Theo Todman's Web Page - Notes Pages

Blog

Biblical Archaeology

(Text as at 02/07/2013 14:12:29)

1. While looking for something on YouTube, I came across a BBC Documentary on King Solomon's Tablet of Stone (YouTube: BBC Horizon Documentary on King Solomon's Tablet of Stone). This led on to two other threads – that of the so-called James Ossuary (Wikipedia: James Ossuary) and that on the Talpiot Tomb (Wikipedia: Talpiot Tomb). While interesting, these discussions – on Wikipedia and other sites – are disquieting on a number of grounds – mainly that such important matters remain unresolved, and the troubling nature of fraud either in the archaeological process or in the prosecution service, depending whose side you take.
2. Otherwise, I’m not too concerned about the matter:-
   • King Solomon's Tablet of Stone: The alleged importance of this stone (if genuine) if that it’s the only hard extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Solomon and his temple. This isn’t on my list of worries – I see no reason to doubt the existence of either, even if the account may be exaggerated (which the Stone has no bearing on).
   • James Ossuary: Again, this – if genuine₁ – would be probabilistic evidence for the existence of Jesus. But, again, this isn’t one of my worries.
   • Talpiot Tomb: this is certainly genuine, but its import is unclear. There is some suggestion that the missing “tenth ossuary” is the James Ossuary, which would connect the three cases together, but the style looks different to me. The issue is the probabilistic evidence that the collection of names makes this Jesus’ family tomb, once containing the (now lost) bones of Jesus himself. This would, of course, be dynamite, but is highly unlikely.
3. This document is a temporary holding place and requires completion². For the time being, it is a holding-place, lest I forget the matter.