but all gospel reports are "improbable or fictive" ("black")
  8. The Death of Jesus: core event considered authentic but all gospel reports are "improbable or fictive" ("black")
  9. The first list of appearances: Jesus appeared to Cephas: 1Cor 15:3-5
  10. Birth of Jesus: Jesus's parents were named Joseph and Mary: parts of Matt 1:18-25 and Luke 2:1-7

The 19 "pink" acts ("a close approximation of what Jesus did") are:

  1. Peter's mother-in-law: Mark 1:29-31, Matt 8:14-15, Luke 4:42-44
  2. The leper: Mark 1:40-45, Matt 8:1-4, Luke 5:12-16, Egerton Gospel 2:1-4
  3. Paralytic and four: Mark 2:1-12, Matt 9:1-8, Luke 5:17-26
  4. Call of Levi: Mark 2:13-14, Matt 9:9, Luke 5:27-28, Gospel of the Ebionites 2:4
  5. Sabbath observance: Mark 2:23-28, Matt 12:1-8, Luke 6:1-5
  6. Jesus' relatives come to get him: Mark 3:20-21
  7. True relatives: Mark 3:31-35, Matt 12:46-50, Thomas 99:1-3
  8. Woman with a vaginal hemorrhage: Mark 5:24-34, Matt 9:20-22, Luke 8:42-48
  9. No respect at home: Mark 6:1-6, Matt 13:54-58
  10. Eating with defiled hands: Mark 7:1-13, Matt 15:1-9
  11. Demand for a sign: Luke 11:29-30
  12. The blind man of Bethsaida: Mark 8:22-26
  13. Blind Bartimaeus: Mark 10:46-52, Luke 18:35-43
  14. Temple incident: Mark 11:15-19, Matt 21:12-17, Luke 19:45-48
  15. Emperor & God: Mark 12:13-17, Matt 22:15-22, Luke 20:19-26, Thomas 100:1-4, Egerton 3:1-6
  16. The arrest: core event not accurately recorded
  17. Before the high priest: core event not accurately recorded
  18. Before the Council: core event not accurately recorded
  19. Before Pilate: core event not accurately recorded

Also 1 red "summary and setting" (not a saying or action): Women companions of Jesus: Luke 8:1-3.

[edit] Criticism of the Jesus Seminar

Among criticisms leveled against the Jesus Seminar are the charges that it was wrong to exclude apocalyptic messages from Jesus' ministry, that the attempt to popularize Jesus research degraded the scholarly value of the effort, that the conclusions largely represent the premises of the fellows, that only about a dozen of the fellows are leading figures in New Testament scholarship, and that the fellows do not represent a fair cross-section of viewpoints.

Some scholars have reasserted Albert Schweitzer's eschatological view of Jesus.
Dale Allison of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, in his 1999 book Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet, cited what he felt were problems with the work of (particularly) Funk, John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, arguing that their conclusions were at least in part predetermined by their theological positions. He also pointed out the limitations of their presumptions and methodology. Allison argued that despite the conclusions of the seminar, Jesus was a prophetic figure focused to a large extent on apocalyptic thinking.

In addition many Conservative scholars, including Evangelical scholars, have questioned the methodology, assumptions and intent of the Jesus Seminar.
Luke Timothy Johnson of the Candler School of Theology at Emory University, in his 1996 book The Real Jesus, voiced concerns with the seminar's work. He criticized the techniques of the Seminar, believing them to be far more limited for historical reconstruction than seminar members believe. Their conclusions were "already determined ahead of time," Johnson says, which "is not responsible, or even critical scholarship. It is a self-indulgent charade." He further argued that while many members of the seminar are reputable scholars (Borg, Crossan, Funk, others), others are relatively unknown or undistinguished in the field of biblical studies. (One member, Paul Verhoeven, holds a Ph.D in mathematics and physics, not biblical studies, and is best known as the director of such movies as Basic Instinct and Showgirls.) Johnson also critiqued the seminar for its attempts to gain the attention of the media for the 2000 ABC News program "The Search for Jesus" hosted by news anchor Peter Jennings.

Other scholars who have expressed concerns with the work of the Jesus Seminar are Richard Hays ("The Corrected Jesus" in First Things 43, May 1994), Ben Witherington (The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth), N.T. Wright (Jesus and the Victory of God), William Lane Craig (Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan) and Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, Edwin Yamauchi, et. al. (Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus).

Seminar critic William Lane Craig has argued that the self-selected members of the group do not represent the consensus of New Testament scholars. He writes that:

Of the 74 [scholars] listed in their publication The Five Gospels, only 14 would be leading figures in the field of New Testament studies. More than half are basically unknowns, who have published only two or three articles. Eighteen of the fellows have published nothing at all in New Testament studies! Most have relatively undistinguished academic positions, for example, teaching at a community college. [4] Others have made the same point and have further indicated that thirty six of those scholars, almost half, have a degree from or currently teach at one of three schools, Harvard, Claremont, or Vanderbilt.

Members of the Jesus Seminar have responded to their critics in various books and dialogues, which typically defend both their methodology and their conclusions. Among these responses are The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics by Robert J. Miller, a member of the Seminar; The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate, a dialogue with Allison, Borg, Crossan, and Stephen Patterson; The Jesus Controversy: Perspectives in Conflict, a dialogue between Crossan, Johnson, and Werner H. Kelber. The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, by Borg and N. T. Wright demonstrated how two scholars with divergent theological positions can work together to creatively share and discuss their thoughts.

Daniel L. Akin, writing in the Journal of the Southern Baptist Convention, called the work of the Jesus Seminar "destructive criticism"[2] The Fundamental Evangelistic Association[3], The Watchman Expositor[4], and The Christian Arsenal [5] go so far as to depict the Jesus Seminar as a tool of Satan, meant to undermine Biblical beliefs.

[edit] Fellows of the Jesus Seminar

These are the core members listed in The Five Gospels. Even critics acknowledge that over a dozen of them are, in their own rights, leading figures in the field. As many as two hundred have participated in the work.

Robert W. Funk, Ph.D.
John Dominic Crossan, Ph.D.
Andries G. van Aarde, D.D.
Harold W. Attridge, Ph.D.
Robert Bater, Ph.D.
William Beardslee, Ph.D.
Edward F. Beutner, Ph.D.
Sterling Bjorndahl, Ph.D.
Marcus Borg, D.Phil.
Willi Braun, Ph.D.
James R. Butts, Ph.D.
Marvin F. Cain, Ph.D.
Ron Cameron, Ph.D.
Bruce D. Chilton, Ph.D.
Wendy J. Cotter C.S.J., Ph.D.
Jon Daniels, Ph.D.
Stevan L. Davies, Ph.D.
Jon F. Dechow, Ph.D.
Arthur J. Dewey, Th.D.
Dennis C. Duling, Ph.D.
Robert T. Fortna, Ph.D.
James Goss, Ph.D.
Heinz Guenther, Th.D.
Walter Harrelson, Th.D.
Stephen L Harris, Ph.D.
Charles W. Hedrick, Ph.D.
James D. Hester, D.Theol.
C.M. Kempton Hewitt, Ph.D.
Julian V. Hills, Th.D.
Roy W. Hoover, Th.D.
Michael L. Humphries, Ph.D.
Arland D. Jacobson, Ph.D.
Clayton N. Jefford, Th.M, Ph.D.
F. Stanley Jones, D.Theol, Ph.D.
Perry Kea, Ph.D.
Chan-Hie Kim, Ph.D.
Karen L. King, Ph.D.
John S. Kloppenborg, Ph.D.

Davidson Loehr, Ph.D.
Sanford Lowe, D.Min, D.D.
John Lown, Ph.D.
Dennis R. MacDonald, Ph.D.
Lane C. McGaughy, Ph.D.
Edward J. McMahon, Ph.D.
Loren Mack-Fisher, Ph.D.
Marvin W. Meyer, Ph.D.
J. Ramsey Michaels, Th.M., Ph.D.
L. Bruce Miller, Ph.D.
Robert J. Miller, Ph.D.
Winsome Munro, Ed.D.
Culver H. Nelson, D.D., D.D.
Rob Parrott, Ph.D.
Stephen J. Patterson, Ph.D.
Vernon K. Robbins, Ph.D.
James M. Robinson, D.Theol, Ph.D.
John J. Rousseau, Ph.D., D.Rel.
Daryl D. Schmidt, Ph.D.
Bernard Brandon Scott, Ph.D.
Philip Sellew, Th.D.
Chris Shea, Ph.D.
Lou H. Silberman, D.H.L.
Dennis Smith, Th.D.
Mahlon H. Smith, M.S.L.
Michael G. Steinhauser, Th.D.
Robert F. Stoops, Jr., Ph.D.
Johann Strijdom, D.Litt., et Phil.
W. Barnes Tatum, Ph.D.
Hal Taussig, Ph.D.
Leif E. Vaage, Ph.D.
Paul Verhoeven, Ph.D. (mathematics)
Wesley Hiram Wachob, Ph.D.
William O. Walker, Jr., Ph.D.
Robert L. Webb, Ph.D.
John L. White, Ph.D.
Walter Wink, Th.D.
Sara C. Winter., Ph.D.

[edit] Other fellows

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Westar Institute accessed November 6, 2006
  2. ^ "Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility"
  3. ^ The Critics vs. the Critics: The Jesus Seminar Under Attack
  4. ^ The Jesus Seminar: The Slippery Slope to Heresy
  5. ^ Jesus Seminar

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/s/Jesus_Seminar_b5d1.html"
In other languages