The Jesus Dynasty: A Layman's Review

(Part 2 of 2)

Leadership of James

First of all, I am not convinced by the arguments presented that James was one of the twelve apostles, especially the “beloved disciple” or the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (165, 206-7). According to the gospels, James the apostle was the son of Alphaeus. TJD argues that this James and James the brother of Jesus were one and the same. James the brother of Jesus, however, was the natural son of Joseph, as we will see later. TJD further argues that James was the “beloved disciple who lay at Jesus’ breast during the last supper (John 13:23) and to whom Jesus entrusted care of his mother at the cross (John 19: 25-27). I am not sure what he does with the following passage from John:[1]

Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"

This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true (John 21: 20-24)

In this passage, the writer of the gospel specifically states that he himself is the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” Now TJD may be right that John overestimated Jesus’ affection for him and/or that John wasn’t the best choice of a person unto whom Jesus might commit his mother’s care, but since John is the one who used the term in the first place, I would think that he would be the one to know whom he was referring to.

It was James, the brother of Jesus, the disciple whom Jesus loved, who began to turn things around. Jesus was dead but his dynasty had survived, and the cause for which he lived and died was still to be realized (240).

Unfortunately, we don’t have many details about how James was able to accomplish what he did as leader of the movement, since as we will see, his role has been almost totally marginalized in our New Testament records. (244)

If James did play the role and achieve whatever things TJD alleges, then the charge that Luke and the other writers “marginalized” James would seem to be true. There is one enormous problem, however, even before TJD begins to explain how James carried out his leadership role.
Not only is the NT record sketchy about how James was able to accomplish what he accomplished, it is equally sketchy about what he in fact accomplished. So is TJD. I am still not sure just what it is that James is supposed to have accomplished as leader of the movement. Since Luke’s account of the rapid early growth of the Christian movement is based on the proclamation of the resurrection of the Messiah, surely we are not to trust the numbers reflected in his “attempt to recast things in a more triumphant way” (140). From what we know, the Jerusalem movement (as defined in TJD) ended up floundering under the leadership of James given the persecution of Saul, followed by the Hellenistic heresy of Paul, the death of James, and then was practically wiped out with the destruction of the temple and city. Indeed, one of the last sections of the book is headed, “The Jesus Dynasty, Lost and Forgotten.” (301)

Related to this problem is the fact that “the movement Jesus began” was a messianic movement. Even in the extremely unlikely event that this messianic movement would not have died when the supposed Messiah himself died (both of them), what exactly was James’ role? Was he now the Messiah, or did the movement make him some sort of pretend “king”? TJD fairly consistently refers to him as the movement’s “leader.” OK, but what is the leader of a messianic movement with royal blood known as? TJD as well as the New Testament are somewhat elusive about this. Dr. Tabor does note that “James, descended from the royal line of David, is thus aptly called a “messiah” or “anointed one” (299). Even if we concede this point (which for now, I don’t think we will), he fails to demonstrate or even attempt to demonstrate that anyone ever called him or thought of him as “Messiah.”

First, there is the question of whether Davidic descent qualifies one to be rightfully called “Messiah.” It clearly did not. The country was full of descendents of David. It doesn’t seem very likely that they all were aptly called “Messiah.” As Dr. Tabor points out, the word meant “anointed one.” The question then becomes, who anointed James? If we are to trust the gospels, Jesus thought he was anointed by God. According to TJD, the Jewish leadership and the Romans teamed up to prove him wrong, and God was unmoved either to offer an objection or present a rebuttal. Royal blood alone does not a messiah make. And by what sort of reasoning could a failed “messiah” pass on his throne or even his “anointing”? The nature of James’s leadership role is still unclear to me. Fortunately, TJD itself provides the answer, even if indirectly and inadvertently.

The Gospel of Thomas

But first TJD finds a text depicting a messianic pretender issuing a royal (but secret) decree that designates an heir to his imaginary throne:

The disciples said to Jesus, “We know you are going to leave us. Who is going to be our leader then?” Jesus said to them, “No matter where you go you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.” (255)

This decree comes from the Gospel of Thomas. And when the disciples asked when Jesus himself would come back to them, the Gospel of Thomas has Jesus reply,

When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid." (37)

If Jesus’ reply here seems a little more cryptic than usual, it is by design because the writer introduces his document as the “secret sayings” of Jesus. Although these sayings have apparently been declassified for general consumption, their interpretation is by no means easily accessible to the common consumer. Nevertheless, the key to eternal life is decrypting the meaning: “Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.” But if eternal life through better hermeneutics seems like a potential bargain, you should be aware that there is no literary or historical context to any of these cryptic utterances. The Gospel of Thomas is simply a string of apparently isolated and unrelated sayings of Jesus.

I do not remember ever having read the Gospel of Thomas. I urge anyone not familiar with it to give it a read and see if you think it sounds like the Jesus from the gospels. I am once again reminded of an observation from C.S. Lewis:

When we look into the Apocryphal gospels, we find ourselves constantly saying of this or that logion, “No. It’s a fine saying, but not His. That wasn’t how he talked.”[2]

Some of the sayings in Thomas are clearly taken from the gospels (or their sources) or are modifications of gospel sayings – hence the possibility that to some extent the Gospel of Thomas “preserves … an original Aramaic document that comes to us from the early days of the Jerusalem church” (255), which itself is no guarantee against interpolation. But in reading it, we often find ourselves saying, “No. That was not something he said. That wasn’t how he talked.” As to whether the sayings in Thomas not originating from the gospels are “fine sayings,” I’ve reproduced a few below, and you can be the judge:[3]

• Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human." (7)


• The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?" (11)


• And he took [Thomas], and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"
  Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you." (13)


• They said to him, "Then shall we enter the kingdom as babies?"
  Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]." (22)


• Jesus said, "Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one." (30)


• Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore." (105)
  

Once again, I am a little surprised that Dr. Tabor places so much confidence in this document. In some places, it seems to be something a child would write. TJD acknowledges that it contains “later theological embellishments” (255), and this statement about James seems to be a qualified candidate for one of them. And I’m not sure why this late second century writer had such a high view of James, but I don’t have much confidence in his veracity, Aramaic origins or not.

But as long as TJD is admitting testimony from the writer of Thomas, we probably should also hear him on Jesus’ declaration regarding the relative greatness of John the Baptizer:

Jesus said, "From Adam to John the Baptist, among those born of women, no one is so much greater than John the Baptist that his eyes should not be averted. But I have said that whoever among you becomes a child will recognize the kingdom and will become greater than John." (46)

Thomas essentially agrees with the canonical gospel writers that John’s greatness is somewhat qualified. And he also seems to have Jesus siding with Paul against TJD’s James the Judaizer on the subject of circumcision:

His disciples said to him, "is circumcision useful or not?"
He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." (53)

As to the other (relatively) early writers who attest to James’s leadership role, TJD cites Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Hegesippus, the Ascent of James, The Second Apocalypse of James, and the Gospel of the Hebrews. From among these, Clement, Eusebius, and the Ascent of James, as quoted by Dr. Tabor, help us better understand the office that James was recognized as filling.

Clement of Alexandria

For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord strove not afte honor but chose James the Just Bishop of Jerusalem. The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy … [4] (TJD, 257)

Eusebius

TJD also cites Eusebius’ comments on the above passages:

James whom men of old had surnamed ‘Just’ for his excellence of virtue, is recorded to have been the first elected to the throne of the Oversight of the church in Jerusalem. (TJD, 257)

TJD then adds, “The Greek term thronos refers to a “seat” or “chair” of authority and is the same term used for a king or ruler.” (257)

It is true that the Greek term thronos refers to a seat of authority. Another Greek term in the text denotes the particular “seat of authority” to which James was elected. The office was that of episkopos, which is typically translated “overseer” or “bishop.” Originally, it appears to have been the same office as that of presbyteros (elder) and poimen (shepherd or pastor) [5] Also notice that in the passage TJD cites, James is elected or appointed to that seat. But who appointed him? In Chapter 23 of the same book, Eusebius provides the answer when he refers to “James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles.”[6] In fact, the remarks of Clement of Alexandria originally cited by TJD above also clearly state that it was the apostles “Peter and James and John” who “chose James the Just as Overseer of Jerusalem.”

Ascent of James

The church in Jerusalem that was established by our Lord was increasing in numbers being ruled uprightly and firmly by James who was made Overseer over it
by our Lord. (TJD, 258)

The Ascent of James corroborates previous testimony that the office given to James was that of overseer/bishop. TJD concludes that the sources he cites “speak with a single voice ... Jesus passes on to James his successor rule of the Church … Peter, John, and the rest of the Twelve look to James as their leader” (258) This, however is clearly not the case. TJD’s own witnesses state in no uncertain terms that the leadership position which James occupied was overseer/bishop of the Jerusalem church, and that he was appointed to this office by the apostles. There is nothing in them to suggest that the position he held was “messiah” or “anointed one.”

The Death of James and Succession of Simon

After presenting several accounts of James’s death, TJD focuses on his replacement. The apostles and remaining family of the Lord all gathered in Jerusalem to decide who would replace James as bishop of Jerusalem. They decided upon Simeon, the son of Clophas. Dr. Tabor believes this is especially significant because he has argued (Chapter 4) that Clophas, the brother of Joseph, married the mother of Jesus after Joseph died according to the Levirate marriage law. Thus, James and Simon both were half-brothers of Jesus. We shall hear more from TJD’s witnesses to see how they understood James and Simon’s relationship to Jesus. In the meantime, TJD claims the fact that the apostles chose Simon to succeed James instead of Peter “shows how important the Jesus dynasty was in their thinking.” (289) It seems, however, to show nothing of the kind. On one hand, there is no evidence that position to be filled was the successor to a messianic dynasty, while on the other hand there is abundant evidence that the vacant position was the episcopal seat of the Jerusalem church. Second, Peter was indisputably an apostle and already had his marching orders. Simon was a much more appropriate choice for this office than Peter.

Cross-Examination of TJD’s Witnesses

The evidential value of the writings cited by TJD has been discussed extensively by the scholars. I’m not sure whether it has changed anyone’s mind on either side of the discussion, and I wouldn’t presume to have anything to contribute. I am clearly not qualified to dispute the credibility of the testimony submitted by TJD from the various so-called apocryphal books. So I thought we might approach the issue from another direction. The cross-examination rule in the English Common Law permits cross-examination of a witness on any subject relevant to the dispute at hand and does not restrict the scope of cross-examination to matters on which the witness was questioned on direct examination. So I thought we might learn something from TJD’s witnesses that might shed light on the testimony we’ve already heard from them or that might shed light on other issues relevant to the discussion. In particular, we are looking for any relevant testimony to determine whether the Jesus dynasty thesis enjoys a preponderance of evidence. Short of that, we are looking for evidence that might suggest whether it is even plausible.

Epiphanus: The Paternity of James

TJD calls on Epiphanus for testimony both to the succession of Jerusalem bishops as well as to the presence of Simon at the death of James. If Epiphanus is a reliable witness to the matters that seem to support a Jesus dynasty thesis, then he should be reliable in other matters of interest to the seeker of truth. So let’s hear more from Epiphanus on the paternity of James:

James having been ordained at once the first bishop, he who is called the brother of the Lord and apostle, Joseph's son by nature and spoken of as having the place of the brother of the Lord due to having been reared with him.[7] For James was Joseph's son from Joseph's first wife, not from Mary.[8]

This testimony suggests several facts that do not bode well for the Jesus dynasty thesis. (1) First (but least significant), James was a step-brother of Jesus instead of his half-brother as TJD claims. (2) If James was the son of Joseph by nature (from a wife previous to Mary) and not the son of Clophas/Alphaeus (and Mary), then TJD’s theory that the apostle James, son of Alphaeus was none other than James, the brother of Jesus also comes undone. (3) Likewise, if James was Joseph’s firstborn by a wife previous to Mary, then there are no grounds for the conjecture that Joseph’s brother Clophas took Mary as his wife according to the Levirate law. This is also consistent with the much attested fact that Simon, son of Clophas, was indeed a cousin of Jesus and not his brother.

Hegesippus: The Office of James and Simon

A cross-examination of Hegesippus also elicits this as well as corroborative testimony that the “seat of authority” to which both James and Simon were appointed was that of bishop over the church in Jerusalem and not that of messianic heirs to the coming kingdom of God or leaders of a “Jesus dynasty.”

And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.[9]

Ascents of James: The Gospel according to James

TJD has also called upon the Ascents of James to give evidence to the leadership of James, so it seems reasonable that we hear from him on other facts at issue. The writer of the Ascents of James gives an account of James’s preaching that makes him sound to me more like Paul (or the apostles and evangelists in the book of Acts) than James the Judaizer as depicted in TJD. In this account, James replies to a question from the Chief Priest as to whether Jesus was the Messiah. According to our witness, James started from the OT scriptures and “by a most clear exposition, brought into light whatever things are in it concerning Christ, he showed by most abundant proofs that Jesus is the Christ, and that in Him are fulfilled all the prophecies which related to His humble advent.” He also identified two comings of the Messiah, “one in humiliation, which he has accomplished; the other in glory, which is hoped for to be accomplished, when he shall come to give the kingdom to those who believe in Him …” James also preached baptism unto remission of sins and entrance into the kingdom according to the Matthew 28:18 formula. And the last testimony of interest is that James spoke of Jesus as "the only-begotten Son of God."[10]

There is a certain amount of irony in this. TJD claims that the book of Acts has “marginalized” the role of James. If TJD’s witness is reliable, the irony is that this “marginalization” seems to be true: Acts does not mention the evangelistic role of James alongside Peter and Paul.

The Preaching of Peter: The Gospel according to Peter

Finally, I would like to call one more witness back to the stand. In direct examination, the writer of The Preaching of Peter (claiming to be Peter writing to James) complains that his letters have been altered by followers of Paul (303). But this same Peter also has this to say about his and the other apostles’ preaching:

But we having opened the books of the prophets which we had, found, sometimes expressed by parables, sometimes by riddles, and sometimes directly (authentically) and in so many words naming Jesus Christ, both his coming and his death and the ross and all the other torments which the Jews inflicted on him, and his resurrection and assumption into the heavens before Jerusalem was founded (MS. judged), even all this things as they had been written, what he must suffer and what shall be after him. When, therefore, we took knowledge of these things, we believed in God through that which had been written of him.[11]

TJD denies Luke’s account of Christian origins as recorded in the book of Acts, including the nature of Peter’s preaching in the second, third and tenth chapters. Instead, it submits a case for a purely human Jesus dynasty. According to this thesis, Peter, James and the rest of the early “evangelists” continued to preach repentance in preparation for the coming kingdom and its Sermon on the Mount ethics. Jesus as the victorious Messiah ruling this kingdom by virtue of his resurrection from the dead was not part of this proclamation. The problem, it seems to me, is that the witness it calls to support a point in its case ends up being rebuttal testimony that rehabilitates a more important witness: Luke. In other words, TJD’s witness corroborates Luke’s account of the early apostolic proclamation of a resurrected and glorified Jesus the Messiah.

Because the New Testament writers supposedly “marginalized” the rightful role of James, TJD was forced to build its case from testimony of other early but disputed writings. It seems to me, however, that these writings undermine this case much more than they support it. I suspect that those scholars who have studied these writings and who were cited in TJD have done the same thing to them in their “critical” reading that TJD and others have done to the New Testament books. I am not so naïve as to believe that the testimony I have elicited through “cross-examination” won’t be thrown out (or at least challenged) as interpolations on the part of Christian theologians and the minions of Paul, although I think such arguments would be fairly weak: Who would bother to interpolate apocryphal books?

The Historical Jesus: Great Man or Failed Messiah?

For Christians an understanding of the Jesus dynasty opens a way for recovering and appreciating the Jewish roots of Jesus. (314)

Up to this point, I’ve made an attempt to evaluate the evidence that TJD has presented to support its Jesus dynasty thesis. The book could be reasonably held to one of two possible standards of proof: Either (1) evidence sufficient to establish plausibility or (2) a preponderance of evidence sufficient to establish probability. I have written with the understanding that the burden of proof appropriate for TJD is the latter. There are two reasons for this. First, TJD has cited only those scholars whose various conclusions have supported its thesis. There has been no consideration of scholarship that challenges them.[12] Second, the Jesus dynasty has not been presented as merely a plausible explanation. Its central thesis has been presented as fact, or at least as highly probable.[13] The statement directly above is an example. To me it implies that equally viable roads for understanding Jesus’ Jewish roots are not available. At least they were not mentioned. In addition, it makes assertions about understanding “Jesus’ own story – what he in fact was in his own time and place (emphasis mine). All we need to do is get rid of the embellishments from Christian theology and see Jesus as purely a human being. “Only with this understanding of Jesus can Christianity – and Christians – recapture the passion and fervor of the revolutionary message that Jesus proclaimed and seek to live according to his radical teachings” (307). Such a statement implies that traditional (e.g., evangelical) – or even historically uninformed – Christians will never be able to achieve this level of passion and fervor. Finally, Dr. Tabor has used conclusions from TJD to support arguments he has presented in his blog and elsewhere, especially in the Jesus Family Tomb discussion. For these reasons, I think it reasonable to expect that TJD present a prima facie case supported by a preponderance of evidence. As I have already suggested, not only has it failed to meet this standard, but it has also failed to present even a plausible explanation of several key historical phenomena. Ironically enough, much of the historical testimony cited to support its case ends up refuting central tenets.

So after all has been said and done, what are we asked to make of Jesus of Nazareth?

A Great Man?

Jesus was the most influential figure in human history and who he was and how he is remembered matters greatly to all of us, whether secular or religious, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. (304)

It is an amazingly touching and inspiring story … (307)

Somewhere in blogdom, I think I remember Dr. Tabor writing that Jesus was a great man. But even if the thought is not his, it is a common sentiment, even among nonbelievers. Nevertheless, I think it is an inaccurate statement. If the gospel accounts are correct, then “great man” hardly captures what he was. On the other hand, if The Jesus Dynasty account is even close to correct, then Jesus was somewhat less than a great man. Thus I do not agree at all with the inspirational value of Jesus’ story as revised and retold by TJD. I consider TJD’s Jesus to be a self-deluded and tragic figure.

I think the disposition to romanticize a human Jesus into some sort of heroic figure is simply the vestigial remains of the faith of our childhood and our ancestors. Knowledge has evolved. When modern scholars think critically, the naïve – even insidious – faith in a divine Jesus is a thing of the past: Dead men don’t get up and walk around. Ever. But their upbringing and a culture in which the “Christmas spirit” is still a central emotive force dilutes their otherwise no-nonsense approach to the Jesus of history. They tend to wax sentimental. And they tend to fall back into another form of “nonsense”: the notion that even though Jesus was not the Messiah of God as depicted in the gospels, he is somehow a great man, or at least an important figure in history. Jesus' reputation survives only in the shadow of the Christian myth.

A Failed Messiah?

Given what I have presented in The Jesus Dynasty one might be tempted to classify Jesus with the other “failed messiahs” whose hopes and dreams were never realized as they expected. But the cause is always greater than the person. Jesus’ cause was the Kingdom of God. But he defined it most elegantly: “Let your Kingdom come, let your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” (311)

Dr. Tabor has emphasized the importance of understanding Jesus’ Jewish roots and the importance of understanding “Jesus’ own story – what he in fact was in his own time and place, as a 1st-century Jewish Messiah who lay claim to the throne of David and inaugurated a Messianic Movement with the potential to change the world.” (307) I believe TJD has taken the Jewishness of Jesus seriously and has made a valuable contribution in this area. What I believe it hasn’t taken seriously enough is the Jewishness of the rest of Israel. Given who they in fact were in their own time and place, I don’t see how these people could have been persuaded to settle for a dead messiah, let alone rally around one. The notion is self-contradictory. It seems to me that there is precisely the same number of dead messiahs as there are square circles.

The notion that “the cause is always greater than the person” rather misses the point: How can you separate the cause of the messianic kingdom from the person of the messianic deliverer and messianic ruler? A tomb was not a strong position from which to lead Israel in deliverance, rule them as king, or even pass on his imaginary reign to a brother. And it seems to me that adding another dead messiah to the mix (John the Baptizer) would not appreciably strengthen this position. I see no grounds for referring to this tragic, self-deluded duo as the beginnings of a dynasty. I don’t see how any Jew of that time and place could have been persuaded to do so. In fact I see no evidence that anyone attempted to persuade them to do so.

It seems to me that there is no getting around it: Jesus would rightfully be classified with the other failed messiahs … if it weren’t for the orthodox understanding of the Christian story. True or false, the wisdom of God[14] or the nonsense of Scholem,[15] apart from a Christian movement similar to that recorded in the book of Acts, Jesus probably wouldn’t even have come to the attention of Josephus, let alone Tacitus. There would be no academic study of the historical Jesus and no market for books like TJD. The story and teachings of Jesus would have been buried in some obscure tomb along with his bones and his messianic pretensions. What makes Jesus significant is at least the possibility that (1) the God and messianic hope of the Jews had a basis in reality and that (2) the Jesus of history was somehow both the incarnation of that God and the fulfillment of that hope. If all of the original disciples of Jesus (including Paul and his minions) had agreed with TJD’s thesis, there would be no Golden Rule, no Christmas spirit, no apocrypha, and no Jesus dynasty. What makes Jesus worth anybody’s attention today is who people said that he was in his day … and continued to say he was even after his crucifixion. If the Christian story had not survived in the form we know it today, then Jesus would have been no different from the anonymous Jewish family who lived across the street from him in Nazareth. Except, of course, for the well known neighborhood scandal that Jesus was a bastard. And a crazy one at that.

So after all has been said and done, what are we to make of Jesus of Nazareth?

Lord, Liar or Lunatic?

He saw himself as doing nothing other than fulfilling the words of Moses and the prophets, and the messianic hope that guided his life and led him to his death was the central core of his innermost being. (109)

Davidic lineage was one thing, but inaugurating a specific program of implementation was another. It was every bit as foolish as it was dangerous. (117)

C.S. Lewis’s famous three-horned dilemma has become an apologetic cliché, but I think it is substantially valid. Granted, TJD’s Jesus did not claim to be the divine “Son of God,” a premise upon which Lewis’s version of the LLL argument depends. And he was not a liar. He was very sincere in his beliefs. So he was neither Lord or liar, and even though he made no claim to deity, I still don’t see how we can view TJD’s Jesus as anything more than a self-deluded messianic pretender. And not a very bright one either. Furthermore, both of these assessments may be charitable ones. Although not claiming to be divine, Jesus did have an extremely elevated view of his own importance in the history of Israel and the world.

His ultimate intention was that when his government was fully operational each of [the apostles] would sit on a “throne,” one over each of the twelve tribes of Israel. (163)

Jesus appears to expect that the mission of the Twelve would lead right up to these climactic events [the coming of the Son of Man and the earthly kingdom of God]” (166)

He made a momentous decision. He had decided to push things to the limit, beginning a process that he believed would result in the dramatic and decisive overthrow of Satan and his kingdom. (183)

Jesus told them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning” (Luke 10:18). Jesus had had some type of vision or dream in which he saw the impending overthrow of Satan’s kingdoms – perhaps at the very time these teams were carrying out their work. For him it was an absolute confirmation that the Kingdom of God would soon be manifest and the whole country would see the “sign of the Son of an coming in the clouds of heaven.” (184)

Finally when asked point blank, “Are you the Messiah?” he did reply: “I am – and
you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62) … What Jesus was saying was “Yes, I am Israel’s King and you will see the manifestation of God’s Kingdom.” (211-212)

· Jesus saw himself as the fulfillment of Old Testament scripture. He “heard his voice” in the words of the prophets.

· He was susceptible to visions and dreams, and interpreted them in light of his agenda.

· He imagined he was engaging Satan in mortal combat.

· He thought he was winning.

· He somehow connected this “victory” over the devil to God’s eventual military intervention and assistance.

· He thought nothing of calling people from their families and dragging them into his dangerous and foolhardy scheme.

· He seems to have randomly selected a group made up primarily of fishermen and kinsmen to rule the nation and ultimately the world.

· He actually expected that they would have the opportunity to do this, that the God of Israel had endorsed his scheme, would intervene with a heavenly army, wipe out the Romans, and usher Jesus and his hand-picked cabinet to their respective thrones.

What Jesus likely expected was a sudden, dramatic, and overwhelming manifestation of the Kingdom of God – perhaps a great earthquake that would destroy the Herodian Temple, with the sun darkened, the moon turning blood red, the dead being raised, and the appearance of legions of heavenly armies in the sky. During the previous week he had told his disciples who had been admiring the beauty of the massive stones of Herod’s Temple complex that the day would come when not one stone would be left on another (Mark 13:2) … The kings of the earth would be toppled and Satan’s armies shut up in a pit (Isaiah 24:22). (220-221)

It seems that TJD’s Jesus had an inflated opinion of his own importance not only in the history of Israel and the world, but also in the eyes of God. Where did he get his these notions? How was this crazy scheme conceived? If I understand TJD correctly, he and his cousin John cooked the whole thing up in their youth or possibly early adulthood. But when it cost John his life, did Jesus learn anything from the death of his cousin? No, he simply found himself a proof text, reinterpreted the scriptures to accommodate the new development, and convinced himself that he was still God’s chosen agent. Two messiahs are better than one, but one is better than none.

If we could stop looking at this Jesus through the eyes of the Christmas story and Christian theology, and see him as the purely human and ordinary fellow TJD claims that he was, I believe he would cease being an admirable, heroic figure. We would see him for what he was: a religious fanatic swept away by his own delusions of grandeur, a self-righteous zealot who demanded that people abandon everything, take up their crosses and follow him into his suicidal folly. This guy was dangerous – insidiously so. He was recruiting the masses in a way that escaped the notice of the Roman authorities. When the Romans finally acted, it would not be an isolated skirmish and quick massacre. It would be devastating to the nation. His goal was for all of Israel to drink of his Kool Aid. And he was arrogant and self-righteous as only the self-deluded religious zealot can be. There was no stopping him. No wonder the Jewish authorities turned him over to the Romans. “If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation” (John 11:48).

If they hadn’t put an end to his fanatic program, what would have become of it? One doesn’t really need a prophetic gift to foresee the future of Jesus’ messianic movement. I can think of only two possible outcomes: Either it would have fizzled when folks discovered he was as crazy as a loon, or it would have expedited the events of A.D. 66-70. And as history indicates, God had no intention of intervening, either to save his messiah or implement his crazy scheme and establish his dynasty. John died. Jesus died. James died. The city and temple were destroyed. The rest of the Jesus dynasty and his messianic movement followed shortly thereafter.

Only the heresy survived.

[1] I may have overlooked it, but I don’t think Dr. Tabor brought the John 21 passage up.
[2] Lewis, C. S. Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism. Christian Reflections. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967. p. 15”6
[3] The "Scholars' Translation" of the Gospel of Thomas by Stephen Patterson and Marvin Meyer. It can be read here without a security clearance: (http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/Trans.htm).
[4] Eusebius Church History 2.2.3-4
[5] In verse 11 of Ephesians 4, the Apostle Paul first identifies the offices involved in the ministry of the word. “And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers.”

The absence of the word some (τους δε) preceding the word teachers indicates that the office of "pastor and teacher" is here referred to as a single office. But the word for pastor-teacher is an especially interesting one. The Greek word for pastor, poimen (ποιμην), literally means shepherd. An examination of the Greek text of Paul's charge to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28 suggests that the office is the same office as that of elder (presbyteros, πρεσβυτερος, also translated presbyter) and that of overseer (episkopos, επισκοπος, also translated bishop): Paul reminds these elders that they have been made overseers (episkopos, episkopoV) of the flock "to shepherd" (poimainein, ποιμαινειν, the verb form of ποιμην) the church of God. Similarly, Peter exhorts the elders as a fellow elder, to "tend" or "shepherd" the flock of God that is in their charge (1 Pet. 5:1-2), Jesus himself being the archpoimen (αρχιποιμενος), or the "Chief Shepherd" (v. 4). All three terms, elder (a.k.a., presbyter), shepherd (a.k.a., pastor) and overseer (a.k.a., bishop) seem to interchangeably denote the same office and function in the church. The elder-overseer-shepherd is also necessarily a teacher, hence Paul's insistence that the candidate for the office of overseer-bishop be "apt to teach" (1 Tim 3:2), one who holds "firm the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9). And the elder-presbyters who "manage" or "rule" well, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching, are worthy of "double honor" (1 Tim. 5:17). We could reasonably say that the office is elder (or presbyter) and its function is overseer-pastor-teacher. Finally in Acts 14:23, Luke reports that Paul appointed elders (presbyteros, πρεσβυτερος) in the churches of Galatia. Although there is no biblical record of overseer-bishops or pastor-teachers being appointed by the apostles per se, it seems reasonable to conclude that the office of elder-presbyter was understood to include these functions, that they are all designations for the same office. Similarly, the office of elder-presbyter and overseer-bishop are not mentioned in Eph. 4:11, but isn't pastor-teacher really just another term for these offices, one that summarizes the essence of their function?

Philip Schaff summarizes leadership in the local churches at the end of the apostolic age.

The conclusion from all this is, that the presbyters or bishops, elders or overseers of the apostolic period were the regular teachers and pastors, preachers and leaders of the congregations; that it was their office, to conduct all public worship, to take care of souls, to enforce discipline, and to manage the church property. (Philip Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church. New York: Charles Scribner, 1863. p. 531)

For historical reasons, the office of overseer/bishop office seems to have evolved (used perhaps to identify the presiding elder), and eventually was distinguished from that of elder/pastor to denote a single leader over a church or group of churches in a geographical area.

[6] Eusebius Church History 1.23.1
[7] Epiphanius, Panarion 29.3.8-9
[8] Epiphanius, Panarion 29.3.4.1
[9] Eusebius, 4.22. Hegesippus and the Events Which He Mentions.
[10] Ascents of James, from the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, 1.68-69
[11] Clement of Alexandria, Strom 6.15.128.
[12] For example, consider the assertion that scholars have demonstrated that the Gospel of Thomas “preserves, despite later theological embellishments, an original Aramaic document that comes to us from the early days of the Jerusalem church.” The only works cited were those affirming the credibility of Thomas’s testimony, primarily that of April D. DeConick (341). Also, in spite of serious challenges to the authenticity of the Hebrew Matthew, the only work cited supporting it was that of George Howard. No mention was made of the challenges.
[13] For example, see the conclusions presented on pp. 306-307. Although some speculation and controversy is conceded (308), these have to do with sensitive issues such as the virgin birth, i.e., Mary’s alleged sexual promiscuity.
[14] 1 Cor 1:18 – 2:14
[15] Dr. Tabor wrote on his March 27, 2007 blog: “The late great Hebrew University scholar Gershom Scholem (1897-1982), who devoted his life to the study of Jewish mysticism and messianism, is quoted as having once said: ‘Nonsense is nonsense, but the academic study of nonsense is legitimate scholarship’.” Nonsense and the Academic Study of Religion, March 27, 2007. The implication is that the study of the Christian religion is the study of nonsense.

The Jesus Dynasty: A Layman's Review

(Part 1 of 2)

James Tabor and his book The Jesus Dynasty[1] (hereafter TJD) were introduced to me in the course of the blogworld debate over the Jesus Family Tomb documentary. Apart from the reviews at Amazon.com (108 at last count) and a handful of others across the web, I have only seen two reviews from the scholarly community, one by Ben Witherington[2] and another by Jack Poirier.[3] Dr. Tabor has responded to both of these.[4]

TJD was published over a year ago. Why, one might ask, would you review it at this stage in the game? This is a fair question and I believe warrants a brief explanation. First, of all I am a lay reader, and as I mentioned, only recently came across the book. By “lay reader,” I mean that I am neither a professional churchman nor professional scholar in any of the fields related to the study of either the historical Jesus or Christian origins. My undergraduate work included a significant amount of New Testament, but my graduate degree and academic background are in language & philosophy, especially as related to what might be called discourse logic and critical inquiry (i.e., linguistics, epistemology, logic, philosophy of science, rules of evidence, polemics), both involving the evaluation of evidence and arguments. So although I am not a specialist in the related biblical and historical fields, I thought I might make a small contribution as a critical lay reader. Of course you will have to be the judge as to the value of that contribution.

Secondly, Dr. Tabor has been friendly and gracious enough to exchange emails with me. In the last exchange, I mentioned that I had found a good deal on his book and purchased it. He asked me to let him know what I thought. Since my thoughts turned out to be more numerous than I expected (as reflected by the length of this review), it seemed both appropriate and worthwhile (at least to me) to make the effort and lay them out for public scrutiny in the form of a review.

Presuppositions

First a word or two regarding presuppositions. I am a practicing Christian of the theistic variety. So my own presuppositions are that the incarnation and resurrection, however unlikely, are yet possible, both philosophically and theologically. By this I mean that there is a God who might be disposed to reveal himself and even engage himself in human affairs. I say “might be” advisedly. The existence of God does not mean that the biblical accounts of the incarnation and resurrection are true. But if theism is true, then as C.S. Lewis points out, there is no guarantee against this sort of activity. The biblical accounts then must be evaluated in terms of the historical evidence. I admittedly transfer these presuppositions (the philosophical and theological possibility of the incarnation and resurrection) to my evaluation of the biblical accounts. And as it turns out, I think there is a preponderance of evidence sufficient to support the traditional Christian conclusions regarding those doctrines.

I think it best to get these matters out on the table. Accordingly, I think it important for the reader of Dr. Tabor’s book to understand from the outset that he also has presuppositions. He makes his position on the possibility of things like resurrection from the dead quite clear.

Historians are bound by their discipline to work within the parameters of a scientific view of reality. Women do not get pregnant without a male – ever … Dead Bodies don’t rise – not if one is clinically dead – as Jesus surely was after Roman crucifixion and three days in a tomb. So if the tomb was empty, the historical conclusion is simple – Jesus body was moved by someone and likely reburied in another location. (234)

From these and other statements, I think it fair to conclude that Dr. Tabor’s presuppositions are that the incarnation (as presented in the gospels) and resurrection are not possible, and that he takes these presuppositions to his historical studies.

Dr. Tabor has proposed an explanation that shares elements of the traditional Christian understanding, but at the same time challenges it on the following central issues:

1. The Paternity of Jesus
2. The role of John the Baptizer
3. The resurrection of Jesus and the role of James in the birth of Christianity

I would like to conduct a critical inquiry into TJD’s case on two of these key issues and see if they are supported by a “preponderance of evidence.”

In the course of doing so, however, it became evident to me early in the book that Dr. Tabor’s Jesus is not the Jesus I know from the gospels. Whether the former Jesus is more historically real than the Jesus I know is one issue. Whether the former Jesus is even worth knowing is another. Nevertheless, I am convinced that we need to at least meet Dr. Tabor’s Jesus, and even explore his world and his views in order to make any real decisions about him. So as I explore and discuss this Jesus, I only ask that you not misinterpret any statements I make about him as if I were talking about the Jesus that Christians have come to know from the gospels. They clearly are not the same person.


The Paternity of Jesus

TJD argues that Jesus’ father was certainly not God, probably not Joseph, but possibly a Roman soldier called Pantera. This tale originated with Jews in their polemic against Christianity. Witherington and others have responded to this, and I really have nothing to add. I agree, and think Dr. Tabor would agree, that the evidence is fairly speculative. And in fact, he only proposes it as a possibility, which is probably why he seems to have abandoned it in light of the Talpiot tomb documentary. The documentary claimed the probability of 600 to 1 that an ossuary (bone box) with a “Jesus, son of Joseph” inscription discovered in the Talpiot area of Jerusalem actually belonged to Jesus of Nazareth. I’m not sure to what degree Dr. Tabor invested in those numbers, but he has defended the thesis, so I think he still believes there is at least a very strong possibility that it is Jesus’ tomb. Given his confidence in this thesis, it would seem to follow that he is somewhat less convinced of his Pantera paternity thesis. If the family and close associates of Jesus of Talpiot had known that Joseph was not his father, then it would have made no sense to inscribe “son of Joseph” on his ossuary. As Dr. Tabor points out in his book, it was probably well known that the father of Jesus of Nazareth was not Joseph (everybody seems to agree on this point), so attempting to cover up any perceived scandal at that stage in the game would have been somewhat futile and hardly worth the effort of the ruse. This is especially true since the primary purpose of ossuary inscriptions was for family members to identify specific boxes from those of other tomb occupants.


The Role of John the Baptizer

Critical Methodology in The Jesus Dynasty

Right up front, Dr. Tabor’s methodology is confusing to me. He adopts and dismisses gospel texts in a way that seems arbitrary. The only “method” I can discern is a pragmatic ad hoc principle: It’s good testimony if it supports his theory. On the other hand, a text’s “authenticity” is automatically suspect if it supports traditional Christian conclusions. I understand and sympathize (more than he knows) with his skepticism, and I must admit he seems to accept more of the gospel story than I had imagined prior to reading his book.

Here's an example of the sort of arbitrariness I'm talking about: The three synoptic gospels are silent on the period of perhaps a year between Jesus’ temptations and the beginning of his ministry in Galilee. Mark, he asserts, is primary and is therefore credible on some points, but in this instance is collaborating with the other Synoptics in a cover-up of what happened during this “missing year.” In contrast, he typically dismisses John as being incredibly theological on most points, so in this case it is “all the more surprising that we would turn to John’s gospel, of all places, to find this missing historical information. But such is the case” (140). My question is what makes John all of a sudden accurate? Is it capriciousness on John’s part? Or is it merely carelessness? Simply remarking that it is “all the more surprising” doesn’t explain why Dr. Tabor finds John’s account credible on this point. If the synoptic writers are conspiring to cover up embarrassing information, and yet John has an apologetic agenda even beyond that of the Synoptics, then why would John let the conspirational cat out of the bag? One definite possibility we have to consider is that John didn’t think there was anything to cover up.

Dr. Tabor also trusts John’s report (6: 15) of the Galilean movement to forcibly make Jesus king (190), but almost certainly rejects everything else in the sixth chapter of John, even though it would pretty much take the first 14 verses to explain the radical and probably violent intentions to make Jesus king reported in verse 15. I don’t understand enough about Dr. Tabor’s method and criteria for accepting and rejecting biblical texts as authentic and reliable. Consequently, I’m not sure what texts I can cite that would be an agreeable basis on which to intelligently discuss many aspects of Dr. Tabor’s Jesus Dynasty theory. I’m afraid that any text on which I base an argument will be summarily dismissed as being problematic – either due to biased and false testimony on the part of the writer or interpolation by later editors.


John and Jesus as Co-Messiahs

It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD, and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule upon his throne. And there shall be a priest by his throne, and peaceful understanding shall be between them both (Zech 6: 13).

Dr. Tabor observes that the Jewish sect known as the Essenes were looking for two Messiahs, a priestly figure and a Davidic king. (119) He thinks Jesus and John the Baptizer had adopted the same view and that they were implementing a plan to rule together as co-messiahs. He cites the Zechariah 6: 13 passage above as most clearly pointing in this direction. To further support his theory, Dr. Tabor cites Malachi 3: 1-2. He rejects, however, our present Hebrew (Masoretic) Old Testament text (at least for these two verses in Malachi) as relatively late when compared to one discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Qumran Malachi (3: 1-2) reads:

Therefore behold I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me. And they will suddenly come to the Lord whom you seek and the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire; behold he himself comes, says Yahweh of hosts, but who can endure them when they come?

If we opt to go by this text, Malachi does indeed seem to have had two Messiahs in mind. I cannot comment on the textual history of our present Hebrew (Masoretic) text of the Old Testament. However, the spurious plural pronouns in the Qumran Malachi are transparent interpolations on the part of the Essene editors, who for theological reasons wanted a priestly Messiah to keep the lay but impetuous and cheeky “Royal” under control. Perhaps they feared that without clerical guidance, he would adopt capricious and unorthodox policies, for example, allowing the Gentiles into the Kingdom and other such heresies.[5]

Even if we decide to go with our present version of the Malachi text, Tabor argues that

John was preparing “the way,” as in “the people of the way,” an early designation for Christians and the Essenes. Christians later read this as preparing the way for Christ, but the texts say nothing about a Messiah.” (126)

To be honest, not many Old Testament messianic texts explicitly mention the Messiah. But while we’re on the subject, what texts say anything about John’s messianic aspirations? As Dr. Tabor points out, all of the gospel writers are clear that neither Jesus nor John himself saw a messianic role – even a priestly one – to be played by John the Baptizer. To argue that the gospel writers were engaged in a conspiracy to cover up such a role assumes that there was something to cover up in the first place. The circular “they protest too much” isn’t really a valid argument. When John appeared saying the things he said, it was natural for people to wonder if he was making messianic claims for himself. The fact that the gospel writers are clear on the point that his role was not to be regarded as messianic need not be read as “protesting too much.” So what historical basis is there for believing that Jesus and John read Zechariah 6: 13 the way the Essenes and Dr. Tabor read it (145)?

But never mind. Let’s concede it for the sake of argument. Even if Jesus and John actually read Zechariah 6: 13 the way both the Essenes and Dr. Tabor read it, Herod’s execution of John seems to make the entire matter somewhat academic. The untimely death of John strongly suggests that a co-messiahship was not in God’s plan after all. Dr. Tabor speculates that Jesus was able to reconcile this development and rehabilitate his own messiahship with the help of the following passage, again from Zechariah:

Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me," says the LORD of hosts. Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones (Zech 13: 7).

John, of course, is the shepherd that was stricken, or at least this is how Dr. Tabor speculates that Jesus might have read it. Whatever the case, it appears that the priestly figure would ultimately play no practical role other than that of heralding the Davidic King after all. Whether John and Jesus read Zechariah 6: 13 and the Qumran Malachi wrong, or whether God had second thoughts, or whether Zechariah foresaw what God was too powerless or apathetic to control, it appears that historical destiny in the person of Herod effectively took the priestly “shepherd” out of the messianic picture, leaving only the Davidic king. And as Dr. Tabor relates the story from that point on, Jesus proceeded on that practical basis. He was to be the only Messiah in God’s ultimate plan. There was to be no place in the Jesus Dynasty for a country cousin.

All of this makes the next element in Dr. Tabor’s theory somewhat a moot point. We’re back to the familiar one Messiah theory. As short-lived as it was, however, I think the notion of Jesus’ discipleship under Rabbi John warrants exploration.


Jesus, a Disciple of John the Rabbi?

Dr. Tabor writes that when Jesus appeared and was baptized by John,

he was publicly joining and endorsing the revival movement John had sparked … What we can say is that from the time of Jesus’ baptism he was ready to take his destined place alongside John as a full partner in the baptizing movement. (129)

The great embarrassment that the Christians faced was that it was well known that John had baptized Jesus – not the other way around! Jesus had come to John and joined his movement – which in the context of ancient Judaism meant that Jesus was a disciple of John and John was the rabbi or teacher of Jesus. For Later Christians, who had exalted Jesus, this idea was inconceivable. We can document in the four New Testament gospels a progressive tendency to deal with this stubborn historical fact and its implications by playing down the importance of John [i.e., his supposed co-messiahship] without denying his role as a precursor of Jesus. (135)

Dr. Tabor sees each of the four gospel writers, to varying degrees, attempting to downplay John’s role in the baptism of Jesus:

Mark: “John tells the people that one is coming more mighty than he, whose sandals he is not worthy to stoop down and untie” (Mark 1: 7).

Matthew: “John tries to prevent Jesus from being baptized, insisting that instead Jesus should be baptizing him” (Matthew 3: 13).

Luke: Luke seems to imply that “maybe John himself did not even baptize Jesus – since he was already locked up” (Luke 3: 19-21).

John: “John the Baptizer does not even baptize Jesus – it might be implied but it is not stated (John 3: 30).

Dr. Tabor concludes,

Although these accounts are heavily influenced by later Christian theology, they provide a basic witness to the fact that Jesus was baptized by John.

First of all, I don’t know of anyone who disputes that Jesus was baptized by John. It doesn’t, however, necessarily follow from this that Jesus thus became John’s disciple. There is evidence (in the gospels) that some of those baptized by John seem to have stayed on with him and did become his disciples, but there’s no evidence (in the gospels) that Jesus did. So I don’t see how the gospel writers were attempting to cover up or minimize the fact that Jesus was baptized by John, nor do I understand why they would feel compelled to do so.


John the Baptizer Greater than Jesus

But Dr. Tabor is not finished presenting his case. He also cites Jesus statement in Luke 7 about the relative greatness of John the Baptizer. After Jesus implies that John was more than a prophet,

he then makes the startling statement: “I tell you among those born of women none is greater than John” (Luke 7:28). Since Jesus is clearly one “born of woman,” it is clear in the Q source that Jesus is declaring John to be greater than he. This statement was such a problem for later Christians that the qualifying phrase was added: “Yet the least in the kingdom is greater than he,” referring to John – but this addition is clearly an interpolation. As the saying goes, it “protests too much.”

Once again, the grounds for dismissing Jesus’ second statement as a later interpolation are not apparent unless one introduces either additional evidence or a circular argument. To argue that it “protests too much” conceals the assumption that there is something to protest.

As it turns out, however, Dr. Tabor does have additional evidence.

Fortunately, other sources have survived that allow us to reach back through these layers of dogma and recover a lost perspective. It is truly an exciting endeavor. (135)

The other source responsible for all of the excitement is known as Shem-tob’s Hebrew Matthew. This Hebrew version of Matthew, embedded in a 14th century anti-Christian polemic, includes Jesus’ statement about the relative greatness of John, but it omits the statement about the relative greatness of the least in the kingdom. Dr. Tabor argues that this Hebrew Matthew is more authentic (more faithful to Q) than our present Greek Matthew. In his words, the Hebrew Matthew “offers a version of this Q saying that is untouched by Greek copyists and editors.” His point is that Jesus saw himself as playing second fiddle to John. He pronounced John the greatest, period. The Hebrew Matthew testifies to this, and this testimony is more ancient and more authentic than Luke or the Greek Matthew that we presently use.

This Hebrew version of Matthew was published in modern times by George Howard.[6] In a Jesus Dynasty end note Tabor makes the following claim:

Howard has persuasively shown that this version of Matthew, preserved in Jewish rabbinic circles, is not a translation of the Greek Matthew contained in our New Testament. It preserves independent, and I would argue, more authentic readings in a number of crucial places.” (335)

This is more than a circular argument. With this evidence, Dr. Tabor’s contention seemed plausible and more than a little disturbing to me, especially the idea that the writer or editor of Matthew would add the qualifying interpolation. Jesus’ statement about the greatness of John (even without the qualification) doesn’t necessarily mean what Dr. Tabor interprets it to mean. Jesus need not be interpreted as saying “John is the greatest among all born of woman, including me.” He probably wasn’t even including himself in the equation. He was thinking about John on one hand and (if the second statement is authentic) about those entering the kingdom on the other. You can hold Jesus to syllogistic, logical precision if you want to, but that won’t necessarily get you any closer to his intended meaning, which of course is the goal of exegesis. If, however, the second statement about those entering the kingdom is an interpolation, then it could be grounds for concern. I didn’t know anything about the Shem-tob Hebrew Matthew. How authentic is it, particularly Jesus’ statements about John the Baptist? Elsewhere in a biographical note Tabor acknowledged that Howard’s book had been reviewed by William L Petersen, who argued that

the Dutch Liége Harmony (copied ca. 1280), contains many parallels to ST [Shem-Tob], thus showing it is not so "primitive" after all in its unique readings. ST is derived from medieval traditions allied with the Vetus Latina, Vetus Syra, and Diatessaron.[7]

Dr. Tabor apparently read Petersen’s 1989 review. But there’s one more recent (1998) in which where he repeats similar conclusions:

There is no mystery about the genesis of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. It is obvious that it incorporates material from a variety of sources (e.g., from the Toledoth Jeshu, the Vetus Latina, etc.). But because of the high number of agreements with the Liège Harmony, many of them unique, the tradition behind the Liège Harmony--which we know to be a Latin gospel harmony--must also be the principal element responsible for the textual complexion of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. [8]

Concerning the date, Petersen concludes,

Earlier than 900 is unlikely, because of the uniqueness of many of the readings (which are restricted to Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and the Liège Harmony), and their high-medieval character (the glosses). (Put differently: if this Latin Vorlage were much earlier, then these distinctive readings would be much more widespread within the Western harmony tradition.) Later than 1300 is unlikely, for we know that this Latin tradition must have been in existence by the date of the copying of the Liège Harmony (ca. 1280). This, then, is additional textual evidence which confirms our earlier findings. And it comes from a manuscript (dated 1394) of Isaac Velasquez which is directly contemporary with Shem-Tob. The Hebrew Matthew in Shem-Tob clearly incorporates older traditions, but these are merely derived from its Latin Vorlage, a Vorlage which was closely related to Latin Vorlage of the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony. The same for the Liège Harmony: while it contains ancient readings (e.g., the agreements with Thomas, with other witnesses to the second-century Diatessaron of Tatian), these are not the result of it having direct contact with Thomas or dating from the second century; rather, through a long chain of dependence, going back first through Dutch ancestors, and then Latin ancestors, and then, perhaps, Syriac ancestors, we sometimes reach an antique text related to Thomas, or to the Diatessaron. In no way is Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew a relic from early Christianity, or even directly related to texts from early Christianity. Rather, many--perhaps even most--of the singular readings in Shem-Tob are distinguished by their presence in other medieval texts related to the harmonized gospel tradition, especially in those texts related to the Vorlage of the Middle Dutch harmonized gospel tradition. (Readers may also wish to refer to the excursus by William Horbury, "The Hebrew Text of Matthew in Shem Tob ibn Shaprut's Eben Bohan" [Horbury 1997]. Although using different evidence and different methods, Horbury's conclusions are very similar to the findings presented here [see esp. p. 731 for Latin dependence and p. 738 for a medieval genesis of the text of the Hebrew Matthew.

Now I must admit that I am not qualified to judge the validity of Petersen’s (and Horbury’s) challenges to Dr. Tabor’s view that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is older and more authentic than our current Matthew. Tabor notes Petersen’s challenges elsewhere, but apparently dismisses them. At least he does not mention them in his book (although I think perhaps he should have). But George Howard responded to Petersen’s review, [9] and that response seems to speak for itself. I’ve excerpted several paragraphs from Howard’s reply and have rendered in bold face what seem to me significant statements relevant to this Hebrew Matthew’s antiquity and authenticity (the italics are Howard’s).

Petersen never picks up on the real aim of my book, which is stated repeatedly throughout the volume. It is to demonstrate that the Hebrew Matthew contained in Shem-Tob's writing predates the fourteenth century. In the Preface to the second edition (Howard 1995: vii), I write, "The main thrust of this second edition is to demonstrate that the Hebrew Matthew contained in Shem-Tob's Evan Bohan predates the fourteenth century." At the end of the volume (Howard 1995: 234), I sum up my findings: "A conclusion that can be drawn from these comparisons is that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew predates the fourteenth century, being preserved primarily by the Jewish community." I do not believe I could have made this point clearer (see also pp. 153, 173-175, 178, 211).

Petersen's review gives the impression that the purpose of my book is to prove that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew dates to circa 100 C.E.. What I have argued is that a Shem-Tob type Matthean text (not Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew per se) has roots in an early period of Christian history; I do not presume that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew goes back to early times. This is a text that has been revised repeatedly, has taken on much textual baggage during transmission, and is probably no more that a dim reflection of a prior tradition. I am unsure what this prior tradition amounts to, whether a complete gospel or simply an undefined source. But, whatever the case, the point of this book is simply to demonstrate that the tradition lying behind Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew predates the fourteenth century, perhaps by several centuries. Nothing more!

[Petersen’s] discovery confirms what I have argued all along about Shem-Tob's Hebrew gospel text, namely, that it underwent a significant period of transmission and development during which it accumulated considerable textual baggage.

Pages 182-183
This section, entitled: "Revision and Modification of the Hebrew Text," shows that the Hebrew text of Shem-Tob's Matthew has undergone extensive revision throughout its transmission history. The revision includes alteration designed to bring the Hebrew into line with the Greek and Latin texts used during the Middle Ages, to improve the style of the Hebrew, and to introduce various extraneous material into the narrative.

Pages 205-212
In these pages I consider several ancient writings that have variant readings in agreement with Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. These include the Pseudo-Clementine Writings, The Toledoth Yeshu, and the Protevangelium of James. The Pseudo-Clementine Writings, made up primarily of the Recognitions and Homilies (but also the Epitomes), go back to an early third century Grundschrift, which is itself a compilation of various works, the oldest of which is the Kerygmata Petrou, or the Preaching of Peter. The Toledoth Yeshu is a medieval Jewish antigospel which exists in various forms. It dates somewhere between the beginning of the sixth and the tenth centuries. It draws on early traditions reflected in the Talmud and Origen's Contra Celsum.

Once again, Dr. Tabor’s claims:

Hebrew Matthew “offers version of this Q saying that is untouched by Greek copyists and editors.

Howard has persuasively shown that this version of Matthew, preserved in Jewish rabbinic circles, is not a translation of the Greek Matthew contained in our New Testament. It preserves independent, and I would argue, more authentic readings in a number of crucial places.

Once again, excerpts from the Petersen/Howard exchange:

Petersen:

… the tradition behind the Liège Harmony – which we know to be a Latin gospel harmony – must also be the principal element responsible for the textual complexion of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew.

In no way is Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew a relic from early Christianity, or even directly related to texts from early Christianity.

Readers may also wish to refer to the excursus by William Horbury … Although using different evidence and different methods, Horbury's conclusions are very similar to the findings presented here.

Howard:

… the tradition lying behind Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew predates the fourteenth century, perhaps by several centuries. Nothing more!

I do not presume that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew goes back to early times.

This is a text that has been revised repeatedly, has taken on much textual baggage during transmission, and is probably no more that a dim reflection of a prior tradition.

I don’t know whether Dr. Tabor is correct in his belief that this Hebrew Matthew is “untouched by Greek copyists and editors.” It seems extremely likely, however, that Jewish copyists and editors have laid hands on it. Given the criticism of the document, Howard’s admissions, its hostile provenance, its textual agreement with Toledoth Yeshu, its consistent use of the name Yeshu (which is also consistent with the derogatory references to him in the Talmud and which in medieval times was used with pejorative connotations) for Jesus, references to his being hung (instead of crucified and also consistent with the Talmud, emphasizing the curse of Deut 21: 22-23), I really don’t understand Dr. Tabor’s confidence in this document. I certainly do not consider it evidence that is capable of straightening out the circular arguments he advances supporting the messianic role and the supreme greatness of John the Baptizer as well as the subsequent “cover-ups.”

On the other hand, for the sake of argument, let’s concede Q and concede (against the apparent evidence) that the tradition “underlying” Shem-tob’s Matthew predates our Greek Matthew and that the original writer drew from first-century sources, including Q. What was his purpose? Was he advancing a Two-Messiah theory similar to that of Dr. Tabor, one that included – at least temporarily – John the Baptizer? Or was he writing to show that Jesus was the promised and expected Messiah, the Son of Man, the Son of David in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, identical with that of our Greek Matthew? If the former, then he surely could have made a better case for John the Baptist’s elevated, co-messianic role than the handful of statements that are at odds with the Greek Matthew. Surely he was familiar with the same texts and arguments that the Essenes presented. Ever ready with Old Testament prophecies to apply to his messianic case throughout his gospel, surely the authentic Matthew would have applied the “strike the shepherd” passage from Zechariah 13: 7 to John’s untimely (or timely, as the case may be) death. But no, the Hebrew Matthew’s case for the supremacy of John and/or two Messiahs doesn’t seem to be very compelling in the context of the rest of his gospel. If, on the other hand, his purpose was to present Jesus the Messiah in the same way as the Greek Matthew, then those passages in Shem-tob’s version suggesting an “exalted” role for John would seem to be interpolations.

And another issue: If we accept Dr. Tabor’s statements about the antiquity and authenticity of Shem-tob’s Hebrew Matthew (again just for the sake of argument), what does this do for Markan priorty, and for that matter, for the two-source theory in which Matthew was copied from a Greek Mark and a probably Greek Q? Since nearly everything in TJD is based on these two tenets of modern biblical scholarship, I would think that Dr. Tabor might have to rethink his entire case.


Jesus the Baptizer

Another attempt to enlist Jesus among John’s disciples (thus making him subordinate to John) focuses on Jesus’ baptizing ministry back when John was still alive and free.

Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again to Galilee. (John 4: 1)

Thanks to his recovery of this “missing year,” the credibility of John (the gospel writer) has been rehabilitated (for the time being at least). Therefore the collaborator in another cover-up of events during this year couldn’t have been John:

A later editor of John even added a parenthetical qualification: “although it was not Jesus himself who baptized but his disciples” (John 4:2) That type of interpolation is like a red flag telling us that someone is very uncomfortable here, even though the text plainly says that Jesus was baptizing and making disciples! (149, italics mine)

I agree that if the qualification in question were an interpolation by a “later editor of John,” then we might view it as a red flag as Dr. Tabor suggests. But there is no real evidence that the parenthetical statement is not John’s. I don’t find any discussion of the verse in Metzger’s Textual Commentary. Dr. Tabor’s challenge to its authenticity is based on its contradiction of what the text “plainly says.” I would suggest that his understanding of what the text plainly says is based on suboptimal hermeneutics. Ben Witherington, in his review of TJD (Part 1, April 13), noticed the same tendency in some of Dr. Tabor’s exegesis. It reminded me of an observation C.S. Lewis made about the radical critics of the Bible in his day:

These men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves. They claim to see fern-seed and can’t see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight.[10]

Dr. Tabor has read between the lines and believes he has found a parenthetical interpolation by a “later editor.” I would suggest that his conclusion follows from his failure to correctly read one of the lines themselves. He thinks the text “plainly says that Jesus was baptizing and making disciples.” But it doesn’t. The text (without the parenthetical insertion) does not necessarily affirm that Jesus baptized anybody. The statement that he did is embedded within no fewer than two noun clauses. When we apply transformational syntax, an analysis of the sentence is fairly straightforward. The analysis applies to both the English and the Greek texts, the noun clause marker οτι standing before each of the two noun clauses in the Greek:

Jesus left Judea and headed for Galilee when he learned a bit of news (content of NOUN CLAUSE 1).

What he learned was that the Pharisees had heard a bit of news (content of NOUN CLAUSE 2).

What the Pharisees had heard was that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.

In other words, the noun clause that “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John” is the content of a report which Jesus learned that the Pharisees had received. It is incorrectly interpreted as something John himself was stating. In such a report, one might reasonably expect the explicit details of who was actually doing the wet work to be omitted. If it was true that the disciples were actually doing the baptizing, this detail was not relevant to the Pharisee’s concern. Their concern was that there appeared to be a new problem in Judea, and this new problem was gaining more of a following than the old problem. Details regarding the division of labour in this new movement (or was it a new direction for the old movement?) were not vital to their perception of this new problem. So the report did not specify who was actually doing the baptizing. John adds the parenthetical clarification to an imprecise report.

I think the way John’s gospel records both the report and the correction of factual detail is the most natural way for him to articulate this development: Jesus became aware that the Pharisees had heard about his ministry: There is another unlicensed preacher in Judea and his activity is now producing even more baptized “converts” than previous one. No part of the text should be read as John’s assertion that Jesus himself was doing the baptizing.

But once again for the sake of argument, even if Jesus was both preaching and baptizing just like John, there was no need to cover it up by adding the qualifier in question. In John’s gospel, John the Baptizer was no threat to the proposition that Jesus was the one and only Messiah, especially at the time of writing when John the Baptist’s early demise was known to all. To assert a cover-up is based more on conjectural conspiracy theory than on hard historical, literary or textual evidence. Or it is outright circular.

And finally as an aside, if the baptizing was actually being done inside the cave that Dr. Tabor discovered as he suggests (150-152), it is almost certain that Jesus was not both preaching to the crowds and baptizing them. I would think it extremely difficult to preach to crowds from inside that cave. But then I admit that I haven’t been in the cave. Perhaps it is larger than I imagine it to be.


The Origins of the Messianic Movement and the Role of James

Dr. Tabor does a good job of describing the horror and humiliation of Roman crucifixion in Jesus’ day. He then proposes “three indisputable facts” (228):

1. Jesus was truly dead.
2. He was hastily and temporarily buried in an unknown tomb.
3. The movement Jesus began did not end with his death but revived and found new life under the leadership of Jesus’ brother James.

I agree that the first and second facts are indisputable: Jesus really died, was hastily buried, and that burial turned out to be of a temporary nature. The third fact, however, is worded in such a way that it practically begs to be disputed. First, Dr. Tabor seems to have forgotten that John the Baptizer – not Jesus – actually began the movement (according to his theory), but I’ll mercifully spare you my speculation on what this slip might imply. The indisputable fact is that the movement found new life. Dr. Tabor’s understanding of James’ leadership role in this is highly questionable, in my opinion. But let’s start with the indisputable part of this third fact and explore the dynamics that might reasonably explain why the movement in fact did find new life. I’ve read James’s epistle. I’m not convinced that he embodied that dynamic.

The traditional Christian explanation of the new life in the messianic movement is the resurrection of the Messiah himself. But of course that won’t do. Dr. Tabor’s historical argument against it goes something like this: Mark, the earliest gospel source, ended his story with the empty tomb. Period (230). This tells us that the subsequent appearances reported in the other gospels were not considered necessary to the gospel story as late as A.D. 70 when Mark was written (231). The earliest account of the “appearances” comes from Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, but Paul seems to have meant some sort of “spiritual” resurrection and used the term “appeared” in a figurative way. Matthew, Luke and John seem to have taken the appearances more literally (Jesus was physically raised from the dead), but these accounts were written 40 to 70 years after the alleged fact by guys who were not eyewitnesses. However, by that time Paul’s version had triumphed (232-3). It is unclear at this point what “Paul’s version” is since Dr. Tabor has already argued that Paul’s view of Jesus’ resurrection is different from that reported in the gospels. So where did John, Matthew and especially Luke, Paul’s apologist, get their physical resurrection accounts? It isn’t clear (at least to me) from Dr. Tabor’s explanation.

The resurrection appearances in Luke and John are dismissed and Matthew’s is accepted as closest to the short ending of Mark, and thus more credible. In both Mark and Matthew someone at the empty tomb instructs the women to send the apostles to Galilee, where Jesus will meet up with them. Matthew records what happened in Galilee when he finally “appeared” to them. Once again, Dr. Tabor views whatever happened in Galilee as some sort of subjective, spiritual experience on the part of the apostles. It had to be nothing more than that since Jesus’ body was still buried somewhere, either in Jerusalem or perhaps in Galilee.

Perhaps it was in Galilee that the followers of Jesus found the renewal of their faith that the Kingdom of God was indeed at hand … Is it possible that they might have been visiting Jesus’ grave in Galilee and Matthew’s story is a modified theological recasting of an older tradition that ties the followers of Jesus to a “mountain” in Galilee where they experienced the presence of Jesus? (238)

I would concede that this scenario is possible. But is it likely? For it to be even remotely likely, I would think the following conditions must also be true: (1) a dead body in this instance did not come back to life; (2) Jesus’ body was carried to Galilee and buried there; (3) the disciples were, as a group, susceptible to mystical experiences, (4) and there was no messianic movement to revitalize. If any one of these conditions is not the case, then I would say Dr. Tabor’s explanation isn’t at all likely. I would like to focus on the last condition: Whatever happened in Galilee must explain what happened afterwards.

Although the followers of Jesus reshaped themselves under the new leadership of James, and eventually returned to Jerusalem, there might well have been a period in which they retreated to Galilee in order to sort things out, and that is just what these gospel traditions appear to reflect. If that was the case then the more idealized account of the Jesus movement in the early chapters of the book of Acts is Luke’s attempt to recast things in a more triumphant way. (240)

There’s a part of me that appreciates Dr. Tabor’s euphemism that gives Luke the benefit of the doubt for “good faith.” But most of me prefers ruthless honesty: If Luke made up what he wrote, then he didn’t simply “recast things in a more triumphant way.” He lied. He bore bald-faced false witness about the most important issue in history and foisted it on an unsuspecting Theophilus and all the rest of us. If this is the case, then both Jesus and Paul may have simply been deranged, but Luke told his tales with deliberation and premeditation. I’m not sure, however, the jury is in on the perjury case against Luke. Before we make him out to be a liar, let’s at least acknowledge the explanatory power of his account of Christian origins.

The death of Jesus had to have been every bit as devastating to the group as the death of John the Baptizer had been the previous year. How could it be that the Two Messiahs were both dead? (240)

Exactly. These guys were first-century Jews in their own land occupied and ruled by a hated enemy. They were looking for a Messiah who was up to the task of doing what obviously needed to be done. They were looking for the kind of Messiah they had hoped Jesus was. If even one Messiah had been horribly and shamefully put to death at the hands of those over whom he was supposed to have triumphed (let alone two Messiahs), then these Jews would almost certainly be reevaluating the fellow’s messianic qualifications. Other “messianic movements” fizzled as soon as their messianic aspirant had been dispatched. A dead Messiah is by definition no Messiah.

The TJD explanation perhaps seems plausible on the surface, but I believe it glosses over the enormity of the historical problem. I have a lot questions about the post-crucifixion scenario proposed in TJD.

(1) After the crucifixion, the disciples were discouraged, confused and frightened. Whatever mystical graveside experience (or whatever happened in Galilee) had to be shared by the group as a whole and had to somehow turn them around at least 180 degrees. Dr. Tabor more than once notes their pathetic state after their hero and their hope had been nailed to a tree. But after capturing their psychological state, he seems at a loss to explain it. In the Gospel narratives the resurrection clearly accounts for their new outlook and subsequent actions. It also explains how the apostles knew what their mission and message was (Luke 24: 44-48). But if Jesus did not come back from the dead to provide this direction, which of the motley band of Galileans had the vision to come up with both an agenda and proclamation package?

(2) And remember, whatever they came up with had to be sufficient to capture, persuade and inspire a popular imagination that had just recently witnessed (or heard about) what the Romans had done to their favorite messianic candidate. For a while they were hopeful, even expectant, but this hopeful expectation was ruthlessly and brutally squashed, just like so many other messianic pretenders. Indeed, recent events clearly demonstrated that this Nazarene lacked the right stuff. And whatever the apostles had to say, it had to be good enough to entice their audiences to defy the Jewish authorities (and all that implied about their synagogue membership and social status), not to mention the Romans.

So here are my questions: On what basis could the Galilean group appeal to the Jerusalem crowds? TJD proposes that the only thing that changed was the leadership. Same program, but it was under new management. Under James’s leadership they continued proclaiming the same thing John and Jesus preached: the coming kingdom and repentance unto the mindset and behavior characterized in the Sermon on the Mount. But this is precisely what I cannot understand. On what basis could they claim that the kingdom of God was any nearer than before John got his head handed to him? On what basis did Jesus’ mangled corpse make him any more qualified to inherit the thrown than any other descendant of David? It seems to me that inquiring Jewish minds would have wanted to know.

And I’m also doubtful whether Jesus’ kingdom ethics of turning the other cheek, loving one’s enemy, praying for one’s persecutors, selling one’s possessions, taking up one’s cross and following him would have been the sort of thing the populace would have wanted to hear following his crucifixion, let alone sufficiently stirring to create a mass movement to crown James king.

And what leadership secrets did James have that the charismatic John and Jesus didn’t have? Yes, he was the brother of Jesus, but Jesus turned down the crown and now his credentials to wear it were buried along with him. And as important as it was, I don’t see how the fact that James too was a descendant of David was something that automatically made him a messianic contender, let alone seating him on the thrown of David. As admirable as it was, I don’t see how the notion that he was “holy from his mother’s womb” equipped him in the people’s eyes to be sort of leader that would solve the Roman problem.

In contrast, read Acts 2. Notice the events leading up to Peter’s proclamation, and then read what he said to the crowd. Their response makes sense. It is at least plausible. One thing is certain: Anything less than that makes no sense at all, at least to me. If it didn’t happen the way Luke said it happened, then I don’t see the plausibility of any Jesus Dynasty. And I really can’t see how a graveside experience, the Sermon on the Mount, and a new leader explain the resurrection of the messianic movement in Jerusalem shortly after its death on a Roman cross.

(3) Finally, whatever the Galileans had to say must provide a plausible explanation for the transformation of Saul into Paul. Saul was a conservative Pharisee, and more zealous at it than most. He was one of the same crowd that delivered Jesus up to be killed. He watched with appreciative approval as Stephen was bashed to death with rocks. And he had taken the trouble to obtain warrants to track down in hot pursuit fleeing Christians all the way to Damascus. Whatever the messianic movement had to say after the crucifixion has to explain what stopped Saul in his tracks. It has to explain Saul’s forsaking his holy quest, forsaking his highly esteemed station in life, and then aligning himself with the very heretical scourge he had previously been committed to wiping out. But that’s not all. It also has to explain his radical new views of the Messiah, of the Kingdom of God, of Israel, of the Temple, of resurrection, and of the Law. Whether you think he embellished the message or not, how did the mind of a Jerusalem-trained, card-carrying Shammite Pharisee ever conceive such notions?

Paul explains it many times, both in the book of Acts and his letters. I admit it seems improbable. I concede that resurrection is hard to believe. I have my moments of skepticism when I suspect that dead men don’t get up and walk around. Ever. I realize that the Damascus road event seems unlikely. But Dr.Tabor believes that Paul was sincere in his beliefs. I agree. He seems as “sincere” after his conversion as he was before it. So what turned Paul around and recreated him from the inside out?

I am an advocate of scientific method and “scientific knowledge” to a degree that some Christians would consider me (to some extent) unfaithful. But the possibility of the resurrection is not a scientific issue. It is a metaphysical issue. Science cannot tell us whether resurrection from the dead is possible … ever. And we don’t need science to tell us that resurrection from the dead is unlikely. I’m convinced that those in Jesus’ day also shared this “view of reality.” They lacked our “scientific world view,” but they were savvy enough to know that resurrection from the dead was a claim worthy of their skepticism. But the observation that dead men do not come back to life does not mean that it has never happened. And the question as to whether in any given instance it actually did happen has nothing to do with science. The possibility of resurrection is a philosophical issue, and if you believe in some kind of God, it is also a theological issue. But the question of whether the resurrection of Jesus actually happened is a historical issue. So I don’t find appeals to a “scientific view of reality” a valid argument that Jesus was not raised from the dead. I am holding out for a historical explanation, one that is more plausible than Luke and Paul’s accounts. I have serious questions as to whether TJD provides even a plausible historical explanation, let alone one that is supported by a preponderance of evidence.

(To be continued)

[1] James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006).
[2] “Did Jesus Found a Dynasty?” in four parts, April 13, 14, 15 & 16, 2006. (http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html)
[3] http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/Default.aspx?tabid=27&ArticleID=1924
[4] Dr. Tabor responded to Witherington’s review on his own Jesus Dynasty Blog (Dismantling The Jesus Dynasty, February 14, 2007) and to Poirier’s review just below the review itself (http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/Default.aspx?tabid=27&ArticleID=1924)
[5] Of course I don’t know any of this. It’s all conjecture, but it makes sense, and it fits my preference for our present text for Malachi. And it sort of made me feel like a modern Bible critic.
[6] Howard, George. The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press; Louvain: Peeters, 1988.
[7] “A Hebrew Gospel of Matthew” (http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/shemtobweb.html)
[8] “Some Observations on a Recent Edition of and Introduction to Shem-Tob's "Hebrew Matthew” by Petersen. (http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html)
[9] http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol04/Howard1999-x.html
[10] Lewis, C. S. Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism. Christian Reflections. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967. p. 136