Science et Esprit, 54/3 (2002) 313-335

THE JESUS SEMINAR, ITS METHODOLOGY

AND PHILOSOPHY:
A Challenge to Catholic Biblical Theology

M A X BONILLA

Introduction

As controversial as the quest for the historical Jesus has been, never before has it
reached the level of dispute or the broad public arena that it now has thanks in
large part to the various publications by the Jesus Seminar and its members.1
Created precisely for the purpose of conveying to the general public the results
of scholarly research on the topic of the historical Jesus, the Jesus Seminar has
achieved unprecedented media coverage.2 Subject to wide criticism, however,
the work of the Seminar has generated a great deal of confusion among the
public regarding what can be known about the historical Jesus.3
The purpose of this paper is to offer an analysis of the methodology of the
Jesus Seminar, to provide a critique ofthat methodology, to offer a discussion of
some underlining principles, and to discuss some of the challenges their work
bring to Catholic biblical theology.
The first part of this paper will deal with the Seminar's methodology. It will
seek to describe it, a task not always easy to accomplish due to the Seminar's
ephemeral nature, and it will try to provide a critical assessment of some of the
major points. The second part will discuss the underlining principles that govern
the work of the Seminar. These have to do with their approach to faith and the-
ology both from the general perspective of the broader quest for the historical
Jesus, and more specifically from the narrower perspective of the Seminar's

1. While they are not single-handedly responsible for the interest generated in recent times in
the area of the Historical Jesus, the Jesus Seminar is clearly responsible directly or indirectly for a
large portion of it. For a fairly extensive bibliography that traces the development of Historical
Jesus research up to the present, see JOHNSON, The Jesus Controversy, p. 48-50.
2. They have been featured prominently in recent articles by Time Magazine, U.S. News and
World Report, Newsweek, etc., and in various TV specials such as the one hosted by Peter Jennings
for ABC in the Spring of 2000.
3. This has in turn generated debates and heated criticisms. Recent examples of the former
include COPAN, The Real Jesus; and CROSSAN, JOHNSON, and KELBER, The Jesus Controversy.
Examples of the latter include Johnson, The Real Jesus.
314 M. BONILLA

approach. The third and last part of this article will consider challenges to
biblical theology brought out by the Seminar's work by addressing the role of
context in historical Jesus research, an approach that seeks to provide a richer
foundation for evaluating the historical evidence present in the gospels.
Without covering the entire history of the quest for the historical Jesus, it
will suffice to make note that the Seminar sees itself as the heir, and in a way, the
climax to a long tradition of researchers seeking the "true" Jesus, the one that
can be verified by history. Opinions on what Jesus said have varied greatly both
among scholars and between eras. They range from the more pious to the less
than edifying. Alfred Plummer's 1922 opinion on the historicity of the parable
of the Good Samaritan is perhaps one of the more pious:
We may believe that the narrative is not fiction, but history. Jesus would not be
likely to invent such behaviour, and attribute it to priest, Lévite, and Samaritan, if it
had not actually occurred. Nowhere else does He speak against priests and Lévites.
Moreover, the parable would have far more point if taken from real life.4
Such argument would have been perhaps acceptable to the sensibilities of
the 1920's and 30's. Today, however, a more rigorous methodological approach
is required to argue for or against the historicity of a particular text. N. Perrin in
the 1970's sought to clarify such methodology by presenting a version of the
criterion of multiple attestation.
The Jesus Seminar has also sought, through its various scholars, to clarify a
methodology that would allow the clear determination of the historicity of the
biblical text. This determination and methodology has touched off a great deal
of controversy particularly because the Seminar does not in any remote way seek
to resemble the pious views of people like A. Plummer. On the contrary, a num-
ber of the Seminar's members have made it a point to quote the now famous
description of the eschatological Jesus by Albert Schweitzer:
The Baptist appears and cries: "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."
Soon after that comes Jesus, and in the knowledge that He is the coming Son of Man
lays hold of the wheel of the world to set it moving on that last revolution which is
to bring all ordinary history to a close. It refuses to turn, and He throws Himself
upon it. Then it does turn; and crushes Him. Instead of bringing in the
eschatological conditions, He has destroyed them. The wheel rolls onward, and the
mangled body of the one immeasurably great Man, who was strong enough to think
of Himself as the spiritual ruler of mankind and to bend history to His purpose, is
hanging upon it still. That is His victory and His reign.5
A secular view of Jesus, one that is almost completely devoid of the super-
natural has taken hold of the work of the Jesus Seminar. Most of the members
share the view of people like John Dominic Crossan, or Burton Mack, both of

4. PLUMMER, Luke, p. 285-286.

5. SCHWEITZER, The Quest, p. 370-371. See for example, Meyer, Thomas, p. 16.
 THE JESUS SEMINAR 315

whom see Jesus as nothing more than an itinerant Cynic teacher.6 They under-
stand Jesus as one who believed in a limited eschatology and who proclaimed
what resembles a secular, communist-like end of authoritarian society. When
that end failed to materialize and when, worse yet, Jesus was assassinated, his
followers made up a full eschatological theology in order to substitute for this
tragic end to their dream and to salvage its views.
From 1985 to 1992 the Jesus Seminar examined the words of Jesus.7 From
1993 to 1998 it deliberated on the acts of Jesus.8 Beginning at the end of 2000,
the Seminar began what Robert Funk, its founder, described as a long process,
lasting perhaps ten years, in which the Seminar will ask what the quest for the
historical Jesus has taught regarding God.9

Part I. Methodological Analysis

As noted in the introduction, the Jesus Seminar has a number of methodologi-
cal issues that deserve discussion. Some of those issues have serious problems.
This section will treat the majority and the most important of those problems.
Before doing so, an important distinction should be made. The Jesus Seminar
has sought to define itself as both scholarly and popular. By scholarly they claim
to be a group of scholars representing a consensus of the most serious and
broadest range of scholarly views on the subject of the historical Jesus.10 By
popular they aim to present their findings to the educated lay public, not prin-
cipally to their peers. This section aims its critique at the former characteristic,
its scholarly approach. This is, however, not intended to mean that the attempt
of the Jesus Seminar to appeal to public opinion does not deserve attention.11

6. See MACK, Lost Gospel, p. 69, and Crossan, Historical Jesus. The first part of Crossan's book
is dedicated to a anthropological study of Jesus that concludes with a view of Jesus as a itinerant
Cynic leader.
7. See FUNK, HOOVER, and SEMINAR, Five Gospels.
8. See FUNK, The Acts of Jesus.
9. FUNK, On the Road.
10. See for example the introduction to FUNK, HOOVER, and SEMINAR, Five Gospels.
11. Often the criticism is leveled against the Seminar that its members would raise issues in
the popular media against traditional views of the Gospels but when challenged by scholars
outside the Seminar they do not respond. To that end, it would seem that a number of works have
been published to counter that view, such as COPAN, The Real Jesus, or Crossan, Johnson, and
KELBER, The Jesus Controversy, which, as in the case of Copan's book, are structured around a
debate format. But as one can see by reading books such as Copan's, the members of the debate, for
one reason or another, will frequently speak past each other, often not addressing the issues
directly. Many find that problematic, particularly as the medium where many of the issues are
raised is prone to leave readers confused about the scholarly intricacies that are often at stake. See
also WILDMAN, Pinning Down the Crisis and Borg, Jesus and the Revisioning of Theology.
316 M. BONILLA

Voting System

They use a color coding method, and assign a different color to each text
depending on its deemed authenticity of Jesus' words: red means a text is con-
sidered authentic, or nearly so; pink means most likely authentic; gray means
probably authentic; and black means almost certainly not authentic. While the
Jesus Seminar claims that their color coding method is similar to the voting
method of translation committees,12 most notably the United Bible Societies
(UBS), one should note that the purpose of the each vote is radically different.
The UBS seeks to determine the original text, not ever, the original saying of
Jesus as it came out of his lips, as does the Jesus Seminar. Furthermore the pro-
cess of voting by the UBS is not carried out in the same fashion as that by the
Jesus Seminar. The issues are recognized by the UBS to be so complex that appro-
priate notes are provided in an extensive critical apparatus. The Jesus Seminar by
their color coding and virtual absence of notes gives almost a definite stance on
the authenticity of a given saying.13 As Ben Witherington says regarding the
color coding,14 it is overly simplistic and misleading to label a text gray when a
significant portion of voters believed the text to be red or pink. Statistics alone
are not enough to properly inform the public.
The more traditional, if admittedly slower, system of information through
scholarly journals and traditional education would at least provide certain im-
portant safeguards against the possibilities of misinformation. Regardless of the
approach chosen to inform the public, the information provided to that public
must be based on sound methodological principles. The following pages pro-
vide the methodological bases chosen for the Seminar's work and critiques them
where it seems necessary.

Consensus

The nature of the Seminar is very fragmented because the Seminar seeks by defi-
nition to represent the consensus of the scholarly community. However, as it is
well known, the results of the Seminar are neither a consensus of the scholarly
community, nor—more surprisingly—a true representation of the opinion of
the Seminar. They are essentially instead a report on the collection of data on
various opinions derived by a simple method of voting and calculated through a
complex statistical process. The results are a distorted view of Jesus that truly
represents no one scholar's opinion about who Jesus is. To seek to exclusively
understand the method of the Seminar as a whole, without trying to understand
individual scholars, would then mean to go no further than the few methodologi-

12. E.g., CROSSAN and WATTS, Who is Jesus?, p. xi.

13. As Crossan says about the Seminar, "What has brought us a lot of public attention is that
we not only discuss, we decide" CROSSAN and WATTS, Who is Jesus?, p. xi, emphasis his.
14. WITHERINGTON, p. 45-46.
 T H E JESUS SEMINAR 317

cal rules of evidence given without concrete discussion by the founder of the
Seminar, Robert Funk.15
The rules provide an overview of the Seminar's approach without detailed
reasoning and argumentation supporting the rationale or usefulness of each
rule. Thus in this paper, as in virtually all the literature that seeks to evaluate the
Jesus Seminar, one must take a look at the work of some of the most prominent
Jesus Seminar scholars. In particular one must look at the work of John
Dominic Crossan, who has spearheaded the intellectual work of the Seminar.
Consequently, this study deals in part with the methodology of the Seminar's de
facto intellectual leader.
One of the most exhaustive accounts of J.D. Crossan's methodology is found
in his book, The Historical Jesus.16 His methodology consists in a process of three
steps or triads, each consisting in turn of three different levels or phases. This
methodology is what Crossan calls, "the campaign, the strategy, and the tactics."17
The first step or triad "involves the reciprocal interplay of a macrocosmic
level [phase one] using cross-cultural and cross-temporal social anthropology
[phase two], a mesocosmic level using the literature of specific sayings and doings,
stories and anecdotes, confessions and interpretations concerning Jesus [phase
three]."18 The first part of Crossane method applies his studies of general socio-
logy and history to the particular person of Jesus. Having done that, he then
analyzes in the second step or triad the biblical and extra-biblical evidence to
evaluate its reliability: "My method's second triad focuses specifically on the
textual problem derived from the very nature of the Jesus tradition itself."19 That
is to say, the first phase of the second triad concentrates on the problem of vari-
ous strata, witnesses, and currents in the literary corpora of Jesus material. He
creates a complex, almost impressive inventory of all the sources available on
Jesus. As it will be noted later on, this phase is much too eagerly adopted without
proper analysis of the validity of early sources. The second phase of the second
triad is stratification, where each source is separated according to Crossan's
chronology, and as it will be explained when discussing Q and the Gospel of
Thomas, his dating does not necessarily correspond with, or recognize, the evi-
dence of the generally accepted scholarly opinion. The third phase in the second
triad is attestation,20 where Crossan puts together the inventory and the stratifica-
tion by presenting the data according to his chronology and multiple attestation.
In this way he seeks to separate the independent sources from the dependent ones.
The final step or triad deals with the manipulation of the information
gathered, giving emphasis to what he calls the first stratum, that is, the oldest

15. See FUNK, Gospel of Mark, p. 29-52.

16. CROSSAN, Historical Jesus, p. xxviii.
17. Ibid., p. xxviii-xxix.
18. Ibid., p. xxviii-xxix.
19. Ibid., p. xxxi.
20. Ibid., p. xxxi.
318 M. B O N I L L A

independent sources which are chronologically closest to the time of Jesus. This
is the first phase. He adds a caveat: "Chronologically most close does not, of
course, mean historically most accurate."21 To assure historical accuracy, Crossan
will create a hierarchy of attestation. This is the second phase of the final triad.
It begins with the first stratum and concentrates on complexes of texts having
the highest count of independent attestation, as being the ones worthy of most
serious consideration.
And although in abstract theory there could be just as much development and cre-
ation in thatfirststratum as in any of the other three, my method postulates that, at
least for the first stratum, everything is original until it is argued otherwise.22
This argumentation against originality, as we will see, is done primarily from
a socio-anthropological perspective. The final phase of the final triad is the
bracketing of singularity. With this Crossan will avoid dealing with any text at-
tested only once. Multiple attestation is for Crossan, as it was for others before
him, a guarantor of objectivity:
Something found in at least two independent sources from the primary stratum
cannot have been created by either of them. Something found there but only in a
single attestation could have been created by the source itself. Plural attestation in
the first stratum pushes the trajectory back as far back as it can go with at least for-
mal objectivity.23

Sociological Analysis

Typical of the Jesus Seminar is to describe Jesus and his mission as purely a
sociological phenomenon. That includes projecting him as something of a social
reformer and a magician. As it will be explored in this section, it also includes
the denial of his individuality in favor of a revolutionary construct where
eschatology has a role only as imminent present. This section studies the socio-
logical elements that bring the Jesus Seminar to such conclusions about Jesus.
For Crossan Jewish life in the first century must be understood from a socio-
anthropological stand point. Those were generally turbulent times, in the first
half of the first century. Thus apocalyptic literature, such as the apocalypse of
Enoch (1 Enoch), Psalms of Solomon 17-18, Daniel 7, etc., found a home
among the people of this time.24 The rising awareness of messianic hopes or of
a Jewish king had understandably very strong social reasons at a time of political

21. Ibid., p. xxii.

22. Ibid., p. xxxii.
23. Ibid., p. xxxii-xxxiii. As it will be seen with the parable of the Good Samaritan, according
to this principle, endorsed also by the Jesus Seminar, the Good Samaritan should be rejected as an
original text. It is accepted, though, by the Seminar and by Crossan, though in the methodology
under discussion he is forced to ignore the parable, even if he affirms to accept the conclusions he
had in the past espoused about the authenticity of the parable.
24. CROSSAN, Historical Jesus, p. 105.
 T H E JESUS SEMINAR 319

persecution by a foreign power. For Crossan, Jesus' claims—or those attributed

to him by his followers—are unquestionably reduced to socio-political state-
ments precisely because those were difficult times. As Crossan mentions, Jesus is
not the first one to make such claims. He notes Judas in Galilee, Simon in Perea,
and Athronges in Judea, along with the leaders in the 77-73 war who claimed
messianic titles: Menahem son of Judas the Galilean and Simon son of Gioras.
Just like them, it is clear to Crossan that Jesus must have claimed to be a Jewish
king because of the political situation.25 Crossan bases most of his work on the
sociology of Palestine on the work by Richard Horsley and tells us that these
people, just like Jesus, took their identity from David's kingship.26 Crossan's view
is fully a political one: Jesus seeks to free the oppressed peoples of Palestine, not
from their sins but from their political rulers. Anticipating his critics Crossan
asks,
Is all of this simply projecting a contemporary democratic idealism anachronistic-
ally back onto the performance of the historical Jesus? I emphasize most strongly...
that such egalitarianism stems not only from peasant Judaism but, even more
deeply, from peasant society as such.27
In fact Crossan does not impose a modern democratic and revolutionary
ideal onto Jesus; what he does is impose a socio-cultural conclusion of peasant
society onto Jesus. This eventually leads him to declare, for example, that divorce
and adultery must be seen in the Gospels as against androcentric views, against
the patriarchal, domineering society that oppresses women, the poor, and the
marginalized.28
Essentially what we see in Crossan is a deductive process based on the some-
what modern trend of using sociological studies to reach conclusions about
Jesus and his followers.29 Yet, to many contemporary authors, the deduction pro-
cess that Crossan uses is suspect, at best. In a simplified form we could express it
in the form of a syllogism: All Palestinian leaders were revolutionaries. Jesus was
a Palestinian leader. Therefore, Jesus was a revolutionary. Crossan assumes that
since Palestine was a subjugated land, and since most leaders who arise from a
subjugated land promote either the status quo for their own profit or rebellion
against the occupying power, then Jesus as a leader in Palestine must have done
the same thing. He was a rebel against the occupying power. Added to that is the
fact that he sees Jesus not as a violent person but as a type of pacifist of the first

25. Ibid., pp. 198-201.

26. HORSLEY, Popular, p. 488; CROSSAN, Historical Jesus, p. 203-204.
27. CROSSAN, Historical Jesus, p. 263.
28. CROSSAN, Historical Jesus, p. 301-302.
29. For examples of sociological based studies, see D E KLERK and SCHNELL, A New Look;
Holmberg, Sociology; Kee, Knowing the Truth; MALINA, The New Testament World; MALINA, Chris-
tian Origins; MALINA and ROHRBAUGH, Social-Science Commentary; STEGEMANN and STEGEMANN,
The Jesus Movement; Theissen, Sociology; THEISSEN, The Gospels; TIDBALL, Introduction; VAN ECK,
Galilee and Jerusalem. See also KECK, Who is Jesus?.
320 M. BONILLA

century, or as he puts it, a hippie.30 According to the picture painted by Crossan,

Jesus would probably fit well among radical liberation theologians.
Consequently, Crossan's translations, he says, are by necessity free, for they
translate the core, or original matrix found in the different attestations, always
keeping in mind that the justification for his reconstructed matrix is
the overall understanding of Jesus as a Mediterranean Jewish peasant speaking to
other peasants in the dangerous location of an occupied country, in the volatile situ-
ation of increasing subjugation, and in the explosive circumstances of an economy
booming for the urban upper classes through increasing indebtedness, land expro-
priation, and destitution on the part of the rural lower classes.31
Statements such as this one makes one wonder about the academic integrity
that re-writing a text implies when one is seeking to establish that given text as
evidence for one's socio-anthropological conclusions.
In any case, Crossan sees four strands merging: 1. The revolutionist (from
Bryan Wilson's sevenfold anthropological and cross-cultural typology of protest
movements among colonial peoples)32; 2. Tension between the "yuppies and the
hippies" of the first century; 3. Palestinian peasantry was in a state of turmoil
before, during and after Jesus' time; and 4. Jesus invokes the kingdom of God
not as imminent future but as immediate present.33 Crossan then concludes that
if Jesus was a revolutionary teacher then he had to teach by means of short,
shocking statements of the type a Cynic teacher would use. Like Crossan, the
Jesus Seminar will use this view to eliminate from the gospels most sayings that
are more than a few words long, (e.g., the discourses in John). Moreover, the
sociological approach to the historical research on Jesus is also used by Crossan
and many of the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar to deny or (rather like Crossan
does in most of his books) ignore the issue of the resurrection of Jesus.34 For
Crossan, Jesus preached an imminent present. The concept of Jesus' divinity is
largely ignored and his non-resurrection a foregone conclusion (when understood
as a physical resurrection).
One of the major problems with the approach of Crossan and the Jesus
Seminar to the issue of the historical Jesus is that it excludes too much from
Jesus and accepts too much from sociology. A crucial problem with Crossan's
revolutionary Jesus is the logical leap taken by the argument. It is one thing to
say that times were turbulent and an altogether different thing to argue that
Jesus was a revolutionary. This is in essence what Crossan does. Without any
convincing arguments, after a long and detailed overview of the socio-political

30. CROSSAN, Historical Jesus, p. 303.

31. Ibid., p. 23.
32. WILSON, Magic.
33. CROSSAN, Historical Jesus, p. 303-304.
34. We will discuss below (p. 19) some of the implications of Crossan's and the Seminar's
work on the traditional view of the resurrection based on their more recent affirmations of their
belief in that resurrection as a non-physical event.
 THE JESUS SEMINAR 321

situation in Palestine, and after creating a hypothetical personality of a revolu-

tionary leader of the time based on scant evidence, Crossan applies his results to
Jesus. Though tempting, one cannot assume that a leader in a given time and
place will always represent the political will of the underdog. To do so requires
one to move backwards beginning with a study of biography and then connect-
ing what one knows of society to the person one has now discovered. Even so,
the picture would remain inconclusive. The uniqueness of the person being
studied cannot be ignored. One discovers nothing when one forces a socio-
cultural image onto a person, if at the same time one ignores what one already
knows of that person just because it contradicts the socio-cultural profile one
wishes to use.
The eschatology that Crossan uses looks no further than the imminent
present called for by his social anthropology. For him the eschatological view
that the followers of Jesus preached from the beginning was nothing more than
a creation of the Church or of John the Baptist when their "savior" was killed.
John Meier gives a concise critique of this view:
A Baptist with a message of future eschatology on one side of Jesus and a church
with a message of future eschatology on the other side of Jesus makes a Jesus totally
bereft of future eschatology a suspicious figure from the start. This poses a major
problem for the whole approach of Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan, both
of whom want to do away with the future eschatology of Jesus* preaching.35
Marcus J. Borg follows the same view of Crossan regarding the understanding
of Jesus as a product of tumultuous Palestine.36 L.T. Johnson calls Borg's agenda
a projection of the American academic cultural critique of religion.37
For Crossan the next logical step is to deny the individuality of Jesus and his
view of the Kingdom and to see it, "not as an individual dream but as a corpo-
rate plan" by men of magic and dream or miracle and table. ".. .That is the heart
of Jesus' program."38 Though he does not say so, one gets the impression that
Crossan is attempting to present the Kingdom as a sociological phenomenon
reminiscent of those liberation theological models proposed years ago primarily
in Latin America. He also begins to associate too closely Christian prophecy and
the supernatural with the concept of magic. This, again, is described from a fully
anthropocentric view, because it is a reductionist approach to the supernatural.
Unlike other scholars' interest in early Christian prophecy, Crossan prefers
the subject of magic. He accuses Judaism of transforming magic into prayer and
the magician into the rabbi.39 He prefers to analyze Jesus' life from the standpoint

35. MEIER, Marginal Jew, p. 9.

36. BORG, Reflections.
37. JOHNSON, The Real Jesus, p. 43. Ben R Meyer argues that "the critical reader is now
informed, now entertained, rarely persuaded—at least on matters relating to Jesus. Both [Borg and
Crossan], finally, are original, abundantly and excessively original. To an historical grounded
understanding of Jesus both run the risk of massive irrelevance." MEYER, Jesus' Ministry, p. 338-339.
38. CROSSAN, Historical Jesus, p. 304.
322 M. BONILLA

of the Elisha-Elijah cycles and other "magician-miracle workers" such as Honi

the Circle Maker, basing himself on the works of William Scott Green40 or the
work on Hanina ben Dosa by Geza Vermes,41 and especially the works of Sean
Freyne42 and Baruch Boker.43 Poking fun at Christian theologians Crossan says
that, "it is endlessly fascinating to watch [them] describe Jesus as miracle worker
rather than magician and then attempt to define the substantive difference
between those two."44 For him, "the title magician... describes one who can
make divine power present directly through personal miracle rather than indi-
rectly through communal ritual."45
It seems, however, that magic implies the control of supernatural forces
without the need for religious piety or cult, whereas a miracle more usually than
magic presupposes a certain religious submission of the miracle worker to a
Divine Power. In magic the magician is in command of the supernatural by vir-
tue of his spells and charms. Nature or the supernatural submit to the miracle
worker only because the miracle worker has been given a mission by the Divine
Power who is always and ultimately in command. Further, it seems also that a
magician's power depends on the effectiveness of his spell, as drugs and potions
on a disease, whereas a miracle worker's power depend solely on the effective-
ness of his God. Faith is fundamental for one, but not the other.
Like Crossan, Borg's identification of Jesus as either a magician or a charis-
matic figure relies heavily on a comparison with Chanina Ben Dosa or Honi the
Circle Maker. Such comparison, as L.T. Johnson points out, is difficult given that
the historical evidence on those two figures is far less than the evidence available
on Jesus, and the ideological interpretations that affect the evidence on them by
the rabbinical tradition are not any easier to discern than ideological interpreta-
tions by the early Church that affect the evidence on Jesus.46 Worth noting also
in this regard is Borg's affirmation of the possibility of mystical experiences,
especially in relation to his own Christian conversion, which is not to be under-
stood as a supernatural act, but a psychological event with just as much signifi-
cance as if had been caused by an all-powerful, transcendent God. We will discuss
below the relevance of this type of experience.

39. CROSSAN, Historical Jesus, p. 148.

40. GREEN, Holy Men.
41. VERMES, Hanina ben Dosa.
42. FREYNE, Charismatic.
43. BOKER, Wonder-Working.
44. CROSSAN, Historical Jesus, p. 305.
45. Ibid. In his more recent works, Crossan would describe miraculous events as real and true
so long as they are understood from a non-literal perspective. See, for example, COPAN, The Real
Jesus, p. 45-47, where Crossan explains his view on miracles; CROSSAN, JOHNSON, and KELBER, The
Jesus Controversy, p. 26-32, where Crossan discusses apparitions; Crossan and Watts, Who is Jesus?,
chapter 5 where he makes the distinction between social illness and disease as a physical ailment.
Jesus healed illnesses, though he did not necessarily cured diseases.
46. JOHNSON, The Real Jesus, p. 42.
 THE JESUS SEMINAR 323

Textual Analysis

After having established a sociological framework of Jesus' environment and

person, and after having defined his "divine" character as the magical compo-
nent of his cultural situation, Crossan, as does the Jesus Seminar, turns to the
actual biblical and extra biblical texts to help him further define the person of
the historical Jesus. By looking at what he judges are the earlier writings, he cre-
ates a picture of the historical Jesus as one who is wise and apocalyptic, but in
contrast to the avenging judge of Daniel 7:13.47 This section looks at what the
Seminar judges to be the earliest sources, namely Q and the Gospel of Thomas,
providing a critique to the Seminar's position. It also addresses the relevance of
the life context or Sitz im Leben in the search for the historical Jesus and will ana-
lyze a number of the most important criteria used by the Jesus Seminar, provid-
ing at the same time a number of possible solutions to the emerging problems.

Earliest Sources

The earlier writings of Crossan and the Jesus Seminar include almost preemi-
nently discussions on the source Q and the Gospel of Thomas.48 This without
proper consideration of the dating. Giving equal weight to each witness based on
its stratification and attestation as Crossan does, while at the same time ignoring
its theological agenda (e.g., Gnosticism), can lead one to judge more favorably
texts that are clearly biased while ignoring others that might not be or might be
less so.
Another problem surfaces when one realizes that for Crossan, as it is for the
Jesus Seminar, the Gospel of Thomas is "very, very early."49 That is also the view
of Funk and others. The fact is, however, that the dating of this apocryphal gos-
pel is still an open question.50 The authority given it by the Jesus Seminar needs
to be demonstrated. Johnson notes:
Crossan's remarkably early dating for virtually all apocryphal materials, and his
correspondingly late dating for virtually all canonical materials, together with his
frequent assertions that the extra-canonical sources are unaffected by the canonical
sources and therefore have independent evidentiary value, rests on little more than
his assertions and those of the like-minded colleagues he cites. He never enters into

47. CROSSAN, Historical Jesus, p. 229. Notice, however, that by apocalyptic it is not meant a
cosmic, supernatural figure.
48. Almost every writing by any member of the Jesus Seminar will include an unquestionable
endorsement of the authenticity of the Gospel of Thomas and of Q, even if one is a Gnostic docu-
ment and the other a non-extant source. See for example, MACK, Lost Gospel; and Vaage, p. 7. For
a recent study of the source Q by a Seminar member, see also KLOPPENBORG, Excavating Q.
49. CROSSAN, Historical Jesus, p. 428.
50. It falls probably somewhere between the end of the first century to just before 200 A.D.
For reference, see FREEDMAN, Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, p. 535-540.
324 M. B O N I L L A

debate with those who do not share such views. The position, in other words, is
presumed, not proved.51
As Witherington says about the Seminar, one would expect them to rely
heavily on the gospel of Mark as an original source, since it is considered by
most scholars to be the earliest gospel. They, however, accept only one saying as
authentic (Mark 12:17). The reason is that Mark is not considered nearly as
early and reliable as Q and Thomas, which they assume to be pre-70 A.D.52

Text Selection

A problem emerges when one notices that the Jesus Seminar engages in a circu-
lar methodology that strongly limits the effectiveness of criteria such as multiple
attestation. By defining Jesus' original parables based on the shocking original
parables of Jesus, they only appeal to their own pre-conceived notion of who the
historical Jesus was. The parable of the Lost Sheep is an example. The shepherd
abandons the ninety-nine sheep and goes in search of the one lost, at the much
greater risk of losing others. This is an exaggeration typical of Jesus' parables,
says R. Funk in his explanation of the parable's originality.53 The question is,
however, if the Lost Sheep is determined to be original because it is like the typi-
cal parables of Jesus, how are the typical parables of Jesus determined to be
original? The only answer that seems available is the image created by social
anthropology of the revolutionary Cynic, or Crossan's wise hippie. The criteria
for selecting texts, therefore, has been given limits: the evidence must correspond
to the idea accepted a priori by the Seminar.
The work of F. Lambiasi, though written years before the Jesus Seminar
came to be, and largely unknown in English speaking circles, might be helpful in
recovering a sound interpretation of the historical Jesus that is consonant with
the modern world. He offers a more balanced approach on the appraisal of the
various witnesses:
If the witness is serious and loyal, this is enough to stir our assent, while the testimony
of questionable witnesses is itself questionable. It all depends on the credibility of
the witnesses: Thus, when an event is reported by a single witness whose credibility
is affirmed by numerous indirect witnesses, their unanimity can, in some cases,
bring the assertion of the direct witness to the level of certitude.54
Lambiasi argues that the multiplicity of witnesses may well eventually lead
to a single source. That source, usually the community of believers, is not Jesus.

51. JOHNSON, The Real Jesus, p. 47. See, however, COPAN, The Real Jesus, where Crossan seems
to engage in a debate, though it is mostly appearance. See also CROSSAN, JOHNSON, and KELBER,
The Jesus Controversy, where Crossan and Johnson state their cases.
52. WITHERINGTON, Buyer Beware! p. 51.
53. FUNK, BRANDON SCOTT, and BUTTS, Parables of Jesus, p. 38.
54. LAMBIASI, L'Autenticità, p. 146, my translation.
 THE JESUS SEMINAR 325

The link for authenticity between a given witness (the Church), and the original
source (Jesus) depends on the credibility of the witness. He pinpoints some ele-
ments that show the credibility of the Church:55
1. The community of disciples (internal Sitz im Leben). The disciples held
Jesus in utmost respect and devotion, and hence sought to keep his teaching
as best they could.
2. The community of apostles (external Sitz im Leben). The Church in the
apostolic mission required a constant return to the kerygmatic-catechetical
message that they had received from Jesus' words and deeds. For this reason
the first community was "devoted to the apostles' teaching and fellowship."
(Acts 2:42)
3. The community was a community of martyrs and witnesses. Marturia was
an indispensable condition for belonging to the Twelve (as in the election of
Matthias in Acts 1:21-22), and these witnesses were ready to pay with their
blood.
He then arrives at the following conclusions:56
a. When a datum does not have multiple attestation, it cannot on those basis
be declared inauthentic: silence does not mean negation: Qui tacet, nihil
dicit. b. When a datum has multiple attestation its presumed inauthenticity
must be positively demonstrated, c. When general elements of Jesus' story are
attested in several sources and several forms (logion, parable, miracle, etc.),
then the results are more solid.
The Jesus Seminar does not accept the views of scholars like Lambiasi which
would require them to take a more serious look at issues such as the life setting,
or Sitz im Leben of a text. It does so because it questions the historical validity of
the contexts in which the gospel stories are found, since it judges them theologi-
cally biased. Whether and how a theological Sitz im Leben might affect the text is
virtually irrelevant to the Seminar.
The following section evaluates the study of the Sitz im Leben of a text, even
though it is not traditionally recognized as a criterion for authenticity. If con-
sidered appropriately, however, it could become a critically important element
in the study of the historical Jesus.

Sitz im Leben

The problem is one of recognizing the historicity of the gospels in their final
form and hence of the various settings in which the narrative takes place as his-
torically relevant for what is then transmitted in the tradition.

55. Ibid., p. 150.

56. Ibid., p. 152.
326 M. BONILLA

Robert Tannehill, a one time member of the Seminar, and a respected

scholar, writing some ten years before its founding, betrays the uneasiness the
Seminar would come to have in accepting the historical value of the canonical
witnesses when he argues that when a scholar uses the gospels as sources of
historical information, he is forcing the text to say something contrary to its
original purpose (i.e., the theological story). While he admits that this might be
legitimate, one does it "in spite of the stubborn efforts of the text to speak in its
own way."57 C. Hedrick, another member of the Seminar, says that parables
should be read on "their own terms, as ordinary stories"—as a peasant in rural
Galilee would have—"rather than for what we imagine they might 'reveal' about
the kingdom of God, morality, human existence, or some other value,"58 and
that their origin "in the life of the historical man Jesus must be demonstrated,
... not assumed."59 As with Crossan, Hedrick's view does not allow for divine
revelation to transpire. Also, in his view the Quest for the Historical Jesus by
definition leaves out any traces of theology, regarding any such trace as an invalid
creation by the early Church. The Jesus Seminar never considers the validity that
an historically grounded Sitz im Leben might be legitimately theological. It instead
prefers to see the transmission of Jesus's words as a morefluidand always secular
process.60 Transmission of Jesus' words is more a matter of mimesis, imitating
Jesus' attitude than it is a matter of memory, says Crossan. The disciples who
imitated Jesus' actions during his life, continued doing so after his death and so the
transmission of his aphorism may not so much recall an aphorism as summarize
an attitude of Jesus.61
Members of the Seminar like to read all parables and sayings outside of their
literary context.62 While Sitz im Leben is not properly a criterion for the authen-
ticity of Jesus' words, however, its recognition as an important element of research
could help the Seminar yield more accurate results. Nevertheless, for most
members of the Jesus Seminar all sayings, parables, or aphorisms should never
be analyzed in context: Redaction criticism has little value if it points to the
redactor, because for them by nature a redactor is an unfit interpreter of the
original sources.
This approach, however, can lead to important results not just for a Sitz im
Leben of the community or the sayings of Jesus, but as Blomberg has pointed
out, even for the historical context of explanations added to parables.63 Against
the Jesus Seminar constant effort to separate the parables from their context in

57. TANNEHILL, The Sword of His Mouth, p. 6-7.

58. HEDRICK, Parables, p. 4.
59. Ibid., p. 9.
60. Secular in the sense that in the text only that which is not theological can be accepted as
legitimate.
61. CROSSAN, Historical Jesus, p. 22.
62. See for example, HEDRICK, Parables, p. 5.
63. BLOMBERG, Parables, p. 234.
 THE JESUS SEMINAR 327

the gospels, Blomberg points out D. Stern's work that suggests Jewish parables
(Meshalim) were expected to have the parable itself (Mashal) and an appended
explanation (Nimshal).64 This was proper of the Tannaitic era (2 and 3 cent A.D.)
and so at the time of Jesus the Nimshal had not yet become standard (so with
Jesus not all his parables have Nimshal, but some may properly do). These
appended explanations have normally, and in many cases rightly, been rejected
as creations by the evangelists. Now perhaps one should be more careful about
what is discarded.
Beyond this, and of far greater importance, is the recognition that a pre-Easter
Sitz im Leben is not only acceptable, but necessary in the search for the historical
Jesus, since Jesus lived in a particular setting that included important theological
settings, such as disputes with Jewish leaders or teachings to his disciples, among
others. Furthermore, one should note that while many of the controversies are
associated with the early Church, many must have initiated with Jesus himself.
Sitz im Leben should therefore be more highly valued in research done on the
historical Jesus by the Jesus Seminar, as it can provide legitimate, historically
grounded foundations for a better understanding of the person of Jesus.
While the Jesus Seminar uses legitimate tools for evaluating the authenticity
of Jesus' words, there seems to be a lack of proper assessment of the value of
each criterion and of the sober judgment of the evidence. Even sociology can be
of value if used as appropriate background and not as a determining structure
as the Seminar does. Multiple attestation, with the proper weighing of the
sources, without giving an overly exalted place to the apocryphal gospels, can
also be of considerable help. Finally the recognition of the proper place of his-
torical-critical exegesis, with its emphasis in the Sitz im Leben of a given text is of
critical importance. Unfortunately the Jesus Seminar has failed particularly in
this area by their explicit rejection of theological contexts. Added to this is the
need, expressed by Meier, to analyze Jesus' words and actions in the context of
his rejection and execution.65 A Jesus whose words did not threaten or alienate is
not the historical Jesus.

Part II. Underlying principles

When considering the work of the Seminar, it is not enough to view their work
from the standpoint of what traditional biblical studies offer in regard to those
texts, as we have done above. It is also important to analyze the principles that
underlie the work of the Seminar. Having done so, what one might legitimately
consider erroneous might at least become more understandable.
The Jesus Seminar avoids faith and theology because of their ideological
principles that view the biblical texts as meaningful and relevant only if trans-

64. STERN, Parables.

65. MEIER, Marginal Jew, vol. 2, p. 6.
328 M. B O N I L L A

lated into terms understandable to the modern mind. To them, it seems, the
modern mind is one that by definition would be expected to reject any reference
to miracles and the supernatural as a fabrication by ancient cultures. As they
seem to see it, today people live in a thoroughly modern world imbued in a
post-modern mentality that through its scientific principles cannot accept the
myths presented by the bible unless they are modified and transposed to a
demythologized matrix. Once this is done, the truth of the bible can be grasped,
eliminating the fabrications and impositions by religious systems that took
advantage of those myths to the detriment of its later followers. Thus empiri-
cism becomes the solution in the post-modern era to the problem created by
those religious systems of the past. As Robert Funk has remarked, empiricism
has shown that much of what the Church held as dogma should no longer be
seriously considered.66 This then becomes the rallying cry of their mission: to
free the world of the shackles of biblical literalism which has held it bound for
centuries. What may have seemed acceptable to peoples before the Enlighten-
ment, is now to be positively rejected, thanks to the scientific revolution which
established reason as the ultimate judge of reality.
For the Seminar, under the umbrella of biblical literalism falls not only
fundamentalism, but also most of mainline Christian churches. This is so
because for most members of the Seminar, any church that accepts the physical
resurrection of Jesus and any other miracles as supernatural acts, is in some way
trapped in the literalist mentality that stubbornly, and erroneously, rejects the
naturalist and relativized understanding of truth that post-modernism has de-
fined. These churches engaged in biblical literalism are also often the ones that
would claim that Jesus is the only means of salvation. This is likely to be rejected
by the Seminar as an arrogant position derived from failing to understand the
symbolic meaning of the biblical texts that lead to that conclusion in the first
place.
In the final analysis, odd as this may sound, I am not convinced that the
Jesus Seminar is working out of anger toward these churches. This is, in any
case, certainly not a published position of theirs. On the contrary, the attitude of
the Seminar seems rather to be one of a desire to proclaim the gospel sincerely
and to engage the world through their work.67 While this assertion might seem
strange to someone only superficially acquainted with the work of the Seminar,
to one familiar with some of the debates and public presentations by the Semi-
nar, there is an open and well established interest in evangelization. I believe this
to be true and sincere on their part, not just a public relations campaign. It is in
fact because of that interest that the Seminar has openly rejected any influence
from faith and theology when dealing with the gospels. This rejection, emerging
from the aforementioned post-modern, empirical world view, is to them an

66. So Robert Funk in FUNK, On the Road.

67. See Crossan's closing remarks in COPAN, The Real Jesus, p. 147-155.
 THE JESUS SEMINAR 329

essential element in their quest to explain the gospels to a scientific world. It is

the necessary hermeneutical key that will make the truths of the gospel under-
standable and believable to a world that is, in their view, patently convinced that
anything potentially beyond the total grasp of reason cannot be.
Here then one arrives at the epistemological crux of the problem: Does the
human mind, fully immersed in the scientific world confronting it in the 21st
century, find that any reality beyond the reach of empiricism cannot exist? The
Jesus Seminar seems to say that thanks to the Enlightenment, it finally has done
so. To them, therefore, the truth of the gospel must be presented to the world
not simply in the language that the world would understand and believe, for
that would not necessarily strip it of the myths that have plagued it in a world
incapable of understanding them, but that truth must be presented as they claim
it truly is, that is, as empiricism has defined it. Once the reality of Jesus and the
gospels has been stripped of the ancient fabrications that clouded their mean-
ing, once one understands who Jesus was and what his teachings were all about,
then one can perceive the social impact that their true Jesus was meant to have.
But one can well detect serious problems with such empirical attitude. Before
exploring those, it will be useful to examine a further aspect of their position, as
this is likely to inform much of the work of the Seminar.

God According to the Seminar

The natural question, once one understands the philosophical underpinnings
emergingfromtheir post-modernist views, is to ask where Godfitsin all of this.
That is, in fact, the question currently facing the Jesus Seminar. Beginning late in
the year 2000, the Seminar has begun a project that, by Funk's own estimation,
might take the better part of ten years. The goal is to ask what has the Seminar's
work in search for the Historical Jesus shown concerning God. Funk admits that
there will be long and difficult discussions on the subject among Seminar
Fellows. But especially because he is the founder of the Seminar, it is worth con-
sidering his own opinion.68
Funk's proposal is to consider God as metaphor. What this means is that
God, no longer understood as the supernatural ruler and creator of the world, is
rather the matrix that, fully in accord with empiricism, shapes one's behavior.
God becomes a sort of ideology, but more than an ideology, that can commu-
nicate fully with the modern mind and challenge it to give meaning to one's
existence, not only at the personal level, but above all at the communal level,
where certain social norms are important for the sustainment of the person.
These social norms that support the community, that protect the poor and
neglected, that respect the environment, and fully respect cultural and theologi-
cal differences, are the main reason why one ought to believe. Through belief in

68. As presented at FUNK, On the Road.

330 M. B O N I L L A

the gospel which they have defined—not the gospel advocated by what they call
biblical literalism—the Christian becomes capable of living out his or her Chris-
tian faith while at the same time remaining faithful to the highest ideals of hu-
man reason, which demand—because of our historical context—submission to
empiricism. Since empiricism rejects the possibility of a supernatural order, our
understanding of God must by default reject the existence of a supernatural
God. Miracles, mystical experiences, and the like, are not rejected out of hand.
Instead they can be accepted so long as they are understood as psychological
experiences that shape one's behavior and understanding of reality.69 They are
useful at least in that they provide the Christian with a keener awareness of his
or her commitment to the Christian ideal. In like manner, attending church,
singing hymns, and praying are elements that help the Christian not so much
increase a communion with a transcendent and omnipotent God, for He does
not exist that way; instead these actions increase communion with a God that
exists only in our minds and hearts. (Thus one can understand Crossan's refusal
to answer whether there was a God before humans existed on earth.70) This
communion with a God that does not exist as understood by Roman Catholics
and most mainline Protestant denominations, serves nonetheless a worthy
purpose, according to the Seminar: It helps bind a group of people towards a
worthwhile goal. It is an ideology, but again more than an ideology, that, like
properly and justly understood patriotism, can move a people towards the com-
mon good. It is more than an ideology because Christianity can so envelop one's
world view that one can speak of God creating the world, even if one does not
hold to the factual event.71 By inference, therefore, Christianity can never be the
only way to salvation, and salvation cannot be understood in the traditional
Christian way that includes an apocalyptic Parusia. It is instead more like a social
restoration of magnificent proportions.
That is essentially how the Jesus Seminar seems to understand Christianity
and belief in God. The problems with this understanding of God and Christ are
profound, despite its appealing perspective of convincingly reaching out to one
of the most rational eras in human history.

Part III. Challenges to biblical theology

The challenges laid out by the Seminar's view in large part consist in whether
Catholic biblical theologians, being as we often are, fully involved in the task of
making the Bible intelligible to people in the modern world, will consciously or
uncounsciously take some of the presuppositions of the Enlightenmnent men-

69. See for example, BORG, Meeting Jesus, p. 1-19, where Borg describes his own religious
conversion.
70. COPAN, The Real Jesus, p. 50-51.
71. See COPAN, The Real Jesus, p. 48-51.
 THE JESUS SEMINAR 331

tality that stands at odds with a fuller sense of Truth, and assume, thus, that
some of the affirmations that can be made concerning various aspects of the
bible are intrinsically limitted by empiricism.
To appeal to an understanding of historical context in a broader sense might
be of help. By historical context, one should understand not only the sociologi-
cal, archeological, or historical background typically studied in critical exegesis,
but also the larger historical context that contributes to the transmission of a
text from its creation to its reception in the present age. It is a historical context
that must recognize the role of theological thinking as an intrinsic reality within
the composition, preservation, and transmission of the text. The biblical text is
inherently a theological work. Thus to remove the theological aspect (e.g., issues
of inspiration, faith, doctrine, etc.) from the study of the text on the grounds of
"less objectivity" or "bias" is to remove the text from the very historical context
from which it emerged and within which it was preserved and passed on.
The present author does not reject the great benefits gained from Historical
Criticism, in general, or from Redaction Criticism, in particular. The questions
raised in this paper are instead directed at biblical analysis, and specifically at
historical Jesus research, as done by the Jesus Seminar, that presumes to give a
truer, or clearer picture of who Jesus was by eliminating all traces of theology
through an application of a scientific methodology. This is especially troubling
when one does not explain why theological bias is a problem in a text that is
by nature theological, and instead assumes, without self criticism, the bias of
scientific empiricism as if it were truly "objective." The closer one looks at the
Seminar's principles, the more one becomes aware of the problem.
First and foremost, one must wonder about the logic and inherent benefits
of reducing the supernatural to essentially useless ancient myths. It seems self-
contradictory to argue that God can only exist if he is understood. By definition,
even in a highly modernized world, God is God when he stands above human
intellect, beyond the full grasp of reason. Otherwise, the implicit claim that God
can only exist as empiricism has defined him, makes empiricism and human
reason the ultimate deity, for then reason defines all of reality. Human reason,
while not properly speaking becoming God, stands somehow above him, for it is
human reason that now defines God's limitations. However, it is human reason
that tells us that the objective, transcendental reality of God is not beyond pos-
sibility, even if it is beyond reason's comprehension.
In their attempt, therefore to appeal to a wider, scientific audience, the Semi-
nar has chosen to construct their own God as a presumed alternative to the God
of traditional Christianity. It is a clever marketing strategy: Provide the public
with the product they are most likely to buy, and you will have the largest possible
market. But this is hardly sound biblical interpretation. One ought to respond to
the challenge of post-modernism not by changing who God is, or by unduly
demythologizing any supernatural act depicted in the bible, but by offering a
gospel that is not only believable but also faithful to its original intent.
332 M. BONILLA

Catholic scholarship must then walk the careful path of balancing the un-
derstanding and benefits gained from historical criticism, and historical Jesus
research, with the Tradition's communication of Truth. This should be done, not
by ignoring one and concentrating on the other, but by maintaining a dynamic
dialogue between the two that recognizes the limits of human reason and at the
same time that trusts fully in the perennial richness provided by our Faith and
our Tradition. To be a Catholic scholar does not mean to reject our faith, or to
ignore it while doing "scholarship," but on the contrary to engage fully in study
and research while at the same time availing oneself fully of the richness of
ancient Tradition, convinced that such relationship between scientific study and
Tradition cannot but benefit our understanding of the bible.
Thus, Lambiasi's insistence that the reliability of the community and histori-
cal context that created the text must be positively accounted for, particularly as
the community that authored those texts had a vested interest in guaranteeing
its reliability, serves as a point of departure for understanding the historicity of
the gospel accounts. If behind the gospels stands a community that, as the Semi-
nar claims, cannot be trusted, recovery of the underlying traditions becomes an
exercise in futility. When a hermeneutic of suspicion is allowed full control of
the texts, it creates insurmountable doubts concerning the actual value of the
meager results that can be had.
This is not to say, however, that the biblical text must be read from a literalist,
fundamentalist perspective. Yet, to assume that there is a trustworthy historical
kernel in most of the sayings attributed to Jesus, does not require one to postu-
late that all sayings represent the ipsissima verba Iesu. Nevertheless, a kernel is
most likely reliably present, if one is to believe that the original community had
a legitimate interest in preserving the teachings of Jesus. If the original commu-
nity truly believed that there was an increasing need to create a new teaching,
full of eschatological or apocalyptic references, largely devoid of Jesus' original
concepts, Jesus' own leadership should be questioned at a more profound level
than allowed by the Seminar. For if indeed the Seminar's view that Jesus was not
responsible for most of the theology articulated by the gospels were to stand,
one should reconsider the value of a recovery operation as offered even by the
Seminar.

University of St. Thomas

Houston, Texas, USA

Works Cited

BLOMBERG, Craig L. 1994. "The Parables of Jesus: Current Trends and Needs in Research".
In Studying the Historical Jesus. Evaluations of the State of Current Research, edited by
Chilton, B.D. and CA. Evans. Leiden: Brill, 231-354.
BOKER, Baruch M. 1985. "Wonder-Working and the Rabbinic Tradition: The Case of
Hanina Ben Dosa." Journal for the Study of Judaism 16:42-92.
 THE JESUS SEMINAR 333

BORG, Marcus J. 1994. Meeting Jesus Again for The First Time: The Historical Jesus & the
Heart of Contemporary Faith. San Francisco: Harper.
, 1994. "Reflections on a Discipline: A North American Perspective". In Studying the
Historical Jesus. Evaluations of the State of Current Research, edited by Chilton, B.D.
and CA. Evans. Leiden: Brill, 9-31.
, 1998. "Jesus and the Revisioning of Theology." Dialog 37 (1):9-14.
COPAN, Paul, ed. 1998. Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William
Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
CROSSAN, John Dominic. 1991. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish
Peasant. San Francisco: Harper.
CROSSAN, John Dominic, Luke Timothy JOHNSON, and Werner H. KELBER. 1999. The
Jesus Controversy: Perspectives in Conflict. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
CROSSAN, John Dominic, and Richard G. WATTS. 1996. Who is Jesus? Answers to Your
Questions About the Historical Jesus. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
DE KLERK, J.C., and C.W. SCHNELL. 1987. A New Look at Jesus. Literary and Sociological-
Historical Interpretations of Mark and John. Pretoria: van Schaik.
FREEDMAN, David Noel, ed. 1992. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday.
FREYNE, Sean. 1980. "The Charismatic". In Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and
Paradigms, edited by Collins, J.J. and W.E. Nickelsburg. Chico, CA: Scholars Press,
223-258.
FUNK, Robert W. 1991. The Gospel of Mark. Red Letter Edition. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge.
, 1998. The Acts of Jesus. The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. San Francisco:
Harper Collins.
, 2000. Jesus Seminar on the Road. Paper read at Jesus Seminar on the Road, Septem-
ber 23, 2000, at Rice University, Houston, TX.
, Bernard Brandon SCOTT, and James R. BUTTS. 1988. The Parables of Jesus: Red Let-
ter Edition. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge.
, Roy W. HOOVER, and the Jesus Seminar. 1993. The Five Gospels. The Search for the
Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: MacMillan.
GREEN, William Scott. 1979. "Palestinian Holy Men: Charismatic Leadership and Rab-
binic Tradition." Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2 ( 19) :619-647.
HEDRICK, Charles W. 1994. Parables as Poetic Fictions: The Creative Voice of Jesus.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. 279.
HOLMBERG, Bengt. 1990. Sociology and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
HORSLEY, Richard. 1984. "Popular Messianic Movements Around the Time of Jesus."
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46:471-493.
JOHNSON, Luke Timothy. 1995. The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical
Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels. San Francisco: Harper Collins.
, 1999. "The Humanity of Jesus. What's at Stake in the Quest for the Historical Jesus".
In The Jesus Controversy: Perspectives in Conflict. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press Inter-
national.
KECK, Leander E. 2000. Who is Jesus? History in Perfect Tense. Columbia, SC: University
of South Carolina Press.
KEE, Howard C. 1989. Knowing the Truth: A Sociological Approach to New Testament
Interpretation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
KLOPPENBORG, John S. 2000. Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
334 M. BONILLA

LAMBIASI, Francesco. 1976. ^Autenticità Storica dei Vangeli. Voi. 4, Studi Biblici. Bolo-
gna: EDB.
MACK, Burton. 1993. The Lost Gospel: The Book ofQ and Christian Origins. San Fran-
cisco: Harper.
MALINA, Bruce. 1981. The New Testament World: Insights From Cultural Anthropology.
Atlanta: John Knox Press.
, 1986. Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology: Practical Models for Biblical Inter-
pretation. Atlanta: John Knox Press.
MALINA, Bruce J., and Richard L. ROHRBAUGH. 1998. Social-Science Commentary on the
Gospel of John. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
MEIER, John P. 1991. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Edited by Freed-
man, D.N. 2 vols, The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday.
MEYER, Ben F. 1994. "Jesus' Ministry and Self-Understanding". In Studying the Historical
Jesus. Evaluations of the State of Current Research, edited by B.D. CHILTON, and C.A.
EVANS. Leiden: Brill, 337-352.
MEYER, Marvin. 1992. The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings ofJesus. San Francisco:
Harper. 130.
PLUMMER, Alfred. 1922. The Gospel According to S. Luke. Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark.
SCHWEITZER, Albert. 1968. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its
Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. New York: MacMillan & Co. Ltd.
STEGEMANN, Ekkehard W, and Wolfgang STEGEMANN. 1999. The Jesus Movement. A
Social History of Its First Century. Translated by Dean, O.C. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press.
STERN, David. 1991. Parables in Midrash. Cambridge: Harvard.
TANNEHILL, Robert C. 1975. The Sword of His Mouth, Society of Biblical Literature.
Semeia Supplements. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
THEISSEN, Gerd. 1978. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity. Translated by Bowden,
John. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
, 1991. The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition.
Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
TIDBALL, D. 1983. An Introduction to the Sociology of the New Testament. Exeter: Pater­
noster Press.
VAAGE, Leif E. 1995. "Q and Cynicism: On Comparison and Social Identity". In The Gos­
pel Behind the Gospels. Current Studies on Q, edited by Piper, R.A. Leiden: E.J. Brill,
199-229.
VAN ECK, Ernest. 1995. Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark's Story ofJesus: A Narratological and
Social Scientific Reading. Vol. 7, Hervornde Teologiese Studies Supplementum. Pretoria:
University of Pretoria.
VERMES, Geza. 1972-73a. "Hanina ben Dosa: A Controversial Galilean Saint from the
First Century of the Christian Era."/SS 23:28-50 and 24:51-64.
WILDMAN, W.J. 1998. "Pinning Down the Crisis in Contemporary Christology." Dialog
37 (1):15-21.
WILSON, Bryan R. 1973. Magic and the Millennium: A Sociological Study of Religious Move­
ments of Protest Among Tribal and Third-World Peoples. New York: Harper and Row.
WITHERINGTON, Ben. 1995. The Jesus Quest. The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
, 1997. "Buyer Beware! Sensationalist Claims Sold Here." Bible review 13/2:23-25.
 THE JESUS S E M I N A R 335

SOMMAIRE

Après avoir proposé « Dieu comme métaphore », le fondateur du «Jesus Seminar»,

Robert Funk, a invité la conférence à considérer ce qu'on a appris au sujet de
Dieu dans le cadre de la recherche sur le Jésus historique («Troisième quête»).
Cet article analyse le travail du « Seminar» et son dernier projet du point de vue
de sa méthodologie et de son epistemologie. Il fait une critique de sa métho-
dologie et il évalue le zèle évangélique du «Seminar». L'auteur de Particle se
demande ensuite quelle devrait être la réponse catholique appropriée du point
de vue pastoral et théologique et il propose certaines solutions plus conformes à
la théologie biblique.

SUMMARY

After having proposed "God as Métaphore", founder Robert Funk has now invited
the Jesus Seminar to consider what has been learned about God from the Third
Quest for the Historical Jesus. This paper analyzes the work of the Seminar and
its latest project from the standpoint of its methodology and epistemology. It
critiques its methodology and evaluates the Seminar's evangelistic zeal. It then
asks what the proper Catholic response should be from a pastoral and theological
perspective by proposing certain solutions more consonant with biblical theology.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.