Some interesting comments from a few netfriends on the Jesus Seminar:

[1]:

The Jesus of the NT presents us with a lot of questions to answer and the way we answer those questions probably puts us in one group or the other, broadly speaking. The fascinating thing about the labels is that there are usually two sets: those used to speak of one self and those used to speak of the other. So the liberal/progressive speaks of the fundamentalist, but the fundamentalist speaks of himself as evangelical or Bible-believing and usually has a less than complimentary way of speaking about the liberal. The use of the label is also determined by the position of the speaker. I find myself labeled liberal by fundamentalists and conservative by liberals. LOL.

But let's look at this Jesus of the New Testament. Our primary sources for information about Jesus are the four Gospels. A closer examination of the stories about Jesus in the Gospels shows that the Gospels consist of individual stories about Jesus called "pericopes", pronounced pear-rik-oh-pea.

When we compare the pericopes found in the four Gospels we find some strange things. On the one hand, many of the pericopes found in one Gospel will be found almost word for word in another. However, the order of the pericopes will be different. It appears that the order of the pericopes is not chronological, but theological, and expresses the Gospel author's theology about Jesus. So there are different theological portraits of Jesus in the four Gospels even if one were to pick them up and read them at face value.

Second, when we consider the pericopes that the Gospels have in common and those they do not, we discover that there are several main sources of pericopes. These are Mark and "Q" (material shared by Matthew and Luke), as well as material unique to Matthew known as "M", and material unique to Luke known as "L", and source material in John's Gospel that appears to be independent. So the four Gospels authors appear to be working with collections of material about Jesus from a number of different sources, and those sources already had different arrangements of material expressing their different theological portraits of Jesus. So the constant re-arrangement and editing of material about Jesus is leading to different portraits of Jesus even in the material used as sources for the Gospels, let alone in the Gospels that used those source materials.

Thus the Jesus of the New Testament is quite a mixed bag! How do we get back to the historical Jesus? With great difficulty! Biblical scholars have developed a set of criteria for establishing the probability that material about Jesus is historical. However, there is considerable latitude for judgment. The choices one subsequently makes in answering this question usually determine the label appropriate for one. :-)

"Progressives" are usually happy with the judgments of the so called "Jesus Seminar" group of scholars. I, on the other hand, regard the historical judgments of Jesus Seminar people as historically flaky. Nevertheless, I would regard myself as a liberal. Many progressives accept the view that Jesus was basically a Jew teaching Judaism and that St Paul corrupted this and re-invented the Christian Faith. Once again I regard this as flaky nonsense. So progressives seem themselves as, well, progressive; while I seem them as swallowing all kinds of propaganda. So put me down as "liberal", but not "progressive". :-)

~~~

[2] :

One of the things many pomo/emerging church types reject is the argument you seem to be having because the world is not (as far as we can see) divided simply between (historical) fact and myth. The two are often inextricable and almost always so in the case of ancient texts (especially when it comes to the 'historical Jesus stuff'). Is there history in the New Testament accounts of Jesus? Yes. Is there myth? Yes. Is exegesis and interpretation necessary? Yes. Is it good exegesis simply to divide the so-called 'historical' from the 'myth'. No way.

The Jesus Seminar people seem to ask 'what was the world like when Jesus and the Gospel writers were around'? This is fantastic and opens up our reading to amazing new insights. Their second step, however, is as dodgy as all get out. They seem to say 'because we know something about the world Jesus lived in we can decide whether what he is quoted as saying was really said or not.' They even have different colours based on whether they think Jesus' statements are, 'almost certainly historical', 'most probably historical' etc on their reading of history and the texts in comparison. This project seems to me to be one of the most ill-formed and boring (need I say arrogant?)

exccises I have seen.

There is an element of faith to this faith business...

~~~

[3]:

One of the insights of the post-modern critique is that it is *impossible* to put 'His teachings' before 'our own interpretation'. This is because the minute I look at 'His teachings' I look at them through the lens of my experience, my understanding, even to the point that each of us has subtly different definitions of the actual *words* used in Scripture! That's exactly *why* we need to have a radically humble approach to our beliefs and the beliefs of others because *no-one* has a precise handle on 'His teachings'; but together in mutual respect, dialogue and understanding we might be able to move closer to the heart of the matter.

And of course that kind of mutual respect and humble openess is (in *my* interpretation!) quite characteristic of the love Jesus calls us to.