The Talpiot Tomb and the Risen Jesus
The Talpiot Tomb and the Risen Jesus
Therefore, we have to ask how the Talpiot Tomb Hypothesis fares against these accredited historical data. It did not do a very good job of answering the burial data. How does it address the subject of the resurrection appearances? My contention is that it does an even poorer job here.
According to any burial scenario that we have mentioned above, Mary the mother of Jesus must have been told, sooner or later, that Jesus had been reburied and later had His bones placed in an ossuary in the family tomb. Thus she would have known that His body, at least, had not been raised from the dead. We said that it makes by far the most sense that, if Joseph of Arimathea had reburied Jesus' body, he would have informed Jesus' family so they would know where to find the bones in order to rebury them later in the family tomb. But it also makes the best sense that he informed them before he moved the body.
But in this case the women, including Mary and Mary Magdalene, now have no reason to go to the old tomb on Sunday morning in order to finish the burial, since it already had been completed by Joseph. Nor would they be surprised to find the tomb empty. But now we encounter the next problem—what do the two Marys think when they and other women see Jesus? We might be reminded here that even very critical scholars take this claim very seriously.14 Needless to say, their conviction about the appearance would collide with their knowledge that Jesus' body, at that very moment, lay dead in another tomb.
The Three Marys at Christ's Grave by Fra Angelico
Though it is unlikely that Joseph, a fairly obscure follower of Jesus, would decide totally on his own to move the body without telling the family and friends of Jesus, what if he did wait until later to inform them? This still does not dissolve the problem of the appearances to the women. Not only would they in all likelihood be present in the groups to which Jesus appeared (see Luke 24:33; John 20:17–18), but they are specifically mentioned as being present at the end of the 40 days of Jesus' appearances, right after the ascension (Acts 1:14). Even without these texts, to think that the female disciples like the two Marys would not be present when Jesus appeared during this time is simply shortsighted.
The point is that there is absolutely no question from the texts we have that Jesus' mother Mary and Mary Magdalene both were believers, thought they had also seen the risen Jesus, and supported the efforts of the early church. Yet if within a year or so (at the very longest) Jesus' bones would be reburied in the Talpiot Tomb, what would happen to their ongoing faith?
Every time they entered the family tomb in order to rebury a family member, they would have been confronted with the reality of Jesus' horrible death by crucifixion. Perhaps they would even have had to periodically move or step over Jesus' own ossuary. Since the predominant Jewish view was resurrection of the body, with the ossuaries themselves being a pointer to this ongoing belief in the importance of the human bones, how could the women go on believing that Jesus had been raised from the dead? And then what becomes of their firm belief that they had seen Him alive after His death?
With James the brother of Jesus we have a different twist to the problem. As the presumed head of the family after the death of Jesus, he, too, would know where the family reburial tomb was located, and that Jesus' name was displayed on the outside of the box. James, as well, would almost have to trip repeatedly over, or at least pass by, his brothers' bones in order to rebury additional family members during the intervening years before his own death. This is highly problematic, given the critical scholarly view that James had been converted from skepticism by a resurrection appearance of Jesus, which is also a clear case of the principle of embarrassment mentioned above. He went from believing Jesus was deranged to a profound faith change.15
As a pious Jew, James knew that Jesus' “body” was still interred in the family tomb! How, then, could Jesus have been raised from the dead? After all, his brother's bones were safe in the family tomb, awaiting the resurrection! But there are additional problems in James' case that were not present for the Marys.
Given Jesus' reburial and then His interment in the ossuary, what would account for James' conversion from skepticism? And even if he had become a believer because of Jesus' resurrection appearance to him, as held by the majority of scholars, then why did he keep believing upon discovering the truth about his brother's body and bones? After all, a few years after Jesus' death, James is still the pastor of the church in Jerusalem.16 And if James is the author of the Epistle, written years after that, the Lord Jesus Christ is still described as “glorious” (2:1), waiting to come (5:7) and preparing to judge (5:9). One last item about James should also be mentioned. If the recently-discovered James ossuary is authentic,17 it might actually work against the Talpiot Tomb Hypothesis. The ossuary designation of “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus” would arguably indicate that, until his death, James was still identified with Christianity. This would confirm both the New Testament witness as well as the testimony of Josephus, who recorded James' martyrdom in Jerusalem.18 Further, the ossuary inscription is a hint of Jesus' resurrection, for if James, for any reason, thought that Jesus had not been raised from the dead and was therefore less than the Lord,19 it would seem that he would no longer be so identified in his death.20 The bones in Talpiot would have cried out for a different kind of response.
We must move on now to one other very serious problem that the early conviction of resurrection appearances produces for the Talpiot Hypothesis. Whenever Jesus' mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, and James found out about the reburial of Jesus' body, it would have to be no later than a year or so after the crucifixion, occasioned by the burial of His bones in the Talpiot family tomb. But this would be only a year or so into the life of the Christian church. How could this information possibly stay hidden from the apostles and other early leaders? One would think that the effect on the faith of at least these three early leaders would be devastating!
And as soon as the secret leaked out, how would the early proclamation of the gospel—the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus—be affected? The truth of Jesus' reburial would hit the movement right between the eyes, at its very center! How would it affect Peter? John? Others?
The Apostle Paul by Rublev.
Then of course, what do we do with Paul's conversion, based on what he thought was a resurrection appearance of Jesus? With Jesus dead, and with His body and bones already reburied by this time, does the Talpiot Hypothesis reveal any new insights regarding Paul's conversion? It would seem that this subject is not even addressed. Therefore, a different approach is needed here. It is far from clear that there is anything new to say about what changed Paul from a fearsome persecutor to a believer in Jesus Christ. But this change must be accounted for, due to the central nature of Paul's experience and his early resurrection report. It is certain that, as a former Pharisee (Phil. 3:5–6), Paul believed in resurrection of the body, as they did. This is further evidenced from his writings.21
Of course, the response from the Talpiot Hypothesis advocates might be that this is not a thesis about Paul. But since the Talpiot scenario does propose to be a fairly comprehensive contribution to the question of Christian origins, and reflecting on Jesus' resurrection in particular, we simply note that the issue of Paul's conversion cannot be sidestepped in this manner. What happened to Paul is near the center of Christianity. By not addressing this question well, and thereby emphasizing its lack of response to Paul's conversion, the Talpiot Hypothesis shows that it lacks explanatory power, a key ingredient of historical research. Therefore, it is weakened further.
All the evidence we have strongly opposes the Talpiot thesis here, and very firmly so. For example, during that initial meeting in Jerusalem mentioned above (Gal. 1:18–20), perhaps six years after the crucifixion, Paul, Peter, and even James (who knew “the truth” about Jesus at least years earlier22) met to discuss their shared Christian hope. Fourteen years later, they all met again, this time along with John, in order to discuss the nature of the gospel, concerning which they agreed. The result was a renewed effort to continue their missionary effort with more zeal than ever (Gal. 2:1–10).
There is not the slightest sign that any of them thought that they might be mistaken, or were less than totally committed to the truth of this message. Indeed, very early first-century sources tell us that James, Paul, and Peter died as martyrs for the gospel that they preached,23 which included the central truth of Jesus' resurrection. This means, at the very least, that they believed their gospel message to the very end of their lives. This is simply devastating evidence against the Talpiot Hypothesis.
We must add quickly here what we are not saying. We are not saying that those who hold to the Talpiot Hypothesis will have nothing whatsoever to say. They will no doubt come up with some ideas that address a few of the many concerns raised in this book, or this chapter, in particular. But the key here is whether their scenarios are of the what if or could be types of “solutions,” like what Tabor presents,24 or ones that follow the historical evidence that we know. As we have said, the evidence opposes them at virtually every turn. That is precisely why the almost wholesale scholarly reaction has been to reject their thesis.
The Resurrection by Matthias Grünewald (1515)
One response that they have already made is to argue that Christians can still hold to a spiritual resurrection, without believing that Jesus' body was actually raised from the dead. But the problems with such a scenario are simply immense. This presupposes that the Talpiot Tomb suppositions are established, when they are hardly even live options after everything is said and done. Further, this was not the view of the New Testament writers25 and we must account for their teachings, due to the powerful evidence in favor of them.
From the beginning, the earliest proclamation was the unwavering belief that Jesus had appeared to His followers—that He was seen by them. Further, the latest indications are that the Greek words that they used always meant that it was the body that was raised, not the spirit alone. The words were used in this way by everyone—pagans, Jews, and Christians alike. So the claim definitely was not that He was somehow spiritually alive. Rather, both individuals and groups claimed to have seen Him, and this is hardly even questioned in the critical scholarly literature. The point is that we must account for the teachings themselves, not invent another scenario instead. Since the data we have supports this view, it simply must be addressed, not sidestepped. So the spiritual resurrection claim fails from the outset.26
Now we must summarize the issue in this chapter. We must add to the earlier list of burial problems for the Talpiot Hypothesis, this time from the known historical facts regarding the disciples' conviction that they had seen the risen Jesus, including their subsequent transformations and martyrdoms for the gospel message. Here is the other half of the major problems:
Since the predominant Jewish view was that of bodily resurrection, further demonstrated specifically by the ossuary process itself and the particular word usage, knowing that Jesus' body and bones had never been raised would be an insurmountable barrier to the early resurrection faith.