Additional Problems

In the many critiques of the Talpiot Hypothesis, there are a number of additional issues that ought to be mentioned. These tend to be somewhat less substantial, and a couple simply raise questions, but they still should be considered in any treatment of the subject.

Are there dating problems? Kloner wrote in his original article that the Talpiot Tomb could be dated from the end of the First Century BCE until 70 CE.⁴⁸ Of course, if the date is actually prior to about 30, this entire discussion is moot. On the other hand, Witherington argues for a post-70 date for the tomb, which is still possible because it is known that Jewish osslegium, or ossuary reburial, continued past 70 at least until 125, into the time of Bar Kokhba. Witherington finds potential indications of this conclusion in the following: 1) the tomb is not located in Old Jerusalem; 2) the three languages and especially because early Christians usually did not speak Greek; 3) the ornamental marking outside the tomb “is meant to attract attention and draw people to the tomb,” which is arguably the opposite of pre-70 times when Christians were “beleaguered” let alone trying to show off where Jesus was buried!⁴⁹

Many scholars have mentioned that if Jesus' family had a family tomb, it would most likely be located in Nazareth, not Jerusalem.⁵⁰ For example, Alan Segal asks, “Why would Jesus' family have a tomb outside of Jerusalem if they were from Nazareth?"⁵¹ Magness cites Rahmani's research, and indicates that the custom was for Judean families to indicate ancestry by mentioning the father. ‘But in rock-cut tombs owned by non-Judean families...it was customary to indicate the deceased's place of origin” instead. At the very least, Magness notes that “we could expect that at least some of the ossuary inscriptions to reflect their Galilean origins. …” Further, if Jesus' family had owned their own tomb, Joseph would never have had to intervene.⁵²

Likewise, some of these same scholars have added the point that Jesus' family was not wealthy and stone tombs are very expensive.⁵³ But Tabor countered with the strong protest that wealthy followers of Jesus such as Joseph of Arimathea or Lazarus (who also had a rock tomb) could have paid for the Jesus family tomb, just as Joseph did with his first burial, because of their “extraordinary devotion” to him.⁵⁴

Zias seemed incensed by the Talpiot Hypothesis interpretation of the symbols on the tomb. For example, the mysterious “X” marking on ossuaries are not Christian symbols, but simply an indication of which way the lid fits—it will not work in the reverse! Zias concludes, “Duh.…” ⁵⁵

Jesus not called son of Joseph by any one who knew him intimately—neither by family members nor by his disciples.⁵⁶

Although it would not necessarily refute any of the data, more than one scholar mentioned what they considered the problem is that the Talpiot Tomb claim was first voiced by the popular media instead of having the appeal made in the peer-reviewed literature. For example, Jodi Magness makes this point.⁵⁷

Statistical studies fail to support the conclusion that the Talpiot Tomb is the burial place of Jesus of Nazareth. Once again, every claim has been countered by many devastating critical responses. Scarcely has a thesis regarding the historical Jesus faced such a scholarly pummeling, especially considering that the complaints have issued from those of various theological persuasions across the spectrum.

It is sufficient here to recall that both sides even acknowledge that there were more than a thousand Jewish men in Jerusalem alone during the time of ossuary burials who were named “Jesus,” and whose father was also named “Joseph.” The auxiliary claims, along with several other problems, only move us further away from the initial hypothesis. As Ingermanson has graphically argued above, the case against the Talpiot Hypothesis is so decisive that it is almost a moot point how one answers the relevant questions. The conclusion is still the same: this is not the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

↑ Back to top