The Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor

In consulting with several experts in late 2nd Temple ossuary inscriptions one point that I think is rather vital has come out that might account for some of the honest differences between experts on reading the names on the Talpiot ossuaries.

There is a great difference between writing on papyri where one can have a flowing cursive script and scratching on stone, as any calligrapher knows, where lines can cross but one does not have diphtong ligatures, so common in the way one would on papyrus. That is why Rahmani’s reading of the Mariamene/Mara inscription should be taken with great weight. This is his speciality.

This was the basis of Dr. Michael Stone’s reluctance to offer any opinion on the disputed ossuary inscription. Having worked on thousands of Armenian inscriptions he knew that “knowing Greek” (which he surely does) does not in any way qualify one to read epigraphical names on ossuaries. That caution might be well advised for others who might be even less proficient in languages than Prof. Stone.

It seems there is no end of folks with just a bit of Greek, or even some experience in reading Greek papyri, who are ready to jump into the discussion and declare, yes, I see that “kai” on the ending of Mariamene, what do you know, Rahmani was wrong.

I also think it is unfortunate that there would be any kind of “lining up” of experts on this side or the other of an issue like this, as if one were collecting points. No one epigrapher speaks as an “oracle,” but I think the judgment of Leah Di Segni, confirming Rahmani’s reading, should be taken with great seriousness, and others who are highly regarded agree and can speak for themselves, but I am not about to get into listing names.

The Talpiot tomb discussion over the course of this fair month of March has taken many turns and twists with more than a 100,000 entries showing up in a basic Google search. There has clearly been more “heat than light” as several have pointed out. In the Blogging world, which I think no one person could possibly keep up with, one finds a wide diversity from informed academic discussion, blatant mistatement of the facts, unpleasant diatribe, and everything in between. I am pleased to report that with very few exceptions most of my colleagues (probably 75 or so) with whom I have communicated privately over the past three weeks have reflected a high standard of academic discussion and civil discourse.

I wanted to make a few observations that I might offer some clarity to the topic and to the discussion in the hope of clearing the air of viscerally charged reactions.

The Talpiot tomb held the ossuaries and bones of a first century Jew named “Jesus son of Joseph” and his family. It is the only one ever discovered in Israel (unfortunately the only other “Yeshua bar Yehosef” ossuary located by Sukenik is unprovenanced). Whether “this” Jesus son of Joseph is the one we know in the New Testament as “Jesus of Nazareth” is the question. The methods of examining this possibility should be the same as those we would use if this were the tomb of a Socrates or a Rabbi Hillel. In terms of the academic task one should attempt to evaluate the evidence without theological or emotional overtones.

That question has nothing explicitly to do with a film or book by Simcha Jacobovici or any theories advanced therein. Indeed, some of us have had a studied interest in this site years before Jacobovici even learned of its existence from Amos Kloner back in 2003. Jacobovici was working on his documentary on the James ossuary and visited the IAA warehouse in Romenna (see his account in The Jesus Family Tomb, pp. 32-34). I first heard of the Talpiot tomb and its cluster of ossuary inscriptions in 1996 from Ray Bruce, who was part of the BBC documentary. He called me from London and said, “James, I have something rather amazing and I need your opinion.” I remember at that time that I initiated a discussion on the Hebrew University Orion internet list that I think is still in the archives. That thread is well worth following, and several scholars, including the moderator of the list, began to do some preliminary statistical calculation on the names. The topic was so unknown that it took several of those participating in the discussion some time even to get the names straight. We had Rahmani, but this was before Kloner published his report, prompted by the 1996 publicity, at the direction of IAA director, the late Amir Drori, who was concerned about the fallout in the press and embarassed that nothing was in print. At that time, in 1996, other than the BBC film and a very thorough story in the London Sunday Times written by Joan Bakewell, we had nothing to go on. All that was in print was Joseph Gath’s preliminary report, and no one then had even noticed that. Even Joe Zias, according to Ray Bruce who filmed him, had never noticed these ossuaries or their interesting cluster of names, nor had Amos Kloner. They were thought to be “common names,” although in 1996, when Zias did see the cluster uncovered by the BBC crew he was the lone single voice who had a different view and said–wait, this might be significant, the cluster is not at all common.

Shimon Gibson’s connection goes all the way back another sixteen years, to the discovery of the tomb in 1980. Unfortunately, his views and testimony not received the attention they deserve, though he was at the N.Y. press conference and was part of the team that excavated the tomb in 1980. He also prepared the official plan of the tomb. If anyone knows what went on at the Talpiot tomb on March 30 & 31 it is Gibson. He and I have carefully consulted in our research and gathered documents and other materials, including the official IAA archives. We have been working on this subject now rather intensely for two years.

If one uses academic approaches, applying ordinary methods of historical investigation, it seems to me there are four basic options. I am not including here the view that this could not be the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth since he ascended bodily to heaven.

1) There is good evidence that this Jesus son of Joseph cannot be Jesus of Nazareth

2) The identification is inconclusive, or even unlikely; there is not enough evidence to draw a solid conclusion.

3. Such an identification is possible, even likely, though not conclusively proven.

4. There is evidence that such an identification is probable or even highly probable.

Let me be clear here. I am not asking what have been the evaluations of Jacobovici’s film and book, nor of his specific theories about a Jesus Family tomb. As I see it that is a completely separate subject that has to do with the nature of a documentary, questions of peer review, the task of investigative journalism, public responsibility, and all sorts of other issues. Whether one praises or damns Jacobovici’s work, in the end, has nothing to do with the academic evaluation of these questions. He has, however, facilitated the consideration of previously unavailable data that can be part of our deliberations (DNA, patina tests, epigraphy, statistics).

So now to these options…

As far as I have seen the only scholar who has argued the 1st option in print is Jodi Magness. In her essay on the SBL web site, and posted widely elsewhere, she does in fact say: “In this article I explain why the Talpiyot tomb cannot be the tomb of Jesus and his family.” My response to her argument is also on the same Web site.

Most of the scholars who have commented or written on the subject, including Chris Rollston, who also has his paper on the SBL March Forum, have supported the 2nd option, namely, that the evidence does not permit us to make the identification, or alternatively, that attempts some have made to make such an identification are unconvincing or even weak. Some of these have indeed expressed their doubts of the liklihood of the identification (why a child of Jesus? why a Matthew? the lack of patronyms, etc.), but so far as I have seen only Prof. Magness has offered arguments that she considers effective in showing that the tomb cannot be that of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

My own position is the 3rd option. I am convinced that the identification of the Jesus son of Joseph in this tomb with Jesus of Nazareth is not only possible, but even likely. I have set forth some of my reasons in this Blog over the past three weeks, and I am in the process of completing an informal paper that will summarize the evidence and my conclusions. What could move me from the 3rd option to the 4th would be the unresolved question of whether the ossuary that surfaced in November, 2002 inscribed “James son of Joseph” or “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus,” came from this tomb. I should clarify here that such a possibility is not linked solely to the matter of the 10th missing ossuary that I raised in my book, The Jesus Dynasty. It was Shimon Gibson who first made the point that the James ossuary could be an 11th ossuary, taken from the tomb when it was left open Friday afternoon to Sunday morning, March 28-31st, 1980. What I can say is that we are “on the case,” and if the patina reports, which I have just received and want to pass on to Yuval Goren and others qualified to judge, hold up, then we will be one step closer to offering the James ossuary a provenanced location. That would change the probabilities considerably in terms of a “potential” to “near certain” identification of the Talpiot tomb with that of Jesus of Nazareth. There are also some other options to resolve this issue that can be pursued.

There is also the matter of the tomb itself, for now thankfully sealed. It could be more carefully studied, checked for graffiti and inscriptions, and examined in any number of ways. Gibson and I have discussed these possibilities. Given the fact that this was of necessity a “rescue excavation,” it might be that further study would be beneficial. I am certainly not accusing Amos Kloner, Joseph Gath, or Shimon Gibson, who were involved in the original operation, of any carelessness. But they were working under the clock with Passover arriving in two days, and the builders wanting to move on with their work.

I regret that the Jacobovici film has created such rancor and division among various parties. I know Simcha’s purpose was to investigate and bring to the attention of the academy and the public the results of the studies he had facilitated. His roster of awards for his films demonstrate his recognition in his field. For sixteen years no one paid attention to this tomb. Then the BBC came along. Then for another ten years it was dismissed with the mantra, “the names are common.” Having been brought into the James ossuary investigation, it was only natural, given Simcha’s determination to follow a story, that he pursue the facts related to the Talpiot tomb once he learned of it. I have immensely benefited from working with him and I have found him to be a person of the highest integrity. I think most people who read his book, which basically chronicles his investigation, will agree with UC Berkeley physicist Randy Ingermanson, who does not support the Talpiot tomb identification with Jesus of Nazareth, in this thoughtful assessment:

It’s a fascinating book. I grabbed it as soon as I could and read it carefully to see what the case is. I’ll say right away that I came to like Simcha Jacobovici very much while reading the book. His intellectual curiosity launched this investigation, and he clearly loves a great puzzle. There are folks who want to make Simcha the bad guy here, as if he somehow set out to demolish Christianity by cooking up some evidence. I don’t get that impression from reading his story or watching him on video. He’s clearly passionate about this story and interested in getting at the truth.

For those unfamiliar with Greek all the discussions about epigraphy and paleography regarding the Talpiot ossuary inscriptions can be a bit confusing. Let me summarize two views that have been proposed regarding the Mariamene inscription and how it reads. I want to emphasize here that the epigraphy discussion, per se, should be unconnected to speculations or proposals as to who this woman (or these women) might have been in relation to the discussion of whether or not the Talpiot tomb might be the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

The clear issue is rather how does on properly read the inscription itself, that is, what does it say?

(1) The reading proposed by Rahmani, the editor of standard Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the State of Israel Collection ( and supported by Leah Di Segni who recently revisted the question) is the following:

[This is the ossuary] of Mariamene [aka] Mara

According to this reading we have two names for one woman. The first name is rare in this diminutive form, it is in the possessive case (showing whose ossuary this is), and the “aka” is signified by a little stroke that stands for the Greek letter “eta,” which is the feminine article, like saying “the one also known as.”

(2) The “corrected” reading proposed by Stephen Pfann and others (though I have only seen Stephen’s paper on this so far):

Mariame and Mara

According to this reading there is no name “Mariamne” at all, but rather the more common name Mariame, and then the name of a second woman named Mara (that Pfann takes as Martha). Pfann also thinks the second name was added later, by a different “hand.” His conclusion is that the ossuary held two women.
So to put it simply:

a) One woman with two names, including the rarer form Mariamne, or,

b) Two woman with two separate but more common names, Mariame & Mara/Martha

In considering this question I encourage those interested with access to Rahmani to also look at ossuary #108 in his catalog, where we have a second “Mariamne,” also in the genitive, with just the same style and form of letters. It seems to me to be rather decisive in favor of Rahmani, et al. More on this later.

When Stephen Pfann announced his “corrected reading” of the Talpiot inscription (IAA 80.500) as published by L. H. Rahmani (#701) just four days ago, insisting the veteran epigrapher had missed a word (kai/and), and misread the name Mariamne, I must admit it gave me pause. I am no epigrapher but I had studied the inscription carefully over the course of two years and nothing that Pfann was proposing rang true to me. It looked to me like a clear and lovely inscription of one hand, with the “stroke” or eta before Mara indicating a double name or signum of one woman. I also had a tremendous respect for Rahmani having worked through his Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries quite carefully over the years. I posted my reservations on my Blog.

I was amazed at how quickly Pfann’s reading was picked up by the media and flashed around the world with headlines such as: “Expert Shows Fatal Flaw in Tomb Theory.” I even watched Dr. Pfann on CNN two nights ago and I think he made the rounds on a few other national TV programs. I just did a Google search and that story has now become the “truth,” since it has been printed in over 12,000 sources, including multiple Christian Blogs that welcome anything that seems to contradict the “Mary Magdalene” hypothesis. I was also surprised to see Pfann’s paper this morning up on the SBL Web site and I posted a caveat to Forum editor Leonard Greenspoon suggesting that maybe the Pfann reading might bear a bit of “peer review” by a Greek epigrapher, since it would surely be taken by the public as a new breakthrough in the discussion if posted on an academic site without comment. [Pfann has written me since I put up this post that he did in fact consult with several leading epigraphers who agree, or partly agree, with his reading, but that it was the Associated Press that rushed the story out without mentioning anyone but him]

Immediately after reading Pfann’s paper I met with Prof. Michael Stone, who is our distinguished visiting professor of ancient Judaism here at UNC Charlotte this year, and who happens to have been Pfann’s teacher. I asked him for his opinion, and quite modestly he said, I have no expertise in ancient Greek epigraphy so I would not dare to say, but if you check with Leah Di Segni you will get a view that should settle things for all of us. I was impressed with Michael’s modesty since those of us who know him know that his Greek is as good as it gets, as are all his languages, but he still knows that technical training in epigraphy is quite different from one of us who reads Greek texts taking a turn at such things.

I contacted Dr. Di Segni, hesitant to impose on her time, but she graciously said she would take a look. I just heard from her today. She contextualized her view with a statement of how highly she regards Rahmani and expressed surprise that anyone proposing to “correct” him would not ask him, his “eye” being as good today as it ever was. Dr. Di Segni recalls that she was consulted by Rahmani when he prepared the Greek inscriptions and she writes: “I well remember that, while here and there I had some suggestions about interpretation of a particular form (for instance, Mariamenon being an hypochoristic form of Mariam), I could not but confirm all his readings. I have not changed my mind now.”

Di Segni’s conclusion then and today: She reads the inscription as a double name, Mariamenou/Mara, both being personal names, or signum, indicated in this inscription by a single “stroke” (signifying ho kai or he kai so-and-so), thus one woman with a double name. This is much like saying “aka” or “also known as.” Di Segni is not of the view that Mara is an epithet, “Mistress Mariamenon”: if so, it would precede the name of the lady. She notes that this use of the double name or signum became common only in the late first century, so this would be a rather early occurrence, if one accepts the reasonable surmise that secondary burial in ossuaries in Jerusalem ended with the destruction of the city in 70 CE.

I pass this on to readers here and colleagues and I hope it will get posted on the SBL site and on some of the more responsible Blogs, to offer some context to Dr. Pfann’s paper. How one might contact the hundreds of papers or the TV programs that have carried the Rahmani “correction” around the world I have no idea.

In the meantime, back to the discussion of this ancient lady, Mariamne also know as Mara.

The Mariamene inscription is really quite lovely, with a sweeping “John Hancock” like flare across the bottom. A most elegant inscription for a lady of class and means. Here is a nice photo showing details in color. If anyone who is a legitimate researcher wants to look at a HiRes copy of this inscription I will send you one if you contact me privately via e-mail, but it is not for publication, just study. You need to indicate in your message to me that you will not circulate or otherwise distribute the photo.
James D. Tabor

(c ) Associated Producers, LTD, Ontario, Canada [Not for circulation or reproduction]

One crucial point that one would not expect the media to pick up on in headlining Stephen Pfann’s contention that the ossuary inscription reading: mariamene e mara (IAA 80.500 #701 in Rahmani’s catalogue) is actually two women: a Mariame and a Mara ( or Martha as he reads it), is that little letter or stroke “e” between the two names, which stands for the Greek letter “eta,” the feminine article.

It is a very clear indication in Greek of a double name for one individual, not for two names of two individuals. It is found, for example, at the the cemetery at Bet She’arim and it stands for “the also,” (eta kai), which means “also known as” (Schwabe and Lifshitz 1974: No. 101). Rachmani discusses this and gives examples and references. Pfann ignores it completely in his attempt to “correct” Rahmani.

It is quite instructive to work through the examples of the “double names” found in our various ossuary inscriptions. It is also worth noticing what sort of relationships are typically buried together in one ossuary.

Based on the Greek itself, and the DNA tests that showed one individual I remain convinced that the reading:

Mariamene [also known as] Mara/Mistress or Lady is the correct one, whoever this woman might have been.

I also find the inscription as a whole quite lovely and elegant, with the “John Hancock” style stroke along the bottom. It is not crude and broken into two hands as Pfann contends.

It would be good I think to separate the theology and any attempts at identification from the epigraphy. I don’t really care if the ossuary held one, two, or half a dozen folks, but I do think we want careful consideration given to how one reads an inscription before one goes to the press with headlines: Expert Shows Fatal Flaw in Tomb Theory.” As much as Simcha Jacobovici has been criticised for not seeking “peer review” for his theory, in the case of the epigraphy he went to the best people he could find. He did not attempt to read these names himself, and in his film he shows those experts offering their readings. Interpretation is another thing but getting the Greek straight before one goes to the press would be a good thing.

Two very welcome academic contributions to the Talpiot/Jesus family tomb discussion were published on the Society of Biblical Literature March Forum web site recently, one by Jodi Magness and a second by Christopher Rollston.

I wrote a response to Prof. Magness that has just gone on-line and it includes a few concluding comments in response to Prof. Rollston as well: “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth and the Talpiot Yeshua Tomb”

There is also a version of that paper at the Biblical Archaeology Society Web site.

I also put up a response to a letter that Prof. Jonathan Reed had posted on the Society of Biblical Literature Forum site. Some will recall that it was Dr. Reed who appeared on the Ted Koppel program and called the “Lost Tomb of Jesus Documentary” archaeo-porn. Reed is co-author with John Dominic Crossan of the book Excavating Jesus. It is interesting that Crossan, in contrast to Reed, previewed the Discovery TV documentary as one of the academic reviewers and gave it high marks. His comment was “”This discovery is potentially the last nail in the coffin of biblical iteralism.” Crossan appears in the film and comments that the location of Jesus’ physical body, in his view, has nothing to do with valid Christian faith.

Since so much of the Talpiot tomb story has been highlighted with media headlines such as: “Expert Delivers Fatal Flaw to Tomb Theory,” or “Cameron Titanic Sinks Before It Leaves Port,” this reasoned exchange among scholars is most welcome.

I am getting lots of e-mail on the Mariamne/Mara discussion, and not all from epigraphers. I thought this comment that came in this morning from Bob Brewer was interesting. Bob is married to a women from a small town in Crete and this comment is based on her input:

In modern Greek, many times when two adjectives are used to describe someone (as in ‘the learned and famous Dr. X’) the adjectives are split, one preceding and one following the subject. Thus, if the Mariamene ossuary were to mean, ‘our beloved (woman) and leader, Mary’, one would say (literally), ‘our beloved Mary and (fem. article) leader’. That is, she is beloved AND she is their ‘leader’ or ‘master’. This is what I believe the correct reading of the ossuary should be (in phonetic Greek): Mariamene (our beloved Mary) kai y Mara (and leader [assuming that Mara means ‘leader’ or ‘master’]). The ‘y’ (ipsillon) is represented by a stroke and is the feminine article.

The word ‘kai’ is commonly used in Greek not only as a conjunction by also to add ‘emphasis’. Thus, someone might introduce you to a Greek audience by saying: ‘O Professor X, KAI o gnostos’ (meaning ‘the FAMOUS Professor X’).

I look forward to hearing from qualified epigraphers who work in ancient Greek graffiti texts on this matter. My sense of things, as I outlined in the previous post, which notes other examples, and particularly Rahmani #108, is that we have a genitive ending rather than a “kai.”

One positive result of the controversy over the Simcha Jacobovici film “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” is that scholars have turned their attention to the Talpiot tomb and its cluster of names. This can only be good in that a wider and more open discussion of what we can know about this tomb is likely to clarify various unresolved issues. Just in the past few days I have heard through the academic “grapevine” of one or two scholars who are offering new readings of the mariamene/on inscription (IAA 80.500), taking it as two names, Mariam and Mara, with the Greek word kai (”and/also”) between them.

I have now just received a paper from Stephen Pfann, up on his Web site, titled “Mary Magdalene is now Missing,” that appears to make a similar argument, as well as insisting that the inscription was written by two different hands. Apparently from reports on the wires today the press has run with this. The story is all over, repeated as if it is now established. In the stories I have read so far not a single epigrapher has been consulted for an opinion. Rahmani is surely not without mistakes but in years of reading his “readings’ I have come to respect his trained eye and his knowledge of these late 2nd Temple cursive scripts. For Pfann to subtitle his paper: “A Corrected Reading of Rahmani” really gives me pause since Pfann’s training is not in the area of Greek epigraphy/graffiti so far as I know.

I will be most interested in reading the views of qualified epigraphers on this revised reading, contra Rahmani as they have time to weigh in. As far as I can tell the inscription seems to be quite clearly from one hand. It is also almost identical to Rahmani # 108, which could not possibly end with the word “kai.” Also, it does not appear that Pfann has accounted for the “stroke” before Mara, which looks to be a problem for his reading as far as I can tell. Last week Pfann also argued that the ossuary “Yeshua bar Yehosef,” (Jesus son of Joseph) had also been read incorrectly by Rahmani, Kloner, and Tal Ilan, and actually reads Hanun son of Joseph. I have not seen his arguments in that regard though I have noticed that lots of Christian web sites are citing him as an authority over against the confirmed reading as “Yeshua” by Frank Cross.

I have just discussed today in an earlier post that the DNA tests on the bone fragments from this ossuary would have shown two individuals, or more, if they were mixed together in one ossuary. The ancient DNA found showed only one person, unrelated maternally to Yeshua son of Joseph.

My sense until I learn more is that the reading proposed by Rahmani is compelling:

The script is as follows: mariamenou [stroke] mara

1) mariamenou is the genitive of mariamenon, a diminutive form of “endearment” from mariamene, an unusual form of the more common mariame. mariamene is found, also in the genitive, on the lid of another ossuary, #108 in Rahmani. The script and form of these two inscriptions are almost identical and should help to clarify the reading of #701 from Talpiot. It does not seem possible that #108 can be read as “kai.”

The force of the genitive, attested on many ossuaries, is to say [This is the ossuary] of mariamene/on

2) mara is a Greek form of the Aramaic, mar/mara, which is lady or mistress, here in the absolute. The emphatic would be mart(h)a. Since we have no suitable word in English for the feminine of “master” (i.e., “mistress” is misleading), one has to go to something like “honorable lady.” Although mart(h)a can be a name, it is technically not correct to simply say it is an abbreviated form of the name Martha and leave it at that–since they are both connected to the same Aramaic word: mar/mara (see Jastrow, 1926, s.v. mar/mara’). We do have an ossuary that has, in Aramaic, the two names mara and marta (Rahmani # 468) but it well might be two women in the one ossuary, or the inscriber might be saying that Mart(h)a is also known as Mara/honorable lady, as a kind of nickname. Similarly, in Rahmani #35 we have maryam [space] yohana, which might be a double name, though the ossuary is large enough for two persons, so we might have two names. Of note in this regard is the famous ossuary at Dominus Flevit that has the two names in Aramaic: marta and mariam, likely indicating two persons/sisters, as in the “Mary & Martha” tradition in the New Testament.

Tal Ilan only finds seven examples under the root Aramaic mara (Lexicon, p. 422) and not all are feminine. I think her basic original observation that the name means “lord” or “master,” in Aramaic stands, and “Mart(h)a,” which also means mistress is simply another form thereof in the emphatic.

One should also note that the “euphonics” of the terms mar/mara, whether in Aramaic or transliterated Greek, carry a connotation of an attributive “title,” not formally so, but as a term of respect, i.e., Mari Iahosa (Rahmani # 8), or even based on the N.T. marana tha, Mar Yeshua.

A similar usage is round in Rahmani #868 where we have: alexas mara. Alexas is the feminine genitive followed, as with mariamene/on, with mara. Thus, loosely translated “[this is the ossuary] of Alexa/honorable lady.

With Rahmani it seems to me that the “stroke” stands for an eta which is a kind of “aka” abbreviation, thus I would loosely translate the Talpiot ossuary:

“[This is the ossuary] of mariamene [known as/the] honorable lady”

A final note: It is interesting that if Pfann were right, and I am not yet confinced thereof, the reading: Mariame and/also Mara can mean in common Greek, even today: Mariame also [know as] Mara [honorable lady], and Mariame is a quite early and common name for Mary Magdalene. Or alternatively, IF we have two names, the proverbial “Mary and Martha,” then every N.T. reader knows these were two of the most intimate sisters in Jesus’ life–indeed, some have suggested that “Mary,” who sat as his feet and was commended by him in Luke, did in fact become his companion. Up to this point my own view, with Bagatti and others, is that an ossuary that well might refer to the N.T. “Mary and Martha,” ( Dominus Flevit #27/burial #70), with clearer indications of two individuals (according to Milik’s reading) rather than two names for one individual, has already been found on the Mt. of Olives, near Bethany where they lived, along with Shimon bar Yonah, Lazarus, and a few others, see The Jesus Dynasty, p. 235-236 and Finegan, The Archaeology of the New Testament, pp. 368. By the way, this Mt. of Olives ossuary has the names repeated twice, one the cover of the lid and on the long side or face, with Miriam one time and Maria the second time, all Aramaic. Tomb 70 is in a little complex off by itself, separated slightly from the main necropolis complex. Shimon bar Yonah was in tomb 79.

I have read a lot of misleading and incorrect information on various Web sites and in press reports regarding the mitDNA tests that were run on bone fragments from two of the ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb–the ones inscribed “Yeshua bar Yehosef,” and “Mariamenou (e) Mara.” There have been erroneous charges that the DNA tests were substandard or that they were not carried out properly. Such statements are completely without foundation.

The reason bone fragments from only these two ossuaries were tested is a simple one–the other four inscribed ossuaries had been cleaned/vacuumed and presently have no visible or significant materials that can be tested. There has been some discussion of whether they could still be swabbed for some possible results, but I think the chances of getting any kind of a good result with that method are very slight.

The tests were conducted at the Paelo-DNA Lab at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada. The Paleo-DNA Laboratory is a world-renowned research laboratory in the application of modern molecular genetic techniques and technologies to the study of archaeological, degraded, and ancient DNA. This facility is one of the finest in existence with state-of-the-art equipment and a distinguished record of results worldwide in connection with many important archaeological sites. They specialize in obtaining either mitochondrial or nuclear DNA, or both, from extremely ancient and fragile biological specimens. These are materials that normal forensic DNA labs would not be able to process or examine. Special techniques have been developed and there exists now a possibility of even extracting nuclear DNA data from ancient bone samples. These more sophisticated tests have not yet been conducted on the Talpiot materials.

Part of the testing process involved a careful processing of the samples to insure there is no contamination. The tests themselves are run on marrow inside the bones that has never been exposed before the tests are conducted. The quality controls are rigid with multiple backup steps to insure accuracy. All the strange looking “space suits” are an indispensible part of a process of the decontamination of the staff before entering the testing area.

In the case of a sample of mixed bones from more than one individual the tests would yield multiple profiles. For example, several years ago mitDNA tests were done on mixed bone samples from the Akeldama “tomb of the Shroud,” first discovered by Israeli Boaz Zissu in 1998 when it was illegally robbed. The tomb was resealed only to be broken into again in the summer of 2000. This time most of the ossuaries had been broken and the bones scattered about. Even though the bones were in a state of total disarray we had accurate mitDNA profiles done yielding results for several dozen individuals who were then placed in familial relationships on a family tree. It turned out the tomb had two separate maternal clans with a number of verified sibling relationships.

Dr. Carney Matheson, Forensic Examiner and Scientific Officer at Lakehead University’s Paleo-DNA Laboratory and Associate Professor in the Department of Anthropology, analyzed the 2000-year-old bone samples from the two Talpiot ossuaries. The representative samples tested each belonged to a single individual, and the mitochondrial analysis showed conclusively that the two samples were not maternally related. Neither sample indicated the bones were from more than one individual.

“For this project, my role was to examine the residue including bone fragments from two ossuaries that were provided to the Laboratory, and determine if they were related,” Dr. Matheson says. “My focus was to ensure that the process was undertaken under the strictest forensic and ancient DNA procedures, which are a standard part of Lakehead University’s Paleo-DNA protocols. I expected that the results of the mitochondrial DNA analysis of the “tomb of Jesus” would spark widespread discussion and debate among theologians and historians, among others, and intellectual discourse is always good. As a scientist, I am mainly concerned with ensuring that the analysis used as a basis for discussion is beyond reproach. And the science behind the DNA analysis is solid.

“I have done similar work on numerous samples from many parts of the world to determine relation, disease, and other epidemiological issues. Our team at Lakehead’s Paleo-DNA Laboratory has done work on bog bodies, unidentified soldiers from WWI, mummies, and remains from the Titanic.”

Dr. Matheson studies biomolecules and the processes of their degradation. His primary research interest is in method development for recovery of macromolecules from biological material. His research emphasis has been on biological remains that have proved challenging from which to recover biomolecules using conventional methods. Design and development of methods to retrieve macromolecules of interest from degraded remains has applications in numerous fields, principally archaeology, forensic, and medical science.

The Lakehead University Paleo-DNA Laboratory is accredited in forensic human identification. This state-of-the-art facility is located in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, and is affiliated with the Lakehead University Centre for Analytical Services (LUCAS). The Laboratory has been a pioneer in the application of modern molecular genetic techniques and technologies to the study of archaeological, degraded, and Paleo-DNA. The Laboratory serves three areas - research, services, and teaching.