Overthrowing The Jesus Dynasty of James D.

Tabor

A Critical Examination

by

Thomas A. Howe, Ph.D.

Professor of Bible and Biblical Languages
Southern Evangelical Seminary
Copyright © 2007 Thomas A. Howe
Charlotte, North Carolina
All Rights Reserved.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Virgin Birth.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

An Unnamed Father of Jesus?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Hearing the Voice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

A Crucial Missing Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Ushering in the Kingdom.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Herod Strikes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

The Last Days in Jerusalem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

The King is Dead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Dead but Twice Buried. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Waiting for the Son of Man. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

The Challenge of Paul. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
 INTRODUCTION

James D. Tabor is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte. He holds the Ph.D. in biblical studies from the University of Chicago, and
he is author of several books. The thesis of The Jesus Dynasty is that the real Jesus and the true
Christianity are not the Orthodoxy that is contained and propagated in the canonical Gospels and
the writings of Paul. Rather, the truth about Jesus and Christianity is that Jesus was actually not
the founder of Christianity. Rather, the actual teachings of Jesus were thoroughly Jewish. Tabor
argues that Jesus was the merely human co-founder with John the Baptizer of a movement within
Judaism—a revival of the prophetic eschatological expectation of the kingdom of God and the
coming of the Son of Man, neither of which should be understood in the traditional Christian
manner. This movement, almost totally obscured by Paul and the Gentile Christians, begun by
the two messiahs, John the Baptizer and Jesus the Nazarene, the Davidic King, was carried on
after their deaths by James the Just and later by Simon, the half-brothers of Jesus and heirs in the
Davidic lineage —hence the Jesus Dynasty—ultimately developing into the Ebionite movement
that lasted, according to Tabor, into the 4th century A.D.
There is no question that the underlying principle that guides the speculations and
evaluations of James Tabor is an antisupernatural bias. This is probably most clearly
demonstrated in the following statement: “Historians are bound by their discipline to work within
the parameters of a scientific view of reality.”1 What does Tabor mean by the term “scientific”?
He gives us a hint when he says, “Women do not get pregnant without a male—ever.”2 This view
of the historian’s task is identified by M. C. Lemon as “historical materialism.” Lemon describes
this approach as “a purely ‘scientific’ approach to human history — i.e., as an objective theory
not dependent upon ‘philosophical’ assumptions or any particular moral values.”3 Another name
for this is naturalism. Natural science operates on the basic principle that everything must be
explained in terms of natural or secondary causes. This is precisely the approach that Tabor takes
with reference to history. However, the statement itself—“Historians are bound by their
discipline to work within the parameters of a scientific view of reality”—is not a “scientific”
statement—it is a philosophical statement. In other words, this statement was not the product of

1
James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family,
and the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 233.
2
Ibid., 233-34.
3
M. C. Lemon, Philosophy of History: A Guide for Students (London: Routledge, 2003),
265-66.

4
 5

secondary causes of nature. Rather, this statement was produced by a primary cause—a mind.
Consequently, the statement is self-referentially incoherent. If the historian’s discipline is itself
part of reality, then the understanding of it should be, according to Tabor, scientific. But, Tabor’s
parameters are not scientific. It follows that Tabor is violating his own first principle by setting
the parameters of history on the basis of a philosophical not a scientific principle.
To assume that every human person must have both a biological mother and a biological
father, which Tabor claims must be the assumption of the historian,4 presupposes anti-
supernaturalism and is hardly the “open process of inquiry that cannot be bound by the dogmas
of fath”5 as Tabor himself asserts. It is an a priori rejection of the existence of God Who can act
in history to bring about the conception in the womb of Mary without the instrumentality of a
human father. But, Tabor contradicts his own assumption by the prior claim that the historian
should follow the evidence where ever it leads, and the historical evidence for the miracle of the
virgin conception is overwhelming. As Stanley Jaki points out, “Certainty about real events or
things, usual or unusual, can never begin with science, and not even with ‘the Lord’s quantum
mechanics’ as Schrödinger once spoke in quasi-mystical awe of his own speciality. Science
rather presupposes real things in order to ascertain their quantitative properties; it cannot provide
any of those uncountable things.”6

4
Tabor, 59.
5
Ibid., 59.
6
Stanley L. Jaki, Miracles and Physics (Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom Press, 1989),
87-88.
 CHAPTER ONE

THE VIRGIN BIRTH

Introduction

What Tabor wants to accomplish in chapter 1, “A Virgin Shall Conceive,” is to

undermine the notion of the virgin birth. He provides a fairly standard historical survey before he
begins his attack. His attack begins with the customary critical claims about the synoptic
Gospels. He asserts, “As I will explain more fully later, the author of Matthew also had access to
a collection of the teaching of Jesus that we call Q, which Mark did not have.”7 Tabor makes this
assertion as if it were proven. However, Tabor neglects to inform his readers that there is a rising
current among critical scholars to question the validity of supposing either the priority of Mark or
the validity of Q as a source for the Gospel writers. According to David Peabody,

It is not difficult to see how these two problems, the appeal to Q, now including its several
strata, and the so-called “minor agreements,” have combined to raise questions about the
adequacy of the theory of Markan priority, even among some of its advocates. If the
hundreds of “minor agreements” scattered throughout the Triple Tradition are seen to
merge with and form a pattern with the scores of “major agreements” (which had been split
off from these “minor” agreements and given a different label, namely “Q”), then it
becomes increasingly apparent that Luke was primarily dependent on Matthew and not
Mark, and there is no need for Q or the priority of Mark.8

Nicholas Perrin identifies the principal problem facing the advocates of Q: “What makes
the swelling fascination with Q particularly unsettling is the fact that Q has never been found. We
have no manuscripts of Q, no attestation in the early Church Fathers or elsewhere that such a text
ever existed. We have no hard evidence at all for Q.”9 Additionally, John Van Seters provides a

7
Tabor, 42.
8
David B. Peabody with Lamar Cope and Allan J. McNicol, One Gospel from Two:
Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2002),
6.
9
Nicholas Perrin, “Introduction: Reasons for Questioning Q,” in Questioning Q: A
Multidimensional Critique, ed. Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin (Downers Grove, Illinois:

6
 7

devastating critique of the whole notion of “editors” of the biblical books. Although his analysis
is directed primarily at the Historical Criticism of the Old Testament, Seters makes the
connection of methodology between the speculations about Q and the documentary hypotheses.
His conclusion is particularly relevant to Tabor’s unproven assumptions about Q.

The notion of the ancient editor was created out of an obvious anachronism and then
developed in the interest of literary and text-critical theories, with the result that it has
become devoid of all contact with reality. Modern scholars are either themselves
editors—this was primary function (sic) of scholars in the rise of humanistic learning—or
they have frequent dealings with editors in connection with their own work as authors.
They know the rules and etiquette of editing and are most indignant when the limits are
violated. Yet they have populated their imaginary biblical world with myriads of
text-corrupting editors, who virtually replace the actual authors of the text. These editors
are given great religious authority to shape the text as they wish until the form of the text is
declared canonical. It is time to rid biblical scholarship of this great fantasy and to attempt
to reconstruct historically the development of the biblical text as the basis of its
interpretation and exegesis.10

To the degree that Tabor’s claims rest on the validity of the Q hypothesis, to that degree
his conclusions are suspect—and virtually his whole thesis is predicated on the existence of this
make-believe source.

Trouble in the Carolinas

In his analysis of the birth narratives, Tabor takes liberties with the text and, on the basis
of his speculative assumptions, attempts to propose conclusions that he wants his reader to
believe are historical facts. For example, he speculates that Mary’s pregnancy must have caused a
stir in Nazareth: “To say that tongues were wagging would be an understatement.”11 Of course
there is no historical evidence to support this speculation, and his imaginings are contradicted by
his own statements: “According to the Gospel of Matthew, Joseph was the one who had
discovered the pregnancy, and he resolved to break off plans for marriage while keeping things
quiet so as not to shame her. Perhaps he planned to help her leave town and bear her child in
secret.”12 But if “tongues were wagging,” and if Mary’s pregnancy caused a “stir,” as Tabor

InterVarsity Press, 2004), 9-10. In fact, this entire text is dedicated to questioning the validity of
the Q assumption.
10
John Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical
Criticism (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 400-1.
11
Tabor, 43.
12
Ibid., 44.
 8

speculates, the very possibility of “keeping things quiet” and helping her “bear her child in
secret” makes no sense. This may seem to be a minor point, but it reveals one of Tabor’s favorite
tactics— constructing speculative scenarios, offering suppositions, and constructing
hypotheticals, and then using these as if they were facts on which to build his argument.

Does Matthew Imply or Assert?

Tabor observes, “Matthew says that Joseph ‘took his wife,’ but he does not say when. He
adds a fascinating note—that the couple only had sexual relations after the birth of the child
(Matthew 1:25).”13 Another fascinating fact is that Tabor strategically neglects to report what
Matthew actually said: “but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His
name Jesus” (Matt. 1:25).14 Of course Tabor thinks his rendering is more accurate because the
text literally says, “and not he knew her.” This is a euphemism for sexual intercourse, as Tabor
points out: “In Jewish culture the sexual act of ‘knowing’ the woman is what consummated the
marriage.”15 Strictly speaking Matthew’s statement indicates exactly what Tabor says—they did
not have sexual relations. Later Tabor makes reference to the statement only two verses earlier:
“‘Behold, the virgin [hJ parqevno"] shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His
name Immanuel,’ which translated means, ‘God with us.’”16 Since Mary is identified as “the
virgin,” to say that Joseph did not know her indicates precisely what the NASB translation says,
“he kept her a virgin.” Tabor comments, “Matthew also alludes to an ancient saying of the
Hebrew prophet Isaiah . . . . as if to say that Mary’s pregnancy was a fulfillment of prophecy
(Isaiah 7:14).”17 But Tabor seems to have a knack for understatement. The text does not quote
Isaiah’s prophecy “as if to say . . .” Rather, Matthew specifically declares, “Now all this took
place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:”18 To deal with this outright
reference to fulfilled prophecy, Tabor dredges up the tired old argument that Isaiah was not
referring to a virgin—about which more will be said later. But, having called into question
Isaiah’s prophecy, Tabor offers no explanation for Matthew’s language.

The Holy Spirit or a Holy Spirit

13
Ibid.
14
kai; oujk ejgivnwsken aujth;n e{w" ou| e[teken uiJovn: kai; ejkavlesen to; o[noma aujtou' jIhsou'n.
15
Tabor, 44.

ijdou; hJ parqevno" ejn gastri; e{xei kai; tevxetai uiJovn, kai; kalevsousin to; o[noma aujtou'
16

jEmmanouhvl, o{ ejstin meqermhneuovmenon meq j hJmw'n oJ qeov".

17
Tabor, 46.
18
tou'to de; o{lon gevgonen i{na plhrwqh'/ to; rJhqe;n uJpo; kurivou dia; tou' profhvtou levgonto":
 9

On page 45 Tabor makes the following statement: “Matthew and Luke agree on the
source of Mary’s pregnancy. In Matthew’s account Joseph had a dream shortly after finding out
about the pregnancy. In this dream an angel told him that her pregnancy was ‘by a holy spirit’
and that he was to go ahead with the marriage regardless.” In a footnote to this statement, Tabor
explains:

19. This is a literal translation of the Greek, rather than the more lofty sounding traditional
phrasing “from the Holy Spirit” with definite article and capital letters. In the New
Testament the term “holy spirit” is referred to twenty-eight times with the definite article
and forty-four times without. Although the meaning is essentially the same, that is, a
reference to God’s “holy spirit,” the use of the article, as in English, does add specificity or
emphasis to the term. Accordingly, one might expect in a passage dealing with the source
of Mary’s pregnancy that the definite article would be used but it is not (compare Matthew
12:32, where one finds the article). The practice of capitalizing “Holy Spirit” followed in
most translations of the Bible is a theologically based attempt to personify the Holy Spirit
as part of the Godhead or Trinity.19

First of all, Tabor’s statistics are incorrect. There are 12 times in which the expression
“Holy Spirit” (a{gion pneu'ma) occurs. There are 45 times in which the expression “Spirit Holy”
(pneu'ma a{gion) occurs, and there are 28 times in which the expression “the Spirit the Holy” (to;
pneu'ma to; a{gion) occurs. There are other references to the Holy Spirit that occur in other
arrangements, such as “the Spirit” not being followed by “the Holy.” There are no instances in
which the arrangement “the Spirit Holy” occurs, omitting the definite article before the word
‘holy.’ All occurrences in which the word ‘Spirit’ precedes the word ‘Holy,’ either both words
have the definite article or neither one does. Tabor claims that “one might expect in a passage
dealing with the source of Mary’s pregnancy that the definite article would be used but it is
not . . .” Interestingly, a similar expression is used by Matthew in 1:18 where Matthew does not
use the definite article: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary
had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the
Holy Spirit [ejk pneuvmato" aJgivou].” Nevertheless, there is no question that this is a reference to
the Holy Spirit. So, the absence of the definite article is a common way of referring to the Holy
Spirit. In fact, most grammars point out that it is a usual practice in Greek grammar to omit the
definite article in prepositional phrases, which both of these instances are.
The arrangement preposition + definite article + ‘Spirit’ + ‘Holy’ is used 5 times in the
NT. However, the arrangement preposition + ‘Spirit’ + ‘Holy’ with no definite article preceding
the word ‘Spirit’ occurs 24 times in the NT. So, 83% of the time, the prepositional phrase omits
the definite article, which is what we find in Matt. 1:20. But, there is another peculiarity about
this verse. As we find it in the NASBU,20 the verse is translated, “But when he had considered
this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do

19
Tabor, 325-26.
20
This stands for New American Standard Bible: Updated.
 10

not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the
Holy Spirit.’” The peculiar thing is that the expression translated “Holy Spirit” is actually a
construction that occurs only three other times in the NT: “to; ga;r ejn aujth'/ gennhqe;n ejk
pneuvmatov" ejstin aJgivou,” woodenly literally translated, “for the in her has been begotten out of
Spirit it is holy.” Here the finite verb “it is” (ejstin) occurs between the words ‘Spirit’ and ‘Holy.’
There are only three other instances in which a word that is not a definite article occurs between
the words ‘Spirit’ and ‘Holy’: Lk. 2:2521; Acts 1:522; and 1 Thes 4:8.23 In each one of these
instances, the reference is clearly to the Holy Spirit, and in each one of these instances there is no
definite article before the words.
As we have pointed out, most grammars acknowledge that the definite article is regularly
omitted from prepositional phrases. Daniel Wallace states, “There is no need for the article to be
used to make the object of a preposition definite. . . Thus, when a noun is the object of a
preposition, it does not require the article to be definite: if it has the article, it must be definite; if
it lacks the article, it may be definite. The reason for the article, then, is usually for other
purposes (such as anaphora or as a function marker).”24 Indeed, Maximilian Zerwick has a
lengthy discussion on the definite article in which he observes,

In this last example, however, we insist on the absence of the article only because the
resultant sense is supported by the context, for we do not deny that in a different context
the prepositional phrase ejn pneuvmati aJgivw/ [“in Spirit Holy”] might be equivalent to ejn tw'/
JAgivw/ Pneuvmati [“in the Holy Spirit”], and that for two reasons. In the first place, there
here arises the difficult and obscure question of the use of the article with proper names;
and in the second place, in prepositional phrases the lack of the article (ejn oi[kw/, ejpi; gh'"
etc), when the sense is merely adverbial (« at home, on earth »), I. e. where the substantive
is not determined (e. g. ejn tw'/ oi[kw/ tou' patro;" ajtou') is — on account of the sense —

21
Lk. 2:25 Kai; ijdou; a[nqrwpo" h\n ejn jIerousalh;m w|/ o[noma Sumew;n kai; oJ a[nqrwpo"
ou|to" divkaio" kai; eujlabh;" prosdecovmeno" paravklhsin tou' jIsrahvl, kai; pneu'ma h\n a{gion ejp=
aujtovn: “And there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was righteous
and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him.”
22
Acts 1:5 o{ti jIwavnnh" me;n ejbavptisen u{dati, uJmei'" de; ejn pneuvmati baptisqhvsesqe aJgivw/
ouj meta; polla;" tauvta" hJmevra". “for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the
Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
23
1 Thes. 4:8 toigarou'n oJ ajqetw'n oujk a[nqrwpon ajqetei' ajlla; to;n qeo;n to;n (kai;) didovnta
to; pneu'ma aujtou' to; a{gion eij" uJma'"
“So, he who rejects [this] is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you”
24
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1996), 247. Wallace points out in footnote 79 that most grammarians,
including Robertson, Grammar, 791, Blass, DeBrunner, Funk, 133, and Maximilian Zerwick,
Biblical Greek, 58-59, also recognize this feature of the language.
 11

normal, and unremarkable even in classical usage, while in Hellenistic Greek there is an
even stronger tendency to omit the article in prepositional phrases. In Biblical Greek,
moreover, the lack of the article may occasionally be overlooked even when a
determination follows and even without a preposition, in such set phrases as a[ggelo"
Kurivou, dovxa Kurivou etc., because in Semitic usage the substantive would be in the
« construct » state and so without the article.25

So, quite contrary to Tabor’s claim that “one might expect in a passage dealing with the
source of Mary’s pregnancy that the definite article would be used,” one in fact would not expect
the definite article to be used. Indeed, this is even more emphatically to be expected considering
the fact that there is not one instance in the 44 references listed below with the arrangement
preposition + ‘Spirit’ + ‘Holy’ in which the definite article is used. Since this arrangement is
used 84% of the time in the NT, one would find its use here quite unexpected and worthy of
comment. There is simply no grammatical or syntactical reason for expecting to find a definite
article, and the overwhelming evidence is that Matthew is indeed using this reference to refer to
the Holy Spirit. For Tabor to claim that, “The practice of capitalizing ‘Holy Spirit’ followed in
most translations of the Bible is a theologically based attempt to personify the Holy Spirit as part
of the Godhead or Trinity” is patently false. In fact, in the face of the overwhelming grammatical
and syntactical evidence, there is ample reason to think that Tabor’s assertion is more
theologically motivated than that of any translators. It is Tabor’s own naturalistic assumptions
that drive him to make assertions like this that cannot stand up to analysis. Such
misrepresentations are rampant throughout his book.
One would expect a chairperson of a religious studies department purporting to be a
scholar of the New Testament to know such things. Since this would be standard fair for a New
Testament or Biblical Languages professor, one might surmise that there is a different reason for
making the claims that Tabor does.

“Holy Spirit” (a{gion pneu'ma) - 12 Occurrences in 12 Verses

Matt. 28:19 Acts 1:8 Acts 9:31 Acts 16:6

Lk. 12:10 Acts 2:38 Acts 10:45 1Cor 6:19
Lk. 12:12 Acts 4:31 Acts 13:4 2Cor 13:13 (E14)

“Spirit Holy” (pneu'ma a{gion) - 45 Occurrences in 44 Verses

Matt. 1:18 John 20:22 Acts 11:16 2Cor 6:6

Matt. 3:11 Acts 2:4 Acts 11:24 1The 1:5-6

25
Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek (Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963),
58-59.
 12

Mk. 1:8 Acts 4:8 Acts 13:9 2Tim 1:14

Lk. 1:15 Acts 4:25 Acts 13:52 Titu 3:5
Lk. 1:35 Acts 6:5 Acts 19:2 Hebr 2:4
Lk. 1:41 Acts 7:55 Roma 5:5 Hebr 6:4
Lk. 1:67 Acts 8:15 Roma 9:1 1Pet 1:12
Lk. 3:16 Acts 8:17 Roma 14:17 2Pet 1:21
Lk. 4:1 Acts 8:19 Roma 15:13 Jude 1:20
Lk. 11:13 Acts 9:17 Roma 15:16
John 1:33 Acts 10:38 1Cor 12:3

“The Spirit the Holy” (to; pneu'ma to; a{gion) 28 Occurrences in 28 Verses

Matt. 12:32 John 14:26 Acts 10:47 Acts 20:28

Mk. 3:29 Acts 1:16 Acts 11:15 Acts 21:11
Mk. 12:36 Acts 2:33 Acts 13:2 Acts 28:25
Mk. 13:11 Acts 5:3 Acts 15:8 Ephe 4:30
Lk. 2:26 Acts 5:32 Acts 15:28 Hebr 3:7
Lk. 3:22 Acts 7:51 Acts 19:6 Hebr 9:8
Lk. 10:21 Acts 10:44 Acts 20:23 Hebr 10:15

Applying the Prophecy to Isaiah’s Day

Tabor observes that “Isaiah was speaking of a child to be born in his own day, the 8th
century B.C., and whose birth would be a sign for King Hezekiah, who ruled at that time.”26
Notwithstanding the fact that Ahaz was ruling at this time, and not Hezekiah, Tabor’s statement
is certainly true, but there is no reason to assume that it could not also be a prophecy about the
virgin birth of Jesus. Old Testament prophecies often have intermediate fulfillments leading up to

26
Tabor, 46. It must be pointed out that an individual who is Chairperson of the religious
department of a major university ought to have realized that in this passage in Isaiah, Hezekiah
was not ruling “at that time.” The prophecy of the virgin birth in Isaiah chapter 7 is directed at
Ahaz, who ruled at that time. Now, to be charitable, one could chalk this up simply to a
typographical error. However, considering how many times a manuscript is reviewed before it
goes to print, one wonders just how observant Tabor is. And, if he is this observant with his own
manuscript, how observant has he been with the text of the Bible, a document with which he has
serious problems?
 13

the final and ultimate fulfillment. In 1 John, John warns his readers, “Children, it is the last hour;
and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from
this we know that it is the last hour” (1 Jn. 2:18). Here John implies that the prophecies
concerning antiChrist are not limited in their fulfillment to the one individual who is to come.
There are many antiChrists leading up to and pointing to the ultimate AntiChrist who is the
ultimate object of these prophecies. So also, the prophecy in Isaiah, though partially fulfilled in
the time of Isaiah, ultimately points to the One individual who is to come—Jesus the Messiah.
Tabor then appeals to the same old tired arguments that were put to rest years ago: “The
Hebrew word (’almah) that Matthew puts as ‘virgin’ in his Greek translation means a ‘young
woman’ or ‘maiden’ and carries no miraculous implications whatsoever.”27 Of course Tabor is
right, or partially right. There is nothing miraculous about a woman being a virgin. I suspect she
was born that way. Therefore one should not expect there to be any “miraculous implications”
about this word—whatsoever. Of course the miraculous aspect, in the case of Jesus, is the fact
that this virgin will conceive and yet still be a virgin. The idea here is that the conception is not
by natural means. Why and how, then, does the Isaiah prophecy apply to a young maiden in the
time of Isaiah?
Initially this sign of the virgin was directed to the house of David in the midst of the
military crisis that was facing Ahaz, not Hezekiah, and the people of Jerusalem. Ahaz, not
Hezekiah, had refused God’s instructions given to him through Isaiah the prophet, so God
declares, “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign” (Isa. 7:14).28 This event must have
initially referred to an event that would shortly take place. If the conception was not a reference
at least partially to an event in the time of Isaiah and Ahaz, not Hezekiah, it would not function
as a sign to Ahaz, nor Hezekiah. Notice that the prophecy states, “Behold, the virgin has become
pregnant . . .” Apparently this was someone with whom Ahaz, not Hezekiah, would have been
familiar. The word ‘almah’ means “a virgin young woman.” Obviously this could not refer to
some miraculous conception in the time of Ahaz, or Hezekiah. Does this not, then, support
Tabor’s assertions? No, as we will argue.

Why Not Actually Look at the Text?

In fact, when one stops actually to consider the text, it is clear that Tabor’s case is
undermined by the words that Isaiah actually uses. First of all, the sign is not limited as a sign
only to Ahaz. The text says, “Therefore the Lord Himself will give to you [ýk,l ;, plural] a sign.”
The construction is an inseparable preposition with a plural suffix—as we say in the south,
“y’all.” So the text itself implies that the prophecy is not limited to Ahaz. Also, the text states,
“the virgin will conceive and bear a son” (÷Be td,l ,yOwÒ hr;h ; hm;l ][ 'h ;)—a young, virgin woman is
pregnant and is about to give birth to a son. In fact, the word translated “become pregnant” is an
adjective, not a verb—lit. “the virgin pregnant” where the verb needs to be supplied in the

27
Ibid.
28
t/a ýk,l ; aWh yn:d oa } ÷TeyI ÷kel ;
 14

construction. This is called a verbless clause or nominal sentence in Hebrew. In Ahaz’s time this
indicates that the young woman was a virgin, got pregnant, and is about to give birth. Isaiah does
not say how the woman became pregnant, nor does he say whether the woman was still a virgin
after she became pregnant. It just simply says, “The virgin pregnant, and she will bring forth a
son.” The way Isaiah words the phrase is quite common speech. It would be comparable to
someone saying, “Bill, the man who limps, died last night.” Of course, if Bill died last night,
strictly speaking he is not a man “who limps.” Rather, he is a man “who used to limp.” But the
qualifying phrase, “who limps” is a common way of identifying the person. It is not a supposed
to be a technical qualifier. So, Isaiah is simply saying, “This women whom you know as a virgin,
actually has become pregnant.” How she became pregnant or whether she remained a virgin after
conception is simply not addressed in Isaiah’s prophecy. Isaiah’s statement does not require a
miraculous conception, nor does it exclude that possibility.
When Matthew refers to this prophecy and applies it to Jesus, following Isaiah’s
prophecy, he clearly indicates that the woman was a virgin. Matthew’s quote follows the LXX,
the Greek Old Testament, which translates the passage: “ijdou; hJ parqevno" ejn gastri; e{xei kai;
tevxetai uiJovn (“behold the virgin in the womb she will conceive and she will bring forth a son.”).

Passage Text
Isa. 7:14 BHS ÷Be td,l,yOwÒ hr;h ; hm;l ][ 'h ; hNEh i
Matt. 1:23 GNT ijdou; hJ parqevno" ejn gastri; e{xei kai; tevxetai uiJovn
Isa. 7:14 LXX ijdou; hJ parqevno" ejn gastri; e{xei kai; tevxetai uiJovn

As was pointed out, whether the woman remained a virgin after conception is not
addressed in the words of Isaiah. Consequently, Matthew provides a lengthy description of how
Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit, and because Isaiah’s words do not say whether the woman
remained a virgin, Matthew specifically points this out in verse 25: “And Joseph . . . kept her a
virgin until she gave birth to a Son.” So, the prophetic declaration by Isaiah is fit to apply to both
sets of circumstances—to a young virgin in the time of Ahaz who conceives by natural means,
and whose child becomes a sign to Ahaz that “God is with us,” and the young virgin in the NT
who conceives by supernatural means and whose child becomes a sign to the world that “God is
with us.” Tabor simply does not grasp the Scripture or the power of God.

Matthew’s Use of Isaiah’s Prophecy

Why would Matthew even quote this verse? The circumstances in the time of Ahaz
included the impending invasion of Syria/Israel. Ahaz, not Hezekiah by the way, was looking for
a savior. He was hoping that Assyria would be the salvation of Jerusalem. Apparently, some in
the royal court agreed with him and were attempting to influence him to enlist their help. Also it
seems that there was a group of people in Jerusalem, perhaps the general population, that was
attempting to persuade Ahaz to surrender to the Syria/Israel coalition—this comes out in chapter
8.
 15

In contrast to both of these alternatives, God offered the only reasonable course of action,
namely, trust in Yahweh. After all, Yahweh is our salvation—that is what Isaiah’s name means.
Yahweh is the only one who can save His people from destruction. Even though Ahaz rejected
God’s alternative, God provided the sign of the child. Why is the sign a sign of a child? This has
to do with the Davidic Covenant. In the covenant which God established with David, God
promised to build David a house—a dynasty.

When your [David’s] days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up
your descendent after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom.
He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever
(2 Sam. 7:12-13).

The child who would be born from David would sit on the throne in David’s place.
Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the birth of the child was an indication that God had rejected Ahaz
from the house of David and that another would sit on the Davidic throne in Ahaz’s place.
God would indeed save Jerusalem from the destruction that was proposed by Pekah and
Rezin. But, as 2 Chronicles 28 states, Ahaz suffered a severe defeat at the hands of the king of
Aram. 120,000 in Judah were slain in one day and 200,000 were carried away captive. But, as
Isa. 7:1 points out, the armies of Syria and Israel besieged Jerusalem, but were unable to take it.
Nevertheless, the destruction of Judah had left Jerusalem alone and the land of Judah devastated.
Because of this desolation, there were few people left in the land, and the land was not able to
produce food. Consequently, when the child would be born, he would have to be fed curds,
which would come from the milk of a heifer, and honey which would simply be found. In other
words, the people could not produce their own food. But, the fact that they were spared from
what seemed to be certain destruction would have been an encouraging sign to this woman, so
much so that she would be compelled to name her child Immanuel. Then, before the child is old
enough to choose good and reject evil, the two kingdoms that had threatened Jerusalem would be
defeated by the Assyrians. And all of this was foretold by Isaiah to the house of David so that
when it came to pass, they would not be able to ignore the truth of Isaiah’s prophecy and the
faithfulness of Yahweh. The sign of Immanuel was a two-pronged sign. To the faithful remnant it
was a sign of deliverance. To the unfaithful Ahaz and the house of David, the birth of this child
was a sign of judgment.
The reason Matthew chose to quote this verse is because the situation at the time of
Jesus’ birth was analogous to that in the days of Ahaz. The people are in bondage to sin and an
oppressive religious system, and they are ruled by Gentiles—their land is not their own. They are
looking for a savior, and one is given. He is born of a virgin, and his name is Jesus—Yahweh
saves. He will be universally acknowledged as Immanuel because He will be God in the flesh,
present among His people to save and deliver. Just as God delivered Jerusalem from the enemy
that surrounded them in the time or Ahaz, so God would once again deliver his people from the
enemy that surrounded them, and in both instances, the sign of that deliverance would be the
birth of the child. But Tabor objects that, “Matthew implies that Isaiah’s prophecy was ‘fulfilled’
 16

by the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus—but the original text clearly carries no such meaning.”29
But, as we have seen, the prophecy involves an analogous relation of circumstances between the
two sets of events. As Walter Kaiser points out, “Matthew’s citation of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew
1:23 probably had in mind Isaiah 6:1—9:7, even as the phrase ‘God with us’ (Isa. 8:8, 10) and
the frequent use of Isaiah 6–9 elsewhere in the NT shows. Thus, these shorter citations were only
outcroppings and signs that pointed to the larger contexts from which those quotes came.”30
Because Tabor does not understand the context of Isaiah’s message in chapters 6 through 9 he
does not grasp the prophetic relationship between Isaiah and Matthew.

The Basis of Tabor’s Objections

Tabor’s doubts about the Isaiah passage are in fact not textual or even factual. As John
Oswalt observes, the notion that Isaiah’s prophecy does not apply to the virgin birth of Jesus is
“because of a refusal on the part of most scholars to accept a view of inspiration that would allow
the possibility of genuinely predictive prophecy.”31 In other words, Tabor’s objections are not
based on the text or on the historical circumstances, but on his prior anti-supernatural
assumption. This is evident in such statements as the following: “Historians are obligated to
examine whatever evidence we have, even if such discoveries might be considered shocking or
sacrilegious to some. The assumption of the historian is that all human beings have both a
biological mother and father, and that Jesus is no exception. That leaves two possibilities—either
Joseph or some other unnamed man was the father of Jesus.”32 Of course the problem here is that
this is not an historical assumption—it is an assumption of philosophical naturalism. David
Fischer calls this the fallacy of metaphysical questions. Fisher describes this fallacy as “an
attempt to resolve a nonempirical problem by empirical means. In its most common
contemporary form, this fallacy consists in the framing of a question which cannot be resolved
before the researcher settles some central metaphysical problem such as, ‘What is the nature of
things?’ or ‘What is the inner secret of reality?’”33 Of course Tabor has resolved these prior
metaphysical questions to his own satisfaction, but he neglects to tell his readers in any straight
forward way. Since philosophical naturalism is self-defeating and therefore false, any of Tabor’s
conclusions of which this is a necessary assumption are likewise false.

29
Tabor, 46.
30
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1985), 11.
31
John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39 (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 207.
32
Tabor, 59 (emphasis in original).
33
David Hackett Fischer, Historian’s Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought
(New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1970), 12.
 17

Aaron a Messiah?

On page 58 Tabor asserts, “Most people are surprised to learn that the very first Messiah
in the Bible was Aaron. He was ‘anointed’ as a priest by his brother Moses and is referred to in
the Hebrew text as a ‘moshiach’ or ‘messiah’ (Exodus 40:12-15).”34 Earlier on the same page
Tabor says, “The English word ‘messiah’ comes from the Hebrew word moshiach . . .” The text
to which Tabor is referring is the following: “Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the
doorway of the tent of meeting and wash them with water. You shall put the holy garments on
Aaron and anoint him and consecrate him, that he may minister as a priest to Me. You shall bring
his sons and put tunics on them; and you shall anoint them even as you have anointed their
father, that they may minister as priests to Me; and their anointing will qualify them for a
perpetual priesthood throughout their generations” ( Exod 40:12 NASU).
Once again Tabor’s claim is simply false. Nowhere in this text does the word moshiach
(j"yvim ;) appear. The verb, “anoint” or “smear” (jv'm ;) is used in verses 13 and 15, but the word
“messiah” does not occur at all in this passage. In fact, the word “messiah,” moshiach (j"yvim ;),
does not even occur in the Hebrew Bible until Lev. 4:3. Giving Tabor the benefit of the doubt,
one might assume that his comment about the word ‘moshiach’ being used of Aaron is merely a
typographical error, and Tabor is actually making reference to a different chapter and verse than
the one printed. However, this does not work either since nowhere in the Old Testament is Aaron
ever directly called “messiah” (j"yvim ;). An observation by Helmer Ringgren that was made with
reference to the Dead Sea scrolls is equally applicable to Tabor’s contentions here: “It is not
necessary that there be ‘messianic’ ideas each time the word ‘anointed’ (m'vî;x) occurs . . .”35
This kind of information can be discovered by a simple concordance search. Such questionable
scholarship is surprising in a book written by the chair of the department of religious studies at a
major university. This is an example of Tabor’s tendency to misrepresent the facts.

34
Tabor, 58.
35
Helmer Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls, trans.
Emilie T. Sander, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Crossroad, 1995), 167.
 CHAPTER TWO

AN UNNAMED FATHER OF JESUS?

In the opening sections of chapter 3, Tabor floats the proposal that the virgin birth story
was created in order to cover over an illicit sexual relation between Mary and some unnamed
man who was the actual human father of Jesus. He does this, first of all, by misrepresenting the
circumstances surrounding the four women mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy.

Ruth and Boaz

On page 50, Tabor asserts, “But Ruth crawled into the bed of Boaz, her future husband,
after getting him drunk one night, in order to get him to marry her.”36 The passage to which
Tabor seems to be referring is found in Ruth 3:7-14. The claim that there was some kind of illicit
sexual relation between Ruth and Boaz in this passage is not a new allegation, and neither is its
refutation. Most scholars have acknowledged that the text does not support this claim. The focus
of this charge is 3:7: “When Boaz had eaten and drunk and his heart was merry, he went to lie
down at the end of the heap of grain; and she came secretly, and uncovered his feet and lay
down.”37 Most scholars have pointed out that there is nothing in this text, or in the larger context,
that indicates any kind of sexual relation between Ruth and Boaz. The following reasons are
typical arguments against this criticism.

First, Ruth did not come at night to hide an immoral relationship with Boaz. Rather, she
came in the night so that Boaz would not feel the pressure of public scrutiny. Boaz would
have the opportunity to decline the proposal to redeem Naomi and marry Ruth without
facing any public embarrassment.
Second, the uncovering of the feet is not a euphemism indicating that Ruth had
intercourse with Boaz. Rather, it is a literal description of a customary practice to
demonstrate subjection and submission. Ruth merely pulled hack the covering from over
the feet of Boaz as a symbol of her submission to Boaz and willingness to become his wife.
Third, the passage states that after uncovering the feet of Boaz, Ruth lay down (v. 7).
However, this is nor the normal way to indicate sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is

36
Tabor, 50.
37
lg"T ]w" fL;b ' aboT;w" hm;r e[ }h ; hxeq]B i bK'v ]l i aboY:w" /Bli bf'yYIw' T]v ]YEw" z['B o lk'a YOw"
.bK;v ]Tiw" wyt;l ¿GÒr ]m '
18
 19

usually indicated by the phrase, “he lay with her.” Without the accompanying indication of
laying “with” someone, the word normally indicates merely that someone reclines.
Fourth, it was also a symbolic act for Boaz to spread the corner of his garment over
Ruth. This refers to the practice of a man spreading a covering over his wife as well as
himself Ruth reminds Boaz of his responsibility according to the law of levirate marriage
(Dent. 25:5-10). The word translated “wing” in the NKJV recalls the earlier blessing which
Boaz pronounced upon Ruth at their first encounter (2:12). Ruth had sought refuge under
the wings of the God of Israel, now she seeks refuge under the wing of Boaz.38

The word translated “uncover” (hl;G:) does not, by itself, indicate a sexual relation. If that
were the case, then one would have to assume that God had a sexual relation with Jacob in
Gen. 35:7 or that someone had sexual relations with the land in Judg. 18:30. The verb by itself
does not necessarily indicate a sexual relation. The same is true for the word translated “lie
down” (bk'v ;). In order to indicate sexual relations, each of these words is usually accompanied
by some additional modifiers. For example, “uncover” is usually accompanied by a word such as
“nakedness” as in “uncovering his nakedness.” A sexual relation indicated by the use of the word
“lie down” is usually accompanied by the preposition “with” as in “to lie with.” The fact that
these words do not necessarily indicate sexual relation, the fact that the text states that Ruth was
lying at Boaz’s feet, and the fact that Boaz says, “for all my people in the city know that you are a
woman of excellence,” indicates that this passage is not depicting an illicit sexual relation.
The notion that “spread your wing [¹n:K ;] over your maid” is some kind of euphemism for
a sexual invitation has been proven to be false also. The reason Ruth uses this terminology goes
back to a passage earlier in the text, Ruth 2:12: “May the Lord reward your work, and your wages
be full from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings [¹n:K ;] you have come to seek
refuge.” The wing of the Lord God of Israel was Boaz who would redeem Naomi and marry Ruth
to become the progenitor of David, king of Israel.
Once again one would think that a person who chairs the religious department of a major
university and who has earned an advanced degree in Biblical Studies would be aware of these
facts. Since it seems very unlikely that Tabor does not know these things, there must be some
other reason for presenting this outdated and disproved claim as if it were a proven fact—let the
reader understand.

The Women in Christ’s Genealogy

Following upon his claims about Ruth, on page 61 Tabor asserts, “All four women that
Matthew mentions in his genealogy had sex out of wedlock and at least two of them became
pregnant.”39 We have already shown that this is simply false with reference to Ruth, but it is also

38
Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1992), 153.
39
Tabor, 61.
 20

misleading in the case of the other women. The first woman referenced in the genealogical record
is Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah. Tamar dresses herself up as a prostitute, has a sexual
relation with Judah, and becomes pregnant. However, when the truth is revealed to Judah, he
declares, “She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah”
(Gen. 38:26). How could this be said of Tamar after what she had done? Because the Messianic
line was in jeopardy, Tamar’s actions, to risk her life and her reputation to rescue the line of
Judah from oblivion, was heroic. As Bruce Waltke points out, “her actions are not inconsistent
with the principle” of levirate marriage.40 Robert Alter makes a similar point: “She is more in the
right that I. The verb used, tsadaq, is a legal term: it is she who has presented the convincing
evidence. But in the next clause Judah also concedes that he has behaved unjustly toward Tamar,
so that in a sense her taking the law into her own hands, however unconventional the act, is
vindicated by his words.”41 The point is, in this culture at this time, Tamar’s actions would not
have been seen as immoral but in line with the law of levirate marriage. Tabor’s comment,
however, implies immorality on the part of Tamar.
The Second woman to be mentioned in the genealogy of Matthew is Rahab. There is no
question that Rahab was a prostitute while living in Jericho. The text of Josh. 2:1 makes this
clear: “So they went and came into the house of a harlot [hn:zO] whose name was Rahab, and
lodged there.” However, there is no indication that she continued this practice after becoming
part of the people of God. In fact, the reverse is indicated by the genealogical reference to her as
the mother of Boaz and the wife of Salmon (Matt. 1:7). Once again Tabor’s comment is
unjustified and misleading.
The reference to the wife of Uriah is mentioned after the reference to Ruth. Tabor asserts,
“Uriah’s wife—her name is not even given here for the disgrace of it all—was the infamous
Bathsheba.”42 The problem with Tabor’s characterization is that the sin was on David’s part, not
Bathsheba’s. To assert that, “All four women that Matthew mentions in his genealogy has sex out
of wedlock . . .” and yet ignore the circumstances surrounding these instances is misleading at
best, especially since this is entirely false with reference to Ruth.
Tabor’s argument that the references to these women somehow implicitly addresses
Mary’s situation has no basis once the facts are known. The implication of the reference to these
women has another explanation with reference to Mary. In each instance, the woman mentioned
was the most unlikely candidate for God’s use. So also Mary is an unlikely candidate, not
because of any moral impropriety, but because her social status does not seem to qualify her to be
the mother of the King of Israel. But, that is the way God works, as Paul points out: “but God has
chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of
the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised

40
Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 2001), 512.
41
Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation and Commentary (New York: W.
W. Norton & Company, 2004), 218, n26.
42
Tabor, 50.
 21

God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man
may boast before God” (1 Cor. 1:27-29). It certainly seems to have worked in Tabor’s case.

The Carpenter’s Son

Tabor tries to use various texts to support his claim that “the charge of illegitimacy was
circulating behind the scenes.”43 Once again his arguments do not stand up to examination. First
of all, Tabor incorrectly assumes that Matthew used Mark’s Gospel as a source. Modern
scholarship is beginning to abandon this hypothesis, as we have seen. Secondly, he attempts to
prove that Matthew subtly altered Mark’s statement to add the reference to Jesus being “the
carpenter’s son.” Mark’s statement is, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary.” Matthew’s
statement is, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother’s name Mary?” Tabor argues,
“Mark never refers to Joseph at all, by name or otherwise. He avoids the paternity issue
altogether. There has to be some good reason for this silence.”44 And of course there is—the
virgin birth! Having convinced himself of his speculations, Tabor asserts, “Here we have
evidence of a progressive move to mute or play down the scandal that had been familiar in the
hometown village of Nazareth decades earlier.”45 But of course there is no evidence of this at all.
The difference between Matthew’s statement and Mark’s statement can be explained by the
differences in theme. Matthew seeks to present Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, so he includes the
reference to both Jesus’ legal father and his natural mother in order to emphasize the Davidic
line. Mark, on the other hand, presents Jesus as the servant of the Lord, and the reason Mark
avoids the paternity issue is because paternity is irrelevant with reference to a servant—a
servant’s pedigree is not an issue. The lack of a reference to Jesus’ legal father would be
perfectly in accord with the status of a servant. Also, the statements to which Tabor refers are not
the claims of the authors, but the claims of the unbelieving residents of Nazareth. Their
references to Jesus’ parent(s) is not an implication of any sexual scandal. Rather it is a rejection
of Jesus’ claims to having been sent from God. The people are attempting to justify their
unbelief, much like Tabor himself is doing, by implying that Jesus is merely human. It has
nothing to do with a sexual scandal. The only way an interpreter could possibly conclude this
from the texts is by presupposing that this is the case, and by reading it back into the text, as
Tabor does.

I Know You Are, But What Am I?

Tabor next appeals to a statement in the Gospel of John to support his claim that Jesus
was the product of an illicit sexual relation between Mary and some unknown man: “We were
not born of fornication” (Jn. 8:41). Tabor takes this to indicate that the Jewish leaders were

43
Ibid., 61.
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid., 61-62.
 22

implying that Jesus had been born of fornication. He says, “One of their responses to Jesus was
the startling assertion—‘We were not born of fornication,’ as if to imply, as you were (John
8:41).”46 This may certainly be what these Jewish leaders were implying, but Tabor’s argument
backfires. If this argument had any weight at this time, why did not Jesus, or John through Jesus,
attempt to respond to the charge? The reason is that the statement of the Jews can be explained in
a wholly different way, as Craig Keener explains:

The claim not to be born from sexual immorality (8:41) is thus a claim that they are born
from the source they have always claimed, rather than being the product of a secret
adulterous union. Some scholars think that they are throwing in Jesus’ face charges of his
own illegitimacy, in view of later traditions in which Jesus was illegitimate. This
suggestion is possible; one born illegitimately (or whose paternity at least could be
challenged) could be ridiculed for this. But for several reasons the validity of this
suggestion remains at best unclear: first, it is not clear that such charges were sufficiently
widespread by the end of the first century to be assumed by John’s audience or that of his
tradition (though this is possible). Second, because Jesus’ interlocutors in the story world
here, like most of his interlocutors in the Gospel, interpret him too literally, they may take
his charge as implying that they do in fact stem from an adulterous union. Alternatively,
they could understand “fornication” in its spiritual sense referring to idolatry (although this
too is unclear). Most importantly against the view that they are charging Jesus with
illegitimacy, in this context his dialogue partners remain on the defensive; they do not
begin to accuse him until 8:48.47

As Keener points out, the notion that the Jewish leaders are charging Jesus with having
been born in immorality is not only not a necessary understanding of the passage, but not even a
likely one. The entire confrontation has to do with the claim that these Jewish leaders were the
spiritual children of Abraham. It is highly unlikely that the argument was on the physical level,
because Jesus did not deny their physical descent from Abraham. Fornication and adultery were
frequently used as metaphors for spiritual separation from God, and this is precisely the point that
Jesus is making. The response of the Jewish leaders is not a counter-charge, as if these Jewish
leaders were making some childish comeback, “We’re not, but you are!” Did they also stick out
their tongues? As Keener points out, these leaders are on the defensive. They do not attempt to
take the offense until verse 48. Here they are denying the charge that they are the product of
spiritual adultery and therefore not the legitimate descendants of Abraham.

46
Ibid., 62.
47
Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, Massachusetts:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 759-60.
 23

Taking the Hint

Tabor attempts to employ another statement from John’s Gospel in support of his
argument. He says, “In a passage roughly equivalent to Mark’s we read: Is not this Jesus, the son
of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? (John 6:42) Once again, there appears to be
the slightest hint of something irregular.”48 Indeed, this hint is so slight, it doesn’t even exist.
Tabor goes on to pose the question, “Why name Joseph—then redundantly add, ‘Do we not
know his father and mother’?”49 One begins to wonder whether Tabor has actually read John’s
Gospel or simply used a concordance to find words that might indicate passages he could use in
his argument—he should have used that concordance earlier.
The reason these people make this statement is because, in light of the popular belief that
“whenever the Christ may come, no one knows where He is from” (Jn. 7:27), and the fact that
they knew his parents, or at least they thought they did, they were astonished that Jesus could
reasonably claim to be the Messiah. The reason for the redundancy is to stress the fact that they
“knew” that Jesus had a human father, and they even “knew” this man’s name. Of course the
irony was that they thought they knew where Jesus was from, and they thought they knew who
His parents were. But in fact, they did not know either where He was from, nor did they know
that God was His own father. They thought Jesus was from Nazareth. However, not only was He
not from Nazareth, since He was physically born in Bethlehem, but He was actually from heaven.
So, they thought they knew where He is from, but they actually did not. In fact, Tabor is doing
precisely the same thing. Tabor thinks he knows where Jesus is from when actually he does not.
Contrary to Tabor’s claim, coupled with the other errors with reference to the other texts, Tabor’s
fabricated argument falls flat. The only illegitimacy is the illegitimacy of Tabor’s claims, and no
one needs to make any subtle hints to see it.

The Gospel of Thomas

On page 63 Tabor asserts, “The Gospel of Thomas was discovered in upper Egypt at a
place called Nag Hammadi by an Arab farmer who was digging in the area for fertilizer. It had
been sealed in a clay jar and buried in a field, along with a dozen other lost Christian texts.”50
The problem here is that these were not “Christian texts” as Tabor asserts. They were in
fact Gnostic texts. Gnostics were not Christians in the sense that Tabor has been using this term
throughout his book. This kind of comment seems to be calculated to mislead his audience into

48
Tabor, 62.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid., 63. It is difficult to pass over the first sentence in this quote without making any
comment about its construction. The way Tabor has worded his sentence, he has a misplaced
modifier. According to its structure, the sentence actually says that the place in Egypt was called
Nag Hammadi by the Arab farmer digging for fertilizer. I don’t think that is what Tabor meant,
although it is not any more bizarre than most of his claims thus far.
 24

ascribing more importance to these Gnostic texts than is warranted. The passage in question
reads: t·na·souw n·p ·eiw t mn·t·maau se·na·moute ep o·‡ xe p ·w hre
@m ·pornh , literally, “Who will know the father and the mother, they will refer to him as the son
of (the) harlot.”51 The text does not actually say, “his father” or “his mother,” although this seems
to be implied. But this is not necessarily a claim about illegitimate birth. Rather, it has been
understood by scholars to be encouraging the disciple to despise his human parentage and to
realize that he is born of God. To live as those who do not know they are born of God is to live as
the child of a harlot, since God is the disciple’s true parent.
Tabor goes on to claim, “The implication is that the charge was unjust and that Jesus
knew the circumstances of his birth as well as the identity of his unnamed and absent father.”52
Even if one takes this view of the saying, it simply does not say anything about an illegitimate
conception. Jesus in fact did know the circumstances of His birth. He was conceived by the Holy
Spirit. The reason the supposed human father is unnamed is because there wasn’t one.
Additionally, the illegitimacy of the Gospel of Thomas as a reliable source of Jesus’
teaching is illustrated by Saying 114:

Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.”
Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may
become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male
will enter the kingdom of heaven.”53

This saying reflects the character of this Gnostic gospel. It is contrary to the teaching
found in the canonical Gospels, and it is contrary to the character of Jesus. What is particularly
amazing is that individuals like Tabor will reject the clear statements of Scripture and yet accept
obscure statements such as this one from the Gospel of Thomas as historical fact. Once again this
shows that the basis of Tabor’s arguments is not the historical facts or the texts themselves, but
his own anti-Christian and antisupernatural bias.

The Mystery of Pantera Exposed!

In the section beginning on page 64, Tabor attempts to connect a Roman soldier, whose
remains have been recently excavated, with a supposed Semitic or Jewish background. On page
69 Tabor discusses the name “Abdes Panthera.” He asserts, “The name Abdes is Pantera’s given
name or praenomen. It is most interesting. It is a Latinized version of an Aramaic name ’ebed
meaning ‘servant of God’ indicating that Pantera was of Semitic or even Jewish background,

51
James M. Robinson, ed. The Gospel of Thomas, in The Nag Hammadi Library (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1988), 137.
52
Tabor, 63
53
Robinson, Nag Hammadi, 138.
 25

whether native born, a convert, or from a family sympathetic to Judaism.”54 Tabor neglects to
provide any linguistic or lexicographical support for this claim. Neither the Oxford Latin
Dictionary nor the Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary have an entry for the word “abdes.” The
Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott has a single entry that comes close phonetically,
“a[bdh",” concerning which they say, “said by Hsch. [Hesychius] to bean scourge in Hippon.
98.”55
Nevertheless, Tabor’s claim does not stand up to investigation. The Aramaic word to
which Tabor refers, ‘’ebed,’ is dbe[ }, which in fact does not mean “servant of God,” as Tabor
claims. Rather, it simply means “servant” or “slave.”56 The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon by
Koehler-Baumgartner (KBH) references Dan. 3:26-28, Dan. 6:21, and Ezra 5:11 as instances in
which this word is used in the construction “servant of God.” But in each one of these instances
the word ‘God’ must be added in order to get this meaning. This expression occurs once in Ezra
5:11, once in Dan. 3:26, once in Dan. 3:28, and once in Dan. 6:21. The following chart gives the
Aramaic words with a literal English translation immediately below.

Table #1: “Servant of God”

Read
right to left

Ezra 5:11
aY:m'v] Hl;aÔAydi 57
yhi/db]['
heavens God of His servants

Dan. 3:26
ay:L[; i ah;l;aÔAyDi yhi/db]['
highest God His servants

Dan. 3:28
yhi/db]['l]
to His servants

Dan. 6:21
aY:j' ah;l';aÔ dbe[}
living God servant of

54
Tabor, 69.
55
A Greek-English Lexicon, (1968), s.v. “a[bdh".”
56
The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, (2001), s.v. “dbe[ }.”

The Aramaic word yDi (dî) is a particle that has a number of uses in the syntax of
57

Aramaic. In this Ezra 5:11 and Dan. 3:26 it functions proleptically, “His servants (that is to say)
God of heavens,” and “His servants (that is to say) God Most High.”
 26

As can be seen in each of these examples, in order to get the meaning “servant of God,”
the word ‘God’ must be added. Even in Dan. 3:28 where the word ‘servant’ occurs alone,
pronominal suffixes must be added to the simple noun in order to get the meaning “His servant,”
and apart from the context one would not know to whom this person was a servant. It is simply
false that the Aramaic word means “servant of God,” and it also seems unlikely that the Latin
words have any connection to the Aramaic—at least there is no evidence of this. At best Tabor
has misrepresented the situation. It is astounding that after his whole presentation concerning the
possibility of some individual named Pantera being the human father of Jesus, that Tabor says,
“My point is that we simply do not know . . .” and yet he is willing to reject the straightforward
history presented in the New Testament Gospel records, which Tabor himself asserts are the
“most reliable sources for reconstructing what we can know about Jesus . . .”58 Once the
supposed linguistic connection with Aramaic has been exposed as suspect, all of Tabor’s
speculations about this person being the “unknown human father” of Jesus begin to unravel. Of
course, even if a linguistic connection could be made between the Latin “Abdes” and the
Aramaic dbe[ }, this would not prove any relation between this person and Jesus.
The Oxford Latin Dictionary states that the word ‘panthera’ has several possible
meanings.

panthçra1, ae, f. [Gk. pavnqhr] The leopard, Felis pardus, or other large spotted cat.
panthçra2 , ~ae, f. [cf. Gk. pavnqhro"] The whole of a single catch (made by a fowler).59

The OLD gives no entry for the word ‘pantera,’ nor does the Latin Dictionary by Lewis
and Short, which gives basically the same information as the OLD for ‘panthera.’60 The Greek-
English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott gives the following information on the Greek words
referenced in the Latin dictionaries.

panqhvr, hro", oJ, term applied to various spotted Felidae . . .61

panqhvra, hJ, a birdcatcher’s whole (future) catch . . .62

The first meaning of the word “panthera” is “leopard,” or what many people identify as a
panther. Given that the word “abdes” may be connected to the Greek word meaning “scourge,”
this lexicographical information indicates that it is much more likely that the name Abdes

58
Tabor, 43.
59
The Oxford Latin Dictionary (2005), s.v. “panthçra.”
60
A Latin Dictionary (1966), s.v. “panthçr.”
61
A Greek-English Lexicon (1982), s.v. “panqhvr.”
62
A Greek-English Lexicon (1982), s.v. “panqhvra.”
 27

Panthera means “scourge of the panther.” This would be a the very kind of name a menacing
Roman soldier would take for himself.
 CHAPTER THREE

HEARING THE VOICE

In chapter 8 Tabor deals with the beginning of Jesus’ mission and the place of John the
Baptist, to whom Tabor refers as “John the Baptizer.” On page 121 Tabor claims, “At some point
before age thirty Jesus began to formulate his plan.”63 However, on several occasions Jesus made
it clear that the work which He did was given to Him by His Father in Heaven: e.g., “But the
testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has
given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent
Me” (Jn. 5:36); “Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to
accomplish His work’” (Jn. 4:34). Jesus even emphasized the fact that His work was not a result
of His own initiative: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The
words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does
His works” (Jn. 14:10). To depict Jesus as someone who independently planned to do the work
He did is contrary to the picture that the Gospel accounts give us—these same Gospel accounts
of which Tabor says, they are the “most reliable sources for reconstructing what we can know
about Jesus . . .”64

Syriac Reading of Matthew

Tabor repeatedly appeals to his assumption that Matthew used Mark’s Gospel as a source.
In his discussion of John the Baptizer, pages 125ff, Tabor makes reference to the statement found
in Mk. 1:11: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.” Tabor claims that Matthew
“turned this ‘voice’ into a public announcement from heaven — ‘This is my beloved son in
whom I am well pleased,’” but that Mark preserves “an earlier, likely more authentic
tradition . . .”65 To support his claim that Mark preserves the more authentic tradition which
Matthew changed, Tabor declares, “It is significant that the Old Syriac version of Matthew still

63
Ibid.,121.
64
Ibid., 43.
65
Ibid., 129.

28
 29

preserves the original reading: ‘You are my son my beloved in whom I have been pleased,’
further attesting to Mark’s authenticity.”66
The textual variant in Matt. 3:17 to which Tabor makes reference is noted in the Nestle-
Aland 27th edition of the Greek New Testament. The apparatus reads as follows: “£pro~ auton
D a b g1 h sys.c ? | °p) su ei D a sys.c; Ir.” The £ symbol indicates that one or more words have
been inserted into the text. The words “pro~ auton,” meaning “to him,” have been inserted into
the Greek text so that the end of the line reads, “. . . saying to him . . .” The ° symbol indicates
that the words in the text have been replaced with the words in the apparatus. So, the text that
reads, “outo~ estin” (“this one is”) have been replaced with the words “su ei” (“you are”), so
the text reads, “you are my son . . .” So, with the inserted words and the replaced words, the text
of Matt. 3:17 would read, “. . . saying to him, ‘You are my beloved son in whom I have been
pleased.’” In support of this reading, the apparatus cites the Syriac versions, indicated by the
symbols “sys.c,” were the superscript “s” indicates the Syrus Sinaiticus or the Old Syriac version.
This is the version to which Tabor makes reference. Because this Syriac version attests to this
alternate reading of this passage, Tabor alleges that this supports his claim that this is the original
reading.
But there are some serious problems with Tabor’s claim. First of all, William Petersen
has demonstrated that, “The dissemination of the Diatessaron in the East begins with a Syriac
Diatessaron, the first Gospel in Syriac. Its readings influenced all later Syriac texts: Syrs.c.p.h.j,
Aphrahat, and so on.”67 Peterson clearly includes the Old Syriac, “Syrs.,” as one of the texts that
has been influenced by the Diatessaron. Earlier Peterson pointed out that, “the Diatessaron
contains readings that are now ‘nonstandard’ (e.g., the ‘light’ at Jesus’ baptism) and that are
attributed to an extracanonical, Judaic-Christian Gospel by ancient ecclesiastical writers (e.g.,
Epiphanius). This suggests that, until the contrary is proved, Tatian [the author of the
Diatessaron] employed one or more extracanonical sources.”68 In other words, it is a highly
questionable claim that the Old Syriac attests to an “original” reading of Matthew. The evidence
in fact indicates that the Old Syriac contains reading that were taken from extracanonical and
nonstandard sources.
Secondly, the paltry support for the alternate reading of the Matthew passage prevented it
from even being included in the apparatus of the UBS4 Greek New Testament. According to the
Nestle-Aland apparatus and Reuben Swanson’s text,69 the alternate reading is supported only by

66
Ibid.
67
William L. Petersen, “The Diatessaron of Tatian,” in The Text of the New Testament in
Contemporary Research, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 91. The Diatessaron was a harmony of the four
Gospels, probably produced by Tatian in the late second century.
68
Ibid.
69
Reuben Swanson, ed. New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Matthew (Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 25.
 30

one Greek manuscript—D Codex Bezae. The lack of support for this reading testifies to the fact
that the Matt. 3:17 reading of the text, “This is my beloved son in whom I have been pleased,” is
the original reading. Couple this with the fact that the hypothesis that Matthew used Mark as a
source is sheer speculation that has come under sever criticism in the academic community, it
seems that Tabor’s claim cannot stand up under scrutiny. Selective reporting and half-truths
make good sounding arguments, but they do make the author seem disingenuous in his
presentation.

None Greater Than John

Tabor speculates about the kinds of lives John and Jesus may have lived growing up in
their respective homes. At one point in the discussion, Tabor asserts, “By the time the gospels of
Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were written (A.D. 70–100) there was an overt attempt by the
Christians to downplay and marginalize John the Baptizer while extravagantly exalting the
singular role of Jesus. . . . The great embarrassment that Christians faced was that it was well
known that John had baptized Jesus— not the other way around! Jesus had come to John and
joined his movement—which in the context of ancient Judaism meant that Jesus was a disciple of
John and John was the rabbi or teacher of Jesus. For later Christians, who had exalted Jesus, this
idea was inconceivable.”70
What immediately comes to mind when reading these claims is that only a few lines
earlier Tabor has Jesus and John collaborating together to plan the “movement.” One is
compelled to ask, “Which is it? Did they conspire together, or was it John’s movement?” Also,
anyone familiar with the Gospel accounts will think of the many passages in which John
recognizes the superiority of Jesus and Jesus’ exalted position. These passages present a problem
for Tabor’s claim, so what does he do? Since they don’t fit his theory, he rips them out of the
Bible by appealing to the nonexistent Q.
Tabor explains that Q is the designation “from the German word Quelle, or ‘source.’”71
This designation is given to a postulated sayings source that was supposedly used by both
Matthew and Luke to supplement the material they took from Mark. Tabor admits that Q is a
document “that we no longer have.”72 But, as Eldon Ladd and others have repeatedly pointed out,
“We have no proof that there ever was such an alleged document as Q. The facts here are not the
same as with Mark. We have the Gospel of Mark which we can compare with Matthew and
Luke, but we do not have the alleged document Q.”73 But Tabor claims that it is possible to
“reconstruct this lost source” by extracting from Matthew and Luke the material they have in

70
Tabor, 135 (emphasis in original).
71
Ibid., 136.
72
Ibid.
73
George Eldon Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), 127.
 31

common but is not found in Mark. But, by the same token, one would expect that by extracting
the material that is common to Matthew and Luke, and eliminating the material that supposedly
came from Q, one should be able to construct Mark. But, this is not possible as Ladd points out:
“And if we suppose that Q was a real document similar to the form in which many critics have
reconstructed it, it would admittedly be impossible to reconstruct Mark by subtracting Q from
Matthew and Luke.”74 In other words, even after all of his manipulating, the Gospel accounts
themselves simply do not support the Q hypothesis.
Tabor uses one example of how an appeal to Q allows him to dismiss all those passages
that do not agree with his presuppositions.

As one might expect, the Q source has a lot of material about John the Baptizer. Jesus asks
the crowds concerning John, “What did you go out into the wilderness to see?” He
rhetorically answers: “A prophet? Yes I tell you more than a prophet” (Luke 7:26). He then
makes the startling statement: “I tell you among those born of women none is greater than
John” (Luke 7:28). Since Jesus is clearly one “born of a woman,” it is clear in the Q source
that Jesus is declaring John to be greater than he. This statement was such a problem for
later Christians that the qualifying phrase was added: “Yet the least in the kingdom is
greater than he,” referring to John—but this addition is clearly an interpolation.75

On what basis does Tabor claim that the qualifying phrase is “clearly an interpolation”? It
certainly is not the textual evidence. Neither the UBS4,76 Nestle-Aland 27, nor Reuben
Swanson77 list any NT manuscripts that do not have this “qualifying phrase.” Swanson identifies
some minor variants within the phrase in a few documents, but all the NT manuscripts listed in
these sources have this qualifying phrase. On the supposition that there was a Q, and on the
presupposition that Jesus was not greater than John, Tabor arbitrarily eliminates anything that
does not support his view, and it does not matter whether there is any evidence or not.
Tabor then claims that his hypothesis is “confirmed by the publication of a Hebrew
version of Matthew that offers a version of this Q saying that is untouched by the Greek copyists
and editors.”78 However, I have a Hebrew New Testament that includes this qualifying phrase:
.WNM,m i aWh l/dG: ýyhil ¿a Ôh ; tWkl]m 'B ] ÷foQ ;h ' Ja' “Only the smallest in the kingdom of the God

74
Ibid.
75
Tabor, 136.
76
Kurt Aland, et. al., ed. The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible
Societies, 1993), 225-26.
77
Reuben Swanson, ed., New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Luke (Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 126-27.
78
Tabor, 136.
 32

greater he than him.”79 Simply because a Hebrew Bible is published with or without this phrase
does not support either position. It is simply poor scholarship to appeal to some contemporary
Hebrew translation of the NT as support for a particular reading in the ancient documents.

Jesus and John Planning Together

Tabor begins the section “None Greater Than John” by floating the hypothesis that “it is
entirely possible that Jesus had visited John in Judea, or John had visited Jesus growing up in
Galilee. Jesus and John were no strangers.”80 Having convinced himself of this likelihood, Tabor
declares, “Indeed, there is some evidence that they began to formulate a plan together—a
dramatic and bold strategy that they believed would bring the downfall of Roman rule in
Palestine and lead to the worldwide inauguration of the Kingdom of God.”81 But this isn’t history
—it’s fantasy.
This claim is particularly problematic in light of John’s own statements. In Jn. 1:31 John
declares, “I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing
in water,” and in Jn. 1:33 again John says, “I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize
in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this
is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’” Several translations use the English word
‘recognize’ rather than ‘know.’ The Greek word in both instances is oi\da (oida), which can be
used to mean either “know” or “recognize.” For John to say he did not recognize Jesus
contradicts Tabor’s fantasy story about John and Jesus conspiring together. Did John’s memory
fail him? Of course Tabor can always simply throw these passages away, but to do that would be
poor scholarship and even worse history.
A few commentators think that John is saying that he did not know Jesus at all. The
explanation by J. H. Bernard in his commentary on John is typical of the way commentators
understand John’s claim: “John the Baptist repeats, as an essential part of his witness, that he did
not recognize Jesus for what He was until the dove lit upon Him; and he recognised Him then
only because he had been divinely warned that there would be a sign.”82 However, Raymond
Brown argues, “The statement that until the baptism John the Baptist did not recognize Jesus as
the one to come implies that John the Baptist was not familiar with Jesus, although some would
claim that he knew Jesus, but not as the pre-existent one (Bernard, I, p. 48). It is not clear if this
can be reconciled with the relationship between the two posited in the Lucan infancy narrative.
However, Luke i 80 does suggest that John the Baptist grew up as a solitary in the desert of

79
Hebrew Bible, New York: American Bible Society, 1991.
80
Tabor, 134.
81
Ibid.
82
J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St.
John (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1976), 50.
 33

Judea, apart from any family contacts.”83 In fact, Tabor makes the same claim about John’s
solitude: “John was no stranger to a life of solitude. . . . Luke offers a one sentence summary of
John’s first thirty years: ‘The child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the desert
place until the day he appeared publicly to Israel’ (Luke 1:80).”84
One is compelled to ask, “Was John the Baptizer in solitude for the first thirty years, or
did he visit Jesus and make plans?” If John and Jesus conspired together, how does one explain
John’s question in Matt. 11:2-3: “Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of
Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to Him, ‘Are You the Expected One, or shall we
look for someone else?’” This hardly sounds like a question from the man who, together with
Jesus, planned the overthrow of the Romans. However, it really does not matter which way one
takes the meaning. Both cause trouble for Tabor’s claim. Earlier Tabor asserted, “At some point
before age thirty Jesus began to formulate his plan. There were doubtless stages along the way.
But in the fall of the year A.D. 26 Jesus was ready to go public, and the Jesus dynasty began to
emerge.”85 This statement, and the implication of Tabor’s discussion about the alleged
relationship of John and Jesus while they were growing up, indicates that if John and Jesus did
formulate a plan, it must have been before 26 A.D. But, if John did not know Jesus at all, this
makes it very unlikely that they conspired to overthrow the Romans. If, however, John did know
Jesus on a personal level, but did not know that Jesus was the Messiah until His baptism, this
also makes it extremely unlikely that they formulated a plan some time before Jesus’ baptism.
Formulating a plan implies that John knew what Jesus believed about himself and what he
believed he was going to do. Either way Tabor’s speculations are contradictory and inconsistent
with the facts.

John Teaching Jesus to Pray

On page 137, Tabor asserts, “In the Q source Jesus’ followers once asked him to ‘teach us
to pray as John taught his disciples’ and Jesus repeats to them the prayer that he had learned from
his teacher John:”86 But, the text does not say that the disciples asked Jesus to teach them what
John taught his disciples. Rather, the text says, “just as [kaqw;"]John taught his disciples, we
want you to teach us.” The word translated “just as” (kaqw;") is used here to indicate the fact that
John taught, not the content of John’s teaching. Besides the fact that there is no textual support
for Tabor’s claim, the text of Matthew indicates that this prayer was part of the larger teaching of
Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Since the parallel passage in Matthew presents a problem for
Tabor’s claim, what does he do? He eliminates it from the text: “Christians of course know by

83
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii) (Garden City, New York:
Doubleday & Company, 1982), 65.
84
Tabor, 129.
85
Ibid., 121.
86
Ibid., 137 (emphases in original).
 34

heart ‘The Lord’s Prayer,” in an expanded version that Matthew gives. But this one from Luke’s
Q source is the shorter, more original version that likely came to Jesus from his teacher John.”87
Of courses it is a breeze to support your claims when you can simply pick and choose the
material that you want. Since there was no Q document, there never has been a Q document, and
since there is no evidence upon which to base any claim about what was and was not in Q, then
there is no basis for Tabor confidently to assert what was and was not included in this make-
believe document.
But, on the basis of Tabor’s methodology, one must hold that, since this prayer does not
appear in Mark, both Matthew’s version and Luke’s version must have come from Q. To claim
that Luke had access to Matthew’s Gospel does not help Tabor’s claim, since that would assume
that Luke copied from Matthew and actually shortened the prayer. Indeed, as Mark Matson points
out, “A major foundation upon which the argument for a source ‘Q’ is built is the perceived
independence of Luke and Matthew. If Luke and Matthew did not know each other, then there
must be a source common to both of them to explain the remarkable similarities between the two
Gospels. If, however, the Third Gospel used Matthew as one of its sources, the whole structure of
the Two-Source Hypothesis becomes unstable, since one of its major foundations is removed.
Without the independence of Luke and Matthew, a hypothetical source is rendered functionally
unnecessary.”88 The same problem faces Tabor if he posits that Matthew took Luke’s text and
expanded it. If one of these two know the writing of the other, the Q hypothesis becomes
superfluous. But, if these two authors did not know the other’s work, but got their material from
Q, then we don’t which one was original. To assume that the shorter is necessarily more ancient
is an assumption that is not consistently upheld and a hypothesis that cannot be proven.
Additionally, Matson points out that modern scholarship generally perceives Matthew’s
Sermon on the Mount material as literarily superior to Luke’s. But, Matson makes a convincing
argument that Luke actually reordered Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount material: “The existence
of the hypothetical Q is predicated on the independence of Matthew and Luke – the idea that
Luke simply could not have creatively reworked Matthew to produce the Third Gospel requires a
‘Q.’ But a simpler explanation exists: that Luke used both Matthew and Mark under the control
of a literary and compositional strategy to produce a pleasing and compelling narrative.”89 So, on
the basis of his own assumptions, and contemporary scholarship, Tabor’s claim is demonstrated
to be false.

The Problem of Unique Material

But Tabor has an even more serious problem in his appeal to Q to resolve these questions.
Later in his volume Tabor attempts to establish a conformity between the Epistle of James and a

87
Ibid.
88
Mark A. Matson, “Luke’s Rewriting of the Sermon on the Mount,” in Questioning Q,
43.
89
Ibid., 70.
 35

reconstructed Q. He claims, “What is most amazing about the letter of James is that the ethical
content of its teaching is directly parallel to the teachings of Jesus that we know from the Q
source.”90 Then, in an effort to illustrate this parallelism, Tabor presents several verses from Luke
and Matthew that he posits find their source in Q along side quotations from the actually existing
letter of James. But there is a serious problem for Tabor’s comparison.
According to Tabor, the hypothetical Q source can be reconstructed: “By comparing
Matthew and Luke and extracting the material that they use in common but do not derive from
Mark, we are able to come to a reasonable construction of this lost ‘gospel of Q.’”91 According to
Tabor, the Q source “consists of about 235 verses that are mostly but not entirely the ‘sayings’ of
Jesus.”92 However, in the 6 samples of parallelism between the hypothetical Q source and the
actual letter of James, 3 of the verses occur in Matthew but not in Luke or Mark, and 1 occurs in
Luke but not in Matthew or Mark.

Matt. 5:19 Not in Luke or Mark

Matt. 5:34, 37 Not in Luke or Mark
Matt. 7:21 Not in Luke or Mark
Lk. 6:24 Not in Matthew or Mark

So, in the very examples that Tabor uses to establish some parallelism between James and
Q, 4 out of the 6 cannot be contained in Q by Tabor’s own qualification. Or, if Tabor wants to
say that they are in Q, just not used by the other author, then the Q source has suddenly gotten
much larger than the 235 verses attributed to it by Tabor. Why “much” larger? Because if Tabor
claims that these 4 verses were in Q even though they occur in only one Gospel, now we must
gather all the words and verses that are unique to Matthew and to Luke and add them all to Q.
But, as a result of adding all this unique material from Matthew and Luke to Q, then Q no longer
has the character of a shorter and therefore more authentic source. But, if Tabor wants to claim
that the unique material in Luke and Matthew are their own compositions, then on what objective
principles does one select what is composed by Matthew and what is copied from a source? Why
not simply conclude that the respective Gospels are the compositional creations of the individual
authors. Of course someone will say we know what material came from Q because Matthew and
Luke agree. But, even when they agree in general terms, they do not always agree in specific
wording. In Tabor’s own comparison, the passage he quotes, Matt. 7:11 differs from the parallel
passage in Luke (See Table #2).

90
Tabor, 274.
91
Ibid., 274-75.
92
Ibid., 275.
 36

Table #2: Comparison of Luke and Matthew

Lk. 11:13 Matt. 7:11
“If you then, being evil, know how to give “If you then, being evil, know how to give
good gifts to your children, how much more good gifts to your children, how much more
will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit will your Father who is in heaven give what is
to those who ask Him?” good to those who ask Him!”
eij ou\n uJmei'" ponhroi; uJpavrconte" oi[date eij ou\n uJmei'" ponhroi; o[nte" oi[date dovmata
dovmata ajgaqa; didovnai toi'" tevknoi" uJmw'n, ajgaqa; didovnai toi'" tevknoi" uJmw'n, povsw/
povsw/ ma'llon oJ path;r oJ ejx oujranou' dwvsei ma'llon oJ path;r uJmw'n oJ ejn toi'" oujranoi'"
pneu'ma a{gion toi'" aijtou'sin aujtovn. dwvsei ajgaqa; toi'" aijtou'sin aujtovn.
Words in Luke but not in Matthew Words in Matthew but not in Luke
uJpavrconte" “being” o[nte" “being”
uJmw'n “your heavenly
Father”
oJ ejx oujranou' “out of the heaven” oJ ejn toi'" oujranoi'" “in the heavens”
pneu'ma a{gion “Holy Spirit” ajgaqa; “what is good”

Although the different prepositions and whether “heaven” is singular or plural in Luke
and Matthew may be considered trivial differences, how does one explain the major difference
between Luke referring to the Holy Spirit and Matthew referring to “what is good”? This is a
major difference. So, even when Matthew and Luke seem to be parallel, there are often major
differences in wording that create a problem for simply claiming that they both copied from Q.
And, since Tabor elected to use the Matt. 7:11 passage, which is one word longer than the Lk.
11:13 passage, one can claim that Tabor has ignored his own principle that the shorter is more
likely the more authentic reading. But, Tabor must use Matthew instead of Luke because it
supports his prior theological and philosophical assumptions—which just goes to show that
Tabor’s research is guided by his prior commitment, not by any scholarly or historical objectivity
as he later claims.93
Either Tabor must posit other as yet unknown, non-existent sources from which Matthew
and Luke got their unique material–which now creates even more convoluted and subjective
speculations–or that one of them copied from the other–in which case Q is unnecessary–or that
the unique material was the compositional work of the respective authors–in which case there is
no objective criteria by which to assign material to Q even when they seem to be parallel. Which
ever direction Tabor takes, what he thinks he knows he cannot demonstrate to be true. And, since
the parallelism between James and Matthew is so prominent—4 out of the 6 parallels are
between Matthew and James—and since 3 of these are unique to Matthew, Tabor’s parallelisms

93
See Tabor, 316.
 37

do not support his thesis that the ethical teaching of James is at odds with the ethical teaching of
Paul. In fact, on Tabor’s own principles, one could claim that since the ethical teaching of James
corresponds to these unique passages in Matthew, unique passages which Tabor implies are
influenced by Paul, the ethical teaching of James is just as close to Paul as to the hypothetical Q
source. Tabor once again demonstrates both poor scholarship and worse history.94

94
For a more comprehensive and technical consider of the problem for Q of the unique
material in Matthew and Luke, see Nicholas Perrin, “The Limits of a Reconstructed Q,” in
Questioning Q, 79-82.
 CHAPTER FOUR

A CRUCIAL MISSING YEAR

In chapter 9, Tabor attempts to fill in what he calls the “crucial missing year.” This so-
called missing year is identified by Tabor as the time between Jesus’ baptism and the arrest of
John the Baptist, as this is presented in Mark. He asserts, “Mark leaves the impression that hardly
any time had passed—Jesus is baptized, he retreats to the desert for forty days, John is arrested,
and Jesus begins his public work. . . . What is missing here are scenes no Jesus movie ever
includes and no Christian sermons ever mention.”95 Tabor begin his quest by searching the
Gospel of John for clues.

Jesus Baptizing

In a discussion of the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist, Tabor claims,
“When Jesus first encountered John the Baptizer at the Jordan River, the Gospel of John informs
us, four individuals who end up being part of Jesus’ inner Council of Twelve—namely Simon
Peter, his brother Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael—were already disciples of John the Baptizer
(John 1:35-49).”96 At this point Tabor quotes the passage from Jn. 3:22-24. He goes on to state,
“Notice it is Jesus who is baptizing here;” At this point Tabor conveniently ignores John’s
clarification in 4:1-2: “Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was
making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but
His disciples were) . . .” Contrary to Tabor’s claim, Jesus was not baptizing. But, Tabor must
deal with John’s qualification, so later Tabor attempts to avoid the problem of the text by simply
cutting it out. He says, “A later editor of John even added a parenthetical qualification: ‘although
it was not Jesus himself who baptized but his disciples’ (John 4:2). That type of interpolation is
like a red flag telling us that someone is very uncomfortable here, even though the text plainly
says that Jesus was baptizing and making disciples!”97 But as Keener observes, “Of course, even
the comment that Jesus did not himself baptize probably preserves early tradition; the Synoptics
certainly provide no indication that he baptized. Further, it may have been common practice that

95
Tabor, 139.
96
Ibid., 141 (emphasis in original).
97
Ibid., 149.

38
 39

the leader of the party did not baptize.”98 Contrary to Tabor’s supposition, the earliest NT
manuscripts contain this parenthetical remark, indicating that it was in fact not an editorial
interpolation. As D. A. Carson points out, “In a parenthetical note typical of the Evangelist (cf.
3:24; 4:8, 9b), verse 2 points out that Jesus himself did not baptize, but this disciples did – or,
more pedantically, Jesus baptized only by using his disciples as the agents (cf. 3:22).”99 This
clarification by John’s own hand is in fact preparation for the emphasis on Jesus’ spiritual
baptism that will be a topic in the confrontation with the woman at the well. It seems that the
only one who is uncomfortable with this text is Tabor, who conveniently eliminates any passage
that does not agree with his theory—whether or not the evidence supports the cut-and-paste way
he deals with the text.

Does Zechariah 6:13 Indicate Two Messiahs?

On page 145 Tabor attempts to support his notion that both Jesus and John were
Messiahs by quoting from Zech. 6:13. Tabor claims, “Zechariah, the 6th-century B.C. Hebrew
prophet, foretold a man called ‘the Branch’ who would bear royal honor and sit on his throne, but
Zechariah adds, ‘There shall be a priest by his throne with peaceful understanding between the
two of them’ (Zechariah 6:13). Here is a clear picture of the Davidic King and his counselor, the
anointed Priest.”100 First of all, this so-called “clear picture” in Zechariah contradicts Tabor’s
scenario in which John is the teacher and leader, and Jesus is the disciple. Secondly, Tabor does
not even acknowledge that his translation is at best questionable. The text actually says, “Thus,
He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.”101
The symbolism of Zechariah’s instructions indicates that the King will also be the Priest, not that
there will be two persons. Why does it say, “And the counsel of peace will be between the two of
them”? Because the two offices or functions, King and Priest, will be united in the one person,
the Messiah. Consequently, there will be perfect accord between the two functions or offices. As
Merrill Unger explains, the exposition of the expression “the two of them,” is explainable in the
context: “Fortunately this is not too difficult a task since Messiah has just been said (1) to sit and
rule on this throne (a clear reference to the ‘kingship’) and (2) to be a priest [a transparent
reference to the ‘priesthood’] upon his throne (an obvious reference to the combination of the
two offices in one person). Therefore the declaration the counsel of peace shall be between
them means ‘the discussion and consultation’ eventuating in concord and agreement shall be the

98
Keener, The Gospel of John, 588-89.
99
Carson, The Gospel According to John, 215.
100
Tabor, 145.
101
.ýh,ynEv ] ÷yBe hy<h ]T i ý/lv; tx'[ }w" /as]K iAl[' ÷hek o hy:h ;wÒ
 40

result of the kingship and the priesthood being united in the one person . . .”102 Against his own
present hypothesis Tabor earlier (53ff) argued that the line of Mary had been commingled with
the tribe of Levi: “It is inconceivable that such a heavy prevalence of Levite or priestly names
would be part of Mary’s genealogy unless there was a significant influence from the tribe of Levi
merging into this particular royal line of the tribe of Judah.”103 If that is the case, Jesus’ own
ancestry qualifies Him to fulfill both roles. Tabor merely misunderstands and incorrectly
translates the passage.
Additionally, just because there was a prominent belief at this time that there would be
two messiahs does not mean that this was a correct understanding of the Hebrew prophecies. The
New Testament presents ample evidence that the Jews seemed to make a practice of
misunderstanding and misrepresenting their own Scriptures. In this way, they are perhaps a
precursor to Tabor’s own work. Tabor appeals to The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, “The
Testament of Simeon,” to support his contention that the Two Messiah’s view was the “model
for many Jewish groups.”104 But he neglects to point out that the “Testament of Reuben,” also
among the works of The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, declares that Levi will rule as king:
“Draw near to Levi in humility of your hearts in order that you may receive blessing from his
mouth. For he will bless Israel and Judah, since it is through him that the Lord has chosen to
reign in the presence of all the people. Prostrate yourselves before his posterity, because (his
offspring) will die in your behalf in wars visible and invisible. And he shall be among you an
eternal king.”105 The statements in these pseudepigraphical writings seems to support both a two
messiah and a single messiah perspective. Tabor seems to have fine-tuned the art of selective
reporting.
Even if this understanding does not convince someone, the point is that Tabor does not
even give a hint to his readers that there is an entirely different way of understanding this
material that is supported by the majority of interpreters. Once again, Tabor simply makes the
assertion as if it is established fact, apparently hoping that no one will bother to check out his
story.

102
Merrill F. Unger, Zechariah: Prophet of Messiah’s Glory (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1963), 114 (emphasis in original).
103
Tabor, 56.

0.Ibid., 145.
105
H. C. Kee, ed. “Testament of Reuben, the First born Son of Jacob and Leah,” in
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Sons of Jacob the Patriarch, trans. H. C. Kee, in
Apocalyptic Literature & Testaments, vol. 1, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H.
Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 6.10-14.
 41

The Testament of Levi

Tabor appeals to the Qumran fragment titled the “Testament of Levi” as further support
of his claim that Jesus was John’s subordinate. Tabor provides the following translation:

He will atone for the sons of his generation and he will be sent to all the sons of his people.
His word is like a word of heaven and his teaching is according to the will of God. His
eternal sun will shine, and his fire will blaze in all the corners of the earth. Then darkness
will disappear from the earth and deep darkness from the dry land.106

In light of this passage, Tabor claims, “This amazing text seems to match the high view in
which Jesus held his teacher John the Baptizer—at least according to the Q source. . . . It
certainly supports the historical probability that Jesus did view John as his teacher as well as the
priestly Messiah of Aaron of whom the prophets had spoken.”107 But, once again Tabor resorts to
selective reporting to shape the evidence to fit his assumptions. The problem with this passage is
that it is an extremely fragmented document from which the larger context is entirely missing.
There is no mention of the word “Messiah” in the text, and there is no evidence that the one
about whom the fragment is talking is in fact Levi. The reason this fragment has been given the
title “Testimony of Levi” is because of its similarity to the pseudepigraphal part of the Testimony
of the Twelve Patriarchs which itself is titled, “Testimony of Levi.” There are no exact parallels
in wording between the two documents, and whether these two are actually associated has yet to
be determined. But, having presented only part of the evidence, Tabor uses this distorted picture
to draw his conclusion: “For those reasons Jesus would have deferred to John’s leadership and
direction, a point completely lost in our gospels other than in the Q source.”108 There is simply no
textual or historical evidence that supports Tabor’s conclusions, so he has to invent some. Once
again this does not seem to be either good scholarship or acceptable history.

The Two Messiahs Theory

Concerning the two messiahs view, what Tabor is claiming is that Jesus and John
conspired to put themselves into the roles of the two Messiahs—John as the Priest Messiah and
Jesus as the King Messiah. This claim is particularly problematic since John the Apostle
specifically records that John the Baptist denied that he was either the or a Messiah: “And he
[John] confessed and did not deny, but confessed, ‘I am not the Christ’” (Jn. 1:20). John uses the
term “Christ” (Cristov"), which Tabor acknowledges is the Greek word for “Messiah.”109 When

106
Tabor, 147.
107
Ibid.
108
Ibid.
109
Ibid., 58 et. al.
 42

the priests and Levites asked John, “Who are you?” he did not say, “I’m the Priest Messiah!”
Rather he simply said, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of
the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said” (Jn. 1:23). Tabor might respond that John is not denying
that he is the Priest Messiah, but that he is the Christ. But this maneuver will not work. Tabor
maintains that the movement was John’s movement and that John is the leader taking
preeminence over Jesus. In this case, John should have said, “Yes! I am the Messiah.” Either
John is denying the superior position, which contradicts Tabor’s claim, or he is denying that he is
any kind of messiah, which also contradicts Tabor’s claim. Of course Tabor can deal with this
passage the way he does with all passages that do not fit his theory—he can simply cut it out of
the text.
But there is another more glaring inconsistency, besides all the other glaring
inconsistencies, that Tabor does not address. If the actual relationship between John the Baptist
and Jesus was as Tabor depicts it, that is, that they conspired to fill the roles of the two messiahs,
why did not the Qumran community recognize them as such? Apparently, the Qumran
community did not see Jesus and John the Baptist as filling these roles, since, according to
Tabor’s own testimony, the Qumran community continued looking for their two messiah’s long
after the deaths of John and Jesus. In fact, Tabor admits, “there is no record in any of the Dead
Sea Scrolls that the Two Messiahs ever appeared.”110 The reason they did not acknowledge Jesus
and John as the Two Messiahs is because in actual fact, they did not have the relationship that
Tabor desperately attempts to construct, and they did not conspire to fill these roles. Tabor refers
to the “excitement and fervor that John the Baptizer and Jesus would have stirred as they
prepared their next moves in the spring of A.D. 27.”111 Such excitement and fervor would hardly
have escaped the notice of the Qumran community at the time, and yet there is no record in the
Dead Sea Scrolls, or any scrolls for that matter, that the Essenes were excited and stirred up
about these two “messianic figures.” Tabor’s conspiracy theory just does not square with the
historical documents.

110
Ibid., 148.
111
Ibid.
 CHAPTER FIVE

USHERING IN THE KINGDOM

The Twelve Delegates

On page 162, Tabor makes the absurd claim that Jesus “moved to set up a provisional
‘government’ made up of an inner cabinet or Council of Twelve.”112Tabor goes on to claim,
“From among his followers he chose twelve men that he designated as ‘delegates,’ or envoys.
That is the meaning of the Greek word translated ‘apostle.’”113 According to Tabor, this group of
twelve delegates was organized into three groups:

1. Simon Peter, Andrew, James, and John

2. Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, and Thomas
3. James, Jude, Simon, and Judas Iscariot114

Tabor then focuses in on the first three names of the last group, James, Jude, and Simon.
Tabor declares, “James, Jude, and Simon are clearly the brothers of Jesus.”115 As evidence of
this, Tabor asserts, “In fact Jude is called ‘Judas of James’ in Luke 6:16, and expression probably
meaning ‘brother,’ and he calls himself ‘brother of James’ in his one-page letter at the end of the
New Testament, a document that came close to being excluded from the canon.”116 Unfortunately
for Tabor’s claim, the Judas of Lk. 6:16 is the Thaddaeus of Matt. 10:3 and Mk. 3:18, and
nowhere is Jesus’ brother referred to as Thaddaeus (see Table #3 below). Tabor’s claim that the
expression “Judas of James” probably means “brother” cannot be supported from the text.
Edmond Hiebert makes a helpful observation on this point: “Another member of the twelve is
identified as ‘Judas the son of James’ (Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, ASV), more literally, ‘Judas of
James.’ The parallel expression ‘James of Alphaeus’ in the lists strongly supports the view that

112
Ibid., 162.
113
Ibid., 163.
114
Ibid.
115
Ibid., 164.
116
Ibid.

43
 44

here also son of, rather than ‘brother of’ (KJV), is the intended reading.”117 Hiebert goes on to
make a convincing case that none of the brothers of Jesus were among His disciples.

The gospel references to the brothers of Jesus do not harmonize with the view that one or
more of them were among the twelve. Jesus’ brothers always are represented as a different
set of men than the apostles ( Matt. 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; John 2:12; 7:3; Acts
1:14). Their attempt with His mother to check the intensive ministry of Jesus (Matt. 12:46;
Mark 3:21, 31) does not agree with the view that they (or some of them) were among His
disciples. The people of Nazareth spoke of Jesus’ brothers as distinct from His disciples
(Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3) . About six months before the crucifixion, just before the Feast of
Tabernacles, “even his brethren did not believe on him” (John 7:5).118

Most scholars hold to the view that the author of the book of Jude was Jesus’ half-
brother. Since the possibility that any of Jesus’ brothers were also His disciples/delegates has
been demonstrated to be false, this excludes the apostle Jude as the possible author of this book.
Also, in Jude 17-18 we find the statement, “But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that
were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you,
‘In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.’” Jude obviously
does not include himself as one of the apostles. And, as Edward Pentecost points out, “though
modesty could have led him to write as he did . . . the important subject that he wrote about
would probably have called for his identifying himself with the other apostles, for authority’s
sake, if he really was an apostle.”119

Table #3: Comparison of the Lists of the Twelve

Matt. 10:2-3 Mk. 3:16-19 Tabor 164
Simon Peter Simon Peter Simon Peter
Andrew James Andrew
James John James
John Andrew John
Philip Philip Philip
Bartholomew Bartholomew Bartholomew

117
D. Edmond Hiebert, The Epistle of James: Tests of a Living Faith (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1979), 27.
118
Ibid., 29.
119
Edward C. Pentecost, “Jude,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament,
ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1983), 917.
 45

Matt. 10:2-3 Mk. 3:16-19 Tabor 164

Thomas Matthew Matthew
Matthew Thomas Thomas
James James James
Thaddaeus Thaddaeus Jude
Simon Simon Simon
Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot

One major difficulty for Tabor’s theory that Jesus’ half-brothers, Matthew, James,
Joseph, and Simon, were apostles is the statement in John’s Gospel to which Hiebert makes
reference in the above quote: “For not even His brothers were believing in Him” (Jn. 7:5). How
does Tabor deal with this statement? You guessed it! He cuts it out of the text: “It seems that the
one thing people think they know about the brothers of Jesus is that they did not believe in him.
This spurious opinion is based on a single phrase in John 7:5 that many scholars consider to be a
late interpolation.”120 So Tabor ridicules those how think of this objection because it is based on a
“single phrase”—certainly not like Tabor’s many claims that are based on no phrases at all, but
simply on his speculations. According to Swanson, of the 45 most important New Testament
manuscripts, not a single one omits this phrase.121 Only ¸75 is actually missing this phrase
because the document is either unreadable at this point or it has holes in it—called lacunae. The
early and wide ranging support for this reading testifies that it is original. It is convenient that
Tabor neglects to identify who these “many scholars are” that reject the phrase as a late
interpolation, since any scholar who would deny its originality would have to go against the
overwhelming evidence. Apparently, evidence is not enough to dissuade Tabor from his wild
speculations—at least it hasn’t stopped him so far. Interestingly, even Rudolf Bultmann accepts
this phrase as “typical of the Evangelist.”122 Tabor even misrepresents the parentheses that many
translations use. He says, “Modern translations even put it [Jn. 7:5] in parentheses.”123 But the
parentheses are designed to alert the reader to the parenthetical nature of the comment, not that it
is an interpolation. Surely Tabor knows this! This seems to be a calculated attempt to mislead the
reader.

120
Tabor, 165 (emphasis in original).
121
Reuben Swanson, ed., New Testament Greek Manuscripts: John (Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 91-92.
122
Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R.
W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971), 290, n6.
123
Tabor, 165.
 46

It is revealing that Tabor refers to James as the “son of Alphaeus” without any question
about whether this means “brother of”124 even though it has the same construction as “Judas of
James.” If it serves Tabor’s theory, he will change his principles in the middle of the stream.
Tabor seems to be a master of the misleading remark and the half-truth. Since he argued earlier
that the parallel expression means “brother of,” he ought at least to justify his shift in
understanding with reference to James of Alphaeus. Although the names Alphaeus and Clophas
could have derived from the same Aramaic word, there is no evidence that these are the same
person.
There is another curious passage that does not fit Tabor’s thesis that Jesus’ brothers were
among the Twelve. In Matthew 12 Jesus is speaking to the crowd, and someone comes to Jesus
and says, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You”
(Matt. 12:47). One part of Jesus’ response is very important in light of Tabor’s claim: “And
stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, ‘Behold My mother and My brothers’”
(Matt. 12:49). Of course Tabor will simply do his slicing and dicing to remove this trouble spot.

Whose Disciples Are They?

Another problem for Tabor’s notion that John and Jesus conspired to establish the
kingdom of God and that Jesus attempted to set up a provisional government is the fact that, in
many places in the Gospels, the disciples of John and the disciples of Jesus are two distinct
groups and seem to remain two distinct groups throughout the Gospel accounts. Earlier Tabor
argued that John was the real instigator and leader of the movement and that the disciples of
Jesus came to Him requesting that He teach them to pray “as John taught his disciples.” In fact,
in Matt. 9:14 the disciples of John actually question Jesus about the actions of His disciples:
“Then the disciples of John came to Him, asking, ‘Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but Your
disciples do not fast?’” Tabor never explains why, if these “two Messiahs” are working for the
establishing of the Kingdom of God, and John is in fact the leader, why the two groups of
disciples remain distinct throughout the Gospel accounts, or why they are ever distinct groups in
the first place. In fact, John’s Gospel states that many of John’s disciple left him to follow Jesus,
and John declared that he must diminish. Tabor’s theory just does not account for the facts. Of
course, when the facts contradict Tabor’s theory, his usual practice is just to expunge them from
the text.

Ushering in the Kingdom of God

The Son of Man

Tabor next seeks to characterize the sending out of the disciples—oops!—delegates, as

presented in Matt. 10:5ff, as a strategic “spiritual offensive that was to usher in the arrival of the

124
Ibid., 164.
 47

Kingdom of God.”125 Tabor quotes Jesus’ statement in 10:23: “you will not finish going through
the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.” Tabor then focuses on the appellation “Son of
Man.” Tabor asserts, “The arrival of the ‘Son of Man,’ which Christians later took as a reference
to the Second Coming of Jesus, was coded language from the book of Daniel. It does not refer to
Jesus’ arriving, since he was standing with them when he said it, predicting the effect of their
vital mission. Daniel had had a dream about ‘one like a son of man coming in the clouds of
heaven,’ and it was interpreted symbolically in the book of Daniel to mean that the people of God
would take over the kingdoms of the world (Daniel 7:13-14).”126 He claims that in Daniel the
expression is used “collectively for the faithful people of Israel who would receive rule from
their Messiah.”127 Tabor tries to argue that, even when Jesus uses the phrase, He is not using it to
refer to Himself: “In our earliest collection of sayings, such as those of the Q source, Jesus
speaks of the ‘Son of Man’ in the third person. The coming of the ‘Son of Man’ is an event, not a
single figure popping out of the clouds.”128
If the phrase “Son of Man” is not a reference to Jesus Himself, then this creates some
interesting problems. In Matt. 8:20, “the (faithful people of Israel) have no place to lay his head.”
And in Matt. 9:6, “ the (faithful people of Israel) has authority on earth to forgive sins.” And
what is even more outrageous is to discover that, according to Matt. 12:40, “the (faithful people
of Israel) will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth,” and according to Matt.
26:2, all the faithful people of Israel will be “handed over for crucifixion.” Once again Tabor is
not going to let a little thing like the text stand in the way of his theory. Of course the text of
Daniel does not interpret the appearance of the Son of Man as symbolically representing the
takeover of the world by the faithful people of Israel. The passage to which Tabor is referring is
Dan. 7:13-14: “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven, one
like a Son of Man was coming. And He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented
before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations
and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which
will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.”
The Son of Man in this passage must be a single person, the Messiah. Verse 13 states,
“And he went up to the Ancient of Days, and was presented before him.” Nowhere in Scripture
are the faithful people of Israel ever depicted as coming up to the Ancient of Days and being
presented before Him. Nowhere in this passage or the related context does Daniel or anyone else
interpret this vision as the faithful people of Israel. Also, the phrase “all the peoples, nations, and
men of every language” would certainly seem to include the people of Israel. Are they going to
serve themselves?

125
Ibid., 166.
126
Ibid.
127
Ibid.
128
Ibid.
 48

According to Tabor, “By comparing Matthew and Luke and extracting the material they
use in common but do not derive from Mark, we are able to come to a reasonable construction of
this lost ‘gospel of Q.’”129 Using Tabor’s principle, the following verses from Luke and Matthew,
that do not occur in Mark, must have come from Q.

Lk 7:33-35 “For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you
say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say,
‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet
wisdom is vindicated by all her children.”
Matt. 11:19 “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a
drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”

If the expression “Son of Man” is here referring to the faithful people of Israel, then the
statements are hopelessly nonsensical. In both passages there is a parallelism between what
“they” said about John the Baptist and what they said about the Son of Man. If the expression
“Son of Man” is not referring to an individual person here, namely, Jesus, then the whole section
makes no sense. And in this case, Tabor cannot claim that this is an interpolation or not authentic
since, according to his own criteria, Matthew and Luke must have copied this passage from Q. It
is simply false that Jesus does not use Son of Man to refer to Himself.

The Kingdom of God

Tabor claims that Jesus expected the mission of the twelve to “led right up to these
climactic events.”130 The “climactic events” to which he is referring include, according to Tabor,
the sign of the Son of Man, the sun and moon being darkened, the stars falling from the heavens,
earthquakes, and heavenly signs such as are found in Matt. 24: 29ff. That Jesus expected this to
usher in these climactic events is contradicted by the very text of Matthew. Matt. 11:1 states,
“When Jesus had finished giving instructions to His twelve disciples, He departed from there to
teach and preach in their cities.” Matt. 11:2 points out that John, being imprisoned, heard about
the works of Jesus, and he sent word by his disciples (delegates?) to inquire of Jesus, “Are You
the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?” (Matt. 11:3). Jesus’ response to John’s
inquiry demonstrates that Jesus in fact did not expect the preaching of the twelve to usher in the
“day of the Lord.”
Jesus’ response, beginning in 11:4 is, “Go and report to John what you hear and see: blind
receive sight and lame walk, lepers are cleansed and deaf hear, dead are raised up, and poor have
the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me” (Matt. 11:4-6).
What is important to notice about this response is that it is composed of quotations from Isa. 35:5

129
Ibid., 275.
130
Ibid.
 49

and 61:1.131 It is the portion from 61:1 that demonstrates our point, and it is not what Jesus
quotes, but what He does not quote that is important. The passage reads,

The a Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,

Because the LORD has anointed me
To bring good news to the afflicted;
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to captives,
And freedom to prisoners;
To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD,
And the day of vengeance of our God; (Isa. 61:1-2)

Although Jesus’ response to John includes references to healing and freeing, what Jesus
does not quote is the reference to the “day of vengeance of our God.” The very events that Tabor
claims Jesus expected to occur are the very events that, according to Jesus, were not about to
happen. Had Jesus expected these events to occur, He certainly would have referred to that day as
proof for John that He is the Messiah. But, since it was not time for this day to begin, Jesus
encourages John to trust that He is the Messiah, because there was sufficient evidence—the work
which He did—to prove who He is.
To top it off, Tabor implies that Jesus was wrong about His expectations: “As seems
nearly always the case with apocalyptic predictions, what was most expected did not come and
what was least anticipated happened.”132 Of course this is consistent with the prior assumption
that Jesus was merely human, and it once again reveals Tabor’s antisupernatural bias. Also, if
John and Jesus had actually planned this whole thing together, why doesn’t John know who Jesus
is? John seems to be confused. If they had planned this, wouldn’t John know whether Jesus was
the Expected One?

131
Tabor recognizes this fact as well when he says, Jesus “had openly declared himself to
be the one ‘anointed of the Spirit’ who was to fulfill the pivotal prophecy of Isaiah 61.” Tabor,
171.
132
Ibid., 167.
 CHAPTER SIX

HEROD STRIKES

In the section of chapter 11 titled “The Great Disappointment,” Tabor attempts to paint a
picture of the death of John the Baptist as a sudden shock such that “all the hopes and dreams of
the Messianic Movement appeared to be crushed.”133 The notion that this was a sudden shock
seems to be yet another case of reading into the text what Tabor wants to find there. It is
interesting that in Mark’s Gospel, which Tabor repeatedly claims to be the earliest and most
reliable Gospel, after the passage in which Mark describes the murder of John the Baptist,
records that Jesus took His disciples to “a lonely place” where they could “rest a while” (Mk.
6:30-31). Strangely, there is no hint in Mark’s account that the murder of John the Baptist was
taken to be some great disappointment.

Didn’t You See This Coming?

According to Tabor, the reason this was such a blow is because, “No one had been
thinking about Messiahs suffering and dying at this point.”134 Of course this is again an absurd
proposal since Jesus Himself announced, “just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but
to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:26). How does Tabor deal with this?
He concocts a story that Jesus retreated to regroup and began to search the prophets. Suddenly
Jesus “discovered an explanation as to why John the Baptizer had been so brutally removed from
their midst.”135 Having come to understand that John was meant to die, Jesus also discovered that
“the Davidic Messiah was also to be wounded by piercing.”136
In support of Tabor’s claim that Jesus began to understand that John must die, Tabor
fabricates a story about Jesus discovering this by reading Zech. 13:7: “Awake O sword against
my shepherd, against the man who is my associate,” says Yahweh of hosts. “Strike the shepherd,
that the sheep may be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones.” Unfortunately for
Tabor’s phantasy is the fact that this section in Zechariah begins with the declaration “In that day

133
Ibid., 175.
134
Ibid.
135
Ibid., 178.
136
Ibid., 179.

50
 51

a fountain will be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and
for iniquity” (Zech. 13:1). The opening verse of this chapter indicates that the Shepherd that will
be stricken by the Sword is from the house of David. But, according to Tabor’s storyline, John is
supposed to be the Priest Messiah of Levi, not the King Messiah of the house of David. Also, this
same Shepherd is referred to in Micah 5:2 as being born in Bethlehem Ephrathah. This is clearly
a reference to Jesus. How do we know that the Micah Shepherd and the Zechariah Shepherd are
the same person? Because of the position that each is said to hold. They are both referred to as
the King of Israel “in those days.”
Tabor inadvertently admits that Zech. 13:7 actually refers to the Davidic Messiah. He
says, “In the previous chapter, Zechariah 12, one from the ‘house of David’ was to be wounded
or ‘pierced’ and mourned over by his relatives.”137 But what Tabor does not see is that the exact
expression in Zech. 12:10, which he understands to be a reference to the Davidic Messiah, is
used in Zech. 13:1 to introduce that section, connecting the shepherd of 13:7 with the one who is
“pierced” in 12:10. Apparently Tabor’s Jesus was no more observant than Tabor himself.
Now, unless the Jesus of Tabor’s fable simply misunderstood the references, there are
only a couple of ways to explain why Tabor’s Jesus thought the Zechariah passage referred to
John the Baptist. Either he misunderstood the passage, or he was ignorant of the context and the
related passages. In either case, this doesn’t come across as the intelligent planner of the
conspiracy to overthrow the Romans that Tabor has been desperately trying construct. There is,
of course, one other option. Tabor’s Jesus lied. Whether he misunderstood, was ignorant, or lied,
Tabor doesn’t say, but which ever Tabor thinks he did, this doesn’t sound like the kind of man
who would “give His life as a ransom for many.”

Predictions About Elijah

Tabor appeals to Mk. 9:13 where Jesus says, “I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did
to him whatever they pleased, as it is written about him.” After quoting the passage, Tabor
claims, “Here is an outright statement in the gospel of Mark that Jesus interpreted the death of
John the Baptizer in light of what was ‘written about him.’”138 Tabor then tries to connect his
speculations about Jesus pondering Zech. 13:7 with Mark’s statement about what had been
written concern “him.” But, as we have seen, Zech. 13:7 does not refer to John the Baptist or to
Elijah. Tabor attempts to use his speculations as another attack upon early Christians whom
Tabor charges with an effort to “downplay the role of John the Baptizer.”139 In fact, the early
Christians did not need to “downplay the role of John the Baptizer,” since John the Baptizer did
that himself: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (Jn. 3:30). Of course Tabor will simply say
that this statement was late and part of the conspiracy to obscure the importance of John the

137
Ibid.
138
Ibid.
139
Ibid., 180
 52

Baptizer, and he will say that in spite of the fact that there is no textual or historical evidence to
support his claim.

Jesus Predicts His Own Death!

Tabor’s fable seems to be a neat story until one actually looks at the facts and realizes that
at the very beginning of His ministry, Jesus predicted that He would be put to death and rise from
the dead. In John 2, after having driven out the money changers, the Jews confronted Jesus:
“What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?” (Jn. 2:18). Jesus’ response
was, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn. 2:19). The Jews did not
understand what Jesus said, but John the Apostle clarifies Jesus’ meaning: “But He was speaking
of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that
He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken” (Jn. 2:21-
22). Also, in Jn. 3:14-15, Jesus predicts His crucifixion: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in
the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believe may in Him have
eternal life.” Then, in John 6, Jesus uses the manna as a way of illustrating His death and
shedding of His blood for the attaining of life. All these passages, and others, precede the death
of John the Baptist demonstrating that Tabor’s concoction is just that, a fanciful mixture of half-
truths, wild speculation, and falsehood. If one ignores the facts, and rips up the text, Tabor’s
story sounds almost plausible, but it still reads like a fantasy story. Tabor’s Jesus isn’t the Jesus
of the NT or of history.
Another passage in which Jesus predicts His death and resurrection is Mk. 10:33-34,
which Tabor quotes in full:

See we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief
priests and the scribes, and they will condemn his to death; then they will hand him over to
the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after
three days he will rise again (Mk. 10:33-34).

That Tabor even refers to this passage is curious since he takes it to refer to Jesus. But
earlier Tabor tried to show that the phrase “Son of Man” was not a reference to a particular
individual, and certainly not a reference to Jesus. Yet here he understand it precisely as a
reference to the single individual, Jesus. Of course someone might say that what Tabor was
saying earlier was only that the one reference about the Son of Man coming in the clouds was not
a reference to a single person. But this doesn’t extricate Tabor from his problem. If that one
instance is not a reference to a single person, then why is any reference taken to be a reference to
a single person. And if the above passage is taken to be a reference to the single person, Jesus,
why isn’t the early passage also taken this way? An appeal to Daniel does not help since we have
already shown that Tabor’s understand of Daniel is wrong. Of course the reason is that Tabor
changes his interpretation and his principles to fit his theory. Apparently he does not believe he
needs to be consistent in his hermeneutic, so he can just interpret any passage any way he
chooses. But, if that is the case, then his entire story loses any remaining residue of credibility it
may have incidentally acquired. But how does Tabor deal with this passage in Mark? Of
 53

course—cut it out of the text! Tabor declares, “This is surely history written after the fact to
honor a Jesus who was thought to have known all things before they happened.”140
It is just not possible to deal with all the passages in this chapter that Tabor misinterprets,
misrepresents, distorts, and/or cuts out. By now the reader should have discovered Tabor’s
modus operandi. If the text doesn’t agree with his presupposed theory and antisupernatural bias,
then interpret it in a way that makes it fit. If the passage cannot be re-interpreted, then
misrepresent it to the reader. If this cannot be done, then distort its meaning. And the last resort is
simply to cut it out of the book altogether. Tabor admits that his story is a product of his own
imagination: “Of course we don’t know the inner thoughts and struggle of Jesus. What I have
tried to do here is imagine what he might have been thinking based on the evidence that we have
in our gospels.”141 But any reader who has paid attention to Tabor’s imaginings would realize
that what Tabor means is that he has tried to imagine from the evidence that is left once he
finishes with the texts. Almost any story can be imagined once the illusionist has shaped and
forced his sources to fit his theory.

140
Ibid., 181.
141
Ibid., 183.
 CHAPTER SEVEN

THE LAST DAYS IN JERUSALEM

The Events Surrounding Jesus’ Crucifixion

In this chapter, Tabor speculates on the chronology of events leading up to the

crucifixion. His inattention to the text once again leads him to the wrong conclusion, which he
announces as if it is an established fact. He declares, “Later Christian tradition puts Jesus’ last
meal with his disciples on Thursday evening and his crucifixion of Friday. We now know that is
on day off. Jesus’ last meal was Wednesday night, and he was crucified on Thursday, the 14th of
the Jewish month Nisan.”142

One Sabbath or Two?

First of all, Tabor declares, “The confusion arose because all the gospels say that there
was a rush to get his body off the cross and buried before sundown because the ‘Sabbath’ was
near. Everyone assumed the reference to the Sabbath had to be Saturday—so the crucifixion must
have been on a Friday. However, as Jews know, the day of Passover itself is also a ‘Sabbath’ or
rest day—no matter what weekday it falls on.”143 The problem with this claim is, as Harold
Hoehner points out, “There is no evidence for this anywhere. This is a creation of those who hold
this theory only to fit their theory.”144 Secondly, Tabor asserts, “Matthew seems to know this as
he says that the women who visited Jesus’ tomb came early Sunday morning ‘after the
Sabbaths’— the original Greek is plural (Matthew 28:1).”145 Quoting Hoehner again, “to think
there is support for the Thursday crucifixion in the plural form of the Sabbath in Matthew 28:1
(lit. ‘at the end of the Sabbaths’), which would indicate that the Passover Sabbath (Friday) and
the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) were back to back is untenable. The term Sabbath is frequently
(one-third of all of its New Testament occurrences) in the plural form in the New Testament

142
Ibid., 199.
143
Ibid.
144
Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1977), 69.
145
Tabor, 199.

54
 55

when only one day is in view. For example, in Matthew 12:1-12 both the singular and the plural
forms are used (cf. esp. v. 5.).”146

Did Jesus Eat the Passover Meal?

Tabor conjectures that Jesus did not eat the Passover meal with His disciples, but his
speculations are fraught with unresolvable difficulties. For example, Tabor claims that Jesus did
not eat the Passover meal with His disciples: “But the fact is, Jesus ate no Passover meal in A.C.
30. When the Passover meal began at sundown on Thursday, Jesus was dead.”147 But this creates
a problem of identifying the meal that is recorded in all three synoptic Gospels. As Hoehner
points out, “one sees that any theory which makes the Last Supper not the Passover meal, does
not give a satisfactory identification of the meal. Again, considering all of the evidence, it seems
to be best to accept the Last Supper as having been a Passover meal.”148
Again Tabor asserts, “Reading Mark, Matthew, and Luke one can get the impression that
the ‘last supper’ was the Passover meal.”149 But it is hardly a case of getting an “impression”
since this supper is specifically referred to as “the Passover” in all three synoptic Gospels. Of
course Tabor conveniently neglects to deal with these statements in Matthew and Mark. Rather,
he appeals to a textual variant in Lk. 22:14-16 as if this is sufficient to prove his case. In this
passage, Jesus specifically identifies the meal as the Passover: “When the hour had come, He
reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. And He said to them, ‘I have earnestly desired to
eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is
fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’” The point that Tabor focuses on is the word “again.” The
presence of this word indicates that Jesus and His disciples did in fact eat the Passover. Of course
Tabor simply calls upon his hypothetical redactor to make the necessary changes so that the text
will fit Tabor’s theory: “A later copyist of the manuscript inserted the word ‘again’ to make it say
‘I won’t eat it again,’ since the tradition had developed that Jesus did observe the Passover that
night and changed its observance to the Christian Eucharist or Mass.”150 Although some early
manuscripts do not contain this word, the vast majority of manuscripts do have it.
Tabor’s practice of selective reporting fails to deal with the fact that Mark’s account also
uses the word “again”: “Truly I say to you, I will never again [oujkevti] drink of the fruit of the
vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Mk. 14:25). Remember, Tabor
has repeatedly asserted that Mark is closer to the original, yet he conveniently ignores Mark when
it does not support his theory. Also, Matthew’s Gospel states, “And He [Jesus] said, ‘Go into the

146
Hoehner, 69-70.
147
Tabor, 200.
148
Hoehner, 80.
149
Tabor, 200.
150
Ibid.
 56

city to a certain man, and say to him, “The Teacher says, ‘My time is near; I am to keep the
Passover at your house with My disciples.’”’ The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and
they prepared the Passover” (Matt. 26:18-19). So, Jesus specifically refers to the meal that they
were about to eat as the Passover meal.

Figure 1: Chronology of Jesus Last Week

 57

Calculating the Chronology of Events

Tabor then appeals to a statement in John’s Gospel: “He also notes that when Jesus’
accusers delivered him to be crucified on Thursday morning they would not enter Pilate’s
courtyard because they would be defiled and would not be able to eat the Passover that evening
(John 18:28).”151 Here Tabor, the historian, does not seem to be aware of the historical situation.
Tabor’s confusion stems from incorrectly assuming that all Jews calculated the days using the
same method. However, as Hoehner has shown, at this time, there were two ways of calculating
the days:

The Galileans and Pharisees used the sunrise-to-sunrise reckoning whereas the Judeans and
Saducees used the sunset-to-sunset reckoning. Thus, according to the Synoptics, the Last
Supper was a Passover meal. Since the day was to be reckoned from sunrise, the Galileans,
and with them Jesus and His disciples, had the Paschal lamb slaughtered in the late
afternoon of Thursday, Nisan 14, and later that evening they ate the Passover with the
unleavened bread. On the other hand, the Judean Jews who reckoned from sunset to sunset
would slay the lamb on Friday after noon which marked the end of Nisan 14 and would eat
the Passover lamb with the unleavened bread that night which had become Nisan 15. Thus,
Jesus had eaten the Passover meal when His enemies, who had not as yet had the Passover,
arrested Him.152

This kind of situation is not without precedent. In the Old Testament the difference
between Daniel’s reckoning of the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim (Dan. 1:1) and Jeremiah’s
reckoning of the same (Jer. 46:2) is the result of adopting two different calendar systems.
Whereas Daniel employed the Tishri system, Jeremiah employed the Assyrian calendar system.
Once this difference is acknowledged, the two statements are easily reconciled. What Hoehner
has presented is a comparable explanation for the apparent discrepancies between the various
accounts of the Last Supper, the trial, and the crucifixion of Jesus. The Chart in Figure 1 on the
page 49 above was constructed from the description provided by Harold Hoehner and illustrates
the relationship between the two systems relative to the events leading up to the crucifixion.

The Passover Meal with His Disciples

Tabor attempts to argue from his own speculations about the nature of the Passover meal:
“Passover is the most family-oriented festival in Jewish tradition. As head of his household Jesus
would have gathered his mother, his sisters, the women who had come with him from Galilee,
perhaps some of his close supporters in Jerusalem, and his Council of Twelve. It is inconceivable
that a Jewish head of a household would eat the Passover segregated from his family with twelve

151
Ibid.
152
Hoehner, 87.
 58

male disciples.”153 First of all, nowhere in the Gospels is Jesus identified as the head of a
household in the way Tabor assumes. Secondly, Tabor conveniently fails to deal with the
statement of Jesus in Matthew 12. When Jesus was speaking to the crowd, someone came to Him
and said, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You”
(Matt. 12:47). Jesus’ response is enlightening: “But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him
and said, ‘Who is My mother and who are My brothers?’ And stretching out His hand toward His
disciples, He said, ‘Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father
who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother’” (Matt. 12:48-50). Contrary to Tabor’s
conjectures, it was entirely appropriate for Jesus to eat the Passover with His disciples, as the
Scripture indicates.

The Lord’s Supper

Is the Eucharist Inconceivable?

Tabor attempts to argue that Paul’s account of the Lord’s Supper could not have been
given to him by Jesus. After briefly discussing the Old Testament prohibition against drinking
blood and eating someone’s flesh, Tabor asserts, “These restrictions concern the blood of
animals. Consuming human flesh and blood was not forbidden, it was simply inconceivable. This
general sensitivity to the very idea of ‘drinking blood’ precludes the likelihood that Jesus would
have used such symbols.”154 Of course we find Jesus specifically using these very symbols in
John 6, but the appropriateness of these symbols completely escapes Tabor, and Tabor concludes
that since he cannot understand why they should be used by Jesus, they must not have been used
by Him.
However, the imagery of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood is the perfect picture
of Jesus as the Passover Lamb. Keener points out that “rabbinic texts concerning Passover speak
of eating flesh (the lamb) and drinking the blood of grapes (cups at Passover) . . .”155 In fact,
Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians to put away the “old leaven” begins in chapter 5 with a
reference to the Passover: “Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch of dough–you
are, in fact, without yeast. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7). Tabor
claims, “Such an idea simply could not have come from Jesus as a Jew.”156 Yet as Gordon Fee
points out, “The identification of the bread with the body is Semitic imagery in its heightened

153
Tabor, 201.
154
Ibid., 203.
155
Keener, The Gospel of John, 688.
156
Tabor, 203.
 59

form.”157 Contrary to Tabor’s claim, Jesus’ use of this imagery follows naturally from the Last
Supper which Jesus ate with His disciples.

Mystery Religions as the Source of the Eucharist

Tabor tries to argue that Paul did not get his language of the Lord’s Supper from Jesus.
Rather, according to Tabor, he must have gotten it from “Greco-Roman magical rites.”158 There
are several problems with Tabor’s speculations. First, there are conflicting accounts of the Osiris
myth, some of which are contrary to any analogy with the Lord’s Supper. Secondly, as Nash
points out, “the mystery stage” of the Osiris cult developed in the second-century A.D., long after
Paul had written the 1 Corinthians passage.159 Thirdly, Tabor neglects to explain the meaning and
significance of the pagan rites and practices, which, as Nash observes, “are grounded in
exaggerations and oversimplifications. Careful study reveals that the supposed parallels and
analogies break down completely.”160 One would think that a historian would know these facts of
history.

Why Doesn’t John Refer to the Last Supper

Tabor resorts to an argument from silence to attempt to bolster his case. Tabor argues, “If
Jesus in fact had inaugurated the practice of eating bread as his body, and drinking wine as his
blood at this ‘last supper’ how could John possibly have left it out?”161 Since Tabor does not
understand why John would not refer to the Last Supper this must surely mean that Jesus did not
institute the Lord’s Supper. It seems to me to be the height of arrogance to assume that just
because he can’t explain why John would not report the Last Supper that there is no explanation.
But Tabor’s inability to grasp the point is no argument against Jesus’ inauguration of this
Sacrament. Although John does not refer to the Last Supper, he does include Jesus’ discourse
about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Keener offers an explanation of John’s omission
that fits John’s context and theme: “John not only omits the final paschal meal in his Passion
Narrative (contrast Mark 14:22-25); he makes Jesus’ actual death the real Passover. . . . In the
context of the entire Gospel, John’s eucharistic language [of chapter 6] thus applies directly to
Jesus’ death; the way one partakes is through faith and the Spirit (6:27-29, 35, 63). John’s words

157
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 550.
158
Tabor, 203.
159
Ronald H. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1984), 137-38. See also Nash, 149-59.
160
Ibid., 159.
161
Tabor, 204.
 60

invite his audience to look to Christ’s death itself, not merely those symbols which point to his
death.”162 Keener’s explanation is much more reasonable than Tabor’s, and a single reasonable
alternative is sufficient to overthrow Tabor’s argument from ignorance.

Paul or the Didache?

Tabor’s bias appears quite obvious in his preference for what the Didache does not say
over what Paul actually does say about the Eucharist: “What we really need to resolve this matter
is an independent source of some type, one that is Christian but not influenced by Paul, that
might shed light on the original practice of Jesus’ followers. . . . It is called the Didache and dates
to the early 2nd century A.D.”163 Tabor quotes the instructions from the Didache:

With respect to the Eucharist you shall give thanks as follows: First with respect to the cup:
“We give you thanks our Father for the holy vine of David, your child which you made
known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever.” And with respect to the
bread: “We give thanks our Father for the life and knowledge that you made known to us
through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever.”164

Again Tabor argues from silence: “If Paul’s practice had truly come from Jesus surely this
text would have included it.”165 Such an argument is patently absurd. There are many reasons
why such a reference may not have been included. The persistent misrepresentation of the
Eucharist meal by pagans as the practice of cannibalism during the early years may have been a
reason for not expressing the practice in precisely these terms. But Tabor neglects to note that
Ignatius of Antioch, who lived from about 50 to 98 A.D. referred to the Eucharist as the flesh of
Jesus: “They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they refuse to acknowledge that the
Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father
by his goodness raised up.”166 Here Ignatius refers to a controversy that had already arisen and
was well known to the recipients of his letter. Some had refused to acknowledge the very kind of
teaching about the Lord’s Supper that Tabor claims was not a part of early practice. In another
letter Ignatius employs both symbols: “Take care, therefore, to participate in one Eucharist (for

162
Keener, The Gospel of John, 690.
163
Tabor, 204.
164
Ibid., 205.
165
Ibid.
166
Ignatius, “To the Smyrnaens,” in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. J. B. Lightfoot and J. R.
Harmer, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 189. “eujcaristiva" kai; proseuch'"
ajpevcontai, dia; to; mh; oJmologei'n th;n eujcaristivan savrka ei\nai tou' swth'ro" hJmw'n jIhsou'
Cristou', th;n uJpe;r tw'n aJmartiw'n hJmw'n paqou'san, h}n th'/ crhstovthti oJ path;r h[geiren.”
 61

there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup which leads to unity through his
blood;”167 Because it does not fit his theory, Tabor simply prefers the silence of the Didache to
the teaching of Paul. The statements from Ignatius indicate that Paul’s teaching was accurate and
that this understanding of the symbolism was practiced in the early church.

Was James at the Passover Meal?

Tabor appeals to a lost text titled Gospel of the Hebrews as evidence that James, Jesus’
half-brother, was present at the Passover meal with Jesus and His disciples. Tabor claims, “Since
Jesus met only with his Council of Twelve for that final private meal, then James as well as
Jesus’ other three brothers would have been present. This is confirmed in a lost text called the
Gospel of the Hebrews that was used by Jewish-Christians who rejected Paul’s teachings and
authority.”168 Tabor refers to a quote from this lost text that is found in Jerome’s De Viris
Illustribus (On Illustrious Men). Tabor claims that in the quote “we are told that James the
brother of Jesus, after drinking the cup Jesus passed around, pledged that he too would not eat or
drink again until he saw the kingdom arrive.”169 But Tabor has completely misrepresented the
actual statement: “The Gospel also which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and
which I have recently translated into Greek and Latin and which also Origen often makes use of,
after the account of the resurrection of the Saviour says, ‘but the Lord, after he had given his
grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to James (for James had sworn that he would
not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising
again from among those that sleep)’ and again, a little later, it says ‘Bring a table and bread,’ said
the Lord.’”170 Clearly the text does not say that it was at the Passover meal that James swore this
oath, and since the quote specifically refers to the appearance of Jesus to James, one can
reasonably assume that the Gospel of the Hebrews did not contradict the tradition that James was
converted after Jesus’ resurrection, to which Paul refers in 1 Cor. 15:6. Far from being “textual
evidence of a tradition that remembers James as being present at the last meal,” this rather serves
to demonstrate how Tabor will twist whatever text he must to make his theory sound plausible.

James, the Disciple Whom Jesus Loved?

The attempt to identify “the disciple whom Jesus loved” as James His half-brother is also
a failure. Tabor paints a picture of John that puts him in a disparaging light. In light of such a

167
Ignatius, “To the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers, 179. Spoudavsate ou\n mia'/
eujcaristiva/ crh'sqai: miva ga;r sa;rx tou' kurivou hJmw'n jIhsou' Cristou', kai; e}n pothvrion eij"
e{{nwsin tou' ai{mato" aujtou':”
168
Tabor, 206.
169
Ibid.

0.Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, in The Catholic Encyclopdeia.

 62

picture, according to Tabor, “it makes not sense to imagine John son of Zebedee seated next to
Jesus, and leaning on his breast.”171 Tabor’s lack of understanding of the real Jesus is quite
evident here. In the Old Testament, David, the one who took Bathsheba and arranged for the
death of her husband, is referred to by God as a man who “walked in integrity of heart and
uprightness” (1 Kgs. 9:4). God’s choice of whom He will love is obviously different than
Tabor’s. So likewise, Jesus sets His love on those who are undeserving.
Tabor claims that, “According to the Gospel of John the mysterious ‘other disciple,’
whom I take to have been James, was able to gain entrance into the courtyard and get Peter in as
well because a household servant woman who was guarding the gate knew him (John 18:15-
18).”172 Many commentators hold that this “other disciple” was John. No commentators of which
I am aware throughout the history of the Church have proposed that this was James the half-
brother of Jesus. Regardless of how one comes down on that question, the fact that Tabor
completely misrepresents the events as they are recorded should not escape our notice. Tabor
claims that this “other disciple” gained entrance because “the household servant woman who was
guarding the gate knew him.” However, the text asserts, “Now that disciple was known to the
high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest” (Jn. 18:15). None of Tabor’s
arguments are convincing in the least. Since the evidence is overwhelming that James was not
one of Jesus’ disciples, it is impossible the James was “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”

171
Tabor, 206.
172
Ibid., 211.
 CHAPTER EIGHT

THE KING IS DEAD

Who Killed Jesus?

The Pharisees as Friends of Jesus?

In this section Tabor attempts to put the blame for Christ’s crucifixion completely upon
the Romans and to completely exculpate the Jews. He says, “Jesus’ Jewish enemies were
certainly the catalysts for the strike but in the end the result was Roman through and through.”173
Tabor has certainly not attempted to hide his lack of respect for the historical accuracy of the
Scriptures. In Acts 2:36, Peter puts the blame squarely upon the Jews: “Therefore let all the
house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord
and Christ.”174 Tabor claims that Jesus’ enemies were primarily the Saducees and that they were
supported by “certain Pharisees.”175 Once again Tabor picks and chooses the evidence he likes.
However, the evidence shows that virtually all of the Pharisees were Jesus’ enemies. John 2
records the meeting between Jesus and “a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the
Jews” (Jn. 3:1).176 Later in John 7 when the officers reported to the Pharisees, their response was,
“You have not also been led astray, have you? No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in
Him, has he?” (Jn. 7:47-48).177 This makes it quite clear that virtually all of the Pharisees
believed that Jesus was a deceiver and considered Him the enemy. It also shows that Nicodemus,
and any few others who might have believed in Jesus, had certainly kept their beliefs a secret. As
far that the group was concerned, none of the Pharisees believed in Jesus. If Nicodemus and

173
Ibid., 209.
174
“ajsfalw'" ou\n ginwskevtw pa'" oi\ko" jIsrah;l o{ti kai; kuvrion aujto;n kai; cristo;n
ejpoivhsen oJ qeov", tou'ton to;n jIhsou'n o}n uJmei'" ejstaurwvsate.”
175
Tabor, 209.
176
“ \Hn de; a[nqrwpo" ejk tw'n Farisaivwn, Nikovdhmo" o[noma aujtw'/, a[rcwn tw'n
Ij oudaivwn:”

ajpekrivqhsan ou\n aujtoi'" oiJ Farisai'oi: mh; kai; uJmei'" peplavnhsqeÚ mhv ti" ejk tw'n
177

ajrcovntwn ejpivsteusen eij" aujto;n h] ejk tw'n FarisaivwnÚ

63
 64

Joseph of Arimathea were not the only believers among the Pharisees, then any others of the
Sanhedrin or of the Pharisees who did not consider Jesus an enemy were certainly constituted a
very small minority.

The Whole Council

Since Tabor’s theory requires that only a few of the members of the Sanhedin were
clandestinely involved in the condemnation of Jesus, he is compelled to dismiss Mark’s
statement that the “whole council” was involved. Tabor declares, “Mark’s claim that the ‘whole
Council’ gathered at dawn on Passover morning appears unlikely.”178 So, with the wave of his
hand Tabor dismisses the fact that Mark makes this assertion twice, Mk. 14:55, 15:1, and in
verse 53 Mark declares, “and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered
together.” As Edmond Hiebert observes, “Mark’s mention of the three orders composing the
Sanhedrin indicates again that the entire Sanhedrin was involved in the procedure. . . . All the
chief priests, the whole hierarchy, indicates that they were out in force and were the leaders in the
action.”179 With reference to Mk. 15:1 Hiebert asserts, “‘The chief priests with the elders and
scribes, and the whole council’—the characteristic Marcan fullness underlines that the whole
Sanhedrin was involved. The three constituent parts named made up the whole council.”180 In
spite of Tabor’s claim that Mark is the earliest and most authentic of the Gospels, Tabor ignores
this principle whenever he likes.

The Gospels’ View of Pilate

Tabor simply sweeps away all the testimony of the Gospels about the actions of Pilate
and the crowd who cried out for Jesus’ crucifixion: “Scholars are agreed that little in these
accounts of Jesus’ trial before Pilate is historically credible.”181 Of course this is simply not true.
Although many scholars, in particular the Jesus Seminar, are persuaded that this material is
unreliable, there are as many if not more scholars who hold to the historical accuracy of the
Gospel accounts. However, as Paul Barnett points out, “More than one observer has noted an
ideological agenda driving the Jesus Seminar. The members appear determined to find an
ethically motivated, non-redemptive, non-Pauline Jesus. To them ‘Q,’ with its absence of
reference to ‘Messiah’ or to Jesus’ death (whether as an event or in an atonement theology) or to
Jesus’ resurrection, might easily have appeared an ideal place in which to find a non-messianic,

178
Tabor, 212.
179
D. Edmond Hiebert, Mark: A Portrait of the Servant (Chicago: Moody Press, 1979),
369.
180
Ibid., 378.
181
Tabor, 215.
 65

reformist Jesus. Yet to find this Jesus it has been necessary to go to extraordinarily reductionist
lengths in editorial deletions.”182 Tabor engages in the same reductionist editorial deletions.
Tabor’s claim that the Gospels’ picture of Pilate is “simply historically inaccurate” is
simply historically inaccurate.183 As Harold Hoehner recounts, Pilate’s anti-Jewish practices were
tolerated by Rome because of the influence of Lucius Aelius Sejanus, who, as the prefect of the
Praetorian Guard, and because of Tiberius’ retirement to the island of Capri, virtually controlled
the government. However, when Tiberius discovered Sejanus’ treachery, Sejanus was executed
in A.D. 31. As Hoehner points out, “According to Philo, it now became obvious to Tiberius that
the charges brought against the Jews were unfounded, having been fabricated by Sejanus.
Consequently he ordered the governors (many of whom were probably appointed by Sejanus)
throughout the Empire not to mistreat the Jews.”184 As a result of the death of Sejanus and an
unfavorable confrontation with Tiberius, Pilate became “a man with a broken backbone. This is
exactly how the Gospels portray him in the trial of Christ.”185 Contrary to Tabor’s penchant for
selective reporting, it is clear, as Hoehner points out, “The Gospels do not contradict Josephus
and Philo with regard to Pilate, but rather complement these sources.”186
Tabor attempts to capitalize on a false dilemma. He claims that Christians attempted to
exonerate the Romans from any guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus and to place the entire blame on
the Jews. There is, of course, no such attempt in the Gospel accounts. As Tabor himself admits,
the Gospels unbiasedly report that Pilate had Jesus scourged and that he placed the titulus over
Jesus’ head on the cross. It is simply not true that the Gospels depict Pilate as “doing all he
possibly could to save Jesus’ life.”187 In fact, the picture of Pilate is a man with no strength to do
what he suspected was right, namely, rescue Jesus from the murderous intent of Jesus’ enemies.
Pilate in fact did not do “all he could to save Jesus’ life,” and the Gospel accounts paint an
accurate picture of Pilate’s, and by extension Rome’s, complicity in Jesus’ crucifixion. Unlike
Tabor’s bias and selective reporting, the Gospel accounts accurately present the part each one
played in the events.

182
Paul Barnett, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), 148.
183
Tabor, 216.
184
Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, 109.
185
Ibid., 110-111.
186
Ibid., 112.
187
Tabor, 216.
 66

The Most Wretched of Deaths

Tabor’s account of crucifixion in this section is informative and descriptive. However, the
few parts of this book that are historically accurate and provide insightful information are so few
that they are not worth having to wade through the misrepresentations, inaccuracies, accusations,
and exaggerations to find. The faults and shortcomings of Tabor’s book severely outweigh any
minor benefit one might get from these few instances of historical reporting. Also, this
information is readily available from other sources that are more reputable and do not have an
ideological agenda through which one must sift.

Forsaken by God

Tabor begins this section by claiming, “Whether Jesus expected God would rescue him
before things went this far is impossible to say.”188 Of course it is not impossible to say since
Jesus Himself declared “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to
give His life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45). Since we have already demonstrated that the
expression “Son of Man” refers to Jesus, this is clearly a specific declaration by Jesus that He did
not in fact expect God to rescue Him from death. A similar declaration by Jesus is found in the
Gospel of John: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it
remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates
his life in this world will keep it to life eternal. If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and
where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him. Now
My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this
purpose I came to this hour” (Jn. 12:24-27). To claim that it is impossible to know whether Jesus
expected God to rescue Him is simply to ignore the biblical testimony of Jesus Himself.

188
Ibid., 220.
 CHAPTER NINE

DEAD BUT TWICE BURIED

Buried in Joseph’s Tomb?

Tabor claims that the popular belief that Jesus’ body was laid in the tomb of Joseph of
Arimathea is “based on one small editorial gloss in the gospel of Matthew . . .”189 The “gloss” to
which Tabor refers is the possessive pronoun, “his,” occurring in Matt. 27:60. In order to see the
antecedent of this pronoun, it is necessary to quote the text beginning with verse 57: “When it
was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also
become a disciple of Jesus. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate
ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and
laid it in his own new tomb [ejn tw'/ kainw'/ aujtou' mnhmeivw]/ , which he had hewn out in the rock;
and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away” (Matt. 27:57-60).190
There is no dispute that the antecedent of the possessive pronoun is Joseph of Arimathea.
Unfortunately for Tabor, neither the UBS4 nor the Nestle-Aland 27th Greek texts site a variant
with reference to this pronoun, and the graphic in Figure 2 shows that there is no variant among
the 45 most important manuscripts listed by Swanson,191 nor among the Byzantine manuscripts
which constitute the vast majority.192 There is simply no textual evidence that this is an “editorial
gloss” as Tabor claims.

189
Ibid., 224.
190
jOyiva" de; genomevnh" h\lqen a[nqrwpo" plouvsao" ajpo; JArimaqaiva", tou[noma jIwshvf,
o}" kai; aujto;" ejmaqhteuvqh tw'/ jIhsou': ou|to" proselqw;n tw'/ Pilavtw/ hj/thvsato to; sw'ma tou'
jIhsou'. tovte oJ Pila'to" ejkevleusen ajpodoqh'nai. kai; labw;n to; sw'ma oJ jIwsh;f ejnetuvlixen aujto ejn
sindovni kaqara'/ kai; e[qhken aujto; ejn tw'/ kainw'/ aujtou' mnhmeivw/ o} ejlatovmhsen ejn th'/ pevtra/ kai;
proskulivsa" livqon mevgan th'/ quvra/ tou' mnhmeivou ajph'lqen.

191
Reuben Swanson, ed., New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Matthew (Sheffield,
England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 290.
192
See the textual apparatus of Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, ed., The
New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform (Southborough, Massachusetts:
Chilton Book Publishing, 2005), 67.

67
 68

Figure 2: Joseph’s Own New Tomb: Matt. 27:60

Tabor then appeals to the statement in Jn. 19:41: “In the place where Jesus was crucified
was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one was ever yet laid.” Tabor claims, “It
is improbable that a newly cut tomb conveniently located near the place where Jesus was
crucified just happened to belong to Joseph of Arimathea.”193 Just like it seems improbable that
the twelve predictions of Isa. 53:2-12 would all be fulfilled by Jesus:

1. was rejected;
2. was a man of sorrow;
3. lived a life of suffering;
4. was despised by others;
5. carried our sorrow;
6. was smitten and afflicted by God;
7. was pierced for our transgressions;
8. was wounded for our sins;
9. suffered like a lamb;
10. died with the wicked;
11. was sinless; and
12. prayed for others.194

And just like it seems improbable that the Romans, over whom Tabor’s Jesus would have
no control, pierced His hands and feet as the Psalmist prophesied (Ps. 22:16) and, as even Tabor
himself acknowledges, “who was ‘pierced’ in Zechariah 12,” and did not break His legs, as was
predicted in Ps. 34:20 (“He protects all his bones, not one of them is broken.”). Just like it seems
improbable that these same Romans “divided his clothes by throwing dice,” (Matt. 27:35), as the
Psalmist prophesied in Ps. 22:18. And just like it seems improbable that “191 prophecies
concerning the anticipated Jewish Messiah and Savior . . . [were] literally fulfilled in the life,
death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth,”195 many of which Tabor’s Jesus could
not have controlled. The Bible does not call this “improbable.” The Bible calls it prophecy,

193
Tabor, 224.
194
Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1999), 611.
195
Ibid., 610.
 69

which Tabor simply rejects out of hand. When it fits Tabor’s theory, he is ready to reject claims
on the basis of the fact that a given claim “simply does not fit the biblical or historical record.”196
Likewise, when it serves his purpose, Tabor is willing to reject the biblical or historical record in
favor of his own speculations.

The Empty Tomb

Tabor at Odds with Critical Scholarship

Tabor begins his deconstruction of the resurrection accounts by declaring, “The standard
Christian proclamation is well known: that Jesus was raised from the dead, that he appeared to
many witnesses, and that he ascended into heaven, where he sits as the glorified Christ at the
right hand of God, from where he will return at the end of the age to judge the living and the
dead. But this familiar message, packaged in this way, was a long time coming.”197 By this he
means that the accounts of the resurrection were late in developing and were molded by the
theology of the early church.
However, the evidence is so impressive for the historicity of the empty tomb that critical
scholars are now beginning to accept it as historically accurate. Gary Habermas, a leading
authority on the resurrection of Jesus, did a study of the top critical scholars on this very
question. He reports, “Since 1975, more than 1400 scholarly publications on the death, burial,
and resurrection of Jesus have appeared. Over the last five years, I have tracked these texts,
which were written in German, French, and English.”198 After a lengthy and detailed discussion,
Habermas concludes, “Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these
arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments
oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some
that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong
majority.”199 Tabor, of course, is in the minority and in opposition to the majority of scholars to
whom he repeatedly appeals.
Not only is Tabor in the minority regarding the historical accuracy of the empty tomb
accounts, he is also in the minority regarding the early testimony of the resurrection. As
Habermas reports,

196
Tabor, 226.
197
Ibid., 228.
198
Gary R. Habermas, “Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical
Scholars Saying?” (Lynchburg, Virginia: Gary R. Habermas, 2005), [Online], available:
<http://garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_
Jesus_3-2_2005.htm.> [July 10, 2006]. An edited version of this article was published in the
Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 3.2 (2005), 135-53.
199
Ibid.
 70

. . . without question, the most critically-respected witness for Jesus’ resurrection is the
apostle Paul. As Norman Perrin states, “Paul is the one witness we have whom we can
interrogate.” And 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is taken to be the strongest evidence for the
historicity of this event. Howard Clark Kee boldly asserts that Paul’s testimony here “can
be critically examined . . . just as one would evaluate evidence in a modern court or
academic setting.” For several strong reasons, most scholars who address the issue think
that this testimony predates any New Testament book. Murphy-O’Connor reports that a
literary analysis has produced “complete agreement” among critical scholars that “Paul
introduces a quotation in v. 3b. . . .”
Paul probably received this report from Peter and James while visiting Jerusalem within
a few years of his conversion. The vast majority of critical scholars who answer the
question place Paul’s reception of this material in the mid-30s A.D. Even more skeptical
scholars generally agree. German theologian Walter Kasper even asserts that, “We have
here therefore an ancient text, perhaps in use by the end of 30 AD . . . .” Ulrich Wilckens
declares that the material “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of
primitive Christianity.”200

Tabor’s assumption that the resurrection account “was a long time coming,” is at odds
with modern critical scholarship and retains the residue of the old 19th century naturalistic
approaches. According to Habermas, “Neither [John Dominic] Crossan nor [N. T.] Wright
espouse naturalistic theories specifically regarding the resurrection appearances. Wright is much
more outspoken in his opposition to these alternative hypotheses, referring to them as ‘false
trails.’ Crossan has also recently agreed that the disciples, in some sense, experienced the risen
Jesus and that natural substitutes are unconvincing. Here we have an indication of the comment
above that postulating natural alternatives is a minority option among recent scholars.”201 So,
once again Tabor is out of step with the prevailing view among scholars.

Tabor at Odds with the Facts

Tabor retreats to the same tired arguments about supposed conflicts in the Gospel
accounts of the resurrection and post-resurrection events. For example, he asserts, “The gospel of
John says that Mary Magdalene went alone, without the others . . . Mark says that Jesus’ mother
Mary, Salome, and Mary Magdalene went together to the tomb . . .”202 In order to make his
speculations work, Tabor must add words that do not occur in the text. Tabor claims that the
Gospel of John says Mary Magdalene went “alone,” but the text does not say that at all. The text
merely says, “Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw the stone had been moved away from

200
Ibid.
201
Ibid.
202
Tabor, 228-29 (emphasis in original).
 71

the entrance” (Jn. 20:1). Nowhere in the text does John say she was “alone.” John simply does
not mention the other women who accompanied her because they are not the focus of John’s
report. John focuses on Mary Magdalene because she is the one who reported to Peter. Also,
John does not say a “young man” did not appear to Mary, as Mark reports. John simply does not
report this fact. John says Mary Magdalene came to the tomb while it was still dark, and Mark
says they came “at sunrise.” Here again there is no discrepancy, and there are several different
ways in which these accounts can be harmonized. For example, some scholars assert that Mary
and her group began their trek to the tomb while it was dark, and they arrived at the tomb as the
sun was beginning to rise. Neither of the expressions in John or Mark require a strict
understanding of the time. John’s expression, “while it was still dark” is a relative
evaluation—“while it was still dark,” relatively speaking. Also, Mark’s expression “at sunrise”
can be taken similarly, simply indicating that it was early, about the general time of sunrise. This
kind of phenomenological speech is common usage. When the weatherman talks about the sun
rising, he is not thereby subscribing to the Ptolemaic view of the solar system. This is simply a
figure of speech, and such are common modes of expression. This is exactly how these
expressions are being used in Mark’s Gospel. When one takes the text as it is found, there is no
discrepancy. A full-fledged defense of the historical accuracy of the resurrection accounts cannot
be presented here, but the historical basis for the resurrection is ably defended by Habermas in
several publications, including The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, published by Kregel.

Sightings of Jesus

Tabor attempts to dismiss the accounts of the sightings of Jesus after His resurrection. His
argument is fairly typical of the naturalistic speculations of the previous century. Tabor argues
that the sightings testimonies were fabricated much later: “With Matthew, Luke, and John the
reporting of post-empty-tomb ‘sightings’ had become a standard part of bolstering the claim that
Jesus had ‘raised from the dead.’ . . . 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.”203 Once again
Tabor is out of step with the latest critical scholarship. Habermas’ important study shows how
even modern critical scholars no longer accept explanations like Tabor’s.

Few critical scholars reject the notion that, after Jesus’ death, the early Christians had real
experiences of some sort. Reginald Fuller . . . refers to the disciples’ belief in the
resurrection as “one of the indisputable facts of history.” What caused this belief? That the
disciples’ had actual experiences, characterized as appearances or visions of the risen
Jesus, no matter how they are explained, is “a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever
may agree.” An overview of contemporary scholarship indicates that Fuller’s conclusions
are well-supported. E. P. Sanders initiates his discussion in The Historical Figure of Jesus
by outlining the broad parameters of recent research. Beginning with a list of the historical
data that critics know, he includes a number of “equally secure facts” that “are almost

203
Ibid., 232-33.
 72

beyond dispute.” One of these is that, after Jesus’ death, “his disciples . . . saw him.” In an
epilogue, Sanders reaffirms, “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection
experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the
experiences I do not know.”204

Habermas goes on to point out that even Bart Ehrman “explains that, ‘Historians, of
course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this
is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to
believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.’”205 Tabor has it exactly
backwards. He thinks that the rise of orthodox Pauline Christianity was the origin of the belief in
the resurrection, when in fact, as Habermas and the critical scholars he surveys have shown,
“This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity.”206 Tabor’s
arguments are out of step with modern scholarship and simply historically inaccurate.
Tabor claims, “There is no credible way to harmonize these accounts, and the language is
loaded with theological overtones.”207 Of course Tabor’s own assertions are loaded with the
overtones of his own theological and philosophical commitments, and he simply ignores the
multitude of harmonies that have been published through the centuries that offer credible
harmonizations of the Gospel accounts. What he means to say is because he does not think they
are credible, then they must not be. Tabor seems to be attributing a greater insight for himself
that he allows for his own Jesus.

What Happened to Jesus’ Body?

Antisupernatural Bias

Starting from an antisupernatural bias—the conviction that all things in nature happen on
the basis of natural causes—Tabor assumes that Jesus’ body must have been moved from a
temporary burial place to a permanent burial place: “Dead bodies don’t rise—not if one is
clinically dead—as Jesus surely was after Roman crucifixion and three days in a tomb. So if the
tomb was empty the historical conclusion is simple—Jesus’ body was moved by someone and
likely reburied in another location.”208 Where is the body? According to Tabor, “The short

204
Habermas, “Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present.”
205
Ibid.
206
Ibid.
207
Tabor, 233.

0.Ibid., 234.
 73

answer is that we simply do not know and anything one might suggest is speculative.”209 But the
lack of evidence has not stopped Tabor’s imaginative speculations yet.

The Women Moved the Body

Tabor speculates that perhaps some of the women moved Jesus’ body: “If Mary
Magdalene did in fact go very early to the tomb alone, and it was already empty, someone else
must have come before she arrived and moved the body. One is left to guess here but the most
likely possibility would be his mother, Mary, and his sister Salome, likely assisted by some of the
other women who had come with them from Galilee, and perhaps the sisters Mary and Martha
with whom they were staying.”210 Besides the problem of supposing that these women could
move the huge stone that covered the entrance to the tomb, Tabor has neglected to address the
question of how these women were able to overpower the Roman guard that was stationed
around the tomb to prevent this very kind of event.

Roman Guard of Jewish Guard?

According to Matthew, the Jews requested that Pilate set a guard to secure the tomb
against the possibility that the disciples might steal the body and claim a resurrection: “Now on
the next day, the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together
with Pilate, and said, ‘Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, “After
three days I am to rise again.” Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the
third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, “He has
risen from the dead,” and the last deception will be worse than the first.’ Pilate said to them,
‘You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how.’ And they went and made the grave
secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone” (Matt. 27:62-66).
Some have argued that Pilate’s response was not to assign the Roman guard, but that he
was telling the Jews to use their own guard to secure the tomb. This is not likely since, after the
resurrection the guards reported all the events to the chief priests, and the chief priests reassured
the guards, “If this matter is heard before the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of
trouble” (Matt. 28:14). If these were the Jewish temple guards and not the Roman guard sent by
Pilate, there would be no reason for them to anticipate trouble from Pilate. Additionally,
Matthew points out that they “set a seal on the stone.” So, not only did these women somehow
overpower the Roman guards, but they broke the Roman seal that was set on the stone, an act
punishable by death. Were these women willing to die for a lie?

209
Ibid.
210
Ibid., 235.
 74

Failure of Tabor’s Speculations

Tabor’s scenario also fails to explain why these women did not correct the disciples when
they concluded that Jesus had risen from the grave. As we have seen from Habermas’ study, the
claim of the sightings of the resurrected Jesus date form the very next day after the resurrection.
If the women had moved the body, how does one explain these early and persistent claims? We
must assume, on the basis of Tabor’s speculations, that the disciples must ultimately have learned
that the women moved the body and that Jesus did not actually rise from the dead. However, this
does not explain why these very disciples were willing to give their lives for what they knew to
be a lie. As Habermas has demonstrated,

there are certainly disagreements about the nature of the experiences. But it is still
crucial that the nearly unanimous consent of critical scholars is that, in some sense, the
early followers of Jesus thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.
This conclusion does not rest on the critical consensus itself, but on the reasons for the
consensus, such as those pointed out above. A variety of paths converge here, including
Paul’s eyewitness comments regarding his own experience (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8), the
pre-Pauline appearance report in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, probably dating from the 30s, Paul’s
second Jerusalem meeting with the major apostles to ascertain the nature of the Gospel
(Gal. 2:1-10), and Paul’s knowledge of the other apostles’ teachings about Jesus’
appearances (1 Cor. 15:9-15, especially 15:11). Further, the early Acts confessions, the
conversion of James, the brother of Jesus, the transformed lives that centered on the
resurrection, the later Gospel accounts, and, most scholars would agree, the empty tomb.
This case is built entirely on critically-ascertained texts, and confirmed by many critical
principles such as eyewitness testimony, early reports, multiple attestation, discontinuity,
embarrassment, enemy declarations, and coherence.
These same data indicate that Jesus’ followers reported visual experiences, witnessed by
both individuals and groups. It is hardly disputed that this is at least the New Testament
claim. The vast majority of scholars agree that these persons certainly thought that they had
visual experiences of the risen Jesus. As Helmut Koester maintains, “We are on much
firmer ground with respect to the appearances of the risen Jesus and their effect.” In
addition to Paul, “that Jesus appeared to others (Peter, Mary Magdalene, James) cannot
very well be questioned.”
The point here is that any plausible explanations must account for the disciples’ claims,
due to the wide variety of factors that argue convincingly for visual experiences. This is
also recognized by critical scholars across a wide theological spectrum.211

In other words since Tabor’s scenarios do not explain the disciples’ claims, his
explanations are not plausible, and this according to the consensus of critical scholarship.

211
Habermas, “Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present.”
 75

The Return to Galilee

In this section Tabor speculates that since the disciples are said to have returned to
Galilee after Jesus’ death, then perhaps that is where they took His body. It is simply amazing
how Tabor picks and chooses the material that he likes and disregards the material that he does
not like. He rejects the Gospel accounts of the sightings, but he unquestioningly accepts the
statements from the same Gospels that the disciples went back to Galilee. He offers no argument
as to why one account is more or less reliable than another. The reader is left with the impression
that the primary criterion of choice is whether an account supports or conflicts with Tabor’s pet
theory. This, of course, reveals the circular nature of Tabor’s claims. He supports his theory on
the basis of the accounts he selects, and he selects his accounts on the basis of the theory he
assumes. Ultimately Tabor constructs an account that is unfalsifiable and therefore unverifiable.
Tabor proposes, “It is interesting that within the complexity of the contradictory accounts
in the gospels as to what happened after Jesus died, Matthew and John have the disciples go back
to Galilee.”212 He goes on to say, “Everyone thinks of the Church beginning with great power in
Jerusalem following Jesus’ glorious resurrection from the dead.”213 Having accepted the biblical
testimony that the disciples went back to Galilee, Tabor poses the question: “But if that were the
case why would the followers have gone back to Galilee at all?”214 True to his practice, Tabor
neglects to mention that the angel through Mary had instructed the disciples to go to Galilee:
“But the angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus, who
was crucified. He is not here, for he has been raised, just as he said. Come and see the place
where he was lying. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, “He has been raised from the dead. He
is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there”’” (Matt. 28:5-7).
Tabor also claims that the accounts of Matthew and John contradict Luke’s account in
Acts 1:4, which, according to Tabor, asserts that “they never left the city.”215 Of course Luke’s
account does not say they never left the city. The text states, “Gathering them together, he
declared, ‘Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait there for what my Father promised, which you heard
about from me’” (Acts 1:4). The text simply points out that Jesus gathered the disciples together
and then instructed them not to leave Jerusalem. It does not say they never left Jerusalem. This
event occurred at the end of Jesus’ 40 days of appearances to the disciples. The chronology is in
perfect accord. The disciples were instructed by the angel to go to Galilee to meet Jesus there.
Jesus appeared to the disciples and others over a period of 40 days in a variety of places
including Galilee. Near the end of this period, Jesus gathered the disciples back in Jerusalem and
then instructed them not to leave. In fact, Tabor himself acknowledges this chronology:
“According to Acts, about forty days after Jesus’ death the Eleven Apostles gathered together in

212
Tabor, 237.
213
Ibid.
214
Ibid.
215
Ibid.
 76

Jerusalem in the Upper Room where they had their last meal with Jesus to choose a successor to
Judas.”216 As has been the case throughout the book, Tabor’s selective reporting and
misrepresentation of the evidence is the only support he seems to be able to muster to bolster his
implausible account of the events.
Tabor tries to construct a story out of Matthew’s reference in 28:16 that the disciples were
“visiting Jesus’ grave in Galilee and Matthew’s story is a modified theological recasting of an
older tradition that ties the followers of Jesus to a ‘mountain’ in Galilee where they experienced
the presence of Jesus?”217 Of course Tabor cannot produce any evidence that there was such an
“older tradition,” and he rejects the consensus of modern scholarship that acknowledges the
historical accuracy of the early traditions of the sightings by the disciples of the risen Jesus. In
other words, Tabor rejects the actual older tradition which we actually possess for a tradition
concerning which there is no evidence that it actually ever existed. Tabor prefers his fables over
the facts.
It is beyond belief that Tabor rejects the biblical accounts of the sightings because, in his
view, “the language is loaded with theological overtones,”218 yet he uncritically accepts the
“tradition” of a “revered 16th-century Kabbalistic Rabbi Isaac ben Luria” that “the grave of Jesus
of Nazareth was located in the north, in Galilee outside the dity of Tsfat (Safed),”219 without any
reservations about any possible “theological overtones.” Also, on several occasions Tabor
rejected biblical testimony because it was 40 or 50 or 80 years removed from the events. Yet
Tabor accepts the testimony of Rabbi Isaac whose testimony is removed by some 1500 years.
Tabor’s grasping at straws becomes more fantastic as the pages turn.

216
Ibid., 250. Once again a comment must be made about Tabor’s sentence structure.
According the structure of Tabor’s sentence, the disciples had their last meal with Jesus in order
to choose a successor to Judas. That does not seem to be the point that Tabor is attempting to
make.
217
Ibid., 238.
218
Ibid., 233.
219
Ibid., 238.
 CHAPTER TEN

WAITING FOR THE SON OF MAN

Go to James the Just

James Revives the Movement

As he has repeatedly claimed, Tabor holds that Jesus died but did not rise from the dead.
Tabor acknowledges that the death of a leader usually dissolves the movement, but that this did
not occur in this case. In an effort to explain how the “Jesus movement” survived the death of its
leader, Tabor claims that James, Jesus’ brother, “became a towering figure of faith and strength
for Jesus’ followers.”220 Tabor acknowledges that “we don’t have many details about how James
was able to accomplish what he did as a leader of the movement, since as we will see, his role
has been almost totally marginalized in our New Testament records . . .”221 However, according
to Tabor, “the results are evident.”222 It is important to follow Tabor’s reasoning here. First, he
rejects the notion that the “Jesus movement” survived because Jesus was raised from the dead.
Next, he acknowledges this usually destroys a movement, but that the Jesus movement survived
nevertheless. Next, he speculates that since the Jesus movement survived, it must have survived
as a result of the influence of James. He then acknowledges that we don’t actually have any
evidence of how James did this, but he concludes that it must have happened because the results,
i.e., the survival and growth of the movement, are evident. In other words, Tabor cannot simply
dismiss the evidence of the survival and growth of Christianity. But, he doesn’t believe the
testimony of history and scripture that this was the result of Jesus’ resurrection. So, he opts for an
explanation for which there is no historical or scriptural evidence, and he supports his choice by
pointing out that the church in fact did survive. Tabor’s explanation is completely circular. The
following explanation makes this clear:

It certainly is a circular argument. Tabor is using the supposition about James as an

argument for the survival of the Jesus movement, and he is using the survival of the Jesus
movement as an argument that James was its cause. He is trying to account for

220
Ibid., 244.
221
Ibid.
222
Ibid.

77
 78

phenomenon X by positing cause Y. But then he argues for cause Y by appealing to

phenomenon X. Since all will grant the reality of phenomenon X, his circular reasoning is
not as obvious. Usually, when one encounters circular reasoning, both of the ingredients
are in question. “Bob couldn’t be a liar because he told us he talks to angels and we know
that people who talk to angels do not lie.” Here, both the question whether Bob is a liar and
whether Bob talks to angels is somewhat unknown. But with the Tabor argument, the
reality of the Jesus movement is certain. Because it is certain, it doesn’t seem obviously
wrong to use it as a causal explanation. However, what Tabor has done is posited a theory
(James’ influence, which is an unknown) to account for the known effect (the survival of
the Jesus Movement). But when it comes time to give evidence that James is indeed the
causal factor, the only “evidence” he can give is the very thing to which his theory
appealed as an explanation in the first place. He would have been better off merely laying
out several options as the causes of the survival of the Jesus movement. Then he could
have opted for one over the other (for whatever reasons) and left it at that.223

Why Did the Church Continue?

Tabor’s effort to account for the continuation of the Church turns out not to answer the
question. He describes how the followers of Jesus continued believing in the teaching of his
Jesus, but he doesn’t explain why they did. He claims that a factor in the continuation of belief
was “the message that both John and Jesus had preached, the ‘good news of the Kingdom of
God’ and all that it implied.”224 However, according to Tabor’s account, this Kingdom of God
did not appear. The supposed instigators of the kingdom were killed by the enemies of the
kingdom. Why, since the leaders were killed, did the followers continue to believe? Simply
claiming that they did is no explanation as to why they did. Tabor claims, “However revered the
messengers might have been, what they advocated and proclaimed lived on and was in no way
destroyed or lost by their deaths.”225 But again, this is no explanation as to why it “lived on.” This
is merely a claim that it did. Tabor says, “They [the revered messengers] had spoken out against
injustice and oppression . . .”226 But according to Tabor’s account, that very injustice and
oppression had prevailed. Why did the followers continue to believe? He says, “The cause of the
two Messiahs remained and survived,”227 but Tabor’s description does not account for why it did.
Why did the cause survive when the message that the “messiahs” preached failed in their own
cases?

223
Thanks to Dr. Richard Howe for this clear and precise explanation.
224
Tabor, 244.
225
Ibid.
226
Ibid.
227
Ibid., (emphasis in original).
 79

Tabor declares, “Finally, both Jesus and John had proclaimed that the ‘end of the age’ had
drawn near.”228 But, according to Tabor’s own account, the end of the age did not occur. The
harbingers of this end were dead, and the status quo continued unabated. The authorities were
still in power, and there was no sign of their predicted end. That the followers of Jesus continued
to believe the message is a matter of historical fact that Tabor cannot readily deny. But his
descriptions do not provide any explanation of why this occurred. Tabor talks about the
“insatiability of Rome,” but, from the perspective of the disciples, Rome did not appear unstable.
The Romans were still in charge. Tabor can use this language from the historical perspective of
the present. But there is no reason to think that what is known today about the Roman empire at
that time was known to this small band of disciples. In fact, the Roman empire continued for
several hundred years after these events. And, according to Tabor, it was the Romans who were
responsible for Jesus’ death. So, we are supposed to believe that these very same disciples who
fled before the Romans in fear in the garden of Gethsemane are now willing to die for a cause
that has, according to Tabor’s description, failed in the death of its founders and leaders.
According to Tabor, the only thing that has changed is the fact that these Romans have prevailed
in murdering their leaders. If this same message was not enough to give these disciples courage
when their leader was alive, why should we think that they now have the requisite courage after
their leader has been killed by the very same Romans of whom these disciples were so afraid?
Tabor’s description is no explanation.
According to Tabor, “They were an intensely apocalyptic community that expected to see
the kingdom of God manifested in its fullness. After all, Jesus had expected the arrival of the
‘Son of Man’ even before his death.”229 But the kingdom of God was not manifested, the Son of
Man did not appear, and Jesus was dead. Why did they continue to believe? Again Tabor
declares, “Jesus’ death was surely a terrible shock to all who loved and followed him, but they
continued to believe fervently in the central message that both Jesus and John the Baptizer before
him hand proclaimed: ‘Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.’”230 But a simpl declaration
that they did continue to believe is no explanation as to why they did. Why, since the kingdom
that the messiahs predicted did not come; why, since the proclaimers of this kingdom were now
dead; why, since the very “Satan” against whose fortress they were supposed to “storm” and
“triumph” had actually overpowered their leader; why did they continue to believe? Tabor simply
has no explanation. He acknowledges the fact of the continuation of the Church. He rejects the
resurrection of Christ as an explanation for its continuation. He proposes no explanation as to
why they continued to believe. He simply appeals to the fact that they did continue as evidence
that they did continued to believe in the scenario he has proposed. But this is completely circular
reasoning that fails to coincide with or account for the historical facts.

228
Ibid.
229
Ibid., 244-45.
230
Ibid., 245.
 80

Peter, Paul, or James

Tabor rejects the tradition that Peter became the first Pope of Rome, but this rejection
does not support Tabor’s projection of James to the place of the “successor to Jesus.”231 In fact,
earlier in this very chapter Tabor admitted that there are no details concerning how James was
able to keep the movement together. Yet now, suddenly, miraculously, Tabor is able to explain
how he did it? By his own confession, Tabor’s speculations are just that—groundless
speculations. Since there is no historical or scriptural information about James’ supposed
meteoric rise in Tabor’s Jesus movement, Tabor will invent some.
In Tabor’s scenario, James becomes the leader of the movement, and it is the Book of
Acts that is responsible for obscuring this fact. Tabor claims, “Luke has unwittingly left clues in
the book of Acts that allow us to verify what we know from other sources—that James, not Peter,
became the legitimate successor of Jesus and leader of the movement.”232 Unfortunately for his
readers, Tabor does not supply any evidence from “other sources,” nor does he identify what
these “other sources” are. Tabor expresses his own opinion that Luke attempted to diminish the
family of Jesus “to avoid raising questions about Peter’s leadership of the Twelve or the
superiority of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles,”233 and he floats the pure speculation that, “It is part
of Luke’s overall agenda to recast the history of the early movement so that Paul comes out
ahead of possible rivals including James.”234 Having speculated on Luke’s agenda, he now uses
this speculation as if it were a fact so as to pose the question, “But what was their rivalry
about?”235 Of course there is no evidence of such a “rivalry.” It was purely Tabor’s opinion, but
he now treats his opinion as if it were a fact concerning which he must find, or fabricate,
historical evidence.
Tabor claims that Luke wrote, “two decades after the Jewish-Roman revolt, when those
Jewish origins of the movement were becoming marginalized and deemphasized and the
imminent apocalyptic hope had faded.”236 According to Tabor’s calculation, that would put the
composition of Acts well into the 90's, a date that he confirms later: “Luke wrote Acts in the 90s

231
Ibid., 247.
232
Ibid., 248.
233
Ibid.
234
Ibid.
235
Ibid.
236
Ibid., 249. Tabor does not attempt to explain why the movement would fade if James
was the towering figure and successor to Jesus that Tabor claims. Why did the fervor of those
early disciples not continue? The Jewish-Roman revolt was, according to Tabor, no greater
historical blow to the movement than the death of John and Jesus. Why did it survive the deaths
of John and Jesus but not survive the passage of time?
 81

A.D., at least thirty years after James was dead . . .” However, we now know that this is
historically inaccurate. Colin Hemer has conclusively demonstrated that Acts was early: “We
have argued for a dating of Acts in 62. . . . This defense of the early date may seem bold to the
point of rashness in the present climate. But it is perhaps the climate rather than the evidence
which is against it. . . . It is relevant to stress that our opinion places Acts unequivocally in the
lifetime of many eyewitnesses and surviving contemporaries of Jesus, Peter and Paul, as
prospective readers who could object to the presence of material falsifications.”237 Since the book
of Acts was early, Tabor must explain why no objections to Luke’s recasting of the historical
situation ever arose? There are no historical documents or any other historical evidence that
indicates that anyone objected to the history as Luke presented it. Tabor’s scenario is fabricated
out of thin air. Tabor indicates that Luke purposely omitted the death of James and the supposed
“succession of Jesus’ brother Simon.”238 But we now know that Luke completed his book prior to
the death of James in 62 A.D., which is why he does not record the events that Tabor wished he
had. What Tabor invented simply never happened.

The Jesus Dynasty in Jerusalem

Paul Mentions James

In his typical fashion, Tabor misrepresents the testimony of Scripture in order to fit his
theory. He states, “In the letter to the Galatians Paul related that three years after joining the
movement he made his first trip to Jerusalem, where he saw Peter, whom he calls by his Aramaic
nickname Cephas. . . . Paul saw Peter but he knew that it was essential that he meet with James,
who was in charge.”239 Of course the text says nothing of the kind. In fact, the text asserts that
Paul went to Jerusalem “in order to visit” Peter: “Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to
become acquainted with [iJstorh'sai] Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days” (Gal. 1:18). The
word translated by the English infinitive phrase, “to become acquainted with” is in fact an
infinitive of purpose. Paul did not go to Jerusalem knowing that it was essential to meet with
James. In fact, he went there for the purpose of meeting with Peter, and he simply points out in
passing that he saw James, the brother of Jesus. In fact, the text does not even say Paul met with
James, but simply that he saw (ei\don) James. In fact, it was not until a later visit to which Paul
refers in Gal. 2:9 that James is recognized as one of the “pillars [stu'loi] of the church.” As
Barnett points out, “Despite the prominence of James evident by the late 40s there is no reason to
believe that he shaped the understanding of the earliest Jerusalem disciples.”240 It is extremely

237
Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Winona Lake,
Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 408-10.
238
Tabor, 251.
239
Ibid., 251-52.
240
Burnett, The Birth of Christianity, 106.
 82

interesting that when Tabor refers to Paul’s statement in Gal. 2:9, the order of the names
“indicates an established order of authority,”241 but when discussing the earlier reference in
Gal. 1:18, Tabor completely ignores the order of reference. Tabor’s account almost seems
reasonable until it is brutally assaulted by a vicious group of facts.

James an Apostle

Tabor attempts to capitalize on the fact that in Gal. 1:18 Paul refers to James as an
apostle: “Even though Luke had related nothing in Acts about James being one of the apostles,
much less succeeding Jesus as leader of the group, when he reports this meeting of Paul with the
Jerusalem apostles in A.D. 50 in his account in Acts 15 he also felt obligated to relate that James
was in full charge of the proceedings.”242 However, neither one of these points is accurately
related by Tabor. The term ‘apostle’ (ajpovstolo") is not always a technical term for the twelve
whom Jesus chose. In fact, Paul uses this term with reference to himself in Gal. 1:1, but Paul was
certainly not one of the original twelve. So also, James is referred to by Paul as an apostle, also in
Galatians, but this does not mean the anyone recognized him as one of the twelve. So, Luke’s
account in Act 15 does not in fact assert or imply that James was in full charge of the
proceedings. Even Tabor’s translation is misleading: “Therefore I have made the judgment . . .”
as if the text presents James had the final say in what should be done. But the fact is, in his own
speech, James appeals to Peter, and when the decision is made, it is not made by James, but by
“the apostles and elders, with the whole church . . .” (Acts 15:22). The term that Tabor translates
“I have made the judgment” is the word ‘krino’ (krivnw), which can be translated “I judge,” but
can also be translated “I conclude.” It is simply not true, as Tabor states, “that James decreed”243
what should be done. To say that James “decreed” would require a different Greek word than the
one used.
There is no dispute that James was a prominent figure in the church at Jerusalem, but in
order for Tabor to advance his theory, he must misrepresent and twist the text to make it say what
it does not. Tabor attempts to argue that Luke’s shift in the order of the listing of the Twelve “fits
with what we know from Paul about the ‘pillars’ of the church, namely James, Peter, and
John.”244 Although this is certainly true, the fact is it does not fit with Tabor’s own theory. If, as
Tabor claims, James was first and Peter and John were “chosen for the ‘right and left’
positions,”245 why did Luke not list James first? In fact, Luke does not list James at all. Of course
Tabor will simply claim that Luke hand an agenda, of which there is no historical or textual

241
Tabor, 252.
242
Ibid.
243
Ibid., 254.
244
Ibid., 253.
245
Ibid.
 83

evidence, but the fact is that Tabor is the one with the agenda, and there is plenty of evidence to
establish this as a fact.

James the Just One

The Gospel of Thomas, Christian?

Tabor claims that the Gospel of Thomas “provides us a rare glimpse into what scholars
have called ‘Jewish Christianity,’ that is, the earliest followers of Jesus led by James.”246 It is
simply beyond the bounds of credulity to believe Tabor’s tactic here. He rejects the canonical
Gospels, he denounces them for being “late,” but then he accepts the statements in the Gospel of
Thomas as authentic even though the earliest date of its composition has been estimated at 140
A.D. As Eta Linnemann points out, “Even if this hypothetical dating is correct, that is more than
seventy years after our canonical gospels. By that time the true gospel and the very expression
euangelion (gospel) were well established; a new creation like Thomas, with its ostensible
collection of Jesus sayings, would try to traffic in this good name by claiming the ‘gospel’
title.”247 Linnemann goes on to point out, “The Gospel of Thomas is not just ‘noncanonical.’
Every church father who ever mentioned it called it heretical or gnostic. From a gnostic writing
we cannot expect interest in Jesus’ death and resurrection, since gnosticism repudiates both as
the early church understood them.”248 We have already demonstrated that the testimony of the
resurrection sightings dates back to the very week of Christ’s resurrection. The notion that the
Gospel of Thomas reflects an early Jewish Christianity is simply unsustainable.

The Gospel of Thomas, A Questionable Testimony to James

Tabor quotes from the Gospel of Thomas and then asserts, “Here we have an outright
statement from Jesus himself that he is handling (sic) over the leadership and spiritual direction
of his movement to James.”249 But the Gospel of Thomas also includes another statement
attributed to Jesus, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may
become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will
enter the kingdom of heaven.”250 Should we conclude that the early Jewish Christianity of James
and the followers of Jesus rejected women from entrance into heaven unless they became men?

246
Ibid., 255.
247
Eta Linnemann, Biblical Criticism on Trial: How Scientific is ‘Scientific Theology’?
trans. Robert Yarbrough (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2001), 29.
248
Ibid.
249
Tabor, 255.
250
Robinson, Nag Hammadi, 138.
 84

Tabor’s faith in the Gospel of Thomas is selective and opportunistic. The fact is, the Gospel of
Thomas is not a reliable source for the state or beliefs of early Christianity. But accepting the
questionable and rejecting the historical is the modus operandi of James Tabor. This chapter
concludes with a number of references and quotes from a variety of sources, all late and all
designed to shore up the crumbling edifice of his theory that James was the successor to the Jesus
Dynasty. What is impressive about these sources is that none of them actually claims what Tabor
divines from them. On the basis of this hypothetical construct, Tabor will attempt to fabricate a
view of the type of Christianity he would like to believe James the Just inherited from his brother
Jesus and passed on to us.
 CHAPTER ELEVEN

THE CHALLENGE OF PAUL

In this chapter, Tabor attempts to drive a wedge between the teaching of Paul and other
parts of the New Testament. This is not a new or insightful claim. Others have attempted the
same and have likewise been proven to have misrepresented one side or the other or both. Tabor
is no exception. It would be tedious to go through this chapter and point out all the
misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and distortions propagated by Tabor. Suffice to say that
there are an abundance of good commentaries and studies that have demonstrated the error of this
kind of speculation. As an example, consider the following:

But is the Jesus-tradition really central, or is it peripheral in Paul’s thinking? At first sight
some of the major themes of Paul’s theology may appear to be quite different from the
themes of Jesus’ ministry. But on closer inspection we have found , first, that the overall
structure of Jesus’ and Paul’s theology is the same — with the emphasis on Jesus having
brought the promised day of fulfillment of salvation for God’s people; second, that major
terminological differences prove to be just that rather than differences of substance, so that,
for example, Jesus’ “kingdom” teaching and Paul’s justification/righteousness teaching are
much closer than may at first appear; and third, that some of the other key Pauline ideas,
for example, participation in Christ — in his body and his death, Paul’s Adam christology,
his flesh-spirit dualism, and his faith-hope-love triad, all may be seen as deriving from the
Jesus-tradition, even though some of the applications (e.g., of the body language to the
practicalities of church life) is distinctively Pauline . . . Paul would have been horrified at
the suggestion that he was the founder of Christianity. For him the fountain of theology
was Jesus: first, the Jesus whom he met on the Damascus road; second, the Jesus of the
Christian tradition. He of course identified the two. Paul saw himself as the slave of Jesus
Christ, not the founder of Christianity. He was right to see himself in that way.251

Tabor’s attempt to manufacture an understanding of Paul’s teaching that would be at odds

with the teaching of Jesus does not stand up to diligent and careful research. Tabor claims that,
“by diligent and careful research”252 he will be able to reconstruct what the early followers of

251
David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 399, 409-10.
252
Tabor, 271.

85
 86

James actually taught. By this time the reader is hoping that Tabor might finally present some
diligent and careful research. But if he operates true to his established form, that prospect is very
unlikely.
The methodology of the remaining two chapters continues unchanged. Speculation built
on hypothesis and half-truth producing fabrications and distortions of history are employed to
manufacture a tale that Tabor seems actually to believe. Exposing the errors of these chapters
would require another entire monograph.

Conclusion

The Jesus Dynasty is a aggregation of misrepresentations, exaggerations, falsehoods,

speculations, and fabrications that reads like an attempt to sound novel, insightful, and
provocative, but fails on all counts. Not only has Tabor not proven his theory; rather he has
demonstrated that such theories cannot be sustained by the evidence of the text or of history.
Although the evaluation is not original with this reviewer, I am compelled to employ what to me
seems to be the best characterization of this book: Tabor’s book fills a much needed void. It is in
fact not even an interesting story. Tabor’s tendency to twist and invent evidence implies that he is
desperately trying to convince himself that his story could even be possible. Tabor claims to be
an historian, but his presentation is anti-historical. His scientific-positivist approach to history
has been rejected by philosophers of history and historians alike. His antisupernaturalism informs
all of his speculations and ultimately blinds him to other possibilities. Consequently, he violates
his own principle, “But history, by its very nature, is an open process of inquiry that cannot be
bound by the dogmas of faith.”253 Yet his own dogma of faith in naturalism is his professed
underlying assumption. Tabor claims, “Historians are obligated to examine whatever evidence
we have, even if such discoveries might be considered shocking or sacrilegious to some.”254 But,
when the evidence against his theory surfaces, he ignores it, rearranges it, misrepresents it, or
eliminates it altogether. Hardly the practice of the kind of historian Tabor professes to be.
One glaring lacuna in Tabor’s fictionalized account must be addressed. As sentimental as
the story may be, and as “human” as Tabor attempts to make it, he offers no reason why anyone
should adopt this view of life? Since the John and Jesus of Tabor’s story end their lives in defeat,
death, and unrealized expectations, a fate that, according to Tabor awaited each one of their
followers, why should anyone want to embrace this message? Tabor objects to the notion that
anyone would think of Jesus as a “failed messiah.”255 He attempts to obviate this conclusion by
delineating the various “ethical and spiritual values, based upon the message of the Hebrew
Prophets, that still find powerful resonance among Christians and non-Christians alike.”256 But

253
Ibid., 59.

0.Ibid.
255
Ibid., 311.
256
Ibid., 312.
 87

just as Tabor fails to understand the New Testament, so he fails to grasp the message of the
Hebrew prophets. The ethical and spiritual values of the Hebrew prophets were grounded in the
hope of eternal life and the resurrection from the dead to live in the presence of the God of Israel
forever. The message that Tabor’s Jesus proclaims offers no hope of making any real difference
in the present world—according to Tabor’s own account, it certainly did not make any difference
in the ancient world. A few believers died in obscurity: “John was beheaded. Jesus and Simon
were crucified. James was stoned to death. The cost of hearing the Voice and seeking to follow
was a high one,”257 and there was no hope of any good to come from paying the price. The
Roman juggernaut continued to grind the nations under its feet for centuries. The Jews of
Judaism did not repent. And the kingdom of God was not established. The “righteous” suffered,
the evil prospered, and there was no promise that there would really be justice for all—just an
empty hope that maybe, some day, people would suddenly, for no reason other than the
proclamation of an obscure group of believers, adopt a message proclaimed by men who
themselves suffered injustice and died ingloriously. Beyond the sentimentality of his “thoroughly
human story,” Tabor’s message offers no help in this life, and no hope after this life. If Tabor’s
message did not meet with any appreciable success then, why should anyone think that it will
meet with any more success today? About the only thing that Tabor’s Jesus offers is a fleeting
moment of the warm fuzzies— like an after-school special.
Tabor offers a “disclaimer” in his final chapter: “All historians come to their
investigations with selective criteria of judgment forged by both acknowledged and unrecognized
predisposed interests and cultural assumptions. There is no absolutely objective place to stand.
As long as we recognize our limitations of method and resist equating our own reconstructions
with an absolute truth we can at least seek to approximate a standard of best evidence.”258 But no
sooner does he recite this postmodern mantra than he declares, “I hope that my journey will help
them to better glimpse Jesus as he was in his own time and place,”259 as if his own reconstruction
has reported the absolute truth about who Jesus really was. Tabor claims that he is “ever open to
critique and revision.”260 The only thing I would say to him is, get your story straight.
But for the request of some to evaluate this book, I would not have invested my time and
effort. My time would have been better served watching the De Vinci Code—at least it promises
to be interesting.

Thomas A. Howe, Ph.D.

Professor of Bible and Biblical Languages
Southern Evangelical Seminary

257
Ibid., 313.
258
Ibid., 316. One wonders where these concepts were when Tabor was dictating what
historians must believe about reality.
259
Ibid., 317.
260
Ibid.
 WORKS CONSULTED

Aland, Kurt, et. al., ed. The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies,
1993.

Aland, Barbara, et. al., ed. Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.

Alter, Robert. The Five Books of Moses: A Translation and Commentary. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 2004.

Andersen, Francis I. The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch. Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1970.

Barnett, Paul. The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005.

Bauer, Walter, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and Frederick William Danker. A Greek-English

Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3d ed. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1961.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray, R.

W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971.

Charlesworth, James H., ed. Apocalyptic Literature & Testaments. Vol. 1, The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha. New York: Doubleday, 1983.

Ehrman, Bart D., and Michael W. Holmes, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary
Research. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Elliger, K., and W. Rudolph, ed. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelstiftung, 1977.

88
 89

Evans, George E. “The Sister of the Mother of Jesus.” Review and Expositor (October 1947):
475-85.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1987.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999.

________ , and Thomas Howe. When Critics Ask. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.

Glare, P. G. W., ed. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 2005.

Goodacre, Mark, and Nicholas Perrin, ed. Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique. Downers
Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Gromacki, Robert G. New Testament Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press,
1970.

Habermas, Gary R. “Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars
Saying?” Lynchburg, Virginia: Gary R. Habermas, 2005. [Online]. Available:
<http://garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historic
al_ Jesus_3-2_2005.htm.> [July 10, 2006].

Hemer, Colin, J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 2001.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. The Epistle of James: Tests of a Living Faith. Chicago: Moody Press, 1979.

________ . Mark: A Portrait of the Servant. Chicago: Moody Press, 1979.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1977.

Jaki, Stanley L. Miracles and Physics. Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom Press, 1989.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.

Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson

Publishers, 2003.
 90

Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Ladd, George Eldon. The New Testament and Criticism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1967.

Lemon, M. C. Philosophy of History: A Guide for Students. London: Routledge, 2003.

Lewis, Charlton, T., and Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press,
1966.

Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: At the Clarendon
Press, 1968.

Linnemann, Eta. Biblical Criticism on Trial. Translated by Robert Yarbrough. Grand Rapids:
Kregel Publications, 2001.

Nash, Ronald H. Christianity and the Hellenistic World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1984.

Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1986.

Peabody, David B., with Lamar Cope, and Allan J. McNicol. One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use
of Matthew and Luke. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2002.

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979.

Ringgren, Helmer. The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Translated by Emilie
T. Sander. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad, 1995.

Robinson, Maurice A., and William G. Pierpont, ed. The New Testament in the Original Greek:
Byzantine Textform. Southborough, Massachusetts: Chilton Book Publishing, 2005.

Seters, John Van. The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism.
Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

Smith, J. Payne, ed. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1990.

Swanson, Reuben, ed. New Testament Greek Manuscripts: John. Sheffield, England: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1995.
 91

________ . New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Luke. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1995.

________ . New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Matthew. Sheffield, England: Sheffield

Academic Press, 1995.

Tabor, James D. The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the
Birth of Christianity. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006.

Unger, Merrill F. Zechariah: Prophet of Messiah’s Glory. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1963.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1996.

Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2001.

Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, ed. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament.
Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1983.

Wenham, David. Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Wenham, John W. “The Relatives of Jesus.” Evangelical Quarterly 47:1 (January 1975): 6-15.

Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek. Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963.