Christopher Rollston, an Epigrapher, on the Jerusalem Tomb Conference Jan 19 08

Christopher Rollston on The Talpiot Conference: A Guest Posting

18Jan08

Christopher Rollston on The Talpiot Conference: A Guest Posting

18Jan08

The presentations at the Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins occurred on January 13-16, 2008 and focused on the Talpiyot Tomb. Some of the papers focused on matters not related to the Yeshua Family Tomb (”Jesus Family Tomb”), but ca. fifty percent did focus relatively heavily on the Talpiyot Tomb. Some focused very heavily on it. The inscriptions in question are published in Rahmani, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel, numbers 701-709. They have been known for a long time.

The archaeologists at the conference (e.g., Eric Meyers, Jodi Magness, Amos Kloner) argued that it is *not* very convincing (or not convincing at all) to argue that this tomb was that of Jesus of Nazareth or his family members. Those working in the field of prosopography and epigraphy (e.g., Rachel Hachlili, Christopher Rollston) argued that there is simply not enough data in the personal names attested to suggest that this is the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. That is, archaeologists and epigraphers said that Tabor and Jacobovici’s position is not convincing.

Note that of the ten ossuaries found in the Talpiyot Tomb, nine were retained by the Israel Antiquities Authority (the IAA will sometimes deacquisition ossuaries that are in very bad shape, as a perusal of Rahmani’s catalog demonstrates). Significantly, Israeli archaeologist Amos Kloner has stated that the one that was not retained was undecorated and uninscribed. A description of it is published in Rahmani’s catalog. It will come as no surprise that Jacobovici and Tabor have argued (sometimes obliquely, sometimes not so obliquely) that the James Ossuary was the one that was deacquisitioned (i.e., they refuse to accept Kloner’s statement and attempt to impugn his integrity as a scholar). However, Kloner (in response to Tabor and Jacobovici) has affirmed very strongly (along with Shimon Gibson) that this is *not* the case. Indeed, Kloner reaffirmed in very strong terms that the one that was deacquisitioned could *not* have been the James Ossuary, as the James Ossuary is decorated and is inscribed (whereas the Talpiyot ossuary that was deacquisitioned was without decoration or inscription).

Furthermore, it should be noted that the James Ossuary inscription is considered a complete modern forgery by some (e.g., Frank Cross). To be sure, some consider just the second half of the James Ossuary inscription to be a modern forgery. A small minority of scholars have argued that the entire inscription is authentic. However, it must be noted that even if authentic (and I have doubts about the antiquity of the entire inscription), the chain of custody for the James Ossuary is *not* known and never will be (it appeared on the antiquities market several decades ago). Moreover, the lab tests that have been performedfor the purpose of linking the James Ossuary with the Talpiyot tomb are not at all convincing (see my criticisms in the journal Near Eastern Archaeology 69 (2006): pp. 128 and 129 on this point and also on the problems with Feuerverger’s statistical analysis, which was based on misconceptions about the onomastic data).

Thus, here is the end of the matter. (1) The Talpiyot Tomb contains common names, and only has two names with patronymics (see my NEA article for discussion of the fact that patronymics, matronymics, etc., are needed for identifications to be convincing). Thus, there is simply not enough onomastic data for anyone to realistically conclude that it is convincing to identify the Talpiyot tomb with the family of Jesus of Nazareth. (2) Archaeologists do not think that the Talpiyot tomb is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. (3) Thus, outside of Tabor and Jacobovici (and a couple others), the scholarly community does *not* consider the Talpiyot tomb to be that of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. (4) The James Ossuary was not found on an excavation (but rather it appeared on the market, as do many ossuaries) and senior archaeologists affiliated with the excavation of the Talpiyot tomb state that the James Ossuary does not hail from the Talpiyot Tomb.

It should be noted that an entire issue of Near Eastern Archaeology was devoted to the subject of the Talpiyot tomb and of the published academic articles. Those wishing to see a responsible academic treatment of the subject, should turn to this journal (and although Tabor did contribute to this issue of NEA, his article contains several statements in which he affirms that his assumptions are hypothetical…I wish his comments (e.g., at the conference) would have shown the same scholarly restraint that marks a careful scholar’s work).

In short, as an epigrapher and historian, I find that the Talpiyot tomb cannot reasonably be identified with the family of Jesus of Nazareth…and it is the scholarly consensus that no identification can be made. The scholars at the conference were pretty uniform in saying the same sort of thing as I have…that is, the scholarly community is in strong agreement: the evidence does not suggest that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. So, alas, the press releases that have appeared are a jaundiced sensationalizing and misconstruing of the actual sentiments of the scholars at the conference.

Sincerely,

Christopher Rollston ([email protected])