Even though the "Jesus Family Tomb" controversey is becoming more of a third page tabloid healdine than a serious academic story, I think it worthwhile to spend time with the original source: the work of UNC-Charlotte James Tabor. Just as The DaVinci Code evolved from the less well known Holy Blood, Holy Grail, so does the Talpiot tomb documentary find its intellectual DNA from Tabor's book The Jesus Dynasty.
True confession -- I've not yet read the complete book; any thoughts in these next few posts will be my developing thoughts as I play around with this material in my brain. In other words -- these aren't final conclusions, and I welcome your commentary. What I have done thus far is carefully read the introduction and conclusion and skim the other chapters -- then I've done a pretty detailed read of chapter 1 (where Tabor sets the stage by talking about the birth of Christ).
I admire Tabor's passion. He writes with verve about his heartfelt thrill in the study of antiquities. I'd wager that his lectures are a blast. In the first chapter, he lays some groundwork for us: the background of Mary, mother of Jesus. He takes us on a tour of church tradition rooted in minor documents of the Catholic church. Through this tour, we learn of the extrabiblical ideas that Mary's parents were named Joachim and Anna -- that she was from the metropolis of Sepphoris (the impressive administrative capital of Galilee), but that her family moved to the tiny village of Nazareth (population about 300) some 4 miles away. He introduces us to Joseph and gives surprising credence (for a critical scholar) to the Bethlehem birth story.
Now here's the interesting thing. Tabor tells us that Mary was born about 18 bc (Pg 39) and that her parents likely moved from Sepphoris sometime before its destruction by the Roman General Varus, who in 4-3 bc swept through Galilee with 20,000 men to quell a revolt following the death of Herod the Great. Remember that, will you? Varus came through after the death of Herod the Great. That's important because Tabor down the road in chapter 3 (I did skim the book and read the conclusion after all) is going to assert that Mary became pregnant by a roman soldier named Pantera. That's right, the old charge levied against Jesus that he was illegitimate. Tabor will flood us with early pagan accusations and with the innuendoes of Jesus' own hometown folk (found in scripture); he will even produce the evidence of a grave of Pantera somewhere in Europe on the frontier of the Roman empire.
But there are some things he doesn't do -- he never interacts with the scriptural assertion that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. Matthew 2 makes this dating integral to the Birth narrative. It was the paranoia of Herod who feared a rival to his throne that led him to dupe foreign dignitaries into seeking out this coming messiah. It was the ruthlessness of Herod that grew into a pogrom, executing baby boys across his kingdom. Interestingly, Tabor doesn't address this little tidbit. He simply states that Mary was born in 18bc and sometime before the destruction of Sepphoris they were in Nazareth -- just in time to be impregnated by a roman soldier who came to the region to quell the revolt after the death of Herod the great.
This might not seem like a big deal. But Tabor inadvertently makes it a big deal. He goes to great lengths to convey to us the character of Herod the great: he cites Julius Africanus in saying that Herod had the genealogical records of Galillee burned so that there would be no way to trace a rival claimant to the throne. Tabor cites Josephus who tells us that Herod had his own wife and children murdered in a fit of rage. Tabor reminds us that it was Herod who outfitted the rock fortress of Masada to be a refuge in case his own people revolted against him. This information seems to corroborate the Matthew account -- it's almost unthinkable that he didn't draw on Matthew's account in painting his picture of Herod.
Then Tabor talks about how the canonical gospels are our best source of information about "the historical Jesus" -- even though he's not willing to take them literally, he realizes that they're a valuable source of information. Yet he skips right over a whole chapter's worth of vital information in reconstructing his scenario. He also doesn't provide any documentation to support why he thinks that Mary's pregnancy happened after the death of Herod rather than before.
It seems this is a pretty big oversight. More on why this oversight happens in the next post.
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
Showing posts with label Christology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christology. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
The Talpiot Tomb Controversey -- What to make of the latest eastertime criticism of the resurrection
It's an event as predictable as procrastination on taxes ("really, I meant to get it done early this year, but it just caught up on me") -- the Lent/Easter attack on the historicity of the resurrection. For the past decade or so, every Easter has brought out a new cadre of contenders hoping to cash in on a "brave" and "controversial" announcement that they've done what the Roman Empire and the Jewish Sanhedren failed to do when they had the chance -- prove that Jesus was a corpse in a grave rather than a resurrected messiah.
Undoubtedly you've heard by now about the Discovery Channel special about the "Jesus family tomb", which purports to prove that Jesus was buried alongside his father and mother, his wife Mary, his son Jude and his brother Matthew. I could power a subcontinent with the energy that's been put into analysis on this issue over the last 24 hours. It seems that the church will not be caught sleeping on this one, like it was with DaVinci Code. Here's a quick summary of thoughtful commentary thus far, followed by a few of my observations:
Texas Rainmaker gives us an actual picture of the stone ossuary (a great big stone coffin) that supposedly held Jesus' remains. See for yourself the inscription that purports to be "Jeshua bar yosef" (Jesus son of Joseph -- remember hebrew reads right to left and it's in hebrew characters) -- also note the cross sketched in beside the name- the cross a sign not used by the early church for the first couple of centuries. He links us to
This article on Breitbart.com in which several scholars in Israel (including the scholar who wrote the original report of the excavation) dismiss this premise as a moneymaking publicity stunt.
IMonk's first page of resources on this topic -- includes links to William Craig Lane's debunk of the Empty Tomb theory, a link to the two original AP newswire stories that ran about this discovery in 1996, a link to NT Wright's defense of the resurrection, and great resources from Leadership University (also some really good commentary by Imonk himself). Particularly telling is the information that we have over 1000 ossuaries from Jerusalem at that time -- 6 have the name Jesus on them, and 2 of those are Jesus son of Joseph. Of all the female names, Mary occurs 25 percent of the time.
IMonk's second page of resources including links to Ben Witherington's outstanding commentary, Newsweek's questioning some of the methodology involved, and more issues about the translations of the names on the ossuaries
James White gives a stunning critique of the naming conventions, the idea that a poor peasant would have a middle class tomb, the flaws in resting upon statistical analysis, and the dodgy nature of resting on DNA evidence.
One of the thing that is clearly missing from this is an interaction with James Tabor's work The Jesus Dynasty, upon which the film is clearly based (with the exception of Witherington, who calls Tabor a nice guy who does some good work, but he's hitching his mule to the wrong wagon). I picked up the book from the library today and started reading. Tabor, a scholar from UNC-Charlotte, has some interesting comments about the find of the ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb. He talks about the odd cluster of names found in the tomb and then writes:
"The only way anything else could be done scientifically would be to carry out mitochondrial DNA tests on the bone samples to at least ascertain how the individuals buried there might be maternally related. Such tests, no matter what the results, could not "prove" that this particular Jesus was the one who became known as Christ, but they could show whether any of these individuals were offspring of either of the two Marys, or had a sibling relationship to one another." (26)
So here, Tabor admits that the DNA testing can't prove anything other than a relationship among the people in the tomb. In this section of the book, he hints at possibilities of coverups and hidden information, though he actually doesn't come right out and say that there has been a cover up -- he leaves it up to the reader's imagination: "The Israelis are very sensitive to the Christian world and maintain official diplomatic relations with the Vatican. They are pleased to fill the role of the welcoming custodians for Christian tourism of the Holy Land. The last thing in which they want to be involved is some archaeological find that would spark controversey or provoke Christian theological debates." (27) -- No, he doesn't accuse the Israeli authorities of a cover up, but he lays out innuendo.
So he wants to link the tomb to his theories, but not too closely. He then suggests that his theories about the historical Jesus are not dependent upon the finds in the tomb. Good for him, for he launches into a typical Jesus Seminar type reading, setting James up against Paul. He does some fine scholarship and he is quite thoughtful, but he falls into the same trap as all the researchers of the historical Jesus -- selective acceptance of the gospel narratives.
Very telling are his words in the conclusion of his book "History is not merely an assemblage of constructed facts. It also involves an attempt to retrieve and imagine a past that we can no longer see or touch. History touches the heart as well as the head. And it is here that material evidence makes a difference. Historical artifacts, authentically connected to the people and places we study in texts, offer us an avenue of linked imagination that is both moving and significant....It is that tangible touching of the past that stirs the human heart, no matter how learned or reserved one might be." (305) He wonderfully conveys his passion -- a passion I share. While viewing objects of Tutankhamen at the Field Museum or reading Herodotus Histories, imaginatively the past comes alive and we make connections with the stories we know and love.
However, he's failed to make an authentic connection between the tomb and the gospels. Indeed, he admitted that such an authentic connection is not necessary for his argumentation. I believe Tabor is carried away by his passion for antiquities and a love for a good story -- Hey I've been there too. Lots of archaeologists have been there. Heinrich Schliemann, the excavator of the ruins of Troy, was there. He made wild claims about finding Priam's Treasure, the Mask of Agamemnon and the Jewels of Helen. All balderdash. They were ancient finds that happened to be in the right mound -- he'd actually found the city of Troy -- but he dug too deep -- the artifacts were from an earlier era of history. Schliemann let his passion for antiquities and a good story get in the way of archaeological technique, careful analysis, and cautious pronouncement. It appears that the same things are in play this time.
More to come as this story develops.
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
Undoubtedly you've heard by now about the Discovery Channel special about the "Jesus family tomb", which purports to prove that Jesus was buried alongside his father and mother, his wife Mary, his son Jude and his brother Matthew. I could power a subcontinent with the energy that's been put into analysis on this issue over the last 24 hours. It seems that the church will not be caught sleeping on this one, like it was with DaVinci Code. Here's a quick summary of thoughtful commentary thus far, followed by a few of my observations:
Texas Rainmaker gives us an actual picture of the stone ossuary (a great big stone coffin) that supposedly held Jesus' remains. See for yourself the inscription that purports to be "Jeshua bar yosef" (Jesus son of Joseph -- remember hebrew reads right to left and it's in hebrew characters) -- also note the cross sketched in beside the name- the cross a sign not used by the early church for the first couple of centuries. He links us to
This article on Breitbart.com in which several scholars in Israel (including the scholar who wrote the original report of the excavation) dismiss this premise as a moneymaking publicity stunt.
IMonk's first page of resources on this topic -- includes links to William Craig Lane's debunk of the Empty Tomb theory, a link to the two original AP newswire stories that ran about this discovery in 1996, a link to NT Wright's defense of the resurrection, and great resources from Leadership University (also some really good commentary by Imonk himself). Particularly telling is the information that we have over 1000 ossuaries from Jerusalem at that time -- 6 have the name Jesus on them, and 2 of those are Jesus son of Joseph. Of all the female names, Mary occurs 25 percent of the time.
IMonk's second page of resources including links to Ben Witherington's outstanding commentary, Newsweek's questioning some of the methodology involved, and more issues about the translations of the names on the ossuaries
James White gives a stunning critique of the naming conventions, the idea that a poor peasant would have a middle class tomb, the flaws in resting upon statistical analysis, and the dodgy nature of resting on DNA evidence.
One of the thing that is clearly missing from this is an interaction with James Tabor's work The Jesus Dynasty, upon which the film is clearly based (with the exception of Witherington, who calls Tabor a nice guy who does some good work, but he's hitching his mule to the wrong wagon). I picked up the book from the library today and started reading. Tabor, a scholar from UNC-Charlotte, has some interesting comments about the find of the ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb. He talks about the odd cluster of names found in the tomb and then writes:
"The only way anything else could be done scientifically would be to carry out mitochondrial DNA tests on the bone samples to at least ascertain how the individuals buried there might be maternally related. Such tests, no matter what the results, could not "prove" that this particular Jesus was the one who became known as Christ, but they could show whether any of these individuals were offspring of either of the two Marys, or had a sibling relationship to one another." (26)
So here, Tabor admits that the DNA testing can't prove anything other than a relationship among the people in the tomb. In this section of the book, he hints at possibilities of coverups and hidden information, though he actually doesn't come right out and say that there has been a cover up -- he leaves it up to the reader's imagination: "The Israelis are very sensitive to the Christian world and maintain official diplomatic relations with the Vatican. They are pleased to fill the role of the welcoming custodians for Christian tourism of the Holy Land. The last thing in which they want to be involved is some archaeological find that would spark controversey or provoke Christian theological debates." (27) -- No, he doesn't accuse the Israeli authorities of a cover up, but he lays out innuendo.
So he wants to link the tomb to his theories, but not too closely. He then suggests that his theories about the historical Jesus are not dependent upon the finds in the tomb. Good for him, for he launches into a typical Jesus Seminar type reading, setting James up against Paul. He does some fine scholarship and he is quite thoughtful, but he falls into the same trap as all the researchers of the historical Jesus -- selective acceptance of the gospel narratives.
Very telling are his words in the conclusion of his book "History is not merely an assemblage of constructed facts. It also involves an attempt to retrieve and imagine a past that we can no longer see or touch. History touches the heart as well as the head. And it is here that material evidence makes a difference. Historical artifacts, authentically connected to the people and places we study in texts, offer us an avenue of linked imagination that is both moving and significant....It is that tangible touching of the past that stirs the human heart, no matter how learned or reserved one might be." (305) He wonderfully conveys his passion -- a passion I share. While viewing objects of Tutankhamen at the Field Museum or reading Herodotus Histories, imaginatively the past comes alive and we make connections with the stories we know and love.
However, he's failed to make an authentic connection between the tomb and the gospels. Indeed, he admitted that such an authentic connection is not necessary for his argumentation. I believe Tabor is carried away by his passion for antiquities and a love for a good story -- Hey I've been there too. Lots of archaeologists have been there. Heinrich Schliemann, the excavator of the ruins of Troy, was there. He made wild claims about finding Priam's Treasure, the Mask of Agamemnon and the Jewels of Helen. All balderdash. They were ancient finds that happened to be in the right mound -- he'd actually found the city of Troy -- but he dug too deep -- the artifacts were from an earlier era of history. Schliemann let his passion for antiquities and a good story get in the way of archaeological technique, careful analysis, and cautious pronouncement. It appears that the same things are in play this time.
More to come as this story develops.
Soli Deo Gloria
Russell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
