Extending the right hand of fellowship to James Tabor

James Tabor has a post today on the presuppositions and prejudgments of those working with the Talpiot Tomb and how they break people into one of three categories. I want to interact with this post a little bit to show my own position. Let me summarize his three basic categories:

1. Those who have prejudged the evidence and believe this is Jesus of Nazareth's tomb and disproof of Christianity. (These are mainly avowed atheists, church burnouts, etc.)

2. Those who have prejudged the evidence and believe this cannot be the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. (This is comprised, mainly but not exclusively, of orthodox and conservative Christians.)

3. Those who would like to see an open and honest investigation of the evidence. This group mainly should not "care" how the evidence plays out.

As Prof. Tabor sees the first two views as deficient, he presumably opts for the third, along with the majority of the academics he says have emailed him. These three options are fine, but incomplete. Here's why.

It seems that Prof. Tabor is aware of the inherent modernity of his view. He notes the difficulty of not prejudging evidence and yet finding oneself in a "location," or with an opinion. He writes, "No historian can be absolutely objective and all of us need a 'place to stand' from which we ask our questions. However, in the academic enterprise there is really no place, even on a topic as sensitive as this one, for prejudging the evidence.... In other words any kind of cultural or theological considerations should not come into play in evaluating evidence."

This is a strange comment considering the theological and cultural presupposition that Tabor makes with regard to dead bodies and decomposition. Critiquing another scholar, Tabor writes that this scholar "clearly does believe that Jesus, as any human being, died and his body decomposed" (emphasis mine). Prof Tabor also wrote in a comment on this blog, "Yes, I do think that Jesus died and returned to the dust, as do all human beings" (emphasis mine), though Tabor still believes in some form of resurrection. If the belief that all human beings die and decompose is not a prejudgment of the evidence, then I am not sure what would qualify as such. (Prof. Tabor also caricatures the doctrine of the ascension and thereby reveals a less than completely fair assessment, which I won't go into.) Placed in the context of 20th century Western society, this belief in dead bodies and decomposition is cultural. Other cultures have been open to physical resurrection. Placed in the context of the NT faith community, this belief is also theological. Prof. Tabor does not meet his own expectations for position #3. If these are the only 3 options, then Tabor must find himself in position 1 or 2. I don't think Tabor is in position 1, though. So, let me suggest a new category.

Tabor writes, "I remain convinced that the evidence regarding the Talpiot tomb, deserves a fair and honest evaluation." I agree with him. But I will passionately defend what I have considered to this point in my faith journey without feeling the need to return to a conclusion-free stance in considering this evidence. This is exactly what James Tabor is doing, as well. This evidence must be weighed and considered against the prior evidence that has come to light thus far, even if prior evidence is peripheral to the Talpiot tomb. There is nothing unfair or dishonest in this approach. Ironically, neglecting previous beliefs formed and shaped by evidence in the consideration of the Taliot tomb would be anti-objective (neglecting previous evidence) and subjective (I choose to reject previous evidence). Passionately engaging in this debate, whether by critique or by support for the Tomb, from within one's own faith journey is a fine option. Welcome to the club, Prof. Tabor. Here's my hand.