Talk:Jesus Seminar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] POV

Most of this article is POV. The first paragraph is OK, but needs rewritten and should be under a subsection called Methods of the Jesus Seminar. The rest of the article is clearly POV. I will make some changes unless there are objections. If the original author has any comments they are welcomed.--JPotter 17:47, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have made all the editing necessary for the article to be more complete and no longer POV. Obvsiously, more work can be done. 24.202.135.211 15:35, 07 Mar 2004

Still looks pretty POV to me... [unsigned+undated comment]

I have made a number of edits to the introductory section to make it more 'introductory' eg deleting 'They identified two original parables in Thomas as authentic, whereas John's few authentic passages are all attested in the synoptics' as this seems rather detailed and should, I think, be in the body of the article.
I've also changed the phrase 'is not controversial' to 'is highly controversial', since the Jesus seminar is highly controversial and indeed actively seeks controversy as part of it's program of publicity. Mercury543210 22:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slight change, hope is ok..

Hi, I moved the description of the voting system to the bottom of the page (surely the objectives of the seminar are more important than it's methods?) I also slightly re-worded it to try and make it easier to understand. SeanT 20:21, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted "This historical approach..."

Deleted "This historical approach to the gospels is common among historians but very controversial in New Testament studies" as I felt this was POV. If there is a reliable source for this quote please provide, and accept my apologies, otherwise I think it should stay out. Mercury543210 22:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick thanks to Jonathan Tweet and Loremaster for settling this (and other work!). Keep up the good work. Mercury543210 21:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV edits- Discuss here

The article is already tagged POV, there is an unregistered user to is adding POV material and reverting NPOV edits. The edits are POV, they reflect a singlular and not very notable Jesus Seminar critic. I edited the paragraph to a more neutral point of view, but the unregistered user reverted my edits back to the biased version. There are a great many of conservative scholars who disagree with the Jesus Seminar, for obvious reasons, I see no reason to begin listing them. The work of Allison adds nothing notable to the article and is POV. --JPotter 02:21, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV / NPOV

It is certainly legitimate in any article to list reasons why many scholars question the validity of the Jesus Seminar. To leave the section as is...Conservative scholars have questioned the intent and conclusions of the Jesus Seminar...is misleading. Allison, for instance, is no conservative (as his books on the Q source and Matthew demonstrate), and he utilizes many of the same tools of the Seminar. His book, which was cited in a previous version of the page, has been well received even by members of the Jesus Seminar, including Marcus Borg. So, many scholars have a problem with the Seminar...conservative and otherwise. This is not in dispute even by Seminar members...why be afraid to have it posted online?

Also, to simply state that the intent and conclusions of the Seminar are problematic to some scholars without mentioning even one of those potential problems is hardly "non-point of view". Certainly, it is fair to mention what some of those problems might be...it would also be fair to mention how the members of the Seminar have responded to that criticism.

I speak as someone who values the work of the Seminar, not as an opponent. I simply feel that we need to be fair to all sides of the argument, and not only the Seminar.

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contribution to the Jeseu Seminar article. It really needs to be expanded and improved so it's not POV. Sure. It is legitimate to have a section of the Critics of the Jesus Seminar, even a separate, linked article. The singling out of one particular critic is POV. Who are some other critics of the JS? What is the Jesus Seminar response to those critics? However, until that section fairly represents the full sprectrum of all the Jesus Seminar critics, and the Jesus Seminar response to those critics, it cannot be included. --JPotter 16:21, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
I added a new category for "Critics of the Seminar" and included several other notable scholars as well as several responses by members of the Seminar. Feb. 6, 2004, 3:52 PM.
Very nice. I'm removing the boilerplate. JPotter

What is needed are some secular critics' soureces. Sweetfreek 04:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] fathers of the church

Finally, the Jesus Seminar is critized with the same reasoning applied to many other biblical textual critics, namely that they fail to address the validity and relation of the fathers of the church, or other early Christian writings.

I don't understand what this sentence means. --Goethean 01:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It means the JS tends to totally reject the testimony of ancient Christian writers. Tom129.93.17.196 03:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This statement, which was poorly-written, is no longer in the article. --Loremaster 14:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] red actions of Jesus

For reference, here are the red actions of Jesus: Birth: parts of Mt1:18-25; Beelzebul: Lk11:15-17; Baptized by John: Mk1:1-11; Good news: Mk1:14-16; Dining with sinners: Mk2:15-17; Herod beheads John: Mk6:14-29; Crucifixion: core event but not accurately recorded; 1st list of appearances: 1Cor15:3-5;

[edit] Jesus Seminar Methodology

Crossan alone should not be attributed with developing the methodology outlined in the introduction to The Five Gospels. And what is the sources for saying that the Jesus Seminar makes no claims about its methodology being valid? I know Mahlon H. Smith, for example, a member of the Seminar, would disagree with that statement. I am editing the first line (about Crossan developing the methodology) in that paragraph and deleting the second. --Peter Kirby 08:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

Is it necessary to list the ISBN's and books of each of the Seminar's critics in the text of the article? I'd like to move it to a See Also at the end, if there are no objections. Deadsalmon 1:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, but "See also" is generally for links to other Wikipedia articles. It would be preferable to put them in a "References" section just like the one you made here. --Blainster 17:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

There need to be fewer anti-Jesus Seminar sources, or an equal number of pro sources. Obviously this Article is NOT neutral.

[edit] Darker beads

Perhaps it would be a good idea to include as well some of the more notable votes to class things as grey or (especially) black. Atm the liberalism/revisionism of much of the seminar's work doesn't shine through - this is important for understanding why there are so many conservative critics. Thomas Ash 14:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, most of the verses in the Bible received the black ranking. If I remember correctly, all of the Gospel of John is black. Also, all of the Pauline Epistles are black. That by itself would be enough to raise the back hair of your typical conservative. Why? Paul never met the human Jesus, his only contact is a limited visual experience, see Road to Damascus. The Gospel of John is significantly different from the Synoptic Gospels and Gospel of Thomas, it has been proposed that a Signs Gospel was a source for GoJ, but it's the very few if any who propose that this version is more historically correct than the Synoptics. The Jesus Seminar also published "The Complete Gospels" which includes other Gospels and fragments, but in the end the Synoptics and Thomas were voted most authentic. To understand why, read "The Five Gospels". If I were to summarize it in one sentence: it has long been known that there are many discrepancies, different versions, in the canonical Bible; conservatives gloss/conflate these differences over, historians pick one or no version as most likely authentic and toss the rest.Contributed by 63.201.26.55 on 09:01, 23 February 2006
If you are referring to the voting on verses in The Five Gospels, only the four gospels of the Bible plus the gospel of Thomas were analyzed. The Pauline epistles (nor any other part of the Bible) were not considered in that book. The sayings of Jesus in the gospel of John were mostly, but not entirely, deemed inauthentic. John 4:43 was pink, John 12:24-25 and 13:20 were gray. The Complete Gospels was the Seminar members own translation of some gospels and fragments they considered significant, including a reconstructed Gospel of Q. The Complete Gospels did not contain any voting, and was, contrary to the title, not a "complete" collection of extant gospels. --Blainster 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
John 4:43 is "Now after two days he departed thence, and went into Galilee."... john k 00:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Oops, it was John 4:44 "A prophet gets no respect on his own turf" --Blainster 10:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General comment

As this article currently stands, it leads the reader to assume that the fiercest criticism of the Jesus Seminar comes from Fundamentalist circles. The late Raymond E. Brown is likewise critical of this group & he is hardly a Fundamentalist Christian. He also lists a number of tenured professors who have criticized their publications, including A. Culpepper (Baylor), L.E. Keck (Yale), & J.P.Meier (Catholic University). (I must admit that my own exposure to this group has been thru the works of Burton Mack, whose books I found seriously flawed in logical argument, & more interested in narrating his version of "what happened" than offering his reasoning why his version is correct.) -- llywrch 05:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scholar's Version

This phrase "Congratulations, Poor!" is a quote from the verse listing in the book's appendix. It is adapted from the the Scholar's Version translation by the Jesus Seminar of Luke 6:20: "Congratulations, you poor!". They use the word "congratulations" instead of the more familiar "blessed" because (according to them) the Latin derived "blessed" is an archaic way of saying that Jesus was declaring these people to be especially favored by God. --Blainster 11:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What was the Jesus Seminar really about?

It seems to me that this article is not really good at outlining what really differentiates the Jesus Seminar from earlier attempts to find "the historical Jesus" - in fact, it doesn't seem to do much to inspire understanding that there were earlier attempts to find "the historical Jesus." The Jesus Seminar is not terribly unique for seeing Jesus as a man, and not the Son of God, or for seeing the Gospels as problematic sources which contain much that was added later. The real thing which the Jesus Seminar did is that it presents a "de-eschatologized Jesus" - that is to say, their historical Jesus was not concerned with eschatology or the apocalypse. This pretty directly contradicts the previous scholarly consensus (going back to Schweitzer, and so forth) of Jesus's actual teachings as having been largely eschatological. This needs to be made clear, because otherwise the whole thing barely makes any sense. john k 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It was about taking into account the existance of the Gospel of Thomas Clinkophonist 21:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The distinction of the Seminar is the breadth of scholarship assembled in its works. The books don't display a single point of view; they discuss the range of views of the members for each Bible verse considered, as well as the consensus of the group. This is not to say that the members are a representative cross section of all biblical scholars. They are generally faculty members of US schools accredited by Association of Theological Schools. --Blainster 11:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Taking into account the Gospel of Thomas was only a part of what the Jesus Seminar did - and its interpretation of Thomas as very early is quite disputed by other scholars, many of whom argue it is a redaction of the canonical gospels. The reason Thomas was taken into account by the Seminar was because the Seminar's ideological preconceptions fit with the idea of taking Thomas into account, not vice versa (this is not to say that including Thomas is illegitimate, just that it can't be fairly described as the motive for the Seminar). In terms of the breadth of scholarship, I suppose, except that a) a procedure of voting on which verses are authentic is an odd one, not normally used in academic discussion; and b) as you note, the Seminar is most definitely not a representative cross section of biblical scholars. I seem to recall reading that scholars not in the Seminar tend to be irritated by the Seminar's implicit claims to represent scholarly consensus. While some major scholars, like Crossan, Funk, Borg, Mack, and so forth, were in the Seminar, many of the others were not very well known, and many prominent scholars did not participate. Those that did tended to be already on the side of a particular view of Jesus - that is to say, the supposed consensus of the Seminar is skewed by the fact that it was self-selected by scholars who already largely agreed with Funk's perspective. At any rate, my point is that the context of the Seminar in a much longer "search for the historical Jesus" needs to be laid out in this article, and that the distinctiveness of the Seminar's findings, as compared with the previously dominant views needs to be explained. john k 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Clean-up Needed?

I made a minor edit by wikifying Gregory A. Boyd. Also I think the percentage of 18% regarding Jesus' saying is a bit off. Here is a quote that I have from Lee Strobel's book The Case For Christ;

"In the end they [the Jesus Seminar] concluded Jesus did not say 82 percent of what the gospels attribute to him. Most of the remaining 18 percent was considered somewhat doubtful, with only 2 percent of Jesus' syaings confidently determined to be authentic."

In his endnote, Lee Strobel cites Gregory A. Boyd, Jesus under Seige, p. 88. Can anyone confirm what if this is correct by going back to the original Jesus Seminar book? If Strobel is correct, does that change the long list of quotes and percentages we have in the article. Does anyone else think that it may be too much to have that whole list there if the Jesus Seminar only attributes 2% of the sayings to Jesus?--Derek Spalla 03:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, because Strobel's third hand description is misleading. The Seminar criteria for attribution is given in the article and the list is accurate. --Blainster 05:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there are other parts of the article that can be cleaned up too. Such as creating a list of supports, critics and list the books with ISBN numbers in a separate section. To me, having the ISBN numbers in the text of the article makes it very difficult to read. One of the other articles I watch has done this very nicely. Take a look at Emerging Church or Rob Bell for examples of what I am talking about.--Derek Spalla 03:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bible canon

The article says that voting was used to determine the original "Bible Canon", a statement which I believe to be categorically false (not being an expert, but having some study on the subject). I think I'll delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.139.190 (talk • contribs)

I've restored it, as this is how the Jesus Seminar describes its procedure, and unless there is a reference disputing that, it should stay. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 11:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I think anon was referring to the canonization of the Bible, not the Jesus Seminar. In any case, the Bible canon was approved by vote at the Council of Trent, so the sentence can stay. --Blainster 21:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Biblical canon was merely re-affirmed by the Council of Trent; it had been uniformly established twelve hundred years earlier, by the Easter Letter of Athanasius. 156.34.69.1 19:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Uniformly established" might be too strong a term. See biblical canon.Jonathan Tweet 23:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament:

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council [ Council of Trent ].

[edit] The Elephant in the Room

The key feature of the Jesus Seminar's method is reflected in their pillar five, the rejection of eschatology: "The liberation of the non-eschatological Jesus of the aphorisms and parables from Schweitzer's eschatological Jesus is the fifth pillar of contemporary scholarship".

This explains the oppposition of Dale Allison, author of "Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet" who affirms Schweitzer's work. It probably also accounts for the rejection of 82% of the sayings. see B.A.Pearson [1] T.Hume 04:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The question of Jesus' position on eschatology has been an ongoing discussion within the Seminar as well. Their analysis was much more complex than implied by Pearson's statement— see the running commentary alongside the scriptural text in the book. --Blainster 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Seminar themselves set out the 7 pillars that underpin their work: 6 of these are fairly non controversial principals of any historical research, one pillar (the rejection of eschatology) sets the direction of the research. It's little wonder:"Schweitzer saw Jesus' ethic as only an "interim ethic" (a way of life good only for the brief period before the cataclysmic end, the eschaton). As such he found it no longer relevant or valid. Acting on his own conclusion, in 1913 Schweitzer abandoned a brilliant career in theology, turned to medicine, and went out to Africa where he founded the famous hospital at Lambaréné out of respect for all forms of life."[2] Rejection of eschatology leads to "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" (Robert M Price) --T.Hume 23:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

82%? Statistics can lie. The bigger this statistic is, the more publicity the Jesus Seminar could get. While this is an accurate figure, it's also only part of the story. What the article doesn't explain is that in many cases an authentic saying of Jesus is elaborated with additional dialog. Even when a story is basically from Jesus' mouth, it might have lines added. For instance, after the parable of the good samaritan, the gospel of Luke adds a little scene about someone hearing Jesus tell the parable. The parable itself is "pink," but this scene, and Jesus' dialog in it, are considered inauthentic and counted as "black." Some of the 82% are elaborations on authentic verses. It's not 82% of the parables or sayings, it's literally 82% of the individual verses (including harmless elaborations).Jonathan Tweet 22:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Come again? You are right that an individual phrases that are pink are authentic, but only the added phrase would be considered black, not the entire parable. JPotter 00:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The 82% figure sounds more extreme than it is. Many of the rejected verses are minor elaborations. If the figure were "how many sayings (not verses) attributed to Jesus are probably authentic," the number might well be over 18%. Jonathan Tweet 01:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The article needs to explain more why the Seminar rejected any notion of Jesus as an eschatological figure. Don't most movements today contain eschatological components? Why assume 1st century Palestine was any different? --Michael C. Price talk 13:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar determined that Jesus held a sapential eschatology rather than an apocalyptic eschatology.
Sapiential Eschatology
"Apocalyptic eschatology is world-negation stressing imminent divine intervention: we wait for God to act; sapiential eschatology is world-negation emphasizing immediate divine imitation: God waits for us to act." - John Dominic Crossan, The Essential Jesus: Original Sayings and Earliest Images (1998), p. 8
According to the Jesus Seminar, the apocalyptic eschatology present in the gospels, more properly reflects the impact of the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. on the early church. Eminent theologian E. P. Sanders disagrees with this assessment and points out that John the Baptist, Paul (1 Thessalonians 5) and the early church all expected an imminent end. Jesus, therefore, must fit this context. However, Jesus speaking for himself is not what you would expect of a prophet of Israel's eschatological hope. There is no teaching of the 12 tribes, no delineation of which groups are in and which are out, and nothing about the fate of Israel itself in the gospels, unlike prophesies in the Old Testament and Dead Sea scrolls.
"When Jesus was reported to have said, 'My Kingdom is not of this world' (John 18:36), he did not mean that it was in heaven. In the Gospel of John all people are divided into two groups: (1) those of the world and (2) those not of the world. Those not of the world included Jesus and his followers who believed in him. They lived on the earth. They were not in heaven, but they were not the heathen. They belonged to 'the church' in contrast to 'the world'. 'The world' included al the pagans and those who refused to believe in him." - George Wesley Buchanan, Jesus - The King and His Kingdom
--Loremaster 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I added a section on the "seven pillars" to address apocalypsism. The Five Gospels recounts each pillar without exactly making the case for any of them. In other words, it recounts changes in scholarship but doesn't argue for the changes. Likewise, T5G doesn't argue for the two-source hypothesis or Markan priority. It just says that's the current critical view. If folks can cite scholars who accept the other six pillars and not non-eschatology, that would go a long way to putting the JS in the perspective of historical Jesus research in general. Jonathan Tweet 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Eh? I still don't see why the Seminar rejected any notion of Jesus as an eschatological figure. --Michael C. Price talk 01:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Because the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar determined that the authentic words of Jesus contradicted the notion that he held an apocalyptic world view. The best example being his teachings reported in Luke 17:20-21. Also, see my comments above. --Loremaster 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In that case they should have derived Jesus' eschatological stance, instead of assuming it as a premise.--Michael C. Price talk 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I think the Jesus Seminar did derive Jesus' eschatological stance rather than assumed it, in science, it is perfectly normal to use previous observations to formulate an assumed hypothesis and then test it in order to derive to a provisional conclusion. --Loremaster 23:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The article says it is a core premise (a "pillar"). --Michael C. Price talk 08:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I was able to find Borg's take on the decline of eschatological Jesus in scholarship. [3]. I've referenced it in the article. It's true that the JS's non-eschatological Jesus is not a discovery of the seminar but an articulation of the fellows' premises. Jonathan Tweet 05:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Loremaster, you say "I think the Jesus Seminar did derive Jesus' eschatological stance rather than assumed it." I think they mostly presumed it. Not all of them. Some fellows held to the end-times Jesus. But Funk was not constructing a cross-section of opinion. He was assembling a team to undertake work, and the team had a shared vision of what they were doing. Some heavy hitters on the seminar were already non-end-times before the JS began (e.g. Borg and Crossan). This team answered the question, "What does Jesus look like when analyzed according to certain presumptions?" These presumptions are not arbitrary assumptions. They're the findings of these scholars as they work in this field. Most of them are noncontroversial. The non-end-times pillar is disputed. Ehrman, Vermes, and Tabor, for example, stick with end-times Jesus. Jonathan Tweet 07:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. What I meant to say is that most Fellows may have derived Jesus' eschatological stance before joining the Seminar through their own reconstructive work and therefore started off with that assumption as a "pillar" for their research within the Seminar. --Loremaster 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Loremaster, right. Jonathan Tweet 21:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sayings

The sayings section is pretty terrible. These lists don't help the reader see the vision of Jesus that the seminar is presenting or the premises on which the seminar accepted or rejected sayings. I'm working up to adding a subsection under "sayings" that uses typical red, pink, gray, and black sayings to show the Seminar's POV. I don't want to delete these long lists of red and pink sayings, but they're pretty long and not that informative. Jonathan Tweet 14:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think three examples for each category should be more than enough. The list breaks the flow of the article. At the very least, I think the list of phrases and the list of members should be at the bottom of the article. Let all the text come first. What do you think? Phyesalis 01:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Can you move the lists to the back and I'll keep working on examples? I'm not sure that three examples is going to be enough, but let's start there. Jonathan Tweet 03:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You can move them around, but the lists should stay. They may appear uninformative, however, this is how the Seminar proceeded, first it voted on verses, then it considered what the verses meant, rather than drawing a conclusion first and then finding the verses that matched the conclusion. 75.0.12.173 06:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Five Gosepls? According to Five Gospels, the fellows debated verses. Some verses require two or three votes, interspersed by more discussion. Jonathan Tweet 04:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification, please

In the section, "Overall reliability of the five gospels", the article refers to the Jesus Seminar as considering five Gospels. In most copies of the New Testament, there are only four books identified as gospels: what is the fifth one they refer to? The Q document? The Gospel of Thomas? -- llywrch 00:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The provoctive name of the seminar's book is "The Five Gospels." The fifth (noncanonical) gospel is gospel of Thomas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Tweet (talk • contribs) 02:02, 10 November 2006
Thanks you for your response, but my intent was to have this information added to the article -- not to satisfy my curiosity. -- llywrch 02:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me state for the record that, contrary to appearances, I am not an idiot. Jonathan Tweet 03:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarify verifiable source of www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org

An edit (weasel-worded) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_Seminar&diff=prev&oldid=93202170 was added "Some Christians go so far as to depict the Jesus Seminar as a tool of Satan, meant to undermine Biblical beliefs.[1]" . Who are these people and are they in the same league as the "two hundred academic New Testament scholars" (thats a whole lot of PhDs). I'm tagging it as weasel. Ttiotsw 20:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK thats a fine - just got s funny feeling when a link goes in and calls something from "Satan" without being more precise as to who said it. Ttiotsw 22:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scholars Version

Is there a complete Scholars Version translation of the entire Bible available somewhere? --Loremaster 15:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, I think they only translated the "five gospels," not the whole Bible. Their topic was Jesus, not early Christianity. The entire text of the gospels in the scholars version is in the book The Five Gospels, which I obviously recommend highly. Jonathan Tweet 16:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it would have useful for them and everyone had they translated the entired Bible. Regarless, no need to recommend The Five Gospels to me since I've had a copy for years now. ;) --Loremaster 18:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Complete Gospels includes the Five Gospels and other Gospels the seminar deemed possibly relevant. 75.15.198.7 22:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Some info here: [4]

Thank you for reminding me. :) --Loremaster 10:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

There's a lot of facts and numbers throughout this article without citation. I thought I would make a mention here before arbitrarily slapping on an unreferenced tag since this page seems reasonably active. Vassyana 11:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A ton of material comes directly from the JS's books. Are those the facts you're talking about? Jonathan Tweet 14:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Jones?

Is this the one of "Bob Jones University" (in)fame?

Just checking... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.134.46 (talk • contribs) 22:40, February 24, 2007

No. Jonathan Tweet 05:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Seminar and Lazarus and Dives

There's a discussion about whether the JS qualifies as a reliable source (WP:RS) on Talk:Lazarus and Dives. Jonathan Tweet 20:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sloppy references?

I happened to drop in at this page, and more or less at random followed one link. This was the Dutch text supposed to be a source for the statement

Paul Verhoeven does not have any education in the Bible.

Now, I'm not expert in Dutch. However, as well as I understand Paul Verhoeven schrijft boek over Jezus, it simply does not say that. First of all, it is not an actual press release, but slightly similar. It is a brief article on a news site(?) named Katholiek Nederland, and it also seem to have some pages with information on the Roman Catholioic Church activities in the Netherlands. Most news are related to religeous issues of one or another sort. The article in the link indeed does seem to be based on or at least prompted by a press releaseabout a planned book by Paul Verhoeven; but it is unclear whether part of the article is based on other sources than the book intressents or general knowledge. It is adorned with a link to the Jesus seminar web page.
The article is not particulary critical. It states that Paul Verhoeven is the only (?'enige') non-theologian in the Jesus seminar. (I suspect that this is wrong.) However, according to the article the representant of the publisher claims that it is a truly scientific book, by a man who really knows the subject (?'weet echt waar hij het over heeft'). The article does not gainsay this, but goes on to describe a film project about the historical Jesus, and quotes Paul Verhoeven as respecting the importance Jesus has as basis of the western civilisation and for many people to-day.
I cannot find anything about 'bible knowledge'. The only thing even remotely similar is the statement 'as a fact' that Paul Verhoeven isn't a theologian. In my vocabulary, 'education in the Bible' is not synonymous with 'being a theologian'. The author of the article seems to share this view, since (s)he presents 'the claim' that Verhoeven knows his subject without any hint of protest.

Summing up the reference fairly, it is a notice from a news service connected to the Dutch Catholic Church, based on a press release about a forthcoming book about Jesus by Paul Verhoeven; and it states that while he is not a theologian, he does know the subject well enough to write a serious scientific book about it. This could not reasonably be summed up as Paul Verhoeven does not have any education in the Bible.. That may be verifiable, but not by this source..

Now, this was only one reference; and besides it is in a small language not too many of us know vell. However, I think you should have someone 'neutral' but Dutch-speaking person check over whether my reading of this text is correct; and if it is, you probably ocught to check the other references as well. I really hope that my single 'test' wasn't typical.

Best wishes, JoergenB 07:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It was only recently added with [5]. Verhoeven is already criticized earlier anyway and so I vote this line is removed given it doesn't tally with the reference nor the article i.e. is the book for or on behalf of the Jesus Seminar ?. Ttiotsw 13:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed and done. --Blainster 22:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Authentic and Inauthentic

One of the topics is the seminar's criteria for what makes a Jesus quote authentic or inauthentic. (For example, is it catchy, is it ironic, etc.) Does anyone know how they arrived at these criteria? Perhaps I'm the only one, but that sections seems to feel incomplete without understanding how they arrived at these criteria.

This is just my personal opinion, as well as my personal desire to know how they arrived at these criteria. Feel free to weigh in. 68.116.143.113 06:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As for catchiness, that goes back to orality. If these sayings circulated orally for a generation or so, only the ones that sound like something that could survive oral transmission sounds genuine. The long, philosophical lectures in John, for example, just arent the sort of thing that's going to survive oral transmission. (It would be a miracle for these verses to be Jesus' actual words.) The fellows arrived at other criteria partly through the process of examination itself, sort of like how you solve a crossword puzzle: Answer the easy ones first and use those answers as clues for other answers. For example, they looked at the most certain material (multiply attested, transmissable orally) and saw what it had in common (for example, that it cut across social and religious grain). This observation turned into a measure. If a saying cut across the social and religious grain, it seemed more likely to be genuine. That's how historians puzzle things together. Jonathan Tweet 03:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I bulked up the Authentic section as requested. I can do the same for Inauthentic, but first, any comments on what I've done so far? I think this is a lot better because it gives the reader the chance to get into the fellows' heads better. Jonathan Tweet 02:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seven Pillars

This material looks a little bogus.

Not all of the Seven pillars of Scholarly wisdom are universally accepted, with pillars one and five being rejected outright by a large portion of Biblical Scholars.45:00-46:30The Five Gospels says that the non-apocalyptic view gained ground in the 1970s and 1980s when research into Jesus shifted out of religious environments and into secular academia. The apocalyptic elements attributed to Jesus, according to The Five Gospels, come from John the Baptist and the early Christian community.Media:Example.ogg

Differentiating between historical Jesus and Jesus of faith (pillar one) isn't controversial, and this section says it is. Historians differentiate and most Christians don't, but there's precious little controversy either within the field of history or within Christianity. Let's talk about whether the pillars are controversial in the JS's own field: historical Jesus. Jonathan Tweet 02:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor added "fact" tags to the seven pillars section even though there's a reference for the statements. Since I added the reference and the new information, I don't want to be the one to remove the fact tags (unnecessary in my view). Anyone else interested in looking the section over? Jonathan Tweet 17:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example: Beatitudes

I'd like to add a section that shows how the fellows analyzed text: multiple attestation, irony, Christian additions, and voting. The Beatitudes work pretty well here, as they demonstrate how the Fellows distinguish among the beatitudes, rating three up, three or four down, and one neutral (or something like that). I know someone will object that it's OR because that's what they say when I try to make things really clear, so I thought I'd draw fire here on the talk page before proceeding. Comments? Jonathan Tweet 02:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a section on the beatitudes. Jonathan Tweet 22:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Towards Featured Article status

Does anyone have any objection to pushing the article to Peer review - a step that should always be taken before the Featured Articles Candidacy step? --Loremaster 22:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I do. This is in no way to 'run down' the really great work done by everyone in contributing to this article. Indeed the section I feel in particular need of 'tidying up' is "Criticism of the Jesus Seminar", which is one to which I have contributed to. However I do think this article really needs a good 'edit' before it could go to 'Featured Articles' candidacy. Mercury543210 18:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Peer review would us get outside advice on how to improve the article before it goes to Featured Articles Candidacy ... --Loremaster 00:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] controversial

I imagine we need to have a conversation about how controversial the JS is in which circles. I gave the lead my shot at a balanced take on it. Jonathan Tweet 04:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scholars Version

Does the "Scholars Version" constitute a "bible"? I ask because none of Wikipedia's various articles on bibles mention it:

etc. 151.197.28.239 04:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, as the article states, the "Scholars Version" is a new translation of the four biblical gospels plus the Gospel of Thomas, not the entire Bible. It appears in the book The Complete Gospels (1992), ISBN 0-944344-49-6, as well as in The Five Gospels. --Blainster 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of John

I removed the comment claiming that the commons scholarly opinion rejects the Gospel of John as reliable. This is simply not true, and the reference for this statement comes from a single source. I can give 50 that disagree with the Catholic source cited. Simply stated, the rejection of John is not at all agreed upon. Saying as much is against the unbiased POV. Please quit replacing it. If you're a skeptic and want to butter the Jesus Seminar up, that's one thing, but don't do so using a single source that contradicts plenty of others. For instance, Interpreting the Gospel of John by Gary Burge makes the opposite claim of the Catholics. Also, the respected D.A. Carson, in his Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, has much to say on the issue. Simply stated, the claim of scholarly rejection is unfounded, and has no place in an unbiased Wikipedia article.24.20.48.231 17:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In the future, it's easier for people to follow the most recent discussion if you post at the bottom of the page (so I have moved your comments down into a new topic). To create a new topic in the future, you can just use the "+" sign tab at the top of talk pages. Also, remember to write detailed edit summaries so editors understand the reasoning behind your actions. And when you delete sourced content, coming to talk helps (thanks for post the message above). As to your specific concern, what sources do you have and what do they say? After examination and research on this specific statement, I've come to agree with you somewhat, that the wording is a bit over the top and that the source is dated. That said, I do believe that there is some relevance behind the sentence, in that a good potion of scholars consider the saying tradition found in John to be less reliable than the synoptic sayings. Perhaps we could work on a rewording and reach a compromise?-Andrew c [talk] 17:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Jesus Seminar

I don't care for the header of "Criticism of the Jesus Seminar" in an arcticle that sthrives for Featured Article status and think it should be retitled or removed if possible. If such sections contain both the criticism and counter arguments (which they should for a high quality article), then such should not be labeled as criticism. Each section can stand on its own as a section of Jesus Seminar with integrated criticism and rebuttal. Such a section of arguments might have a title to group them but perhaps a better term could be used then "criticism" as this automaticly presents a POV. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, and Wikipedia:Criticism. As far as the list of critics (and I'm speaking without knowing them and without really reading through the material so forgive me if I off base), if they are significant enough to be mentioned here, then they should probably have their own article, where their criticism and the rebuttal of the topic can be expanded and linked back to the main article. If many critics make the same argument, then such is justified in having a section in this article with possible reference to the critics that make the argument. See WP:WEIGHT. --Loremaster 13:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

'Balance' always a difficult topic. Clearly the JS are highly controversial. To remove that from this article would be to introduce some 'POV be silence'. At the same time, as one who has contributed to that section, I do agree it needs 'tidying up'. There are some very valid criticisms of eg the voting methodology used by the JS, or their very controversial and unsubstantiated use of the Thomas Gospel. They deliberately courted controversy as a way of publicising their work. This controversy has to be reflected in the article. I suspect they would be rather disappointed if it wasn't! Mercury543210 19:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No one argued that the content of the Criticisms section should be removed but that the header should be deleted while the content is intergrated into the rest of the article. --Loremaster 20:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I had misunderstood your original proposal. I've given this some thought but have not come to any very definite conclusion. I am however leaning towards leaving the section separate as it enables the views of the JS be put forward clearly, and similarly allows the critique of their methods and position to be clear as well. I think the proposal might lead to a jumble. Mercury543210 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If we decided to keep the Criticisms section as is, it still needs tidying up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loremaster (talk • contribs) 19:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --Loremaster (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why do we need a link to Iconoclasm in the lead?

Loremaster, I don't understand why you think it's important to have a wikilink to Iconoclasm in the lead-in to this article. The rest of the sentence (". . . he often turned common-sense ideas upside down, confounding the expectations of his audience") seems to make the point pretty clearly on its own. The article the link goes to discusses the destruction of physical icons and other religious images - not something that Jesus is reported to have done (unless you count the cleansing of the temple, but that was targeted against commerce and doesn't seem have had anything to do with religious images). I certainly understand how someone could refer to Jesus as an "iconoclast," because he did challenge people's established religious beliefs, but sending people to the article on Iconoclast doesn't seem like it would help much, because it's just a redirect page (albeit with the one-line definition "[o]ne who attacks cherished beliefs") and sending them to the article on Iconoclasm seems misleading, because it could give the impression that Jesus went around smashing up statues and frescoes. I don't know that it would be incorrect to simply add the one-line definition into the text ("Jesus was an iconoclast, challenging many of his hearers' cherished beliefs"), but I'm not sure it adds much to what's already there. EastTN (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that you are making a big deal out of nothing, the word "iconoclast" appears several times in the work of some Fellows of Jesus Seminar, especially John Dominic Crossan, in the context of describing Jesus as someone breaking established dogmata or conventions through both his teachning and behaviors. I will simply expand on that idea to make it more clear in the lead of the article. However, I agree that the link is not necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a good solution. I just think it's confusing to send readers to a disambiguation page that doesn't help them understand how the word is being used, or to an article that's based on a very different usage of the term. EastTN (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)