Archive for March, 2007

Assessing the Assessments: The Jesus Family Tomb

I have had a good vantage point the past two weeks for assessing the responses to the Discovery television documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” through media interviews, private messages from academic colleagues, and about 3000 e-mail messages. Here are a few reflections from that experience.

It seems to me there are three basic approaches to the Talpiot tomb subject, each of which reflects its own presuppositions, assumptions, and methods in evaluating the evidence.

1. First, there are those who are quite sure the Talpiot tomb is that of Jesus of Nazareth and his family because they want to believe it in order to “bash” Christianity. It took them about five minutes to decide this just had to be right, and that it was too good to be true. Even though the evangelical Christian response has largely drowned out these folk, I have seen this attitude in quite a few Blogs and opinion pieces on the Web, and I have heard it from a few media people. This response includes the proverbial “recovering Catholic” type who might find comfort in this story as a way of supporting his/her own disengagement and disenfranchisement from the Church. Or, it might be from self-declared “atheists and secularists,” who for both personal and political reasons are prepared to rejoice at anything that might poke a good stick at the hornet’s nest of evangelical or conservative Christianity. As far as I can tell most of these folk are watching more than participating actively in the debate and discussion. Although they apparently “hope” that good evidence emerges to support the idea that the ossuary that held the bones of Jesus and his family have been found, if it turns out to not be the case, they are not overly invested in the outcome.

2. Second, there are those who come from orthodox or evangelical Christian perspectives who have prejudged the evidence, no matter what its nature might be, simply because by definition their faith precludes the possibility that this could be the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. Simply put, this tomb can not be what some claim because Jesus rose from the dead and went to heaven, literally, up through the clouds (flesh, bones, organs, and all), so obviously his body could not be on earth–case closed. This position, though understandable from the standpoint of faith, is the weakest of the four in that it declares the “end” or conclusion, no matter what might be the evidence. The whole enterprise becomes one of “debunking,” not of open and honest consideration of possibilities.

Many years ago, when I was a professor at the University of North Dame, the brilliant philosopher and theologian Philip Devenish, presented a rather provocative paper titled “Can a Christian be an Historian?” in our faculty forum. His essential argument was a simple one: historians ideally, by definition, investigate evidence and follow it wherever it leads; while orthodox Christians are committed to dogmas, many of which rest upon literal interpretations of “events” that are taken to be historical in nature, so that results are predetermined. Of course Devenish was not so naive as to think that all historians somehow stand outside of time and culture and thus reflect some sort of perfect objectivity; nor was he unaware of Christian historians who do not take such literalistic approaches to the core Christian story. But I think he did put his finger on something very much at work in this Talpiot tomb story and how it has played out in the more conservative Christian circles.

3. Finally, there are those with or without academic training in the field of Christian origins and the other specialty areas related to the topic who would like to see an open and honest investigation of the evidence. No historian can be absolutely objective and all of us need a “place to stand” from which we ask our questions. However, in the academic enterprise there is really no place, even on a topic as sensitive as this one, for prejudging the evidence. And ideally, one should not particularly “care” how it all comes out. In other words any kind of cultural or theological considerations should not come into play in evaluating evidence. In other words, there may be enough evidence to connect this tomb to that of Jesus and his family and there may not be, but the task is clear and singular–an open and undetermined examination of the evidence and a testing of hypotheses.

In my view the first approach is as deficient as the second. But what has surprised me most this week are the ways in which a few academic colleagues, who clearly do not share the theological presuppositions of the second approach, nonetheless, either explicitly or implicitly, support that agenda. One archaeologist, not a Christian, was quoted as saying, “this could not be Jesus of Nazareth because God has no DNA.” Another has argued that this could not be the tomb of Jesus because his followers believed he was raised from the dead, yet this scholar clearly does believe that Jesus, as any human being, died and his body decomposed. It is this complex mix of emotions, sensitivities, and confused avenues of inquiry that has, in my view, let to lots of heat and very little light this past week. I remain convinced that the evidence regarding the Talpiot tomb, presented so far in a TV documentary, deserves a fair and honest evaluation. One thing that I find encouraging in all this is that most of my academic colleagues who have contacted me privately, and by far the majority of the 3000 e-mails I have received, largely share the perspectives of the third option. I do indeed think that over the next few weeks and months this topic will be explored properly and the results will become clear to honest observers.

In the rush to promote confusion and misunderstanding regarding the Talpiot tomb any number of Websites have now loudly and falsely declared that Andrey Feuerverger, the University of Toronto Professor who was consulted for the statistics on the names in the Talpiot tomb, has somehow recanted his work. This is totally false and quite ridiculous. I am in constant touch with Dr. Feuerverger and he assures me that certain clarifying statements of his have been completely taken out of context in a dishonest attempt to imply that he has changed his mind. One quote I have seen on quite a few Web sites that are dedicated to refuting the case that the Talpiot tomb might be that of Jesus of Nazareth and his family is the following: “I now believe that I should not assert any conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one of the NT family.”

What Feuerverger is saying in this quote, twisted out of context of course, is perfectly plausible and proper. He has a post on his Website that makes his position clear for anyone who is really interested in understanding and participating in a rational discussion. Dr. Feuerverger is not saying that he has decided or determined that the tomb is not connected to Jesus of Nazareth but he is simply echoing what I have been saying on this Blog for a week now–the job or task of the statistian is not to do the history, but to deliver the numbers. In other words, the statistician can tell us whether or not the cluster of names found in the Talpiot tomb is indeed common, and thus insignificant, or unique and thus worthy of attention. But the “second step,” as I have called it, is for the biblical scholar and historian to determine whether the cluster, that Dr. Feuerverger has shown is highly unique, has any “fit” with what we know of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. Far from “recanting,” Dr. Feuerverger is simply making it clear that there is a team effort involved, a division of labor. He is perfectly correct to do so. Why should he, after all, as the one who is doing the math, also be expected to run the hypotheses connected with the history? It would be like asking the person who did the DNA studies to also make a judgment on whether the names in the Talpiot tomb are common. Or asking the historian who accesses the “fit” between the names and what we know from our texts to also access the DNA.

For those who want to understand this it is as clear. For others who might want to “debunk” tomb claims at all costs, the basic issue gets lost. We all know how quotations can be taken out of context in any field. Let me be clear here: Dr. Feuerverger has not in any way repudiated his work on the Talpiot tomb in accessing the probability statistics for this tomb, though he does continue to refine and work on final versions of his paper having benefited from input from colleagues in the field of statistics who have offered him constructive feedback. As Joe D’Mello wrote me just this morning, even if Feuerverger revises his numers to 100:1, 50:1 or even 20:1, “even a 20:1 odds is very, very good! I for one would have been impressed.” I think Joe is mainly concerned that the Discovery Web site be updated if it is claiming to rely on Feuerverger’s work, and that is a fair request. My own sense is that Feuerverger will end up staying fairly close to his original numbers, but I guess we will have to wait and see.

The late Yosef Gath, the archaeologist assigned to excavate the Talpiot tomb in March, 1980, never was able to publish a full excavation report. That was done by the area supervisor at that time, Amos Kloner, in 1996 in response to the BBC publicity on the tomb. However, Gath did publish a very sparse preliminary report in Hadashot Arkheologiyot 76 (1981), pp. 24-26. A rough translation by Shimon Gibson reads as follows:

“During work on the preparation of ground for building
in East Talpioth an opening of a tomb was found. Solel
Boneh workers K Mandil and the engineer A. Shochat
reported on this at the end of March 1980. Excavations
at the site were directed by Y.Gath for the Israel
Department of Antiquities for two weeks in March-April
1980. It appeared that the blocking stone for the
entrance had been removed and part of the porch and
vestibule had been destroyed. The cave was full of
soil to a height of one metre. The cave was well hewn
and one could see chisel marks of the hewers on the
walls. The cave included a porch (2X2.5 m), a central
room (3X3 m) and six kokhim (1.8 M deep and half a
metre wide). Arcoslia were installed in the east and
north walls. The height of the central chamber is 2 m.
In the kokhim were ten ossuaries. The facade of the
entrance was decorated with a relief, apparently an
attempt to show a gable above a rosette. Two ossuary
lids, found on the floor of the central room, under
the fill of soil, indicate an ancient disturbance. The
finds, including a few fragments of pottery, indicates
that the time of the cave is the Second Temple period.
20 metres north of this cave was a destroyed cave.
Closeby there were two cisterns, probably Byzantine.”

There are some other related materials that I will post later on this Blog and include in the paper I am preparing on the Talpiot excavation.

Someone wrote me yesterday: “A well known and oft quoted saying is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularized in the U.S. by Mark Twain: ‘There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.’ The semi-ironic statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, and succinctly describes how even accurate statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate arguments.”

As has been widely reported Andrey Feuerverger, Prof. of Statistics at the University of Toronto was asked to run the statistical probabilities on the names in the Talpiot tomb by filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici. It has also been incorrectly reported, and just as widely, with a untoward amount of enthusiasm, that he has essentially “recanted” on his 600 to 1 figure and has conceded he was the victim of a “garbage in, garbage out,” statistical game that means nothing, misled by Jacobovici the filmmaker. This is totally and absolutely false. I am in close touch with Andrey via e-mail and phone, so here are the facts.

One can figure name cluster probabilities in a number of ways and one decision one makes is whether or not to assign any special value of “rarity” to a name. Thus we might have 25% of Jewish women in the 1st century with a form of the name Mary, either in Greek or Aramaic (see Tal Ilan’s listings), but then individual forms of that name, such as Maria, Mariamme, or Mariamne, occur less frequently. Feuerverger did decide to assign certain rarity factors in some cases. These are mathematical decisions, based on the name frequencies, not on identification with any historical figure. Thus he has a rarity factor for the name on the ossuary Mariamenou [he] Mara, but in doing so he is not assuming, in assigning that number, that this is in fact Mary Magdalene. That is what was implied on the Koppel show and it is incorrect. Once one gets the numbers one can then go to the next step, which he chooses to do in his paper, and ask, are these names appropriate or highly appropriate for this or that person, thus Mariamenon for Mary Magdalene, or Jose for Joses the brother of Jesus? This is a second step and that step of course depends on what he is told by the historians who work on the texts. Feuerverger does not assume the identifications or the relationships that might be finally proposed in his numbers, i.e., Jose is the brother, Mary Magdalene is the mother of Jude son of Jesus, wife of Jesus, etc. This has been one of the most widely misrepresented points in this whole discussion.

In the meantime, on the numbers and statistics, one of my own consultants, David, who works in mathematical models and design, tells me this about clusters of names today. Here he is talking about his own family:

Based on very accurate date from the Social Security Administration, we have the probability of F, my dad is 0.4756%, A, my mom is 0.8419%, David, is 3.8751%, P, my wife is 1.544%, D(not David), my son is 1.7303%, and J my son is 0.7071%. The probability you’d find a family plot of six people with our distribution names is 1 in 341,116,556,446. This is the cluster of names alone, without any relationships specified. I objected to him that it sounded too high when he sent this to me I even thought it might be a typo, but the math actually works.

If one added a last name then forget it; the numbers go through the stratosphere. People don’t realize how unique sets of even common names are when it comes to simple probabilities. The lottery is another good example, look at what the odds are for a peculiar five or six number sequence, with millions playing for weeks and not getting the right combination of five slots. The Social Security Web site is available for anyone to type in a given name, date of birth, and figure out percentages of those born with that name in that year. Given the frequency one can then compute the probability of clusters by simple math. Size of graveyard/family plot, city, or area does not matter in terms of the averages. And it would not matter if a aunt named Lucy of whom we had no record was included in the plot or not. Or a Sally Sue for that matter. I am quite sure my name James, my wife L, my son S, and my daughter E, do not occur in that cluster anywhere in Charlotte metro area, with 3 million people. But the names are common. And if you put in my “real” name, which is rare for a birth name, Jimmy, then there is not even a chance. The name James was # 1 in 1946, the year I was born, but Jimmy was #42, an enormous difference. For example, just taking the data from the site above notice the following:

Mary is 5.4891%, but Maria is 0.2187% in a given year.

Taking the calculations for Robert and Mary (the two most popular names that year) we have:

P(Robert) x p(Mary) = (0.054018) x (0.054891) = 0.002965102038

Probability of finding a grave with these two names associated is roughly 1 in 337.

But if you take the more rare Maria: P(Robert) x p(Maria) = (0.054018) x (0.002187) = 0.000118137366

The probability becomes 1 in 8, 464.

Jerusalem ossuary burials are a great sample because they are limited to place and time but we have, both from the ossuaries, and the general onomastics of Palestine, good percentages on the name frequencies. It does not matter how many burials are in the Talpiot tomb, whether 35 or more. The problem is that we only had 6 names, not 20 or 35. To exaggerate the flawed logic, let’s assume that the tomb was even larger – let’s say 50, or 100, or 1,000, or even 50,000. Of course, in a tomb of 50,000 ossuaries (i.e. all of Jerusalem’s dead are in that tomb), we would almost certainly expect to find the names of all of Jesus’ family. Thus, taking an arbitrary tomb size and saying that those names are expected to be found there according to a certain probability is flawed thinking. The problem is that we only had 6 names, not 20 or 35. The Talpiot tomb was not typical, in that 6 of the ten ossuaries (or nine?) were inscribed (60%). Thus, if there were 35 ossuaries in the tomb, on average only 7 (0.2 x 35) would have names inscribed on them. If there were 20 ossuaries in the tomb, only 4 would be inscribed. Thus, even if you were to accept the argument that there were more burials (and that is not entirely clear given where the bones were found according to Gath’s notes) you would still only be able to work with 4 or 7 names in each tomb, which more or less brings it back to the number that we have been using all along, rendering the argument meaningless.

The names that were found are the sample size. They are not part of an arbitrary larger list of names in which they just happen to be found. Another way of looking at this is the following: First, assume that there were 35 inscriptions found in a tomb. Then what is the chance that out of these 35 names, just the names of Jesus’ family happened to be found together in the tomb and all the rest are subsequently unaccounted for? There would have to be an explanation pertaining to why only these were specifically selected to remain in the tomb, while the rest were removed, implying some sort of deliberate manipulation. This lies outside the realm of statistics, and points to the flawed nature of the argument from a statistical point of view.

We learned a few years ago from Camil Fuchs, Prof. of Statistics at Tel Aviv University, and others, regarding the James ossuary, that the most simple relationship cluster such as: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” goes against all our intuition, thus, notice, as recently calculated by John Koopmans, a demographer in Ontario, based on Tal Ilan’s data for ratios:

Joseph 231 or 1 in 8.0
Joshua 103 or 1 in 17.9
Jacob 45 or 1 in 40.9

No special rarity value is added to any form of these names, such as Yeshua rather than Yehoshua, or the unusual spelling of Joseph on the ossuary. This could be done but to keep things simple and make a point:

Thus assuming a family of six as a model (and you could change the size, it doesn’t matter):

1. The probability of the name “Joseph” (Yehosef or Jose) occurring is 1 in 8.0;
2. The probability of the name “Jesus” (Joshua) occurring is 1 in 17.9;
3. The probability of the name “James” (Jacob) occurring is 1 in 40.9;
4. The probability of the father-son family relationship between Joseph and James is 1 in 3.0 (either could be father, both could be brothers); and
5. The probability of the brother relationship between James and Jesus (assuming Joseph is the father of at least one) is 1 in 2.0 (Jesus could have been brother or son of James).

By assuming that Joseph will not have two sons with the same name, but could have a son with his own name, the following are the revised probabilities:

1. The probability of the name “Joseph” (Yehosef or Jose) occurring is in 8.0;
2. The probability of the name “James” (Jacob) occurring is 1 in 40.9;
3. The probability of the name “Jesus” (Joshua) occurring is 1 in 17.4;
4. The probability of the father-son family relationship between Joseph and James is 1 in 3.0; and
5. The probability of the brother relationship between James and Jesus (assuming Joseph is the father of at least one) is 1 in 2.

Thus, the probability of a man with the name Joseph having a son with the name James, who is the brother of a man named Jesus is:

1/8.0 x 1/40.9 x 1/17.4 x 1/3 x 1/2 = 1/34,160 families

Therefore, out of 34,160 families (a population of 204,960), this particular combination of names and relationships would occur only once. However, in Jerusalem at the time, this is approximately 4 times the assumed number of families in Jerusalem at the time (50,000). Thus, statistically, the likelihood that this combination of names within a family was unique, is more than certain.

Stephen Pfann and others have made the point that in looking at ossuaries in the Israel State collection we find that 16 of the 72 personal names account for 75% of the inscribed names. The top male names are Simon, Joseph, and Judah, and the top female are Mary, Salome, and Martha, but the frequency ratios in this subset, i.e., the ossuaries found, are amazingly consistent with the much broader base that Tal Ilan has compiled. The rareness of the “cluster” remains, mathematically speaking, as with James/Jesus/Joseph here, or at Talpiot: Jesus son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Jose/Joseph, Matthew, and Jude son of Joseph. In all of the figures I have asked to be run I have used the common generic names, not the special rare forms (Yose, Mariamenon) in order to be as conservative as possible.

I mention the James ossuary here, not because it has been demonstrated to have come from the Talpiot tomb, that remains unsettled, but I want to make the point that something as simple as that single individual, with those “common” names, is counter-intuitively rare. So, if the inscription is genuine, then we undoubtedly do have the brother of Jesus of Nazareth, but even without the (genine) James ossuary added, the cluster is still very rare–and it goes through the roof if one assigns higher probability values to the special names.

The question to be addressed then, once the statistical probabilities of the cluster are shown to be sufficiently unique, is to ask, as a hypothesis, do these names, in the form they come to us, and the relationships known, offer a “fit” with anything we know of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. More on that shortly.

The past ten days we have heard dozens of biblical scholars, archaeologists, and historians weigh in with opinions on statistics to the press, stating repeatedly, “Interesting, yes, but those names are extremely common, so this tomb means nothing. There would be lots of graves in Jerusalem from this time with these precise names.” I am not sure if such spokespersons intend such statements to be taken as just personal opinion, or whether they are offered as an academic contribution outside one’s field of expertise. Maybe we need “peer review” for statements made in interviews outside of ones field. What I have done is consult with the statisticians as I surely do not think that I have the expertise to speak on this from my training as an historian. I like Shimon Gibson’s answer when he was asked about the names, even with his years of experience and his survey of hundreds of tombs in the Jerusalem area–”I don’t know, they seem somewhat common, but as to the significance of the cluster you would need to consult with a statistician.”

The statisticians with whom I am working are in touch with several others who have proposed alternative models, and I hope that from those exchanges more clarity will emerge over the next week or so on this subject.

I have been working on a long and detailed post about the issue most often raised the past ten days from the academic community regarding the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” film–that is, the matter of Peer Review. I have received the most blistering, even insulting e-mails, thankfully from only a handful of scholars, chastising me for participating in this project that was not properly “peer reviewed.” I should add that I have also had many more private messages from academic colleagues around the world who have quite another view, many of whom choose to remain silent for now, probably thinking they should not write and speak about the Talpiot tomb based on a week or so of press reports and Blogging wildfire.

I was quite pleased to see today that Professor Mark Goodacre of Duke University posted on this very topic on his most influential and respected site: NT Gateway Weblog: Peer Review and the Tomb. Mark and I have neither spoken nor consulted in any way on matters related to the “Tomb” subject, though I know we have kept up closely with one anothers posts. Mark shares some of the perspectives I plan to discuss in my own more extensive post on the subject that I hope to have up by the weekend. In the meantime I highly recommend Prof. Goodacre’s considered and thoughtful post.

Not to be flattering here but Prof. Goodacre’s input into the Talpiot tomb discussion has been a model of “sanity” and reasonableness in the BiblioBlogging world. He has also carried posts, comments, and links to a group of scholars who have contributed balanced and informative input to the discussion, such as Richard Bauckham, Jack Poirer, and Stephan Goranson. I commend him for his high standards of respectful exchange and dialogue when the level of slander, personal rudeness, and incorrect information has filled the Web and printed page to an overflow.

I do not like to get into personal diatribes on this Blog. It is the nature of the Blogging world it seems that a hot and controversial topic elicits such a storm of confusing responses, and depending on the topic, personal attacks and other unpleasantries. I find it is best to ignore such things and stay with substantive material. I also find it personally unpleasant. But let me speak frankly and plainly here.

I think there are times when one must make exceptions and this is one of those times. My friend Joe Zias, for whom I have great personal regard and a long and warm association, has badly misstated and misrepresented several things about me personally that are now being widely and gleefully circulated in the all-too-triumphant circles of the evangelical Christian Blog world. The subject is, of course, the Talpiot tomb.

Zias is telling the press and anyone else who will listen that he told me plainly when I asked him about the missing 10th ossuary from the Talpiot tomb (IAA 80.509) that it was put in the open courtyard behind the Rockefeller. He is further quoted as saying now that he remembers it, and that he personally received the ossuaries, catalogued them, and since there was not room for them all, and this one was very “plain” (no decorations) it was stacked outside. He then goes on to charge that knowing that I have deliberately chosen to ignore what he told me and gone about my merry way, presumably out for a fast buck.

This account false as well as slanderous. Fortunately I have good notes. I met Joe Zias at the cafe on Kibbutz Suba for coffee last summer, June 30, 2006. He had read my book, The Jesus Dynasty, which I had given him in March, and he told me with concern that he felt I was fast and loose with a lot of the archaeology in that book, and that colleagues were saying it was really substandard in quality. We discussed some of the specifics and I tried to clarify my own perspectives. On the matter of Talpiot and the James ossuary, Joe believes it is a forgery and now, in contrast to 1996, he thinks that the Talpiot tomb and its cluster of names is insignificant, so there was little chance we could agree on those matters. I then asked him–”but Joe, what about the missing 10th ossuary? What can you tell me, what do you know?” He said he had no idea what might have happened to it but it was possible, in those days, that it was put back in the courtyard and just left and forgotten. He also suggested it might have just been misplaced in the IAA warehouse and gave me examples of other things that had just gone missing, or were just misshelved and could not be found. He did not tell me, as he now says, oh yea, I remember that, I put it out in the courtyard. He said quite the opposite, that he had no specific recollection of these ossuaries or this tomb and that in the early 80s dozens were coming in and no one could keep up with them. I still have the notes I took that morning in a page inside my book.

We also discussed what happened to the bones and whether they were buried and he said he was not sure, but he would check his records. In those days Joe was known as the “bone man.” He later told me, after checking, that he did not think he was the one who got them and he suggested another person whose name I will not mention here. I asked him if he thought they might still be around and he said very possibly. Since Joe did not do the bone evaluation one might now ask, and no one has asked, how were Kloner’s numbers determined in his report, i.e., that the number of interments in the tomb may be estimated at 35, with 17 in the ossuaries and 18 outside. Some anthropologist would have to make that determination. Maybe we can learn who that was and we will all know more. As Joe had told me many times, it takes a trained eye to go through piles of bones and figure out individuals, as he has done at Masada for Cave 2000 and totally revised the initial figures reported. So you see, there are things being misstated and also things we don’t know. I feel it best to remain silent on things I don’t know. But I do know what Joe said to me on that Friday morning and I think he does as well.

I do not know whether the missing 10th ossuary from Talpiot is the same as the one acquired by Oded Golan, the so-called “James ossuary.” I have spent three years gathering every bit of evidence I can find on the matter and I did not form my views on Monday after watching a press conference. I do know facts about the matter that I have not yet made public, and after consulting with the proper people who are involved, which I am doing, I will speak. I have, in the meantime, spoken privately to several trusted and respected academic colleagues, who do not share my views on Talpiot, for counsel in how to proceed with this. If it turns out to be the case that the James ossuary does come from the Talpiot tomb, even with the words “James son of Joseph,” I think we can all agree this is important evidence. It would be a worst nightmare for some, so maybe that is why the emotions run so high. I think slandering someone, accusing them of pimping or wanting to make a fast buck, gets us nowhere. I have conducted all my research using the highest standards, I have conducted myself honorably even to those who have slandered me. In time this will all come out. But in the meantime I would say the rumors of the “sinking” of the Talpiot ship are greatly exaggerated. I am this week preparing a formal paper that will offer my own critical evaluation of the evidence. I did not make the “Lost Tomb of Jesus Film” nor determine how it would be presented, nor do I have any official connection with the film or Jacobovici’s book. Since I think the basic thesis it presents is plausible, I support it for what it is in the genre it belongs, a popular documentary made for TV. And I also admire Simcha who facilitated, after 26 years of little to no attention whatsoever, just what Zias called for in 1996–further investigation of these ossuaries by experts in onomastics, epigraphy, DNA, patina properties, statistics, and biblical and historical studies. And besides that, he located the tomb, so it can now be examined more carefully than time allowed in March, 1980. Simcha’s book offers much more than the film and on the whole I think it is a fascinating narrative of his investigation. I also have high regard for Simcha Jacobovici as an Emmy award winning filmmaker, not to mention James Cameron, both of whom I have come to know, like, and respect as professionals and as human beings.

You know, life is full of ironies, but there is one ironic twist to the story that some might have missed. Joe Zias, back in 1996 when the ossuaries surfaced, was the lone voice in the wilderness claiming that the cluster of names was significant and needed to be further investigated. The rest of those who commented, as far as I know, dismissed the whole thing as they do today, with the mantra, “the names are common.” Joe also went on to speculate, in the BBC documentary, when asked about the implications of Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married, that we should not judge by later Christian tradition, since in the Jewish context such things were normal. He was specifically commenting on why having a “Jude son of Jesus” ossuary in a tomb with a “Jesus son of Jospeh” should not surprise one nor necessarily discount this as a tomb belonging to Jesus of Nazareth. So, as fate would have it, it was really Joe who set me on my own study of Talpiot. I trusted his judgment that these names, from a controlled archaeological site, could not be so dismissed. And I still think he was right. Isn’t life strange?

P.S. I might also mention that Joe was interviewed by the BBC crew for the 1996 film that dealt with the Talpiot tomb so there is a record of what he said that he knew from over a decade ago. I have also talked to Ray Bruce, the producer of the film, who interviewed both Kloner and Zias on the day they were “revealed” and what they both said at that time about their knowledge of this tomb and these ossuaries. The story needs to come out, but this is not the place for it. The real hero in all this is that film crew, that noticed what everyone else had missed. I am not interested in personalities or refuting anyone’s recollections but I am interested in the facts and I think I have them in this regard. I have also have a statement from Shimon Gibson, completely separate from what Joe told me, as to what he knew and remembered about the Talpiot ossuaries. For now I will hold these private and stick with what I know directly.

I was just listening to Dr. Eric Meyers of Duke University on the Diane Rehm Show on NPR and he had his copy of Tal Ilan’s Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity with him and he was saying to Simcha Jasobovici that he was wrong about the name “Yose” only being found one time in Aramaic on an ossuary, namely from the one in the Talpiot tomb. He cited another instance that Tal Ilan lists as a Yose (Yod, Vav, Samech, Heh) on the Mt. of Offense (p. 154, # 118). He was also making the point that scholars have not ignored the Talpiot tomb in the past (other than Kloner in 1996), because it was included in the comprehensive catalogue of Tal Ilan for all to see (published by the way in 2002).

The problem is the second example Prof. Meyers cited, supposedly from a tomb on the Mt. of Offense, is in fact not from the Mt. of Offense at all, it is the very Talpiot ossuary under discussion. I have pointed this out privately to Tal Ilan, and I noticed it two years ago, and made all the corrections in my copy of the book, but now that all these things are in the public it can be very confusing if anyone wants to do a bit of research, which many want to do. It also shows that scholars of the stature of Dr. Meyers have not focused much on these ossuaries until now, and that is certainly no criticism, but, as Dr. Meyers pointed out, Simcha’s film/book has now caused all of us to take a second look, so maybe the results can be good if people can calm down.

Anway, note the following:

Here are the six ossuaries from Talpiot as listed in Tal Ilan:
1. Yose (p. 154, # 118) is listed as Mt. of Offence, Gath, 1981 when it should be Talpiot, Gath, 1980.

2. Yeshua father of Judah & son of Joseph, actually two ossuaries, (p. 127, # 51) are also listed as Mt. of Offence, Gath, 1981, should be Talpiot, Gath, 1980.

3. Mariamenon/Mara (p. 244, # 52) is listed as Mt. of Offence, Gath, 1980, and should be Talpiot, Gath, 1980. I am not sure Mara is included, see p. 422-423).

4. Yehosef, father of Yeshua (p. 153, #117) is listed Mt. of Offence, Gath, 1981 should be Talpiot, Gath, 1980.

5. Matyah (p. 192, #38) is listed as Mt. of Offence, Gath, 1981, should be Talpiot, Gath, 1980.

How the designation of “Mt. of Offense” was put in for “east Talpiot,” and the dates mixed about I am not sure but Joan Taylor has most helpfully pointed out, as she often does from her wealth of knowledge, that in older publications, before the Gath excavation in 1980, “Mt. of Offense” was the term used for excavations in the area later known as Talpiot. So, for example, Clermont Ganneau’s 30 ossuaries were called “Mount of Offense,” (Bat’n el-Hawa, see C-G in RA 1883. 257-268 and his Archaeolgical Researches i (1899), 381-412, but then Sukenik wrote about them as being from Talpiot when re-found in Sept. 1945 on the Bethlehem road, publ. ‘The Earliest Records of Christianity’ AJA 51, 1947, 351-65. Whether this has anything to do with the confusion I am not sure but we all surely agree that Tal Ilan deserves all possible credit for what she has done for us all.

The aspect of the Talpiot tomb controversy raised by the Cameron/Jacobovici film that troubles me most is the sense I get, out on the Web and in the press, of an almost desperate need to debunk. I would surely expect this from the evangelical Christian side of things. As Daryl Bock made clear in the Koppel interview, for Christian faith as he understands it, it simply could not be the case that this tomb is related to Jesus of Nazareth and his family. So, there is no choice but to refute with great aplomb.

One might expect such prejudgment would not be the case among those of a more historical and “neutral” stance, whether Christian, Jewish, or secular, and yet we do indeed have academics weighing in with assurance on a subject many only began to think about a week ago. And further, it appears to me, and I could be wrong, that there is some of the same passion at work in many who are solidly within the mainstream academic world.

The Talpiot tomb, is, after all, by definition, “a Jesus family tomb.” The question is, which Jesus? And Jesus of Nazareth did die, and was buried, and his flesh did decompose and his bones were left. I do not think it likely, as some have argued, that the Jesus/James movement would have discarded their leader in a common grave. It just does not fit anything we know of messianic apocalyptic groups and the way they revere their Rebbe/Master, and in this case, their Messiah. The supposition seems to be that this Yeshua bar Yehosef, the only one ever found in a controlled archaeological context, could not possibly be the Jesus we know and the sooner we can show it the better. No matter how much one plays with statistical theory just looking through the catalogue of 897 ossuaries in Rahmani, and noticing the clusters of names, in tomb after tomb, one realizes the Talpiot combination of names as related to what we know of the Jesus family, does indeed stand out. And yet, the approach so many have taken seems to be one of refutation rather than exploratory consideration, so that battle lines are drawn and ugly and dismissive exchanges or declarations prevail. I can not remember a time when there has been more scurrying about to hastily put together “evidence” to counter a position. One senses a sense of “celebration” among those who are confident that any possible association of Jesus with this site has been eliminated, sigh, thank God. I do indeed think there is more going on here than a commitment to what is pitched as “responsible scholarship” and “peer review,” something we are surely all for. I recall the wise words of Prof. Michael Stone when I first laid out for him the case I saw in support of the possible identification of this site with Jesus:

The difficulty with this proposal of yours is that it relates to Jesus. The potential significance of this find, therefore, for the Christian faith means that it will evoke some responses far more extreme and passionate than if you were making a proposal about some other family, of no foundational significance for one of the world’s great faiths, and a different figure of no particular religious significance.

This said, all that we scholars can do is to carry out our work as professionally as possible, trying to avoid the sensationalism that will inevitably follow the publication of your conclusions. I can say this, that what I have heard from you as well as the research reports I have read seem to me worthy of serious consideration. I don’t know if what you say is right.. it is incumbent on experts the various fields of learning involved to approach the evidence impartially and to do their best to draw balanced and honest conclusions from it.

To dismiss it out of hand is unjustified.

I do indeed think that something of this is at work, even among some academics who have spoken out in such great haste. Rather than test a hypothesis, which means to see if it might fit the facts we can know, there is an almost cheerleading spirit of debunking and dismissal. I realize many feel a duty to take a stand against the media hype and “packaging” of the Discovery TV and HarperSanFrancisco presentation of the evidence (see this weeks article in Time by David Van Biema). The cries for “peer review” seem ubiquitous among my colleagues, and in principle no academic could disagree. But then I have to think, the tomb was not published until 1996, sixteen years after it was opened, then for another decade, no one in the academy showed any interest in doing any kind of research related to the site. Then, as now, the names were dismissed as “common,” case closed. I can not fault Jacobovici for acting as a facilitator in locating the tomb once again, commissioning statistical studies from one of the foremost statisticians in the world, conducting DNA tests on the ossuaries that seemed to have enough residue for testing, consulting with epigraphers and onomastic experts, and attempting to piece together a coherent interpretation of the names in this tomb in consultation with biblical scholars and historians. It seems to me that his role as a catalyst has been a good one.

But one has to wonder if even for a moment, late at night, in the recess of the mind, if the thought is allowed to emerge–what if? Whether the chances are 600 to one in favor, or fifty-fifty. Even fifty-fifty is really not something to dismiss out of hand. What if this Yeshua bar Yehosef, the only example ever found in a controlled archaeological site, is in fact Jesus of Nazareth. I am not thinking here of consequences, what it would mean for theology or in the world, but what if, in terms of open and positive consideration. It well might be that if scholars put as much energy into further research as on refutation the results would be more valuable.

I also think that the common people might well have a different take on this. Not because they are gullible and ignorantly susceptable to a media pitch, but because they have good instincts about those who protest too much, declaring this a “five day story” of no consequence.

I am working on a more formal presentation of my own views of this tomb and will make those available soon, even this week. I have worked on this for over three years and I am preparing a paper titled: “Is there a Case for “The Jesus Family Tomb?” which will offer a preliminary sketch of what I have determined. I look forward to that good ole “peer review” and I am sure I won’t have long to wait, probably in some cases about an hour after I begin to circulate my paper. We have some folks out there that are loaded and cocked, that’s for sure. Later this year Shimon Gibson and I plan to publish a more formal technical article, or even short monograph, on the site.

I normally do not like to focus my comments on this Blog on individuals and their views. However, I did want to say something this morning that picks up on Ben Witherington’s Blog, as well as statements he has also made in today’s edition of our local paper, The Charlotte Observer, about the “Jesus Tomb” and about me personally. I am not so interested in Ben per se, but what he reflects in terms of what I consider to be a questionable but ubiquitous approach toward evaluating the evidence related to the Talpiot tomb and its ossuaries.

If one looks around the Web a bit it is clear that Witherington has become the St. George of what he considers a great battle for Christian orthodoxy. He has gone out and in less than a week, slain the dragon before it even got out of its cave, or “sunk the Titanic” before it even set sail, to use his own metaphor. Countless evangelical Christian posts on the Web refer to the ways in which Ben has been able to ably refute all possible evidence that this tomb held the ossuary of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. It is clear that in Ben countless thousands have found a champion. In fact Ben himself writes that we can all relax now, there is not threat to faith, it was all hype and much ado about nothing and Easter can go on as usual.

He also has advice for me that he has delivered both privately and publicly. Today he is quoted in our paper saying, “James needs to distance himself from this just as rapidly as he possibly can.” I find this really bizarre. First, Ben and others who share his approach are not objectively examining evidence, but they are engaged in apologetic refutation. After all, this tomb could not have the ossuary of Jesus because Jesus ascended to heaven, bones, flesh, organs, and all. Ben has also told me that he believes the Shroud of Turin is likely authentic and that blood tests have shown, amazingly, blood without both x and y chromosomes and yet still a man’s blood, showing that Jesus had no human parent. He also says on his Blog that he has witnessed a genuine case of a man being raised from the dead. My intent is not to poke fun at Ben here, but just to say that he and many others who follow his points with celebration, share presuppositions that make objective historical inquiry a moot point. All results are determined before the investigation. But beyond that, there is a tone and style that Ben and others have adopted that has little to do with dispassionate and objective scholarly exchange. It is characterized by debate and defamation, much like one hears on TV between political rivals, or even on negative adds. For example, Ben writes that I have “flip-flopped” on my previous position that Jesus’ father was Pantira, since I now read on the ossuary “Jesus son of Joseph.” Which is it he asks? Ben knows well that I never say Pantira was the father, but I survey the various views, virgin birth, Pantira, and Joseph, discussing each, and in the end I say explicitly that in filling out Jesus’ birth certificate one would have to write “father unknown.” I mention this just as one example of the flavor of a debate and a discussion in which I have no interest.

Ben is not alone of course. Ed Cook writes that refuting this wacky theory of the tomb is “fun” and likens it to shooting fish in a barrel. Todd Bolen runs a poll in which he lists scholars, “Christian” and “non-Christian” who are “for” the Jesus tomb idea, and of course he comes up with me as the one “scholar” on the planet that has anything positive to say in favor of the tomb’s identification with Jesus of Nazareth. Strangely, I get listed as “non-Christian.” In fact there are quite a few scholars who have told me they lean positively toward this identification but they have chosen not to express their views based on two or three days of news reports. I will leave it to them to speak when they wish, but several, such as Crossan and Charlesworth, have given positive comments “on the record.”

Fortunately there are some alternative and saner voices out on the Web. Mark Goodacre is always trustworthy, civil, and balanced in his discussions, as is James Davila. Richard Bauckham has provided a very helpful preliminary study on the names on the ossuaries. Stephan Goranson has begun to apply his admirably keen sense of historical judgment and scrutiny to the matter. Before and after the Koppel taping I was able to talk face to face with Bill Dever, Jonathan Reed, and Darryl Bock, and though they seem quite opposed initially to the film and book, I have no doubt in time, as they consider more of the evidence, that they will see why some of us consider it credible.

I had no part in the production of the film, nor the choices Discovery made for its release. I do appear in the film, as do quite a few others, as a commentator in areas I consider myself able to judge. I have been involved for over three years in an intense investigation of this tomb and have been able to talk to all the principal people involved, to gather all the available data of which I am aware, including the original IAA excavation files of Joseph Gath. I am confident that in time, as with the initial flurry of publicity over the Dead Sea Scrolls (remember Wilson’s articles in The New Yorker), the evidence will be sifted and evaluated with scholarly methods devoid of both hidden and explicit theological agendas. I look forward to that time and may it be soon and in our day.

I have had a front row side-line seat for the past seven days on the news, commentary, and Blogs regarding the Talpiot tomb and the claim that it can be identified with Jesus of Nazareth and his family. Over 5000 e-mails, dozens of interiews, a couple of death threats, and my own communications with colleagues, has helped me to take the pulse on this story. I wanted to make a few observations from this vantage point.

The hostile, often ugly (even antisemitic), and hysterical reactions of the fundamentalist Christian community was of course no surprise. After all, if one believes the corpse of Jesus came alive and that he ascended to heaven, bones, flesh, inner organs, and all, with no body left behind, then finding his tomb is surely a problem. Then there is the issue of Jesus being married and having a child. From my own reading of theology I do not think that these, or for that matter any other historical findings, are a fundamental threat to Christianity. In every religion so much has to do with interpretation of language, and surely there are ways of affirming such things in a less literalistic and perhaps more significant way. Also, Paul, our earliest witness to resurrection, speaks of a “physical body” and a “spiritual body,” and though it is a body, he clearly presents both the resurrection of Jesus and the future resurrection of the dead at the end of the age, as putting off the flesh like a garment and being transformed into a higher spirit life. I hold none of these views myself but the point I am making here is that I understand why people are upset but wonder, should the evidence end up turning more toward this being Jesus’ tomb, whether it might be a good thing–even for faith?

In contrast, the evangelical Christian academic community has also reacted quite negatively, but with some notable exceptions, the tone of that discussion has been civil and enlightening. The BiblioBlog world has been quite busy to the point one can not keep up with it all. What bothers me however, within these circles, is the unstated operative assumption that Jesus’ ossuary can not be found, by definition, so that what we really have in the end is not an open examination of the evidence but an apologetic attempt to destroy a thesis no matter what. There is nothing wrong with critical probes, that is what scholarship is all about, but one does have to be open to where evidence might lead, and I fear that with the matter of the Jesus tomb, such is not the case. The “end” or result is determined beforehand and is absolutely set. One begins to wonder, are we having an open discussion of evidence or are we conducting a holy battle against the “unbelievers”? I have seen quite a few stories and Blogs today that triumphantly declare that the case for the “Tomb of Jesus” is dead before it even set sail, with all the obvious “It’s Greek to me” kind of trite quips (you know, the “sinking the Titanic lines). In some cases there is an almost breathless glee, and a sign of relief, at the latest “report” out in the Blogosphere. Just today, in about ten minutes, I learned the following:

The dimensions of the 10th ossuary do not match that of James ossuary!

The ossuary in question actually has the name of a guy named “Hanun,” not Jesus!

A “smoking gun,” has been found, the 10th missing ossuary is in the yard behind the Rockefeller!

No responsible academic (thank you) supports this case of Talpiot being the Jesus tomb!

The stats are flawed! The patina tests are bogus!

Jesus followers were poor and they would have just buried him in a ditch!

One concerned colleague wrote that he feared I was ruining my reputation. Another wrote in a Blog that my credibility was taking some major hits. But why would one’s credibility be effected by honestly pursuing evidence? I have researched the Talpiot tomb for three years, consulting with those who were there, gathering all the original files from the IAA, and I have followed the facts wherever they lead me. If we were dealing with a tomb containing the ossuary of Gamaliel and his family it is obvious to me that there would be an entirely different tone to the exchanges. I understand that, but still, it does say something important about how evidence is being examined.

My academic colleagues have mostly remained silent, or chosen to communicate privately with me, mostly positively and in an encouraging way. There are exceptions. I have been amazed at the few who are prepared to give interviews on the Talpiot tomb to the press, denouncing the whole thing as a sham, without having examined any of the evidence whatsoever, and even getting some of the most basic facts wrong. In fact, I know for certain that some of the more vociferous commentators on this subject have based what they said on press reports and what they have been able to pick up since Monday. That is not a lot of lead time for something that has taken some of us three years to sort through. The charge that the Talpiot tomb case should have been “peer reviewed” first is one I want to address in a separate post, but keep in mind that basic information on the tomb was available to scholars since 1996 with Kloner’s report and the almost universal reaction was “the names are common.” It was universally declared that the site it was not worthy of further study, even though it was the only provenanced example of this cluster of names ever found, including the ossuary inscribed “Yeshua bar Yehosef.” Also, so many of the comments I have seen or heard hardly reflect a high standard of peer review, since they are mainly ad hominem reactions. It seems we have a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. If I can go on national TV and talk about something I learned two or three days ago from the press that hardly seems to reflect any commitment to serious peer review or in depth research.

Finally, the thing that has disappointed me the most are the cuttingly hostile remarks and personal slander directed against James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici. Cameron is an incredibly gifted and brilliant human being whose accomplishments, honor, and good character are unquestionable. Simcha’s record of Emmy award winning films speaks for itself, and the titles show a lifetime of dedication to shedding light on important issues. If we don’t like the film or decide its basic story thread is flawed that is one thing, but the personal slander is quite another and I think it is unethical. Cameron and Jacobovici do not deserve to be trashed in this way for faciliatating an investigation that involved so many disparate areas of expertise, locating the tomb so it can be further studied, initiating the DNA tests and the patina tests, commissioning the statistical studies, consulting with the most renowned epigraphers and prosopographers. And such would be the case even if one did not finally agree with their interpretation. After all, are there any interpretations within the entire field of Christian Origins with which everyone agrees. Again, I say it is more the “heat” factor at work here, the proverbial “raw nerve.”

What I hope is that we can all watch the program on Sunday night and maybe things can then calm down and we can have an open and extended discussion of its main theses on a level of great light and less heat.