Amos Kloner’s Essay on Talpiot
Prof. Kloner has kindly sent along his 27 page report published by Bar Ilan University on the Talpiot tomb for which I thank him. It’s in Hebrew but for non readers it also includes an English abstract-
Burial Cave 1050 in East Talpiot, Jerusalem
Amos Kloner and Boaz Zissu
The East Talpiot burial cave was uncovered at a construction site and examined relatively quickly, within a short and clearly insufficient time, on 16 April 1981, as part of excavation permit no. 1050. The archaeological team found that the cave comprised of nine kokhim which contained primary burials (or inhumations – the skeletons lied supine) and eight ossuaries, inserted in antiquity into four of the kokhim. The kokhim which contained the ossuaries also contained some scattered bones of earlier burials. It was clear that the bone collection was not done properly and later generations did not take great care with their predecessors’ remains. The cave belonged to a Jerusalemite family during the second half of the first century BCE and the first century CE.
The cave contained the burials of at least 21 individuals of different ages and it can be assumed that the total number reached up to 26 individuals. The human remains were badly damaged by the ultraorthodox and by the construction workers, and when the ossuaries were finally inserted back into the kokhim on top of the inhumations, they were placed without knowledge of their original locations.
In the opinion of the present authors, all of the hypotheses and proposals that were made recently, connecting the cave findings to early Christians, to Joseph of Arimathea, to Christian apostles, or to a community of Jewish-Christians – are unsubstantiated.
Related Articles
- Yigal Levin’s Report on the ‘Fish Tomb’ Conference (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Kloner Contra Simcha- Again (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
Yigal Levin’s Report on the ‘Fish Tomb’ Conference
Because accusations have been made that Kloner fled the conference (see the comments) at its conclusion without taking questions (implying that he didn’t wish to or was afraid to), I post this conference perspective by Yigal Levin (who was in attendance).
Yigal offers both a comment on the conference and the abstract of Kloner’s paper- which too is below, for which I thank him-
The conference was not a press conference but a full-day academic conference on the history and archaeology of Jerusalem, of which I was one of the organizers. Kloner’s paper (presented together with Boaz Zissu) was given as part of a regular session on the Second Temple Period. The full text is available in Hebrew in the conference proceedings, with an abstract in English which I have copied below. There was no discussion time at the end of the session because the conference was behind schedule. Jacobovici tried to yell accusations at Kloner, but since the session chair announced that it was lunchtime, people just got up and walked out. As far as I know, Jacobovici then simply left.
From the perspective of most people in the profession in Israel, the Talpiot cave is really a dead issue – just another not-very-carefully excavated burial cave from that period, which does not add a whole lot to our overall knowledge. There were, however, quite a few interesting papers given, including a look at an Iron-Age underground cistern discovered by Eli Shukrun on the west side of the valley, adjacent the Temple Mount.
Burial Cave 1050 in East Talpiot, Jerusalem
Amos Kloner and Boaz Zissu
The East Talpiot burial cave was uncovered at a construction site and examined relatively quickly, within a short and clearly insufficient time, on 16 April 1981, as part of excavation permit no. 1050. The archaeological team found that the cave comprised of nine kokhim which contained primary burials (or inhumations – the skeletons lied supine) and eight ossuaries, inserted in antiquity into four of the kokhim. The kokhim which contained the ossuaries also contained some scattered bones of earlier burials. It was clear that the bone collection was not done properly and later generations did not take great care with their predecessors’ remains. The cave belonged to a Jerusalemite family during the second half of the first century BCE and the first century CE.
The cave contained the burials of at least 21 individuals of different ages and it can be assumed that the total number reached up to 26 individuals.
The human remains were badly damaged by the ultraorthodox and by the construction workers, and when the ossuaries were finally inserted back into the kokhim on top of the inhumations, they were placed without knowledge of their original locations.
In the opinion of the present authors, all of the hypotheses and proposals that were made recently, connecting the cave findings to early Christians, to Joseph of Arimathea, to Christian apostles, or to a community of Jewish-Christians – are unsubstantiated.
Related Articles
- Kloner Contra Simcha- Again (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
Simcha’s Lawsuit Against Joe Zias Hits Ha’Aretz
Journalist and filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici is suing anthropologist Joe Zias, who in recent years has been doing his utmost to disprove his provocative theories on early Christianity.
Further on
Jacobovici’s suit states that following Zias’ accusations, the Discovery Channel and National Geographic canceled the broadcast of his films, which cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars. He also says Zias is not an expert in archaeology as he presents himself, and never formally studied the subject.
“Let him say what he wants, I’m not arguing with him. Let him find 100 professors who say I’m talking foolishness. He said I am a forger, that I planted discoveries, that I invent Holocaust stories. I am a son of Holocaust survivors! So I’m invoking my right to defend myself. Let him prove that I am a forger or let him pay,” Jacobovici told Haaretz.
Zias and his attorney, Yehonatan Zvi, want the dispute moved to the academic arena. In the defense brief submitted to the court, Zvi compares the current suit to the 1925 “monkey trial” in which a teacher, John Scopes, was tried in Tennessee for teaching evolution. According to Zvi, his client, like Scopes, is fighting to protect scientific research.
And further
Prof. Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University, one of the two senior archaeologists who submitted their opinions, compared Jacobovici’s films to the “Indiana Jones” movies – “although this image does great injustice to the latter,” Goren noted. “Steven Spielberg never tried to claim that the discoveries of Dr. ‘Indy’ Jones were scientific truth or had any factual basis” Goren wrote. He added that he felt the suit was intended to “silence legitimate scientific criticism.”
Prof. Amos Kloner, a former Jerusalem district archaeologist for the antiquities authority who took part in some of the excavations that appear in Jacobovici’s films, attacked the latter’s methods in the opinion he submitted to the court. “These films do not present all the findings or the whole story with the accepted detail required and essential in critical research.”
I’ve said all along, and I will continue to say, that suing someone for an academic opinion is unacceptable. Many, many have criticized Simcha’s work with good reason. And though Simcha asserts that he’s suing Zias because Zias suggested he planted things and forged stuff, I’m not buying it. If all the stuff Simcha has filmed is the real deal, scholars would have supported him and his findings. That those findings were weighed in the academic balances and found wanting isn’t Zias’ fault. He doesn’t have that much influence. Nor does he have, in my opinion, sufficient influence to get tv channels to pull Simcha’s work. Simcha’s work was pulled for reasons known only to the networks he’s worked with and if he sues anyone it should be them.
I sincerely believe (though I don’t know it for a fact because I can’t read minds) that Simcha is suing Zias out of spite.
If Tabor and Simcha are Right, Jesus Had Disciples Before Jesus Was Around!
Mark Goodacre writes
I have recently been reading and greatly profiting from Amos Kloner and Boaz Zissu’s magisterial The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Perod (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 8; Leuven: Peeters, 2007) and I naturally turned with interest to their brief cataloguing of the Talpiot Tomb B, where I read with interest: “The finds indicate that the cave was used from the first century BCE to the first century CE (342).” Now did I just read that right? Was this tomb already in use in the first century BCE? By my reckoning, that makes it a little more difficult for it to have been known as the special burial place of Jesus’ disciples. Tabor and Jacobovici’s speculation that the tomb belonged to the first century CE figure of Joseph of Arimathea also becomes unlikely in the light of this important detail.
I think I just heard a dual ‘oops’ from the direction of Toronto and Charlotte. Mark has further details. Oops…
As Far As Australia, ASOR’s Repudiation of Tabor’s Claims are Heard
The Australian’s too have heard word of ASOR’s efforts to correct the interpretation of the ‘Jesus Discovery’.
Amos Kloner is the harshest critic of Tabor and Jacobovici-
Some experts accuse Tabor and Jacobovici of fabricating the meanings of an otherwise unimportant historical find for publicity, fame, and book sales. Their book was released Tuesday. ”It’s an ordinary middle-class Jerusalem burial cave,” Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site over 30 years ago, told MSNBC. “The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at that time.” A 1996 documentary by the BBC on the same subject led Kloner to a similar conclusion: “They just want to get money for it.”
It’s really, really difficult not to think that Kloner is right.
Related articles
- ASOR’s Eric Meyers and Christopher Rollston on the ‘Jesus Discovery’ (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- ASOR Makes an Impact (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Steven Fine Blasts Tabor and Jacobovici (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Robin Jensen Repudiates the Claims of Tabor in No Uncertain Terms: Or, How the ‘Jesus Discovery’ Deceives (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Rollston Eviscerates the ‘Jesus Discovery’ Claim (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
Comments Off
3 comments