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.