Fact or Fiction? Lost Tomb of Jesus

The Jesus Tomb: Is It Fact or Fiction Scholars Chime In, is a comprehensive review of the claims of Hollywood's The Lost Tomb of Jesus documentary and its book, Jesus Family Tomb.

Astrea Magazine recently interviewed the author, Don Sausa, regarding the book. Their announcement can be found below:

Dear all,

We are pleased to announce our interview with Don Sausa about his book "The Jesus Tomb: Is It Fact or Fiction Scholars Chime In."

In this book, Don Sausa reviews Simcha Jacobovici's claims through biblical, historic, and scientific analysis. By reviewing the evidence and interviewing biblical scholars, archaeologists, and DNA experts, Sausa answers the most important question about this discovery -- is it fact or fiction?

Click here for the interview.


BTW, as you already know, we are working on a Jesus Tomb Series. Don Sausa's interview is the second entry in that series. We have also scheduled interviews with:

- Israel museum curator, David Mevorah
- Professor Fida Hassnain, author of The Fifth Gospel
- Dr. James Tabor , author of The Jesus Dynasty.

In addition we are also trying to get Tom Harpur and Peter Walker on the show.

Check out this space in near future as we will be uploading above mentioned interviews, a fine selection of experts supporting or criticising the Jesus tomb topic and/or discussing competing theories, soon in this Theatre!!!!!

Enjoy,

The Astraea team

Labels: jerusalem, Jesus, jesus dynasty, Jodi Magness, lost tomb of Jesus, talpiot, talpiyot

King Herod's tomb has been found! At least according to Dr. Netzer, Professor Emeritus at The Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Unlike the tunnel-vision type of research released by the makers of the Jesus Family Tomb, Dr. Netzer isn't spending millions of dollars on books and film, secretly hiding research with non-disclosure agreements.

Nope, he came out and said, hey, we have a possible tomb site for King Herod matching with historic textual evidence (Josephus). Let's all take a look at it.

Dr. Netzer is a true academic, he isn't hiding his "precious" research with Gollum-like suspicion.

---

Press release as follows:

Tomb of King Herod discovered at Herodium by Hebrew University archaeologist

Jerusalem, May 8, 2007 -- The long search for Herod the Great’s tomb has ended with the exposure of the remains of his grave, sarcophagus and mausoleum on Mount Herodium’s northeastern slope, Prof. Ehud Netzer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Institute of Archaeology announced today.

Herod was the Roman-appointed king of Judea from 37 to 4 BCE, who was renowned for his many monumental building projects, including the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the palace at Masada, as well as the complex at Herodium, 15 kilometers south of Jerusalem. .

Herodium is the most outstanding among King Herod’s building projects. This is the only site that carries his name and the site where he chose to be buried and to memorialize himself -- all of this with the integration of a huge, unique palace at the fringe of the desert, said Prof. Netzer. Therefore, he said, the exposure of his tomb becomes the climax of this site’s research.

The approach to the burial site - which has been described by the archaeologists involved as one of the most striking finds in Israel in recent years - was via a monumental flight of stairs (6.5 meters wide) leading to the hillside that were especially constructed for the funeral procession.

The excavations on the slope of the mountain, at whose top is the famed structure comprised of a palace, a fortress and a monument, commenced in August 2006. The expedition, on behalf of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, was conducted by Prof. Netzer, together with Yaakov Kalman and Roi Porath and with the participation of local Bedouins.

The location and unique nature of the findings, as well as the historical record, leave no doubt that this was Herod’s burial site, said Prof. Netzer.

The mausoleum itself was almost totally dismantled in ancient times. In its place remained only part of its well built podium, or base, built of large white ashlars (dressed stone) in a manner and size not previously revealed at Herodium.

Among the many high quality architectural elements, mostly well decorated, which were spread among the ruins, is a group of decorated urns (made in the form of special jars that were used to store body ashes). Similar ones are to be found on the top of burial monuments in the Nabatean world. The urns had a triangular cover and were decorated on the sides.

Spread among the ruins are pieces of a large, unique sarcophagus (close to 2.5 meters long), made of a Jerusalemite reddish limestone, which was decorated by rosettes. The sarcophagus had a triangular cover, which was decorated on its sides. This is assumed with certainty to be the sarcophagus of Herod. Only very few similar sarcophagi are known in the country and can be found only in elaborate tombs such as the famous one at the King’s Tomb on Selah a-Din Street in East Jerusalem. Although no inscriptions have been found yet at Herodium, neither on the sarcophagus nor in the building remains, these still might be found during the continuation of the dig.

Worthy of note is the fact that the sarcophagus was broken into hundreds of pieces, no doubt deliberately. This activity, including the destruction of the monument, apparently took place in the years 66-72 C.E. during the first Jewish revolt against the Romans, while Jewish rebels took hold of the site, according to Josephus and the archaeological evidence. The rebels were known for their hatred of Herod and all that he stood for, as a “puppet ruler” for the Romans.

The search for Herod’s tomb, which actively began 30 years ago, focused until the middle of 2006 at Lower Herodium, in an area which was, no doubt, especially built for the funeral and burial of the king - the “Tomb Estate.” In order to reveal there the remains from Herod’s days, the expedition was “forced” to first expose a large complex of Byzantine structures (including a church), an effort that demanded many years of digging.

The Tomb Estate included two monumental buildings and a large ritual bath (mikveh) as well as the large route (350 meters long and 30 meters wide) which was prepared for the funeral. When no sign of the burial place itself was found within the Tomb Estate, the expedition started to search for it on the slope of the hill, although there seems to be no doubt that the initial intention of the king was to be buried in the estate and that only in a later stage of his life - apparently when he grew old - did he change his mind and asked to be buried within the artificial cone which gave the hill of Herodium its current volcano-shape.

The main historical source of the Second Temple’s days, the historian Josephus Flavius, has described the site of Herodium in detail, as well as the funeral in the year 4 BCE, but not the tomb proper. He wrote as follows:

“The king’s funeral next occupied his attention. Archelaus, omitting nothing that could contribute to its magnificence, brought forth all the royal ornaments to accompany the procession in honor of the deceased. The bier was of solid gold, studded with precious stones, and had a covering of purple, embroidered with various colors; on this lay the body enveloped in purple robe, a diadem encircling the head and surmounted by a crown of gold, the scepter beside his right hand.

Around the bier were Herod’s sons and a large group of his relations; these were followed by the guards, the Thracian contingent, Germans and Gauls, all equipped as for war. The reminder of the troops marched in front, armed and in orderly array, led by their commanders and subordinate officers; behind these came five hundred of Herod’s servants and freedmen, carrying spices. The body was thus conveyed for a distance of two hundred furlongs to Herodium, where, in accordance with the directions of the deceased, it was interred. So ended Herod’s reign.”
Jewish Wars, 1,23,9

Prof. Netzer started his archaeological activity at Herodium in 1972, at first on a small scale. The scope of his work widened with the decision to turn Herodium (the mount together with Lower Herodium) into a national park, which was due to occupy 125 acres. (Until that stage only the mount was proclaimed as a national park and was operated by the Nature and Parks Authority.)

The enlargement of the park started in 1980; unfortunately the activity at the site stopped as a result of the first Intifada, but not before the complex of tunnels from the days of Bar-Kokhba, within the mount, were opened to the public. The archaeological excavations at the site, which also stopped in 1987, were renewed 10 years later and continued until 2000, and after a second break, were renewed at the end of 2005.

Prof. Netzer gained his first “intimate” acknowledgement of Herodian architecture while joining Prof. Yigael Yadin (in 1963-66), in his expedition at Masada. Netzer’s Ph.D. dissertation in archaeology, guided by Prof. Yadin, brought him to initiate excavations both at Lower Herodium and at Jericho – at the complex of Hasmonean and Herodian Winter Palaces. (The site at Jericho, following Netzer’s excavations, includes three palaces of Herod and a hitherto unknown large complex of Hasmonean winter palaces). Additional Herodian structures in other parts of the country were also uncovered by him. He has written various books and articles on the topic of Herodian architecture.

Yaakov Kalman, archaeologist and farmer, participated in many excavations throughout the country and took an active part in Netzer’s excavations at Masada, Jericho and Herodium. Roi Porath took an active part in the survey of the Judean Desert caves and has many significant finds in his record.

The current excavations benefited from donations of private individuals, and the assistance of the Israel Exploration Society and the Israel Nature and Parks Authority.


Want to learn more about Jewish tombs and why The Lost Tomb of Jesus isn't the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth? See the book below.

Labels: Hebrew University, Herod, james tabor, lost tomb of Jesus, Netzer

Dr. Tabor, the scholar that was consulted for the book, The Jesus Family Tomb and the docudrama film, The Lost Tomb of Jesus, now offers fresh ideas on his blog that Jesus was married because Paul didn't mention him being single or married. A snip from his blog 05/01/07:

"I think one can conclude that if Paul had known Jesus to have been single or unmarried, living a celibate life, he would have mentioned it prominently. In fact it would have been one of his main points. It would have been irresistible. He mounts every possible defense of celibacy, but in the end is only able to appeal to his own example. Imagine how much more rigorously he could have argued had he been able to say, “follow me here, as I follow Christ.” In this particular case I think his silence is “deafening.” As with Cephas, the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, he knows that having a wife as a companion is the norm and pattern in the group. Paul must have known that Jesus was married, and he, as our earliest witness, would surely have been in a position to know. When he can use the teachings of Jesus or the example of Jesus he does. Here is an obvious example where he can not.

There's a problem with this line of speculative thinking. The logic is: Since it isn't mentioned, and there's no evidence for it, the opposite must be true. If we carry the same logic throughout the works of Paul, we start facing all kinds of conclusions about different topics regarding Jesus.

1. First, let's understand that 1 Corinthians was a long letter. Originally, it didn't have any chapters or verse numbers.
   
2. Second, Paul was writing about lawsuits (1 Cor 6) among believers just a couple of paragraphs before he talked about being single (1 Cor 7).
   
3. Third, now let's apply the logic that Dr. Tabor uses on 1 Cor 6. Since Paul never mentioned Jesus suing anyone or not suing anyone, Jesus must have sued someone.
   
4. Fourth, let's use Dr. Tabor's logic on 1 Cor 6:12 where it talks about sexual immorality. Since Jesus is not mentioned specifically as someone that was sexually immoral, or vice versa, then He probably conducted sexual immorality.
   

The fact is, the Bible does not say that Jesus was married. In fact, His love for the people of the world was based on agape love, the unconditional love that a father would have towards a child. [Jn 3:16; John 13:35] What Tabor is suggesting is that Jesus had eros love towards someone, which is not only speculative, but lacks any textual evidence in the Bible.

It's very easy to see now why Dr. Tabor chose to be part of the The Lost Tomb of Jesus docudrama.

For a resource that reviews The Lost Tomb of Jesus and The Jesus Family Tomb, the following book is available:

Labels: james tabor, Jesus, jesus dynasty, Jesus family tomb, lost tomb of Jesus, talpiot, talpiyot

TV Week highlighted the other day that Discovery Channel is no longer airing the Lost Tomb of Jesus, despite the fact that it had over 4 million viewers on its opening night. In the past, when Discovery had such successes in ratings, they would immediately send out a press release. However, they remained silent. No additional press releases. No additional re-runs.

Perhaps the overall negative response from secular, non-Christian scholars have put Discovery in check: avoid sensationalism, have better, factual programming.

Labels: jerusalem, Jesus family tomb, Lost T, lost tomb of Jesus, talpiot

Dr. Christopher A. Rollston is the Editor of Maarav, a Journal of Northwest Semitic, and the Toyozo Nakarai Professor of Old Testament and Semitics at
Emmanuel School of Religion, A Graduate Seminary. He was also a full-time faculty member in the Dept. of Near Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins University for two years.

Dr. Rollston identified prosopography problems with The Lost Tomb of Jesus / The Jesus Family Tomb.

In historical studies, prosopography is an investigation of the common background characteristic of a group. It involves other sciences but Dr. Rollston's assessment basically looks at what other possible relationships these individuals could have (versus the preconceived conclusion that they were all immediately related).

I posted this from the Society of Biblical Literature because his argument was impressive. I told Dr. Rollston, I considered his analysis as one of the strongest arguments against the idea that the Talpiot tomb contains Jesus of Nazareth's family.

---

Prosopography and the Talpiyot Yeshua Family Tomb: Pensées of a Palaeographer

Christopher A. Rollston
Copyright 2007 By Christopher A. Rollston
Printed with permission.

I. Foundational Considerations
The field of prosopography is broad, but it can be described as a field that attempts to reconstruct and describe data revolving around the subjects of genealogy, onomastics, and demographics.[1] Within the field of prosopography of antiquity, there is often a predominant focus on the status, vocations, and consanguinity of elites (because a substantial portion of the epigraphic data derived from elite circles and activities). For certain fields of ancient prosopography (e.g., Northwest Semitic epigraphy), prosopographic analyses will also include attempts to argue for (or against) the identification of a person attested in a literary corpus (e.g., the Hebrew Bible) with someone attested in the epigraphic corpus. Although certitude is the desideratum in the field of prosopography, it is often difficult to achieve, based on extant data.

The most reliable prosopographies are those based on a convergence of epigraphic, archaeological, and (when available) literary data. However, certain minimal controls are mandatory for such analyses to be convincing or even tenable. The patronymic ("son of" of "daughter of") is a most fundamental component for prosopographic analyses. For the ancients, this was a means of differentiating (to some degree) people with the same name; therefore, patronymics are very common in the epigraphic corpus. For modern prosopographic analyses, such data are critical.

Sometimes there will be a personal name and a patronymic in an epigraphic source, but without further (or more substantive) reference in the epigraphic corpus and also without a potential reference in a literary source. For example, the Aramaic Samaria Papyri refer to a slave named Yehohanan bar She'ilah.[2] Within the corpus of Aramaic and Hebrew inscriptions from Masada, there is reference to a certain Shimeon bar Yehosep and a certain Shimeon ben Yo'ezer.[3] A Jerusalem ossuary is inscribed with the following Greek inscription: "Alexas Mara, mother of Judas Simon, her son."[4] However, because complementary data are not present, nothing more can be said about any of these personal names. This is the case for many of the personal names in the epigraphic corpus.

Nevertheless, sometimes complementary and converging data are present in the epigraphic corpus. For example, during Yohanan Aharoni's excavations at Arad, several Old Hebrew seals were discovered in Arad VI-VII with the personal name 'Elyashib and the patronymic ben 'Ishyahu. A number of Old Hebrew ostraca were also discovered in Arad VI-VII, and some of these ostraca also refer to a certain 'Elyashib." Based on the archaeological context of the seals and ostraca, it can be argued with substantial certitude that the 'Elyashib of the ostraca is the same person as the 'Elyashib ben 'Ishyahu of the Old Hebrew seals. Moreover, based on the convergence of the Old Hebrew epigraphic data from the seals and the ostraca, it can be stated that 'Elyashib ben 'Ishyahu was a senior military commander at the Arad VI-VII fortress, with a multitude of described responsibilities and activities.[5] This sort of data is the essence of prosopographic analysis.

Sometimes, there is sufficient data to posit that a figure attested in the epigraphic corpus and a figure attested in a literary corpus are probably the same. This can be very useful for prosopographic analysis, although certitude is often evasive. For example, during Yigal Shiloh's excavations at the City of David, a number of bullae were discovered in stratum X, a stratum that was destroyed by the Babylonians in ca. 587 B.C.E. Bulla 2 reads: "Belonging to Gemaryahu ben Shaphan." Shiloh posited that the Gemaryahu of this bulla is to be identified with "Gemaryahu son of Shaphan the scribe" who is mentioned in a biblical text (Jer 36:10 et passim), a figure during the reign of Jehoiakim (r. 609-598 B.C.E.).[6] Within the editio princeps of this corpus of bullae, Yair Shoham reiterated Shiloh's basic affirmation, but also noted a caveat: "It should be borne in mind, however, that the names found on the bullae were popular in ancient times and it is equally possible that there is no connection between the names found on the bullae and the person mentioned in the Bible."[7]

During the early history of the field, methodological caution such as this was not the norm. However, it soon became evident that there had been some misidentifications. For example, W. F. Albright had argued that the stamped jar handles he found at Tell Beit Mirsim inscribed "Belonging to Eliakim, the steward of Yokan" were to be associated with King Jehoiachin.[8] After all, the title "steward" was one that could be associated with the throne, and "Yokan" was arguably a variant of the throne name Jehoiachin. Ultimately, however, it became apparent that the Eliakim jar handles were to be associated with the late-eighth century or the very early-seventh century; therefore, it was not tenable to argue that these were to be associated with Jehoiachin (r. 598/7 B.C.E.). Albright's identification seemed rational, but it was wrong.

Sometimes ancient inscriptions will contain a personal name and complementary data. Data such as this would have been useful in antiquity for a number of reasons. For example, use of a title could convey the vocation (and status) of a person. Thus, a seal from Mispah refers to "Ya'azanyahu servant of the king."[9] A bulla from the City of David contains reference to "[Tobshillem] son of Zakar, the physician."[10] From the Aramaic Persepolis corpus, there are references to the vocation of treasurer. For example, Text 1 refers to "Data-Mithra the treasurer."[11] Within the corpus of Ammonite inscriptions, a magnificent seal refers to "Palatiy ben ma'ash, the recorder."[12]

Sometimes within the epigraphic corpus, there will be a personal name, a patronymic, and a title. Thus, a beautiful ossuary from Mount Scopus is inscribed with the words "Yehosep, son of Hananya, the scribe."[13] This sort of data can be very useful for a modern scholar attempting to do prosopography.

Although quite rare, there are occasions when someone attested in the epigraphic record can be identified, with enormous (or even complete) certitude, with someone known from literature. Normally, this requires substantial and detailed corroborating evidence. For example, the Moabite Stone contains reference to Mesha King of Moab. Within it, there is reference to the Moabite site of Dhibon and also to the fact that Moab was under the hegemony of Israel during the reign of Omri of Israel. Then, Mesha states that he was able to secure Moab's independence during the reign of Omri's "son."[14] Because of the correspondences of the personal names, the title king of Moab, and the general chronological harmony, it is convincing to argue that the Mesha of the Moabite Stone is the Mesha named in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., 2 Kgs 3:4-5). Ultimately, it is the convergence of precise, rather unequivocal, data that is required for assumptions about such identifications.

Significantly, during the latter part of his career, Nahman Avigad began to argue for more rigorous methodologies for attempts to affirm that a personal name attested in the epigraphic corpus refers to a figure attested in the Hebrew Bible (during the earlier part of his career, he had made some misidentifications). To be precise, he states that the name and the patronymic must be the same in the epigraphic corpus and the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, he affirms that both must hail from the same chronological horizon (i.e., the archaeological context for the inscription and the putative historical context for the biblical personage must be the same). Finally, he affirms that the presence of a distinctive title in the epigraphic and biblical corpus fortifies the identification. Nevertheless, Avigad was not satisfied even with this, for he also stated that because of the preponderance of certain names, the presence of the same personal name and patronymic cannot be understood as demonstrative of the certainty of an identification.[15]

II. The Talpiyot Tomb
Yosef Gat conducted a salvage excavation at a tomb in the Jerusalem neighborhood of East Talpiyot in 1980. The tomb has been described in some detail.[16] Within the tomb complex, ten ossuaries were found. Six of the ossuaries were inscribed.[17] Four of the ossuaries were not inscribed. One of the four ossuaries, plain and without an inscription, was quite damaged.[18] Based on the totality of finds in the tomb, Amos Kloner states that the tomb can be dated "from the end of the first century B.C.E. or the beginning of the first century C.E., until approximately 70 C.E." Furthermore, he states that it can be estimated that the bones of a total of thirty-five people were recovered from the tomb: seventeen people were found in the ossuaries, and the bones of a total of eighteen people were found outside the ossuaries.[19] The inscriptions are as follows: (1) Mariamenou {e} Mara (Mariamne).[20] (2) Yhwdh br Yshw' (Yehudah bar Yeshua'). (3) Mtyh (Mattiyah). This can be considered a variant of the name Mttyhw (Matthew). Note also the inscription Mt{y}h that is on the interior of the ossuary. (4) Yshw' br Yhwsp (Yeshua bar Yosep).[21] (5) Ywsh (Yoseh). (6) Mryh (Maryah).For the purposes of prosopography, it is mandatory to note that the personal names Yosep, Yeshua', Yehudah, Mattiyah, Maryah, and Miriamne all have multiple attestations in the multilingual corpus of ossuaries.[22] Moreover, for most of these names, Tal Ilan has noted that they are very common.[23] Furthermore, it should also be emphasized that we have a partial dataset. That is, sample size is always an issue for the field of epigraphy, and the ossuary inscriptions are no exception.

Nevertheless, some scholars have argued that the ossuaries and remains of the Talpiyot tomb can be identified with Jesus of Nazareth and his family. To be precise, it has been argued that the ossuary of Yeshua' bar Yosep is that of Jesus of Nazareth, the ossuary inscribed Maryah is that of the mother of Jesus of Nazareth, the ossuary inscribed Mariamne is that of the Mary Magdalene of the Gospels, the ossuary inscribed Yoseh is that of Jesus' brother Joseph, that of Yehudah bar Yeshua' is that of a son born to Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and the ossuary inscribed Mattiyah is also that of a relative of Jesus of Nazareth. It is also affirmed that the persons buried in the ossuary inscribed Yeshua' bar Yosep and that inscribed Mariamne {e) Mara were married. Finally, it is even argued that the ossuary with the inscription Ya'akov bar Yosep 'ahui d Yeshua' (i.e., the "James Ossuary") was stolen from the Talpiyot tomb decades ago (and those who argue this implicitly assume that the entire inscription is ancient). It should be emphasized, however, that the origin and chain of custody for the Ya'akov Ossuary are not known and that it is not possible to reconstruct it with any certitude (nor is it even possible to establish the authenticity of the entire inscription). Therefore, any attempt to use it as corroborating evidence is most precarious indeed.[24]

Note, however, that for these six inscribed ossuaries from the Talpiyot Tomb, there are just two personal names with patronymics: (1) Yehuda bar Yeshua' and (2) Yeshua' bar Yosep. This is a pivotal issue because without patronymics it is not possible for someone in the modern period to ascertain the precise kinship relationships of antiquity. To be sure, such tombs were "family tombs," but to assume that such a tomb represents some sort of nuclear family and to assume that one can discern the nature of the relationships within that family without empirical evidence is problematic. For example, the assumption of these scholars is that the Yoseh of the Yoseh Ossuary was the son of Yosep. However, there is no patronymic on this inscription and so to assume that Yoseh was the son of Yosep (and thus the brother of Jesus) is problematic. That is, Yoseh could be the son of Mattiyah, or the son of Yehudah, or the son of Yeshua'. Perhaps, he was the father of Maryah, or the father of Miriamne, or Mattiyah. Maybe he is the uncle of one of these. Perhaps, Yoseh was the son or father or brother or uncle of someone who was buried in one of the ossuaries that does not contain an inscription. It is possible to suggest that he was a cousin of someone in the tomb. Not all of these are mutually exclusive, but ultimately, because there is neither patronymic, statement of relationship (e.g., brother), or title, any suggestion about the relationship of Yoseh to those interred here remains conjecture and speculation.

Similarly, for Maryah, the assumption of those propounding that this is the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth is that this woman is the mother of Yeshua' bar Yosep. However, it is tenable to suggest that she was the wife of Yehudah, or the wife of Yoseh, or the wife of Mattiyah, or the wife of Yeshua'. She might have been the benevolent and kind aunt of someone buried in the tomb. She might have been the cousin of someone buried in the tomb. Sometimes we have complementary data. For example, an ossuary from the Kidron Valley is inscribed with the words: "Shalom, wife of Yehudah."[25] However, for Maryah we simply do not have such data; thus, to assume that a modern scholar can discern and make an affirmation about the nature of some relationship is risible.

Of course, it has also been suggested that the Mariamne ossuary inscription is to be identified with the Mary Magdalene of the Gospels. The problem is that Mariamne is hardly a unique name; moreover, the ossuary inscription does not contain the word "Magdalene." Sometimes, we do have data about the region from which the deceased hailed. For example, an ossuary from the Kidron Valley contains a Greek inscription with the words, "Sara (daughter of) Simon of Ptolemais."[26] However, the Mariamne ossuary does not contain such a reference (i.e., no "Magdala"). Therefore, for someone to assume that the Mariamne of the ossuary must be the Mary Magdalene of the Gospels is without justification. Again, she could be the wife of Mattiyah, Yoseh, Yehudah, or Yeshua'. She could be the sister of any person in the tomb. She could also be the aunt of any person in the tomb.[27] In fact, she could even be the sister of Yeshua' (the DNA just ruled out their having the same mother, but it did not rule out their having the same father but different mothers). Again, not all of these are mutually exclusive, but the point is that to assume that one can state the nature of the relationship of the Mariamne of the ossuary to the Yeshua' Ossuary is not acceptable.

Of course, there has been some appeal to both statistics and patinas. This too is problematic. Regarding the statistics, Andrey Feuerverger has posted an open letter describing his basic premises and assumptions. For example, "we assume that 'Mariamenou e Mara' is a singularly highly appropriate appellation for Mary Magdalene." He then continues and states, "Note that this assumption is contentious and furthermore that this assumption drives the outcome of the computations substantially." Moreover, Feuerverger also states that "We assume that Yose/Yosa is a highly appropriate appellation for the brother of Jesus who is referred to as Joses in Mark 6:3 of the NT." He then continues that "It is assumed that Yose/Yosa is not the same person as the father Yosef who is referred to on the ossuary of Yeshua."

I am confident that statisticians will be critiquing Feuerverger's data in some detail, but I would simply note that "assuming" things such as the fact that "Mariamenne e Mara" is a highly appropriate appellation for Mary Magdalene is problematic. Similarly, to assume that "Yoseh" is a highly appropriate appellation for the brother of Jesus would also seem to be a problem. That is, I would concur that this could be an acceptable manner for an ossuary inscription to refer to him, but to suggest that it is "highly appropriate" and then factor that into the assessment is most presumptive and methodologically problematic.

Actually, the fact of the matter is that the Yosep of the patronymic and the Yoseh of the ossuary could be the same person. After all, these ossuaries were inscribed at two different times and in neither case is there a patronymic for "Yosep" or "Yoseh." "Yosep" is the more formal form, and "Yosi" is less formal (and more endearing). Without a patronymic, it is simply not sage to make any assumptions. Note that even Feuerverger concedes that his assumption about the identification of the Mariamne of the ossuary and Mary Magdalene "drives the outcome of the computations substantially." This is a telling concession. Moreover, with regard to the DNA evidence, it simply cannot carry the freight that has been placed on it. That is, Jacobovici and Pellegrino assume that just because the mitochondrial DNA do not "match," that Yeshua' and Mariamne were married. Perhaps, however, they were brother-in-law and sister-in-law, perhaps they were paternal aunt and nephew, perhaps they were paternal cousins, perhaps they were father-in-law and daughter-in-law. Numerous options present themselves. Jacobovici and Pellegrino state that the DNA do not "negate [their] conclusion," but this is much different from proving their conclusion. Furthermore, with regard to the analyses of the patinas on the Talpiyot ossuaries and those of the "Ya'akov Ossuary," two things are readily apparent: (a) ossuaries made from the same basic Jerusalem limestone and stored in rock hewn tombs of the same city can have similar patinas, and (b) the control group must be much larger for decisive statements to be made about the differences between the patinas on ossuaries in Jerusalem tombs of the same chronological horizon (e.g., the Talpiyot tomb and the Ya'akov Ossuary).[28] That is, the laboratory tests performed are not sufficient to permit the positing of a complete nexus of relationships in the face of a dearth of the necessary prosopographic data, nor are they sufficient for suggesting that the Ya'akov Ossuary hailed from the Talpiyot tomb.

Thomas Lambdin's famous dictum is that within the field we often "work with no data." This is a hyperbole, but the fact remains that we do work with partial data, and sometimes the data we have are just plain opaque. With the Talpiyot tomb, there is a dearth of prosopographic data, and this is a fact. Based on the prosopographic evidence, it is simply not possible to make assumptions about the relationships of those buried therein, and it is certainly not tenable to suggest that the data are sufficient to posit that this is the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. Finally, it should be stated that at this juncture there is nothing in the statistical or laboratory data that can sufficiently clarify the situation, and I doubt that there ever will be.[29]

Christopher A. Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion, A Graduate Seminary

Notes
[1] Among the seminal studies are those of Lawrence Stone, "Prosopography," Daedalus 100 (1971): 46-79; Thomas F. Carney, "Prosopography: Payoffs and Pitfalls," Phoenix 27 (1973): 156-79. Because of the massive amounts of epigraphic material in Mesopotamian cuneiform, there has been substantial work in the field of prosopography. For example, see Karen Radner, ed., The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: Volume 1, Part 1: A (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1998); idem, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: Voume 1, Part 2: B-G (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1999). See also the many fine contributions of R. Zadok, such as The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography, OLA 28 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989). [2] Douglas M. Gropp, Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh, DJD 28 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 35 (no. 1).

[3] Yigael Yadin and Joseph Naveh, Masada I: The Aramaic and Hebrew Ostraca and Jar Inscriptions (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989), 40.

[4] L. Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1994), 258 (no. 868).

[5] For the epigraphic materials from Arad, see Yohanan Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981), numbers 1-18, 24 (ostraca), 105-107 (seals). I am grateful to Director Hava Katz of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Chief Iron Age Curator Michal Dayagi Mendels of the Israel Museum, and Anson Rainey and Zeev Herzog of Tel Aviv University for allowing me to collate these materials.

[6] Yigal Shiloh, "A Group of Hebrew Bullae from the City of David," in Eretz Israel 18 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985), 73-87 [Hebrew]; idem, "A Group of Hebrew Bullae from the City of David," IEJ 36 (1986): 16-18.

[7] Yair Shoham, "Hebrew Bullae," in City of David Excavations: Final Report VI, Qedem 41 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2000), 33. I am grateful to the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Israel Museum for allowing me to collate this corpus of bullae.

[8] William F. Albright, "The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Pre-Exilic History of Judah, with some Observations on Ezekiel," JBL 51 (1932): 77-106.

[9] W.F. Badè, "The Seal of Jaazaniah," ZAW 51 (1933): 150-56.

[10] Yair Shoham, "Hebrew Bullae," 35 (no 6).

[11] Raymond A. Bowman, Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis, University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 91 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 71-74 (no. 1).

[12] M. Abu Taleb, "The Seal of plty bn m'sh the mazkir," ZDPV 101 (1985): 21-29. Note that some consider this seal to be Moabite. For the purposes of this paper, this is not a relevant point. I am grateful to the Department of Antiquities of Jordan and Director Fawwaz al-Khrayshah for permission to collate this seal.

[13] Rahmani, A Catalogue, 262 (no. 893).

[14] For the text of the Mesha Inscription, see especially Andrew Dearman (ed), Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (Atlanta: Scholars, 1989).

[15] Nahman Avigad, "On the Identification of Persons Mentioned in Hebrew Epigraphic Sources," in Eretz-Israel 19 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society1987), 235-37 [Hebrew], English summary 79. Recently, Lawrence J. Mykytiuk has produced a thorough volume on the subject of prosopography of Iron Age Northwest Semitic inscriptions. Namely, see his Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E.. SBLAB 12 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004).

[16] Amos Kloner, "A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiyot, Jerusalem," 'Atiqot 29 (1996): 15-22.

[17] Rahmani, A Catalogue, 222-224 (nos. 701-709).

[18] Rahmani, A Catalogue, 222 (comment 1). This plain, broken ossuary does not appear to have been retained, but note that it was plain, not inscribed.

[19] Kloner, "Tomb," 21, 22.

[20] Note that this inscription is Greek; it is the sole Greek inscription discovered in this tomb. Rahmani suggests that there is a stroke between the two names that should be considered an êta. Based on similar constructions in the corpus, Rahmani also states that he believes the name Mara is a short form of the name Martha and that this is the case of a double name (Rahmani 1994, no. 701). Contra some, I am not at all convinced, on the basis of the epigraphic or literary evidence, that Mara should be understood as "Master" and then posited to be some sort of decisive reference to Mary Magdalene. In fact, I find such arguments to be weak and anachronistic.

[21] Note that Rahmani (1994, no 704) states that the first name is "difficult to read." However, he believes that his reading of the personal-name Yeshua' is corroborated by the inscription Yehudah bar Yeshua'.

[22] See the index in Rahmani, Catalogue, 292-297. Also, note especially that Yoseh is attested multiple times (Rahmani, Catalogue, 295), so any suggestion that this is a unique nickname in the gospels (Mark 6:3) is erroneous. [23] See especially, Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity (Mohr Siebeck, 2002), passim. Note that the variant spellings of Mariamne (Rahmani, The Catalogue, 296) are not an orthographic problem from the perspective of epigraphy.

[24] For the espousal of these views, see Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino, The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence that Could Change History (New York: Harper Collins, 2007), passim. For the DNA evidence, see especially 167-174; James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family and the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006), especially 4, 25, 56, et passim. Although Tabor's volume is more erudite and also nuances certain positions differently, it still suffers from the same sorts of erroneous methodologies and assumptions that are part of the volume by Jacobovici and Pellegrino.

[25] Rahmani, A Catalogue, 81 (no. 24).

[26] Rahmani, A Catalogue, 102 (no. 99).

[27] Note that she could even be the aunt of Yeshua', on his father's side.

[28] For a general discussion of some of the problems that have been part of laboratory tests of epigraphic objects, (including the Ya'akov [James] Ossuary) see Christopher A. Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests," Maarav 10 (2003): 182-91.

[29] That is, because of the numbers of burials in the tombs, the practice of interring the skeletal remains of multiple people in a single ossuary, and the possibility of contamination of laboratory data, the notion that decisive data can be produced seems to me to be most difficult. My thanks to Lindsay Hunter and Ryan Jackson for discussion of the DNA evidence with me.

Labels: ancient semetic, Christopher A. Rollston, jerusalem, Jesus, jesus dynasty, Jesus family tomb, lost tomb of Jesus, talpiot, talpiyot

Dr. Stephen Pfann, an expert in Ancient Semitic Languages, was hired by the filmmakers during the course of their investigation. In fact, they have a profile of him on their web site.



But contrary to what the press release suggests, scholars like Dr. Pfann and their work does not suggest the tomb once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth.

From the press release:
...as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

In fact, not only does Dr. Pfann disagree with the conclusion, he's publicly written against it. You can download his work on the Mariamne inscription here.

Labels: ancient semetic, jesus dynasty, Jesus family tomb, lost tomb of Jesus, stephen pfann, talpiot, talpiyot

Dr. Bovon's work was used to connect Mariamne to Mary Magdalene
A core assumption in the documentary is that the Talpiot tomb contains the ossuary for Mary Magdalene. They connect the name 'Mariamne' to Mary Magdalene by using Dr. François Bovon's research on late 4th century Acts of Philip. They do this on page 64 in Jesus Family Tomb and also in the film. And Dr. James Tabor, the only scholar that I know of that defends the film's assertions also posted on his blog regarding Bovon's work...

"Recent scholarship (Schaberg, King, Marjanen, Bovon, Brock) on Mary Magdalene has gone a long way toward rehabilitating her important place in earliest history of the Jesus movement." --Dr. James Tabor, March 24, 2007.

Dr. Bovon's public letter
But what exactly does Dr. Bovon think of this? Does he really support the assertion that Mary Magdalene is in the Talpiot tomb? You can read his post at the Society of Biblical Literature. In the post, he calls parts of the documentary as "science fiction". He also notices a kind of double discours.

His e-mail to me
I asked Dr. Bovon to clarify his fifth point on his public letter, specifically where he states: "My interest is not historical, but on the level of literary traditions". Why didn't he want to use Acts of Philip as a historical source that Mariamne was the historical Mary Magdalene?

His response:

"The traditions concerning Mary Magdalene or Peter developing in the second, third and fourth centuries are relevant for the life of communities of those centuries. They may carry archaic evidence concerning the historical Mary or the historical Peter, but it is not their most interesting aspect. They are more important to understand the texts that furnish them and the communities reading these texts. For an historical knowledge of the first century I would be hesitant to use them."

Labels: jerusalem, Jesus family tomb, lost tomb of Jesus, talpiot, talpiyot

As you may know, over 4 million viewers saw The Lost Tomb of Jesus on the Discovery Channel on March 4th, 2007. Additionally, thousands of readers also bought the supplementary book, Jesus Family Tomb.

You may have been a viewer of the film, or someone that heard about it. Whatever the case maybe, you want/need to learn whether this project was based on fact or imagination (fiction).

In The Jesus Tomb: Is It Fact or Fiction Scholars Chime In, we review the data with archaeologists, forensic experts, scholars, and other specialists to answer the question: is it true?

The official release date for the book is April 19, 2007; however, you can pre-order through Amazon.com.

Labels: jerusalem, Jesus family tomb, lost tomb of Jesus, talpiot, talpiyot

There are people that make documentaries because they seek out truth. There are some that do it for money, for fame, or because it's simply a hot story that can sell. Documentaries sometimes show what we already know, in a more dramatic way. But sometimes documentaries are designed to be controversial.

Here's an interesting interview clip from the Discovery Channel, where the Lost Tomb of Jesus' director, Simcha Jacobivici answers his critics.

Labels: jerusalem, Jesus family tomb, lost tomb of Jesus, talpiot, talpiyot

Viewers Guide to Understanding the Talpiot Tomb ‘documentary’ to be aired on the Discovery Channel
Copyright 2007 By Joe Zias
Printed with permission.

Mr. Zias was the senior curator of archaeology and anthropology for the Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, Israel. He personally cataloged the Talpiot ossuaries in 1980.

---

Deconstructing the Second and Hopefully Last Coming of Simcha and the BAR Crowd

Cast of Characters- Short Bios



A. J. Cameron, award winning film maker who for some unknown reason decided to make a film on the world of Biblical Archaeology- Producer

B. Simcha J. Canadian film maker who produced the documentary on the James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus ossuary which was deemed to be a forgery by the Israel Antiquities Authority and other experts. The criminal trial is still in progress and SJ testified in Dec. 22, 2005 on behalf of the defense. He is producing and directing a series entitled The Naked Archaeologist’ in which he stars. He is not an archaeologist nor does he have any creditability within the profession.

C. The Biblical Archaeology Review crowd hereafter referred to as the BAR crowd. This is a collection of individuals who have been deeply involved with BAR, mainly textual scholars who pose from time to time, when convenient, as archaeologists. Several appear prominently both in the Hebrew and English version of the film.

D. The films ‘experts’ several of whom hold academic positions with proven track records in every field except Biblical Archaeology. Most experts however have no creditability within the profession. Charles Pellegrino is an example of this. His past books are The Ghosts of Atlantis, Ghosts of Vesuvius, Rtn to Sodom and Gomorrah, and Unearthing Atlantis. The first two deal with psychic phenomena while the last two deal with mythical places. He co-authored the book as well as appears from time to time in the film.

E. Experts II, those individuals and colleagues who appear in the film, totally unaware of the premise of the documentary, all of whom I have contacted are totally opposed to the evidence as presented, out of context as well as edited in such a way as to give the false impression that they are in agreement with the film. Seems we are more difficult to fool.

F. The Others- a host of individuals and colleagues connected to the profession whom have not only been supportive but have supplied much of the information for the viewers guide. To them, I am indebted.



THE FILM



The Hype Hyped upon the unsuspecting public as a documentary with a budget of over 4 million dollars (may be Canadian) produced over a period of 4 years.



The Reality One of the main reasons that the film took years to produce is that many individuals and organizations here in Israel refused to participate, as well as a boycott of the director for his unstinting support of the James Ossuary , believed by nearly all to have been forged.

Secondly, the film is not a documentary in the strict sense of the word as many scenes and sets are totally reconstructed even though Cameron et al try to present it as such.

Thirdly and perhaps more important, this is basically a re-hash of the 1996 story by Ray Bruce, a British film maker, somewhat re-written, to present the views of the author of The Jesus Dynasty who figures prominently in the film. The first version was better. This author, though well known for his support of the BAR position on the James Ossuary, is not an archaeologist in any sense of the word, which may account for many of the short comings in the film. Textual scholars posing as biblical archaeologists, several which appear in the film and on the Discovery panel discussion are one of the biggest problems within the profession which has, according one noted scholar, has set back trust and creditability in the profession, decades. In fact, in one scene with SJ walking past the ossuaries stored in the Israel Antiquities Authority he acts as if he has suddenly has this epiphany, he, with absolutely no archaeological training, suddenly discovers the names of what for him then becomes the Jesus Family. The truth is, that a journalist told him about the tomb long before.



THE “EXPERTS” A QUESTION OF CREDITABILITY



DNA. The DNA expert from Canada spent a few months in Israel before leaving for Canada a few years ago He in fact, worked with our Science and Archaeology Group @ the Hebrew University. According to Dr. Mark Spigelman, our DNA specialist in the group he received a message from the Canadian expert concerning the question of extracting DNA from the James Ossuary apparently at the behest of SJ. Dr. Spigelman personally told him at that time that it was foolish for him to get involved for several reasons, not to mention that the object he wished to run a test on was believed to be a forgery. Secondly, the export of all biological material which is sampled and taken abroad must according to IL law have an export license which we knew quite well would never be given. Thirdly, the film which I viewed showed several ‘experts’ scraping material from the ossuary, under the worst possible conditions. Lastly, and here is where the main problem occurs, when human remains are placed in the ossuary, they have been decomposed and are just skeletal material. The film tries to give the false impression that they were sampling human tissue which had decomposed in the ossuary whereas it had been long gone before the skeletal material was ever placed there. Final analysis- high probability that the DNA is of anybody who came into contact with the ossuary the past 30 off years, including mine. To say that as one test showed male and one showed female and then jumping to the conclusion that they were married is totally absurd as most of the adult woman in the tomb would have married in, but married to whom? While preparing this report I found the following statement from their DNA expert which is revealing in that Simcha and the BAR Crowd constantly make a ‘big deal’ out of their so called hard scientific evidence. Seems that their ‘expert’ may in retrospect have been used in a manner not to his liking. According to their DNA expert in yesterdays on line SciAmer, he states the following :

“The only conclusions we made was that these two sets were not maternally related. To me it sounds like absolutely nothing.” ScientificAmerican.com March 2, 07.



Absolutely nothing, Simcha presented it a bit differently as if this was the smoking gun, hard science which proved their agenda!!



PATINA- This is a natural geological process which occurs over time. The forensic people involved in this segment have no experience whatsoever with local materials, in fact, one of the specialists’ forte is in automobile crashes of which I’m sure he is very capable. There was one Israeli involved in this, behind the scenes, who was asked to obtain patina samples for the show. Sometime earlier, he pronounced a metal sheeting found at Qumran which he authenticated as ancient for a NOVA documentary. Within 12 months, the 2,000 year old object was found to have been painted with Barium-Titanium paint, patented in the 1920’s to prevent oxidization. Watching this pseudo-science analysis reminds one more of a train wreck than a car crash.



STATISTICS- Whereas their attempt as probability looks impressive, a 600 to 1 chance this it is the ‘Family’ it falls flat when one realizes that the info. given to the statistician was that of a nuclear family of ca 10 people whereas the truth of the matter is that the family of 10 is an extended family of maybe 50 or more comprising 4-5 generations, as a result it simply cannot be computed. They knew this and I have the feeling that this info. was not divulged to the mathematician. In fact, I published in 1992 a tomb with 15 ossuaries, 88 people and one name. The one person, one ossuary scenario is how the film makers present their findings whereas in an article I published in ‘Atiqot XXII, three of the ossuaries had the remains of a minimum of 6 people. There has been an enormous amount of discussion on the web dealing with the probabilities of this being the family, which I suggest the viewer read, all of which totally dismiss the statistics as of no value whatsoever.

For a more detailed explanation on how they rigged the statistics see the following:

http://ntgateway. com/weblog/ 2007/03/correct- interpretation- of-dr-andrey. html
http://ntgateway. com/weblog/ 2007/03/statisti cal-case- for-identity- of-jesus. html



THE NAMES For those of us familiar with ossuaries and ossuary inscriptions this is, despite all their hype, totally unconvincing as all the names were very common. The ratios of names for that period are as follows: Joseph/Jose 8.3 %, Judah 6.2 %, Jesus 3.5 Matthew 2.4% and Mariam/Mary a whopping 21.4%. Dr. S. Pfann from the University of Judaism has written an impt. Blog on this showing that 75% of the names occurring on Jewish ossuaries during this period are from a pool of but 16 names. (http://www.uhl.ac/)



The important thing to remember here is that individuals outside of Judea, buried in Judea were named according to their place of origin, whereas in Judea this was not necessary. Had the names been Jesus of Nazareth, Mary of Nazareth, Joseph of Nazareth etc I would have been totally convinced that this may be the family tomb, but as none of the names have place of origin, they are all Judeans.



THOSE UNUSUAL SYMBOLS- Quadruplicity vs duplicity. According to SJ the symbol on the tomb façade is used astrologically to represent something called quadruplicity, or the quality of cardinality. I would argue that its more in the realm of duplicity. This is where the media hype goes totally out of control, seems the BAR Crowd had been reading too much Da Vinci Code. If there is anything which suggests deliberate manipulation of the data it is here. For example, in the film, one of the main ‘experts’ from the BAR Crowd suddenly discovers on camera the fact that a inverted V is scratched on an ossuary as if it has some deep hidden mystical meaning. Had the ‘expert’ read the catalogue of LY Rahmani (pg.19) on ossuaries, he would have seen that 40 % of ossuaries have markings! In fact, this deliberate attempt to fool the public reaches a new height when SJ then goes to the Jewish tombs of Dominus Flavit and proclaims that those ossuaries discovered decades ago with X’s scratched on the lid and body, are ancient Judeo-Christian symbols. Scholars have known for decades that those X’s and cross like markings on ossuaries mean one thing and one thing only, the sliding lid goes this way! Reverse the lid and it will not fit. Duh…so much for Judeo-Christian symbols, a fact that all of them should have known, particularly the BAR Crowd, seems it didn’t go well with their agenda.



Throughout the film as well as the marketing circus, one sees prominently on the façade of the tomb, the dot within the triangle, minus the base as if this is some mystical Judeo-Christian symbol. Had they simply taken the time to scan photos in the catalogue of Jewish ossuaries by LY Rahmani, they would have seen that many ossuaries with triangular lids have decorative elements or functional elements serving as handgrips to raise the lid, which resemble the ornament on the tomb façade. Thusly, the façade motif could easily be seen in and of itself to resemble an ossuary lid with the tomb itself serving as an ossuary. A black and white photo of one of the ossuaries in the catalogue is reproduced for viewers here.



Alternatively, the circular object within the triangle can be interpreted as either a patera or a wreath, both which appear on a number of ossuaries as well tomb facades such as the Tomb of ‘Absalom’. Alternatively if you are in the world of film marketing and media hype, it’s the mystical Vonage symbol-reversed. (Apologies to Vonage)



THE SECOND TOMB - There appears in the film a very long and boring segment whereby Simcha and Co. attempt to lower a camera into a plastic pipe which for religious reasons has been inserted into the tomb in the 1980’s. When they finally succeed with the help of a plumber (sic) they are able to film the tomb and its contents. They attempt to pass onto the unsuspecting public that this is a Jewish tomb which they have discovered, undisturbed for 2,000 years whereas the tomb was known to the archaeologists in 1980. In fact, Prof. Amos Kloner was in the process of removing the ossuaries when the ultra-orthodox arrived on site and forced its closure. Kloner however was able to remove one of these ossuaries before the arrival of the ultra-orthodox.



THE ‘MISSING OSSUARY’ The film makers try to fool the public into believing that as ten ossuaries were discovered in the tomb and only nine were published by Kloner that the tenth ossuary was the controversial James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus ossuary which was declared to be a forgery by a panel of experts. The attempt to deceive the public can be clearly seen here in terms of an ‘agenda’. Two members of the BAR Crowd who appear prominently in the film had earlier declared that the ossuary had originally come from a robbed tomb which they had cleared a few years ago in Silwan and not purchased by the collector decades earlier as he claimed. They clearly had attempted to draw media attention to their robbed tomb in Silwan and when the media attention flagged they now suddenly claim that they were mistaken and the ossuary no longer comes from Silwan but from the Talpiot ‘Jesus Family tomb excavated in 1980 by the Israel Antiquities Authority! Well, last week ago a small problem suddenly arose when Oded Golan the owner of the ossuary in question, who is on trial for forging objects, produced a photograph of the ossuary with a time stamp 1976, four years before the Talpiot tomb was accidentally discovered! Moreover, they maintained that the missing ossuary, their James son of Joseph brother of Jesus ossuary was of the same identical dimensions as the ‘missing’ ossuary from Jesus Family tomb at Talpiot. Sounds convincing until an enterprising skeptic here in Jerusalem checked the dimensions of the two ‘identical’ ossuaries and found that the Talpiot plain white “missing’ ossuary is approximately 20% longer than the James brother of Jesus ossuary ! So much for ‘identical’.



THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER The truth of the matter is that the missing ossuary was never missing, never stolen from the IAA, nor stolen from the Talpiot tomb. Plain ossuaries which bore no inscription, nor any ornaments were automatically placed in an inner courtyard in the Rockefeller Museum during my tenure at curator (1972-1997). Due to a lack of storage space this was standard operating procedure, the ossuary was given a registration number, measured and simply stored in the inner courtyard with perhaps an additional 50-100 plain ossuaries. This was personally explained to Tabor by me so as to avoid any problems of a conspiracy theory in which the plain ossuary would figure. Unfortunately, it did not fit their agenda so they artificially created a story in which a plain white ossuary, suddenly morphed into a ossuary with two rosettes on the front, traces of red paint, bearing the inscription on the back ‘James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.



CONCLUSION- All of this can be neatly summed up in the following opinion piece (edited) by a SC biblical scholar (Byron. McCane) who wrote in today’s paper, what I believe pretty much speaks for all of us involved, enraged and fed up with the current wave of pseudo science posing as biblical scholarship, foisted upon the public, by our colleagues.

"The publicity for the Discovery Channel documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” has a disturbingly familiar ring. First came the James Ossuary; then The DaVinci Code, next the John the Baptist cave, and now “the lost tomb of Jesus. The two archaeologists involved in “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” for example, already have a well-known track record for sensationalism. These programs go for the quick buck. Everything is crafted to generate interest, to make sales. The disturbing trend in recent documentaries toward profit-driven sensationalism, however, is an insult to all concerned, and especially to those of us who are scholars of these subjects. And that is why it is scholars who should bring this train of sensationalism to a stop." Slight correction- make that one archaeologist and one biblical scholar.



Joe Zias

Jerusalem 03/07

Labels: jerusalem, Jesus, Jesus family tomb, Jodi Magness, Joe Zias, lost tomb of Jesus, talpiot, talpiyot

Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?
Copyright 2007 By Jodi Magness
Printed with permission.

Dr. Magness is the Kenan Distinguished Professor for Teaching Excellence in Early Judaism in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

---

In a new documentary film (and related book), director Simcha Jacobovici and producer James Cameron claim to have identified the tomb of Jesus and his family in the Jerusalem suburb of Talpiyot. The tomb itself is not a new discovery; it was excavated in 1980 and published by Amos Kloner, an Israeli archaeologist. What is new is the sensational claim that this is the tomb of Jesus and his family. Although Jacobovici and Cameron are not scholars, their claim is supported by a handful of archaeologists and religious studies specialists. On the other hand, many archaeologists (including Kloner) and scholars of early Judaism and Christianity reject this claim. In this article I explain why the Talpiyot tomb cannot be the tomb of Jesus and his family.

First let me point out that by making this announcement in the popular media, Jacobovici, Cameron, and the others involved have chosen to circumvent the usual academic process. Archaeology is a scientific discipline. New discoveries and interpretations typically are presented in scientific venues such as professional meetings or are published in peer-reviewed journals, where they can be considered and discussed by other specialists.
By first making the announcement in the popular media, those involved have precluded legitimate and vital academic discourse. This is because it is impossible to explain the many flaws of their claim in a one-minute segment on TV or the radio, or in 2-3 sentences in the newspaper, as I have been asked to do repeatedly since the announcement was made. The history and archaeology of Jerusalem in the first century are far too complex to be boiled down to a short sound bite, yet that is precisely what has happened here. This is a travesty to professional archaeologists and scholars of early Judaism and Christianity, and it is a disservice to the public.

Now let us consider the claim itself. We have no contemporary accounts of the death and burial of Jesus. Our closest sources (in time) are the canonical Gospels, specifically the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke), which are thought to have been composed about 30-50 years after Jesus' death. Although the canonical Gospels are not accurate in every detail, most scholars agree they contain some historical information. The claim that the Talpiyot tomb is the tomb of Jesus and his family contradicts the canonical Gospel accounts and means that we must reject our earliest traditions about Jesus. Those who identify the Talpiyot tomb as the tomb of Jesus support their claim by citing later, non-canonical traditions such as the Gospel of Philip.

The Gospel of Mark (15:42-46) describes as follows the death and burial of Jesus: "When the evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council [Matthew describes Joseph as a wealthy man], who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus ... he [Pilate] granted the body to Joseph. Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb."

How did the Jews of Jerusalem bury their dead in the time of Jesus? The Gospel accounts describe Jesus as having been laid to rest in a rock-cut tomb. Rock-cut tombs consisted of one or more burial chambers hewn into the bedrock slopes surrounding the city of Jerusalem. Burial chambers were lined by single rows of burial niches (called loculi), with each niche cut into the walls about the length of a person's body. Each rock-cut tomb belonged to a family and was used by the members of a family over the course of several generations. When a member of the family died, his/her body was wrapped in a shroud and placed in a loculus. The opening to the loculus was sealed with a stone slab, and the entrance to the rock-cut tomb was also sealed with a stone. Eventually, over the course of generations, the loculi became filled with burials. When this happened and it was necessary to make space for new burials, the earlier remains (consisting of bones and burial gifts) were cleared out of the loculi and placed in small boxes (ossuaries). Sometimes the relatives scribbled the name(s) of the deceased on the outside of the ossuary when they placed the remains in the box.

The Gospel accounts provide an accurate description of Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus' body in a loculus in his family's rock-cut tomb. Because rock-cut tombs had to be cut by hand out of bedrock, only the upper classes (wealthy Jews like Joseph) could afford them. The poorer classes of Jewish society — the majority of the population — buried their dead in simple, individual trench graves dug into the ground, similar to the way we bury our dead today. This involved digging a rectangular trench in the ground, placing the deceased (wrapped in a shroud) at the bottom, and filling the trench back in with earth. Usually a crude headstone was set up at one end of the grave. Ossuaries are associated only with rock-cut tombs, since once bodies were interred in trench graves they were not dug back up for deposition in an ossuary. Now let us reconsider the Gospel accounts. Jesus was crucified on Friday. This is consistent with what we know about Jesus' background, as the Romans generally reserved crucifixion for the poorer classes, who they regarded as common criminals. Why did Joseph of Arimathea request Pilate's permission to bury Jesus? The reason is that Jewish law requires burial within 24 hours of death. However, burials are prohibited on the Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday). According to the Gospel accounts, Jesus died on the eve of the Sabbath (late Friday afternoon), just before sundown. For Jesus to be buried in accordance with Jewish law, he had to be buried before the Sabbath started; otherwise, it would have been necessary to wait until Saturday night, thereby exceeding the 24-hour time limit.

Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy follower of Jesus, was concerned to ensure that Jesus was buried in accordance with Jewish law. Jesus came from a poor family that presumably could not afford a rock-cut tomb. Under ordinary circumstances he would have been buried in a trench grave. However, there was no time to prepare (dig) a trench grave before the beginning of the Sabbath. Therefore, as the Gospels tell us, Joseph hastened to go to Pilate and requested permission to take Jesus' body. He laid it in a loculus in his own rock-cut tomb, something that was exceptional (due to the circumstances), as rock-cut tombs were family tombs.

When the women entered the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea on Sunday morning, the loculus where Jesus' body had been laid was empty. The theological explanation for this phenomenon is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. However, once Jesus had been buried in accordance with Jewish law, there was no prohibition against removing the body from the tomb after the end of the Sabbath and reburying it. It is therefore possible that followers or family members removed Jesus' body from Joseph's tomb after the Sabbath ended and buried it in a trench grave, as it would have been unusual (to say the least) to leave a non-relative in a family tomb. Whatever explanation one prefers, the fact that Jesus' body did not remain in Joseph's tomb means that his bones could not have been collected in an ossuary, at least not if we follow the Gospel accounts.

Although the Gospel accounts of the death and burial of Jesus might not be completely accurate from an historical point of view, they are consistent with our literary and archaeological information about how the Jews of Jerusalem buried their dead in the time of Jesus. The Gospels also show familiarity with Jewish law, conveying Joseph's concern to bury Jesus before the Sabbath. They make it clear that Joseph was not trying to "honor" Jesus by burying him in a rock-cut tomb (a modern, anachronistic concept, since there was no shame associated with burial in trench graves, which was the accepted practice). Instead Joseph wanted to ensure that Jesus was buried in accordance with Jewish law.

Jesus' family, being poor, presumably could not afford a rock-cut tomb, as even the more "modest" ones were costly. And had Jesus' family owned a rock-cut tomb, it would have been located in their hometown of Nazareth, not in Jerusalem. For example, when Simon, the last of the Maccabean brothers and one of the Hasmonean rulers, built a large tomb or mausoleum for his family, he constructed it in their hometown of Modiin. In fact, the Gospel accounts clearly indicate that Jesus' family did not own a rock-cut tomb in Jerusalem — for if they had, there would have been no need for Joseph of Arimathea to take Jesus' body and place it in his own family's rock-cut tomb! If Jesus' family did not own a rock-cut tomb, it means they also had no ossuaries.

A number of scholars including Kloner have pointed out that the names on the ossuaries in the Talpiyot tomb are extremely common among the Jewish population of Jerusalem in the first century. But beyond this there is a bigger problem. Being a Jew in the time of Jesus was not, strictly speaking, a religion, as it is today. Instead, Jews in the time of Jesus were Judeans — that is, people from the district of Judea, the area around Jerusalem. Judeans worshiped the national god of Judea (the God of Israel) and lived according to his laws. Other ancient peoples had their own national deities. During the two centuries before Christ, the Hasmonean kings (a Jewish dynasty descended from the Maccabees) had established an independent Jewish kingdom in Judea (this kingdom was eventually taken over by the Romans). The Hasmonean kings conducted a campaign of expansion, conquering neighboring peoples who they forcibly converted to Judaism. Under the Hasmoneans, Galilee (to the north of Judea) and Idumaea (to the south) were Judaized, which means their non-Jewish populations began to worship the God of Israel and live according to his laws.

L. Y. Rahmani, an Israeli archaeologist who compiled a catalogue of all of the ossuaries in the collections of the state of Israel, observed that "In Jerusalem's tombs, the deceased's place of origin was noted when someone from outside Jerusalem was interred in a local tomb." On ossuaries in rock-cut tombs that belonged to Judean families, it was customary to indicate the ancestry or lineage of the deceased by naming the father, as, for example, Judah son of John (Yohanan); Honya son of Alexa; and Martha daughter of Hananya. But in rock-cut tombs owned by non-Judean families (or which contained the remains of relatives from outside Judea), it was customary to indicate the deceased's place of origin, as, for example, Simon of Ptolemais; Papias the Bethshanite (of Beth Shean); and Gaios son of Artemon from Berenike. Our historical and literary sources (such as the Gospels, Flavius Josephus, among others) often make the same distinctions between Judeans and non-Judeans (for example, Galileans, Idumaeans, Saul of Tarsus, Simon of Cyrene, and so on). If the Talpiyot tomb is indeed the tomb of Jesus and his family, we would expect at least some of the ossuary inscriptions to reflect their Galilean origins, by reading, for example, Jesus [son of Joseph] of Nazareth (or Jesus the Nazarene), Mary of Magdala, and so on. However, the inscriptions provide no indication that this is the tomb of a Galilean family and instead point to a Judean family.

The identification of the Talpiyot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family is based on a string of problematic and unsubstantiated claims, including adding an otherwise unattested Matthew (Matya) to the family of Jesus; identifying an otherwise unknown son of Jesus named Judah; and identifying the Mariamne named on one of the ossuaries in the tomb as Mary Magdalene by interpreting the word Mara (which follows the name Mariamne) as the Aramaic term for "master" (arguing that Mariamne was a teacher and leader). To account for the fact that Mary/Mariamne's name is written in Greek, the filmmakers transform the small Jewish town of Migdal/Magdala/Tarichaea on the Sea of Galilee (Mary's hometown) into "an important trading center" where Greek was spoken. Instead, as in other Jewish towns of this period, generally only the upper classes knew Greek, whereas poorer Jews spoke Aramaic as their everyday language. Taken individually, each of these points weakens the case for the identification of the Talpiyot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family. Collectively these points are devastating, since the statistical analyses presented in the film are based on certain assumptions made about these names.

To conclude, the identification of the Talpiyot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family contradicts the canonical Gospel accounts of the death and burial of Jesus and the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus. This claim is also inconsistent with all of the available information — historical and archaeological — about how Jews in the time of Jesus buried their dead, and specifically the evidence we have about poor, non-Judean families like that of Jesus. It is a sensationalistic claim without any scientific basis or support.

Labels: jerusalem, Jesus, Jesus family tomb, Jodi Magness, lost tomb of Jesus, talpiot, talpiyot