I normally do not like to focus my comments on this Blog on individuals and their views. However, I did want to say something this morning that picks up on Ben Witherington’s Blog, as well as statements he has also made in today’s edition of our local paper, The Charlotte Observer, about the “Jesus Tomb” and about me personally. I am not so interested in Ben per se, but what he reflects in terms of what I consider to be a questionable but ubiquitous approach toward evaluating the evidence related to the Talpiot tomb and its ossuaries.

If one looks around the Web a bit it is clear that Witherington has become the St. George of what he considers a great battle for Christian orthodoxy. He has gone out and in less than a week, slain the dragon before it even got out of its cave, or “sunk the Titanic” before it even set sail, to use his own metaphor. Countless evangelical Christian posts on the Web refer to the ways in which Ben has been able to ably refute all possible evidence that this tomb held the ossuary of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. It is clear that in Ben countless thousands have found a champion. In fact Ben himself writes that we can all relax now, there is not threat to faith, it was all hype and much ado about nothing and Easter can go on as usual.

He also has advice for me that he has delivered both privately and publicly. Today he is quoted in our paper saying, “James needs to distance himself from this just as rapidly as he possibly can.” I find this really bizarre. First, Ben and others who share his approach are not objectively examining evidence, but they are engaged in apologetic refutation. After all, this tomb could not have the ossuary of Jesus because Jesus ascended to heaven, bones, flesh, organs, and all. Ben has also told me that he believes the Shroud of Turin is likely authentic and that blood tests have shown, amazingly, blood without both x and y chromosomes and yet still a man’s blood, showing that Jesus had no human parent. He also says on his Blog that he has witnessed a genuine case of a man being raised from the dead. My intent is not to poke fun at Ben here, but just to say that he and many others who follow his points with celebration, share presuppositions that make objective historical inquiry a moot point. All results are determined before the investigation. But beyond that, there is a tone and style that Ben and others have adopted that has little to do with dispassionate and objective scholarly exchange. It is characterized by debate and defamation, much like one hears on TV between political rivals, or even on negative adds. For example, Ben writes that I have “flip-flopped” on my previous position that Jesus’ father was Pantira, since I now read on the ossuary “Jesus son of Joseph.” Which is it he asks? Ben knows well that I never say Pantira was the father, but I survey the various views, virgin birth, Pantira, and Joseph, discussing each, and in the end I say explicitly that in filling out Jesus’ birth certificate one would have to write “father unknown.” I mention this just as one example of the flavor of a debate and a discussion in which I have no interest.

Ben is not alone of course. Ed Cook writes that refuting this wacky theory of the tomb is “fun” and likens it to shooting fish in a barrel. Todd Bolen runs a poll in which he lists scholars, “Christian” and “non-Christian” who are “for” the Jesus tomb idea, and of course he comes up with me as the one “scholar” on the planet that has anything positive to say in favor of the tomb’s identification with Jesus of Nazareth. Strangely, I get listed as “non-Christian.” In fact there are quite a few scholars who have told me they lean positively toward this identification but they have chosen not to express their views based on two or three days of news reports. I will leave it to them to speak when they wish, but several, such as Crossan and Charlesworth, have given positive comments “on the record.”

Fortunately there are some alternative and saner voices out on the Web. Mark Goodacre is always trustworthy, civil, and balanced in his discussions, as is James Davila. Richard Bauckham has provided a very helpful preliminary study on the names on the ossuaries. Stephan Goranson has begun to apply his admirably keen sense of historical judgment and scrutiny to the matter. Before and after the Koppel taping I was able to talk face to face with Bill Dever, Jonathan Reed, and Darryl Bock, and though they seem quite opposed initially to the film and book, I have no doubt in time, as they consider more of the evidence, that they will see why some of us consider it credible.

I had no part in the production of the film, nor the choices Discovery made for its release. I do appear in the film, as do quite a few others, as a commentator in areas I consider myself able to judge. I have been involved for over three years in an intense investigation of this tomb and have been able to talk to all the principal people involved, to gather all the available data of which I am aware, including the original IAA excavation files of Joseph Gath. I am confident that in time, as with the initial flurry of publicity over the Dead Sea Scrolls (remember Wilson’s articles in The New Yorker), the evidence will be sifted and evaluated with scholarly methods devoid of both hidden and explicit theological agendas. I look forward to that time and may it be soon and in our day.

Comments are closed.