Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / General Topics / April 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

FYI: The Jesus Dynasty

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
P.T. - 14 Apr 2006 03:03 GMT
The hidden history of Jesus, his royal family, and the birth of
Christianity. Based on a careful analysis of the earliest Christian
documents and recent archeological discoveries, The Jesus Dynasty offers a
bold new interpretation of the life of Jesus and the origins of
Christianity. www.jesusdynasty.com

A REVIEW:
As James Tabor, the author of "The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of
Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity," a much more
plausible consideration of the historical Jesus, writes, "What we have to
realize is that the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John were written between
forty to seventy years after the death of Jesus by authors who were not
original witnesses and who were not living in Roman Palestine." Mark, the
earliest of the gospels, was written 30 years after Jesus' death and like
all the gospels was altered by scribes over the years to make it better
conform to the emerging Christian orthodoxy.
 The oldest manuscripts of Mark, for example, do not report any appearances
of the resurrected Jesus at all; they end with the two Marys and Salome
fleeing in astonishment from the empty tomb. "Pious scribes," Tabor writes,
"who copied Mark made up an ending for him and added it to his text sometime
in the 4th century A.D. -- over 300 years after the original text was
composed." The ending printed in most Bibles -- "a clumsy composite of the
sightings of Jesus reported by Matthew, Luke, and John" is clearly not by
the same author. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible published in
1946, which printed the added ending as a footnote, caused such a "storm"
that the nonoriginal ending had to be put back in later editions.
 Readers who have only recently learned, via "The Da Vinci Code," of the
complicated history of the New Testament, are much better served by books
like Tabor's than by conspiracy-mongering like "The Jesus Papers." Tabor
chairs the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina
at Charlotte, has studied the Dead Sea Scrolls, worked on archaeological
excavations in the Middle East and is the editor in chief of the Original
Bible Project, "an effort to produce a historical-linguistic translation of
the Bible with notes." Like Baigent, he doesn't believe in the literal truth
of the resurrection, but unlike Baigent, he keeps his religious beliefs to
himself.
 Like all efforts to re-create historical events from the New Testament,
"The Jesus Dynasty" is by necessity highly interpretive and contestable, but
it's certainly more grounded than the fantasias of "The Jesus Papers." Tabor
is primarily interested in recovering the history of Jesus' immediate
family -- his mother, four brothers and two sisters -- who, he maintains,
played a far more important role in the young religious movement than is
generally known. The exact configuration of Jesus' extended family is pretty
hazy; Tabor suspects that an elderly Joseph married the teenage Mary when
she was already pregnant by another man and then died a few years later,
leaving Jesus at the head of a large family.
 Jesus' brothers -- sons of Joseph or perhaps of Joseph's brother, who
according to tradition was likely to have married Mary after Joseph's
death -- took over the church in succession after Jesus' death. The eldest,
James, stood for the continuation of the original identity of Jesus'
movement. It was a profoundly Jewish, messianic sect that believed Jesus to
be divinely inspired but not divine, that foresaw a coming "Kingdom of God"
that was earthly rather than heavenly, that sought the restoration of Jewish
self-rule in the form of a king descended from David, that did not view the
celebration of the Eucharist as the symbolic consumption of Jesus' flesh and
blood and that considered Jesus himself to be well and truly dead.
 "There are two completely separate and distinct 'Christianities' embedded
in the New Testament," Tabor writes. The version that triumphed -- Jesus as
God in human form, born of the eternally virgin Mary, whose death mystically
atoned for the sins of humankind, who rose from the dead and inaugurated a
new covenant with God that superceded the necessity of following Jewish
law -- is largely the creation of Paul. Tabor's mission with "The Jesus
Dynasty" is to recover what he can of the vein of Christianity led by James,
the one that "lost" and that eventually withered away.
 Although messiahs and messianic movements seem to have been a dime a dozen
in the Jewish world before, during and after Jesus' lifetime, as the Jews
fought their doomed battle against their Roman overlords, Tabor believes
that John the Baptizer was among the most galvanizing. "The Jesus Dynasty"
seeks to restore John to some of the status he enjoyed before Christian
theologians reduced him to a mere precursor of the Christ. In actuality,
Tabor argues, John's radical cause was fully in motion by the time Jesus, a
kinsman of John's, turned up to be baptized in the Jordan River at age 30.
"Jesus was a disciple of John and John was the rabbi or teacher of Jesus,"
not the other way around.
 Eventually, Jesus and John became "full partners" in a movement that
anticipated the overthrow of the corrupt civil and religious authorities in
Israel and eventually the entire world. They heralded the establishment of a
new age, in which the people would be ruled by two messiahs, a king
descended from David (Jesus) and a high priest descended from Aaron (John),
who would preside over the temple in Jerusalem. But John and Jesus didn't
advocate armed revolution -- they believed, on the basis of their
interpretation of passages in the Old Testament, that God would intervene
and effect the change when the right moment arrived. Although Tabor
describes their movement as "apocalyptic," he doesn't mean that they
expected the end of the world, only its utter transformation.
 Given this view, it's not surprising that Tabor considers John's execution
by King Herod to be "the most disappointing and shocking event in Jesus'
entire life." The loss seems to have inaugurated a new, darker vision of his
own destiny in Jesus' mind. In the best section of "The Jesus Dynasty,"
Tabor imagines the last few days of Jesus' life. Although the story is
familiar, as Tabor retells it, minus the supernatural elements and taking
the very Jewish nature of Jesus himself into account, it becomes new and in
its own way just as powerful.
 Tabor's Jesus is a man who considers himself chosen by God and who
reconciles himself to enduring terrible suffering before God's kingdom can
be established. He deliberately provokes a Jewish religious establishment
glutted on temple tributes, and the Roman authorities, known for their
creatively sadistic execution methods. "He firmly believed that if he and
his followers offered themselves up, placing their fate in God's hands,"
they could bring about the beginning of the new age, Tabor writes. Although,
as Tabor admits, we can never know Jesus' inner thoughts, it's possible that
even on the cross, "up until the last minutes, perhaps, Jesus believed that
God would intervene and save his life, and openly manifest his Kingdom."
 That hope was betrayed and eventually Jesus' own legacy was transformed
into a religion that, Tabor argues, he would have scarcely recognized. The
more faithful -- and more Jewish -- remnant of Jesus' following, led by
James and possibly two other half-brothers, became utterly overshadowed by
Paul's Christianity, a faith that swept through the Gentile world to become
the biggest religion on the planet.
 This is a remarkable enough story without a lot of folderol about Egyptian
mystery cults, faked deaths and the Holy Grail, plus it has the added
attraction of being rooted in some legitimate scholarship and it's better
written. "The Jesus Dynasty" surely has enough in it to challenge the
religious orthodoxies that many Americans were raised with, one of the
qualities of "The Da Vinci Code" that seems to have made the deepest
impression on the novel's fans. Of course, Tabor's never been in the
position to sue Dan Brown, but if his book can't win at least a few readers
away from "The Jesus Papers" this Easter, then, well, there is no God.

 -- By Laura Miller
Robert Cohen - 14 Apr 2006 15:08 GMT
re: theology & history & cetera

I'm agnostic, perhaps being so since the higher grades of high school
and freshman liberal arts (geology, history, zoology etal).

How could I be otherwise than agnostic?

I've been bar mitzvahed and steeped into Conservative Judaism.

So, I've sort of been mostly concerned with the politics or survival of
the Jews, as anybody glancing here could see in my drivels.

A few years ago I fortuitously came across post- Vatican II's
(humanist-seeming) John Dominic Crosson's WHO KILLED JESUS? at a public
library, and have also glanced at his THE HISTORICAL JESUS series on
PBS a few years ago.

I recently listened to THE DA VINCI CODE's audio book version, which is
considered a sort of an heretical thriller or a whodunnit (?).

The original posting's fairly radical theological
take/presentation/portrayal I take as  (perhaps humanist) radical
intellectual fodder  that perhaps fifty to ninety percent of the
general public comfortably/conveniently ignores.

Why such obliviousness?

Because we are mere adaptive/mal-adaptive emotional/thinking human
beings.

We are enculturated in folkways, mores, customs, traditions, and
taboos.

Religious holding/indoctrination/faith/belief  is  a very big deal in
my USA and in most of the Moslem & I suppose the traditional Hindi,
Bhudda, Shinto, Zorastrian, Animist etal worlds too.

Western Europe, cathederals & founding Christian religious movements
notwithstanding,  is generally today considered relatively less
unsophisticated or has less believers, as I observe/suppose.

Ain't sure about them thar down under Aussies--perhaps a sum-mixture of
all the above.

And my point is?

I dunno, I just wanted to herein state my perception about religion
phenomena.

And, well: books, academics, tv, music, drugs, puters, sports etal
perhaps is also the "religion" or the way of lifestyle of the
non-literalists/agnostics/atheists/secularists.

IN TIMES NOT SO LONG AGO, my Great Grandfather was a Lithuanian rabbi,
and religion was seemingly a t 7/24 pursuit particularly for the Jews.

Sorta like the Muslims, there are (at least) three prayer times/periods
per day.

It may be difficult for us in this secularist history news group to
comprehend the importance of religion in man's history.
Scaly Lizard - 15 Apr 2006 13:10 GMT
>re: theology & history & cetera
>
>I'm agnostic, perhaps being so since the higher grades of high school
>and freshman liberal arts (geology, history, zoology etal).
>
>How could I be otherwise than agnostic?

ROTFLOL.  Not literally rolling on the floor, but thanks
for the 15 seconds laughter, and my audible chuckling
for quite a while after reading that line.  

You should design bumper stickers.  

"How could I be otherwise than agnostic?" belongs
in the pantheon of humor, because it contains the
hallmark of all great humor: truth.  It's in the form of
a question, just as agnostics are uncertain seekers.  

It is brief and punchy and the joke takes a minute
to set in.  It connotes invitation with the expectance
of refusal, which is at the heart of many comedic
works, exemplified quite often in film and tv scripts.  

Mind if i have a sticker printed up?  I know a place
that'll do it for about $10, and i'll include an attribution
if you desire the fame.  Although i'm not agnostic, i'd
really like that quote on the back of the car.  The
folks who get the joke would be interesting folks to
talk to, and the folks who don't get it would be much
the same as they were before they read it.  

>I've been bar mitzvahed and steeped into Conservative Judaism.
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>Why such obliviousness?

The orignal post mentions: "an effort to produce a
historical-linguistic translation of the Bible with notes."  

Hee hee, that got a laugh out of me as well, and
my thought was: "rock on, and good luck with
those four lifetimes".  

>Because we are mere adaptive/mal-adaptive emotional/thinking human
>beings . We are enculturated in folkways, mores, customs, traditions, and
>taboos.  Religious holding/indoctrination/faith/belief  is  a very big deal in
>my USA and in most of the Moslem & I suppose the traditional Hindi,
>Bhudda, Shinto, Zorastrian, Animist etal worlds too.

You were going along well there for a while, but again
you drop off of the deep end.  I've been watching your
posts for a while, and you're getting better about writing
things that make sense, but you still have a tendency to
tune out on the reader and go off on tangents; dissecting
the obvious while neglecting the reason /why/ it's obvious,
in relation to your point.  

>Western Europe, cathederals & founding Christian religious movements
>notwithstanding,  is generally today considered relatively less
>unsophisticated or has less believers, as I observe/suppose.

Again, difficult to suss out what the heck you're trying to
say there, but you are (slowly) getting better at that as the
weeks roll by.  

If i read you aright, you think that christianity is waning.  

I don't think the numbers bear your hunch out.  From 2000
to 2005, religious involvement has increased noticeably
throughout Europe and the Americas (if that's what you
equate to "christendom").  

This is consistent with what we would expect after muslim
attacks in NYC, London, Madrid and Washington.  I believe
that Dan Brown's book might have been interesting but obscure
if a militant muslim sect had not arisen and started attacking
christians.  As it happened, "The Da Vinci Code" came out
just as 9/11/01 and 3/11/04 made christians everywhere
look back to the Book to figure out how to deal with the
situation: when someone who is not your enemy suddenly
declares that you are now their enemy.  

Judaism does not have the breadth of answers to this
question that christianity possesses.  Sorry.  

>Ain't sure about them thar down under Aussies--perhaps a sum-mixture of
>all the above.

What?  What has that got to do with anything?  Either you're
an agnostic, or you find glee in sniping from the fringes.  Your
conscience should tell you which is the most satisfying lifestyle.  

>And my point is?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>perhaps is also the "religion" or the way of lifestyle of the
>non-literalists/agnostics/atheists/secularists.

Try actual sentences, instead of slash-delimited lists.  

>IN TIMES NOT SO LONG AGO, my Great Grandfather was a Lithuanian rabbi,
>and religion was seemingly a t 7/24 pursuit particularly for the Jews.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>It may be difficult for us in this secularist history news group to
>comprehend the importance of religion in man's history.

As it's Easter, let's remember that the world of 30 AD was,
intellectually, a swirling maelstrom of gods and other thought
systems.  Most people followed their parents' religion just as
today, but the fringes are where new ideas form, and the
fringes of religious belief were much wider in 30 AD than today.  

Jesus' cult was more than a challenge to the Temple of his time,
it was a full-fledged schism on the scale of Luther's 15 centuries
later.  It split judaism in two.  The question for the jew of those
days was not "how do I resist the Romans?", but instead:
"has the promised messiah come, and if so, how do I react?"  

The wider world at the time had an opinion of the province of
Palestina: a backwater where the locals are really religious.  
This fostered a pervasive acceptance of judaic ideas as
valid, based on supposed piety and implied antiquity.  

Any new thought system coming out of Palestina at the time
was inherently imbued with a sense of mysticism by the wider
Greco-Roman world, by the power of myth.  Paul exploited this
'trendy' facet of palestinian cults to include the gentiles in the
rolls of the 'elect' in his version of christianity.  And so it took
off.  

I don't know if Jesus was born in the right place at the right
time, but i know that he died at the right place and time, and
for the right reasons.  

I don't know if Jesus was god, because i can't know what
god is like.  How could anyone know?  

>How could I be otherwise than agnostic?

You either know, or you don't.  Agnostics claim not to.
I once claimed agnoticism, but the evidence to the
contrary continued to pile up.  

I know, but i can not describe to you what i know, nor
can i describe to you how i know it.  I can't even tell
you how to get to know it for yourself.  Beware of
anyone who says they can tell you how.  

I could try, but you would find holes in the description
based on current science, and portions of it would not
agree with your religious perception (even one as
admittedly incomplete as that of an agnostic).  

All i can tell you is that there *is* a single truth out there,
and it will change your life if you figger it out.  I'm not a
christian, but my life is changed every day since i figgered
that single truth out.  

Good luck,

SL
Robert Cohen - 15 Apr 2006 13:59 GMT
to--SL

THANKS for all feedbacks.

My style is pretty much off the wall--much conscience  much
consciously.

You get more out of the agnostic w/question mark  than me, though now
that ya point it out, READER'S DISGUST would surely not be willing to
part with $25 for using it in  "More Picturesque Speech," and so it's
hereby released as a freebie for all of humanity from here to eternity
or if passing GO.

Let all of us know such secrets, formulas, shibboleths, insights,
tricks, gimmicks, SOLUTIONS.

I myself have a Georgia corporation called, SOLUTIONS, INC.

You're anonymous and one never knows the good impacts one may have on
others' minds, along w/ the negative/cynicism influences.

re: flexibility of Judaism

Well, "Reconstructionist Judaism" may be a  modern inclusive humanistic
way to ameliorate/transcend separateness. My niece was married in a
Reconstructionist ceremony, and I think I'd actively join-it if I were
in my teens/twenties/thirties.
P.T. - 16 Apr 2006 21:10 GMT
Thanks for your interesting comments, Robert.

Patty

> re: theology & history & cetera
>
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
> It may be difficult for us in this secularist history news group to
> comprehend the importance of religion in man's history.
Robert Cohen - 16 Apr 2006 23:55 GMT
re: in local paper's FAITH & VALUES section, a perspective

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/auto/epaper/editions/saturday/faith_values_440
432b592582217001d.html

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.