6. The Jesus Seminar and the Historical Jesus

With an incredible amount of media fanfare, the Jesus Seminar has radically challenged the Gospel accounts of Jesus at their very foundation. This group of 74 scholars from various seminaries and universities met over a period of six years in order to produce a translation (called the Scholar’s Version or SV) of the four canonical Gospels plus the Gospel of Thomas. After discussing more than 1500 purported sayings of Jesus, they cast their votes on each, judging the likelihood that the comment originated with Jesus. The degree of assurance was represented by coding the sayings texts in these five books with one of four colors. In the second phase of their work they are investigating the actions of Jesus, attempting to determine what Jesus actually did.

It is clear that the overall conclusions of the Jesus Seminar are rather radical, even among contemporary critical scholars. Neither are they shy about announcing their theological disposition. One indication of this is their reaction to the supernatural in general and the orthodox view of Jesus, in particular:

The Christ of creed and dogma . . . can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo’s telescope. The old deities and demons were swept from the skies by that remarkable glass. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo have dismantled the mythological abodes of the gods and Satan, and bequeathed us secular heavens.

It is an understatement to say that the Jesus Seminar downplays the supernatural, especially in the life of Jesus. This chapter is an attempt to investigate and critique what these and related scholars assert concerning select aspects of the life of the historical Jesus, concentrating on their response to his death, burial, and resurrection, in particular.

Jesus’ Miracles and Seminar Presuppositions

The Jesus Seminar describes itself as taking a centrist position in the recent discussions on the historical Jesus. They stand between both the skeptics who deny the presence of historical reports in the Gospels and the fundamentalists who accept the total contents of these books.

Yet, it becomes obvious that this group is more closely aligned on the side of the skeptics when we review their composite work. One initial indication is the above quotation that severely restricts the supernatural, if not rejecting it outright, in favor of a modern scientific outlook. As another example, the Seminar reports that “Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels were not actually spoken by him . . . .”

The attitude of the Jesus Seminar towards science and the supernatural is reminiscent of a famous comment made by Rudolf Bultmann decades ago: “It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles.”

Applying his conclusion to Jesus’ resurrection, Bultmann asks later: “But what of the resurrection? Is it not a mythical event pure and simple? Obviously it is not an event of past history . . . .”

Some members of the Jesus Seminar, following other more radical scholars, appear to echo views like those of Bultmann. Regarding Jesus’ miracles, Seminar Co-Founder John Dominic Crossan asserts that Jesus “did not and could not cure that disease or any other one . . . .”

He continues later: “I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time brings dead people back to life.”

Jarl Fossum comments on the same subject, including a derisive jab at conservatives: “Or it can be asserted that Jesus really did raise the girl from the dead — which would only reflect fundamentalist naivete.”

Like Bultmann, the Jesus Seminar extends this same sort of criticism to Jesus’ resurrection. They assert: “Whenever scholars detect detailed knowledge of postmortem events in sayings and parables attributed to Jesus, they are inclined to the view that the formulation of such sayings took place after the fact.”

But it appears from their work that they have more than a mere “inclination” to rule out any post-death details from Jesus’ life. In fact, they rule out every saying from the resurrection narratives. Later they provide insight into their thinking: “By definition, words ascribed to Jesus after his death are not subject to historical verification.”

1. A priori rejection of miracles

One characteristic of Bultmann’s rejection of the supernatural is that he failed to provide any actual reasons for his rejection; he simply assumed that such things do not happen. We have already seen in an earlier chapter how John Macquarrie, a leading commentator, specifically chides Bultmann for rejecting the resurrection due to “an entirely arbitrary dismissal . . . because of some prior assumption in his mind.” Macquarrie then adds that “Bultmann does not take the trouble to examine what evidence could be adduced to show that the resurrection was an objective-historical event. He assumes that it is a myth.”

Bultmann’s rejection of the resurrection really does appear to be arbitrary and a priori. He does not even think that we should be interested in the historical question at all.

Interestingly, the Jesus Seminar takes a similar route. We have already noted that they are honest enough to state at the outset their aversion to the supernatural, including the deity and resurrection of Jesus, preferring to think that the modern scientific worldview simply rules out such matters.

By way of explanation and justification, the Seminar scholars provide more than three dozen “rules of written evidence”

and often report that various sayings of Jesus are editorial summations. To be fair, we should not require that they always provide reasons for their comments. But the fact is they seldom attempt to provide reasons in order to justify their opinions. Rarely is there an attempt to verify their rules, except to say that certain things are accepted by scholars. Throughout, like Bultmann, their theological method is assumed and their conjectures can be thoughtfully challenged throughout. In short, we might say that these scholars exhibit a flare for the a priori.

For example, we are regularly told that since a certain passage fits the particular writer’s motif, this indicates that the saying was not uttered by Jesus.

But how do we know this to be the case? Does the presence of a certain theme require that it did not originate with Jesus? Does not the critical method itself indicate that the writer may have presented the message, perhaps in his own style and words, precisely because it was the teaching of Jesus? We are certainly not required to imitate the Seminar leap from authorial motif to the subsequent invention of the message!

2. Genetic fallacy

Another point of logic concerns the Seminar’s commission of the genetic fallacy, which occurs when one challenges the origin of an idea without actually addressing its facticity. In other words, if it is thought that merely attributing a Gospel report to the author’s style, or to other ancient parallels, or to a pre-modern mindset thereby explains it away, this is a logical mistake.

These charges do not preclude historicity.

However, it is noteworthy that the Seminar scholars are not unanimous in their dismissal of the supernatural. While Crossan rejects the existence of demons,

Bruce Chilton perceptively observes that although rejecting the existence of demons sounds attractively rational, “it would seem to reduce history to a priori notions of what is possible.”

Again, while Crossan asserts that Jesus never really healed a disease or raised the dead,

Marcus Borg is not quite so sure. Much more guardedly, Borg thinks that we do not know whether Jesus resuscitated some who were actually dead.

For our purposes, we will conclude at this point that it solves nothing to state one’s views to be correct, regardless how vociferously the claim is made. However helpful it may be to report the conclusions of other scholars, neither does this solve the issue unless one also provides reasons why their views are correct. Additionally, to reject rival positions in an a priori manner is likewise illegitimate. Both believers and unbelievers could respond this way, revealing why these detrimental attempts need to be avoided. Such approaches are inadequate precisely because they fail to address the data. There is no substitute for a careful investigation of the possibilities.

The Death and Burial of Jesus

We have argued that the Jesus Seminar fails to adequately evidence its claims concerning its rejection of the supernatural, such as the miracles of Jesus. Before turning to their treatment of Jesus’ resurrection, we will view the events that led to it.

Initially, it should be pointed out that the Seminar Fellows do not deny the death of Jesus. In keeping with the first phase of their research, they commented only on the words attributed to Jesus as he died on the cross.

Yet, no objections are raised concerning Jesus’ death by crucifixion and other member publications confirm the acceptance of at least the main outline of these events.

For example, Crossan affirms this event in the strongest terms: “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be,” and this event resulted in Jesus’ death.

In an earlier volume he states: “I take it absolutely for granted that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.” This is followed, interestingly enough, by reasons for this conclusion.

Borg agrees: “The most certain fact about the historical Jesus is his execution as a political rebel.”

But when it comes to Jesus’ burial, Crossan takes a rather peculiar approach. He surmises that, consistent with crucifixion customs, Jesus was either left on the cross after his death to be torn apart by wild beasts or buried in a shallow grave where dogs would still have found the body. Thus, Jesus was not buried in Joseph’s tomb and his body was most likely consumed by animals. In the end, he asserts that “by Easter Sunday morning, those who cared did not know where it was, and those who knew did not care. Why should even the soldiers themselves remember the death and disposal of a nobody?”

Critique

But Crossan’s approach is marred by numerous shortcomings. (1) All four Gospels agree on the basic burial scenario, which potentially provides even further confirmation if these texts are otherwise corroborated. (2) On the other hand, no early documents dispute these reports. One might ask Crossan for the specific data that support his thesis, especially from the first century. A challenge such as his cannot rest on a surmisal, or even on a generalized practice among Jews.

Also, (3) are we to believe that the Jewish leaders, who had tried for so long to get rid of Jesus, would have paid no attention to his burial? Moreover, (4) Crossan’s suggestion that the soldiers would merely have forgotten the location where they buried the body just a few days before is also preposterous. They should have remembered where they buried anyone. But contrary to Crossan’s contention that Jesus was a “nobody,” the interest occasioned by his preaching, his popularity, his trial, and his death would have insured both their work as well as their memory. After all, might they not be called upon later to evidence the death and burial of this famous insurrectionist?

Another major factor in favor of Jesus’ burial and the empty tomb is that (5) both are actually admitted by the Jewish polemic against the Christian message. The response of the Jewish leaders is not only recorded in Matthew 28:11-15, but we are told by both Justin Martyr

and Tertullian

that this continued to be the Jewish message at least through the second century. It would be incredible that this would be their report instead of what Crossan thinks is the more likely scenario, if the latter had, indeed, occurred. Why was not this simpler thesis employed?

Of course, some may think that the Jewish report of the empty tomb is simply an invention of the early Christians. But such an assertion is question begging; it merely assumes what has not been proven. Once again, we ask for the evidence for such claims.

Continuing, certain evidences for the empty tomb also argue for a specific burial for Jesus. (6) From a very early date, the pre-Markan passion account points to an empty tomb.

And if the story was created later, (7) why would women be cited as the initial witnesses, given the fact that they were not even allowed to give testimony in law courts? Such details argue for the traditional scenario.

Further, (8) Jesus’ burial is supported by confessional statements in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 and Acts 13:29.

These early, traditional reports confirm the ancient belief that he was buried in a tomb rather than in some unknown grave.

Lastly, (9) the apostles’ early proclamation of the resurrection message in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus died, was in direct opposition to the will of the Jewish leaders. This reality would have provided a catalyst to make sure that the burial details were known and that the grave was, in fact, empty.

In sum, the agreement of each of the Gospel texts, the lack of any early, contrary documentation, both the Jewish and Roman interest in Jesus’ death, the Jewish polemic admitting the empty tomb, the pre-Markan narrative, the witness of the women, the early confessional statements, and the Jerusalem preaching all argue strongly against Crossan’s challenge to the traditional burial of Jesus.

His allegation that absolutely no one either witnessed the burial by the soldiers or otherwise remembered it is simply unconvincing. Nothing even approaching strong evidence favors his hypothesis.

The Resurrection of Jesus

The Jesus Seminar fails to provide adequate evidence for either its general response to the supernatural or its particular skepticism towards the resurrection. But perhaps separate Seminar scholars offer a more careful response. Do we find additional critical approaches to this event? We will examine comments from Crossan and Borg in order to ascertain their thoughts on this subject.

John Dominic Crossan

Crossan probably spends the most time on this issue and does present a rather novel approach. He holds that the accounts of both Jesus’ nature miracles and his resurrection appearances are not concerned with miraculous acts, but with authority structures in the early church. Taking Paul’s famous account in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, Crossan notes “that there are three types of recipients” of Jesus’ “apparitions or revelations” consisting of: “three specific leaders,” Peter, James, and Paul; “two leadership groups”: the twelve and the apostles; and “one single general community” represented by the five hundred.

Concerning these “three types of recipients,” Crossan then makes two proposals. First, the post-resurrection phenomena are not about Jesus’ appearances, but are “quite deliberate political dramatizations” showing the priority of one leader over another, or one group over the community as a whole. Second, the nature miracles (of which the resurrection is the greatest) likewise “serve the same function” and describe not Jesus’ power but the “apostles’ spiritual power over the community.”

Thus, Crossan interprets both the nature miracles and the resurrection narratives not as being indicative of any supernatural occurrences, but as a socio-political commentary on the early church leadership. The chief leaders held authority over the main groups, in turn directing the church community as a whole. These miracle texts, then, serve the purpose of being a powerful facilitator in establishing and maintaining the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

So what does all of this mean concerning the resurrection of Jesus? Crossan thinks that the New Testament accounts are not primarily concerned with the facticity of the appearances, but rather with “power and authority in the earliest Christian communities. That is what they were intended to be, and that is how we should read them.”

In this sense, then, we ought not be inquiring about the miraculous element, and doing so is to trivialize the message. These accounts “tell us nothing whatsoever about the origins of Christian faith but quite a lot about the origins of Christian authority.”

Does this say anything about the facticity of the resurrection appearances? Even if recording the miraculous element is not the chief point of the New Testament narratives, Crossan is careful not to infer that the appearances never really happened. In fact, in speaking about Easter he expressly affirms: “Of course there may have been trances and visions.” Then he adds that these sorts of things happen “in every religion” and so we should not be surprised.

1. Inadequate basis

When considering Crossan’s hypothesis, several critiques immediately come to mind. First, and in spite of some interesting contentions, Crossan has not established his sociopolitical schema as a central theme in the early church. Interpreting references in light of a secondary construction is far from proving it to be the original intent of the authors. His account remains an unverified hypothesis.

2. The resurrection and early church authority

Second, even if his theme of power, authority, and leader-ship is important to some extent,

his de-emphasis of the facticity of Jesus’ resurrection simply does not follow. For Paul, it was not merely receiving “revelation from Christ”

that even made one an apostle in the first place, but specifically having seen the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8).

In fact, without this event, what is the basis of the claim to authority on behalf of the other two leaders specified by Crossan, namely Peter and James? In both of these cases, as well, the resurrection provided the rationale for their authority. It might be said that Peter’s influence came at least in part from Jesus’ appearance reported in the extremely early tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:5, and confirmed by another ancient confession in Luke 24:34. Numerous scholars have agreed, noting the link between Jesus’ appearance and Peter’s authority.

But to say, as Crossan does, that the authority structure was the chief point of these narratives, with “nothing whatsoever”

being learned about Jesus’ appearances and origin of the church is certainly mistaken. As Joachim Jeremias asserts, the “decisive event” here is that “the Lord appears to Peter.”

While Reginald Fuller also characterizes the appearances as hierarchical in the early church mission, agreeing to some extent with Crossan, he still insists on definable appearances.

The same is also true of James, in that the Lord likewise appeared to him (1 Cor. 15:7). Fuller concludes rather strikingly that even if the appearance to James was not recorded in the pages of the New Testament, “we should have to invent one in order to account for his post-resurrection conversion and rapid advance.”

Thus, the texts insist and most scholars agree that it is unjustified to separate the appearances from the early church power structure.

3. Centrality of resurrection

Third, while the truth of the resurrection may precede and determine church authority, to attempt to circumscribe it almost totally within this latter, narrow parameter is certainly misplaced. In other words, the resurrection is absolutely central to the New Testament as a whole. It is related to far more than just socio-political factors in the early church, but this does not justify making any one of these other themes the chief focus, either.

Even a summary listing could take a separate chapter. For example, the resurrection is a sign for unbelievers (Matt. 12:38-40; 16:1-4) as well as a comfort for believers (John 11:23-26; Luke 24:36-39). It was an indispensable part of the gospel (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 15:1-5) and the heart of early preaching (Acts 4:2; 4:33). It was the impetus for evangelism (Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:45-48) and the chief message in Paul’s church planting methods (Acts 17:1-4).

Continuing, it provided daily power for the believer (Phil. 3:10; Rom. 8:11) and was the grounds for total commitment (1 Cor. 15:58). Believers would be raised like Jesus (1 John 3:2; Phil. 3:21) and the resurrection guarantees the reality of heaven (1 Pet. 1:3-5). And as we saw earlier in Paul, Acts also insists that one could not even be an apostle without having been a witness to this event (1:21-22).

An additional evidence for the resurrection and an especially powerful pointer to its centrality that is generally ignored by members of the Jesus Seminar is the presence of early creedal traditions in the preaching of Acts. Yet there is strong evidence that the (especially Petrine) sermons record reliable accounts of the early messages on the death and resurrection of Jesus, including his appearances. Dodd also argues that these confessions are perhaps as early as Paul’s creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff.

4. Resurrection facts

Fourth, we still must deal with the data itself. Crossan admits that we have Paul’s testimony concerning his personal experience, and that his report dates very early.

Then he concludes that “trances and visions” probably did occur, singling out Paul’s experience as the chief example.

While this is not the place to argue for the historicity of these events, or their being caused by the risen Jesus,

we will simply note here that Crossan apparently does not intend to deny the reality of these experiences. Neither has he chosen to argue a naturalistic hypothesis. As such, they have to be adequately explained. And as we have argued, it is insufficient to attempt to pass them off as mere indications of early church power structures.

5. Other religious phenomena

Fifth, while Crossan does not deny the disciples’ experiences, he further downplays their uniqueness by his remark that “trances or visions” are found in “every religion.”

Such a comparison is intriguing, since Crossan states earlier that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ appearances are not “entranced revelations.” He declares that they “bear no marks of such phenomena.”

Regardless, whether such curiosities are taught in other belief systems is not the issue. Anyone can make claims. The real question is whether they can be demonstrated. I have argued elsewhere that such non-Christian claims are poorly evidenced.

If this is the case, they merely number among the myriads of unproven religious assertions. As such, they are not rivals to Jesus’ resurrection.

In sum, Crossan fails to adequately explain or dismiss the resurrection of Jesus. His socio-political interpretation is unproven. Additionally, he fails to realize that even if his thesis is accurate, not only is it still an inadequate basis for his de-emphasis of the facticity of Jesus’ resurrection, but his theme actually requires this event. Further, the resurrection is central not only to the early Christian authority structures, but to the New Testament as a whole. Yet this event cannot be reduced to any of these themes. Additionally, not only does Crossan admit the possibility of “visions,” but his attempt to eliminate their uniqueness by noting the presence of such occurrences in other religions also fails.

Marcus Borg

On this topic also, Borg takes a more moderate approach than does Crossan, addressing the resurrection appearances of Jesus at more length, as well. Borg thinks that, while “the story of the historical Jesus ends with his death on a Friday in A.D. 30, the story of Jesus does not end there.” According to Jesus’ followers, “he appeared to them in a new way beginning on Easter Sunday.”

However, “[w]e cannot know exactly what happened. According to the earliest accounts of Easter reported by his followers, Jesus ‘appeared to them’” but “[w]e do not know what form those appearances took” since they are sometimes described as visionary and other times as corporeal. Did anything happen to Jesus’ body? Borg states that, in historical terms, “we cannot say,” maintaining that Jesus’ resurrection was not a reanimation of his corpse but that “Jesus’ followers continued to experience him as a living reality . . . .”

Presumably, Borg thinks that the truth lies somewhere in between these two positions.

In a more recent article that attempts to answer this question, Borg adds a few items. He continues to take seriously the claims that Jesus appeared, largely because such is the testimony of Paul, whom he considers the earliest New Testament author, the only eyewitness writer we have, and because this was the central event for him. Thus we must make sense of these occurrences. Yet, these are not “straightforward events” and could not have been photographed. Again, they signify the continuing presence of Jesus in “the lives of Christians as both companion and lord.”

We will look briefly at Borg’s proposal by responding to his own question concerning the nature of Jesus’ appearances. Although it is a crucially important issue, we will not be able to argue here the actual nature of these appearances,

since we are more interested at this point in their facticity. But obviously, these scholars struggle with the bodily nature of the appearances.

Critique

Borg accepts the historicity of a number of facts that, together, indicate that Jesus actually appeared to his followers after his resurrection. This is the case even if we were to examine only Paul’s testimony, which is what Borg prefers. Borg is clear that Jesus really died and his followers reported that he had appeared to them afterwards. Paul was an early eyewitness to these occurrences. As a result, his life (as well as that of the other followers) was changed by what became his central message. They were convinced both that Jesus was alive and that he was their Lord.

As we have said, Borg does not define or identify the nature of these appearances. Some of his language implies that he doubts their objective nature, especially when he seems to say that they are almost synonymous with the Christian conviction that Jesus is spiritually present with his followers. But on the other hand, he admits the crucial data for the early, eyewitness testimony to the appearances and seems to remain open to some unspecified type of manifestations.

It would seem that Borg has painted himself into a corner here. He realizes that the earliest, eyewitness data dictate, among other details, that Jesus appeared to Paul and many others after his death. Yet, he does not venture an alternative hypothesis such as hallucinations or other subjective conjectures. At any rate, such theses fail anyway.

So the chief question is this: how does Borg account for these admittedly real experiences, particularly when they happened to groups of people?

In short, even the minimal amount of information supplied by Borg argues for objective appearances, while contrary suppositions are disproven. This conclusion is further reinforced by both the early, apostolic preaching in Acts, as well as the Gospel narratives.

Summary and Conclusion

The Jesus Seminar has made no secret about its contention that the orthodox conception of Jesus is outdated and ought to be rejected. Thus, supernatural events such as the Gospel reports of Jesus’ miracles must at least be seriously questioned, and more likely repudiated.

Yet, seldom are any reasons given for such a stance. Mere theological assertion seems to be the order of the day. Appeals to peer pressure (in the name of the current state of modern scholarship) serve as the impetus and those who dare to disagree are sometimes painted as hopelessly backward. Nevertheless, it is certainly insufficient to simply state one’s view or claim a critical consensus without adequate evidence.

Even worse, informal logical fallacies abound in statements by the Jesus Seminar. Comments about the “secular heavens” start to sound less like reasoned responses and more like a priori preaching. The lack of careful argumentation begs the question on behalf of the assertions that are made. Rejections of Gospel texts based on author’s styles, ancient parallels, and a pre-modern temperament commit the genetic fallacy. Interestingly enough, some Seminar Fellows appear to recognize such dangers.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a minority acknowledgment.

The Jesus Seminar apparently offers no challenges to the basic fact of Jesus’ death. But there are many reasons why Crossan’s doubts concerning the traditional burial of Jesus cannot be substantiated. His surmisals are confronted by almost a dozen items of data.

When discussing the resurrection of Jesus, we have attempted to isolate a single issue: whether Jesus actually appeared to his followers. Both Crossan and Borg might prefer to question the New Testament texts, satisfied with what they think we cannot know. But we insisted that, when attempting to ascertain the truth of what happened after the death of Jesus, such is an insufficient approach. Rather than be satisfied with this negative tack, we maintain that the minimal amount of historical data is still sufficient to establish the literal nature of Jesus’ appearances, whatever their actual form. These two scholars seem not to realize that their own writings establish a sufficient basis to confirm this truth.

Both Crossan and Borg admit at least the possibility of Jesus’ appearances, with Borg being more open to them. Further, neither scholar attempts to explain away the core factual data by employing naturalistic, alternative hypotheses. The early, eyewitness data supplied by Paul and admitted by both Crossan and Borg are sufficient to show that Jesus did, indeed, appear to his followers after his death. Additional details concerning the other witnesses drawn from Paul’s data, the Acts traditions, or even the Gospels, serve to greatly strengthen this conclusion.

Although the Jesus Seminar has received much attention from its treatment of the historical Jesus, their conclusions must be apportioned to the data. As a result, their basic rejection of the supernatural events in Jesus’ life is unwarranted.