Read this brief, concise article; then ask yourself this question: Why does the establishment media faun all over these boring know-nothings at the Jesus Seminar?
from
Know real facts about the 'Jesus Seminar'
Group's "Historical Jesus" concept has problems.
August 9, 2008
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to Dr. Roger Ray's Op Ed piece printed on June 28. In contrast to previous responders, I am not writing to offer him spiritual advice, rebuke or support. Rather, as a biblical scholar who has been involved in "Historical Jesus" research for over 30 years, my concern is to provide your readers a more accurate perspective on issues he raised in his article. A number of assertions made in that article with respect to the current state of "Historical Jesus" research as well as the nature of the available evidence require correction if meaningful dialogue is to continue in our community.
First, the "Jesus Seminar" is not a "large group of academics." For readers interested in checking the veracity of statements, a few minutes on the Internet reveals that the Jesus Seminar comprises 74 scholars (as a point of comparison, at annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature, around 10,000 attend). About half of these are recent Ph.D.s who have produced no meaningful work of their own. Rather, they are graduate students or "groupies" of the handful of members who have actually published Historical Jesus research.
Second, the published work of the Jesus Seminar has not been accepted in mainstream biblical scholarship, including the more liberal wing thereof. Among the problems scholars have had with the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar are its selective and arbitrary methodology, its cynical attitude toward the biblical gospels and its unduly positivistic attitude toward the non-biblical gospels, and its conclusions that stretch reasonable readings of the evidence available.
Third, the presuppositions, methodology and conclusions of the Jesus Seminar are not new. These largely go back to the work of Rudolf Bultmann, whose view is reflected in Dr. Ray's statement, "The Jesus of history cannot be directly known." What he failed to state is that Bultmann's own disciples eventually rejected his extreme historical pessimism and began what is known in scholarly literature as the "Second (or New) Quest" for the historical Jesus. That initiative was inspired in part by the growing body of information about the biblical world available via the Dead Sea Scrolls, archeological evidence, the Bar Cochva Letters, and more careful study of pre-Christian Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Josephus (a first century Jewish historian who lived in Israel) and Rabbinic literature.
Another concept borrowed from Bultmann by Dr. Ray and the Jesus Seminar is the idea that the "Jesus of History" can (and should) be separated from the "Christ of Faith." What at first glance appears to be appropriate and necessary for modern man, and especially for scholars employing the scientific method, is actually fraught with methodological difficulty. To accomplish this task, the gospel sources must be trusted to give us accurate information about the historical Jesus while at the same time they must be distrusted when they speak of the "Christ of Faith." Such treatment of modern witnesses would result in a lost trial. Further, the sources themselves saw no disparity and therefore make no attempt to separate these "two Jesuses." Therefore, any attempt to do so is reading our thoughts into ancient texts rather than deriving from them what the authors intended to communicate.
In reality, that is exactly what Bultmann did. Living in a world where "modernism" had determined that "the supernatural" was really merely "superstition," Bultmann set out to remove the supernatural element from the ministry of Jesus so that his ethical and moral teachings would be more readily accepted. (Interestingly, the extra-biblical Gospels and Acts preferred as sources by the Jesus Seminar contain exaggerated accounts of the miraculous that make the biblical accounts of the miraculous appear tame in comparison. Similarly, statements of Jesus' divinity are far more pronounced in these writings than in their biblical counterparts.) Not only was this approach largely abandoned by his disciples; its purpose is now largely passé because most postmoderns embrace belief in the supernatural.
Fourth, that the gospel writers had an agenda should come as a surprise to no one. Everyone has an agenda, politicians, preachers, advertisers and authors alike. The issue, however, is whether or not it is a legitimate, healthy agenda that reflects reality. The terms "propaganda" and "spin" suggest an intent to mislead. If this is the case, we must believe that the early church created beliefs and practices that guaranteed its marginalization and mistreatment. Further, we are forced to believe that these people were the greatest masochists the world has ever known, for not only did they invent these "myths" and "dogmas": they were imprisoned, tortured and martyred for refusing to deny them! And we call ourselves rational?
W.E. Nunnally, Ph.D., is professor of early Judaism and Christian origins at Evangel University.
