18 Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 85.
Bruce Chilton perceptively observes that although rejecting the existence of demons sounds attractively rational, “it would seem to reduce history to a priorinotions of what is possible.”^19 Again, while Crossan asserts that Jesus never really healed a disease or raised the dead,^20 Marcus Borg is not quite so sure. Much more guardedly, Borg thinks that we do not know whether Jesus resuscitated some who were actually dead.^21
For our purposes, we will conclude at this point that it solves nothing to state one’s views to be correct, regardless how vociferously the claim is made. However helpful it may be to report the conclusions of other scholars, neither does this solve the issue unless one also provides reasons why their views are correct. Additionally, to reject rival positions in an a priorimanner is likewise illegitimate. Both believers and unbelievers could respond this way, revealing why these detrimental attempts need to be avoided. Such approaches are inadequate precisely because they fail to address the data. There is no substitute for a careful investigation of the possibilities. The Death and Burial of Jesus
We have argued that the Jesus Seminar fails to adequately evidence its claims concerning its rejection of the supernatural, such as the miracles of Jesus. Before turning to their treatment of Jesus’ resurrection, we will view the events that led to it.
Initially, it should be pointed out that the Seminar Fellows do not deny the death of Jesus. In keeping with the first phase of their research, they commented only on the words attributed to Jesus as he died on the cross.^22 Yet, no objections are raised concerning Jesus’ death by crucifixion and other member publications confirm the acceptance of at least the main outline of these events.