the existence and corpus of the third quest establishes that the ridiculous conclusions of the jesus seminar are not anywhere near a consensus. The majority of scholars realize the foolishness in trying to make Jesus into a hellenic philosopher so that's about as close to a consensus as there is in academia.
Still not answering the question... how is "the idea that the gospels are more a reflection of later political dynamics than earlier Judean history. That later Christians retrojected church issues from their own time(s) by putting words into Jesus’ mouth so that He solved their issue. thus, the Jesus of history was lost in a wash of theological contrivances" not the consensus? Also you have not answered my other question which was "could you please tell me what the position or the "consensus" really is?" Since you seem a master at dodging my questions I am going to assume you don't have an answer you're making it up as you go
if you've read crossan then you know that he invents 4 chronological groupings for two purposes; proximity to the events and multiple attestation. This, in and of itself, suggests that crossan is about to lob himself a softball. The earliest grouping contains gospel of thomas which is highly suspect. This just isn't accepted by serious historical experts (like koester or tuckett) because it's pretty clear that thomas is a later, gnostic reimagining of the gospels. Francis fallon and ron cameron made a definitive case on that subject in 1988. He puts the problematic q in this stratum and i'll answer your questions about q later. The cross gospel, allegedly embedded in the gospel of peter is pure fiction. As if that weren't bad enough, he then states on p. 429 that "it is the single source of the intracanonical passion accounts" which is like putting icing on an imaginary cake. Additionally, picking which documents constitute the best attestation is a blatant case of smuggled in authority. That's just the first stratum. Let me know if there is a need to keep going.
Great job on pleading to authority. I asked you "how is he wrong" and "can you provide an alternative?" All you just did is "here are some problems with what I see and I am going to not bother putting forth an alternative to you cause I am just going to appeal to authority by naming people without naming their works!" This is not how you answer a question.
i'm not sure what you are referring to when you say gaps. Q was speculated to address the synoptic problem - similarities in content and arrangement between the synoptics (temptations, beatitudes, lord's prayer). This prompted the invention of an even earlier document from which the synoptics drew. Hence, quelle. You might not be aware that support for q started to crumble with the return to the griesbach matthean priority in the 60's (farmer, sanders, dungan, stoldt brings it to continental scholarship).
Gaps usually refers to our knowledge on a particular text that is wanting. However I did tell you that I wanted you "to name the theory, you need to name the scholars and/or societies that are advocates of such theories and you need to give a detailed description of how it works or you could just give me a link on a credible scholarly source that discusses such a thing." You failed to this as well. All you just gave me was an account of first names; which help me in nothing. Now if you named their scholarly works and named their hypothesis at all then that would help, but you didn't. You sidestepped what I asked of you and you only barely fulfilled 1/4 of what I asked.
People like the jesus seminar approach q with their preconceptions leading the way. For wrede, the messianic secret was prominent and that prompted mark to interject this thinking into the already existing jewish/roman zeitgeist. For bultmann, it was the melding of two streams; jewish praxis and an alleged hellenisitic Jesus movement. For mack, mark merged judaism with apocalyptic judgment. Mack then pronounces that the social aphorisms were orginal to q where as the apocalyptic sayings were not. This leads to unfounded speculation such as "the invitation would have been to something like the cynic's 'kingdom', that is, to assume the cynic's stance of confidence in the midst of confused and contrary social circumstances". Anyone who knows anything about first century judaism would consider this mangling of "kingdom" absolutely confounding. This kind of dishonest, unscholarly, biased conjecture leads people to invent fanciful q stories. It should not go unnoticed that the jesus seminar showed signs of anti-reaganism, anti-conservativism and anti-zionism. What better way to substantiate your specious agenda than to apocalyptically emasculate the person who seems to be the root cause of evil american imperialism; Jesus. Reduce Him to an aphoristic social reformer and the alliance with Israel disintegrates. America then has no reason to impose it's will in the middle east or possibly even anywhere else.
What the f##k are you even talking about? Where the hell did this political rant come from in regards to the Jesus seminar, I asked you to provide a point by point basis on what these theories entail and instead you give me some kind of "the Jesus Seminar has a political agenda" rant. Also, what the f##k do you mean by "anti-reaganism, anti-conservativism and anti-zionism?" You throw out these terms as if they mean anything and accuse them of even having a view that Anti-Jesus without elaborating on the reasons why. I find these labels to be nothing more than a red herring and they do not answer the question but for the sake of argument and curiosity what the hell do you even by this rant and can you provide sources for your claims?
As far as Anti-Reaganism goes... I am pretty much Anti-Reagan on the grounds that if it wasn't for that asshole we would have had solar and renewable energy and would have had far more advanced technology along with the fact that our dependency on oil would be gone by now. Hell, the technology we have now would have been available in 2002 as well as the fact that if Reagan didn't support Saddam we wouldn't have had 911; along with a plethora of other reasons. Oh and one more thing about good old Ronald Reagan... f##k REAGANOMICS!
As far Anti-conservatism and Anti-Zionism... you are gonna have to elaborate on that. I don't support Zionism and I say they should support themselves and their own state; considering the inhumane bullshit that they have done. It sure looks like the Jewish people were taking notes during the Inquisition that is for sure. Do these views make me Anti-Zionist?
Also I like the idea of humanity changing and outgrowing old social taboos and pretty much advancing ourselves, technologically, spiritually and even socially. I also have a huge hatred for people wanting to go back to "the old ways" or to "good old America" because most of the time when they say that I begin to picture segregation sectors of society... does this make me Anti-Conservative?
So you see the problem with throwing out these labels without even defining them? So please define for the sake of curiosity.
To drive a wedge between Jesus' sayings (social reformatory aphorisms and later, invented apocalyptic predictions which authorize political agendas) is to not understand the first century jewish milieu. Jews, based on their scriptures, were expecting the overthrow of the pagans and control of the holy land returned to them through the actions of the predicted messiah, which would vindicate YHWH. This is clear from many aspects, most notably the intertestimental rebellions. The jesus seminar's manufactured revisionism is looking at the situation with smudged and anachronistic glasses. Are we going to treat q as a gospel? Stripping out the expectations of the jews hardly constitutes "good news". In a two source paradigm, how can it be proven that mark and q are independent when q is nothing but a mist instead of a real anchor? What about paul's corpus? It is clearly an outworking of Jesus' ministry but, a sapiential q makes it irrelevant and based on a fiction. This requires a great deal of explaining and conspiracy theorizing. In the end, q is more a phenomenal representation of the interpreter than real, actual positivist history. This is just as true of q being identified with thomas or peter, or even any kind of genre (sayings, wisdom literature, narrative or full blown eschatological theodicy). the most informed historical experts see q as unparsimonious and don't adhere to any one totalitarian synoptic theory. instead, they recognize the virtues of multiple theories including an ongoing oral tradition.
Actually no, you are the only one utilizing "conspiracy theorizing" when you accuse the Jesus Seminar of being "anti-reaganism, anti-conservativism and anti-zionism" without even defining what the f##k they even mean to begin with! As far as your view of the first century, yes I agree, this has mainly been happening but can you please provide sources instead of baseless assertions? I mean f##k! This is getting frustrating and your next post will determine whether or not I should consider you a troll.