Methinks Thou Protestest Too Much
The aspect of the Talpiot tomb controversy raised by the Cameron/Jacobovici film that troubles me most is the sense I get, out on the Web and in the press, of an almost desperate need to debunk. I would surely expect this from the evangelical Christian side of things. As Daryl Bock made clear in the Koppel interview, for Christian faith as he understands it, it simply could not be the case that this tomb is related to Jesus of Nazareth and his family. So, there is no choice but to refute with great aplomb.
One might expect such prejudgment would not be the case among those of a more historical and “neutral” stance, whether Christian, Jewish, or secular, and yet we do indeed have academics weighing in with assurance on a subject many only began to think about a week ago. And further, it appears to me, and I could be wrong, that there is some of the same passion at work in many who are solidly within the mainstream academic world.
The Talpiot tomb, is, after all, by definition, “a Jesus family tomb.” The question is, which Jesus? And Jesus of Nazareth did die, and was buried, and his flesh did decompose and his bones were left. I do not think it likely, as some have argued, that the Jesus/James movement would have discarded their leader in a common grave. It just does not fit anything we know of messianic apocalyptic groups and the way they revere their Rebbe/Master, and in this case, their Messiah. The supposition seems to be that this Yeshua bar Yehosef, the only one ever found in a controlled archaeological context, could not possibly be the Jesus we know and the sooner we can show it the better. No matter how much one plays with statistical theory just looking through the catalogue of 897 ossuaries in Rahmani, and noticing the clusters of names, in tomb after tomb, one realizes the Talpiot combination of names as related to what we know of the Jesus family, does indeed stand out. And yet, the approach so many have taken seems to be one of refutation rather than exploratory consideration, so that battle lines are drawn and ugly and dismissive exchanges or declarations prevail. I can not remember a time when there has been more scurrying about to hastily put together “evidence” to counter a position. One senses a sense of “celebration” among those who are confident that any possible association of Jesus with this site has been eliminated, sigh, thank God. I do indeed think there is more going on here than a commitment to what is pitched as “responsible scholarship” and “peer review,” something we are surely all for. I recall the wise words of Prof. Michael Stone when I first laid out for him the case I saw in support of the possible identification of this site with Jesus:
The difficulty with this proposal of yours is that it relates to Jesus. The potential significance of this find, therefore, for the Christian faith means that it will evoke some responses far more extreme and passionate than if you were making a proposal about some other family, of no foundational significance for one of the world’s great faiths, and a different figure of no particular religious significance.
This said, all that we scholars can do is to carry out our work as professionally as possible, trying to avoid the sensationalism that will inevitably follow the publication of your conclusions. I can say this, that what I have heard from you as well as the research reports I have read seem to me worthy of serious consideration. I don’t know if what you say is right.. it is incumbent on experts the various fields of learning involved to approach the evidence impartially and to do their best to draw balanced and honest conclusions from it.
To dismiss it out of hand is unjustified.
I do indeed think that something of this is at work, even among some academics who have spoken out in such great haste. Rather than test a hypothesis, which means to see if it might fit the facts we can know, there is an almost cheerleading spirit of debunking and dismissal. I realize many feel a duty to take a stand against the media hype and “packaging” of the Discovery TV and HarperSanFrancisco presentation of the evidence (see this weeks article in Time by David Van Biema). The cries for “peer review” seem ubiquitous among my colleagues, and in principle no academic could disagree. But then I have to think, the tomb was not published until 1996, sixteen years after it was opened, then for another decade, no one in the academy showed any interest in doing any kind of research related to the site. Then, as now, the names were dismissed as “common,” case closed. I can not fault Jacobovici for acting as a facilitator in locating the tomb once again, commissioning statistical studies from one of the foremost statisticians in the world, conducting DNA tests on the ossuaries that seemed to have enough residue for testing, consulting with epigraphers and onomastic experts, and attempting to piece together a coherent interpretation of the names in this tomb in consultation with biblical scholars and historians. It seems to me that his role as a catalyst has been a good one.
But one has to wonder if even for a moment, late at night, in the recess of the mind, if the thought is allowed to emerge–what if? Whether the chances are 600 to one in favor, or fifty-fifty. Even fifty-fifty is really not something to dismiss out of hand. What if this Yeshua bar Yehosef, the only example ever found in a controlled archaeological site, is in fact Jesus of Nazareth. I am not thinking here of consequences, what it would mean for theology or in the world, but what if, in terms of open and positive consideration. It well might be that if scholars put as much energy into further research as on refutation the results would be more valuable.
I also think that the common people might well have a different take on this. Not because they are gullible and ignorantly susceptable to a media pitch, but because they have good instincts about those who protest too much, declaring this a “five day story” of no consequence.
I am working on a more formal presentation of my own views of this tomb and will make those available soon, even this week. I have worked on this for over three years and I am preparing a paper titled: “Is there a Case for “The Jesus Family Tomb?” which will offer a preliminary sketch of what I have determined. I look forward to that good ole “peer review” and I am sure I won’t have long to wait, probably in some cases about an hour after I begin to circulate my paper. We have some folks out there that are loaded and cocked, that’s for sure. Later this year Shimon Gibson and I plan to publish a more formal technical article, or even short monograph, on the site.