Loren Rosson has conducted an interesting experiment, following J. P. Meier's idea of an "unpapal conclave" by surveying representatives of various faith/non-faith perspectives on a variety of questions of historical Jesus studies:
Meier's Unpapal Conclave: An Experiment.
The consensus results are, in many ways, unsurprising from such a diverse cross-section:
We agree that he was baptized by John; that he was an exorcist-healer; that he was sexually ascetic; that he was a prophet (whether apocalyptic, messianic, social, or some combination thereof) who expected something rather dramatic to happen soon (i.e. the coming kingdom of God); that he called twelve special disciples; that he said a lot of memorable things which continue lending themselves to a variety of interpretations (especially the parables); that he engaged in disputes over the Torah, temple, and taxes; that he was killed by the Romans (in collaboration with the Judean elite) in Jerusalem during passover as a political troublemaker; that the synoptic gospels and Paul's letters are good ways of getting to Jesus.
Stephen Carlson, another participant,
notes further on the results: "The upshot is that it is easier to get agreement about what Jesus said and did rather than what he meant by those words and deeds."
As Loren notes, the results could have been expanded (or at least different) if the group actually got together to discuss the issues and to hammer out a consensus document. The results would also undoubtedly be different if other individuals were chosen as representatives of the various perspectives--scholarship is done by individuals, not by representatives of communities, and no two scholars from any of the faith/non-faith perspectives would agree on all the issues as if providing an inevitable, static representation of a community perspective. Still, it's an interesting experiment that is worth a read by anyone interested in historical Jesus studies.
Labels: jesus