The Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor

I wanted to direct my regular readers of The Jesus Dynasty Blog toward my new blog, TaborBlog, for my latest regular postings. I just put up a detailed report on a decade of research I have done on the human skeletal remains found at Masada.

Posts here, at The Jesus Dynasty, will continue, but in a less frequent and more topically restricted way, related to my book The Jesus Dynasty.

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.

I am in the processing of revamping and consolidating several Web sites and Blogs that I currently maintain in a more topically focused and organized manner. The Jesus Dynasty will remain, focused on the book itself, but its broader content will morph into a new TaborBlog that will be up and running soon.

January 1st is my target launch date and I will let everyone on the JD mailing list know what is what, as well as post information here…

James Tabor

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.”

I have recounted previously on this Blog the remarkable story of my discovery of the late great Poet James Whitehead and his historical and literary interest in the sources that refer to Jesus of Nazareth as “Yeshua ben Pantera.” Whitehead, who died in 2003, co-founded the prestigious Creative Writing Program at the University of Arkansas with colleague and poet William Harrison. He was a wonderful poet and novelist who left many unpublished works behind due to his untimely death. Among those were his poems on “The Panther” as he called them.

Whitehead had first encountered the “Yeshua ben Pantera” references in the writings of historian Morton Smith. Whitehead ended up traveling to Germany in search of the tombstone of the 1st century Roman soldier Julius Abdes Pantera, who was from Sidon in Palestine. He ended up writing a remarkable set of poems that imagined the relationship between Jesus’ mother Mary and Pantera, who became the father of her firstborn son Jesus. As it turns out, Whitehead was not the first poet to be captured by the Panthera story. Thomas Hardy had published a long and passionately composed poem titled “Panthera.”

Just last month a lovely chapbook version of Whitehead’s Pantera poems was released by Moon City Press, edited by Michael Burns, a student of Whitehead and Professor of English at Missouri State University. It is titled simply The Panther. Prof. Burns asked me to write the Introduction, offering an historical context for Whitehead’s fascination with the Panthera story. He also shared with me a few of Whitehead’s poems. I found them profoundly moving and I was more than pleased to have a small part in the production of this wonderful project. This was one of my favorites, in which Whitehead imagined the angel Gabriel appearing to Panthera in Germany where he was stationed, just as Jesus was achieving some fame in Galilee:

GABRIEL VISITED ABDES PANTERA,
DISPLAYED HIMSELF AND SPOKE TO HIM,
BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE
OF ANY KIND. FIGURE WHY.

Wearing my specialty wings, the ruddy ones,
Cinquecento, I stooped through April rain
To just above the Rhine at BinKerbruck,
Shrugged, continued motioning gracefully

Toward the bowyer-archer on his shingle,
Who was done with practicing his shots
From shore to shore.
He didn’t seem to see me,
But maybe he would listen

To the four languages I knew he knew—
Sidonian Aramaic, Levantine Greek,
And of course his soldier Latin,
And finally the local whitebread German tongue.

I was so fluttering because he’s beautiful
In the sturdy way of soldier artisans—
He’s a master of composite bows,
The seven woods, sinew, bone and glue.

O I was positive he’d love the news
And the flashing bearer of it: I’m GABRIEL!
HAIL ABDES PANTERA! YOU THE MAN!
YOUR SON IN GALILEE IS MAGICAL.

I offer it here as a small taste of the wonderful talents and imagination of James Whitehead. I urge my readers to order a copy of the complete collection, it is truly an elegantly crafted work, outside and within, and reasonably priced at that. You can obtain copies for $15.00 (Missouri residents add 39¢ sales tax) plus $4.00 shipping. Checks should be made out to Missouri State University. Please order copies from the following address: Moon City Press, Department of English, Missouri State University, Springfield MO 65897. If you have had the slightest fascination with the Pantera story I know you will not be disappointed.

Of all the controversial elements in my book The Jesus Dynasty, my treatment of the Pantera traditions is perhaps the most disturbing to some Christians. I really regret that this is the case. As I have argued elsewhere, if Joseph was not Jesus’ father, and the “illegitimacy” tradition has some historical legitimacy, we can not dismiss the possibility that Jesus’ father was named Pantera. This would not have to imply something sinister or immoral, see my post “Joining the Slanders.” In fact, if Pantera were close to the age of Mary when she became pregnant he would not have even been in the Roman army at the time. We will never know the details, but as I have asked–why imagine the worse? In fact, there is some emerging evidence that Pantera was a family name and he was actually related to Mary.

I have posted quite a few other entries on this Blog related to many aspects of the Pantera discussion. Here are some of the main posts for easy reference:

Pantera as a Real Name

The Pantera Traditions

More on the German Tombstone

An Unnamed Father of Jesus

In the meantime I hope my readers will order the Whitehead book of poetry and let their imaginations have a role as we wonder about the “earthly” father of Jesus.

I want to highly, even extravagantly, recommend a book by Barrie Wilson, York University professor in Toronto, titled How Jesus Became Christian (New York: St. Martins Press, 2008; Random House in Canada). I will go so far as to say that I judge this single book to be one of the most important contributions to an understanding of Christian Origins published in many decades. Prof. Wilson’s book represents an absolute “sea change” in our understanding of how one moves from the historical Jesus (Jewish Prophet, Charismatic Healer, Teacher, Messiah figure), to the new religion called Christianity, created by the apostle Paul and given a definitive stamp of approval by what became the “standard story” of Christian Origins preserved in Luke-Acts.

Books that explore the “From Jesus to Paul” theme are quite common in the scholarly field: From Jesus to Paul (Klausner); The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity (Maccoby); From Jesus to Christ (Paula Fredrikson); From Jesus to Christianity (Michael White); Paul: Founder of Christianity (Lüdemann); and Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (Segal), to name a few more recent titles. However, in my view, Wilson has advanced the discussion miles beyond any previous work with his daring hypothesis regarding the stark and uncompromising dichotomy between what he calls the “Jesus Movement” and the “Christ Movement,” created and espoused single-handedly by the apostle Paul. Wilson goes a long way to putting an end to the wishful thinking that there is somehow some kind of continuity between Paul and his “gospel” and the message of James, Peter, and John, and those early Jewish followers of Jesus commonly known as “the Jerusalem Church.”

Wilson’s writing style is clear, his documentation is impeccable, and he makes his case with a strength and a level of persuasiveness that in my judgment leaves counter proposals in the wayside. The book is already a best-seller in Canada and it is beginning to climb the charts on Amazon in the U.S. Prof. Wilson also has a Web site, with many features and additional materials including an interview and Blog. The Toronto Globe and Mail had this to say in a recent review:

Jesus the Jew and the Christian Coverup:
HOW JESUS BECAME CHRISTIAN
By Barrie A. Wilson
Reviewed by Allan Levine
March 22, 2008

Forget about Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code and fictional conspiratorial machinations about whether Jesus and Mary Magdalene had children, Barrie Wilson has produced a significant and sensational work of scholarship. And it is truly religious dynamite.

Acknowledging Jesus’s Jewish background is nothing new, but arguing, as Wilson does, that Christianity is largely the result of a deliberate and deceptive manipulation is more intriguing and contentious. “Jesus never converted to another religion,” Wilson claims. “Nor did he start one. If he were to return, he’d probably be amazed – perhaps bewildered or possibly even angry – at what has been created in his name.” Adding for good measure that, “of all the Jewish males who ever lived, Jesus was by far the most influential.”

A professor of humanities and religious studies at York University in Toronto, Wilson has drawn on decades of his own research into the history of early Christianity and, like the superb teacher he must be, invites readers to accompany him on a wondrous journey back in time to understand Jesus’s life, the ordeal of being a Jew in a world ruled by Romans, the construction of the New Testament, and the powerful forces that have transformed Western civilization.

Admittedly this is no easy task, but he pulls it off brilliantly. He is an academic who can write for a non-specialist audience and does so exceptionally well – guiding, explaining Scripture, and even creatively integrating imaginary newspaper columns and blogs into his prose. All of which brings Jesus and his epoch alive.

Using an array of biblical sources, both Jewish and Christian, he builds his case step by step, searching for clues in the Gospels, offering concise summaries, and posing difficult questions – many of which, he concedes, cannot be answered. We do not know, for example, the precise details of Jesus’s day-to-day life – his emotional state or the real reasons he opposed Roman rule – and probably never will. But it is possible to offer reasonable and intelligent speculations based on solid research. That is what Wilson does very well, and by the last page he has convincingly made his case.

The short version of Wilson’s thesis, which he calls the “Jesus Cover-Up Thesis,” is this: The spiritual figure that billions of Christians worship worldwide as the Son of God was, in fact, a Jew, a rabbi, and a revered teacher of the early first century who obeyed and championed the Torah. Jesus (or more accurately in Hebrew, Yehoshua or Yeshu) prayed in synagogue and urged his followers to adhere strictly to Jewish law. Only in this way, he promised, would the Kingdom of God become a reality. Wilson probes the Jewish roots of the Lord’s Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount and the Last Supper (which is more commonly recognized as a Passover seder, although there were likely many more people in attendance than the 12 disciples portrayed in Leonardo da Vinci’s celebrated painting). In Wilson’s view, Jesus wanted to improve Jewish life, not abolish it. He did not proclaim himself to be a “Christ” figure or a “Son of God.” That came later.

Living as second-class citizens in their own country and dominated by a foreign power in Rome, Jews needed hope and Jesus provided it. His growing number of followers began to think of him as a “potential Messiah.” Led by Jesus’s brother, James – whose writings until recently have been largely ignored – these Jews established the “Jesus Movement.” After Jesus was killed by the Romans, in about 30 AD, they waited for him to return to create the promised Kingdom of God.

With James’s death in the early 60s, the Jesus Movement suffered a leadership crisis, and in Wilson’s words, was eventually “upstaged” and “hijacked” by the Christ Movement launched by Paul of Tarsus, a Hellenized Jew living in the Jewish Diaspora. The two movements should have remained separate and parallel religious sects, but subsequent events changed this. Paul did not know Jesus, yet nevertheless linked him to the Christ Movement. In the process, he tore Jesus from his Jewish roots.

Wilson shows that the most significant development in this synthesis occurred 60 years after both James and Paul died and was accomplished by the unknown author of the Book of Acts (part of the Gospel of Luke). This new “take” on Jesus was so credible that, as Wilson puts it, “we tend to think of Paul’s Movement as just another form of early Christianity. It wasn’t. It was a brand-new religion entirely.” It was thus what Wilson terms “Paulinity” – “a Hellenized religion about a Gentile Christ [and] a cosmic redeemer” – rather than the Jewish-inspired religion of Jesus, which was embraced by the Gentiles of the Roman world in the period from the second to the fourth centuries.

The New Testament is not a neutral document. The Gospels and other writings are arranged in a particular order to give weight to Paul’s interpretation of the link between the Jesus and the Christ Movements. Moreover, it was not sufficient for authors of several Gospels to distance Christianity from Judaism, they had to vilify it: Jews became equated with Satan. According to Wilson, this made the cover-up complete. The devastating result was religious anti-Semitism and the perpetuation of the accusation that the Jews killed Christ.

In fact, it was only one Jewish sect, the Sadducees, who turned against Jesus. They wanted to maintain the status quo with the Romans and feared that Jesus’s preaching about a Kingdom of God and altering the world was dangerous. Once the Romans accepted Christianity, it was not possible to blame them for Jesus’s death, so the Jews were identified in the Gospels and later Church decrees as the true evil murderers of the Son of God. Centuries of persecution followed.

One major reason, Wilson notes, for the hostile reaction to The Da Vinci Code was “its suggestion that Jesus was human.” And that criticism was levelled at a novel. Wilson’s firm belief that Christianity must refocus on the human and Jewish Jesus and accept the truth of the cover-up is sure to generate an even greater controversy.

The Toronto Globe and Mail, Canada’s leading newspaper, ran a story yesterday titled “University of Toronto Scientist Puts Odds on Lost Tomb” that headlines Prof. Andrey Feuerverger’s statistical conclusions on the Talpiot Jesus tomb. Award winning writer Michael Posner, author of the piece, also offers a kind of “state of the question” update on a number of current issues related to the academic discussion of the tomb and its significance. It can be accessed on-line .

U of T scientist puts odds on lost tomb

Chance that ancient Jerusalem burial tomb did not contain bones of Jesus and family
calculated at 1 in 1,600

MICHAEL POSNER
FROM TUESDAY’S GLOBE AND MAIL
APRIL 22, 2008 AT 4:17 AM EDT

A University of Toronto mathematician is lending new support to the controversial claim that
an ancient burial tomb near Jerusalem once held the bones of Jesus of Nazareth and his
family.

In a peer-reviewed article published last month in the prestigious Annals of Applied
Statistics, Andrey Feuerverger places the odds of the 2,000-year-old tomb not belonging to
the Jesus family at 1 in 1,600.

This figure is even more bullish than the 1-in-600 figure that Dr. Feuerverger calculated a
year ago, when interviewed for The Lost Tomb of Jesus, a $4-million documentary produced
by James Cameron and directed by Toronto’s Simcha Jacobovici.

The tomb, now sealed beneath a housing development in Talpiot, east of Jerusalem, was
accidentally discovered in 1980. Its contents included 10 limestone ossuaries, six of which
were inscribed with evocative names, including “Jesus, son of Joseph, Maria, Jose [perhaps a
brother of Jesus], Mariamne, Matya and Judah, son of Jesus.”

It was Judaic custom at the time to place a deceased’s bones, a year after death, into bone
boxes stored in family tombs. Archeologists stumbling across these crypts typically turned
the remaining bone fragments over to Orthodox officials for reburial; inexplicably, there is
no report of what happened to the bones found at this site.

The film, adducing DNA evidence that suggested Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have
been married and had a son named Judah, triggered a tsunami of debate. Many orthodox
Christians viewed its claims as challenging the very foundations of the faith, which maintains
that Jesus never married, never fathered a child and, three days after he died, was resurrected
physically and ascended to heaven.

In the past year, six books and three other documentary films have been released, all
attempting to refute the thesis of The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Websites and bloggers, academic
and lay, have led a vituperative chorus denouncing the film as sensationalism and its findings
as shoddy science.

The filmmakers say orthodox Christianity has even flexed its power to suppress their
message. There’s no hard evidence of such tactics, but Britain’s Channel 4, which paid
£200,000 for British rights to the film, has yet to broadcast it. Discovery U.S., which aired
the documentary a year ago to enormous ratings, has since declined to rebroadcast it.
For years, archeologists attempted to deflect speculation about the tomb, saying that the
names inscribed on the Talpiot ossuaries were common to the period. But Dr. Feuerverger’s
analysis rejects that argument, noting that while the individual names might have been
common, this specific cluster of names so resonant of the New Testament is not. Indeed, in
January, at a symposium with about 50 academics in Jerusalem, no one made the case for
commonality.

Instead, opponents have challenged Dr. Feuerverger’s historical assumptions, notably that the
unusual Greek name Mariamne found on one of the ossuaries is an appropriate designation
for Mary Magdalene.

But even discounting the Mariamne assumptions, Dr. Feuerverger’s 51-page paper says that
the tomb has a 0.48 chance of belonging to Jesus. That means, says James Tabor, head of
religious studies at the University of North Carolina, “that if we had two tombs to examine,
one of them would be the Jesus tomb. With Feuerverger’s paper in print, a more responsible
discussion of the Talpiot tomb name frequencies and statistics can take place.”

One surprise development at the Jerusalem conference was the appearance of Ruth Gat,
widow of the Israeli archeologist who first excavated the Talpiot tomb. Presented with a
lifetime achievement award on his behalf, Mrs. Gat told the assembled academics that her
husband had died with the conviction that the tomb belonged to Jesus Christ and his family.
A Holocaust survivor, Mr. Gat had confided his views to his wife. He never went public, she
explained, because he feared doing so would produce a global backlash of anti-Semitism.

“The fact is,” maintains Mr. Jacobovici, the filmmaker, “that the conference shifted the
fulcrum of academic opinion from ‘couldn’t possibly be the Jesus tomb’ to ‘very well might
be.’ ”

Although most scholars remain deeply skeptical - 15 of those at the Jerusalem parley signed
an online manifesto rejecting the Jesus tomb arguments - cracks have formed in the academic
front.

“I don’t believe the idea can be simply dumped into the garbage heap of pseudo-science and
history,” says Israeli geologist Aryeh Shimron. “And no manifestos are going to change my
mind that easily. It deserves further, very detailed scientific study.”

University of Detroit professor Jane Schaberg, one of the world’s ranking experts on Mary
Magdalene, says it is “quite possible, even probable,” that the inscription on that ossuary
describes Magdalene and adds that the tomb “may very well belong to Jesus and his
followers, as opposed to Jesus and his family. My gut tells me it’s a movement site.”

What are the implications for orthodox Christians? “It means they should start studying what
was meant by resurrection in the first century,” Dr. Schaberg says. “Resurrection is not a
simple thing, where the body just stands up and walks out.”

“We might be dealing with the most tangible evidence ever of the existence of Jesus and his
family,” adds University of Toronto social historian Claude Cohen-Matlofsky. Even the
conference’s lead organizer, Princeton University’s James Charlesworth, a New Testament
scholar, said afterward, “I have reservations, but I can’t dismiss the possibility that this tomb
was related to the Jesus clan.”

Symposium delegates ultimately voted unanimously to reopen the investigation into the
Talpiot tomb as well as a second still unexamined crypt only nine metres away. So far, no
action has been taken.

© Copyright 2008 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc.,
444 Front St. W., Toronto, ON Canada M5V 2S9
Phillip Crawley, Publisher