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)Dr. Tabor sees each of the four gospel writers, to varying degrees, attempting to downplay John’s role in the baptism of Jesus:
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)
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 Toledoth 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 Toledoth 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
No comments:
Post a Comment