"The Search for Jesus" one-sided, Nomad? I don't think so.

Most Americans have always heard the other side--namely that the New Testament accounts must be taken literally. Don't you think it is necessary to make a distinction between questions of theology and questions of history?

Both are different, but equally valid!

Do you or do you not agree with the historical conclusions of the vast majority of scholars today that Matthew and Luke used Mark in writing their accounts? That both of them aren't primary sources but variations of Mark? What prevents you from saying as a believing Christian that God inspsired Matthew and Luke to copy and alter Mark for their new times and new places?

Way too oversimplistic. Matthew and Luke used Mark, but they also used Q. And, they both used other sources unique to their gospels. In fact, Luke relied on another source, probably written, that constitutes over 1/3rd of his gospels.

More scholars seem to accept Markan priority than Q or "proto-Luke." Such technical discussions--given the average attention span of a TV viewer or a churchgoer--were not germane to the point(s) I was making: namely, that most believers and skeptics are ignornant of biblical scholarship. The "Search for Jesus" provided the average person a glimpse into contemporary Jesus studies. And the Jesus Seminar--far from being a group of radical fringe scholars--starts from the same place mainstream scholarship starts from.

Biblical literacy and historical scholarship are not Christian apologetics--nor should they be. We have already heard of Billy Graham, Hank Hannegraff and Josh McDowell. Now let's listen to the experts for a change.

Aikido7, please go read the bios of most of those in the Westar Institute. Most that I've read are atheist, though they cloud it over by calling themselves "Christian". "Christian" meaning that they think that some of Jesus' teachings (interpreted rather gnostically, in my opinion) are possibly worth retaining as a moral standard, but there is no belief in God or the supernatural. If there are any true Christians on the Jesus Seminar, their views are heavily out-voted.

Finally, you are comparing apples and oranges when you say that people have always had the Christian side of things by referring to Billy Graham and such. What is much more correct is to compare Christian scholars to Secular scholars (not forgetting that the Jesus Seminar doesn't even present the views of all good Secular scholars).

Ish

Which of these people are atheist?

LOL, maybe you should start listening to the experts. Most scholars accept Markan priority, the existence of Q, and the special L material. They are not contradictory, in fact, they supplement and reinforce each other.

Sheesh.

Well, for starters, the founder and co-chairman of the Jesus Seminar: Robert W. Funk and John Dominic Crossan.

In addition:

Marcus Borg
Gerd Luedemann
Barbara Thiering

And the SecWeb's very own: Robert M. Price.

I thought there were more bios on the Westar Institute's website, sorry, that was my fault. I guess I've just read a lot about many of their views. They really should all have bios that state their views in a clear, unambiguous language for the benefit of those on the outside looking in to check biases.

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited April 05, 2001).]

Bede

Really, this is too much.

Of course the Search for Jesus was biased. Given the defence offered here is that most people hear too much from one side of the debate and the Search for Jesus provided balance, it must be biased the other way or it would not be able to balance anything.

It seems to me that the anti-Christians here are giving their standard formula of "objective" = "what I agree with" and "biased" = "what I don't like".

Just for those who don't know:

In Jesus scholarship conservative means people like Bill Craig, Gary Habermas and Tom Wright.

Mainstream means Luke Timothy Johnson, John Meier and Raymond Brown.

Radical/liberal = Robert Funk, Dom Crossan and Marcus Borg.

And there's a special prize for anyone who can tell my sub conscious bias from the list above.

Yours

Bede - who is hopelessly biased and just wishes everyone else would admit it too.

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Ernest Sparks

Back for a minute after finally getting through the point-by-point response.

*
This switches a lot between

scriptural evidence->validation of christian dogma

and

christian dogma presupposed->interpretation of scriptural evidence

It gets tangled. Unfortunately, the writer starts saying that prior points have been established, without reminders of which direction the inferences go.

*
The paper is a detailed list of complaints about The Search For Jesus program. Unfortunately, the writer also feels in the pulpit and talks a lot to the faithful. So much of it is reminders by code-phrase (e.g. resurrection validation of Jesus Christ's divinity) of in-group material.

*
A lot of reliance on the correctness of Gospel material: because Luke gets some Roman administrator regimes right, does this make the final document correct in every regard?

one quick question: Do you think Jesus told his followers point blank that John had said that he was unworthy to loose his shoes?

*
I have some agreements: what was the purpose of the show? It was certainly not breaking news. It was at best background, but for what current story? Maybe the reconstruction of Jesus' life was the story. (Remember, it was a news show and news stories can be supplanted by other news stories.)

*
Topics to be pursued:

1. Proper dating of the Gospels and the rest of NT. I can't imagine getting much farther without settling this issue. I remain unconvincedby the argument that the Evangelists should have crowed about the destruction of the Temple after 70 A.D. The Gospels stick with the happenings and talk of Jesus and his followers up through His Ascension.

2. Identity of the historic early Church: does this mean the writing of the Fathers?

3. Jesus' Resurrection. My favorite answer is 'wrong tomb', the kinkiness of it appeals to me. I wonder how many tombs Joseph might have owned.

4. Historical analysis tools: what tools?

Ernie

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
Aikido7, please go read the bios of most of those in the Westar Institute. Most that I've read are atheist, though they cloud it over by calling themselves "Christian". "Christian" meaning that they think that some of Jesus' teachings (interpreted rather gnostically, in my opinion) are possibly worth retaining as a moral standard, but there is no belief in God or the supernatural. If there are any true Christians on the Jesus Seminar, their views are heavily out-voted.

First of all, if you wish to change the subject and ignore my argument that mainstream biblical scholars take for granted that some of the words and deeds attributed to Jesus in the New Testament were placed there by the early church, that's fine. But if you want to conduct heresy trials on who or who is not a "true" Christian in the Jesus Seminar, be aware that this dodges the important and wider questions about modern scholarship and the dearth of biblical literacy among the general population.

I do not want to ignore your own methodology; I just feel that it is seriously flawed.
As long as Jerry Falwell, Hank Hannegraff, Billy Graham continue mediating a Jesus who demands nothing from them (other than to believe) without historically examining him in the context of his times then you will have widescale illiteracy of what the New Testament gospel accounts are really telling us.

Their views, by and large, still represent "the Christian side of things" that is woefully outmoded for the postmodern world and can only lead to further misunderstanding and erosion of religion and the sacred. The difference is so great that maybe I AM comparing apples to oranges.

As for the views presented by the Jesus Seminar, they are reached by a consensus determined after a vote . This is the method by which all biblical translations and Christian texts are approved for publication. There is nothing new nor mysterious about this.

This is about history, Ish; not theology or apologetics. I have read some of these scholars, and I must conclude that you do not know what you are talking about. You are arguing from emotion and not fact. Crossan and Borg are both Christians. They place their faith in the historical figure of Jesus AS the manifestation of the divine. Crossan is a former priest who left the church to be able to think and ask questions. Borg is active in the Episcopal Church and is married to a priest (which was not, he admits, one of his childhood fantasies!). Funk's personal beliefs are unclear to me, but he is a top class historican and biblical scholar and has been noted as such for years and years. He used to be an evangelical preacher, I think. Ludemann rejects most of Christian doctrine, but he is honest and upfront about his historical methodology and beliefs. He, too, is a lauded and acclaimed biblical scholar. I don't think Barbara Theiring is a member of the Jesus Seminar. If she is, she shouldn't be. In my opinion she writes nonsense. But the Seminar, as I have posted before, is open to anyone who has the proper academic credentials and wishes to join.

Jesus was a man in first-century Palestine. That is a statement of FACT.
Jesus is the Son of God. That is a statement of FAITH.

History deals with facts, evidence and data.
Faith deals with belief and opinion. Faith looks behind the historical data and makes meaning from it. The formation of the Jesus Seminar was the first time in history that scholars working collaboratively from different areas of expertise got together and examined every word and deed attributed to Jesus and voted on their authenticity using a democratic private vote using an agreed-upon scale of probability. By their own admission, the voting and the results are provisional.

I hope that clears up some understandable confusion and misinformation for you. There is a lot out there about the Jesus Seminar both pro and con and I invite you to read it. But the loss of received notions of the Bible has already happened, and if you cannot weather that loss then the end of this post is a good place to exit the journey that lies before all of us.

Make no mistake. History DOES inform faith. One scholar has called the new studies on the historical Jesus "open-heart surgery on Christainity." Or perhaps open-heart surgery on Western civilization.





[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited April 06, 2001).]