tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post5910615423676967155..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Jesus Seminar latestMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-69760449409113787302009-08-20T13:45:54.934-04:002009-08-20T13:45:54.934-04:00The Jesus Seminar has lost its creativity and &quo...The Jesus Seminar has lost its creativity and "cutting edge" mentality because it hasn't re-examined some of the conclusions it reached earlier despite developments suggesting that it needs to do this.<br />For example, as noted by John Dart, they have concluded that Acts was written in the second century CE. This implies that Luke wrote his gospel in the second century CE as well.<br />This development should lead them to re-examine several of their earlier decisions, but it hasn't--e.g., their earlier decision to advocate the Two Source Theory. The problem they face is this: (1) while their original decision to date Matthew to c. 85 CE and Luke to c. 90 CE (The Five Gospels, p. 128) makes it unlikely that Luke knew of Matthew and used it as a source, (2) if the Gospel of Luke was written several decades later than 90 CE, then it becomes likely that Luke knew the Gospel of Matthew and used it as a source. So, they need to re-evaluate theories, such as the Farrer Theory and the Griesbach Theory, which posit that Luke used Matthew as a source. But they haven't done this.<br />Again, let us take their earlier decisions that (1) there was a first edition of Thomas by 50-60 CE (Ibid.), but that (2) Luke did not use Thomas as a source. Even with the dating of Luke to 90 CE, it is difficult to reconcile these two decisions. However, if Luke didn't write his gospel until the second century CE, then I think the idea that both of these decisions are correct is inherently implausible. So, there is a need for them to re-examine both of these earlier decisions. However, so far, they haven't.<br />I am an associate member of Westar Institute, but I continue membership only out of respect for the Jesus Seminar as it once was. Hopefully, their move will lead them to re-start their endeavors in more than one sense of this term.Frank McCoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16977985447972987579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-2967534547535529022009-08-20T11:34:34.165-04:002009-08-20T11:34:34.165-04:00"Mainstream and boring." Yeah. That wa..."Mainstream and boring." Yeah. That was always my criticism of the Jesus Seminar. I'd have been more sympathetic if they had more shock value.<br /><br />I seem to recall a year or so ago reading something to the effect that their next endeavor would be the "historical Paul." Do you know if that's still in the cards?Rick Sumnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10284073533968750655noreply@blogger.com