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…

Most scholars who work in the field of late 2nd Temple Judaism, including those who deal with the emerging Jesus movement, are quite familiar with the masterful work by L. Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel (Jerusalem: The Israel Antiquities Authority, The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994). Many of us have copies in our personal libraries. Rahmani’s work lists the 897 ossuaries that were in the Israel State collection up to August, 1989, whether plain or decorated, including the 227 that are inscribed. There are photos, some color but mostly B&W of all the decorated ones and a few of the plain ones. Since the vast majority of these ossuaries are from Jerusalem and its environs, dating approximately from 20 BCE to 70CE, this work is indispensable to anyone working in this field–including those interested in Christian Origins. Unfortunately, Rahmani is now 23 years out of date and there are hundreds of additional ossuaries in the Israel State collection plus many more hundreds that are in other collections, both public and private (see the works of Figueras, Bagatti, Testa, et al.)

So far as the ossuaries themselves go Rahmani is the best we have, but in terms of inscriptions there is a recent companion work that has become essential for all of us, namely, Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae, with editors Hannah M. Cotton, Leah Di Segni, Werner Eck, Benjamin Isaac, Alis Kushnir-Stein, Haggai Misgav, Jonathan Price, Israel Roll and Ada Yardeni, Vol. 1: Part 1:1-704 (De Gruyter, Götingen, 2010). The work is abbreviated CIIP. It includes 704 inscriptions, 600+ of which are from ossuaries, which has tripled the evidence one had available in 1989 via Rahmani for inscribed ossuaries. This also shows us that Rahmani’s ratio of inscribed to uninscribed (897/227), as represented in the Israel State collection is low compared to CIIP with approximately 2000 “known” ossuaries, 600+ of which are inscribed. These come from an estimated 900 burial caves, see Amos Kloner and Boaz Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period, Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 8 (Leuven-Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2007), another essential work for those interested in Jerusalem in the late 2nd Temple period. I should point out, for those interested in further reading, that we discuss all of these materials, with additional sources, in our book, The Jesus Discovery.

Last year I spent over two months going carefully through CIIP, reading every one of the 704 inscriptions. As I went I assembled detailed notes, correlated when possible with Rahmani, of all the names that are relevant to those found in the Talpiot tombs, namely Yeshua, Yehosef/Yose, Yehuda, Mariamene/Mariam Maria/Marya, Mara, and Matya. I also made three trips to Israel and Simcha and I examined and filmed all the relevant ossuary inscriptions stored at the Bet Shemesh warehouse, in the basement of the Rockefeller, in the basement of the Israel Museum, and several private collections (Franciscans, etc.), You can download a copy of my notes here: CIIPNotes6-13-2011. If you pass this along please give credit and you can link to the document here: http://jamestabor.com/articles/

I think both specialists and non-specialists might find this material of great interest, particularly those who have limited their work to the inscriptions in Rahmani, thus missing about 400 of the available ossuary inscriptions. I am pleased to share it with everyone.

Birger Pearson’s piece at the BAS Web site addressing the questions of whether Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife? and Was Mary Magdalene a Prostitute? is really well done in my view. It is short but to the point. I see it as an advance over the article he did some years ago in Bible Review. Take a look and see what you think.

I have a long treatment of this subject with what I hope are some new thoughts in my forthcoming book The Jesus Discovery, co-authored with Simcha Jacobovici that will be released at the end of this month. Like many of my colleagues I was on the side of those who said the notion that Jesus might have been married was unhistorical hype and sensationalism. I say this plaining in my last book, The Jesus Dynasty, “While gripping fiction, this idea is long on speculation and short on evidence” (p. 4). Over the years I have educated myself on this subject, benefited from wonderful colleagues like Jane Schaberg, April DeConick, and Ann Graham Brock, plus taken in more deeply the implications of the Talpiot “Jesus tomb.”

This article by Prof. Geza Vermes on Herod the Great is worth a careful read, for the sources as much as Vermes’s interpretation.

The Christian world has inherited a wholly negative image of king Herod (74/72-4 BCE), during whose reign Jesus was born (Matthew 2:1, Luke, 1:5). Matthew’s legendary account, Nativity plays and Christian imagination have turned Herod into the Ivan the Terrible of antiquity. When the three wise kings, or rather oriental magicians (magoi in the Greek Gospel), arrived at the royal palace in Jerusalem and asked about the recently born king of the Jews, Herod pretended to be helpful and directed them to Bethlehem, the traditional birthplace of the Messiah, on condition that they promised to let him know the whereabouts of the babe. He, too, wished to greet him, he lied, when in fact he planned to murder the potential rival. So when the magi failed to return, he let loose his soldiers on the infants of Bethlehem. More

This fascinating piece by Bruce Feiler is well worth reading and including in your family Thanksgiving table discussion today…Best wishes to all!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-feiler/how-moses-created-thanksg_b_787077.html?ref=fb&src=sp

Hollywood is rediscovering the Bible.

Two rival films about Moses, both by established producers, are vying to become the next chapter of the century-long love affair between the merchants of sin in Tinsletown and the prophet of hope in Israel. But no matter how far the filmmakers stretch their story, there are unlikely to reach the least known but perhaps most influential impact of Moses today: He is the Patron Saint of Thanksgiving.

The real story of Thanksgiving has surprising biblical roots. A few years ago, I set out on a 10,000-mile journey through the hidden symbols of American life that became the basis for my book, America’s Prophet: How the Story of Moses Shaped America. My journey began on a visit to Plymouth, Mass., where I boarded a replica of The Mayflower. A re-enactor was reading from the Bible. “Exodus 14,” he explained. “The Israelites are trapped in front of the Red Sea, and the Egyptians are about to catch them. ‘Hold your peace!’ Moses says. The Lord shall fight for you.’ Our leader read us that passage during our crossing.”

I hadn’t ever associated the biblical prophet with this most American holidays, but his fingerprints are all over our turkeys. How did this happen? How did a 3,000-year-old story become the inspiration for a contemporary American national holiday?

The answer begins with the Protestant Reformation. All through the Middle Ages, Catholics were not allowed to read the Bible directly, but the Reformation, coupled with the printing press, brought vernacular Bibles into the hands of everyday believers. Many of those believers were Protestants who felt oppressed by the Church. They related to the story of the Israelites, the descendants of Abraham who were enslaved in Egypt around 1200 B.C., were set free by Moses, then set out for the Promised Land.

The Pilgrims, a band of Protestant outcasts, saw themselves as fulfilling this biblical story. In coming to the New World, they, too, had to cross a tumultuous sea, arrive in an untested wilderness and create a new “Promised Land.” As a result, when they set sail on The Mayflower in 1620, they described themselves as the chosen people fleeing their pharaoh, King James. On the Atlantic, their leader, William Bradford, proclaimed their journey to be as vital as “Moses and the Israelites when they went out of Egypt.” And when they got to Cape Cod, they thanked God for letting them pass through their fiery Red Sea.

The pilgrims were so enamored of Moses, the Bibles they brought with them were emblazoned with pictures of Moses on the title page, and they named their children biblical virtues like Fear, Patience and Wrestling, as in “Wrestling with God,” the English translation of Israel.

As Peter Gomes, the preacher of Harvard told me, “They weren’t trying to recreate the biblical narrative. They were trying to fulfill it.” Because of them, the story of Moses became the story of America.

And because of the biblical roots of this most secular of American holidays, if your gathering threatens to descend into a familiar fracas among different faiths, factions and political persuasions, Moses, precisely because he has been used by believers and non-believers alike, Republicans and Democrats, Jews, Catholics and Protestants, may be the one figure who can unite the family and allow them all to enjoy their pumpkin pie.

This entry is part of a series, “This Month in Moses,” chronicling the 400-year relationship between the United States and “America’s Prophet.” For more information, and to read the entire series, visit Bruce Feiler’s website, or follow him on Twitter.