by James Akin
The Jesus Seminar is a group
of liberal professors who have dissected
the gospels and concluded Jesus
said almost nothing they record him saying.
The Seminar has obtained a lot
of press for itself in the last couple of years,
but though it presents
itself as being on the cutting edge of biblical scholarship,
there is actually nothing new
about what it says. Its hypercritical approach to
the gospels has been around
for almost two hundred years.
To claim the gospels were
historically inaccurate, 19th century
liberals claimed they were written
one or two hundred years after the
events they record. The gospels
could not have been written earlier, the
19th century liberals admitted,
because the image of the historical
Jesus could not have been distorted
so much if they were written
earlier. The memories of Jesus'
followers would have been too strong to
allow such a rapid distortion.
Unfortunately, archaeology
has demolished the late dates of the
gospels. New manuscripts have
turned up, making it no longer possible to
claim they were written a century
or two after Jesus. One fragment, the
Rylands Papyrus, is a part of
John's gospel and dates around A.D. 130,
meaning John (which liberal
scholars believe was the last of the four
gospels) had to be composed
earlier than that,
no later than A.D. 90-100.
Today virtually all Bible
scholars, liberal and conservative,
acknowledge that the four gospels
were written within the first 70 years
or so of the events they record
(Jesus have been crucified around A.D.
30). Matthew, Mark, and Luke
were probably written quite early in that
period. This continual pushing
back the dates of the gospels by
archaeology creates a problem
for modern liberal professors, like those
of the Jesus Seminar, since
it leaves very little time for the image of
the historical Jesus to be distorted.
To the above QBaal replies-
Yes, its true the dating of the gospels
(and epistles of Paul)
figures prominently in the conclusions of
The Jesus Seminar re their veracity/"historical
truth."
However, there are other heavy
factors brought to bear on the issue by
the Jesus Seminar - i.e. human
psychology and the history of religion
give them many clues how any
sacred traditions might originate and develop
and, related, how sacred
myths and legends spring up and grow. Also,
ancient Graeco-Roman history,
including the chronicles of Roman wars
and conquests in the Eastern
Mediterranean, and the almost universal
influence of Hellenic
religions and philosophies shed a lot of light on the
thinking of Jesus times.
And this knowledge assure us there are significant
errors and distortions in the
Christian canon.
James Akin speaks as if the gospels
were a unified, factual witness to
the Christ-event. But,
a side by side comparison of the gospels
(including Thomas) makes it
clear Matthew, Mark, etc were written from
different points of view, with
different axes to grind and different
philisophical/religious assumptions.
Modern scholarship shows each gospel
comes from a different decade
(also, likely, different place in the Near East).
So, right off the bat each gospel
arises from a different historical situation
where the Christian community(s) have different threats and challenges
dictating what needs to be heard
by its members. Yes, each different gospels
develops the story of Jesus
differently. I.e. hard sayings of Jesus are toned
down with the passage of time,
and embarrassing aspects of the Jesus story
are dropped or softened.
It's obvious that Mark's material
was used in the construction
of the gospels of Matthew and
Luke. Over time there was an awesome development
of Resurrection stories
among the diverse faith communities of Palestine and the
Empire in general. Thus,
a purely spiritual event (as reported by
Paul the earliest source) becomes
historicized as the grand physical appearances
of Jesus (in Luke and John,
perhaps Matthew). It's much like the Old
Testament Exodus tradition where
the later the source the more spectacular
is the story of the parting
of the Red Sea ( Reed Sea). In this way the Christian
Jews of 1st Century Palestine
were keeping up the good mythology work of their
ancient Israelite ancestors.
Two guys go on a weekend fishing
trip. Then, back home relate the
events of the adventure to their
respective families. There's a good chance the two
versions of the trip will not
be identical. In fact, one fisherman may
cover a poor catch with stories
retrieved from more productive outings
when the "boat almost sank with
the catch." Such is life and the way
humans operate. Reality
is sometimes too boring, too tough to take or
too embarrassing! And
this reporting is about a simple fishing trip and
rendered hours after the actual
trip. (And many of the early disciples
were fishermen!)
Yes, dating is an important factor
re the truth value of the gospels.
But the side by side comparison
of the writings is what makes it obvious
who borrowed what from whom
and who had what axe to grind.
Akin continues:
To avoid the conclusion
that the gospels are what they present
themselves as -- accurate accounts
of the life of Jesus -- critics such
as those in the Jesus Seminar
had to postulate that the New Testament
writers weren't really interested
in history at all, but felt free to
make stuff up and put it on
the lips of Jesus if they found it
inspiring, useful, or whatever.
This flies in the face
of the New Testament itself, which is adamant
that this is real history which
really happened. This is, in fact, a
regular theme of the New Testament
since in the first century becoming a
Christian meant taking one's
life in one's hands as one was likely to
face persecution and martyrdom,
and so the new Christians needed
reassurance that they were basing
their faith (and their survival) on
real history, not on a pious
myth. One does not die for a daydream. Thus
the New Testament prepares its
readers by making two of the most
prominent themes the facts that
the story of
Jesus is real history and that
his followers must expect persecution.
QBaal replies:
Yes indeed
the person of Jesus and his death are real history. And
in Jesus a real God is revealing
in history his love and forgiveness which is
extended to all freely.
And this same Jesus is raised from death by God
to his eternity. And granted
even if the healing miracles happened as
described (including the raising
of Lazarus), they, by definition, are
not just historical events.
They involve the supernatural. This is not just
flesh and blood at work. But
God. And to describe that you need myth
not historical fact or
mere newspaper reporting. Just as Jesus is more
that a historical phenomenon.
Its the "extra", I mean God's involvment that
makes Jesus significant as our
reference for God's purpose, will and
Kingdom. And thus you
are in the area of myth, poetry, intuition and
probably exaggeration and legend.
Not to imply or suggest Jesus is not
worthy of the transcendent titles
and titles put on him by the gospels.
Like the Exodus mythology,
the exaggerations and additions of the
tradition do not undermine its
central truth - God hates slavery and the
marginalization of the oppressed
and he will surely act, in history,
to rectify matters.
Akin continues:
The emphasis on the historicity
of Jesus and his life story
indicated Paul's use of rabbinic
memorization language and by the fact
that Paul turns around and insists
on the historicity of Jesus's
resurrection in the most stark
terms, bluntly telling his readers: "If
Christ has not been raised then
your faith is futile and you are still
in your sins" (1 Corinthians
15:17), dying in one's sins being an
unimaginable horror for first
century (and later!) Jews and Christians.
QBaal replies:
Stark, ok. Paul insists
that God has revealed the Resurrected Son to his
followers - from faith to faith.
Paul encountered the revelation, not in
or near Jerusalem, but on the
road to Damascas. You could say Paul had a
vision, a trance. Whatever.
For Paul it WAS, in fact, the Risen Christ. And it
made everything else empirical
including the old temple religion very
passe. A pile of dung
I thing he says somewhere. So, Paul does not talk
about the physically risen Christ
who eats and walks through doors, as in
the gospels. Rather, the
Christ of Paul is risen spiritually. Flesh and blood
do not inherit the Kingdom
of God.
Akin continues:
Why then do liberal professors
such as those in the Jesus Seminar
persist in denying the evidence
for the reliability of the gospels? Part
of it is that when you have
built a scholarly reputation on a theory, it
is hard to admit you were wrong.
One is reminded of the line from the
Mel Brooks movie: "Gentlemen,
we must save our phony jobs!"
QBaal replies you are arguing
by assertion and attacking the person not
the position.
Akin:
Part of it is a desire
to portray themselves as daring intellectuals
willing to smash whatever cultural
icons are necessary in their pursuit
of truth. (A corollary of which
is the pleasure of smugly looking down
their noses at anyone who does
not go along with them -- a chronic
temptation for daring radicals.)
QBaal replies - this last paragraph
may be 100% true. But it may apply
equally well to conservative
Christians as well. Let's allow God to
decide this one. And the
test of time.
Akin continues:
Part of it is a desire
to make a name for themselves. Members of the
Seminar such as Robert Funk
and John Dominic Crossan have been very
frank about the Seminar conducting
its business in a way to grab maximum
headlines. This is the reason
for some of its members more extravagant
claims, such as Crossan's assertion
that the body of Jesus was probably
eaten by wild dogs -- a claim
for which there is absolutely no shred of
historical evidence whatsoever.
QBaal thinks the "empty" tomb"
was a convenient, concrete way of
conveying the truth that a spiritual,
not physical being, Jesus of
Nazareth, was raised by the
spiritual power of God. Thus, the physical
body is of Jesus ends up "eaten
by worms" one way or the other. Or dust
to dust.... Even if, Star Trek
wise, Jesus was transported (beamed up)
to heaven without corruption
of his physical body it really is secondary to the
reality he is evermore alive
with God.
Akin continues:
Part of it is an anti-supernatural
bias. Jesus Seminar members admit
one of their starting assumptions
is that the gospels cannot contain any
accounts of genuine supernatural
phenomena. This means the Seminar has
made the unscientific assumption
that reality contains no layers other
than the visible one of matter
and energy and that there are no other
dimensions to the cosmos which
might interact with this one, dimensions
perhaps inhabited by souls or
angels or even God Himself.
QBaal says:
The whole world has now an anti-supernatural
bias. One reason, science
is the modern god, along with
money and, of course, power. The thesis
that God did miracles for Moses
and in the activity of Christ is
counterproductive for many folk.
For one thing, if God was so great at
dividing the sea and crunching
the Egyptians with 10 plagues, and if God
could heal the lame in blind
through Christ where's he been ever since.
We could have used that healing
power during the plagues of the middle
ages, the influenza epidemic
of 1918. And where was He in the Nazi
death camps of the 1940's?
So even for zealous Christians the whole
miracle, supernatural intervention
thing is problematic. Not to mention
the Bible's many errors of science
and history. In fact authorities
claim if the Bible is the word
of God he gets, with all its inconsistencies
and incoherence, a failing grade
in communication!
Akin continues:
Part of it is a desire
wrap oneself in a mantle of spirituality without
actually having to commit to
anything religious. On the Seminar's
thesis, Jesus is a poetic symbol,
an inspiring example, a tragically
misunderstood figure (something
like the radicals themselves, poor
things), someone that gives
you a warm feeling, and a warm feeling
only. They are after what British
scholar J. I. Packer aptly dubbed
"Hot-Tub Religion" -- a Christanity
with all of the pleasures and none
of the pains -- the theological
equivalent of Diet Coke.
QBaal: Hey, wait a moment,
I really resent the slur against Diet Coke.
Without it I'd be one big fat
blimp. The Jesus figure uncovered by the Seminar
is unconventional for his time.
An iconclast not an icon. Open to the
Roman and Greek wisdom of the
real world around. One who saw the
corruption and hypocricy of
the religious/political Jewish leaders. And said so.
Risked his reputation, and life,
by eating with sinners. One who talked a lot
about money and the almost universal
deification of the almighty dollar. Jesus
was not crucified for handing
out "Diet Coke." Thus, sayeth scripture and
so sayeth The Jesus Seminar.
But the most basic part
of the Seminar's motivation is a desire to
produce a Jesus who is less
threatening, one who does not claim to be
King of King and Lord of Lords,
who will not make claims on their
personal lives or (worse yet)
return one day in fiery judgment.
They re-make the Jesus
of the gospels in their own image. This has
always been the fate of those
who feel free to reject any inconvenient
elements of the gospel texts
when they write their Lives of Jesus.
Existentialists produce an existentialist
Jesus. Marxists produce a
Marxist Jesus. Politically correct
academicians, like those of the Jesus
Seminar, produce a politically
correct, toothless Jesus. As one scholar
put it earlier this century,
"By their 'Lives of Jesus' you shall know
them."
QBaal: It's is indeed difficult
to write a gospel that does not
reflect one's own biases and
limited, if not distorted, world view.
However, the Seminar's chief
contribution to Christian studies is to
show, indeed, Mark writes about
Mark's Jesus Matthew's Jesus, with a lot
of Hell references, indicates
the spiritual immaturity of Matthew and his
gross distortion of the person
of Jesus and the God he represents. Or
do you believe a ever-hell-spewing
Jesus is the cure for a toothless Jesus.
Maybe a Jesus who nukes
ten cities would have the necessary bite to
qualify as your Jesus?
Not really an academic question is it?
------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit QBaal's home page http://ajn11.homestead.com/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------