Joan Taylor knows what Jesus looks like: he is basically Bret from Flight of the Conchords

Professor Joan Taylor has written a book about what Jesus looks like.

In What Did Jesus Look Like? (T&T Clark, February 2018), Joan Taylor imagines what Jesus would have looked like “as an average man”, reconstructed from the most up-to-date scientific knowledge concerning average first-century-AD Jewish men.

According to Taylor, this is what Jesus would have looked like, “if he was average”:

Jesus, as drawn by Joan Taylor, from What Did Jesus Look Like? (T&T Clark, 2018)
Jesus, as drawn by Joan Taylor, from What Did Jesus Look Like? (T&T Clark, 2018), p. 192 (Figure 76)

So basically, Jesus is Bret from Flight of the Conchords:

Overall, then, we can arrive at a general image of Jesus as an average man: he was probably around 166 cm (5 feet 5 inches) tall, somewhat slim and reasonably muscular, with olive-brown skin, dark brown to black hair, and brown eyes. He was likely bearded (but not heavily, or with a long beard), with shortish hair (probably not well kept) and aged about 30 years old at the start of his mission.

I note that Bret is a New Zealander. So this fact allows us to reach a further significant scientific conclusion: Kiwi men are the most Jesus-like men in the world.

Go in peace.

[Update: See Joan Taylor’s short article in the Irish Times, “What did Jesus really look like, as a Jew in 1st-century Judaea?“, 27 February 2018]


On Trad-Historical Principles, Authenticity of “Son of Man” sayings a Non-Starter

On traditional-historical principles, every mention of “Son of Man” as future redeemer in the Gospel of Mark is most probably secondary and inauthentic. The historical Jesus never uttered the phrase in this eschatological sense.

The first tradition-historical ground is based on the well-recognized fact that the eschatological “Son of Man” sayings never overlap with any “Kingdom of God” sayings. What is the significance of this literary feature in Mark? It is clear that one of the primary concerns of the historical Jesus was to tell people that God’s Kingdom was about to arrive in some dramatic fashion. Although consensus among historical Jesus scholars is hard to find, almost all agree on this point: Jesus’ teachings were dominated by the theme of the Kingdom of God. Yet remarkably, Jesus never mentions the “Son of Man” in relation to this coming Kingdom. These are the two most distinct eschatological motifs on Jesus’ lips in the Gospel of Mark, and he never talks about the Son of Man in relation to the Kingdom. Or vice-versa. For example, in the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13), Jesus makes a long eschatological speech leading up to the coming of the Son of Man, but never mentions the Kingdom of God. The closest proximity of the two themes is Mark 8.38-9.1 – where the two are clearly from separate traditions, separated in the text of Mark by a second introduction (“And he [Jesus] said to them…”).

As Philipp Vielhauer summarizes: “Already, however, the striking fact should be noted that in none of the individual synoptic Son of Man sayings is there a statement about the Kingdom of God; not even where the speech is about the coming Son of Man. The sayings about the Son of Man and those about the Kingdom of God are apparently two different strands of tradition in the sayings of Jesus” (Schon jetzt ist aber die auffällige Tatsache festzustellen, daß in keinem der einzelnen synoptischen Menschensohn-Worte eine Aussage über die Gottesherrschaft gemacht wird; auch dort nicht, wo vom kommenden Menschensohn die Rede ist. Die Worte vom Menschensohn und die von der Gottesherrschaft gehören offenbar zwei verschiedenen Überlieferungssträngen der Herrenworte an; “Gottesreich und Menschensohn” p. 53).

If that’s not enough, there is a further traditional-historical argument for seeing every “Son of Man” saying as secondary. Paul never uses the phrase. Like Mark, he’s writing to a predominantly Gentile audience, although one familiar with Jewish traditions. Yet by contrast, Mark has little problem in rendering the Aramaic bar enosh as a technical term in Greek (and the Aramaic phrase inevitably becomes a technical term when rendered in Greek as ὁ υἱος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, because it’s too awkward to be read as non-translation Greek). So there is no good argument for saying that Paul avoided the phrase “Son of Man” on mere translation grounds.

What makes it highly unlikely that Paul simply avoided a term previously used by Jesus (and presumably remembered by Jesus’ earliest followers) is that the concept of ‘Son of Man’ fits perfectly with Paul’s description of the exalted Christ. Like the Son of Man of the Gospels (and to an extent the Son of Man in the Similitudes), Paul’s Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God, and was going to return soon to take Christians to heaven, and was going to be involved in the final judgment, and possessed an exalted heavenly form. When Jesus described the person who was going to do and be all these things, he called him the ‘Son of Man’. The term was ready-made for Paul’s conception of Christ, and yet he doesn’t use it – because he hadn’t heard it from Jesus’ followers. Therefore, the absence of the term ‘Son of Man’ from Paul strongly corroborates – on traditional-historical principles – that the phrase was a post-Historical Jesus, post-Pauline development in Christianity.

On tradition-historical grounds, the idea that the historical Jesus called himself the “Son of Man” should be a non-starter.

So why does it have such support in New Testament studies? Could it be to do with the fact that the term always appears on the lips of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark? And that given the dominant demography of New Testament scholarship, this fact makes it hard to reject it as entirely secondary?


The Two Stories of Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem


At this time of year, it’s common to see pictures of the Christmas story or to hear someone retell the story: Jesus in a manger, wise men visiting with gifts, angels and shepherds, etc. But all of these depictions are based on two quite different accounts of Jesus’ birth: one in the Gospel of Matthew and the other in the Gospel of Luke. The two accounts are not only different, but contradictory.

The popular retelling of the Christmas story usually involves a conflation (or mix-up) and harmonization (blurring of differences and contradictions) of elements from these two different stories.

But let’s examine each of them, to seek to understand the distinct stories they each tell:

Story One: Luke

The Gospel of Luke tells the story of how Joseph and Mary travel from their hometown in Nazareth in Galilee, to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus. Luke situates Joseph and Mary’s home in Nazareth. Before the birth of Jesus (Luke 2.3-4), Joseph, Jesus’ legal father, has to travel from his “own town” (2.39) of Nazareth in Galilee, to his “own [ancestral] town” (2.3-4) Bethlehem in Judea. Why do Joseph and Mary have to travel to Bethlehem so close to the time of birth of Jesus? Luke’s answer is that Joseph and Mary had to travel there due to the census of Quirinius, the governor of Syria:

“In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David” (Luke 2.1-4)

The idea that Joseph would have had to have traveled to Bethlehem, because it was the town of his ancestors, is most probably a complete fiction. It is fabricated on the basis of the belief that the Messiah/Christ must be a descendant of David.

Then, according to Luke, after Joseph and Mary had travelled to Bethlehem, Jesus was born in Bethlehem:

“While they were there [in Bethlehem], the time came for her to deliver her child. And she gave birth to her firstborn son …” (Luke 2.6-7)

Luke then describes the circumcision of Jesus, and the purification of Mary (from the legal so-called ‘impurities’ of childbirth). Circumcision was carried out on the eighth day after birth (Lev 12.3), and the mother was considered ceremonially unclean for the 7 days following childbirth, and 33 days following the circumcision (Lev 12.2, 4). After this 40-day period, the mother had to provide a sheep as a sacrifice to restore her purity. This sacrifice could be changed to two turtledoves or pigeons if she were too poor to afford a sheep (Lev 12.6-8). As Luke 2.24 shows, Mary offered two turtledoves or pigeons:

“After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord”), and they offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”” (Luke 2.21-24)

Leviticus 12 sets out the relevant “law of Moses”, the requirements of which took a period of 40 days following childbirth. Luke is then quite clear that Joseph and Mary returned to their “own town” of Nazareth “when they had finished” these 40 days of legal requirements:

“When they [Joseph and Mary] had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” (Luke 2.39)

The phrase “when they had finished … they returned to Galilee” translates the Greek kai hos etelesan … epestrepsan eis ten Galilaian, literally: “as they completed [all the requirements of the Law]… they returned to Galilee.” Luke is clearly narrating the return to Nazareth as something that occurred just after Mary had completed the 40 days of legal obligations. What’s more, they are returning eis polin heuton (“into their own town”) of Nazareth. So Luke envisages a round trip, from Joseph & Mary’s hometown of Nazareth, to the purported ancestral town of Joseph (Bethlehem), to the Temple in Jerusalem, and back to Joseph & Mary’s hometown.

Story Two: Matthew

But Matthew has Joseph and Mary take an entirely different route, from an entirely different hometown!

In Luke, Jesus is still little more than a newborn baby when he leaves Bethlehem, leaving for Jerusalem after 40 days, the term of Mary’s purification (Luke 2.21-24, 39). By contrast, in Matthew, the wise men who visit provide information to Herod about Jesus’ age that leads to him killing all boys up to two years old. The clear implication of the narrative is that the wise men had given Herod information about the date of Jesus’ birth that led Herod to assume that Jesus was older than a mere one-month-old baby:

“When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men.” (Matt 2.16)

In Matthew, Joseph & Mary escape Bethlehem, with Jesus, and live in Egypt for a period. Moreover, in Matthew’s account, Joseph and Mary remain in Egypt for some time after this, awaiting the death of Herod. Yet, according to Luke, Jesus had travelled to Nazareth with his family only after 40 days:

“and [Joseph, the child and his mother] remained there [in Egypt] until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I have called my son.” … When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.” ” (Matt 2.15, 19-21)

Often those who want to harmonize Luke with Matthew posit a trip to Egypt between the visit to Jerusalem and the return to Nazareth. But:

1. Such a harmonization abuses the straightforward statement in Luke that shows Joseph and Mary return home on completing the legal requirements of Leviticus 12. According to Luke, Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth “as they finished everything required by the law”;

2. Such a harmonization ignores the presentation of Nazareth as the hometown of Joseph and Mary in Luke, versus Bethlehem in Matthew; and

3. Such a harmonization fails to adequately explain why, on being warned to flee straightaway to Egypt by an angel of Yahweh (once the wise men who had visited them, in Bethlehem, had left the place: 2.1-15), Joseph first travelled to Jerusalem (Luke 2.22) the very place where Herod himself reigned!

In addition, for Matthew, Joseph and Mary’s home was in Bethlehem.

Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph is commanded to go to Egypt, from their house in Bethlehem. If this “house” (Matt 2.11) is Joseph and Mary’s own house, this is complete contradiction to Luke’s account, which places Joseph & Mary’s hometown in Nazareth, Galilee. The term oikia (“house”) in Matthew most naturally refers to a family’s abode. Therefore, Matthew should be interpreted as understanding that Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem immediately before the birth of Jesus! As Raymond Brown explains:

“Presumably this was the house which served as the home of Joseph and Mary who were inhabitants of Bethlehem. The view is quite different from that of Luke 2.1-7. There have been many attempts, often quite forced, to harmonize the information.” (Birth of the Messiah, p. 176)

There is further evidence later on in chapter 2 of Matthew that Bethlehem was Joseph and Mary’s hometown. For, when Joseph is told to return to Israel:

1. Joseph’s first thought is to return to Judea (the province in which Bethlehem is located), not Nazareth (Matt 2.22). Naturally, Joseph and Mary wished to return to their hometown, which Matthew 2.22 reveals was in Judea. But Nazareth is in Galilee, not Judea!

2. Only after being warned in a dream not to return to Judea, Joseph goes instead to Galilee (Matthew 2.22).

3. On coming to Nazareth, Joseph is not described as returning to the home that Luke believes he has there. To the contrary, Joseph is described as “making his home” there. The phrase “made his home in a town called Nazareth” (Matt 2.23) reveals that Joseph is settling in a new place, which Matthew now introduces for the first time! Far from returning to his hometown, Joseph has arrived in a town that is altogether new to him.

4. What is more, it is only because of Joseph’s arrival in Nazareth at this time that Matthew sees fit to claim that Jesus will now fulfill the prophecy, “He will be called a Nazorean” (Matt 2.23).

So when we actually come to consider the logic of Matthew’s narrative itself, rather than leap to a forced harmonization with Luke, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Matthew must be interpreted as presenting Bethlehem, not Nazareth, as Joseph and Mary’s original hometown. As Raymond Brown summarises:

“Joseph’s first thought was to return to Judea, i.e., to “Bethlehem of Judea” (2.1), because he and Mary lived in a house there (2.11). Since Joseph and Mary were citizens of Bethlehem, Matthew takes pains to explain why they went to Nazareth. In Luke’s account, where they are citizens of Nazareth, the painstaking explanation is centered on why they went to Bethlehem (2.1-5).”

So, in contrast to Luke, Matthew has Joseph and Mary move from their house in Bethlehem, to Egypt, and then settle for the first time in Nazareth!

So, to summarize:

Luke places Joseph and Mary at home in Nazareth, Galilee, from before the birth of Jesus (Luke 1.26-27; 2.4). After a trip to Bethlehem, Judea (Luke 2.5), during which Mary gives birth to Jesus and has him circumcised (Luke 2.6-7, 21), they return home to Nazareth, Galilee. If he is presented to the temple in Jerusalem after 40 days as was the custom (Matt 2.21-38) – the return would be just following 40 days after Jesus’ birth (Luke 2.39).


Matthew places Joseph and Mary’s original home in Bethlehem, Judea. Matthew does not believe that their original home was in Nazareth, Galilee. This is clear from the fact that they begin in Bethlehem, as shown by the visit to their home in Bethlehem, Judea by the wise men in Matt 2.1-12, and Herod seeking to destroy all Bethlehem infants in Matt 2.16-18; and especially as shown by the angel of the Lord telling them to return home to Israel in Matt 2.19-21 and Joseph’s decision not to return to Judea but to settle in a new town, Nazareth, Galilee.

Therefore, if you hear the Christmas story this year, it will probably involve a forced harmonization of two quite different and contradictory stories in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Did Jesus save the Aliens?

alien-jesusJust last month, the Kepler mission discovered an Earth-like planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, in that parent star’s habitable zone. It’s only 4.25 light years away, which makes it a pretty close neighbour of Earth. The Kepler mission has also found some 216 planets in habitable zones of other parent stars, and of these has determined that 20 are most likely to support life. Unlike the habitable planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, all of these other habitable planets are many 100s of light years from Earth.

We are not alone.

Jerome Eckstein, in “The Fall and Rise of Man”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 5, no. 1  (1965), pondered on what the discovery of alien life would mean for traditional Christian religion:

Let our imaginations roam, and let us speculate about the possible conflicts between future discoveries of space exploration and our old religious beliefs, if these religious beliefs are understood as offering knowledge of the kind given by science. Suppose a strangely figured race of creatures with the approximate intelligence of humans and a culture and ethics radically different from ours was discovered on some distant star, would this not pose serious problems to the dogmatic and authoritarian interpretations of the Judaeo-Christian religions? Would these creatures, who obviously were not descended from Adam and Eve, be tainted with original sin? Would they too have souls? Would they be in need of grace and salvation? Did Jesus absorb their sins? Would they be in need of the Messiah? Would they be subject to the laws and traditions of these earth-centred religions? Would they be eligible to life in the hereafter? (80)

What do you think? Might Jesus have become incarnated as sentient life-forms on other planets? Does the plausibility of alien life-forms make traditional religious dogmas like incarnation, salvation, and the Trinity a bit parochial, in the perspective of the wide universe? What about the other forms of life on this planet? Would theology find a way to rationalize the existence of aliens? Are these questions a bit silly? But more silly than other theological questions?

Maybe C.S. Lewis has a point (in “Religion and Rocketry”):

Each new discovery, even each new theory, is held at first to have the most wide-reaching and theological consequences. It is seized by unbelievers as the basis for a new attack on Christianity; it is often, and more embarassingly, seized by injudicious believers as the basis for a new defence. But usually, when the popular hubbub has subsided and the novelty has been chewed over by real theologians, real scientists and real philosophers, both sides find themselves pretty much where they were before.

As Albert Schweitzer once said, “Es gibt keine Lage so verzweifelt, dass die Theologie keine Ausweg wüsste” (“There is no question so complicated that Theology does not know the answer”). I’m sure that if and when sentient aliens are encountered, Theology will come up with all kinds of rationalizations.

Simcha Jacobovici sees Jesus where there is no Jesus (again): This time in the Dead Sea Scrolls

jesus-toastIn his blog for The Times of Israel of March 25, 2016, journalist Simcha Jacobovici claims to have made a significant “discovery”. Jacobovici claims to have upset the current scholarly consensus that the community responsible for the Dead Sea scrolls was unconnected with the early followers of Jesus:

Now, I’ve made a discovery that may change all this. Put simply, I believe that one of the fragments called by scholars by the very unappealing name of “4Q541” explicitly refers to Jesus.

Jacobovici claims that the text in question, fragment 24 of 4Q541 (or “4QApocryphon of Levi”), mentions several items connected with Jesus: a “dove” (יונא), “crucifixion” (ותליא), a “nail” (וצצא), and the words “do not mourn for him” (אל תתאבל בה).

Jacobovici’s blog post goes on to claim that scholars have avoided what he has “discovered”. Jacobovici claims that Florentino García Martínez “must have been nervous about the original reference to ‘the nail’ [in Martínez’s earlier translation] and changed his translation”. In the Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Martínez (with Eibert Tigchelar) translates וצצא as “night-hawk” rather than “nail”, and omits any translation of ותליא. Jacobovici infers that scholars are avoiding finding Jesus in the Dead Sea scrolls: “Were scholars worried about finding Jesus in any ancient texts other than the New Testament?” Jacobovici examined 4Q541 to check that the word ותליא is there, and acknowledges that the ת is fragmentary and less than fully certain. But he believes that it is ת, so comments, “So now I became really suspicious.” When he checks the translation with Dead Sea scrolls translator Émile Puech, Jacobovici concludes that, in omitting the translation “dove”, “Puech purposely fudged the translation so that the reference to Jesus would be lost”.

There are several things wrong with Jacobovici’s article, in addition to its conspiracy-theorist tone.

First, Jacobovici’s claim that “now, I’ve made a discovery that may change all this” makes it sound as if he is the first to discover possible references to a crucifixion and related motifs in 4Q541. He is not. In fact, Émile Puech, with whom Jacobovici spoke, had proposed such a meaning in the official publication of the text, fifteen years ago, in 2001. Not only that, but Puech’s interpretation of the text has been largely followed by George Brooke, in his comparison of the Dead Sea scrolls and New Testament (Fortress Press, 2005). This is by no means, contrary to Jacobovici’s sensationalism, a “discovery”.

Second, Jacobovici is simply flat-out incorrect that 4Q541 “explicitly refers to Jesus”. For there to be an “explicit” reference, the reference must be, er, just that: explicit. Yet there is no mention of the name Jesus/Yeshu(a) in 4Q541. It doesn’t appear explicitly. Therefore, it is wrong to claim that there is an explicit reference to Jesus in the text.

Third, there is a very good reason for the hesitation of many scholars to translate the text with the words “crucifixion”, “nail”, or even “dove”. 4Q541 is a fragmentary text, and its meaning – as a result – is unavoidably uncertain. It is normally the case, in any reconstruction of fragmentary Dead Sea scrolls, that different scholars come up with quite different meanings. Nothing is unusual here, let alone worthy of conspiracy-theory sensationalism. In particular: the ו and ת in ותליא are unclear, which makes the translation “crucifixion”/”suspension” uncertain. In addition, the term צצא is rare, so we can’t be at all sure that the text refers to a “nail”. On top of all this, there are gaps in the fragment which make the context and meaning difficult to determine. This is not an instance of scholarly bias, despite Jacobovici’s attempt to portray it that way. It is, rather, an example of appropriate scholarly caution. We have a fragmentary text and we are uncertain about its meaning and significance.

Fourth: the text predates Jesus by a century or more. Let’s assume that the text does mention crucifixion and nails, mourning, and a dove. Would we then be compelled to conclude that it must refer to Jesus? Not at all. Palaeographical (handwriting) analysis of 4Q541 indicates that the text dates to the end of the second century BCE or about 100 BCE. Its style of handwriting matches that of other texts from this period (eg. 1QS, 1QIsaa, and 4Q175). Although Jacobovici does not mention it in his blog post, Puech himself dated the text some 100-150 years before Jesus. The obvious conclusion is that 4Q541 cannot refer to Jesus.

Simcha Jacobovici has a history of seeing Jesuses where there are no Jesuses. A few years ago, he made the claim, since comprehensively disproved, that a portrait of a vase in a Jerusalem tomb was “a Jonah fish”, an early Christian symbol. As Mark Goodacre summarized, “He’s seeing things that simply aren’t there.” And so it continues, in the next, sensationalist Simcha TV show.

That’s Not a Fish on Jacobovici’s “Tomb of Jesus’s Disciples”: (5) The Hezbollah “Terrorist” Katyusha Rocket Launcher Theory; and (6) The Israeli “Iron Dome” Missile Defense System Theory

Two more theories on what Jacobovici’s “Jonah-fish” really is. These were submitted by avid reader of Remnant of Giants Bob Cargill, who in each case merely rotated the original image :

(5) The Hezbollah “Terrorist” Katyusha Rocket Launcher Theory:

Simcha Jacobovici: Could be a Hezbollah katyusha rocket, could be a fish, I dunno

(6) The Israeli “Iron Dome” Missile Defense System Theory:

Simcha Jacobovici: Couldn't tell a fish from an Israeli Iron Dome Missile

That’s Not a Fish on Jacobovici’s “Tomb of Jesus’s Disciples”: (4) The Roll-On Deodorant Theory

Theory no. 4: What Simcha Jacobovici alleges is a fish symbol on the tomb of Jesus’s disciples is instead what the disciples used to stay fresh all day long.

If I simply rotate the image, you can see it for yourself:

Simcha Jacobovici: Fish or Roll-On Deodorant?