Talk:Jesus Seminar

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... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caswin (talk • contribs) 23:57, 20 November 2004 [1]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think there is only onesided criticism of the JS, which is being done explicitly. But the responses of the JS are not mentioned as explicitly, and are at the bottom, while the criticism is in the lead. This seems like a POV thing to do.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Working on correcting that. --Loremaster (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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;

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

What was the Jesus Seminar about? If you ask me, it's all about a bunch of third-rate scholars trying to make a name for themselves. Scholars who can, do. Scholars who can't, join the Jesus Seminar and pretend that they can.76.6.222.168 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 ].

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 [2] 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."[3] 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. [4]. 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)

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)

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)

Clarify verifiable source of www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org

An edit (weasel-worded) http://en.wiki.x.io/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." . 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)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps related to this item because of the source language: I have edited the remaining Verhoeven criticism clarifying that he does not have a PhD, referencing yet another Dutch source (a major Dutch newspaper). The newspaper researched and refuted Verhoeven's Ph.D. claim. Verhoeven claims his "Doctorandus" degree is equivalent to a Ph.D. even though the meaning of this latin term is "candidate for Ph.D." i.e. Master's (and Dutch law prescribes this equivalence). Verhoeven's university (Leiden) also rejects his Ph.D. claim. Removed the earlier ref. to an online biography of Verhoeven as the author of that biography has apparently not verified Verhoeven's academic record or is similarly unaware of the difference between Dutch "Doctor" and "Doctorandus" degrees. Nonoisense (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, Paul Verhoeven is a member of the Jesus Seminar? How on earth did that happen? john k (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what their web site says. He does seem to have a deep interest in this and I understand a book out last year related to the subject. I think that it is purely coincidental that there is such an obvious overlap that can be drawn between the Christianity's somewhat fictional death-cult and Verhoeven's violent works of fiction. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Scholars Version

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

• Bible
• Bible translations
• List of Bible translations
• English translations of the Bible
• Miscellaneous English Bible translations

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)

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)

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)

The criticism section is full of no-name and also-ran writers who are given the honor of direct quotes and block quotes. This stuff should all be summarized and put into encyclopedic format. On the other hand, boy howdy people do love to hate the Jesus Seminar, and having a nice, fat criticism section probably makes people feel pretty good. Leadwind (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Determine.

Hi, I have replaced the word "determine" with the phrase "decide their collective view of" - because their voting cannot, of course, change the historicity of events (unless you are an ultra post-modernist - which the JS are not, as I understand it). Springnuts (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that you have explained it, I support the change. --Loremaster (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Handling theological affiliations/predilections in a balanced way

It looks like there's been some back and forth recently on how the article should characterize the critics of the Jesus Seminar. The current text says:

Many scholars, the majority of whom are conservative Christians, have questioned the methodology, assumptions and intent of the Jesus Seminar.

We don't have any similar characterization of the theological view of members of the Seminar or scholars who agree with them. The closest we come is in the criticism section, where we quote Craig as saying that the seminar members don't represent a consensus among New Testament scholars, and then say:

Others have made the same point and have further indicated that thirty-six of those scholars, almost half, have a degree from or currently teach at one of three schools, Harvard, Claremont, or Vanderbilt: all considered to favor "liberal" interpretations of the New Testament.

In the first case we are, as editors, characterizing the critics as conservatives. If I'm not mistaken, none of the references given makes that claim - all of the footnotes point to works by the scholars who're criticizing the Seminar's analysis, not third-party sources that survey the critics and conclude that they are predominantly conservatives. In the second case we're reporting a claim made by critics, and qualifying the characterization by placing the term "liberal" in quotation marks.

This seems to create at least the appearance that we are, as editors, labeling one side while questioning any labeling suggested for the other side. This could be read to suggest that we believe the critics represent a minority at one end of the ideological spectrum, while the Seminar itself represents a broad consensus across the rest of the ideological spectrum. If that's true, we should say so - but it would be a very strong claim, and we need to find reliable sources to document it. EastTN (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

comment thanks for this thoughtful comment - I agree with you, and this was the reason - though you express it much better than I did in the edit summary - for this diff: [[6]]. It would be helpful to have Loremaster's view. Springnuts (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not clear why this article still reads "Many conservative Christian scholars and laymen have questioned..." considering the above discussion. Criticisms of the methodology of the Jesus Seminar have been made by a wide range of scholars, most of whom could not fairly be characterised as "conservative Christian scholars". Indeed, you'd be hard-pressed to find a serious Biblical scholar who didn't have reservations about the Seminar's methodology. The current phrasing in this article implies that the criticisms have their origins in political rather than scholarly motivations--an implication as incorrect as it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. 76.69.141.114 (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The wording, I believe, I based on our cited sources of criticism. We currently cite conservative Christians and laymen. If you have examples of the multitudes of regular, mainstream scholars who are critical of the JS and/or the methodology, please feel free to add them. We shouldn't misrepresent the criticism based on your personal beliefs. On Wikipedia, we must back things up with cited sources. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard that only "conservatives" question the Jesus Seminar - the Jesus seminar is at one end of the spectrum (besides the radical fringe that denies the historical existence of Jesus entirely). My understanding is that many non-conservative scholars do not accept the Jesus Seminar's inclusion. Anyone, for instance, who views Jesus's mission as largely apocalyptic would be unsupportive of the Jesus Seminar, and that would include many who could not by any reasonable standard be viewed as "conservative." But it's been years since I've looked into this very closely, so I couldn't say for sure. john k (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

John K is right that even mainstream scholars disagree with the idea that Jesus was non-apocalyptic. Other than that, though, the JS is pretty well in the mainstream. The biggest scholar in the criticism section is N T Wright, and he is a self-proclaimed conservative. Some of the other folks quoted here are opposed not just to the JS but to the very attempt to construct an image of historical Jesus. That's conservative. Leadwind (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Simpler words than "itinerant"?

would "travelling" be a better word than "itinerant" as travelling looks simpler? K61824 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is the word the Jesus Seminar uses often and Jesus is actually mentioned in the Itinerant article as an example of a notable itinerant. --Loremaster (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)--

"The Historical Jesus For Dummies"

I know "The Historical Jesus For Dummies" a first glance seems like a strange source. However the Catherine M. Murphy is knowledgeable and writes from a NPOV. Are there any points specific points that cause you concern? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

POV concerns

I believe this article may well be rather clearly slanted toward the thinking of the Jesus Seminar intself. Here are a few examples:

From Charles A. Gieschen, chairman of exegetical theology of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod's Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, IN, according to "Conference examines Gospel of Thomas", by Rosa Saller Rodriguez, The Journal Gazette (Fort Wayne), October 25, 2011, as retrieved from NewsBank: "'A lot of what some of them (in the Jesus Seminar) are saying passes as scholarship is not regarded as scholarly across the board', he says. 'It actually represents a fairly narrow, liberal, historically skeptical scholarship coming out the 1970s and 1980s.... They tend to create the impression that if you believe in the things represented in the (canonical) Gospels, then you are not intellectual, and you re simple-minded and uninformed.'"

From The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, in an interview with Greg Boyd (theologian), one of the group's critics:

p. 152 - "I could emphasize with Boyd's story, having heard too many people equate the Jesus Seminar with all scholars. "Do you think that impression is an accident?" I asked.

"Well, the Jesus Seminar certainly portrays itself that way," Boyd replied. "In fact, this is one of its most irritating facets, not just to evangelicals but to other scholars as well." ...

(again quoting Boyd) "'Here's the truth. The Jesus Seminar represents an extremely small number of radical-fringe scholars who are on the far, far left wing of New Testament thinking. It does not represent mainstream scholars.'

'And, ironically, they have their own brand of fundamentalism. They say they have the right way of doing things, period.' He smiled. 'In the name of diversity,' he added with a chuckle, "they can actually be quite narrow.'"

There is also the matter of their unique take on the Gospels, including their inclusion of the Gospel of Thomas in the groups' The Five Gospels, despite the fact that that Gospel had been known for about 50 years prior to publication and been fairly universally counted as a Gnostic text written centuries later. This does not seem to be mentioned in the article at all.

Nor, unfortunately, is there any clear mention of the other works which have been written in response to the group, often very critical of their methodologies and outcomes. I would think that NPOV would require the inclusion of same. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an article specifically about the Jesus Seminar. As a result, it should go to great lengths to explain the Jesus Seminar, its formation, its principles, its publications, and so on to our readers. So yes, this may sound sympathetic to the Jesus Seminar - but the same could be said for any subject. It's also appropriate to include separate sections covering controversies and criticisms related to this subject. Such sections provide the appropriate context for the subject. What we must avoid is merging the two threads throughout the article as in: "The Jesus Seminar says X, but others say 'no, it's Y'". As this would lead to very choppy reading. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rklawton. --Loremaster (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe WP:SELFSOURCE probably applies here. And I very seriously doubt all the sections meet the standards of WP:NPOV. Among the possibly several issues I see with this article, beyond the fact that several entire sections do not yet have a single source cited, is the fact that very little of the content seems to be in any way independent of the Seminar itself. Where, for instance, is any explanation for the reasons of the inclusion of the Gospel of Thomas in their Scholars Bible? The book had been readily available, and regularly printed in full repeatedly before then, and, so far as I can tell, pretty much rejected as authentic by reliable sources outside of the JS.

Also, I believe that the quotations from The Case for Christ, above, while not necessarily itself the greatest of sources, is actually independent of the JS, which we tend to favor. Among the other statements made in the chapter of that book based on the interview with Boyd, almost all of which relates to the JS, it seems that the group makes several major assumptions, not all of which are necessarily widely supported by academia. These include questions regarding their "Seven Pillars of Scholarly Wisdom". Who exactly determined that they were the seven pillars? Seemingly, the Seminar itself. If true, that should be indicated. The chapter also indicates that the JS takes a rather specifically and pointedly naturalist position, which specifically rules out the supernatural entirely. I would have to think that such information is directly relevant to their conclusions. This can be verified from information on page 153: "But there is one picture that they all agree with: Jesus first of all must be a naturalistic Jesus. In other words, whatever else is said of him, Jesus was a man like you or me. ...[H]e was not supernatural." Naturalism is not, necessarily, a philosophical belief which is required for rational inquiry, and its prominence, I believe, deserves mention. Some of the other assumptions it makes are outlined on pages 154-166. These include that "the gospels are not eve generally reliable," which I would have to assume is a relevant point. On the next page, "[T]hey rule out the possibility of the supernatural from the beginning..." Page 156 has, "[T]hey assume that the later church put these sayings in the mouth of Jesus, unless they have good evidence to think otherwise. ... Historians generally operate with the burden of proof on the historian to prove falsity or unreliability, ...The Jesus Seminar turns this on its head and says you've got to affirmatively prove that a saying came from Jesus. Then they come up with questionable criteria to do that. ... One is called double dissimilarity, ...This means they can believe Jesus said something if it doesn't look like something a rabbi or the later church would say. Otherwise they assume it got into the gospels from a Jewish or Christian source." On this basis, few if any of the public statements of our existing governmental officials might qualify as actually being said by them, which is interesting. Later, 'Then there's the criterion of 'multiple attestation,' which means we can only be sure Jesus said something if it's found in more than one source." But, later, 'Even when Jesus' sayings are found in two or three gospels, they don't consider this as passing the 'multiple-attestation' criterion. If a saying is found in Matthew, Mark and Luke, they consider that only one source, because they assume that Matthew and Luke used Mark in writing their gospels."

Further information regarding the possible biases of the seminar can be found on that page and the preceding page, such as:

"They [the members of the Jesus Seminar]'re explicit in saying they want to rescue the Bible from fundamentalism and to free Americans from the 'naive' belief that the Jesus of the Bible is the 'real' Jesus. They say they want a Jesus who's relevant for today. One of them said that the traditional Jesus did not speak to the needs of the ecological crisis, the nuclear crisis, the feminist crisis, so we need a new picture of Jesus. As another one said, we need a 'new fiction'."

The next paragraph goes on: "One of the twists is that they're going directly to the masses instead of to other scholars. They want to take their findings out of the ivory tower and bring them into the marketplace to influence popular opinion. And what they have in mind is a totally new form of Christianity."

I also believe that it would likely be very relevant to note what, if any, specific types of statements regarding beliefs in the historicity of Jesus field the founder of the JS himself had. Considering that membership in this group is open, and that anyone can join, it would likely be useful to know what opinions the founder(s) of the group had when they founded the group, considering those beliefs would probably impact whether the choice of individuals to join or not. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "The Jesus Seminar says X, but others say 'no, it's Y'" compositions should be avoided when possible. John Carter's point about self-sourcing is something that is troubling and should be addressed. We don't allow promotional articles, and an article constructed around publications of an organization and its members very naturally raises PoV concerns. This happens with articles dealing with religious groups (and as a matter of policy, with all Wiki articles), where we rely on secondary and tertiary sources, and allow primary sources from the organization and members only when used with extreme care (e.g., to support statements detailing claims the organization makes about itself). Restricting opposing views to a "Controversies" section seems an equally poor way of constructing an article, unless secondary and tertiary sources cannot be found that give an outside view that explore these. It would be better to simply base sections upon a mix of 3rd-party sources and limit the article text to reporting what they say (both pro and con). Material from the Seminar and Seminar members can be useful in supporting claims made by the Seminar and/or participants, when those claims are clearly marked as positions or statements made by the Seminar and/or participants (i.e., readers should clearly perceive that such a statement has a link to the organization). In some cases, "The Jesus Seminar says X, but others say 'no, it's Y'" may be unavoidable, and presenting this where it occurs in the flow of text is preferable, and less PoV, than sticking it into a "Controversies" section, which too often minimizes the existence of criticisms and alternative views. • Astynax ^talk 00:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that there will necessarily be any contradictions between the JS and outsiders. John Dominic Crossan, one of the leaders, and called by some co-founder of the group, is quoted as saying some of the activities of the group were intentionally self-promoting. The question would, in general, be more along the lines of "the JS says X, which has been said by outsiders to more clearly mean Y," and similar statements. I am in the process of gathering some content to reference the article. I would myself propose an article structure along the lines of

• 1. Origins
• 2. Activities

• 2A. Meetings
• 2B. "Jesus Seminar on the Road"

• 3. Membership
• 4. Guiding principles (including both self-sourced and outside-sourced materials)
• 5. Conclusions
• 6. Publications
• 7. Controversy

• 7A. Publicity-seeking
• 7B. Evangelical spirit (yes, it has been called "evangelistic" by several RS's)

• 8. Move to Oregon

While what is above is only one possibility, I think that it would cover all the bases. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest moving #3 and #4 up to #2 (or at least #3 up to #2) because it helps put the group in context. Rklawton (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Update tag

I read reports that the group is now headquartered at some college in Oregon. Particularly after what seems to have been the death of the group's founder, its status would, presumably, be of interest to editors and be something they would think to update. I did print out a copy of the newspaper report on the subject, but, unfortunately, cannot find it in the reports in front of me. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "death of their founder" (i.e. Funk), I recently saw a picture of Crossan and one of Borg. I bet one of them will join him in 9 months, another in 18. The seminar is over. History2007 (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You can find the announcement on Willamette University's website. • Astynax ^talk 06:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that is the Westar Institute, which is not the same as the Jesus Seminar, which disbanded, per the RS source added now. There is a new group the Acts Seminar, also active within the Westar framework, but the original J-seminar has concluded its work and is not active in its previous form any more. History2007 (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of material

I have again removed an enormous amount of material that presents in excruciating detail the results of the seminar. It's sourced--but it's sourced to the official seminar publication (primary) and thus the notability of the information is in doubt (I don't doubt the veracity, of course). 17k of results, that's simply too much: as I said before, a summary is fine, but this is was too much. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I get your point, but it would seem more appropriate to prune and summarize than to delete that much sourced material out of hand. My suggestion would be to take out everything that's not sourced, see where we are, then start summarizing. My two edits were an attempt to do the first. While it is based on primary sources, that doesn't seem inappropriate in this case. The Seminar itself - and its results - are clearly notable based on the secondary literature (including criticisms). Without at least summarizing the Seminar's process and conclusions, the article doesn't give readers the context necessary to understand the criticisms. EastTN (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for your note--but a summary needs to summarize. There were too many individual points hammered out. What would be appropriate would be to compile a general summary, in one paragraph, from the book--or adapt/paraphrase their own conclusion. Individual points are worth mentioning if they've been picked up by critics and scholars elsewhere. In general, there are two ways to write an article: start with the article and find the sources to verify the statements (that's what I just did with Johnny Jordaan, though he was hardly a theologian) or start with the references and see what they discuss, and what therefore can be brought into the article. That, I believe, is the way to go with this section of this article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As a general matter I agree. In this case, though, we have an article that has been relatively stable for several years. In that case a somewhat more iterative approach seems appropriate. Give me a day or two and let me see if I can knock this down to something more reasonable. EastTN (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at pruning it down to the more significant information EastTN (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• EastTN, do you know why that criticism section is so strangely well-organized, in numbered sections? It almost reads as if it comes from somewhere else, from some review. BTW, the article is looking a lot better. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall specifically, but it may be a holdover from when the article was organized around a series of numbered lists (e.g., "pillars of scholarly wisdom," "authentic sayings," "probably authentic sayings," "authentic acts of Jesus," etc.). It wasn't taken, in it's current form, wholesale from a review - I did some work on that section several years ago. Much of the basic content of that section was already in place, and I believe the subheadings may have already been in place as well. I'm happy taking the numbers out; they really don't add anything. P.S. Thanks! EastTN (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Way too much was removed. In particular the voting system (which was both highly publicized and highly criicized) needs to remain. Mangoe (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesus Seminar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130129065025/http://www.westarinstitute.org/Seminars/seminars.html to http://www.westarinstitute.org/Seminars/seminars.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jesus Seminar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041222151203/http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Five_Gospels.pdf to http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Five_Gospels.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060827023818/http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl80/Comm11.htm to http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl80/Comm11.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041222151203/http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Five_Gospels.pdf to http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Five_Gospels.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jesus Seminar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061023204523/http://candler.emory.edu/ABOUT/faculty/johnson.cfm to http://www.candler.emory.edu/ABOUT/faculty/johnson.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100206022304/http://www.stephenharrisauthor.com/about.shtml to http://www.stephenharrisauthor.com/about.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060214034955/http://christiancadre.org/topics/jesusseminar.html to http://christiancadre.org/topics/jesusseminar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticism by "some"

Under the heading "Search for the historical Jesus", the final sentence reads, "The method and conclusions of the Jesus Seminar have come under harsh criticism by some [quantify] biblical scholars, historians, and clergy for a variety of reasons."

Given the number of scholars listed in the section "Criticism from scholars", I think it would be accurate to use the word "numerous" in place of "some". I will make that change, to provide quantification as requested. BlueMesa171 (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar had minority opinions by design. If you find a source, you may add that to the article. Otherwise WP:RS/AC requires a WP:RS for "numerous". Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The Article Should Include References To The St. John Fragment

The Wikipedia has a whole section which discusses the St. John Fragment. It is: Rylands Library Papyrus P52

It is a fragment of St. John's Gospel which has been dated to between 90 AD and 120 AD. It is the earliest archaeological artifact which is of a piece of an early copy of one of the Gospels (namely, St. John's Gospel).

The St. John Fragment, being in Codex Form, would have to have been first penned by St. John, then copied and ultimately made into a Codex, and then it would have to have found its way to Egypt. This pushes the original writing of the Gospel to, about, 90 AD +/-.

The St. John Fragment shows that the Jesus Seminar has no basis in fact since the belief in the Divine Nature of Jesus clearly was established early in the Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vettaripepc (talk • contribs) 00:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)