Vote for Jesus:

Vote for Jesus:

The Jesus Seminar and the Hist= orical Jesus

Laur= an A. = Kerr

= Un= iversity of= Ho= uston

In 1985, a grou= p of thirty scholars headed by Robert Funk began the Jesus Seminar, a collaborat= ive effort to research the historical Jesus.&n= bsp; The purpose of this group was to separate the Jesus of history, the human figure, from the Christ of faith, the Jesus of the Christian traditio= n, to reconstruct the historical Jesus based on its conclusions, and to share = its findings with a broad audience. Fellows (members) of the Seminar research and study Jesus’ wor= ds and actions in the gospels, then, after debating their conclusions, vote on their opinions of the degree of the authenticity of Jesus’ words or deeds. This scholarly and controversial group has brought much division to the field of historical Je= sus research in its methodology, intent, and presentation; yet its purpose of exploring the Jesus of history through scholarly methods is an important contribution to the growing field of historical Jesus research. =

Presently, the = Jesus Seminar, which exists under the auspices of the Westar= Institute, a non-profit research and educational institute headquartered in= Santa Rosa, California, boasts numerous publications and exceeds a membership of 200 fellows. Th= e Jesus Seminar’s most famous publications are The Five Gospels: The Search for the Aut= hentic Words of Jesus (Harper San Francisco, 1993) and The Act= s of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (Harper San Francisc= o, 1996), which outline the findings of the Seminar’s group deliberations. Through Polebridge Press, the Westar Institute’s publishing company, and other avenues, the Seminar has produced over one hundred books relating the findings and conclusions of its research. Further, it has bee= n featured in such mainstreams publications as Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report, and on numerous television and radio talk shows. The fellows, which include such scholars as Robert Funk, Jon Dominic Crossan, M= arcus Borg, and Roy Hoover, are a self-selected group, with an open invitation to= any professional scholars to participate as fellows. The Westar Institute invites scholars who are “willing to address those [religio= us] issues in a serious way—serious enough to warrant the investment of research time, writing, and extended conversation,” says founder Robe= rt Funk in his book Honest to Jesus.[1] Fellows take part in different sta= ges of the research and deliberations and vote at the end of a research period on = the authenticity of agenda items. All have advanced degrees and most have academic backgrounds in biblical studie= s, divinity, theology, or related fields, and while most fellows are professors and authors, the list does include editors and pastors/priests. The majority of the Jesus Seminar = fellows are white, male, and Christian;[2] less than fifteen of the fellows are women. Most scholars are American, but ma= ny have studied elsewhere including Canada, South Africa, and Israel.

The fellowsR= 17; first task in the Jesus Seminar, which began in 1985 and ended in 1991, was= to study the authenticity of all the words attributed to Jesus in the first th= ree centuries of the Common Era. = The Seminar examined 1500 different versions of words attributed to Jesus in 500 different sources.[3] These findings were published in The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic W= ords of Jesus in 1993, concluding that 18% of the sayings of Jesus were authentic. The second phase o= f the Jesus Seminar, determining the authenticity of Jesus’ deeds, lasted f= rom 1991 to 1996, and examined 387 reports of 176 events attributed to Jesus. The Seminar published the results = of this phase in The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus in 199= 6, concluding that 16% of the total number of events were authentic.[4] When the Seminar conducted these deliberations, fellows studied all surviving ancient texts for words or dee= ds attributed to Jesus. Then, th= ey looked at those words and events in as many ancient languages as they would have been spoken [5]. After researching the matter, the fellows voted on the validity of each item, using colored beads, as a way to show scholarly consensus. With these conclusions, the fellows placed items they have deemed highly probable words or acts of Jesus into a database.&nb= sp; From there, the scholars individually made conclusions and interpretations about Jesus.[6] As Funk said at the Seminar’s first meeting, the Jesus Seminar would “inquire simply, rigorously af= ter the voice of Jesus.”[7] This initial quest for the words of Jesus would later become an endeavor to build a picture of Jesus based on t= he sources, incidents, and words the Seminar would deem, after excruciating processes, to be historically accurate.

The Jesus Seminar has attempted to accomplish a common methodology by uniting m= any scholars from varied backgrounds. By reaching consensus on criteria and research processes, the Jesus Seminar has attempted to create a common ground from which to form conclusi= ons and a new platform on which to explore the historical Jesus. Robert Funk explains, “The question of the historical Jesus was stimulated by the prospect of viewing Jesus through the new lens of historical reason and research rather than through the perspective of theology and traditional creedal formulations.”[8] The Seminar desires to construct a picture of Jesus based solely on empirical, historical evidence and to reach consensus on research items. =

Marcus Borg, fe= llow of the Jesus Seminar, professor of religion and culture at Oregon State University= , and author of eleven books concerning Jesus, defines the Jesus Seminar as the first “collaborative systematic examination of the entire Jesus tradit= ion ever undertaken, unprecedented in the history of scholarship.”[9] The scholars of the Seminar bring together their research efforts to decide the authenticity of the words and deeds of Jesus. Funk calls the fellows critical scholars, which he identifies as those who make judgements based on “empirical, factual evidence,” not on presuppositions.[10] The fellows base their conclusions= on the tests of the rules of evidence and on peer review,[11] and many of the fellows consider a text inauthentic until they prove it to = be authentic.[12] Essentially, the fellows have stat= ed that they decide nothing apart from empirical evidence and consensus from o= ther scholars.

The objectives of the Jesus Seminar include stu= dying the Jesus of history versus the Christ of faith, taking faith out of the equation for historical Jesus study, restructuring the Christian faith base= d on its findings, and sharing its findings with a broad audience. In keeping with their effort to di= scover factual information, one of the cornerstones of the Jesus Seminar is to “distinguish the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith.”[13] According to the Jesus Seminar, the historical Jesus has nothing to do with faith; he is a person, someone definable by rigorous research and unbiased study. Hal Taussig maintains, “there simply is a major differ= ence between what Jesus was like as a figure of history and how he is spoken of = in the gospels and later Christian tradition,”[14] and Roy Hoover calls us to find the historical Jesus rather than the mythic= al Jesus.[15] Taussig and Hoover are both fellows of the Jesus Seminar. What is more, the Seminar does not accept what Crossan calls “the argument t= hat Christian faith tells us what we need to know about the historical Jesus.”[16] Though most of the fellows have religious backgrounds, they study Jesus as a historical person, outside the bounds of religion and Christian faith.&nb= sp;

The fellows cri= ticize those who entangle faith with their study and understanding of the historic= al Jesus. “Faith deals with ultimate questions, things that are beyond t= he testable, the empirical, or the provable by reason,” Hershel Shanks concludes.[17] Because the Seminar maintains that= Jesus as a figure in history can be studied and discovered through logical, naturalistic processes, it does not agree that faith has a place in histori= cal study. “The questions or objections put to me… are usually theological rather than historical, usually personal and autobiographical rather than methodological and theoretical, usually more about faith than about fact,” Crossan complains.[18] Essentially, = Crossan argues that an individual’s personal faith may hinder him/her from accepting the processes and conclusions of historical Jesus study. Funk comments that the “purp= ose [of the Jesus Seminar] is not to praise Jesus” but to “‘p= lace him’ utilizing the subject matter of his speech and the modes of his public discourse.”[19] In other words, the Seminar’s intent is not to discover Jesus based on faith, but to unearth Jesus based = on historical accounts.

Though the Jesus Seminar rejects the place of faith in reconstructing the historic= al Jesus, some members admit that personal conviction does have a part in colo= ring the picture of Jesus. Shanks instructs, “Each of us must also decide h= ow our faith intersects with what we judge to be the most likely historical scenario”[20] and Taussig continues, saying, “There is = no absolute rationale. All of wh= at anyone thinks is contingent.”[21] Objectivity, in other words,= is a difficult accomplishment. Eve= n Crossan concedes, “Reason and revelation, or hi= story and faith, or historical reconstruction and credal articulation cannot contradict each other unless we are misreading one or b= oth of them.”[22] In essence, though the fellows may condemn the role of faith in historical study, they admit that it does have= a place, especially in personal conclusions about Jesus. Shanks instruc= ts, “By being as self-aware as possible, we can, to some degree, control = how much we project our own interests onto the past.”[23]

Another part of= the intent of the Jesus Seminar is to restructure Christian faith based on its findings and conclusions. The= Jesus Seminar has no official position on the theological or ecclesiastical significance of its work.[24] However, beginning in 2001, the Je= sus Seminar launched what they call a new phase in their work—to create a “faith for the future.”[25] At The Once and Future Faith conference, the Jesus Seminar fellows debated the implications of new conclusions about the historical Jesus on the faith of = the future. Funk asserted in the introduction, “We will be exploring the contours of a faith suitable = for the third millennium and the global age we are now entering.”[26] In essence, the Jesus Seminar stat= ed a desire to recreate and modify the Christian faith to be consistent with its conclusions. Marcus Borg main= tained that images of Jesus very much affect images of the Christian life, therefore an appropriate historical image of Jes= us is significant to the Christian life.[27] Funk continued, “The future = of the Christian faith may turn out to be a minor aspect of the cultural shifts th= at are shaping our global future. The themes that have dominated the institutional churches may no longer be of central concern to us.”[28] Funk also admitted that R= 20;we have a revolt underway, perhaps even a rebellion, against the elitist conspiracy of scholarly secrecy. But we should turn our rebellion into a revolution.”[29] In essence, the Jesus Seminar does= not mind bringing division to the Christian faith if it means the application of the Seminar’s conclusions, which it claims to be truer pictures of the real Jesus.

Critics argue t= hat this goal is both biased and far-fetched.&= nbsp; James Edwards, chair of the Department of Religion at Jamestown College, calls the Jesus’ Seminar’s mission “a theological bias against church, faith, and creed.”[30] Luke Timothy Johnson, a Catholic scholar, says the Seminar is carrying out a cultural mission,[31] what William Loewe calls “waging a public campaign with missionary zeal”[32] in his article “From the Humanity of Christ to the Historical Jesus.” Further, “= ;they can scheme away until they are blue in the face, but it’s not going to change the church,” maintains Donald Hagner, professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA.[33]

Along with taking faith out of the equation for discovering the historical Jesus and “creating a faith for the future,” the Jesus Seminar desires to share its findings with a broad audience. This was part of the reasoning behind the creation of the Scholars Version (SV), a translation of canonical and non-canonical gospels including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Th= omas and others.[34] The Scholars Version translation i= s, as Funk defines it, a “fresh translation of the original languages into idiomatic American English and is entirely free of ecclesiastical control.”[35] Published first in The Five Gospels, which includes t= he synoptic gospels, John, and Thomas, in 1993, the Scholars Version presents a “shorthand and graphic model—one that could be understood at a glance by the casual reader.”[36] In addition, the Jesus Seminar act= ually has its own full-time publicity director,[37] and Funk boasts that “media interest has grown and matured.”[38]

The Five Gospels and The Acts of Je= sus contain color-coded versions of the Scholars Version translation of the gos= pels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas.&= nbsp; This is a very direct way to present the conclusions of the Jesus Se= minar on the words and deeds of Jesus. Red-letter editions of the New Testament color the words Jesus spoke= in red, and all other text in black. The Jesus Seminar offers a four-colored text, “a shorthand, graphic model” to display the conclusions of their research. Words or acts that they are sure J= esus spoke they leave in red. Pink signifies words or events that are “less certain” to be traced = back to Jesus. Gray identifies tho= se expressions or deeds that reflect the ideas of Jesus but were not his actual words. Finally, the fellows l= eave in black the words or acts that they consider inauthentic and they feel can= not be ascribed to Jesus.[39] Described another way, red represe= nts high confidence that the words or events actually are Jesus’, pink represents probable occurrence, gray represents possible but unreliable material, and black represents largely or entirely fictive material.[40]

The methodology of the Jesus Seminar includes use of non-canonical sources, the employment of “seven pillars of scholarly wisdom,” rules of evidence, criteria of authenticity, and the use of voting. The Jesus Seminar criticizes those= who look naively at only canonized texts. “Those who insist on avoiding any inconsistencies in the Bible either cavalierly pick the passages they like to characterize Jesus… = or naively bunch all of the contradictory behavior into an odd personality for Jesus and call it ‘divine,’” says Hal Taussig.[41] The Seminar fellows claim they loo= k at gospel accounts with no presuppositions, to fully explore what they see as contradictory, and to draw conclusions based on rigorous study, not on presuppositions or long-standing acceptance. Therefore, the boundary of the Bib= le canon is irrelevant to the Jesus Seminar.&= nbsp; The Seminar defines the canon as “a collection of authoritative list of books accepted as holy scripture.”= According to the Jesus Seminar, the Council of Trent in 1546 decided the canon for Roman Catholics, and Protest= ants determine the canon by common consent, not by any official agreement.[42] In the opinion of Crossan, “Christianity chose to base itself on a closed sequence of sacred boo= ks and to call them its Old Testament and its New Testament. By that choice it wagered its futu= re destiny on those specific texts and on the interpretations that could be fo= und within and between them.”[43]

Critics argue t= hat the Jesus Seminar is too quick to dismiss important historical information = in the canonical gospels because of dissimilarity. William Lane Craig comments, ̶= 0;No professional historian jettisons his sources because disparities exist at points.”[44] He defines the dissimilarities as trifling. Darrell Bock, anoth= er critic, complains that the Jesus Seminar does not even consistently employ = the criterion of dissimilarity. In other words, unless dissimilar sayings pass an “additional, unexpress= ed criteria” they are not necessarily authentic.[45] Further, Father Albert Vanhoye, Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commiss= ion, argues that because the Jesus Seminar approaches the gospels with certain p= resuppositions, its conclusions are not valid or historically viable.[46]

Another part of the Jesus Seminar’s methodology is the seven pillars of schol= arly wisdom,[47] what the Jesus Seminar calls cornerstones of modern Biblical criticism that= it has adopted for its own research. The first pillar is the distinction between the Jesus of history and= the Christ of faith, or “the historical Jesus, to be uncovered by histori= cal excavation, and the Christ of faith encapsulated in the first creeds.”= ;[48] The second pillar is the separatio= n of John, the fourth gospel, from the synoptic gospels. This conclusion is based on the presentation of a “spiritual Jesus” in John, different from what the Seminar calls a more closely historical Jesus of the first three gospels. Pillar three is the conclusion that Matthew and Luke were written before Mark was written and t= hat both used Mark as a source. T= he fourth pillar is the identification of a hypothetical Q source to explain the material in both Matthew and Luke that = is absent from Mark. Pillar five= is the recognition of a non-eschatological Jesus as presented in the aphorisms= and parables of the gospels, contrary to the long-standing eschatological Jesus’ of Schweitzer’s design.= The sixth pillar is the acknowledgement of the difference between an oral culture and a print culture. “The Jesus whom historians seek will be found in those fragmen= ts of tradition that bear the imprint of orality: = short, provocative, memorable, oft-repeated phrases, sentences, and stories.”= ;[49] Finally, the seventh pillar of scholarly wisdom is the placement of the bur= den of proof of authenticity on the Jesus Seminar. Essentially, the Jesus Seminar is “investigating in minute detail the data preserved by the gospels and= is also identifying those that have some claim to historical veracity.”[50] These seven pillars of scholarly w= isdom serve as guidelines for critical examination of the material the Jesus Semi= nar studies.

Keeping the seven pillars of scholarly wisdom in mind, the Seminar developed rules = of evidence in determining the authenticity of Jesus’ words and criteria= for determining the authenticity of Jesus’ deeds. The most important general rule of evidence is the cautionary advice, “Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you.”[51] Rules of evidence as presented in = The Five Gospels include false attribution, which attempts to determine whe= re the gospel writers attributed their own words or the words of common lore to Jesus, and looking at gospel texts to determine where words attributed to J= esus were an attempt to Christianize Jesus.&nbs= p; Criteria for determining the authenticity of Jesus’ deeds as presented in The Acts of Jesus include the criterion of [52] dramatic plausibility, which “requires that the coincidence of settin= g, participants, and actions be realistic,”[53] and horizontal tests, which are chronological studies of development of rep= orts and details across the gospels. These criteria act as guidelines for determining the authenticity of= the words and deeds of Jesus.

Many scholars agree that the Jesus Seminar’s criteria of authenticity are = too restrictive, including Craig Blomberg, Associate Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary and author of several books a= nd New Testament commentaries, who calls its operative assumptions too restric= tive.[54] Elizabeth Sch= ussler Fiorenza, a feminist biblical scholar, argues t= hat “scientific fundamentalism” is the reward of such critical, restrictive criteria, since it gathers data, classifies it in a scientific model and rearranges it “in a new narrative framework of meaning.R= 21;[55] These and other critics assert tha= t the criteria of authenticity act as presuppositions and are far too restrictive= to offer fair analysis of biblical material concerning Jesus.

Perhaps the most distinctive part of the methodology of the Jesus Seminar is its us= e of voting. After the Seminar fel= lows embark on a research topic, circulate papers for peer review, and deliberate their conclusions, the fellows cast a vote for what they feel is the degree= of historical authenticity of a certain word or deed. According to Robert Funk, voting “makes it possible to make a report that is readily understood by a b= road public.”[56] To Funk, the voting process is a w= ay to “shorten the cycle [of scholarly consensus] by asking scholars to exp= ress their minds on specific items under consideration.”[57] As a way to show scholarly consens= us, the fellows vote on their opinion of the validity of each item using colored beads. The red, pink, gray and black beads represent a “descending spectrum of historical probability,” according to Marcus Borg.[58] The colored beads, which coi= ncide with the color-coded Scholars Versions in The Five Gospels and The Acts of Je= sus, are counted on a weighted average, a system which Funk calls “superio= r to one that relies on majorities or pluralities of one type or another.”= [59] After the votes are cast and talli= es calculated in percentages,[60] the Jesus Seminar puts the results of the voting into a database and lets t= he fellows form conclusions about Jesus based on the weighted validity given e= ach saying or deed in the deliberations.

Many scholars criticize their voting method. Elizabeth Fio= renza critically questions the Jesus Seminar “because [their] polling method uses a reductionist consumer approach derived f= rom market research, insofar as scholars cast votes to decide whether Jesus tex= ts are authentic or secondary.”[61] Luke Timothy Johnson, a Catholic J= esus scholar, notes that voting is a common occurrence in some scholarship, but = the votes are carried out privately.[62] In other words, the Jesus Seminar’s method of voting is not a scholarly consensus but a selecti= ve democratic group determining conclusions.

As the Jesus Seminar attempts to discover, reconstruct, and present the histor= ical Jesus via historical scholarship, common methodology, and critical research= , it has generated a great deal of controversy.= Although few scholars criticize the Jesus Seminar’s seriousnes= s or ability, many disapprove of the Seminar’s methodology, intent, and presentation. While the Jesus Seminar votes on the historical Jesus, the figure of Jesus and the interpretation of his life and meaning in history continue to generate a diversified response in contemporary culture and scholarship. However, historical Jesus research= as pursued by the Jesus Seminar illustrates the importance of Christ to cultur= e, faith, and scholarship. =

Bibliography

Armstrong, Karen, et al. The Once and Future Faith. Santa Rosa= , CA: Polebri= dge Press,2001.

Bock, Darrell. Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods.<= /span> GrandRapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Borg, Marcus J. Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity PressInternational, 1994.

Copan, Paul, ed= . Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan= . Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.

Crossan, John Dominic. Four Other Gospels.&nbs= p; San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1985.<= /span>

Crossan, John Dominic. Who Killed Jesus? San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1995.

Edwards, James R. “Who Do Scholars Say That I Am?” Christianity Today. March 5, 1= 996, Vol 40, Issue 3, p 14-20.

Fiorenza<= /span>, Elisabeth Schussler. Jesus and the Politics of Interpretation. NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 2001.

Funk, Robert. A Credible Jesus: Fragments of a Vision.= Santa Rosa, CA: Polebri= dge Press, 2002.

Funk, Robe= rt and the Jesus Seminar. The Acts of Jesus: The Search for t= he Authentic Deeds of Jesus. Sonoma, CA: Polebri= dge Press, 1998.

Funk, Robe= rt W., Hoover, Roy W., = and the Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: TheSearch for the Authentic Words= of Jesus. <= st1:place>San Francisco: HarperS= anFrancisco, 1993.

Funk, Robert. Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium.&= nbsp; San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco,= 1996.

Funk, Robert, et. al. The Parables of Jesus.&= nbsp; Sonoma, CA: Polebri= dge Press, 1988.

Hughes, Charles and Meyer, Mar= vin, eds. Jesus, Then and Now: Images of Jesus i= n History and Christology. <= st1:place>Harrisburg= , PA: Trinity Press International,= 2001.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of t= he Traditional Gospels. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,1996.

Loewe, William P. “From the Humanity of Christ to the Historical Jesus.” Theological Studies.&nb= sp; June 2000, vol. 61, no. 2., 314-332.=

Miller, Robert J., ed. The Complete Gospels<= /i>. Santa Rosa= , CA: Polebri= dge Press, 1994.

Moreland, J. P. and Wilkins, M= ichael J., eds. = Jesus Under= Fire: Modern ScholarshipReinvents the Historical Jesu= s. Grand Rapids, MI: Zonderv= an Publishing House, &n= bsp; 1995.

Shanks, Hershel, ed. The Search for Jesus: Modern Scholarship Looks at the Gospels. Washington= , D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1994.

Sheler, Jeffrey L. “Cutting= Loose the Holy Canon.” U.S. News and World = Report.November 8, 1993, Vol. 115, Issue 18, = p75.

Shorto, Russell. Gospel Truth: The New Image of Jesus Emerging from Science and History and Why It Matters. NY: Riverhead Bo= oks, 1997.

Taussig, Hal. Jesus Before God: The Prayer Life of the Historical Je= sus. Santa Rosa= , CA: Polebri= dge Press, 1999.

Westar Institute Homepage.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> http://www.westarinstitute.org.

Williamson, Peter. “Cathol= olicism and the Bible: An Interview with Albert Vanhoye.”= ;First Things 74 (June/July 1997): 35-40.