What is the Jesus Seminar?
The Jesus Seminar was a group of about 150 critical scholars and laymen founded in 1985 by Robert Funk under the auspices of the Westar Institute. The seminar was active until 2006. The main goal of the Jesus Seminar was to reconstruct the historical Jesus and separate the historical Jesus from the “Christ of faith” using the historical-critical method.
The Jesus Seminar used colored beads to vote on whether Jesus said or did something attributed to him in the gospels. A red bead meant they believed Jesus did or said it, a pink bead meant he probably did or said something like it, a gray bead meant he did not say it, and a black bead meant there was no evidence he said or did it. Based on their voting, the Jesus Seminar concluded that 82% of the sayings and 16% of the deeds attributed to Jesus in the gospels were either completely fabricated or at least heavily embellished by early Christians rather than actually said or done by the historical Jesus.
Origins of the Jesus Seminar
The Jesus Seminar grew out of earlier academic work on the historical Jesus and a series of controversial Jesus books published in the 1980s. These books included George Nickelsburg’s The Genre and Function of Mark 13 (1972), Norman Perrin’s Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (1967), Edward Schillebeeckx’s Jesus (1979), and John Dominic Crossan’s The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (1991).
These earlier scholars applied historical-critical tools for analyzing ancient texts to the gospels to try to determine what could be known about the actual words and deeds of the historical Jesus using scientific methods. They concluded the gospels included extensive mythology about Jesus developed by the early church, making it difficult to separate historical fact from later embellishment and fiction.
Robert Funk founded the Jesus Seminar to take this earlier academic work on the historical Jesus and share it with the public. Funk was an academic who left a career at the University of Montana in 1979 to found the Westar Institute, a think tank for religion scholars, and to pursue publishing ventures that would share academic insights about the Bible with the general public.
In 1985, Funk invited a group of critical Bible scholars to join him in creating the Jesus Seminar. About 150 scholars participated over the lifetime of the group, including big names like Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong, and James M. Robinson. The Jesus Seminar disbanded in 2006 after 21 years of work.
Methods and Perspectives of the Jesus Seminar
The Jesus Seminar embodied an extreme skeptical perspective about the historical reliability of the gospels. Participants in the Jesus Seminar took the view that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses to the events of Jesus’s life, but were written 40-60 years later by second or third generation Christians. As a result, they believed the gospels were filled with mythology and embellishments invented by early Christians rather than containing accurate historical reports about Jesus.
Following the historical-critical approach, the Jesus Seminar assumed the gospels could not be trusted as historical sources at face value. Their goal was to deconstruct the gospels to find the historical core they believed existed behind the extensive mythology about Jesus invented by the gospel writers and early Christians.
The main tools used by the Jesus Seminar included source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and the criterion of dissimilarity. Source criticism attempts to reconstruct the sources behind the gospels to distinguish early material from later embellishments. Form criticism examines the form and shape of gospel texts to determine the genre. Redaction criticism looks at how the gospel writers edited their sources. The criterion of dissimilarity argues material dissimilar to both Judaism and early Christianity is more likely to be historical.
The Jesus Seminar also applied social memory theory in their work. Social memory posits that communities collectively invent mythological stories that serve their self-interests. The Jesus Seminar viewed the gospels as reflecting the social memory of early Christian communities rather than historical facts about Jesus. As a result, they assumed anything in the gospels that appeared to meet early Christian needs was a later invention rather than a fact about the historical Jesus.
Voting Methodology
The Jesus Seminar used a unique voting methodology to attempt to reconstruct what Jesus likely said and did versus what was a later embellishment or invention by gospel writers or early Christians. This is how it worked:
1. Seminar members would gather twice a year to consider a particular saying or deed attributed to Jesus in the gospels.
2. The saying or deed would be read aloud to the group.
3. Members would then silently cast votes using colored beads:
– Red beads meant the saying or deed was probably authentic – Jesus definitely said or did something like this.
– Pink beads meant Jesus probably said or did something similar to the passage, but not exactly as written.
– Gray beads meant Jesus probably did not say this, but the ideas may reflect his views.
– Black beads meant this material was a later invention and Jesus definitely did not say or do this.
4. The votes would be tallied and the results published, indicating the group’s overall assessment of the historical reliability of the passage.
Based on this voting methodology, the Jesus Seminar ultimately classified over 80% of the sayings of Jesus and 16% of the deeds attributed to him in the gospels as entirely inauthentic – the black bead vote. Only 2% of the sayings and 16% of the deeds were deemed entirely authentic – the red bead vote. The remainder fell somewhere in the middle – Jesus may have said or done something similar, but not exactly as described in the gospels.
Criticisms of the Jesus Seminar
The Jesus Seminar provoked extensive criticism from more conservative Jesus scholars for promoting an excessively skeptical view of the gospels’ historical reliability. Critics argued that dismissing 80% or more of the gospel material as pure fiction went beyond healthy skepticism into hyper-skepticism.
Specific criticisms of the Jesus Seminar included:
– Applying a biased historical-critical approach that dismissed the supernatural and divine inspiration of the gospels.
– Assumptions that miracles could not happen, so any miraculous materials had to be mythical inventions.
– Assumptions the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses and were developed late, contrary to evidence they were written earlier.
– Failure to consider evidence from archaeology supporting gospel reliability.
– Selectively focusing on a small subset of gospel texts rather than the full picture.
– Lack of transparency about the voting process and prevalence of groupthink dynamics that skewed voting.
– Perception the voting methodology was seen as sensationalist rather than a serious scholarly method.
– Going beyond the evidence in categorizing so much material as pure fiction that may have a historical core.
– Failure to provide convincing alternative explanations for the origins of these materials they deemed inauthentic.
In summary, critics felt the Jesus Seminar started with excessive skepticism rather than a neutral viewpoint, used flawed methods, and drew sweeping conclusions beyond what the evidence could support. The Jesus Seminar provides an example of perceived hyper-skepticism among some scholars regarding the gospels’ historical reliability. Their work was impactful but also provoked extensive scholarly criticism from those advocating more balanced perspectives.
Portrait of Jesus Constructed by the Jesus Seminar
Given their skeptical approach, the Jesus Seminar portrayed Jesus very differently than traditional Christian perspectives. They concluded:
– Jesus was not an apocalyptic prophet predicting the end of the world as believed by earlier scholars.
– Jesus did not say many of the words attributed to him in the gospels, which were creations of early Christians.
– Jesus did not say he was the Messiah or Son of God and did not think of himself as divine. These were later embellishments by his followers.
– Jesus did not see himself establishing a new religion. He was a populist social reformer teaching enlightened wisdom, not theology about himself.
– Jesus was simply a wise sage and charismatic wisdom teacher, not the divine Son of God as traditionally believed.
– The resurrection of Jesus was a later legend, not a historical fact. Jesus’ body was left on the cross to be eaten by scavengers, contrary to the gospel accounts.
This portrait of Jesus as simply a wise moral teacher stripped of traditional divine attributes and biographical details was more palatable to secular, historically-critical scholars than the Christ of traditional faith. Critics argued it seemed shaped more by the Jesus Seminar’s worldviews than by historical evidence. They accused the Seminar of creating a Jesus in their own image rather than based on objective historical analysis.
Major Works Produced by the Jesus Seminar
The Jesus Seminar published the results of its work in three major books:
1. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (1993)
This book categorized all the sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels and non-canonical sources into:
– Red/Pink: likely authentic
– Grey: questionable authenticity
– Black: inauthentic
It concluded only about 20% of the sayings of Jesus could possibly be authentic.
2. The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (1998)
This book analyzed all the deeds attributed to Jesus in the gospels, categorizing them using the red, pink, gray, black system. It viewed the acts of Jesus as generally more plausible historically than his sayings.
3. The Gospel of Jesus: According to the Jesus Seminar (1999)
This work provides the overall conclusions of the Seminar concerning Jesus’ words and deeds in the form of a single “gospel” created by excerpting and arranging the materials judged as authentic.
Through these works, the Jesus Seminar explicitly distinguished their reconstruction of the historical Jesus from traditional perspectives. They portrayed Jesus as a secular sage rather than the traditional divine Christ. Many appreciated the Seminar’s work as revealing the human rather than divine Jesus. Critics argued their Jesus seemed shaped more by their worldviews than by history. Nevertheless, their work formed an influential attempt to reconstruct the life of Jesus using historical-critical methods applied to the gospels.
Key Participants in the Jesus Seminar
Some of the leading scholars involved in the Jesus Seminar included:
Robert Funk (1926-2005): Founder of the Jesus Seminar and Westar Institute. Background in New Testament studies. Advocated form criticism and skepticism toward historical reliability of gospels.
John Dominic Crossan (born 1934): Highly influential scholar on historical Jesus. Known for controversial perspectives debunking traditional beliefs. Former Catholic priest. Co-founder of Jesus Seminar.
Marcus Borg (1942-2015): Major popularizer of historical-critical views on Jesus and Christianity. Promoted perspective of Jesus as wisdom teacher, not as divine.
Robert J. Miller: Professor of religion at Juniata College. Specialist in apocalypticism and the non-canonical gospels, especially Thomas.
Robert W. Funk: Leadership roles in Jesus Seminar and Westar Institute. Expertise in rhetorical criticism and Greek philosophy/rhetoric.
Daryl D. Schmidt: Professor of New Testament at Bellarmine University. Former evangelical who moved toward critical scholarship.
Ron Cameron: Professor of religion at Wesleyan University. Specialist in non-canonical gospels and Nag Hammadi writings.
Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Robert Funk were probably the three most influential figures associated with the Jesus Seminar. All three published popular books promoting the historical-critical approach that shaped the work of the Seminar. Through their scholarly and popular writings, these three figures did more than anyone else to disseminate the ideas and conclusions of the Jesus Seminar to the broader public.
The Aftermath of the Jesus Seminar
Although the Jesus Seminar officially disbanded in 2006 after 21 years of work, its legacy continued to impact scholarship and popular perspectives on the historical Jesus for years to come.
On the scholarly front, the Jesus Seminar helped promote wider acceptance of skepticism toward the historical reliability of the gospels. It popularized tools like form criticism and the criterion of dissimilarity as mainstream components of historical Jesus studies. The minimalist view of Jesus constructed by the Seminar displaced 19th century liberal Protestant portraits of Jesus as a simple moral teacher.
However, there was also a backlash among more moderate Jesus scholars against the perceived hyper-skepticism of the Jesus Seminar. Groups like the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus advocated more balanced scholarship returning to the belief that at least some gospel material was rooted in the historical Jesus. Archaeologists also challenged the late dating of the gospels assumed by the Seminar.
In popular culture, the Jesus Seminar introduced historical-critical scholarship on Jesus to a wider audience. Critics charged it promoted an overly skeptical perspective to the masses without adequate context. But the Seminar did make academic debates about Jesus and the gospels accessible to the general public for the first time. The popular image of Jesus as simply a wise teacher and the gospels as myth rather than history partly reflects the ongoing impact of the Jesus Seminar.
Conclusion
The Jesus Seminar embodied the trend toward extreme skepticism about the reliability of the gospels among critical scholars in the 20th century. Using tools like form criticism, it concluded the gospels were mostly myth invented to serve the self-interests of the early church rather than preserving the actual history of Jesus. Through voting with colored beads, it rejected 80% or more of the gospel material about Jesus as inauthentic. The resulting portrait of Jesus was of a purely human wisdom teacher later deified by his followers. The Jesus Seminar provoked significant scholarly criticism that it promoted excessive skepticism built upon questionable presuppositions and methods. But its work also helped introduce historical-critical scholarship on Jesus to the general public and shifted popular perspectives to view Jesus as the sage of the Seminar’s reconstruction rather than the divine Son of God portrayed in church tradition. The Jesus Seminar represented a controversial but highly influential chapter in the modern academic study of the historical Jesus.
