Dismantling The Jesus Dynasty
In the current on-line edition of Christianity Today Gary Burge of Wheaton College has a short overview of Ben Witherington’s new book, What Have They Done With Jesus? in which Witherington does his rather typical liberal vs. conservative treatment of recent historical studies written by well known academics on Jesus and early Christianity that have made it into the mass market trade publishing world. As Burge points out, Witherington is bound and determined to save Jesus from the critical scholars but at the same time to be cute and engaging with chapter titles such as: Gullible’s Travels,” “Naughty Gnostic Gospels,” “For Pete’s Sake,” “Simon Says,” “O Brother, Where Art Thou,” and “Hey Jude, Don’t Make It Bad.”
I was corresponding with Witherington in the last days of his writing and final editing of his book and I provided him with a prepublication copy of my book to which he devotes an special appendix, in which we find, according to Burge, “a stinging dismantling of James Tabor’s primary theses in his speculative book, The Jesus Dynasty.” Witherington had already posted his rather dense “review” of my book on his Blog in multiple parts, so I had seen it before, and in fact, he even sent me a section by section preview as he was writing it. I have had hundreds of readers contact me and ask me when I planned to “answer Witherington’s critique.”
I find it interesting that Prof. Burge considers Witherington’s treatment a “stinging dismantling” of my primary theses, though I suppose I should not at all find it surprising that Burge would characterize my work as “speculative.” After all, I do indeed “speculate” that Jesus had a human father, or that dead bodies don’t rise and walk around and eat and drink, talk to folks, and then rise up into the heavens. Therefore I assume that Jesus must have had the normal DNA that comes from a human mother and father, and that the if the tomb into which he was temporarily and hastily place after his execution was empty someone must have removed Jesus’ corpse. It is that simple. Since I know neither the father nor what happened to the body, but I do suggest a few possible speculative scenarios, I guess I have to plead guilty of “speculation.” But is there really any serious alternative? Seriously?
There are of course many things we don’t know with certainty about the historical Jesus, and when I can I try to fill in what one might reasonably suppose, and that could well be labeled speculation as well, but I think it is the “Jesus had a father” and “dead messiahs don’t come to life” assumptions that most hackle folk who take such things literally. As for the charge that Witherington has offered a “stinging dismantling” of my primary theses I must confess I find myself at a loss here. Somehow I can not imagine that anyone familiar with the areas I cover in my book would evaluate Witherington’s critique in that way. I guess it just goes to show how Evangelicals love champions, those few of their number who go out and somehow “meet the lions” on their own terms (and I am surely not even one of the lions).
I have not chosen to “answer” Witherington’s critique of my book in an explicit and direct way. I think our basic presuppositions are so very different on many issues there is simply no room for dialogue. Witherington wrote me in the course of his questioning my discussion about Jesus having a father that he believed the blood samples tested on the Shroud of Turin had strangely showed neither X nor Y chromosones, indicating that Jesus was somehow human, but without normal human blood like the rest of us with two human parents. I must admit, it took me back abit, but it also helped me to realize that in such circles the normal rules of scholarly engagement and critical discussion are suspended. On the other hand, I have responded to most of the things Witherington mentions in his critique in the many posts on this Blog, particularly the matters relating to the tombs, the ossuaries, and the matter of Jesus having a father. It is all there for those who want to go back and read a bit. Also, I like Ben personally and I really don’t want to get into a spat with him that is based upon the kinds of presuppositions that he reflects in his entire approach to the critical study of the historical Jesus.
I think my book speaks for itself and anyone who wants to carefully read it will be able to judge for themselves whether Witherington has “dismantled” my main theses as Budge seems to think. Frankly, in my experience Christianity Today is not an objective vehicle for reviewing and airing critical reflections and debate on Christian Origins. How could it be otherwise, since the end is always determined from the beginning–the very opposite of scientific and historical processes and method? Since I grew up in that world I think I tend to have less patience with it. Months ago Darrel Bock, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, did a web review of The Jesus Dynasty for the Christianity Today web site. I thought his review was polite and respectful, but quite misconstrued in several key ways. Of the past months I have posted a number of things related to the issues he raised, but on the whole, again, I think I operate in such a different world than that of the “dismantlers” I find it hard to respond within the normal academic parameters.