Kevin Kilty and Mark Elliott have a new essay on the names discovered at Talpiot (leaving aside the exaggerated claims of the recent ‘discovery’) that raises, it seems to me, a very salient point. To wit-
We believe percolating just beneath the surface of this debate is the recognition that an ossuary and a post Calvary body of Jesus would cause enormous difficulties for such treasured theological truths as the resurrection and the veracity of the New Testament. We are not accusing Goodacre of defending doctrines of inspiration and the authenticity of the scriptures. However, when we read that faith oriented scholars argue that Jesus would never name his son Judas because this is the name of his betrayer, or that this is similar to “Churchill naming his son Adolf,” then the discussion has now moved to articles of faith and revelation. Though we do regard Jesus as visionary, we are more than doubtful that he would have avoided naming a son Judas because in the future he would be betrayed by a disciple with the same name. This is reminiscent to the biblical literalism found in the Fundamentals and not what one would expect to encounter from 21st-century biblical scholars. This cannot be sanctioned by any critical biblical scholar. This heroic rescue attempt of Jesus’ celibacy is not creditable and as inspired as it might be: it should be discarded.
That’s the conclusion. See the essay to see how they get there.