Edwin K. P. Chong 2Indeed, the fundamental support for their conclusions is the claim that the historical evidence for these beliefs is lacking. Their claim is illustrated in the title of an article in the Los Angeles Times, “Scholars Cite Lack of Resurrection Evidence,” with the subtitle: “Controversial Jesus Seminar evaluates New Testament, but members affirm that event’s religious significance does not hinge on the historical record.”4In the years since 1985, it has become the consensus among mainline Biblical scholars that the Jesus Seminar, far from being a defender of the truth about the historical Jesus, practices questionable scholarship and has influenced Christianity in the United States in adverse ways.5 In the words of Luke Timothy Johnson, their scholarship is “the purest poppycock.”6Exactly what is going on here? How can one group of scholars come to conclusions that are so disparate from orthodox Biblical scholarship? It should be noted that, contrary to popular reports, the 74 “scholars” of the Jesus Seminar do not represent the mainstream of Biblical scholarship. According to Luke Johnson,7 “only fourteen members of the Seminar qualify, including scholars like John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg. Twenty others are recognizable names in the field. One quarter of the group, though, are complete unknowns (one is a movie producer), and half of them come from a cluster of three ultra-liberal schools: Harvard, Claremont, and Vanderbilt.”The key to understanding how the Jesus Seminar arrives at their conclusions is to understand the assumptions that underlie all their analyses. These assumptions are clear in one articulation of their argument:81. TheGospelsrecordtheoccurrenceofmiracles,likedeadpeoplecomingaliveagainandfood multiplying.2. But miracles cannot happen.3. If miracles cannot happen, then the reports in the New Testament must be fabrications.4. Therefore, the Gospels are not historical.The heart of this argument is the assertion that miracles cannot happen. What possible support is there for this assertion? In fact, this assertion contains a suppressed presumption, that of natural- ism. Naturalism is the philosophical presumption that physical reality is the only reality.9 Indeed,4Los Angeles Times, March 11, 1995.5 An extensive list of articles written in response to the Jesus Seminar is available at members.aol/augusteen/JS.html.6See the article by Allison O. Adams, “The Gospels According to Luke: Candler professor Luke Johnson stands at the forefront of a public theological battle over the historical truth of the Christian gospels,” Emory Magazine, vol. 72, no. 3, Autumn 1996, emory.edu/EMORY MAGAZINE/fall96/johnson.html.7As quoted in A. O. Adams, “The Gospels According to Luke,” Emory Magazine, vol. 72, no. 3, Autumn 1996, emory.edu/EMORY MAGAZINE/fall96/johnson.html.8I adapted this formulation of their argument from Gregory Koukl’s article, “The Jesus Seminar Under Fire,” str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/bible/jsuf.htm.9See P. E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education, Intervarsity Press, 1998.
Posted on: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:46:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015