Does the Talpiot Tomb match the Gospel Accounts?
James Tabor's latest post on the Talpiot tomb seeks to show how the Talpiot tomb is consistent with the earliest sources we have, namely Paul and the gospels. Here I will show how his argument fails to fit with the gospels. (His article includes more than this, but this rebuttal will suffice for now.)
First, let me summarize Tabor's argument. Tabor argues that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was to be temporary, hastily burying his body because the Sabbath was coming. It would then be moved to a permanent site after the Sabbath. We get this from Mark, although Luke and John (with corollary material) agree. Matthew is discounted because it includes the detail, theological and dismissable, that the tomb belongs to Joseph of Arimethea. Because this tomb was temporary, we would expect it to be empty after the Sabbath.
Tabor's argument begins to falter by his dismissal of the Matthean text. While Matthew is the only gospel writer to include the detail that the tomb belongs to J of A, this is not inconsistent with the other gospels. To argue that the tomb does not belong to J of A because Mark, Luke, and John do not say it does is an argument from silence. Nothing in Mark, Luke, or John contradicts Matthew's claim. In a similar vein Mark, the earliest gospel, does not mention the the tomb is new although Matthew, Luke, and John do. Does this mean that Mark contradicts Matthew, Luke, and John? Of course not. That Matthew has included a detail that was otherwise unimportant for Mark, Luke, and John does not mean it is false.
Tabor's argument is definitively sunk, however, by his assumption that Jesus' body was reburied. Concerning after this original burial, Tabor writes, "What happened next in terms of when and how the corpse of Jesus was taken from that temporary tomb is unfortunately a matter about which historians can say little, given the theological nature of our sources, and their relatively late apologetic character." So what does he conclude? "One must assume that the corpse was taken and reburied, perhaps as soon as the Sabbath was over just after sundown Saturday night." This is strange, however, because all of the gospels agree that it was the same tomb that the closest friends of Jesus went on the Sunday morning (Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:2; Lk. 24:1; John 20:1). Why, if the reburial of Jesus should be assumed, was it not by earliest characters? Moreover, wouldn't they have known about this move before Sunday morning? Why does Tabor believe it possible to take parts of the gospels as historical and others as theological? Moreover, why does Tabor feel free to take as reliable the parts of the gospel that fit his story, but reject the parts that do not? Regardless, while the gospels are consistent (actually the source) of a hasty burial of Jesus, they are not consistent with a reburial, which would have to happen for the Talpiot tomb to be consistent with them.
This means that Tabor can say the gospel writers are reconfiguring the events, but he cannot say that the Talpiot tomb is in accord with them. This does not mean the gospels are correct, of course, but it does mean an alternative story provided by the earliest sources we have.
First, let me summarize Tabor's argument. Tabor argues that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was to be temporary, hastily burying his body because the Sabbath was coming. It would then be moved to a permanent site after the Sabbath. We get this from Mark, although Luke and John (with corollary material) agree. Matthew is discounted because it includes the detail, theological and dismissable, that the tomb belongs to Joseph of Arimethea. Because this tomb was temporary, we would expect it to be empty after the Sabbath.
Tabor's argument begins to falter by his dismissal of the Matthean text. While Matthew is the only gospel writer to include the detail that the tomb belongs to J of A, this is not inconsistent with the other gospels. To argue that the tomb does not belong to J of A because Mark, Luke, and John do not say it does is an argument from silence. Nothing in Mark, Luke, or John contradicts Matthew's claim. In a similar vein Mark, the earliest gospel, does not mention the the tomb is new although Matthew, Luke, and John do. Does this mean that Mark contradicts Matthew, Luke, and John? Of course not. That Matthew has included a detail that was otherwise unimportant for Mark, Luke, and John does not mean it is false.
Tabor's argument is definitively sunk, however, by his assumption that Jesus' body was reburied. Concerning after this original burial, Tabor writes, "What happened next in terms of when and how the corpse of Jesus was taken from that temporary tomb is unfortunately a matter about which historians can say little, given the theological nature of our sources, and their relatively late apologetic character." So what does he conclude? "One must assume that the corpse was taken and reburied, perhaps as soon as the Sabbath was over just after sundown Saturday night." This is strange, however, because all of the gospels agree that it was the same tomb that the closest friends of Jesus went on the Sunday morning (Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:2; Lk. 24:1; John 20:1). Why, if the reburial of Jesus should be assumed, was it not by earliest characters? Moreover, wouldn't they have known about this move before Sunday morning? Why does Tabor believe it possible to take parts of the gospels as historical and others as theological? Moreover, why does Tabor feel free to take as reliable the parts of the gospel that fit his story, but reject the parts that do not? Regardless, while the gospels are consistent (actually the source) of a hasty burial of Jesus, they are not consistent with a reburial, which would have to happen for the Talpiot tomb to be consistent with them.
This means that Tabor can say the gospel writers are reconfiguring the events, but he cannot say that the Talpiot tomb is in accord with them. This does not mean the gospels are correct, of course, but it does mean an alternative story provided by the earliest sources we have.
posted by Aaron Perry at
9:30 AM
4 Comments:
hey ap, thanks for continuing to respond to these matters. I've been reading your posts thoroughly
ap, i stumbled upon this 'objection' and was wondering if you had seen others speculate about it...
An odd claim in the documentary is that the name "Maria" מריה, written on one of the ossuaries in Hebrew characters, is "a rare Latinized version of Mary". The documentary points out that Yeshua's mother was named Miryam (MRYM מרים) but claims she was called "Maria" by the Latin-speaking followers of Yeshua and therefore the Latin version of her name was written on her ossuary. It is not clear to me why someone would write a Latin form of the name Miryam in Hebrew characters on a 1st century ossuary. If this is the Latinized form of the name shouldn't it appear in Latin letters? And why would Yeshua's Latin-speaking followers thousands of miles away influence the way his mother's name appeared on her ossuary? If the name is in Hebrew characters, it is strange to assume it is a "Latinized form" when it makes perfect sense as a native Hebrew name. The Hebrew letters MRYH מריה would most naturally be read as Merayah, which appears as the name of a male priest in Nehemiah 12:12. So rather than being a Latinized form of Maria, the ossuary in the "Talpiot Tomb" was probably from that of a man named Merayah.
hey matt,
i haven't read that argument and i am definitely not familiar enough with the languages to engage with it. where'd you find it?
i saw it as part of a longer argument on a message board. i just hadn't seen anyone else argue that yet.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home