First Response to Tabor’s Summary on Historical Context – March 25

I plan now to respond to Jim Tabor’s summary one point at a time. Today I look at his remarks about the historical context.

Here is Tabor’s summary on this point:

____________________
The Historical Context: I do not find it unlikely or improbable that the family tomb of Jesus might be found in the Jerusalem area. I have argued elsewhere that neither the social status of Jesus and his family, nor their Galilean origins, stand contrary to the idea. All our evidence points to Jerusalem as the center of the Jesus movement after his death, with James and the family taking up permanent residence there. The tomb itself is small and very modest, quite plain, as are most of the ossuaries, and it is away from the city on the road to Bethlehem. My understanding of the Nazarene movement, as it began to thrive in the 40s through 60s CE, is that one would expect, rather than doubt, that the inner family wouldreceive such an honored and traditional burial somewhere in Jerusalem. If, as seems likely, Jesus’ body was taken from the temporary rock hewn tomb used for emergency purposes the Passover weekend he died, and he was subsequently moved to a permanent place of honorable burial, a tomb like this one in east Talpiot makes sense. One would expect then, as other intimate family members died, they would have likewise been placed in the same small tomb. Our earliest Gospel, Mark, knows of no “resurrection appearances,” and many scholars see his proclamation that the disciples will “see him in Galilee” as a reference to a “second coming” or Parousia. Some have scoffed at the very possibility of “finding the tomb of Jesus” as sensational and ridiculous nonsense. It is much like someone claiming to have found the “ark of the covenant” or any other Indiana Jones type nonsense. My view is that regardless of films, books, or hype, the tomb is a material reality that is worthy of full academic discusison [sic].
____________________

I plan now to respond to Jim Tabor’s summary one point at a time. Today I look at his remarks about the historical context.

Here is Tabor’s summary on this point:

____________________
The Historical Context: I do not find it unlikely or improbable that the family tomb of Jesus might be found in the Jerusalem area. I have argued elsewhere that neither the social status of Jesus and his family, nor their Galilean origins, stand contrary to the idea. All our evidence points to Jerusalem as the center of the Jesus movement after his death, with James and the family taking up permanent residence there. The tomb itself is small and very modest, quite plain, as are most of the ossuaries, and it is away from the city on the road to Bethlehem. My understanding of the Nazarene movement, as it began to thrive in the 40s through 60s CE, is that one would expect, rather than doubt, that the inner family wouldreceive such an honored and traditional burial somewhere in Jerusalem. If, as seems likely, Jesus’ body was taken from the temporary rock hewn tomb used for emergency purposes the Passover weekend he died, and he was subsequently moved to a permanent place of honorable burial, a tomb like this one in east Talpiot makes sense. One would expect then, as other intimate family members died, they would have likewise been placed in the same small tomb. Our earliest Gospel, Mark, knows of no “resurrection appearances,” and many scholars see his proclamation that the disciples will “see him in Galilee” as a reference to a “second coming” or Parousia. Some have scoffed at the very possibility of “finding the tomb of Jesus” as sensational and ridiculous nonsense. It is much like someone claiming to have found the “ark of the covenant” or any other Indiana Jones type nonsense. My view is that regardless of films, books, or hype, the tomb is a material reality that is worthy of full academic discusison [sic].
____________________

My comments: That Jesus’ family would come to have a family tomb in Jerusalem eventually is not a surprise. The movement did locate here. That is not the point in question in the objection about the lack of a family tomb in Jerusalem. The issue is the timing of when this tomb would exist and what it would require to have this tomb possess Jesus’ remains, given the controversial circumstances of his death. The question is not whether such a family tomb might eventually exist, but IF it existed when Jesus died in the thirties to be able to be placed in it (Otherwise, one has to explain the process by which the body was procured from the original tomb the body was placed in). Tabor’s remarks treat very little from this early scenario. Here are the relevant points to this early historical context. (1) Tabor speculates that Jesus’ body was taken "from the temporary rock hewn tomb used for emergency purposes the Passover weekend he died (no evidence exists for this kind of a resting place for Jesus), and he was subsequently moved to a permanent place of honorable burial, a tomb like this one in east Talpiot makes sense." However, Jesus’ body was not placed in a "temporary" tomb, according to our sources, but in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea, where the anticipation was that his remains were to be when the resurrection caught the disciples by surprise. The location of the body was known by some in Jerusalem initially and it was not in a temporary rock hewn tomb. One can speculate on other possibilities but we have no evidence for that speculation. (2) IF that body still existed and IF it was moved to the family tomb of Jesus’ relatives, then it would be at a locale some people would have known, then why was the body never noted as found (when it was preached as raised physically), especially IF the tomb contained an ossuary with Jesus’ name on it? Why would anyone place an ossuary with Jesus’ name on it in the family tomb and continue to preach his physical resurrection? That seems counter productive to the cause. (3) The sloppy nature of the inscription is also not dealt with for someone so previously revered. Why would his ossuary and the script on it be so sloppy? (4) The psychology of continuing to preach Jesus this resurrection when the body’s location was known and buried by some of its key figures is not dealt with by these remarks either (Did James know? Surely he would on this hypothesized scenario. All of this is then very unlikely.)

Tabor’s appeal to Mark our earliest gospel, not knowing of resurrection appearances, is not a significant factor to raise (and his reading that the prospect of appearances is a "second coming" point is irrelevant given the fact the tomb is physically empty). These claims miss two key points about the historical resurrection tradition as it relates to Mark. (1) The issue is the empty tomb for Mark and a raised body with no remains left behind. So even for Mark, there was no body to recover. Mark is not teaching a "spiritual" resurrection where there is a body left behind. By the time Mark writes, the teaching of Jesus’ return is also related in kind to Jewish ideas of the "return" of extant figures who were taken up in this life (Enoch, Elijah, and even Moses according to some Jewish traditions) (2) By the time Mark writes his gospel, the idea of the empty tomb and resurrection appearances clearly already exists for the church and its preaching because Paul notes this tradition in one of our earliest NT texts in 1 Corinthians 15:3-11, which is written before Mark. More than this, something like that belief has to be in place for Paul to convert in the mid-thirties of the first century (long before Mark is written). Paul was a Pharisee, who believed in a physical element to the resurrection as his teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 also makes clear with its "appearance" emphasis. So he woudl have resonated with a resurrection message in line with his own resurrection beliefs that emerged from Judaism.

So there is nothing in the historical context response that really points to the tomb being that of Jesus and there are still too many holes, and questionable "ifs" in the theory’s premises to connect the dots to such a conclusion based on this category.