Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor

I fly to Jerusalem tomorrow for some preliminary excavation work on Mt. Zion (see http:digmountzion.com) with Dr. Shimon Gibson and a team of our students and staff. I will be posting some things next week about our work in that area and what it tells us about Herodian Jerualem and the last days of Jesus.

I am working on what I hope will become some significant new insights on the accounts of the “empty tomb” in our four New Testament Gospels, as well as the Gospel of Peter. In thinking through these materials in the light of the Talpiot tomb several “lights” have gone on in my thinking. I have studied and pondered the “resurrection” accounts for several decades but what I am going to suggest, as far as I know, has not been proposed before.

The French version of my book, just released and titled, La véritable histoire de Jésus is drawing quite a bit of attention in France, as is the subject of the Talpiot tomb. Despite the “modest” title, which I as an author have no say in, the French translation was done by the imcomparable Bernard Cohen and probably reads better than the original English now that it is in French. He did such a masterful job. I am reading the book in French with great pleasure and it is strange to encounter it in a way that puts distance between me as the author and the expression of my basic ideas in such a lovely language.

More later, from Jerusalem…

The first time the Talpiot “Jesus” tomb received any public attention was sixteen years after its excavation when a BBC produced documentary titled “The Body in Question” aired in the UK on Easter 1996. The London Sunday Times ran a feature story titled “The Tomb that Dare Not Speak Its Name,” based on that documentary. Both the documentary and the newspaper article called attention to the interesting cluster of names inscribed on six ossuaries found in the tomb: Jesus son of Joseph, two Marys, a Joseph, a Matthew, and a Jude son of Jesus. A flurry of wire stories followed with headlines that the “tomb of Jesus” had perhaps been found. Archaeologists, officials from the Israel Antiquities Authority, and biblical scholars quickly weighed in, assuring the public that “the names were common.” One lone voice, Joe Zias, an anthropologist with the IAA at the Rockefeller at that time, demurred, stating that the cluster of names considered together was so significant that had he not known they were from a provenanced IAA excavation he would have been certain they were forged. Zias called for further investigation. Within a short time the press dropped the story and no one in the academy other than Zias saw any reason for more to be done. It was in response to that 1996 story, and the attention that it drew, that Amir Drori, director of the IAA, asked Amos Kloner to write up an official report on the tomb, published later that year in ‘Atiquot (this and other original sources available for download at the Discovery Web site)

The current 2007 discussion of the tomb, also prompted by a TV documentary, though heated and passionate in some quarters, has also prompted a few academic responses, though most all who have written on the subject have found the evidence lacking for identifying this particular “Jesus” tomb with that of the historical Jesus of Nazareth and his family, and most consider the hypothesis overly speculative or even academically irresponsible.

My view is quite the opposite. I am convinced that there is a surprisingly close fit between what we might postulate as a hypothetical pre-70 CE Jesus family tomb based on our textual records, and this particular tomb with its contents. Rather than starting with the tomb and its six inscribed ossuaries, and exploring all the alternative possibilities, which given the scarcity of data, are endless, I take different approach. It is true, for example, that a name like Yose, appearing alone without patronym, could be any male of a Jewish clan, whether father, brother, son, nephew, or uncle. But if we begin with our historical records asking a different question—who was the “Yose” in Jesus’ life and is there any reason we might expect him to be in a hypothetical pre-70 CE Jesus tomb?—the answer is specific and singular. Rather than starting with an endlessly open and undetermined set of “unknowns,” my approach, in terms of method, is to begin with the specific “knowns.” Essentially what I want to do is test a hypothesis, something we constantly do when we seek to correlate the material evidence of archaeology within our known textual and chronological “horizons.” It is obvious, no matter what one’s theory might be, that one can always posit other possibilities and alternatives. That is why some can still not agree on whether or not there is a “fit” between the sect described in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the site of Qumran. In terms of method I think what I suggest here can turn out to be quite enlightening and I hope it will contribute to the discussion in a positive way.

What I want to ask here is what one might imagine for a hypothetical, pre-70 CE, Jerusalem tomb of Jesus and his family? Given our textual evidence, what might we reasonably construct in terms of likelihood?

The Second Burial of Jesus
I begin with what we know about the burial of Jesus of Nazareth. Nearly everyone seems to assume that the gospels report that Joseph of Arimathea took the corpse of Jesus and laid it in his own new tomb late Friday night. A group of women, Mary Magdalene and others, followed, noting the location of the tomb. Sunday morning when they visited, to complete the Jewish rites of burial, the tomb was empty. The problem with this assumption is that our best evidence indicates that this tomb, into which Jesus was temporarily placed, did not belong to Joseph of Arimathea. Mark, our earliest account, says the following:

And he [Joseph of Arimathea] bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb” (Mark 15:46).

John’s gospel, reflecting an independent tradition, offers a further explanation:

Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there (John 19:41-42).

Mark does not explain the choice of the tomb, but according to the gospel of John this initial burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea was a temporary, emergency measure, with the Passover Sabbath hours away. It was a burial of necessity and opportunity. This particular tomb was chosen because it was unused and happened to be near. The idea that this tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea makes no sense. What are the chances that he would just happen to have his own new family tomb conveniently located near the Place of the Skull, or Golgotha, where the Romans regularly crucified their victims?

Mark indicates that the intention of those involved was to complete the full and proper rites of Jewish burial after Passover. Given these circumstances, one would expect the body of Jesus to be placed in a second tomb as a permanent resting place. This second tomb would presumably be one that either belonged to, or was provided by, Joseph of Arimathea, who had both the means and the will to honor Jesus and his family in this way. Accordingly, one would not expect the permanent tomb of Jesus, and subsequently his family, to be near Golgotha, but in a rock-hewn tomb elsewhere in Jerusalem. These circumstances also address the issue that some have raised that the Talpiot tomb could not be that of Jesus since he is poor and from Galilee. James, the brother of Jesus, becomes leader of the Jesus movement following Jesus’ death in 30 CE. Our evidence indicates that the movement is headquartered in Jerusalem until 70 CE. The core group of followers, banded around Jesus’ family and the Council of Twelve, took up residence there as well, even though most of them are from Galilee. This evidence points strongly toward the possibility of a Jesus family tomb in Jerusalem, but different from the temporary burial cave into which Jesus’ body was first placed.

A Jesus Family Prosopography
Based on our earliest textual sources I propose the following list of individuals as potential candidates for burial in a hypothetical Jesus family tomb:

There had to be, of course, many other names we simply do not know, with various connections to the Jesus family, but these names and relationships we can at least consider as hypothetically likely. I realize the matter of Jesus having a wife and children is usually seen as unlikely but one has to factor in the nature of our records and the social context in which Jesus lived. None of the wives or children of any apostles or the brothers of Jesus are ever named in the gospels, yet Mark indicates that Peter was married (Mark 1:30), and Paul mentions that the apostles and brothers of Jesus traveled about with their wives (1 Corinthians 9:5). Silence regarding women, in late, post-70 CE, theological sources such as our New Testament gospels, does not imply non-existence. Also, when Paul strongly recommends celibacy as a superior spiritual lifestyle he fails to use Jesus as an example even in a context where he is desperate to refer to him for authority (1 Corinthians 7:8-12).

If we next ask which of these individuals might hypothetically be buried in a pre-70 CE Jesus family tomb in Jerusalem, after the year 30 CE when Jesus was crucified, we come up with a more chronologically restricted list of potential candidates:

Jesus’ father Joseph we would eliminate because he seems to have died decades earlier, probably in Galilee, and we have no record of him in Jerusalem in this period (see Acts 1:14). Jesus’ mother Mary, given her age, could well have died before 70CE, and as a widow, according to Jewish custom, would be put in the tomb of her oldest son. Jesus’ brothers Simon and Jude apparently lived past 70 CE based on our records, so they should be eliminated from our list. Jesus’ brother Joses is a strong candidate since he is the “missing brother” in our historical records. When James is murdered in 62 CE, it is Simon, the third brother, not Joses, the second, who takes over leadership of the movement. The N.T. letters of James and Jude testify to their influence, and we even have an account of the death of Simon by crucifixion, but nothing survives whatsoever regarding the brother Joses. Given the culture it is likely that either of Jesus’ sisters would be married, and thus buried in the tombs of their husbands, so they are not prime first level candidates either. Since we have no textual record of a wife or children we can only say, hypothetically, that if such existed they might be included.

The Talpiot Tomb
There were ten ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb with six of them inscribed. This is an exceptionally high percentage. For example, just taking the sample of ossuaries retained in the Israeli State Collection only about 20% are inscribed, but that percentage is much too high for ossuaries in general, since plain ones are regularly discarded. It is not the case, as has been reported, that the remains of up to 35 additional individuals were found in this tomb. As Kloner makes clear in his article, this is a demographic estimate, not data based on any kind of anthropological study of the Talpiot tomb remains. There were remains of at least two or possibly three individuals—skulls vertebrae, and limb bones—apparently swept from the arcosolia, and found just below on the floor, perhaps by intruders in antiquity. That the bones of these individuals were never gathered and put in ossuaries seems to indicate that the 70 CE destruction of Jerusalem terminated the family use of the tomb. Although it is possible that the bones of more than one individual were placed in the ossuaries, the mitDNA results of the two that could be tested, that of Yeshua and Mariamene, showed clear singular profiles. The Talpiot tomb seems to be a small (2.9 x 2.9 meter), modest, pre-70 CE family burial cave with remains of a dozen or so individuals.

The six inscriptions in the Talpiot tomb show a rather remarkable correspondence to the chronologically restricted hypothetical list of potential candidates we can construct from our textual evidence:
1. Yeshua bar Yehosef (Aramaic)
2. Maria (Aramaic)
3. Yose (Aramaic)
4. Mariemene [also known as] Mara (Greek & decorated)
5. Yehuda bar Yeshua (Aramaic & decorated)
6. Matya (Aramaic)

Yeshua bar Yehosef is an appropriate inscription for Jesus of Nazareth. Its messy informal style, and the lack of honorific titles (“the Messiah,” or “our Lord”) fit what I would expect for his burial in 30 CE. I would also not expect the toponym “of Nazareth” since the use of the terms Nazareth/Nazarene, like the titles, might be more reflective of later theology than contemporary informal usage—especially within the family. The Aramaic form of the nickname Yose (Yod Vav Samech Hey), short for Yehosef/Joseph, is rare in the 2nd Temple period, only found here on an ossuary and two other inscriptional examples. It is equivalent to the later popular spelling of this nickname as Yosey (Yod Vav Samech Yod), found in rabbinic texts from the late 2nd to 3rd century CE. It corresponds to an equally rare form of the name in Greek, namely Yoses or Yose, that occurs only five times in all our sources, literary and inscriptional. This is in fact the precise form of the nickname by which the gospel of Mark, our earliest source, knows Jesus second brother Joseph (Mark 6:3).

There are two “Marys” in this tomb, known by different forms of that name, namely Maria and Mariamene. The mitDNA test indicates the Mariamene in this tomb is not related to Yeshua as mother or sister on the maternal side. That leaves open the likelihood that Maria could well be the mother, especially if we have two of her sons, Yeshua and Yose, in this tomb. It would make sense that she would be buried with her children in this intimate, small, family tomb and that her ossuary would be inscribed Maria.

Given the presence of the named son of Yeshua in this tomb, namely Yehuda/Jude, and based on the mitDNA evidence, it seems quite likely that Mariamene is the mother of this son. The speculation, if this is indeed the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, that she might be Mary Magdalene, is based on a cluster of later evidence.

There were three intimate “Marys” in Jesus’ life, his mother, his sister, and Mary Magdalene. Indeed, it was Mary Magdalene, his mother, and his other sister Salome, that attended to his burial rites (Mark 16:1). Family intimates carried out this important rite of washing and anointing the corpse for burial. If Mariamene is not Jesus’ mother or sister, as the mitDNA indicates, it seems a logical possibility then that she could be that “third” Mary, namely Mary Magdalene, his follower and close companion, based on her inclusion as a named intimate in our earliest records. We don’t know much about Mary Magdalene in our N. T. sources, but she does seem to be a woman of means and she is associated with several other women of standing from Galilee (Luke 8: 1-3). The Mariamene ossuary is decorated and the inscription is in Greek, which surely fits this data, as Migdal, according to the record of Josephus, was a large, thriving, and culturally diverse “Romanized” city with theatre, hippodrome, and a large aqueduct system. Despite alternative proposals (Pfann, et al.) I accept the reading of Rachmani (available for download at Discovery Web site), recently confirmed by Leah Di Segni, that Mariamene is a diminutive or endearing form of the name Mariamne, derived from Mariame, a name that is associated with Mary Magdalene in early Christian tradition (Hippolytus, Acts of Philip, Origen, Greek fragments of the Gospel of Mary). That she is also known by the Aramaic name “Mara,” (the absolute feminine of Mar’) which like “Martha,” (the emphatic feminine) means “lordess,” seems all the more appropriate. Recent scholarship (Schaberg, King, Marjanen, Bovon, Brock) on Mary Magdalene has gone a long way toward rehabilitating her important place in earliest history of the Jesus movement. In a diverse collection of early Christian sources dating from the late 1st century through the 4th, she is a prominent leader and voice among the apostles and an intimate companion of Jesus, holding her place over against better-known male disciples.

I find it striking that five of the six inscriptions correspond so closely to a hypothetical pre-70 CE family tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem as we might imagine it based on textual evidence. The one inscription we can’t account for, Matya or Matthew, remains a puzzle. The name is relatively rare (2.4% of males, compared to Joseph at 8.6% and Yeshua at 3.9%). It is worth noting that Matthew is a name known within the family of Jesus (see the genealogies of Matthew 1; Luke 3). Also, the only Matthew known to us in the gospels, also called Levi, is said to be of the Alphaeus family clan (Mark 2:14). In some early Christian traditions this Alphaeus or Clophas is the brother of Joseph, the father of Jesus. Still, just who this particular Matthew was and why he would be in this tomb, if it did belong to Jesus and his family, we simply to not know.

I find this hypothetical “fit” between the intimate pre-70 CE family of Jesus and Nazareth and the names found in this tomb quite impressive and it argues strongly against an out of hand dismissal of the tomb as possibly, or even likely, associated with Jesus of Nazareth.

I have been amazed over the years at what one can assume is in the New Testament Gospels and what is actually there. I have been teaching these texts for over 25 years and hardly a year goes by when I don’t see something I had missed, or have something pointed out by my students that I simply had incorrect.

A case in point. Everyone “knows” that according to all four of our N.T. Gospels Joseph of Arimathea, elsewhere unmentioned, goes to Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea, and gets permission to remove Jesus’ body from the cross. He takes the corpse and lays it in his own new tomb late Friday night. A group of women, Mary Magdalene and others, follow and see the location of the tomb. Sunday morning when they visit, to complete the Jewish rites of burial, the tomb is empty.

Sounds accurate, according to the Gospels, except that the part in italics, that everyone assumes, is apparently not the case. The tomb into which Jesus is temporarily placed does not belong to Joseph of Arimathea but every book, film, and preacher tells it that way.

Mark is our earliest account. Notice his words carefully:

And he [Joseph of Arimathea] bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb” (Mark 15:46).

This is our core Synoptic account. Mark is the source for both Luke and Matthew. But notice, nothing is said about Joseph putting Jesus in his own family tomb.

John, who offers us an independent tradition, offers a further explanation:

Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there (John 19:41-42).

So, as I often tell my students, “thank God for Mark and John.” Mark does not really explain the choice of the tomb but John makes it clear that this initial burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea is a temporary and emergency burial of opportunity. That the tomb is new and unused meant that it could be used for a few hours, until the Sabbath and Passover holiday was past. This particular tomb is chosen because it just happened to be near, as John plainly explains. The idea that this tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea makes no sense at all. What are the chances that he would just happen to have his own new family tomb conveniently located near the Place of the Skull, or Golgotha, where the Romans regularly crucified their victims. It is ludicrous even to imagine, but neither Mark nor John say anything of the sort.

Everyone has assumed Jesus is placed in Joseph’s own tomb because of two words added by Matthew in his editing of Mark, namely “he laid it in his own new tomb” (Matthew 27:60). Luke does not have this. And Mark and John are crystal clear as to why this tomb was chosen. This interpolation by Matthew is clearly added for theological reasons, to claim that Jesus’ burial fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 53:9, that the grave of Yahweh’s “Servant” would be “with a rich man.” It has absolutely nothing to do with the historical Jesus.

Taking then what we learn from Mark and John we are in a position to make some clear sense out of our core tradition. Jesus is hastily buried just before the Passover Sabbath. After all, what does one do with a corpse a few hours before the Seder, and how can it best be protected from predators? The new tomb, unused and possibly incomplete, that happened to be nearby, was a perfect temporary solution. The idea was that after the festival the full and proper rites of Jewish burial could be carried out and Jesus could be placed in a second tomb, as a permanent resting place.

In the Talpiot tomb discussion quite a few objectors have made the point that any Jesus tomb should be near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where Joseph of Armimathea had his tomb. I have no confidence that this site is the place of the crucifixion in the first place, but even it if was, given what we learn in our core traditions of Mark and John we would expect that Jesus would have been respectfully reburied in another tomb–not in that initial temporary one.

I suppose the best guess would be that Joseph of Arimathea provided the second tomb, as a permanent family place of burial. He had the means and the influence and it makes sense that if he bothered to go to Pilate to get the body he would have seen that it was placed in a proper and permanent place. He seems to be the right person at the right time with the means and intention to carry out this most respectful of rites for a slain leader who he respected and perhaps even believed in.

Steve Feldman, who manages the Web site of the Biblical Archaeology Society, recently offered a personal observation about me and my writings on the subject of the Talpiot “Jesus” tomb in one of his Blog entries (March 28th “Blogs ‘Flog’ Jesus Tomb Claims”). Noting that I have emerged as the primary academic defender of film’s claim that the tomb may have been the tomb of Jesus and his family, he writes that I have “become something of a voice in the wilderness as an academic defender of the show’s claims,” and that I deserve “some type of award for sheer doggedness.” He goes on to say, “My sense, however, is that he’s fighting a losing battle; the more discussion I see, the weaker the program’s case becomes.” Feldman recently put up a post on the BAS Web site, co-written with Craig Evans, titled “The Tomb of Jesus? Wrong on Every Count” in which they assert that the case for Talpiot being the Jesus family tomb is a “surprisingly weak one.” It is surely interesting how intelligent people can differ in looking at the same evidence, in that I find the Evans-Feldman piece “surprisingly weak” and “wrong on (just about) every count,” but that is another subject. What I want to do here is pass up the reward for “Sheer Doggedness.”

Steve and I are friends, so I am not in the least offended at his observation, though I am surprised that he has come to hold the position he defends in his post with Evans. I view my role in this matter quite differently. One dictionary definition of “doggedness” includes the notion of “grim persistence,” and this source lists “stubborn” as a cognate. Others have charged that my “credibility is taking a hit” or have advised me to “back off from this one and save my reputation.” Someone else pointed out, rather triumphantly, I might add, that the Wikipedia entry on ‘The Lost Tomb of Jesus” list thirteen Web sites critical of the Jesus identification and just one–mine–supporting it. If one browses these so-called “critical views,” it becomes obvious that with very few exceptions (Magness, Bauckham) I am in quite proud company being listed alone. That particular entry on Wikipedia is such a tendentious, inaccurate, and confusing mess it can hardly serve as a reliable guide to the topic. One of their editors invited me to help improve its quality some months back and I added a few things, only to see them removed by an anti-Jesus tomb zealot a day later. Maybe when some of the heat subsides it will be possible to help make that entry more balanced.

Fortunately, there are some more responsible academic discussions in progress and I am pleased to be part of those, but I don’t see my position on this subject as dogged or even overly resolute. What I have attempted to do in this Blog over the past three months is to honestly and critically evaluate the evidence as I see it using the standard methods of critical evaluation of texts and material evidence. The task has been a difficult one, not I think because of the evidence, but because of the subject matter. We are not dealing here with the tomb of a “Socrates,” but that of a “Jesus.” It makes a lot of difference. If one holds that neither this, nor any other tomb, can possibly be the tomb of Jesus, with an ossuary holding his bones, since he ascended bodily to heaven, it is obvious that we are dealing with something other than a standard historical discussion. Such a person can make claims about objectivity and evenhandedness but in the end, if a subject is decided before it is examined, and certain possibilities are ruled out because of a priori assumptions based on theology, it is clear that the “discussion” is far from objective. I have posted about fifty entries now on the subject of the Talpiot tomb and I trust that this Blog is one of the better and more reliable resources for information and evaluation of the evidence. If I see reason to change my position I will do so, but in my judgment the evidence fits, in an uncannily close way, what one might imagine as a hypothetical pre-70 CE Jerusalem tomb of Jesus. I have quite a bit more I want to say about this subject, especially in terms of how one reads and understands some of our N.T. gospel texts in the light of the existence of such a tomb, and I will continue to do my best to present the evidence objectively and fairly.

One of the more intriguing stories that Mark preserves is that of an unnamed woman who anoints Jesus’ head with an alabaster flask of perfumed oil of pure nard, a fragrant Near Eastern plant, a few days before his death (Mark 14:1-9). The scene takes place at Bethany, a small village on the east slope of the Mt. of Olives. Jesus and his disciples stayed in this village the last week of his life, making it their “base of operations” for the decisive events of that led up to Passover (Mark 11:11-12). Based on John’s account it seems likely that they are staying in the home of the sisters Martha and Mary and their brother Lazarus, a Jerusalem family with whom Jesus was very close (John 11:1-5; Luke 10:38-42). The scene of the anointing took place in the house of one “Simon the leper,” who also lived in Bethany, according to Mark, but John explains that the sisters Mary and Martha served, and that their brother Lazarus was one of those at table with them (Mark 14:3; John 12:1-8). Mark never mentions the sisters Martha and Mary and their brother Lazarus anywhere in his gospel. Even though some of the details of the accounts in Mark and John differ, it is certain that they are narrating the same event and my sense is that John has an independent tradition from that of Mark. As far as the anointing story goes, Matthew essentially follows Mark and seems to have nothing independently.

I think it is important to read Mark and John side by side, as two independent traditions. Even if John knows Mark, which I take as likely, his version of the story is more than a “retelling” of the story using Mark as a source. He seems to draw upon sources unavailable to Mark. John clearly names the woman as Mary, stating she is the sister of Martha and Lazarus (John 11:2; 12:3). Mark and John both note that the pure oil of nard was very costly, worth 300 denarii, which would be months of wages for a common laborer. John does not mention the oil poured on Jesus’ head but on his feet, and he adds the detail of Mary then wiping his feet with her hair, which surely seems to be an intimate act of devotion. When some at the table object (Judas Iscariot according to John) that such a costly flask of oil should be sold and given to the poor, Jesus rebukes them with his famous statement “The poor you always have with you” which both Mark and John know. The theological irony in this double tradition, even with its differences, is that Jesus the “Christ,” or Anointed One, is anointed by a woman, and that this anointing is in connection with his burial. In other words, for both Mark and John, Jesus is the “dead messiah,” triumphant only through resurrection of the dead. But if we read behind the theology we seem to have access to a tradition that remembers a specific event–namely that Jesus was anointed by a woman named Mary at Bethany.

Mark and John differ in a crucial way when Jesus characterizes this act of anointing. In Mark he says the woman has “anointed his body beforehand for burial,” but in John he says, rather than sell the ointment it should be kept to be used for “the day of his burial” (John 12:7). Yet John has no account of Mary or any of the women preparing to anoint Jesus’ body for burial. Instead he says that Joseph of Arimathea, assisted by Nicodemus, carried out these rites based on Jewish customs (John 19:40). But Mark notes explicitly that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses (whom I take to be Jesus’ mother, see above), and Salome, bought spices so that they might go and anoint him once the Sabbath was past (Mark 16:1).

Sorting out the roles of these two Marys, Mary Magdalene and Mary the sister of Martha, in the final days of Jesus’ life is difficult. Mark never mentions the sisters Mary and Martha and he gives no name for the woman who anoints Jesus. John mentions the sisters, has Mary anointing Jesus at Bethany, but does not have them either at the cross or the intended anointing at the tomb, which seems odd given their close and intimate relationship to Jesus. Both Mark and John first mention Mary Magdalene at the crucifixion, and they agree that Mary Magdalene visits the tomb of Jesus early Sunday morning, but Mark writes that she came with the Jesus’ mother and Salome, while John has her come alone. If the unnamed woman who anointed Jesus in Mark was in fact Mary Magdalene, her faithfulness at the cross and intimacy at the burial seems appropriate. On the other hand, if this woman was Mary, sister of Martha, as John says explicitly, why is she not involved in the final crucifixion and tomb scenes? After all, John’s account, with the wiping of the feet with her hair, seems even more intimate than Mark’s anointing of the head. One can either accept each account at face value and deal with the tensions and differences, or look for solutions that account for both, but might be nearer the historical situation as we can construct it.

Luke drops Mark’s anointing at Bethany story entirely, but he narrates a strikingly similar story, set in Galilee, much earlier in Jesus’ career, where an unnamed woman, who is a “sinner” anoints Jesus’ feet with an ointment, wets them with her tears, kisses, them, and dries them with her hair (Luke 7:36-50). This story seems juxtaposed purposely with his introduction of Mary Magdalene into his narrative, where he alone, of all the gospels, says she had been exorcised of seven demons (Luke 8:2). One is tempted to conclude that Luke understands the woman in the Bethany anointing to be none other than Mary Magdalene, and that he is uncomfortable with the intimate and positive role she is given in that scene. Luke also removes the explicit names of the women at the cross and burial of Jesus, including Mary Magdalene, referring generically to “the women who had followed him from Galilee” (Luke 23:49, 55). Luke’s editing of Mark in this regard paves the way for the negative image of Mary Magdalene as a sexually loose and deranged woman that became so pervasive in later Christian tradition, particularly as promulgated by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and of course Pope Gregory the Great (late 6th century). It became common to identify Mary Magdalene with the sister of Martha as well as the “sinful” woman in Luke’s anointing story.

I am convinced that this denigration of Mary Magdalene, evidenced so explicitly by Luke, is also behind John’s assertion that it was Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus and Martha, who anointed Jesus before his death. They both know the name of the woman who was commended for this act was named “Mary” and I am convinced both of them are aware of a tradition that she was none other than Mary Magdalene. Mark says the scene took place in Bethany in the house of “Simon the leper” but John does not mention that, implying it might well have been in the home of Lazarus and the sisters. Luke is content to let that stand, but leaves the implication that she is a deranged sinner. John knows a tradition that heightens the intimacy of the scene, as well as connects this “Mary” to a subsequent anointing of Jesus’ body for burial. To have Mary Magdalene involved in both of these acts is problematic for him, or at least for the final editors of this gospel. He is so eager to identify the anointing “Mary” as the sister of Martha that he even mentions the scene in the past tense before it happens! (John 11:2). I think this is a real clue as to what is going on at some stage of the editing of John. John’s tradition includes the striking scene between Jesus and Mary Magdalene at the tomb (20:11-18), but if she is also the woman who touches Jesus’ feet with her hair and is involved in anointing his body for burial, her position of prominance and intimacy would just be too great. Both are acts that involve “nakedness,” that of a woman’s hair and the preparation of a corpse for burial.

John and Luke were written at a time when the male apostles, namely Peter and Paul are being invested with great authority. Although Mary Magdalene was remembered and honored in certain circles, as witnessed by other texts outside the New Testament, her place in our canonical gospels is explicitly muted. I think a critical reading of Mark and John gives us some glimmer of what might have been going on and by reading the texts side by side we can perhaps rehabilitate Mary’s Memorial.

In Mark 6:3 the brothers of Jesus are named as James, Joses, Judas, and Simon and his sisters are mentioned but not named.
Matthew changes this to read: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). Luke, true to his desire to marginalize James and the brothers of Jesus in favor of Peter and Paul, drops the reference to the brothers and sisters entirely (Luke 4:22). One must keep in mind here, and with all these examples, that Matthew and Luke have Mark before him, so these changes are deliberate and for a purpose, not passing and of no consequence. Matthew loses the “nickname” Joses, of Jesus’ second brother, and changes it to the more formal name: Joseph. He also moves Simon ahead of Judas in the order. I think Mark is listing the brothers in order of birth, as would be the standard practice, but Matthew wants to put Simon before Judas, since he took over leadership of the group after the death of James (I take “Simon bar Clophas” as a brother, not cousin of Jesus).

The form of the name Joses or Jose (Yose in Hebrew) is a very important detail that Mark preserves for us. He mentions him again in 15:40 and 47, as the son of Mary and brother of “James the Kid” (my translation of James the “younger”). He also mentions here and in 16:1, Salome, very likely one of Jesus’ sisters, involved with his mother and Mary Magdalene in the rites of burial for Jesus’ body. This second brother of Jesus, known by this nickname Yose, is preserved in a few manuscripts of Matthew 27:56, but by and large, without Mark, we would have lost it. This second brother of Jesus is a kind of “mystery” when it comes to the Jesus family. James we know, as he took over leadership of the group after Jesus death in 30 CE until is own murder in 62 CE. Simon then assumed leadership. We also have letters from James and Jude in the N.T. But other than these precious references in Mark, Yose has disappeared from history. It is very likely that he died before 62 CE, when James was killed, or he would have taken the lead before Simon, but we know nothing of the circumstances.

John never names the brothers of Jesus but he does refer to Mary, the mother of James and Joses, mentioned in Mark, as the “wife of Clophas.” I have argued in The Jesus Dynasty that this is Jesus’ mother, not “Mary a sister of Mary,” and that after Joseph’s death she married his brother, Clophas (also known elsewhere as Alphaeus). In fact, Mark also knows a “James son of Alphaeus,” his brother Jude, and a Matthew/Levi, son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14; 3:18), all part of Jesus’ council of Twelve. I am convinced they are half-brothers of Jesus, and once again, it is Mark who knows these sorts of details.

I have also speculated that in John the “disciple whom Jesus loves” is in fact, James, his “kid” brother, who lays on his breast at the last supper, and into whose hand he delivers the care of their mother at his death (John 19:25-27). This mysterious figure, introduced only at the Last Supper (13:23), and mentioned in the last chapters of John, that depend on the eyewitness testimony of this disciple, is never referred to by name (19:26; 19:35; 20:2; 21:7, 20-24). It makes no sense to think, as tradition holds, that he is John son of Zebedee, since Jesus surely would not turn over the care of his mother to this “Son of Thunder” whom he often rebukes for his lack of humility and compassion, and who, according to Mark, fled from the scene of the cross (Mark 10:35; Luke 9:54; Mark 14:50).

Mark gives no birth story whatsoever but when Jesus returns to Nazareth, where he grew up, he is called “the son of Mary,” implying something irregular about his birth (Mark 6:3). In Judaism children are always identified as “son of” the father, not the mother. Joseph, who became the husband of Mary, and legal father of Jesus, is nowhere even mentioned in Mark. Matthew, in editing this passage in Mark changes it to read “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary?” (Matthew 13:55). Luke drops the reference entirely to Mary and has “Is this not Joseph’s son” (Luke 4:22). Of course both Matthew and Luke contain birth narratives in which Mary’s pregnancy is noted, but also her marriage to Joseph. This, I think, is a very good example of the way in which Mark preserves a valuable and early tradition in which Jesus is known simply as “son of Mary.” John seems to know something of this “illegitimacy” tradition as well. He also lacks any birth story and he never offers us any narrative material about the husband Joseph. At one point Jesus’ opponents seem to challenge him with the implicity charge that his birth was irregular–”We were not born of fornication” (John 8:41). This “illegitimacy” motive can be traced into other later texts, as Jane Schaberg has shown in her enlightening work, The Illegitimacy of Jesus.

Note: This original post is becoming so long I have decided to break it into topics.

Most critical biblical scholars are in agreement that Mark is our earliest gospel and John is the latest. What follows then, in terms of Matthew and Luke, which come in between, is that they are using Mark as their basic narrative source–thus the three of them, Mark, Matthew, and Luke, are called the Synoptic gospels. In other words, Matthew and Luke are “secondary” sources when they are following Mark, in that they, by and large, are recasting or interpreting Mark as their base text. This is not to say that Matthew and Luke have nothing to add to the historical Jesus tradition. Indeed they do. First, they both preserve, in two versions, another source, the one scholars call Q, which most are convinced is earlier than Mark. Second, even in their “redaction” or editing of Mark as a primary source, they sometimes bring in materials that are judged useful to the critical historian.

John, in contrast, is not part of this editorial process and stands as a mostly independent witness to the Jesus tradition with an approach that seems in sharp contrast to Mark (or the Synoptics more generally). His stories are different, his chronology is different, and Jesus in John’s tradition speaks with a different vocabulary and subject matter, and he is viewed much more explicitly as a preexistent, heavenly, divine, Son of God. One might assume then, and many historians have taken just this approach, that John is of little value in reconstructing a critical historical view of Jesus.

I think this is a real mistake. In fact, I am among a growing group of scholars who are convinced that John in fact preserves a level of primitive tradition that Mark knows little about, and that without John’s contribution our knowledge of the historical Jesus would be severely limited. Also, it is demonstrably false to assume that Mark is somehow free of theology and is writing history. In fact, Mark is every bit as “theological” as John, and I am thoroughly convinced that he shares a view of Jesus that is highly influenced by Paul. So what is the historian, interested more in Jesus as a historical figure, to make of these different sources?

My own method and approach is to use Mark and John together to construct what I think is a coherent and plausible portrait of Jesus as apocalyptic messiah and proclaimer of the Kingdom of God, set in the context of the Baptist movement in 1st century Roman Palestine. I am further convinced that John likely knows Mark and is at times offering his own take on Mark’s presentation of Jesus, which he sees as supplementary rather than contradictory.

In a series of posts I want to offer an analysis of how a critical reading of Mark, the earliest gospel source, and John, the latest, that add substantially to our understanding of the historical Jesus.

I am in the process of going through all the hundreds of posts on this site and putting them into topical categories. This should be done soon and I hope it will facilitate a good use of the archive here that has been created over the past year. We have had many hundreds of folk join us to follow the subject of the Talpiot tomb, but the site does actually contain much more than that single topic. I have been writing broadly on biblical and historical themes related to the areas I cover in my book, The Jesus Dynasty, for well over a year.

I do have a half dozen additional posts outlined that deal with further aspects the Talpiot tomb discussion but I want, more and more, to include materials that relate more broadly to the main parameters of the Jesus Dynasty theses. I will be completing a series of posts on Mark and John with that in mind. I am also preparing two formal pieces on the subject of the Talpiot tomb, both to be published in June, as well as my own major monograph on the subject that I hope to have finished by the end of June.

We are ending our semester here and as Chair of our Department of Religious Studies this is the busiest time of the year so I haven’t been able to write as much as I have wanted of late. Religious Studies at UNC Charlotte is a large and distinguished department with sixteen full-time faculty positions, including two endowed chairs of Judaic Studies, and as well as many part-time lecturers. We offer the B.A. and M.A. degrees. Keeping it all together can be quite a challenge.

The breaking news this morning regarding Prof. Ehud Netzer’s discovery of the remains of what appear to be the grave, sarcophagus, and mausoleum of Herod the Great at the Herodium, just south of Bethlehem, has fired the imagination of the world. Much of what we know of Herod comes from Josephus, the 1st century CE Jewish historian, and from the ruins of what Herod built (see Duane W. Roller, The Building Program of Herod the Great (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998).

But to have now found his tomb, after 30 years of searching, seems to bring the reality of the man home to us all, in life and in death. The emperor Augustus gave Herod the title King of the Jews and his connections with Rome were extraordinary (see Peter Richarson, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999). Throughout his long reign he desperately, but abortively, wanted to establish some kind of “dynasty” or royal line, as evidenced by his marriage to the Hashmonean princess Miriame. So obsessed was he with genealogical records that Josephus reports that he had the archives at Sepphoris destroyed lest any rivals challenge his pedigree or put forth their own. His son, Herod Antipas, tried much the same, seeking to forge royal connections through marriage and building his magnificant capital at Sepphoris. Meanwhile, in Rome, Octavian, as the emperor Augustus, also sought to establish a dynastic line of succession by his adoption of Tiberius not long before his death. It seems that “Dynasties” were in the air in the 1st century CE Roman world.

I have collected books on Herod the Great for 30 years now and I find him endlessly fascinating and alluring as an historical figure, but much more so as a study in contrasts with that other “King of the Jews,” Jesus of Nazareth, crucified in 30 CE at Passover as a potential insurrectionist and heir to the royal throne of David. Unlike some of my colleagues in the area of Christian Origins I have not the slightest doubt that Jesus was of Davidic lineage (Romans 1:3), and understood himself as the legitimate King of Israel or “messiah.” Indeed, I believe it is an essential factor for any interpretation of the figure of Jesus in his own time and context. I am convinced the Messianic self-identity of Jesus opens up a world of understanding of both of the man and his movement, and that without it any interpretation of the historical Jesus fundamentally fails. I have always been a bit puzzled as when I have been asked–but why would you think Jesus thought himself to be of Davidic lineage, when my question would be the opposite–how could he have possibly viewed himself otherwise, given what we know of the movement, its beliefs, and its history. Teachers, prophets, and charismatic healers are one thing, but the coming of the “Messiahs of Aaron and Israel” was at the heart of Jewish expectations of the future under the rule of a succession of Herodian rulers who were considered to be corrupt in illegitimate kings. I am further convinced that part and parcel of the Davidic lineage idea was that one was part of a Dynasty, made up of brothers and sons. And this is what we find in the Jesus movement as James, the brother of Jesus, becomes his successor, and Simon, another brother (some say cousin but of the same royal lineage), takes the leadership at the death of James. Yose, Jesus second brother has apparently died by the time of the death of James in 62 CE or he would have likely been next in line.

We known the splendor with which Herod was buried from the account in Josephus and the ruins of the Herodium (see story below). Jesus in contrast was crucified as a criminal and hastily and temporarily placed in a rock-hewn tomb near the place where he died. Joseph of Arimathea, who had taken charge of his burial, likely provided a more permanent tomb for Jesus, and perhaps for the rest of his family, shortly thereafter. Like other Rabbis and teachers of the time we can expect the followers of this “Branch of David,” would have made sure he and his family were well taken care of, in death as in life. The elaborately decorated sarcophagus of Herod stands in sharp contrast to the plain undecorated ossuary of Jesus son of Joseph of the Talpiot tomb. Should this tomb be shown to that of Jesus of Nazareth in a more definitive way in the future, it seems to mirror and reflect the kind of “King of the Jews” that Jesus came to be. That the Jesus of the tomb also has a son named Judah makes the entire Dynasty concept all the more dynamic. More on this later…

The following is the official News Release of the discovery of Herod’s tomb.

_____________________________________________________
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem האוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים

Tomb of King Herod discovered at Herodium
by Hebrew University archaeologist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photos of Herodium available via e-mail upon request.

For further information:
Jerry Barach, Dept. of Media Relations, the Hebrew University, Tel: 02-588-2904,
or Orit Sulitzeanu, Hebrew University spokesperson, Tel: 02-5882910, Cell: 052-260-8016.
Internet site: http://media.huji.ac.il.