Holy Week brings out the weird like no other week of the year. All that death and resurrection talk makes agnostics a little nervous in their not-knowingness, I guess. Or it might just be the phase of the moon.
Not to be outdone by National Geographic and its super-secret special on the “hidden” Gospel of Judas, ABC “News” has been trumpeting the work of Dr. James Tabor and his new book The Jesus Dynasty. Dr. Tabor is chairman of the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. (“Religious studies” is academic shorthand for “we believe nothing and therefore would have you believe anything.”)
And if that isn’t enough entertainment for one week, Michael Baigent, the recycler of old, failed ideas (Holy Blood, Holy Grail) who failed to cash in on his plagiarism lawsuit against Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown but got some great press nonetheless, is at it again with his new book about nothing new called The Jesus Papers.
Of course, all this publicity coincides with the start of Holy Week in the West. These guys ought to be thankful that Christianity actually is a religion of peace. If a handful of anti-Islamic cartoons set off riots and death threats, imagine what this kind of stuff would do in the Muslim world. Does the name Salman Rushdie ring a bell?
Dr. Tabor spends his summer vacations digging in the dirt around Jerusalem. He claims to have stumbled upon what he describes as the tomb of Jesus’ family, or as he tantalizingly calls it, “The Tomb of the Shroud.” “Shroud” here refers to a piece of burial cloth found in one of the caves inside this labyrinthine maze of tombs. Inscriptions on the walls bear the names of Miriam and Salome. Like the James bones box of last year, this could be a significant find. The trouble is, the alleged tomb of Jesus’ family had already been ransacked by robbers before Tabor ever set shovel to dirt. Can you say “tainted evidence”?
Guided by, you guessed it, gnostic writings of the 2nd and 3rd centuries*, Tabor is in hot pursuit of the “real” gospel story, the “historic” Jesus which the big, bad, greedy, power hungry church suppressed for its own gain. We’ve been down this dusty dead end before, but professional unbelievers these days can’t seem to resist the “Dan Brown Effect” - making oodles of money and even surviving a plagiarism lawsuit while pandering their conspiratorial snake oil to the ignorant masses.
[* This is an error. Dr. Tabor draws his amazing conclusions by reading between the lines of the NT Gospel accounts. I apologize for this sentence.]
Dr. Tabor’s unsubstantiated theory about the life of Jesus includes such tidbits as:
* Jesus’ biological father was a young Roman soldier named Pantera (not Panera, that’s a bread bakery out of St. Louis)
* Jesus and John the Baptizer were “dual messiahs;” John the priestly messiah descended from Aaron, and Jesus the royal messiah descended from David.
* Jesus did not rise from the dead but his body was moved overnight by the disciples to another place for permanent burial
* James, the half-brother of Jesus, was the royal successor to Jesus
* the apostle Paul distorted the message of Jesus, John, and James for his own purposes (Paul is always the bad guy in these circles)
According to Tabor's publisher, “James Tabor has studied the earliest surviving documents of Christianity for more than thirty years and has participated in important archeological excavations in Israel.” You have to wonder exactly what he’s been reading. The earliest surviving documents of Christianity are the documents of the New Testament, and they paint a considerably different picture than Dr. Tabor’s fevered theories.
The trouble with all this gnostic nonsense is that it is an endless chasing after the wind. It’s like a murder trial in which the prosecution has presented its evidence, called reliable witnesses, and then at the last minute the defense says, “We know who the real killer is” and constructs some wild conspiracy involving the George Bush, the Pope, the CIA, FBI, KGB, NBC, ABC, CBS, and ESPN all on the testimony of a couple of paid informants who had no material connection to the crime. Now try and prove it isn’t so.
Instead of relying on the first-century eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ words and works, Tabor* Brown and others rely on the writings of 2nd and 3rd century gnostics with a personal interest in undermining orthodox Christianity, and then construct elaborate myths, all the while calling the testimony of the first century church a “myth.” Who exactly are the myth makers here - the Christian church or the gnostics, ancient and modern?
[*Note - Dr. Tabor does not rely on 2nd and 3rd century gnostic writings, though he does cite the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Peter, and the Gospel of the Hebrews. His primary sources are the first century documents of the new testament. Dr. Tabor's scholarship should not be confused with Dan Brown's fiction.]
In fact, all that gnostic literature that these guys drool over - the Gospels of Thomas, Judas, Bob, Ed, Moe, Larry, and Curly - were all written with the express purpose of undermining the Christian gospel of the first century. These weren’t alternative perspective on Jesus, as Tabor*, et al, would have you believe, these were alternative religions, clever syncretisms of philosophy and religious esoterica designed to bedazzle the spiritually dull world with something spicier than a dead and risen Jew. The historic value of these documents is to show how the first century history was intentionally distorted by groups who wanted to present a different gospel. Does it surprise you that they conflict with the new testament witness? Does it amaze you that the early Christians sniffed this stuff out as bull manure and did not receive it as authentic?
[* see above note]
Let’s look at some of Dr. Tabor’s claims. The story of Pantera, the Roman soldier who allegedly raped Mary, traces back to none other than Celsus, a 2nd century heretic and all around pain in the tuckus who plagued the Christian catechist Origen. Celsus had a personal axe to grind against Christianity, whose core teaching of Jesus as the incarnate Son of God hinges on the virginity of Mary as prima facia evidence for the Incarnation. Few scholars, short of Tabor, take this notion seriously today. (“Scholars,” by the way, means “people who write obscure books and articles with lots of footnotes.”)
Let’s face it. The report of Matthew and Luke of a virgin conceiving a son was no more plausible in the first century than it is today. Do guys like Tabor honestly believe that people were so stupid back in the first century as to believe without raising so much as a suspicious eyebrow a story about an angel appearing to an engaged teenager who told her that she was going to bear the Son of God? Matthew even reminds us that Joseph initially didn’t believe a word of it. Who in their right minds would?
A lot of this pop “scholarship” is nothing more cultural elitism coupled with good old-fashioned hucksterism. The idea that a bunch of 1st century types from Galilee would believe anything, including myths about virgin births and resurrections smacks of snobbery. (Hey, we’re the ones who believe in UFOs!) The 1st century folks were not stupid people. They spoke at least three languages. They were literate (this was before the days of mandatory government testing). They didn’t have television or computers or the internet, nor did they know of such things as American Idol. “Survivor” to them meant actually surviving for another day, not not getting voted off the island. Their brains actually worked. They could do things without having to plug something in first. They were shrewd judges of character and actually knew their neighbors.
Do you think for a New York second that if the apostles and the early church wanted to market a new religion to the Greco-Roman world that they would base their claim on a pregnant virgin and a crucified messiah who rises miraculously from the dead?
The 1st century evangelists (that’s Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John for all you “biblical scholars” from Berkeley) all anticipate the “someone took the body” explanation for the empty tomb of Jesus. Matthew reports that the tomb was specially sealed with guards posted, who were later bribed and given the “they stole the body” explanation for the government hearings. Business as usual when it comes to government cover ups. Remember Ollie North?
The disciples were scared out of their collective wits, locked up in a room “for fear of the Jews.” Think about it. A religious mob in cahoots with the Roman government just crucified their rabbi. Do you honestly think these same guys are going to go running to the tomb of Jesus at midnight, overpower a couple of Roman guards, break the imperial seal, roll the stone, move the body to another location, and then run around town claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead? Do you think that Peter the wimp became Peter the Pentecost preacher on the basis of a deception?
These new testament documents were written by men who had nothing to gain and everything to lose - family, reputation, jobs, even their lives. Most went to a martyr’s death refusing to recant their testimony to the resurrection. Start pulling the toenails out of someone who claims to have seen a UFO or Elvis risen from the dead and see how long their story holds up.
What about Tabor’s “double messiah” idea? The Jews believed lots of things about the messiah. When openly asked whether he was the messiah, John denied it (John 1). John even harbored doubts that Jesus was the messiah they were looking for. Jesus’ disciples were ready to take up arms. The shouts of Hosanna! on Palm Sunday were likely an anticipation to the start of a revolt, which didn’t end up quite the way folks thought it would. Even as Jesus was about to ascend to glory, His disciples were still acting as though they just read a copy of “Left Behind.” The book of Acts notes that there were still disciples of John even after Jesus’ ascension (Acts 18). A John cult continued well into the second century. But there is not a shred of evidence that John had any messianic ambitions of his own, and Jesus is quite clear that His messianic kingdom is “not of this world.”
What Tabor and his ilk are doing is not the “recovery” of history, as they claim, but the revision of it. Revisionism is the AIDS virus of the history department. It takes over the intellect and destroys the immune system so that every piece of evidence is forced to fit one’s preconceived paradigm - whether gnostic, gay, feminist, you name it. Read between the lines, take the most suspicious reading possible, make outlandish claims, and then dare the world to “say it isn’t so.” And if it can put a dent in the whole armor of God, all the better. Besides, Christians aren’t known for blowing things up in the name of the Prince of Peace.
Michael Baigent, the guy who brought us Holy Blood, Holy Grail, from whom Dan Brown cribbed in his Da Vinci Code (soon to be released as a movie directed by Opie), is reviving the old “swoon theory,” that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross, but sort of passed out in a narcotic haze. I’m not making this up. You have to wonder what narcotics Baigent has been imbibing lately. He openly welcomes historic revisionism as a “refreshing alternative to centuries during which the Christian church tightly controlled information to its followers so that the religious Jesus was advanced and the historical Jesus submerged.”
That’s the old “Jesus of history” vs the “Christ of faith” that ran around the 19th century courtesy of Albert Schweitzer. Is it any wonder that “religious studies” at Chapman University in Orange are taught at the Albert Schweitzer Institute. Old Al would be pleased to know that there are people still running around looking for any “historical” Jesus other than the historical Jesus.
Anti-Catholicism is the real driving force behind a lot of this pulp fiction, Dan Brown's included. Baigent says Vatican conservatives are no longer confident they have a grip on things and feel threatened. "Any church that's worried about ideas is a church that's lost its way to spirituality."
I would suggest that any church that isn’t worried about ideas has lost its collective mind, not to mention its reason to exist.
As for Baigent’s own personal faith, he confesses: "I believe in an all-embracing divinity of which we are all a part and which can be experienced directly by every man and woman who wishes to. I don't like the word God because it's a restrictive male noun and I think it unduly restricts what to me is an extraordinary spiritual concept."
A 2nd century gnostic or a 21st century Buddhist couldn’t have said it better. I appreciate how “God” is now a restrictive male noun. ("Male" is code language for an oppressive and abusive human being with a Y chromosome.) You have to get some male-bashing in to boost sales with the feminist crowd. Baigent would love the new ELCA hymnal, which disposed of "God" in its psalter.
Let’s face it. These guys hate Christians; they hate Christianity; they hate the church, (especially the Roman Catholic Church, which can be pretty easy to hate at times), and will stop at nothing to undermine the credibility of the New Testament documents, so long as there is a steady market. When that dries up, they'll probably write cook books. These are not objective historical researchers but revisionist frauds with an axe to grind, working under the guise of "academia" to bamboozle woefully ignorant consumers for profit.
Not to worry. Christianity survived over two centuries of gnostic idiocy in the early centuries, and it will survive gnosticim’s weak-eyed offspring today. The key for the Christian is not to hunker in with blind, ignorant faith, but to ask the hard questions and weigh the evidence carefully. Which is the more reliable: The first century, eye-witness accounts from men who literally went to their death proclaiming Jesus risen from the dead, or second and third century documents written by people who were antagonistic to the faith once delivered to the saints? Do you trust the memoirs of the people who fought the Revolutionary War, or 21st century revisionists who are British sympathizers? Let the jury decide.
All this Holy Week weirdness demonstrates how the bodily resurrection of Jesus as an historic event witnessed by over 500 eyewitnesses who had nothing to gain and everything to lose is the very hub of the Christian faith and apologetic. “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied.” (1 Cor. 15:17-19)
Those who wish to destroy Christianity recognize that they must chisel away at the foundation - the incarnation, death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus. Good morals, principles for purpose-driven living, and happy, clappy uplift you can get most anywhere. But a death and resurrection that brings forgiveness, life, and salvation can be had only in the historic Jesus of the new testament, whose Baptism, Word, Body and Blood are there in that unique gathering of believers called the "church," the Body of Christ, for the world's life and salvation.
The orthodox canon gives us a Christ who is convincing as a character in a way that this Gnostic one is not: angry and impatient and ethically engaged, easily exasperated at the limitations and nagging of his dim disciples and dimmer family relations, brilliantly concrete in his parables and human in his pain. Whether one agrees with Jefferson that this man lived, taught, and died, or with St. Paul that he lived and died and was born again, it is hard not to prefer him to the Jesus of the new Gospel, with his stage laughter and significant winks and coded messages.
As an LCMS pastor in Charlotte, NC (unfortunate home of Tabor) thank you for the superb article. Our newspapers and media are especially inundated down here by this man because he the local "expert". Many of my parishoners bring in newspaper articles by him saying "What is this?" and you've been a good help in exposing him as a lion seeking whom he can do devour from our Lord. If you want to see religous pluralism at its finest come to Charlotte where you have the likes of Tabor, Billy Graham's new headquarters and the old Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker complex (which is being resurrected by a new prophet http://him.morningstarministries.org) all in the same city. Thanks again!
Posted On: April 11th, 2006 at 5:56pm by john pawlitz
Rev. Cwirla, thanks, your panoramic (though not in a bone-crunching or in a kaleidescopic way) thoughts are like a devotion, and did much to enrich my holy week.
One thing in particular that I appreciated was how funny it is that in an age when our knowledge of classical studies is decreasing, it is funny to hear more and more arguments based on the primitive acumen of the 1st century AD. It is almost as if authors are saying "we do not know very much about them and can scarcely cite a common understanding of their thoughts, [because even educated men are ignorant of these] therefore they knew very little, because when we study their thought, we understand little." In my misrepresentation (giving them too much credit) it is clear that they are arguing about what they do not understand. As you bring it out, it is clear that they are arguing on the basis of the degree of madness in the classical world and, indeed, suggesting it was madder than our age.
This is an important concept, and it is fundamental to understanding why so many wicked opinions about Christ might be argued. Somehow the notion that the classical age was foolish seems Victorian to me, because the romantic period delighted so much in greek and roman myths. So I think it all boils down to an idiotic and mistaken question of how proper the Scriptures are?
These attempts to defame and bring into ill repute the Scriptures are materially ridiculous, but sensationalist and aimed at the humor rather than spirit of Scripture. But this all speaks, in general, to the baseness the American (and perhaps foreign) concept of religion as a mode of becoming acceptable publicly. I think that agrees with your determination that such authors more readily take shots at Roman Catholicism, because Rome had the most infelicitously political church.
Someone referred me to your site and I carefully read your review of/reference to my book. I think you might have written this evaluation without reading or even seeing the book, as I can not recognize little you describe--and I wrote the book, The Jesus Dynasty. There is too much here to respond to and I am reminded of Solomon's charge that "he who answers a matter before he hears it is a fool," but I think the book will stand and prove itself as a sober, reflective, respectful, and learned contribution to our understanding of the historical Jesus. This book was outlined over ten years ago and it, for me, is the culmination of a serious 35 year career. It has nothing to do with Baigent or Brown, as readers will quickly learn (see review under books at Salon.com) BTW, almost ALL my sources are the 1st century N.T. documnents--they to me are first and primary...Anyway, best wishes in your studies and I hope you will take a peek at the actual book rather than reflect the inaccurate slander circulating about...or better yet, even read it and give it a serious hearing...
Someone referred me to your site and I carefully read your review of/reference to my book. I think you might have written this evaluation without reading or even seeing the book, as I can recognize little you describe--and I wrote the book, The Jesus Dynasty. There is too much here to which one could respond and I am reminded of Solomon's charge that "he who answers a matter before he hears it is a fool," but I think the book will stand and prove itself as a sober, reflective, respectful, and learned contribution to our understanding of the historical Jesus. This book was outlined over ten years ago and it, for me, is the culmination of a serious 35 year career. It has nothing to do with Baigent or Brown, as readers will quickly learn (see review under books at Salon.com) BTW, almost ALL my sources are the 1st century N.T. documnents--they to me are first and primary...Anyway, best wishes in your studies and I hope you will take a peek at the actual book rather than reflect the inaccurate slander circulating about...or better yet, even read it and give it a serious hearing...
Posted On: April 14th, 2006 at 12:55pm by dtp[ + ]
Bill,
WHile Dr. Tabor may deny what you wrote, I am a pretty good witness as to that which is taught at Chapman. MY wife was a dual major there, while I went to a Bible College on the other side of the county.
She had a class with Pr. Francis - Introduction to the New Testament - her text? That incredibly conservative commentary on the New Testament by Issac Asimov!
Later, I managed the bookstore's textbook department. I was the person who had to hunt down and find the odd texts that were used by Dr. Meyer, Dr. Harran, and others. I was also invited to be part of the Christian Club on campus. There were two chaplains there at the time, a Catholic Nun who was assigned to start a Newman Club, and the Disciples Chaplain. The nun and I quickly got reputations for being fundementalists - she because she refused to celebrate the Lord's Supper at devotions, me, because, well I spoke up when people tried to deny what scripture said.
There were some folk that took the Bible Seriously at the College/University, but they were in the Social Science and Psychology departmentsm, and the head of the Admissions department.
Since I spent ten years writing this book it doesn't make sense that I try to present the evidence I carefully discuss in e-mails...I appreciate your query and your interest but right now I don't have time to go over it. I think we all know that how we are quoted, either orally or in print, more often than not, goes astray from what we said/wrote. All of those topics ticked off (I think they came from an innacurate review in the Charlotte Observer) do not represent accurate formulations of what I say, and in the book when I survey an idea I don't necessarily agree with it, but feel obligated to present the best evidence. Still, I don't want to mislead you here, I am not an evangelical Christian and my methods are historical. I won't be able to come back here but perhaps those who really want to know what I say or don't way will just simply examine the source rather than speak from rumor and report...Best, James Tabor
Posted On: April 14th, 2006 at 1:53pm by revcwirla
Someone referred me to your site and I carefully read your review of/reference to my book. I think you might have written this evaluation without reading or even seeing the book, as I can recognize little you describe--and I wrote the book, The Jesus Dynasty.
James Tabor
We don't often get celebrities over here a little ol' Blogosphere. First of all, let me say that I've got a borrowed copy of the book in question in my hot little hand (courtesy of a friend of mine).
I didn't intend to lump Dr. Tabor with the likes of Baigent and Brown. All they have in common is killer timing on the part of their publicity agents. Can't beat Holy Week to scandalize the faithful.
In honor of Dr. Tabor's attention, we will do our own chapter by chapter summary and review of The Jesus Dynasty right here at Blogosphere.
But that will have to wait for Holy Week to run its course, however. We prefer to stick with the traditional story in Holy Week, you understand.
Posted On: April 14th, 2006 at 6:11pm by revcwirla
As an appetizer (of sorts, I hope I don't spoil your Easter Feast), I offer some quotations from "The Jesus Dynasty" (dedicated to no less than Albert Schweitzer "In whose shadow we all stand"). (Shadow is the apt metaphor, I might add.) Lest you think I'm making this stuff up without having book in hand.
All quotations are from "The Jesus Dynasty - The Hidden History of Jesus, His royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity" by James D. Tabor (Simon & Schuster, 2006):
"I am convinced that our best evidence indicates that the Joseph who married the pregnant Mary was not the father of Jesus. Jesus' father remains unknown but possibly was named Pantera, and if so, was quite possibly a Roman soldier. The gravestone in Germany, whether that of Jesus' father or not, like the ossuaries and the tombs in Jerusalem we have studied, reminds us that these names associated with Jesus' family are grounded in the material evidence that archaeology continues to uncover. These were real human beings who lived and died in a past that is becoming increasingly accessible to us." (p. 72)
"Jesus had a human father and a human mother. it is most likely that Mary, his mother, while set to marry an older man Joseph by family arrangement, became pregnant by another man before the wedding. Mary eventually bore six other children, four boys and two girls, whether by Joseph or by his brother Clophas." (p. 308)
"John the Baptizer, not Jesus, was the initiator of the Messianic Movement that became Christianity. Jesus valued his kinsman John as highly as anyone could value another - as a Prophet and Teacher, and inaugurator of the Kingdom of God. Jesus joined the movement John had begun, being baptized by John, and working with him to advance the Messianic Movement. John and Jesus filled expectations of the coming Two Messiahs current in their time - one as preistly descendant of Aaron, the other as royal descendant of David." (pp. 308-9)
"The message that Paul began to preach in the 40's and 50's AD, as Paul himself so adamantly insisted, was in no way dependent upon, nor derived from, the original group of Jesus' apostles in Jerusalem led by James. It was based upon his own visionary experiences of a heavenly Christ. It was Paul's message that became the foundation of Christian theological orthodoxy. In contrast, the message of James and the original Jerusalem apostles was not derived from the revelations that Paul claimed to receive, but was based on what the group had been taught directly from John the Baptizer and Jesus during their lifetimes.
"Accordingly, James and his successors provide us our best historical link to Jesus and his original teachings. That we find no trace of Paul's gosepl, nor of Pauline theology, in the Q source, or in the letter of James, or in the Didache, should not surprise us. James and his successors represent the original version of Christianity, linked more directly to the historical Jesus, that has every claim of authenticity. And that is what the Jesus dynasty represents. It is more than an interesting alternative twist on Christian history that allows us to fill in a missing minor piece of the story. And understanding of the Jesus dynasty opens teh way for us to recover an origina Chirstianity and its potent message for our own times" (p. 311)
"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. So Jesus had a human father, whether we can identify him or not. 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." (p. 233-234)
"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? Was the Kingdom of God truly near? The promise of sitting on thrones and ruling over all Israel must have begun to appear quite remote. 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." (p. 240)
Posted On: April 14th, 2006 at 7:23pm by revcwirla
This book was outlined over ten years ago and it, for me, is the culmination of a serious 35 year career. It has nothing to do with Baigent or Brown, as readers will quickly learn (see review under books at Salon.com)
I have edited the original post to more accurately reflect the contents of Dr. Tabor's book, "The Jesus Dynasty." He does not use 2nd century gnostic writing in preference to the 1st century documents of the new testament.
For the sake of clarity, and the historic record, I have left the errent passages in place with a prominent notation. I apologize for lumping Dr. Tabor's book in the same category as Baigent's or Brown's. Dr. Tabor's writing stands on its own. In deference to Dr. Tabor's gracious comment, I will be pleased to review his book on Blogosphere without the usual sarcastic edge that our readers have come to expect.
Posted On: April 14th, 2006 at 7:37pm by James Tabor
Dear Rev. Cwirla,
I don't think of myself as a celebrity but after this post I will leave this site to your care as I fear I have unnecessarily created a disturbance, and that on Easter weekend. My main point in writing was to say that the contents of the Jesus Dynasty are the results of decades of historical research, not some attempt to jump on a DaVinci Code bandwagon. I think the Brown/Baigent materials are wholly irresponsible and as shocking as my "conclusions" might sound in the face of orthodox Christianity, I do try to set them forth with argumentation based on good historical methods. It is clear that we will not agree in that our presuppositions are so opposite. I try to critically examine our surviving texts, including the N.T. documents, but I don't priviledge them as revelation. I take it that you do. Clearly never the twain shall meet. The difference is I don't feel inclined to denounce you as ignorant or cast slander upon you. If I did view the N.T. writings in such a way there would be no book to write, and no research to carry out. One would simply read the Gospels or Epistles and that would be it. For most academics, including the leading Catholic and Protestant scholars of whom I am aware, that more fundamentalist reading of these texts simply does not hold up to scrutiny.
I appreciate your quotations. In the book I set forth why I say what I say, with reference to all the surviving evidence. It could well be, for example, on the idea of the "Two Messiahs," that one might learn something. As you know priests were messiahs or "anointed ones" as well as kings, and even before kings, and the prophets do speak of two messiahs, one a priest and one a king, as in Zech 4 and 6 and other places. The Dead Sea Scrolls help us to fill some of this in, as do other texts of the time. So it is not so shocking, though I know at first it can come across that way. I don't mean that John the Baptizer was a Davidic messiah, of course...
Anyway, if you learn somethings of value from my work then I will be grateful. I have to follow my conscience and you yours, and I actually consider my conclusions, as different as they are, as a way of remembering Mary, Jesus, James, and John the Baptizer in a highly honorable way.
I can't resist saying, in closing, that if you learn more of Albert Schweitzer and his wonderfully gifted life of sacrifice you might find him to be more of a Christian than those who recite the creeds. I consider him one of the great human beings of the last century...
Posted On: April 14th, 2006 at 8:07pm by revcwirla
Dear Dr. Tabor
We thrive on disturbance over here at Blogosphere. Some even view Blogosphere as a minor disturbance, so we have something in common.
As I indicated in my email to you, and in my comment above, we'll have a good read of "The Jesus Dynasty" after we celebrate the bodily resurrection of Jesus the Messiah and will share our thoughts here at Blogosphere. Though certainly not a "scholar" by academic standards (though you and I are fellow Univ. of Chicago alums), I consider myself to be definitely catholic, orthodox, and evangelical (case sensitive in all three) and certainly not a "fundamentalist," which tends to be a politically-loaded term like "homophobe" and "racist" in the biblical studies department.
We certainly strive to remember Mary, James, and John in a highly honorable way. We even have feast days for them. We also worship Jesus as the Christ, the incarnate Son of God, and the Savior of the world, in whose death and resurrection we have forgiveness, life, and salvation.
That would be in accordance with the 1st century documents of the NT, whether or not one privileges them as revelation.
I mean, when the apologetics are already starting (i.e."I don't mean that John the Baptizer was a Davidic messiah, of course...") I have to wonder how many more such explanations will occur.
As to, "I actually consider my conclusions, as different as they are, as a way of remembering Mary, Jesus, James, and John the Baptizer in a highly honorable way."
I am trying to understand how treating the "davidic" Messiah as something far less than scripture prophesies him to be, is honoring him. THat would be like me addressing Dr. Tabor as a sophmore.
Hmmm perhaps 1 Cor 3:18 again proves it's value...
Yeah, I saw that piece in the LW. Kinda tame by Blogosphere standards. No, I didn't ghostwrite the piece. My form of sarcasm is far edgier and probably wouldn't be published by the Lutheran Witness.
As soon as I dig myself out from under things undone, I'm going to give my take of Tabor's book, having had a nice slow read of it. (Unbeknownst to many, I'm a very slow reader. I vastly prefer working with power tools - the noisier, the better.) Believe it or not, there are parts of the book I actually appreciated. On the whole, "The Jesus Dynasty" is kind of an Albert Schweitzer meets Indiana Jones at the Jesus Seminar.
.jpg)
