Archive for February, 2007

Posted on : Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:03:59 GMT | Author : Discovery Communications, Inc.

SILVER SPRING, Md., Feb. 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Given the worldwide interest in the subject, Ted Koppel, Managing Editor of the Discovery Channel, will moderate “The Lost Tomb of Jesus: A Critical Look,” a panel versed in archaeology, theology, Biblical research and other related disciplines immediately following the Sunday premiere of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.”
Koppel, who has no connection to the production of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” will bring his independent journalistic perspective to the evidence introduced in the documentary. The hour-long discussion will have minimal commercial interruptions and will present the many voices, opinions and beliefs related to the film’s content. The panel will explore the filmmakers’ profound assertions and challenge their assumptions and suggested conclusions.

“Inevitably, on a subject as important as this, there will be many unanswered questions,” said Koppel. “I expect to raise as many of those as possible.”

The forum, produced by The Koppel Group and anchored by Managing Editor Ted Koppel, will air at 11 PM ET/PT on Sunday, March 4, immediately following the world premiere of the documentary which airs at 9 PM ET/PT.
Discovery Communications, Inc.

The Christian blogging world is bursting at the seams with all sorts of confident assuarances that there is nothing to the “Jesus Family Tomb” story that broke into the headlines yesterday. Some of the predetermined protests though seem to give one the feeling of “whistling in the dark.” Unfortunately the inaccurate information that is circulating about the research represented in both the book, The Jesus Family Tomb and the documentary, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” to air this coming Sunday at 9pm, has made many if not most of these reactions moot. In this rush to judgment without hearing any of the facts, one detects a bit of paranoia. I noticed this on the Larry King Show last night as the president of the Southern Baptist Convention tried to defend the faith based on a host of erroneous information and assumptions related to the Talpiot tomb. Ben Witherington lists ten reasons that he thinks the case for the Talpiot tomb being that of Jesus of Nazareth are “bogus” that are making their way all over the Internet today. In my view most of them are largely misconceived. I offer here just a few brief comments but urge those interested in this topic to read the book just published which addresses almost all of these. It is difficult to carry on discussion when the main content of the evidence is not clear to those who are making their assertions.

So, I present here a few clarifications that I hope will bring some light to those who are interested in keeping up with the facts:

1) By all ancient accounts, the tomb of Jesus was empty, making it highly unlikely that it was moved to another tomb, decayed for one year’s time, and then the bones put in an ossuary

I agree and I guess I am one of the few “liberal” scholars who thinks that the empty tomb story in Mark 16 is historically probable. Most of my colleagues say it is a later legend. However, that the temporary tomb into which Jesus’ body was hastily put at sundown, as Passover began, was never intended to be a permanent place of burial. Mark does not identify it as even the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, nor do Luke and John, and John makes clear it was a tomb that just happened to be nearby and was used for 24 hous until proper funerary rites could be carried out after Shabbat. What happened to the corpse of Jesus is a matter we can not resolve by historical inquiry, but that it was moved seems certain. At any rate, the Talpiot tomb, by 70 AD, if it is associated with Jesus of Nazareth, seems to have become the intimate final resting place for Jesus son of Joseph, his brother Jose, his brother James, his mother Maria, another Mary, known as Mariamene, a Matthew, and a Jude son of Jesus, plus three other ossuaries unnamed.

2) There is no DNA evidence that this is the historical Jesus of Nazareth

The only DNA tests have shown that the Mariamne in the tomb is not a mother or sister from his mother, of the Yeshua bar Jehosef. At this point that is the only DNA test result we have but it is solid data that can be used in analyzing the possible relationships between the six individuals named in this tomb.

3) The statistical analysis is untrustworthy

Dr. Andrey Feuerverger did the basic statistical work and as it is not my field I am not able to make this judgment. I do know that he is one of the most highly regarded statisticians in the field and has worked on this for over two years. I have also consulted independently with two other mathematicians trained in statistics to run some of my own queries. Dr. Feuerverger will publish his work in a peer reviewed journal but for now we are pleased that he has shared his preliminary results with us. One can find documents on this and other matters at the Discovery Web site (Go to Enter Tomb, then download Documents).

4) The name “Jesus” was a popular name in the first century, appearing in 98 other tombs and on 21 other ossuaries

Based on Tal Ilan’s comprehensive survey of forms of the name “Joshua” (Yeshua/Jesus) from 330 BCE to 200 CE in both literary and inscriptional sources we get 103 examples or a 1 in 17.9 ratio compared to all male Jewish names known. As far as ossuaries go, however, the only one that has come from a provenanced tomb with the name “Jesus son of Joseph” is the Talpiot tomb. But the real issue is not the “popularity” of an individual name, but the probability of this cluster of names occuring in a single small family tomb with ten ossuaries, and further, to what degree these names, in the forms we have them, fit or don’t fit what we know historically of Jesus and his family.

5) There is no historical evidence that Jesus was ever married or had a child

I largely agree with this and in my book, The Jesus Dynasty I state that clearly. However, sometimes we learn from new evidence and it might well be that this tomb offers us that evidence. The presence of a Judah son of Jesus does not make this the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, but if the weight of other evidence points in that direction then we have to consider this as a possibility.

6) The earliest followers of Jesus never called him “Jesus, son of Joseph”

John 1:45 “Philip found Nathanael, and said unto him, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” All Jewish males are described within the culture as the “son of x,” with the father’s name. The name of the father was often not written on ossuaries but when it was it offers us a further identity hook. I don’t think it is likely that Joseph was the father of Jesus, but by taking Miriam as his wife when she was pregant he in effect becomes his “legal” father and Jesus is then known as “son of the carpenter,” or “son of Joseph.” The only other name that comes to us is “Yeshua ben Panthera.” There is no reason to hold the view that “Jesus son of Joseph” is not a fully appropriate name for Jesus of Nazareth.

7) It is highly unlikely that Joseph, who died earlier in Galilee, was buried in Jerusalem, since the historical record connects him only to Nazareth or Bethlehem

I am not aware of anyone who has claimed that Joseph, husband of Mary, was buried in this tomb. Most of us assume he was buried in Galilee, while the family itself, though from Galilee, takes up residence in Jerusalem under the guardianship of James after Jesus’ death. Those who died before 70 CE would likely be buried in a family tomb in the Jerusalem area. The “Joseph” in the tomb has the rare nickname Jose and in terms of the “Jesus Family Tomb” hypotheis he would most likely be the “lost” brother of Jesus known as Joses in Greek. Jesus had four brothers: James, Jose, Shimon, and Jude. We know lots about James, a bit about Jude, and we know that Shimon took over at James’s death. But what about Jose? He drops from the record. The evidence from this tomb would indicate he died before 70 CE, thus explaining why he did not take the lead after James, even though he was the second eldest, and accordingly, why he would then be found in this tomb.

8) The Talipot tomb and ossuaries are such that they would have belonged to a rich family, which does not match the historical record for Jesus

This is not the case. I have been in the tomb and it is quite small and modest, not at all aristocratic. It is in an area running from Silwan to Talpiot that Gibson and Zissu, in an extensive survey of tombs of the area, have identified as those of a poorer class, in contrast to the monumental tombs nearer the Old City. Actually both the James ossuary, and the Jesus son of Joseph ossuary are exceptionally modest and plain, as are the majority of the others. There are photos and full documentation on the Discovery Web site. (go to Enter the Tomb, then download documentation).

9) Fourth-century church historian Eusebius makes quite clear that the body of James, the brother of Jesus, was buried alone near the temple mount and that his tomb was visited in the early centuries, making very unlikely that the Talipot tomb was Jesus’ “family tomb”

It is very likely that 4th century Christians identified the monumental tombs in the Kidron Valley with that of James and other early Christians. Zias has recently shown that the Absolom monument, for example, was identified with Zechariah, father of John the Baptist. This traditional tomb of James has no historical connection to him, but was the tomb of the sons of Hezir, a priestly family. It is possible James was buried in the Kidron area, we can not be sure from this record of Eusebius, because of this confusion, but even so, his bones and ossuary could have well ended up in the family tomb. The question is whether we can now match the patina “fingerprint” of the James ossuary with those in the Talpiot tomb. There is good evidence that is the case and it is based on blind tests of over 30 other ossuaries of the area taken at random from various tombs. The same person who authenticated the James ossuary in terms of its geological characteristics was involved in these tests. As it turns out, the patina in a given tomb environment shows growth patterns and ratios of minerals specific to the tomb it is in over the centuries. The James ossuary is a dead match for the rest of the Talpiot ossuaries but fits none of the others tested from a wide sampling of tombs.

10) The two Mary ossuaries do not mention anyone from Migdal, but simply has the name Mary, one of the most common of all ancient Jewish female names

In fact one “Mary” has the form of the name consistently used for Jesus’ mother: Maria, very rare in Aramaic, and the other “Mary” is Mariamene, known in early Christian sources as the form of the name “Miriam/Mariam” used for Mary Magdalene. This does not prove the second Mary is Mary Magdalene, but it indicates that whoever this Mary is, she has a form of the name associated with her. The inscription also reads, “he Mara,” which means the “lord” or “master” or “also known as” “lord” “master,” according to Tal Ilan, but it is in the feminine. The DNA evidence shows that this “second” Mary is not the mother or sister through the same mother, of Jesus, which could have been possible in a small tomb of this size, assuming it belonged to his family. What we try to do here is test hypotheses. For example, if we had a Bernice or a Shelamzion in this tomb we would have to ask, what possible connection might this be to Jesus of Nazareth. If Yeshua and Mariamne were maternally related, then she would be his sister or mother. But in the case of Jesus, the two most intimate women in his life, the ones who washed his body for burial, were Maria his mother and Mariamne or Mary Magdalene. Should it surprise us that they would be next to him in death as in life? I find the scene itself very moving. We are not here “proving” that Mariamne is Mary Magdalene but in considering how the names in the tomb might fit the Jesus family it seems a likely match.

My own view is that with or without the James ossuary included, the cluster of names is quite striking and significant, and has a high probability of being the Jesus Family tomb. Of course with the James ossuary included there can be little doubt that in March of 1980 a bulldozer accidently uncovered the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

What I find most difficult when it comes to discussions are those who have as their beginning assumption that this can not be the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. I have no investment in this tomb whatsoever and I have wanted to pursue the best evidence possible, and at any point something might have turned up in our investigation that would make it highly unlikely that this was the tomb of Jesus. Those who have predetermined views do not appear to be pursuing an open quest for evidence but an apologetic effort to save the faith. The conclusions one draws are determined before the evidence is examined, and no matter what the evidence shows, it can not show that this tomb belonged to Jesus of Nazareth. As a result one does not get discussion and a free and honest exchange of information and ideas, with mutual gain, but a “battle” in which one side charges the other with “bogus” ideas and makes it their main effort to refute an opponent. I think there is a better way.

“Had these names not been found in a single tomb that was professionally excavated I would have said, 100 percent, that what we are looking at are simple forgeries. I find it very interesting that we have this completely unique combination of names. This thing definitely, I think, is worth some further research.” Joe Zias to the BBC

A little history here. Back in 1996 when the existence of the Talpiot tomb and its interesting cluster of names broke headlines (see the Introduction to my book, The Jesus Dynasty for an account of how this unfolded) via a BBC special produced by Ray Bruce and his associates, just about everyone interviewed, from Tom Wright to Amos Kloner all said the same thing: these are common names, and they mean nothing in terms of this “Jesus son of Joseph” being potentially related to the Nazarene Jesus. At that time there was only one lone voice to the contrary, and that was Joe Zias, then curator at the Rockefeller museum. Through years of dealing with ossuaries, epitaphs, and even fakes and forgeries, Joe immediately realized that if these names indeed came from a single tomb it was the cluster or grouping of names that made this tomb significant and he called for further investigation when everyone else could only talk of how “common” the names were. He was in fact so impressed with this cluster that he said had he not known they were from a single tomb, excavated by competent archaeologists (Joseph Gath, Shimon Gibson, and Amos Kloner), he would have to assume the names were forged since they were so unique as a set.

I agree with Joe to this day and I think his trained instincts were right. Accordingly I welcome the latest investigations that have surfaced this week. There is still a lot to sort out but the dismissal of the entire matter with the refrain, “the names are common,” simply shows that one has not seriously examined the evidence (see my post below for my own outline thereof).

I am in NY this weekend to participate in the press conference on the so-called “Jesus Family Tomb” tomorrow. This is the “Talpiot tomb” that I discuss in the Introduction to my book, The Jesus Dynasty. That Introduction offers a fairly comprehensive discussion of the basic background of the breaking story and it can be read on-line at ABC News. At the time I finished that book, in November, 2005, I told as much of the story as I knew. Since that time much more has become clear. A full panel of experts on DNA, statistics, epigraphy, archaeology, forensics, and biblical studies will participate in an open discussion covering the results of a four year investigation of this tomb and its contents. Two of the ossuaries will be on display, that of Yeshua bar Yehosef and Mariamene, the two upon which DNA tests were carried out. There is a made for TV documentary that will present the basic story called “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” that will air on Discovery Channel March 4th at 9pm EST (and at various other times in Canada, the UK, Israel, and Europe, check local listings). A book, titled The Jesus Family Tomb by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino goes on sale tomorrow. The book chronicles both the four year research project and its results.

For the past few days I have read many news reports and Blogs on various aspects of the Talpiot tomb as aspects of this story have “leaked out” and lots of inaccuate and erroneous information has spread rather crazily on the internet. Because of a non-disclosure agreement that protected all of us working on this research I have not written in any detail beyond what I cover in the Introduction to The Jesus Dynasty. Following the press conference tomorrow that all changes. Now with all the facts officially released I will do my best to share with readers of this Blog what appears to be our present state of knowledge about this tomb. I will also be participating with a number of scholars in a Discussion Forum at the Discovery Web site.

The term “Christkillers” is an ugly one as it is used today, and as it has been used for centuries by those who hate Jews. It has become a central justification for this special kind of Christian anti-semitic thinking. But one has to ask, what is the origin of the term and the idea, that is that the Jews are guilty of “killing Christ,” or, as it is sometimes put, of “Deicide,” that is “killing God”?

As far as I can determine the first mention of this idea as a blanket charge against “the Jews” comes from Paul’s earliest preserved letter, written to his followers living in the Greek town of Salonica or Thessalonica around the year AD 50. He writes:

“…the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be save–so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath has come upon them at last!” (1 Thess 2:15-16).

What makes this passage important in terms of the development of Christianity is that it breaks new ground by laying a blanket charge that it was “the Jews” who killed Jesus, who displease God, and who oppose humankind. The strong vituperative language that Paul uses here is not really what makes the passage important in terms of the history of Christian anti-semitism. Actually, various Jewish groups (Essenes against Pharisees, Pharisees against Sadducees, Nazarenes against Pharisees) often use very ugly language in castigating their fellow Jews for their beliefs, practices or perceived moral failures. It is neither the language nor the vindictive spirit (You are going to hell and I am glad of it!) that marks Paul’s outburst here as exceptional. What stands out is that he addresses his condemnation against Jews as a whole, even though he himself was a Jew. In other words it was “the Jews” who are guilty of all these things and will be soon and rightly punished. It is a small step from this sort of thinking and the decision to take a bit of this justly deserved punishment of the “Jews” into one’s own hands.

But there is another fateful passage in the New Testament that pretty much “seals the deal” on this whole blanket “Christkiller” charge. It is found only in Matthew’s gospel and scholars are convinced it is an expression of author’s own sentiments, which are very similar to Paul’s, rather than any accurate record of history. The scene is at the trial of Jesus when the Roman governor Pontius Pilate delivers Jesus over to be executed by crucifixion. According to Matthew:

“And all the people answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children’” (Matthew 27:25).

With these chilling words 1900 years of Christian persecution against the Jews was both launched and justified. After all, had not the Jewish people asked for this? Had they not freely taken upon themselves the label “Christkillers,” so that any fate suffered by the Jews, however inflicted, was in the end well deserved?

Today to most of us I think these ideas sound utterly repugnant and shocking in their blatant condemnation of an entire people, even a people who were yet to be born. But all one has to do is spend a bit of time on the Web with Google searches for any common anti-semitic terms and ideas, and the amount of thinking of this type so readily available at a keystroke or two is truly staggering.

I am not saying that Paul or the author of the gospel of Matthew were “anti-semitic” in the full sense of that word as it develops in subsequent Christian thinking. But I am convinced that the sentiments that they express in these passages are the beginnings of a way of thinking that easily developed into, or was translated into, justification for the most horrible and unspeakable attrocities against the Jewish people. The power of language in human affairs is without match. And whether Paul or the writer of Matthew were sincerely following their vision of God’s will or not, their language and what it implies, and came to imply, is sad beyond measure.
One might easily take these sentiments, and many did, and conclude that at the bottom of all the woes of human history is one group–the Jews.

A number of times in Paul’s letters he uses a technical term in Greek, “to receive,” which is translated from a Greek verb paralambano, which does indeed often mean to pass on something from one authority to another by tradition (i.e., literally “handed on”).

For example, in 1 Corinthians 15 one of the most important chapters for Christian faith in the entire New Testament, Paul writes that he has “received” and then “passed on” (paradidomai) the teaching of that “Christ” (notice he does not say “Jesus”) died for sins, was buried, and was raised the “third day,” and then was seen by various ones–Peter, the Twelve, 500 brothers at once, James (Jesus’ brother), and all the apostles. Most have assumed this means Paul “received” this by some kind of testimony, as if he was told it on a human level, perhaps directly by Peter, or James, or some of the Twelve. That would indeed be a natural and potentially logical reading of Paul’s claims to have “received” this “gospel.”

However, if one begins to examine more carefully just how independently Paul claims to have “received” this or that, it becomes clear that he is not in fact getting these ideas, facts, and narratives, from sources who were eyewitnesses and thus passed them on to him. Rather he makes the explicit claim that he did not get his “gospel,” which he carefully defines in 1 Cor 15:1, from men, or from any human source, but by a revelation from Jesus Christ himself (Galatians 1:11-12). In fact, he uses the very same verb in these verses, namely, paralambano as he does in 1 Corinthians 15.

So if Paul claims that his “gospel,” of the “death, burial, and resurrection” of Jesus did not come from men, does he intend to say, after all, that he talked to James or to Peter or to John and received from them these testimonies he reports?

This is a very crucial point since many conservative Christians believers base everything on 1 Corinthians 15. It has become for these folk the absolute bedrock of the faith. Most who are trained in a bit of scholarship admit that the four Gospels came later, forty to sixty years after Jesus death, but there seems to be a special triumphant delight in pointing out that Paul writes that he received these things, and that he must mean he got them from the Jerusalem “pillars” (James, Peter, John), so they must go back to very soon after Jesus death.

The problem with this is that when Paul uses this special verb “receive,” which does normally mean something handed on from teacher to student, from hand to hand, from mouth to mouth, he does not mean it on any ordinary human level. What he clearly says he means is that he gets these things directly from Christ!

Now, these are not just general “impressions” or inspirational ideas. Paul actually claims to get sustained narrative accounts and specific information directly from Jesus. Notice his language in 1 Corinthians 11:23 when he says how he “received” (same Greek verb paralambano) his account of the Last Supper where Jesus told his disciples to drink his blood and eat his body through symbols of wine and bread! Where did he get such a shocking and totally non-Jewish idea? Eating human flesh and drinking human blood–even as a symbol? It is totally unknown in Jewish culture but well known in Greek magical rites. Notice, in his own words, he tells us. It was not from James, or Peter, or John, or from any of the Twelve where were there at the Last Supper–but he says very plainly: I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you…

As I see it these are the most telling twelve words in the history of Western ideas.

Think of it. Paul’s essential vision of things was taken up by Augustine and others and literally became Christianity, which then, combined with Plato, became the foundation of Western civilization.

But where did Paul, who never knew Jesus, get what he says he got? He tells us here–”from the Lord.” But since Jesus is long dead, he must be getting this from clairvoyant voices and visions and revelations, of which he says he has had many! (2 Corinthians 12). That he would even claim to get this kind of narrative material from “the Lord,” that is a detailed account of what happened at the Last Supper, should give anyone pause. He is not here passing on what he got from those who were there, but he is saying he got it from “the Lord,” in heaven by supernatural revelation.

Given that language, this must also be what he means in 1 Corinthians 15 when he reports these “resurrection” sightings. Notice carefully, he uses the same precise language when he tells his followers at Thessalonica how the events at the appearance of Christ (2nd coming) will unfold. What he says is, “This I tell you by the word of the Lord...” (1 Thess 4:15). He then gives details of just how things will unfold, far beyond what anyone could ascertain from texts of the Hebrew Prophets. So how would he know such things? He tells you plainly–the Lord told him!

What people need to realize is that if one bases faith on what Paul taught, which all Christians do, then that basis is not coming from those who were with Jesus (whom Paul sarcastically calls the “so-called pillars of the church”), but upon voices and visions and revelations that Paul is “hearing” and “seeing.” For some that is a strong foundation. For many, including I think most historians, it is really something that one must question in terms of accurate and reliable historical information. Can Paul really know what went on at the Last Supper when he was not there? Can he really know how the events of the end will unfold?

I am working on a book about Paul and this central problem, long ago noted by Paul’s oppoments, later labeled as “Ebionites,” is central to my thesis. I am continually amazed at how much is build upon Paul and how little on Jesus. Paul perfers the words Lord and Christ. The name “Jesus” suggests to him something too close to what he calls negatively “Christ after the flesh.” Paul is all for “Christ,” but cares little for Jesus as he was on earth as a human being who lived and died. He minimizes those who knew Jesus and those whom Jesus personally chose to represent him. All now comes from “the Lord,” but he means by this a heavenly glorified being who in his fantasy sits above all powers and realities of the entire universe but speaks directly to Paul, his special chosen one, with direct voice contact and information. If Paul is right, then so be it. But if he is wrong, then what a left turn was taken away from the historical Jesus. I say reader beware.

One of the features that distinguishes The Jesus Dynasty from many other historical treatments of Jesus is the attention I give to place. By that I mean my attempt to determine if possible the locations of various sites that become the settings of the basic gospel narratives. This is particularly the case when it comes to the Last Days of Jesus in Jerusalem, that final week that includes his daily excursions into the Temple court area, the guest house where he ate his last supper, the garden of Gethsemane, the various stages of his “trial,” first before the High Priest, then Pilate, and then Herod, the place of the execution, and the location of the tomb closeby where he was temporary placed in haste. In almost every case I have reason to question the traditional sites, many of which were settled upon in the 4th and 5th centuries AD, or even later.

Over the years, in dozens of trips to Jerusalem, I have studied the various sites and their traditions and I have shifted my views over time. For example, there was a time when I was quite convinced of the validity of the late Bargil Pixner’s theories about an Essene Quarter on what is today called Mt. Zion in the southwest corner of the Old City. I am now quite sure this entire theory is incorrect. I knew Bargil well and spent many pleasant hours with him on dozens of visits to Jerusalem. I also helped him edit two of his major articles, both of which I have linked on my University Web site: Jerusalem’s Essene Gateway and The Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion. I highly recommend these fascinating treatments even though I have changed my views. I have a photo from the early 1990s taken in Jerusalem where we were discussing some of these very matters. It is of great sentimental value to me. I came to love and respect Father Pixner very deeply.

I have learned from various people over the years and I have continued to refine my conclusions but Dr. Shimon Gibson, with whom I have worked on various archaeology projects since 2000, has been one of my greatest teachers in this regard. He and I still differ on a number of these “sites,” such as the location of Golgatha and the tomb where Jesus was buried (he supports the traditional location of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre), but I think he is dead right about one of them, and as far as I know this is his discovery, namely the proper location of Jesus’ trial before Pilate. In fact, the more I study it the more sure I have become that this is one site in Jerusalem, as yet totally unknown to tourists and pilgrims, that we can authenitically identify with events in Jesus’ life.

Gibson locates this judgment seat of Pilate, the Roman governor, and the scene of the trial, just outside the western wall of the Old City, with the Praetorium inside the wall through a gate leading inside the palace (John 18:28). It is unlikely Pilate would be staying in the barracks of the Antonia Fortress, near the first station of the cross on the Via Dolorosa inside the Old City, which is the traditional locaton. I remember visiting that site as a teenager, my first trip to the Holy Land, maintained by the Sisters of Sion. I was profoundly moved as our tour guide narrated how Jesus was scourged and mocked in the courtyard of the Antonia, where the stone pavement, today known as the “Lithostrotos,” is still visible three meters below the present street level. Pilate, as well as Herod Antipas, who was in town for the Passover, would have been in the palaces, on the luxurious west side of the city, the royal quarters his father had built, not doing duty in the fortress barracks. I have marked the spot of the scene with a red square on this map, just to the west of the Old City wall:

Although the Oxford map does not show it, the vast palace grounds would be just inside the wall, running south the entire length to the Hinnom Valley, as I have marked here in white. In the painting below, that artist Balage Balogh did for for The Jesus Dynasty, he puts the palace grounds just inside the wall and also shows the gate leading inside to the royal grounds:

Here in the model of Herodian Jerusalem that has now been moved to the Israel Museum. You can see how the various buildings of the palace might have looked in their splendor, just inside the city wall. It was inside this area that Jesus was taken for his interrogation and scourging at daybreak the day he was executed. The crowd of his accusors waited outside, as they would be eating the Passover that evening (John 18:28).

Shimon Gibson helped to excavate this entire western wall area many years ago under Magen Broshi. He has studied it in great detail and has been able to identify its main features. Of our four New Testament gospels it is John alone who seems to know the precise topography of the scene. The way this area looks today appears in the photo below. You can still see the steps, intact from Herodian times, leading up to the platform where Pilate sat and the area where the gate led into the Praetorium. The platform was called called Gabbatha (John 19:13) and the flat stones making up the floor are still in place. Following the interrogation inside Jesus was brought back outside on this judgment seat to face his accusors. He was then taken down these steps and led to the place of crucifixion, that I believe was on the Mt. of Olives.

Balogh produced this wonderful painting that accurately reconstructs how things would have looked. He did a great deal of research on the archaeology of the site based on Gibson’s findings, as well as careful attention to clothing and other featues:

Whenever I read the gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, especially in the gospel of John, I have these images and pictures vividly in my mind. It is one of those rare juxtapositions between imagination, place, and text. I hope some of my readers can manage to visit this site someday. In my estimation it is truly holy ground and as yet it is pristine and untouched by church, shrine, or tourist vendor.

In the current on-line edition of Christianity Today Gary Burge of Wheaton College has a short overview of Ben Witherington’s new book, What Have They Done With Jesus? in which Witherington does his rather typical liberal vs. conservative treatment of recent historical studies written by well known academics on Jesus and early Christianity that have made it into the mass market trade publishing world. As Burge points out, Witherington is bound and determined to save Jesus from the critical scholars but at the same time to be cute and engaging with chapter titles such as: Gullible’s Travels,” “Naughty Gnostic Gospels,” “For Pete’s Sake,” “Simon Says,” “O Brother, Where Art Thou,” and “Hey Jude, Don’t Make It Bad.”

I was corresponding with Witherington in the last days of his writing and final editing of his book and I provided him with a prepublication copy of my book to which he devotes a special appendix, in which we find, according to Burge, “a stinging dismantling of James Tabor’s primary theses in his speculative book, The Jesus Dynasty.” Witherington had already posted his rather dense “review” of my book on his Blog in multiple parts, so I had seen it before, and in fact, he even sent me a section by section preview as he was writing it. I have had hundreds of readers contact me and ask me when I planned to “answer Witherington’s critique.”

I find it interesting that Prof. Burge considers Witherington’s treatment a “stinging dismantling” of my primary theses, though I suppose I should not at all find it surprising that Burge would characterize my work as “speculative.” After all, I do indeed “speculate” that Jesus had a human father, or that dead bodies don’t rise and walk around and eat and drink, talk to folks, and then rise up into the heavens. Therefore I assume that Jesus must have had the normal DNA that comes from a human mother and father, and that if the tomb into which he was temporarily and hastily place after his execution was empty someone must have removed Jesus’ corpse. It is that simple. Since I know neither the father nor what happened to the body, but I do suggest a few possible speculative scenarios, I guess I have to plead guilty of “speculation.” But is there really any serious alternative? Seriously?

There are of course many things we don’t know with certainty about the historical Jesus, and when I can I try to fill in what one might reasonably suppose, and that could well be labeled speculation as well, but I think it is the “Jesus had a father” and “dead messiahs don’t come to life” assumptions that most hackle folk who take such things literally. As for the charge that Witherington has offered a “stinging dismantling” of my primary theses I must confess I find myself at a loss here. Somehow I can not imagine that anyone familiar with the areas I cover in my book would evaluate Witherington’s critique in that way. I guess it just goes to show how Evangelicals love champions, those few of their number who go out and somehow “meet the lions” on their own terms (and I am surely not even one of the lions).

I have not chosen to “answer” Witherington’s critique of my book in an explicit and direct way. I think our basic presuppositions are so very different on many issues there is simply no room for dialogue. Witherington wrote me in the course of his questioning my discussion about Jesus having a father that he believed the blood samples tested on the Shroud of Turin had strangely showed neither X nor Y chromosones, indicating that Jesus was somehow human, but without normal human blood like the rest of us with two human parents. I must admit, it took me back abit, but it also helped me to realize that in such circles the normal rules of scholarly engagement and critical discussion are suspended. On the other hand, I have responded to most of the things Witherington mentions in his critique in the many posts on this Blog, particularly the matters relating to the tombs, the ossuaries, and the matter of Jesus having a father. It is all there for those who want to go back and read a bit. Also, I like Ben personally and I really don’t want to get into a spat with him that is based upon the kinds of presuppositions that he reflects in his entire approach to the critical study of the historical Jesus.

I think my book speaks for itself and anyone who wants to carefully read it will be able to judge for themselves whether Witherington has “dismantled” my main theses as Budge seems to think. Frankly, in my experience Christianity Today is not an objective vehicle for reviewing and airing critical reflections and debate on Christian Origins. How could it be otherwise, since the end is always determined from the beginning–the very opposite of scientific and historical processes and method? Since I grew up in that world I think I tend to have less patience with it. Months ago Darrel Bock, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, did a web review of The Jesus Dynasty for the Christianity Today web site. I thought his review was polite and respectful, but quite misconstrued in several key ways. Of the past months I have posted a number of things related to the issues he raised, but on the whole, again, I think I operate in such a different world than that of the “dismantlers” I find it hard to respond within the normal academic parameters.

I have been reading with the greatest learning and pleasure April DeConick’s book, Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas. The price is a bit higher than one is used to paying for a paperback book ($40) but this is a serious academic book, yet it is written in a style and on a level that the interested non-specialist can surely follow.

I mention this because it seems to me the controversy between so-called “conservative” scholars such as Craig Evans or Ben Witherington, and more “critical” scholars such as Crossan or DeConick, on the historical value of works such as The Gospel of Thomas has really been miscast. There is no point in batting back and forth the old conundrum of which text is more “legendary” or “mythological,” Mark or Thomas, or even Q or Thomas, since all of these texts reflect the heavily theologized viewpoints of their authors/communities and no ancient texts on either the events or teachings in the life of Jesus are in any way or form “history as it actually happened” (a naive concept at best). In other words, Thomas is neither “early” nor “late,” it is both!

What I think DeConick’s work has done is provide us with a way of looking at the complex traditions that come to us in this collection of 114 saying of Jesus preserved for us in this 2nd-3rd century Copic collection we know as the Gospel of Thomas. This material as we now have it is indeed “secondary” and “embellished” and “developed” and “theological.” Even the scholars who have greatly valued this text and given it priviledge, recognize our need to read it critically. It neither dropped from heaven nor was it taken down stenographically from the mouth of Jesus.

What DeConick does is attempt to trace the developing history of this text, with its various expansions and and interpretive glosses. Not only does this allow us to see how a given saying attributed to Jesus in an earlier period was developed and recast, and what sort of community perceptions the various stages reflect, but through her groundbreaking work we are offered a glimpse back to the “original” and earliest layers of this work. DeConick identifies what she calls “kernel” sayings, and lo and behold, those materials seem to give us a rare glimpse into the Jerusalem community of James the Just, the brother of Jesus.

When I have my students read the Gospel of Thomas (take a look, it’s on the Web in various translations) in my basic course in Christian Origins they are either attracted or repelled, depending on their own presuppositions. Some find it so different and strange in contrast to what they have become used to in hearing and reading materials from Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, while others find it “exotic” and appealing in that they think it offers them some mystical/secret alternative version of things that the Church has repressed and kept back from us.

Anyone who is interested in Christian Origins needs to become thoroughly familiar with the sayings traditions in the stage they are available to us through the Nag Hammadi Copic Gospel of Thomas. However, it takes some hard work, just as with the Synoptic tradition and John, to sort through the various layers and read with sensitivity and critical skills “beyond” the surface meaning of the text in its present form.

For this reason I posted DeConick’s essay about the accuracy and reliability of the New Testament gospels on this Blog last week. I think many might think her statements are too extreme, and that surely the material in the N.T. is of infinitely more value historically than a slightly “whacko” book like Thomas (a description of one of my students on an exam last semester). But this would be to miss her very valuable point. A critical reading and historical examination of the kinds of non-canonical texts she mentions, and others as well, in fact offer us the chance to construct a much fuller portrait of the movement that John, Jesus, and James inaugurated. If Acts and Eusebius are not “the story,” as I have recently written, then we have a lot of hard work before us. The good news is that much survives and I can not think of any field of historical investigation that is more exciting than Christian Origins at the beginning of this 3rd. millennium. If I may misquote/misapply the prophet Hosea: After two days he cause us to live, and on the third day he will raise us up. What an amazing time in which to live.

I few days ago I mentioned the new Forbidden Gospels Blog by Dr. April DeConick, I am posting here, with her permission, Dr.DeConick’s recent reflection on the matter of whether or not our canonical Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke & John) are inherently more historically “reliable” than those that never made it into the New Testament. I want to comment further here on this issue but I thought putting this view before my readers might be useful.
Saturday, February 3, 2007

The Accuracy and Reliability of the New Testament Gospels?
Why do so many scholars hold so strongly that the New Testament Gospels, particularly the Mark, Matthew and Luke, are more accurate and reliable for reconstructing history than the non-canonical when it was proven by Professor Wrede in 1902 (The Messianic Secret) that the author of Mark was a theologian not an historian? The New Testament Gospels (and the apocryphal Gospels) are not histories, nor are they even historiographies. They are theological treatises whose main interests are Christological.

The New Testament texts don’t have anymore intrinsic reliability for reconstructing the “historical” Jesus and Christian origins, than early non-canonical texts. The virgin birth stories in Matthew and Luke are no less legendary and fanciful than the account found in the Infancy Gospel of James. The miracle stories of Jesus in the four New Testament Gospels are no less fantastic than those performed by the child Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The passion narratives in the New Testament are no less contrived in order to “prove” that Jesus’ suffering and death had fulfilled the Scripture than the crucifixion narrative in the Gospel of Peter. The account of the pre-existence of Jesus in the first chapter of John is no less mythical than the accounts of his pre-existence in the Gospel of Truth. The reports of the miraculous deeds of Peter, Paul and Philip in the New Testament Acts are no more reliable than their deeds recorded in the apocryphal Acts which bear their names. The wild apocalyptic story in Revelation is no more an account of the end of our world than equally wild descriptions found in the visions of the Pastor Hermas or the Apocalypse of Peter. The sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels are no more the verbatim words of Jesus than those recorded in the Gospel of Thomas, the Dialogue of the Savior, or the Secret Book of James. They are just more familiar to us because they have been part of the Christian tradition for so long. Has familiarity been mistaken for historicity?

Dr. April DeConick

Isla Carroll and Percy E. Turner Professor of Biblical Studies at Rice University