Archive for July, 2006

Several more popular Evangelical Christian reviewers of my book, The Jesus Dynasty, have suggested that my method of using texts, both biblical and otherwise, is based on what they call “cherry picking.” The idea seems to be that one simply takes what one likes while discarding anything unfavorable to ones outlook or portrait of Jesus. The “picking and choosing” question is one that I get quite often, even from my beginning students.

All of us who work in the field are keenly aware of Albert Schweitzer’s apt observation that work on the historical Jesus often reflects the autobiographical proclivities of the researcher–in other words, people come up with the Jesus they want to find. This makes it all the more imperative that we self-critically clarify our methods and lines of argument. What can appear at first to be a rather arbitrary process, and one that might be directed by ones own presuppositions, actually turns out to be a rather controlled and disciplined scholarly process.

What I attempt to do in The Jesus Dynasty is to take the non-specialist reader into the more technical world of the biblical scholar and “walk one through” some of the methods scholars use as we historically analyze texts. Let me make a few points about this process and then offer an illustration.

First, historians do not privilege any texts, be they in or out of the Bible, as inherently reliable based on a view of divine inspiration. This method immediately separates historical work from theological work, in that theology, at least traditional Christian theology, begins with the assumption that the texts of the Bible are inspired and thus at some level “true” or at least “more true” than other writings of the time. For the historian there is a sense in which all texts are created equal and are therefore examined with the same methods of analysis. That does not mean, however, that some are not considered more accurate historically than others. For example, when it comes to reliable history or teaching of Jesus most scholars would not give as much weight to the Gospel of Thomas as the Gospel of Mark. Often this has to do as much with dating and chronology as to whether a text is “in” the New Testament or not. Thomas, like the newly published Gospel of Judas, dates from the late 2nd or early 3rd century whereas Mark was written around 70 A.D. Older is not always better, but when we have a text as old as Mark, we surely want to give it the priority that it deserves. On the other hand, many of us have become convinced that the Q source, which is now embedded in Luke and Matthew, as I explain in my book, is even older than Mark, and likely preserves for us a layer of the teachings of Jesus that might go back as early as 50 A.D. Chronology is not everything, but at least in the beginning we want to try to arrange our sources as much as possible in a chronological fashion, thus when it comes to Jesus we have: the Q source, Mark, Matthew (and Hebrew Matthew), Luke, John, the letter of James, the Didache, and Thomas. It is true that various scholars differ on how to date and value these materials. For example, John Crossan, in his important work, The Historical Jesus puts both the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter much earlier than I or many others would.

Second, it is important to try and detect the kind of editorial development that goes on in such a trajectory of texts. It is often not strictly chronological, but often it is. On the whole we can see, within the early Christian tradition, a tendency to make Jesus more divine and less human, to downplay the role of John the Baptist, and to mute or mitigate the role of James and the family of Jesus. What we try to do is to take all our sources and compare them side by side and then to draw conclusions, as much as we can, as to what is most likely closer to Jesus and what might be a later development. I offer many examples in my book, but here are a few to illustrate.

Matthew uses Mark as a source and he consistently “edits” him at crucial points. In Mark 10:17-18 a man says to Jesus “Good teacher, what do I do to inherit eternal life?” and Jesus rebukes him replying, “Why do you call me good, there is One who is good, God.” Matthew comes to that story and alters Jesus’ answer to read: “Why do you ask me about the good.” Here you can see that given Matthew’s more divine view of Jesus, he finds the wording of Mark troubling and freely edits it. When it comes to Q there are times when the Hebrew version of Matthew appears to be less edited than the Greek versions in either Matthew or Luke. A prime example is Matthew 11:11 (Luke 7:28) where Jesus declares that “among those born of women there is none greater than John.” This startling statement stands unqualified in the Hebrew version of Matthew preserved by Ibn Shaprut, whereas in Greek, both Luke and Matthew have the qualifying addition: “but nonetheless, the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” I am convinced that the latter is an editorial gloss that was added to soften the shocking implication that John the Baptist is then greater than Jesus. In such a case we often give the more difficult, or the more “primitive” reading more weight than what appears to be a later addition. The issue of Jesus being baptized by John is one of the clearest examples one can find of the unfolding tendency to elevate Jesus above John. Mark offers a straight account of John Baptizing Jesus, Matthew adds the lines in which John objects to doing this since Jesus is greater, Luke reports Jesus’ baptism and implies John did it, but never directly says so, and John drops the entire narrative account entirely. Most of us are convinced that this kind of evidence can not be dismissed as chance and it should not be ignored but carefully analyzed.

This entire process can appear to a casual reader as “picking and choosing” at will, but it is in fact a carefully worked out process. Throughout my book I constantly bring texts into the discussion and I try my best to bring the reader into the method of analysis so it is clear as to why certain texts and traditions are thought to be more historically reliable while others are seen as secondary. It is not a perfect lab science, but there is a method to what might appear to some to be “madness.” I want to invite my readers into the process of critical evaluation and reflection; the same process that I use with my students and that is commonly followed in advanced courses in universities when one deals with the historical Jesus. Once one carefully works through the arguments I present in The Jesus Dynasty I think one might find that what seems at first glance to be “picking and choosing” is actually a rather careful methodological attempt to sort through the sources in a responsible historical manner.

Beginning the Jesus Dynasty Blog

I am in Jerusalem this week and I thought it an appropriate time and place to begin my Jesus Dynasty Blog. My purpose is to write things day-to-day and week-to-week related to the research I presented in The Jesus Dynasty. I will comment on a wide variety of topics and areas related to the book including reviews, questions, reader reactions, and other miscellaneous items of interest. Some of the key topics that I cover in the book are ongoing areas of investigation and research so this Blog will be a good place for me to update readers on the latest news as well. In both the areas of textual research and archaeological findings it seems that the quest for the historical Jesus is continually advancing and changing. Check back often and feel free to offer any feedback (jesusdynasty@earthlink.net).

James Tabor

One of the best ways to keep up with all the discussion related to the so-called James ossuary, which I treat extensively in the Introduction to my book, The Jesus Dynasty is to check regularly the Biblical Archaeology Society Web site where one can find archived materials as well as coverage of breaking news.

Yesterday a comprehensive update article on the whole matter was published in the Toronto Star by feature writer Stuart Laidlaw.

Posted by permission…The Toronto Star
Bone box on trial
James ossuary is at the centre of a Jerusalem court battle
where the seamy side of the trade in ancient artifacts is exposed
Jul. 1, 2006. 01:00 AM
STUART LAIDLAW
FAITH AND ETHICS REPORTER

In the city where Jesus preached and was killed 2,000 years ago, a controversy is building that could shake the foundations of the religion founded in his name. The James ossuary, the purported burial box of Jesus’ brother declared a fake by Israeli authorities three years ago, is at the centre of a Jerusalem court battle over alleged forging of antiquities.

The ossuary, with the inscription “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” made a big splash when it was unveiled to the world nearly four years ago at Toronto’s Royal Ontario Museum. The trial, on hold for more than a month due to scheduling delays that plague the Israeli court system, resumes Tuesday with the testimony of Avner Ayalon of the Geological Survey of Israel whose examinations of the ossuary helped lead to charges be laid.

With barely one-quarter of the prosecution’s 124 witnesses called since the trial began last fall, and the defence team expected to call at least as many witnesses, the case is expect to take years to make its way through the court system.
“Trials in Israel are really something special,” deadpans defence attorney Lior Bringer in a telephone interview from his office in Tel Aviv. His client is Oded Golan, an antiquities collector charged with forging part of the inscription on the ossuary and faking two other artifacts. Experts called as witnesses have contradicted each others’ testimony — with one going so far as to say she will leave the profession if the limestone ossuary is a fake and another saying the entire controversy may be the result of an over-zealous cleaning.

One German expert even alleges that the Israeli Antiquities Authority “recently contaminated” the most contentious part of the ossuary, its inscription, in such a way that earlier tests cannot be reproduced.
Through it all, the on-again off-again trial of Golan and two of his colleagues has exposed the seamy underbelly of trade in ancient artifacts — a world of deception, forgery and secret deals that Golan says is becoming even more secretive thanks to efforts to crack down on dealers.

That puts the archaeological heritage of the country at risk, he says, as artifacts are taken out of the country with little or no documentation of their origins rather than risk trouble with authorities. “The less important (antiquities) are sold to tourists and the most important are taken out of Israel,” Golan says in a telephone interview from his home in Tel Aviv, where he is under house arrest.

The exact origins of the ossuary are not known. Golan, one of the largest collectors in Israel, says he purchased it from an Arab antiquities dealer in the mid-1970s for a bout $200. He was still in university at the time, studying industrial engineering. The ossuary spent the next 15 years in his parent’s apartment, including a stint on the balcony. At one point, it may have even been used as a planter, though no one can remember for sure. Golan then took it to his apartment for several years, before putting it in storage along with about 3,000 other items in his collection. Only the most beautiful of his antiquities are kept in his apartment, he says, and the plain box now known as the James Ossuary did not qualify.
It was not until a French scholar, André Lemaire, stumbled across it in Golan’s storage shed in 2002 that Golan began to realize how significant it might be. Within months it was on display at the ROM, and within a year the subject of a police investigation.

Its route from tomb to trial is mapped by rumour, hearsay and speculation. Golan says the dealer he bought it from told him it came from Silwan, a village south of the Old City of Jerusalem. Others suggest it came from a tomb uncovered in the 1980s, or from one raided by thieves in June 2000. The uncertainties of its origin, however, have only added to the intrigue and scientific debate over its authenticity. At the centre of the debate is a report by the Israeli Antiquities Authority, a government body that stores and authenticates ancient objects for scholarly research, that declared in June 2003 that the ossuary was authentic, but that part of the inscription was forged.

Both the ossuary and the inscription, “James, son of Joseph,” date to the time of Jesus, the authority declared. But the second part of the inscription, “brother of Jesus,” was a modern forgery. A crude attempt to apply artificial patina under high temperatures was made to hide the forgery, the authority said. “The patina was not created under natural conditions,” report contributor Yuval Goren says in a telephone interview from Israel, where he is an archaeology professor at Tel Aviv University. The report relies on what is known as an isotopic test, meant to compare the composition of patina on the ossuary to others of a similar age.

If the patina of two ossuaries are the same, they are about the same age. If the patina inside an inscription matches the patina outside, the inscription was made when the ossuary was new. Patina is a darkening that come with age.
The results, Goran says, show that the ossuary itself dates from the time of Jesus, but that parts of the inscription do not.
“The patina on the rest of the ossuary was created in normal cave conditions,” he says, adding that the patina inside the inscriptions did not match that on the face of the ossuary. That means the inscription was made later, with a fake patina added, possibly by dissolving in water patina taken from the rest of the ossuary and then spreading the resulting paste into the inscription and baking it on. “I don’t know about the motive and I don’t know who did it,” he says. “The bottom line is that the patina in the inscription is not natural.”

His conclusions have come under severe attack, however, with the criticisms mounting since the Golan trial began last fall.
In one court exchange with Bringer, noted Israeli palaeographer Ada Yardeni said she would resign as an expert on ancient inscriptions if the ossuary is fake. “Yes. I said that I would leave the profession,” Yardeni said on cross-examination, confirming a story in Biblical Archaeology Review, the first publication to report news of the ossuary four years ago,
Making the criticisms all the more visceral is the questioning in archaeological circles about the use of isotopic tests themselves.

In a report that the review’s editor Hershel Shanks called a “bombshell” in the Jerusalem Post last month, Wolfgang Krumbien articulated the growing concerns of many experts about the antiquities authority tests. An internationally recognized expert on patina from the University of Oldenburg in Germany, Krumbien declared that the tests done by the authority were “irrelevant” and should never have been conducted. Isotopic tests, he wrote in a report prepared for Golan’s defence team, can only be used when on objects stored in ideal cave conditions and at steady temperatures.
But there is plenty of evidence that the James ossuary was not kept in such conditions. In fact, Krumbien found, it is likely that wherever the ossuary spent much of the past 2,000 years, there was either a flood or a cave-in of the wall of the tomb, which damaged the ossuary. “The cave in which the James ossuary was placed, either collapsed centuries earlier, or alluvial deposits penetrated the chamber together with water and buried the ossuary, either completely or partially,” he wrote.
As well, he wrote, he was able to find microscopic bits of patina within the inscription that matched the patina on the outside of the box, indicating that the lettering dated to the origins of the ossuary itself. He attributed Goren’s failure to find the patina to aggressive cleanings that removed almost all the patina from the lettering. Goren declined to comment on the Krumbien report, saying he will do so when called to testify before the trial. He was not sure when that might be.
Ed Keall, a retired curator at the ROM responsible for the ossuary when it was in Toronto, says he saw the patina in the inscription by using powerful microscopes. He also saw evidence that the ossuary — pockmarked along its bottom edge — had been buried or immersed in water for extended periods. “It’s all eaten away, like a piece of cheese,” says Keall, who remains optimistic that both the ossuary and the inscription date to Jesus’ time. “I have yet to be given any unequivocal evidence that it’s false,” he says. He is quick to add, however, that the question of the ossuary’s authenticity may never be settled, particularly since aggressive cleanings by antiquities dealers looking to boost the value by enhancing the inscription and by the antiquities authority have made it more difficult to find patina in the inscription.

Once the trial is over, however, Keall would like to see an open forum organized to discuss the ossuary and to debate the various opinions about its authenticity. Shanks of the Biblical Archaeology Review is already working on pulling together such a forum, though he sees no need to wait until after the trial. The problem, he says, is that Goren has said he won’t discuss the matter until after he has testified, and Shanks says the forum can’t be held without him — meaning the debate will just have to wait. “It would be like staging Hamlet without Hamlet,” Shanks says from his Washington office. “It can’t be done.”