The Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor

Josephus reports four main sects or schools of Judaism: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots. The earliest followers of Jesus were known as Nazarenes, and perhaps later, Ebionites, and form an important part of the picture of Palestinian Jewish groups in late 2nd Temple times.

The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of mostly Jewish/Israelite followers of John the Baptizer and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions and led by “James the Just” (the oldest brother of Jesus), and flourished between the years 30-80 C.E. They were zealous for the Torah and continued to walk in all the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher, but accepted non-Jews into their fellowship on the basis of some version of the Noachide Laws (Acts 15 and 21). The term Ebionite (from Hebrew ‘Evyonim) means “Poor Ones” and was taken from the teachings of Jesus: “Blessed are you Poor Ones, for yours is the Kingdom of God” based on Isaiah 66:2 and other related texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones. I am convinced that Nazarene comes from the Hebrew word Netzer (drawn from Isaiah 11:1) and means “a Branch”—so the Nazarenes were the “Branchites” or followers of the one they believed to be the Branch. It is often confused with a completely different word, the Nazirite or Nazir, that refers to individuals, male or female, not a group, who took on a special vow based on Numbers 6. The two terms are spelled differently in Hebrew or Aramaic.

The term Nazarene was likely the one first used for these followers of John/Jesus/James (The Three J’s, as I refer to them in my classes), as evidenced by Acts 24:5 where Paul is called “the ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” Here we see the word used in a similar way to that of Josephus in writing of the four sects/schools of Judaism: Pharisees; Sadducess; Essenes; and Zealots. So the term Nazarene is probably the best and broadest term for the movement, while Ebionite (Poor Ones) was used as well, along with a whole list of other terms: Saints, Children of Light, the Way, New Covenanters, et al. We also know from the book of Acts that the group itself preferred the designation “The Way” (see Acts 24:14, 22, etc.). The term “Christian,” first used in Greek speaking areas for the movement, actually is an attempt to translate the term Nazarene and basically means a “Messianist.”

The Essenes (possibly from ‘Ossim, meaning “Doers of Torah”), who wrote or collected the Dead Sea Scrolls, pioneered certain aspects of this “Way” over 150 years before the birth of Jesus ( see my “Basic Facts on the DSS“). They were a wilderness (out in the Arava, near the Dead Sea–based on Isaiah 40:3), baptizing (mikveh of repentance as entrance requirement into their fellowship), new covenant, messianic/apocalyptic group. They believed they were the final generation and would live to see the end and the coming of the Messiahs of Aaron and of Israel (priest and king). They saw themselves as the remnant core of God’s faithful people—preparing the Way for the return of YHVH’s Glory (Kavod) as set forth in Isaiah 40-66. They too referred to themselves as the Way, the Poor, the Saints, the New Covenanters, Children of Light, and so forth. Perhaps their most common designation was the Yachad–the brotherhood or community, and they referred to themselves as brother and sister. They were bitterly opposed to the corrupt Priests in Jerusalem, to the Herods, and even to the Pharisees whom they saw as compromising with that establishment to get power and influence from the Hellenistic/Roman powers. They had their own developed Halacha (interpretation of Torah), some aspects of which Jesus picks up (ideal of no divorce, not using oaths, etc.). They followed one they called the True Teacher (Teacher of Righteousness) whom most scholars believe lived in the 1st century BCE and was opposed and possibly killed by the Hasmonean King/Priests at the instigation of the Pharisees. John the Baptizer seems to arise out of this context and rekindle the apocalyptic fervor of the movement in the early decades of the first century AD.

To some extent the terminology is flexible; there are a variety of self-designations used by the John/Jesus/James movement, most of which had previously been used by the Essenes. In that sense you might call the Jesus movement a further developed messianic “Essenism,” modified through the powerful, prophetic influence of Jesus as Teacher.

Later, when Christianity developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries and gradually lost its Jewish roots and heritage, largely severing its Palestinian connections, the Gentile, Roman Catholic Church historians began to refer to Ebionites and Nazarenes as two separate groups—and indeed, by the late 2nd century there might have been a split between these mostly Jewish followers of Jesus. The distinction these writers make (and remember, they universally despise these people and call them “Judaizers”), is that the Ebionites reject Paul and the doctrine of the Virgin Birth or “divinity” of Jesus, use only the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and are thus more extreme in their Judaism. They describe the Nazarenes more positively as those who accept Paul (with caution) and believe in some aspect of the divinity of Jesus (virgin born, etc.). What we have to keep in mind in reading these accounts from the Church fathers is that they are strongly prejudiced against this group(s) and claim to have replaced Judaism entirely with the new religion of Christianity, overthrowing the Torah for both Gentile and Jew.

I think it best today to use the collective term Ebionite/Nazarene in an attempt to capture the whole of this earliest movement, and it would be useful to revive the term Yachad as a collective designation for the community of the Hasidim/Saints. I use Ebionite/Nazarene as an historical designation to refer to those original, 1st century, largely Palestinian followers of Jesus, gathered around Yaaqov (James) in Jerusalem, who were zealous for the Torah, but saw themselves as part of the New Covenant Way inaugurated by their “True Teacher” Jesus. James is a key and neglected figure in this whole picture. As the blood brother of Jesus, authority and rights of guidance were passed on to him. When he was brutally murdered in 62 C.E. by the High Priest Ananus (see Josephus, Antiquities 20.197ff), Simeon, a second brother [sic “cousin” according to Hegesippus] of Jesus took over the leadership of the Jerusalem based movement. Clearly we have the idea here of a blood-line dynasty, and according to the Gospel of Thomas, discovered in 1946 in upper Egypt, this dynastic succession was ordained by Jesus himself who tells his followers who ask him who will lead them when he leaves: “No matter where you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being” (GT 12). Indeed, when Simeon was crucified by the Emperor Trajan around 106 C.E., a third brother of Jesus, Judas, took over the leadership of the community.

As far as “beliefs” of the Ebionites, the documents of the New Testament, critically evaluated, are among our best sources. There are fragments and quotations surviving from their Hebrew Gospel tradition (see see A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, E. J. Brill, 1992), as well as the text of “Hebrew Matthew” preserved by Ibn Shaprut, and now published in a critical edition by George Howard (The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, Mercer University Press, 1995). Based on what we can reliably put together from other sources we can say the Ebionite/Nazarene movement could be distinguished by the following views:

1) Jesus as the Prophet like Moses, or True Teacher (but not to be confused with YHVH God of Israel), who will anoint his Messiahs on his right and left hand when he is revealed in power following his rejection and death. These two figures, the Davidic Nasi (Prince of the Yachad) and Priest, will rule with him in the Kingdom of God.

2) Disdain for eating meat and even the Temple slaughter of animals, preferring the ideals of the pre-Flood diet and what they took to be the original ideal of worship (see Gen 9:1-5; Jer 7:21-22; Isa 11:9; 66:1-4). A general interest in seeking the Path reflected in the pre-Sinai revelation, especially the time from Enoch to Noah. For example, divorce was shunned, even though technically it was later allowed by Moses.

3) Dedication to following the whole Torah, as applicable to Israel and to Gentiles, but through the “easy yoke” halacha of their Teacher Jesus, which emphasized the Spirit of the Biblical Prophets in a restoration of the “True Faith,” the Ancient Paths (Jeremiah 6:16), from which, by and large, they believed the establishment Jewish groups of 2nd Temple times had lost.

4) Rejection of the “doctrines and traditions” of men, which they believed had been added to the pure Torah of Moses, including scribal alterations of the texts of Scripture (Jeremiah 8:8).

How the earliest group(s) viewed Paul is unclear. By some reports he was tolerated or accepted as one who could go to the Gentiles with a version of the Nazarene message (Acts 15, 21). Others apparently believed he was an apostate from the Torah and founder of a new religion—Christianity.

For further reading, see H-J Schoeps, Jewish Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), still useful and quite readable for students.

I wanted to call attention to a new Blog recently inaugurated by Dr. April DeConick, who holds a named chair in Biblical Studies at Rice University. I have shared a few seminars and programs with Dr. DeConick over the past few years and we share a passion for Christian Origins and with many common ideas and approaches. Dr. DeConick calls her new effort The Forbidden Gospel Blog.

Dr. DeConick’s early posts are a a fascinating and instant draw. She has some very important new insights into the Gospel of Judas that appear to overturn what the public was told last April in the publicity barrage that accompanied its release. Her remarks titled “Beyond the New Testament,” are a summary of the paper she delivered at the Scripture and Skepticism Conference last week at UC Davis that drew a standing and sustained ovation.

I particularly look foward Dr. DeConick’s discussion of the Gospel of Thomas. This is her specialty and her thesis, that Thomas, at its core, can be traced back to the Jerusalem community of James the Just, is a vital contribution to our attempts to recover the historical “brother of Jesus” and explore this non-Pauline strand of the early Jesus movement.

I offer Dr. DeConick my warmest best wishes and sincere thanks for taking the time to share with us all her knowledge and insights. Be sure and visit her Blog regularly. You will not be disappointed.

I wanted to pass along some of the thoughts on Albert Schweitzer and an Apocalyptic Jesus that I presented at the Scripture and Skepticism Conference here at UC Davis this weekend.

I dedicated my book, The Jesus Dynasty to the memory of Albert Schweitzer:

Ad memoriam Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965).
Missionary, philosopher, historian extraordinaire.
In whose shadow we all stand.

Albert Schweitzer’s influential work titled Von Reimarus zu Wrede was published in 1906—just one hundred years earlier. The better-known and brilliantly titled English edition, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, came out in 1910 (translated by W. Montgomery with a preface by F. C. Burkitt).

Schweitzer opens his rather dense 400 page survey of historical Jesus research down to his own time with the sentence: “Before Reimarus, no one had attempted to form a historical conception of the life of Jesus.” He refers of course to Lessing’s anonymous publication of Hermann Samuel Reimarus’s writings in 1778, in particular the fragment “Vom dem Zweke Jesu und seiner Jünger” (“The Aims of Jesus and His Disciples”) of which he says “This essay is not only one of the greatest events in the history of criticism, it is also a masterpiece of general literature.” (p. 15). Schweitzer knows his heroes over the next 128 years and he celebrates them exuberantly.

Schweitzer focuses on what he calls “three great alternatives” that historical research on Jesus had to meet. The first he calls the “purely historical or purely supernatural.” This he considers decisively settled by David Friedrich Strauss’s first “Life of Jesus” published in 1835. The second had to do with determining the priority of Mark and the Synoptic tradition over John’s gospel, which he sees as satisfactorily worked out by the Tübingen school and Holtzmann. And finally, most important, what he calls the eschatological question. Here his hero is Johannes Weiss with the publication of his work on the preaching of Jesus concerning the kingdom of God in 1892.

In Schweitzer’s final and most important chapter he argues that the union of what he calls “thoroughgoing skepticism” and “thoroughgoing eschatology” represents an impassible and enduring obstacle to traditional Christian theology. Jesus, according to Schweitzer, “lays hold of the wheel of the world to set it moving on that last revolution which is to bring all ordinary history to a close. It refuses to turn, and he throws himself on it. Then it does turn; and crushes him” (p. 370-71). And yet, even with this perspective, this “negative theology” as Schweitzer calls it of a “failed messiah,” he leaves the reader with his final chapter that he calls “Results.” He writes that “Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from him and flows through our time also,” and “…it is not Jesus as historically known, but Jesus as spiritually arisen within men, who is significant for our time and can help it. Not the historical Jesus, but the spirit which goes forth from him and in the spirits of men strives for new influence and rule, is that which overcomes the world.” (pp. 399, 401).

Apocalypticism and apocalyptic ways of thinking and living in their late 2nd Temple Jewish manifestations focus on the imminent “end of the age” and the wholesale overthrow of the powers that be, both visible and invisible. From the standpoint of the apocalyptic group it involves nothing less than a “cosmic takeover” through the power and agency of God, followed by a new world order, namely the rule of God and the triumph and vindication of the people of God. It has a clear linear and temporal focus, but the (normally) unseen heavenly world of Satan, the demons, and the corrupt state of the cosmos are an essential and ever present foreground. John the Baptist, Jesus, James, Peter, and Paul all lived and violently died with this imminent hope of cosmic reversal on their lips. What they most expected to happen never came about, and what they could have never imagined, namely the 2nd century AD heyday of Roman glory and power, and the terrible destruction of Jewish life in the land of Israel, became a reality. This is and remains the fundamental historical reality. So what are we to make of this disappointment and failure?

With Schweitzer I see Jesus as a full and willing participant and key agent in these failed apocalyptic hopes and dreams. Without discounting the important ways in which Jesus’ message that the “kingdom of God has come upon you,” reflected a “realized eschatology” with revolutionary social and political implications “here and now,” (as per Crossan, Borg, Wright), I nonetheless want to face squarely the stark implications of all those bodies that did not rise, and those dead messiahs who never returned. When prophecy fails, particularly prophecy grounded on the interpretation of authoritative texts, there are three classic responses: postponement, marginalization, and allegorizing. On one level each of these is an attempt to affirm that failure is actually success and what seems to be defeat and disappointment is victory.

There are of course ways, perhaps commendable ones, in which the ancient language and imagery of apocalyptic thinking might provide powerful symbolic expression to the human struggle against evil and the hope of a transformed world. But I would want to sharply distinguish between the symbolic and the operational, and between projection and agency. It is one thing to imagine and hope, it is quite another for individuals and groups to radically alter and shape their lives and choices based on what they expect to happen (i.e. Paul’s advice to his followers not to get married since the end is near!). All bone fide apocalyptic movements carry with them profound social and political implications and more often than not, as Cathy Wessinger has reminded us, the “millennium” comes violently.

The late Norman Perrin, my New Testament professor at the University of Chicago, used to tell us that there was one thing certain in the study of the long history of Jewish and Christian apocalypticism—a 100-percent failure rate. H.H. Rowley published a collection of essays that he had delivered in 1942, during the darkest days of WWII, titled The Relevance of Apocalyptic. Rowley never discounted the symbolic power and potential theological meaning of apocalyptic symbols. But he offers at one point an astute observation. At the time, Hitler had taken most of Europe and General Rommel had orders to march to Jerusalem, link up with the Arab allies and crush the Zionists once and for all. One could hardly imagine a better candidate for the Beast than Nazi Germany with its Führer. In both the United States and Britain, the Bible prophecy movement was having a heyday. Rowley wrote:

“Yet where for more than two thousand years a hope has proved illusory, we should beware of embracing it afresh. The writers of these books were mistaken in their hopes of imminent deliverance; their interpreters who believed the consummation was imminent in their day proved mistaken; and they who bring the same principles and the same hopes afresh to the prophecies will prove equally mistaken” (p. 173).

Clearly historians who see Jesus as an apocalyptic visionary are not advocating any literal appropriation of the thought world that Rowley here censors. On the other hand, even Schweitzer, in his final chapter, with all his thoroughgoing skepticism and thoroughgoing eschatology, cannot resist a bit of theologizing, or perhaps sentimentalizing, of his own.

Although this paper deals with an apocalyptic Jesus, let me close with some thoughts on Paul, our earliest and most direct source for the kind of apocalyptic thinking that characterized the Jesus movement up through the end of the 1st century CE. Broadly speaking Paul presents a Hellenistic way of salvation—a particular scheme of apotheosis, or “immortalization,” set within the parameters of late 2nd Temple Jewish apocalypticism. The broad contours of his religious experiences—epiphany, the reception of oracles, visions, the journey to heaven, secret revelations—these are all well known to us, especially from the Greek magical papyri, the Hermetic texts and various forms of esoteric Judaisms of the period. Add to that his specific expectations regarding his mission to the Gentiles, the conversion of Israel, and the imminent parousia of Jesus as cosmic Lord, and you have it—his own particular vision and version of that most general Hellenistic (and human) hope—escape from mortality and the cosmic transformation of the world. And yet it is those very apocalyptic “particulars” that make Paul really Paul. His was not a scheme of salvation for any place or for all time. Although he has endured and been appropriated in many different ways over the centuries, from the standpoint of the history of Judaism, he belongs in those crucial years of hope and promise, before the terrible days of August, 70 AD, when many such dreams came to an end as the Romans crushed the Jewish Revolt, destroyed the Temple and the city of Jerusalem, and locked down the Jewish population in Galilee and Judea with an overwhelming military occupation force.

For Paul the “appointed time” of the End had drawn very near (1 Cor. 7:26, 29, 31). How near, it is difficult to say, but he wrote that in the early 50’s AD. If he, like others in the movement before 70 AD, expected the fulfillment of Daniel 11 and 12, with the “desolating sacrilege” set up in the Temple at Jerusalem, then events such as Gaius’s attempt to have his statue placed there (41 AD), and Nero’s persecution of the Christians in Rome, would have fired the apocalyptic speculations of the movement to a white hot temperature (witness Mark 13). Apparently his plans to go to Spain never worked out, due to his arrest under Nero (Rom. 15:28), so his grand hope of bringing the bulk of Israel to accept Jesus as Messiah through his Gentile mission became more and more hopeless. By AD 70 it was becoming increasingly difficult to maintain any immediate hope for the “redemption of Israel.” Others would pick up the pieces in various ways, but Paul was gone and what emerged in his name, even in the short decades after 70, was the beginning of a new and very different story.

There is an interesting discussion on James Crossley’s Blog, Earliest Christian History that picks up on some of the issues related to the ending of Mark and what evidence it might offer for alternative traditions regarding the empty tomb and resurrection appearances (see my Dec 17th post “The Priority of Mark: Some Important Implications“). I want to take up some of these in future posts, particularly regarding the notion that Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 15 of the various “resurrection appearances” is “earlier” than Mark, and thus somehow more reliable or historical, as well as what we might imagine to be the case within Mark’s community regarding the notion of the “resurrection” of Jesus–which Mark clearly affirms.

Crossley, in my view, is one of the most fascinating scholars of “Christian origins” around. His latest book, Why Christianity Happened: A Sociohistorical Account of Christian Origins (26-50 CE) [Note please the early dates!) is a “must read” for those of us ever fascinated with new approaches to understanding Jesus, Paul, and the “movement” or “movements” that emerged under their influences. Crossley teaches at the University of Sheffield and studied with Maurice Casey. There is an interesting interview with him by Jim West (featured as Biblioblogs.com “Blogger of the Month”). Crossley’s previous book, Date of Mark’s Gospel offers an alternative early date (40s AD) to the standard dating (65-70 AD), and has stirred a fascinating discussion as to Mark’s relationship to Jesus and Paul.

Professor Robert Eisenman just sent me some new and updated information about his much anticipated forthcoming book, The New Testament Code. I have not yet seen a copy though I have one on standing order through Amazon. He also sent me the jacket copy and the Table of Contents. This looks to be a fascinating work with many areas of interest and intersection for those readers who have appreciated my work in The Jesus Dynasty.

Prof. Eisenman and I have been friends since 1991 when we worked at Qumran together in carrying out the earliest efforts at radar ground scan of the area and a through survey of the surrounding caves. These were the wild and heady days when Eisenman had just released the photos of the unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls to Hershel Shanks for publication by the Biblical Archaeology Society and we got our first peak at 50 of the new Scrolls in the volume that Eisenman and Michael Wise published, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. I have followed all of Eisenman publications over the years and though we differ on many details of interpretation what unites us seems to be much stronger than the things that divide us. Prof. Eisenman never fails to be fascinating, original, fresh, provocative, and stimulating and he deserves credit for doing more than anyone of our generation to revive the beloved memory of James the brother of Jesus.
I urge all my readers to order and read Eisenman’s latest. It looks to be one of the most significant and important books on Christian Orgins of this year.

Here are the details Prof. Eisenman sent me tonight:
Publicity Blurb: It’s finally here – world-renowned scholar and best-selling author Robert Eisenman’s long-awaited sequel to JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS. Is there an interconnecting code behind the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls? 1,000 pages of new research shows that there is. There are many ‘Code’s and ‘Code’ Books – some imaginary, some products of wishful thinking, and some even fraudulent; but ‘the Code’ in Professor Eisenman’s new book THE NEW TESTAMENT CODE: The Cup of the Lord, the Damascus Covenant, and the Blood of Christ really exists.

In identifying the Scrolls as the literature of “the Messianic Movement in Palestine,” Robert Eisenman – who broke the monopoly over the Dead Sea Scrolls and was the first to identify “the James Ossuary” as a fraud – demonstrates the integral relationship of James the brother of Jesus to the Righteous Teacher of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ‘decoding’ many famous and beloved sayings in the Gospels, such as “Every Plant which My Heavenly Father has not planted shall be uprooted,” “Do not throw Holy Things to dogs,” “A man shall not be known by what goes into his mouth but, rather, by what comes out of it,” “Even the dogs eat the crumbs under the table,” and “These are the signs that the Lord did in Cana of Galilee.”

In doing so, he deciphers the way the picture of “Jesus” was put together in the Gospels, in the process clarifying the real history of Palestine in the First Century and, as a consequence, what can be known about the real “Jesus” of that time. At the same time he
unravels the real code behind a pivotal New Testament allusion like “This is the Cup of the New Covenant in my Blood,” connecting it to “the New Covenant in the Land of Damascus” and “drinking the Cup of the Wrath of God” in the Dead Sea Scrolls; and uncovers the Truth about what really happened in Palestine at that time, not what the enemies of those making war against Rome wanted people to think happened.

Offering a thorough point-by-point analysis of James’ relationship to the Dead Sea Scrolls, he illumines such subjects as the “Pella Flight,” “the Wilderness Camps,” and Paul as “Herodian,” exposing Peter’s true historical role as “a prototypical Essene” who was used in the Gospels and the Book of Acts as a mouthpiece for aboriginal Anti-Semitism. In making these arguments and exposing these overwrites, a crucial new point that emerges is his identification of the Dead Sea Scrolls document known as the MMT as a ‘Jamesian’ Letter to the person the Early Church Fathers identify as “the Great King of the Peoples beyond the Euphrates.”

The crowning point of his arguments is his final exposition of the relationship of “the New Covenant in the Land of Damascus” of the Dead Sea Scrolls to “the Last Supper” in the Gospels and “the Cup” connected to both. Did Paul know the meaning of the famous Damascus Document (discovered in a Synagogue Repository in Old Cairo in 1897), “to set the Holy Things up according to their precise specifications” – or the reverse of it, as Peter was presented as discovering in the Books of Acts – “to make no distinctions between Holy and profane”? The final mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls as they relate to Peter, Paul, and James will be elucidated. Eisenman’s many readers will not be disappointed.

THE NEW TESTAMENT CODE
The Cup of the Lord, the Damascus Covenant, and the Blood of Christ
By Robert Eisenman
Sterling Publishing, Inc.
ISBN: 1842931865
Price: $40 (Canada $50)
Page: 1008 pages, Hardcover 6 x 91/2
Publication Date: October 2006

Jacket Description and Table of Contents:

THE NEW TESTAMENT CODE

THE CUP OF THE LORD,
THE DAMASCUS COVENANT,
AND THE BLOOD OF CHRIST

ROBERT EISENMAN