In the extended article named above (hereafter referred to by the acronym Z12), American Atheists denizen Frank Zindler goes to further lengths to provides examples of his Biblical miseducation, and once again, at reader request, we provide comment. Veteran readers will here as well as our last project find some familiar material, as we will be often lifting material from older essays to answer what amount to the same old objections we have only heard 7,986,483 times in the last 7 years.

Zindler has proclaimed allegiance to the Christ myth, and in a previous work we noted this and directed the reader to our article at http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html. Now, in line with his title, Zindler proclaims allegiance to an "apostles myth" as well in which he bewails "the silence which surrounds all his companions and most of the places in which he is supposed to have worked his wonders. While it is indisputable that Augustus Cæsar and Pontius Pilate existed at the time Jesus is supposed to have lived, and while Jerusalem most certainly existed (and was called by that name), there is no secular record to be found of the twelve disciples, the twelve apostles, St. Mary, St. Joseph, St. Paul, St. Stephen, or the vast majority of the characters that people the gospels and the rest of the writings preserved in the New Testament."

We'd like to insert a tragic pause. There are a few things to ask to begin.

The first is, Where, other than in the New Testament documents, does Zindler expect all of these people to be mentioned, any why? The first may be easier to answer. The Jewish historian Josephus is a likely candidate to mention some of these people, and in fact he does mention one, James the brother of Jesus; and this, only because his execution was regarded as one of the reasons why Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans (as part of God' judgment). To point up the absurdity of Zindler's implied demand, let us pick at random a person named by Josephus. In Antiquites Book 17, Chapter 2, Josephus names a man called Zamaris, a Jew from Babylon. Herod put this man in charge of a city called Bathyra which became a refuge for certain Jews who had fled from Babylon. In Section 3 of Chapter 2, Josephus reports the death of this man. He stars in Book 17, Ch. 2, sections 1-2, dies in the first section of 3, and is never mentioned again. Question: Is there any more historical evidence that Zamaris existed, than that the people (apostles) Zindler lists did?

No? How interesting. So by that accounting, there is no other record of this person (Zindler's implication that a religious record is out of bounds is merely arbitrary), and on the same basis, Zindler wipes him out as a myth -- along with countless others recorded in history.

Then Zindler tries the same trick with geography: "Nor is there to be found any mention in the Old Testament or in the writings of Jewish or pagan geographers and historians of such important Christian places as Nazareth, Bethany, Bethphage, Ænon, Magdala, or Capernaum." Hmm. Any mention of Bathyra anywhere else, then? No? How curious. Must not have existed, then. The end.

The problem with this sort of reasoning is evident. The standard would render a great many geographical locations mentioned uniquely in single ancient authors "fictitious". Note that this is not as though someone were mentioning Atlantis or some mythological place; there is no great mythology surrounding Aenon; they are simply mentioned as sidelights in the Biblical texts, and Zindler has no reason to doubt that they exist, other than that, it seems, they appear only in the Biblical record! (He is also wrong if he thinks any scholar will follow his line of reasoning; for example, Aenon near Salim has been supposed to be at any one of three places; the likeliest candidate is a Salim near Shechem, which has a village now called Ainun nearby. However, since "Ainon" means "springs" and "Salim" means "peace", what we have here is a place name that would be very common in Israel [like our modern "Ridgewood"]. Nazareth, which is one of Zindler's biggest targets here, is definitely not in doubt; archaeological evidence shows that the village had been occupied since the 7th century B.C [see A Marginal Jew by Meier, 300-1] and Paul Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, 42, adds: After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. Thus ends the claim of no other reference to the city, unless Zindler wants to play an absurd game of arguing that Nazareth didn't exist in 20-30 AD, but did after 70!)

On Zindler pushes, with bravado that is almost embarrassing: "The supposition that Jesus and his companions were real must confront the embarrassing fact that the characters in most historical novels can be documented in far greater percentages than can the characters in the New Testament." Not that Zindler offers any examples of such novel characters, much less justify the claim that the writings of the NT are "novelistic" by genre, nor does he tell us how he might rescue a Zamaris from oblivion. Of course we are told that Zindler is on the verge of endorsing a Mohammed myth; perhaps by next decade, we will be told that no one existed before 1962.

In contrast, Zindler makes much of the lack of mention in the NT of Sepphoris, "even though people living in its shadow could reasonably be expected to interact with it at least occasionally." Could they? Not really. Sepphoris was a heavily Hellenized city, full of things which a strict Jew would find offensive; if anything, the avoidance of Sepphoris by Jesus rings of authenticity. Zindler perhaps has certain unrealistic expectations. In Josephus, a much thicker collection of work than any one Gospel, Sepphoris is mentioned only twice -- both times, merely because it was captured in a war. Zindler may as well say that "there is little evidence that Josephus knew or cared anything about the geography or real-life circumstances of the stage on which their actors play out their parts." If Sepphoris had not been captured, it appears that Josephus would not have cared either.

It is irrational, of course, to expect the Gospels to provide a travelogue of non-visited cities, and to simply mention things like this for their own sake, or because Zindler or any critic, based on nothing but an unexplained expectation, supposes they ought to be mentioned. The "argument by incredulity" works for many people because we have a mentality belonging to a society that talks too much and thinks it necessary to fill in matters with extraneous detail.

Zindler tries to de-exist the Apostles further with some rather shameful commentary:

Among the many imaginary characters of the New Testament, perhaps the most blatantly obvious fictions are the Twelve Disciples. Of course, if Jesus was a sun-god (and who else is born on the winter solstice and worshiped on Sunday?), he would have needed twelve zodiacal accomplices, one for every month of the year, or one for every sign of the zodiac through which the sun's chariot journeys.

Someone should perhaps inform Zindler, if he means this seriously, that claims of Jesus being born on Christmas are rather late in the game (3rd century or so), and if we want to explain Jesus as a "sun god" he will have to do more than say it overcame the wall of scholarship that disagrees. Beyond that Zindler misses a quite obvious twelve for Jesus to model on, not the zodiac, but as scholars agree was the basis, the twelve tribes of Israel, which may also explain why the Qumran community of Jews also included a selection of twelve special officers. Of course if we want to play number games, your typical egg carton was based on the zodiac, as was your box of donuts. It's an astrological world out there.

Zindler goes on, making himself more obscure by the moment, "It is not surprising that most of the disciples are mere names - not always the same names from gospel to gospel - and only a few have any definable character." Hang twelve a moment. Zindler makes a big deal over differing names; in actuality, he can find only one substantive name variation, that of "Thaddeus" and "Lebbaeus" in Matthew 10. One out of Twelve. Can you hear the whoops now? What Zindler sees as a historical boo boo, is more likely a textual one; I have yet to see a commentator who thinks this was part of the original text, though I will keep checking. (An issue Zindler oddly does NOT bring up is the supposed discrepancy between Judas (not Iscariot) and Thaddeus among the Synoptic Gospels; while it is possible, as the historians E. P. Sanders has suggested, that these are two different people, one replacing the other, I think it is far more likely that Judas non-Iscariot changed his name to Thaddeus and used that name after the resurrection. I mean, after all, would you want to have the same name as the guy who betrayed your Master? I wouldn't. If your name were Ted Bundy, or Adolf Hitler, I guess you'd change it too, eh?) Zindler's only other complaint is that John fails to name some of the twelve, though unlike the Synoptics, John contains no passage offering such a list to begin with. (Other issues Zindler could have resolved with a little homework. "Simon the Canaanite" and "Simon Zelotes" are the same; "Canaanite" is a Hellenization of the Aramaic kananaios, which means "zealous one". The "considerable confusion" Zindler sees is primarily his own.)

In the next few lines Zinder lays out a tour de force in which he proposes, without a shred of documentation, a scenario of "Christianity condensed out of a variety of Jewish and pagan mystery cult and club associations," of alleged competing groups (such as "Jewish proto-Christians [who] claimed that their church was the only authentic one because it was supposed to have been founded by men (apostles) who had had visions of the risen Christ" -- he does not name this group, but seems to refer to the Ebionites, a group whose existence is evidenced no earlier than 150 AD!), of paranoia and ungrounded speculation. By such means might I also turn Zindler into a fiction 100 years hence. Yes, he was the invention of a group of rabid atheists in need of a hero. They based him on a combination of Frederich Nietzsche and Robert Ingersoll (both of whom were probably fictional as well) and even made up details to make him seem more real. By such machinations would any man be rendered a fiction, and any event we wished, and a shave with Occam's Razor -- which sees the Twelve as rooted in symbolic significance of twelve Jewish tribes -- seems a great deal more profitable.

In service of this Zindler goes as far as inventing a group he calls the "brothers of the Lord." Not real brothers of Jesus, of course, but like monks or nuns. "Many monks and nuns, you may know, are 'brothers and sisters of the Lord' too," he says. So likewise have references in Paul and Josephus to "brothers of the Lord" or "brother of Jesus" been explained away by mythicists; the problem here is, the use of "brother of" in this fashion is completely unattested elsewhere. Zindler's thesis is full of conveniences, an invention of history wholesale to explain away history. A family of Jesus was invented by Group A to give them authority; to trump this, Group B wrote all sorts of fiction about Jesus being rude to this invented family, and this family rejecting him. (Zindler, regrettably, misses as most do on John 2:4: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" The word "woman" is the same term used in Josephus Antiquities 17.17 by Pheroras to summon his beloved wife; the second part of the response reds literally: "What to me and to you?" This is a Semitic phrase that indicates that the speaker is being unjustly bothered or is being asked to get involved in a matter that is not their business. It can be impolite, but not always; cf. 2 Kings 3:13, Hos. 14:8.)

Zindler fantasizes further, "Politically, having Jesus put down his whole family this way must have been devastating to the churches claiming family relations as the basis of their authority." Imaginatively, this is much of a farce; manufactured history to explain away recorded history; and unrealistic at that. When Zindler's Group B manufactured all of this, he apparently sees Group A cowering in immediate fear with no options. From here Zindler's flights of creativity become even wilder, and a sampling is enough for comedy relief:

The characters James and John, however, may have astrological meaning. The name Zebedee resembles the Old Babylonian Zalbatanu, the equivalent of Jupiter "the Thunderer," making it only reasonable that James and John would be the sons of thunder.

We would ask Zindler to begin what evidence exists of Old Babylonian being known and/or spoken in first-century Palestine, and how, linguistically, one gets from "Zalbatanu" to "Zebedee" when working in other than English where the Z and the B seem to make a point. "Zebedee" appears rather to come from the Jewish word zebed, which means a gift or dowry, or the Hebrew name Zabdi (Josh. 7:7, Jos. Ant. 5.33). Zindler's other connections of names of disciples to the Babylonian zodiac, deserve more laughter than scrutiny. By the same means might we decide years from now that "Frank Zindler" was invented as a hero whose name was composed from the heroine against Nazism, Anne Frank, and the movie Schindler's List.

In a section next Zindler makes much of variations that appear in the text of a "W" manuscript. We have noted in another essay that Zindler shows very little concern for the principles of textual criticism, apparently believing that deciding among texts is a matter of a democratic vote, and that all texts get equal consideration. They do not. The codex he refers to is just one of many, and not particularly the earliest at that, and it is a vast overstatement to impose a description of "confused and variable" on the manuscript history -- and such variation does not, in the eyes of any textual critic, add credence to any idea that any textual report is a fiction. It does not do so for the works of Tacitus or Josephus, who have plenty of textual issues of their own; nor does it do so here.

Perhaps the best way to expose the absurdity of Zindler's rampant theories of conspiracy behind every story is to set an example. We are told, the acquisition of Peter as a disciple lies in front of an otherwise unattested-in-history "Peter cult" that stood against a cult of John the Baptist. Simple enough. We started with Zamaris from Josephus; let's report what Joe has to say, and insert comments about the "real" history behind Zamaris:

AND now it was that Herod, being desirous of securing himself on the side of the Trachonites, resolved to build a village as large as a city for the Jews, in the middle of that country, which might make his own country difficult to be assaulted, and whence he might be at hand to make sallies upon them, and do them a mischief.

Quite obviously, there is a political play here in process. Herod is in here and is probably historical, but was added to give authenticity to the political claim upcoming. Note that a "large" city is specified, which is done to give the project importance and is probably aimed at a rival group that had a smaller city.

Accordingly, when he understood that there was a man that was a Jew come out of Babylon, with five hundred horsemen, all of whom could shoot their arrows as they rode on horde-back, and, with a hundred of his relations, had passed over Euphrates, and now abode at Antioch by Daphne of Syria, where Saturninus, who was then president, had given them a place for habitation, called Valatha, he sent for this man, with the multitude that followed him, and promised to give him land in the toparchy called Batanea, which country is bounded with Trachonitis, as desirous to make that his habitation a guard to himself. He also engaged to let him hold the country free from tribute, and that they should dwell entirely without paying such customs as used to be paid, and gave it him tax-free.

That political motives are at work here is obvious. A fictitious hero with a fictitious retinue (the round number of 500 bespeaks fiction, and perhaps alludes to the 500 witnesses of the Risen Jesus, or the 500 fairies that danced under the mushroom of the Celtic king Horgerus) is created to grant authority for the city. There is astrological imagery (Saturninus, and Valatha, which probably is related to the Norse Valhalla) which suggest a fictitious origin, as though this were some sort of astral myth. Clearly as well there is some attempt being made here to clear a claim that the citizens of this large city should not have to pay taxes.

The Babylonian was reduced by these offers to come hither; so he took possession of the land, and built in it fortresses and a village, and named it Bathyra. Whereby this man became a safeguard to the inhabitants against the Trachonites, and preserved those Jews who came out of Babylon, to offer their sacrifices at Jerusalem, from being hurt by the Trachonite robbers; so that a great number came to him from all those parts where the ancient Jewish laws were observed, and the country became full of people, by reason of their universal freedom from taxes.

As above, we see an attempt to justify non-taxation, and this is merely an origin-myth for the city designed to give it special privileges.

This continued during the life of Herod; but when Philip, who was [tetrarch] after him, took the government, he made them pay some small taxes, and that for a little while only; and Agrippa the Great, and his son of the same name, although they harassed them greatly, yet would they not take their liberty away. From whom, when the Romans have now taken the government into their own hands, they still gave them the privilege of their freedom, but oppress them entirely with the imposition of taxes. Of which matter I shall treat more accurately in the progress of this history.

Obviously a legend designed to show that any attempt to tax this city will fail. However, the part about Roman taxes was clearly added by a rival pro-taxation group as a slam to the city.

Now, do we see how easy it is?

Some time ago I did an extensive piece on the religion of Mithraism, found at http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04_MMM.html. For this piece, meant to refute contentions that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism, I consulted several books written by experts on Mithraism, including David Ulansey, who is regarded as the leading authority on Mithraism today. And I am pleased to say that none of these experts reported anything like what Zindler does in the following:

There appears to have been a Samaritan god named Simon who, like Mithra, was given the nickname of Peter ("rock"). He could walk on water and held the keys to the gates of heaven. In this regard, he was the equivalent of the Roman god Janus, whose cult was headquartered a short distance from the present-day Vatican (the site of an equivalent "Peter cult"). It is altogether possible that the Cephas of the Pauline literature was a real person, a leader of the quasi-Jewish Samaritan savior cult who took the title of his god.

Mithraists never report that Mithra had the nickname, "Rock". He was BORN from a rock, but I have yet to see it said that this was his nickname. Nor have I ever found documentation indicating any such Samaritan god as Zindler describes. Now what we want to know is, where does Zindler get these daily factoids? Why are these things not known by leading scholars of religion? Is there a conspiracy afoot? No, more likely Zindler is consulting the air for these things, or else the works of non-credible occultists or mythologists. Take the lack of documentation by Zindler as meaningful. He says, "some scholars have thought that the original version of the gospel of Mark had a twelve-part structure sort of the Christian equivalent of the Twelve Labors of Hercules (another savior godlet)." Oh? Which ones? Zindler names none, footnotes none, and until he does, as far as we are concerned, "some scholars" means "his next door neighbor." It certainly is not found in Marcan commentaries by such luminaries as Gundry, Witherington, or Anderson, Zindler's undocumented special pleading with respect to unattested editing over time notwithstanding. Nor will one find any scholar promulgating the ridiculous idea that the Twelve tribes were founded in a Yahweh solar cult.

Zindler next expresses surprise in something else he shouldn't, and says scholars find "inexplicable" something actually very few of them do -- that "the disciples function as veritable stooges" and "were uncomprehending when Jesus said something any second-grader should have understood." Hindsight, as is said, is 20/20; Zindler, following his continued line to spin out charges of conspiracy under every passage, tells us (stealing a line uncritically from J. D. Crossan) that "[a] disciple could be created to betray [Jesus] and could be given the name Judas, which means 'Jew'." Hmm. Never mind that "Judas" is attested to as the third most popular name (behind Simon and Joseph) for Jews of Jesus' era. Never mind that there is also a perfectly fine Judas in the apostolic band. There has to be something more than a mundane and normal explanation for all of this, and for Zindler the idea is that the dumb Twelve "represent the uncomprehending, stubborn, and fickle twelve tribes of Jews". One may as well say that Socrates' students were made to represent the dumb Greeks, or the students who questioned Confucius represented the dumb Chinese. Zindler shows a great deal of nerve appealing to Occam's Razor and claiming his contorted, reworked, unattested history is a "simpler" view than the one in the Gospels. As if people were not really dumb in real life at times.

We now attend briefly to some of Zindler's accessory notes. He sees much in NT imitation of OT models. For this we would refer the reader to an excellent article at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qotripoff.html. Zindler is also apparently unaware that the practice of literary mimesis (imitation) was a fine art in antiquity.

For amusement one may consider the following which I once wrote as a satire on such claims, written from the perspective of someone living several hundreds years from the present day:

Hello. Welcome again to the year 3740. This is Teachminder Phonias J. Futz, and since my revolutionary conclusion that Abraham Lincoln was a myth my students have been scouring literature left from prior to the catastrophe for more evidence to support this thesis. And we have indeed been fortunate, though in ways unexpected. We have uncovered two biographies of one of 20th-century Usa's most popular leaders, J. Fitzgerald Kennedy: John F. Kennedy by Mills, and Jack: A Life Like No Other by Perret. The biographies are in poor condition, but we have gleaned enough information for at least one report which has led us to a new thesis: That many alleged events in the life of Lincoln, as reported in the 20th century, relied on written antecedents recording the life of Kennedy, who lived prior to the time that the most detailed biographies of Lincoln were written.

As I read these Kennedy bios, I noticed echoes of the life of Lincoln, especially in the detailed bio of Lincoln by Donald -- parallels between the two men, then between their wives, then between their surrounding characters and persons. Both Lincoln and Kennedy demonstrated a fascination with civil rights, defense of the nation, and came to a similar end. Sometimes the similarities in accounts obtain even at the level of word choice and minor plot elements. I have come to conclude that writers of Lincoln bios wanted their readers to detect their use of Kennedy -- directly, if not subliminally. But the Lincoln biographers did not steal from these Kennedy biographers or from Kennedy's life; they also transvalued them by making Lincoln look more virtuous and more powerful than Kennedy. However, their imitation was not servile; they used disguises such as altering the vocabulary, varying the order, length, and structure of sentences, improving the content, and generating a series of formal transformations. They were experienced authors who borrowed from many sources (not just Kennedy bios), blending the works as a buzzstripe gathers nectar. And interestingly, it appears that readers in the 20th century were blind to this important aspect of the Lincoln biographers' project.

We will have many examples of this to present as our research continues, but for now we will use as an exemplar the most significant -- the parallels between Lincoln and Kennedy in their deaths. We believe that we will show without a doubt that Lincoln's life, as recorded and reworked in the 20th century, was built upon the foundation of Kennedy. We will begin by explaining a few of the parallels in detail and their significance, and then compile all of the parallels in columns.

Warnings Against Their Travel. On the day of his assassination, several of Lincoln's advisers "urged him not to go to the theater. Before going on a mission to Richmond, Lincoln's regular bodyguard, Lamon, begged him, "Promise me you will not go out at night while I am gone, particularly to the theater." Lamon issued such warnings so often, however, that he merely replied that he would "do the best" he could. Stanton, one of Lincoln's aides, "repeatedly warned Lincoln against mingling with promiscuous crowds at the theater." This night was regarded as most dangerous because of rumors that General Grant, the hated military leader under Lincoln, would be joining Lincoln.

In the time before his assassination, Kennedy received several warnings not to visit the place of his demise -- Dallas, Texas. Mills: "The president has been warned over and over again to stay away from Dallas." Representaive Hale Boggs thought Kennedy would be going into "a hornet's nest." Senator William Fulbright warned: "Dallas is a very dangerous place." An editor of a Texas newspaper said that Kennedy would "not get through this without something happening to him." Governor Connally recommended that Kennedy not visit Dallas.

It should be noted that the timing of these events is significant. Kennedy made his visit shortly before the holiday known as Thanksgiving, a celebration of the founding of Usa. Lincoln biographers copied and transvalued this event by having Lincoln killed on the Good Friday holiday, just prior to Easter. Kennedy died just before a holiday commemorating the birth of the nation, but Lincoln was to be associated with a holiday linked to the death of Jesus Christ -- the only way one could conceivably transvalue such timing.

Ironic loss of protection. Lincoln asked several people to come with him. One of these was Thomas Eckert, a man so strong that he broke several cast-iron pokers by striking them across his left arm. But Eckert was needed elsewhere and declined the invitation.

Seating arrangements. At the Ford Theater a special arrangement had been made for Lincoln's party. Lincoln and his party sat in a presidential box, a balcony seat. The box was actually two boxes, but a partition had been removed to make way for Lincoln's full party. Lincoln preferred a rocking chair to the normal seating and the brother of the theater owner provided one. The box was so high that most of the audience could not see the President.

Kennedy rode in a vehicle called a Lincoln, manufactured by Ford. It was a custom vehicle, longer than most such models, and had two jump seats. The rear seat rose 10 1/2 inches at the flick of a switch. Also significantly, whereas Kennedy was adored by well-wishers hanging from windows above him, Lincoln was the one above the crowd in his box.

Assassins. The character of the assassins of these men bears some striking similarities and the stories show signs of editing by Lincoln proponents. Oswald was a ne'er-do-well; it could hardly do to have Lincoln killed by such a humble person, and so Booth was created out of Oswald as a more celebrated version of that nobody. A tip of the hat to Booth's fictional origins can be found in that Oswald hid in a theater after his deed.

It also happens that the assassins injured more than their intended targets. Their weapons were obviously different, owing to the times; Oswald's high-powered rifle would not have been around in Lincoln's time and so was replaced with Booth's derringer and knife, more appropriate weapons for the era. Booth also hailed from the rebellious South, recently put down by Lincoln's Union forces. The atmosphere in the South is highly reminiscent of the atmosphere in Dallas at Kennedy's period, in which racism was prominent and Kennedy's name was booed in classrooms. A handbill distributed in Dallas had a picture of Kennedy and the words WANTED FOR TREASON. Significantly Booth reportedly yelled, "Thus always to tyrants" after shooting Lincoln -- a natural adjustment given that Lincoln had been depicted as being on the "winning" side of a civil war. Finally the danger is made greater for Lincoln as it is shown that there was a greater plot to assassinate others at the same time. The place of John Connally, also wounded when Kennedy was fired upon, is taken in part by Major Rathbone and in part by Lincoln's Secretary of State William Seward, who was nearly killed by one of Booth's co-conspirators.

Miscellaenous. In various ways Lincoln was made to look superior to Kennedy and appear to be a greater hero. Lincoln survived his wound by many hours; Kennedy survived only a short period. Donald is careful to note the opinion of Lincoln's doctors that "the average man could not survive the injury Lincoln had received for more than two hours..." It is also notable that while both men are carried to their place after being shot (Kennedy of course to a hospital, Lincoln not so, owing to the limitations of the time) special note is made that Lincoln was too big for the bed he was placed on.

We will now add impact to our case by placing the parallels in columns. Note that the parallels are dense and sequential:

The results of our study are obvious. Lincoln's death was molded upon, yet designed to supersede, the death of Kennedy.

Briefly as well we note that Zindler brings up the matter of the Lucan census and the Theudas issue; for these we recommend:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qtheudy.html

Zindler objects to two of the usual complaints of geographical inaccuracy in Mark. Concerning Mark 5:1: How this qualifies as an "error" is beyond me. It is hardly a definitive statement, referring only to a "region" - as might be expected if the party landed in a countrified area, and if this is from a sermon of Peter to a Roman audience that really did not care where some out-in-the-boondocks locale was precisely located! The city of Gerasa was about 30 miles southeast of the traditional location of this event; that being so, to speak of being in the "region" is hardly any more erroneous than saying, after landing a boat thirty miles south of Milwaukee, that you have landed in the "region" of Milwaukee. Concerning Mark 7:31: It has been interpreted by Zindler to mean that Jesus and His company went through Sidon to GET TO The Sea of Galilee, which would indeed be the wrong way - but what it means is that they had an itinerary of 1) Tyre, 2) Sidon, and THEN 3) the Sea and the Decapolis region. The journey to Sidon is NOT a case of "what they went through to get there," but, "where they went also." Furthermore, Douglas Edwards, in his essay, "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos in the First Century," has noted:

Indeed, even the Jesus movement's travel from Tyre to Sidon to the Decapolis depicted in Mark, which has struck some New Testament interpreters as evidence for an ignorance of Galilean geography, is, in fact, quite plausible. Josephus notes that during the reign of Antipas, while Herod Agrippa I was in Syria, a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a city of the Decapolis. It is therefore conceivable that the movement headed east toward Damascus and then south through the region of the Decapolis, following major roads linking Damascus with either Caesarea Philippi or Hippos.

Miscellaneous notes otherwise. There is no textual or other evidence for Zindler's presumptuous idea that 1 Cor. 15:5 is a "late interpolation into the Pauline text"; see http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_05_02.html for a refutation of one such idea. 1 Cor. 11:23 , despite Zindler, does allude to Judas' action; the verb does not indeed mean "betrayed" so much as "handed over" and is the same word used in the Gospels to describe was Judas did (Matt. 10:4). Zindler also claims contradiction between Mark 1:16 and John 1:35-42:

According to Mark 1:16, as we have already seen, Jesus is walking on the shore of the Sea of Galilee when he sees Simon and Andrew fishing and invites the two of them simultaneously to join him in fishing for men. In John 1:35-42, however, the acquisition of Andrew takes place at the mythical "Bethany beyond Jordan," and Andrew is not fishing but in the entourage of John the Baptist, his master. Jesus attracts to himself Andrew and an unnamed second Johannine disciple. Simon explicitly is not with Andrew when the latter runs off to see where Jesus is living.

Zindler is oblivious here to certain constraints upon composition in the ancient world; he would perhaps scoff at the standard reply that these report two different events (Mark 1:16 chronologically after John 1:35-42) but it remains that no Gospel could tell every event that happened during Jesus' ministry; paper was prohibitively expensive (think $200 for 20 sheets, in modern terms) and every writer had to select events to report and make a coherent narrative out of it. Mark began in one place; John in another. (Incidentally, "Bethany beyond Jordan" may be an otherwise unknown village -- see notes above -- or it may be a variant spelling of a region called Batanea that is beyond the Jordan. John may be using a variant spelling [as Josephus used three different spellings for the same region!] or making an intentional alteration to allude to the later Bethany, so that Jesus' ministry began and ended at a Bethany.)

Zindler is also so wild as to refer to the Secret Gospel of Mark; on that document see http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qbadmark.html -- he may let his own mind run wild, but scholars do not. Finally Zindler proffers an example of disciple stupidity:

For example, in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew we read that right after Jesus has performed his second miracle involving the multiplication of loaves of bread, the disciples are made to suppose that Jesus' admonition "Beware, be on your guard against the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" was in reference to their having forgotten to bring bread along on the boat - as though anyone would ever again be concerned over a lack of bread! Jesus, after reading their minds, says (Matt. 16:8ff) "Why do you talk about bringing no bread? Where is your faith? Do you not understand even yet? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you picked up? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you picked up? How can you fail to see that I was not speaking about bread?"

Without doubt, the disciples here do seem extraordinarily dense; but there is no need to hypothesize an interpretative conspiracy. We live in an age when some think the Sermon on the Mount was called that because it was delivered on horseback. If Zindler wishes to assert that the disciples' stupidity is unbelievable as an actual event, there are plenty of citations on record from human experience that dictate otherwise.

In conclusion: Zindler's wild ride into the realm of conspiracy deserves little credence and even less respect.

---

---