El Jesús histórico y el Jesus seminar

.

The Quest for the Gist of Jesus: The Jesus Seminar, Dale Allison, and Improper Linear Models

Studies have found that while experts can be quite good at identifying criteria related to a particular phenomenon, they are typically outperformed by improper linear models (ilm), which assign equal weights to criteria. In this article, using widely-accepted criteria for assessing the authenticity of the sayings of Jesus, we generate a new ranking of Jesus’ sayings using an ilm. Then, drawing on recent advances in text mining—semantic network analysis—we first compare our ilm ranking to that of the Jesus Seminar’s and then to one based on Dale Allison’s recurrent attestation (RA) approach. We find that our ilm semantic network projects a more traditional understanding of Jesus than does the Jesus Seminar’s, but it is quite similar to the RA network. We conclude by suggesting that biblical scholars could benefit from various forms of computerized text mining in their quest for the historical Jesus.

Humanity and the Incarnation

In presenting an exalted concept of humanity, Lewis endorses historic Christian orthodoxy, which corrects and transcends distorted versions of humanity that devalue it in order to accent God’s glory and our fallen condition. Lewis continues to explain how human nature is meant for relationship with God and how persons can find that relation through the historical person of Jesus Christ who, as Athanasius said, “assumed” our humanity in order to heal and redeem it. Lewis navigated early and mid twentieth-century criticisms of the historical Jesus, which are not greatly different from current criticisms by the Jesus Seminar and others, and Lewis concludes that the Gospels reliably reveal an underlying historical personality. Thus, we see the relevance of Lewis’s “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord” trilemma argument. In fact, in his own journey, he held some of these same criticisms and doubts, even after becoming a theist, such that it took a lengthy talk with J. R. R. Tolkien and Hugo Dyson to convince him that the Gospels contained some “myths” (conceived as symbolic stories that communicate higher truth) but that in the person of Jesus the higher truth had become uniquely manifested in our world.

On the Need for a New Form of Christianity

The chapter lays a foundation for all remaining chapters by describing the two sources that will be relied on when the central pillars or themes of the Christian paradigm are examined critically: biblical research and critical thinking. In addition, the strengths and weakness of two alternative approaches to Christianity are discussed: The Traditional (magisterial) Paradigm and an alternative paradigm proposed by a group of biblical scholars known as the Jesus Seminar. Combined with troubling survey data regarding level of support for the Traditional Paradigm, this discussion reveals the need for a new form of Christianity that is called Evolved Christianity.

What Are The Odds?

In 1985 a group of New Testament scholars, who came to be known as the Jesus Seminar, gathered to vote on the authenticity of the sayings of Jesus. Although the Seminar argued that it followed objective rules of evidence, critics have claimed that it did not. This paper investigates these claims using statistical models to evaluate the Seminar’s own voting records. It finds that although the Seminar’s Fellows did follow widely accepted criteria, they were also influenced by their own assumptions about who Jesus was. In particular, they appear to have assumed that Jesus was a non-apocalyptic enfant terrible who spoke in aphorisms and parables and occasionally uttered things that later embarrassed the early Church.

Everybody’s Happy Nowadays? A Critical Engagement with Key Events and Contemporary Quests for the Historical Jesus

Key Events is clearly a major contribution to historical Jesus studies from a broadly evangelical perspective. While there is much to commend and a number of strong essays, there are, inevitably criticisms to be made. A number of arguments appear to be repeating debates from the 1980s and 1990s with a familiar cast of good (e.g. N.T. Wright), bad (e.g. Burton Mack, Jesus Seminar) and ambivalent (e.g. E.P. Sanders) characters. This nostalgic feel means that alternative understandings of the historical Jesus and wider issues of history and historical change are not properly discussed, although clearly the opportunities were present among the contributors of Key Events. There is a sustained discussion of historical change in the chapter on resurrection but this repeats problematic arguments in favour of the historicity of the resurrection in what is effectively an attempt to prove what is historically unprovable. Finally, to lesser or greater extent, a number of essays in Key Events continue to perpetuate the idea of a ‘Jewish … but not that Jewish’ Jesus through monolithic constructions of Jews and Judaism and through the discredited criterion of dissimilarity in disguise: double dissimilarity. It is not always clear that the problematic criterion of double dissimilarity is applied consistently, with some evidence of contributors forgetting aspects of dissimilarity from Christianity while never forgetting dissimilarity from Judaism (even when similar Jewish evidence is, in fact, available). These criticisms should not take away from a number of positive contributions made to historical Jesus studies and it may be that Key Events represents a vision of what most historical Jesus scholars see as the future of the sub-field.

Die resepsie van die Heidelbergse Kategismus (Sondag 17 en 22) insake die opstanding in die Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk sedert 2000 (Deel 2)

Met die 450e herdenking van die Heidelbergse Kategismus as vertrekpunt, word met die huidige en die vorige artikel gepoog om lig te werp op die plek, die rol en die interpretasie van die opstanding van Jesus Christus in veral Sondag 17 en 22, spesifiek in die konteks van twee besondere eras in die Nederduitse Gereformeerde (NG) Kerk. In die vorige artikel is allereers ’n bespreking gevoer oor die Heidelbergse Kategismus (HK). Daar is gekyk na die resepsie van die betrokke HK-geloofsartikels in die era van Andrew Murray, spesifiek teen die agtergrond van die negentiende-eeuse liberale teologie in Nederland. In die huidige artikel word soortgelyk gekyk na die resepsie van die betrokke HK-geloofsartikels in die NG Kerk na 2000, teen die agtergrond van die herverskyning van die negentiende-eeuse liberale teologie in die vorm van die Jesus Seminaar, die Nuwe Hervorming en ondersteuners daarvan binne die NG Kerk. Sowel die negentiende-eeuse liberale stryd in die NG Kerk asook die stryd oor die opstanding in die NG Kerk van die eerste dekade van die een-en-twintigste eeu, soos verder in hierdie artikel sal blyk, was gekenmerk deur kontekstueelbepaalde uniekhede. Die gemene deler was dat albei deel was van tye van teologiese vrysinnigheid. In die lig van hierdie bespreking word tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die NG Kerk tans, betreffende haar identiteit as gereformeerde kerk waarskynlik in ’n kritieke geloofs- en toekomskrisis verkeer. Dit impliseer kommerwekkende gevolge vir haar Skrifverstaan en getuienis as belydenis en belydende kerk van Jesus Christus en haar toekoms. Alleen duidelike visie, verantwoordelike leierskap en ’n herontdekking van die verlossingskrag van Christus se kruis en opstanding sal herstellende, positiewe en dinamiese oplossings kan bied om sodoende die NG Kerk te red van ’n snelwentelende afwaartse spiraal.With the 450th celebrations of the origin of the Heidelberg Catechism (HC) in mind, the main aim of this and the previous article is to focus on the place, role and interpretation of the doctrine of the resurrection in HC (Sunday 17 and 22), within two very specific and critical eras in the history of the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) in South Africa. The first article focused on the reception of the HC in the time of Andrew Murray during the nineteenth century, and specifically against the background of the then liberal theology in both the Netherlands and South Africa. In this current article I look at the reception of the same HC articles (Sunday 17 and 22) in the DRC after 2000, against the background of the reappearance of the nineteenth century liberal theology in the Netherlands, and specifically with reference to the Jesus Seminar, the New Reformation and those sympathetic to the latter in the DRC. Both these nineteenth- and twenty-first-century developments had their own unique contexts but what they had in common were a specific theological liberal mindset. In view of this discussion it is concluded that the DRC as a reformed church is not only caught up in an identity crisis, but even in a survival crisis of no small proportions. This also has serious implications for its use of Scripture and its confessional character. Only strong vision, able leadership and a rediscovery of the redeeming power of the cross and resurrection of Christ will be able to provide a remedial, positive, and dynamic solution, saving the DRC from an ever downward spiral.