Many readers will remember the sensational story that broke into the news in March of this year regarding a series of “lead codices,” that some had claimed dated back to the 1st century and might prove to be some of our earliest Christian documents. Since that time much has been revealed about these artifacts and it appears the preponderance of evidence by qualified experts is these items are fake. As one of the few academics who did not jump on the bandwagon labeling the James ossuary inscription as fake (and indeed it appears it will be vindicated as genuine) I hasten to add that to me these artifacts appeared to be as phony as a three-dollar bill from day one. Nothing I saw, read, or heard about them added up. My initial reaction, without even knowing the whole story, was that they appeared to be fake and whether fake or genuine there was not a chance they could be dated to the 1st century CE.

I wanted to call attention to three items that will bring folks up to date with some of the latest evaluations by scholars:

1) A YouTube video, The Lead Codices that was put together by a team of scholars and “bibliobloggers” who have followed the story.

2) An extensive article by Tom Verenna at the Web site The Bible  and Interpretation, which, I might add, is well worth browsing on many related topics. The site has a good search feature, try “Talpiot tomb” or “James ossuary” for example.

3) An article nicely written, comprehensive article by Prof. Philip Davies published in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly 143, 2 (2011), 79–86, see: PEQDaviesLeadCodices.

I am posting this response by Simcha Jacobovici to critics of his “Nails of the Cross” documentary that aired on the History Channel in the USA  and most recently in Israel. His thesis: that two crucifixion nails, most likely those used to crucify Jesus of Nazareth, were found in a Jerusalem tomb belonging to the Caiaphas family in November 1990, then lost by the Israel Antiquities Authority, but now recovered. Caiaphas was the High Priest in the time of Jesus who delivered him over to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea,  for blasphemy and sedition. The film has stirred a storm of criticism with an untoward amount of ad hominum attacks.

You may download and or/read Simcha’s response here in a PDF file:

The Nails of the Cross_June22

My thanks to Simcha for sharing this with my readers here first. Please feel free to circulate the link here or the PDF file itself.

James Tabor

I wanted to update the post below from April, 2007. Various scholars, including Emile Puech and most lately Stephan Pfann have questioned the suggestion by Bagatti and Milik (who was a bit more cautious) that the reading of this ossuary fragment is indeed: Shimon bar Jonah–presenting the possibility that Simon Peter, who is known by this rather unusual name in Matthew 16:17. Pfann’s latest thoughts are found on his University of Holy Land Studies Web site here. Pfann reads the name of the father as BarZillai, the name of a priestly family known to us from the time of David and mentioned in Ezra 2:61.

I recently received a copy of the masterful Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae (edited by Hannah M. Cotton, et al.) Volume I: Jerusalem: Part 1. It contains 704 inscriptions, on ossuaries and other surfaces, that date to the area of Jerusalem in the 1st century BCE/CE. The editors (Jonathan Price and Haggai Misgav) prefer the reading: Shimon son of Lollia, a Latin name, noting that a second Latin name, Secunda or Verecunda, is found in the same burial complex. This name, Lollius or Lollianos was a short form of Alexandros. The editors of CIIP were apparently not aware of Pfann’s suggestion.

I am no epigrapher and I think the legendary martyrdom of Peter in Rome under Nero has scant historical support, however, I wanted to bring these alternative readings and possibilities to my readers and thus update the post below from 2007 in the interest of accuracy:

The ossuary was found in 1953 on the Mt. of Olives by the late great Franciscan priest and archaeologist Bellarmino Bagatti. It was part of in a fascinating necropolis of over a five hundred burial tombs that some scholars have identified, in whole or in part, with the early pre-70 CE Jewish-Christian community–that is, Jewish followers of Jesus who lived, died, and were buried as good Jews. This ossuary is inscribed: Shimon bar Jonah, or in English, “Simon son of Jonah,” the name of the apostle Simon Peter (Matthew 16:17). This name is attested nowhere else, neither in inscriptions nor in literature. Further, the Simon, son of Jonah, ossuary was found just meters away from a tomb just outside of Bethany containing a single ossuary with two indviduals: Mary and Martha, and nearby another, inscribed Lazarus. I discuss these briefly in my book, The Jesus Dynasty (pp. 235-237), but a fuller treatment, accessible to the non-specialist, is available in Jack Fingegan’s The Archaeology of the New Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, reprt 1979), pp. 359-375.

(more…)

Joe Zias just posted an article at the Web site Bible and Interpretation in which he puts forth his revised interpretation of the human skeletal remains found in the southern caves at the desert fortress of Masada in October, 1963, during the opening season of the archaeological expedition led by Yigael Yadin. Zias has written on this subject before but here offers his latest interpretation, set in the wider context of the ways in which anthropology, and archaeology more generally, contribute to controversies over Jewish identity. Along the way, about half the article is devoted to a sarcastic and slanderous critique of me and my work, my colleague Kathy Reichs and her novel Cross Bones, and even my department of Religious Studies, of which I am chair–and by extension UNC Charlotte and our former Chancellor.

The Bible says two wise but purposely contradictory things: “Do not answer a fool, according to his folly, lest you be like him”; and “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Proverbs 26:4-5). In the case of Joe Zias I have tried my best to live by the former and have declined to respond to, or in any way mention, here in this blog or elsewhere, the many slanderous things he has said and written about me over the past four years.

This latest article on Masada has caused me to reconsider. I have switched from verse 4 of Proverbs 26 to verse 5. The editors at Bible and Interpretation sent me a copy of Zias’s article and asked if I would like to respond. In thinking it over I felt I had no choice–that enough was enough. My silence would simple give a kind of tacit “assent” to these misdirected and baseless charges, not only against myself but my colleagues. I find this particularly unpleasant since Joe has been a good friend of mine over the years, both personally and professionally. But there is a further reason I decided to respond, beyond the personal, and that is because I believe what Zias writes in his latest piece about Masada is quite seriously in error. We worked closely together on his 1994 article in Biblical Archaeology Review, dealing with the human skeletal remains found at Masada, and even though we disagreed on conclusions, our work was beneficial to one another. I regret to say that is no longer the case.

Here are links to Zias’s article, followed by my response:

Zias Article: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/masada357902.shtml

Tabor Response: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/resp357902.shtml

There is a fascinating article, not to be missed, by Prof. Eilat Mazar on her excavations in the “City of David” area of Jerusalem on-line at the Biblical Archaeology Society web site, “Did I Find David’s Palace?”

Prof. Mazar recounts in a most objective way how her efforts developed over the years, the obstacles she has faced, and her interpretation of the results. I knew her grandfather from the 1968 digging south of the Temple Mount and I particularly enjoyed her story about talking with him before he died about this area. There are lots photos of the “City of David” area taken from 1900-1920 and there is not a building in that whole area, Jewish, Christian or Arab, other than the pump house for the Gihon built by the British. The dense construction we see there today is mostly post 1948 with some initial building in the 1930s. Too bad we can’t go back in time and skip the local turf wars of who owns what. David belongs to the ages, to humankind, and is the common spiritual ancestor of Jews, Christians, and Muslim–as is the case for all the amazing history of Jersualem, from Jebusite to today!

One the political side of things, one of the best sources for 19th and early 20th century photos of Jerusalem, not to mention just about any other photos related to Biblical studies (with some offered free), is the amazing collection of Todd Bolen at Bibleplaces.com. In this case, that is, the City of David, a picture is truly worth a thousand words–or more!

In terms of biblical and archaeological studies, especially what has been called “Biblical Archaeology,” I find the arguments Prof. Mazar offers in her article about how the texts of the Hebrew Bible can be properly used as a source for ancient Jerusalem and its potential correlation with material evidence both balanced and compelling. Our task is always to “find what is there” and to explore and examine the material evidence of the past as objectively as possible, regardless of religious traditions. However, the methods Prof. Mazar pursues in this regard are in my view are sound and historically responsible. After all, to ignore these ancient texts entirely is as misguided as to use them as a road map to predict and interpret what one finds, regardless of the evidence.