Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-07-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Almost by the month, religious scholars and historians propose a new way of understanding the life and impact of Jesus Christ. In his new book "The Jesus Dynasty," James Tabor is the latest addition to this hotly contested catalog.

Tabor, a historian with the Religious Studies Department at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, has spent his entire career studying the life of Jesus. He says his new book is the culmination of 40 years of research.

He'll be on 20-20 and Nightline tonight (Friday Apr 7).

Jesus Dynasty website

On Amazon: The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

Like many scholars, Tabor emphasizes that we must understand Jesus in the context of first-century Judaism. After Jesus' death, his brother James took over the titular family dynasty. James championed a version of the faith quite different from Paul's, and, although James was more faithful to Jesus' original teachings, Paul's Christianity won. Tabor not only challenges Christian dogma, he also makes some assumptions with which not all scholars will agree: he places a great deal of emphasis on the hypothetical text Q, calling it "our most authentic early Christian document." This book is accessible and sure to be highly controversial, attracting the attention of reporters, spiritual seekers, historians and fans of The Da Vinci Code.

There is a favorable blurb from Ehrman.

Another review

Quote:

Tabor is a superb scholar, not a novelist, who is widely respected among scholars of the ancient world. As a historian, he is reconstructing a story line that is his best explanation of the Bible, archaeological findings and ancient history.

The reader should beware: Though Tabor has much hard evidence, he builds on facts with a hypothesis, then a guess, a few more facts, then another two hypotheses, an artifact that admits of multiple interpretations, another fact, then a guess -- then he connects all these dots in one of dozens of possible ways.

. . .

As a historian, Tabor is determined to offer a factual explanation of Jesus, ruling out any notion of the divine or the miraculous -- which the texts he is reading very much assume and expect readers to include.

His reading of the Bible is selective: At one moment he takes a text quite literally as revealing fact, but the next moment he debunks what is in the Bible as trumped up by later generations. How do we pick and choose?

So the most authentic early Christian document does not exist.

ETA: Dr Tabor's website - "The Jewish Roman World of Jesus"

Jayrok · 04-07-2006, 04:57 PM

Interesting. With this work and the gospel of Judas surfacing lately, what are some of the thoughts of the MJ crowd in response to Tabor's hypothesis?

Peter Kirby · 04-07-2006, 04:59 PM

Does Tabor's work interact with "MJ" stuff at all in the first place?

regards,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 04-07-2006, 05:14 PM

I don't think that Tabor is on the same page as mythicists. I don't think that he actually has any new data or proof which would defeat mythicism.

Toto · 04-07-2006, 09:04 PM

There is an excerpt here. Tabor is associated with archeologist Shimon Gibson, who discovered the alleged cave of John the Baptist.

On page 2 of this excerpt, Tabor opines that the James Ossuary is genuine. <sigh>

mikem · 04-08-2006, 04:11 AM

I've just started reading the book, and I 'm currently up to about chapter 3. Tabor mentions a family vault originally found in 1980, the "TALPIOT TOMB". Originally 10 ossiaries were recovered from this tomb, and a cluster of names, Mary, Joseph, another Mary, Jude son of Jesus, a Matthew and a Jesus son of Joseph. The tomb is now buried beneath an apartment block. Ten ossuries were originally found, and 10 were listed, but there are now only 9 in storage. Tabor speculates that the James ossuary might be the tenth. He notes that the dimensions of the ossuary as originally described are the same as those of the "James ossuary".

Since the experts are divided still about the authenticity of the inscription, then this story will, as they say, "run and run".

Tabor thinks that DNA testing of the bone fragments in the remaining ossuaries, and bone fragments found in the James ossuray would show the familial relationships between them. Perhaps one of you scientifically literate people could tell me whether if "James" and "Jesus were half brothers, or cousins, would DNA comparisons show the precise relationship, or only whether they had a common mother, or grandmother perhaps?

Jayrok · 04-08-2006, 08:52 AM

Tabor believes the James Ossuary is genuine and that the forgery was the "brother of Jesus" added to it by the dealer.

The names Joseph and Mary were common in that era, according to the book. So how can they determine if it indeed is the Jesus family?

Maybe they can start going up the list of names as listed in the NT geneologies of Jesus.. find their bones and do DNA tests to see if they are all related. <tongue in cheek>

Toto · 04-08-2006, 10:12 AM

When this tomb was mentioned during the James Ossuary controversy, Christians were quick to claim that those names were so common no one could draw any conclusions.

There is no agreed upon Christian family history for Jesus. Catholics want to preserve Mary's virginity, so they make James a half brother, but since James would not have any common ancestor with Jesus the son of Mary and God (unless God stole some of Joseph's DNA..), there would be no meaningful match.

But Tabor is working off of a historicist model that says that Jesus and James were half brothers - Jesus being the bastard son of Mary and the Roman soldier Pantera, while James was the son of Mary and Joseph. This seems a bit strange, since the family structure of the time was not very accepting of bastard children, and I have read that the "Pantera" was a corruption of "parthenos" (virgin).

I need to remind people that Ben Witherington, as part of his book tour for his tome, proposed matching the DNA from bone fragments in the James Ossuary with DNA from the shroud of Turin. (Why does anyone take this man seriously?)

Doug Shaver · 04-08-2006, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Jesus being the bastard son of Mary and the Roman soldier Pantera

If skeptics were licensed, anyone who believed that story would have his license revoked.

mikem · 04-09-2006, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But Tabor is working off of a historicist model that says that Jesus and James were half brothers - Jesus being the bastard son of Mary and the Roman soldier Pantera, while James was the son of Mary and Joseph. This seems a bit strange, since the family structure of the time was not very accepting of bastard children, and I have read that the "Pantera" was a corruption of "parthenos" (virgin).

It was Jewish writer (Celsus) who provides the first written evidence of Jesus' bastardy. He says that Jesus mother was pregnant by a Roman soldier caleed Panthera, and was driven away by her husband. That sound quite specific to me. I think a Jewish writer of the 2nd century would have known what Parthenos meant, since it was the Greek translation in the Septuagint version of Isaiah that Matthew based his doctrine of Mary's virginity on. A carved figure of a Roman soldier was found last century during excavations that found a great many Roman artefacts at a site occupied by Roman soldiers in their fight against Germanic tribes. "Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera" of the 1st cohort of Archers, aged 62. Excavations north of Jerusalem have shown that forms of the name "Panthera" were used by Jews as well as Romans, and "ABDES" is a Latinised version of the Aramaic name "Ebed", meaning servant of God.

Julius Abdes Pantera was according to research, a native of Syria-Palestine, just north of Galilee, a contemporary of Mary. So as Tabor points out, we have the right place, the right time and the right occupation, and he was possibly Jewish, perhaps by conversion. I read elsewhere many years ago, that the 1st Cohort of Archers were based in Syria, and also known as the "Syrian Archers".

As late as the 8th century Xtian writers were still responding to Celsus, not by saying he got confused by Parthenos, but by arguing that Joseph's father was known as Panthera, or that Mary's grandfather was.

There are passages in the Gospels too, that when compared with each other, suggest unease on the part of the writers. Compare for example, Mark 6:13, with Matthew 13:55. Also see John 8:41, where the clear implication is that Jesus was considered illegitimate. And of course the Birth narratives in Matthew and Luke make it clear that Joseph was not Jesus father. Well, if it was not Joseph, it had to be someone.

Palestine was an occupied country. It is not unheard of for occupying soldiers to form liaisons with local women. It has happened throughout history down to our own time. One only has to think of Vietnam, and the "war brides". Heck, there's even been a musical about that one!

Having said all that, I think that the "Panthera" theory is only as good a candidate as any for explaining the birth of Jesus. I am not sure it is the right one, although I find it perhaps more credible than some of you do. It is possible for example that Matthew changes Mark in order to support his own virgin birth theory. But I think the existence of the Panthera statue is quite impressive given what Celsus says.

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

04-07-2006, 04:57 PM	#2
Jayrok Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA Posts: 471	Interesting. With this work and the gospel of Judas surfacing lately, what are some of the thoughts of the MJ crowd in response to Tabor's hypothesis?

04-07-2006, 04:59 PM	#3
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Does Tabor's work interact with "MJ" stuff at all in the first place? regards, Peter Kirby

04-07-2006, 05:14 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I don't think that Tabor is on the same page as mythicists. I don't think that he actually has any new data or proof which would defeat mythicism.

04-07-2006, 09:04 PM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There is an excerpt here. Tabor is associated with archeologist Shimon Gibson, who discovered the alleged cave of John the Baptist. On page 2 of this excerpt, Tabor opines that the James Ossuary is genuine. <sigh>

04-08-2006, 04:11 AM	#6
mikem Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: UK Posts: 278	I've just started reading the book, and I 'm currently up to about chapter 3. Tabor mentions a family vault originally found in 1980, the "TALPIOT TOMB". Originally 10 ossiaries were recovered from this tomb, and a cluster of names, Mary, Joseph, another Mary, Jude son of Jesus, a Matthew and a Jesus son of Joseph. The tomb is now buried beneath an apartment block. Ten ossuries were originally found, and 10 were listed, but there are now only 9 in storage. Tabor speculates that the James ossuary might be the tenth. He notes that the dimensions of the ossuary as originally described are the same as those of the "James ossuary". Since the experts are divided still about the authenticity of the inscription, then this story will, as they say, "run and run". Tabor thinks that DNA testing of the bone fragments in the remaining ossuaries, and bone fragments found in the James ossuray would show the familial relationships between them. Perhaps one of you scientifically literate people could tell me whether if "James" and "Jesus were half brothers, or cousins, would DNA comparisons show the precise relationship, or only whether they had a common mother, or grandmother perhaps?

04-08-2006, 08:52 AM	#7
Jayrok Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA Posts: 471	Tabor believes the James Ossuary is genuine and that the forgery was the "brother of Jesus" added to it by the dealer. The names Joseph and Mary were common in that era, according to the book. So how can they determine if it indeed is the Jesus family? Maybe they can start going up the list of names as listed in the NT geneologies of Jesus.. find their bones and do DNA tests to see if they are all related. <tongue in cheek>

04-08-2006, 10:12 AM	#8
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	When this tomb was mentioned during the James Ossuary controversy, Christians were quick to claim that those names were so common no one could draw any conclusions. There is no agreed upon Christian family history for Jesus. Catholics want to preserve Mary's virginity, so they make James a half brother, but since James would not have any common ancestor with Jesus the son of Mary and God (unless God stole some of Joseph's DNA..), there would be no meaningful match. But Tabor is working off of a historicist model that says that Jesus and James were half brothers - Jesus being the bastard son of Mary and the Roman soldier Pantera, while James was the son of Mary and Joseph. This seems a bit strange, since the family structure of the time was not very accepting of bastard children, and I have read that the "Pantera" was a corruption of "parthenos" (virgin). I need to remind people that Ben Witherington, as part of his book tour for his tome, proposed matching the DNA from bone fragments in the James Ossuary with DNA from the shroud of Turin. (Why does anyone take this man seriously?)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.