The Jesus Seminar

The above-mentioned seminar is, for some reason, on my mind again today. I have been reading a bit more into their methods in scholarly "mischief" today. Hence, a rant must ensue.

First off, the seminar's blatent ability to ignore the canonical process in Christianity is rather interesting. There are Five Gospels, and, "[t]he “Five Gospels” in question are (in case there was any doubt) Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas" (Wright 83). The last one is a bit of a surprise. Actually, with regards to the historical record of canonization, it's quite bizarre. N.T. Wright continues: "The inclusion of the last of these will still raise one or two eyebrows, through it is by now well known that the Seminar takes kindly to Thomas, not least because of its apparent similarity with (some reconstructions of) the hypothetical source “Q”—and, as we shall see, the portrait of Jesus which it appears to support" (83-4). In fact, it is fairly well-known that, at least as a whole, the seminar views the Gospel of Thomas in a more respectful light than the Gospel of St. John, the latter of which is quite obviously part of the Biblical canon. Evidently the prior contains more accurate sayings than the latter, which, given the historical association -- and rightfully so -- with the Gnosticism is rather odd. Yes, even the Gospel of St. John was debated, but it was hardly viewed in the same light as Thomas' piece. Like Thomas, its tone is different than the other three gospels, but it is nevertheless obviously closer to the the first three -- namely theologically. Whether this usage of "Q" is rational is beyond my knowledge at this point, but I certainly find the conclusion untrustworthy.

Secondly, there is the use of their colloquial translation. This is the "Scholar's Version" that is -- and as Wright notes, quite pompously -- "authorized by scholars." And, yet, the actually text of the "scholar's version" hardly sounds scholarly, making use of such grammatically "iffy" tidbits such as the modern second-person pronoun "you" ("iffy" inasmuch as it does not depict the same number, that is plural or singular, as clearly as "ye" or "thou" -- the latter two being, personally, the more grammatically accurate translations with regards to the original Koine). Rather, Christ speaks as if He walked of the street. Is this per chance an accurate depiction? Yes, as the Koine used by the Hebrews was quite different than the scholarly "voice" of Gential writers. For instance: "When Jesus noticed their trust, he said, 'Mister, your sins have been forgiven you'" (Matt. 22:12 of the "Five Gospels").

Next comes the "criteria for inauthenticy," which, at least in my opinion, is hardly scholarly and depicts an agenda more than anything. Four of such characteristics are:

i.) Self-reference (e.g. Christ referring to Himself);
ii.) Framing Material (e.g. introduction/frame for other material);
iii.) Community Issues (e.g. instructions for early Christians);
iv.) Theological Bias (e.g. a redactor bias).

What I do not understand is why any of these are reasons for naming a passage as inauthentic. If Christ was assumed to be a revolutionary, would He not point towards community issues? The theological bias and self-reference appear to assert that there is a pre-existing bias that Christ is not at all God/divine, which should not necessarily be a factor in deciding whether or not the passage is or is not authentic, mostly because it is quite clearly, again, biased.

Finally, they have degrees. Yes, because this is somehow a decisive factor...

Peace. More later?