Further Interaction About the Talpiot Tomb

There have been some further posts around the blogosphere about the Talpiot tomb and related matters featured in a recent Bible and Interpretation article, which I blogged about here.

James Tabor offers six links for those who want to “keep up” on the latest about the subject.

Antonio Lombatti responded via Jim West’s blog (as well as on his own), and then Elliott and Kilty responded to him there as well.

UPDATE: Mark Goodacre has chimed in with a few problems he sees with the B&I article.

See also the comments section on the original article and the various blog posts mentioned above (and in the Biblical Studies Yahoo! Group, if you are a member!).

"lol - I was thinking that!"

Review of The Last Jedi
"Did you mean to capitalize "Force"? ;-)"

Review of The Last Jedi
"I think that "does not directly contradict" still counts as "does not corroborate."I would not ..."

Earl Doherty as Christian Reformer
"And Jesus? lol. Becoming an academic, especially in the Humanities, requires similar innate giftedness, such ..."

Review of The Last Jedi

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Geoff Hudson

    It would seem that there is pressure from those who believe in the existence of Jesus, but who don’t believe that he was resurrected, for the evidence of the Talpiot tomb to be true. Darn it!

  • goodacre

    Thanks for the helpful round-up, James.

  • John

    Hi Professor McGrath. Your earlier commented “It seems to me that, if it can be demonstrated scientifically that patina corresponding to an authentic inscription is there on the whole of the James Ossuary inscription; and if it can be shown that comparing patina using minerological analysis allows one to trace an ossuary to a specific tomb; and if it can be shown that the aforementioned analysis indicates that the James Ossuary came from the Talpiot tomb, then
    it would seem to be reasonable to conclude that the Talpiot tomb
    probably contained at some point the bones of Jesus, his brother, and
    other relatives including a son of Jesus.”

    What do you think of Goodacre’s point that a son of Jesus does not match the New Testament when the entire case for this being Jesus’ tomb is based on a correlation with the New Testament? At least, I think this is his point.

    One of the things I love about experts with blogs is that readers can openly requests that they interact with each other. Thanks!

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/ James F. McGrath

    There has been further discussion, including comments by the authors of the B&I article, in the comments section there: