The Incredible Jesus Dynasty

I mentioned last week that James D. Tabor has a good blog to visit and catch up on some of the more interesting aspects of the issues concerning the Historical Jesus. Dr. Tabor emailed me and thanked me and then asked if I have read his book. I hadn’t at that point. He said I ought to, so I went and got it, and have read it and must say………..wow! As with Blake Ostler’s book, Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God, (2006) as with Amy-Jill Levine’s book, The Misunderstood Jew, (2006) (whom I also talked to via email, which was delightful), as with Elaine Pagels book, Beyond Belief, (2005) as with Robert Eisenman’s book The New Testament Code: The Cup of the Lord, the Damascus Covenant, and the Blood of Christ, (2006, still reading, this is not a simple one night reader, as it is over 1,000 pages, I’m doing all I can……..you’re just going to have to wait til I finish it to tell you what I think, that’s all), Tabor’s book is a great read! This Christmas holidays has been good to me, as I have time to read all this wonderful stuff, so I am taking full advantage of it as I can.

After finishing his book, I had the feeling that Tabor has a sense of awe, of wonder, about Jesus, even though the supernatural, godly elements of his life are not what Tabor is writing about. Sounds odd doesn’t it… it’s not, read the book. It’s not likely a book to make the Christian bookstores best seller lists, but then again neither will any of the other books I mentioned, and they all ought to!

Writing about Jesus without the godly aspects? Isn’t that a little like reading Hamlet with Hamlet left out, as Hugh Nibley used to say?

In some ways, certainly. But, Dr. Tabor is not writing theology or faith, he is going on history. Not faith-promoting going on here, and neither (and this is an IMPORTANT point….) faith demoting. Tabor is simply asking what can we know or postulate about Jesus as the man, the one who lived at a certain time and in a certain place and went here and there and did things. What can we know of this? Surprisingly, a lot more than I thought we could. And, surprisingly also, a lot less in many respects. That’s just the way it is in this particular subject of Historical Jesus research.

I don’t get a sense that because Tabor left out God in Jesus in order to study the man Jesus that this is trying to kill the Christian Jesus, or to kill the Jewish Jesus, or to try and destroy faith in the theological beliefs we Christians and Mormons have in Jesus. Tabor, I believe, has a sense of awe about it all, he visit’s the places he writes about, he ponders, and writes with care, and yet rigor, without carrying a theological club around to beat everyone with. That said, some of the archaeological materials and ideas coupled with history positively took my breath away. By writing about this, I am sure I will expose my own naivete, and if so, so be it. I can continue learning and getting more sophisticated as I go I suppose. I am rather like good ole Buckminster Fuller who said in the Preface of his magnaminous volume, Synergetics, “Dare to be naïve.” Well, O.K., here goes…….. Hang on………

Tabor’s discussion on the geneologies of Jesus in the Gospels did not shock me because I already have read about the discrepancies in Jane Schaberg’s The Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives (1990). The very title of that one gets your eye doesn’t it? Well, her militancy and determination to fight is stronger shown in her newer book The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene (2003, a tough read, one in which I am slowly making my way through, but not near as enjoyable as say Dan Burstein’s Secrets of Mary Magdalene, and Secrets of the Code, the former of which also features Schaberg, among other scholars and their inputs. It’s a great way to put various differing views together of many scholars in their fields of expertise on such controversial issues), and is difficult to read compared to Esther A. De Boer, The Gospel of Mary, or Karen King’s analysis and translation of the Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle, (2003), and the Secret Revelation of John, (2006, another great translation with simpler notes is Stevan Davies, The Secret Book of John the Gnostic Gospel, 2005).

No, what took me by surprise in Tabor’s analysis was that Jesus has a legitimate claim to the throne of King David through his mother’s line. His idea that Levi’s and Mathew’s are conglomerated in that line is also interesting, i.e. priests……

His careful reading in the Gospels about how others perceived Jesus was also delightful to read as he builds his case up for the idea that the earthly father of Jesus was a Greek named Roman soldier Pantera. Now I was familiar with this Pantera from reading one of Hugh Nibley’s talks which originally was spoken on the radio, which later was printed as The World an the Prophets, where Nibley sarcastically tossed it out there for special effect against the value of the non-canonical writings concerning Jesus’ infancy. But that Tabor has put together far more sources, and legitimate research into the early Christians defense against detractors who fought against Jesus, who pulled out this Pantera character, and to see that Tabor has actually possibly found Pantera archaeologically, was nothing short of astonishing! I’ll let you read his book for yourself, but archaeologically, when folks say the Bible has been proven, I say uh-oh…..be careful here……be very, very careful. What is proven may not be what faith has taught.

The ideas that the ossuary boxes with all the inscribed names of characters who were with Jesus, all the names of his close followers have been found and dated to the 1^st century was also quite interesting. Mind you, Dr. Tabor is not pulling this out as proof, good scholars, such as Dr. Tabor do not deal in proof, even though Evangelical scholars wish they would, they can’t. Anyone who bothers to read a good scholarly book or two about historical research (I have a B.S. in history, so I was exposed to this innumerable times, I assure you), will quickly learn that history is interpreted, not ever proven.

Dr. Tabor’s analysis of the partnership of John the Baptist and Jesus was quite interesting as well. And Jesus, according to what we have written in the Gospels as we have them, certainly did defer to John!

I also thought it interesting that Dr. Tabor does not try and destroy Jesus through contending that all prophecies written about future events were written retroactively, that is after the fact in order to lie and make it look like a prophecy. I thought his interpretation that after the Baptist’s death, Jesus went back through the scriptures, and actually decided to do what the ancient prophets had said because he believed in the messianic mission of the Baptist and himself was a way of understanding that does not destroy faith. It doesn’t necessarily agree with Christian interpretation, but I don’t get the feeling that Dr. Tabor wrote this book with the idea that he is fighting Christianity and so therefore has to destroy faith by making this all look like its made up and false. I think Dr. Tabor does a good job of giving the benefit of the doubt to Jesus.

Finally, I think his discussion on the succession of Jesus being James, Jesus’ brother was quite well written. Far easier to understand than Eisenman’s materials, though far les scrutinizing and detailed nor nearly as rigorous. I had to ask myself though, am I missing out on something going on behind the scenes here in Biblical and Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship? Why no mention of Eisenman here at all in any form? Crimany he is the man on this James issue! Not to take away from Dr. Tabor, because it doesn’t, but its interesting now that Eisenman has another scholarly analysis which in many ways dovetails with his nicely…….

Based on the discussion of the Historical Jesus issues, we are now pretty well apprised that the Gospel writers were not writing history as it happened, but rather theology as they interpreted the events and were trying to convince others of their own faith. But that being said, neither then, nor now, can we prove a lot. The issue is never proof, it is analysis and interpretation, open to change pending further developments. That is the problem with the Historical Jesus issue, it will never have a final say so, nor a final proof. But then again, neither will the Christ of faith of religion, at least not from the earthly perspective.

Dr. Tabor’s book is bold in many ways, well written, a little less rigorous than I was hoping for, but overall an outstanding interpretation of Jesus without the miracles and Godly aspects of his life. That sounds so odd that this is even attempted, by Dr. Tabor did, and I would suggest reading his book and finding out for yourself how well he jives with other interpretations. That is, after all, all an historian/archaeologist can do.

Comments

[Bill Hamblin]

Tabor's resurrection of the Panthera legend is rather dubious. The earliest evidence we have for this claim is from Celsus, c. 180, a century after the latest book of the NT. It bears all the signs of post-hoc ridicule through word-play, since Panthera is an anagram for parthenos (“virgin”) in Greek by switching the N and R; that is, “Jesus is not the son of parthenos, but a Panthera.” You should consult Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 534-542. Furthermore, Panthera was a common enough Roman name, and the tombstone with the name on it no more supports the case than finding a tombstone with George on in today would prove it the was the tomb of George Washington.

[Kerry Shirts]

Ah...... thank you for your ideas......Tabor certainly does not claim his discovery of a Pantera tombstone proves this legend, for sure. It's ideas like these that ought to be discusse and understood. He also does mentionthat Pantera was a popular name in Roman times. I see your point about George though. Most interesting.......thanks for the comments Dr. Hamblin.

[James Tabor]

Kerry, thanks for the post. I would urge Mr. Hamblin and others to do a bit more reading on the Pantera matter. The late Ray Brown was my friend and I respect his work immensely, but what we now known about the whole "Pantera" has opened a new vista for our undersanding. I just put up a Blog on this subject with the new materials conveniently referenced.

[Kerry Shirts]

I just received an email from Dr. Tabor and I may have misspoken about him saying Pantera was a popular name. I shall have to double check. I don't want to misrepresent his views. I shall also be very interested in seeing hisblog for more on this.

[Itamar Bernstein]

Tabor's book is creative, instructive and well written. The problem I had with the "son of Panthera" theory (which originates or is corroborated in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 67a) is that at first blush it seems to contradict another part of Tabpor's theory. If Jesus were the son of a Roman soldier, he would have been disqualified for Jewish Davidic Royalty (and therefore also for Messianship in Judaism), per express scripture (Deuteronomy 17:16.) There's a famous story in the Talmud about King Agrippa I, who faced the same problem.

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi professor Tabor; I posted a response to some of your arguments for Panthera in Kerry's new "Panthera-Jesus' Father" thread.