From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A series of articles on

Jesus Christ and Christianity Christology Chronology Ministry Miracles Parables Names and titles Relics

Non-religious aspects Background Historicity Greek • Aramaic Race

Perspectives on Jesus New Testament view Christian views Religious perspectives Jewish view Islamic view Historical Jesus Jesus Seminar Jesus as myth

Jesus in culture Cultural depictions of Jesus Images This box: view • talk • edit

The Jesus Seminar is a research team of about 135 New Testament scholars founded in 1985 by the late Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan under the auspices of the Westar Institute.^[1][2] One of the most active groups in biblical criticism,^[3] the seminar uses historical methods to determine what Jesus, as a historical figure, may or may not have said or done. In addition, the seminar popularizes research into the historical Jesus. The public is welcome to attend the twice-yearly meetings. They produced new translations of the New Testament plus the Gospel of Thomas to use as textual sources. They published their results in three reports The Five Gospels (1993),^[4] The Acts of Jesus (1998),^[5] and The Gospel of Jesus (1999).^[6] They also run a series of lectures and workshops in various U.S. cities.

The seminar's reconstruction of Jesus portrays him as a wandering wisdom sage who did not found a religion or rise from the dead, but preached in startling parables and aphorisms. He often turned common ideas upside down, confounding the expectations of his audience. He preached of "Heaven's imperial rule" (traditionally translated as "Kingdom of God"), which was already present but unseen. He depicts God as a loving father. He fraternizes with outsiders and criticizes insiders.

The seminar treats the gospels as historical artifacts, representing not only Jesus' actual words and deeds but also the inventions and elaborations of the early Christian community and of the gospel authors. The fellows placed the burden of proof on those who advocate any passage's historicity. Unconcerned with canonical boundaries, they asserted that the Gospel of Thomas has more authentic material than the Gospel of John.^[7]

While analyzing the gospels as fallible human creations is a standard historical-critical method^[8], the seminar's premise that Jesus did not hold an apocalyptic world view is controversial. The fellows based it partially on the premise that Jesus preached a "sapiential eschatology" (repairing the world) rather than an "apocalyptic eschatology" (end of the world).^[9][10] This premise is in contrast to the one of contemporary evangelical scholars who maintain the image of Jesus as an apocalyptic figure preaching an "inaugurated eschatology", which attempts to syncretize present and future expressions of the world to come.

Contents 1 Use of historical methods 1.1 "Seven pillars of scholarly wisdom" 2 The Scholars translation 3 Seminar proceedings 3.1 Sayings of Jesus 3.1.1 Criteria for authenticity 3.1.2 Criteria for inauthenticity 3.1.3 Authentic sayings, as determined by the seminar 3.1.4 Some probably authentic sayings, as determined by the seminar 3.1.5 Overall reliability of the five gospels 3.1.6 Gehenna and Hades 3.1.7 Example: the beatitudes 3.2 Acts of Jesus 4 Criticism of the Jesus Seminar 5 Fellows of the Jesus Seminar 5.1 Other fellows 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

The scholars attending attempt to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus. They try to ask who he was, what he did, what he said, and what his sayings meant using all the evidence and available tools. Their reconstruction is based on social anthropology, history and textual analysis. The key feature is the rejection of apocalyptic eschatology. They use cross-cultural anthropological studies to set the general background, narrow in on the history and society of first-century Palestine, and use textual analysis (along with more anthropology and history) to focus on Jesus himself. They use a combination of primary sources, secondary sources, and archaeological evidence. Their methodology, which was developed by a team of scholars (who expounded papers for the review of other Fellows and published many in Forum) and is explained in The Five Gospels (the four canonical gospels plus the Gospel of Thomas), involves canvassing the records of the first four centuries for traditions about Jesus and sifting them by criteria such as multiple attestation, distinctiveness, and orality.

The Five Gospels lists seven bases for the modern critical scholarship of Jesus. These "pillars" have developed since the end of the 18th century.

1. Distinguishing between historical Jesus and the Christ of faith (see Hermann Samuel Reimarus, David Strauss).
2. Recognizing the synoptic gospels as more historically accurate than John (19th century German tradition, see higher criticism).
3. The priority of Mark before Matthew and Luke (by 1900)
4. Identification of the Q document (by 1900)
5. Rejection of eschatological (apocalyptic) Jesus (1970s and 1980s).
6. Distinction between oral and written culture
7. Reversal of burden of proof from those who consider gospel content to be ahistorical to those who consider it historical.

While six of these pillars are noncontroversial, some scholars of the historical Jesus follow Albert Schweitzer^[11] in regarding him as apocalyptic. The 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. Marcus Borg says "the old consensus that Jesus was an eschatological prophet who proclaimed the imminent end of the world has disappeared," and identifies two reasons for this change^[12]. First, since the 1960s, the gospel references to the coming Son of Man have been sometimes viewed as insertions by the early Christian community. Second, many scholars came to see Jesus' kingdom of God as a present reality, a "realized eschatology", rather than an imminent end of the world. The apocalyptic elements attributed to Jesus, according to The Five Gospels, come from John the Baptist and the early Christian community (p. 4).

The Seminar began by translating the gospels into modern American English, producing the "Scholars Version." This translation uses current colloquialisms and contemporary phrasing match the authors' styles, if not their literal words. The goal was to let the reader hear the message as a first-century listener might have. The translators avoided other translations' archaic, literal translation of the text, or a superficial update of it. For example, they translate "woe to you" as "damn you" because it sounds like something someone today would really say. The authors of The Five Gospels allege that some other gospel translations have attempted to unify the language of the gospels, while they themselves have tried to preserve each author's distinct voice.

The Jesus Seminar, like the translation committees who created the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the Novum Testamentum Graece, chose voting as the most efficient means of determining consensus in an assembled group. The system also lent itself to publicity, which the Seminar actively pursued.

The Fellows used a "bead system" to vote on the authenticity of about 500 statements and events. The color of the bead represented how sure the Fellow was that a saying or act was or was not authentic.

• Red beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like the passage. (3 Points)
• Pink beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus probably said something like the passage. (2 Points)
• Grey beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage, but it contains Jesus' ideas. (1 Point)
• Black beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage—it comes from later admirers or a different tradition. (0 Points)

The consensus position was determined by the average weighted score, rather than by simple majority. This meant that all opinions were reflected in the decisions. The voting system means that the reader can second-guess each vote. The Five Gospels defines not only the result of the vote (red, pink, gray, or black) but also how many polls were necessary to reach a conclusion (if any were necessary at all) and why various fellows chose to vote in different ways.

Attendees, however, did more than vote. They met semi-annually to debate the papers presented. Some verses required extensive debate and repeated votes.

The first findings of the Jesus Seminar were published in 1993 as The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus.^[4]

Like other scholars of the historical Jesus, the Jesus Seminar treats the gospels as fallible historical artifacts, containing both authentic and inauthentic material. Like their colleagues, the fellows used several criteria for determining whether a particular saying or story is authentic, including the criteria of multiple attestation and embarrassment. Among additional criteria used by the fellows are the following:

• Orality: According to current estimates, the gospels weren't written until decades after Jesus' death. Parables, aphorisms, and stories were passed down orally (30 - 50 CE). The fellows judged whether a saying was a short, catchy pericope that could possibly survive intact from the speaker's death until decades later when it was first written down. If so, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "turn the other cheek."

• Irony: Based on several important narrative parables (such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan), the fellows decided that irony, reversal, and frustration of expectations were characteristic of Jesus' style. Does a pericope present opposites or impossibilities? If it does, it's more likely to be authentic. For example, "love your enemies."

• Trust in God: A long discourse attested in three gospels has Jesus telling his listeners not to fret but to trust in the Father. Fellows looked for this theme in other sayings they deemed authentic. For example, "Ask -- it'll be given to you."

The seminar looked for several characteristics that, in their judgment, identified a saying as inauthentic, including self-reference, leadership issues, and apocalyptic themes.

• Self-reference: Does the text have Jesus referring to himself? For example, "I am the way, and I am the truth, and I am life" (John 14:1-14).

• Framing Material: Are the verses used to introduce, explain, or frame other material, which might itself be authentic? For example, in Luke, the "red" parable of the good samaritan is framed by scenes about Jesus telling the parable, and the seminar deemed Jesus' framing words in these scenes to be "black."

• Community Issues: Do the verses refer to the concerns of the early Christian community, such as instructions for missionaries or issues of leadership? For example, Peter as "the rock" on which Jesus builds his church (Matthew 16:17-19).

• Theological Agenda: Do the verses support an opinion or outlook that is unique to the gospel, possibly indicating redactor bias? For example, the prophecy of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) was voted black because the fellows saw it as representing Mark's agenda of speaking out against unworthy members of the Christian community.

The Red sayings (with % indicating the weighted average of those in agreement), given in the Seminar's own "Scholar's Version" translation, are:

1. Turn the other cheek (92%): Mt 5:39, Lk6:29a

2. Coat & shirt: Mt5:40 (92%), Lk6:29b (90%)

3. Congratulations, poor!: Lk6:20b (91%), Th54 (90%), Mt5:3 (63%)

4. Second mile (90%): Mt5:41

5. Love your enemies: Lk6:27b (84%), Mt5:44b (77%), Lk6:32,35a (56%) (compare to black rated "Pray for your enemies": POxy1224 6:1a; Didache 1:3; Poly-Phil 12:3; and "Love one another": John 13:34-35, Romans 13:8, 1 Peter 1:22)

6. Leaven: Lk13:20–21 (83%), Mt13:33 (83%), Th96:1–2 (65%)

7. Emperor & God (82%): Th100:2b–3, Mk12:17b, Lk20:25b, Mt22:21c (also Egerton Gospel 3:1-6)

8. Give to beggars (81%): Lk6:30a, Mt5:42a, Didache1:5a

9. Good Samaritan (81%): Lk10:30–35

10. Congrats, hungry!: Lk6:21a (79%), Mt5:6 (59%), Th69:2 (53%)

11. Congrats, sad!: Lk6:21b (79%), Mt5:4 (73%)

12. Shrewd manager (77%): Lk16:1–8a

13. Vineyard laborers (77%): Mt20:1–15

14. Abba, Father (77%): Mt6:9b, Lk11:2c

15. The Mustard Seed : Th20:2–4 (76%), Mk4:30–32 (74%), Lk13:18–19 (69%), Mt13:31–32 (67%)

The top 15 (of 75) Pink sayings are:

16. On anxieties, don't fret (75%): Th36, Lk12:22–23, Mt6:25

17. Lost Coin (75%): Lk15:8–9

18. Foxes have dens: Lk9:58 (74%), Mt8:20 (74%), Th86 (67%)

19. No respect at home: Th31:1 (74%), Lk4:24(71%), Jn4:44 (67%), Mt13:57 (60%), Mk6:4 (58%)

20. Friend at midnight (72%): Lk11:5–8

21. Two masters : Lk16:13a, Mt6:24a (72%); Th47:2 (65%)

22. Treasure: Mt13:44 (71%), Th109 (54%)

23. Lost sheep: Lk15:4–6 (70%), Mt18:12–13 (67%), Th107 (48%)

24. What goes in: Mk7:14–15 (70%), Th14:5 (67%), Mt15:10-11 (63%)

25. Corrupt judge (70%): Lk18:2–5

26. Prodigal son (70%): Lk15:11–32

27. Leave the dead (see also But to bring a sword, Nazirite): Mt8:22 (70%), Lk9:59–60 (69%)

28. Castration for Heaven (see also Origen, Antithesis of the Law) (70%): Mt19:12a

29. By their fruit (69%) (see Antinomianism): Mt7:16b, Th45:1a, Lk6:44b (56%)

30. The dinner party, The wedding celebration: Th64:1–11 (69%), Lk14:16-23 (56%), Mt22:2-13 (26%)

The Seminar concluded that of the various statements in the "five gospels" attributed to Jesus, only about 18% of them were likely uttered by Jesus himself (red or pink). The Gospel of John fared worse than the synoptic gospels, with nearly all its passages attributed to Jesus being judged inauthentic^[13]. In discounting John as a reliable source of historical information, the Fellows are reflecting common scholarly opinion^[14]. The Gospel of Thomas includes just two unique sayings that the seminar attributes to Jesus: the the empty jar (97) and the assassin (98). Every other probably-authentic or authentic saying has parallels in the synoptics.

The gospels use the terms gehenna and hades for places of fiery punishment and death. The fellows rated Jesus' references to gehenna and hades as gray at best, often black. Some such references (such as the parable of Lazarus and Dives) have features that the fellows might regard as authentic, such as dramatic reversals of fortune. These received gray designations. The fellows regarded other references as inventions of early Christians responding to those who rejected Jesus' message or to "false" Christians within the community.

The Jesus Seminar rated various beatitudes as red, pink, gray, and black.

To analyze the beatitudes, they first innovated a nonliteral translation for the formula "blessed are," as in "Blessed are the poor." Modern readers are familiar enough with the beatitudes that this construction doesn't shock or surprise, as the original sayings allegedly did. As the modern equivalent, the Scholar's Version uses "Congratulations!"

Three beatitudes are "paradoxical" and doubly attested. They are rated red (authentic) as they appear in Luke 6:20-21.

Congratulations, you poor!
God's domain belongs to you.
Congratulations, you hungry!
You will have a feast.
Congratulations, you who weep now!
You will laugh.

These beatitudes feature the dramatic presentation and reversal of expectations that the seminar regards as characteristic of Jesus.

The beatitude for those persecuted in Jesus' name might trace back to Jesus as a beatitude for those who suffer, the fellows decided, but in its final form the saying represents concerns of the Christian community rather than Jesus' message. Thus it received a gray rating.

Matthew's version of the three authentic beatitudes were rated pink. The author has spiritualized two of them, so that they now refer to the poor "in spirit" and to those who hunger "and thirst for justice." Matthew also includes beatitudes for the meek, the merciful, the pure of heart, and peace-makers. These beatitudes have no second attestation, lack irony, and received a black rating.

In 1998 the Jesus Seminar published The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus.^[5] According to the front flap summary: "Through rigorous research and debate, they have combed the gospels for evidence of the man behind the myths. The figure they have discovered is very different from the icon of traditional Christianity."

According to the Jesus Seminar:

• Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
• His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.
• Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.
• Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.
• Jesus practiced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.
• He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.
• Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans.
• He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.
• The empty tomb is a fiction -- Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.
• Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary.

The 10 authentic ("red") acts of Jesus are:

1. The Beelzebul controversy: Luke 11:15-17
2. A voice in the wilderness: Mark 1:1-8, Matt 3:1-12, Luke 3:1-20, Gospel of the Ebionites 1
3. John baptizes Jesus: Mark 1:9-11, Matt 3:13-17, Luke 3:21-22, Gospel of the Ebionites 4
4. Jesus proclaims the good news: Mark 1:14-15
5. Dining with sinners: Mark 2:15-17, Matt 9:10-13, Oxyrhynchus Gospels 1224 5:1-2
6. Herod beheads John: Mark 6:14-29, Matt 14:1-12, Luke 9:7-9
7. Crucifixion: core event considered authentic but all gospel reports are "improbable or fictive" ("black")
8. The Death of Jesus: core event considered authentic but all gospel reports are "improbable or fictive" ("black")
9. The first list of appearances: Jesus appeared to Cephas: 1Cor 15:3-5
10. Birth of Jesus: Jesus's parents were named Joseph and Mary: parts of Matt 1:18-25 and Luke 2:1-7

The 19 "pink" acts ("a close approximation of what Jesus did") are:

1. Peter's mother-in-law: Mark 1:29-31, Matt 8:14-15, Luke 4:42-44
2. The leper: Mark 1:40-45, Matt 8:1-4, Luke 5:12-16, Egerton Gospel 2:1-4
3. Paralytic and four: Mark 2:1-12, Matt 9:1-8, Luke 5:17-26
4. Call of Levi: Mark 2:13-14, Matt 9:9, Luke 5:27-28, Gospel of the Ebionites 2:4
5. Sabbath observance: Mark 2:23-28, Matt 12:1-8, Luke 6:1-5
6. Jesus' relatives come to get him: Mark 3:20-21
7. True relatives: Mark 3:31-35, Matt 12:46-50, Thomas 99:1-3
8. Woman with a vaginal hemorrhage: Mark 5:24-34, Matt 9:20-22, Luke 8:42-48
9. No respect at home: Mark 6:1-6, Matt 13:54-58
10. Eating with defiled hands: Mark 7:1-13, Matt 15:1-9
11. Demand for a sign: Luke 11:29-30
12. The blind man of Bethsaida: Mark 8:22-26
13. Blind Bartimaeus: Mark 10:46-52, Luke 18:35-43
14. Temple incident: Mark 11:15-19, Matt 21:12-17, Luke 19:45-48
15. Emperor & God: Mark 12:13-17, Matt 22:15-22, Luke 20:19-26, Thomas 100:1-4, Egerton 3:1-6
16. The arrest: core event not accurately recorded
17. Before the high priest: core event not accurately recorded
18. Before the Council: core event not accurately recorded
19. Before Pilate: core event not accurately recorded

Also 1 red "summary and setting" (not a saying or action): Women companions of Jesus: Luke 8:1-3.

Arguably the single most telling criticism of the Jesus Seminar is that their "Criteria for In/Authenticity" create 'an eccentric Jesus who learned nothing from his own culture and made no impact on his followers'.^[15] As others have observed why would such a Jesus be crucified?^[16]

Other criticisms levelled against the Jesus Seminar include charges that:

• the voting system is seriously flawed,
• the criteria defining what constitutes red/pink/grey/black are inconsistent,
• it was wrong to exclude apocalyptic messages from Jesus' ministry,
• the attempt to popularize Jesus research degraded the scholarly value of the effort,
• the conclusions largely represent the premises of the fellows: 'Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you.' Funk et al, The Five Gospels;
• only about a dozen of the fellows are leading figures in New Testament scholarship, and
• the fellows do not represent a fair cross-section of viewpoints.

Some scholars have reasserted Albert Schweitzer's eschatological view of Jesus.^[17]
Dale Allison of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, in his 1999 book Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet, cited what he felt were problems with the work of (particularly) Funk, John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, arguing that their conclusions were at least in part predetermined by their theological positions. He also pointed out the limitations of their presumptions and methodology. Allison argued that despite the conclusions of the seminar, Jesus was a prophetic figure focused to a large extent on apocalyptic thinking.

The voting system has been heavily criticised by among others NT Wright, who says '... I cannot understand how, if a majority ... thought a saying authentic or probably authentic, the "weighted average" turned out to be "probably inauthentic". A voting system that produces a result like this ought to be scrapped.'^[18]

Many conservative scholars, including Evangelical scholars, have questioned the methodology, assumptions and intent of the Jesus Seminar. One of the Seminar's tests for inauthenticity matches closely with beliefs of the early Church community. Matthias Zahniser, Asbury Theological Seminary criticizes this saying that it prohibits the possibility that Jesus would be concerned with anything the early Church is concerned with.^{[citation needed]}

Luke Timothy Johnson^[19] of the Candler School of Theology at Emory University, in his 1996 book The Real Jesus, voiced concerns with the seminar's work. He criticized the techniques of the Seminar, believing them to be far more limited for historical reconstruction than seminar members believe. Their conclusions were "already determined ahead of time," Johnson says, which "is not responsible, or even critical scholarship. It is a self-indulgent charade." He further argued that while many members of the seminar are reputable scholars (Borg, Crossan, Funk, others), others are relatively unknown or undistinguished in the field of biblical studies. One member, Paul Verhoeven, holds a Ph.D. in mathematics and physics,^[20] not biblical studies, and is best known as a film director. Johnson also critiqued the seminar for its attempts to gain the attention of the media for the 2000 ABC News program "The Search for Jesus" hosted by news anchor Peter Jennings.

Other scholars who have expressed concerns with the work of the Jesus Seminar are Richard Hays ("The Corrected Jesus" in First Things 43, May 1994), Ben Witherington (The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth), Gregory A. Boyd (Cynic Sage or Son of God?), N.T. Wright (Jesus and the Victory of God), William Lane Craig (Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan) and Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, Edwin Yamauchi, et. al. (Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus).

Seminar critic William Lane Craig has argued that the self-selected members of the group do not represent the consensus of New Testament scholars. He writes:

Of the 74 [scholars] listed in their publication The Five Gospels, only 14 would be leading figures in the field of New Testament studies. More than half are basically unknowns, who have published only two or three articles. Eighteen of the fellows have published nothing at all in New Testament studies. Most have relatively undistinguished academic positions, for example, teaching at a community college.^[21]

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.

Members of the Jesus Seminar have responded to their critics in various books and dialogues, which typically defend both their methodology and their conclusions. Among these responses are The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics by Robert J. Miller, a member of the Seminar; The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate, a dialogue with Allison, Borg, Crossan, and Stephen Patterson; The Jesus Controversy: Perspectives in Conflict, a dialogue between Crossan, Johnson, and Werner H. Kelber. The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, by Borg and N. T. Wright demonstrated how two scholars with divergent theological positions can work together to creatively share and discuss their thoughts.

Daniel L. Akin, writing in the Journal of the Southern Baptist Convention, called the work of the Jesus Seminar "destructive criticism".^[22] For some more extreme reactions see The Fundamental Evangelistic Association^[23] and The Watchman Expositor.^[24] The Christian Arsenal^[25] go so far as to depict the Jesus Seminar as a tool of Satan, meant to undermine Biblical beliefs.

This is a partial list of past and present members of the Jesus seminar per The Five Gospels and The Westar Institute Website. Even critics acknowledge that over a dozen of them are, in their own rights, leading figures in the field. As many as two hundred have participated in the work.

Robert W. Funk, Ph.D. John Dominic Crossan, Ph.D. Andries G. van Aarde, D.D. Valerie A. Abrahamsen, Th. D. Martin L. Appelt Karen Armstrong Richard L. Arthur, Th.D. Harold W. Attridge, Ph.D. Robert Bater, Ph.D. William Beardslee, Ph.D. Joseph Bessler-Northcutt, Ph. D. Edward F. Beutner, Ph.D. Sterling Bjorndahl, Ph.D. Anthony Blasi, Ph.D., Th.D. Marcus Borg, D.Phil. Willi Braun, Ph.D. James R. Butts, Ph.D. Marvin F. Cain, Ph.D. Ron Cameron, Ph.D. Bruce D. Chilton, Ph.D. Kathleen E. Corley, Ph.D. Wendy J. Cotter C.S.J., Ph.D. Don Cupitt Jon Daniels, Ph.D. Jean Jacques D'Aoust Stevan L. Davies, Ph.D. Jon F. Dechow, Ph.D. Arthur J. Dewey, Th.D. Joanna Dewey, Ph.D. John Dillenberger, Ph.D. William Doty Darrell J. Doughty Dennis C. Duling, Ph.D. Susan M. Elliott, Ph.D. Robert T. Fortna, Ph.D. Robert M. Fowler David Galston James Goss, Ph.D. Heinz Guenther, Th.D. Sakari Hakkinen Maurice Hamington, Ph.D. Walter Harrelson, Th.D. Stephen L Harris, Ph.D. Charles W. Hedrick, Ph.D. James D. Hester, D.Theol. C.M. Kempton Hewitt, Ph.D. Jack A. Hill, Ph.D. Julian V. Hills, Th.D. Richard Holloway, D.D., D.Litt. Roy W. Hoover, Th.D. Benjamin J. Hubbard Michael L. Humphries, Ph.D. Margaret D. Hutaff Glenna S. Jackson, Ph.D. Arland D. Jacobson, Ph.D. Clayton N. Jefford, Th.M, Ph.D. Gregory C. Jenks, Ph.D. Bob Jones F. Stanley Jones, D.Theol, Ph.D. Larry Kalajainen, Ph.D. Perry Kea, Ph.D. John C. Kelly William Doane Kelly, Ph.D. Chan-Hie Kim, Ph.D. Karen L. King, Ph.D. John S. Kloppenborg, Ph.D. Ron Large Paul Alan Laughlin, Ph.D. Nigel Leaves, Ph.D.

Davidson Loehr, Ph.D. Sanford Lowe, D.Min, D.D. John Lown, Ph.D. Gerd Luedemann, D.Theol., D. Habil. Dennis R. MacDonald, Ph.D. Burton L. Mack, Ph.D. Loren Mack-Fisher, Ph.D. Francis Macnab Shelley Matthews, Th.D. Brian Rice McCarthy Lane C. McGaughy, Ph.D. Robin B. McGonigle, Dr. M Edward J. McMahon II, Ph.D. Daniel Marguerat Marvin W. Meyer, Ph.D. Darren Middleton J. Ramsey Michaels, Th.M., Ph.D. William R. Millar L. Bruce Miller, Ph.D. Robert J. Miller, Ph.D. Robert L'H Miller, Th.D. Milton Moreland Winsome Munro, Ed.D. Culver H. Nelson, D.D., D.D. Rob Parrott, Ph.D. Stephen J. Patterson, Ph.D. Richard I. Pervo, Th.D. Robert M. Price, Ph.D. Anne Primavesi, D.Phil. Howard Rice Vernon K. Robbins, Ph.D. James M. Robinson, D.Theol, Ph.D. John J. Rousseau, Ph.D., D.Rel. Stan Rummel Marianne Sawicki, Ph.D. Daryl D. Schmidt, Ph.D. Oswald Schrag Bernard Brandon Scott, Ph.D. Andrew D. Scrimgeour Philip Sellew, Th.D. Chris Shea, Ph.D. Thomas Sheehan, Ph.D. Lou H. Silberman, D.H.L. Dennis Smith, Th.D. Mahlon H. Smith, M.S.L. Graydon Snyder John Shelby Spong, D.D. John Staten Michael G. Steinhauser, Th.D. Robert F. Stoops, Jr., Ph.D. Johann Strijdom, D.Litt., et Phil. Jon Sveinbjornsson Jarmo Tarkki, Ph.D. W. Barnes Tatum, Ph.D. Hal Taussig, Ph.D. Barbara Thiering, Ph.D. Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D. Leif E. Vaage, Ph.D. James Veitch, Ph.D., Th.D. Paul Verhoeven, Ph.D. (mathematics) Wesley Hiram Wachob, Ph.D. William O. Walker, Jr., Ph.D. Donna Wallace, Ph.D. Robert L. Webb, Ph.D. Theodore J. Weeden, Sr., Ph.D. James E. West, Th.D. John L. White, Ph.D. John L. White, B.D. L. Michael White Walter Wink, Th.D. Sara C. Winter., Ph.D.

• Lloyd Geering, D.D.

• Christianity
• Bible
• Historical Jesus
• Historicity of Jesus
• Two-source theory

• The Jesus Seminar & Westar Institute Homepage
• The Jesus Seminar Forum
• The Gospel According to the Jesus Seminar from Religion (London), vol 25, October 1995, pp. 317-38
• The Corrected Jesus, a critical review by Richard B. Hays
• Presuppositions and Pretensions of the Jesus Seminar, A Critique by Dr. William Lane Craig (part 1)
• The Evidence For Jesus, by Dr. William Lane Craig (part 2)
• A Christian Critique of the Jesus Seminar
• Is there any truth to the Jesus Seminar?
• Christian Cadre, The Jesus Seminar
• John P. Meier, "The Present State of the ‘Third Quest’ for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain"
• Robert Price's rebuttal of Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus.
• N. T. Wright's Assessment of the Seminar's Scholarship