The Guard at the Tomb - "Apologetic Device" or Historical Fact?

A few months ago I attended a debate at Duke Univeristy between Joel Marcus (Duke) and Gary Habermas (Liberty) on the Resurrection. I've transcribed it if anyone wants a copy (just email me at Joshua [dot] McManaway [at] sebts [dot] edu). At any rate, Dr. Marcus said something that has intrigued me ever since. He said:

...so I think that’s why Matthew and Matthew alone tells you about the guard at the tomb. It’s an apologetic device to defend the faith against those who were saying that Jesus’ body was stolen.

I really want to look into this more. However, I always approach any kind of historical doubt in the New Testament writings with the fact that I'm 2000 years removed from the event. I take it for granted that the author of Matthew knew far more about the events and culture about which he was writing than I do. I'm reminded of a story I heard about Luke 3:1. Luke states that Lysanias was a Tetrarch (τετρααρχουντος in Greek) about 27AD. Scholarship doubted Luke on this, knowing that Lysanias had actually been the ruler of Chalcis a half of a century earlier. Later Archaeological digs uncovered an inscription in Abila near Damascus showing that indeed, someone named Lysanias had been a Tetrarch about the time about which Luke had written.

Back to the guard: I find it really interesting that the Gospel of Peter (early to mid-second century) not only says that there was a guard at the tomb, but links him with the guard at the cross and gives him the name Petronius. Whether this Gospel was familiar with Matthew or not, I'm unaware, but the thought occurs to me: if there wasn't some historical possibility to there being a guard at the tomb, would these authors record it? In other words, nobody would write that Abraham Lincoln descended upon the South with UFO's and that's how he won the American Civil War (although I'm not entirely through Downing's book...). Why? Because this is historically implausible. Likewise, if it were completely out of the question that Roman guards sometimes guarded tombs, would we imagine that Matthew (and later Gospel of Peter's author) would record something like this?

So, if anyone has any suggestions for reading material on the subject, I'd be very appreciative.

The Talpiot Tomb: Yeshua Inscription

I wrote a post concerning the inscription of "Yeshua (?) Bar Yehosef" and copied the PDF copy of the inscription into my post. Mark Goodacre has posted another PDF file from James Tabor concerning the rationale behind rendering what appeared to me to be "scribble-scrabble" (technical jargon, I know) as "Yeshua". To my very untrained eye, I still don't see it. But, for the sake of being fair I've included a link to the PDF File here, and a link to Dr. Goodacre's blog post here.

****Editor's Note 3/22*****

Just a few minutes after posting this, I went back and looked over the original PDF file and its inscription, and then the new PDF file and its inscription and they aren't the same. It may just be for the sake of clarity, but it's misleading if one assumes that this is how the inscription appears on the ossuary. Now, before I make a few observations, it should again be restated that I am in no way, shape, or form an expert on anything...at all.

1) The Yodh (י) still looks nothing like a Yodh.
2) The Shin(שׁ) still looks nothing like a Shin.
3) The Vav (ו) still looks nothing like a Vav.
4) The Aiyin (ע) is the only one which looks remotely like a real Hebrew letter and not the aforementioned "scribble-scrabble".

I have no illusions that ancient writing will always look as uniform on ancient artifacts as it does in our textbooks, but I included in my last post the facsimile of the "Yehudah Bar Yeshua" inscription, which is written far more legibly than that of our friend "Yeshua(?)", to show that not all the inscriptions are nearly this hard to read. I am with James Charlesworth when he writes that "[t]he scribbling is not an inscription, it is sloppy graffiti."

The Jesus Tomb: Some last thoughts

Let me preface this with saying that I am a novice. I am by no means an expert on Hebrew, Aramaic, Ossuaries, or anything else, so I may very well be wrong.


I was looking over the "evidence" PDF file at the Discovery Channel's website and I noticed something that interests me concerning the inscriptions on the ossuaries. I looked over "Yehudah Bar Yeshua (Judah, Son of Jesus)"'s ossuary and the inscription on it, which appears below:



For those who can't read Hebrew, I've color-coded the inscription. In case you're unfamiliar, Hebrew is read from right to left. The word "Yeshua" is Yellow, the word "bar" is Red, and the word "Yehudah" is Blue. Now, I can clearly read "Yehudah" "Bar" and "Yeshua" (although it's written in a funny way, it's readable).

However, a look at the supposed "Yeshua Bar Yehosef" inscription shows a bit of difference. I can see "Bar", I can see "Yehosef", but I certainly cannot see "Yeshua" at all. One reason I color-coded the above inscription is because I wanted you to look for yourself. Do you see "Yeshua" anywhere in there?

In fact, if you look at the PDF file available on the website, the translator apparently wasn't sure whether this was "Yeshua" either. There's a question mark after the name "Yeshua". Later, the document goes on to say:

The first name following the X mark is difficult to read. In contrast to other ossuaries in this tomb, the incisions are here superficial and curiously carved. Each of the four letters suggesting ישוע is unclear, but the reading is corroborated by the inscription of Ossuary 2, above.

I'm not really sure I follow the logic here. Are they asserting that because there is a Jesus somewhere in the family (Ossuary 2 is that of Judah, Son of Jesus), then perhaps this scribble-scrabble could be made out to be that Jesus? This just seems like wishful thinking. To my (extremely untrained) eye, that name is just as likely "scribble-scrabble" as it is Jesus. Perhaps one day we'll find the Gospel of Scribble Scrabble and Dan Brown will write "The Scribble Scrabble Code" entirely in Scribble-Scrabble! It'll be a hit, for sure! He'll make hundreds!

A bone to pick

Lord knows not nearly enough has been written on the blogosphere about the Talpiot Tomb, so I guess I need to pick up the slack and help out. The reaction by some bloggers (mostly conservative brethren) over the tomb puzzles me. It puzzles me in the same way that the massive response to The Da Vinci Code puzzles me. Did we really need to write a bazillion (yes, a bazillion) books on the matter? Was anyone thoroughly convinced by Dan Brown's massive research and amazing detail to historical accuracy? Likewise, do we all need to get our theological undies in a twist over something that's highly speculative? Does the reaction show a level of insecurity amongst those who believe in the gospel accounts being literal historical records (vs. someone who would be willing to accept Jesus' resurrection as metaphysical or even metaphorical)?

Now, I'm certainly not putting Tabor on the level of Dan Brown. But the fact remains that a great deal of the theory is based on speculation. There's nothing wrong with that. Maybe the theory will develop further and new evidence will be found to back up what Dr. Tabor has found. Maybe the theory will die out. I think the prudent thing to do with any new and up-and-coming theory is to sit back, analyze the evidence, and let N.T. Wright tell you what you should think.