The Jesus Seminar and Early Christian Writings

[gsa]

Today I listened to an interesting 2010 podcast with John Dominic Crossan (ep 163), one of the scholars who led the Jesus seminar, and was at the time marking its 25th anniversary. As some of you know, the scholars were engaged in a very visible examination of early Christian writings, attempting to discern the "historical Jesus" from the morass of midrash/pesher, gnosticism, doctrinal transmission, neoplatonism, etc.

I was prompted to listen to this because I had just started Russell Shorto's Gospel Truth: On the Trail of the Historical Jesus, which is an account of the seminar published two years after the podcast, with an introduction by Crossan. In the podcast, Crossan discusses his decision to enter into early retirement and how he spends about half of the weekends of the year discussing biblical scholarship in progressive Christian settings, where he senses an abiding interest in the historical Jesus and suggests that Christian belief and practice is being transformed by it.

There are even some signs of this in evangelical circles, where committed proponents of inerrancy decry renewed evangelical interest in the application of midrash to, say, Matthew, which caused one scholar to lose his position with the Evangelical Theological Society in the 1980s, before the seminar was even constituted.

For Christians today, how have your beliefs or practices changed as a result of modern biblical scholarship? Or have they? And if they haven't, why not?

 

[gsa]

As a follow up, I happened to stumble upon this interesting blog entry at Patheos. This is the critique that the author suggests for incorporation of modern scholarship:

Through his reconstruction, translation and interpretation of Q and Thomas, Patterson attempts to peel back the layers of historical Christian theology that he feels have clouded Jesus’ original message.

But in doing so he leaves some pertinent questions unanswered. Why should these later layers of historical Christian theology be discarded? Why should we view the theological developments and perspectives reflected in the canonical Gospels as superfluous fluff rather than meaningful and important expositions of Christian understanding?

I have my own thoughts on this, but I am more interested in what Christians (evangelical, progressive and otherwise) have to say about it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As a follow up, I happened to stumble upon this interesting blog entry at Patheos. This is the critique that the author suggests for incorporation of modern scholarship:



I have my own thoughts on this, but I am more interested in what Christians (evangelical, progressive and otherwise) have to say about it.

It never really bothered me. I've always viewed Crossan as a sort of nutcase and the Jesus seminar was a complete failure - at least in its stated goals. It failed to develop a reliable apparatus through which we can reliably locate the historical Jesus.

After talking with Crossan, I still think that his views are strange, but he's such a nice guy I didn't argue with him. I also have a mentor who is contributing to the project now, so I don't despise it with the kind of passion that I used to.

I used to think that Crossan was just a sensationalist, but now I think that he's sincere in his nuttiness - good for him. But what he's done and does now is completely useless to me.

 

[gsa]

So would you say that the modern scholarship is irrelevant to modern Christian beliefs and practice, at least for you? Or is your observation limited to the seminar and its participants?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So would you say that the modern scholarship is irrelevant to modern Christian beliefs and practice, at least for you? Or is your observation limited to the seminar and its participants?

Try again. Think a little and try to ask relevant questions.

This is the Christian DIR, which means that it's a discussion forum. Your contributions here are restricted to polite questions unless you identify yourself as a Christian. If you do identify yourself as a Christian, you are welcome to debate and ask idiotic questions elsewhere.

 

[gsa]

While I am sorry if something seemed disrespectful to you, I will make the following observations:

1. I was baptized and confirmed in a Christian church, and when I made a respectful request to disassociate, I was refused. In light of that, the idea that I can choose my identification seems somewhat offensive; the denomination in question rejected full participation on the basis of sexual orientation and also (bizarrely) rejected my request to leave on that basis. I am somewhat perplexed by later Christian attempts to limit me to "polite questions" unless I self-identify as Christian. According to the United Methodists and, presumably, the RCC and others that recognize its baptisms and confirmations, I will be Christian forever, notwithstanding my attempts to disassociate.

2. My understanding when I posted here as opposed to another area was that it was a "green" area:

For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored green, non-members of that area may make respectful posts that comply with the tenets and spirit of that area. This includes questions, as well as knowledgeable comments.

I also think it is somewhat unfair to characterize my questions as idiotic. My question was:

For Christians today, how have your beliefs or practices changed as a result of modern biblical scholarship? Or have they? And if they haven't, why not?

While I don't think it is fair to characterize my question as idiotic, I thought that the green designation gave me some room to make knowledgeable comments. But in any event, the question wasn't intended as a "gotcha."

If my understanding of the stated rules is in error, please let me know.

 

[roger1440]

Doesn't Crossan believe Jesus was a magician?

 

[gsa]

Doesn't Crossan believe Jesus was a magician?

I think yes, in the sense that he was depicted as a faith healer and someone who performed various miracles. In the interview I listened to, he was more focused on the anti-imperialist politics of Jesus, not his depiction as a faith healer or miracle worker. Maybe that opens him up to criticism of depicting a Jesus that fits within the times, or with Crossan's liberalism?

 

[roger1440]

One of the problems I have with New Testament scholars is that most of them are Christians. They come to the scholarly table with a bias.

 

[gsa]

One of the problems I have with New Testament scholars is that most of them are Christians. They come to the scholarly table with a bias.

Wouldn't non-Christians have a similar risk of bias?

 

[roger1440]

Wouldn't non-Christians have a similar risk of bias?

My guess would be not as much. A Christian scholar would have more of a personal investment.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

While I am sorry if something seemed disrespectful to you, I will make the following observations:

1. I was baptized and confirmed in a Christian church, and when I made a respectful request to disassociate, I was refused. In light of that, the idea that I can choose my identification seems somewhat offensive; the denomination in question rejected full participation on the basis of sexual orientation and also (bizarrely) rejected my request to leave on that basis. I am somewhat perplexed by later Christian attempts to limit me to "polite questions" unless I self-identify as Christian. According to the United Methodists and, presumably, the RCC and others that recognize its baptisms and confirmations, I will be Christian forever, notwithstanding my attempts to disassociate.

2. My understanding when I posted here as opposed to another area was that it was a "green" area:



I also think it is somewhat unfair to characterize my questions as idiotic. My question was:



While I don't think it is fair to characterize my question as idiotic, I thought that the green designation gave me some room to make knowledgeable comments. But in any event, the question wasn't intended as a "gotcha."

If my understanding of the stated rules is in error, please let me know.

This is better. I had thought that your OP was good, and your response to my post was far inferior to it. I feel cheated.

Here's why:

So would you say that the modern scholarship is irrelevant to modern Christian beliefs and practice, at least for you? Or is your observation limited to the seminar and its participants?

First, you seem to think that I associate "the Jesus Seminar" with "all modern scholarship." That's idiotic.

It's also unfair -- and more than a little bit hostile -- for you to assume that I am so stupid that because I think that the Jesus Seminar is a failure that I disregard modern scholarship in general.

You also completely ignored why I think that the Jesus Seminar is a failure... which in no way applies to modern scholarship in general, which uses a wide variety of methods that differ from the Seminar.

You then ask -- I think because you obviously ignored most of my post -- a completely ridiculous question about my observations being limited -- Yes! I've read all of the material related to the Seminar and I've personally talked with many of the participants. That's as comprehensive a review as you're going to find. Sheesh.

Now try again.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

One of the problems I have with New Testament scholars is that most of them are Christians. They come to the scholarly table with a bias.

This is a fairly uninformed prejudice.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Wouldn't non-Christians have a similar risk of bias?

Yes. There are all sorts of people studying the NT for many different reasons. We have feminists, homosexual theorists, and people from almost every religion. Historical training helps, but it's a trend these days to openly disclose your bias and let that positively inform interpretation.

 

[roger1440]

This is a fairly uninformed prejudice.

I don't know of any well known non Christian scholars. I don't go out of my way to read the work of Christian scholars. For some reason that's what I end up with.

 

[gsa]

This is better. I had thought that your OP was good, and your response to my post was far inferior to it. I feel cheated.

Here's why:



First, you seem to think that I associate "the Jesus Seminar" with "all modern scholarship." That's idiotic.

I think we got off on the wrong foot. This was my original "ask" for the thread:

For Christians today, how have your beliefs or practices changed as a result of modern biblical scholarship? Or have they? And if they haven't, why not?

You will note that I did not limit it to the Jesus Seminar. If I somehow conveyed the impression that was the be all end all of modern biblical scholarship, I apologize.

It's also unfair -- and more than a little bit hostile -- for you to assume that I am so stupid that because I think that the Jesus Seminar is a failure that I disregard modern scholarship in general.

See above. I thought by referencing evangelical approaches to midrashic interpretations in my original post I was avoiding any suggestion that "modern scholarship" was to be strictly construed as "Jesus Seminar."

You also completely ignored why I think that the Jesus Seminar is a failure... which in no way applies to modern scholarship in general, which uses a wide variety of methods that differ from the Seminar.

I am not sure I understand, even on a re-read, why you think the Seminar was a failure. You said: "It failed to develop a reliable apparatus through which we can reliably locate the historical Jesus." I guess that I do not understand the former; what makes the apparatus unreliable? I think that there is much to be said for the unreliability of the idea of a historical Jesus, but I'm not sure why the Jesus Seminar apparatus, to borrow your language, is unreliable. The methodology is more or less transparent, so I'm assuming it has something to do with their assumptions behind the methodology or at least the methodology itself, but I'm not willing to assume here.

You then ask -- I think because you obviously ignored most of my post -- a completely ridiculous question about my observations being limited -- Yes! I've read all of the material related to the Seminar and I've personally talked with many of the participants. That's as comprehensive a review as you're going to find. Sheesh.

I was asking if your observation in the reply post was limited to the Jesus Seminar or if you had a more general critique of modern scholarship on the historicity of Jesus. Because my initial question was not restricted to the Seminar, as I explained above.

Now try again.

I am. I would just ask in the future that you not assume I am hostile and seek clarification before indicting my comments or questions.

Also, am I free to discuss in this thread, notwithstanding my self-identification as spiritual as opposed to Christian?

 

[gsa]

Yes. There are all sorts of people studying the NT for many different reasons. We have feminists, homosexual theorists, and people from almost every religion. Historical training helps, but it's a trend these days to openly disclose your bias and let that positively inform interpretation.

Which is fair enough, although I think the real issue is being aware of an interlocutor's methodology and assumptions. I am not sure that one's sexual orientation or politics itself needs to be disclosed, but certainly assumptions about inerrancy/inspiration, theology, etc. are important when addressing the interpretation of scripture.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am not sure I understand, even on a re-read, why you think the Seminar was a failure. You said: "It failed to develop a reliable apparatus through which we can reliably locate the historical Jesus."

OK, to put it simply, "Did the Jesus Seminar locate the historical Jesus?" The answer is unequivocally, absolutely, clearly, and obviously - no. The Jesus Seminar produced many differing theories, some of which seem more plausible than others, but no reliable method emerged. This is why some members of the Seminar went on to other things.

Does this mean that the historical question is no longer valid - absolutely not. What it does mean, though, is that the question of the historical Jesus is not limited to the Seminar and that methods practiced outside of the Seminar may well get better results.

 

[nazz]

Today I listened to an interesting 2010 podcast with John Dominic Crossan (ep 163), one of the scholars who led the Jesus seminar, and was at the time marking its 25th anniversary. As some of you know, the scholars were engaged in a very visible examination of early Christian writings, attempting to discern the "historical Jesus" from the morass of midrash/pesher, gnosticism, doctrinal transmission, neoplatonism, etc.

I was prompted to listen to this because I had just started Russell Shorto's Gospel Truth: On the Trail of the Historical Jesus, which is an account of the seminar published two years after the podcast, with an introduction by Crossan. In the podcast, Crossan discusses his decision to enter into early retirement and how he spends about half of the weekends of the year discussing biblical scholarship in progressive Christian settings, where he senses an abiding interest in the historical Jesus and suggests that Christian belief and practice is being transformed by it.

There are even some signs of this in evangelical circles, where committed proponents of inerrancy decry renewed evangelical interest in the application of midrash to, say, Matthew, which caused one scholar to lose his position with the Evangelical Theological Society in the 1980s, before the seminar was even constituted.

For Christians today, how have your beliefs or practices changed as a result of modern biblical scholarship? Or have they? And if they haven't, why not?

Most prominently I went from being a biblical inerrantist to not being one

 

[gsa]

Most prominently I went from being a biblical inerrantist to not being one

How do you view scripture now? Divinely inspired in some sense, or a reflection of an evolving but decidedly human tradition?