Jesus Seminar: Color Codes for the Five Gospels

[Nazaroo]

The scholars from the Jesus Seminar published their Gospel using a color code. It was based upon the 'voting system' they used to determine the authenticity of the New Testament texts.

The Seminar adopted four categories as a compromise with those who wanted more. In addition to red, we permitted a pink vote for those who wanted to hedge: a pink vote represented reservations either about the degree of certainty or about modifications the saying or parable had suffered in the course of its transmission and recording. And for those who wanted to avoid a flat negative vote, we allowed a gray vote (gray being a weak form of black). The Seminar employed colored beads dropped into voting boxes in order to permit all members to vote in secret. Beads and boxes turned out to be a fortunate choice for both Fellows and an interested public.
Fellows were permitted to cast ballots under two different options for understanding the four colors.

Option 1:

red: 'I would include this item unequivocally in the database for determining who Jesus was.'

pink: 'I would include this item with reservations (or modifications) in the database.

gray: 'I would not include this item in the database, but I might make use of some of the content in determining who Jesus was.'

black: 'I would not include this item in the primary database.'

Option 2:

red: 'Jesus undoubtably said this or something very like it.'

pink: 'Jesus probably said something like this.'

gray: 'Jesus did not say this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.'

black: 'Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition.'

One member suggested this unofficial but helpful interpretation of the colors:

red: "That's Jesus!"

pink: "Sure sounds like Jesus."

gray: "Well, maybe."

black: "There's been some mistake."

(The Five Gospels, pg 36,37)

Another interpretation, which may be more helpful in evaluating the ratings provided by the Jesus Seminar scholars has recently been offered:

red: "That's the pacifist Rabbi we've been talking about."

pink: "Sounds like a reasonable middle-class liberal. Let's go with that."

gray: "I've completely misunderstood the obvious meaning of this passage in its lawful context."

black: "This would require becoming a Christian."

 

[daveleau]

I like the new suggestion of JS meaning in their coding. lol Which is the 5th Gospel of which they speak?

 

[Nazaroo]

Actually, they count "Thomas" as a 'Gospel', even though it is nothing of the kind.

"Thomas" is a collection of sayings, many of which seem derived from the Synoptic (Matt/Mark/Luke) tradition. It has some unknown sayings from other source(s) many of which appear rather bizzare. Initially classed as "gnostic", this has been abandoned because of the large amount of material which has a mainly synoptic character.

But it is hardly a 'gospel', having no real beginning, end, or account of Jesus' public ministry, passion, death or resurrection.

Still, liberal scholars are milking Thomas for all its worth.

 

[daveleau]

Kind of makes me sick to think that. Thomas si so blatantly Gnostic.

 

[justified]

Well technically, it does have a plotline.

And much of the "synoptic" material is considered to be independent, suggesting that some of the unknown sayings might be genuine.

But I disagree with them -- I think it's much later than most scholars seem to like to believe.

 

[Nazaroo]

lol Which is the 5th Gospel of which they speak?

Actually, what would be hilarious, if it weren't so tragic, is the fact that although they *say* Five Gospels (including Thomas), they actually discredit the Gospel of John in its entirety!

That is, if you check, there is not *ONE* saying in John that the Jesus Seminar was willing to accept as originating from Jesus, even with a mild probability (in either RED or PINK ink!) John's Gospel is printed throughout in GRAY or BLACK. Mostly Black.

That's right: The Jesus Seminar rejected the Entire Gospel of John as worthless in 'reconstructing' their "apocalyptic/pacifist" Jesus...

Talk about placing yourself out on a limb.

But I disagree with them -- I think it's(Thomas) much later than most scholars seem to like to believe.

What a pleasant surprise! We agree once again, Justified!

 

[justified]

Gee, when I say something with no evidence attached you agree. Interesting.

 

[Nazaroo]

The Jesus Seminar cover their methodology and approach in the first 35 pages of the book, as well as in the preface, and some cameo articles sprinkled throughout the text.

One cannot fairly and adequately assess their work without taking their own explanations into account. Here I am going to quote and review their work, and evaluate it based upon a variation of their own scheme-ology.

"They have been trained by the best universities in North America and Europe.
...
...working together closely for six years...they studied, debated and voted on each of the more than 1,500 sayings of Jesus in the 'inventory'.
...
They produced a translation of all the gospels, known as the Scholars Version.
...
The Five Gospels...answers the question "What did Jesus really say?" within a narrow range of historical probabilities." (pg ix)

RED: Either the Editors, or the publisher have attempted to blow their own horn loudly by the 5th sentence of the preface. Probably a publisher's gloss, that crept in from the margin.

"He who blows his horn first shall be last, and he who blows his horn at all without scientific evidence shall be mocked liberally." (John 8:14f Nazaroo Version)

​

ORANGE: The Jesus Seminar scholars here make an eschatological claim, which belongs to the earliest layer of scholarly hubris:

"We can tear down the temple of Biblical criticism, and rebuild it in six years!" The other critics from the Sadduces replied, "This house took 200 years to build, and you will tear it down in six years?" But the Jesus Seminar was talking of their own reputation. (John 2:19-21 Nazaroo Version)

​

PINK: The editors have attempted to reserve a name for their translation, unhappy with the strong likelihood of the work securing a 'name' for itself that may not be attractive or printable in brochures.

"And when the editor came out, he could not speak to them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision of the future of the New Quest for the 'Historical Jesus', but he remained speechless, beckoning to them" (Luke 1:22 Nazaroo Version)

​

PURPLE: The Pharisee element has here attempted to limit the scope of the discussion to questions they themselves have composed. But later in we see the editorial activity of the 'Priestly' party, and hand of the "Yeah-wists".

But when the Editor saw that some of them were of the party of the Unfair-isees, and others were of the Sad-oochies, he announced he believed in the resurrection of the Quest for the Historical Jesus. (Acts 23:6 Nazaroo Version)

​

 

[Nazaroo]

The translators...have taken as their motto this dictum:
a translation is artful to the extent that one can forget, while reading it, that it is a translation at all.
...
...the translators worked diligently to produce in the American reader an experience comparable to that of the first readers - or listeners - of the original. It should be recalled that those who first encountered the gospels did soas listeners rather than as readers.
...
"Why a new translation?"
...
(pg xiii from the Introduction to the 'Scholar's Version'..)

PINK: Clearly a scribal gloss. A careful examination of the translation reveals that the true intent is to have the reader forget entirely there ever was a translation this embarrassing.

BLUE: Here the 'experience comparable to that of the first readers' can only refer to the horrible suffering, persecution and crucifixion of the early Christians at the hands of hysterical rulers. In the goal of reproducing this experience, the translators have admirably succeeded. Very few have survived the first few pages of Matthew, before seeing visions of the Son of Man coming in the clouds at the right hand of God, and so passing away.

RED: Undoubtably the true words of Jesus.

More review to follow.

 

[Nazaroo]

"You scholars...you imposters! Damn you!
You slam the door of Heaven's domain in people's faces.
You yourselves don't enter, and you block the way of those trying to enter." (Matt 23:13 'Scholar's Version')
...
...the (Jesus Seminar) translators abandoned the context of polite religious discourse suitable for a Puritan parlor and reinstated the common street language of the original.
...
Modern translations, especially those ...endorsed by church boards, tend to reproduce the Greek text, more or less word-for-word.
...


they (the Jesus Seminar translators) decided rather, to represent not only the words, phrases and expressions of the Greek text, but also to capture, if possible, the tone and tenor of the original expression: As a consequence, the SV (Scholar's Version) translates Mark 4:9 -

"Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!" (Mark 4:9 -'SV')


​

..."had better listen" replaces the awkward English "let him hear". "Had better listen" sounds like something parents might say to inattentive children.

(Scholar's Version chapter, pg xiv)

RED: Authentic words of Jesus, once again.

PINK: Completely out of touch with the modern world. Obviously the Jesus Seminar people have on the whole quite faithully reproduced the "polite religious discourse suitable for a Puritan parlor " and not the "common street language" as they vainly imagine.
If a Jesus Seminar professor actually attempted to communicate with modern street youth by reading out of this translation, he'd have tha bloodz and tha cripz bustin' capz in dat a** B4 he even opened dat stupid a** bible bro.

BLACK: This rational and antithetical statement can hardly be original to the paragraph it is embedded in.

BLUE: "to capture, if possible, the tone and tenor of the original expression:" It is hard to believe the critics once again decide to shoot themselves in the foot on the way to the showdown by quoting one of the worst examples of their own translation, and then...

ORANGE: critique it for us in the same paragraph. I suppose they expect praise for this.

Apparently, the Jesus Seminar imagine a group of disciples who (like themselves) have taken Jesus' proverb about being like little children a bit too literally, and they also imagine a Jesus who then proceeds to scold them like 5 year olds. Somebody has read the 60's pop psychology book "I'm Okay You're Okay" and has decided that Jesus and His disciples only communicate on a level of "Parent to Child".

If any of these clowns had *real* degrees in an actual science, even psychology, results superior to this could have been expected.

 

[Nazaroo]

To continue on page xvi of the FIVE GOSPELS (Scholars Version):

The translators believe that excessive capitalization gives the gospels an old-fashioned look.

Pronouns referring to God are no longer capitalized as they once were.

The term 'son' is not capitalized when referring to Jesus.

(the translators decided to avoid "Jesus Christ," since many readers take "Christ" as a last name. )

The word 'messiah' is not capitalized in ordinary use.

Part of the rationale in avoiding overcapitalization was the desire to desacralize terms that in the original were common and secular;
English translators have given them an unwarranted sacred dimension by capitalizing them.

The goal of the panel was to make SV (Scholar's Version) look and sound like a piece of contemporary literature.

GRAY: A lame attempt at a smokescreen. The 'scholars' go on to blow their own cover by explaining in detail their real motivations in the same paragraph.

PINK: Wishful thinking and an attempt to hoodwink the unwary or naive.
In fact in the 95% of bibles in current use, pronouns referring to God are always capitalized. The only exceptions are of course the Jehovah's Witless New World Translation from the Dim Times, and the Scholar's Version.

ORANGE: "Son is not capitalized when referring to Jesus"... Here's a 'brilliant' attempt at clarifying the meaning of Jesus and/or the Evangelists. Apparently the Jesus Seminar feel that rather than obvious eschatological and Messianic titles, these references had more the intent of 'pal' or 'bro', when fulfilling prophecies or in blatant references to Jesus' special status.

For instance, the famous 'Son of Man' passages identifying Jesus with the prophecies and characters in Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah and Enoch, are instead offered up as "C.S. Lewis-like" innuendos that we just have to absorb unconsciously to keep the suspense rolling:

"And then they will see the son of Adam coming on the clouds with great power and splendor." (Luke 21:27, 'Scholars Version')

​

Why didn't they just go all the way and substitute 'Aslan' here?

BLUE/GREEN: (Publisher's misunderstanding and secretary's correctional gloss).

PURPLE: Apparently the Jesus Seminar have discovered an 'ordinary usage' for the religious code-word "Messiah", Annointed One, King, Prophet, (One Sent and Chosen by God).
This discovery probably occured during a recent archeaological visit to Israel, where the panel found that there were 'messiah' brand matzoes, 'little messiah' diapers, and even an illegal table-dance in Tel-Aviv called "the messiah".

BLACK: Bad previous translators! Imagine having the gall to give words in Holy Scripture an unwarranted sacred dimension.

BLUE: Success! Honesty is the best policy. And the Jesus Seminar have certainly succeeded in turning a classic and revered sacred work into something resembling an educational article in Playboy magazine.

 

[stumpjumper]

Actually, they count "Thomas" as a 'Gospel', even though it is nothing of the kind.

Some scholars believe that Thomas was multi-layered and that it simply started out as a collection of sayings by Jesus and was added to later by Gnostics in the second century...

I don't think there's any way to know for sure but that is one theory. IRT the Jesus seminar, voting just seems very subjective. If we really thought that the authors of the Gospels did not accurately relay information then there would be very little we could say about Jesus...

Thankfully, I think they are much more accurate then the Jesus seminar POV leads us to believe.

 

[justified]

Well, the Jesus seminar has been considered nearly worthless by every scholar I know for a rather long time. Naz' stuff here is just beating a straw man.

 

[Nazaroo]

Well, the Jesus seminar has been considered nearly worthless by every scholar I know for a rather long time. Naz' stuff here is just beating a straw man.

Well, its hard to pass up such a wealth of humour material from so large a list of prestigious scholars. And the Five Gospels is just the sort of trash a university educated librarian would order thinking it was the definitive statement in this field (as demonstrated by its popularity in public libraries). And this leaves the public vulnerable to such misleading 'scholarship'.

Anyway, "...its only a bit o' fun." (Monty Python's Flying Circus)

 

[justified]

Well, its hard to pass up such a wealth of humour material from so large a list of prestigious scholars. And the Five Gospels is just the sort of trash a university educated librarian would order thinking it was the definitive statement in this field (as demonstrated by its popularity in public libraries). And this leaves the public vulnerable to such misleading 'scholarship'.

Most university libraries order books based on recommendations from the faculties. And yes, the probably would be ordered -- it's important to have everyone's opinion at your disposal when doing research, Naz.

It's also important to represent the viewpoint of people you read very carefully.

 

[Nazaroo]

Most university libraries order books based on recommendations from the faculties. And yes, the probably would be ordered -- it's important to have everyone's opinion at your disposal when doing research, Naz.

It's also important to represent the viewpoint of people you read very carefully.

Can anything be more exhilarating than being lectured by someone in their tweens about the obvious?

Its hard to get annoyed by you, Justified: You're so like myself 30 years ago. Perhaps I'm a vision of where you may end up someday...

Naz' stuff here is just beating a straw man.

..and yet I can't help feeling that the long list of crusty old scholars beginning with Funk, A.B., M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Special Studies: Ecumenical Institute, Amer.School of Oriental Research, U. of Tubingen, etc., and John Dominic Crossan, S.S.L., D.D., from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, and Ecole biblicque et archeologique francaise,and also including Braun, Fortna, Rousseau, etc., might lower your grade score a not insignificant amount for assessing their collective brain-power as 'a straw man'.

 

[justified]

Can anything be more exhilarating than being lectured by someone in their tweens about the obvious?

Its hard to get annoyed by you, Justified: You're so like myself 30 years ago. Perhaps I'm a vision of where you may end up someday...

You know, it's great. People keep telling me how old I am, with no clue about how old I am. It would be great, Naz, if instead of appealing to (mistaken) ad hominem you actually interacted honestly with what people wrote.

..and yet I can't help feeling that the long list of crusty old scholars beginning with Funk, A.B., M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Special Studies: Ecumenical Institute, Amer.School of Oriental Research, U. of Tubingen, etc., and John Dominic Crossan, S.S.L., D.D., from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, and Ecole biblicque et archeologique francaise,and also including Braun, Fortna, Rousseau, etc., might lower your grade score a not insignificant amount for assessing their collective brain-power as 'a straw man'.

I have a friend completing a D.phil in oriental studies/OT at Cambridge. I asked him once why he didn't decide to go to Harvard it was nearer and he could have made it. The answer? He could not have made it out without compromising.

Naz, there is no denying that the men are absolutely brilliant. But that doesn't mean all that much, so I don't understand your point. I am equally willing to debate with someone like Funk with an extra couple letters after his name than I, or someone like you with fewer. It doesn't matter if they are stretching the evidence or just plain wrong. When I first met J. Day, we discussed some of his ideas about Asherah and I was happy to tell him that I thought he was wrong, despite his position and that it's not my area of study.

BTW, it's fascinating: When I was as young as people here think I am, everyone thought I was "just like them" when I they were my age. Perhaps it was simply wistful thinking on part of my elders?

 

[Nazaroo]

You know, it's great. People keep telling me how old I am, with no clue about how old I am. It would be great, Naz, if instead of appealing to (mistaken) ad hominem you actually interacted honestly with what people wrote.

Allow me to interact honestly now:
What colour is the sky in your world?
...and in what form do the posts appear in your alternate-dimension browser?

Are you wholly unaware that you are placing your age at the top of every message you post here, presumably because you must have actually entered a number or birthdate when you registered, and have chosen not to hide your age or sex from other viewers?

Of course I am not really surprised to find out that your role-playing 'persona' is inaccurate. As a skilled investigator I find that most amateur attempts at disguise are usually blown eventually by the perpetrators themselves, when they forget their chosen or stated personal info, or become frustrated with the limits imposed by their disguise.

What possible advantage could presenting yourself as say 10 years younger achieve? ...

But all this is rather paranoid of me...Still, can you clarify?

Forgive me for making the assumption that you were a naive and honest 'Christian' user of this forum, as the majority here undoubtably are. I suppose I should not have taken your profession as 'protestant' at face value either: or rather I perhaps should have perceived the hidden Trojan horse your posts represent after examining their suspect content.

I have a friend completing a D.phil in oriental studies/OT at Cambridge. I asked him once why he didn't decide to go to Harvard it was nearer and he could have made it. The answer? He could not have made it out without compromising.

Considering Cambridge was the center of the notorious Gay Communist secret cabal that betrayed the West to the Soviet Union, and gave away all our nuclear secrets, its hard to imagine the 'compromise' Harvard posed, which your friend balked at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five
http://www.crimelibrary.com/spies/cambridge/cambridgemain.htm
http://www.espionageinfo.com/Bl-Ch/Cambridge-University-Spy-Ring.html
http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/Page401.html
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/uk_folder/ukspycases_folder/ukspycasestoc.html
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/perry.html
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/atomic-spies.html

You can buy the DVD here:
http://www.coolshopping.com/dvds.php/Mode/product/page/1/browse/429324/AsinSearch/B0000C23D5/name/Cambridge%2520Spies



The only thing worse I can think of off-hand is Mexican Bestiality Porn production. Of course I wouldn't be surprised to find that whole industry run by Harvard grads and disgruntled Jews, possibly assisted by the latest crop of Cambridge 'sleepers':

http://www.jewishquarterly.org/article.asp?articleid=38

BTW, it's fascinating: When I was as young as people here think I am, everyone thought I was "just like them" when I they were my age. Perhaps it was simply wistful thinking on part of my elders?

Of course I confess, I live out quite a few of my inner fantasies as your character, in my dreams. Unfortunately, I am aware of no Freudian interpretation that fits my illness or that might ease those crazy college nightmares....

Your pal
Nazaroo

 

[justified]

Forgive me for making the assumption that you were a naive and honest 'Christian' user of this forum,

Don't worry, Naz. I serve the same God you do.

Considering Cambridge was the center of the notorious Gay Communist secret cabal that betrayed the West to the Soviet Union, and gave away all our nuclear secrets, its hard to imagine the 'compromise' Harvard posed, which your friend balked at. The only thing worse I can think of off-hand is Mexican Bestiality Porn production. Of course I wouldn't be surprised to find that whole industry run by Harvard grads.

Do you not yet get what I am talking about? You conflate things into absured ad hominem attacks. Communism in a previous era and the Theology Faculty today have very little to do with one another.

 

[Nazaroo]

You conflate things into absured ad hominem attacks.

Its only humourless university-trained politically over-correct climbers who are so offended by a little horse-play they have invented a special derogatory name for it: "ad hominem". Everyone else in the world thinks its funny and watches hours on end of it on TV.

Allow me to give you a couple of my favourite 'lightbulb' jokes, which illustrate this very point:

Q: "How many feminists does it take to replace a lightbulb?"

A: "That's not funny."


And here's the more sophisticated variant of the same joke:

Q: "How many feminists does it take to replace a lightbulb?"

A: "One. Do you have a problem with that?"


When we lose the ability to laugh at ourselves, we have lost an awful lot.