The Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor

This is the third installment of my response to the review of my book, The Jesus Dynasty, by my friend and colleague Prof. James F. Strange published in the current issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (November/December, 2006, pp. 72-76).

Toward the end of Strange’s review he plays with me a bit and I am happy to indulge him in a bit of irony. He writes:

And by the way, he [Tabor] tells us a “shocking truth,” namely that Jesus and his followers were never baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Is he being ironic? Indulge me in a little irony. No, James! Say it ain’t so!

Dr. Strange is referring to my discussion in chapter 9 dealing with “Jesus the Baptizer” (page 149 in the Simon & Schuster English edition) in which I make the point that the baptism that John the Baptizer administered, as well as that carried out by Jesus and his disciples, was not a “Christian Baptism” in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This might be a simple and obvious point to someone with academic training but I wrote my book for the general reader and I am convinced of two things in this regard. First, that few to none have ever heard or imagined the figure of “Jesus the Baptiser”–that is the idea I discuss that Jesus teamed up with John the Baptizer and carried out with John a joint baptizing campaign in Judea, while John was working in the north along the Jordan River. And second, that the notion of the Twelve Apostles, that is Peter, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, Phillip–the whole lot of them–were only baptized into “John’s baptism,” and that the baptism Jesus and his disciples were administering was also “John’s baptism.” What this means is that none of them were ever initiated into a baptism into “Christ,” as Paul subsequently develops it in 1 Corinthians 12:12, Romans 6:3-4, etc. I do indeed think many readers will find that idea to be somewhat disturbing and shocking. First that Jesus baptized at all, and second that “his” baptism was not “Christian” in any sense that would distinguish it from what John was preaching and practicing.

But there is more to this point, taking us beyond Strange’s irony here. It is the case that Matthew has Jesus commission his Eleven followers, after his resurrection, to make disciples of all nations and baptize them “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). I have no idea if Dr. Strange believes Jesus ever said such a thing on a mountain in Galilee before he ascended to heaven but most scholars would consider it highly unlikely that Jesus used such language. It appears to be drawn from later Christian liturgy and put in his mouth to give authority to the new Christian baptism of the Church, which was in sharp distinction from the baptism preached and practiced by John, and even Jesus for that matter. It is also worth noting that Hebrew Matthew (Ibn Shaprut’s text published by George Howard) lacks the phrase entirely and there is some evidence it was lacking in early manuscripts of Matthew. This is not a moot point in that the book of Acts makes a great deal of the utter ineffectiveness of “John’s baptism” in contrast to the new Christian baptism administered by Paul “in the name of Jesus” that allows those baptized to “receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 19:1-7). The clear implication of Luke’s idea here is that those baptized by John (and by extension those baptized by Jesus), which would include the Twelve Apostles, never really received Christian baptism. I do indeed consider that “shocking” to many readers who might have assumed, as Paul affirms, that there was “one baptism,” that is the one that put one “into Christ.”

I am convinced that Paul’s teaching in this case have so clouded things that it is difficult to imagine John and Jesus living and dying without ever knowning anything about “Christian baptism.” What I seek to do in my book is put them both against the context of an apocalyptic Judaism, and a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, to prepare one for the imminent judgment that was expected. In the case of John’s baptism we also have a source outside the New Testament gospels, namely that of the historian Josephus. Not only does he record that John administered the rite of baptism, but he offers a bit of theological analysis of its purposes–surely a rare and valuable bit of data. Josephus’s description makes clear that the activities of John fit comfortably within the Judaism of his time and have no connections with Pauline baptism or subsequent Christian formulas.

I don’t mind Dr. Strange poking a bit of fun at me here. In fact I think this part of his review was rather appealing in its tone. However, I would not want readers to miss the underlying seriousness of the points I make in chapter 9. I truly believe they are profound, with, yes “shocking” implications for the practice of Christianity in the name of Jesus today.