Steve Feldman, who manages the Web site of the Biblical Archaeology Society, recently offered a personal observation about me and my writings on the subject of the Talpiot “Jesus” tomb in one of his Blog entries (March 28th “Blogs ‘Flog’ Jesus Tomb Claims”). Noting that I have emerged as the primary academic defender of film’s claim that the tomb may have been the tomb of Jesus and his family, he writes that I have “become something of a voice in the wilderness as an academic defender of the show’s claims,” and that I deserve “some type of award for sheer doggedness.” He goes on to say, “My sense, however, is that he’s fighting a losing battle; the more discussion I see, the weaker the program’s case becomes.” Feldman recently put up a post on the BAS Web site, co-written with Craig Evans, titled “The Tomb of Jesus? Wrong on Every Count” in which they assert that the case for Talpiot being the Jesus family tomb is a “surprisingly weak one.” It is surely interesting how intelligent people can differ in looking at the same evidence, in that I find the Evans-Feldman piece “surprisingly weak” and “wrong on (just about) every count,” but that is another subject. What I want to do here is pass up the reward for “Sheer Doggedness.”

Steve and I are friends, so I am not in the least offended at his observation, though I am surprised that he has come to hold the position he defends in his post with Evans. I view my role in this matter quite differently. One dictionary definition of “doggedness” includes the notion of “grim persistence,” and this source lists “stubborn” as a cognate. Others have charged that my “credibility is taking a hit” or have advised me to “back off from this one and save my reputation.” Someone else pointed out, rather triumphantly, I might add, that the Wikipedia entry on ‘The Lost Tomb of Jesus” list thirteen Web sites critical of the Jesus identification and just one–mine–supporting it. If one browses these so-called “critical views,” it becomes obvious that with very few exceptions (Magness, Bauckham) I am in quite proud company being listed alone. That particular entry on Wikipedia is such a tendentious, inaccurate, and confusing mess it can hardly serve as a reliable guide to the topic. One of their editors invited me to help improve its quality some months back and I added a few things, only to see them removed by an anti-Jesus tomb zealot a day later. Maybe when some of the heat subsides it will be possible to help make that entry more balanced.

Fortunately, there are some more responsible academic discussions in progress and I am pleased to be part of those, but I don’t see my position on this subject as dogged or even overly resolute. What I have attempted to do in this Blog over the past three months is to honestly and critically evaluate the evidence as I see it using the standard methods of critical evaluation of texts and material evidence. The task has been a difficult one, not I think because of the evidence, but because of the subject matter. We are not dealing here with the tomb of a “Socrates,” but that of a “Jesus.” It makes a lot of difference. If one holds that neither this, nor any other tomb, can possibly be the tomb of Jesus, with an ossuary holding his bones, since he ascended bodily to heaven, it is obvious that we are dealing with something other than a standard historical discussion. Such a person can make claims about objectivity and evenhandedness but in the end, if a subject is decided before it is examined, and certain possibilities are ruled out because of a priori assumptions based on theology, it is clear that the “discussion” is far from objective. I have posted about fifty entries now on the subject of the Talpiot tomb and I trust that this Blog is one of the better and more reliable resources for information and evaluation of the evidence. If I see reason to change my position I will do so, but in my judgment the evidence fits, in an uncannily close way, what one might imagine as a hypothetical pre-70 CE Jerusalem tomb of Jesus. I have quite a bit more I want to say about this subject, especially in terms of how one reads and understands some of our N.T. gospel texts in the light of the existence of such a tomb, and I will continue to do my best to present the evidence objectively and fairly.

Comments are closed.