Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor

When I began this Blog on The Jesus Dynasty nearly a month ago while in Israel I decided to disable the “Comment” feature offered with the WordPress software we are using. Although I have had literally hundreds of reasonable reactions to the contents of the book, both pro and con, I have also, as one might expect, had my share of hateful and threatening messages. I wanted to keep the site free of such things. My experience is that religious fundamentalists can often, not always, tend to be quite nasty in tone and attitude when their beliefs are questioned or challenged.

Today one of my students said to me–Dr. Tabor, it is very sad that your Blog is getting no response at all–not a single comment! I assured him that our readership is high and active, but it made me begin to think about the matter of comments and whether I might decide to include them or not. One can always decide to “monitor” comments, but then there is a question of taking the time to make decisions on each entry, not to mention trying to reply to them all.

What I thought I might do with this post is enable the comment feature and get some feedback by regular readers of the Blog. Would you rather read my own thoughts, day by day and week by week, or would you prefer a more interactive site?

My thinking on all this was not to stifle thought or input, but to steer that sort of thing more toward the Yahoo discussion group, devoted solely to the discussion of my book. There I have had to carry one quite a few “battles” with unhappy and even rude readers, though I must say that the group as a whole has settled down to some very helpful and meaningful discussions by some highly informed contributors. I am rather inclined to stay with that decision, as anyone can read the posts at the Yahoo site, or if one chooses, join the discussion by signing up for the group. But just to get some feedback from readers of this Blog I am going to open this up and ask any of you who have views on this subject to offer them to the rest of us. So now we will see if the Comment feature works okay and whether any of you readers care to weigh in on this topic…
Thanks,

James Tabor

P.S. Comments to this post will be moderated so they might not appear immediately–or at all :-)

COMMENTS ARCHIVED BELOW ON THIS POST:

Dr. Tabor. It’s your blog. So blog here. You are doing a great job of entertaining wide ranging discussions at the Yahoo group. The blog is great just to keep caught up with you. I am very interested in your work on Paul and am looking forward to learning more. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
Comment by Stan Kuback — July 27, 2006 @ 7:26 pm

There are, of course, pros and cons for allowing comments or not. On the whole, if comments are moderated, it can be a useful and worthwhile interactive experience. But if you allow unmoderated comments prepare yourself for an onslaught of ignorance that would make a 16th century village priest from the hinterlands of Swabia blush with shame.

Personally, I like the give and take of comments. And, frankly, most people won’t go to the discussion list to post a comment on a blog entry.

There’s my half cent worth. Whatever you decide- I know I will continue reading your postings because I always learn something from you.
Comment by Jim — July 27, 2006 @ 8:08 pm

I prefer just reading your blogs. I think your Yahoo discussion group can serve as the “open” venue.
Comment by Jill Prouty — July 28, 2006 @ 8:04 am

Dr. Tabor,
I have wanted to respond from time to time and have been frustrated that I could not. I never knew there was a Yahoo group dedicated to the book, but I’m not likely to join Yahoo for that privlege either. I really do hope you enable the comments but even if you don’t please at least enable the trackbacks.
Please allow me to make three quick suggestions.
1. Use the Akismet spam filter included with wordpress (Under plugins).
2. Use a “captcha” plugin that will make your readers prove they are human and not “robots” dumping spam.
3. For that extra layer of control there is a feature in WP with which you can require the first post by a given author to be approved by you; but that every post after by that person is automatically accepted (until you block them).
Comment by Thomas Black — July 28, 2006 @ 8:12 am

I myself use moderated comments as well. Even if on the whole I get more spam than discussion, I know some of the interaction in the community wouldn’t have happened at all if it did not happen behind the scenes. It’s a great way for clarifying certain minor matters without a new blogpost or sending an email to each inquisitive commentator.

best regards,

Chris Weimer
Comment by Chris Weimer — July 28, 2006 @ 9:09 am

Please, Dr. Tabor, i would prefer hearing just from you in your blog. I want to hear what YOU have to say, and i feel your comments probably reflect response to people in the discussion group. I don’t participate in groups at all and would probably stop reading your blog if comments were allowed.

Thank you, i’m learning a lot.
Comment by jp — July 28, 2006 @ 9:27 am

Jo,
I’m not sure why you would stop reading James’ blog if he allowed comments. Generally speaking, one can completely ignore comments simply by refusing to click on the “comments” link. Hence, you can still read his blog without reading any of the comments even if he enables them.
Comment by Jim — July 28, 2006 @ 9:43 am

Dear Dr James Tabor -
As a researcher, you have enormous knowledge to share. As an educator, you are incredibly generous with your insights. I feel as inspired by any of your monologues as I could ever be as an observer or a participant in any discussion in which you are involved. You have opened worlds of important, pertenent new facts to me. As in the yahoo group for example – even when they disagree with you or with each other, such arguments still stimulate thought. How can that be bad? I find it is often the well-argued case from which we often learn the most. Sometimes questions arise there that I would have liked to ask myself, but would have felt reticent to take the group’s precious time, or it may not pertain strictly to your book, TJD. Occasionally, even ordinary people ask extraordinary questions, and I would love to hear your answers. All of that is why I like the thought of comments to your blog, but it is admittedly selfish.

I cannot fathom how you conjure up the time to respond, in the depth you do and with such clarity, in the first place. You must never sleep. But if you are still inclined to interact with the people you have inspired (in which ever direction –pro or con), I would consider that additional opportunity to experience your opinions a lovely bonus. Despite the pressures of beginning another book (I cant wait) and completing your transparent bible translation, (and heaven knows what other adventures), if you were to accept comments on your blog site you could chose to reply if you deemed it was warranted and ignore others.

Some of us might, I think, also enjoy the opportunity to react openly to any subject you might raise without feeling embarrassed by any perceived lack of our own scholarship.

As for fundamentalist threats, I am always amazed at the way ignorance betrays itself in the company of open and curious minds. We must never be cowed by those who are afraid to think or learn new things. It is even (however remotely) possible someone with a rigid mind will be transformed by exposure to the fascinating facts with which you are so fond of surprising people. We can hope.

At any rate you might decide to have a trial period. If it becomes difficult, or untenable, nobody would blame you for shutting it down. As for those devoted exclusive blogophiles, nothing would change - the choice to read each others’ comments would be with each of us. Click or not. Frankly, I’d be curious – I’d click.

Thanks for all you have done to enlighten and inform and inspire. What a mission! Has the label “Taborite” been proposed? Or does that sound too messianic? Blog on! I’ll listen!
Lady B.
Comment by Barbara Washburn — July 28, 2006 @ 3:22 pm

I, too, was not aware of the Yahoogroups option. I reserve judgement on the need for the blog to accept comments until I’ve given the YahooGroups option a try. Conceptually, separating user comments from Dr. Tabor’s blog entries makes sense.
Comment by Dennis Ray — July 28, 2006 @ 8:29 pm

A blog without comments is not a blog, but a personal web page. A blog with monitored comments is a self glorification page wherein only ditto-heads are allowed to speak. What good is that?
It is understandable that when a person writes a book, which is intentionally controversial, that they wish to deflect all controversy by placing themselves in a sanitized bubble where the voices of criticism have been locked out of any discussion.
The Yahoo Discussion group is a free-for-all where people pick and choose their own topics and do not provide any legitimate discussions, other than their own braggadocio. Yet when a blog page addresses a particular topic and no one is allowed to dispute any of the points made therein, isn’t this like placing duck tape on the mouths of all its readers? Don’t you get a little suspicious that the author is more interested in mind control rather than honest discussion?
For instance, one of the topics that James Tabor discusses is “Picking and Choosing” his evidence. It is incredible to me that such a topic, which is a criticism of the author’s methodology, is shut out from all discussion. James Tabor does pick and choose, there is no question about that. But all James Tabor is doing is following a methodology that is popularly taught in our schools known as the “working hypothesis” method. This kind of methodology fosters picking and choosing. In other words, the method itself promotes that you present all the evidence that supports your hypothesis and reject all evidence that would contradict your hypothesis. Unfortunate for the reader, however, is that all you see is what the little man behind the curtain wants you to see.
This method is contrasted by what I call a true scholarly method, and that is to lay all the facts on the table, and let the facts tell their own story. Of course, we know that facts don’t assemble themselves without the creative selection process of the author. But one has to contrast the kind of book that James Tabor produces, and the kind that I am talking about, such as those by John P. Meier, who leaves no stones unturned and allows the reader far more choices of making up their own minds, than being stampeded into accepting one’s own particular theory.
But alas, James Tabor is not interested in such fine points. He wrote this book to draw a line in the sand. He is on a quest to find the evidence that Jesus died and was buried and that he will one day be able to prove it with scientific DNA evidence. Can you imagine the impact on the world if he succeeds? He will suddenly be the focus of every talk show in the world. In other words, he will be the one who has successfully disproved Christianity once and for all. The entire world will be turned upside down and James Tabor plans to be right in the center of it. So his book is like a double dare. It is exactly like drawing a line in the sand begging anyone to cross it – begging anyone to say, “this will never happen.” Ah, yes, James Tabor has set the world up for the biggest double dare and “I told you so” of all time. And he is calling all the shots.
So who out there is willing to put their “faith” on the line and say: “James Tabor will never find any evidence that Jesus body was not resurrected and ascended to heaven?” You want to know who the first to go on record to say this? It is I, Paul R. Finch!

Comment by Paul R. Finch — July 29, 2006 @ 9:54 am

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Paul, if I am not mistaken there are Blogs that do not allow comments and most are moderated. As for the Yahoo discussion group I think your characterizations are completely wrong and anyone who wants to read through recent posts will see that. Even that discussion is \”monitored\” but not to ensure conformity to my views or those of anyone else, but that people stay on topic and reflect common courtesy. Far from not inviting criticism I have patiently spent hundreds of hours in that forum dealing with all sorts of queries, including some from people who share your negative tone, inaccurate characterizations, and disrespectful and inaccurrate personal charges about my intents, motives, etc. I can not imagine any forum being more free than the Yahoo group has been. If you want to repost this message there I will be glad to respond in more detail. In the meantime I think sensitive readers will be able to ascertain what is going on here by your attitude as reflected in this post. But still, believe it or not, I have known you for many years, liked you very much personally, and I am actually glad to hear from you, just sorry you misjudge me in such a manner.

James Tabor

Dr. Tabor, I personally enjoy reading and learning from your posts here. I agree with the comment above — you are exceedingly generous with your knowledge and time. I think the Yahoo group is the forum for discussion and comments. It is true, the choice for us to read each other’s comments is ours in the click, but the choice to allow comments it seems would go back to the intent for creating this blog in the first place.
Comment by E Bateman — July 29, 2006 @ 9:56 am

Paul Finch is 100% wrong in his assertion that a blog without comments is not a blog and that moderated comments are self glorification. Some of the very best blogs have no comments allowed (for example, Jim Davila\’s Paleojudaica) and all the responsible blogs in the field of Biblical Studies have comments either moderated or restricted.

Why? Not for self aggrandizement, or in order to insulate the blogger- but because, simply put, there are a lot of people making use of the internet who are ignorant dilettantes. If one allowed unmoderated comments, one would simply be giving space to the most mindless of ideas.

If people with no training in the field of Biblical Studies want to rant, ramble, rave, and attempt to convince others to join them in the path of ignorance, that is their business. On their own weblogs.

I\’ve had a bit of experience with the loons, both on blog comments and email lists and if both are not tightly monitored one ends up with a pooling of ignorance the likes of which have not been seen since the monks gathered in their cells to discuss Aristotle while being utterly unable to read.

As to Mr Finch\’s not so subtle slander of Dr Tabor\’s work, nothing needs to be said to prove his claims false. Those who have read the book know the reasoned and balanced tone he takes. To show the inadequacy of Mr Finch\’s illfounded complaint that James doesn\’t allow dissension he need merely look at the facts: James allowed Finch to post.

I wouldn\’t have because I have no time for such persons and I certainly don\’t lend them bandwidth to spew their bilge. Ergo, James does indeed allow dissenting opinions.

James, allow comments or not as you see fit. But if you allow them, do be sure to moderate them. Otherwise you will find your blog a refuge for the fringe elements and dilettantes.
Comment by Jim — July 29, 2006 @ 12:01 pm

I find The Jesus Dynasty fascinating reading and look forward to your planned book on Paul. I don’t think it necessary to have a comments section on your blog. I’m sure other experts in your field contact you directly on matters of importance. If the blog is limited to updates on your travels, discoveries and discussions with others in your field, that’s just fine. I’m not interested in reading uninformed, subjective opinions by the masses!
Comment by Lester Vogt — July 30, 2006 @ 1:33 pm

Maybe your next book should be the “Evangelical Handbook of Hateful and Threatening Messages” so we can all see what the “Loving Spirit” of those who claim to be “Born Again” sounds like. In this way we can emulate their fine examples and share with them a home of heavenly bliss for eternity.
Comment by Elijah Hawk — July 30, 2006 @ 8:42 pm

I think the comments on the comments idea, pretty much speak for themselves. I agree with the thoughts that it is great that Dr. Tabor even takes the time to write these entries. For him to have to read through and deal with all of this kind of non-sense, on every post he takes the time to write, is time better spent elsewhere.
Comment by John — July 31, 2006 @ 5:29 am

Dr. Tabor, my vote is not to have comments on this blog. I have tried to sift through the threads and posts on the Yahoo group and grew weary of those promoting their own agendas and those obviously very illiterate in responsible Biblical scholarship. I know there are some very good posts by thoughtful people but it is hard at times to find them. So I rarely go to that group anymore. I would not like to see this blog become like the Yahoo group. JMHO

I do appreciate all you write here and it is like receiving a course or book free. You must have limitless energy to do all you do. Wish I had it!
Comment by Mary Ann — July 31, 2006 @ 12:22 pm

Thanks to Dr. Tabor for his wonderful book which has made it possible for a secular person like myself to gain a new appreciation of Jesus and his life and times. I have referred many of my friends to the book and will continue to do so. I look forward to his new book on Paul. Personally I value the information on Dr. Tabor\’s blog and would rather forego comments than have the blog discontinued.
Comment by David Jones — July 31, 2006 @ 1:54 pm

Thank you Doc Tabor for sharing what you know ,I enjoy reading your posts and look forward to your next book and I agree with Lester Vogt above, you have been very kind and willing to share what you have learned and those who have been on their own search are those who can realy appreciate what you share.
Comment by nancy wright — July 31, 2006 @ 2:17 pm

Dr. Tabor,
I enjoy the way you are sharing the information now. Your blog is fun to read and I am glad you are willing to allow us into your life. I enjoyed your book very much and the radio show you did with Scout and Skye, dear friends of mine. Thank you enjoy your research.
Comment by Star — August 2, 2006 @ 3:33 pm

Just reading through everyone’s comments about whether or not to open up the comment section took a bit of time!
Dr. Tabor, your blog is fine the way it is - a great place for your readers to continue to learn & be challenged. If you’ve got the time to monitor comments, great. If not, just blog away.
Comment by Diana — August 4, 2006 @ 12:58 pm

Jesus was born of a woman, of that everyone but the most extreme docetic Gnostic would seem to agree. But how was it that Mary became pregnant?

There are three basic positions that have been offered in response to the two birth stories we get in Matthew and Luke: 1) Jesus had no human father; 2) Jesus is in fact the biological son of Joseph; 3) Jesus is the biological son of an unnamed male under unknown circumstances.

The first option takes us out of the realm of history into the arena of myth and symbol and even those who would take the reports in Matthew and Luke literally, that Mary became pregnant without a male, would have to admit that such “divine” conceptions are otherwise known to us in a host of Greco-Roman stories of the supernatural births of heros, demi-gods, and divine men, sired by Gods. Generally speaking such tales tend to be alien to most forms of ancient Judaism, other than tales of humans who are the offspring of “angels,” which do appear to stem from similar conceptual realities. One can hardly expect a modern historian to take such reports as matters of serious and rational investigation.

As I point out in my book, one possible purpose of the “virginal conception” story in Matthew and Luke is to affirm the “divine” origin of Jesus–that he is in some special way the “Son of God” in that his conception is not through any human male. It is entirely possible that this is all one should derive from those stories. Thus we are left with the choice of taking the tale literally or metaphorically. Either way the “virgin conception” of Jesus would be a way of expressing the extraordinary nature of Jesus.

One might well leave it at that and most historians would opt for the most simple explanation–since Mary is eventually wedded to Joseph, whatever the circumstances, he is the most likely father.

However, there are some of us who are intrigued with the core of the Matthean/Lukan story–namely, that Mary becomes pregnant before her union with Joseph and though he goes ahead with the marriage he is not the father. Jane Schaberg has probably offered the most extensive argument for this option in her excellent study, The Illegitimacy of Jesus (Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). I highly recommend this book although I differ in the end with Jane’s conclusions.

Although the “Jesus son of Pantera” sources, dating from the 2nd century AD, offer a “name” of a father, this option itself does not need to have any connection to a Roman soldier, Pantera or otherwise. The notion of an unnamed and unknown father of Jesus is worth considering on its own rights.

Here, of course, we enter the realm of pure speculation, since those of us who are inclined to the view that Jesus had a human father, and Joseph took Mary as his wife, despite her pregnancy before their union, know absolutely nothing about the circumstances of the pregnancy. It is even possible that Matthew and Luke’s report that Mary became pregnant while betrothed is an invention of these writers to bolster the case that God must have been the father. After all, who could accuse such a pious woman as the mother of Jesus of immorality? And would that not make Jesus a bastard or mamzer? Schaberg has even suggested that Mary might have become pregnant by rape, but the birth is “sanctified” by God (and Joseph!) as an act of unconditional love and grace.

I am inclined to the view that Joseph was not the father and that Jesus faced throughout his life the sigma of not having his father around, as well as rumors that his mother had acted immorally. But as we try to imagine possible circumstances leading to Mary’s pregnancy before her union with Joseph (which was after Jesus’ birth according to Luke), it is entirely possible that she evaluated the father and the pregnancy as something moral and righteous and taught Jesus growing up that his birth was honorable and sanctioned by God. Perhaps her parents had intended that she marry Joseph, who might have been older, and she had come to be attached to another. Maybe she had her own ways of processing the resulting scandal of her pregnancy than that of a “fallen woman” who had succumbed to sexual immorality. If there was such a father he seems to have disappeared from the picture and we can know nothing with certainly about him. In our earliest report of “the family,” in Mark 6, Jesus is simply the “son of Mary.” Joseph is never mentioned anywhere in Mark, nor is any other father. I think it is potentially very important to consider the potential psychological effects upon Jesus that this view of his circumstances implies: growing up “fatherless” in that society, but believing in his “divine” calling, honoring his mother as a pious woman, and facing the scorn of society. There are prophetic passages with which Jesus identified that fit like a glove–was he not indeed one “despised of the nation” but destined to rule over all Israel, and the entire world? Was he not the “stone” which the builders rejected, destined to become the chief cornerstone?

The matter of Pantera is an entirely separate issue. Those who scoff at the story having any possible historicity are mistaken I think to take the “slanderous” version, passed on by Celsus, as the most likely tale. By that time the “Jesus on of Pantera” story had become the tale of the Roman soldier seducing Mary. Why give that any historical value whatsoever? It is late, legendary, and derivative. The two elements that might be historical are the “name” itself, and the fact that this name is apparently a favorite of Roman soldiers. Thus the case of Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, who died in Germany sometime in the 1st century AD, simply offers us a model to think about. Whoever Jesus father might have been, and at whatever age, he well might have subsequently ended up in the Roman army–thus serving as a basis of the garbled story that Celsus passes on, expanded in later medieval Jewish tales that get more and more outrageous. In that sense I have resisted the facile summaries of my book as “claiming that Jesus’ father was a Roman soldier.” That charge alone hardly covers the range of possibilities and even probabilities.

My inclination, and I choose this word deliberately, because no one really knows, is that Jesus was born of an unknown father, in unknown circumstances, and that Joseph takes Mary as his wife despite her pregnancy by another. My assumption is that neither Mary nor Jesus considered his conception as an immoral act but somehow destined and sanctioned by God. And finally, yes, I think it is possible that the father’s name was Pantera–whether such a one is known or unknown to us.

I have begun work on another book, a kind of sequel to The Jesus Dynasty. In chapter 16 of my book, titled, “The Challenge of Paul,” I only give a tiny glimpse of how Paul’s message began to rival that of John the Baptist, Jesus, and James and eventually achieved an influence that essentially equated it with “Christianity” itself. In terms of the history of ideas, I am convinced that Saul of Tarus, that is the Apostle Paul, is the most influential person in human history–yes, even above Jesus, Moses, Plato or Aristotle, Buddha, or Mohammed. I will argue in this new book that Paul is indeed, hands down, the Founder of the Christian Faith.

But if I am right, how did this happen? How was it that Paul was able to achieve this kind of dominance and success, even over the founders of the Jesus movement? Where did he get his ideas? What was his relationship to James and the rest of the core group of original Jesus followers?

I began my work on Paul many years ago, writing my dissertation at the University of Chicago on the “mysticism of Paul.” It was subsequently published (long ago out of print) under the title: Things Unutterable: Paul’s Ascent to Paradise (University Press of America, 1986). There is a core excerpt of that book, but without notes, archived at my University Web site: The Message and Mission of Paul. As with Jesus I consider Albert Schweitzer my mentor and pioneer in the study of Paul. His amazing work, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (1930), but still available in English reprints, remains in my view the most groundbreaking book on Paul in the history of modern scholarship.

Over the years I have refined and developed my own understanding of Paul and the field of “Pauline” studies has vastly developed since 1930 when Schweitzer wrote. I think we are finally in a position to full in the blanks in a way that can satisfactorily explain what really went on from 30 AD when Jesus died, to 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed and James, Peter, as well as Paul were already dead. It is that crucial 40 years period that will be the focus of my book. There are probably about as many books published on Paul as on Jesus, so the field is vast and the discussion is complex. However, I do think that my 30 years of thinking about these issues has resulted in some worthwhile insights that can help considerably to fill out my lifelong interest–how did Christianity originate and develop during its first 40 years? Expect a riveting story and some fascinating surprises. The standard heroic Sunday school version, now enshrined in the book of Acts, is badly in need of revision. It is all about parties and politics and fights to the bitter end. The stakes were high and the influence upon subsequent history was profound. I know of nothing one could study with a more potentially influential outcome.
I never get accustomed to the incredible influence that Paul has in Christian circles today–especially among more orthodox or traditional evangelical Christians, including Roman Catholics. It seems that whatever Paul says or writes or teaches becomes the last and final word for millions, feared and revered over the voice of Jesus or even Moses. Paul’s claim to have received the “final mystery” of the revelation of God lies at the heart of the issue. If we believe him we are bound to shape our ideas and our lives by his teachings. But if his message was a departure from that of Jesus and his brother James–then the most devout and dedicated Christian surely needs to rethink things from the ground up.

I have not finalized publication plans as of yet and when I know the details I will announce them but my intention is to see this book published next year–in 2007.

As I pointed out in a recent post on this Blog, the term “Jesus son of Pantera” comes up in 2nd century AD Greek and Jewish sources, including texts associated with stories set in the city of Sepporis, just four miles from Nazareth where Jesus grew up. In chapter 3 of The Jesus Dynasty, titled “An Unnamed Father of Jesus” I discuss the Pantera tradition, including the oft heard assertion, that the name “Pantera” is a pun of Jewish enemies of the Christians of the Greek word parthenos or virgin. It is strange how often this assertion gets repeated, though I think it has no basis either in history or linguistics. When early Christians countered the charge that Jesus was the “son of Pantera” they took the name seriously, not as a pun, and asserted that it was indeed a “family name” in the lineage of Jesus. I agree with Deissmann that the evidence shows that it is a “real” name, whether or not we can identify any historical figure to which it referred. In my book I examine the tombstone in Germany of a 1st century Roman soldier from Palestine of that name, not so much to claim it belonged to the “father” of Jesus, but rather to learn what we can of this particular individual.

When I sent in my book manuscript The Jesus Dynasty for publication most of what I knew about the Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera tombstone now located in Bad Kreuznach, Germany, was taken from two main sources: the article by Deissmann, “Der Name Panthera,” published in 1906 (see notes in my book for details), as well as the information he included in his subsequent book, Licht vom Osten/Light from East (1923); and another article by L. Patterson, “Origin of the Name Pantera,” JTS (1917), which built on Deissmann’s work.

As far as I can tell almost everything subsequently published, which is mostly people mentioning the Bingerbrück tombstone in passing, most often to dismiss it as insignificant, relies on these two initial publications. It is from those two articles that the ideas emerge that the names Tiberius Julius indicate manumission under the emperor Tiberius (thus after 14 AD), that our Panthera is a Jew or Semite based on the name Abdes (this is more Patterson than Deissmann), and that the 1st cohort of archers had come to the Rhine in the year 9 AD. Deissmann’s main point, echoed by Patterson, was not to say that this Panthera was the “father” of Jesus, or even had any remote connection to Jesus, but that the name Panthera was not an invention of Jewish enemies of Christianity, spurning the virgin birth, but a real name used by the ancients and thus likely picked up for some reason in the “Yeshua ben Pantera” traditions.

Since that time I have been able to examine much more closely the archives (mostly artifacts, paintings, and articles published in the Bonner Jahrbuch in 1859-1860, at the time of the discovery) that I brought back with me from the museum in Bad Kreusnach where the tomb stones are now housed, and thus to learn much more about the original discovery of this cemetery in 1859 as well as the others buried with Panthera. I was also able to photograph, measure, and study closely the Pantera tombstone itself. All Deissmann apparently had was the inscription itself as published in the catalogue CIL XIII 7514. He seems to know nothing of the discovery, its context, or anything related thereto.

There are lots of interesting avenues of inquiry but at least three issues that need to be resolved are the following:

1. The significance of the Semitic name Abdes. I am not convinced by Deissmann’s postcard correspondent, Count Wolf Baudissin (footnoted in Light from East, p. 74), that Abdes=Eded Isis or “servant of Isis.” I think it is more likely a name, and Deissmann himself refers to another soldier who is called “Cottio the son of Abdes,” which seems to be the same name. It was Patterson that took the name to mean our Panthera was a Jew. I would not go that far but did take it as an indication of at least a “Semitic” background. I have also wondered if the name might be related to Sbedsdas or “Zebedee,” which is found on another soldier’s tombstone in the area, who was from Tyre, which would make it more akin to Zebdas from the Hebrew root Zabad (=Doros/gift) in Hebrew.

2. Do the names Tiberius Julius indicate manumission or perhaps something else? I went with the freed slave suggestion, which seemed to have been so confidently asserted by Deissmann and Patterson, but now tend to doubt that such is the case. Our Abdes Pantera might have taken on these names much later in life, even at retirement, for reasons having nothing to do with having been a freed slave, but perhaps just as a way of honoring the emperor Tiberius, celebrating citizenship, or otherwise celebrating a higher status than that of a commoner. One very well known figure from antiquity with that name was the famous nephew of Philo, Tiberius Julius Alexander.

3. What is the evidence for Deissmann’s assertion that that particular cohort of archers had come to Dalmatia (Croatia) in the year A.D. 6 from Palestine and moved to the Rhine/Nahe river area in A.D. 9? He refers to a source by Domaszewski but gives no details in the citation, so I take it this source is well known in his time and would be known to Roman historians, which I am not. Of course we should not take 9 AD as the date Abdes Pantera necessarily arrived in the area. The cohort would have been regularly replenished by new recruits throughout the 1st century, once stationed in the area.

Given what we know so far of Abdes Pantera it is difficult to date him more precisely. We know he was from Sidon in Palestine, that he served in the army for forty years and that he died at age 62. Whether he might have been retired at the time he died or not we can not be sure, so accordingly, we can not be sure at what age his 40 year service began or when he took on the name Tiberius Julius, other than to place it sometime between the years of the reign of the emperor: 14-37AD.

I can add, just for interest, that three large tombstones, Pantera among them, were found on October 19, 1859 about 300 yards from the Nahe River in connection with the construction of the Bingerbrück railway station. The first two, individuals named Hyperanor and Julia Quintia, were in their vertical positions but the third one, Abdes, was slanted. The foundations of all three were at the same level, and all three were headless, due to the building in earlier times of an embankment wall. Clay funerary urns were found with vessels as well as coins. These finds have been distributed in a number of museums and I am in the process of trying to locate them all. They will perhaps allow us to date at least the terminus ad quem of the cemetery. Other tombstones were subsequently recovered in the area, which was obviously a Roman cemetery. Four different army units are represented, including the 4th Legion, and the IV Delmatarum, 1 Pannoniorum, and the 1st Sagittariorum cohorts–all known to be in that area during the mid-1st century AD. There is a painting made in 1859 of the discovery:

I believe there is still much to learn about both the cemetery and Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, so stay tuned…It is entirely possible that his funerary urn is still preserved in the archives of one of the museums in Germany.

My librarian friend Jill Prouty from Peach Tree City, Georgia tells me that abebooks.com is a great source for used books. I just checked and they have several copies of Hugh Schonfield, The Authentic New Testament, including the lovely 1st edition hardcover, which I would highly recommend. They also have the 1955 Holy Scriptures/JPS translation I recommended as does Amazon and quite a few other places. On that one though things can get a bit confusing, in that the new JPS Holy Scriptures/Tanakh (1985) often comes up as well on searches. I recommend both but in terms of a more “literal” translation, which I had recommended, the 1955 (based on the original 1917 edition) is preferrable.

Speaking of Jill Prouty and Peach Tree City Library, this past weekend they flew me to Atlanta to do a lecture and book signing and the turnout was wonderful, with hundreds of people streaming in. Jill had worked hard and managed to generate an amazing amount of publicity and buzz, including a full page story in the local paper, The Citizen by veteran reporter Michael Boylan:

We had to move from the original room scheduled to the City Hall next door. The audience was warm, intelligent, enthusiastic, and respectful and it was really gratifying to me to see the way in which my book has positively sparked lots of good enlightened discussion among Jews, Christians, and secularists about the historical Jesus. Although I have completed my “official tour” East, West, as well as abroad to the UK in connection with the book, Jill Prouty, who had reviewed the book for her local paper, contacted me and set this event up herself. I was reluctant at first to do any more traveling but I am so glad I did. It was truly a wonderful experience to visit this south of Atlanta community and I hope to return sometime.

So “have book, will travel,” but only if someone with the enthusiasm and skills of Jill Prouty “prepares the way” in the wilderness…

Some of you had trouble accessing the Denver radio station KGNU interview I did by telephone with Metro hostess Liz Lane when I was in Jerusalem last month. Ms. Lane was exceptionally well prepared as an interviewer and in the full hour we were able to survey many of the main ideas in my book, The Jesus Dynasty, as well as their potential significance for both the Christian and the secular reader.

A sympathetic reader with some technical ability got permission to convert the program to a file readily accessible in mp3 format and post it on the Web.

To listen to or download the Liz Lane interview click here.

Excavated Entrance to the Suba Cave

As readers know one of the archaeological sites I discuss in my book, The Jesus Dynasty, is the Suba cave, located outside Ein Kerem, the traditional birthplace of John the Baptist, a few kilometers west of Jerusalem. My colleague, Israeli archaeologist Shimon Gibson and I have been digging there since early 2000. In fact, this past March we just finished our seventh season of excavations at the site. What we have uncovered is quite amazing with many questions still remaining to be answered.
Recently a reader of my book pointed out to the entire world (the World Wide Web that is, where anyone can post anything at anytime): “The Suba cave that Tabor thought was used by John the Baptist is now agreed by other scholars to date to the iron age. It was later utilized briefly in the 4th century AD. John the Baptist had nothing to do with it.”

Since Gibson and I are the ones who discovered as well as reported upon and published the evidence related to the Iron Age construction of this site, this reader’s assertion that “other scholars” have set us straight on this point borders between the amusing and the irritating.

Whether John the Baptist or Jesus ever used this site for ritual water purification ceremonies we can not be sure. What we can say are three things in that regard. 1) In the Byzantine period Christians came to this cave to remember and venerate John the Baptist, leaving behind some of the oldest Christian art associated with John ever found in the Holy Land. This should not surprise us since it is located just outside Ein Kerem, the earliest place associated with his birth. 2) In the first century A.D. scores of people were coming to this cave and carrying out some kind of ceremonies associated with water purification. 3) The Suba cave itself, as well as the entire complex (there is much we have now found outside the cave) has a much earlier history, constructed in the Iron Age for a yet undetermined purpose.

Gibson and I published a summary of our evidence in this regard in an article titled “John the Baptist’s Cave: The Cave in Favor,” in the May/June, 2005 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. Dr. Gibson has also ably summarized all our relevant archaeological findings in his book, The Cave of John the Bapist (New York: Doubleday, 2004), which is now out in paperback.

Gibson and I are as interested in the Iron Age history of Suba as what went on in the 1st century. However, for those who are skeptical regarding our hypothesis that massive activity involving ritual water purification rites went on for several decades in the early 1st century, possibly involving movements such as those inaugurated by John the Baptist and Jesus, are obligated to come up with alternative explanations for what we found at those levels of the excavation. For one to say “I am not convinced that John the Baptist was associated with this cave” misses the point. What we are obligated to do is to try and come up with the most plausible evidence we can to explain the massive and unqiue material evidence. Gibson and I welcome alternative hypotheses.

In The Jesus Dynasty I suggest Suba as a possible location for the massive baptismal activities of Jesus and his disciples reported in John 3:22-24; 4:1-4. This “hill country” of Judea is a rugged area with a few springs but no significant bodies of water. The Suba cave is massive and surely was a well known and prominent feature of that area. It is removed from any significant population center. I take the “Jesus the Baptizer” tradition as historically probably since to have Jesus baptised at all by John was a problem enough for early Christians. To have him then carrying out extensive baptisms himself, in the south, in the Judean countryside, with John working in tandem in the north–is not something the author of the gospel of John would likely have concocted. That is why the “editor” of John adds the caveat: But Jesus himself did not baptize, only his disciples! When we see that sort of qualifying gloss we can be almost certain that the underlying tradition is valid–thus the protest.

P.S. There are some breaking new discoveries at Suba about which I will write as soon as Gibson and I determine how we want to initially report them.

In the Introduction to my book, The Jesus Dynasty, I offer a comprehensive discussion of the potential importance and significance of the ossuary or “bone box” inscribed “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” that came to public attention in late 2002. If authentic it offers us the first archaeological evidence ever discovered that directly links to Jesus and his family. This bone box most likely contained the skeletal remains of James the brother of Jesus.

In the summer of 2003 the Israeli Antiquities Authority declared that the inscription was a partial forgery, and that the phrase “brother of Jesus” had been added by the owner, Oded Golan, to enhance the potential value of the artifact. Without the phrase “brother of Jesus” the inscription “James son of Joseph” alone does not offer enough evidence to connect it to Jesus’ family.

Unfortunately there is an all too widespread public impression, echoed in some of the reviews and reactions to my book, that the “James ossuary” has been declared a forgery. I have encountered this repeatedly in recently touring the U.S., Canada, and the UK. Just this week someone posted a review of my book on the Amazon Web site that is typical of the ignorance surrounding this subject:

“Tabor’s “The Jesus Dynasty” starts off with some dubious archeology and that’s the high point of the book…Oded Golan, finder of the ossuary, is in jail. When the police invaded Golan’s home recently they found a large number of forgeries in various stages of completion. Even the carved pomegranate Golan sold to the Jerusalem museum is now deemed a fake. So much for the ossuary being real.”

Such is hardly the case. Mr. Golan is not in jail and his trial still in process. No one questions whether the ossuary is “real” or even the inscription, but whether the last two words are authentic or not. But more important recent scientific tests have seriously called into question the case of the Israeli government on the authenticity of the James ossuary inscription.

As is often the case, people “hear” or “read” something in a press report, then repeat it as fact without either checking for accuracy or keeping up with the outcome of a given story. Ignorance is bliss, as the old saying goes, but it seems to also give rise to a level of dogmatic ignorance that never ceases to amaze me.

The best overall source for the up-to-date facts regarding the matter of the authenticity of the “James ossuary” are the materials on the Web site of the Biblical Archaeology Society. All of the relevant sources are archived there, both those questioning authenticity as well as those supporting it. A quite balanced and comprehensive summary of the current state of the debate was recently published by Hershel Shanks in a Jerusalem Post editorial. Even though Shanks is cautiously supportive of the potential authenticity of the James ossuary inscription he has admirably included on this BAS Web site all points of view, pro and con.

It is regretable that self-declared experts feel free to pontificate about the “James ossuary” having been shown to be a forgery, apparently without having bothered to inform themselves on even the most basic elements of the discussion.

I have given permission for The Introduction to my book to be available free on the Web (but without the photos and illustrations). It offers a comprehensive overview of the information regarding the James ossuary that was available when I went to press last year. Since that time other facts have come to light, including the latest new scientific tests, with much more to come.

So, the next time you hear someone say, “Hey, don’t you know that the ‘James ossuary’ was shown to be a forgery and its owner Oded Golan a crook” you can set them straight and challenge them to educate themselves a bit before they speak and further perpetuate inaccurate information.

Predictably one of the more controversial topics in my book The Jesus Dynasty is my discussion in chapter 3 titled “An Unnamed Father of Jesus?” in which I treat the “Jesus son of Pantera/Pantira” traditions. The topic has generated more than one sensational headline as well as lots of disdainful treatment, particularly from evangelical Christian readers and reviewers. As my colleague Prof. Ben Witherington dismissively phrased it in his four-part 28 page single-spaced Blog review of my book, “Tabor trots out for us the shop-worn tale of Mary being impregnated by a Roman soldier named Pantera” (http://benwitherington.blogspot.com).

The topic is as controversial as it is complex. My own position is that Jesus’ biological father remains unknown but is unlikely Joseph, husband of Mary. This puts me in an odd position of partial agreement with Christians who take the virgin conception/birth story literally and would likewise hold that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. In the book I then pose the sensitive question–if not Joseph then whom? Is there anything at all to be said of this matter? Has any alternative tradition regarding Jesus’ father come down to us? And the answer is yes, the name Pantera is found in a number of ancient sources. Rather than dismiss these out of hand as a “shop-worn tale” produced by Jewish opponents of the Christians who wanted to cast aspersions on Jesus’ paternity, I felt compelled to honestly examine what one might responsibly conclude about the subject. Having examined the “Jesus son of Panthera” textual traditions in their various forms I then turned to my own investigation of the tombstone of the 1st century Roman soldier, one “Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera” from Sidon who was buried outside of present day Bingerbrück, Germany.

The earliest textual evidence comes from three sources:

1) We have two stories preserved in supplements to the Mishnah called the Tosefta (as well as in other parallel rabbinic texts but primarily see Tosefta Chullin 2:22-24) that refer to “Yeshu ben Pantera” (with alternate spelling variations). The first involves the famous Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus who lived in the late 1st and early 2nd century AD. Rabbi Eliezer relates a teaching in the “name of Yeshu ben Pantera” that he heard on the streets of Sepphoris from one Jacob of Kefar Sikhnin. Eliezer himself had been arrested for “heresy” and some have suspected he might have been sympathetic to the Nazarenes. The second story also involves Jacob of Kefar Sikhnin who attempts to heal a certain Rabbi Eleazar ben Dama of a snakebite in the name of “Yeshu ben Pantera.”

Although Maier and a few others have doubted these references are to Jesus of Nazareth, most experts are convinced that they are. Since both of these texts appear to use the designation “Yeshu ben Pantera” in a descriptive rather than a slanderous or polemical way they offer us evidence that Jesus was remembered as “son of Panthera” in the region of Galilee, and even on the streets of Sepphoris, in the early 2nd century. Indeed, Richard Bauckham argues quite persuasively that this Jacob of Kefar Sikhnin might well be James, son (or grandson?) of Jude the brother of Jesus, otherwise known to us as a prominent leader in the Galilean churches (Jude and the Relatives of Jesus, pp. 114-119).

2. The Greek philosopher Celsus relates in polemical work against the Christians preserved by the Christian theologian Origen that he had found it “written” that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier named Pantera (Contra Celsum 1. 69). This text dates to the late 2nd century. Origen replies that the story was concocted by those who refused to believe that Jesus had no human father and was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

3. The 4th century Christian apologist Epiphanius seems to take the designation “Jesus son of Panthera” seriously in that he argues the name is actually a nickname for Jacob, the father of Joseph, husband of Mary. So rather than denying it is part of the family tradition he tries to explain it within that context.

If one begins to read through the literature on “Jesus son of Panthera” the most common explanation one finds is that “Panthera” is not the real name of any individual at all but a play on the Greek word “Parthenos,” or “virgin” that Jewish opponents of the Christians invented to make fun of their enemies. I am amazed at how many of my critics have referred to this idea as a way of dismissing the Panthera stories as references to a specific individual. This explanation is weak on two counts. First, linguistically, the Greek words panthera and parthenos are not even closely related in sound. But more important, none of the earliest sources quoted above, including Origen and Epiphanius, who both believed in the virgin birth, make use of this explanation. Epiphanius in particular recognizes that this is a “real” name and his only defense of it being associated with Jesus is to claim it was already “in the family” before Jesus’ birth. In that sense Jesus could loosely be called “Jesus son of Panthera.”

What Adolf Deissmann contributed to the discussion in his famous 1906 study on “Der Name Panthera” (see references in the notes to my chapter 3) was to remind us all that the Greek name “Pantera” was used by real individuals in the 1st century AD, and furthermore that it was particularly favored by Roman soldiers. He lists six examples which hardly makes the name common, but one of them is the Bingerbrück tombstone of Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, the 1st century archer who actually was from Sidon in Palestine. His point in his study is not to even remotely imply that this individual was the father of Jesus, but just that the tradition “Jesus son of Pantera” likely referred to some real individual rather than being a concocted term of Jewish polemical slander. The discovery of an ossuary with the name “Pentheros” in a Jewish 1st century tomb in Jerusalem by Clermont-Ganneau in 1891 has given us additional evidence that the name “Pantera” was in use in Palestine by Jews in the 1st century.

When I traveled to Germany last October to examine the tombstone of Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera of Sidon found in 1959 along with other Roman officers buried at Bingerbrück my intent was to find out all I could about these individuals. I do not hold the view that this particular individual was the father of Jesus. As far as I can tell that sort of definitive evidence simply does not exist. However I did come back with a thick file of evidence relating to the original excavation and its particulars that to my knowledge has never before been brought into the discussion. Pantera is only one of 10 other tombstones found at this grave site. I was able to photograph a painting that captures the original excavation of the site when it was accidentally discovered during construction of a railway station in 1859. Artifacts from the cemetery are also in various local museums in Germany, including coin and ceramic evidence. By studying the entire site we are in a much better position to say something about Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera and his history. It seems to me those who have dismissed out of hand even the possibility that Pantera of Sidon might relate to the “Yeshua ben Pantera” stories would do well to examine more closely what can be known, and then to draw conclusions.

In a subsequent post I will begin to cover some of what I have been able to ascertain so far in my research on this particular individual. It is not the case, as Prof. Witherington and others have asserted, that his death at age 62 after 40 years of service in the army precludes him being old enough to have been the father of Jesus around the year 6 BC. Following that I also want to discuss the matter of the social and cultural implications of Mary becoming pregnant before her marriage to Joseph and how we might imagine such a possible scenario, given what we know, including what it might have meant to Jesus if he grew up not knowing his father.

More to come…

I have mentioned before that The Jesus Dynasty has now sold in over 20 languages worldwide. The first to come out is the Japanese edition, just released from Sofbank Creative, Inc. It is a truly lovely edition, hardcover and fully illustrated. I anticipate a lot of interest from the Japanese who have a great fascination with Christianity, Jesus, and particularly historical studies of Jesus. I thought readers might be interested in the cover design and perhaps some of you read Japanese or know those who do and would want to obtain a copy of the Japanese edition:

Recently when I was in Israel I filmed a TV segment with ZDF Public Television in Germany for the prime-time show called Aspekte. Although the German edition of The Jesus Dynasty will not be released until October, 2006, the first segment of the ZDF production: ‘New on the Family of Jesus” will run tomorrow night, July 14th, on German television at 10:30p.m. local time in Germany (EST in the US is six hours earlier or 4:30 p.m.), which will be followed up by a second show timed to coincide with the book’s release in October. The program Aspekte can also be viewed via Livestream on the Internet, though it is of course in German with my interview voiced over.

The Program Schedule: Aspekte

New on the Family of Jesus: A Profile