Rejecting the Supernatural
I continue to hear from hundreds of readers of The Jesus Dynasty and by far the majority of the messages (letters and e-mails) are very positive. Some of these messages are profoundly moving, for example, the one I got earlier this month that began, “Dear Dr. Tabor, I waited almost 90 years for The Jesus Dynasty, thank you for leading me out of darkness into light. You verified many things I had long suspected without any substantiating evidence…” This reader goes on to relate growing up in a rather repressive religious environment where certain dogmas were promoted through fear and in the name of “Christ,” none of which it is likely the historical Jesus would have endorsed. I do not see myself in any role as a spiritual guide to others. I want to maintain my academic stance as an historian of religions. But if I my book contributes towards a better understanding of Jesus as he actually was, and a partial recovery of his teachings within his Jewish world, then I consider such a step forward.
However, I have received some very negative responses, even if comparatively few. It seems the most oft voiced objection to my presentation of things in The Jesus Dynasty is the charge that I “reject the supernatural.” For example, one reviewer at Amazon.com recently offered the following analysis:
By concluding that Jesus died, and stayed dead before examining the resurrection appearances, Tabor has not been a true scholar and his conclusions are suspect. Anyone making eternal decisions in their own life based on Tabor’s book would be foolish…All in all Tabor gives bizarre reasons for his views based on naturalistic thinking. Unfortunately, discounting the supernatural is like discounting God…. something they would not even dare to do at K-Mart during a blue light special.
I am not aware of a single competent historian of early Christianity at any major non-denominational college or university who would share the view that our historical evidence demands such theological conclusions. That is not so say that people who hold such faith are stupid or uninformed, but rather that faith and history are separate ways of looking at religion. Other than a few clerics, every major scholar of whom I am aware in the field of “studies of the historical Jesus” (Crossan, Ehrman, Sanders, Vermes, Fredriksen), shares my basic historical methods and presuppositions. This is not to say we all agree on conclusions, but we are clear on the methods of historical research and what counts for evidence.
I find it regrettable that some readers could so confuse things in terms of the academic historical study of religion as compared to Christian faith or theology, but alas, such confusion is quite common. I teach at a state university and serve as chair of the Dept. of Religious Studies. We cover a range of religious traditions including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen, Taoism, and so forth. In considering the history, development, and practice of these faiths in all their manifold variety it is absolutely essential that we take an objective academic approach–the very opposite to that of some readers, who obviously think that Christianity and the “truth” of Jesus’ resurrection, virgin birth, divinity, and redemptive role as Savior of humankind are historical facts, self-evident to any “true scholar.” Of course similar claims of other traditions to valid supernatural experiences are viewed as false, or perhaps “demonic.” And if this reader is correct that would mean that there are no “true scholars” outside the evangelical Christian camp.
What such critics fail to understand is that historical descriptive work in the area of religions is not in the business of evaluating truth claims, but in honestly and objectively tracing and reporting the rise and development of such views. In other words, it is not my role as an historian to say “Yes, Jesus rose from the dead, and those testimonies in Paul’s letter to 1st Corinthians and at the end of Matthew, Luke, and John are verifiable historical truth and I urge others to believe them so they can have eternal life.” Such personal testimony of faith would surely not make me a “true scholar,” in fact it would be quite the opposite. Imagine if a professor teaching the history of Islam began a class by endorsing Allah as the one God, Mohammed as his infallible Prophet, and the many “undeniable proofs” of the Koran’s perfection. One could hardly call such an approach “history” and any good university would fire such a teacher, and rightly so. The historical investigation of Christianity, or any religion for that matter, should be no different.
There are many places and situations in which such faith affirmations are appropriate but certainly not in the academic study of religion. My book, The Jesus Dynasty reflects the methods and assumptions with which historians commonly operate as they describe and trace the history and development of a religious tradition. Our job is not to evaluate and endorse spiritual truth, but rather to offer the best possible account we can of the history and development of a given tradition.
In point of fact, I do not “reject the supernatural,” but such personal views have nothing to do with my work as an historian. The guiding question of my book is–what can be responsibly said about the historical Jesus? Affirming the belief that Jesus had no human father, and that he rose bodily up to heaven in the clouds following his death, would take one totally out of the realm of what can be investigated historically. In my book I wanted to “come clean” with the reader in this regard and be clear about the differences between history and faith.
I also find it remarkable that the incredibly inspiring portrait that I present of the human Jesus who sacrifices his life for the cause of the Kingdom of God is given no value by such readers. Equally inspiring are the ways in which we can resurrect the forgotten role of John the Baptizer and James the brother of Jesus, as well as put a human face on his mother Mary and her extraordinary family. There is plenty to celebrate about Jesus other than seeing him as God in the flesh, guaranteer of eternal life.
What is rather frightening is to imagine such views of the supernatural becoming a part of the wider academic world, where Christian faith and dogma are treated as historical fact, and thus “required” as part of every curriculum. Thank God for Thomas Jefferson and the wisdom of our founding fathers and mothers in formulating the 1st Amendment–one of the most precious truths we should all hold as self evident.