I am convinced that the gospel of Mark is our earliest, and in some ways, our most “historical” surviving gospel. But that is not to say that Mark by any means is strictly a historical account, lacking theological interpretation. Indeed, most critical scholars have concluded that Mark is deeply theological in his orientation and that he shapes his story in ways to fit his view of things. In other words, we do not get in Mark “history as it really happened,” but theological interpretation and faith proclamation. There is a very famous and worthwhile study by James Robinson, the great scholar of early Christianity at Claremont, titled The Problem of History in Mark (1957). I think it is long ago out of print but various editions are still listed on Amazon so it is available if one searches a bit.

However, given the nature of Mark as a theologically based “faith” presentation of the “gospel of Jesus Christ the son of God” (Mark 1:1), historians must approach it with a certain caution. Indeed, for years I have been thoroughly convinced that the essential “Christology” of Mark, and that of Paul is very close. In Mark, as in Paul, Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, who as the Suffering Servant gives his life as a ransom for many. One of Mark’s key emphases is that service, suffering, and humility are the true marks of greatness and lead to exaltation and glory. Although thoroughly apocalyptic (Mark 13), much like Paul, Mark still fundamentally interprets the Kingdom of God as a present reality realized within the faith of the community as it exhibits spiritual insights and understanding (Mark 12:28-34). He contrasts standard forms of Torah observance with the inner spiritual understanding of those who know the “secret” of the Kingdom (Mark 2:27-28; Mark 7:1-23). He supports the gospel being preached to all the nations/Gentiles (Mark 13:10), which is the Pauline mission. His understanding of the Eucharist matches that of Paul precisely. One often hears that Mark presents a more human Jesus and has a less developed, even “primitive” Christology, yet in Mark we encounter a Jesus who has authority on earth to forgive sins, calm storms, and raise the dead.

And yet, regardless of Mark’s faith based theological agenda, and its parallels to Paul’s view of the heavenly and exalted “Christ,” as Son of God and Savior, there is a strange irony at work here. I am convinced that Mark nonetheless offers us a narrative framework that in its essentials is as close to the historical Jesus as we are likely ever going to get. What most convinces me of this are the many many times that Matthew and Luke, in rewriting/editing Mark and using him as a source, recast his basic presentation in directions that belong to later stages of their own theological developments. I find that time and time again Mark has a less elaborated and more primitive version of the story. He is the earliest of our records, and thus closer to the traditions that were being passed on within the Jesus movement. I could mention countless examples, but a few will illustrate my point here.

Mark has no birth story of Jesus and he never mentions Joseph as his father. Indeed, he calls Jesus the “son of Mary,” and mentions the four brothers by name, including the nickname “Jose.” He knows about the house of Simon at Capernaum, near the synagogue, and even mentions “Simon’s mother-in-law.” He knows that Levi (aka Matthew) is the “son of Alphaeus.” He is aware of Jesus’ reach to the region of Tyre and Sidon and records Jesus’ clandestine visit to Tyre and his secret overnight stay in a “house” there. He gives our most primitive listing of the Twelve, including “James son of Alphaeus,” and Judas whom he knows by his affectionate nickname Thaddaeus (bosom-child). He records the details of the death of John the Baptizer, and gives us good geographical indications of the last months of Jesus’ life, including the Banias scene, the “high mountain” of the “transfiguration,” and the place “beyond the Jordan.” His narrative of Jesus’ last week in Jerusalem is exceptionally packed with details that I don’t think are created for his own theological purposes. And his narrative of the discovery of the empty tomb and the recovery of “faith” in Galilee are precious alternatives to what Luke, John, and Paul present in this regard.

I have addressed the “picking and choosing” issue in other posts on this Blog but it is the case that critical scholars do carefully sift through and evaluate their sources, seeking to separate the historical from the theologically elaborated. It is not a perfect “science,” but it is a process guided by a sense of judgment and argument, open to dispute and discussion. This is in contrast to those who say, Mark is God’s Word and I believe every word of it–as well as Matthew, Luke, and John. It seems that “picking and choosing,” if done with sense and judgment, is really the only responsible way to read these or any other texts for that matter.

More to come…

Headline: James D. Tabor joins the New Anti-Christ camp…almost

Anything goes in the blogging world and one of the more bizarre contributions is this rambling post from 2008, “The New Anti-Christ Advocates” by Church of God in Christ Pastor, “Supt. Harvey Burnett.” I had never noticed it until someone pointed it out to me this past week. I guess I was in pretty good company here, listed with other notable “anti-Christs” such as Richard Dawkins, Bart Ehrman, and John Dominick Crossan, though it would have been nice if the late Christopher Hitchens had been included for at least honorable mention as well. I suppose Pastor Burnett’s most memorable line in his post has to be his charge that these careful historians are guilty of continuing “to postulate ridiculous fantasies with no basis in actual events, facts, or history.”

I do worry that the kind of thinking behind this sort post can be dangerous as such groups are clearly politically active, “locked and loaded” to use Michelle Bachmann’s memorial words, and often serve to flame up the passions of unstable religious zealots. Notice such a rabid and hateful approach is drawn right from some of the vindictive N.T. texts that have delighted those who have had the power to eliminate “heretics” for the past fifteen hundred years–including my own Czech ancestors and their leader the courageous John Huss. Indeed, Burnett closes with a veiled reference to the final “defeat” of all heretics since he has read the “end of the book,” clearly referring to the time when the whole lot of us get thrown into the Lake of Fire as described in Revelation 20:14-15.

But here is the irony. Pastor Burnett has another more recent post in which he seems to actually take my side in terms of the new discoveries at the Talpiot “Patio” tomb, as chronicled in my recent book with Simcha Jacobovici, The Jesus Discovery. He is so taken with the discoveries of what we argue to be early faith in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead–namely the Jonah image and the Greek inscription about God raising up the dead–that he can do nothing but celebrate this new breakthrough while censoring the critics who, as he sees things, only want to squelch any evidence of faith in Jesus’ resurrection. His ambiguity is understandable. My status as one of the “anti-Christs” seems intact, since I have denied the “physical, bodily” resurrection of Jesus (not to mention the virgin birth and other Christian mytholodgy), but then Simcha and I have brought to the archaeological table what is arguably the earliest evidence related to faith in Jesus’ resurrection–but less than 200 feet from the “Jesus” tomb–so what does one do with that? Pastor Burnett, commendably, struggles with the contradiction implied by that juxtaposition but in the end, unfortunately, fails to consider what we argue quite extensively in our book, that “resurrection of the dead” in our earliest sources did not refer to corpse resuscitation, but rather exaltation to heaven in a new spiritual body. For more on this see my recent post “Why People Are Confused About the Earliest Christian View of Resurrection of the Dead.”

It is worth noting that there have been a number of other responses from Christian circles that, like Pastor Burnett, find the new discoveries quite important as new evidence for the resurrection faith of Jesus’ first followers. Michael Swan, writing for the Catholic Register,  has embraced the discoveries as possible evidence of the “spiritual” nature of early Christian resurrection faith, writing:

The idea that this tomb may contain the bones of Jesus is presented as something perhaps scandalous to Christians. The film makers concede there’s no way to prove that any particular bones buried in first century Jerusalem belong to any particular person. But even if they could, how scandalous is it? Catholics have always known the resurrection does not refer to a resuscitated corpse. Jesus was resurrected in a spiritual body, just as all of us will be resurrected at the end of history regardless of the decay of our flesh and bones. And of course Jesus spiritual body is no less real than the body Mary bore in her womb. . . Here is another grain of evidence in the mountain of archeological proof which has come to light in our lifetimes that says the first Christians believed what the Church still believes — Christ rose from the dead, and we shall rise with him on the last day.

Another Christian blogger, Nathan Sass, argues that the Jesus tomb is that of followers who named their children after Jesus–but not of Jesus himself. This is somewhat similar to the view of Prof. James Charlesworth, that Talpiot represents “the Jesus clan,” but that the ossuary inscribed “Jesus son of Joseph” could not be that of Jesus of Nazareth because it is too plain and crudely inscribed.

As some of you know who have followed the story, the Dead Sea Scroll exhibit that was earlier at Discovery Times Square in NYC has now moved on to Philadelphia. Few seem to realize that included in this very comprehensive exhibit which was put together by the every talented James Sanna, are not only the Dead Sea scrolls but a trove of other archaeological artifacts from the IAA State of Israel collection, including–you guessed it–four of the ossuaries from the Talpiot “Jesus” tomb: namely Yeshua bar Yehosef, Mariamene Mara, Yose, and Matya. We filmed the ABC Nightline special (link here is you missed it) on the new Talpiot Tomb discoveries back in April in the Discovery Times Square exhibit and it was interesting to watch the droves of visitors in the exhibit hall walking obliviously past the display of the ossuaries, tucked behind a glass window.

Jesus Family Tomb Ossuaries at Dead Sea Scroll Exhibit

Unfortunately, Jude son of Jesus had to stay home as he is on special display in the Israel Museum and Maria is stored in the basement of the museum so far as I know. Other cities are to follow, I think Chicago is next, and it looks like it might be just in time for the SBL/AAR/ASOR/Bible Fest meeting, which could be most interesting. Maybe some of us might end up organizing something around this as there already are some things planned on the various programs dealing with the new Talpiot “patio” Tomb discoveries. I am doing a paper for SBL on both the Jonah image and the Greek inscription, also a lecture with the BAS Bible Fest, and Simcha Jacobovici and I are part of a forum on archaeology and the media hosted by Mark Goodacre, Robert Cargill, and Christian Brady, also for SBL. What would be nice would be some kind of forum/debate on the Talpiots tombs more generally but so far I don’t think anything like that has been included in the program. With the latest publications of the trial evidence on the James ossuary, which few of its naysayers seem to have noticed (see the comprehensive report “Implications of the “Forgery Trial” Verdict on the Authenticity of the James Ossuary” by Rosenfelt, et al. here), and all the other new evidence available for discussion, most of it posted now at bibleinterp.com (search “talpiot”), it would certainly be a topic of great interest. At the same time the comprehensive volume of papers from the January, 2008 Jerusalem conference titled: The Tomb of Jesus and His Family? Exploring Ancient Jewish Tombs Near Jerusalem’s Walls, eds. James H. Charlesworth and Arthur C. Boulet (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012) will be published and available at the annual meetings in Chicago.

Professor James H. Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary has officially weighed in with comments and analysis on various aspects of the new discoveries in the Talpiot “patio” tomb with particular attention to the Jonah image and the Hebrew inscription of the name YONAH that appears to be written across the mouth of the fish. The complete article is here.

Prof. Charlesworth and I respectfully disagree on the identification of the nearby “garden” tomb as most likely that of Jesus of Nazareth and his intimate family but we are both convinced that the Talpiot tombs as a whole most likely relate to the earliest followers of Jesus and their faith in Jesus’ resurrection (see my post on why people are confused on the early Christian view of resurrection here).

Untouched Photo from HiDef Camera

So far as the YONAH inscription goes I find Prof. Charlesworth’s interpretation quite persuasive. I think what some who disagree have missed is the highly informal nature of fully half of ossuary inscriptions from this period, as anyone looking through Rahmani’s Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries, or the more complete and updated Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palesaestinae, eds. Cotton, et al. realizes. Many graffito-style inscriptions, whether in Greek or in Hebrew/Aramaic, exhibit letter forms that are highly irregular with no linear baseline in contrast to the formal hands we find in professional inscriptions or on handwritten materials of the period.  Often only a trained eye can decipher what the writer intended, see, for example, Rahmani’s nos. 17, 53, 68, 95, 108, 150, 151, 571 for just a few examples, and some can not be read at all, e.g. Rahmani no. 130. In contrast, this YONAH inscription is incredibly clear and can be easily read at a glance, with a minimum of ambiguity, as Charlesworth discusses below. Also, as Charlesworth points out, those who read these markings as intentional Hebrew letters do not claim that all the marks in the mouth of the fish are part of the letters, some are related to the fish itself (i.e., the straight line of the mouth), whereas others seem to form the eye of the fish as well as the arms and legs of a stick-like figure, attached to the large head. What does seem to be the case is that all of the inscribed markings (not the scratches or imperfections in the stone) are intentional.

It is also not the case that someone who is considered “important” is given a more formally inscribed name, as we have learned from the “Joseph son of Caiaphus” ossuary inscription (CIIP no. 461). For that reason I have to disagree with Prof. Charlesworth who argues that the inscription “Jesus son of Joseph” in the nearby tomb can not be that of Jesus of Nazareth as the ossuary is too plain and the inscription too graffiti-like.

Here is Prof. Charlesworth formal and technical analysis of the YONAH inscription with his notes included:

The first etching on the left has the unmistakable form of a he. The letter is written in three strokes. First, the person drew the horizontal line (the “roof”), and then added the leg to the right and then a shorter, slanted leg to the left. The left leg is well within the end stoke of the horizontal roof. The form of the he is typical of pre-70 scripts well known from Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts; examples are plentiful, see e.g. 4QDanb that dates between 20 and 50 CE. The he is similar to many inscriptions on ossuaries.11 Hebrew he represents the English “H.” Anyone who has worked on early manuscripts or pre-70 lapidary scripts should immediately see the he.

The meaning of the mark to the right of the he is not prima facie obvious. It is one connected stroke as the following image presented here shows (below). Conceivably, it can be a lamed [= L], but the upper portion of the stroke is too slanted to the left and the lower one appears too long (but the lamed appears in various ways prior to 70 CE). The one continuous stroke reminds me of a nun; one should be able to discern the turn to the left at the bottom of the stroke. The form is far from clear because the upper portion seems too long; but a lapidary nun is not to be confused with the Herodian Formal Book Hand inscribed upon lined leather. For example, in Ossuary 571 in Rahmani, the nun has a very long bottom stroke and it intrudes underneath two following letters. Perhaps this was caused by the need to inscribe stone with a chisel and the absence of a scribal horizontal line to guide the inscriber for hanging the Hebrew letters. Plus a stick figure and the alleged “mouth of a fish” may be intruding within or causing the elongated nun. The form of this nun is somewhat similar to the forms in hundreds of Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts; for example, it appears in 4QDeutj that dates from about 50 CE (also, in contrast, the Deut ms. represents the Formal Book Hand on leather). The nun becomes more likely when one studies that letter on ossuaries.12 Hebrew nun represents the English “N.”

The slightly curved scratch to the right of the nun is inelegant and some imagination is required (and speculation is frequently the case when studying lapidary scripts).13 It seems somewhat similar to the zain in 4QNumb that dates from the early first century CE. Most likely the form represents a waw. The top of this “letter” may have a “loop” as in the “Loop Mode” of the Herodian Ossuary Script.14 The form appears similar to the right-curved waw in Murabba‘ât 18 that has been dated to 55 or 56 CE. The curved backward waw of COJO no 38 is similar.15 This Hebrew letter equals the English “W,” “U,” or “O.”

On first viewing, the next stroke to the right looks like a zain. The top slants downward past the horizontal stroke. On examination, one can clearly see an upper loop to the left of the vertical stroke. The letter may well be yod as in the “Loop Mode” form, 16 but the extension to the upper right is problematic. Perhaps the inscriber meant to denote a yod. Similar forms with a looped yod appear in COJO, 82, 380, 411, 414, 421, 430 [bis], 435, 559, 603, 705, and 706. This Hebrew letter represents the English “Y,” “I,” or “J.”

Thus from left to right, which is the direction English is read today, we may discern: HNOJ. Since Hebrew is written right to left, we may recognize: JONH. The “a” vowel did not appear in Hebrew manuscripts until after the seventh century CE. Most likely, therefore, we may comprehend the inscription: “JONAH.”

The following image is not altered or enhanced. Notice that the nun is connected and appears to be one angular stroke. Obviously, I never intimated that all the lines in “the head of the fish” are letters; anyone who imagined that I did make such a claim or that I ignored some lines simply was dependent on a journalist’s summary of my comments.17

I am open to the suggestion that the “artist” intended an oblate circle to symbolize an eye of the fish and the long as a closed mouth; conceivably he also seemed to depict a stick-figured Jonah (which I will discuss later).

Finally, no assurance is provided for any reading. I am bothered by the mixing of scripts. The inscriber began with the looped lapidary script and then continued with forms known from leather manuscripts. Had he been trained as a scribe? Did he begin with the well-known lapidary script and shifted to forms with which he was more familiar? The lack of precision in this inscription is due perhaps to the need to chisel on stone. Were the forms twisted by the shape of the circular mouth of the alleged fish? Did the inscriber wish to meld the inscription with a stick figure within the mouth? The Hebrew letters, the imagined image of the stick figure, and the drawing seem to me to be the same depth and style.

This reading represents my present speculation and on-going research. I and all others need to see the ossuary or at least an image that is not possibly distorted by a flexible camera. I offer my reading for other epigraphers to discuss. As with many inscriptions, my reading can neither be proved nor disproved.

I am pleased to learn that one of the finest epigraphers in Israel, Robert Deutsch, has no doubt that the inscription clearly reads “YONAH.” Deutsch sent me this question: “What are statistically the chances for a so- called decoration to look like these four letters?” He answered: “One in over 1 billion.” I have been informed that Professor Haggai Misgav says definitely there are letters, but he prefers maybe zayin and lamed, thus “ZILA” or “ZEILA.”

Notes:

10 Hebrew letters on ossuaries are notoriously difficult to discern and can be idiosyncratic. For examples, in COJO the aleph has no left foot, in 483 the aleph has two left slanted vertical strokes, and in 803, the aleph looks like an inverted ‘ayin. In 559 the shin has only two arms. In 571 the “Bar Naum” becomes possible if we allow the final mem to be two disconnected strokes.
11 For examples, see COJO, 8, 16, 107, 222, 414 and 730.
12 For examples, see COJO, 12, 68, 107, 270 and esp. 76 and 571.
13 Notice the odd nun in COJO no. 465, it has a long horizontal base that extends way past the next consonant, supplying “Kynoros.” “Aninas” in no. 475 is really “Aniinias.”
14 See the example in A.Yardeni, The Book of Hebrew Script (Jerusalem: Carta,) 1997, pp. 178-79.
15 I am also impressed that this waw looks like the zain on ossuaries 74, 75, 82 and 88.
16 See Yardeni, The Book of Hebrew Script, pp. 178-79.
17 My reading was announced in the Globe and Mail on April 11, 2012. Graffiti on ossuaries are often just scratches; some cannot be deciphered (Rahmani, COJO, 83, 89, 130). Some inscriptions are curved as in Ossuary Six. Some graffiti are extremely sloppy (e.g., COJO, 191, 582, 610, 651, 682, 694, 718, 773). As I have said before, in 704 (the famous ossuary from East Talpiot), the name “Yeshua, son of Yehosef” is a guess. Debates are focused on the meaning of some inscriptions (e.g., see COJO, 15 and the suggestions of Mayer, Sukenik, Rahmani, Savignac, and Klein). Do the markings on Ossuary 33 in COJO have meanings?

 

UPDATED:

I am adding here a link to a most moving and personal tribute to Jane by our friend Prof. April DeConick of Rice University in the form of a letter:

http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/memorial-service-for-jane-schaberg.html

I was terribly saddened to read that Jane Schaberg, a beloved friend and colleague, has died of cancer. Jane was an amazingly brilliant, gifted, poetic, sharp-tongued, humorous, and wonderful human being. There is a moving tribute by Kathy Schiffer here. Jane and I became quite close via e-mail, various rendezvous at the annual SBL meetings, and a most wonderful time at the Princeton Talpiot Tomb conference in Jerusalem in 2008. We hung out with Alan Segal, April DeConick, Ann Graham Brock, Val Hemingway, and a slew of other cool people the whole four days. It was marvelous. She was very excited about the new excavations at Midgal and we always planned to go together.  I was there this past October and missed her terribly as she was not up to travel. Here are some of the main links to posts I have done on Jane and her work over the years, including a review of her book on Mary Magdalene and a paper I gave on a panel devoted to her work at the SBL in San Diego in 2007 when she was too sick to come to respond. In one of her last e-mail to me she wrote: “Dear James, long time no hear. I thought I had offended you by saying “f**k” over the microphone at my paper.” It was a private joke, since Jane did regularly say “f**k” but she surely knew I was not one of those offended, and coming from her thought it was rather effective–usually aimed at various historical suppressions of justice and human dignity.

Here are some posts on this blog that deal specifically with Jane’s work on Mary Magdalene. I highly recommend her book, The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene, as well as The Illegitimacy of Jesus. They are both classics to any library on Christian Origins.

http://jamestabor.com/2007/03/30/the-resurrection-of-mary-magdalene/

http://jamestabor.com/2007/05/20/sifting-traditions-mark-and-john-jesus-son-of-mary/

http://jamestabor.com/2007/11/21/san-diego-and-resurrecting-mary-magdalene/

http://jamestabor.com/2007/11/24/mary-magdalene-as-first-witness/