Working Paper Series

How Scientific is the Jesus Seminar?a

Sean F. Everton, PhD Assistant Professor

Defense Analysis Department Naval Postgraduate School

Monterey, CA sfeverto@nps.edu

April 2014

a Many thanks to Russell Shepherd for his help in coding the results of the Jesus Seminar’s voting and to Larry Iannaccone for helpful feedback on drafts of this paper. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR) and the Association for the Study of Economics, Religion, and Culture (ASREC).

Abstract In 1985 a group of New Testament scholars gathered to vote on the authenticity of the sayings of Jesus. Over the next five years, the Jesus Seminar, as the group came to be known, met twice a year to vote on over 1,500 versions of 518 sayings attributed to Jesus. Approximately 30 biblical scholars attended the Seminar’s first meeting, but over time it grew to include more than 200. In the end it concluded that only 16 percent of the sayings attributed to Jesus come close to what he actually said, while another 27 percent might reflect his ideas. The Seminar’s scholars claimed to follow established rules of scholarly evidence, but critics argue they often did not, pointing to anomalies in their conclusions. Because critics can easily cherry-pick anecdotal evidence to support their position, this paper tests how well the Seminar’s Fellows followed the rules of evidence using their own voting results. It finds that, for the most part, the Seminar’s Fellows followed the rules of evidence, but it also appears that they were influenced by their own assumptions as to whom Jesus was, what he believed, what he said, and how he said it. More precisely, net of other factors, they were much more likely to conclude that a saying was authentic if it was a parable or an aphorism and much less likely to conclude that it was authentic if it was apocalyptic. The paper concludes by considering the implications these results have for the quest for the historical Jesus.

3

In March of 1985 a group of New Testament scholars gathered in Berkeley, California, in order to “inquire, rigorously after the voice of Jesus, after what he really said” (Funk 1985:7). Over the next five years the group, collectively known as “The Jesus Seminar,” met twice a year to vote on the authenticity of over 1,500 versions of 518 sayings attributed to Jesus (Jesus Seminar 1990c).1 Approximately 30 biblical scholars attended the Seminar’s first meeting, but over time it grew to include more than 200. One of the Seminar’s primary goals was to increase the public’s religious literacy, lamenting that pastors educated in mainline Protestant seminaries and divinity schools were not passing on the latest developments in biblical research to their parishioners, such as the belief held by many scholars that some of the sayings attributed to Jesus were not, in fact, uttered by him but, instead, had been placed on his lips by the writers of the gospels and other books. Seminar members were not only critical of mainline Protestant pastors, however. They were also critical of their fellow biblical scholars, who had for “too long buried [their] considered views of Jesus and the gospels in technical jargon and in obscure journals,” having “been intimidated by promotion and tenure committees to whom the charge of popularizing or sensationalizing biblical issues is anathema.” “It is time,” argued co-founder Robert Funk, “for us to quit the library and speak up” (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:34):

The level of public knowledge of the Bible borders on the illiterate. The church and synagogue have failed in their historic mission to educate the public in the fourth “R,” religion. Many Americans do not know there are four canonical gospels, and many who do can’t name them. The public is poorly informed of the assured results of critical scholarship, although those results are commonly taught in colleges, universities, and seminaries. In this vacuum, drugstore books and slick magazines play on the fears and ignorance of the uninformed… The Jesus Seminar was organized under the auspices of the Westar Institute to renew the quest of the historical Jesus and to report the results of its research to more than a handful of gospel specialists (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:34).

And report it has. The group published its conclusions regarding Jesus’ parables in 1988 (Funk, Scott and Butts 1988), the Gospel of Mark in 1991 (Funk and Smith 1991), and the four New Testament gospels plus the Gospel of Thomas in 1993 (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993). Moreover, a number of its participants, such as Marcus Borg (1987, 1994a, b), John Dominic Crossan (1991; 1994), Robert Funk (1996), and James Robinson (2006), published their own books on the historical Jesus.

To say that the group’s findings have been nothing short of controversial would be an understatement. According to the Seminar, only 16 percent of the sayings attributed to Jesus come close to what he actually said, while another 27 percent might reflect his ideas (see Table 2 below). Not surprisingly, conclusions such as these attracted the ire of more conservative biblical scholars who view the Bible as divinely inspired (see, e.g. Copan 1998; Evans 2006; Hays 1994; 1 The Seminar’s voting process is discussed in detail below.

4

Ingolfsland 2002; Wilkins and Moreland 1995). The Seminar, however, has also drawn criticism from less conservative quarters. For example, mainline biblical scholars have criticized the group’s methods (Wright 1999), its membership (Johnson 1996), its use of criteria (Murphy 2008), its dating of sources (Ehrman 2000), and many of its a priori assumptions about who Jesus was and what he said(Allison 2010). Controversy surrounding the Seminar’s pronouncements also helped them attract the attention of the media. The Seminar’s work has been featured on the covers Time (Van Biema 1996), Newsweek (Woodward 1996), and U.S. News and World Report (Sheler, Tharp and Sieder 1996), often around a major Christian holiday, such as Easter.

Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan founded the Seminar under the auspices of the Westar Institute.2 After it finished voting on the sayings of Jesus, it moved on to consider the authenticity of the various deeds attributed to Jesus (Funk and The Jesus Seminar 1998). It next explored the letters attributed to the apostle Paul (Dewey et al. 2011) and the historicity of the New Testament book, Acts of the Apostles (Smith and Tyson 2013). Currently, it is considering what early Christianity was really like, not as it appears in the New Testament but before it became the official religion of the Roman Empire.3 The Seminar, or rather, the Westar Institute, continues to hold two national meetings a year, and it runs a series of lectures and workshops in various cities across the United States (known as Jesus Seminars on the Road).4 Typically, Jesus Seminar members (known as “Fellows”) have earned a Ph.D. in New Testament studies although there are exceptions, such as film director Paul Verhoeven, who has a M.Sc. in mathematics and physics, and United Church of Christ pastor Robin Meyers, who has a Ph.D. in rhetoric. Most are professors at North American universities and hail primarily from either the Roman Catholic Church or Mainline Protestant denominations rather than Evangelical Protestant ones.5

The Seminar is not alone in its quest after the voice of Jesus. It is just one example of what is commonly referred to as the “third quest for the historical Jesus,” a quest that in addition to Seminar members such as Borg, Crossan, Funk, and Robinson, New Testament scholars such as Bart Ehrman (1999), Paula Fredriksen (1988, 1999), Bill Herzog (2005),6 Amy-Jill Levine (2006), John Meier (1991, 1994, 2001, 2009), and E.P. Sanders (1993), to name just a few. What is unique to the Jesus Seminar’s approach, however, is how it has sought scholarly objectivity through a voting method by which each Seminar participant casts his or her ballot as to whether Jesus actually uttered a particular saying. There is a certain wisdom to this approach, as it has been shown that the collective wisdom of experts often exceeds that of individual scholars (Silver 2012), but as Dawes and others (Dawes 1979; Kahneman 2011; Meehl 1954) have noted, while experts can be quite good at identifying important criteria, they are often not good at 2 See http://www.westarinstitute.org. 3 See http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/ 4 See http://www.westarinstitute.org/events/ 5 A notable exception is evangelical biblical scholar Bruce Chilton, who has published his own studies on the historical Jesus that are certainly at odds with the conclusions of most Seminar participants (see e.g., Chilton 2000; Chilton and Evans 1999). Other evangelical scholars also participated in the Seminar but had their names withheld from any publications that listed Seminar Fellows (see e.g., Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:533-537). 6 Herzog participated in some of the early meetings of the Seminar but eventually dropped out.

5

adding them together. This paper’s purpose is to evaluate how well the Jesus Seminar followed widely accepted rules of evidence that biblical scholars use to authenticate the sayings of Jesus. To this end, I use a variety of statistical models to examine the results of the Seminar’s voting.

The paper proceeds as follows. I begin with a brief history of the quest for the historical Jesus and before turning to an overview of the various sources in which sayings attributed to Jesus can be found. Although the New Testament is where most of the sayings can be found, a number are found in books that lie outside the Christian scriptures. This is followed by a discussion of the criteria that most biblical scholars use to separate the wheat, that is, the authentic sayings of Jesus, from the chaff. As we will see, the rules of evidence adopted by the Jesus Seminar exceed those used by most biblical scholars; in fact, some are closer to assumptions than they are rules. I then discuss the data, methods, and measures used in the analysis of the Seminar’s voting results. I follow this with first a presentation and then a discussion of the results. As part of the discussion I will consider if there might be a better way to rank Jesus’ sayings. Finally, I will conclude by considering the implications of these results.

The Quest for the Historical Jesus Scholars typically break down the quest of the historical Jesus into three distinct historical periods: The first, which ran from the mid-eighteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth, was undertaken primarily by deists who assumed that Jesus was not divine, or at least not uniquely divine, and that God does not involve himself in human affairs (e.g., such as performing miracles). They saw their task as peeling away the mythical layers of the Gospel stories to get to the authentic Jesus. “For them, Jesus was at most a teacher of universal morality; he wasn’t God and performed no miracles” (Murphy 2008:51). The two most prominent first questers were Hermann Reimarus (1695 – 1768) and David Strauss (1808 – 1874). Reimarus concluded that Jesus was not divine and could not have been resurrected. He argued that Jesus’ disciples expected that he would establish God’s kingdom in their lifetimes, and when he did not and was executed instead, they invented the story that he had been resurrected and would soon return. Thus, Christian orthodoxy, Reimarus argued, was based on a fraud perpetrated by Jesus’ disciples. Wisely, Reimarus chose not publish his findings during his lifetime, but left it up to his student and friend, Gotthold Lessing, to do it instead. Even then, Lessing did not divulge Reimarus’s name; in fact, nobody knew who the author was for another 40 years.

Reimarus heavily influenced David Strauss, who argued that there should be an “unprejudiced” investigation into the life of Jesus, by which he meant one untainted by religious convictions. Like Reimarus, he assumed that the Gospels were full of myth and could not be taken at face value, so in order to discover what Jesus actually said and did, scholars need to first peel away the Bible’s myths and the miracles. Unlike Reimarus, however, Strauss did not believe that the miracles in the Gospels were fraudulent inventions of the disciples but instead were products of the disciples’ worldview, which included their genuine (but mistaken) belief in Jesus’ divinity. He argued that the disciples drew on a “mythological” language to describe their

6

experience but later Christians took these “unreflective acts of poetic language” literally, that is, as historical truth (Murphy 2008:53). Strauss believed that once you stripped away the mythological language used to describe Jesus, you are left with an impressive human being but one who is neither divine nor unique. Unfortunately for Strauss, he chose to publish his conclusions during his lifetime. This led the leading theologians of his day to prevent him from acquiring a teaching position in theology.

Reimarus and Strauss inspired a number of others to explore the life of Jesus. “It has been estimated that a hundred thousand lives of Jesus were written during the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries, sixty thousand of which were published in the nineteenth century alone” (McDonald and Porter 2000:101). Most of the authors of these lives of Jesus assumed (and then subsequently concluded) that the miracles in the Bible could not happened, that Jesus was not divine or, at a minimum, did not consider himself to be divine, that the resurrection did not occur, and so on:

These scholars found ways to explain away or deny the miracles of the Bible, especially the activity of God in creation, the exodus, and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The underlying assumption was that the Jesus of history was a more reliable foundation for the church’s faith than the traditional Christ of faith in the church’s confessions. In these studies, the alternative to the historical Jesus became the “Christ of faith,”… The primary assumption was that if one could somehow reconstruct the historical Jesus apart from all of the actions attributed to him by the church (miracles, resurrection from the dead, and other “mythological” elements added by the early church), then it would be possible to recover the essence of Jesus, and that would somehow have significance for the church (McDonald and Porter 2000:101, 102). But then along came Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), who was something of a Renaissance

man. He was an academic, a biblical scholar, a world-renowned organist, and a medical doctor, who gave up his academic career to found a mission hospital in Africa (Lambaréné Hospital – Republique du Gabon), an endeavor for which he was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Before becoming a missionary, however, when he was just 31, Schweitzer wrote The Quest for the Historical Jesus (1906), in which he summarized the various lives of Jesus that had been written up to that point. He concluded that most were more autobiographical than historical, reflecting the theological biases of the authors rather than telling us much about who Jesus was (McDonald and Porter 2000:101). For example, most assumed that central to Jesus’ teachings was what Jesus called the “kingdom of God,” and that this kingdom, rather than something that would arrive in the future, was something followers can discover in the here and now. Schweitzer argued that just the opposite was true, however. Jesus truly believed that God’s kingdom would arrive in the imminent future. But because he was wrong, Schweitzer argued that Jesus’ “interim” ethic was irrelevant for contemporary individuals, but that did not matter because it is the spiritual Christ, not the historical one, who matters for contemporary Christians:

7

He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: “Follow thou me!” and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfill for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is (Schweitzer 1906:403).

Schweitzer’s analysis effectively put an end the first quest because it called into question whether anyone can be objective enough to bracket his or her own theological biases when studying the historical Jesus. Many concluded that it was impossible, and some (e.g., Rudolf Bultmann), following Schweitzer, argued that the historical details of Jesus’ life and ministry were not important for the Church. What was important, they argued, is the Christ of faith, by which they meant how Christians encounter the risen Christ in their lives today.7

By the 1950s, however, scholars began to reject this position, arguing that if historical details of Jesus’ life could be uncovered, then they should be relevant for the Christian faith. Ernst Kasemann helped give birth to the second quest, and several other scholars, such as Herbert Braun, Ernst Fuchs, Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Ebeling, Hans Conzelmann, Walter Schmithals, and James Robinson, joined him.8 These second questers came to view Jesus as entirely dissimilar from the Judaism of his day and early Christian teaching. Out of this perspective developed one of the most important rules that scholars still use in identifying whether a particular saying of Jesus is genuine: namely, the principle of “discontinuity” or ‘dissimilarity,” which holds that when the Gospels report that Jesus did or said something that was different from prior Jewish tradition or later Christian teaching, then the saying or deed is more likely to be authentic than those that are not, reasoning that Jesus must have stood out from “human culture in order to have been memorable, compelling and original” (Murphy 2008:57). While this principle still functions as one of the rules for identifying authentic deeds and sayings of Jesus, a lot of scholars found (and find) it problematic. “They wondered how anyone could have understood Jesus if he was so unusual” and “how could a tradition have developed after him that had so little continuity with his teachings” (Murphy 2008:57)? Thus, scholars began to develop new methods for understanding the life of Jesus, ones that assumed that Jesus was best understood as a Jew and that his authentic teachings could be distilled from early Christian teaching, and it was these new approaches that helped set the stage for the third quest.

The 1980s marked the beginning of the third quest. Several scholars began drawing on the different critical methods of studying the Bible in an attempt to reconstruct what we can know about Jesus in his historical and cultural context. Instead of looking for Jesus’ discontinuities with Judaism, early Christianity, and the wider Roman culture, third-quest scholars have looked 7 One could also probably argue that many of the first questers were disheartened. They were uninterested in studying, following, and worshiping an apocalyptic (and apparently mistaken) Jesus. Thus, after Schweitzer much of the motivation lying behind the first quest went away. 8 Robinson is also an active participant in the third quest.

8

for continuities. For them, the goal has been to create a plausible portrait of Jesus that best explains all the evidence, locates Jesus into his time and place, and accounts for what ultimately happened (i.e., execution) (Murphy 2008:59). In spite of their determined efforts, however, a number of different portraits of Jesus have emerged over the last 30 years (Murphy 2008:59), suggesting that these new portraits reflect the scholars’ assumptions about Jesus’ primary activities, teachings, and concerns. Much like Schweitzer’s critique of the first questers, a number of contemporary critics have argued that many of the portraits, in particular those by scholars associated with the Jesus Seminar, are more autobiographical than historical.9 It is as if they have forgotten the lessons of history. This led one critic, Bart Ehrman, to once remark that “everybody loves to quote Schweitzer, but more people need to actually read him” (2007).

Setting aside these criticisms for the moment, it is worth noting that most, if not all, of the members of the third quest seek to adhere to a similar set of criteria when evaluating the authenticity of a particular saying of Jesus. It is also true that they turn to essentially the same set of sources in which the sayings are located. Thus, before drawing any conclusions as to how well they follow the rules of evidence in evaluating particular sayings, we should probably first consider the sources and criteria they use. It is to this task that I now turn. I first provide an overview of the various sources in which the sayings of Jesus can be found before turning to the criteria scholars use in evaluating them.

Sources for the Quest

In spite of rhetoric to the contrary (Jenkins 2001), most biblical scholars look to the New Testament gospels as their primary sources for the historical Jesus (Ehrman 2000:211). Of these, however, they tend to place less weight on the Gospel of John than they do the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke,10 which present a picture of Jesus’ life and ministry11 that differs substantially from John’s. For instance, in the synoptics Jesus’ ministry lasts one year, while in John it lasts three; in the synoptics, Jesus tends to speak in short sayings and parables, while in John he engages in long discourses and monologues; in the synoptics Jesus focuses on the Kingdom of God (e.g., the kingdom of God is among you), while in John he focuses more on himself and his mission (e.g., I am the way, the truth, and the life); and in the synoptics Jesus eats a final meal with his disciples on the day of Passover (Mark 14:12, 17-25) and is crucified the next morning (Mark 15:25), while in John he eats a final meal with his disciples on the day before Passover (John 13:1-4) and is crucified on the day of Preparation for the Passover (19:14-16).12 Differences such as these have led many scholars to conclude that the synoptics and John 9 In the words of the great philosopher, Yogi Berra, “It is déjà vu all over again.” 10 For convenience I follow convention and speak of the four gospels as if Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote them although the earliest manuscripts of these gospels are anonymous. The names of the gospels were only assigned later when early Christian Church leaders sought to identify who wrote them. 11 Matthew, Mark and Luke are referred to as the synoptic gospels because they present a similar narrative of Jesus’ life and ministry. Synoptic literally means “seen together.” 12 For a detailed discussion of the differences between Mark and John’s account of Jesus’ final meal with his disciples and Jesus’ crucifixion, see Erhman (2000:55-57).

9

cannot both be historically accurate, and the general consensus is that the synoptics tell us more than about the historical Jesus than does John.13 Of the synoptics, most believe that Mark is the earliest and that Matthew and Luke used the Mark as the narrative basis for their own gospels. Biblical scholars have marshaled a considerable amount of evidence in support of this theory. To wit:

• Sometimes the same wording and sequence of material is found in Matthew, Luke, and Mark

• Sometimes Matthew and Mark agree in sequence and/or wording of passages, while Luke differs

• Sometimes Luke and Mark have the same sequence and/or wording of passages, while Matthew differs

• But the texts of Matthew and Luke almost never agree in both wording and sequence except for material that is also found in Mark

Scholars have also noted that in some instances there is considerable verbal agreement

between Matthew and Luke where there is no parallel passage in Mark, which suggests that Matthew and Luke drew on a second source in crafting their gospels. Although scholars have yet to locate this source, they have given it a name: “Q,” from the German word “Quelle,” which means, “Source.” This “discovery” led scholars to argue for what they call the “two-source” hypothesis, that is, the belief that Matthew and Luke made use of two written sources—Mark and Q—in writing their gospels. Figure 1 captures the relationship between the synoptics and Q: Figure 1: The Two-Source Hypothesis

13 These scholars argue that John tells us more about one of the early Christian communities than it does about the historical Jesus. There are some scholars who disagree, however. Fredriksen (1999), for instance, argues that John tells us quite a bit about Jesus’ last days (why he was arrested, tried, and executed); she also notes that most scholars accept John’s three year time-frame for Jesus’ ministry rather than the synoptics one-year time-frame.

10

While this helped explain a number of similarities between the synoptics, scholars could not help notice that Matthew included material that was not in either Mark or Luke, and Luke contained material that was not in either Mark or Matthew. This led later scholars to expand the two-source hypothesis to a four-source hypothesis, which, as the figure below illustrates (Figure 2), argues that the author of Matthew used Mark, Q, and his own special source (“M”) in writing his gospel, while Luke used Mark, Q, and his own special source (“L”) in crafting his. It is likely that “M” and “L” come from multiple sources, possibly even the same sources, including Q, but for convenience scholars treat “M” and “L” as independent. This means that the sayings we find in the gospels can be traced back to one of four separate sources: Mark, Q, M, or L. No saying, at least in theory, can come from more than one of these sources because what is found in Q are those that appear in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, those that are found in M only appear in Matthew, and those that are found in L only appear in Luke. Take, for example, the beatitude, “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20). A parallel saying occurs in Matthew (5:3), but it is not considered an independent attestation because scholars trace both of these sayings back to Q (i.e., it appears in Luke and Matthew but not in Mark).

In practical terms this means that if scholars seek to adhere to the criterion of multiple attestation, which holds that a saying is more likely to be authentic if it can be traced to two or more sources (discussed in more detail below), they have to look beyond these four sources in order to find a second one. And while these can sometimes be found in John’s gospel or one of the other New Testament books, they are often located in books and gospels not included in the New Testament.14 For example, a second source for the beatitude noted above (Luke 6:20) can be found in the Gospel of Thomas (Thomas 54). Figure 2: The Four-Source Hypothesis

14 There are a handful of sayings that scholars believe can be traced back to both Q and Mark (e.g., the parable of the Mustard seed – Matthew 13:31-32, Mark 4:30-32, Luke 13:18-19), but these are quite rare (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993; Kloppenborg 1987a, b).

11

There are actually numerous non-canonical sources (i.e., gospels and books that do not appear in the New Testament) that scholars turn to in their quest for the historical Jesus (see Table 1). Most of are quite obscure, but a few have attracted more attention than others. The Gospel of Thomas, for instance, contains 114 sayings and parables of Jesus, but it lacks a narrative framework (much like what scholars believe the hypothetical Q must have been like) and is believed by many to be an independent witness (source) to the sayings of Jesus. Most members of the Jesus Seminar believe that the earliest version of Thomas was composed around 50-60 C. E. but that the version we have was completed some time between 100-150 C. E. Many scholars date it much later (see Table 1 below), and some believe it is based on the synoptics. If they are correct, then it should not be treated as an independent source. For the purposes of this analysis, however, it will be treated as one.

Another gospel that has attracted some attention is the Egerton gospel. We know very little about it apart from the five fragments that we have of it. These contain a few stories and sayings, and members of the Jesus Seminar generally treat it as an independent source. Like Thomas, they date the earliest version of it to around 50-60 C. E. but believe that the final version was not completed until between 100-150 C. E. Many scholars date it much later, arguing that it is based on the New Testament Gospels. Again, if that is so, it cannot be regarded as an independent source, but it will be treated as one here.

The Gospel of Peter has gained some prominence because of the theory propounded by Crossan (1991) that it contains within it a “Cross Gospel,” which lies behind the narrative accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion found in the New Testament gospels. Crossan does not believe that the “Cross Gospel” is a historically accurate account of Jesus’ crucifixion but rather a theological interpretation of it. He argues that the disciples and the early Christian community had no idea what happened to Jesus’ body after he was crucified, and that what we read about it in the New Testament gospels is based on the Cross Gospel, which was the creation of someone’s theological imagination. Crossan’s position is a minority one, however. Most scholars believe that the Gospel of Peter, including the Cross Gospel, was written in the 2nd century and probably based on the New Testament gospels. However, like the Gospel of Thomas and the Egerton Gospel, we will treat it as an independent source for purposes of this analysis.

Finally, there is the Secret Gospel of Mark. According to some scholars this is a fragment of an early edition of Mark’s gospel that they regard as an early source of stories about and sayings of Jesus. Here again, most scholars believe that the Secret Gospel of Mark was actually written after the New Testament gospels. In fact, some believe that it was written long after the New Testament gospels. There is increasing belief among scholars that it was forged by Morton Smith (a former professor of ancient history at Columbia University) who claimed to have found it in in Mar Saba monastery in 1958 (Ehrman 2003a:67-89). Unfortunately, Smith died in 1991, and so we will probably never know.

12

What About Q? A widely held belief among most “Q scholars” is that Q contains no birth, death, or resurrection narratives. Consequently, they conclude that since the earliest collection of sayings about Jesus (i.e., Q) shows no knowledge or interest in these stories, they are creations of the Gospel writers and tell us little or nothing about the historical Jesus. But such a conclusions appears to be a case of special pleading. Recall that Q is reconstructed from those passages that are in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. Thus, all we have is the minimum of what we know was in Q. It is likely that there are portions of it that overlap with Mark and that some of the verses unique to Matthew (“M”) came from Q, but Luke chose not to use them, and that some of those that are unique to Luke (“L”) came from Q, but Matthew chose not to use them. And it is almost certain that there are portions of Q that neither Matthew nor Luke used, and so they have been lost to history. Thus, the conclusions scholars draw about Q should be tentative at best, but this has not prevented some from making unwarranted claims:

Despite the exuberant claims of some scholars, we cannot fully know what Q contained because the document has been lost. We have access to it only through the materials that Matthew and Luke both decided to include in their accounts, and it would be foolish to think that one or both of them included the entire document. Indeed, if only one of them included a passage from Q, then we would have no solid grounds for knowing that it came from Q rather than, say, M or L. It is entirely possible, for example, that Q had a Passion narrative, and that neither Matthew nor Luke chose to use it, or that only one of them chose not to do so (so that some of the verses of Matthew’s or Luke’s Passion narrative not found in Mark actually derive from Q). At the same time, it is equally possible that Q was almost entirely sayings, without a Passion narrative (or nearly any other narrative). Regrettably, we will never know, unless, of course, Q itself should serendipitously turn up” (Ehrman 2000:88)!

Summary Although numerous sources exist that contain sayings attributed to Jesus, scholars still turn to the New Testament gospels as their primary sources for the historical Jesus although they tend to place more weight on the synoptic gospels than they do on the Gospel of John. Methods for evaluating the reliability of such sources, which we consider in more detail below, also forces them to look to non-canonical sources, such as Q, the Gospel of Thomas, the Egerton Gospel, the Gospel of Peter, and the Secret Gospel of Mark.15 Unfortunately, scholars differ as to the historical reliability of some of these sources, which should signal to observers that the quest might still involve more art than science. Nevertheless, scholars do turn to a series of criteria in order to more objectively evaluate the sayings of Jesus. It is to these criteria that we now turn. 15 For a complete list of canonical and noncanonical sources for the sayings of Jesus, see Table 1 below.

13

Criteria Used in the Quest In The Five Gospels, the Jesus Seminar lays out several rules of written and oral evidence for determining whether a particular saying of Jesus originated with Jesus or not (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:16-34). Some of these are in line with criteria followed by most biblical scholars (e.g., the writers of the gospels and other books often attributed to Jesus the common wisdom of the day or their own beliefs), but others reflect a priori assumptions as to who Jesus was and what he said. For instance, one of the Seminar’s rules of evidence is that “the earliest layer of the gospel tradition is made up of single aphorisms and parables that circulated by word of mouth prior to the written gospels” (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:28). This may very well be true, but if this is assumed prior to evaluating individual sayings, then it will color how one votes. To be more specific, following such a rule makes it more likely that the authenticity of longer sayings (e.g., those found in the Gospel of John) will be called into question. Or another rule of evidence followed by the Seminar holds that Jesus never claimed “to be the Anointed, the messiah” (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:32). Again, this may very well be true (although recent scholarship has called it into question (see e.g., Boyarin 2012)), but if it is decided ahead of time, that is, before the voting begins, then the result becomes a foregone conclusion. Thus, in the analysis below I use those criteria accepted by most biblical scholars (see e.g., Crossan 1991; Ehrman 1999; Meier 1991; Murphy 2008): 1. Multiple Attestation: Sayings and acts that are found in two or more independent sources

are more likely to have originated with the historical Jesus than sayings that are found in only one source.

2. Dissimilarity: Words and deeds of Jesus that cannot be derived from either the common lore or Judaism of Jesus’ day or from the teaching and beliefs of the early Church are more likely to have originated with the historical Jesus than those that can be derived.

3. Embarrassment: Sayings and acts that would have caused the early Church embarrassment are more likely to have originated with the historical Jesus than those that would not have been embarrassing.

4. Rejection and Execution: Sayings and deeds of Jesus that infuriated, disturbed, or agitated people are more likely to have originated with the historical Jesus than those that did not.

5. The Earlier the Better: Sayings and events found in texts dated earlier (e.g., 30-50 CE) are considered more likely to have originated with the historical Jesus than are sayings found in texts dated later

Multiple Attestation Most scholars agree that a saying or deed attributed to Jesus is more likely to authentic if it is found in two or more independent sources. The logic lying behind this criterion is sound, for if two more independent sources provide essentially the same account of one of Jesus’ deeds or

14

sayings, then it is hard to argue that they both made it up.16 As a number of critics have pointed out, the Jesus Seminar does not always seem to follow this rule. For example, it concluded that Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s betrayal (Mark 14:27-31; John 13:36-38) was inauthentic in spite of the fact that the story appears in all four New Testament Gospels and is attested in two independent sources (Mark and John). Or again, Jesus’ challenge to those who arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:48-49) also appears in all four Gospels and is independently attested in Mark and John, but the Seminar voted it inauthentic. Then there are the sayings that can be traced back to only a single source, such as “The Good Samaritan” (Luke 10:30-35), “The Parable of the “Prodigal Son” (Luke 15:11-32), and “The Parable of the Shrewd Manager” (Luke 16:1-8), all of which the Seminar concluded were authentic. These, of course, could just be exceptions to a general rule, which we will be able to tease out when we statistically analyze the Jesus Seminar’s voting results below. Dissimilarity As noted earlier, this criterion holds that any sayings or deeds of Jesus that cannot be traced to first century Judaism, to the common lore of the day, or the early Christian Church are more likely to have originated with Jesus than those that we can. The criterion can be used in two distinct ways. One uses it to eliminate sayings attributed to Jesus. Take, for example, the phrase, “Anyone here with two ears had better listen!” It appears at the end of several of Jesus’ parables and sayings (e.g., Mk 4:9, Mt. 13:9), but a majority of the Seminar Fellows concluded that it “could have been said by any sage [and] does not tell us much about Jesus” and thus unlikely to have originated with Jesus (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:55). A common critique of using this criterion in this way is that it assumes that Jesus was neither influenced by the Judaism of his day or that his teachings did not influence the beliefs and practices of later Christians – a questionable assumption at best. As several scholars have noted, Jesus was a Jew (Levine 2006), and it seems likely that those who became his followers chose to follow him because they happened to agree with what he taught (Meier 1991).

Not everyone uses the criterion to eliminate sayings, however. Some use it to identify sayings that otherwise might be discarded. For instance, Ehrman concludes that the saying of Jesus found in Mark 8:3817 is probably authentic because it suggests that someone other than Jesus might be the Son of Man and that is probably not something the early Church would have made up:

Now we know that the earliest Christians believed that Jesus himself was the Son of Man (cf. Rev. 1:13). For that reason, when Jesus talks about himself as the Son of Man in the Gospels – as he frequently does – there’s no way to know... whether that’s the way he actually talked

16 Interestingly, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward used this same rule when investigating the Watergate scandal (Bernstein and Woodward 1974:79). 17 “Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of that one will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

15

or if that’s how Christians – who believed he was the Son of Man – ‘remembered’ him talking. But in sayings like Mark 8:38, there is no indication that he is talking about himself. In fact, if you didn’t know in advance the Christian idea that Jesus was the Son of Man, there’d be no way you would infer it from this saying. On the contrary, just taking the saying on its own terms, Jesus appears to be referring to someone else (Ehrman 2000:252).

Embarrassment This criterion focuses on sayings and actions of Jesus that would have embarrassed or created difficulty for the early Church. It is based on the belief that it would have been natural for the early church to not circulate embarrassing stories about and sayings of Jesus unless they reflected what actually happened. For example, why do the gospels tell the story about Jesus being baptized by John if John’s baptism was meant for sinners and the early Church believed that Jesus was sinless? Probably because it actually happened, and the story was too well known for the gospel writers to leave it out. Or take Peter’s denial of Jesus after Jesus was arrested (Matthew 26:69-75): Why would the gospels include an embarrassing story about a pillar of the Church unless it actually happened? Quite simply, they wouldn’t. Thus, it seems likely that it did happen. Rejection and Execution This rule of evidence focuses on deeds and sayings that may have contributed to Jesus’ execution. According to it, those things that Jesus said and did that “infuriated, disturbed, or agitated” people have a good chance of originating with the historical Jesus (Meier 1991:177). That is, if Jesus only made people feel good about themselves, it is unlikely the Roman government would have executed him:

A tweedy poetaster who spent his time spinning out parables and Japanese koans, a literary aesthete who toyed with 1st-century deconstructionism, or a bland Jesus who simply told people to look at the lilies of the field—such a Jesus would threaten no one, just as the university professors who create him threaten no one… A Jesus whose words and deeds did not threaten or alienate people, especially powerful people, is not the historical Jesus (Meier 1991:177)

Most scholars believe that Rome saw Jesus as a threat and, as such, executed him for sedition. Not all scholars agree, however. Fredriksen (1999), for example, contends that Roman authorities did not execute Jesus for sedition but rather as a preemptive measure. They believed his presence in Jerusalem during Passover (when there was a huge influx of people) could lead to civil unrest. Thus, they crucified him as an example, not because he was some sort of enfant terrible but in order quell a restless and potentially volatile crowd.

16

Dating: The Earlier the Better Because it is likely that the stories about and sayings of Jesus were told and retold over time, this rule of evidence argues that earlier sources are more likely to reflect the historical Jesus than are later sources. This is a commonsense rule, but the dating of sources is not as straightforward as some would have us believe (Robinson 1976). For instance, the temptation exists to date sources that fit one’s preconceived idea of who Jesus was as early and date those that do not as late. For example, consider the debate among scholars as to whether Jesus was an apocalypticist, that is, one who believed that God would soon overthrow the forces of evil and establish the kingdom of God on earth. Many contemporary scholars believe this to be true (as did Schweitzer), but there are some who do not. To argue that Jesus was not apocalyptic, however, requires scholars to date his apocalyptic sayings late and his non-apocalyptic sayings early. This becomes difficult when dealing with a source such as Q, which is full of apocalyptic sayings. Scholars have been able to get around this difficulty, however, by arguing that Q came out in multiple editions and that the earliest layer was non-apocalyptic:

According to this line, the original edition of Q did not have the apocalyptic traditions about Jesus. These were only added later, when the document was edited by Christians who were a bit obsessed with the imminent end of the age. Thus, according to this theory, Q as we have it (well, even though we don’t have it), may be an apocalyptic document. But in fact it provides evidence of a non-apocalyptic Jesus (Ehrman 2000:257).

Q, of course, is just one document. What does one do with the fact that most of the early sources—Q, Mark, M, and L—also portray Jesus as an apocalypticist? Argue, as Crossan (1991) does, that they are not:

Crossan engages in a detailed analysis to argue that other sources not found in the New Testament are earlier than the sources that are. These others include such documents as the ‘Egerton Gospel,’ a fragmentary text from the second century that contains four stories about Jesus; the Gospel of the Hebrews, which... no longer survives, but is quoted a bit by some church fathers in the late second to the early fifth centuries; and parts of the Gospel of Peter, which survives again only as fragments. Such sources, Crossan claims, provide more reliable access to Jesus than the New Testament Gospels, which everyone, including Crossan, dates to the first century… Most [scholars] recognize clear and certain reasons for dating the New Testament Gospels to the first century. But giving yet earlier dates to noncanonical Gospels that are, in most cases, not quoted or even mentioned by early Christian writers until many, many decades later seems to be overly speculative and driven by an ultimate objective of claiming that Jesus was not an apocalypticist even though our earliest sources indicate that he was (Ehrman 2000:258).

17

In short, while this criterion makes sense, it is easier to talk about than actually do. That is why the analysis below uses two dating schemes, one reflecting a more conventional view and one reflecting a view more in line with the sentiments of the Jesus Seminar. Summary As it should be clear, scholars have developed a systematic set of criteria on which they can draw in their quest to uncover the historical Jesus, but they can be bent to fit theological biases. The dating of sources is hardly exact, the criterion of dissimilarity can be applied in different ways, and while multiple, independent sources are helpful for separating the wheat from the chaff, they do not prevent scholars from rejecting the historicity of a particular saying or deed. In short, the quest for the historical Jesus is fraught with difficulties. To see how well the Jesus Seminar navigates these difficulties is the subject of the remainder of this paper. We first consider the data used in our analysis.

Data, Methods, and Measures Prior to voting on the sayings the Seminar inventoried and classified all of the sayings attributed to Jesus. It limited its inventory to sayings that could be traced to the first three centuries after Jesus’ death with Constantine’s edict of toleration (313 C.E.) serving as a cutoff point (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:35). The sayings were then compiled and sorted into four broad categories: parables, aphorisms, dialogues, and stories (Crossan 2008). The Seminar then met twice a year, with each meeting focused on a particular collection of sayings. Fellows wrote and circulated papers on the sayings being discussed at the upcoming meeting, so that they could discuss the sayings rather than listen to people present papers. Each saying was discussed until no one had any more to say, and then they would move on to discuss the next one. Once the discussion on a particular saying was complete, the Fellows voted by secret ballot, dropping one of four differently colored beads into a ballot box. They could cast their ballots (i.e., drop their beads) under two different options for understanding the four colors (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993):

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.

18

Option 2: Red: Jesus undoubtedly 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. Someone else proposed that the meanings of the beads could be understood as follows:

Red: “That’s Jesus.” Pink: “Sure sounds like him.” Gray: “Well, maybe.” Black: “There’s been some mistake.”

In short, a red bead indicated that a Fellow believed that a saying was authentic, a pink indicated that he or she believed it came close to what Jesus said, a gray indicated that while the words were not Jesus’ they might reflect his ideas, and a black indicated that the saying did not originate with Jesus. The votes were then tallied and rescaled so that scores ranged from 0.00 to 1.00, where sayings with scores of .751 and above were scored as red (i.e., an authentic saying of Jesus), .501 to .750 were scored pink, .251 to .500 were scored gray, and 0.00 to .250 were scored black.

The color-coded results are summarized in The Five Gospels (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993), as well as in the Westar Institute’s academic journal, Forum (Jesus Seminar 1990a, b, c).18 Primary data used in the analysis below are drawn from the tables published in the journal because they are more complete than those found in The Five Gospels. The tables list the title of each saying, the book in which they appear, the sources to which they can be traced, the percentage of red, pink, gray, or black votes they received, their score (i.e., weighted average), their color (i.e., red, pink, gray, or black), their overall rank, and the meeting at which they were voted upon.

The results lend themselves to different types of analysis. One can analyze the weighted score or the color ranking, as well as all 1,544 sayings or just the highest scoring version of each saying (518). Here, we analyze all of the sayings since they provide more information about the Seminar’s voting patterns than do they highest scoring versions, and we do so using both the weighted average score and the color ranking as dependent variables.19 The weighted average score is used as given, while the color of the sayings have been converted to an ordinal scale from 1 to 4 where 4 equals red, 3 equals pink, 2 equals gray, and one equals black. Ordinary least

18 See http://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/forum/ 19 Univariate and multivariate models that use only the highest scoring version of each saying are included in the appendix.

19

squares (OLS) regression is used to analyze the weighted average score and ordered logit regression is used to analyze the color ranking.

We operationalized the multiple attestation criterion by simply counting the number of sources listed in the Seminar’s voting records for each saying, and then creating a binary variable indicating whether the saying is traceable to two or more sources. For dissimilarity, I turned to the discussion of each saying in The Five Gospels (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993). Those that were indicated as being either distinctive or not traceable to the common lore of the time, first-century Jewish thought, or the early Church were coded as meeting the criterion of dissimilarity. A similar approach was used in identifying embarrassing sayings; that is, if the Seminar’s discussion of a saying in The Five Gospels indicated that it would have been embarrassing, then I coded it as such. For sayings that could have led to Jesus’ arrest, I initially identified those that specifically could have led to his execution. However, this yielded few “cross” sayings. Thus, I supplemented these with sayings that according to The Five Gospels would have surprised, shocked, and/or reversed first-century expectations; that is, sayings that “cut against the social and religious grain,” that surprised and shocked people by calling “for a reversal of roles” or by frustrating “ordinary, everyday expectations” (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:31).

Because scholars disagree when it comes to the dating of sources, the following analysis uses two dating schemes. One that is more conventional and draws largely on the work of Bart Ehrman (1999, 2000, 2003b, 2004), and one that more reflects the sentiments of the Jesus Seminar and draws primarily on the work of John Crossan (1991). Ehrman’s is used for the simple reason that he has documented the dates of more canonical and non-canonical sources than have other biblical scholars who use a conventional dating scheme. Where Ehrman is “silent” on a saying’s date, I use dates found at the “Early Christian Writings” website.20 Crossan is used because his scheme appears to reflect the dates to which many of the Jesus Seminar’s Fellows ascribe. Moreover, like Ehrman, he has documented the dates of a number of sources. Where he is silent, I use dates supplied in his Jesus Seminar colleague Robert Miller’s book, The Complete Gospels (Miller 1994).

20 See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

20

Table 1: Dating Schemes of Sources for the Sayings of Jesus Conventional

(Ehrman) Jesus Seminar

(Crossan) Canonical Matthew 80-85 90 Mark 65-70 75-80 Luke 80-85 95 John 90-95 105-125 Acts 80-85 120 1 Corinthians 53 53 1 Thessalonians 49 50 1 Timothy 80-110 125 2 Peter 80-110 135 2 Timothy 80-110 125 James 110 100 Revelation 95-100 95-100 Noncanonical Thomas 110-120 55-70 Q 65-70 55 1 Clement 95 98-100 2 Clement 150 150 Apocryphon of James 100-150 125 Epistle of Barnabas 130 95-100 Dialogue of the Savior 120-180 60-80 Didache 100 100-150 Egerton Gospel 100 55 Papyrus Vienna Greek 2325 (Fayyum) 125 55 Gospel of Peter 110-120 150 Gospel of the Ebionites 110 150 Gospel of the Hebrews 110 55 Gospel of the Nazareans 125 150 Shepherd of Hermas (Herm. Man.) 120-140 100 Shepherd of Hermas (Herm. Sim.) 120-140 100 Shepherd of Hermas (Herm. Vis.) 120-140 100 Letter of Ignatius - Ephesians 125 110 Letter of Ignatius - Philadelphians 110 110 Letter of Ignatius - Polycarp 110 110 Letter of Ignatius - Smyrnaens 110 110 Letter of Ignatius - Trallians 110 110 Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho 150 150 Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1 (Thomas, Greek) 110-120 55-70 Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 654 (Thomas, Greek) 110-120 55-70 Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 655 (Thomas, Greek) 110-120 55-70 Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 110-160 85 Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1224 50-140 55 Letter of Polycarp - Philippians 110 140

21

The two schemes are presented in Table 1. Looking at it, the difference between the two schemes is striking. Note that Crossan dates all of the canonical gospels no earlier than 75 AD, while dating Thomas, Q, and the Egerton gospel to the mid-50s. These dates are at odds to the dates that most biblical scholars assign to these gospels. Q is typically dated to the mid-60s, Thomas to the late 1st-Century or early 2nd-Century, and the Egerton gospel to the end of the 1st-Century. Crossan also dates the gospel of John to 105-125 CE, which is much later than most scholars, who believe it was written in the late first century.

Although it is relatively straightforward to assign a date for most of the sayings, when working with sayings found in the canonical gospels, it can get a bit tricky, especially if they are in Matthew or Luke’s gospel. For example, sayings found in Matthew that came from Mark are assigned a date when Mark is believed to have been written (65-70 CE for Ehrman and 75-80 CE for Crossan). However, sayings in Matthew that came from Q are assigned a date when Q is believed to have been written (65-70 CE for Ehrman and 55 CE for Crossan). And, saying in Matthew that are unique to Matthew (M) are given the date when Matthew is believed to have been written (80-85 CE for Ehrman and 90 CE for Crossan). Table 2: Cross tabulation of Ehrman and Crossan Strata Crossan Ehrman 30-60 CE 61-80 CE 81-120 CE 121-150 CE Total 30-60 CE 5 0 0 0 5 61-80 CE 425 489 1 0 915 81-120 CE 34 202 332 6 574 121-150 CE 4 19 0 27 50 Total 468 710 333 33 1,544

The dual variables used in the analysis were constructed in such a way that they capture the number of decades that passed after Jesus’ death in approximately 30 CE. For example, a saying found in the Egerton Gospel, which Ehrman dates to 100 CE and Crossan to 55 CE, equals seven decades for Ehrman ((100 – 30)/10 = 7.0) and two-and-a-half decades for Crossan ((55-30)/10 = 2.5). For both schemes I also sorted the sayings into five different strata, following the breakdown used by Crossan (1991): (1) Stratum 1 = 30-60 CE; (2) Stratum 2 = 61-80 CE; Stratum 3 = 81-120 CE; (4) Stratum 4 = 121-150 CE; and (5) Stratum 5 = 150-** CE. As one can see from Table 2, the two dating schemes only marginally agree with one another. In fact, in terms of strata, they only agree on about 55% of the sayings (5+489+332+27 = 853; 853/1,544 = 55.25%). Most notably when using Ehrman, only five (5) sayings are dated to the first stratum, but when using Crossan, 468 sayings are.

Several other factors are controlled for in the analysis. As we have seen, one of the criticisms of the Jesus Seminar is that its Fellows assumed a priori that apocalyptic sayings did not originate with Jesus because he was not apocalyptic. If this were true, then it would certainly have colored their votes. Thus, I include a variable indicating whether or not a saying is apocalyptic. The Seminar also argues that the earliest layer of the Jesus tradition consisted of aphorisms and parables, and as such, the ones that we find in our sources are more likely to go

22

back to the historical Jesus than are other types of sayings. Similarly, the Seminar contends that shorter sayings were more likely to have been remembered and eventually written down than were longer sayings (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:28). Thus, the models below control for either the length of each saying (i.e., word count),21 or whether a saying is a parable (Funk, Scott and Butts 1988) or an aphorism (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993). Unfortunately, the term “aphorism” is used rather loosely in Seminar-related publications. For instance, Crossan (2008) considers virtually all short and pithy sayings to be aphorisms, but The Five Gospels distinguishes aphorisms from proverbs and other types of short sayings. For example, Crossan classifies the saying, “Anyone here with two ears had better listen!,” as an aphorism, while The Five Gospels refers to it as common lore (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:54-55). For purposes of this paper’s analysis, only those sayings that The Five Gospels explicitly identifies as aphorisms are coded as such.

I also control for the book in which a saying is located (e.g., Matthew, Luke, John), as well as the source(s) to which they can be traced (e.g., Mark, Thomas). Controlling for both a saying’s source and book can seem to be at cross-purposes. It is helpful to recall that each saying can only be located in one book (e.g., Luke), but some can be traced to multiple sources. Nevertheless, the sources to which sayings can be traced and the books in which they are found are included both separately and together in the statistical models in order to see if doing so causes significant changes in the estimated coefficients. Sayings that can be traced to Q are also broken down the various layers identified by Kloppenborg (1987a, b). As noted earlier, Crossan argues that the non-apocalyptic portions of Q (Q1) predate the apocalyptic portions (Q2) although he believes that all of Q came together in the 50’s. Kloppenborg identifies an even later layer (Q3), but there are some that he is unable to assign to a particular layer (QU).

Results We begin by examining the univariate statistics of categorical variables included in the analysis (Table 3). The first line provides the overall statistical breakdown of all of the sayings analyzed by the Jesus Seminar. The overall mean weighted average score of 0.242 indicates that the average saying attributed to Jesus scored below just below the 0.250 cutoff for ranking a saying gray or above. This result is born out by the distribution of sayings by color. The results are heavily skewed toward black with 57.32% of the sayings earning a black ranking. Another 26.94% were ranked gray, while 13.73% were ranked pink, and only 2.01% were ranked red. The overall distribution of results changes little when the focus is only on the 518 highest ranked versions of each saying (see Table A1 in the appendix).

21 The length of each canonical saying was counted using the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ 1989). For noncanonical sayings, the edited volumes of Ehrman (2003b, 2004), Miller (1994), and Robinson (1988) were used.

23

Table 3: Univariate Statistics of Categorical Variables by Weighted Average and Color, All Sayings

Weighted Average

Color

N % Red % Pink % Gray % Black

Overall 0.242 2.01 13.73 26.94 57.32 1,544 Criteria: Two Source 0.334 1.76 23.48 36.90 37.86 626 Dissimilar 0.364 6.97 32.58 23.60 36.85 445 Embarrass 0.349 0.00 32.35 29.41 38.24 34 Enfant Terrible 0.481 10.10 36.48 40.39 13.03 307 Strata: Ehrman – 1st (30-60 CE) 0.172 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 5 Crossan – 1st (30-60 CE) 0.347 4.70 22.22 33.76 39.32 468 Ehrman – 2nd (61-80 CE) 0.287 2.73 15.08 33.55 48.63 915 Crossan – 2nd (61-80 CE) 0.240 0.85 12.11 31.97 55.07 710 Type: Apocalyptic 0.166 0.00 3.77 16.98 79.25 159 Aphorism 0.440 6.69 30.11 46.10 17.10 269 Parable 0.478 6.38 45.74 30.85 17.02 94 Source: Mk 0.260 0.62 12.85 35.29 51.24 646 Q (Quelle) 0.351 3.96 23.27 35.64 37.14 606 Q1 0.381 5.90 25.80 35.38 32.92 407 Q2 0.311 0.00 19.86 39.01 41.13 141 Q3 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 6 QU 0.270 0.00 15.38 32.69 51.92 52 Mt 0.178 0.74 12.59 15.56 71.11 135 Lk 0.215 3.19 14.89 13.83 68.09 94 Jn 0.100 0.00 3.40 9.71 86.89 206 Th 0.339 2.06 24.95 36.21 36.77 533 Book: Matthew 0.260 2.62 14.52 27.14 55.71 420 Mark 0.252 1.12 10.06 37.43 51.40 179 Luke 0.298 3.81 16.75 32.74 46.70 394 John 0.048 0.00 0.71 3.55 95.74 141 Thomas 0.296 1.29 21.98 33.19 43.53 232

Turning to the first four criteria listed in the table – multiple attestation, dissimilarity,

embarrassment, and enfant terrible – we can see that sayings that meet at least one of these criteria scored higher than those that did not; the mean weighted average score for all four criteria are higher than the overall mean with the enfant terrible sayings scoring the highest with an average score of 0.481. These results are also reflected with the breakdown of results by color ranking. While red sayings are still rare, a far lower percentage of sayings were ranked black than were sayings that did not meet any of these criteria. This suggests that the Seminar’s Fellows follow, at least to an extent, these criteria in identifying authentic sayings of Jesus.

24

However, it does appear that they value enfant terrible sayings more than they do those that are embarrassing, dissimilar, or can be traced back to two or more sources. All of this is captured in Figures 3a through 3d, which present the ranking for each of the criteria by color. They clearly show that enfant terrible sayings are the Fellows’ favorite. Nevertheless, more enfant terrible sayings are ranked gray or black than are ranked pink or red.

Looking at the dates of the sayings (also see Figures 4a through 4d) one can see the effects of the different dating schemes. The distribution of colors by stratum differs substantially depending on which scheme one uses. The Seminar Fellows appear to favor Crossan’s scheme. The mean weighted average score of sayings that he dates to the first stratum (0.347) is higher than the mean score for all sayings (0.242) as well as those he dates to the second (0.240). Similarly, in terms of color ranking, sayings traced to the first stratum are less skewed to black than those that are not. Indeed, almost 27.00% of sayings dated to Crossan’s first stratum are ranked either red or pink, and another 33.76% garnered a gray ranking. In other words, approximately 60% of the sayings traceable to Crossan’s first stratum were judged by the Seminar Fellows to be traceable back to Jesus either in terms of their wording (red or pink) or in terms of their ideas (gray). This is consistent with the charge that the Seminar Fellows date certain sayings earlier so they can justify ranking them higher. Of course, it is also entirely possible that these sayings would have been ranked higher regardless of their date because they met some of the other criteria. Thus, we need to withhold judgment until more sophisticated analyses can determine whether these results holds after we control (i.e., take into account) the other variables included in the analysis.

The results presented in Table 3 (see also Figure 5a) are also consistent with the charge of critics that the Jesus Seminar Fellows considered apocalyptic sayings as not originating with the historical Jesus. They scored, on average, lower than other sayings, and they are heavily skewed toward black in terms of color ranking. Again, these results could simply be a statistical artifact of other factors. That is, it is possible that apocalyptic sayings are simply less likely to be attested multiple times, dissimilar, embarrassing, shocking, or dated to the first stratum. Again, we will have to wait until the multivariate regression analyses below to see if simply being apocalyptic lowers the probability that the Jesus Seminar judged a saying as inauthentic. Turning to whether aphorisms or parables received higher scores or were ranked higher, we can see that is indeed the case (see also Figures 5b and 5c). The average score for both were relatively high, and a large percentage was ranked either red or pink and only a small percentage was ranked black. In terms of sources, we can see that the Fellows preferred sayings traceable to Q (in particular, the first layer, Q1) and Thomas. John and Q’s third were their least favorite although we should not make too much of the Q3 results since that layer only includes 6 sayings. In terms of books, the Fellows like the synoptic gospels and the gospel of Thomas although it appears they have a slight preference for Luke and Thomas. One thing is clear. The Fellows do not think the sayings from John’s gospel tell us much about the historical Jesus. No saying from John is ranked red, only one is ranked pink, and only five are ranked gray. All of the rest (135 sayings) are ranked black.

25

Figures 3a-3d: Percentage of Sayings by Color by Saying Criteria

26

Figures 4a-4d: Percentage of Sayings by Color by Date of Saying (Strata)

27

Tables 5a-5c: Percentage of Sayings by Color by Select Types of Saying

28

The results of the multivariate analyses appear in Tables 4 and 5 with the former presenting the estimated coefficients for the OLS regression models and the latter the results of the estimated odds ratios from the ordered logit regression models. The first set of models includes only the five criteria: multiple sources, dissimilarity, embarrassing, enfant terrible, and date. As one can see two versions of each model were estimated: one where the sayings are dated using the Ehrman scheme and one where they use the Crossan scheme. Interestingly, in both the OLS and ordered logit models, those where the sayings are dated by Crossan’s scheme provide a better fit to the data than do those that use Ehrman’s dating scheme.23 This suggests that Crossan’s dating scheme is more in line with the Fellows’ beliefs than is Ehrman’s dating scheme. It is worth noting, however, that this difference fades by the sixth and seventh models.

The second model includes variables indicating whether a saying is apocalyptic, an aphorism, or a parable. The three measures of fit all indicate that the second model better explains the data than does the first. Model three is a variation of the second in that it substitutes a saying’s word count for whether it is an aphorism or not. Notably, all the measures of fit indicate that this model does a poorer job of explaining the data than does model two. Thus, the remaining models include the aphorism variable rather than the word length variable. Model four adds the sayings’ sources, model five adds the books, and model six includes them both. As the measures of fit indicate, both model four and five improve on model two, and model six improves on both models four and five. More importantly, although the estimated coefficients for the sources in model four and the books in model five change somewhat when both are included in model 6, their size and direction remain relatively unchanged. Model seven is a variation of model six; it substitutes indicator variables for the first two strata for the dates of the sayings. In terms of fit the difference between models seven and six is marginal at best, but it does allow us to test whether sayings sorted into Crossan’s first stratum are more likely to receive a higher score than those that are not.

Looking more closely at Table 4, it is clear that, net of other factors, sayings that fit one or more of the criteria received higher scores and rankings than did those that did not. The magnitude of these effects diminishes as additional variables are added to the model, but they still hold in the full models. For examples by the time we reach model seven, the effect of a saying having two or more sources increases the weighted average score by approximately 0.070 (0.076/0.069). What this means is that two sayings that are the same in all respects, except that one can be traced back to two sources and the other can be traced back to only one, the two-source saying’s score will be approximately 0.070 points higher than the one-source saying. This is not a huge effect, but it is large enough such that it could raise a sayings score from say, 0.450 (gray), to a score of 0.520 (pink). When examining the color rankings rather than weighted average (Table 5), being able to trace the saying back to two or more sources raises the odds that the saying will be ranked higher than one-source sayings by about three times (3.296/3.160). 23 Fit is captured in three ways: (1) Adjusted (or Pseudo) R2, which indicates the amount of variance in the dependent variables explained by the independent variables included in the model where larger values indicate a better fit; (2) the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and (3) the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) where smaller values indicate a better fit.

29

Table 4: Estimated Coefficients of Ordinary Least Squares Regression of Weighted Average on Select Variables, All Sayings Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Criteria: 2+ Sources 0.131*** 0.097*** 0.102*** 0.069*** 0.123*** 0.088*** 0.046** 0.036* 0.090*** 0.079*** 0.083*** 0.071*** 0.076*** 0.069*** Dissimilarity 0.100*** 0.098*** 0.076*** 0.075*** 0.090*** 0.089*** 0.068*** 0.069*** 0.074*** 0.073*** 0.067*** 0.067*** 0.067*** 0.068*** Embarrass 0.103*** 0.113*** 0.097** 0.097** 0.114** 0.125** 0.151*** 0.141*** 0.089*** 0.096*** 0.149*** 0.145*** 0.147*** 0.141*** Enfant Terrible 0.244** 0.225*** 0.191*** 0.191*** 0.226*** 0.206*** 0.163*** 0.165*** 0.180*** 0.172*** 0.159*** 0.160*** 0.158*** 0.159*** Date: Ehrman -0.015*** -0.017*** -0.018*** -0.015*** -0.017*** -0.012*** Crossan -0.026*** -0.027*** -0.028*** -0.013*** -0.022*** -0.012*** Strata: Ehrman – 1st 0.092 Crossan – 1st 0.088*** Ehrman – 2nd 0.083*** Crossan – 2nd 0.032 Apocalyptic -0.039** -0.030** -0.045*** -0.037*** -0.052*** -0.046*** -0.045** -0.045*** -0.052*** -0.051*** -0.054*** -0.048*** Aphorism 0.133*** 0.126*** 0.116*** 0.115*** 0.129*** 0.130*** 0.128*** 0.127*** 0.128*** 0.123*** Parable 0.183*** 0.185*** 0.145*** 0.146*** 0.186*** 0.187*** 0.165*** 0.181*** 0.186*** 0.188*** 0.187*** 0.183*** Word Count -0.001 -0.000 Sources: M 0.009 0.039** -0.022 -0.003 -0.021 0.010 Q1 0.079*** 0.083*** 0.053** 0.051** 0.054** 0.037* Q2 0.066*** 0.073*** 0.035 0.033 0.036 0.022 Q3 -0.178** -0.172** -0.217*** -0.221*** -0.221*** -0.234** QU 0.001 0.006 -0.023 -0.026 -0.024 -0.037 M -0.022 0.003 -0.054** -0.039 -0.003 -0.014 L -0.000 0.033 -0.039 -0.014 0.016 0.014 J -0.091*** -0.058*** -0.107*** -0.097*** -0.100*** -0.089*** T 0.044** 0.020 0.003 0.010 0.006 0.011 Book: Matthew 0.074*** 0.086*** 0.091*** 0.099*** 0.093*** 0.102*** Mark 0.074*** 0.103*** 0.099*** 0.111*** 0.098*** 0.116*** Luke 0.094*** 0.102*** 0.101*** 0.107*** 0.102*** 0.106*** John -0.030 0.035 0.066** 0.097** 0.110** 0.090** Thomas 0.119*** 0.038* 0.100*** 0.047** 0.118** 0.071*** Intercept 0.188*** 0.246*** 0.198*** 0.246*** 0.211*** 0.261*** 0.186*** 0.158*** 0.140*** 0.154*** 0.121*** 0.101*** -0.007 -0.001 N 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 Adjusted R2 .420 .450 .483 .509 .443 .472 .535 .530 .520 .531 .550 .550 .552 .553 AIC -1072.38 -1152.55 -1247.02 -1326.04 -1131.42 -1214.96 -1402.11 -1384.34 -1356.37 -1392.86 -1448.78 -1448.09 -1454.02 -1456.72 BIC -1040.33 -1120.49 -1198.94 -1277.96 -1083.34 -1166.88 -1305.95 -1288.18 -1281.58 -1318.08 -1325.91 -1325.22 -1325.80 -1328.51 *** p < .001, ** p < .01, *p < .05 (two-tailed)

30

Table 5: Estimated Odds Ratios of Ordered Logistic Regression of Color on Select Variables, All Sayings Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Criteria: 2+ Sources 4.119*** 2.966*** 3.181*** 2.234*** 3.694*** 2.583*** 2.347*** 2.403*** 2.738*** 2.502*** 3.658*** 3.247*** 3.296*** 3.160*** Dissimilarity 3.723*** 3.752*** 3.022*** 3.031*** 3.285*** 3.352*** 3.012*** 3.034*** 3.249*** 3.145*** 3.038*** 3.071*** 3.090*** 3.103*** Embarrass 2.661** 3.006** 2.976** 3.540*** 3.381*** 3.941*** 7.669*** 6.969*** 2.737*** 3.076** 7.259*** 6.985*** 7.088*** 6.833*** Enfant Terrible 9.127*** 7.968*** 6.267*** 5.545*** 8.133*** 6.942*** 5.427*** 5.489*** 5.988*** 5.721*** 5.470*** 5.561*** 5.448*** 5.519*** Date: Ehrman 0.877*** 0.842*** 0.837*** 0.863* 0.657** 0.753** Crossan 0.724*** 0.705*** 0.699*** 0.755*** 0.741*** 0.764*** Strata: Ehrman – 1st 3.871 Crossan – 1st 5.007*** Ehrman – 2nd 4.481*** Crossan – 2nd 2.651** Apocalyptic 0.356*** 0.387*** 0.347*** 0.377*** 0.265** 0.289*** 0.318** 0.320*** 0.268*** 0.268*** 0.261*** 0.265*** Aphorism 3.316*** 3.154*** 3.129*** 3.122*** 3.216*** 3.384*** 3.786*** 3.748*** 3.806*** 3.742*** Parable 5.851*** 6.586*** 4.760*** 4.995*** 6.399*** 6.505*** 5.367*** 6.218*** 6.590*** 6.676*** 6.606*** 6.751*** Word Count 0.969* 0.980 Sources: Mark 1.105 1.507* 0.723 0.979 0.740 1.001 Q1 1.727* 1.362 1.220 1.040 1.260 1.028 Q2 1.707* 1.395 1.136 0.983 1.181 0.983 Q3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 QU 0.697 0.587 0.522 0.449* 0.533 0.447* M 0.687 0.989 0.529 0.669 1.231 1.092 L 0.872 1.502 0.611 0.961 1.493 1.476 John 0.145*** 0.187*** 0.142*** 0.153*** 0.154*** 0.154*** Thomas 1.328 0.915 0.771 0.838 0.818 0.849 Book: Matthew 3.133*** 3.688*** 3.661*** 4.110*** 3.888*** 4.318*** Mark 3.391*** 5.325*** 4.226*** 5.219*** 4.253*** 5.352*** Luke 3.866*** 4.230*** 4.166*** 4.306*** 4.324*** 4.411*** John 0.489 0.743 1.821 2.953+ 3.620* 2.864+ Thomas 15.854*** 2.327*** 9.070*** 2.414** 9.751*** 3.273*** Intercept 1 1.031*** 0.140 0.799*** -0.012 0.577** -0.187 0.841** 0.428 0.764 1.374*** 1.157* 1.429*** 3.748*** 3.703*** Intercept 2 3.074*** 2.262*** 3.004*** 2.285*** 2.675*** 1.999*** 3.209*** 2.804*** 3.084*** 3.733*** 3.581*** 3.863*** 6.180*** 6.145*** Intercept 3 5.849*** 5.070*** 5.862*** 5.175*** 5.557*** 4.915*** 6.114*** 5.682*** 5.975*** 6.659*** 6.518*** 6.804*** 9.130*** 9.093*** N 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 Pseudo R2 .212 .234 .251 .271 .231 .253 .291 .294 .289 .294 .310 .311 .312 .313 AIC 2505.73 2438.44 2389.99 2325.22 2452.18 2383.84 2279.78 2272.14 2279.91 2261.25 2232.22 2228.08 2225.34 2223.05 BIC 2548.47 2481.18 2448.76 2383.98 2510.94 2442.60 2386.62 2378.99 2365.38 2346.72 2365.78 2361.63 2364.23 2361.94 *** p < .001, ** p < .01, *p < .05 (two-tailed)

31

The estimated coefficient for the dissimilarity criterion indicates that those sayings that can be distinguished from the early Church (after Jesus) and the Jewish and Roman milieus in which Jesus lived score just under 0.070 (0.067/0.068) higher than those that cannot. This challenges the one of the charges of the Seminar’s critics, namely that the Seminar’s Fellows place too much importance on the dissimilarity criterion. While it is true that its effect is positive, the size of the effect is approximately the same as that of the two-source criterion and less than that of the embarrassment and enfant terrible criteria. The estimated odds ratios presented in Table 4 (3.090/3.103) tell a similar story: the dissimilarity criterion is important, but it is not the most important.

The next two criteria are, however. The Fellows consistently ranked sayings that either proved embarrassing for the early church or shocked their audience higher than they did those that did not. In particular, the estimated effect of the embarrassment criterion on the weighted average score is just under 0.150 (0.147/0.141), twice that of the multiple source or dissimilarity criteria. That is, after taking other factors into account an embarrassing saying’s weighted average is approximately 0.150 higher than the score of other sayings. The estimated odds ratio of an embarrassing saying’s color ranking is even more striking (7.088/6.833), indicating that an embarrassing saying is approximately seven times more likely to be ranked higher (in terms of color) than are other sayings. The enfant terrible criterion’s effect is approximately the same. In terms of weighted average, an enfant terrible saying’s score was, on average, 0.160 (0.158/0.159) higher than the score of other sayings, all else being equal. The estimated odds ratios (5.448/5.519) are not quite as high as those of the embarrassing sayings, but they are higher than those of the dissimilarity and two-source criteria.

The effect of a saying’s age is in the expected direction (i.e., negative) although probably not as large as one might have expected. According to model six’s estimated coefficients, for each decade older a saying is, its weighted average score was 0.012 points lower. When we use strata as opposed to actual decades, then we see the effects of the two different dating schemes. When the Ehrman dating scheme is used, the weighted average score of a saying traced the first stratum (30-60 C.E.) is approximately the same as one traced to the second (60-80 C.E.), which appears to violate the rule of evidence that earlier sayings are more likely to be authentic than later sayings. This result, of course, can be explained by looking at the results when the Crossan dating scheme used to identify the various strata. When this is the case, then earlier sayings have, on average, higher scores than later sayings. This is evidence that most of the Fellows did follow Crossan’s dating of sayings, which as we saw above represents a minority opinion.

The type of saying also matters. Seminar Fellows consistently scored (and ranked) aphorisms and parables higher than they did other sayings. On average, aphorisms received weighted average scores 0.125 points (0.128/0.123) higher than other sayings, while parables received scores of almost 0.190 (0.187/0.183) higher. How did this translate into color ranking? Aphorisms were almost four times (3.806/3.742) more likely to be ranked higher and parables were almost seven times (6.606/6.751) more likely to be ranked higher than were other types of sayings. In other words, whether or not a saying was an aphorism or a parable was just as

32

important for the Fellows in determining its authenticity as to whether or not it was embarrassing or shocking. And this effect holds even after taking into account other factors. In other words, regardless of whether a particular saying shocked its listeners, embarrassed the early church, was distinct, can be traced to multiple sources or be dated early, if it was an aphorism or a parable, it was more likely than other types of sayings to receive a higher score from the Seminar. Consider, for instance, the following aphorism found in Mark 2:27-28:

The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.

It can only be traced to one source (Mark), it reflects the beliefs of the early Christian community, it does not shock or undermine expectations, and both Ehrman and Crossan date it to the second stratum. However, the Fellows gave it a pink ranking (weighted average score = 0.550). The results of our analysis suggest, however, that its weighted average score was 0.125 higher simply because it was an aphorism. Put another way, if being an aphorism had not been a factor in the Fellows’ voting, it would drop from being a pink saying to a gray one (0.550 – 0.125 = 0.425). Now consider the following parable found in Luke 11:5-8:

Suppose one of you has a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say to him, “Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; for a friend of mine has arrived, and I have nothing to set before him.” And he answers from within, “Do not bother me; the door has already been locked, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.” I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, at least because of his persistence he will get up and give him whatever he needs.

It can be traced to only one source (Luke), it reflects the conventions of Mediterranean hospitality, it is neither shocking nor embarrassing, and it is dated rather late—both Ehrman and Crossan date it to the third stratum (81-120 C.E.). Yet, the Fellows ranked it pink (weighted average score = 0.640) even though they explicitly state that only “sayings and parables that can be traced back to the oral period, 30-50 C.E., can possibly have originated with Jesus” (Funk and The Jesus Seminar 1998:25). Why do they appear to break one of their own rules of evidence? Apparently because the saying appeals to the honor/shame culture of first century Palestine, but is that really the reason? Or is it because it is a parable? Indeed, the results suggest that if the same sentiments had been captured in an ordinary saying (i.e., neither a parable nor an aphorism), it would have received a score of only 0.450 (0.640 – 0.190), dropping it from a pink saying to a gray one. None of this should be a concern as long as the Seminar’s assumption that the earliest layer of the Jesus tradition consisted of aphorisms and parables is correct (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:29), but as it was noted above, what if it is not? Then it is highly likely that the Seminar rejected some sayings (e.g., the longer discourses found in John) solely on the basis that they did not fit their preconceived notion of what Jesus said and did.

33

What about the claims of critics that the Jesus Seminar Fellows voting was skewed their assumption that Jesus was non-apocalyptic? The results appear to bear this claim out, or at least they are consistent with it. As we can see, after controlling for other factors (i.e., the five rules of evidence, the sources to which sayings can be traced, the books in which the sayings are found, and the type of saying), Jesus Seminar Fellows, on average, scored apocalyptic sayings 0.050 lower than they did other sayings. Or in terms of ranking (Table 5) they were about a quarter (0.261/0.265) less likely to be ranked higher than were non-apocalyptic sayings. While this may not seem like much, it can make a difference. Take, for instance, the following apocalyptic saying found in Matthew 25:29:

For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.

It can be traced to three sources (Q, Mark, and Thomas), it challenged ordinary expectations (enfant terrible), both Ehrman and Crossan date it to the second stratum, and it is relatively short (30 words), but its weighted average score is 0.490 (gray). What our analysis suggests, however, is that its apocalyptic overtone, by itself, reduced its score by 0.050, that is, from a pink saying (0.490 + 0.50 = 0.540) to a gray one. In fact, it appears that if were not for the fact that it challenged ordinary expectations, it would have been ranked even lower:

The saying may, in fact, turn ordinary apocalyptic expectations on their head. The common belief was that the have-nots in this age would receive abundant reward in the age to come, while the haves would lose their possessions. Here that everyday hope is reversed. This possibility led 25 percent of the Fellows to vote red, another 11 percent to vote pink. But more than half of the Fellows voted gray or black, which pulled the color into the gray range (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:257).

Another example comes from Luke 10:2:

The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.

Scholars trace it back to three sources (Q, Thomas, John),24 Crossan dates it to the first stratum, and it contains only 23 words, but the Fellows gave it a black ranking with a weighted average score of 0.230. And it is almost certain that it was its apocalyptic character that, in part, led the Fellows to rank it low:

24 The Five Gospels indicates only two sources for the saying (Q and Thomas), but the results published in The Forum indicate three. See earlier discussion of data used in the analysis.

34

The harvest image commonly denotes the final reckoning at the end of the age, a theme that Jesus did not find congenial (emphasis added) (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:318).25

If it were not apocalyptic in character, then its score would have been 0.050 higher, raising it from a black to a gray. And since some scholars treat gray sayings as containing ideas that are close to those of Jesus (Miller 1999:52-53), then this could affect the conclusions they draw concerning what Jesus said and believed. In particular, they could see it as evidence that Jesus was indeed apocalyptic.

Looking at the estimated coefficients for the sources of the sayings, what is striking is that most of the effects are relatively small and few are statistically significant, suggesting that a saying’s source had a minimal impact on its score. Of course, this is as it should be if scholars rigorously follow the rules of evidence. Still, there are exceptions to this general trend. Consistent with what we saw earlier in Table 3, sayings traceable to the first layer of Q score higher while those traceable to Q’s third layer and to John score lower than those traceable to other sources. The estimated coefficients for the various gospels are interesting as well. All are positive and statistically significant, indicating that sayings found in the four canonical gospels as well as Thomas scored, on average, higher than those found in other books. It is interesting that the Thomas’s estimated coefficient is the highest of the five, but the differences between the five books are minimal.

Discussion: The Robust Beauty of Improper Linear Models What are we to make of these results? Although they suggest that the Seminar’s Fellows were guided by criteria widely accepted by biblical scholars, it also appears that they were influenced by their own assumptions as to whom Jesus was, what he believed, what he said, and how he said it. Take apocalyptic sayings, for instance. If the Fellows had scored them solely on the basis of the five criteria, then critics such as Ehrman would have little to quibble about. However, it appears that they did not. Net of other factors, the Fellows ranked apocalyptic sayings lower than other sayings. Granted, the overall effect was not terribly high. The average score were only 0.050 lower than other sayings, and they were just a quarter less likely to be ranked higher than non-apocalyptic sayings. Still, as we saw above, it could have made a difference in terms of ranking and score and consequently affecting their conclusions, as well as those of others, as to what sayings originated with the historical Jesus and which ones did not.

Of course, the apparent biases uncovered by this paper’s analysis are not all that surprising. As noted earlier, scholars have shown that while experts can be quite good at identifying important criteria related to a phenomenon, they are often poor at adding them together (Dawes 25 The other reason that the Fellows ranked it black is because the “call for harvest workers evokes the need for missionaries to carry the gospel to others. This call suggests the later context of the movement, when missionary activity was common” (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:318). This is an example of the Fellows using the criteria of dissimilarity negatively, that is, to eliminate a saying attributed to Jesus.

35

1979; Kahneman 2011; Meehl 1954). They found, in fact, that “improper linear models” (Dawes 1979), which assigned equal weights to criteria and then simply added them together typically outperformed the judgment of experts (Kahneman 2011).

For example, when future Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman (2011:229-232) was a member of the Israeli Defense Forces, he was asked to set up an interview system, which would assign recruits a general score of fitness for combat and find the best match of their personalities with the various branches of the Israeli military. The routine that was in place when he was given his assignment gave recruits a battery of psychometric tests and then subjected them to a fifteen- to twenty-minute interview. The interviewers were then asked to form a general impression as to how well each recruit would do. However, “follow-up evaluations had already indicated that this interview procedure was almost useless for predicting the future success of recruits” (Kahneman 2011:230). Drawing on the research of Paul Meehl (1954) Kahneman concluded the reason why it failed was because it relied on the interviewers’ global evaluations of the recruits. Meehl’s research suggested that global evaluations should not be trusted and that summaries of separately evaluated attributes would be more accurate:

I decided on a procedure in which the interviewers would evaluate several relevant personality traits and score each separately. The final score of fitness for combat duty would be computed according to a standard formula, with no further input from the interviewers. I made up a list of six characteristics that appeared relevant to performance in a combat unit… The idea was to evaluate as objectively as possible how well the recruit had done on each dimension… I instructed the interviewers to go through the six traits in a fixed sequence, rating each trait on a five-point scale before going on to the next (Kahneman 2011:230-231).

Kahneman then told the interviewers their only task was to rate the recruits on the six traits and leave the prediction up to him. Although this did not sit well with the interviewers, Kahneman’s new approach worked; it proved far more accurate “than the global evaluations of the previous interviewing method, although far from perfectly” (Kahneman 2011:231).26

What if a similar approach was taken in terms of ranking the sayings attributed to Jesus? Although biblical scholars, including those associated with members of the Jesus Seminar, follow a set of criteria when evaluating the authenticity of individual sayings, it appears that they rely on their global evaluation of each saying rather than scoring each one on the individual criteria and then adding them together. This, however, does not prevent us from doing so and comparing the results to those of the Jesus Seminar. This would not only provide us with an

26 In fact, the interviewers “came close to mutiny,” so Kahneman compromised and asked them, after they had finished rating the recruits on the six traits, to “close their eyes” and rate each one on a scale from one to five (Kahneman 2011:231). Interestingly, the accuracy of the interviewers’ evaluations also improved. In fact, they did just as well as the sum of the specific ratings. This led Kahneman to conclude that intuition can add value “but only after a disciplined collection of objective information and disciplined scoring of separate traits” (Kahneman 2011:232).

36

alternative method for evaluating the Jesus Seminar’s efforts, it would also generate a new set of rankings of the sayings of Jesus.

To this end I constructed four different sets of rankings: two for all 1,544 sayings, one using Ehrman’s dating scheme and one using Crossan’s; and two for just the highest scoring version of each saying, again one using Ehrman’s dating scheme and one using Crossan’s. Each criterion was converted to a five-point scale and then added together. The binary criteria (i.e., dissimilarity, embarrassment, enfant terrible) were assigned scores of either 0.0 (no) or 5.0 (yes). The multiple attestation criterion was converted by assigning sayings traceable to three sources a score of 5.0, sayings traceable to two a score of 2.5, and sayings traceable to only one a score of 0.0.27 In terms of date, sayings dated to the first decade after Jesus’ death were assigned a score of 5.0, sayings dated to the second were assigned a score of 4.5, to the third a score of 4.0, and so on. Because there are so few embarrassing sayings (see Table 3), I also constructed alternative rankings that omitted this criterion. Table 6: Correlation Between Weighted Average and Improper Linear Models, All Sayings

Weighted Average

Improper Linear Models (ILM)

Full (Ehrman) Full (Crossan) Reduced (Ehrman)

Reduced (Crossan)

Weighted Average 1.000 0.620 0.642 0.622 0.643

ILM

Full (Ehrman) 0.620 1.000 0.963 0.985 0.945 Full (Crossan) 0.642 0.963 1.000 0.949 0.986 Reduced (Ehrman) 0.622 0.985 0.949 1.000 0.961 Reduced (Crossan) 0.643 0.945 0.986 0.961 1.000

N = 1,544 Table 7: Correlation Between Weighted Average and Improper Linear Models, Highest Version of Each Saying

Weighted Average

Improper Linear Models (ILM)

Full (Ehrman) Full (Crossan) Reduced (Ehrman)

Reduced (Crossan)

Weighted Average 1.000 0.640 0.682 0.668 0.687

ILM

Full (Ehrman) 0.640 1.000 0.961 0.990 0.950 Full (Crossan) 0.682 0.961 1.000 0.950 0.990 Reduced (Ehrman) 0.668 0.990 0.950 1.000 0.959 Reduced (Crossan) 0.687 0.950 0.990 0.959 1.000

N = 518

Results of the correlations comparing the rankings based on the various improper linear models with those of the Jesus Seminar are presented in Tables 6 and 7. Table 6 presents the correlations for all 1,544 sayings, while Table 7 presents the correlations of just the highest version of each saying. Several things stand out. One is the high level of correlation between the four versions of the improper linear models (ILMs). All are above 0.90, indicating that it makes little difference which dating scheme is used or whether the embarrassment criterion is included

27 According to the published results in Forum, no saying could be traced to more than three sources.

37

in the rankings. Second, the results using all of the sayings or just the highest scoring version of each saying are very similar. Finally, the correlations between the weighted average score and the rankings of the four ILMs are high but not as high as one might hope if the ILMs have done a reasonable job of ranking the sayings. Indeed, if they have, the correlations suggest that the Jesus Seminar’s rankings are on track but far from perfect.

The differences between the ILMs and the Seminar’s ranking are also captured in Figures 6 and 7. Figure 6 presents the mean normalized ILM score by book (using all five criteria and the Ehrman dating scheme),28 while Figure 7 presents the Seminar’s mean weighted average score by book. As Figure 6 indicates that when we only use standard criteria in ranking the sayings, sayings contained in the synoptic gospels rank substantially higher than those found in John, Thomas, and other books. Thomas does rank slightly higher than those found in John and the other books, but the difference between the three is minimal. Contrast this with Figure 7, which reflects the Jesus Seminar’s scoring. Here, the synoptics score high but so does the Gospel of Thomas. In fact, Thomas ranks as high as Mark and far higher than John and the other books. The contrast between the two suggests that the Seminar’s Fellows placed more confidence in sayings from Thomas (and less in those found in John) than may have been warranted.29 Figure 6: Normalized ILM Score by Book

N = 518

28 The ILM score was normalized by dividing the ranking of each saying by the highest score attained by one of the sayings (21.5). 29 In a modest attempt to contribute to such an effort, in the appendix I have included the ranking of the 518 highest scoring version of each saying (Table A4).

38

Figure 7: Mean Weighted Average Score by Book

N = 518

Conclusion

In spite of scholars’ best efforts to objectively uncover what Jesus said and did, in many ways the quest appears to be still more art than science. The temptation to create Jesus in our own image is so powerful that it is terribly difficult to transcend in our quest for objectivity. Recognizing this, Robert Funk, one of the founders of the Jesus Seminar, once warned that we should beware of finding a Jesus that is entirely congenial to us (Funk, Hoover and The Jesus Seminar 1993:5). However, the Jesus that emerged from his own research appears to have fit quite nicely with his own theological and political leanings (Funk 1996).

This is not to suggest that biblical scholars cannot contribute to our understanding of the historical Jesus. They almost certainly can, but in order to move beyond their theological biases, it appears that a more systematic approach to evaluating the sayings is in order. This, of course, assumes that evaluating the authenticity of individual sayings is the ideal approach to uncovering the historical Jesus, an assumption that Allison (2008, 2010) has called into question. He argues that rather than focusing on individual sayings, scholars should pay more attention to recurring themes and motifs in our sources. It is there, he contends, that scholars are more likely to uncover the historical Jesus:

The first-century traditions about Jesus are not an amorphous mess. On the contrary, certain themes, motifs, and rhetorical strategies occur again and again throughout the primary sources; and it must be in those themes and motifs and rhetorical strategies—which, taken together, leave some distinct impression… In this, Jesus is like the historical Socrates, who is often thought present not in this or that aphorism but above all in some of the philosophical interests and rhetorical strategies that recur in Plato’s early dialogues (Allison 2010:15-16)

39

This judgment of course does not imply that individual sayings and particular events do not predate Easter; many of them surely do, because Jesus was a memorable character. I am rather just conceding our inability to authenticate so many of the smaller bits out of which the whole is made. I am unsure how often we can mount much of a demonstration that this or that saying goes back to Jesus even if it does, or that he did this or that thing even if he did. Often the best we can do with any degree of confidence is to try to answer such questions as, Did Jesus say this type of thing? or Did he do this type of thing (Allison 2008:87-88) Here, however, I am moving beyond my area of expertise. Debates over methods for

uncovering who the historical Jesus was and what he may have said are beyond my purview. What I can offer, however, are methods for evaluating the degree to which biblical scholars maintain a level of objectivity. In this regard, the Jesus Seminar appears to have done a reasonable job, but like most, if not all, New Testament scholars, at times they fell prey to the temptation to create Jesus in their own image.

40

Appendix Table A1: Univariate Statistics of Categorical Variables by Weighted Average and Color, Highest Scoring Version

Weighted Average

Color

N % Red % Pink % Gray % Black

Overall 0.240 3.09 15.44 22.78 58.69 518 Criteria: Two Source 0.414 3.94 37.01 36.22 22.83 126 Dissimilar 0.371 9.47 32.54 18.93 39.05 166 Embarrass 0.355 0.00 37.50 25.00 37.50 8 Enfant Terrible 0.547 17.20 43.01 32.26 7.53 93 Strata: Ehrman – 1st (30-60 CE) 0.090 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 2 Crossan – 1st (30-60 CE) 0.185 8.09 25.74 33.09 33.09 137 Ehrman – 2nd (61-80 CE) 0.323 4.94 18.52 34.16 42.39 243 Crossan – 2nd (61-80 CE) 0.230 0.99 16.75 24.63 57.64 203 Type: Apocalyptic 0.167 0.00 0.00 21.28 78.72 47 Aphorism 0.506 11.11 42.59 33.33 12.96 54 Parable 0.579 15.15 60.61 18.18 6.06 33 Source: Mk 0.284 0.68 17.81 37.67 43.84 145 Q (Quelle) 0.407 7.79 29.22 33.12 29.87 154 Q1 0.454 12.00 31.00 34.00 23.00 100 Q2 0.349 0.00 30.00 35.00 35.00 40 Q3 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 3 QU 0.305 0.00 18.18 27.27 54.55 11 Mt 0.199 1.54 12.31 20.00 66.15 64 Lk 0.250 5.36 19.64 12.50 62.50 57 Jn 0.093 0.00 3.28 9.84 86.89 59 Th 0.328 3.57 30.00 23.57 42.86 140 Book: Matthew 0.277 2.42 18.55 25.00 54.03 120 Mark 0.252 3.08 10.77 32.31 53.85 66 Luke 0.315 7.01 19.11 27.39 46.50 158 John 0.050 0.00 0.00 6.82 93.18 44 Thomas 0.226 1.19 20.24 19.05 59.52 83

41

Table A2: OLS (Highest Scoring Version) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Criteria: 2+ Sources 0.169*** 0.137*** 0.148*** 0.116*** 0.162*** 0.128*** 0.086** 0.053 0.138*** 0.128*** 0.124*** 0.117** 0.119** 0.117** Dissimilarity 0.085*** 0.097*** 0.059*** 0.076*** 0.069*** 0.087*** 0.054** 0.056*** 0.061*** 0.062*** 0.053** 0.053*** 0.053*** 0.053*** Embarrass 0.019 0.027 0.045 0.051 0.039 0.045 0.096 0.091 0.041 0.045 0.099 0.097 0.097 0.099 Enfant Terrible 0.286*** 0.275*** 0.211*** 0.202*** 0.247*** 0.236*** 0.169*** 0.175*** 0.198*** 0.188*** 0.165*** 0.165*** 0.166*** 0.165*** Date Ehrman -0.020*** -0.024*** -0.025*** -0.018*** -0.020** -0.006 Crossan -0.024*** -0.026*** -0.027*** -0.005 -0.022*** 0.000 Strata Ehrman – 1st -0.041 Crossan – 1st 0.040 Ehrman – 2nd 0.069 Crossan – 2nd 0.011 Apocalyptic -0.039 -0.016 -0.040 -0.016 -0.054* -0.047 -0.047 -0.047 -0.055* -0.054* -0.058* -0.055* Aphorism 0.160*** 0.156*** 0.147*** 0.146*** 0.160*** 0.160*** 0.155*** 0.156*** 0.154*** 0.156*** Parable 0.273*** 0.267*** 0.242*** 0.233*** 0.299*** 0.292** 0.260*** 0.279*** 0.299*** 0.299*** 0.299*** 0.299*** Word Count -0.001 -0.000 Sources: Mark 0.024 0.085** -0.008 0.002 -0.015 0.005 Q1 0.131*** 0.180*** 0.112** 0.122** 0.100** 0.100* Q2 0.112** 0.168*** 0.088* 0.099* 0.078 0.079 Q3 -0.204 -0.144 -0.238* -0.226* -0.253* -0.253* QU 0.023 0.084 0.011 0.023 -0.003 -0.002 M -0.002 0.050 -0.048 -0.046 -0.008 -0.032 L 0.004 0.056 -0.024 -0.020 0.016 -0.005 John -0.083** -0.041 -0.115* -0.108* -0.110* -0.105* Thomas 0.035 0.026 0.003 0.010 0.005 0.006 Book: Matthew 0.051 0.083** 0.119* 0.139*** 0.102* 0.130*** Mark 0.048 0.093** 0.126** 0.146*** 0.103* 0.139*** Luke 0.063 0.089** 0.100* 0.119** 0.083* 0.108* John -0.056 0.018 0.096 0.105* 0.114* 0.106* Thomas 0.072* -0.006 0.064 0.061 0.072 0.059 Intercept 0.228*** 0.240*** 0.245*** 0.241*** 0.270*** 0.256*** 0.196*** 0.083* 0.190*** 0.169*** 0.065 0.012 0.006 0.007 N 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 Adjusted R2 .493 .502 .578 .583 .543 .550 .629 .620 .593 .605 .631 .631 .632 .631 AIC -338.92 -349.50 -430.53 -437.76 -390.33 -398.03 -488.93 -477.40 -445.88 -460.81 -487.70 -487.21 -488.28 -486.25 BIC -313.42 -324.00 -392.28 -399.51 -352.08 -359.78 -412.44 -400.90 -386.38 -401.31 -389.95 -389.46 -386.28 -384.25 *** p < .001, ** p < .01, *p < .05 (two-tailed)

42

Table A3: Ordered Logit (Highest Scoring Version) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Ehrman Crossan Criteria: 2+ Sources 5.936*** 4.307*** 5.571*** 3.758*** 5.772*** 3.927*** 2.826* 2.688* 4.816*** 4.567*** 4.988** 4.580** 4.287** 4.200** Dissimilarity 3.062*** 3.553*** 2.445*** 2.961*** 2.651*** 3.284*** 2.537*** 2.596*** 2.756*** 2.785*** 2.501*** 2.499*** 2.542*** 2.516*** Embarrass 1.216 1.320 2.301 2.359 1.877 2.083 3.950+ 4.024+ 1.944 2.142 4.110+ 4.088+ 3.976+ 3.964+ Enfant Terrible 11.516*** 10.653*** 7.112*** 6.705*** 9.391*** 8.513*** 5.545*** 5.799*** 6.140*** 5.813*** 5.339*** 5.323*** 5.520*** 5.380*** Date Ehrman 0.836*** 0.758*** 0.746*** 0.838* 0.628** 0.812 Crossan 0.758*** 0.720*** 0.708*** 0.846 0.743*** 0.887 Strata Ehrman – 1st 0.000 Crossan – 1st 3.380+ Ehrman – 2nd 4.979** Crossan – 2nd 2.698 Apocalyptic 0.325** 0.415* 0.372* 0.465 0.243** 0.252** 0.293** 0.302** 0.229*** 0.231*** 0.212*** 0.224*** Aphorism 4.626*** 4.283*** 4.665*** 4.626*** 4.500*** 4.787*** 5.317*** 5.403*** 5.326*** 5.429*** Parable 21.039*** 19.829*** 18.463*** 15.390*** 29.606*** 27.216*** 21.418*** 24.672*** 31.315*** 31.088*** 32.032*** 31.533*** Word Count 0.966 0.982 Sources: Mark 1.984 2.828** 1.295 1.544 1.224 1.486 Q1 3.970** 3.982** 2.739 2.675+ 2.438+ 2.568 Q2 4.197** 4.482** 2.738 2.682 2.510 2.619 Q3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 QU 0.683 0.804 0.619 0.612 0.515 0.573 M 1.254 1.785 0.795 0.843 2.072 1.563 L 1.274 1.890 0.916 1.093 2.271 1.913 John 0.217** 0.265* 0.140 0.157** 0.152** 0.168* Thomas 1.533 1.033 0.794* 0.853 0.861 0.867 Book: Matthew 2.431 4.325** 3.926 5.335** 3.600+ 5.180** Mark 2.272 5.334** 3.768 5.218** 3.036 4.629* Luke 2.527 4.153** 3.253 4.203* 2.958+ 4.015* John 0.553 0.979 3.611 4.423 7.242+ 5.615 Thomas 9.422** 1.757 5.771* 2.852 6.921** 2.663 Intercept 1 0.599 0.228 0.126 0.031 -0.148 -0.159 1.057 1.362* 0.092 1.361* 1.763 2.502** 3.860*** 3.883*** Intercept 2 2.428*** 2.110*** 2.246*** 2.204*** 1.853*** 1.894*** 3.419*** 3.726*** 2.294* 3.591*** 4.153** 4.892*** 6.257*** 6.275*** Intercept 3 5.212*** 4.947*** 5.474*** 5.407*** 4.954*** 5.022*** 6.688*** 6.936*** 5.535*** 6.846*** 7.419*** 8.159*** 9.524*** 9.537*** N 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 518 Pseudo R2 .250 .262 .318 .325 .298 .306 .363 .361 .341 .346 .370 .370 .375 .372 AIC 828.07 815.14 760.28 753.44 781.94 774.12 729.61 732.29 745.68 740.11 732.11 732.71 728.64 731.97 BIC 862.07 849.14 807.03 804.44 828.69 820.87 814.61 817.29 813.68 808.11 838.36 838.96 839.14 842.47 *** p < .001, ** p < .01, *p < .05 (two-tailed)

43

Table A4: ILM Ranking of Sayings of Jesus, Highest Version

Saying Title Book Chapter: Verse Normalized ILM Score

Jesus Seminar Weighted

Average Score Color Jesus' true family Matt 12:48-50 1.000 0.600 Pink Strong one's house Matt 12:29 0.884 0.590 Pink First & last Matt 20:16 0.884 0.580 Pink Saving one's life Luke 17:33 0.884 0.520 Pink At the town: Eat Luke 10:8 0.884 0.510 Pink Congratulations poor Luke 6:20b 0.767 0.910 Red Leaven Luke 13:20b-21 0.767 0.830 Red Emperor & God Matt 22:21c 0.767 0.820 Red Congratulations hungry Luke 6:21a 0.767 0.790 Red Mustard seed Thom 20:2-4 0.767 0.760 Red Serving two masters Matt 6:24a 0.767 0.720 Pink Lost sheep Luke 15:4-6 0.767 0.700 Pink What goes in Mark 7:14-15 0.767 0.700 Pink Anxieties: Lilies Matt 6:28b-30 0.767 0.680 Pink Anxieties: Clothing Matt 6:28a 0.767 0.620 Pink Hating one's family Luke 14:26 0.767 0.560 Pink Into the desert: Reed Matt 11:7b-8 0.767 0.520 Pink Sign of the times Luke 12:54-56 0.767 0.400 Gray In the house: Peace be Luke 10:5b-6a 0.767 0.370 Gray Treasure Matt 13:44 0.721 0.710 Pink Left & right hand Matt 6:3 0.721 0.600 Pink Coat & shirt Matt 5:40 0.651 0.920 Red Other cheek Matt 5:39b 0.651 0.920 Red Second mile Matt 5:41 0.651 0.900 Red Love enemies Luke 6:27b 0.651 0.840 Red Give to beggars Matt 5:42a 0.651 0.810 Red Congratulations sad Luke 6:21b 0.651 0.790 Red Lord's prayer: Father Luke 11:2b 0.651 0.770 Red Anxieties: Food & clothing POxy655 36:1 0.651 0.750 Pink Love enemies: Core M/L 00 0.651 0.750 Red Leave the dead Matt 8:21-22 0.651 0.700 Pink By their fruits Thom 45:1a 0.651 0.690 Pink Feast Thom 64:1-12 0.651 0.690 Pink Lend without return Thom 95:1-2 0.651 0.680 Pink Pearl Thom 76:1-2 0.651 0.680 Pink Eye of needle Matt 19:24 0.651 0.670 Pink Anxieties: Birds Luke 12:24 0.651 0.670 Pink Speck & timber Thom 26:1-2 0.651 0.600 Pink Better than sinners: Love Did 1:3d 0.651 0.560 Pink Anxieties: One cubit Matt 6:27 0.651 0.540 Pink Better than sinners: Sunrise Matt 5:45b 0.651 0.530 Pink Ask, seek, find Matt 7:7-8 0.651 0.510 Pink On divorce Luke 16:18 0.651 0.480 Gray Better than sinners: Salute Matt 5:47 0.651 0.470 Gray Better than sinners: Do good Luke 6:33 0.651 0.470 Gray Love enemies: Pray abuse Luke 6:28b 0.651 0.440 Gray At the town: Heal Luke 10:9 0.651 0.430 Gray Love enemies: Bless curse Luke 6:28a 0.651 0.430 Gray Wisdom justified Matt 11:18-19ab 0.651 0.430 Gray

44

Saying Title Book Chapter: Verse Normalized ILM Score

Jesus Seminar Weighted

Average Score Color Love enemies: Pray POxy1224 2 0.651 0.400 Gray Things: No return Luke 6:30b 0.651 0.390 Gray Only the father knows Mark 13:32 0.651 0.260 Gray Good Samaritan Luke 10:30b-35 0.605 0.810 Red Incompetent manager Luke 16:1-8a 0.605 0.770 Red Vineyard laborers Matt 20:1-15 0.605 0.770 Red Lost coin Luke 15:8-9 0.605 0.750 Pink Eunuchs for the kingdom Matt 19:12a 0.605 0.700 Pink Corrupt judge Luke 18:2-5 0.605 0.700 Pink Prodigal son Luke 15:11b-32 0.605 0.700 Pink Unmerciful slave Matt 18:23-34 0.605 0.630 Pink Two sons Matt 21:31b 0.605 0.490 Gray Rich man & Lazarus Luke 16:19-26 0.605 0.420 Gray Hand & Sabbath Matt 12:11-12 0.605 0.350 Gray Dropsy & Sabbath Luke 14:5 0.605 0.350 Gray Inviting the outcasts Luke 14:12b-14 0.605 0.140 Black Spiritual blindness John 9:39 0.581 0.000 Black No respect Thom 31:1 0.535 0.740 Pink Foxes have dens Luke 9:58 0.535 0.740 Pink Assassin Thom 98:1-3 0.535 0.650 Pink Scholars privileges Luke 20:46 0.535 0.610 Pink Salting the salt Luke 14:34-35a 0.535 0.580 Pink Forgiveness for forgive PolPhil 2:3c 0.535 0.570 Pink Hidden & manifest Thom 5:2 0.535 0.570 Pink Government divided Luke 11:17b-18 0.535 0.570 Pink In the house: Remain Luke 10:7a 0.535 0.520 Pink God's dom. & children: Come Mark 10:14b 0.535 0.520 Pink Have & receive Thom 41:1-2 0.535 0.510 Pink Become passers-by Thom 42 0.535 0.500 Gray God's dom. & children: Receive Luke 18:17 0.535 0.450 Gray God's dom. & children: Turn Matt 18:3 0.535 0.440 Gray For & against Mark 9:40 0.535 0.350 Gray In the house: Stay Luke 9:4 0.535 0.300 Gray In the house: Peace return Luke 10:6b-7a 0.535 0.290 Gray Request for sign Mark 8:11-12 0.535 0.270 Gray In the house: Cluster Luke 10:5-7 0.535 0.260 Gray In the house: Eat & wages Luke 10:7b-c 0.535 0.250 Gray Pilate's question Luke 23:2-3 0.535 0.200 Black Centurion's faith Luke 7:1-10 0.535 0.150 Black Peter's betrayal foretold Mark 14:26-31 0.535 0.090 Black Follow me Matt 9:9 0.535 0.000 Black Mountain city Matt 5:14b 0.488 0.670 Pink Temple as market John 2:16b 0.465 0.260 Gray Faith against sight John 20:24-29 0.465 0.050 Black Jesus walks on sea John 6:19 0.465 0.000 Black Feeding 5,000 John 6:5 0.465 0.000 Black No eye has seen 1Cor 2:9 0.442 0.090 Black Laborer's pay 1Cor 9:14 0.442 0.000 Black Sly as a snake POxy655 39:3 0.419 0.670 Pink By whose power Luke 11:19-20 0.419 0.640 Pink

45

Saying Title Book Chapter: Verse Normalized ILM Score

Jesus Seminar Weighted

Average Score Color Lamp & bushel Matt 5:15b 0.419 0.630 Pink Leased vineyard Thom 65 0.419 0.610 Pink Rich farmer Thom 63:1-3 0.419 0.600 Pink Lord's prayer: Bread Matt 6:11 0.419 0.600 Pink God & sparrows Luke 12:6-7 0.419 0.600 Pink Confidence in prayer Matt 7:9-11 0.419 0.590 Pink Here it is! Thom 113:2-4 0.419 0.590 Pink Entrusted money Matt 25:14-28 [21c, 23] 0.419 0.590 Pink Lord's prayer: Debts Matt 6:12 0.419 0.580 Pink Inside & outside Thom 89:1-2 0.419 0.570 Pink Narrow door Luke 13:22-24 0.419 0.560 Pink Settle with opponent Luke 12:58-59 0.419 0.530 Pink Anxieties: Seek domain Luke 12:31a 0.419 0.530 Pink Return of evil spirit Luke 11:24-26 0.419 0.520 Pink Fire on earth Thom 10 0.419 0.520 Pink Returning master Luke 12:35-38 0.419 0.490 Gray As your Father Luke 6:36 0.419 0.470 Gray If you say to this mountain Core 00 0.419 0.460 Gray Better than sinners: Children Matt 5:45a 0.419 0.440 Gray Rich man Matt 19:21 0.419 0.440 Gray Better than sinners: Ungrateful Luke 6:35f 0.419 0.440 Gray Better than sinners: Lend Luke 6:34 0.419 0.440 Gray Lord's prayer: Whole M/L 00 0.419 0.430 Gray At the town Luke 10:11 0.419 0.430 Gray Moses & divorce Mark 10:5b-6 0.419 0.430 Gray In sky & sea Thom 3:1 0.419 0.420 Gray Religious & sinners Mark 2:17b 0.419 0.400 Gray Hand, foot, eye Matt 5:29-30 0.419 0.370 Gray Thanksgiving Luke 10:21 0.419 0.360 Gray Lord's prayer: Temp Matt 6:13a 0.419 0.330 Gray Anxieties: The rest Luke 12:26 0.419 0.330 Gray Leader as servant Mark 10:41-45 0.419 0.330 Gray True blessedness Thom 79:2 0.419 0.280 Gray Homeowner & burglar Thom 103 0.419 0.280 Gray Temple & Jesus Mark 14:55-61a 0.419 0.270 Gray Anxieties: Eat, drink Luke 12:29-30 0.419 0.260 Gray Patriarchs & gentiles Luke 13:28-29 0.419 0.250 Black Harvest is good Luke 10:2 0.419 0.230 Black All sins forgiven Luke 12:10 0.419 0.210 Black At the town: Cluster Luke 10:8-12 0.419 0.180 Black Disciple & servant Luke 6:40 0.419 0.180 Black Passover preparation Mark 14:12-17 0.419 0.150 Black Not pass away Mark 13:30 0.419 0.130 Black Two thieves Mark 15:27-32 0.419 0.120 Black Lord's prayer: Evil one Matt 6:13b 0.419 0.100 Black Priest's question Luke 22:66-71 0.419 0.090 Black Jesus & Galilee Mark 16:1-8 0.419 0.070 Black Woman bleeding Luke 8:45,46,48 0.419 0.000 Black Peter's denial Mark 14:72 0.419 0.000 Black Elijah must come Matt 17:9 0.419 0.000 Black

46

Saying Title Book Chapter: Verse Normalized ILM Score

Jesus Seminar Weighted

Average Score Color Stilling storm Matt 8:26 0.419 0.000 Black Show me a coin Luke 20:24a 0.419 0.000 Black Anxieties: Intro Matt 6:25 0.419 0.000 Black Fig tree Mark 11:14 0.419 0.000 Black A blind man Mark 8:23,26 0.419 0.000 Black Sudden arrival Matt 24:42 0.419 0.000 Black An unclean spirit Luke 4:35 0.419 0.000 Black Feeding 4,000 Matt 15:32,34 0.419 0.000 Black Demon of Gerasene Mark 5:8,9,19 0.419 0.000 Black By what authority? Mark 11:29-30,33 0.419 0.000 Black Jarius Mark 5:36,39,41 0.419 0.000 Black Cure of a deaf mute Mark 7:34 0.419 0.000 Black Twelve report Mark 6:31 0.419 0.000 Black All the kingdoms Luke 4:8 0.419 0.000 Black Friend at midnight Luke 11:5-7 0.372 0.720 Pink Pharisee & Publican Luke 18:10-14a 0.372 0.580 Pink Barren tree Luke 13:6b-9 0.372 0.540 Pink On oaths: Core Matt 5:34b-37 0.372 0.490 Gray On prayer: In private Matt 6:6a 0.372 0.460 Gray Days are coming Luke 17:22 0.372 0.360 Gray Jesus & Herod Luke 13:32 0.372 0.350 Gray Gift at the altar Matt 5:23-24 0.372 0.290 Gray Lord's prayer: Enact will Matt 6:10b 0.372 0.190 Black Damn the well fed Luke 6:25a 0.372 0.180 Black Martha & Mary Luke 10:41-42 0.372 0.170 Black Damn the spoken well of Luke 6:26 0.372 0.170 Black Yoke & load Matt 11:28-30 0.372 0.170 Black Damn the rich Luke 6:24 0.372 0.170 Black On oaths: Structure Matt 5:34b-37 0.372 0.160 Black On prayer: As Gentiles Matt 6:7,8 0.372 0.140 Black Damn those who laugh Luke 6:25b 0.372 0.140 Black Father, forgive them Luke 23:32-34 0.372 0.130 Black Two swords enough Luke 22:35-36 0.372 0.090 Black On prayer: Phonies Matt 6:5,6b 0.372 0.090 Black More blessed to give Acts 20:35c 0.372 0.070 Black Entry into Jerusalem Luke 19:40 0.372 0.010 Black Elijah Matt 11:14 0.372 0.000 Black Two blind men Matt 9:28b,29b,30b 0.372 0.000 Black Last judgment Matt 25:31-46 0.372 0.000 Black Exaltation & abomination Luke 16:15 0.372 0.000 Black Scholar schooled Matt 13:51-52 0.372 0.000 Black Judge for yourselves Luke 12:57 0.372 0.000 Black Zacchaeus Luke 19:5b,9b 0.372 0.000 Black In sheep's clothing Matt 7:15 0.372 0.000 Black Renouncing all Luke 14:33 0.372 0.000 Black Transfiguration Matt 17:7 0.372 0.000 Black Humble child Matt 18:4 0.372 0.000 Black Despising little ones Matt 18:10,14 0.372 0.000 Black Riches & power DialSav 20:3 0.349 0.530 Pink I chose you John 15:16a 0.349 0.010 Black

47

Saying Title Book Chapter: Verse Normalized ILM Score

Jesus Seminar Weighted

Average Score Color Anxieties: Tomorrow DialSav 53:1 0.349 0.000 Black Walking on the sea John 6:20 0.349 0.000 Black Risen & gone GPet 13:56 0.349 0.000 Black Invalid at pool John 5:12b 0.349 0.000 Black First disciples John 1:39 0.349 0.000 Black Woman at well John 4:10 0.349 0.000 Black Loaves & fish John 6:5 0.349 0.000 Black Sacred to dogs Did 9:5b 0.326 0.350 Gray Harvest time Mark 4:29 0.302 0.630 Pink Fasting & wedding Matt 9:15a 0.302 0.560 Pink Sower Mark 4:3b-8 0.302 0.540 Pink Empty jar Thom 97:1-4 0.302 0.530 Pink Wineskins Luke 5:37-38 0.302 0.520 Pink Able bodied & sick Matt 9:12 0.302 0.510 Pink Patches Mark 2:21 0.302 0.470 Gray Heavenly treasure Luke 12:33 0.302 0.470 Gray On the road Luke 9:3 0.302 0.460 Gray Body's light Matt 6:22-23 0.302 0.420 Gray Blind leading blind Luke 6:39b 0.302 0.400 Gray Invocation without obedience Luke 6:46 0.302 0.390 Gray Greater than John Luke 7:28 0.302 0.390 Gray Congratulations persecuted Matt 5:11-12 0.302 0.370 Gray Ask & receive Matt 21:22 0.302 0.360 Gray On hindering others Luke 11:52 0.302 0.360 Gray Golden rule Matt 7:12a 0.302 0.350 Gray Carrying one's cross Mark 8:34 0.302 0.330 Gray Measure for measure 1Clem 13:2g 0.302 0.300 Gray Temple's sym destruction Luke 19:46 0.302 0.260 Gray At the town: Shake dust Mark 6:11 0.302 0.260 Gray Doctor cure yourself Luke 4:23b 0.302 0.250 Black Peace or sword Luke 12:51-53 0.302 0.250 Gray Harvest is good Thom 73 0.302 0.230 Black On oaths James 5:12 0.302 0.230 Black Millstone & sea Mark 9:42 0.302 0.220 Black Before the angels Mark 8:38 0.302 0.190 Black Fasting, praying, alsmgiving Thom 14:1-3 0.302 0.190 Black Open proclamation Matt 10:27 0.302 0.180 Black Into the desert: Prophet Luke 7:26-27 0.302 0.180 Black Cistern Thom 74 0.302 0.170 Black Jonah & the son of man Luke 11:30 0.302 0.170 Black Spirit under trial Matt 10:19-20 0.302 0.170 Black Disciple & teacher Luke 6:40 0.302 0.150 Black Knowing the mystery Mark 4:11 0.302 0.130 Black True circumcision Thom 53:2-3 0.302 0.050 Black Palm shoot ApJas 6:8b 0.279 0.150 Black Be like strangers ApJas 7:3a 0.279 0.000 Black Ascension & parables ApJas 6:9-10 0.279 0.000 Black Plant rooted up Matt 15:13 0.256 0.270 Gray Jerusalem mourned Luke 23:27-31 0.256 0.200 Black Receiving the sender John 13:20 0.233 0.290 Gray

48

Saying Title Book Chapter: Verse Normalized ILM Score

Jesus Seminar Weighted

Average Score Color Not taste death John 8:51,52b 0.233 0.030 Black Lord's prayer: Holy name Luke 11:2d 0.186 0.670 Pink Lord's prayer: Impose rule Luke 11:2e 0.186 0.670 Pink Fishnet Thom 8:1-3 0.186 0.570 Pink Difficult for rich Mark 10:23 0.186 0.550 Pink Lord of the Sabbath Mark 2:27-28 0.186 0.550 Pink Drinking old wine Thom 47:3 0.186 0.510 Pink Fig tree's lesson Luke 21:29b-31 0.186 0.500 Gray Temple destruction Mark 13:2 0.186 0.500 Gray Widow's pittance Mark 12:43 0.186 0.470 Gray God's dom. & children: Nursing Thom 22:2 0.186 0.470 Gray Taken or left Thom 61:1 0.186 0.450 Gray Heart & treasure Luke 12:34 0.186 0.450 Gray What comes out Mark 7:18-19 0.186 0.450 Gray Widow's houses Mark 12:40 0.186 0.440 Gray Chief commandment Mark 12:29b-31 0.186 0.440 Gray What profit? Matt 16:26a 0.186 0.440 Gray God's rule & violence Matt 11:12-13 0.186 0.430 Gray Seed & harvest Thom 21:9 0.186 0.430 Gray Two ears Thom 96:3 0.186 0.400 Gray Planted weeds Thom 57:1-4 0.186 0.400 Gray God's domain & riches Mark 10:24 0.186 0.390 Gray Life's price Mark 8:37 0.186 0.360 Gray Patches Thom 47:5 0.186 0.350 Gray Some standing here Luke 9:27 0.186 0.350 Gray Doctor can't cure Thom 31:2 0.186 0.350 Gray Leaven of Pharisees Mark 8:15 0.186 0.330 Gray As with lightning Luke 17:24 0.186 0.320 Gray Pearls to swine Thom 93:2 0.186 0.310 Gray Hundredfold reward Luke 18:29-30 0.186 0.310 Gray Fortunate the eyes Matt 13:16-17 0.186 0.300 Gray To other places Mark 1:38b 0.186 0.300 Gray Unwashed hands Matt 15:3-9 0.186 0.300 Gray Disputed inheritance Thom 72:1-3 0.186 0.300 Gray Request for precedence Luke 12:51-53 0.186 0.290 Gray Fishing for people Matt 4:18-22 0.186 0.290 Gray Jesus' baptism Luke 12:50 0.186 0.290 Gray Counterfeit messiahs: Here he is! Matt 24:23 0.186 0.290 Gray On the resurrection Matt 22:29b-32 0.186 0.290 Gray Salted with fire Mark 9:49 0.186 0.280 Gray Salt & peace Mark 9:50b 0.186 0.280 Gray Like graves Luke 11:44 0.186 0.280 Gray Carrion & vultures Luke 17:37b 0.186 0.270 Gray Supper & Eucharist Mark 14:25 0.186 0.270 Gray Promoting the humble Matt 23:12 0.186 0.260 Gray Power to forgive Mark 2:10 0.186 0.250 Black Grain & Sabbath Mark 2:25 0.186 0.250 Black Tithes & justice Matt 23:23 0.186 0.250 Black Not one iota Luke 16:17 0.186 0.250 Gray Heavy burdens Matt 23:4 0.186 0.240 Black

49

Saying Title Book Chapter: Verse Normalized ILM Score

Jesus Seminar Weighted

Average Score Color Jesus arrested Mark 14:43-50 0.186 0.240 Black On judging Luke 6:37a 0.186 0.230 Black Reply to John Matt 11:2-6 0.186 0.230 Black God's rule closing in Matt 4:17b 0.186 0.230 Black Jesus' dying words Matt 27:45-50 0.186 0.230 Black Time for flight Mark 13:14a 0.186 0.220 Black Good & evil men Matt 7:24-27 0.186 0.220 Black Unexpected coming Luke 12:40 0.186 0.220 Black Looking backwards Luke 9:61-62 0.186 0.210 Black Greater than Jonah Matt 12:41-42 0.186 0.200 Black On twelve thrones Matt 19:27-28 0.186 0.200 Black As with Noah Luke 17:26-27 0.186 0.190 Black Woman with ointment Mark 14:3-9 0.186 0.190 Black Jerusalem indicted Luke 13:34-35 0.186 0.190 Black Other cheek: Eye for eye Matt 5:38-39a 0.186 0.180 Black Better than sinners: Reward Luke 6:35d 0.186 0.170 Black Gift for gift Luke 6:38ab 0.186 0.170 Black Widows & lepers Luke 4:25-27 0.186 0.160 Black Lamb among wolves Matt 10:16a 0.186 0.160 Black Coming in the clouds Mark 13:26 0.186 0.160 Black Forgiveness Matt 18:22 0.186 0.150 Black My words eternal Luke 21:33 0.186 0.150 Black Damn Galilean towns Luke 10:13-15 0.186 0.140 Black Whom to fear Luke 12:4-5 0.186 0.130 Black Prophet's tombs Luke 11:47-48 0.186 0.130 Black Prayer against temptation Mark 14:32-42 0.186 0.130 Black Elijah has come Mark 9:12c-13 0.186 0.130 Black Deception & strife Mark 13:5-8 0.186 0.130 Black Better not born Mark 14:18-21 0.186 0.130 Black Brother against brother Luke 21:16-19 0.186 0.120 Black On scandals Luke 17:1 0.186 0.120 Black Counterfeit messiahs Mark 13:22 0.186 0.120 Black Son of David Luke 20:41b-44 0.186 0.110 Black Watch Matt 25:13 0.186 0.100 Black Master & steward Luke 12:42-46 0.186 0.100 Black Gather elect Mark 13:27 0.186 0.100 Black Persecution & testimony Mark 13:9 0.186 0.100 Black Gospel & eschaton Mark 13:10 0.186 0.090 Black Parousia of Jesus Mark 13:24-25 0.186 0.090 Black Counterfeit messiahs: I told you Matt 24:25 0.186 0.090 Black Passion & resurrection prophecy Luke 17:25 0.186 0.080 Black Father & son Thom 61:3 0.186 0.070 Black As with Lot Luke 17:28-30 0.186 0.070 Black Much & more Luke 12:48b 0.186 0.070 Black Wisdom's envoy Matt 23:34-36 0.186 0.060 Black Narrow gate Luke 13:26-27 0.186 0.060 Black Impossible & possible Luke 18:27 0.186 0.030 Black Sower, Inter, of Luke 8:11-15 0.186 0.000 Black By bread alone Luke 4:4 0.186 0.000 Black Two or three Thom 30:1-2 0.186 0.000 Black

50

Saying Title Book Chapter: Verse Normalized ILM Score

Jesus Seminar Weighted

Average Score Color Children's bread Mark 7:27,29 0.186 0.000 Black Pay attention Mark 4:24a 0.186 0.000 Black Commission & promise Mark 16:15-18 0.186 0.000 Black Sower, Inter, of Mark 4:13-20 0.186 0.000 Black Leper Luke 5:13,14 0.186 0.000 Black See & perceive Matt 13:13b-15 0.186 0.000 Black Mute spirit Matt 17:17 0.186 0.000 Black Seventy return Luke 10:18 0.140 0.670 Pink Calculating cost: Tower Luke 14:28-30 0.140 0.520 Pink Calculating cost: King Luke 14:31-32 0.140 0.520 Pink Blind guides Matt 23:24 0.140 0.380 Gray Closed door Matt 25:1-12 0.140 0.310 Gray On anger Matt 5:22c,d 0.140 0.300 Gray On fasting Matt 6:17 0.140 0.280 Gray Cripple & Sabbath Luke 13:15b-16 0.140 0.250 Black On lust Matt 5:28b 0.140 0.230 Black Congratulations peacemakers Matt 5:9 0.140 0.230 Black Congratulations meek Matt 5:5 0.140 0.220 Black Servant's duty Luke 17:7-9 0.140 0.190 Black Congratulations pure Matt 5:8 0.140 0.180 Black Congratulations merciful Matt 5:7 0.140 0.180 Black Lost sheep of Israel Matt 10:5-6 0.140 0.180 Black Seek & save Luke 19:10 0.140 0.120 Black Charity in public Matt 6:2,4 0.140 0.120 Black Binding & releasing Matt 18:15-18 0.140 0.120 Black Repent or perish Luke 13:1-5 0.140 0.100 Black Gentiles preferred Luke 4:25-27 0.140 0.090 Black Let your light shine Matt 5:16 0.140 0.030 Black Teach & baptize Matt 28:16-20 0.140 0.030 Black Promised spirit Acts 1:1-11 0.140 0.010 Black Jesus at Emmaus Luke 24:13-35 0.140 0.010 Black Steward, Inter, of Luke 16:8b-9 0.140 0.000 Black Who is Jesus? Matt 16:13,15 0.140 0.000 Black On Moses' seat Matt 23:2-3 0.140 0.000 Black You have heard Matt 5:31-32a 0.140 0.000 Black Lost sheep, Inter of Matt 18:14 0.140 0.000 Black Reception & reward Matt 10:41-42 0.140 0.000 Black Places at table Luke 14:8-10 0.140 0.000 Black Lost coin, Inter, of Luke 15:10 0.140 0.000 Black Power of prayer Matt 18:19-20 0.140 0.000 Black Religion in public Matt 6:1a 0.140 0.000 Black Samaritan, Inter, of Luke 10:36-37 0.140 0.000 Black Cities of Israel Matt 10:23 0.140 0.000 Black Little flock Luke 12:32 0.140 0.000 Black Faithful & unfaithful Luke 16:10-12 0.140 0.000 Black Called & chosen Matt 22:14 0.140 0.000 Black By your words Matt 12:36-37 0.140 0.000 Black Feast, Inter, of Luke 14:24 0.140 0.000 Black Out of the mouths Matt 21:16b 0.140 0.000 Black Judge, Inter, of Luke 18:6-8 0.140 0.000 Black

51

Saying Title Book Chapter: Verse Normalized ILM Score

Jesus Seminar Weighted

Average Score Color Not to abolish Matt 5:17-20 0.140 0.000 Black Master & household Matt 10:25b 0.140 0.000 Black Temple tax Matt 17:25b,26b-27 0.140 0.000 Black Grinding of teeth Matt 13:49-50 0.140 0.000 Black From the pinnacle Matt 3:15 0.140 0.000 Black Ill gotten gain Luke 16:9 0.140 0.000 Black Like a snare Luke 21:34-35 0.140 0.000 Black Jesus at twelve Luke 2:49 0.140 0.000 Black Ten lepers Luke 17:14b,17-19 0.140 0.000 Black Mission by disciples Matt 10:8a 0.140 0.000 Black Grain of wheat John 12:24 0.116 0.350 Gray Who has seen the wind? John 3:8 0.116 0.220 Black Woman taken in adultery John 8:7 0.116 0.220 Black God's dom. & children: Born John 3:3,5 0.116 0.210 Black Work the works John 9:4 0.116 0.170 Black Woman in labor John 16:21 0.116 0.160 Black No one works in secret John 7:4 0.116 0.100 Black Slave to sin John 8:34 0.116 0.060 Black Sheepfold John 10:1-5,8b-13 0.116 0.030 Black Unwanted journey John 21:18 0.116 0.030 Black God loves world John 3:16 0.116 0.020 Black Discourse: Authority John 5:30-47 0.116 0.000 Black Discourse: Bread John 6:41 0.116 0.000 Black Jesus & Abraham John 8:39-41 0.116 0.000 Black Lazarus John 11:1-37 0.116 0.000 Black Farewell discourse John 14:1-17:26 0.116 0.000 Black Nicodemus John 3:10 0.116 0.000 Black When elevated John 12:32 0.116 0.000 Black Above & below John 8:21 0.116 0.000 Black Walk in light John 12:35-36 0.116 0.000 Black Now is judgment John 12:31 0.116 0.000 Black Jesus' brothers John 7:6-8 0.116 0.000 Black Man born blind John 9:11 0.116 0.000 Black Truth & freedom John 8:31-32 0.116 0.000 Black Call of two disciples John 1:51 0.116 0.000 Black Water that makes drunk John 4:13-14 0.116 0.000 Black Water into wine John 2:8 0.116 0.000 Black Jesus: Summary of message John 12:45-50 0.116 0.000 Black Light of the world John 8:14-18 0.116 0.000 Black Discourse: Feast tabernacle John 7:16-19,21-24 0.116 0.000 Black New commandment John 13:31-35 0.116 0.000 Black Sowing the son John 12:26 0.116 0.000 Black Voice John 12:30 0.116 0.000 Black Lord's prayer: Dox Did 8:2j 0.093 0.030 Black In your sight POxy654 5:1 0.070 0.420 Gray Near the fire Thom 82:1-2 0.070 0.290 Gray Finding the world Thom 110 0.070 0.220 Black Horses & bows Thom 47:1 0.070 0.190 Black Congratulations sufferer Thom 58 0.070 0.140 Black Peace in this house Thom 48 0.070 0.120 Black

52

Saying Title Book Chapter: Verse Normalized ILM Score

Jesus Seminar Weighted

Average Score Color Fasting & Sabbath POxy1 27 0.070 0.110 Black Children in field Thom 21:1-4 0.070 0.080 Black Know yourself Thom 3:4-5 0.070 0.070 Black Solitary & elect Thom 49:1-2 0.070 0.040 Black Man & child Thom 4:1 0.070 0.030 Black Peter & Mary Thom 114:1-3 0.070 0.000 Black Jesus & Salome Thom 61:3,5 0.070 0.000 Black If they ask Thom 50:1-3 0.070 0.000 Black Adam's death Thom 85:1-2 0.070 0.000 Black New garments Thom 37:2-3 0.070 0.000 Black Light & all Thom 77:1 0.070 0.000 Black James as leader Thom 12:2 0.070 0.000 Black Man & lion Thom 7:1-2 0.070 0.000 Black Primordial images Thom 84:1-2 0.070 0.000 Black A harlot's son Thom 105 0.070 0.000 Black Samaritan & lamb Thom 60:2,4,6 0.070 0.000 Black Father's light Thom 83:1-2 0.070 0.000 Black Body & soul Thom 87:1-2 0.070 0.000 Black Chosen few Thom 23:1-2 0.070 0.000 Black Bridal chamber Thom 75 0.070 0.000 Black Superior to world Thom 80:1-2 0.070 0.000 Black Then & now Thom 92:2 0.070 0.000 Black Knowing the all Thom 67 0.070 0.000 Black Stone & wood Thom 77:2-3 0.070 0.000 Black From within yourselves Thom 70:1-2 0.070 0.000 Black World's light Thom 24:3 0.070 0.000 Black Anxieties: Garment POxy655 36:3-4 0.070 0.000 Black Scriptures & Jesus Thom 52:2 0.070 0.000 Black Flesh & soul Thom 112:1-2 0.070 0.000 Black Flesh as poverty Thom 29:1-3 0.070 0.000 Black Life & death Thom 111:1-3 0.070 0.000 Black Before creation Thom 19:1-4 0.070 0.000 Black Your father Thom 15 0.070 0.000 Black Look to living one Thom 59 0.070 0.000 Black From my mouth Thom 108:1-3 0.070 0.000 Black Drunk, blind, empty Thom 28:1-4 0.070 0.000 Black Angels & prophets Thom 88:1-2 0.070 0.000 Black Desire to hear Thom 38:1-2 0.070 0.000 Black From my words Thom 43:2-3 0.070 0.000 Black Beginning & end Thom 18:2-3 0.070 0.000 Black Ear of grain ApJas 8:2b 0.047 0.360 Gray House for shelter ApJas 8:4b 0.047 0.000 Black Had it been ApJas 6:19 0.047 0.000 Black Intercessor not needed ApJas 7:2b 0.047 0.000 Black Soul & flesh ApJas 7:7 0.047 0.000 Black Hate hypocrisy ApJas 6:7 0.047 0.000 Black Go before me ApJas 6:6 0.047 0.000 Black It is easier ApJas 6:17 0.047 0.000 Black Secretly & openly ApJas 6:5 0.047 0.000 Black Become full ApJas 3:9 0.047 0.000 Black

53

Saying Title Book Chapter: Verse Normalized ILM Score

Jesus Seminar Weighted

Average Score Color Son needs father ApJas 6:15b 0.047 0.000 Black Who are not ApJas 8:6 0.047 0.000 Black On persecuting oneself ApJas 6:16 0.047 0.000 Black To the father ApJas 8:5 0.047 0.000 Black Thrice blessed ones ApJas 9:9 0.047 0.000 Black Cross & death ApJas 4:9 0.047 0.000 Black Few in heaven ApJas 7:8 0.047 0.000 Black Being like Jesus ApJas 8:7b 0.047 0.000 Black Jesus as intercessor ApJas 6:22b 0.047 0.000 Black Grief & sorrow ApJas 6:18 0.047 0.000 Black Heaven's dom. Becomes desert ApJas 8:7a 0.047 0.000 Black Speak & listen DialSav 12:1 0.000 0.000 Black Darkness & light DialSav 14:4 0.000 0.000 Black Truth seeks DialSav 7:3 0.000 0.000 Black Bom of truth DialSav 59:1 0.000 0.000 Black Seek & reveal DialSav 10:1 0.000 0.000 Black Support of earth & heaven DialSav 34:1 0.000 0.000 Black Jealousy & bridal chamber DialSav 50:2 0.000 0.000 Black Seek life DialSav 70:1 0.000 0.000 Black

54

References Allison, Dale C. Jr. 2008. "The Historians' Jesus and the Church." in Seeking the Identity of

Jesus: A Pilgrimage, edited by Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

________. 2010. Constructing Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Bernstein, Carl, and Bob Woodward. 1974. All The President's Men. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Borg, Marcus J. 1987. Jesus: A New Vision. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, Publishers.

________. 1994a. Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.

________. 1994b. Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith. New York: Harper.

Boyarin, Daniel. 2012. The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ. New York, NY: The New Press.

Chilton, Bruce. 2000. Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography. New York: Doubleday.

Chilton, Bruce, and Craig A. Evans (Eds.). 1999. Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Leiden: Brill.

Copan, Paul (Ed.). 1998. Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Crossan, John Dominic. 1991. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco.

________. 2008. Sayings Parallels: A Workbook for the Jesus Tradition. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock (Previously Published by Fortress Press, 1986).

Crossan, John Dominic 1994. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Dawes, Robyn M. 1979. "The Robust Beauty of Improper Linear Models in Decision Making." American Psychologist 34(7):571-82.

Dewey, Arthur J., Roy W. Hoover, Lane C. McGaughy, and Daryl D. Schmidt (Eds.). 2011. The Authentic Letters of Paul: A New Reading of Paul’s Rhetoric and Meaning. Salem, Oregon: Polebridge Press.

Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ. 1989. New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. New York: National Council of Churches of Christ.

55

Ehrman, Bart D. 1999. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. New York: Oxford University Press.

________. 2000. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

________. 2003a. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

________. 2003b. Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

________. 2004. The New Testament and other Early Christian Writings: A Reader. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

________. 2007. "The End that Never Came and the Christianities that were Lost." Paper presented at the United Disciples Fellowship Distinguished Lecturer Series, First Congregational Church of San Jose: San Jose, California.

Evans, Craig A. 2006. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books.

Fredriksen, Paula. 1988. From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament IMages of Jesus. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

________. 1999. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Funk, Robert W. 1985. "The Issue of Jesus." Forum 1`(1):7-12.

________. 1996. Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millenium. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco: A Polebridge Press Book.

Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar. 1993. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press.

Funk, Robert W., Bernard Brandon Scott, and James R. Butts. 1988. The Parables of Jesus: Red Letter Edition. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press.

Funk, Robert W., and Mahlon Smith. 1991. The Gospel of Mark: Red Letter Edition. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press.

Funk, Robert W., and The Jesus Seminar. 1998. The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco: A Polebridge Press Book.

Hays, Richard B. 1994. "The Corrected Jesus." First Things (May):43-48.

Herzog, William R. 2005. Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

56

Ingolfsland, Dennis. 2002. "The Historical Jesus According to John Dominic Crossan's First Strata Sources: A Critical Comment." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45(3):405-14.

Jenkins, Philip. 2001. Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jesus Seminar. 1990a. "Voting Records: Sorted by Gospels, by Weighted Average." Forum 6(3/4):245-98.

________. 1990b. "Voting Records: Sorted by Grouped Parallels, by Weighted Average." Forum 6(3/4):299-352.

________. 1990c. "Voting Records: Sorted by Weighted Average." Forum 6(2):139-91.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. 1996. The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco.

Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kloppenborg, John S. 1987a. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Harrisburgh, PA: Trinity Press International.

________. 1987b. Q, The Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus. Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press.

Levine, Amy-Jill. 2006. The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. New York: Harper Collins.

McDonald, Lee Martin, and Stanley E. Porter. 2000. Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.

Meehl, Paul E. 1954. Clinical versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Meier, John P. 1991. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. New York: Doubleday.

________. 1994. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: Mentor, Message, and Miracles. New York: Doubleday.

________. 2001. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: Companions and Competitors. New York: Doubleday.

________. 2009. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: Law and Love. New York: Doubleday.

Miller, Robert J. (Ed.). 1994. The Complete Gospels. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco.

________. 1999. The Jesus Seminar and its Critics. Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press.

57

Murphy, Catherine M. 2008. The Historical Jesus for Dummies. Indianapolis, Indiana: Wiley Publishing, Inc.

Robinson, James M. (Ed.). 1988. The Nag Hammaid Library in English. New York: HarperCollins.

________. 2006. The Gospel of Jesus: An Historical Search for the Original Good News. New York: HarperOne.

Robinson, John A. T. 1976. Redating the New Testament. London: SCM-Canterbury Press Ltd.

Sanders, E. P. 1993. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Londonq: Penguin Books.

Schweitzer, Albert. 1906. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sheler, Jefferey L., Mike Tharp, and Jill Jordan Sieder. "In Search of Jesus." U.S. News and World Report, April 8 1996.

Silver, Nate. 2012. The Signal and the Noise: Why Most Predictions Fail but Some Don't. New York: The Penguin Press.

Smith, Dennis E., and Joseph B. Tyson (Eds.). 2013. Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report. Salem, Oregon: Polebridge Press.

Van Biema, David. "The Gospel Truth? The Iconoclastic and Provocative Jesus Seminar Argues That Not Much of the New Testament Can Be Trusted. If so, What Are Christians to Believe?" Time Magazine, April 8 1996.

Wilkins, Michael L., and J. P. Moreland (Eds.). 1995. Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Woodward, Kenneth L. "Rethinking the Resurrection." Newsweek Magazine, April 7 1996.

Wright, N. T. 1999. "Five Gospels but no Gospel: Jesus and the Seminar." Pp. 83-120 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Leiden: Brill.