top of page
Search
Writer's pictureEdward D. Andrews
Nov 138 min read

What Are the True Motives and Methods of the Jesus Seminar?

The Jesus Seminar, formed in 1985 by Robert W. Funk and operating under the auspices of the Estar Institute in Santa Rosa, California, represents a radical approach to New Testament scholarship. This group of scholars, professors, and various professionals has set out to re-evaluate the words and deeds of Jesus in the Gospels. Their approach, which is rooted in skepticism and antisupernaturalism, poses a direct challenge to the traditional Christian understanding of Scripture. The members of this Seminar, primarily consisting of liberal Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and even atheists, come together twice a year to debate and vote on the authenticity of Jesus’ sayings and actions as recorded in the canonical Gospels.



How Does the Jesus Seminar Determine What Jesus Really Said?


One of the most controversial aspects of the Jesus Seminar's methodology is the process by which they determine the authenticity of Jesus' sayings. Using colored beads, the members vote on whether a particular saying can be attributed to the historical Jesus. The meanings of these colored beads range from red (indicating sayings that Jesus likely spoke) to black (indicating sayings He almost certainly did not speak). The process by which these scholars reach such determinations, however, is fraught with subjective biases and radical presuppositions that undermine the historicity of the Gospels.


For instance, the Jesus Seminar places great weight on sources other than the canonical Gospels, such as the hypothetical "Q" document, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, and the non-existent "Secret Mark." By elevating these sources, which are either hypothetical or clearly late, Gnostic works, the Seminar seeks to devalue the eyewitness accounts of the four Gospels. The Gospel of Thomas, in particular, is often treated as if it were on par with the canonical Gospels, despite the fact that it is a second-century document that bears the marks of Gnostic influence.



What Are the Radical Conclusions of the Jesus Seminar?


The conclusions reached by the Jesus Seminar are startling and highly unorthodox from a traditional Christian perspective. Their voting process resulted in the conclusion that only about 2 percent of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels are authentic. For example, they claim that none of the sayings in the Gospel of John can be confidently attributed to Jesus. This means that according to their findings, 98 percent of what is recorded in the Gospels as the words of Jesus is either fabricated or attributed to later Christian traditions.


Even more troubling are their conclusions regarding the resurrection of Jesus. John Dominic Crossan, one of the most prominent members of the Jesus Seminar, theorizes that Jesus’ body was likely buried in a shallow grave and eventually eaten by wild dogs. Such a conclusion directly contradicts the central claim of the New Testament that Jesus physically rose from the dead. The apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, clearly states the importance of the resurrection, declaring: "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins" (1 Corinthians 15:17). For the Jesus Seminar to deny the resurrection is to undermine the very foundation of the Christian faith.



Why Is the Jesus Seminar’s Methodology Flawed?


The Jesus Seminar operates on a foundation of antisupernaturalism, a presupposition that dismisses any account of the miraculous as inherently unreliable. This approach can be traced back to Enlightenment thinkers such as David Hume, whose skepticism of miracles shaped modern critical scholarship. According to Hume, miracles are violations of the natural order and therefore cannot be accepted as historical events. This line of thinking was carried forward by 19th-century scholars such as David Strauss, whose Life of Jesus Critically Examined sought to "demythologize" the Gospels by stripping away their supernatural elements.


The Jesus Seminar has adopted this antisupernatural bias, assuming from the outset that the miraculous elements in the Gospels—such as Jesus' healings, His walking on water, and His resurrection—must be later additions or myths. This bias leads them to reject the majority of the Gospel accounts without any compelling evidence. As conservative scholars have pointed out, this approach is methodologically flawed because it begins with a predetermined conclusion and then works backward to support it. In logical terms, this is known as "begging the question," or Petitio Princippi, where the conclusion is assumed in the premise.



How Do the Dates of the Gospels Refute the Seminar’s Claims?


One of the key strategies employed by the Jesus Seminar is to argue that the Gospels were written too late to be reliable historical accounts. By dating the Gospels between 70 and 100 C.E. (or later), they suggest that enough time had passed for myths and legends to develop around the person of Jesus. However, this argument is not supported by the evidence. The Gospel of Luke, for example, was clearly written before the Book of Acts, which ends with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, around 60-62 C.E. Since Acts makes no mention of key events such as the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 C.E., it is reasonable to conclude that it was written before these events occurred, which means that Luke was likely written in the 50s or early 60s C.E., well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses.


Furthermore, Paul’s letters, some of which were written as early as 55-56 C.E., affirm key elements of the Gospel message, including the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures." These early creedal statements show that the core beliefs of Christianity were in place long before the Gospels were written, further undermining the Jesus Seminar’s claim that the Gospel accounts were the product of later mythological development.


Why Is the Hypothetical "Q" Document Unreliable?


The Jesus Seminar places great emphasis on the so-called "Q" document, a hypothetical source believed to have been used by Matthew and Luke in the composition of their Gospels. According to this theory, Q contains sayings of Jesus that were not included in Mark but were incorporated into Matthew and Luke. However, no manuscript evidence for Q has ever been found, and there is no mention of such a document in any early Christian writings. It remains a purely hypothetical construct, and yet the Jesus Seminar treats it as if it were a more reliable source than the canonical Gospels.


Conservative scholars have long argued that the Q hypothesis is unnecessary and that the similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke can be explained by the use of shared oral traditions or direct literary dependence. The early Church Fathers, who were much closer to the events of the New Testament, never mention Q, but they consistently affirm the authority of the four canonical Gospels.


Discover the Synoptic Problem and the Q document theory. Uncover the debate surrounding the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Read more.


What About the Use of Apocryphal Gospels Like Thomas?


In addition to the hypothetical Q document, the Jesus Seminar relies heavily on apocryphal works such as the Gospel of Thomas. This text, discovered in the mid-20th century among the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, is often cited by the Seminar as containing authentic sayings of Jesus. However, the Gospel of Thomas is a second-century Gnostic work that bears little resemblance to the canonical Gospels. It lacks narrative structure, contains no mention of Jesus' crucifixion or resurrection, and promotes a secretive, esoteric form of knowledge that is far removed from the public ministry of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament.


The fact that the Jesus Seminar gives such weight to a late, Gnostic text while dismissing the eyewitness accounts of the canonical Gospels reveals a clear bias against orthodox Christianity. The Gospel of Thomas is not a reliable historical source for understanding the life of Jesus, and its use by the Seminar is more reflective of their agenda than of any serious attempt at historical scholarship.


Investigate why certain gospels were not included in the New Testament. Understand the reasons for their exclusion.



How Do Conservative Scholars Respond to the Jesus Seminar?


Conservative scholars have thoroughly refuted the claims of the Jesus Seminar, pointing out that their conclusions are based on faulty assumptions and questionable sources. The overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars, both conservative and moderate, reject the radical skepticism of the Seminar and affirm the historicity of the canonical Gospels.


For example, Craig Blomberg, a leading New Testament scholar, has argued that the Gospel writers were not inventing stories about Jesus but were faithfully recording the testimony of eyewitnesses. He points out that the Gospels contain numerous details that would be difficult to explain if they were fabrications. For instance, the fact that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection is significant, given the low status of women in the first-century Jewish society. If the resurrection were a later invention, it is unlikely that the early Church would have placed women in such a prominent role, as their testimony would not have been considered credible. This detail, along with many others, supports the authenticity of the Gospel accounts.


In addition, the early dating of the Gospels—within the lifetime of those who had known Jesus—provides strong evidence that the accounts of His life, death, and resurrection are based on reliable testimony. As noted earlier, the Gospel of Luke was likely written before 62 C.E., and the Gospel of Mark may have been written as early as the 50s C.E. These dates are far too early for legendary development to have overshadowed the historical facts.



Why Are the Conclusions of the Jesus Seminar Unsustainable?


The Jesus Seminar's conclusions, while gaining attention in the media and among some academic circles, are unsustainable when subjected to serious scrutiny. Their radical rejection of the majority of Jesus’ sayings and actions is based on flawed methodologies and biased presuppositions. The assumption that the miraculous cannot occur leads them to dismiss large portions of the Gospels without any compelling evidence. Furthermore, their reliance on hypothetical and apocryphal sources, such as Q and the Gospel of Thomas, undermines their credibility as serious scholars.


As more conservative scholars continue to defend the historicity of the New Testament, the work of the Jesus Seminar will likely fade into obscurity. The evidence for the reliability of the canonical Gospels is overwhelming, and the testimony of the early Church Fathers, combined with the internal consistency of the New Testament, provides a firm foundation for faith in the historical Jesus.


About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220 books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).


YOU MAY ALSO ENJOY


Explore the search for the real Jesus through ancient texts and scholarly insights.



RECOMMENDED READING FOR CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND EVANGELISM


13 views0 comments

Comments

bottom of page