Nazareth Inscription

The Nazareth Inscription is a 24" x 15" marble tablet with a 14-line "Edict of Caesar" prescribing capital punishment for body stealing, acquired by Wilhelm Fröhner (1834–1925), Paris, in 1878, sent from Nazareth.^[1] Since 1925 it has been in the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, displayed in the Cabinet des Médailles.

The inscription was published in 1930 by Franz Cumont,^[2] who had been alerted to it by Rostovtseff.^[3] Its chief interest lies in the possibility that it may represent the official Roman reaction to a contemporary Jewish interpretation of the resurrection of Christ, namely that the body had been removed from the tomb by followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

J. Spencer Kennard, Jr. interpreted the inscription's reference to "Caesar" as an indication that "the inscription must have been derived from somewhere in Samaria or Decapolis; Galilee was ruled by a client-prince until the reign of Claudius".^[4] Scholarly concerns regarding the Nazareth inscription set it in the context of tomb-robbery in Antiquity, analyse its language and style, assess its coherence and authenticity, attempt to date it precisely, and expand upon its significance for the historian of the New Testament and more broadly, for Christians in general.^[5]

Michael Green^[6] cites the inscription as a secular source of early origin that bears testimony to Jesus' empty tomb. "It is an imperial edict, belonging either to the reign of Tiberius (A.D. 14-37) or of Claudius (A.D. 41-54). And it is an invective, backed with heavy sanctions, against meddling around with tombs and graves! It looks very much as if the news of the empty tomb had got back to Rome in a garbled form. (Pontius Pilate would have had to report: and he would obviously have said that the tomb had been rifled). This edict, it seems, is the imperial reaction."

Translation from the Koine Greek text^[7] by Clyde E. Billington:^[8]

1. EDICT OF CAESAR

2. It is my decision [concerning] graves and tombs--whoever has made

3. them for the religious observances of parents, or children, or household

4. members--that these remain undisturbed forever. But if anyone legally

5. charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted

6. those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who

7. have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has

8. moved sepulcher-sealing stones, against such a person, I order that a

9. judicial tribunal be created, just as [is done] concerning the gods in

10. human religious observances, even more so will it be obligatory to treat

11. with honor those who have been entombed. You are absolutely not to

12. allow anyone to move [those who have been entombed]. But if

13. [someone does], I wish that [violator] to suffer capital punishment under

14. the title of tomb-breaker.

Clyde Billington of Northwestern College (Minnesota) has dated it to AD 41, and interpreted it as evidence for the historicity of Christians preaching the resurrection of Jesus within a decade of His crucifixion.

Notes

1. ^ Entered in Froehner's manuscript inventory with the note "Dalle de marbre envoyé de Nazareth en 1878." Though noting it was sent from Nazareth, the note does not state that it was discovered there, an assumption made by all Christian popularists. "In the 1870s, Nazareth, like Jerusalem, was a natural market for dealers in antiquities," Bruce Manning Metzger observed (Metzger, "The Nazareth inscription once again", in New Testament Studies: Philological, Versional, and Patristic 5 [Leiden: Brill] 1980:76ff); "Use of the title 'Nazareth' in the catalogue of the Fröhner collection... means nothing more than that Nazareth was a shipping center," J. Spencer Kennard, Jr. concluded, noting the coincidental connection with the burial of Jesus made by Baldensperger, Cumont and Momigliano (Kennard, "The Burial of Jesus", Journal of Biblical Literature 74.4 [December 1955:227-238])
2. ^ Franz Cumont, "Un réscrit impérial sur la violation de sépulture" in Revue Historique 163 1930:341-66, with a facsimile of the inscription.
3. ^ Bruce Manning Metzger, New Testament Studies: Philological, Versional, and Patristic "5: The Nazareth inscription once again" (Leiden: Brill) 1980:77ff, gives a summary of discussion among New Testament scholars and ancient historians alike.
4. ^ Kennard 1955:232.
5. ^ These are the headings that are explored in Metzger 1980, with reference to the history of the considerable literature on the Nazareth inscription.
6. ^ Green, Man Alive, 1968:36
7. ^ SEG 8:13
8. ^ Clyde E. Billington, "The Nazareth Inscription: Proof of the Resurrection of Christ?" in Artifax, Spring 2005

External links

• "The Nazareth Inscription" by Richard Carrier, 2000
• "The Nazareth Inscription: Proof of the Resurrection of Christ?" by Clyde E. Billington, 2005