The Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor

During my entire academic career stretching now over 30 years I have consistently taken the position that there is no historical evidence that Jesus was married or had children. As I put things recently in the Preface to my book, The Jesus Dynasty:

“The Jesus Dynasty has no connection to the recently popularized notions that Jesus married and fathered children through Mary Magdalene. While gripping fiction, this idea is long on speculation and short on evidence.”

I was, of course, referring to the notions made popular by the 1982 book by Michael Baigent, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and more recently by the runaway blockbuster bestseller, The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. There have also been a few scholars, influenced by some of the later gospel traditions (particularly the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip), who have argued that Jesus’ relationship with Mary Magdalene included some type of sexual intimacy if not marriage. William E. Phipps published a full-scale study in 1970 titled, Was Jesus Married? The Distortion of Sexuality in the Christian Tradition (New York: Harper & Row). Phipps argued that Jesus’ status as a Jewish male, a teacher, and a rabbi, would have virtually required that he be married. I have never found these arguments from silence convincing, knowing that there were forms of Judaism, at least according to Josephus and Philo, that honored celibacy, and that Paul himself mounts a strong argument in defense thereof, even as a Jewish male and “rabbi.” I found the treatment summarized by Birger A. Pearson, “Did Jesus Marry?” (Bible Review Spring 2005, pp 32-39 & 47) to be quite convincing.

The Talpiot tomb has caused me to take another look at the evidence, since indeed, the “Jesus son of Joseph” of this tomb appears to have a son, “Judah son of Jesus,” and presumably a wife, perhaps the one known as Mariamene Mara. And yet, in looking at our New Testament texts, they appear to be devoid of any reference to such an idea. I have been wondering if there might be anything in these records that I might have missed.

Just recently I noticed something that others have perhaps noticed that I had overlooked all these years. I consider it very strong evidence indeed that Jesus was in fact married, and if married, the possibility that he had a child or children is quite plausible as well.

The seven early/authentic letters of Paul are our earliest direct and unedited witness to the early Jesus movement (1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, Phillipians, Philemon). Although Paul seldom tells us anything about the life, career, or teachings of Jesus, other than his theological treatment of his death on the cross and resurrection from the dead, he is surely in touch with Peter, James the brother of Jesus, as well as others who knew Jesus intimately in his lifetime.

On the matter of marriage Paul explicitly mentions that Cephas (Peter), the other apostles, as well as the “brothers of the Lord,” are accompanied on their travels by their wives, so that not only their expenses are carried by the community but those of their wives as well (1 Corinthians 9:5). One might assume those who made up Jesus’ council of Twelve, as well as Jesus’ brothers, would likely be married with children, but other than Peter’s unnamed “mother-in-law” being mentioned in Mark 1:30, no wives are ever mentioned much less identified by name. One might conclude, incorrectly, it seems, that the “silence” of the gospels regarding wives for the apostles and brothers of Jesus indicates they were living celibate or single lives. We have to accept that the gospels, as theological treatises, simply do not supply us with such details, particularly when it comes to women or children. They are simply not considered important to the story, but it does not mean they did not exist.

Earlier in this same letter Paul had mounted a vigorous defense of celibacy or remaining “unmarried.” Although he does not require it of his followers, he asserts that he lives the single non-sexual life and he strongly recommends it as the most practical as well as the most spiritually devoted lifestyle. He writes, in this regard, “I wish that all were as I myself am,” and “To the unmarried and the widows, I say it is well for them to remain single as I do” (1 Corinthians 7:7-8).

In this section of the letter Paul takes up a number of related topics, particularly whether divorce/separation is allowed and under what circumstances, but he is quite careful to explicitly state whether he has specific sanction from “the Lord.” It is quite important to him to bring in the authority and teaching of Jesus when he can to back up and lend weight to what he is saying.

I think one can conclude that if Paul had known Jesus to have been single or unmarried, living a celibate life, he would have mentioned it prominently. In fact it would have been one of his main points. It would have been irresistible. He mounts every possible defense of celibacy, but in the end is only able to appeal to his own example. Imagine how much more rigorously he could have argued had he been able to say, “follow me here, as I follow Christ.” In this particular case I think his silence is “deafening.” As with Cephas, the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, he knows that having a wife as a companion is the norm and pattern in the group. Paul must have known that Jesus was married, and he, as our earliest witness, would surely have been in a position to know. When he can use the teachings of Jesus or the example of Jesus he does. Here is an obvious example where he can not.

Our earliest testimony to the death and burial of Jesus comes from a letter of Paul to his followers at Corinth in the early 50s CE. He passes on a tradition that he had received, namely “that Christ died…that he was buried…that he was raised on the third day…that he was seen…” (1 Cor 15:3-5). Leaving aside the matter of the nature of these “sightings” of Jesus, including Paul’s own claim in that regard years after the crucifixion, it is significant that Paul writes that Jesus was buried. Burial implies a tomb, of whatever type, and he clearly intends the phrase “raised on the third day” to imply that that tomb was empty. In that regard I have to agree with evangelical apologists that Paul knows an “empty tomb” tradition. I cannot see how his language can make any sense otherwise.

(more…)

In our New Testament gospels there are four women named Mary who are closely associated with Jesus:

• His mother, first and foremost, who raised him and a large family of four other boys and at least two girls (Mark 6:30
• Tradition has it that the names of his two sisters were Mary and Salome (Mark 6:3; 16:1; Epiphanius, Pan. 78.8,1 & 78.9, 6)
• Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus (Luke 10:38-42; John 11:1-5; 12:1-3; Mark 11:11-12)
• Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:1-3; Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1; Matt 28:1-10; John 20:1-18)

Three of these Marys, in particular, are singled out in early Christian traditions as having “always walked with him.” As the Gospel of Philip puts it, “His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary” (59, 12). Mary, is the English form of the Hebrew Miriam, the name of the sister of Moses and Aaron (Exo 15:20). It comes down to us in several forms in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek: Mariam, Maria, Mariame, Mariamne; but in English the name is commonly rendered simply “Mary.” If one tabulates all the references to Jewish names of women from archaeological and literary sources from Palestine in late antiquity (Tal Ilan’s Lexicon), the name Mary occurs 70 times of the 320 total examples of female names. That means we can estimate that approximately 21% of Jewish women were named Mary. This popularity might have to do with Miriam the sister of Moses, but it also has been traced to the women in the Hashmonean or Maccabean line who favored this name. It seems that names of the Maccabees, both male and female, were extraordinarily popular in late 2nd Temple Palestinian Judaism, perhaps for patriotic reasons.

As far as these Marys, we know precious little about any of them, and whether historian or devotee of Jesus, we wish we knew much more. Mary Magdalene, first witness to Jesus’ resurrection according to Matthew and John, is perhaps the most intriguing, both to scholars and the public alike. A Google search for “Mary Magdalene” yields over a million and a half “hits.” An Amazon search registers over 15,000 books that are in some way related her. The titles say a lot:

The Secret Magdalene; The Crucifixion of Mary Magdalene; The Magdalene Legacy; Secrets of Mary Magdalene: The Unfold Story; Searching for Mary Magdalene; The Magdalene Code; De-coding Mary Magdalene; Unveiling Mary Magdalene; The Complete Idiots Guide to Mary Magdalene; The Everything Mary Magdalene Book; Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, and so on.*

The Wikipedia entry, Mary Magdalene, provides a good overview to what might be called the “Mary Magdalene” craze. Dan Brown’s novel, The Davinci Code (and the subsequent film) has now spread a version of the popular fascination with Mary Magdalene around the globe in every marketable language.

No one could possible keep up with the popular phenomenon and even getting a hold on the more academic and scholarly treatments of Mary Magdalene is a daunting task. So where does one even begin?

(more…)

Bruce Fisk has posted a thoughtful treatment of the view of Paul and other early Christians on the “physicality” of the notion of resurrection of the dead by Robert Gundry. Prof. Gundry focuses on the the issue of the resurrection of Jesus in particular, but then extends his analysis to cover Paul’s more general notion of the resurrection of those “dead in Christ” when he returns from heaven. Gundry offers a critical evaluation of my views as published in The Jesus Dynasty as well as here on my Blog. I appreciate the input and the respectful consideration and I want to take up some of the issues he raises in subsequent posts on this Blog.

I am in the process of writing a book on Paul (working title: The Paul Dynasty: A New Historical Invesigation of Paul’s Program of World Transformation) that will offer a sustained interpretation of Paul’s career, mission, and message, the outlines of which I hinted at in chapter 16 of The Jesus Dynasty, and the foundation of which I published in Things Unutterable (1986).

The issues that Prof. Gundry highlights relate directly to the notion of finding a Jesus Family tomb, including an ossuary with the bones of Jesus of Nazareth, and what that might say about the development of early Christian views of Jesus and the Messianic Kingdom that he intended to inaugurate. So much of this depends on how we can reconstruct the days and weeks following the death of Jesus. The amalgamated accounts of Luke and John, both of which stress “physical” (or quasi-physical) appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem to his disciples over a period of weeks following that fateful Passover, have become the unconscious master “Easter narrative” in our heads, much like conflated versions of the Christmas Story. Backing off a bit, and sorting things out, is difficult, but it can be done, if one gives careful attention to our sources, particularly Mark and Q, but also the development of the “resurrection” story in Matthew as well, as a backdrop to what we find in Paul.

(more…)

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.

I use the term “apocalyptic,” at least as applied to ancient Judaism and early Christianity, to refer to the notion that the hidden realities of the unseen world are being revealed in an imminent and unfolding manner at the “end of the age.” It is not the “end of the world,” but rather a dramatic reversal and transformation of normal life on planet earth. It is good news and bad news, depending on one’s stake in the present and attitude toward the new future, a future to be characterized by the “Kingdom of God,” or God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven. My own studies have convinced me that the Jesus movement is utterly and thoroughly apocalyptic to the core. I have tried to situate this particular view of the world and of history within late developments of forms of Judaism in the ancient Greco-Roman Mediterranean world. Years ago I published a popular overview and analysis of these developments. Other than the New Testament texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls are probably our best witnesses to this movement, one that generically should more properly be called “the messianic movement” in late 2nd Temple Jewish Palestine.

Of course apocalyptic thinking remains with us through the ages (see my article on Millennialism), but my own interest has been primarily on the ways in which this kind of thinking forms the matrix for the development and emergence of early Christianity.

We have many sources for understanding “apocalyptic” thinking in the period but I think some of our best evidence comes from the three strata of our earliest materials embedded in the New Testament itself. They are, in chronological order, the early letters of Paul, the Saying Source of Jesus’ core teaching called Q, and the gospel of Mark. Here below is a nice selection of particularly “apocalyptic” passages as that truly catch the atmosphere and flavor of the movement in its earliest days before the post-70 AD disappointments set in.

Apocalyptic Texts in our early sources:

Paul
1Thessalonians 4:15-17: For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left to the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

1Cor. 6:2-3: Or know you not that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world is judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know you not that we shall judge angels? how much more, things that pertain to this life?

1Cor. 7:26, 29-31: I think therefore that this is good by reason of the impending distress that is upon us, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is. But this I say, brethren, the appointed time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as though they had none; and those that weep, as though they wept not; and those that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and those that buy, as though they possessed not; and those that use the world, as not using it to the full: for the form of this world is passing away.

Q Sayings of Jesus
3:7-9: He said therefore to the multitudes that went out to be baptized of him, You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say to you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. And even now the axe also lies at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

16:16:The Torah and the Prophets were until John: from that time the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every man enters forcefully into it.

10:8-12: And into whatsoever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: and heal the sick that are therein, and say to them, The kingdom of God is come near to you. But into whatsoever city youshall enter, and they receive you not, go out into the streets thereof and say, Even the dust from your city, that cleaves to our feet, we wipe off against you: nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God is near. I say to you, it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

11:2: And he said to them, When you pray, say, Father, let your name be holy. May your kingdom come!

11:20: But if I by the finger of God cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

22:28-30: But you are they that have continued with me in my temptations; and I appoint to you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed to me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Mark
1:14-15: Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the good news of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the good news.

3:14: And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach.

9:1:And he said to them, Truly I say to you, There are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.

11:9-10: And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, Hosanna; Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord: Blessed is the kingdom that comes, the kingdom of our father David: Hosanna in the highest.

13:30 Truly I say to you, This generation shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished.

14:25 Truly I say to you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

14:58:We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.

I am convinced that the gospel of Mark is our earliest, and in some ways, our most “historical” surviving gospel. But that is not to say that Mark by any means is mainly an historical account, lacking theological interpretation. Indeed, most critical scholars have concluded that Mark is deeply theological in his orientation and that he shapes his story in ways to fit his view of things. In other words, we do not get in Mark “history as it really happened,” but theological interpretation and faith proclamation. There is a very famous and worthwhile study by James Robinson, the great scholar of early Christianity at Claremont, titled The Problem of History in Mark (1957). I think it is long ago out of print but various editions are still listed on Amazon so it is available if one searches a bit.

However, given the nature of Mark as a theologically based “faith” presentation of the “gospel of Jesus Christ the son of God” (Mark 1:1), historians must approach it with a certain caution. Indeed, for years I have been thoroughly convinced that the essential “Christology” of Mark, and that of Paul is very close. In Mark, as in Paul, Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, who as the Suffering Servant gives his life as a ransom for many. One of Mark’s key emphases is that service, suffering, and humility are the true marks of greatness and lead to exaltation and glory. Although thoroughly apocalyptic (Mark 13), much like Paul, Mark still fundamentally interprets the Kingdom of God as a present reality realized within the faith of the community as it exhibits spiritual insights and understanding (Mark 12:28-34). He contrasts standard forms of Torah observance with the inner spiritual understanding of those who know the “secret” of the Kingdom (Mark 2:27-28; Mark 7:1-23). He supports the gospel being preached to all the nations/Gentiles (Mark 13:10), which is the Pauline mission. His understanding of the Eucharist matches that of Paul precisely. One often hears that Mark presents a more human Jesus and has a less developed, even “primitive” Christology, yet in Mark we encounter a Jesus who has authority on earth to forgive sins, calm storms, and raise the dead.

And yet, regardless of Mark’s faith based theological agenda, and its parallels to Paul’s view of the heavenly and exalted “Christ,” as Son of God and Savior, there is a strange irony at work here. I am convinced that Mark nonetheless offers us a narrative framework that in its essentials is as close to the historical Jesus as we are likely ever going to get. What most convinces me of this are the many many times, such as the examples I mentioned in my previous post, that Matthew and Luke, in rewriting/editing Mark and using him as a source, recast his basic presentation in directions that belong to later stages of their own theological developments. I find that time and time again Mark has a less elaborated and more primitive version of the story. He is the earliest of our records, and thus closer to the traditions that were being passed on within the Jesus movement. I could mention countless examples, but a few will illustrate my point here.

Mark has no birth story of Jesus and he never mentions Joseph as his father. Indeed, he calls Jesus the “son of Mary,” and mentions the four brothers by name, including the nickname “Jose.” He knows about the house of Simon at Capernaum, near the synagogue, and even mentions “Simon’s mother-in-law.” He knows that Levi (aka Matthew) is the “son of Alphaeus.” He is aware of Jesus’ reach to the region of Tyre and Sidon and records Jesus’ clandestine visit to Tyre and his secret overnight stay in a “house” there. He gives our most primitive listing of the Twelve, including “James son of Alphaeus,” and Judas whom he knows by his affectionate nickname Thaddaeus (bosom-child). He records the details of the death of John the Baptizer, and gives us good geographical indications of the last months of Jesus’ life, including the Banias scene, the “high mountain” of the “transfiguration,” and the place “beyond the Jordan.” His narrative of Jesus’ last week in Jerusalem is exceptionally packed with details that I don’t think are created for his own theological purposes. And his narrative of the discovery of the empty tomb and the recovery of “faith” in Galilee are precious alternatives to what Luke, John, and Paul present in this regard.

I have addressed the “picking and choosing” issue in other posts on this Blog but it is the case that critical scholars do carefully sift through and evaluate their sources, seeking to separate the historical from the theologically elaborated. It is not a perfect “science,” but it is a process guided by a sense of judgment and argument, open to dispute and discussion. This is in contrast to those who say, Mark is God’s Word and I believe every word of it–as well as Matthew, Luke, and John. It seems that “picking and choosing,” if done with sense and judgment, is really the only responsible way to read these or any other texts for that matter.

More to come…

Most scholars of early Christianity are convinced that Mark is our earliest surviving gospel, perhaps written as early as 65 AD, which would be 35 years after the death of Jesus in 30 AD. Matthew comes along a decade or so later and makes use of Mark as his core narrative, but adds a birth narrative (chapters 1-2) and a series of blocks of Jesus’ teachings that he inherited in the collection scholars know as Q. If you compare Mark and Matthew side by side in parallel columns it is quite easy to see how Matthew makes use of his basic narrative source Mark. He often shortens and summarizes, but just as often he explains, amplifies, and interprets. For example, where Mark cryptically refers to a prophecy about the defiling of the Jewish temple (Mark 13:14), Matthew lets his readers know that the prophecy was “spoken by the prophet Daniel” (Matt 24:15). Or when Jesus in Mark tells his disciples to “beware of the yeast of the Pharisees,” (Mark 8:15), Matthew explains that this symbol refers to their “teaching” (Matt 15:12). On the whole Matthew is relatively conservative with his source Mark. He is willing to make changes but by and large he tends to follow the story as it is told in Mark. Indeed, 90% of Mark appears in Matthew. That is why readers of the New Testament who begin with Matthew, its first book, often in coming to Mark have the distinct impression they have “read it all before.” They have–but in the revised version of Matthew who relies on Mark so heavily as a source.

Luke is quite different in that regard. Although he too uses Mark as a source, and Q as well, he very freely removes important sections of Mark, and recasts or heavily edits core stories and lines in Mark to suit his own purposes. Luke drops the listing of the names of Jesus’ brothers (Mark 6:3), the death of John the Baptist (Mark 6:17-29), the time when Jesus rebukes Peter and calls him “Satan” (Mark 8:33), Jesus’ secret trip to Tyre (Mark 7:24), the disciples failures in the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:32-50). Jesus’ cry on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34), just to name a very few random examples. Luke is a composite two volume work that includes the Acts of the Apostles (properly called Luke-Acts) and he is a great champion of the apostle Paul. He is also keen to exonerate the Romans as enemies of the Christians and to present a less politically revolutionary version of Jesus’ Kingdom of God message. For Luke, like Paul, Jesus is the risen Christ, ascended to heaven, in whose name repentance and forgiveness of sins is now preached to all the nations of the world.

The priority of Mark has many important implications. One of the most striking is the way in which he narrates the discovery of the empty tomb into which Jesus’ dead body was hastily and temporary placed the late evening on the day he was crucified. Mark’s short account is as follows:

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun was risen. And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb? And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back: for it was exceeding great. And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he saith to them, Be not amazed: you seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he has been raised; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him! But go, tell his disciples and Peter, he goes before you into Galilee: there shall you see him, as he said unto you. And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid (Mark 16:1-8).

It is difficult to really grasp the rather shocking impact of this stark and bare ending to Mark’s story given the extravagant and elaborated versions we get in subsequent gospel accounts. These verses end the book in our oldest and most reliable copies of Mark. In fact, this ending was considered so “inadequate” that no less than three bogus endings were composed by later scribes and editors in a desperate attempt to bring Mark more in line with a triumphant Christian faith.

Just about everything that people assume, celebrate, and remember about Easter morning is missing from Mark! There is no dramatic earthquake, no soldiers struck dumb, no epiphanies of angels, no appearances to Mary Magdalene, Peter, and the Twelve.

Mark knows of no specific appearances of the resurrected Jesus at all. What he does know is a tradition that he had reported earlier, that Jesus had told his disciples that he would “go before them to Galilee” after he was stuck but raised up (Mark 14:28). Even the word “raised” is not the ordinary word for “resurrection” in Greek, but the common verb that means lifted up, or even carried away. It is the same verb Jesus uses when he tells the paralyzed man to “take up his bed and walk” (Mark 2:9).

I do not mean to imply here that Mark thought that Jesus survived the cross and that he was carried up to Galilee by his followers. That I do not believe. For Mark, Jesus is indeed killed, and after three days he is raised up (Mark 8:31), but the nature of that resurrection Mark seems to leave open. He records no appearances of Jesus at all, though he knows the tradition that the disciples went to Galilee based on the instructions given to them and there they “saw” him, as he had told them.

The implications of this earliest tradition of Jesus’ burial and the empty tomb are enormous. Paul, in the 50s AD, reports the tradition that Jesus, after being raised from the dead on the third day, appeared to Peter, then the Twelve, then to a group of five hundred brothers at once, then to James, then to all the apostles, and finally, but much later, to him–Paul (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Both Luke and John report similar appearances of the risen Jesus to various individuals and groups on several occasions. Indeed, these sightings or appearances are considered by milliions the absolute bedrock of the Christian faith.

So how could it be that Mark knows nothing of any of this? And even Matthew, who does report that Jesus met the women who fled from the tomb, nonetheless knows of none of these specific appearances that Paul, Luke and John record taking place in Jerusalem. He tells us the disciples went to Galilee as they had been instructed and there the Eleven apostles “saw” Jesus on a mountain–but some doubted. It is clear that Matthew has little of substance to add to his basic source Mark, and that what he knows of the “resurrection” is what he expands from Mark, which makes Mark’s account even more noteworthy in terms of its fundamental significance.
The clear implication of Mark’s account of the discovery of the empty tomb and the renewed faith of the disciples in Galilee is that there is a non-Pauline version of the resurrection faith circulating within the Jesus movement that was not built upon the kinds of traditions, tales, and stories we get in Paul, Luke-Acts, and John. Indeed, even though Paul is usually dated ten or fifteen years earlier than Mark, the tradition that Mark reflects could very likely predate Paul. In other words, it is unlikely that Mark could write what he writes for a believing Christian community unless the way he report things is already grounded in the circles within which he moves. It is highly unlikely that Mark was created in a day. On the contrary, one should assume he is passing on and reflecting a way of thinking about the risen Jesus that he finds normative and common, and that Matthew, writing some years later, also passing on with very little expansion or modification. Neither of them know of any tales of appearances of the risen Jesus in Jerusalem in the days following his death. There is no indication that Mark is even aware of any alternative views or traditions. Had he known of such, and agreed with them, he surely would have passed them on. In this case I think we can say that Mark’s silence is “deafening.”

This earliest account of the Jesus story offers us resources to rethink and consider alternative possibilities when it comes to evaluating the significance of Jesus’ death and the nature of the resurrection faith among his earliest followers. Mark offers us a clear indication that Paul’s version of things was not an exclusive way of understanding Jesus and his role as a messianic suffering servant figure and crucified son of God.

For over 40 years, since the publication of the best-selling book The Passover Plot by Hugh Schonfield in 1965, I have been avidly reading “Jesus books,” i.e., books that attempt to offer an historical analysis of the central question–what do we really know about Jesus and how do we know it? Over the decades I have collected most of them and I often found myself with a new book in hand, flipping through it, and reading the final chapters first, anxious to see how the author would deal with what I found to be one of the most fascinating questions regarding the historical Jesus–the empty tomb.

Schonfield’s book really centered on that issue. He argued that Jesus “plotted” his crucifixion and his subsequent survival, and with the help of several loyal supporters was taken away to recover from his wounds, thus accounting for the tomb being empty. I well rememer the absolute stir of controversy Schonfield’s book caused. It was recently issued in a 40th anniversary edition and if any of you have never read it I would highly recommend it. I am not at all persuaded by his theory of the “Passover plot,” but the book is a thrill to read and contains much good history and lots of provocative ideas. Schonfield was a bit of a maverick scholar, but he was a trained academic and one always full of provocative ideas and new and creative interpretations of data. I corresponded with him over a period of a few years until his death in 1988. I might mention that although The Passover Plot was by far his most successful book, of the 40 or so works that he published, the one I would most highly recommend for its enduring value is the sequel titled Those Incredible Christians.

I should add here that Schonfield was a great admirer of Jesus and considered him a hero for representing and forwarding the advancement of Israel’s Messianic hopes and dreams. In fact, late in life, Schonfield was instrumental in forming a society, now called The World Trust Service, dedicated to a recovery of a “Messianic vision,” of a “Servant nation,” that would lead the world toward peace and justice. It is still in operation today.

I mention The Passover Plot because for me it was a kind of “coming of age.” It was an introduction, on a popular level, to some of the alternative approaches to the historical Jesus and Christian Origins to the rather fundamentalist version of things I had been exposed to as a child growing up, and through my undergraduate years in college.

But back to the empty tomb. What I appreciated about Schonfield is that he believed historians had to take seriously the “empty tomb.” By far most critical scholars have taken the position that the story in our earliest gospel, in Mark 16 (which forms the core upon which Matthew, Luke, and John are based), where women come to Jesus’ tomb early Sunday morning and find it empty of his body, has no historical basis and was concocted long after the events in order to bolster the preaching of Christians that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Thus to seriously discuss “how the tomb became empty” would be a worthless enterprise–since the whole thing was made up. Some have even argued that Jesus was not buried at all, but that his body was left on the cross to decay as a final shame inflicted by the Romans upon a potential rebel.

I have never found such arguments convincing. It seems to me that the fundamental core story of the early Sunday morning visit by the women followers of Jesus to his tomb has a ring of authenticity. I believe that Jesus was really dead, and that he was hastily put into that garden tomb nearby just as the sun was setting and Passover drew near. I am further convinced that the women who visited the tomb on Sunday morning, with the intention of completing the rites of Jewish burial and putting Jesus in a permanent resting place, were shocked to find the tomb empty. What I question are the stories of the extensive “appearances” of Jesus that day in Jerusalem to Peter, John, and the rest of his Disciples, and over the next few days, as reported by Luke and John.

Mark has the tomb empty, but no appearances or sightings of Jesus at all (the original ending is at 16:8). He does believe that Jesus is raised from the dead, but in his story the women are explicitly told that the Disciples will meet Jesus in Galilee. Matthew also lacks these stories of appearances in Jerusalem that day and over the next weeks. Instead he records a mountain top experience in Galilee, one that sounds very similar to the visionary experience of the Transfiguration, where some of the Eleven disciples were convinced, and others doubted–that they had really seen Jesus (Matthew 28:16).

What this tells me is that the earliest traditions about the empty tomb and the resurrection of Jesus had nothing about these Jerusalem appearances to Peter, John, James, and the Twelve. Instead their focus was on “seeing Jesus in Galilee.” These Jerusalem stories seem to come to us from Paul, who records them in 1 Corinthians 15. They are then expanded into narrative forms in Luke and John. I find it very hard to believe that Mark and Matthew knew such stories and simply left them out. They do not include them, if they have even heard them, because they do not consider them a part of the early and most authentic tradition. It is Luke, the great advocate of Paul and his mission and message, who first fleshes out for us a whole set of narratives about appearances to Peter, various other disciples, and the Twelve, in Jerusalem.

For that reason, it seems to me, our focus should really be on Galilee, since both Mark and Matthew, our earliest non-Pauline witnesses, know nothing other than this tradition. John also knows of this Galilee tradition, and yet it is only in his “appended” chapter 21–after he has basically closed out his story in 20:30-31, with its Jerusalem stories, that he mentions it. I think this is very important and most telling–particularly since that final chapter 21 of John has the disciples returning to their fishing businesses in Galilee, which makes no sense at all if they have been eating and hanging out with the risen Jesus in Jerusalem for weeks following the crucifixion. What we have in John is a precious bit of independent tradition, that goes well with Mark and Matthew, regarding the recovery of “faith” in Galilee.

But back to the empty tomb. I think the essential key to understanding why the tomb was empty is to realize that there is no evidence whatsoever that this tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea. It is amazing to me how strongly traditions can be built on a thread. Mark, our earliest Gospel does not mention this as Joseph’s tomb, though he has Joseph burying Jesus, nor does Luke or John! If Joseph was the owner it is inconcievable that they would leave this out. Only Matthew tries to make this connection, and it is clearly an addition of his to his Markan source. His interest is in showing prophecy fulfilled, namely that Joseph was a “rich man,” so that if Jesus is put in his tomb it would be a fulfillment of Isaiah 53 where the Suffering Servant is buried with a rich man. What John adds to the tradition sheds even further light on this matter. John is very good on geography, place, and location. He knows details that the Markan/Synoptic tradition simply lacks. John says that the tomb in which Jesus was hastily buried just before the Passover began was “in a garden, near the place of crucifixion.” In other words he makes clear that this was a burial of necessity, of opportunity. To imagine Joseph of Arimathea just “happening” to have a family tomb nearby is incredulous, and since we can clearly see how and why Matthew alone makes this connection, there is no reason to give it any veracity.

So what we are left with is quite interesting. What this means is that we would expect the tomb to be empty! Jesus was hastily put in this tomb with no time for carrying out full and proper burial rites just to hold things until after the Sabbath. It was not a tomb that belonged to anyone in the movement or the group. The core followers, after all, were from Galilee, not Jerusalem. They could hardly carry a corpse to a home or guesthouse, nor could they just leave it in the open. Since an unfinished tomb was nearby it makes good sense that Jesus’ body was put there and a stone was moved to block the entrance, keeping the corpse safe from jackels and other predators. So, the point is, this tomb was never intended to be a final resting place for Jesus, so we would expect his body to be moved in a relatively short period of time–as soon as arrangement could be made for permanent burial.

Whether Jesus was subsequently and permanently buried in the Jerusalem area, or as I think might be more likely, in the Galilee, where he was from, we will perhaps never know. What we can know, however, is that the entire Jerusalem tradition is likely late and based on Paul, and written by Luke and John in the last decades of the 1st century, when all those involved were dead. Mark, in contrast, can be dated around 65 AD, before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. That he knows nothing of these Jerusalem appearances to the apostles is most telling.

I realize that many of my critics, coming from an evangelical Christian persuasion, have asked–what about all the appearances, what about the sealing of the tomb, what about the earthquake, and the testimony of all those eyewitness? How can you simply reject that out of hand? The answer is a simple one–Mark, our earliest gospel, knows nothing of such things! They only come to us as late embellishments of the tradition, written in the 80s and 90s AD, when Christianity has begun to solidify into its Pauline contours. And further, the Galilee tradition is early and grounded in Mark, Matthew, and the addition to John. We should give it priority. We will never know what actually happened in Galilee but what we can be sure of is that the little discouraged and disheartened group, having returned to their homes and business, found a renewal of their faith in Jesus and his cause living on–despite his death. To insist that that faith depended upon the corpse of Jesus walking out of the tomb and making all sorts of appearances in Jerusalem, and then rising off the Mt. of Olives into the clouds and disappearing the the heavens–well that is clearly the stuff of legend and mythology.

When the group returned to Jerusalem for Shavuot or Pentecost, approximately seven weeks after the crucifixion, they apparently have reconstituted themselves, with James at their head, and a strong commitment to carry on the work of their beloved Teacher Jesus, whose spirit they surely felt as if he were still with them. I am convinced that this is the most credible historical explanation of the empty tomb, and it does the best job of accounting for the ways in which the movement survived, went on, and maintained its vitality. And because it is credible, in the end, for rational people, it can be more inspiring than stories of revived corpses and bodies ascending the heaven.