Discussions about Jesus, these days, inevitably bring about the following words: “The latest consensus of scholarship is that Jesus Christ did not in fact rise from the dead. Neither did he make any special claims to be God incarnate or to even be the Messiah at all.”
I just completed two articles on my blog, showing from the scripture that Jesus made both of those claims. Today, I’d like to briefly mention one of the more recent and popular sources for the erroneous accusation above, The Jesus Seminar. Sponsored by the Westar Institute, The Jesus Seminar was made up of 70 some scholars who “demythologized” the gospels.
Contrary to popular opinion, this was not a collection of historians and archaeologists. Most of these men either graduated from or taught at a liberal seminary. In short, this was (for the most part) a group of theologians and clergymen. One can get a PhD from a seminary just as they can get one from a university. I mean no disrespect. I am a seminary graduate myself but let’s be clear: There is a difference between pure historians/archaeologists and representatives of a liberal seminary with a distinct view toward the Bible (ironically a distinctly negative view toward the Bible as opposed to the positive view taught at a conservative seminary).
There were originally some 200 participants of the Jesus Seminar. Most of them left due to concerns about the methods being used. The Jesus Seminar shamelessly admits that one of their presuppositions was a naturalistic view of the universe. Since they were looking for “the truth” and since they had decided beforehand that the supernatural is impossible, we can guess that any account of miracles in the text was in grave danger of rejection.
Now then, how did these scholars conclude that Jesus did not in fact rise from the dead? Hold on to your seat: They took a vote. That’s right. They took a vote. I was just shaking the night the election returns came in.
But miracles were not their only concern. Marcus Borg, one of the leaders said he refused to believe in a God who claims He’s “the only way of salvation.” Therefore, whenever Jesus did claim to be the only way (John 10:10) Borg assumed that Jesus could not possibly have made the remark and that such words must have been some Christian interpolation.
Is this intellectual honesty or is this is a joke? Nobody is making Borg or anyone else believe in Jesus or even like Jesus. If you disagree that Jesus is the only way, fine. But have the academic honesty to say, “Jesus and I are in conflict.” Don’t go pulling words away from Jesus, simply because you don’t like what He says.
Conclusion: Hearing that “scholars say this” or “scholars teach that” is not enough. Who were these scholars? What were the reasons behind their conclusions? Were their reasons valid? What facts did they use to back up their positions? Are they the only scholars on the subject? What about the scholars who disagree?”
This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: It is difficult to write articles without painting with a broad brush. Not everyone at the Jesus Seminar had the same opinion and some were more scholarly than others. One of my good friends, Dr. Robert Price, attended the seminar, coming to a completely different conclusion than most of the others. Price does not believe Jesus even lived at all. Now, mind you, I do not agree with my friend, but I do find him to be scholarly and consistent in his approach. In fact, I actually wrote a positive review of his book because I am a believer in allowing people to hear both sides. In short, my opinion of the Jesus Seminar in general is not intended as a reflection on every individual who participated.
Share this on
