Reprinted in their entirety at the end of this chapter are a couple of articles that appeared in The Dallas Morning News in early April 1998, plus a follow-up "letter to the editor" which appeared in the religion section of that newspaper a month later. This material is in reference to a program which aired on the Public Broadcasting Service's weekly show Frontline on April 6 and 7. This was a four-hour program titled "From Jesus to Christ : The First Christians."

This program, with primary consultancy by Professor L. Michael White, Director of Religious Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, attempted to explain the origin, life and influence of "the Jesus Christ" and the early Christians, prior to the rise of the Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. When the program aired, the writing of this book had just entered its third month. I recorded this program with the intention of watching it again at a later date and incorporating any pertinent information into this book. The writing of this chapter is the end-result of that plan, that strategy. This chapter will follow the "script" of the television program from beginning to end. Polo saw the program later, at the same time that Robertino watched it the second time, around the first of August 1998.

First of all, those who put the program together admitted right up front that there are no accurate historical data for the exact year of the birth of Jesus or the actual year of his crucifixion, other than the knowledge that the latter occurred at some point during the Procuratorship of Pontius Pilate in Judaea, 26-36 CE, although they presumed that the traditional date of 30 CE was most likely correct.

"The problem for any historian in trying to reconstruct the life of Jesus is simply that we don't have sources that come from the actual time of Jesus himself." Professor L. Michael White, Director of Religious Studies, University of Texas at Austin

As has been mentioned earlier in this book, this has always been a "problem" for traditional historians. These professors are also in agreement, it seems, that the Gospels themselves cannot be considered as history or biographies. They are only philosophical stories.

"[The Galilee] was known for being a hotbed of political activity, and some of it violent. In the last few generations of New Testament scholarship, the Galilee had achieved this reputation for being the hotbed of radicalism -- you know -- somewhat like the sixties' Berkeley of Palestine." Associate Professor Allen Callahan, Harvard Divinity School

One cannot separate the political overtones of these Jewish "Messianic Movements" from their religious underpinnings. The tradition of the Roman Empire was that anyone was free to worship any religion or god that one desired, just as long as one paid tribute to the Roman State and Emperor -- the old "render unto Caesar that which is Ceasar's" idea. However, these early religious movements, most notably the evolution of Christianity in general, seemed to flaunt this principle; thus, the Roman Government saw these movements as political threats, rather than simply "religions."

"I am not entirely convinced that we could characterize Jesus as a peasant. I think that that probably miscasts Jesus, especially in view of the more recent discoveries at Sepphoris and elsewhere." Prof. White

In this program, Apollonius of Tyana is never mentioned once. The fallacy of such a program as this is that it automatically assumes that "the Jesus Christ" was indeed born and did indeed live his whole life in Palestine. Therefore, the hypothesis that Jesus grew up in an affluent suburb of Sepphoris is flawed from the outset.

"There would have been a whole wide variety of groups in Jerusalem and perhaps in the countryside as a whole -- these other revolutionary groups -- who took their religious understanding of what Judaism was and turned it into political program, political agenda : we must destroy the Roman Empire or we must destroy Jews who cooperate with the Roman Empire." Professor Shaye J. D. Cohen, Brown University

Again we see the emphasis on the "politics" of this period of religious evolution, especially as it regards the ministry of John The Baptist.

"John is taking people out into the desert, crossing the Jordan. He is recapitulating the Exodus, and he is planting little ticking timebombs of apocalyptic expectation all over the Jewish homeland, waiting for God to strike, as it were." Professor John Dominic Crossan, DePaul University

Prof. White discussed death by crucifixion in the following manner :

"It's not from bleeding. It's not from the wounds themselves that the death occurs. It's rather a suffocation because one can't hold oneself up enough to breathe properly; and so over time really it's the exposure to the elements and the gradual loss of breath that produces death. ... The plaque which names him as 'Jesus, King of the Jews,' suggests that the charge on which he was executed was one of political insurrection, a threat to the Pax Romana; but he's also now a victim of the Pax Romana."

If "troublemakers," like Apollonius and Damis, were crucified at high noon on Friday, and if no later than 7 PM it was necessary -- by law! -- to have them down from the crosses, it is entirely possible that survival of crucifixion was much more feasible on a Friday than on any other day of the week. Although the suffocation process might have so greatly slowed the breathing process to make it appear as death, nevertheless, the last ultimate breath of life had not yet been snuffed out. Compare it to "suspended animation." But had they been left hanging there till after the ensuing midnight, that would have meant certain death. These Friday "lucky ones" escaped by the skin of their teeth. But to continue with the television program :

"One of the characteristics of the Roman Empire is there is suddenly great freedom of movement, more so than in any period before that, and in some ways more free than in any period that will happen again until the invention of the steamship." Professor Wayne A. Meeks, Yale University

Prof. Meeks made the above statement in reference to the idea that there was a vigorous exchange of ideas and commerce along the highway system that had originally been constructed for the movement of Roman troops. Apollonius of Tyana would have also been able to easily move along these highways, and at one point in their travels Apollonius and Damis may have used a certain kind of racing camel that was capable of travelling a hundred miles (160 kilometers) in one day. What's more, travel by boat around the Mediterranean Sea back then, especially using sails only, would have been almost as fast as it is today. So we must keep in mind that even though these events occurred two thousand years ago, the mode of transportation was, relatively speaking to their historical experience, quite efficient and rapid.

"We have to remember that Jesus died around 30. For forty years there's no written Gospel of his life until after the Revolt [of 66-70 CE]. During that time we have very little in the way of written records within Christianity. Our first writer in the New Testament is Paul, and his first letter is dated around 50 to 52, so still a good twenty years after Jesus himself. But it appears that in between the death of Jesus and the writing of the First Gospel, Mark, that they clearly are telling stories, they're passing on the tradition of what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by telling it and retelling it. ... It seems that over time some of these stories came to be written down and are what came to be thought of as the Gospel, the Good News, the story of Jesus." Prof. White

The Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel to be written; and according to this program, it was written soon after the fall of the fortress of Masada in 70 CE. However, in Prof. Smith's A Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 238, we find that "it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Probably, therefore, it was written between A.D. 63 and 70. But nothing can be certainly determined on this point."

Obviously there are theological disagreements about the actual date of Mark's Gospel, which, like so much of infant Christianity, is a "mystery." For the purposes of the chronology in this book, Mark's Gospel will be dated in 70 CE, during or soon after the sieges of Jerusalem and Masada, right around the time that Apollonius of Tyana was conferring with Roman Emperor Vespasian in Alexandria.

Mark's Gospel was written for a Greek-speaking Jewish community, like that of Paul of Tarsus, because Mark had to translate some of the Aramaic phrases, allegedly from Jesus, into Greek. Mark wrote his Gospel from that cultural vantage point.

"Jesus is standing against the Temple in Mark's Gospel, and Mark wants us to understand that that's significant to why he must die and why Jerusalem must be destroyed. ... It seems to be one of the points of Mark's Gospel to say he's not just a miracle-worker, he's more. ... [At that time] miracle-workers are a dime a dozen. ... Jesus is mysterious. Jesus intentionally keeps people from understanding who he really is, at times." Prof. White

There is nothing inherently contradictory in the above statements that would not allow the comparison of "the Jesus Christ" to Apollonius of Tyana. At the time that Apollonius was acting out "The Jesus Masquerade," undoubtedly he intentionally kept people from understanding exactly where his origins were and whence he had just arrived, namely India, a year or so before.

"Mark tells us that Jesus died being mocked and in agony, and I think Mark is writing from the experience of people in the 70s who are dying like that, who need the consolation that Jesus had died that way before, feeling abandoned by God." Prof. Crossan

If during "The Jesus Masquerade" Apollonius had been trying to pass himself off as "local," for political purposes against the Roman Empire, nevertheless, when he was hung nude on the cross, his uncircumcised Gentile penis would have been visible to all; and certainly he would have been mocked by the Jews as a "messianic impostor."

"Scholars observe that there's a part of the sayings in Matthew that are exactly identical with the sayings in Luke. In fact, they are identical in [the] Greek sayings of Jesus. Now think -- Jesus spoke Aramaic, so if you were translating Aramaic, and if I were translating Aramaic, they'd come out different, these translations. So you would only have identical, you would only have Jesus speaking identical sayings in Greek if you had a written translation in Greek of his sayings. And so scholars suggested that there must have been besides Mark something else written down that would have been a list of the sayings of Jesus, translated into Greek; and they call them 'Quelle' which means 'Source' in German; and they call it for short Q. Nobody has ever found this source written. We can reconstruct it because we guess that there was such a written source." Professor Elaine Pagels, Princeton University

Damis is Q, obviously. And if Damis is remembered in Christianity as Saint Thomas, then Q is in effect Saint Thomas. The name Damis is probably the Syrian equivalent of the Hebrew Tomas, much like we have Joseph and Giuseppe today. Their meanings are identical. And it is not at all unreasonable to presume that Damis made some copies of the sayings of "the Jesus Christ" and gave them to members of his and Apollonius' immediate "inner circle" of disciples.

According to this program, Matthew's Gospel was written about fifteen years after Mark's; and it reflects the tension within Judaism which would eventually fracture Judaism and lead to the split with Christianity. Prof. Smith's dictionary (Vol. II, p. 278) takes the position that Matthew's Gospel cannot be accurately dated but most probably was written in the late 50s or early 60s. Since these authorities in the television program seemed to be unanimous in their opinion that Matthew's Gospel followed Mark's by about fifteen years, that will be the hypothesis adopted by this book's chronology, placing the writing of the Gospel of Matthew in the year 85 CE.

"Most of the Gospels reflect a period of disagreement, of theological disagreement; and the new narrative history that evolves in the form of the New Testament tells a story of a broken relationship; and that's part of the sad story that evolves between Jews and Christians because it is a story that had such awful repercussions in later times." Professor Eric M. Meyers, Duke University

The program notes that by the time of Mark's Gospel, the trauma of the war of 70 CE was receding. Matthew wrote 55 years after the death of Jesus. It also notes that Luke was undoubtedly a Gentile.

"One of the major concerns that the composite works of Luke and Acts addresses is whether Christians can be good citizens of the Roman Empire. After all, their founder was executed as a political criminal, and some people would have thought of them as incendiaries, as revolutionaries. Luke in his portrait wants to show that Jesus himself taught an ethic that was entirely compatible with good citizenship of the Empire; and despite the fact Paul was himself executed, all of that was a serious mistake and had nothing to do with a political program that was in any way dangerous." Professor Harold W. Attridge, Yale Divinity School

Luke was writing for a Greco-Roman audience and was much more antagonist towards orthodox Judaism than were both Mark and Matthew. Luke was the first of these writers to call the followers of Jesus "Christians."

Prof. Smith's dictionary (Vol. II, pp. 153-154) places Luke's Gospel also ahead of Mark's, in the early 60s when Paul was first imprisoned at Rome. Luke's Gospel was written before his "Acts of the Apostles." However, this television program, whilst not specific about Luke's dates, clearly suggests that Luke's Gospel followed Mark's and was another variation of Mark's, like Matthew's. Therefore, for the purposes of this book, Luke's Gospel is also dated at approximately 85 CE.

"Luke is beginning to say, we, the Christians, the ones who are telling the story, are no longer in quite the same way just Jews. Luke is reflecting the development of the Christian movement more away from the Jewish groups and, in fact, developing more toward the Roman political and social arena." Prof. White

"When the Gospel gets to Rome, the capital of the Empire, that's the end of the story," said Prof. Crossan, who also added that from the New Testament one would not even realize that there were large Christian churches in Egypt and Syria, because the Gospels are directed towards Rome, towards a Greco-Roman church.

The program narrator states that the Gospel of John was written about seventy years after the crucifixion and that it reflects the breakdown of society into Jews and Christians. Prof. Smith's dictionary (Vol. I, p. 1112) places the writing of John's Gospel anywhere from 62-95 CE; 95 was the date suggested by Bishop Eusebius. Thus, in this book, in agreement with both the television program and Bishop Eusebius, John's Gospel is being dated at 95 CE.

From 30-95 CE was a period of 65 years. That is a long time, if you think about it, for legends to be passed around, primarily by word of mouth. This Gospel was written only two years prior to the "death" of Apollonius in 97 at the age of 100. Let's say that John was 35 years old when he wrote his Gospel. He would have been born in 60. Ten years later by the time John started to school, Apollonius would have been 73 years old. It is highly unlikely that either Apollonius or John ever heard of one another. John was simply repeating once again the legends of "the Jesus Christ."

And we must never forget that throughout this entire century, there was only one copy of the book that Damis was writing, and it was in his possession only. It is easy for us in hindsight to take a greater overview of these events, but Mark, Matthew, Luke and John did not have access to any material on Apollonius of Tyana, other than what they knew about the period spent in Palestine, which Damis -- probably deliberately -- chose to omit from his scrap-book biography. In fact, until Philostratus published his book in 220, there were no publicly available written records of Apollonius, only oral legends, which, as we know now, became the legends of "the Jesus Christ" and were written down first, as such, by the writers of the four Gospels, as well as others like Thomas.

"John's Gospel is different from the other three in the New Testament. That fact has been recognized since the early Church itself. Already by the year 200, John's Gospel was called the 'Spiritual Gospel' precisely because it told the story of Jesus in symbolic ways that differ sharply at times from the other three." Prof. White

Prof. Crossan then compared the Gospels of Mark and John. "We call it 'the agony in the garden.' Now there is no agony in John and there is no garden in Mark; but we get the agony in the garden, so we put them together." Mark, he said, understood the terrible persecutions that the Jews were suffering under the Romans, so Mark had Jesus prostrate on the ground, feeling abandoned by God and just wishing it would all go away. The disciples fled in terror. However, in John's Gospel Jesus was confronted by 600 Roman soldiers, and he eventually had all of them prostrate on the ground. Jesus then said, "Of course, I'll do what my Father wants"; and then he asked the Roman soldiers to dismiss the disciples. In John, Jesus was fully in control of the whole situation.

Assuming that all of this ultimately refers to Apollonius of Tyana, then we have very different interpretations of what happened just prior to his arrest and crucifixion. Perhaps they both are true. Perhaps Apollonius was so distraught over the arrest and impending crucifixion of Damis that he pled with God for answers. Iarchas and the other sages could have heard his pleas in India, as they had promised, and advised him to arise and confront the Romans. Perhaps some day a hitherto unknown manuscript will surface to shed more detail upon this confusing "night of betrayal."

"Jesus dies on a different day in John's Gospel than in Matthew, Mark and Luke. In the three synoptic Gospels, Jesus actually eats a Passover meal before he dies. In John's Gospel he doesn't. So here's the scene in John's Gospel : the day leading up to Passover is the day when all the lambs are slaughtered and everyone goes to the Temple to get their lamb for the Passover meal. In Jerusalem this would have meant thousands of lambs being slaughtered all at one time, and in John's Gospel that's the day on which Jesus is crucified. So that quite literally the dramatic scene in John's Gospel has Jesus hanging on the cross while the lambs are being slaughtered for Passover. ... Jesus doesn't eat a Passover meal. Jesus is the Passover meal." Prof. White

See John 6:55-56. "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." [Revised Standard Version]

"But the idea of drinking blood is absolutely abhorrent to Jewish dietary regulations, so the very language and the symbolism that is so rich within John's Gospel also has a decidedly political tone to it in terms of the evolving relationship between Jews and Christians." Prof. White

The program then goes on to say that by the time of John, anyone who believed in Jesus as the Messiah was being expelled from the synagogues. In these times the Christians were still mainly Jews. They were "Jewish Christians," but their attempt to become the leading sect and force of Judaism grew less and less likely until eventually they split off entirely.

Earlier on, the program discussed the problem of Jewish rites, such as circumcision, amongst the new Jewish-Christian Gentiles. Since it is not terribly feasible for adult men to be circumcised, an alternative "sign of solidarity" had to be adopted, and that ritual eventually became baptism.

"So Mark talks about the crowd being against Jesus; but by Matthew, fifteen years later, say in the year 85, it's all the people; and by the time of John in the 90s, it is the Jews who are against Jesus." Prof. Crossan

Then there follows an historical discussion about the events that led up to the Second Revolt, also called the Bar Cochba Revolt, of 132. This was followed by three years of warfare. In 135 Jerusalem was once again sacked by the Roman army. Although it wasn't totally destroyed as it had been in 70, the human devastation might have been greater.

"Bar Cochba was a pseudo-Messiah supported by large segments of the population. He claimed to be a descendant of King David. He claimed to be the Messiah himself and was supported by none other than one of the major figures of the day, Rabbi Akiba. So this war was very different. It was a Millennial Revolt, it was a Messianic Revolt, and it touched cords that were not touched in the First Revolt." Prof. Meyers

Prof. White then remarked that the Jews were seeking support from the Christians during this time of the Second Revolt. The Christians refused to join them. " ... the Christians by this time are starting to say, 'No, he can't be the Messiah; we already have one.'"

With the death of Bar Cochba, the hopes of a Jewish Messiah faded, and the Christians now looked to the distant future for the coming of their Messiah.

Keep in mind that the First Century was the first of this new Millennium that had begun with the introduction of the new Roman Julian Calendar in the year 0 by Augustus Caesar. There would have been a "millennium excitement" in the air then as now, as we approach the changeover to the year 2000.

"The self-consciously apocalyptic and messianic identity of Bar Cochba forces the issue for the Christian tradition; and at that point we really see the full-fledged separation of Jewish tradition and Christian tradition becoming clear." Prof. White

This was a "defining moment in religious history." The two religions would henceforth follow separate paths. The year was 135 CE, official date for "The Jewish Diaspora."

At this time, in the Second Century, there was a wide diversity amongst Christian doctrines, and Christianity in general had competition from other religions, such as Egyptian paganism and Persian Mithraism. Followers of the latter met in secret throughout the Empire and celebrated their God's birthday on December 25 -- which now, of course, just "by chance" happens to be the celebrated birthday of "the Jesus Christ"!

Also, early in the Second Century, Pliny The Younger, as magistrate of Bithynia (future host of the Council of Nicaea), had to deal with a lot of Christian "criminals" who were brought before him. Although he sentenced many of them to execution, he nevertheless tried to understand what motivated their belief in "the Jesus Christ." At one point he commented that the only thing he could find peculiar about them was their practice of meeting before sunrise to sing hymns and say prayers. Is it only coincidental that Apollonius of Tyana would recite his major prayers at daybreak?

"We can see the contrast rather sharply. At the time of Pliny, at the beginning of the Second Century, Christians are an unknown commodity; and so even when he executes them, he doesn't know quite what to make of them." Prof. White

By the year 200, Christianity had begun to be a real part of Roman society.

"We have, in effect, different brands of Christianity, living often side by side, even in the same city. At one point in Rome, Justin Martyr has his Christian school in one part of the city; and the Gnostic teacher Valentinus in another school in Rome; and another so-called heretic by the name of Marcion is also in Rome just down the street somewhere. All of these alongside the official Papal tradition that developed as part of St. Peter's scene in Rome." Prof. White

Don't forget here that by the year 200, we have reached the period of the Philosophical Empress Julia Domna and her imperial inner circle of Sophists, including Flavius Philostratus of Athens. These Gnostic Christians, who undoubtedly were directly descended from the philosophies of Apollonius of Tyana, certainly were in contact with the Empress and her clique.

Philostratus finished The Life of Apollonius of Tyana in 220. Not once did he mention "the Jesus Christ" or a sect called "Christians." Why not? The only conclusion that one can draw is that Apollonius, Damis and later Philostratus all considered the Christians not important enough to include. After all, the "true believers" were the Gnostics, who knew that the ultimate "Messiah" was Apollonius, the founder of their school of thought and later, by default, so to speak, the impetus behind the founding of Manichaeism. Surely, if there were legitimate, dynamic Christian sects strewn about Ionia, Apollonius and Damis would have heard about them. It doesn't make any sense otherwise. UNLESS, of course, Damis deliberately left them out!

Regarding the Gospel of Thomas which was uncovered with other Gnostic documents found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945, this Gospel contains a collections of the actual sayings of Jesus, some of which are contained in the canonical Gospels and others are not. "What is typical about these sayings is that in each instance the sayings want to say that if you want to understand Jesus, what Jesus said, you have to recognize yourself, you have to know yourself." Professor Helmut Koester, Harvard Divinity School

At this point one must recall that the Sage Iarchas told Apollonius that no man could enter their group unless that man first "knows himself." Iarchas indicated that he intuitively understood that Apollonius "knew himself." This idea of "knowing oneself" is central to the theme of all Hermetic mystery schools, into which Apollonius was initiated. If Damis equals Thomas, as is proposed in this book, then it is not surprising that the Gospel of Thomas would emphasize this need to "know oneself."

According to Thomas, Jesus became the revealer of secret knowledge. Thomas represented the Gnostic brand of Christianity which placed their emphasis on the message and wisdom of Jesus, whereas the followers of St. Paul placed emphasis on the death and divine resurrection of Jesus, and the saving power, the redemptive power, of that death and resurrection.

The Second Century Bishop Iranaeus of France tried to unify all of the various brands of Christianity but was unsuccessful. He personally coined the term "orthodox" Christianity and labeled the Gnostics as "agents of Satan." "[Iranaeus] was deeply aware of the dangers of fragmentation. ... Iranaeus didn't want people making choices [about what they thought]. He wanted them thinking what the bishop told them to think." Prof. Pagels

Bishop Iranaeus started the tradition that there were four, and only four, true Gospels. This led to the movement to bring all the diverse brands of Christians into one single tradition. There arose a growing homogenization of the whole tradition into one orthodoxy, a merging into one single story.

"What's interesting is what they choose, because what they choose of Jesus is, especially, the healer. He appears beardless, so he's a new young God, as it were; he's not an old fuddy--duddy like Aesculapius, the god of healing. And what's extraordinary is he'll either have his hand or even a wand on the person he's healing. Now nothing that I ever know of in the Greek or Roman world ever shows Aesculapius with his hand on somebody he's healing. Jesus is an Aesculapius who make house calls." Prof. Crossan

This is a remarkable statement by Prof. Crossan. Apollonius studied at the School of Aesculapius, and Apollonius was certainly remembered as a healer.

Amongst the Christians, everyone was considered an equal of other men; and the various congregations established welfare programs to administer to the needs of widows, orphans, the sick and the poor. It developed as a sort of welfare state within the Roman state, and by the year 250 Christianity was becoming unable to administer all these needs on its own.

Rome began to feel that its influences were slipping away, and there was a sense of crisis. Emperor Decius decided that Christians were a threat and had to be dealt with Empire-wide. It became a crime just to be a Christian. One had to prove by means of a "chit" that one had sacrificed to the Roman gods. By the end of the Third Century, however, any Christian could just go ahead and do this because Paul himself had said that these gods meant nothing.

In 303, Emperor Diocletian made one last attempt to wipe out the Christians, but his persecution failed because by then Christian institutions had become firmly entrenched in Roman society. "The Jesus Movement" had spread to all regions of the Roman Empire.

Then a few years later, Constantine had his vision of the Cross appearing on the Sun and took it as an omen of victory in his impending Battle at the Milvian Bridge. He had crosses painted on the shields of his soldiers and won the battle. His subsequent curiosity about Christianity led him, as Emperor, to a symbiotic relationship between the Christian Church and the Roman Empire. He made the "Day of the Sun God" the "Day of Rest," and then he converted to Christianity himself. His convening of the Council of Nicaea in 325 was an official attempt to unify the diverse brands of Christianity under a single orthodox philosophy. It is quite astonishing indeed that this program ends without a single reference to this infamous Council!

The program concludes by saying that during the time of Constantine, Christianity had become a part of the fabric of the Imperial Establishment, a fact which meant profound changes for both Christianity and society at large. Constantine rebuilt Jerusalem, but all the holy places were now Christian, not Jewish. And Constantine still targeted and persecuted all those Christians like the Gnostics and Marcionites who did not include the Old Testament as part of their Canon.

The narrator finishes by musing, "The Kingdom of God and the Roman Empire had now become one and the same. Jesus of Nazareth had now become Jesus Christ, and his church had now become a power on Earth. A new chapter in history was about to begin."

It is curious that the City of Tyana was never mentioned even once by these scholars. Tyana, not Jerusalem, was the true "Christian Capital of the World." To ignore the influence that Cappadocia played in the evolution of early Christianity is a grave oversight.

The Dallas Morning News, by Michael E. Young
4 April 1998

The life and death of Jesus of Nazareth and the struggles of his first followers undergo a detailed examination on the PBS series "Frontline," a four-hour production of almost certain controversy.

But that is one of the inevitabilities of "From Jesus to Christ : The First Christians," senior executive producer David Fanning said.

"Frontline" presents "the real story" of Christianity, he said, "challenging and upsetting conventional ideas."

The first challenge to centuries of tradition comes when the narrator dismisses biblical accounts of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem and says it is more likely that Jesus was born in Nazareth, the village where he grew up.

And Nazareth itself was probably not the quiet backwater so many Christians envision, according to the group of scholars whose work shapes the broadcast. Instead, recent archaeological discoveries show that Nazareth was actually a sort of suburb, just a few miles from Sepphoris, a major city with significant Roman influences.

So Jesus was probably much more cosmopolitan than the country carpenter of New Testament accounts, the scholars conclude, and presented a message shaped by the radicalism and political activism of his Galilean homeland.

From that bold beginning, "From Jesus to Christ" follows Jesus' ministry and execution and the fears and first tentative steps of his followers.

The program, to be broadcast Monday and Tuesday evenings, is filled with stunning views of the Israeli countryside, from Caesarea on the sparkling Mediterranean to Masada.

The scholars who present the story of Jesus and the struggling, often conflicted church that followed him -- including L. Michael White, director of the Religious Studies Program at the University of Texas at Austin -- bring impeccable credentials and viewpoints that cover the spectrum of current first-century research.

"It is not a story of a golden age of consensus, but a story of people in conflict -- wrestling with Judaism, confronting the authority of the [Roman] empire, and struggling among themselves to understand Jesus' message about the coming of God," Mr. Fanning said.

The Dallas Morning News, by Ed Bark, TV Critic
6 April 1998

Blessed are the TV critics, for some of them have slogged through all four hours of From Jesus to Christ : The First Christians.

Thou shalt be sorely taxed to do likewise. Presented as a special edition of PBS' esteemed Frontline series and billed as a fly in the ointment of conventional Christian belief, Jesus to Christ is far more ponderous than provocative.

Frontline, which almost always deals with contemporary news topics, seems like a fish out of water in the Sea of Galilee. The program's principal selling points and so-called revelations aren't exactly breaking news, especially at a time when re-examinations of the Bible are prevalent. Nor do they seem terribly contentious.

For instance, it's doubtful anyone's faith will be shaken or redirected upon learning that Jesus probably wasn't born in a "bucolic backwater." Instead his birthplace "was quite proximate to a thriving and sophisticated environment that would have required ... a level of sophistication that one would not have thought characteristic of Jesus the humble carpenter."

How do we know? Yawn. Holland Lee Hendrix tells us so. He's president of the faculty and the Henry Sloan Coffin Professor of Divinity at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. Whew, he's also one of a dozen New Testament scholars called upon to re-examine the origins of Christianity.

Some are more engaging than others, particularly Professor Allen D. Callahan of the Harvard Divinity School. Speaking about the time Jesus multiplied five loaves and two fishes to feed a multitude, Mr. Callahan says : "I don't think it takes rocket science to figure out why that kind of story is so endearing to poor people. I mean, that's dinner and a show."

Alas, the show goes on and on, mostly without Mr. Callahan. Save for one brief observation, he's expunged from Tuesday's two-hour conclusion. This is too bad. Not only is Mr. Callahan quotable, but he's the only minority scholar included.

Other than the title character, the featured player in Jesus to Christ is L. Michael White, professor of classics and director of the religious studies program at the University of Texas at Austin. He gets far more "face time" than anyone else and seems at ease in front of a camera.

Still, it's difficult to maintain an abiding interest in what any of these scholars are saying. It would help to have at least a semblance of a spirited debate. But Frontline instead uses its professors as facilitators. They speak as one while taking turns advancing the story through Jesus, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and lesser-knowns ranging from a Roman governor named Pliny the Younger to Perpetua the martyr. Boy, it gets boring after a while.

If there's a high point, it's hour three. This is where we're apprised of the interpretive differences in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Mark always gets second billing, but in fact wrote his Gospel first. It's pretty dark stuff. He portrayed Jesus as a heavy-duty miracle worker, but a mortal, persecuted man nonetheless. This perplexes Mr. White, who says : "But miracle workers are a dime a dozen in the ancient world. We hear about all sorts of people who can perform miracles, so that doesn't really seem to set him apart."

What's meant by miracle workers, though? Are we talking about a biblical-era collection of Houdinis and David Copperfields? Or people who really could turn water into wine? A little clarification would help out here in laypeople land.

Luke's Gospel is far more "romantic" and accessible, the scholars say. Consider him the Danielle Steel or Judith Krantz of his day. John's contribution, written 70--some years after the death of Jesus, has a "decidedly political tone," Mr. White says. It draws sharp distinctions between Judaism and Christianity, portraying Jews as enemies of Jesus.

Paula Fredriksen, the William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture at Boston University, says none of the Gospels should be considered fact-based biographies.

"They are a kind of religious advertisement," she says. "What they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelist's position."

And so on. Jesus to Christ bridges its oft-monotonous biblical babble with a sprawling collection of visual aids. Absent any photographs or the Ken Burns touch, Frontline struggles to please the eye. The recurring use of fire is reminiscent of a David Lynch movie. We're also presented with maps, miniature renderings of Roman architecture, statues, scrolls, vistas, chants, wailings, virtually everything with a biblical bent except Charlton Heston.

Speaking of him, The Ten Commandments certainly is a lot more fun and again will be presented Easter Sunday on ABC. Jesus to Christ is trying to edify rather than entertain us, of course. But if its spirit is willing, its fleshing out is weak.

The Dallas Morning News, by William Farmer
9 May 1998

During Holy Week, the Public Broadcasting Service aired a four-hour documentary, "From Jesus To Christ," that created quite a bit of controversy, to say the least.

How can we adequately define the program?

Was it blasphemy? Not really.

Was it responsible scholarship? Not really.

Was it Hollywood? In a sense, yes. But, again, not really. For Hollywood has a bottom line -- money -- and "From Jesus To Christ" was not about money.

Like all public television documentaries, "From Jesus To Christ" ought in some way to have served the public interest. How well did it do?

First, the program was entertaining. It held my interest from beginning to end. And, from a technical point of view, it was a success. But a documentary should seek to educate as well as dazzle. And in many respects "From Jesus To Christ" failed that test. In fact, it left the public "miseducated."

It was evident throughout the documentary -- which is likely to be broadcast again and appear on video -- that its makers chose to rely on irresponsible scholarship. The film leads viewers to believe, for example, that the Pharisees did not become really important in Jerusalem until after the destruction of the Temple, 40 years after Christ's death. Any scholar who carefully has read the Jewish historian Josephus knows that isn't true.

This is just one example of how viewers are led astray, and one that underlines the most disturbing part of the documentary -- its reliance on scholarship that supports the controversial "Q." Q -- short for "Quelle," the German word for "source" -- is a hypothetical collection of Jesus' sayings that Matthew and Mark are alleged to have used when writing their Gospels. The debates over Q can sound arcane to those outside, but the implications run deep.

Q, as imagined by some latter-day scholars, calls into question the redemptive character of Jesus' death, which is a cornerstone of Christian faith. Many of them seem determined to discount the Bible and have used Q, which doesn't even exist, to transform Jesus from a Jewish savior into a cynic philosopher.

"From Jesus To Christ" features two Duke University scholars. Yet never mentioned is another Duke professor who is a leading scholar in debunking the existence of Q. By relying only upon its proponents, the documentary misleads the public into believing that there is a reliable scholarly consensus on Q.

The two Duke professors who did appear in the film know, presumably, of the serious questions that responsible scholars have raised about Q. Did they sign off on the film makers' decision to encourage public confidence in the existence of this hypothetical source? If not, their scholarly credibility has been used, however inadvertently, to indoctrinate the public.

The chief consultant for "From Jesus To Christ," University of Texas at Austin professor Michael White, is well aware that his colleague Allan McNicol has edited a book, "Beyond the Q Impasse" (Trinity Press International), in which the theoretical basis for Q is carefully analyzed and demonstrated to be highly problematic. Both are members of the Church of Christ.

This brings us to an important point. The makers of "From Jesus To Christ," which deals with fundamental matters concerning Christian faith, and which was scheduled to run during the holiest week on the Christian calendar, apparently did not consult any responsible Christian advisory body.

It would be wrong, however, to suggest that the film is unmitigated propaganda against Christianity. It is not. In fact, for millions of Christians who feel alienated from the institutional church, this film, in its own way, serves the evangelistic purpose of holding out the hope that, through new historiography, there may be the possibility of coming closer to God through new ways of seeing Jesus as an historic figure in his own time.

On the other hand, the documentary gives too much legitimacy to a cadre of New Testament scholars who many believe are diluting the Gospel. The film features professor John Dominic Crossan, for example, a prominent member of the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar, relying on Q, is well--known for having concluded, among other things, that Jesus never taught his disciples the Lord's Prayer. In featuring Dr. Crossan, the documentary serves to legitimize the Jesus Seminar. It also serves to silence some of the seminar's main critics.

Highly regarded scholars have publicly criticized the Jesus Seminar on the grounds that none of its members teach at prestigious universities. "From Jesus To Christ" functions to silence that criticism by selectively featuring like-minded scholars from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Union and Duke.

Interestingly, however, the film is undergirded by the same fundamental argument that drives that Jesus Seminar, namely, that the church which formed the New Testament canon got off on the wrong track when it failed to take into account that there were communities before the Apostle Paul (such as the ones that purportedly produced Q and, later, the Gospel of Thomas) for which the death of Jesus was of no crucial importance.

To be sure, the makers of "From Jesus To Christ" are neither iconoclastic nor fanatical. They have been careful to give some credit to the church's teaching about the resurrection and the Eucharist. But this serves only to make the film a more dangerous media event. At best, it may stimulate some responsible dialogue. At worst, it will function as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Comment: Dr. William Farmer, a research scholar at the University of Dallas, is the editor of the "International Bible Commentary : A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the 21st Century." Among his books is The Gospel of Jesus, Westminster/John Know Press.]

"From Jesus to Christ : The First Christians" is an excellent program from the standpoint of someone, like I, who would have a pre-existing interest in the subject matter. Needless to say, both times that I watched it, it was fascinating to envision its implications in terms of the life of Apollonius of Tyana. In an academic regard, it is therefore highly recommended. A copy of the videotape of this program can be purchased for about $60 from your local PBS affiliate TV station, or you can order it online at: