The Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor

One of the more extraordinary results of the release and translation of the entire Dead Sea Scrolls corpus is our ability to sketch out a rather full and reliable portrait of the community that produced the scrolls, as well as a “life and times” of their otherwise unidentified leader or Prophet: the Teacher of Righteousness. Both Michael Wise, in his book, The First Messiah, and Israel Knohl, in his study titled The Messiah Before Jesus, independently pick up on this subject, but particularly the ways in which the career of the Teacher serves as a precursor for that of Jesus of Nazareth. I highly recommend both books. Of particular interest in this regard is the question of what happens to the community at the death of its leader and how the prophetic vision of the future is maintained despite the failure of apocalyptic expectations–the phenomenon sociologists of religions have come to call “When Prophecy Fails.”

The complicated complex of terminology related to understanding the apocalypticism in the Scrolls–in particular the expectation, appearance, function, and outcome of various “Redemptive Figures” mentioned–has received careful attention by scholars. Among the best studies is that of John J. Collins, The Star and the Scepter. These designations arise, for the most part, directly from the Hebrew Scriptures–Prophet, Priest, Messiahs, Stone, Branch, Prince, Messenger, Servant, Star, Scepter, and so forth. I am using “Messiah” in my title above in the most generic sense–not merely to refer to an ideal Davidic King, but to one who is understood to function as a central figure or chief agent in ushering in and mediating the expected arrival of the Kingdom of God (Dan 2:44). In other words, the Scrolls, as a corpus, do not refer to just one figure but reflect a developing and shifting, even speculative application of the complexity of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves.

In one of the earlier and most foundational texts at Qumran, The Community Rule (1QS), we find no indication that any such messianic figures have appeared on the scene. Rather, the community itself expresses its self-understanding as the new covenant community of the Last Days.

Col VIII: And when these become members of the Community in Israel according to all these rules, they shall separate from the habitation of ungodly men and shall go into the wilderness to prepare the way of Him, as it is written, “Prepare in the wilderness the way … make straight in the desert a path for our God…”

Col IX: This is the time for the preparation of the way in the wilderness…

Col IX.10ff: They shall depart from one of the counsels of the Torah to walk in all the stubbornness of their hearts, but shall be ruled by the primitive precepts in which the men of the Community were first instructed until there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.

Here we very possibly have three figures in mind. The Prophet is clearly the “Prophet like Moses” (Deut 18), elsewhere identified as the Star (Num 24:17) or Interpreter (Doresh HaTorah) or Teacher of Righteousness. “Messiahs”, if taken as two, most likely refers to the coming of both a Davidic “Prince of the Congregation” (elsewhere called “the Scepter”; Num 24:17 again), and a Priestly/Aaronic Messiah or anointed one. These are referred to in Zech 4:14 as the two “sons of fresh oil” (b’nai HaYitzhar) “who stand before the “Lord” (Adon) of the whole earth” (Rev 11).

Within the Qumran corpus we can document the appearance of the Prophet or Teacher of Righteousness; however, I find no evidence anywhere in the entire collection of the appearance of his two messiahs. The Damascus Document (CD) is absolutely crucial in this regard. Two manuscripts (A & B) found in the Cairo Geniza by S. Schechter in 1897 were also found in extensive fragments in Caves 4, 5, and 6 at Qumran, inside the very parameters of the settlement. The introductory lines of Col I refer to the appearance of the Teacher 390 years after the Babylonian Exile (586 BCE) and twenty years after the origin of the New Covenant movement:

He visited them and He caused a plant root to spring from Israel and Aaron to inherit His Land and to prosper on the good things of His earth. And they perceived their iniquity and recognized that they were guilty men, yet for twenty years they were like blind men groping for the way. And God observed their deeds, that they sought Him with a whole heart, and He raised up for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way of His heart.

What I find rather striking is that in CD manuscript A, other than in this introduction, there is no direct reference to the arrival and career of this Teacher. Indeed, in Col VII we find reference to the “Star and Scepter” promise of Number 24 with a decidedly “future” cast to it–as if neither figure had appeared. And in Col VI we read: “He raised up from Aaron men of discernment and from Israel men of wisdom…until he comes who shall teach righteousness at the end of days.”

But in the important fragment we call manuscript B we have two additional references to the community holding fast to its mission “until the coming of the Messiah of Aaron and Israel” And, in contrast to manuscript A, we find direct references to the “gathering in” (i.e., death) of the Teacher of the Community:

Col B19: From the day of the gathering in of the Teacher of the Community until the end of all the men of war who deserted to the Liar, there shall pass about forty years.

Col B 20: None of the men who enter the New Covenant in the land of Damascus and who again betray it and depart from the fountain of living waters, shall be reckoned with the Council of the people or inscribed in its Book, from the day of gathering in of the Teacher of the Community until the comings of the Messiah out of Aaron and Israel.

What is even more striking is that CD manuscript B recasts manuscript A (Col VII) and quotes Zech 13:7: “Awake O Sword against my Shepherd, against the man who is my fellow, says God–smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered, and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.” This “smiting” of the Shepherd, whom I take here to be the Teacher, appears parallel in this fragment to his “gathering in.” At this very point in the text, fragment B edits out the reference in A to the Numbers 24 “Star and Scepter” prophecy–obviously seeing it as in the past.

Here we find a period of “about 40 years” tied to the demise of the Teacher. There is a fragment from Cave 4 (4Q171) that refers to the same period:

“A little while and the wicked shall be no more; I will look towards his place but he shall not be there” (Psa 37:10). Interpreted, this concerns all the wicked. At the end of the forty years they shall be blotted out and not an man shall be found on earth.”

Here things get a bit prophetically complicated, unless one is steeped in the chronological schemes of the book of Daniel (and Ezekiel)– particularly the “70 weeks” prophecy of Daniel 9. The text assumes understanding of a final 490 year period, which the DSS community understood neatly as Ten Jubilees, 49 years each. We then find references in various fragments (11QMelch; 4Q390) that attempt to fit the history of the community within this time scheme. The Teacher himself is to arise, as one would expect, “in the first week of the Jubilee that follows the nine Jubilees” (11QMelch), or just over 40 years from the End. This sort of “pinpointed” chronological placement is rather extraordinary and captures for us a moment in time, not without parallel in the 40 years from the death of Jesus in 30 CE to the “end of the age” associated with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE.

In the DSS commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab) we find that the community has obviously lived through and beyond this 40 years “countdown” period with the Teacher long gone and the apocalyptic expectations of the arrival of the Kingdom of God anything but fulfilled. The Romans have by now invaded the country and propped up the puppet priests that the community despised as utterly corrupt (perhaps Hyrcanus II). Col I interprets the cry of the prophet Habakkuk of “How long?” as referring to the “beginning of the final generation.”
This extraordinarily precious text offers a line-by-line interpretation of the prophet Habakkuk, applying his message to the present life of the community. I have put the quotations from Habakkuk in italics, with the interpretation following each line:

…Write down the vision and make it plain upon the tablets, that he who reads may read it, and I will take my stand to watch, and I will station myself upon my fortress speedily [Hab 2:1-2]. [VII] And God told Habakkuk to write down that which would happen to the final generation, but He did not make known to him when time would come to an end. As for that which He said, That he who reads may read it speedily: interpreted, this concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of His servants the Prophets. For there shall be yet another vision concerning the appointed time. It shall tell of the end and shall not lie. If it tarries, wait for it, for it shall surely come and shall not be late. Interpreted, this concerns the men of truth who keep the Torah, whose hands shall not be slacked in the service of truth when the final age is prolonged. For all the ages of God reach their appointed end as he determines for them in the mysteries of His wisdom. Behold, his soul is puffed up and is not upright. Interpreted, this means that the wicked shall double their guilt upon themselves and it shall not be forgiven when they are judged…But the righteous shall live by his faith. Interpreted, this concerns all those who observe the Torah in the House of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of Judgment because of their suffering and because of their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness. Interpreted, this means that the final age shall be prolonged, and shall exceed all that the Prophets have said; for the mysteries of God are astounding.

I think the evidence is strong, both internally and externally (dating of the texts–paleography/C-14), that the crisis of belief that this text reflects had come to a climax in the mid-first century BCE. In other words, by the time of the Roman invasion of Palestine (63 BCE) and the reign of Herod the Great (37 BCE), such hopes and expectations had been severely tried and found wanting. And yet, the movement as a whole, more broadly speaking, what Eisenman calls “the messianic movement in Palestine,” from the Maccabees to Masada, continues on. Indeed, it seems to find its final expression in the hopes and dreams of the followers of John the Baptist, Jesus, and James. It is against this background that I try to set my own interpretation of the life and times of Jesus the Messiah in my book, The Jesus Dynasty. With the Dead Sea Scrolls we literally have a “trial run” on the Apocalypse, with all the resulting dynamics from “delay of the End of the Age” to the brutal deaths of various leaders and Messiahs.

There is a very intriguing story, unique to the gospel of John, about a wedding attended by Jesus and his disciples at the Galilean village of Cana (John 2:1-11). Within the gospel of John the story functions in a theological and even allegorical manner–it is the “first” of seven signs, the “water into wine” story, but that is not to say it lacks any historical foundation. The story is part of an earlier written narrative that scholars call the “Signs Source,” now embedded in the gospel of John much like the Q source is embedded in Matthew and Luke. Many scholars consider the Signs Source to be our most primitive gospel narrative, earlier than, and independent from, the gospel of Mark. Most readers of John’s gospel concentrate on the long “red letter” speeches and dialogues of Jesus with the lofty language about him as the “Son” sent from heaven, in cosmic struggle with “the Jews” who are cast in a pejorative light. Such elements are apparently a much later theological overlay, as they are absent from this primitive narrative source. The work was written to promote the simple affirmation that Jesus was the Messiah, the anointed King of the line of David, and to explain how his death was part of the plan of God. This narrative source is written in a completely different style from the later material now in John’s gospel. It moves along from scene to scene with vivid details and in gripping narrative flow.

The elements of the Cana story are fascinating. Jesus and his disciples, who have been down in the Jordan valley with John the Baptizer, return to the area to join the wedding celebration. Jesus’ mother Mary (though unnamed in John) and his brothers are already there (2:12), so it seems to be some kind of “family affair.” Indeed, Mary seems to be at some level officially involved in the celebration as a kind of co-hostess since she takes charge of things when the wine planned for the occasion, unexpectedly runs out, indicating either that the crowd was larger than expected or that things became quite festive, or both. Mary turns to Jesus and the rest of the story is well known to everyone–he miraculously turns six stone vessels, filled initially with water, into the finest wine. But beyond the “miracle” or the “sign,” a number of other quite interesting questions arise.

First, one has to ask why the lack of wine would be a concern of Mary, Jesus’ mother? And what do we know about Cana? And most important, whose wedding was this and why was Jesus and his family present in the first place?

Let’s begin with Cana itself. What do we know about it? Most tourists are taken to the traditional site of Cana (Kefr Kenna) near Nazareth on the road to Tiberius that the Franciscans maintain. The problem is this location has no Roman period ruins and most certainly is not the place mentioned in the New Testament. Its veneration began sometime in the Middle Ages. An alternative site, Khirbet Qana, is 8 miles northwest of Nazareth and 12 miles west of the Sea of Galilee. It is high on a hill overlooking the Bet Netofa valley. This location has much more evidence in its favor. Professor Doug Edwards, of the University of Puget Sound, has been excavating there since 1998 and what he has found seems fairly decisive, including 2nd Temple period tombs, houses, and possibly a beth midrash or synagogue. Evidence of Christian veneration at this site dates back to the 6th century CE.

Right after the wedding, according to John 2:12, Jesus goes to Capernaum and with him are his disciples, but also his mother and his brothers. I think that implies the whole family, including the brothers (and thus the sisters) were not only at the wedding but are now traveling with him. They go to Capernaum, where he sets up a kind “residence” or operational HQ, according to the tradition that Mark has received (see Mark 2:1; 3:19; 9:33 and the references to the house and being ‘at home.”). Mark knows nothing of Cana but John mentions it again when Jesus returns from a trip to Judea where he stirred up a considerable amount of trouble and needs someplace to “lay low.” He and his disciples go back to Cana (John 4:46). Why go back there if the first visit was just for a wedding and had no connection to him? I think this is important in that it seems to become for Jesus a kind of “safe house” or place of operations when he needs to retreat to Galilee, much like Capernaum.

There is definitely a “Jesus connection” to Cana, parallel to the one that Mark reports regarding Capernaum. Peter Richardson, of the University of Toronto, has written a significant academic article on this point titled “What Has Cana to Do with Capernaum?” (New Testament Studies 2002:48: 314-331) that I highly recommend. He argues that the significant differences on geographical matters between the Synoptics with their sources and John with its sources–especially the question of Jesus’ “place”–should not be resolved simply in favor of Mark. Cana as a place in John is as significant as Capernaum in Mark. In fact, Richardson argues that Cana served as an operational base for Jesus according to the tradition that John reflects. It is interesting to note that during the Jewish Revolt Josephus, commander of the Jewish forces in Galilee, made Cana his strategic headquarters for a time (Life 86). Its prime location, overlooking Sepphoris and the cities of the Bet Netofa valley made it an ideal location.

John indicates the connection in the last chapter of his gospel, where he says that the disciple Nathanael, mentioned only in the gospel of John (see previous post on names in Mark and John), is from Cana in Galilee (21:2). Nathanael is mentioned earlier in the gospel of John as an early follower or disciple, associated with Andrew of Bethsaida (1:45). He is most often identified as one of the Twelve, under his father’s name, Bar-Tholomew or “Bar Tolmai” in Aramaic, in Mark’s list of the disciples (Mark 3:18). I find this identification likely.

Given this background all we can do is speculate. I think we can assume that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is somehow involved in the wedding and since we know Jesus and his disciples, as well as his brothers are there, it is not a passing event but some kind of family affair. And since he returns to the place when things get heated for him and his disciples in Judea, it is a safe place for him, and one to which he is connected. So whose was the wedding? Or can we even make a wild guess?

Many have suggested that the wedding at Cana was that of Jesus. I find this unlikely. Even though the account is very “allegorical” as it comes to us in John, and it is accordingly hard to derive historical material therefrom, the way in which Jesus shows up with his disciples, when his mother and brothers are already there, indicates to me that the wedding is of someone else. My own guess would be that it is the wedding of either one of his brothers or sisters. Since Mary is involved, but not, as I read it, the hostess, and the wedding is held in Cana, my guess is that it is most likely the wedding of Jesus’ brother James to a sister or daughter of Nathanael, thus accounting for it being held in that village. Cana then becomes a place to which Jesus can return, and as with Capernaum, it served as a kind of “home” for him.

I have of late become persuaded that Jesus well might have been married, and this represents a change of mind for me that I have detailed elsewhere on this Blog. If such be the case it seems impossible to tell whether he would have been married long before this point in his life, perhaps in his 20s, or whether he chose not to be married into his adult life, and only subsequently did so closer to the end.

I am reading with the greatest benefit, pleasure, and admiration, Richard Bauckham’s massive new study, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans, 2006).

For those who know my own work, and that of Bauckham, this high praise might come as a surprise, since it seems Richard and I are on opposite poles of the earth when it comes to theological perspectives and outlooks. Bauckham is such a thorough and careful researcher and a clear writer, I have benefited greatly from all his works, particularly, what I consider to be his masterpiece, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church.

This latest work is truly monumental and the data that Bauckham collects, as well as his methods and arguments in the work, merit careful consideration by historians of early Christianity. On Bauckham’s central thesis, namely that our N.T. gospels are based on eyewitness testimony of those who personally encountered Jesus, and what he concludes therefrom, I have serious reservations. On the other hand, I do indeed think that our two main narrative sources (Mark and John), and our primary teaching source (Q), are far from theological creations of anonymous communities, significantly removed from the historical Jesus. I also agree that within these sources are embedded something very close to what one might call “eyewitness” material, that is, material that is not simply created out of whole cloth as some type of theological fiction. What I think has to be factored in, however, are the sharp and diametrically opposing theological “camps” that were part and parcel of the first forty years of the movement, namely the views of Paul and those of James and Jesus’ original followers. In other words, the “products” we finally get in our gospels are wholly influenced by the triumph of Paul’s theology and perspective, his “Christ faith,” as Bousset, Reitzenstein, Baur, Bultmann, Schweitzer, Klausner, and others have called it. And the master narrative, really the “only” narrative, in the ears of most of us, is that of Luke’s account in Acts, that I take to be almost wholly contrary to what was actually going on in the Jerusalem based Jesus movement of the Nazarenes before Paul came along. Those issues I will argue more fully in my forthcoming book on Paul, but in this post I wanted to pick up on an aspect of Bauckham’s latest work, namely the carefully work he has done on the proper names mentioned in our gospel sources, that I think is as fascinating as it is valuable for historical purposes.

If we take the names mentioned in Mark and John, excluding public persons such as Herod or Pilate, and the names of the Twelve, we get the following very interesting lists for comparison:

Levi of Alphaeus (2:14)*

Jairus (5:22)

Mary mother of Jesus (6:3)

Jesus’ brothers: James, Joses, Judas, and Simon (6:3)

Bartimaeus son of Timaeus (10:46)

Simon the leper of Bethany (14:3)

Simon of Cyrene and his sons Alexander and Rufus (15:21)

Joseph of Arimathea (15:21)

Mary Magdalene (15:40, 47; 16:1)

Mary, mother of James and Joses (15:40, 47; 16:1)*

Salome (15:40)

Nathanael (1:45)*

Nicodemus (3:1)

Joseph, father of Jesus (1:45; 6:42)

Lazarus, Mary & Martha (11:1)

Malchus (18:10)

Mary Magdalene (19:25; 20:1, 18)

Mary of Clopas (19:25)

Joseph of Arimathea (19:38)

I have put a * by the italicized names of Levi of Alphaeus in Mark, and Nathanael in John, as some traditions identify Levi as the apostle Matthew and Nathanael as Bartholomew, both of the Twelve.

I want to draw out a number of observations about these two lists. First, In terms of the names themselves, notice the following four sharp contrasts:

* Mark mentions Jesus’ mother Mary and the names of his four brothers but never mentions his father Joseph.
* John in contrast, never mentions the names of any of Jesus’ brothers nor that of his mother.

* Mark knows nothing of the family of Lazarus and his two sisters, Martha and Mary, and he has the anointing of Jesus at Bethany done by an anonymous woman in the house of Simon the Leper.
* John knows nothing of Simon the Leper and states that Mary of Bethany was the one who anointed Jesus.

* Mark knows nothing of Nicodemus, involved in burial of Jesus, whom John gives a prominent role.
* John knows nothing of Simon, father of Alexander and Rufus, carrying Jesus cross.

* Mark has a blind begger, Bartimus, healed by Jesus at Jericho and John knows no such person or story.
* John says the man’s whose ear was cut off by Peter at the arrest of Jesus was named Malchus, something Mark does not know.

What stands out here I think is that Mark and John together have precious few names, and the names they have, other than the ones in bold, do not in any way correspond to one another. Mark and John seem to clearly be drawing upon different traditions, given the unique names that each knows, unknown or unmentioned by the other. Also, the named individuals suddenly seem to cluster at the end of each gospel, in contrast to the opening chapters (Mark 1-9 and John 1-10).

In contrast, in terms of who was at the crucifixion scene, and involved in the burial, they suddenly agree on three names: Mary Magdalene, Joseph of Arimathea, and a mysterious “Mary” that Matthew calls “the other Mary,” whom Mark says was the mother of James and Joses, and John says was “of Clophas” (probably, but not certainly meaning “wife of”). I have argued elsewhere, on this Blog and in my book, The Jesus Dynasty, that this “other Mary” is actually the mother of Jesus, married to Joseph’s brother Clophas, but for my purposes here I will not go into this. My point is that in terms of named individuals Mark and John have an impressive agreement about this particular scene in the life of Jesus, and that the roles of the two Marys, and of Joseph of Arimathea are crucial to each of them. This is all the more impressive in the light of the fact, as seen here, that they never share any other of these unique names in common.

I think this supports further the idea I have been discussing in this series of posts comparing Mark and John, that they reflect independent traditions, each drawing upon their separate sources, and here I agree with Bauckham, that eyewitness materials play a part in this process. Both the gospel of Mark and the gospel of John are wholly shaped by theological concerns, there is no doubting that. However, when it comes to these names, various core stories, certain narrative frameworks, places and locations, chronological indications (especially in John), and a basic story flow, I am not convinced we are dealing with materials that are simply “constructed,” as if one is writing theological fiction. The trick is to identify the theologically embellished material and separate it out from its underlying core. I think this can often be done, not perfectly, but with some degree of assurance. For example, we can be quite sure Jesus ate a last meal with his disciples, as both John and Mark report, but whether the words associated with the “bread” and the “wine” that Mark records are historical is quite questionable on many grounds. In the same way, I think we can be quite sure that Jesus was put in a temporary tomb after his crucifixion and that Joseph of Arimathea was involved in that burial, attended minimally by Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses. In the same way I lean strongly toward accepting the “historicity” of the empty tomb narratives, at their core, with Jesus’ corpse moved to another location for permanent burial, while the accounts of the various “appearances,” first in Matthew, then greatly expanded by Luke and John, are closer to theological/apologetic testimony than history per se. The task of sorting through this material is perhaps more “art” than “science,” but it is not “unscientific,” in that it relies upon the critical methods historians use to evaluate any textual materials.

I find the unique names in Mark and John, with minimal exceptions of Joseph and the two Marys at the cross and burial, to be quite important in support of the position I hold that Mark and John offer us independent traditions and I am grateful to Bauckham for working all this out in the fashion he does in his book with some very detailed charts that include names in all four gospels.

I am in the process of going through all the hundreds of posts on this site and putting them into topical categories. This should be done soon and I hope it will facilitate a good use of the archive here that has been created over the past year. We have had many hundreds of folk join us to follow the subject of the Talpiot tomb, but the site does actually contain much more than that single topic. I have been writing broadly on biblical and historical themes related to the areas I cover in my book, The Jesus Dynasty, for well over a year.

I do have a half dozen additional posts outlined that deal with further aspects the Talpiot tomb discussion but I want, more and more, to include materials that relate more broadly to the main parameters of the Jesus Dynasty theses. I will be completing a series of posts on Mark and John with that in mind. I am also preparing two formal pieces on the subject of the Talpiot tomb, both to be published in June, as well as my own major monograph on the subject that I hope to have finished by the end of June.

We are ending our semester here and as Chair of our Department of Religious Studies this is the busiest time of the year so I haven’t been able to write as much as I have wanted of late. Religious Studies at UNC Charlotte is a large and distinguished department with sixteen full-time faculty positions, including two endowed chairs of Judaic Studies, and as well as many part-time lecturers. We offer the B.A. and M.A. degrees. Keeping it all together can be quite a challenge.

It looks like the verdict is in and most who have responded to the post below (see July 27th) are of the view that this particular Blog, without comments, is the preferred way to go. I appreciate all the input and it seems that the question more or less answered itself by some of the more hostile and testy responses…I will continue the free and open “give and take” dialogue at the Yahoo Jesus Dynasty site and not worry about duplicating it here…

Thanks for your responses, both here and privately to me. One think that has become clear to me is there is an incredibly well informed, kind, and balanced group of folk out there who have read and benefited from The Jesus Dynasty without either slavishly lining up behind all I say or think or becoming nasty and bitter with any disagreements.

This decision is not to preclude comments on individual posts where it might be appropriate…I will indicate such as we move along.

When I began this Blog on The Jesus Dynasty nearly a month ago while in Israel I decided to disable the “Comment” feature offered with the WordPress software we are using. Although I have had literally hundreds of reasonable reactions to the contents of the book, both pro and con, I have also, as one might expect, had my share of hateful and threatening messages. I wanted to keep the site free of such things. My experience is that religious fundamentalists can often, not always, tend to be quite nasty in tone and attitude when their beliefs are questioned or challenged.

Today one of my students said to me–Dr. Tabor, it is very sad that your Blog is getting no response at all–not a single comment! I assured him that our readership is high and active, but it made me begin to think about the matter of comments and whether I might decide to include them or not. One can always decide to “monitor” comments, but then there is a question of taking the time to make decisions on each entry, not to mention trying to reply to them all.

What I thought I might do with this post is enable the comment feature and get some feedback by regular readers of the Blog. Would you rather read my own thoughts, day by day and week by week, or would you prefer a more interactive site?

My thinking on all this was not to stifle thought or input, but to steer that sort of thing more toward the Yahoo discussion group, devoted solely to the discussion of my book. There I have had to carry one quite a few “battles” with unhappy and even rude readers, though I must say that the group as a whole has settled down to some very helpful and meaningful discussions by some highly informed contributors. I am rather inclined to stay with that decision, as anyone can read the posts at the Yahoo site, or if one chooses, join the discussion by signing up for the group. But just to get some feedback from readers of this Blog I am going to open this up and ask any of you who have views on this subject to offer them to the rest of us. So now we will see if the Comment feature works okay and whether any of you readers care to weigh in on this topic…
Thanks,

James Tabor

P.S. Comments to this post will be moderated so they might not appear immediately–or at all :-)

COMMENTS ARCHIVED BELOW ON THIS POST:

Dr. Tabor. It’s your blog. So blog here. You are doing a great job of entertaining wide ranging discussions at the Yahoo group. The blog is great just to keep caught up with you. I am very interested in your work on Paul and am looking forward to learning more. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
Comment by Stan Kuback — July 27, 2006 @ 7:26 pm

There are, of course, pros and cons for allowing comments or not. On the whole, if comments are moderated, it can be a useful and worthwhile interactive experience. But if you allow unmoderated comments prepare yourself for an onslaught of ignorance that would make a 16th century village priest from the hinterlands of Swabia blush with shame.

Personally, I like the give and take of comments. And, frankly, most people won’t go to the discussion list to post a comment on a blog entry.

There’s my half cent worth. Whatever you decide- I know I will continue reading your postings because I always learn something from you.
Comment by Jim — July 27, 2006 @ 8:08 pm

I prefer just reading your blogs. I think your Yahoo discussion group can serve as the “open” venue.
Comment by Jill Prouty — July 28, 2006 @ 8:04 am

Dr. Tabor,
I have wanted to respond from time to time and have been frustrated that I could not. I never knew there was a Yahoo group dedicated to the book, but I’m not likely to join Yahoo for that privlege either. I really do hope you enable the comments but even if you don’t please at least enable the trackbacks.
Please allow me to make three quick suggestions.
1. Use the Akismet spam filter included with wordpress (Under plugins).
2. Use a “captcha” plugin that will make your readers prove they are human and not “robots” dumping spam.
3. For that extra layer of control there is a feature in WP with which you can require the first post by a given author to be approved by you; but that every post after by that person is automatically accepted (until you block them).
Comment by Thomas Black — July 28, 2006 @ 8:12 am

I myself use moderated comments as well. Even if on the whole I get more spam than discussion, I know some of the interaction in the community wouldn’t have happened at all if it did not happen behind the scenes. It’s a great way for clarifying certain minor matters without a new blogpost or sending an email to each inquisitive commentator.

best regards,

Chris Weimer
Comment by Chris Weimer — July 28, 2006 @ 9:09 am

Please, Dr. Tabor, i would prefer hearing just from you in your blog. I want to hear what YOU have to say, and i feel your comments probably reflect response to people in the discussion group. I don’t participate in groups at all and would probably stop reading your blog if comments were allowed.

Thank you, i’m learning a lot.
Comment by jp — July 28, 2006 @ 9:27 am

Jo,
I’m not sure why you would stop reading James’ blog if he allowed comments. Generally speaking, one can completely ignore comments simply by refusing to click on the “comments” link. Hence, you can still read his blog without reading any of the comments even if he enables them.
Comment by Jim — July 28, 2006 @ 9:43 am

Dear Dr James Tabor -
As a researcher, you have enormous knowledge to share. As an educator, you are incredibly generous with your insights. I feel as inspired by any of your monologues as I could ever be as an observer or a participant in any discussion in which you are involved. You have opened worlds of important, pertenent new facts to me. As in the yahoo group for example – even when they disagree with you or with each other, such arguments still stimulate thought. How can that be bad? I find it is often the well-argued case from which we often learn the most. Sometimes questions arise there that I would have liked to ask myself, but would have felt reticent to take the group’s precious time, or it may not pertain strictly to your book, TJD. Occasionally, even ordinary people ask extraordinary questions, and I would love to hear your answers. All of that is why I like the thought of comments to your blog, but it is admittedly selfish.

I cannot fathom how you conjure up the time to respond, in the depth you do and with such clarity, in the first place. You must never sleep. But if you are still inclined to interact with the people you have inspired (in which ever direction –pro or con), I would consider that additional opportunity to experience your opinions a lovely bonus. Despite the pressures of beginning another book (I cant wait) and completing your transparent bible translation, (and heaven knows what other adventures), if you were to accept comments on your blog site you could chose to reply if you deemed it was warranted and ignore others.

Some of us might, I think, also enjoy the opportunity to react openly to any subject you might raise without feeling embarrassed by any perceived lack of our own scholarship.

As for fundamentalist threats, I am always amazed at the way ignorance betrays itself in the company of open and curious minds. We must never be cowed by those who are afraid to think or learn new things. It is even (however remotely) possible someone with a rigid mind will be transformed by exposure to the fascinating facts with which you are so fond of surprising people. We can hope.

At any rate you might decide to have a trial period. If it becomes difficult, or untenable, nobody would blame you for shutting it down. As for those devoted exclusive blogophiles, nothing would change - the choice to read each others’ comments would be with each of us. Click or not. Frankly, I’d be curious – I’d click.

Thanks for all you have done to enlighten and inform and inspire. What a mission! Has the label “Taborite” been proposed? Or does that sound too messianic? Blog on! I’ll listen!
Lady B.
Comment by Barbara Washburn — July 28, 2006 @ 3:22 pm

I, too, was not aware of the Yahoogroups option. I reserve judgement on the need for the blog to accept comments until I’ve given the YahooGroups option a try. Conceptually, separating user comments from Dr. Tabor’s blog entries makes sense.
Comment by Dennis Ray — July 28, 2006 @ 8:29 pm

A blog without comments is not a blog, but a personal web page. A blog with monitored comments is a self glorification page wherein only ditto-heads are allowed to speak. What good is that?
It is understandable that when a person writes a book, which is intentionally controversial, that they wish to deflect all controversy by placing themselves in a sanitized bubble where the voices of criticism have been locked out of any discussion.
The Yahoo Discussion group is a free-for-all where people pick and choose their own topics and do not provide any legitimate discussions, other than their own braggadocio. Yet when a blog page addresses a particular topic and no one is allowed to dispute any of the points made therein, isn’t this like placing duck tape on the mouths of all its readers? Don’t you get a little suspicious that the author is more interested in mind control rather than honest discussion?
For instance, one of the topics that James Tabor discusses is “Picking and Choosing” his evidence. It is incredible to me that such a topic, which is a criticism of the author’s methodology, is shut out from all discussion. James Tabor does pick and choose, there is no question about that. But all James Tabor is doing is following a methodology that is popularly taught in our schools known as the “working hypothesis” method. This kind of methodology fosters picking and choosing. In other words, the method itself promotes that you present all the evidence that supports your hypothesis and reject all evidence that would contradict your hypothesis. Unfortunate for the reader, however, is that all you see is what the little man behind the curtain wants you to see.
This method is contrasted by what I call a true scholarly method, and that is to lay all the facts on the table, and let the facts tell their own story. Of course, we know that facts don’t assemble themselves without the creative selection process of the author. But one has to contrast the kind of book that James Tabor produces, and the kind that I am talking about, such as those by John P. Meier, who leaves no stones unturned and allows the reader far more choices of making up their own minds, than being stampeded into accepting one’s own particular theory.
But alas, James Tabor is not interested in such fine points. He wrote this book to draw a line in the sand. He is on a quest to find the evidence that Jesus died and was buried and that he will one day be able to prove it with scientific DNA evidence. Can you imagine the impact on the world if he succeeds? He will suddenly be the focus of every talk show in the world. In other words, he will be the one who has successfully disproved Christianity once and for all. The entire world will be turned upside down and James Tabor plans to be right in the center of it. So his book is like a double dare. It is exactly like drawing a line in the sand begging anyone to cross it – begging anyone to say, “this will never happen.” Ah, yes, James Tabor has set the world up for the biggest double dare and “I told you so” of all time. And he is calling all the shots.
So who out there is willing to put their “faith” on the line and say: “James Tabor will never find any evidence that Jesus body was not resurrected and ascended to heaven?” You want to know who the first to go on record to say this? It is I, Paul R. Finch!

Comment by Paul R. Finch — July 29, 2006 @ 9:54 am

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Paul, if I am not mistaken there are Blogs that do not allow comments and most are moderated. As for the Yahoo discussion group I think your characterizations are completely wrong and anyone who wants to read through recent posts will see that. Even that discussion is \”monitored\” but not to ensure conformity to my views or those of anyone else, but that people stay on topic and reflect common courtesy. Far from not inviting criticism I have patiently spent hundreds of hours in that forum dealing with all sorts of queries, including some from people who share your negative tone, inaccurate characterizations, and disrespectful and inaccurrate personal charges about my intents, motives, etc. I can not imagine any forum being more free than the Yahoo group has been. If you want to repost this message there I will be glad to respond in more detail. In the meantime I think sensitive readers will be able to ascertain what is going on here by your attitude as reflected in this post. But still, believe it or not, I have known you for many years, liked you very much personally, and I am actually glad to hear from you, just sorry you misjudge me in such a manner.

James Tabor

Dr. Tabor, I personally enjoy reading and learning from your posts here. I agree with the comment above — you are exceedingly generous with your knowledge and time. I think the Yahoo group is the forum for discussion and comments. It is true, the choice for us to read each other’s comments is ours in the click, but the choice to allow comments it seems would go back to the intent for creating this blog in the first place.
Comment by E Bateman — July 29, 2006 @ 9:56 am

Paul Finch is 100% wrong in his assertion that a blog without comments is not a blog and that moderated comments are self glorification. Some of the very best blogs have no comments allowed (for example, Jim Davila\’s Paleojudaica) and all the responsible blogs in the field of Biblical Studies have comments either moderated or restricted.

Why? Not for self aggrandizement, or in order to insulate the blogger- but because, simply put, there are a lot of people making use of the internet who are ignorant dilettantes. If one allowed unmoderated comments, one would simply be giving space to the most mindless of ideas.

If people with no training in the field of Biblical Studies want to rant, ramble, rave, and attempt to convince others to join them in the path of ignorance, that is their business. On their own weblogs.

I\’ve had a bit of experience with the loons, both on blog comments and email lists and if both are not tightly monitored one ends up with a pooling of ignorance the likes of which have not been seen since the monks gathered in their cells to discuss Aristotle while being utterly unable to read.

As to Mr Finch\’s not so subtle slander of Dr Tabor\’s work, nothing needs to be said to prove his claims false. Those who have read the book know the reasoned and balanced tone he takes. To show the inadequacy of Mr Finch\’s illfounded complaint that James doesn\’t allow dissension he need merely look at the facts: James allowed Finch to post.

I wouldn\’t have because I have no time for such persons and I certainly don\’t lend them bandwidth to spew their bilge. Ergo, James does indeed allow dissenting opinions.

James, allow comments or not as you see fit. But if you allow them, do be sure to moderate them. Otherwise you will find your blog a refuge for the fringe elements and dilettantes.
Comment by Jim — July 29, 2006 @ 12:01 pm

I find The Jesus Dynasty fascinating reading and look forward to your planned book on Paul. I don’t think it necessary to have a comments section on your blog. I’m sure other experts in your field contact you directly on matters of importance. If the blog is limited to updates on your travels, discoveries and discussions with others in your field, that’s just fine. I’m not interested in reading uninformed, subjective opinions by the masses!
Comment by Lester Vogt — July 30, 2006 @ 1:33 pm

Maybe your next book should be the “Evangelical Handbook of Hateful and Threatening Messages” so we can all see what the “Loving Spirit” of those who claim to be “Born Again” sounds like. In this way we can emulate their fine examples and share with them a home of heavenly bliss for eternity.
Comment by Elijah Hawk — July 30, 2006 @ 8:42 pm

I think the comments on the comments idea, pretty much speak for themselves. I agree with the thoughts that it is great that Dr. Tabor even takes the time to write these entries. For him to have to read through and deal with all of this kind of non-sense, on every post he takes the time to write, is time better spent elsewhere.
Comment by John — July 31, 2006 @ 5:29 am

Dr. Tabor, my vote is not to have comments on this blog. I have tried to sift through the threads and posts on the Yahoo group and grew weary of those promoting their own agendas and those obviously very illiterate in responsible Biblical scholarship. I know there are some very good posts by thoughtful people but it is hard at times to find them. So I rarely go to that group anymore. I would not like to see this blog become like the Yahoo group. JMHO

I do appreciate all you write here and it is like receiving a course or book free. You must have limitless energy to do all you do. Wish I had it!
Comment by Mary Ann — July 31, 2006 @ 12:22 pm

Thanks to Dr. Tabor for his wonderful book which has made it possible for a secular person like myself to gain a new appreciation of Jesus and his life and times. I have referred many of my friends to the book and will continue to do so. I look forward to his new book on Paul. Personally I value the information on Dr. Tabor\’s blog and would rather forego comments than have the blog discontinued.
Comment by David Jones — July 31, 2006 @ 1:54 pm

Thank you Doc Tabor for sharing what you know ,I enjoy reading your posts and look forward to your next book and I agree with Lester Vogt above, you have been very kind and willing to share what you have learned and those who have been on their own search are those who can realy appreciate what you share.
Comment by nancy wright — July 31, 2006 @ 2:17 pm

Dr. Tabor,
I enjoy the way you are sharing the information now. Your blog is fun to read and I am glad you are willing to allow us into your life. I enjoyed your book very much and the radio show you did with Scout and Skye, dear friends of mine. Thank you enjoy your research.
Comment by Star — August 2, 2006 @ 3:33 pm

Just reading through everyone’s comments about whether or not to open up the comment section took a bit of time!
Dr. Tabor, your blog is fine the way it is - a great place for your readers to continue to learn & be challenged. If you’ve got the time to monitor comments, great. If not, just blog away.
Comment by Diana — August 4, 2006 @ 12:58 pm

Beginning the Jesus Dynasty Blog

I am in Jerusalem this week and I thought it an appropriate time and place to begin my Jesus Dynasty Blog. My purpose is to write things day-to-day and week-to-week related to the research I presented in The Jesus Dynasty. I will comment on a wide variety of topics and areas related to the book including reviews, questions, reader reactions, and other miscellaneous items of interest. Some of the key topics that I cover in the book are ongoing areas of investigation and research so this Blog will be a good place for me to update readers on the latest news as well. In both the areas of textual research and archaeological findings it seems that the quest for the historical Jesus is continually advancing and changing. Check back often and feel free to offer any feedback (jesusdynasty@earthlink.net).

James Tabor