Tombs and Tragedies
It seems that fewer and fewer are supporting the Talpiot tomb. Except for James Tabor. (An anonymous person alerted me to his blog a few days ago in a comment and I've been reading it ever since. It's a study of irony, par excellence.) First, Tabor is annoyed with Witherington, Bauckham (seemingly), Bock, and all others who work to discredit the tomb. His reason is that they have rejected the evidence before considering it and are not using proper tone. The irony is that it seems Tabor has a belief in a dead and decomposed Jesus before coming to this tomb. That would skew the evidence at least as much, no? Second, Tabor's own tone gets a little edgy, himself, pointing out things he believes incredible about Witherington (but saying he's not poking fun). Third, while the evidence against the tomb continues to mount, Tabor keeps coming back to the name cluster. While this is not surprising in itself--it's the only evidence there is--the irony is so much sweeter. Tabor keeps seeking for objective, verifiable evidence and urges others to consider the evidence in a like manner. But the name cluster's power is in **narrative.** It is an amazing name cluster, to be sure, and one that warrants a second and third look, but after these looks, what's left is only a compelling narrative of a family united in their deaths and loyalty to a dead Messiah. The irony fleshes out most easily now: How do you verify a story?
Let me finish this off by turning Tabor's question back at Tabor. Tabor keeps pointing out the level of protest, interpreting it to be necessary apologetic by those simply committed to a faith that is now (literally) dead. The more one protests, the more emotional and less objective one has become. But this itself is an interpretation of the act of protest and a form of protest! Methinks the charge of too much protest cuts two ways...
The tragedy is that I cannot write about Frances Young's tremendous lecture at the WTS on Friday and will have to wait until tomorrow.
Let me finish this off by turning Tabor's question back at Tabor. Tabor keeps pointing out the level of protest, interpreting it to be necessary apologetic by those simply committed to a faith that is now (literally) dead. The more one protests, the more emotional and less objective one has become. But this itself is an interpretation of the act of protest and a form of protest! Methinks the charge of too much protest cuts two ways...
The tragedy is that I cannot write about Frances Young's tremendous lecture at the WTS on Friday and will have to wait until tomorrow.
Labels: Jesus, Jesus Tomb
posted by Aaron Perry at
10:01 AM
7 Comments:
James: I thought my comment was clear: It seems that people supporting the project are making money (via documentaries, books, etc.), *except* for you. I don't know of any way that you are making money, nor do I know your finances, or anything of the sort, except that you are supporting it.
As to your other thoughts: I don't know whether or not you believe in resurrection of the dead. I know you don't believe in a bodily resurrection of Jesus (at least in the 1st c.), which seems to me the only meaningful form of resurrection in a 1st c. context (N.T. Wright).
Re: identifying the tomb with Jesus of Nazareth and not believing Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead. You have charged Witherington, etc. with coming to the evidence with presuppositions that forces them to make apologetic claims before considering the evidence fairly. My point, the logic clear enough, I think, is that this charge could go against you, as well. Why should I not assume, as you have done with others, that your religious (dis)beliefs have (possibly) skewed the evidence?
Again, my apologies for what you take to be slander. That was not my intent, nor were they in my words.
In an effort to avoid any type of slander (though I didn't slander James Tabor in the original), I have altered the first paragraph to this post.
Game, Set, Match: AP (with Professors Bauckham and Witherington and Bishop Wright, in the stands).
I guess you can stroke UNC off any lists for potential jobs. May raise your profile at Duke, though.
Way to make enemies! Now, you have to love him.
Timothy S. Perry, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Theology
Providence College
(aka Crusty)
This comment has been removed by the author.
I too applaud your reason but would also encourage you not to make any alliances with Duke as I can't stand their basketball program. It has just dawned on me in the last few days that some people are taking this tomb thing seriously. I thought it was all a joke. I kept expecting this to be all revealed as a hoax on April Fools Day but sadly the Fools seem to be continuing this every day.
Rev. Kirk Perry B.A.D.
Bishop of Grand Manan
Senior Pastor Central Wesleyan Church
(aka habhater)
The latest dispatch (3/7/07) from Witherington, from his meditation on bitterness:
"It would be easy for me to get bitter about the nonsense propagated in the Jesus tomb theory. To become bitter that the other side of the story has not adequately been told. That there is an unfairness in all of this, especially since I spent years of my life dealing with the James ossuary and the remarkable implications of that, which is still a genuine relic from the family of Jesus."
From his own words, it's even more obvious now that the ONLY dog that BW had in this Jesus Tomb fight was the one that he hoped would free his James ossuary from its association with the ossuaries from the "Family Tomb."
He only succeeded in part. Most people agree that his J-o was not one of the ten, but he only dragged his credibility down further since he was forced to rely on the word of Oded Golan to establish a sort-of provenance for his ossuary and almost every mention of the J-o in the press was surrounded by variations on the words "forged" or "fake."
RE: "...the other side of the story has not been adequately told"
I have to agree with him here. Even though there were archaeologists, scientists and even Biblical scholars aplenty to refute the claims of the JFT-crowd, Witherington just had to jump in bearing the ridiculous baggage of his own ossuary claims. The case against the JFT would have been even much more adequate without his input. He was an unneeded distraction.
Re: "I spent years of my life dealing with the James ossuary and the remarkable implications of that, which is still a genuine relic from the family of Jesus."
"Still?!"
anonymous: i'm curious: what is your point? this comment is more pertinent to the above post, but even there it is peripheral. i have no interest in the J-o, except to engage critically with Tabor's use of it.
if your intent is to engage with Witherington, then you have not done so in any meaningful way.
why engage this way anonymously?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home