A written work is generally based on certain fundamental concepts and rules. This one is no different. The Five Gospels, as stated by the Jesus Seminarians in the Introduction, is based on "The Seven Pillars of Scholarly Wisdom". In essence then, these "Pillars" must be reviewed to understand from whence this book is coming from. A commentary and analysis on these pillars follow in the order outlined in the Introduction.

1. Choice between Supernatural and Historical Jesus.

In reality, the choice was between the "Spiritual" and "Physical" Jesus. Using "Scholarly Wisdom" on the Spiritual aspect would be considered very unwise, if not impossible, besides being impractical. So the "Fellows" opted for the Physical aspect with total disregard to Old Testament Scripture and Jesus' claim of mankind's spiritual roots.

2. Recognizing the Synoptic Gospels as much closer to Historical Jesus, than the Gospel of John and his Spiritual Jesus.

In making an unrealistic assumption from the "First Pillar", the recognition of the Synoptic Gospels as much closer to the Historical Jesus, though being true, is totally redundant, as the Gospel of John, being much closer to the REAL Spiritual Jesus, should be the guiding factor as to what the REAL JESUS may or may not have said.

3. Recognizing "Mark" as prior to "Mathew and Luke".

Probably a wise decision, regardless of scholarship.

4. Recognizing Hypothetical Source Q to explain the Double Tradition.

Calling it Spiritual Source Q, may be closer to the truth. It seems strikingly obtuse to believe that in a society that flourished in a near vacuum of writing materials (in comparison to today), that one would even consider the thought that sayings and parables required a written source.

Wise sayings, parables or witticisms have a habit of emanating from, as it were, "mouths of babes", who almost certainly did not read it from a newspaper, much less a manuscript. By far the vast majority of sayings written by so called "scholars", would have been "hand me downs", and the ones that were not would most likely have had the same source, which certainly was no document. As a wise man once said, "there is nothing said that has not been uttered before".

These wise sayings always seem to have a certain striking quality about them, which makes them wise, and thus memorable, and that quality is "TRUTH".

There is no one person who has exclusive access, or rights to truth, which would explain the habit of it emanating from mouths of babes. Jesus certainly had access to this source, and He made far greater use of it than anyone else, which is why the literature written about Him is so prolific. Jesus called this source the "Holy Spirit", or "The Spirit of Truth". Jesus also explained that as children of the Father, or God, who is spirit, mankind is a spiritual being, and as such, has unlimited access to this source, requiring only our realization and belief.

Consequently, the "Hypothetical Source Q" could have been named much more realistically as "Spiritual Source Q", or more simply as Jesus said, "the Holy Spirit".

5. Opting for non-eschatological Jesus.

So much easier than trying to determine "from whence the wind listeth". Trying to pin down such ephemeral things as death, resurrection, judgement and immortality was beyond their scholarly wisdom. Having faith in "they know not what" is beyond their egos' tolerance.

6. Recognizing fundamental contrast between "Oral and Written" cultures. Oral: short, provocative, memorable and oft repeated stories.

Short, memorable sayings, or aphorisms, are so much easier to repeat and record, and leave so many more avenues for explanations and muddling of meanings. "Written Cultures", trying to convey the meaning of Jesus' sayings, left little room for "revisions" by the Fellows.

Given the limited supply of writing materials, any sayings or parables would most certainly have been condensed from the normal vivid, colorful and lengthy explanations, to the "brief, pithy one-liners and couplets" attributed to the synoptic gospels by the Fellows.

John, on the other hand, obviously must have realized that to get Jesus' real message across would require much more detail to provide a context for His points. Trying to condense some of the narratives in John without losing the intent and context of the message, would be an exercise in futility.

John also may have had greater access to writing materials, which would have allowed the different style, also, as being closest to Jesus he would have heard and picked up considerably more information as well as insights as to Jesus' real purpose, especially as pertaining to Jesus' discourses and dialogues. John would have had a different perspective on many of Jesus' messages, and would have written accordingly, which further supports his claim of being the beloved disciple, which the Fellows discount out of hand, claiming the gospel was probably written by "a school of disciples, probably in Syria".

7. Reversal regarding Who bears burden of proof.
Scholars at one time had to prove the gospels were not historical.

The only ones reversing the burden of proof were the scholars themselves, the blind leaders leading the blind. If you cannot prove it, change the rules. Finally, the Fellows are warned that "the last temptation is to create Jesus in our own image, to marshal the facts to support preconceived convictions", then they go on composing the book doing precisely that.

That statement does not alter the fact that they are diametrically opposed to the message of the New Testament as promulgated by Jesus, which is that "we are created in His image", not Jesus in ours, and we are simply asked to believe that as the truth.

After opting for an historical Jesus, the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar adopted as their final rule of evidence: "Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you".

That is akin to deciding who deserves to win the game, then writing the rules accordingly, after which you are to keep an open mind.

Eighty two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by Him.

This is supposed to be surprising? People don't pass on a thought by repeating words, people use their own words to relay a thought, which is the whole idea. Repeating an idea or a thought in a foreign language compounds the problem.

The question is, "what percentage of thoughts ascribed to Jesus were actually repeated"?

Distinguishing Jesus from Christ. - Biblical scholars and theologians alike have learned to distinguish the Jesus of History from the Christ of Faith.

A few salient points. Biblical scholars; translates to scholars of the bible, whether they are Christian or not, and in this case, they are not. A Christian scholar would be bound to say the "Jesus Christ of History", and the "distinguishing" factor would not apply. Bible; translates to Christian, New Testament and Jesus Christ. Torah; translates to Judean, Old Testament, Talmud and Jesus the prophet. In which case, it begs the question of why the Fellows are searching for the Jesus of History in the Bible and not the Torah. On the other hand, if they were indeed searching for the Real Jesus Christ, they would have opted for the Supernatural Jesus as the first pillar of scholarly wisdom, before they began dissecting the Gospels. In effect, distinguishing Jesus from Christ is distinguishing Judaism from Christianity, and their efforts on the Five Gospels is a moot exercise.

The Search for the Real Jesus begins with a modern critical edition of the Greek New Testament.

Whose interpretation of the Real Jesus? Judaic view, or Christian view? The Fellows have carefully mapped out the Judean view while totally disregarding the Christian view, which shows in no uncertain terms which side of the fence the "scholars" are about to whitewash.

Jesus' claim of God being a "Spirit" cannot be denied, whether or not the writers used Jesus' authentic words. Jesus' claim of worshipping God in spirit and in truth follows accordingly, as was His claim of doing God's will.

In view of the fact that God created man and woman in His image, - being Spirit - the REAL JESUS would obviously have to be viewed from the "Spiritual" or "Christian" point of view as espoused in the New Testament Gospels.

The Judean view of the human being, as made by Yahweh, has nothing to do with the New Testament as advocated by Jesus. The whole crux of the matter hinges on whether Jesus' claim of man being a "Spirit" is true, or whether the Judean claim of man being a "physical body" is true. In other words, is a person identified as "Spirit" or "Body"? To search for the "Real Jesus" in the Bible from the Judean point of view is simply ludicrous.

Two portraits of Jesus
The first step is to understand the diminished role the Gospel of John plays in the search for the Jesus of history.

Before we put any credence in "his story", we should first ascertain "whose story"? Perhaps we should be more reluctant to accept anyone's story at face value if we are to find the Jesus of "true story", or the Real Jesus.

That "history" is a misnomer has been proven countless times. Since time immemorial people have tended to take "his story" at face value and equate it with "fact". In reality, a "story" has many sides, and to obtain a "true story", we need not only "his story", but "her story", as well as everyone else's story that was involved, which for the most part is very unlikely, if not impossible. In any event, to obtain a "truestory" would require corroborating stories.

As a "story" is a sequence of events, involving at least one person (the one relating the story), and usually two or more without limit, and in many cases involving conflicts of interest in either, or both material and spiritual senses, those events are a consequence of immediately preceding events, which in turn are dependent on events preceding those, it follows that a "truestory" would have to be corroborated by all those involved.

Corroboration by two, ten, or a thousand people from one side of a conflict by no means makes the story true. One story each, however inaccurate, from either side of the conflict, would be nearer to the truth, than a thousand stories from one side of the controversy.

The message of the New Testament is a spiritual statement, and to deny that fact would be to say all the literature that was ever written about Jesus Christ as unwarranted and a hoax. It is difficult to imagine the Fellows of Scholarly Wisdom making the decision to accept the first step as a "diminished role for the Gospel of John", as it is the very essence of the New Testament.

In retrospect, after compiling their work on The Five Gospels, to be able to ascribe but two pages of Jesus' direct quotes, must have made them aware that their first step must have been misplaced. To think that the volumes written on Jesus Christ emanated from the two pages that the Fellows selected borders on lunacy.

Surely, by publishing their work, the Fellows of Scholarly Wisdom must have realized that they were risking becoming the laughing stock of the world today.

Credibility, where art thou?

**** **** **** **** **** ****
Maurice (Moe) Roman Zuzak (1939-12-26 to 1998-10-25) spent a considerable amount of time and effort studying the Bible in the English, Ukrainian and Greek languages. The above critique, written on Dec. 11, 1993, was found amongst his personal effects by his brother Will Zuzak, who typed it out as a Word97 document on March 12, 1999.

The Five Gospels
The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus
by Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar
A Poleridge Press Book (1993)
ISBN 0-02-541949-8
Macmillan Publishing Co.