The Da Vinci Code gravy train
Note: Please see addendum at the bottom of this post -- my thoughts on this matter have been changed. -- BK
With the pending release of the Da Vinci Code, I expected that people who seek to follow the admonition of 1 Peter 3:15 to be prepared to defend the faith would need to become familiar with the many historical speculations and inaccuracies in the book and movie as their first priority. What I didn't expect (although I ought to have expected) was the number of other books seeking to ride the coat-tails of the Da Vinci Code. Earlier, I have mentioned the efforts of Michael Baigent, and his new attack on Christianity The Jesus Papers. Now, comes a new book by James D. Tabor, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, entitled The Jesus Dynasty.
According to The Jesus Dynasty website, The Jesus Dynasty teaches the following:
In an book review authored by James C. Howell simply entitled "Book Author: James Tabor" posted April 1, 2006, the Charlotte Observer notes the following conclusions from Dr. Tabor's book:
So, what are we to make of this? Well, even the Charlotte Observer seems a bit skeptical. Note the following warnings and insights from the Charlotte Observer's book review:
I ambivalent about Dr. Tabor. I don't know a great deal about him other than what little I have read on his website in the past. I feel comfortable in saying much of the work I have read by him in the past seems to be factually based even if it is apparent that he reaches conclusions that I find artificial. But I find it very difficult to believe his hypothesis when the Charlotte Observer can so readily find many flaws in a quick book review. With all due respect, it seems that Dr. Tabor, consciously or unconsciously, is trying to ride the gravy train from the upcoming Da Vinci Code movie just as I think Michael Baigent is doing. But it seems that the train is already overloaded with nonsense, and I hope that Dr. Tabor's book accidentally falls off the caboose.
Addendum: (4/19/2006): I made a mistake in this post which I acknowledge as the result of comments offered by Dr. Tabor. I hereby note that I am withdrawing my claim that Dr. Tabor was seeking to ride the gravy train, and my apology can be seen here. As I say, I remain skeptical about the book itself, but I was apparently wrong that Dr. Tabor was seeking to capitalize on the Da Vinci Code movie based upon the word of Dr. Tabor which I have no reason to doubt at this point.
"And did they tell you the name of the game boy?
We call it riding the gravy train." -- Pink Floyd "Have a Cigar"
With the pending release of the Da Vinci Code, I expected that people who seek to follow the admonition of 1 Peter 3:15 to be prepared to defend the faith would need to become familiar with the many historical speculations and inaccuracies in the book and movie as their first priority. What I didn't expect (although I ought to have expected) was the number of other books seeking to ride the coat-tails of the Da Vinci Code. Earlier, I have mentioned the efforts of Michael Baigent, and his new attack on Christianity The Jesus Papers. Now, comes a new book by James D. Tabor, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, entitled The Jesus Dynasty.
According to The Jesus Dynasty website, The Jesus Dynasty teaches the following:
[Jesus] joined a messianic movement begun by his relative John the Baptizer, whom he regarded as his teacher and as a great prophet. John and Jesus together filled the roles of the Two Messiahs who were expected at the time, John as a priestly descendant of Aaron and Jesus as a royal descendant of David. Together they preached the coming of the Kingdom of God. Theirs was an apocalyptic movement that expected God to establish his kingdom on earth, as described by the prophets. The two messiahs lived in a time of turmoil as the historical land of Israel was dominated by the powerful Roman empire. Fierce Jewish rebellions against Rome occurred during Jesus's lifetime.
John and Jesus preached adherence to the Torah, or the Jewish Law. But their mission was changed dramatically when John was arrested and then killed. After a period of uncertainty, Jesus began preaching anew in Galilee and challenged the Roman authorities and their Jewish collaborators in Jerusalem. He appointed a Council of Twelve to rule over the twelve tribes of Israel, among whom he included his four brothers. After he was crucified by the Romans, his brother James -- the "Beloved Disciple" -- took over leadership of the Jesus Dynasty.
James, like John and Jesus before him, saw himself as a faithful Jew. None of them believed that their movement was a new religion. It was Paul who transformed Jesus and his message through his ministry to the gentiles, breaking with James and the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, preaching a message based on his own revelations that would become Christianity. Jesus became a figure whose humanity was obscured; John became merely a forerunner of Jesus; and James and the others were all but forgotten.
In an book review authored by James C. Howell simply entitled "Book Author: James Tabor" posted April 1, 2006, the Charlotte Observer notes the following conclusions from Dr. Tabor's book:
Tabor's conclusions will trouble many:
Mary had sex with not zero men, or one man, but three men.
Jesus' father wasn't God or even Joseph, but a Roman soldier named Panthera (whose grave Tabor found in Germany).
Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist, and learned all his good material from John.
The "beloved" disciple wasn't John (as traditionally thought), or Mary Magdalene (as "The Da Vinci Code" suggests), but James, Jesus' brother. In fact, Jesus' brothers are among the twelve disciples -- though they weren't really disciples, but the regional managers, the "cabinet," of a provisional government Jesus was fashioning.
Tabor's thesis? "Rather than a church, or a new religion, Jesus established a royal dynasty."
He and John the Baptist were co-Messiahs until they died; then James, Jesus' brother, took over and "ruled" for more than 30 years ("rule" being an extravagant word for what anyone could do with a few dozen impoverished, persecuted Christians).
Jesus' tomb indeed was empty on Easter morning -- but his own followers had reburied him, either in the family tomb Tabor studied outside Jerusalem, or in Galilee, in another grave Tabor has visited.
So, what are we to make of this? Well, even the Charlotte Observer seems a bit skeptical. Note the following warnings and insights from the Charlotte Observer's book review:
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.
The feel in this marvelously well-written volume is that he is building a structure of facts toward his conclusion, and the reader may easily forget that a hypothesis is merely a hypothesis, and a string of them become guesswork.
* * *
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?
I ambivalent about Dr. Tabor. I don't know a great deal about him other than what little I have read on his website in the past. I feel comfortable in saying much of the work I have read by him in the past seems to be factually based even if it is apparent that he reaches conclusions that I find artificial. But I find it very difficult to believe his hypothesis when the Charlotte Observer can so readily find many flaws in a quick book review. With all due respect, it seems that Dr. Tabor, consciously or unconsciously, is trying to ride the gravy train from the upcoming Da Vinci Code movie just as I think Michael Baigent is doing. But it seems that the train is already overloaded with nonsense, and I hope that Dr. Tabor's book accidentally falls off the caboose.
Addendum: (4/19/2006): I made a mistake in this post which I acknowledge as the result of comments offered by Dr. Tabor. I hereby note that I am withdrawing my claim that Dr. Tabor was seeking to ride the gravy train, and my apology can be seen here. As I say, I remain skeptical about the book itself, but I was apparently wrong that Dr. Tabor was seeking to capitalize on the Da Vinci Code movie based upon the word of Dr. Tabor which I have no reason to doubt at this point.
Comments
I am sorry you feel that my belief that you are trying to capitalize on the Da Vinci Code is a cheap shot. Personally, I think that your views are an offense to orthodox Christianity.
While I certainly have no question about your knowledge of history or your archaeological work (which I assume to be top-notch) if you start with the assumptions that the miracles of the Bible have every-day explanations, you are going to come up with ideas that support that conclusion regardless of how far-fetched. If you really wanted to show that you are not gravy training, then you certainly could have delayed publishing your book to a later date -- sixty is not that old. My post points out that your gravy training may be unconscious, but in my view, gravy training it is. Sorry if that offends you.
First a couple of things: you are absolutely mistaken about me. I have been the person who has been primarily in charge of the CADRE website for the last two years, and I linked to your site. Thus, it strikes me as a bit odd that you would think that I am not moderate since I have linked to your writings. That is exactly what Layman said he would do and you find him to be much more conciliatory. Hmmmmm.
Second, I don't doubt your integrity. I don't doubt that you are a fine historian. I personally look forward to reading your book which I have put a hold on at the library since I am sure that I will learn mountains of information about life in First Century Palestine. But it seems apparent to me when you say things like "I interpret Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic messianic inaugurator of the Kingdom of God set in the context of the wider movement sparked by his kinsman John the Baptizer, with all the radical social, political, and religious implications thereof" you are echoing the claims of the Jesus Seminar who is a group for which I have no respect.
If I have been wrong about about your book, I will certainly put it in headlines in a new blog, but thus far, nothing you have said has done anything but to convince me that I am correct in my assessment of the book. In other words, I take you at your words both in this comment and elsewhere what the book is about and what it says, and I find that you are starting with assumptions that I do not find to be accurate or warranted based upon my reading.
If you feel that you cannot get along with me, talk to Layman. But if you expect me to not speak my mind about this book being in the same vein as books by John Dominic Crossan, then I cannot do that. That disappoints me, because I am sure that occasional input from you would have been very valuable.
I can understand you not wanting to be associated with psuedo-scholarship like The Da Vinci Code or The Jesus Papers, because you should not be associated with such works. You are a respected scholar in the relevant field and should be treated as such. For my part, I have found your website useful and informative on the occasions I have visited it. (And please note that BK says something similar).
One thing I would say on our behalf is that this is an avowedly apologetics site. We see it as our purpose to respond to works that question the canonical presentation of Jesus, though we should be fair to those with whom we disagree. Obviously, we lack the manpower and expertise to respond to every such work that is published -- even ones by respected scholars such as yourself. Because of that it is my practice to refer readers to respectable reviewers and critiques of new theories and publications that call into question aspects of the historical basis for the Christian faith. My responsibility in such matters is to refer our readers to informed critiques, which is why I chose Ben Witherington once I saw he was doing an in-depth response on his blogs. And like I said, I will be happy to refer to your link, and any specific responses to Professor Witherington that you may pen.
I do try and personally review all works I discuss in my respective area of lay-expertise (such as Luke-Acts, Paul, the "Jesus Myth" theory, and the Testimonium in Josephus' Antiquities).
Chris (Layman)
If you are still here, I encourage you to read the following entitled "An apology to Dr. Tabor" here: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/04/apology-to-dr-james-tabor.html It is an apology to you about the gravy train comment. As I told you, I make sure that if I make a mistake, and your most recent comment makes clear that I have, I would apologize. Moreover, I do not apologize in private, but make the apology as public as possible. We are on the up-and-up here, and always have been.