 An assumption at the heart of the docudrama The Lost Tomb of Jesus is that Jesus of Nazareth and his family must have had a common sepulcher. A rock-hewn tomb discovered in 1980 at Talpiot, just south of Jerusalem, is proposed in the film as most likely the very place. Early in the program, James Tabor, who acted as historical advisor to the filmmakers, remarked, “You have to have a family tomb.” The question is, do you?Writing on his blog following the release of the film, Tabor further explained this assumption: “The Talpiot tomb, is, after all, by definition, ‘a Jesus family tomb.’ The question is, which Jesus? And Jesus of Nazareth did die, and was buried, and his flesh did decompose and his bones were left. I do not think it likely, as some have argued, that the Jesus/James movement would have discarded their leader in a common grave. It just does not fit anything we know of messianic apocalyptic groups and the way they revere their Rebbe/Master, and in this case, their Messiah” (The Jesus Dynasty Blog, Methinks Thou Protestest Too Much). Once again the assumption is being expressed. It is an important assumption for Tabor, because it is central to his argument in his recent book, The Jesus Dynasty. As the title suggests, he believes that Jesus and his brother James founded a dynasty. The New Testament records that in the years following Jesus’ crucifixion, James became leader of the early church in Jerusalem. According to our understanding of Josephus’s writings, as preserved by Clement, Origen and Eusebius, he was one of the most revered people there. If he had a tomb, it would be a tantalizing piece of evidence for Tabor. But scholars have made the argument that rock-hewn tombs with ossuaries were only for the wealthy. Even then, the ossuaries or bone boxes within such tombs sometimes held up to six sets of human skeletal remains. The notion that the family of every first-century Jew could afford initial interment in a tomb and later placement in an ossuary within that tomb is fallacious. The majority of the dead were simply wrapped and buried in a trench in the ground. The cemetery at Qumran is a good example of this practice. Granted, the percentage of the population buried in tombs as opposed to being buried in the earth is difficult to establish. At the New York press conference and program launch for The Lost Tomb of Jesus on February 26, one journalist asked how a poor family from Galilee could afford a tomb in Jerusalem. Tabor made the case that Jesus’ followers would have banded together to pay for one It should be acknowledged that Jesus attracted some wealthy listeners. Joseph of Arimathea, in whose personal tomb Jesus was buried according to the biblical accounts, is a case in point. But some have suggested, without biblical evidence, that this Joseph was part of Jesus’ family and hence a family tomb existed from the beginning. That tomb was the one that was found empty by the disciples three days after the crucifixion. Another tomb, possibly associated with Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross beam for Jesus, has been excavated in Jerusalem. But while this may add evidence that there were people close to Jesus who had the means to provide a tomb for the family, Tabor’s notion needs to be tested against the rest of the evidence from the New Testament. The accounts there show the early church caring for its needy widows (Acts 6:1 ff) and providing financial relief to Judea (1 Corinthians 16:1–3; 2 Corinthians 8 and 9). The model is one of the leadership caring for the needy rather than exalting itself, and of the church supporting the ministry of the apostles (Paul at times being the exception to this rule [1 Corinthians 9:1–18]). There is no evidence that any of the apostles were well-to-do or that their remuneration extended beyond covering their basic needs. Additional clues to the humble lifestyle of Jesus’ family and early followers are provided by Josephus. Though the late-first-century historian’s extant works mention Jesus’ brother James only in passing, his additional writings did discuss James and were widely known up until the time of Jerome. Again as noted by Clement, Origen and Eusebius, those writings reflected James’s piety rather than any indulgent lifestyle. Though Origen expressed outrage that Josephus regarded the 70 C.E. fall of Jerusalem as divine judgment for the killing of James by the high priest, it speaks to the righteousness that Josephus attributed to James. This stands in contrast to what he saw as the rapaciousness of the high priests. Hegesippus, drawing on the earlier historian’s account, described James as a person given to prayer and fasting in the temple. Interestingly, Tabor sees “the Jesus/James movement” as Ebionite. The traditional understanding of the term Ebionite is “the poor.” Not only is this its meaning in Hebrew (Exodus 23:11), but it is also attested in literature from the Second Temple period. It is difficult to see how a group that apparently identified itself as “the poor” would or could pay for a wealthy burial place for its leading family. So can we know whether or not Jesus’ family had a tomb in Jerusalem? Consider the reports of the death of James, who, as already noted, was Jesus’ brother (Matthew 13:55; Galatians 1:19). According to Eusebius, James’s cousin Simeon, son of Cleophas, succeeded him as leader. This is an indication that there was still family present in Jerusalem who could have placed James in a family tomb—that is, if one existed. Yet the only detail we have of his burial is that it took place where he was killed. At the time of Hegesippus in the mid-second century, James’s grave was known to be close to the Temple Mount (not Talpiot). It was visible until the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt and the final destruction of Jerusalem in 135 C.E., during the time of the emperor Hadrian. If this account is true, it would also indicate that James’s bones were unlikely to have been placed in an ossuary. Of course, disciples could have removed the body surreptitiously, but the disturbance caused by removal from such a public place would have drawn some attention and prevented the continued recognition of his gravesite. As ossuary inscribed with “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” gained wide notoriety in late 2002. Proponents of the Talpiot tomb as the Jesus family tomb would like to draw a connection with this “James ossuary.” But the latter is currently at the center of a forgery suit brought by the Israeli authorities against some antiquities dealers. Even if the case of forgery is not proven, the ossuary’s lack of provenance and the suspicion that surrounds it will prevent its existence from establishing proof of a family tomb. Besides, the archaeological reports provide little chance that it was ever part of the Talpiot tomb in question. In the end, in spite of current arguments to the contrary, it would be safest to err on the ground of accepting that there is no known evidence that a Jesus family tomb existed. |
