The Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor

I recently received the following e-mail message from a reader of my book in Germany. I thought his research and comments were worth passing along. Some of the issues he raises I have addressed in previous posts at this site, but I pass it on as is, unedited, for what it might contribute to the discussion:

A similar ‘pun theory’ like that discussed in your blog was proposed by Samuel Krauss in his award-winning work “Griechische und lateinische Lehnwoerter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum” (2 voll., Berlin, 1898–1899, reprr. Hildesheim, 1964, 1984). He explained the name Pandera as a malapropism of pornos (paramour) which was insistantly rebutted by Immanuel Loew, with whose commentaries Krauss’ work was published (vol. 2, pp. 464, 614). Their terse arguments in a dictionary of greek loanwords in Aramaic texts seem to draw upon philological reasons like the other, the ‘parthenos-pun-theory’. Krauss later wrote that the Jewish anti-Christian polemic had made a pornogeneia (fornication birth) out of the parthenogeneia (virgin birth) (Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen. Berlin, 1902; Ndr. Hildesheim, 1994). This brings the anti-Christian polemic of the Panthera-story to the point but does not support the philological reasoning in the ‘pun-theory’.

However philology in my view provides as weak an argument against the ‘pun theory’ as it does in support of it. Satirical playing on words does not care about philological accuracy. The only persuasive argument against the ‘pun theories’ remains the frequent occurrence of the name Pantera in Latin, mainly epigraphical, sources as cited by Deissmann. He repeated his arguments in another work (“Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt“, Tübingen, 4th ed., 1923, p. 57) and added, relying on a postcard message by W.W. Baudissin, an explanation of the name Abdes which he reads as ’BD-’S, meaning “servant of Isis”. The cult of Isis, Deissmann adds, had been widespread among the Phoenecians (to which the Sidonians belonged). If this is plausible (and here strictly philological/onomastic reasoning would apply) Tib. Iul. Abdes Pantera hardly was a Jew. But at the same time there is no proof of him being a non-Jew. He might well have ‘converted’ to Judaism like many of his contemporaries, the so-called “God-fearers”. (I admittedly don’t know whether it is likely that a God-fearer keeps his gentile name after the ‘conversion’.)

An important aspect of the ‘Abdes Pantera story’, namely the history of his unit, the cohors I sagittariorum seems to be somewhat disregarded in your book but this lack occurs in all the other works I read about the Panthera-story as well. I was not yet able to trace back the claim that this cohort had been transfered from Syria to the Rhine. Deissmann only quotes an oral communication of Alfred von Domaszewski (who told him that the unit had been stationed in Syria, transfered in 6 CE. to Dalmatia and 3 years later to Bingerbrueck). This information is time and again repeated in the literature without giving any reference to sources. Obviously it would be crucial for the claim that Abdes Pantera was Jesus’ father to prove that his unit had indeed been stationed somewhere in Palestine, or, better in Galilee around Jesus’ date of birth. Lutz Greisiger

I think I have to agree with Mr. Greisiger that philological arguments are not decisive against the use of a “pun” per se, and that Deissmann’s citations of the name are more decisive. However, as I have pointed out in several posts, I still think the strongest argument against the “pun theory” for the origin of the name Pantera for Jesus’ father, and the designation “Jesus son of Pantera,” is that Christian apologists such as Origen and Epiphanius, in countering the charge took it seriously as a name, even arguing it was part of the genuine geneaological record of Jesus’ ancestors. And I also pointed out in my book that we now know of a Jewish ossuary, found in Jerusalem, with the name Pantera. This gets even closer to “home” than Deissmann’s Latin epigraphs.

On the history of the Cohort of our Sidonian Pantera I know little beyond what Deissmann reports though I too have noticed that everyone just passes on what he had by oral communcation without documentation. I am not at all convinced that Deissmann’s postcard message that Abdes=Servant of Isis is valid. I have discussed some other possibilities in various Blog posts here. Likewise I don’t think we should assume in speculating about the Sidonian Pantera is that he was necessarily already in the army around the time of Jesus’ birth. What we need to determine, and I think it can be done from evidence related to the cemetery “excavation” in 1859, such as it was, is the dating of the tombstones and thus the approximate date of Abdes Pantera’s death. I hope to be able to write something about that in future posts.

As some of you know, and as I mention in my book, The Jesus Dynasty, the most commonly accepted explanation for the tradition that Jesus is “son of Pantera” is that the word pantera is a pun for the Greek word parthenos or “virgin” in Greek and not a “real name.” In other words, the Jewish enemies of Jesus were making fun of the idea of Jesus being the “son of a virgin” by called him the “son of a panther,” or a lusty animal.

I am amazed at how this explanation, which I consider to be wholly without any historical or linguistic basis, has become so widespread. I can’t tell you the number of reviewers of my book who have matter-of-factly pointed out, apparently Dr. Tabor is not even aware of the origin of this term and mistakenly thinks it might refer to an historical person! Even major scholars pass on the explanation as if the matter is settled. I think many of them have been influenced by Joseph Klausner, the Israeli/Jewish scholar whose book Jesus of Nazareth (published in Hebrew in 1929) was one of the earliest treatments of Jesus in the light of Jewish sources. As I have pointed out in previous posts on this Blog, as well as in my book, Adolf Diessmann in 1906 showed conclusively that the name “Pantera” is a real name, and further, that it was favored by Roman soldiers.

So the question arises–where did the pantera=parthenos explanation originate? I knew it was not ancient but I was not sure how far it went back since no one who uses it ever gives a source, but just passes it on as if it is self-evident. Recently one of my graduate students, Chad Day, who is independently working on Jewish traditions about Jesus in antiquity, passed on the following to me. I want to thank him for his good sleuthing work, though we are not sure we have yet arrived at the one person who first came up with the “pun” explanation. Here is what Chad Day sent on to me:

The Parthenos pun explanation seems to go back at least to Nitzsch and Bleek (Nitzsch, K. I. “Appendix to Bleek.” Page 116 in Studien und Kritiken zur Theologie und Philosophie. Edited by J. Frauenstadt. Berlin: Voss, 1840). Nitzsch (Nitzsch, Karl Immanuel, 1787-1868) seems to be the one that influenced Joseph Klausner.I found this in Heinrich Laible’s “Jesus Christus im Talmud,” 1893. Interestingly, as one of the most rabid Christian apologists (as well as cunningly anti-Semitic) of the bunch of turn-of-the-century scholars commenting on Pantera, Laible finds Nitzsch’s argument about the Parthenos pun totally unconvincing, primarily on philological grounds. However, he does not mention whether this pun business was initiated by Nitzsch. I seem to recall in my recent reading that they did in fact receive this “explanation” from another source (and one which was probably apologetic in some modern fashion). You are quite right that such explanations do often become consensus overnight without any serious investigation, or in this case, perhaps philological logic.

Klausner does indeed take this “pun explanation” right from Nitszch and Bleek (see p. 24, Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth), thus propagating the idea even more widely, because his work was published in English in 1957, whereas the important work of Krauss and Strack on this issue was not available to the English-speaking world. Strack (Die Haretiker, 1913) is still only in German. Part of the Krauss volume of course was presented by Horbury just a few years ago, but the consensus explanation is now firmly implanted, especially since Klausner offhandedly remarks that Herford’s (1903) argument against this pun is unconvincing.

Another interesting aspect of this consensus has to do with the intended audience (and thus this speaks to bias) of Klausner’s now famous treatment of Jesus, namely that he wrote for a “Hebrew” audience. I would argue that this gave his formulations a certain credibility over against Herford’s lenghty (and sometimes anti-Semitic) treatment and conclusions. This business of “overnight” consensuses on some issues is grounded in decidedly unscientific (as well as unscholarly) assertions. Apparently Nitasch attempted to read the Greek panthera as the equivalent of Latin lupa–which means “she-wolf” or “prostitute,” thus making the epithet (or what we are calling the “pun”) “Son of the Prostitute.” Now Nitzsch (and later Klausner) wants to understand this pun as an anti-Christian slogan in response to the early Christian practice of calling Jesus by the title, “Son of the Virgin.” The problem is that we have not even one example of this practice in order to give warrant to the notion that such an experssion became the basis for punning a counter-slogan? This “pun” seems to be thoroughly modern, and frankly, quite apologetic, from those who want to dismiss the “Jesus son of Pantera” designations as having any possible historical basis. Nonetheless, from Celsus through Epiphanius as well as the Rabbis (i.e., second through the fifth century), Panthera was understood as a name of a person, not merely a noun or adjective. In fact, some of the Church Fathers go to great lengths to “explain away” this name as it concerns the historical figure of Jesus. And Deissman, just 100 years ago, should have effectively laid to rest the notion that the name Pantera is a made-up pun.

Thanks to Chad Day for this information.

One of the features that stands out in the teachings of Jesus, even at our earliest layers of tradition, are the notions of “love of enemies,” “bless those who curse you,” “turning the other cheek,” “going the second mile” and being “wise as serpents, harmless as doves.” One of the very few teachings of Jesus that Paul knows or at least quotes is “Repay no one evil for evil…never avenge yourselves…if your enemy is hungry feed him…overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:17-21).

Although some have argued that the historical Jesus was in truth a Zealot type who advocated the violent and revolutionary overthrow of the Roman and Jewish establishments (Brandon, Jesus the Zealot; Carmichael, Death of Jesus; Maccoby, Revolution in Judea) it remains the case that there is no evidence that Jesus gathered arms or raised a band of militants in order to threaten the authorities of his day, be they Jewish or Roman.

On the other hand he did indeed expect the sudden, violent, decisive, and bloody overthrow of the political powers of his day and the absolute overturn of the fortunes of the poor, the meek, the downtrodden, and the persecuted. Woe to you rich! Woe to you who laugh now! Woe to you that are full now!

I think there is a sense in which both perspectives have some important validity. Brandon, Maccoby, Eisenman and others have rightly emphasized that the image of the Jesus/James movement as a quietist, meditative, pacifist, “spiritual way” can be cast in a way that neglects the dynamic political and social contexts and implications of a proclamation that the Kingdom of God has drawn near. The focus of the apocalyptic message of the Kingdom of God was not that all things would be resolved in some afterlife or world beyond–but that the powers that be, the corrupt social, economic, and political forces that ran the country, and the world, were to be dramatically brought down. There is every reason to think that Jesus and his followers expected that overthrow and would have greatly rejoiced to see it come. There are lots of texts in the teachings of Jesus that deal with this dramatic time of judgment when what is up will be down, and what is down will be up.

The question then is one of how that overthrow is to come about, not whether it was expected, hoped for, and fervently desired. In the case of Jesus and his followers I think that the evidence does indeed indicate that they are not in the process of gathering weapons and making plans for a military coup against the Roman forces. But this is not to say that they were accommodating and quietist. Their sympathies would certainly have been with those who had tried, however unsuccessfully, to oppose the oppression and military occupation of the country. It came down to a matter of method–what did they think would lead to the desired results. What I argue in my book is that Jesus and his followers expected a dramatic intervention by God, and only with that could their hopes and dreams be finally realized. But that intervention was certainly not seen as a pacifist one–to the contrary heads would roll, governments would be overthrown, and the faithful followers of the Messiah/s would be put in charge of things through an overwhelming show of divine power.

The difference between MLK, Gandhi, and others who have practiced “passive resistence” in our own day is that Jesus and his movement expected and welcomed a very “violent” apocalypse in which heads would topple. These “Woes” that Jesus pronounced upon the rich, the persecutors, and those “laughing now” in the Q source (Luke 3:24-25) capture the flavor of this way of thinking quite well, as do lots of the parables that predict a sudden and abrupt calling of the wicked to judgment and a casting out of those wicked ones in power. John, Jesus, and James all believed fervently that there was to be a great reversal and God will imminently and swiftly bring it about. All the apocalyptic literature that we have from this period is violent to the extreme. Think of the “body count” in the book of Revelation alone. There is also a strong element of “rejoicing” on the part of the “saints” who see the Beast/Babylon go down. This is what Eisenman has rightly objected to in his insistence that the Jesus/James movement was not some quietist movement that had withdrawn from society into a contemplative Pythagorean or Buddhist-like aversion to this world. They were very much in this world and keen to see the “will of God done on earth as it is in heaven,” which would mean some very powerful forces of oppression and evil would have to be overthrown. The question is how this was to come about?

More to come on this topic and also the related idea of what Schweitzer called “interim ethics.”