Archive for the ‘Talpiot Jesus Family Tomb’ Category

There was a very informative and balanced interview with Princeton Theological Seminar Professor, James Charlesworth, in the Jerusalem Post yesterday. Charlesworth sits down with editor David Horovitz and talks about the aftermath of the Jewish Burial/Talpiot Tomb conference held in Jerusalem, January 13-16th, as well as potential ideas for the future.

On Monday, January 21, 2008, Eric Meyers of Duke University and Jodi Magness of UNC-Chapel Hill issued a public statement signed by eleven other scholars who had attended the recent Princeton Theological Seminary Symposium on “Jewish Views of the Afterlife and Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism: Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context,” held in Jerusalem, January 13-17th. Readers can find the original statement on Mark Goodacre’s Weblog, NTGateway, and an updated version with a few significant changes, at the Dept. of Religion Blog at Duke [Mark Goodacre just wrote me that he has replaced the original with the updated version as of 1/25/08, so I have saved a copy of the original here: OriginalStatement, so readers can properly follow this post] The main purpose of the declaration was to strongly deny any media reports that most of the scholars attending the conference had concluded that the Talpiot tomb might possible be the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. To the contrary, the signatories affirmed that they “either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly unlikely.” Although the three main stories published on this subject, in the Jerusalem Post, TIME, and in the HaAretz, all recorded that attendees at the conference were divided, those who signed onto the Meyers/Magness statement charged that a “spin” had been put on the whole conference by filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, through a press release, and an orchestrated ending involving a statement by Ruth Gat, widow of the late Joseph Gat, excavator of the tomb in 1980.

My own report on the conference, published on my Blog on January 20st, and now posted also on the Biblical Archaeology Society site, echoed a similar assessment of the results, namely, that most of the participants remained unconvinced that the identification case had been made.

However, quite signifcantly, the Meyers/Magness statement contains much more than this corrective caveat regarding the media. It goes on, in the body, to outline in summary form the reasons that the signatories in fact reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to the Jesus family.

As one who has given considerable thought and effort to all the arguments involved, pro and con, regarding the potential identification of the tomb with Jesus, I was quite surprised to see that the statement, so far as I can judge, contained some significant errors that serve to undermine its force. I have been assured by Meyers and Magness that all those signing the statement agree with it wholly, which puzzled me even more, since I have talked to three or four of those who signed on and unless the statement reflects a change of mind, it is not reflective of their views. It is possible that people signed on in order to support the general point of the statement, knowing that details can always be sorted out in various ways, but it is unfortunate, I think, that readers of the statement will have the impression that since these experts have signed on, everything that follows is agreed upon as established.

Without debating all the complex issues upon which this comprehensive summary statement touches upon, let me focus on just four points that I think are questionable. Here I will quote the statement verbatim, and follow with some observations.

1. A statistical analysis of the relatively common names engraved on the ossuaries leaves no doubt that the probability of the Talpiot tomb belonging to Jesus’ family is virtually nil if the Mariamene named on one of the ossuaries is not Mary Magdalene.

This is decidedly not the case, as has now been pointed out by several statisticians who have already commented on the Duke University and Goodacre Web sites. Based on the calculations of Elliot and Kilty, whose paper is up on the Web, and as discussed by Camil Fuchs, who along with Andrey Feuerverger, sat on the panel dealing with statistics. The name cluster, even leaving Mariamene out entirely, with no assumptions regarding Mary Magdalene, show a probability factor of .48. This result is far from “virtually nil,” in fact it is very close to 1/2, meaning if we had two tombs to examine, one of them would be the Jesus tomb. My understanding is that Fuchs will clarify this in his published paper.

A bit of forgotten history here: It is interesting to note that when the 1996 story broke on the Talpiot tomb by the BBC TV special and a front page story in the London Sunday Times, there was a brief discussion on the Orion Dead Sea Scrolls discussion list (archived still at the Orion site and worth reading through the thread) and Asia Lerner, doing some quick calculations on name frequencies, came up with 1/10, commenting at the time, “The point that I wanted to show with my little computation is that the chance is far from being nil-because even if the names themselves are frequently encountered, the chance of encountering them in a particular configuration diminishes exponentially.” If 1/10 is not considered “nil,” then surely 1/2 would be far less so. What happened I think is that non-statisticians, listening to Feuerverger’s presentation, misunderstood the probability language. What can not be proved by statistics (say with a figure of .90 or .80) is not thus made “nil” by a number close to .50. Virtually “nil” would be something close to .1, given the estimated number of tombs we are dealing with in this period and region.

All this is not to say that Elliot and Kilty are correct, but just to say, as Randy Ingermanson has pointed out, the “virtually nil” conclusion represents a fundamental misunderstanding of their results that Fuchs discussed at the conference.

2. In fact, epigraphers at the conference contested the reading of the inscription as “Mariamene.” Furthermore, Mary Magdalene is not referred to by the Greek name Mariamene in any literary sources before the late second-third century AD.

It is the case that two epigraphers at the conference disagreed with L. Rahmani’s reading of Mariamene, but it should be pointed out that those two, Stephen Pfann and Jonathan Price, also disagree with one another in significant ways. Before one discounts Rahmani, who is supported by Leah Di Segni, who recently reexamined the inscription, perhaps those of us who are not experts should acknowledge that the verdict is still out, and arguments are still to be made. Rahmani in no way agrees with any kind of Mary Magdalene interpretation, to put it mildly, but he has told Charlesworth and others that he stands firmly by his reading. If indeed, the Rahmani reading holds, the question is not how late Mary Magdalene might be referred to by this unusual form of the name, but rather, who else, in all of our records, has this form of the name, other than Mary Magdalene, and this ossuary of the Talpiot tomb.

In other words, we have lots of examples of the Greek forms Mariam, Mariame, and Mariames, and but only this single reference to Mariamene–with the letter “nun,” and it is in the special neuter diminutive form–showing endearment. So far as I know, the only other example of this form of the name in all of our ancient records is in reference to Mary Magdalene–in Hippolytus and the Acts of Philip. One must admit that is a rather strange linguistic correspondence. How likely is it that a random ossuary from a 1st century tomb, with a “Jesus son of Joseph” inscription, would also have a rare form of the name Mariam that is linked to only one identifiable “Mary” in the ancient Jewish world, namely Mary Magdalene. This is not proof that the ossuary inscription refers to Mary Magdalene, but what it does indicate, it seems to me, is that Rahmani’s reading should not be excluded from the discussion in a summary statement based on two experts who read it differently.

3. The identification of the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus’ family flies in the face the canonical Gospel accounts, which are the earliest traditions describing Jesus’ death and burial. According to these accounts Jesus was placed in the tomb of a prominent follower named Joseph of Arimathea. Since at least the early fourth century Christians have venerated the site of Jesus’ burial at the spot marked by the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

This statement hits home with me since I presented a summary of my paper on this very subject. I attempted to show that a redaction critical reading of our sources indicates that the idea of Joseph of Arimathea owning the tomb is a Matthean theological gloss, and not supported by our two independent core sources. I realize that most of those who signed the initial statement do not specialize in historical-critical readings of gospel materials. This sort of face-value reading ignores 200 years of insights into the heavily theological nature of our gospel sources. April DeConick sites this as one of the reasons she could not sign onto the Meyer/Magness statement. Further, as Kloner and others have shown, this tomb (whether the site of the 4th century Church of the Holy Sepulcher or not) was a temporary burial. Since neither historian nor believer maintains Jesus’ body remained in that initial tomb, one must hold, from an historical point of view, that he was moved to another location. So, if he was moved to another location, how can one possibly exclude the Talpiot tomb? This does not prove the Talpiot tomb was the place to which he was moved, but it fits well with the gospel accounts, read critically. Jodi Magness holds the view that he would have been reburied in a shaft tomb but the experts at the Symposium did not agree on that. That leaves open the idea that he was buried in a second rock-hewn tomb, especially since Mark and John say the tomb was chosen for emergency purposes because it happened to be nearby. So, in fact, the gospel accounts seem to support a “second tomb” theory, rather than preclude such.

4. However, Joseph Gat lacked the expertise to read the inscriptions. His supervisor and other members of the Israel Antiquities Authority believe that Gat could not have made such a statement in his lifetime since the inscriptions seem to have been deciphered only after he had passed away.

This final point in the Meyers/Magness statement I find most troubling. It implies that Ms. Ruth Gat, who reported conversations with her husband, was either deluded or lying.Either of these are very heavy charges. DeConick states on her Web site that she could not sign on to this statement for those very reasons. She did not want to get into the business of endorsing such an accusation without evidence. I was rather surprised to see a group of colleagues sign onto such a charge without further investigation. I wrote Meyers and Magness about this matter and received a reply just today that they saw no reason to change their statement. Nonetheless, in preparing to write this post tonight I went to the Duke University Web site to copy the texts upon which I wanted to comment. I found a significant sentence is missing, namely, “His supervisor and other members of the Israel Antiquities Authority believe that Gat could not have made such a statement in his lifetime since the inscriptions seem to have been deciphered only after he had passed away.” I am quite pleased to see that sort of charge is now gone, but it seems it was removed without any acknowledgment of the seriousness of the charge, or the damage it might have already done to Ms. Gat’s reputation. The original has no doubt been copied and circulated numerous times. To his credit, Stephen Pfann, on his Blog yesterday, issued an apology for such a “rush to judgment,” and one has to admire his integrity in this regard. I have not seen such an acknowledgment anywhere else.

The point I made in my own initial report on the Talpiot tomb conference was that even if Joseph Gat did indeed think the Talpiot tomb was the Jesus tomb, it would not serve as “evidence” in the sense of proving anything. He was not a historian, and I doubt if he had delved into the complexity of evaluating these names in literary sources. What it would tell us is one more bit of the puzzle in terms of how the tomb and its names first came to light and was discussed and evaluated among certain circles in Jerusalem before 1993. And that is of interest in the overall story, more and more of which was emerging even last week.

Language is as tricky and misleading as it is vital and essential. This is so much more the case when it comes to controversial topics such as evaluating the Talpiot tomb with regard to its possible identification as the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. As pointed out at the Princeton Jerusalem Symposium last week, if we were talking about the tomb of a Hillel or a Socrates that had been potentially discovered in Jerusalem or Athens, much of the discussion, and thus the language, would dramatically shift to neutral.

A helpful analogue is the 1990 discovery of a tomb just south of the Old City with ossuaries and inscriptions that some excavators and scholars identified as the family tomb of Caiaphus, including the bones of a Joseph Caiaphus, the same name as the high priest who presided over the trial of Jesus according to the gospels. Is it possible, or even likely, that this tomb is that of the Caiaphus of the New Testament? Is the evidence compelling? What are the objections and problems with such an identification? Most of that has now been sorted out, but no one maintains that it “can’t be” the tomb of Caiaphus for theological reasons–that he was taken bodily to heaven. There are in fact a few scholars who have questioned the identification with the N.T. Caiaphus. They have argued that the evidence is not sufficiently compelling to draw that conclusion, and would hold it is “a Caiaphus” family but not necessarily the Caiaphus family. I am aware of no one who has argued that it “can not be” the Caiaphus family tomb.

With the Talpiot Jesus tomb things are dramatically different–and understandably so. Because the topic is so potentially “hot” various sides have much invested in the outcome. For many, even among the scholars who have weighed in on the topic, their declared belief that Jesus rose bodily to heaven, precludes from the outset, even before any examination of evidence, that this tomb belonged to Jesus of Nazareth. Most of the academics in this category would affirm that such beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with their position that this “could not be” the Talpiot tomb. There are other sensitive issues such as a potential backlash of antisemitism, since this tomb is part of an official excavation of the Israel Antiquities Authority (Dept of Antiquities in 1980). Is holding custody of a “tomb of Jesus,” and dealing with bones of the Holy Family, really something that the Jewish State of Israel needs to be involved in? There is also a tendency among scholars to avoid sensational topics, particularly those vetted in the media (“Ark of the Covenant” “Gold of the Exodus” “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” “The Davinci Code”), so that to suggest serious consideration of this ultimate “sensational” site, a family tomb of Jesus, is bound to generate lots of scoffing and outright dismissal. The Academy is accustomed to consider far more standard subjects. And then there are the skeptics and anti-Christian folk who would dearly love it if the tomb of Jesus were found, as a way of poking the eye of evangelical and orthodox Christian believers. Finally, in a matter this sensitive, where there are no in situ photos of the excavation with the ossuaries intact, no bone reports, no official DNA tests, and no correlation record of where in the tomb a given cataloged ossuary was found, those responsible have been put on the defensive to explain the hows and whys, with resulting emotions and tensions.

At the Princeton Jerusalem symposium I tried to take notes and pay special attention to language, particularly that used when people stated their conclusions. What became obvious to me is that a given position could be stated in any number of ways, but with varying results, depending on the language. Consider the following three statements, from one single prominent member of the Symposium:

• “I think we have to remain open to the possibility that this tomb is that of Jesus but so far we are lacking compelling evidence and many of the assertions of the film have been shown to be questionable.”

• “There is a near universal scholarly consensus that the Talpiot tomb could not be the Tomb of Jesus”

• “My conclusion is that in no way can we say that the lost tomb of Jesus is the same as the one in East Talpiot”

Another prominent expert has recently said “There is no evidence to support the view that the Talpiot tomb is the family tomb of Jesus.” Is this to say then such an identification is possible but not compelling, or “impossible.” The language is not clear. Others, weighing in since the Symposium, have said the identification thesis is “possibly but not likely,” “very improbable,” or “unlikely.”

Always in the background, and often in the foreground, is the Cameron-Jacobovici film with its various assertions and claims. It is entirely possible to question any number of the theses or assertions in the film but nonetheless to conclude that a scientific evaluation of the tomb itself does yield evidence in favor of the Jesus family identification. It might be beneficial to try and move the film from the center of the academic discussion, whether one views it as good, bad, or ugly. The heated emotions, provoked by the film, have seemed to shift the agenda to the filmmakers rather than an evaluation of the site.

All this aside it seems to me that we have the following range of language that might help shed some light on “Evaluating the Talpiot tomb in context,” one of the themes of the Symposium.

Given the question: “Can the Talpiot tomb arguably be identified with a family tomb of Jesus?” one might propose the following grid of responses, beyond “Definitely not.” After all, one might hold that such an identification is “definitely not” supported by the evidence, yet still consider it possible but just not proved. Or, another might totally reject the identification for compelling negative reasons.

Impossible: strong negative evidence to the contrary
Improbable: weight of the evidence does not support the thesis with some negatives weighing against

Possible but not compelling: evidence in favor is there but just not enough data and information to so conclude
Possible and compelling: bulk of the evidence fits with no serious negatives

One of the clearest ways of approaching this questing is just to list the positives and the negatives, much as Israel Knohl did on the final “Summing Up” panel. If indeed, as some have argued, Jesus could not have been buried in a rock hewn tomb, or in Jerusalem itself, then clearly this “could not be” the tomb. However, there is a wide range between “could not be” and “not enough positive evidence.”

I want to point out that I am using “possible” in the scientific/academic sense, not in the unrestricted sense, “Well, anything is possible.” One might say, for example, it is “possible” that atoms move because they are pushed by invisible demon forces,” and there is no way to “falsify” such an assertion. But in the world of science, such a “hypothesis” can not be taken seriously. In terms of the Talpiot tomb, the notion that this “could not be” the Jesus’ tomb because he was taken bodily to heaven is not on the academic table, so that the “anything is possible” refrain does not apply.

The Encyclopedia Britannica offers the following on the all-important “Principle of Falsification,” which is the bedrock of science. Those of us who are historians, working in the “soft sciences,” utilize this principle as an ideal, though often we have no methods for testing:

“Being unrestricted, scientific theories cannot be verified by any possible accumulation of observational evidence. The formation of hypothesis is a creative process of the imagination and is not a passive reaction to observed regularities. A scientific test consists in a persevering search for negative, falsifying instances. If a hypothesis survives continuing and serious attempts to falsify it, then it has “proved its mettle” and can be provisionally accepted, but it can never be established conclusively.”

What I have suggested is that we begin with a “hypothetical pre-70 CE tomb of the Jesus family,” and then compare it to the Talpiot tomb. This is the method I pursue in my article published in Near Eastern Archaeology. Such an approach does not mean that the results are merely “hypothetical,” in some reduced sense of the term, since all scientific and historical conclusions are by definition hypothetical. Just to pose the question: Can we identify this tomb with that of Jesus?” already presupposes we are considering something “hypothetical.” One has to have a method, otherwise one’s conclusions can tend to be impressionistic and unsystematic.

The use of the principle of falsification, so much as the evidence allows, offers a way to bring some clarity into our deliberations. Working with the historically constructed model of a hypothetical “Jesus family tomb” does not mean that one begins with the assumption that the Talpiot tomb is that tomb, thus “stacking the deck” in favor, as some have argued. This is simply the way that science proceeds, never with certainty, but one hopes, as my teacher Jonathan Z. Smith used to say, “in the direction of the truth.”

What this means, in the case of the Talpiot tomb, is that falsifying or negative instances, of sufficient force and certainty, would make impossible or highly improbable the identification with Jesus. What one must then do is “test” all possible “falsifications” against the evidence we have, as best we can.
A few of the proposed falsifications I heard last week at the symposium were the following:

• Jesus could not be buried in Jerusalem at all, his family tomb would be in Nazareth

• Jesus would have been put in a trench grave, not a rock hewn tomb

• The ossuary inscription Frank Cross reads as “Yeshua bar Yehosef” does not read “Yeshua” at all

• Yose is a very common form of Yehosef and thus carries no statistical weight

• Jesus of Nazareth could not have had a son named Judah

• Jesus was buried in the location in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher so could not be in a tomb in Talpiot

If any of these could be established and be of sufficient weight to falsify the hypothesis being tested then one would have to conclude, depending on the certainty of the falsification, that the Talpiot tomb either “can not be” or “is highly unlikely to be” that of Jesus. So the question is, are these “falsifications” sufficient and valid?

Unfortunately, in the case of the Talpiot tomb there are any number of “falsification” possibilities that are not available to us–full DNA testing, examination of the bones in the tomb, and documented evidence of the positioning of the ossuaries in situ. If these avenues remain out of the realm of possibility then the inclusion of new evidence remains slight and we have to go with what we have. The tomb adjacent to the Talpiot tomb, if it could be explored (not excavated), might be one way of bringing in new evidence, that might either supplement or falsify the hypothesis or question, “Is this the family tomb of Jesus.”

As a follow up to the Princeton Jerusalem Symposium and all the many topics we covered I want to begin posting, as time permits, an analysis of the evidence and a positing of basic facts, including a testing of some of the major “falsifications” that have been proposed. Just today, Prof. Eric Meyers, of Duke University has posted, in behalf of a number of leading colleagues who attended the Symposium, a Blog entry on the Religion Department site (and elsewhere) that surveys the reasons they reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly unlikely. What is needed at this point is an evaluation of the strength of these “falsifications.” I hope I can contribute something helpful to that process.

Having just returned from Jerusalem I have only now had opportunity to work through the various media reports and Blogs on the Internet regarding the results of the Princeton Symposium discussion of the Talpiot tomb. Here are a few reflections in an effort to shed some “light” on the “heat.”

1. There was no official “conclusion” made by the participants, nor were any polls taken, other than the agreement at the end that there should be further examination of the tomb itself in the future. My sense is that a few would say this tomb can not be the tomb of Jesus, but that the vast majority would say that although it might be possible, there is no compelling evidence, given what we now know or possibly can know, and for some, there is evidence pointing against such an identification. Since there are no bone reports, or apparently, the possibility of full DNA testing, we seem left with what we have. A very few of those who think it might be possible would go on to say it has a probability of being the Jesus family tomb. Still, to be fair here, of those who are not convinced, I would say most find the evidence in favor to be flimsy at best. My own sense is that some of this negative judgment results from an inadequate airing of the full evidence, especially on DNA and statistics. Language here can be tricky of course. For example, Shimon Gibson said at the conclusion of the conference that based on all the evidence he “does not think this is the Jesus tomb,” but that should not be taken to mean he would say it is impossible, which I have never heard him say. He simply, like most, does not find the evidence compelling enough to move to the “probably” side of things.

I am with the “possible to likely” group, and it is not always easy to take positions that are in the minority, but my conclusions are based on my own sense of “best evidence,” and I have published them in Near Eastern Archaeology. I also think there is more to be said about the DNA testing as well as the statistical studies, some of which was misunderstood, in my view at least, at the Symposium. I will be writing more on this in coming days.

Lots of confusion comes at this point as people mix the matter of the “site” of Talpiot, with what was said in the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” film produced by Cameron and Jacobovici. I have urged, as much as possible, to separate consideration of the “site” from the “film,” but as it turned out that was often not possible, given the ways in which the film had generated lots of the issues we discussed (DNA tests, statistical studies, etc.).

2. The headline that the Symposium “vindicated” the Jacobovici film is misleading and untrue and was apparently based on a misunderstanding of an interview in which Jacobovici said: “We feel totally vindicated. My work with James Cameron was the catalyst for an international symposium that has finally considered the evidence and is opening the door for further research.” The truth is, the Symposium as a whole brought into question many important elements of the film and dealt with it rather critically, but that is not to say the issues were closed. If anything, as Jacobovici states, they were opened. I think the word “vindicated” was ill advised, but the context helps to put it in proper perspective.

3. The statement that Rut Gat, the widow of the excavator Yosi Gat, read at the close of the Symposium has grabbed a few headlines but what is causing great rancor is the charge that Jacobovici somehow orchestrated or even wrote her statement as a publicity stunt, and that her husband never said such a thing–namely that he thought the Talpiot tomb belonged to the Jesus family. No one I have talked to, including Charlesworth, had any idea what Ms. Gat might say, other than expressing thanks for remembering her husband, and Jacobovici has stated that he did not in any way shape her statement and was surprised himself when he first heard it. I think it is understandable but unfortunate that the Gat issue has taken center stage at a conference that otherwise has offered so much in terms of debate and information on the Talpiot tomb. After all, the views of the late excavator are interesting, but really offer nothing evidentially in terms of the academic evaluation of the tomb. Given the time and money Charlesworth put into the Symposium, I hope we can all look toward the substance of the conference itself, the published volume that will result, and leave personality and media issues behind. For that reason I have done no media interviews whatsoever in that I have not wanted to contribute to this misdirected flurry and confusion.

That said, I do indeed think we can construct a plausible scenario through which Yosi Gat would have not only known but have discussed the ossuary inscriptions before his death and their publication in 1994 by Rahmani. I am in the process, through interviews, of confirming this. I have to agree here with April DeConick, who remarked that it was rather ironic, given our papers on Mary Magdalene at the conference and how her testimony as a woman was discounted, that the conference echoed this at the end in the judgment of a few who were critical of this part of the program. Is it not more than a tiny bit insulting to Ms. Gat to charge that she is naive, easily manipulated, and would not be able to recount accurately her own conversations with her husband.
What I find more interesting than Ms. Gat’s recollection is the source that editor Horovitz quoted in his Friday Jerusalem Post story, which I think refers, more correctly to the 1996 “publicity” the tomb received as a result of the BBC film and was confused with the Gat matter:

In the wake of Wednesday’s declaration by Mrs. Gat that her husband knew he’d found Jesus’s tomb, an expert who insisted on anonymity charged to the Post Thursday that Israel had deliberately “covered up” the significance of the find for fear of the anti-Semitic backlash to which Mrs. Gat referred. “The Jews have suffered for 2,000 years, being blamed for the death of Jesus,” the expert said. “The last thing Israel needed was to find proof of Jesus’s earthly remains. Our relations with the Vatican would never have recovered.”

Therefore, he said, Gat and other senior archeologists and experts decided they would reject any suggestion that the coincidence of apparent Jesus-related names on the ossuaries in the tomb was significant. “When that combination of names came up, it was like winning the lottery,” this expert said. “But it was agreed that the ‘Jesus talk’ would be denied, and that it would be argued that the names were extremely common and their presence in a single Jerusalem tomb thus statistically unimportant. Mrs. Gat told the truth,” he said, “because she’s not a politician.”

My understanding is that this “expert” was involved in the meetings and deliberations on this matter, that they involved IAA meetings called by late director Drori, but that this individual feels in the present atmosphere he can not agree to be identified. Unlike Gibson, quoted in the Post story, I would not characterize such things as “conspiracy” but simply a matter of practical fact–how could Israel best handle the unbridled speculations that would result as a result of the publication of the names in the tomb, especially in the media. My hope is in a new atmosphere the full story can emerge, but it looks like that won’t be soon.

In any event I want to honor and thank Prof. James Charlesworth for all his hard work in making the Symposium possible and being willing to bring together in the same room all those who had been involved, regardless of emotions and passions. The concrete results of the conference lie ahead, both in new investigation and the publishing of the papers of this Symposium, to be published next year by Eerdman’s Press. This product will prove more lasting and enduring than media reports for a day.

The Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins that focused on the Talpiot “Jesus Tomb” in the context of Jewish Burial in late 2nd Temple times has concluded with a flurry of news stories, heated charges and counter-charges, and a few concrete results–truly a mixture of heat and light. I was able to attend every session and as time permits I will offer a detailed analysis of the various issues that were put on the table and discussed. Quite a few matters were clarified, and there is lots to discuss. Here are some links to a sampling of the main stories on the Web this weekend, reflecting various perspectives. I am sure there will be many more, plus analyses by other participants.

CNN Video

This report by Ben Wedeman contains a serious error in that it is said that Cameron & Jacobovici, in their film, hold the view that Jesus did not die on the cross but survived to father children with Mary Magdalene, a’ la Baigent & Brown. Such is not the case.
TIME

Jerusalem Post initial story

Jerusalem Post followup story

HaAretz

Christian Post

The Jerusalem conference on the Talpiot “Jesus” Tomb is fully underway this week. We are meeting just outside the Old City at the beautiful and historic Mishkenot Sha’ananim. I intend to write a series of extensive reports on the various papers, ideas, issues, and information that emerges when I return to the States. So far our gatherings have been extraordinarily beneficial, with respectful exchanges, plenty of sharp differences, and all of us learning a great deal. I thought I might post the program and participants for those who might be interested. I am grateful to Professor James Charlesworth and Princeton Theological Seminary for putting together such a fine program. All the papers, as well as those of contributors who were not able to attend will be fully published. I will provide full details as they become available.

Jewish Views of the After Life and Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism
Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context
Jan 13-16, 2008 in Mishkenot Sha’ananim, Jerusalem

*****= can’t appear. Will send a paper

Carefully re-reading Jane Schaberg’s book, The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene, has set me to thinking and working through all the texts related to her once again, particularly those in our New Testament gospels. I wanted to do a bit of “thinking aloud” here, covering various thoughts and ideas that have come to me of late.

I begin with Mark, whose references to Mary Magdalene form the core of the Synoptic gospels account of her. He mentions her three times, at the crucifixion, at Jesus’ burial, and at the empty tomb on Sunday morning (Mk 15:40-41; 15:47; 16:1). She is named first among two other women from Galilee, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome, but according to Mark they are part of a larger contingent of “many other women” who had followed Jesus from Galilee where they had provided (Greek: diakoneo) for him. This reference to a large group of Galilean women who form a base of support, presumably financial and otherwise, is something Luke picks up on and elaborates (8:1-3), but it fundamentally comes to us from Mark. I presented arguments in my book, The Jesus Dynasty, that this second Mary of Mark’s group, is Jesus’ mother, with Salome most likely his sister. At any rate, it is these three, led by Mary Magdalene, who make preparations to attend to the intimate task of preparing the corpse of Jesus for burial, buying spices on Saturday evening with the intention of anointing his body early Sunday morning. Thus they come to discover the empty tomb early Sunday morning.

Matthew, clearly relying on Mark as his source, has the same three references to Mary Magdalene, at the crucifixion, the burial, and early Sunday morning at the tomb. She is paired with the “other Mary,” and he does not name Salome, though he implies she might be the “mother of the sons of Zebedee. Regardless, it is the two Marys who witness the burial and visit the tomb Sunday morning (Matt 27:55-56, 27:61; 28:1).

Luke, also following Mark, makes some significant changes to Mark’s basic structure. He too has women from Galilee standing at the cross but he names none of them (Luke 23:49). Likewise, at the burial, these women from Galilee remain unnamed (Luke 23:55-56). Finally at the empty tomb he says the women who came to complete the rites of burial were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “the other women with them” (Luke 24:10). This means that Luke only names Mary Magdalene once in the three scenes that Mark has introduced her. As we will see, this is absolutely deliberate and calculated. What he does is introduce her much earlier, back in Galilee, among this group of many women who had provided for Jesus, picking up on Mark’s reference. But there he adds that she was part of a group of women who had been cured of “evil spirits and infirmities” naming Joanna and another woman, Susanna, but adding that Mary Magdalene herself was positively deranged beyond description, in that she had been possessed by seven demons! (Luke 8:1-3). Luke is keen to make the point that the presence of these women, who do not need to be even named, is of no credible importance, since they come from such shady backgrounds, epitomizing the hysterical “female” whose testimony would be considered an “idle tale,” thus preparing the way for the true and reliable male witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (Luke 24:11). All he really has to go on is Mark, but he skillfully recasts Mark’s material in this way, thus marginalizing Mary Magdalene, and “demonizing” her, quite literally, cured or not, lest anyone might think the resurrection faith was first proclaimed by such a witness. But there is more. Just before Luke introduces the deranged woman in chapter 8, as followers of Jesus from Galilee, he constructs a scene, in Galilee, of an unnamed woman of an unnamed city, a “sinner,” who comes to Jesus at a dinner with an ointment, who then weeps uncontrollably, bathes his feet with her tears, wiping them with her hair, and anointing them (Luke 7:36-50). Jesus forgives her many sins, and she presumably becomes his follower. And thus Mary Magdalene is introduced in the next passage. The juxtaposition is deliberate. Although Luke is not bold enough to say that Mary Magdalene herself is this forgiven harlot, the contextualizing is enough, coupled with her deranged mental past. Interestingly enough, Mark also has a story of an anonymous woman anointing Jesus, but it is a few days before Jesus’ death, in Jerusalem, and she is honored not as a forgiven sinner, but one whose anointing prepared him “beforehand” for his burial (Mark 14:3-9).

What Mark fundamentally tells us then about Mary Magdalene is that she is first among a group of women from Galilee who provided for Jesus, that she is involved (with his mother) in the intimate rites of preparing Jesus’ body for burial, and that she, Mary, and Salome, are the “first witnesses” to Jesus’ resurrection. Mark knows nothing of appearances of Jesus to these women, but they hear the proclamation, “He has been raised, he is not here.” The disciples, led by Peter, are to “see him in Galilee,” though the scene is never reported by Mark. Matthew elaborates Mark’s disturbingly sparse account, with Jesus subsequently encountering the women who linger at the tomb, and a mysterious “foggy mountain” appearance to the Eleven somewhere in Galilee (with some doubting!). Luke feels compelled to go further. There is no disputing the women were involved, at the cross, the burial, and the empty tomb–but as a group they are unnamed, and even when named, identified as “formerly” deranged and contextualized with the unnamed “harlot” whom Jesus forgives for her many sins. Luke wants nothing of appearances in Galilee, nor of the deranged women who might have proclaimed such as “first witnesses.” For him the resurrection of Jesus rests solidly on his Jerusalem based appearances to reliable male witnesses, including to Peter and the Eleven.

And then there is the gospel of John. John also has Mary Magdalene at the cross, and he clearly identifies Jesus’ mother there as well. He does not mention the women at the burial but his account of what happened early Sunday morning is significantly different from that of Mark. Rather than the group of women arriving together, John relates that Mary Magdalene came alone, very early, while it was still dark, and saw the stone removed from the tomb (John 20:1-10). She runs to tell Peter, and he, and an unnamed disciple rush to the tomb, confirming her story, but not yet coming to the conclusion Jesus was raised. There are no messengers, angelic or otherwise, as in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, to tell the women Jesus is raised–it is simple a case of someone having “taken the master out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him” (20:2).

I find this account in John strangely compelling. Mark’s young man in white linen, proclaiming Jesus is risen, seems wholly theological, not to mention Matthews fantastic expansion where we have a dazzling angel who comes like lightening from heaven, heralded by an earthquake, who rolls back the stone and proclaims Jesus is risen. Luke’s two men in dazzling clothing is cut from the same cloth. In contrast, John’s core account has nothing fantastic or even theological. It deserves our careful attention, and at the heart of this account is the singular experience of a woman–namely Mary Magdalene.

According to John the tomb is found empty very early Sunday morning, even at dark. The logical conclusion is that someone has removed the body and placed it elsewhere, perhaps the gardener, or as the rumor in Matthew has it, some of his disciples. Schaberg effectively argues, in my judgment, that what happens next in John’s gospel (20:11-18), namely Jesus’ encounter with Mary Magdalene, still in the garden near the tomb where he was missing, is our earliest and most fundamental witness to Jesus’ resurrection, and that further, the form and structure by which John narrates this encounter, implies an Elijah-Elisha like succession story, of Jesus passing on this witness to his chosen and intimate follower, Mary Magdalene. In this extraordinary account we have dialogue between Jesus and Mary. She is Maria in the narrative but Jesus calls her name directly, “Miriam,” and she replies with the affectionate diminutive “Rabbouni,” my dear/little Master. What she is told is that she must not grasp him for he is ascending to the Father.

Like Matthew and Luke, John includes other appearance stories, both to the disciples in Jerusalem, and in Galilee. But this core account, found now in John 20:1-18, is perhaps our best window for reconstructing what might have happened that early Sunday morning. Based on the Mary Magdalene account, found only in John, I am convinced that the discovery of the empty tomb should be given historical weight. It is what John’s account does not say that makes it compelling. With no angelic messengers proclaiming the resurrection, and Mary not even told to go tell the rest that they too would see Jesus, it seems to me we should give the Mary Magdalene story priority. The subsequent accounts of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and even the supplemental accounts in John, all seem to be accretions to this core account.

Mark does not dispute that Mary Magdalene and the other women first discovered the tomb, but his account is clearly a generalized expansion of an earlier core story, much elaborated by Matthew, and radically re-contextualized by Luke. But they do not venture to remove the Magdalene. Only Paul does that, in his roll call of appearances of the heavenly Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. There Mary Magdalene is completely eliminated. In effect, that has already begun to happen in Mark, since the women “say nothing to anyone” and are mainly pointers to the male Eleven who will see Jesus in Galilee. In Matthew the main point of resurrection is the “commission,” and that would not be given to women, but only to the male Eleven. Likewise in Luke, who has Jesus appear to the Eleven, telling them to take his message to all the nations.

In my view John 20:1-18 stands separate and isolated from all these subsequently embellished traditions. John is able to contextualize it with subsequent appearances to the male leaders, but read as “first testimony” it has a most compelling ring to it. I find it the only account that lends itself to some measure of credible historical reconstruction. It essentially is what I make most use of in my own reconstruction in The Jesus Dynasty:

Jesus is hastily buried in a temporary tomb that happened to be nearby in a garden at the place of crucifixion. The intent was to move his body to a permanent place after the festival/Sabbath was past. Mary Magdalene arrives early Sunday morning, while it is still dark, and finds the stone rolled away and the tomb empty. She alerts Peter and the others. No one thinks Jesus has been raised, but they draw the logical conclusion, that someone has moved him. Presumably that someone would be either other family members, or more likely Joseph of Arimathea. Lingering near the tomb Mary has a visionary encounter with Jesus himself. She is told by him that he is ascending to heaven and that is what she reports to the others. Mary then becomes first witness, and as such, “successor” to the ascending Jesus. She alone is given the message–Jesus has ascended to the Father.

It is difficult to read this account as it stands without interjecting subsequent stories from Matthew, Luke, and John. But that Mark, writing as late as the 70s AD, has no appearances, yet he does have Mary Magdalene at the tomb, supports the essential core of John’s Mary Magdalene story. Historians have rightly judged that the series of expanded and dramatic appearances of Jesus to his various male followers are theologically cast apologetics. As such, the singular appearance to Mary Magdalene, did not fare so well. Luke begins the long history of her demise and defamation–yes, she was there, but remember, she and the others were surely less than reliable witnesses. What is important is that even in Mark she can not be eliminated. She is there at the first, and she is clearly the first, if John is to be given any weight at all.

One puzzle in John is that he, like Mark and Luke, also has a scene at which Jesus is anointed by a woman (John 12:1-8). His account is clearly parallel to that of Mark in several of its key elements, but then it departs significantly therefrom. John’s story takes place a few days earlier than Mark’s, six days before Passover. John identifies the woman as Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus, whereas Mark leaves her unnamed. Rather than Jesus’ head, as in Mark, this Mary anoints his feet with a costly perfume and wipes them with her hair–which in turn reminds one of the Luke story of the “woman of the city,” that is the “sinner.” In John Jesus does not say that she has anointed him beforehand for his burial, but rather that the costly perfume was well spent and that she can store it up to use in the future on the day of his burial! One would then expect her to appear in some manner, at the burial scene, to anoint Jesus’ body, as Mark has Mary Magdalene do. I see no easy way to sort through these three anointing stories. I think behind them lies some event that took place the last week of Jesus’ life, in Jerusalem. We can surely discount Luke’s moving the story much earlier, and placing it in Galilee, as well as his implication that the woman who anoints Jesus is a “sinner.” But that Luke juxtapositions his redeemed harlot story with his own introduction of Mary Magdalene as formerly “deranged” or demon possessed, gives one pause. Does Luke fear that Mark’s story might imply that the anointing woman is none other than Mary Magdalene–who subsequently comes to the tomb to complete her prophetic/proleptic act of devotion? The intimacy implied in John’s story, namely the wiping of the feet with the hair, given Jewish custom, is also present in Luke but not in Mark. It is all more than confusing but one is tempted to say at the core of these accounts is a story of involving intimacy, anointing, and burial. I do not think it makes sense to identify Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene, as some have suggested. However, it might make sense that final editors of John wanted to distance Mary Magdalene from such an intimate act by some substitution of names, whereas Mark simply leaves her anonymous.

Dr. April DeConick of Rice University has posted more details on her popular Blog, Forbidden Gospels, regarding the upcoming international conference in Jerusalem dealing with the Talpiot Tomb in historical and archaeological context. She is obviously impressed with both the agenda and the participants. This conference, organized by Prof. James Charlesworth, of Princeton Theological Seminary, is precisely what various leading scholars called for months ago–among them Michael Stone of Hebrew University and Eric Meyers of Duke University, namely a sane, sober, academic consideration of all aspects of the Talpiot “Jesus” tomb in its wider context. This is in contrast to the near hysteria and dearth of accurate factual information on the subject that flooded the print, TV, and Internet media back in the Spring. I post here Dr. DeConick’s comments:

In case you haven’t heard yet, Professor Charlesworth, for the Third Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins, is holding a three-day conference in Jerusalem called “Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context.” Dates are Jan 13-16, 2008. The provisional agenda that I was sent looks outstanding in terms of coverage and folks involved. Actually amazing might be closer to the mark.

Topics to be covered in special sessions:
Ancient Beliefs about the Afterlife and Burial Customs
Tombs, Ossuaries, and Burial Practices: The Archaeological Evidence
Burial Beliefs and Practices: The Textual Evidence
Onomastics and Prosopography in Second Temple Judaism
The Talpiot Ossuaries and their Epigraphy
Paleo-DNA and its Archaeological Applications
Patina Testing and its Archaeological Applications
The Talpiot Tomb in March 1980
Mary Magdalene in Early Christian Tradition
Relating Tomb Archaeology with Historical Figures: Possibilities and Problem Discoveries
The Palestinian Jesus Movement: Correlating Textual and Archaeological Evidence for Jewish Christianity
The Burial of Jesus, the Empty Tomb, and the Jesus Family
Statistics and the Talpiot Tomb

This is exactly the kind of academic forum that I suggested (on this blog) was needed when all the media hoopla engaged the Talpiot Tomb. I am looking forward to participating in the Jerusalem conference, and want to thank Professor Charlesworth for organizing it.

The program is still being finalized but most of the leading scholars involved in these topics have been invited and many have already confirmed their participation. I echo Dr. DeConick’s thanks to Prof. Charlesworth for putting together such a timely conference. When full details become available I will post them here.

I wanted to mention three items of news related to the ongoing academic discussion and evaluation of the Talpiot “Jesus” family tomb.

The latest issue of Near Eastern Archaeology (Vol 69:3-4 September-December 2006) has a special Forum feature on the Tomb with the following essays:

Eric M Meyers, “The Jesus tomb controversy: an overview”
Shimon Gibson, “Is the Talpiot Tomb Really the family tomb of Jesus?”
Sandra Scham, “Trial by statistics”
Christopher A. Rollston, “Inscribed Ossuaries: Personal names, statistics, and laboratory tests”
Stephen J. Pfann, “Mary Magdalene has left the room: A suggested new reading of ossuary CJO 701″
James D. Tabor, “Testing a hypothesis”

This set of essays, fully illustrated with photos and drawings, is quite comprehensive, offering a nice summary of the various issues and approaches represented by this mix of scholars. For information on subscriptions or purchasing this particular issue see the ASOR Web site. Copies of this latest issue will be available at the upcoming annual meeting of ASOR in San Diego, November 14-17th, as well as at the ASOR booth at the annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion which meet in San Diego that weekend.

The Talpiot tomb is one featured topic at the 9th annual Batcheler Biblical Archaeology Conference at the University of Nebraska, November 8-10th, hosted by Rami Arav and Richard Freund. Prof. Dan Bahat and I will be discussing the pros and cons of identifying the Tomb with Jesus of Nazareth and I will deliver a plenary lecture on the “Jesus Family Tomb.” Sessions are open to the public. For details contact Rami Arav.

Prof. James Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary has just announced that the third Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins, to be held January 13-16, 2008 in Jerusalem, will consider the topic “Jewish Views of the After Life and Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context.” The preliminary program lists an impressive international roster of scholars in the various fields related to the subject, including biblical and historical studies, archeology, DNA, statistics, prosopography and onomastics, and epigraphy. Charlesworth’s previous Jerusalem Symposia on “Jesus and Hillel” and “Jesus and Archaeology,” both resulted in the publication of impressive volumes collecting together the various papers. Apparently he has such a volume planned for this conference as well. It is good to learn that the Talpiot tomb will be evaluated in such an academic setting, moving things beyond sensational press reports and Internet discussion.

A comprehensive new paper titled “Probability, Statistics, and the Talpiot Tomb,” authored by Profs. Kevin Kilty and Mark Elliot, has just been posted on the Web. It is exceptionally clear in argument, thoroughly academic in approach and method, and in my view advances the discussion of the Talpiot tomb to a new level. I believe that this paper clears the air on any number of convoluted issues, but particularly the matter of whether or not the cluster of names found in the tomb are common and statistically insignificant, or rare and unique. The most common response to the possibility that the Jesus in the Talpiot tomb might be Jesus of Nazareth has been “the names in the tomb are common.” As Kilty and Elliot demonstrate, statistic probability can often be counter intuitive. I highly recommend a close reading of this challenging and ground-breaking paper.