Prof. Aren Maeir, chair of the Dept. of Archaeology/Land of Israel Studies at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv, Israel has recently expressed his views on “Biblical Archaeology,” in a widely circulated news story “Caution Replaces Rash Claims to Prove Bible.” He argues that there is no reason to shy away from comparing scientific findings to the biblical text, but urges that caution be exercised, particularly when it comes to going “public” with claims about this or that data “proving” the biblical record. He notes the trend today among some scholars to “dump the whole premise of biblical archaeology and just look at sites from a clearly archaeological perspective, rather than enmesh it with an ideological, religious or nationalistic perspective,” but warns that this attempt, that certainly has academic justification, is espoused “by those who have a very strong ideology in the other direction and don’t believe there is any historical accuracy in the Bible.”

I find his comments in this regard to be balanced and on target, however, Maeir then goes on to offer four examples of sensational claims that have received wide public attention but have turned out to be either a gross misunderstanding of the facts or outright frauds with the following characterizations:

• Mt. Ararat as the site where Noah’s Ark was found. “This one happens every five or 10 years,” yet nothing has been found to verify the claim.

• The Shroud of Turin. “We know clearly now it was made in the Middle Ages. It has been scientifically tested and dated clearly to the 14th Century.”

• The tomb of Jesus’ family. Among the most recent “discoveries,” the tomb has been the subject of several documentary films and books, but Maeir said what isn’t discussed is the commonality of the names found in the tomb. “There’s nothing exceptional about having a Jesus and a
Miriam and a Jacob” in the same tomb, he said.

• The ossuary of Jesus’ brother, James. “It turns out the box was found only with the ‘James’ part on it. Someone else added the words, ‘brother of Jesus.”‘

I don’t think Maier would get much argument on Noah’s Ark and the Shroud of Turin, but I am frankly surprised at his inclusion of the Talpiot Jesus tomb and the James ossuary as well as his inaccurate characterizations of both. To assert that the “commonality of the names” in the Talpiot tomb has not been discussed, or that the cluster of names is “nothing exceptional” ignores an extensive and serious scholarly debate, much of which is now appearing in peer reviewed scholarly publications. The latest issue of Near Eastern Archaeology has six essays dealing with most of the essential issues related to the Talpiot tomb, including the commonality of the names. There are peer reviewed statistical studies now available, with more to come (e.g. Prof. Feuerverger’s article forthcoming in Annals of Applied Statistics), that indicate that this easy dismissal of Maier and others on the basis of the names being “common” is misguided both in terms of the facts and the statistics. I have archived an extensive discussion of this very subject on this Blog. It is also far from established that the phrase “brother of Jesus” was added by someone to the James ossuary, indeed, the latest testimony in the trial of Oded Golan indicates that the letters containing original patina are precisely those with the words “brother of Jesus.” It is far from clear that the inscription has been shown to be a forgery, and there is credible evidence to the contrary that has emerged from a variety of highly responsible academic sources.

There seems to be a bit of a “bandwagon” or “pile-on” effect here, inspired perhaps by Eric Cline’s widely quoted essay in the Boston Globe titled “Raiders on of the Faux Ark,” based on his new book, From Eden to Exile: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Bible. Eric’s thesis, that “biblical archaeology is too important to leave to crackpots and ideologues; it’s time to fight back” has received deserved praise, but I fear a casualty might well be the same kind of easy dismissal and misstatement of facts regarding both the Talpiot tomb and the James ossuary that Maier reflects in his interview. Believe it or not, these are not my two pet issues, but they are subjects to which I have devoted considerable time and research and I have to insist, despite any aspersions, that they deserve a fair and full hearing with the facts laid out. That Professor James Charlesworth of Princeton has put together a large academic conference that will discuss both the Talpiot tomb and the James ossuary, in a proper scholarly context, this January in Jerusalem, is all to the good and says much for his own courage and integrity. He too has taken his share of “lumps” for maintaining that neither the tomb nor the ossuary has yet had a proper hearing. So let’s hear it for responsible academic standards when it comes to “biblical archaeology,” but let’s not dismiss or ignore the body of responsible discussion on both the Talpiot tomb and the James ossuary.

Comments are closed.