Please go to my new TaborBlog for latest regular posts.

I am pleased and humbly surprised to report that this new Blog, only a month old this week, made the latest listing of “Top 50 Biblioblogs,” coming in modestly at number 24. Since most of my regular readers were habitually wedded to this Jesus Dynasty site, I had not expected the migration of traffic to my new TaborBlog to be as successful as it has been in such a short time.

A “Biblioblog” is one that deals in some way with Biblical Studies and it turns out that in the Blogging World this area of discussion is very much alive and kicking. I can hardly keep up with things myself and I recommend readers who are not familar with all that is available to do a bit of browsing on some of these major sites. I am as impressed as I am amazed at how much fascinating material is available, day by day. week by week.

Thanks to Mark Elliot and the editors of the newly revived Web site Bible Interpretation for carrying a featured article on the latest report on our very exciting Mt Zion excavation in Jerusalem. You can read the report with pictures here. Bible Interpretation was, in my view, one of the finest sites on-line and it is great to see it back, up and running.

For more general information on the upcoming 2009 Dig Season at Mt Zion, as well as full reports, videos, pictures, and a history of this important excavation see our main Web site:

digmountzion.com

We accept volunteers of all ages and walks of life and students from any accredited college or university in the United States can enroll for academic credit. Please write me directly with any questions or comments: jdtabor@uncc.edu

I am reposting a link here to Thomas Verenna’s Blog, just up this morning, regarding the late breaking news of the decision of the Supreme Court of Germany regarding the case of Professor Gerd Luedemann, historian, theologian, and New Testament scholar. I have known professor Luedemann for many years and most recently have enjoyed contact with him at the initial gatherings of The Jesus Project at UC Davis (2007) and in Amherst, NY (2008). This ruling says a lot about the long arms and tight hands of Church Influence even in “secular” Europe, not only in cases such as Hans Kueng, on the Roman Catholic side of things, but now equally so in the Protestant arena.

As one non-Catholic among half a dozen others who left the University of Notre Dame back in the mid-1980s under the pressure of one of Father Hesburg’s “recatholicising” moves in the Dept. of Theology back in those dark ages, as well as having scheduled lectures on my book, The Jesus Dynasty, forbidden in the spring of 2006 at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, because I had dared to suggest that Jesus had a human father, not likely Joseph, I can identify in just a tiny way with Prof. Luedemann.

Surely the structures of European theological education are of great concern to those of us on the other side of the Great Deep, in that we who work in Biblical Studies are inextricably linked in both methods and research agendas to our European colleagues.

Please help spread the world on this significant development so its issues and consequences can be more widely considered and discussed in our 21st century “post-Enlightenment” global culture.

I am honored to report that I was given a full page interview with photo in the cover story (translated: “What Really Happened in Bethlehem?) of the December 15, 2008 issue of Profil magazine.  Profil is the #1 newsweekly of Austria, also read widely in Germany, equivalent to Time or Newsweek. An image of the cover and the full interview, in German reproduced here. You can click on the images to zoom in and enlarge or download the PDF file link at the bottom.

Download the PDF link here: Profiltabor

Although there are examples of the Covenant God made with all Israel through Moses at Horeb/Sinai being “renewed” at various points (e.g. Deuteronomy 29:1; 2 Kings 23:1-3), the “New Covenant” of which Jeremiah speaks (31:31-34) seems to stand out in terms of how it is both described and placed in context.

If one reads carefully that historical context, namely chapters 30-31 of Jeremiah, it is abundantly clear, both by the descriptive content and the timing indicated (“At that time” “in that day” “the days are coming” etc.), that this is a singular, unique, event that has not come about or transpired as of yet but is to take place in a specific time when all the Tribes of Israel are gathered together back in the Land, with Judah and Israel becoming one, etc. This event is spoken of in all the prophets with a consistency and a specificity that rivals any other theme or subject in the Hebrew prophets, and is particularly evident in Ezekiel 37, that also mentions this “new” covenant, using different words. This seems quite clear that this vision of the future was the one anticipated by Jesus in speaking of a New Covenant, based on his saying in the Q source about having chosen the Twelve and appointing them as “apostles,” i.e., delegates, so they would eventually, in the coming Kingdom of God, sit on “twelve thrones ruling the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:28-30). Although there is a sense that one might still refer to this as a “renewed” covenant, it seems to stand out as different from the various “renewals” in the previous history of Israel, so that it is understood, by analogy at least, like a divorce and a remarriage, with all Twelve tribes (the house of Israel and the house of Judah) regathered to the Land and united under the Branch or Davidic Messiah. That said, there is only ONE covenant with Israel, as the Psalmist says, commanded to a “thousand generations,” thus the abbreviation O.T. could perhaps more rightly refer to the Only Testament, rather than the “Old” Testament.

Given this historical context one must pause over Paul’s ideas that the “new covenant” spoken by Jeremiah has come through his ministry, in contrast to the ministry of death that Moses instituted, that those who read the “old covenant” are blinded until they turn to Christ, or that the glory Moses experienced at Sinai is or has faded (2 Corinthians 3). The “last” Prophetic word we have on the level of the Hebrew Prophets is to “Remember the Teachings of My Servant Moses,” and that appears to take us to final days, characterized by the appearance of Elijah (Malachi 3/4). Rather than fade, the “glory” Moses experienced, that was the very Kavod of HaShem, will be renewed and enhanced in the time of which Jeremiah speaks. If one just reads Jeremiah 30-31 one does not find Paul’s ideas, that is, including his “heavenly Christ” who brings eternal life to those who accept him (with the rest blinded and hard of heart), or anything he says in 2 Corinthains 3 (and one really needs to include chapters 4-5 to get his full views here) referred to or predicted. There seems to be zero correspondence, other than the catchword “new covenant.”

This is not to say that the images of putting the Torah in the heart, or having a “new heart,” that Paul makes use of, are not found in the prophetic passages that speak of the “new covenant” and its operation. They lie at the heart of things, but they are nothing new, in that these very possibilities and potentials are all at the center of the covenant Moses made with Israel. Moses constantly tells the ancient Israelites to circumcise the heart, to have hearts of flesh not stone, and to put the Torah within. This is repeated constantly in the Psalms and Prophets as well. This is nothing “new” that comes with Paul and his “heavenly Christ.” It is at the heart of the Sinai/Horeb revelation always, and people in so-called “Old Testmant” times always had access to the Holy Spirit, a truly spiritual conversion, the Law written in the heart, etc. Grace, forgiveness, and a bonded friendship with the Creator through the Holy Spirit has always been offered freely to human beings, and all the more so through Moses’s covenant with Israel. Paul’s view of a “fleshly” and “spiritual” dichotomy is well known to us in all the hellenistic dualistic systems of thought of the ancient Mediterranean world, particularly the Platonists, Pythagorians, and to some extent the Stoics. That is why he thinks what one “eats or drinks” or observing “days” has nothing to do with the “real” inner person, or that God does not care for “oxen” when he says not to muzzle an animal threshing grain, but really has in mind his “new covenant” ministers being supported financially (1 Corinthians 9:3-12). Another response to Paul’s question–Does God care for oxen? is a resounding “yes,” as the Torah addresses ALL aspects of human life on planet earth.

A central issue when it comes to Paul is not whether he was a good guy or a bad guy, sincere or insincere, or even whether the ethical principles of the Torah are abrogated or carried through into the “new covenant” as he understands it. I have no doubt that Paul thought he was living in the “end times” and would live to see all that Jeremiah spoke of come about, at least in some “spiritual” way, since he had given up the idea that what he calls “fleshly” Israel mattered anymore. The real issue is whether one, Jew or Gentile, can have a right relationship with God by grace through faith, as Abraham had, by turning directly in repentance and faith, without the requirements of “accepting Christ” and receiving “eternal life” through the blood of the cross, as the exclusive new “way of salvation.” This is where “Christianity,” at least as viewed by Paul, parts with Judaism, and for that matter, with a plain reading of the Hebrew Bible, both Torah, Prophets, and Writings. And yet for Paul, centering everything on God offering his divine Son as a sacrifice for sins is the heart of his “new covenant” ideas. If one then turns back and reads Jeremiah 30-31 there is little to no correspondence between what Jeremiah says and the ideas Paul expounds that he calls the “New Covenant.”

Jesus himself offers something dead center in terms of reflecting the Hebrew Bible and its “way of salvation.” His well known story of “justification” given by Jesus in Luke 15 and the lost son who comes home, requires only the father’s gracious acceptance of a son who is truly broken up over his past wrong behavior. Even more to the point, the tax collector of Luke 18 who bowed his head, struck his breast, and said “God be merciful to me a sinner.” This is the one Way of turning to God that one finds consistently in the pages of the Hebrew Bible.

Two verses from the Hebrew Bible come to mind in this regard:

Psalm 145:18: “The LORD is near to all who call upon him, to all who call upon him in truth.”

Isaiah 56:6-7: “Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.”

The Hebrew means to seek truly/sincerely, and it not referring to a set of “truth” in terms of religious dogmas and doctrines. These texts are bedrock and they cut through any theological or complex systems of religious dogma. They are relational not systematic. Many seminaries have courses called “Systematic Theology” and most all are complex expositions of Paul’s teachings, with all the ins and outs. These verses seem to skirt that whole arena, even though they are addressing a similar question–How can one come to know God, be forgiven, and walk with him?

One important characteristic of the Prophets is that they are on the whole relational and almost completely non-systematic, so even a fool, yea a wayfaring man, will not stumble on the path. They sketch out in fairly plain language the “vision” of things for the “days to come,” and along the way, with the Prophets commenting on their own day and time, they offer avenues toward repentance and return to their contemporary hearers, and thus by extension, to readers down through the ages.

One might refer to this understanding of God and God’s relationship with humanity as “Abrahamic Faith,” taking one back to the pivotal and foundational “faith” of Abraham as reflected in the accounts of Genesis 12-22 in particular. I write a bit about this in a very preliminary way in the Conclusion to my book, The Jesus Dynasty, but for those interested in this subject there is much more in an older work of mine, long out of print, but now again available titled Restoring Abrahamic Faith.

I wanted to announce a new “landing page,” at the domain jamestabor.com, that integrates four web sites that I maintain related to my academic work, including a new one, TaborBlog, that begins today.

This Jesus Dynasty blog will continue, including its rich archive of materials posted since its inception in April, 2006. However, its focus will be more narrow than in the past–namely news and topics related directly to the book, The Jesus Dynasty.

There are two traditional sites in Jerusalem that tourists and pilgrims revere as the likely location of Golgotha–the place where Jesus was crucified. The oldest and most revered is of course the 4th century Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the holiest site in Christendom. It is located in the Christian Quarter, inside the present Old City walls and was built by queen Helena, the devout mother of Constantine, the first Christian Emperor. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Armenian, and Coptic Christians share the veneration and operation of the site. Many Protestants prefer an alternative site, outside the Old City walls, just north of the Damascus Gate near the bus depot. It is commonly referred to as the “Gordon’s Calvary” or the Garden Tomb, after its “discoverer,” the British general Charles “Khartoum” Gordon. Gordon suggested the location on a visit to Jerusalem in 1882, impressed by the elevated craggy rock outcropping that he thought resembled a skull, and a nearby ancient tomb with an entrance sealed with a rolling stone.

There are photos of both sites in my book, The Jesus Dynasty (chapter 14) as well as a brief discussion of some of the problems with each site. Some years ago I encountered the view that the crucifixion took place on the Mount of Olives, as expressed in a little book published by the late Ernest Martin titled The Place of Christ’s Crucifixion: Its Discovery and Significance (Foundation for Biblical Research, 1984). This book is long ago out of print though used copies can still be found at Amazon and other sources. Martin later expanded his views in a subsequent volume, Secrets of Golgotha: The Forgotten History of Christ’s Crucifixion (ASK Publications, 1988), which I reviewed in Critical Review of Books in Religion 1991, pp. 213-214. Personally, I always preferred his first, much shorter work, as it focused on the location of the site itself, whereas the subsequent expanded volume contained a lot of theological ideas that Martin held about the atoning death of Jesus per se.

Although Martin independently came to his view that the crucifixion of Jesus took place on the Mount of Olives, after publishing his first work he discovered the views of Nikos Kokkinos (1980) who had developed a somewhat different argument related to the notion that the crucifixion would have taken place at the scene of Jesus’ arrest, based on Roman law, thus near the Garden of Gethsemane at the foot of the Mt of Olives. Later Martin also noted the views published by W. J. Hutchinson in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly (1873, 115; also 1870, 379-381), that Jesus’ crucifixion must have taken place somewhere east of the Temple Mount. Since Martin’s work was published and his views regarding the Mt. of Olives have become better known, quite a few others have taken up various aspects of his arguments as a simple Web search will reveal.

The basic case for the Mt. of Olives being the site of Jesus’ crucifixion rests on several interrelated arguments of varying evidential strength.

1) The first, and in my view, the strongest, is a passage in the New Testament book of Hebrews (13:10-13) that speaks of “going outside the city gate,” to a specific altar that was not inside the Temple, but “outside the camp.” This is a clear and unmistakable reference to the Eastern Gate, leading to the Mt of Olives, and the Miphqad altar located on its slopes. It was at this spot that the Red Heifer (parah ‘adamah) was burnt to provide the essential ashes for cleansing all things related to Temple worship (Numbers 19). The Talmud and Mishnah are clear that this altar was located 2000 cubits, outside the Eastern Gate, on the slopes of the Mt. of Olives (bYoma 68a, mSanhedrin 6:1). The author of the book of Hebrews makes use of this essential sacrificial practice, “outside the camp,” to establish the legitimacy of Jesus being crucified “outside the gate.” Rather than a gate on the north of the city, the Eastern Gate is really the only one that would make sense in this passage. This image of the Red Heifer, that had to be “without spot or blemish” was picked up by the early Christians as the most fitting allegorical image of Jesus’ own cleansing sacrifice, with the “sprinkling” of his blood likened to that of the water prepared with the ashes of the Red Heifer. The writer of Hebrews, preserving pre-70 AD traditions, subsequently lost after the destruction of two Jewish Revolts and the establishment of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina by Hadrian, clearly knows the geography of Jerusalem and is able to make a very effective point to his readers based on Jesus being crucified east of the city, outside the gate, on the Mt. of Olives.

2) The Acts of Pilate (aka Gospel of Nicodemus IX.5) preserves a tradition that Jesus was sent away by Pilate with two malefactors named Dysmas and Gestas, to be crucified in the garden where he was arrested–Gethsemane, which all our gospel sources agree was across the Kidron on the slopes of the Mt of Olives. As Prof. Kokkinos demonstrated, this was in keeping with Roman law.

3) The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (preserved by Ibn Shaprut in his work Even Bohan), published by George Howard, refers to the site of the crucifixion, in Hebrew, as Har Golgotha, which means a “mountain” or “hill,” and certainly not the little outcropping of rock preserved at the stone quarry where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre now stands.

4) Josephus says that during the Jewish revolt (66-70 AD) thousands of Jewish victims were crucified “before the wall of the city,” in order to terrorize the population. This description fits perfectly with the Mt. of Olives, before the main city gate, with the Romans camped just to the north on Mt Scopus. This was the only location that could be seen by anyone in the city of Jerusalem, thus providing a visible warning to those who might be tempted to sympathize with rebels.

5) In the time of Jesus, Jewish tombs, other than the tomb of David, had been moved at least 2000 cubits “outside the city,” (Tosephta Baba Bathra 1:2), to avoid ritual contamination. This indicates that the tomb in which Jesus was temporarily placed by Joseph of Arimathea, was, of necessity, far outside the area where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre stands today–just a few yards from the city wall. That is why we find the tombs of Helena, the high priests Annas and Caiaphus, and the Sanhedrin tombs, well beyond this 2000 cubit parameter. No one was carving a “newly hewn tomb” that close to the city wall in the 1st century, and the tomb area there today most likely dates back to Hellenistic times.

The traditional site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre fits none of this evidence. By the time Constantine’s mother, queen Helena came to Jerusalem, in the early 4th century, there was no memory of the original tomb of Jesus or the site of the crucifixion, as that oral tradition, that would have belonged to the Jerusalem Church, led by James and Simon, brothers of Jesus, had long ago perished. The tomb and monument area she was shown, by a stone quarry, most likely was the tomb of John Hyrcanus, that is often mentioned by Josephus as precisely in that area.

Back in 2005 when I was working on The Jesus Dynasty I commissioned the artist Balage Balogh, highlighted in my previous post on this blog, to paint a crucifixion scene on the Mt. of Olives based on my own exploration of the site. I had located a bedrock area, flat and just above the site of the miphqad altar, that resembles a “skull” with natural pockets of indentations, that seemed to me to be a very likely possibility for the actual site. It is directly in front of the Eastern Gate, looking into the courtyard of the Temple. Nearby are lots of 1st century tombs, as well as an oil-press (Gethsemane/Gat Shemen means “press of oil), and lots of Olive Orchards. None of these features fit the quarry area just north of the 1st century city wall, where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre stands today. Balogh was most exacting in his work on this scene, as he is with all his work. He made the victims nude, he placed the nails as they should be, in the wrists and ankle bones, and he positioned the soldiers, the family gathered in front of the scene, and the bystanders, in their proper garb. The results are so breathtaking and startling, that I asked Simon & Schuster, my publisher, to print the painting in color in the inside back cover of the hardback edition–making that edition, now out of print but with a few copies available on Amazon as a “bargain” book, a collectors item.

Frankly, the image of Jesus dying, overlooking the city of Jerusalem, on the very slopes of the mountain he had ridden down a week earlier, is surely one of the most touching scenes of human history. To this day there is a north path that goes up to the area of crucifixion I have proposed and a southern path that goes down, from Bethany, both worn deep into the bedrock.

I wanted to highlight the extraordinary artistic work of Balage Baloge and his contributions to our visualization of the ancient Roman World of Jesus and early Christianity. I first encountered his work in the wonderful volume by John Crossan and Jonathan Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts. There one finds dozens of his striking color reconstructions of ancient scenes and cities such as Caesarea, Tiberius, Jerusalem, Capernaum, and Nazareth. I found his work meticulously accurate in terms of our historical texts and our archaeological sources, while at the same time breathtakingly beautiful in layout, composition, and imagination. You can see a nice collection of some of these works, relating to Jesus, on the Discovery Web site feature: The Land of Jesus. It is an interactive feature and truly one of the most fascinating things one can find on the Web in terms of putting you back in the time of Jesus.

When I was writing The Jesus Dynasty I contacted Balage and asked him if I could commission him to do seven special color paintings for me, specifically designed to illustrate aspects of the book that I wanted to include:

Drawing of Sepphoris as viewed from Nazareth

Aerial Shot of Herod’s Sepphoris

Herod’s Jerusalem looking East to the Mt of Olives showing the Herodian Palace Grounds

The “Jesus Hideout” in Jordan at Wadi el-Yabis

Jesus Before Caiaphus in the Priestly Mansion

Jesus Before Pilate’s Judgment Seat at the Praetorium

Jesus Crucified on the Mt of Olives

The results were amazing, really breathtaking, when one looks at the originals in full resolution. Unfortunately, due to printing costs, only two appeared in color in the hardcover edition, as part of the front and back inside covers, and the rest were B&W and rather small on the page, in the text of the book itself. In the paperback all of them appear, but in B&W, and also rather small. If we ever publish a “Deluxe Illustrated” edition of The Jesus Dynasty, they will surely be included in full color plates.

Balage Baloge was born in Budapest, Hungary where he attended art school. He immigrated to the United States in 1989 and lives in Baltimore. Although his artistic work is wide ranging, as one can see from browsing his Balage4Art Web site, he has become especially fascinated with ancient history, the Bible and archaeology. He lived in Israel for a number of years and began working with archaeologists and scholars to recreate the ancient past. In addition to The Jesus Dynasty and Excavating Jesus he has done illustrations for The World of the Old Testament, The World of the New Testament, and A Guide to Jerusalem.

Here is a nice color version of one of the paintings he did for me, showing Jesus and his little band of disciples hiding out in Wadi el-Yabis (Wadi Cherith in the Bible) in Jordan, the last winter of his life, based on the account in the gospel of John (chapter 12, “Last Days of Jesus” in The Jesus Dynasty).

One of the most fascinating names inscribed on the ossuaries in the Talpiot “Jesus Family” tomb is the unusual and rare form of the Greek inscription for a “Mary,” as first published by the learned L. Y. Rahmani in 1994:

MARIAMNENOU (HE) MARA: of Mariamene, who is (also called) Mara

[IAA 80.500, CJO 701: L. Y. Rahmani (A Catalog of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel, Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities and Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994)]

Rahmani understood the name as a neuter genitive of the name MARIAMNENON, which is in turn a diminutive form of MARIAMENE.

Although this reading has been only lately questioned and disputed by various scholars, (Pfann, Price, Puech, et al.), who have proposed it be read as MARIAME KAI MARA or MARIAM HE KAI MARA (Mariame AND Mara OR Mariam also known as Mara), whether referring to two women or one by two names, what I find really interesting about Rahmani’s reading is the presence of the Greek letter “Nu” or “N,” in other words: MariameNe.

I for one have not been so quick to dispute the skilled and sharp eye of Rahmani, supported now after further reexamination by Prof. Leah Di Segni and incorporated into Amos Kloner’s official report on the tomb. Mary in English takes various forms in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Coptic: Miriam, Mariam, Mariame, Mariamme, and Maria, but the name spelled with an “N,” as Rahmani read this ossuary, is virtually unknown in antiquity (see E. Stanley Jones, ed., Which Mary: The Marys of Early Christian Tradition, Atlanta: SBL, 2002).

I say “virtually” unknown, for a reason, so bear with me here. Now here is where things get really interesting.

If you do a search for Mariamne, spelled with an “N,” on Wikipedia, you will read that it is a name frequently used in the Herodian Royal house for Mariame or Mariamme. If you search further on Google, again for “Mariamne” spelled with an “N,” even excluding references to the inscription in the Talpiot tomb, you will find dozens of “hits.” If you read many English or French editions of Josephus’s works you will find dozens of references to Mariamne, spelled with the “N.” And finally, even Voltaire wrote a play called “Herode et Mariamne,” yes, you guessed it, spelled with an “N.” And yet the fact remains, so far as I have been able to discover, all these sources, from Wikipeida, to Josephus in translation, and even Voltaire, have no basis in any Greek texts from Antiquity. My guess is that the root of this widespread misunderstanding comes from translations in English and French of Josephus that incorrectly put “Mariamene” for the name “Mariame.” But the original Greek has no “Nu” or “N.”

I had a colleague run a search on Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, the University of California at Irvine data base that has collected and digitized all of Greek literature from Homer to the fall of Byzantium in 1453. Currently this is a collection contains 3800 authors, 12,000 texts, and about 99 million words–and it is updated quarterly. UNC Charlotte and most major universities are subscribers to the TLG Library and search engine. Non-subscribers can access a trial version, see the TLG Web site for information. We asked for all examples in extant Greek literature of the name Mariam spelled with an “Nu,” or “N.”

Our results were rather amazing. As it turns out this very unusual form of the name Mariam in Greek, namely any form containing the “N,” popped up in only two works–the Acts of Philip and Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies, and in both works the reference was to the woman named Mary Magdalene in our Gospels. There are multiple references in the Acts of Philip to Mary Magdalene and her apostolic mission and travels. However, the reference in Hippolytus is of particular interest in that he mentions a Jewish-Christian group of “Naassenes” who taught that James the brother of Jesus handed on the secret tradition of Jesus to “Mariamene.” Hippolytus flourished in the late 2nd century CE and he was linked to Irenaeus, who in turn was linked to Papias. If there are other instances of any form of the name “Mariam” spelled with an “N” we missed them and would be glad to have them pointed out. But assuming this data result is correct, what if one asks the question differently? If we begin with the Talpiot tomb inscription, read as Mariamene, spelled with an “N,” that surely Rahmani and Di Segni would vehemently deny has anything to do with Mary Magadalene, and just ask two related questions:

• Where in all of Greek literature do we know this unusual form of the name?

• Is/are there any identifiable woman/women in all of antiquity who was/were known by this form of the name Mary?

So far as I can discover the answer is clear. Our only references, outside the Talpiot tomb, are to a single woman, Mary Magdalene. It seems to me that this result has great force. Rather than one having to “jump” to the 2nd century or the 4th century, to desperately find a parallel to “Mariamene” in the Jesus Tomb, is not quite the opposite the case? When one searches the linguistic evidence for this form of the name no one other than Mary Magdalene turns up. I think this fact should give us a bit of pause. Whether the Talpiot tomb can ultimately be identified with that of Jesus and his family or not, what an odd turn of events that the odd and completely rare occurrence of “Mariamne” spelled with an “N” would turn up in a 1st century tomb containing these other names–including Jesus son of Joseph. That Rahmani and Di Segni read the name in that way, and still do, without the least inclination to connect it to Jesus of Nazareth, seems to be all the more telling in terms of an honest linguistic reading. However, given this result, perhaps all the criticism that Jacobovici received for “jumping” from a 1st century tomb with the name Mariamene to a 4th century “gnostic” text like the Acts of Philip, should be reconsidered.

Some of you might remember the brief publicity just over a year ago regarding the publication of a text called “The Gabriel Vision” (Hazon Gabrile) by Israeli scholars Ada Yardeni and Binyamin Elitzur (Cathedra 123 [2007]: 155-166 in Hebrew). Prof. Israel Knohl of Hebrew University wrote a fairly extensive article published in the Israeli newspaper HaAretz, that summarized his own reading and interpretation of the text. He has now published a more scholarly exposition in the current issue of the Journal of Religion and has arranged for a link to the PDF file of his article to be downloaded from the Shalom Hartman Institute Web site where he is a research fellow.

The text contains two partially preserved columns of Hebrew written on stone. It has been dated to the late 1st century BCE, or the early 1st century CE, on linguistic and paleographic grounds respectively by Profs. Bar Asher and Yardeni respectively. Prof. Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University has apparently confirmed the stone’s authenticity

Knohl finds confirmation in this new text of his position that the notion of a “slain messiah,” and more specifically, the Messiah son of Joseph figure alluded to in later Talmudic writings, dates back to the 1st century BCE, and accordingly, predates the views of a suffering messiah associated with Jesus. Knohl had argued a version of this thesis before the Gabriel text came to light, in his book, The Messiah Before Jesus (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000; now out in paperback), that just happened to coincide with the publication of Michael Wise, The First Messiah (HarperOne, 1999). Neither knew the other was working on his book and yet they both argued, on different grounds, from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other texts, that the notion of a “suffering messiah” was not an early Christian invention but was “around” at least as early as the 1st century BCE in certain Jewish sectarian circles. Somewhat earlier, I remember Michael Fishbane’s provocative paper at the Princeton Conference on Apocalypticism and the Millennium in 1996, “Midrash and Messianism: SomeTheologies of Suffering and Salvation,” as well as my own contribution, dealing with some of the same elements, “Patterns of the End: Textual Weaving from Qumran to Waco.” Both are now published in the volume edited by Peter Schaefer and Mark Cohen, Toward the Millennium (Leiden: Brill, 1998): pp. 70-71; 409-430, respectively. A version of my paper can be downloaded at my UNC Charlotte Web site.

Knohl’s interpretation of the new Gabriel text rests on a skillful textual reconstruction of a text that is poorly preserved and difficult to read in places. He then seeks to position his readings in the context of late 2nd Temple Jewish messianism(s) with all their complexities. Now that he has put his views forward in a scholarly article it will be most interesting to follow the discussion of other experts in the field.

I heard Prof. Knohl read a paper at the Princeton Theological Seminar on Christian Origins in Jerusalem in January, dealing with views of Jewish Burial and Afterlife in the Late 2nd Temple period. Prof. Knohl’s paper focused on one aspect of the Gabriel text, and his reading thereof, namely the nature of the concept of “resurrection of the dead” in various Jewish apocalyptic circles of the period. According to Knohl’s reading, lines 80 of the Gabriel text should be read:

By three days–live, I Gabriel command you, prince of princes, the dung of rocky crevices.”

The three day statement is surely fascinating in the light of Jewish views of the afterlife, but even more interesting is that this particular corpse, that Knohl identifies as that of the crowned Jewish rebel leader Simon, killed in Transjordan in the 4 BCE revolt following the death of Herod the Great, is spoken of as “dung” in the rocky crevices where he was slain. Knohl’s main point at the conference was that the Jewish idea of “making live the dead” did not necessarily involve the revivification of a copse, as in this case one turned to “dung,” but rather a revived life in what would be potentially a “new body.”