User:Ari89/js

Criticism of the Jesus Seminar

The Jesus Seminar has received criticism from a wide-spectrum of scholars and laymen questioning the methodology, assumptions and intent of the Jesus Seminar. Scholars who have expressed concerns with the work of the Jesus Seminar include Bart D. Ehrman, John P. Meier, Richard Hays, Ben Witherington, Gregory A. Boyd, N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig, Craig A. Evans, Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, and Edwin Yamauchi. The specific criticisms leveled against the Jesus Seminar include that:

[Is listing everyone necessary?]

• the Jesus Seminar creates a Jesus who is separated from both his cultural setting and his followers;
• the voting system is seriously flawed;
• the criteria defining what constitutes red/pink/grey/black are inconsistent;
• it was an error to exclude apocalyptic messages from Jesus' ministry;
• the attempt to popularize Jesus research degraded the scholarly value of the effort;
• the conclusions largely represent the premises of the fellows, even though the seminar has warned themselves to "Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you";
• the Jesus Seminar is hypercritical of canonical accounts of Jesus, but unduly credulous and uncritical when it comes to relatively late extra-canonical accounts;
• only about 14 of the fellows are leading figures in New Testament scholarship; and
• the fellows do not represent a fair cross-section of viewpoints.

[Needs references - probably differentiate between presumptions of the JS & the methodology]

More extreme reactions have come from Christian organizations such as the Fundamental Evangelistic Association, and the Watchman Expositor. The Christian Arsenal go so far as to depict the Jesus Seminar as a tool of Satan, meant to undermine Biblical beliefs.

[POV in last sentence lol]

Divorcing Jesus from his cultural context and followers

One of the Seminar's tests for inauthenticity is that it "matches closely with beliefs of the early Church community". Matthias Zahniser, Asbury Theological Seminary criticizes this saying that it prohibits the possibility that Jesus would be concerned with anything the early Church is concerned with. [poor wording - maybe find a reference first?? - "AH Mathias Zahniser, [professor emeritus of mission and world religions at] (of) [[[Asbury Theological Seminary]] ]

J. Ed Komoszewski and co-authors state that the Jesus Seminar's "Criteria for In/Authenticity" create "an eccentric Jesus who learned nothing from his own culture and made no impact on his followers". Others ask rhetorically, "why would such a Jesus be crucified?" The same criticism has been made by Craig Evans.

Use of a flawed voting system

The voting system has been criticized by, among others, NT Wright, who says '... I cannot understand how, if a majority ... thought a saying authentic or probably authentic, the "weighted average" turned out to be "probably inauthentic". A voting system that produces a result like this ought to be scrapped.'

Ignoring evidence for eschatological teachings 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) 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. Some scholars have reasserted Albert Schweitzer's eschatological view of Jesus.

Creating a Jesus based on the presuppositions of the members

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."

Bias against canonical sources and for non-canonical sources

Daniel L. Akin, writing in the Journal of the Southern Baptist Convention, called the work of the Jesus Seminar "destructive criticism". Craig Blomberg notes that if the Jesus Seminar’s findings are to be believed then “it requires the assumption that someone, about a generation removed from the events in question, radically transformed the authentic information about Jesus that was circulating at that time, superimposed a body of material four times as large, fabricated almost entirely out of whole cloth, while the church suffered sufficient collective amnesia to accept the transformation as legitimate.” Craig Evans argues that the Jesus Seminar applies a form of hypercriticism to the canonical gospels that unreasonably assumes that "Jesus' contemporaries (that is, the first generation of his movement) were either incapable of remembering or uninterested in recalling accurately what Jesus said and did, and in passing it on" while, in contrast, privileging extra-canonical texts with an uncritical acceptance that sometimes rises to the level of special pleading.

Composition of the Seminar and qualifications of the members

Luke Timothy Johnson of the Candler School of Theology at Emory University, in his 1996 book The Real Jesus, also 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 no Ph.D. but a M.Sc. in mathematics and physics, not biblical studies, and is best known as a film director. 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.

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:

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.

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: all considered to favor "liberal" interpretations of the New Testament.