Fundamental
Evangelistic Association
selected
articles from:
©FOUNDATION
A MAGAZINE OF BIBLICAL FUNDAMENTALISM
Dennis W. Costella, Editor; Karel Beyer, Production Manager; Matt
Costella,
Copy Editor
M.H. Reynolds, Jr. (1919-1997), Founding Editor
The Critics vs. the Critics:
The Jesus Seminar Under Attack
by Matt Costella, Staff Writer
©FOUNDATION Magazine, September-October 1997
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and
vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after
Christ." Colossians 2:8
Twelve years ago, a group
of academic scholars known as the Jesus Seminar convened to study the sayings of Jesus in
order to decide what they thought Jesus actually did say in contrast to what the Bible
records Him to have said. One of the scholars' goals was to produce a New Testament that
would function as a "fresh translation" of the Bible. Led by Dr. Robert Funk,
the Jesus Seminar has gained worldwide attention as a result of its conclusions concerning
what it believes Jesus indeed said, or did not say, in the Bible. Funk and the other
Seminar scholars have touted their work and their credentials in churches, seminars and
universities around the world. Understandably, Bible-believing Christians have openly
criticized the Jesus Seminar due to its outright rejection of the Bible's historical
accuracy and authenticity. But recently, the Seminar scholars have been criticized by many
of their own academic colleagues, some of whom do not even profess to adhere to the
fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. These secular critical scholars are questioning
the academic integrity of the Jesus Seminar scholars and the viability of the Seminar's
conclusions. Many non-religious academics now recognize an agenda that is embedded in the
Jesus Seminar's methods and conclusions, an agenda that clearly does not harmonize with
the Seminar's claim to function solely on the basis of objective academic scholarship. No
longer can the Jesus Seminar adherents claim that their blasphemous work is condemned only
by the "naive" Bible-believing Christians. These so-called biblical scholars are
now being criticized by academics in the secular realm as well.
For those who are unfamiliar with the Jesus Seminar, it is important to understand the
Seminar's method for determining what Jesus did or did not say. Beginning in 1985, the
Jesus Seminar scholars decided to meet twice a year in northern California to analyze a
portion of the New Testament in order to decide whether or not Jesus spoke the words that
are found in the biblical text. The scholars discussed the text in question among
themselves and then voted on whether or not Jesus really said the ascribed quote. Each of
the scholars voted by placing a colored bead in a basket. According to the Jesus Seminar,
"A red vote means that Jesus said something very like the record, pink means an
approximation of what he said, whereas gray indicates that words contain only echoes of
Jesus' ideas. Black, of course, means that the saying was incorrectly attributed to
Jesus." The introduction to The Five Gospels, the book that contains the
scholars' conclusions in the form of their new version of the Bible, mentions that one
Seminar scholar summed up the voting process in the following "helpful" manner:
red: That's Jesus!
pink: Sure sounds like Jesus.
gray: Well, maybe.
black: There's been some mistake.
In addition to The Five Gospels, the results of the scholars' research were
also published in The Parables of Jesus-Red Letter Edition.
The Five Gospels is also known as the Scholars Version. The Seminar scholars,
in addition to concluding that they needed to find out what Jesus really said and who He
really was, believed that it was necessary to produce a new translation of the Gospels of
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which also included the Gospel of Thomas. According to the
introduction of The Five Gospels, this Scholars Version also varies from other traditional
translations by giving "voice to the individual evangelists by reproducing the Greek
style of each in English." This Scholars Version translation uses colloquial
expressions and attempts to capture the "tone and tenor" of the biblical writer
rather than a mere word-for-word translation. In the introduction to The Five Gospels,
the scholars cite Matthew 23:13 as an example of how they have used the aforementioned
ideas to produce a listener-friendly translation:
"You scholars and Pharisees, you impostors! Damn you!
You slam the door of Heaven's domain in people's faces. You yourselves don't enter, and
you block the way of those trying to enter."
These are supposedly the words of Jesus to the Pharisees. The introduction continues
with an explanation as to why the Seminar translated the verse in this manner rather than
the way it is translated in the King James Version or the New Revised Standard Version:
Woe is not a part of the average American's working
vocabulary. If a person wants to curse someone, that person would not say "woe to
you," but "damn you." Moreover, the diction of New Revised Standard Version
strikes the ear as faintly Victorian. In sum, the translators abandoned the concept of
polite religious discourse suitable for a Puritan parlor and reinstated the common street
language of the original.
From the beginning, the leaders of the Seminar knew that their research and their
conclusions would infuriate many people. At the inaugural meeting of the Jesus Seminar in
1985, Robert Funk said, "We are about to embark on a momentous enterprise. We are
going to inquire simply, rigorously, after the voice of Jesus, after what he really said.
In this process, we will be asking a question that borders the sacred, that even abuts
blasphemy, for many in our society." The fact that Funk and the other scholars even
questioned the authenticity of Jesus' sayings proves that Funk and the other architects of
the Jesus Seminar knew before they even began their research that their conclusions would
be considered blasphemous. The fact that this group did not originally believe that Jesus
said what is recorded in the Bible can be considered evidence that the Seminar had an
agenda from the beginning. While some scholars may have professed that they began their
"quest" with an open mind, many, if not all, of the scholars already resolutely
believed that Jesus was misquoted and misunderstood in the Bible.
What exactly did the Jesus Seminar scholars conclude concerning who Jesus was and what
He said or did not say? This group of men and women decided that Jesus said very little of
what was attributed to Him in the New Testament. In fact, they concluded that almost every
word ascribed to Jesus in the Gospel of John was not actually stated by Jesus. The
scholars believe that most of the words attributed to Christ were written by His disciples
who added their own words and ideas to the biblical text or who added what they believe
Jesus might have said or what He might have meant during His life on earth. The scholars
decided that eighty-two percent of the sayings credited to Jesus in the New Testament were
not actually spoken by Him. The group ridicules any notion that Jesus literally spoke all
that the Bible records Him to have said. In The Parables of Jesus-Red Letter Edition
by Robert Funk, Bernard Brandon Scott and James R. Butts, the authors scoff the
fundamentalist position regarding the inspiration and authority of Scripture by stating:
Fundamentalists and other conservatives often advance the
claim that Jesus said exactly what is ascribed to him in the four gospels included in the
canon of the New Testament. God, through the Holy Spirit, they say, inspired the canonical
writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, to record exactly what Jesus taught and did, nothing
more, nothing less. Other gospels, like the newly discovered Gospel of Thomas, were not
inspired and so contain false words or nothing of significance.
Scholars long ago abandoned this historically untenable and
theologically naive view. Even conservative evangelical scholars concede that not every
word ascribed to Jesus in the gospels was actually spoken by him. Scholars trained in the
historical-critical method-the prevailing method in all historical disciplines-routinely
distinguish sayings that originated with Jesus from those that were more likely created by
the early Christian church or borrowed from common lore.
To these men, the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament writers is a
"historically untenable and theologically naive view." This statement
highlighting the outright denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures may shock many
Christians. However, one must remember that those who comprise the Jesus Seminar are, for
the most part, unbelievers who, as predicted by the Holy Bible, have been spoiled
"through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments
of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2:8). While some of these scholars are
blatant unbelievers, others profess to be religious to a degree, making the Jesus Seminar
all the more dangerous.
Some Christians may feel that it is a waste of time for believers to criticize or
analyze the dangers of the Jesus Seminar since it is such an obviously anti-Christian
endeavor; they might feel as though a pastor or Christian leader should only spend time
warning about more subtle attacks within the realm of Christendom. This attitude, however,
is contrary to Scripture and should not characterize the mind of any believer who desires
to stand firm against all forms of unbelief. Believers are to test all things by the
Scriptures, and that includes attacks upon the Word of God and upon Jesus Christ by
professing believers and by those who outwardly deny the fundamentals of the Christian
faith.
It is obvious why Bible-believing Christians must reject the Jesus Seminar and regard
it as a tool of Satan to undermine biblical faith, but it is also important to realize
that many secular scholars and critics are likewise criticizing the Jesus Seminar for its
obvious deviant agenda, lack of consistency with regard to the use of the
historical-critical method and its unfounded, historically unsupported conclusions
regarding who Jesus really was. In his book The Real Jesus, Luke Timothy Johnson,
professor of Christian origins at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, calls the Seminar
"an exercise in academic self-promotion" and a "self-indulgent
charade." Johnson argues that the Seminar members are all self-chosen and adds that
their conclusions and methods are faulty because Christ's actual identity cannot be known.
Other academic scholars have also written books criticizing the Seminar, saying its
findings are based on individual bias, personal opinion and insufficient historical data.
Craig Evans, professor of biblical studies at Trinity Western, is the spokesman on the
relationship of the Dead Sea Scrolls to Jesus and the New Testament for Trinity's Dead Sea
Scrolls Institute. Evans, who has extensively studied the Dead Sea Scrolls, has been
involved in public debates with members of the Jesus Seminar. In these debates, Evans uses
his knowledge of the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls to aid him in discrediting the
faulty theories of the Jesus Seminar scholars. The October 6, 1997, issue of Christianity
Today, contains an article entitled "The War of the Scrolls" by Kevin D.
Miller, in which Evans reflects upon one debate with Jesus Seminar co-chair John Dominic
Crossan. Evans says he fared well in the debate and added that the positive reaction he
received from the crowd, compared to the reaction Crossan received for his claims,
reflects the general attitude within biblical scholarship. Miller's article cites Evans as
saying that the Jesus Seminar, in contrast with the Society of Biblical Literature (a
reputable organization of biblical scholarship) is "this funny, quirky little thing
that started out with 300 members but now only lists about 75, and that's inflated since
only about 35 are even active. Their numbers are dwindling. But the leadership-Robert Funk
and John Dominic Crossan and a few others-are movers and shakers. They like to persuade
the media that they are cutting edge, that they are out in front of the rest of us. They
also like to portray themselves as a very fair representative cross section of Jesus
scholars. All that is illusory.... And their infatuation with the Gospel of Thomas and
other apocryphal gospels is just laughable. In Europe they're just laughed to scorn. It's
looked upon as a silly American phenomenon." The vast amount of media attention that
the Jesus Seminar receives causes many individuals to think that the opinions and
conclusions of the Seminar are the prevailing views of most Jesus scholars. This, however,
is just not true according to Evans.
In a recent public lecture at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis
Obispo, California, Dr. Birger Pearson, professor and interim director of the religious
studies program at the University of California at Berkeley, spoke on the many
inconsistencies and shortcoming in the methods and conclusions of the Jesus Seminar. His
lecture was titled, "A Cynical Look at the Jesus Seminar." In order to more
fully understand the concern of the critical, secular academics regarding the conclusions
of the Jesus Seminar, it is both necessary and helpful to highlight several points in
Pearson's lecture.
Pearson began his lecture by stating that this quest to find out who Jesus really was
and what He actually said is nothing new. The methods used by the Jesus Seminar are novel,
but not the quest itself for the "historical Jesus." Pearson highlighted several
individuals, mostly German philosophers and theologians, who set the stage for the modern
quest for the historical Jesus. Some of these German philosophers and theologians viewed
Jesus as a cynic-type preacher who flouted social conventions and possessed a
"stand-offish attitude" in society. Pearson mentioned that a large group of
scholars, some of which comprise the Jesus Seminar, hold this particular view of Jesus.
John Dominic Crossan is one such scholar who sums up Jesus as a "peasant Jewish
cynic." Pearson mentioned that this entire philosophy has "very much influenced
the approach taken of Jesus by the members of the Seminar."
Concerning the methodology of the Jesus Seminar, their procedure for finding the true
historical Jesus is summed up in what they call the "Seven Pillars of Scholarly
Wisdom." They use these seven pillars to determine who Jesus really was and what He
really is supposed to have said while on the earth. The following is a summary of the
seven pillars (the pillars are more fully developed in The Five Gospels):
1. The distinction that must be made between the historical
man, Jesus, and the Christ of the Christian faith.
2. The preference for the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark,
Luke) as over against the gospel of John as the source for Jesus' teachings.
3. The chronological priority of the gospel of Mark (in fact,
the scholars say that Mark is the source of Matthew and Luke)
4. The existence of a hypothetical document called Q
5. The liberation of the non-eschatological Jesus from the
eschatological Jesus (the idea that the sayings of Jesus concerning the future were not
true sayings of the historical Jesus but were ideas added to the Christian religion at a
later time)
6. The contrast between oral culture (as in the time of
Jesus) and print culture (as in the present day)
7. The burden of proof argument (proof must be established in
order to authenticate a saying of Jesus. For example, the scholars wrote, "Jesus
taught that the last will be first and the first will be last. He admonished his followers
to be servants of everyone... given these terms, it is difficult to imagine Jesus making
claims for himself -I am the son of God, I am the expected One, the Anointed- unless, of
course, he thought that nothing he said applies to himself." This is the kind of
"evidence" used to determine what Jesus did or did not say.)
While the first four pillars and the last two pillars are generally accepted as common
points of critical scholarship, it is the fifth pillar that sets the Jesus Seminar apart
from the previous quests for the historical Jesus, according to Pearson. The Jesus Seminar
scholars clearly admit in The Five Gospels that they no longer labor "under
the tyranny of either neo-orthodoxy or an eschatological Jesus," which is what
prevailed prior to World War II. After World War II, biblical scholarship shifted
"away from its earlier academic home in the church, seminaries, and isolated
theological enclaves" and allowed scholars to escape the "tyranny" of
having to wrestle with an eschatological Jesus. That is exactly what the Jesus Seminar
scholars have now done. They have separated the historical man Jesus from the Jesus who
spoke of a coming Kingdom and the eventual end of the present age.
Pearson asked the question, "What is their evidence that led to this
conclusion?" He answers his question by saying, "The evidence is not cited in
their book for the very good reason that it does not exist." In fact, Pearson added
that all the modern evidence from the time of the German philosophers and theologians
until now (including the evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls) proves that the "Jewish
apocalyptic or eschatological world view was exceedingly prominent and pervasive in the
first century in Jewish Palestine" and that "this evidence is of direct
relevance for the study of the historical Jesus." The Jesus Seminar scholars,
however, completely disregard this evidence, even though they place such a high degree of
weight on evidence and proof.
According to the Seminar, John the Baptist was the one who preached a message of
repentance and future judgment, and Jesus completely rejected John's message following His
baptism by John. Jesus had changed His mind and decided not to adhere to the teaching of
John the Baptist. The only reason any eschatological sayings are attributed to Jesus is
because His followers made a mistake and misunderstood Him, according to the Seminar. The
Seminar says that after Jesus' baptism, He traveled around eating and drinking, consorting
with toll collectors and sinners, and acting like the cynic philosophers of His day.
Pearson reminded his lecture audience that there is no record of any cynic philosophers
who wandered around the Jewish villages of Galilee at the time of Jesus. He also
highlighted two other faults and historical inaccuracies of the Jesus Seminar:
- The Seminar makes continual references to Christ wandering around in an
"urban" Galilee, but Pearson says there is not one reference in the New
Testament that places Christ in the "urban" Galilee area, only on the outskirts
of the major cities that comprised "urban Galilee."
- The Seminar does not believe that Jesus recruited followers. They deny the idea of
twelve disciples, saying that Christ did not restrict His mission only to the Jews.
"So now one begins to wonder about a hidden agenda," Pearson said. He raised
the following question: If Jesus was not an eschatological prophet or preacher of the
kingdom of God, then what was He? The Jesus Seminar's answer: A laconic sage. Jesus was a
"wise guy" who never claimed to be the Messiah. He was similar to the cowboy
hero of the American West. The Five Gospels contains the following statement:
"Jesus does not initiate debates or controversies. He is passive until a question is
put to him, or until he or his disciples are criticized. The rare stories in which Jesus
begins the argument are thought to be creations of the storyteller." Pearson scoffed
this concept of the historical Jesus and posed a question that seems highly relevant. He
said, "An obvious question that has to be addressed in the Seminar, of course, is
'What was it about Jesus that got Himself crucified. Who would want to crucify a laconic
sage?'" Pearson added that he believed the Seminar might eventually conclude that
Jesus was never crucified at all.
Pearson then offered a brief critique of some portions in the new Scholars Version. He
highlighted several problems or inaccuracies in their translation. Only a few are
mentioned here:
- Jesus often said "Verily I say unto you" in the four gospels. Pearson noted
that in the Scholars Version, "This is interpreted variously as, 'I swear to God' or
'I tell you, so help me.' The whole idea in the translations is to have Jesus speak street
talk."
- The scholars decided to use "Damn" or "Damn you" instead of
"Woe" in several passages. Pearson said, "Any first year Greek student
ought to know the difference between a woe or a pronouncement of woe, as the ancient
prophets did, and a curse."
- While some of the parables are colored red or pink in the Scholar's Version, thus
attributing them to Jesus, the "punchline" of the parables are in black.
Therefore, Jesus only told the parable and never told the application or the
"punchline" as Pearson called it.
Pearson also cited the scholars' translation of Matthew nineteen as well as their
comments regarding that portion of Scripture and noted that their translation and comments
serve as a reflection of their twentieth century "politically correct"
philosophy which, in fact, does not harmonize with early Jewish culture. He said the
scholars believe Jesus was actually a "first century Jewish prophet of twentieth
century political correctness" who did not advocate an ascetic lifestyle. In fact,
most of the Seminar scholars agree that Jesus was not celibate. The Five Gospels
contains the following statement regarding the scholars' opinion on the celibacy of Jesus:
"The fellows of the Seminar were overwhelmingly of the opinion that Jesus did not
advocate celibacy. The majority of the fellows doubted, in fact, that Jesus himself was
celibate. They regarded as probable that he had a special relationship with at least one
woman, Mary of Magdela. His behavior suggests that He celebrated life by eating, drinking
and fraternizing freely with both women and men."
So what is the bottom line of Pearson's reasoning? He believes that the Jesus Seminar's
agenda is to mold a twentieth-century Jesus who will fit well into the mindset of a
twentieth-century audience. "What you have," Pearson says, "is an approach
driven by an ideology of secularization-a process of coloring the historical evidence to
fit a secular, twentieth-century ideal." He adds, "A group of secularized
theologians and academics went seeking a secular Jesus, and, lo and behold, they found
Him. But what they found, they created-the party animal; the zany wit; that caustic humor
that would enliven an otherwise dull cocktail party."
It is important to realize that although Pearson is critical of the Jesus Seminar, he
is by no means an advocate of a theological "quest" for Jesus. In fact, he
mentions that the Jesus Seminar scholars have "rightly come to be suspicious of
theologically-driven scholarship." He is basically saying that just as one must be
suspect of theologically-driven scholarship, one must likewise be equally suspicious of
"atheologically-driven scholarship or any ideologically-driven scholarship, political
or otherwise." One must not conclude that because Pearson opposes the methods and
conclusions of the Seminar, he is, therefore, ready to accept a Jesus that is the Christ,
the Son of God as revealed in the Bible. No, the only reference Pearson made to his own
religious beliefs was the he was "a member of the church." However, the purpose
of dwelling at length on Pearson's lecture is to point out that even modern secular
academics, not just Bible-believing Christians, have reason to be concerned over the
recent attacks upon God's holy Word by the Jesus Seminar.
Why should we even concern ourselves with the Jesus Seminar and its diabolical
assertions? Because believers need to be aware of the onslaught of the enemy. Satan
manifests himself as a blatant roaring lion at times, while at other times he appears as
an angel of light. Sometimes he mixes truth with error, and sometimes he completely
disregards any truth at all and shoves absolute blasphemy and outright error at men and
women. Regardless of how Satan propagates blasphemous heresy, the bottom line is that he
blinds the minds and eyes of individuals to the truth of God and His Word. Believers need
to be aware of what is being taught in seminars, books and many universities today.
Christians also need to be know that the Word of God proves Itself true time and again,
for in the last days, God's Word tells us that men will lift their hearts against God in
pride, "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:21-22). Believe the
Word of God, but at the same time, be aware that the conclusions and assertions made today
in the name of Jesus Seminar "scholarship" are not only blasphemous and
unbiblical from a theological perspective, but from an honest academic perspective as
well.
