Editing Jesus Seminar (section)

==={{anchor|Creating a Jesus based on the presuppositions of the members}}Influence of presuppositions===
[[Howard Clark Kee]], Professor of Biblical Studies Emeritus at [[Boston University School of Theology]], writing in the journal ''[[Theology Today]]'' stated, "the conclusions reached by these scholars are inherent in the presuppositions and methods they have chosen to adopt from the outset."<ref>Kee, Howard Clark, "A Century of Quests for the Culturally Compatible Jesus", ''Theology Today'', April 1, 1995.</ref>

[[Luke Timothy Johnson]]<ref name="Luke Timothy Johnson">[http://www.candler.emory.edu/ABOUT/faculty/johnson.cfm Luke Timothy Johnson] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061023204523/http://candler.emory.edu/ABOUT/faculty/johnson.cfm |date=2006-10-23 }}</ref> of the [[Candler School of Theology]] at [[Emory University]], in his 1996 book ''The Real Jesus'', voiced concerns with the seminar's work. He criticized the techniques of the Seminar, believing them to be far more limited for historical reconstruction than seminar members believe. Their conclusions were "already determined ahead of time," Johnson says, which "is not responsible, or even critical scholarship. It is a self-indulgent [[wikt:charade|charade]]." [[William Lane Craig]] argues that the principal presuppositions of scientific naturalism, the primacy of the apocryphal gospels, and the necessity of a politically correct Jesus are unjustified and issue in a distorted portrait of the historical Jesus.<ref>{{cite web|last=Craig|first=William Lane|title=Presuppositions and Pretensions of the Jesus Seminar|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/presuppositions-and-pretensions-of-the-jesus-seminar|access-date=19 May 2014}}</ref>

[[Raymond E. Brown|Raymond Brown]] likewise avers that the Seminar "operated to a remarkable degree on a priori principles, some of them reflecting antisupernatural bias. For instance, the bodily resurrection had no real chance of being accepted as having taken place. ... Again, almost as a principle, the eschatological character of Jesus' ministry has been dismissed..."<ref>Brown, Raymond E. (1997). ''An Introduction to the New Testament''. Doubleday. pp. 820-821. {{ISBN|9780385247672}}</ref>

[[Dale Allison]] of [[Pittsburgh Theological Seminary]], in his 1998 book ''Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet'', cited what he felt were problems with the work of (particularly) [[John Dominic Crossan]] and [[Marcus Borg]], arguing that their conclusions were at least in part predetermined by their theological positions. He also pointed out the limitations of their presumptions and methodology. Allison argued that despite the conclusions of the seminar, Jesus was a prophetic figure focused to a large extent on apocalyptic thinking.<ref name="Millenarian Prophet">Allison, Dale C. (1998). ''Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet''. Fortress Press. {{ISBN|0-8006-3144-7}}</ref>  Several Bible scholars (for example [[Bart D. Ehrman]], an agnostic, and [[Paula Fredriksen]], a Jew) have reasserted [[Albert Schweitzer]]'s eschatological view of Jesus.<ref>Schweitzer wrote that Jesus and his followers expected the imminent end of the world. [http://home.pcisys.net/~jnf/schauth/rq2.html Review of "The Mystery of the Kingdom of God"]</ref> Casey argues that the Jesus Seminar's fundamental social goal was not to construct an accurate portrait of the historical Jesus, but rather to create "a figure whom [the Fellows of the Seminar] are happy with".<ref name="Casey2010"/> In particular, the fellows of the Seminar have removed "the apocalyptic and eschatological concerns which characterize American fundamentalism"<ref name="Casey2010"/> and remade Jesus as "a cynic philosopher, which suits their intellectual ambiance".<ref name="Casey2010"/>