Antonio Lombatti’s Rejoinder to the Elliott Essay in Bible and Interpretation

Posted on by Jim

Well, let me briefly state my opinion on this matter. This paper a very good reply to Magness’s 6 points. But my doubts are elsewhere.

1) Marko Sammech admitted to CBC 60 Minutes to have forged 10-20 artifacts for Golan, who kept the ossuary in his house for 25 years and then he realized he could own a biblical relic.

2) There’s no agreement on the patina being really ancient: at least, we have Yuval Goren’s opinion that there is no such patina on the word Jesus.

3) There is no record of a presumed Jesus family tomb in Early Christianity. As for Jesus’ tomb – the Holy Sepulchre – first Christians preserved very good oral traditions. And, beyond tradition, relics were invented and forged starting from the IV century. The place of James’ burial was venerated and remembered in early Christianity. Eusebius preserves to a grave-marker or monument to James. Jerome does it in his seemingly more precise variation on the tradition “His tombstone with its inscription was well known until the siege of Titus and the end of Hadrian’s reign” (Vir. ill. 2). First pilgrims to Jerusalem noticed different places and relics connected to James: his house, his throne when he was bishop, his tomb, and Theodosius writes that James’ bones were venerated in the Kedron Valley tomb. No evidence or memory of a family tomb. And considering that early Christians were eager to venerate the most absurd places and objects (such as the tub of Baby Jesus or the place where household servant in Nazareth was born, St. Amadour) I find it difficult to overcome the fact that there is no record on this family tomb.

4) The so-called missing ossuary is not the 10th Talpiot tomb ossuary, as clearly stated here by those who excavated and catalogued the tomb (http://www.antoniolombatti.it/Missing.mov).

5) “Without Mary Magdalene the tomb is like any other tomb with an unremarkable common set of names.” (Andrey Feuerverger), and Stephen Pfann has proved beyond doubt that there is no such name on the ossuary (http://www.uhl.ac/blog/?p=436).

6) Good remarks on Jewish burial practices (http://www.antoniolombatti.it/Zias1.mov), in fact at least 35 individuals were buried there (http://www.antoniolombatti.it/Kloner1.mov).

7) IAA epigraphists and paleographers are convinced that at least the second part of the inscription is a fake.

So, even IF the patina and the inscription will be proved absolutely authentic beyond any doubt (and I seriously doubt it will ever happen), the evidence of the existence of a presumed Jesus family tomb is missing at all. For the above reasons, I remain highly skeptical about it being the “real thing”.

I share his skepticism (as I previously suggested).

Related articles

2 Responses to Antonio Lombatti’s Rejoinder to the Elliott Essay in Bible and Interpretation

  1. very nicely stated.

    we’re at a point now that the credibility of the talpiot tomb is so badly damaged, and the claims made about it have been so thoroughly refuted by scholars, that any further claim involving it is going to be viewed as simply unbelievable.

    cue simcha.

  2. Pingback: Further Interaction About the Talpiot Tomb « Exploring Our Matrix