32William R. Farmer, “The Church’s Stake in the Question of ‘Q’,” The Perkins School of Theology Journal, Vol. XXXIX, No. 3 (July, 1986), pp. 9-19.
33See F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1974), s.v. “Thomas, Gospel of,” p. 1370. For a detailed summary, see Craig Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas,” Gospel Perspectives, vol. 5 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), pp. 177-205; Craig Evans, “Jesus and the Gnostic Literature,” Biblica, vol. 62 (1981), pp. 406-412; France, Evidence for Jesus, pp. 75-78; Farmer, “Church’s Stake,” p. 14.
34Brown, “The Christians Who Lost Out,” p. 3.
35Fitzmyer, pp. 122-123.
36Farmer, “The Church’s Stake,” pp. 12, 14.
37Fuller, Foundations, p. 143.
38The Gospel of Thomas 32:1; 42:13-18; 43:9-12; cf. Revelation 1:17-18. See Robert M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, rev. ed. (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), pp. 183-184; cf. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, pp. 209, 212. Even the Jesus Seminar views this as a possible identification of “the living Jesus” in Thomas. (Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus [New York: Macmillan/Polebridge, 1993], p. 398.)
39Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, pp. 104-105.
40For some examples, see Luke 24:34; Rom. 1:3-4; 4:25; 10:9-10; Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Tim. 2:6; 6:13; 2 Tim. 2:8; 1 Pet. 3:18; cf. 1 Tim. 3:16.
41For some early Gnostic works that affirm the resurrection of Jesus, see The Gospel of Truth 20:25-34; 30:23, 27-33; The Treatise on Resurrection 45:14-28; 46:14-20; 48:4-19. We should note, however, the frequent Gnostic denial of the resurrection of Jesus’ body. In the texts above, such an idea is most evident in The Treatise on Resurrection 45:17-21.
42Brown, “The Christians Who Lost Out,” p. 3.
43Farmer, “Church’s Stake,” p. 14.
44James M. Robinson, “The Sayings of Jesus: Q,” Drew Gateway, Fall, 1983, p. 32.
45James M. Robinson, “Jesus from Easter to Valentinus,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 101, 1982, pp. 6-17.
46Koester in Robinson, Nag Hammadi, Volume II, pp. 84-86.
47Other problems with the Gnostic scenario take us beyond some of the immediate issues that are addressed in this chapter. While certain sayings of Jesus have been interpreted in different ways, this is definitely not the same as saying that Jesus’ teachings support Gnosticism. His teachings about God, creation, the nature of the physical body, eternal life, the message of salvation and the necessity of taking His words to the entire world are some examples of the differences. (See Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, p. 64.) Pagels provides still more instances of contrasts between the teachings of Jesus and those of the Gnostics (Gnostic Gospels, pp. 177-178).
Another crucial area concerns the origin of Gnosticism. The predominant view is that it was derived from Christianity. Fitzmyer refers to Gnosticism as a “parasite” in this regard (p. 123). (See Robert Grant’s Gnosticism and Early Christianity, as well as Edwin Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973]).
Many other critiques on related topics are found in Ronald H. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984).
6The Jesus Seminar and the Historical Jesus
With an incredible amount of media fanfare, the Jesus Seminar has radically challenged the Gospel accounts of Jesus at their very foundation. This group of 74 scholars from various seminaries and universities met over a period of six years in order to produce a translation (called the Scholar’s Version or SV) of the four canonical Gospels plus the Gospel of Thomas. After discussing more than 1500 purported sayings of Jesus, they cast their votes on each, judging the likelihood that the comment originated with Jesus. The degree of assurance was represented by coding the sayings texts in these five books with one of four colors. In the second phase of their work they are investigating the actions of Jesus, attempting to determine what Jesus actually did.1
It is clear that the overall conclusions of the Jesus Seminar are rather radical, even among contemporary critical scholars. Neither are they shy about announcing their theological disposition. One indication of this is their reaction to the supernatural in general and the orthodox view of Jesus, in particular:
The Christ of creed and dogma . . . can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo’s telescope. The old deities and demons were swept from the skies by that remarkable glass. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo have dismantled the mythological abodes of the gods and Satan, and bequeathed us secular heavens.2
It is an understatement to say that the Jesus Seminar downplays the supernatural, especially in the life of Jesus. This chapter is an attempt to investigate and critique what these and related scholars assert concerning select aspects of the life of the historical Jesus, concentrating on their response to his death, burial, and resurrection, in particular.
Jesus’ Miracles and Seminar Presuppositions3
The Jesus Seminar describes itself as taking a centrist position in the recent discussions on the historical Jesus. They stand between both the skeptics who deny the presence of historical reports in the Gospels and the fundamentalists who accept the total contents of these books.4 Yet, it becomes obvious that this group is more closely aligned on the side of the skeptics when we review their composite work. One initial indication is the above quotation that severely restricts the supernatural, if not rejecting it outright, in favor of a modern scientific outlook. As another example, the Seminar reports that “Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels were not actually spoken by him . . . .”5
The attitude of the Jesus Seminar towards science and the supernatural is reminiscent of a famous comment made by Rudolf Bultmann decades ago: “It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles.”6 Applying his conclusion to Jesus’ resurrection, Bultmann asks later: “But what of the resurrection? Is it not a mythical event pure and simple? Obviously it is not an event of past history . . . .”7
Some members of the Jesus Seminar, following other more radical scholars, appear to echo views like those of Bultmann. Regarding Jesus’ miracles, Seminar Co-Founder John Dominic Crossan asserts that Jesus “did not and could not cure that disease or any other one . . . .”8 He continues later: “I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time brings dead people back to life.”9 Jarl Fossum comments on the same subject, including a derisive jab at conservatives: “Or it can be asserted that Jesus really did raise the girl from the dead — which would only reflect fundamentalist naivete.”10
Like Bultmann, the Jesus Seminar extends this same sort of criticism to Jesus’ resurrection. They assert: “Whenever scholars detect detailed knowledge of postmortem events in sayings and parables attributed to Jesus, they are inclined to the view that the formulation of such sayings took place after the fact.”11 But it appears from their work that they have more than a mere “inclination” to rule out any post-death details from Jesus’ life. In fact, they rule out every saying from the resurrection narratives. Later they provide insight into their thinking: “By definition, words ascribed to Jesus after his death are not subject to historical verification.”12