Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 06-02-2006, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Interesting article Ted. I'm curious as to what valid points Michael made with regard to Tabor's book, and why he felt it necessary to remove them from the internet, as well as apologize. Was it a matter of them (good, logical points) being intermingled with rhetoric he now regrets? I'm not trying to stir anything up--I'm interested in his arguments--which are often quite good.
ted

TedM,
I really cannot comment on why Turton removed his review. What I know is what I read from his review plus the discussion that followed inluding listers like Jack Kilmon and others. To avoid making a tense situation any worse, I will avoid any rhetoric.

I gathered the following and have added what I know from Michael's work:

In The Jesus Dynasty, Tabor argues that Jesus intentionally engineered his own death, believing that he [Jesus] was a Davidic King. Tabor argues that Jesus purposefully applied Isaiah, Zechariah and Jeremiah to himself to fulfil the scriptures and bring God's Kingdom on earth.
To put it bluntly, Tabor's argument entails that Jesus was a lunatic - if we go by the Lord, Liar or Lunatic Trilemma construction. This is against the second assumption in HJ research as indicated by Farmer (that Jesus was a sane individual).

Tabor softens this rather shocking implication with several rationalizations, trying to make the placement of Jesus' 'marginal' tekton family in a society where Romans and elite Jews bonded nicely, to justify his messianic thirst.

In p.154 Tabor states:

Quote:

How and when Jesus developed his own self-understanding of his role and mission in what he believed was God's plan to usher in the Kingdom fo God we cannot be sure. He surely knew growing up that he and his brothers were male heirs of the royal line of King David and he would have been well aware of the significant messianic implications of this heritage.

Tabor's style entails haphazardly cherry-picking what suits his hypothesis and ignoring acres of NT text and decades of scholarly outputs on the nature of NT texts. To illustrate the quality of Tabor's scholarship, lets look at his treatment of the Sanhedrin trial.

Tabor considers the Sanhedrin trial as authentic, and writes in p.221.222:

Quote:

Finally when asked point blank, "Are you the Messiah?" he did reply "I am -- and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62). As previously discussed, this reference to the "Son of man" is not to himself, but to the prophecy of Daniel 7:13 that symbolically refers to God's people collectively as "the coming of a Son of Man" before the throne of God, where they are given power over all nations (Daniel 7:27). What Jesus was saying was "Yes, I am Israel's King and you will the manifestation of God's Kingdom.

Turton notes the following in HCGM:

Quote:

Note that in Matthew and Luke Jesus deflects the question of his identity, refusing to answer directly (Mt 26:64 ="Yes, it is as you say," Lk 22:67="If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer." ). Based on this agreement, Price (2003) speculates that our current version of Mark is incorrect. Sure enough, in certain manuscripts of Mark at 14:62 Jesus simply says: "You say" without the "Son of Man" commentary (p281-2). Grant (1963) notes:

Quote:

According to Alexandrian and 'Western' manuscripts, Jesus said, 'I am,' and went on to predict the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven (14:61-2). Several questions arise here. (1) Caesarean manuscripts agree with Origen that the answer was less direct; they read, 'You have said that I am.' Do they preserve Mark's original reading, reflected in different ways in Matthew 26:64 and Luke 22:67-71? Or has the text of Mark been influenced by the later gospels?

Another signal that the "Son of Man" commentary is fictional is that it occurs in other episodes that are probably fictional, such as Hegesippus' description of the death of James, and Acts' version of Stephen's death. Against this it must be noted that it fits nicely with the parallelism outlined in Mark 8:27-33. Myers (1988, p376), points out that the short version of Jesus' answer could even be translated ironically: "Am I?" Crispin Fletcher-Louis (1997) points out that Jesus' assertion that he is the true High Priest automatically disqualifies the current high priest as a false one, making it clear just what blasphemy Jesus is engaged in. In a longer piece, Fletcher-Louis (2003) also argues that Jesus' claim to be high priest was a "blasphemous negation"(p27) of Caiaphas' position.

David Hindley (2004) speculates that the writer of Mark may be engaged in a bit of sly word play. The Gospel of Mark is written in Greek. However, anyone familiar with Jewish scripture would immediately realize what "I am" meant in Hebrew: YHWH. And it is blasphemy to utter the name of God.

"Cloud" imagery is associated with God's presence in the Temple in several texts, such as 1 Kings 8 (Fletcher-Louis 1997).

In the Book of Watchers (3rd century BCE) a model high priest is described who would ascend to heaven on the clouds (Fletcher-Louis 1997).

"seated." Psalm 110:1, cited in Mk 12:36,, has the addressee raised to heaven and seated at the right hand of the Lord.

1: The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool." 2: The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your foes! 3: Your people will offer themselves freely on the day you lead your host upon the holy mountains. From the womb of the morning like dew your youth will come to you. 4: The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchiz'edek." 5: The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. 6: He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth. 7: He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head.

The Psalm was a crucial one for nascent Christianity.

Robert Fowler (1996, p118) suggests that the comment "and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" is actually meant to be a parenthetical aside to the reader, not the words of Jesus. "I am" is a formulaic term of self-revelation commonly used by gods and goddesses in the Greek-speaking world, according to Fowler, and would itself have been sufficient to trigger the high priest's response.

Clearly, Tabor is either unaware of the works of other scholars, or is not doing scholarship. Furthermore, Raymond Brown (The Death of the Messiah,
1994) also indicates several problems with the Sanhedrin Trial, which Turton notes:

Capital trials can only take place in daylight
Court proceedings may not take place on the sabbath, on festivals, and the corresponding days of rest
A death sentence may not be passed on the first day of a trial, but can
only in a new session on the following day
Blasphemy consists solely of speaking the name of YHWH, which Jesus does not do in Mark
The regular place of assembly is a hall within the Temple (the writer is usually seen to imply that the Sanhedrin met at the house of the High Priest).
The Temple gates are closed at night.

Other problems with the Sanhedrin Trial noted have been advanced by Mahlon Smith:

the court proceeding in Mark takes place on the evening of the busiest day of the year for the Temple priests. It is unlikely that they would have been willing to gather for a late-night trial
the festival celebrations involved wine-drinking, further impairing the
willingness and ability of the Sanhedrin to gather
in Jewish jurisprudence witnesses had to be examined days prior to the trial to ensure that they would be present for the trial
the correct penalty for blaspheming is stoning, not crucifixion;
A Jew, including Peter or any supporter, could have appealed his case and delayed the death sentence.

In HCGM, Turton cites Jeff Gibson:

Quote:

Here, as in Mk 14:54-63, we have a capital trial before a hastily summoned Sanhedrin. Here, as in Mk. 14:54-63, the trial occurs in the Temple precincts and in an atmosphere not only of crisis but of eschatological expectation centering in the God of Israel's imminent deliverance of his people from oppression and the destruction of Israel's enemies. Here, as in Mk. 14:54-63, those who convene the trial believe in holy war. Here, as in Mark, we have the appearance of false witnesses and the sounding of the theme of a predetermined verdict. Here, as in Mark, the one brought into court is a figure who is known and identified as standing in opposition to the ideology of those who have convened his trial. Here, as in Mark, the accused speaks out forcefully against the ideology of those who would condemn him. Here, as in Mark, the remarks of the accused evoke from his accusers both physical and verbal expressions of rage and indignation. Here, as in Mark, we find an outworking of a theme that standing on the side of the accused creates risks for those who might do so. And here, as in Mark, the one accused is handed over to mockery and an ignominious death.

Tabor basically withholds from his readers the possibility of other positions. Or, he is unaware that gallons of ink have been spent by other scholars on this same, same passage. And this, amongst other things, makes it difficult to regard The Jesus Dynasty as a critical work written by a critical scholar.

Ted Hoffman · 06-02-2006, 07:53 AM

Read the following Review by Darrell Bock. He begins as follows:
The Jesus Dynasty: How to Explain Away the New Testament

Quote:

Among the series of books recently released about Jesus, the most serious entry is James Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty. The author is a professor at the University of North Carolina and has spent a great deal of time on archaeological digs in Israel. For Tabor and other scholars, one thing is clear: The Bible is difficult to believe. What does a historian do with a book that claims God was born as a human to a virgin, later died and was resurrected? The simple answer is to explain such problems away.

Professor Tabor's Jesus Dynasty is a fascinating combination of historical and archaeological detail mixed with bits of naturalistic, "historical" explanation. He introduces the Virgin Birth as Christianity's "fundamental theological dogma":

But history, by its very nature, is an open process of inquiry that cannot be bound by dogmas of faith. Historians are obliged to examine whatever evidence we have, even if such discoveries might be considered shocking or sacrilegious to some. The assumption of the historian is that all human beings have both a biological mother and father, and that Jesus is no exception. That leaves two possibilities–either Joseph or some other unnamed man was the father of Jesus. (Emphasis his).
I start my overview here, because here we have stated a historiolgraphical dogma. (Note Tabor's phrases: "by its nature … cannot be … are obliged … assumption is … no exception.") Even before we look at the evidence or consider the possibilities, we have the Bible's explanation ruled out. This is the dilemma the Bible poses for those who wish to explain its claims while denying that God is capable of doing unique things.

TedM · 06-02-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Tabor basically withholds from his readers the possibility of other positions. Or, he is unaware that gallons of ink have been spent by other scholars on this same, same passage. And this, amongst other things, makes it difficult to regard The Jesus Dynasty as a critical work written by a critical scholar.

Gotcha. Thanks Ted.

ted

steph fisher · 06-03-2006, 06:33 PM

I think you should be careful when you quote someone, particularly when your purpose is to defend that person, that you check their work and their sources - ESPECIALLY when you attempt to discredit the scholarship of others.

Regarding manuscript variants at Mark 14:62, there are none. Robert Grant cited none as there are none to be cited. It is an erroneous claim made by the subject of this thread and one repeated in his review of Tabor's book. When this mistake was identified and pointed out to him, he removed it from his review but failed to follow through with his website.

It does Michael no favours, nor indeed anyone here.

Ted Hoffman · 06-04-2006, 08:23 AM

Let me understand this right: According to you, Michael pulled down the review because he was wrong about the Mark 14:62 variants argument?

God Fearing Atheist · 06-04-2006, 09:51 AM

Emphasis mine:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Clearly, Tabor is either unaware of the works of other scholars, or is not doing scholarship. Furthermore, Raymond Brown (The Death of the Messiah, 1994) also indicates several problems with the Sanhedrin Trial, which Turton notes:

Capital trials can only take place in daylight
Court proceedings may not take place on the sabbath, on festivals, and the corresponding days of rest
A death sentence may not be passed on the first day of a trial, but can
only in a new session on the following day
blasphemy consists solely of speaking the name of YHWH, which Jesus does not do in Mark
The regular place of assembly is a hall within the Temple (the writer is usually seen to imply that the Sanhedrin met at the house of the High Priest).
The Temple gates are closed at night.

In Death of the Messiah, Vol 1, pg. 523 we read:

Quote:

Thus there is no convincing reason to think that when the four evangelists used the Greek words for blasphemy in reference to Jesus, they thought of his naming the Name; nor is there reason why their readers would interpret them in that way.

yummyfur · 06-04-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steph fisher

I think you should be careful when you quote someone, particularly when your purpose is to defend that person, that you check their work and their sources - ESPECIALLY when you attempt to discredit the scholarship of others.

Regarding manuscript variants at Mark 14:62, there are none. Robert Grant cited none as there are none to be cited. It is an erroneous claim made by the subject of this thread and one repeated in his review of Tabor's book. When this mistake was identified and pointed out to him, he removed it from his review but failed to follow through with his website.

It does Michael no favours, nor indeed anyone here.

I assume this is based on the following in Robert Grants "A Historical Introduction to the New Testament "

http://www.religion-online.org/showc...le=1116&C=1239

"The only point in Mark at which Jesus is represented as declaring that he is the Anointed One is in the investigation before the high priest, who asked him, ‘Are you the Anointed One, the Son of the Blessed?’ According to Alexandrian and ‘Western’ manuscripts, Jesus said, ‘I am,’ and went on to predict the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven (14:61-2). Several questions arise here. (1) Caesarean manuscripts agree with Origen that the answer was less direct; they read, ‘You have said that I am.’ Do they preserve Mark’s original reading, reflected in different ways in Matthew 26:64 and Luke 26:67-71? Or has the text of Mark been influenced by the later gospels? (2) How did the evangelists know precisely what went on during the investigations? Are their statements about the charge due to reliable information or to inferences drawn from the title on the cross, ‘the king of the Jews’ (Mark 15:26)?"

So your saying that Robert Grant references Caesarean manusripts, that do not actually exist? So it is actually Robert Grant who made the erroneous claim? Michael's error was not checking on primary sources? or following the rule that you can't trust a Phd.(especially in Theology) farther than his cites to primary sources, if no cites, ignore them? in a book review no less. I'm guessing that "real" scholars have never made such mistakes?

Also I have found a cite for Walter W. Wessel, "Mark," in Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 8, ed. F. E. Gaebelein, talking about a variant in this verse though I haven't had a chance to get to a library to see what it actually says. It's possible that Wessel is argueing that despite the claims of some, that there is no manuscript variant that says "you say I am" or whatever in Mark 14:62. Or it's possible he doesn't support such a reading, because he thinks the manuscripts that have that reading have problems.

Isn't it possible that Michael took the one out of his review because it was unimportant to his review and claimed to be erroneous, but decided that he would wait to see if he could verify that Grant was wrong, before taking it from his discussion on Mark at his website?

steph fisher · 06-04-2006, 08:23 PM

Secondary references should always be checked IMHO. Robert Grant isn't the most reliable of scholars. In this case he is wrong according to existing manuscripts at least according to my own research on the Markan passion narrative - there are no variants at 14:62. Please enlighten me with any real evidence that Wessel may have produced.

Ted Hoffman · 06-05-2006, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steph fisher

Secondary references should always be checked IMHO. Robert Grant isn't the most reliable of scholars. In this case he is wrong according to existing manuscripts at least according to my own research on the Markan passion narrative - there are no variants at 14:62. Please enlighten me with any real evidence that Wessel may have produced.

[Emphasis Mine]
So, we should now rely on your own research over Michael Grant's?
Why should we believe that your own research is an authority on the issue?
Show us how Michael Grant is wrong. Any toddler can claim their own research disproves Michael Grant.
Cite the Caesarean Manuscripts. Did Grant make up the argument that the Caesarean Manuscripts have Jesus stating ‘You have said that I am’ ?

How did you arrive at the conclusion that Grant is not reliable?

Besides, even if Grant is reliable, Tabor still had the duty of informing readers about what Grant notes regarding the passage and indicate to them why he disagrees with Grant. But Tabor does not do that: he writes as if other scholars have no opinions or questions regarding the passage. That is unscholarly.

You truly expect Turton to check all primary sources? Is there even one person who has access to *all* primary sources? What about the language issues? You expect all dilletantes to be competent in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic etc?

Is Jim West competent in Greek for example?

Are you being realistic?

steph fisher · 06-05-2006, 02:55 AM

Is Jim West competent with Greek? What sort of question is that? I've never met him but from what I've read of his work I'd say he is competent in Greek and other ancient languages.

Why should I trust Michael Grant? He does not always produce evidence to support his theories and he has not here either. He merely refers obliquely to "some" manuscripts. I do always check the references of my secondary sources. It is just the way I have been taught and the way I like to work.

I'm not defending Tabor.

I have used Grant in the past (on Gnosticism, Greek and Roman history) and found him sloppy in that he didn't reference his sources.

I would hope that those discussing early manuscripts are competent in the relevant languages.

Am I being realistic? I think so and the rest of you obviously don't. Am I bothered by that? Not particularly.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-03-2006, 06:33 PM	#84
steph fisher Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand and UK Posts: 5	I think you should be careful when you quote someone, particularly when your purpose is to defend that person, that you check their work and their sources - ESPECIALLY when you attempt to discredit the scholarship of others. Regarding manuscript variants at Mark 14:62, there are none. Robert Grant cited none as there are none to be cited. It is an erroneous claim made by the subject of this thread and one repeated in his review of Tabor's book. When this mistake was identified and pointed out to him, he removed it from his review but failed to follow through with his website. It does Michael no favours, nor indeed anyone here.

06-04-2006, 08:23 AM	#85
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Let me understand this right: According to you, Michael pulled down the review because he was wrong about the Mark 14:62 variants argument?

06-04-2006, 08:23 PM	#88
steph fisher Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand and UK Posts: 5	Secondary references should always be checked IMHO. Robert Grant isn't the most reliable of scholars. In this case he is wrong according to existing manuscripts at least according to my own research on the Markan passion narrative - there are no variants at 14:62. Please enlighten me with any real evidence that Wessel may have produced.

06-05-2006, 02:55 AM	#90
steph fisher Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand and UK Posts: 5	Is Jim West competent with Greek? What sort of question is that? I've never met him but from what I've read of his work I'd say he is competent in Greek and other ancient languages. Why should I trust Michael Grant? He does not always produce evidence to support his theories and he has not here either. He merely refers obliquely to "some" manuscripts. I do always check the references of my secondary sources. It is just the way I have been taught and the way I like to work. I'm not defending Tabor. I have used Grant in the past (on Gnosticism, Greek and Roman history) and found him sloppy in that he didn't reference his sources. I would hope that those discussing early manuscripts are competent in the relevant languages. Am I being realistic? I think so and the rest of you obviously don't. Am I bothered by that? Not particularly.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.