Archive for the ‘Talpiot Jesus Family Tomb’ Category

For those interested in some of the chronological matters related to the discovery of the Talpiot tomb in 1980 it just so happens that the days of the week and days of the month coincide on the Jewish calendar for the year 1980 and this year 2007. That makes “today” the anniversary date of the first report of the opening of the Tomb.

Gregorian/Jewish Years: 1980 (5740) and 2007 (5767):

Passover began/begins on Monday night, Nisan 14th

Tomb reported to IAA by building crew on previous Thursday, Nisan 10th

Initial inspection by Amos Kloner, Friday, Nisan 11th

Tomb open and unattended over Shabbat (Shabbat HaGadol in Jewish tradition), Nisan 12th

Active beginning of the excavation by Yosi Gath with Shimon Gibson and three workers, Sunday, Nisan 13th

For a fuller discussion of what we know of that weekend in 1980 based on the original excavation notes of Joseph Gath see my March 21, 2007 post, A Passover in 1980.

There has been a lot of discussion regarding statistical methods as applied to the names on the ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb. I offer here a short clarification, and refer folks to more extensive discussions, if anyone is interested, on earlier entries on this Blog. These are easily located by a search for the term “statistics.”

The confusion, as I understand it, has had to do with the use, or perceived misuse, of “statistics” on onomastic data of this type. Dr. Feuerverger does not need me to defend him or his incredible accomplishments and intellect. His Bio speaks for itself. I regret that things got very confused with the way in which Feuerverger’s work was intially reported by Discovery. That has now, thankfully, been clarified on both the Discovery Web site and the home page of Dr. Feuerverger thanks to the helpful input of Joe D’Mello and other statisticians who contacted both Dr. Feuerverger and Discovery.

I am not a statistician but I have consulted with several, including Feuerverger, as well as a half dozen others who have been critical of his conclusions, as well as my own posts on the subject. We have had an exceptionally open and friendly give-and-take through private e-mail over the past few weeks. My own position is the following.

Read the rest of this entry »

There has been some discussion of to what degree the James ossuary might be described as “plain” or “decorated,” and as “inscribed” or “uninscribed.” The late Joseph Gath makes it clear in his final excavation report that when the ossuaries were removed and tagged in the field, during the first two days of the rescue archaeological operation (March 30 & 31, 1980) that only four of the six inscriptions had been noticed but none were yet “deciphered.” The task of the excavation was not to carefully examine the ossuaries but to remove them, excavate the cave, and record and tag any of the findings as well as produce an accurate survey map. Those tasks were all carried out, under the supervision of Amos Kloner, and with the assistance of Shimon Gibson, according to proper and established procedures. Even several months later when Gath produced his printed report on the ossuaries he simply notes that “Some inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic were found in the cave that have not been deciphered yet.” Lots of ossuaries from tombs were being brought into the Israel Department of Antiquities in those days and those responsible had no reason to pay any special attention to this group. An inscription “Yeshua bar Yehosef” might have been of some interest had it been noticed, but it is quite difficult to read and could well have been one of the two inscriptions recognized only later when they were cleaned, examined, and photographed.

Here are two very clear photos of the James ossuary with views of both the inscribed and the uninscribed sides. One can barely make out the beginnings of an extremely faint rossette pattern on the side without the inscription though whether one might then classify it as “decorated” in the sense of the the others in the tomb is questionable. Depending on how the ossuaries are found in a tomb one sometimes finds soil adhering to surfaces obscuring some features until the ossuaries can be brushed and carefully examined in good light for either decorations or inscriptions.

The five decorated ossuaries, two of which were inscibed (“Mariamene Mara” and the “Jude son of Jesus.”), are actually quite elaborate in contrast to the “plain” look of the James ossuary. Here is 80.506 as a comparative example:

Whether the James ossuary might possibly be the so-called “missing 10th” from Talpiot, or otherwise associated with the Talpiot tomb, remains to be demonstrated, but all we know about the 10th (IAA 80. 509) are two data: the dimensions and the one word description “plain,” with no surviving photo. A excavator’s initial field description of “plain,” without note of an inscription, is fully in keeping with Gath’s preliminary notes and records.

The two things I think I have heard repeated most often in the discussion of the Talpit tomb, both mistaken in my view, are: 1) that Jesus would not have had a family tomb in Jerusalem, either because he was from Galilee or that he was too poor; and 2) that since the “names are common” in the Talpiot tomb (Peter, Paul, & Mary) the site can not possibly be connected to Jesus of Nazareth. The following essay offers some thoughts on both issues.

Two, not one–the Burials of Jesus of Nazareth and the Talpiot Yeshua Tomb

Jodi Magness has recently argued at the SBL Web site and elsewhere that the east Talpiot tomb of recent controversy can not be the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family because: (1) such an idea contradicts the canonical gospel accounts; (2) it ignores the lower class status of Jesus’ family and their non-Judean origins; (3) and finally, even if the family might have had such a tomb it would be in Nazareth not Jerusalem. Christopher Rollston has now contributed a piece on the same Web site site arguing that the inscriptions on the six ossuaries found in the Talpiot tomb are sufficiently common, generic, and lacking in patronymic data, so as to preclude any convincing prosopographic identification with the family of Jesus of Nazareth. I take it that Rollston is not arguing the impossibility of the identification but rather its lack of convincing data. I agree with Magness that Jesus was buried twice, but my own view, contrary to Magness, is that the Talpiot tomb fits nicely within our earliest canonical sources (gospels as well as Paul) as to the nature and location of that second burial. At the end of my treatment here I will offer some very brief observations on Rollston’s welcome contribution. The nature of the question, with its theological and emotional overtones, coupled with the way the issue was put before the public and the academy (i.e., through a documentary film and a trade book) has understandably galvanized the responses into “yes” or “no,” (mostly “no”), when reasonable alternatives might be “possible but uncertain,” to even “probable but not certain,” but in any case a call for further investigation. I will make some suggestions at the end of this piece regarding directions for future research.

1. Why the tomb does not contradict the Gospel Accounts: Dead but Twice Buried
Our earliest testimony to the death and burial of Jesus comes from a letter of Paul to his followers at Corinth in the early 50s CE. He purports to pass on a tradition that he had received, namely “that Christ died…that he was buried…that he was raised on the third day. . .that he was seen…” (1 Cor 15:3-5). Leaving aside the matter of the nature of these “sightings” of Jesus, including Paul’s own claim in that regard years after the crucifixion, it is significant that Paul writes that Jesus was buried. Burial implies a tomb, of whatever type, and he clearly intends the phrase “raised on the third day” to imply that that tomb was empty. In that regard I have to agree with evangelical apologists that Paul knows an “empty tomb” tradition. I cannot see how his language can make any sense otherwise.

Chronologically Mark would be our next source, assuming one is convinced, as I am, of the priority of his account of the burial and the empty tomb. Mark relates that an influential sympathizer of Jesus and his movement, namely Joseph of Arimathea, obtained permission from Pontius Pilate to remove Jesus’ body from the cross and to bury him in haste before the Sabbath arrived. Mark writes that Joseph wrapped the corpse in a linen shroud, laid it in a rock-hewn tomb, and blocked the entrance to the tomb with a stone or golal (Mk 15:42-47). He also notes that Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses (whom I take to be Jesus’ mother, see The Jesus Dynasty, pp. 77-81) were present at this burial. Here one must read carefully, as Mark does not say, as often assumed, that this tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, nor does Luke, who is following Mark, or John, who clearly has independent material. The only source for the commonly held assumption that this tomb belonged to Joseph is a gloss in Matthew, whereby Joseph becomes a “rich man” who puts Jesus in “his own new tomb.” This is clearly not history but Matthew’s tendentious attempt to show a fulfillment of prophecy, namely, Isaiah 53:9, where the suffering servant is buried in the tomb of a rich man.

If we discount Matthew’s theological embellishment and rely upon the core source Mark, we find that it comports well with John, who offers an independent but corollary account. John also knows the Joseph of Arimathea tradition but he adds a critical point: “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). Both Mark and John, two independent sources, see this burial as hastily done and John makes it clear that it was a burial of temporary necessity in constrained emergency circumstances. What does one do with a corpse as the Sabbath approaches (and according to John, the Passover seder)? How can it be kept from predators until the rites of burial are completed? This initial burial of Jesus was by definition a temporary and emergency move, based on necessity, until something more permanent could be worked out or arranged.

What happened next in terms of when and how the corpse of Jesus was taken from that temporary tomb is unfortunately a matter about which historians can say little, given the theological nature of our sources, and their relatively late apologetic character. Mark, our earliest narrative source, reports that the tomb was empty by early Sunday morning and that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome were told by a “young man” waiting for them in the empty tomb that Jesus had been taken up (aorist passive of egeiro) and would see them in Galilee. Mark ends abruptly with no sightings, but according to some, including my teacher Norman Perrin, his community looked in hope to the promise of a parousia appearance in Galilee, something they still anxiously awaited in the time Mark composed his gospel in the 70s CE.

One must assume that the corpse was taken and reburied, perhaps as soon as the Sabbath was over just after sundown Saturday night. If one were speculating one might suppose that Joseph of Arimathea, the one who had taken responsibility for the corpse in the first place, would have retrieved the body as soon as Jewish law permitted. Whether the family was involved, or whether we are to trust the accounts of the Sunday morning visits to the tomb, are questions that take us beyond history to a later apologetic stance intended to defend a view that Jesus had been raised bodily and taken to heaven (Luke and John). As historians we can reasonably expect that the “tomb” would be empty, given that the tomb near the crucifixion site was never intended as a permanent place for Jesus’ corpse in the first place but seized upon in an emergency fashion until other arrangements could be made.

At this point we enter what John Dominic Crossan has called the “dark age” of early Christian origins. Jesus died in 30 CE but we have no records until Paul, in the 50s CE, of what the early Jerusalem followers of Jesus, now led by his brother James, might have preached or taught regarding the death of Jesus. For centuries everyone has “filled in” those twenty years based on the narratives of Luke-Acts, and the sharply polemical account of Paul in his letter to the Galatians, but many of us have become convinced that Luke’s creation of a “myth of origins,” and Paul’s claim that his “gospel” was accepted by the Jerusalem “pillars,” (James, Cephas, and John) should be radically questioned (see SBL symposium papers, Redescribing Christian Origins, eds. Cameron and Miller).

My purpose in this piece is not to argue these complex issues but to make the simple point that from a critical reading of our earliest sources on the emergency burial of Jesus’ corpse we would expect that first tomb to be empty within twenty-four hours. And I think we can safely assume that it was.

2. Was Jesus poor and lower class, and so most likely buried in a Trench Tomb?
Magness argues that whoever took the body would have buried him in a simple trench grave with no marker since the family was too poor to have afforded a rock-hewn tomb. Yet, she seems to allow that at least one follower of influence and means, namely Joseph of Arimathea, did in fact see to the initial burial. Why would one assume that either Joseph, or other followers of means who were devoted to his messianic program, would not be able to provide a permanent tomb? The Jesus movement, now led by James his brother, was headquartered in Jerusalem for the next 40 years and their numbers and influence were enough to be noted by Josephus in the Antiquities. The family of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, who lived in Bethany, and with whom Jesus was intimately connected, could afford to bury their dead in a rock-hewn tomb. I also find the evidence presented by Mancini, Bagatti and Milik, and Sukenik and Avigad, regarding rock-tomb burials with inscribed ossuaries elsewhere in Talpiot, at Dominus Flevit, and on the Mt. of Offense, as convincingly connected to the early followers of Jesus (Finegan, Archaeology of the N.T. 359-374).

On more general grounds what Magness overlooks, in my view, is the extraordinary devotion that followers exhibit toward their spiritual/messianic leaders. Mark tells us that the followers of John the Baptizer went to collect his body and that they placed him in a tomb (Mark 6:29). The Syriac “Ascents of James,” for example, recounts how devout followers of James buried another murdered leader, known in some traditions as Stephen, in a tomb to which they made an annual pilgrimage close to Jericho (see Van Voorst, Ascents SBLDS 112). I have studied apocalyptic and messianic movements, both ancient and modern, for thirty years now and I have never encountered anything close to the scenario that Magness imagines when it comes to such groups burying a murdered leader. It is an open and debated question in the field of Christian origins as to whether Jesus was poor and without means of any sort, but even if that were granted, to rule out the likelihood that devoted followers of means would have provided him and his family with a place of burial is unwarranted.

I have been in the Talpiot tomb and it is quite modest in size and arrangement measuring under 3 x 3 meters and less than 2 meters high. It is nothing like the more monumental decorated tombs closer to the city. Also, of the six inscribed ossuaries four are “plain,” and only two are “decorated,” (Mariamene Mara and Yehuda bar Yeshua). I am not convinced that the mere existence of a modest rock-hewn tomb of this type indicates high status and wealth. Indeed, Kloner’s survey of rock-hewn burial tombs in and around Jerusalem seems to show that as one moves away from the “front row” seat near the Old City, the tombs south of Akeldama, around the Mt. of Offense, and south into Talpiot, are often more modest in form and size: thus the old adage, location, location, location.

3. The likelihood of a Jesus family tomb in Jerusalem and the question of toponymic markers
Finally I would expect rather than question that a tomb of Jesus and his family would be in the Jerusalem area rather than in the Galilee. We have no record that in the period from 30-70 CE that James and his brothers, and presumably their mother and sisters, lived anywhere but Jerusalem. Crossan has even argued, somewhat convincingly I think, that James might have established himself in Jerusalem long before the death of Jesus. Again, it is the nature of a messianic movement of this type to band together in hope and expectation, rather than to scatter and go back to business as usual. The solidarity of the movement in the 40s, 50s, and 60s surely depended on fervent apocalyptic and messianic expectations that focused on the fate and future of Jerusalem (Mark 13). Jerusalem was the “50-yard-line of the apocalypse” and everyone wanted a front row seat. When Mark addressed the community, with the 70 CE disaster in mind, his word was “Let those who are in Judea, flee to the mountains.” The “sign” the community is waiting for was the “desolating sacrilege” of Daniel in which a foreign ruler would erect some sort of offensive image in the Temple, echoing the pattern of Antiochus IV. The incident with Caligula in 41 CE provided a contemporary example of what might be possible.

It is the case, as Magness notes, that ossuaries sometimes included toponyms, especially for native places of origin outside Roman Palestine, but to insist that all those from places other than Judea must have such toponyms is unlikely. Also, toponyms known from literary sources (“Judas the Galilean,” “Jesus of Nazareth”), written decades after a person’s life, are not necessarily reflective of contemporary oral or epigraphic designations.

4. A few notes on prosopography and the Talpiot Tomb
Strictly speaking Rollston is correct that the inscriptions on the six ossuaries found in the Talpiot tomb are sufficiently common, generic, and lacking in patronymic data, so as to preclude any convincing prosopographic identification with the family of Jesus of Nazareth. I think to some degree it is a question of rigor. There is a good deal of latitude between prosopographic certainty and flights of irresponsible fantasy. Indeed, it is often the case with historical data that if we demanded absolute rigor we could say hardly anything. In the case of the Talpiot tomb I am convinced that there is more we can say, but not necessarily prove. Let me suggest an alternative way of approaching the prosopographic data that has more to do with testing a hypothesis rather than drawing an absolute conclusion.

One has only to page through the 895 entry catalogue of Rahmani listing ossuaries in the State of Israel collection to realize that the east Talpiot tomb stands out in a rather striking manner. Only 227 ossuaries in the catalogue are inscribed (25%), and yet this tomb has six out of ten, including the only provenanced example ever found of an ossuary inscribed “Yeshua bar Yehosef.” The cluster of names, even with their limited patronymics, appear to have statistical relevance based on purely mathematical considerations regarding name frequency data for the period.

Let’s pose the hypothetical question—of the named individuals we know, either as part of the Jesus family, or intimately connected thereto, who might we expect in a pre-70 CE family tomb? I would list Jesus himself, his mother Mary, his brother Joses, perhaps his brother James who was murdered in 62 CE, his sisters Mary and Salome, and possibly Mary Magdalene, who seems intimately involved with the mother and the sisters in the burial rites (Mark 15:40; 16:1). Of those unnamed we might have spouses and children of the brothers and sisters, if they had any, but we have no names. This seems to me to be our “tight” list of named intimates. We would not expect the brothers Simon or Judah in a pre-70 CE tomb since Simon took over leadership of the movement at the death of James in 62 CE, and Judas and his sons (or grandsons) are also known in later accounts after 70 CE. Since Simon succeeded James, rather than the brother Joses, who was next by birth, and we know nothing else of this “missing brother,” it might well be that he died before 70 CE.

The Talpiot tomb has inscribed ossuaries naming a Jesus son of Joseph, a Mary (Maria), another Mary (Mariamene/Mara), a Joseph (Jose), a Matthew (Matya), and a Jude son of Jesus (Yehuda). Four of the six names correspond to names we might predict in a pre-70 CE intimate family tomb of Jesus. The name Yose, only found here on an ossuary, is quite rare as a nickname, and corresponds well with the Greek nickname in Mark (6:3; 15:40, 47) by which Jesus’ second brother, Joses, is known. Of the two Marys, the only DNA test that was possible indicates that Mariamene is neither Jesus’ mother nor his sister. Since there are three “Marys” that are intimate in the life of Jesus, his mother, his sister, and Mary Magdalene, one might suggest a hypothetical identification of this Mariamene with Mary Magdalene. This is, of course, by no means certain, but it is based on eliminating her as mother of sister. She could, of course be any other Mary, even one we know nothing about, since Mary is a common name (25%). However, if we stay here with our list of hypothesized pre-70 named intimates, she can be logically included for consideration. Maria, the other Mary, is an appropriate name in Aramaic for Jesus’ mother in early Christian texts, and she is sometimes distinguished from Mary Magdalene, who is given forms of the name Miriame/Miriamne. Matthew is a name we would not have predicted, though it is found multiple times in both genealogical records of the Jesus family (Matt 1, Luke 3), so we really can say nothing about him. Judah son of Jesus is unexpected, as we have no clear literary evidence of Jesus of Nazareth having a son, though one might assume, in the case of this particular Talpiot Jesus, that one of the Marys named might be the mother, and we do know that Mariamene is not a sister of Jesus or his mother. I am not persuaded that the presence of a son of this Jesus precludes his identification with Jesus of Nazareth.

Taken as a whole it seems to me that this tomb and its possible identification with Jesus and Nazareth and his family should not be dismissed. The evidence from the gospels I have surveyed, coupled with the cluster of significant names that fit our hypothetical expectations for a posited pre-70 Jesus family tomb, is strong, and should be further tested. Of course, if the ossuary inscribed “James son of Joseph,” is added to the cluster, and the evidence for that possibility is unresolved at this point, the correspondence would be all the more striking. What is needed is further work on the epigraphy, expanded patina tests, further DNA testing if that is possible, and since the tomb in 1980 had to be excavated so quickly, but now has been located, a fuller archaeological examination of the site itself.

The following is based on official documents and records from the Israel Antiquities Authority excavation archives, as well as Darrel Bock’s most helpful recent informal interview with Professor Amos Kloner, who was in 1980 the district supervisor of excavations in the Jerusalem, and Kloner’s extensive excavation report published in Atiqot 29 (1996): 15-22.

The east Talpiot tomb, exposed to view by demolition by the the Solel Boneh construction crew, was reported by engineer A. Shochat to the Israel Department of Antiquities on March 27, 1980. That was a Thursday.

Eliot Braun, representing the IDA, made an initial inspection and reported to Amos Kloner, who visited the site, and wrote up a preliminary hand written memo to Department of Antiquities director Abi Eitan dated Friday, March 28, 1980. He requested a rescue excavation permit with Yosef Gath as director of excavations. Kloner included in his memo a prelimnary sketch of the tomb with its outer courtyard, its entrance with the interesting facade, and the inner chamber with six kokhim, and two archosolia, or primary burial shelves, on the north and west walls. With the Sabbath approaching the tomb was left open until Sunday morning. The permit for a rescue excavation was officially issued on Monday, March 31st, by Eitan, and registered as license # 938

Gath, along with Shimon Gibson, who was invited by Kloner to serve as the surveyer, showed up Sunday morning to begin their work with the assistance of 3-4 workers. In his director’s report, filed on April 15, 1980, Gath notes April 11th as the official “end” of the excavation and records that work proceeded “intermittently” over that period, which of course, included, the eight days of Passover. Monday, the second day of the excavation, was Nisan 14 on the Jewish calendar, Erev Pesach, the night of the Seder, so much of the work was done on Sunday and Monday, including the removal of 10 ossuaries, the removal of a .5m of soil that had filled the central chamber, the tagging and registration of the artifacts, and sending them to the IDA.

Gibson carefully recorded on his official sketch the location of the ossuaries in the various kokhim, which were numbered 2-7. Kokhim 2, 3, and 6 had two ossuaries, kok 5 had one, kok 7 had three, and kok 4 had none. On the original floor, under the fill, in front of each of the archosolium, was a human skull with remnants of arm and leg bones, both noted in Gath’s April 15th report. Gibson also includes in his sketch a third skull in the southeast corner of the central chamber, not specifically mentioned by Gath. A few ceramic pottery sherds were found that were dated ER/early Roman. There were no primary burials in the kokim and on the surface of the arcosolia were crushed bones packed in a few centimeters of soil. No covers were found for the kokhim, there was no golal, or blocking stone for the entrance to the tomb found, two broken ossuary lids were found on the floor under the fill–all indicating, according to Gath, that the tomb had been disturbed in ancient times.

Bones: Kloner remembers that the bones from the floor of the tomb were eventually turned over to the Jewish religious authorities but it is not clear whether any or all of them were first examined by an anthropologist. Joe Zias has checked his own personal records and says they were not given to him. There is no anthropological report in the IAA files. Kloner also notes that the bones in the ossuaries were in an advanced state of deterioration. As far as the number of individuals in the tomb Kloner makes clear in both his article (footnote #2), and in his interview, that his numbers as based on demographic averages or estimates, taken from tombs of this type, not any precise anthropological inventory of the bones actually found in this particular tomb. He calculates 1.7 individuals per ossuary (thus 17 individuals), plus an average of the same number outside (18) for a total of 35 as a total estimate.

Inscriptions: It is apparently not the case, as some have imagined, that the inscriptions on the six ossuaries were read instantly in the field by Gath or others. In Gath’s official excavation report, filed on April 15, 1980, four days after the excavation was officially completed, he notes that “up to this point four ossuaries appear to be inscribed,” indicating that two of the six inscribed were not yet so identified. He says nothing about the names themselves. Gibson does not recall any discussion of the inscriptions or the names in the field. This is further confirmed by line in Gath’s preliminary report published some time after the excavation was completed: “Some inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic were found in the cave that have not been deciphered yet.” According to Kloner the deciphering and translation of all six inscriptions was done subsequently by L. Rahmani sometime after they arrived at the Rockefeller and could be properly cleaned and studied. Just when this took place I do not know.

Kloner is also of the view that ossuary 80.509, the 10th, which was uninscribed and plain, was put in the courtyard of the Rockefeller for reasons of lack of space and like many other nondescript ossuaries was not included in Rahmani’s catalogue. I am not sure if he knows this independently or is basing it on Joe Zias’s claim that he now remembers putting that ossuary out there. Kloner is quite sure it can not be the so-called James ossuary, the inscription of which he judges to be forged (I am not sure if he thinks in whole or in part), because, although the height and width measurements match, the the upper length of the two is off by 4 centimeters based on his information (60cm vs. 56cm). He is also certain that all 10 were delivered to the Rockefeller for photographing and examination.

I remain completely open to any and all evidence on the so-called “missing ossuary,” (a term first used by the IAA not by me). In my book The Jesus Dynasty, I focus on what evidence exists regarding the provenance of the James ossuary, the inscription of which I believe to be authentic (“James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”). I discuss what Oded Golan told Rafi Lewis in a private conversation that would seem to indicate that the James ossuary came from a tomb in Akeldama, perhaps as recently as 2001 or a bit earlier, according to the government indictment of Golan. I also discuss the east Talpiot tomb with its interesting cluster of names, including “Jesus son of Joseph,” and whether the James ossuary might possibly be the missing 10th since there is no photo or description of it surviving other than the one word “plain.” I also note that the dimensions of the James ossuary, as recently remeasured by the IAA, match up so closely. Also, Golan insists he had had the ossuary for decades, which puts one back at least to 1980 or earlier, but in his first interviews he was not precise about the date. The stamp on the photo that has now been admitted into evidence in his trial, “Expiry 76,” apparently indicates the expiration date of the paper upon which the photo is printed. I should clarify that in raising the question about the James ossuary being the missing 10th of Talpiot I have never implied there was any kind of fraud or smuggling on the part of any of the officials involved, or that anything was improperly handled.

Only recently, with the preliminary patina tests done on the James ossuary and the Jesus son of Joseph ossuary from Talpiot, is there new evidence that the James ossuary might have indeed come from the Talpiot tomb. Shimon Gibson has never been convinced of the 10th missing ossuary option, but he has raised another possibility, that the James ossuary might be a missing 11th ossuary, removed from the tomb prior to the inventory of the official 10, particularly if the patina tests are indicative of its provenance. There are several questions in this regard that are unresolved. Was the entrance to the tomb accessible even before the blast on March 27th exposed it to full view by blowing open the porch and its roof? The absence of a blocking stone might indicate such. Or alternatively, if the tomb was left open and exposed on the Sabbath between its discovery and the excavation that began on Sunday morning, who knows who might have entered it? Neighbors report children playing with the bones and a general local stir over the exposure of the tomb itself for the first two days.

Krumbein’s tests have indicated that the James ossuary shows erosion and plant growth along the bottom as if it were exposed to outside elements at some point in its history, either in ancient or modern times. His initial estimate of a period of 200 years he has recently said was not precise, and the period of such exposure could be much shorter. The oddly faint pattern on one side of the James ossuary, along with its faded color makes one wonder whether it might have had a complex history even in ancient times. It does not have the “like new” look of most ossuaries that are sealed in a single tomb undisturbed for 2000 years. What is needed is a further refinement of the patina comparisons with a wider sample of ossuaries from more tombs in the area, plus any other types of comparative tests between the James ossuary and the nine we have from the east Talpiot tomb.

++++++++++++++++

So what is “new” in this report? I have put in a lot of detail that might not be generally available but the points and issues that stand out for me are the following:

• When Gath wrote his final report on April 15, 1980 only four of the ossuaries had been recognized as inscribed
• Kloner’s estimates of the individuals buried in the tomb are not counts but demographic estimates
• The tomb was open and exposed from March 27 to March 30th
• It would be helpful to know which ossuaries were grouped in which kokhim and perhaps Kloner has notes on that
• When were the ossuaries measured and tagged? In the field or later at the Rockefeller? Are there forms and records?
• Are there photos of the inside of the tomb, of the ossuaries themselves at the dig site, or any of the excavation itself?

I have shared this post with Kloner and asked for his input and any corrections he might suggest.

There has been a lot of confusion on the Web and in the media regarding the statistical probabilities cited in the Discovery Documentary as 600/1 that the Talpiot tomb is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. This conclusion, ultimately, but not directly, was based on the calculations of Prof. Andrey Feuerverger of the University of Toronto. I offer a few observations that I hope might clarify things in this regard.

As I see it, the basic calculations of the statistician, standing alone, do not in and of themselves establish whether or not the Talpiot tomb is, or is not, the likely tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. That determination, if it can be made, makes use of the math, but in the end takes one beyond simple probability calculations. What the statistician is asked to do is to determine the probability of the cluster of names, with their specific relationships and configurations, based on name frequency data in late 2nd Temple Jewish Jerusalem as well as other implicit factors.

Accordingly, a statistician, as statistician, is not primarily focusing on prosopography, that is, matching ancient names to known historical characters. That is the task of the historian who then seeks to determine if there is any potential “fit” between this cluster of names, with its configurations, and that of any identifiable persons/family in our records. Now if the “cluster” was sufficiently common, even if there might be some potential “fit” with some known individuals, then such a cluster would not be significant in terms of probable identification. So, for example, if we had a family group of x son of b, j, r, s, and t son of x, but we determined there would statistically be about 100 such configurations in a given culture/area/period, even if we came up with a “fit” in our historical records for this cluster, there would only be a 1/100 chance that the tomb we found was in fact that of the proposed family.

What happened with the Discovery documentary is that both these tasks, the statistics and Simcha’s proposed identifications (i.e., “fits”), were understandably linked into one. This could, however, give the impression that Feuerverger alone, on the basis of the “cluster rarity,” and its configurations was offering a 600/1 probability that Talpiot was the tomb of Jesus. There were also charges that Simcha had somehow set up Feuerverger by asking him to work with faulty assumptions. I have seen no evidence of any intent to deceive on the part of anyone involved. When several of us talked through this after the NY press conference, the Discovery executives were keen on clarifying whatever needed to be claified. Although the 600/1 probability was indeed the film’s conclusion, it could not be derived from Feuerverger’s stats alone, but only with the assumptions that Simcha was making in the film about prosopography. If the case of identification fails it is not because of “bad math,” but that the assumptions made regarding probable identifications do not hold up. Feuerverger has neither changed his calculations nor repudiated his initial work, as has been reported by some, although he has continued to work on a final version of his paper that is being written for his professional colleages. I think these issues have been clarified on the Discovery Web site and at Feuerverger’s Web site as well. [FN]

Feuerverger ended up focusing on just the four names in the specific form they occurred and the one relationship specified: Jesus son of Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, and Yose, as names potentially associated with the Jesus family based on textual evidence. His thinking was that if these four alone, as a cluster, could be shown to be sufficiently rare, then he could tell Simcha that although the generic forms of these names were indeed common, their specific forms, in these configurations, would not be. Feuerverger assigned frequency values to the individual names based on a synthesis of the figures in Tal Ilan and Hachlili. His initial calculation of 1/2,400,000 was quite high, but he then made two other moves that drastically reduced it. He divided by 4 for “unintentional biases in the historical sources,” and then he divided that result by 1000 to adjust for all possible 1st century tombs–thus his 1/600 computation.

Clearly Feuerverger is interested in the historical identification questions, as we all are, but he also recognizes this area is not his specialty. Math alone is not going to determine to what degree this cluster of names, in their configurations, are “appropriate,” or “highly appropriate,” as names for the Jesus family. That task, finally, rests upon the judgment of the historian who must make the case that such identifications are expected and likely.

It is of course quite possible to use statistics in ways that go beyond simple probabilities based on name frequencies and their specified configurations. I am not optimistic that more advanced statistical models can be effectively applied to questions of historical prosopography since the kinds of identifications and subtle correspondences used are not easily quantified. Is Mariamene an appropriate name for MM? How could you put a number on it? Is it significant that her ossuary is decorated and her inscription is in informal Greek? How is that quantified? Does it matter that the name Yeshua bar Yehosef is written in a very messy graffiti style while the others are elegant and block? How do you put a number on that? What of how the ossuaries were placed in the various kokim, and with names grouped in twos and threes? Are there hints of potential relationships implied? I have about 25 other factors of this sort that I am considering in formulating my own prosopographic proposal, including the symbol on the tomb that comes from contemporary temple gate imagery. As far as I can tell many of these factors can not be quantified.

I am not of course here implying that theoretical statistics are confined to simple probability theory. Obviously the application of advanced statistics has many applications of a complexity beyond the comprehension of the non-specialist. But in the case of the Talpiot tomb and its cluster of names, I think it has been demonstrated through simple probability statistics that although common as individual names, this “set,” with its specific configurations, would not occur hundreds of times in family tombs in and around 1st century Jerusalem. Whether the names are a good fit with those we know, or could expect, in a family tomb of Jesus is the matter at hand. The Discovery film has passed the ball now to the historians, the epigraphers, and the statisticians, and I anticipate the outcome will be enlightening to us all.

[FN]Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics at the University of Toronto, has concluded (subject to the stated historical assumptions) that it is unlikely that an equally “surprising” cluster of names would have arisen by chance under purely random sampling.

Taking into account the chances that these names would be clustered together in a family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the probability under random chance of observing a cluster of names as compelling as this one within the given population parameters is 600 to 1, meaning that this conclusion works 599 times out of 600.

A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is in the order of 600 to 1 that an equally “surprising” cluster of names would arise purely by chance under given assumptions.

Patina “fingerprinting” is the idea of scanning patina samples on stone surfaces, in this case samples from ossuaries taken at random from a dozen tombs from various locations in the Jerusalem area, with an electron microscope to reveal a chemical spectrum/measurement of elements such as magnesium, aluminum, phosphorus, potassium, titanium and iron. This is a new technique and preliminary results indicated the following:

The Talpiot Jesus ossuary, as expected, provided a close “echo” or correspondence to the patina spectrums taken from the surface walls of the tomb itself, as well as the other Talpiot ossuaries. The spikes and peaks of mineral accretion levels were very similar, just as one might expect from stone exposed to the same conditions over 2000 years. Ossuaries from the other tombs were then similarly tested with preference given to samples that seemed to be a close match visually, in terms of color, to the Talpiot ossuaries, but in no case did the spectrum or chemical pattern come close to that of the Talpiot tomb and its ossuaries. Patina samples were then taken from the 2002 ossuary owned by Oded Golan inscribed “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” which is quite similar in size and shape to the Jesus ossuary but different in visual color. The chemical spectrum of the James ossuary strongly “echoed” those of the Talpiot wall surfaces and its ossuaries, whereas no other ossuaries from other tombs chosen at random approached any type of correspondence at all. These tests indicated that color or “visual” comparisons of ossuary patina can be misleading, in other words, what you can’t see is more important than what you can see.

These results appear to indicate that the James ossuary came from an environment such as that of the Talpiot tomb or one that was strikingly similar. These tests are preliminary and more samples are now being tested with the goal of assembling a data base of 100 ossuaries from diverse locations in the Jerusalem area. Both inorganic and organic accretions are measured.

Other tests are also underway that have to do with comparisons of the style, shape, size and stone cutting marks, pertaining to the Jesus and James ossuaries. So far they appear to match up rather well. The Jesus ossuary is 65 x 26 x 30 while the James ossuary is 57.5 x 26 x 30. Whether one can infer anything about the height of the deceased individual(s) from the length of the ossuary is unlikely, except in the case of a much smaller ossuary clearly intended for a child. In other words, individuals with short femur bones have been found in ossuaries of greater than average length, and vis-a-versa, longer femur bones have been found angled in ossuaries of less than average length.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So now to these options…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mariame and Mara

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

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

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

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