The Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The script is as follows: mariamenou [stroke] mara

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessing the Assessments: The Jesus Family Tomb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The probability becomes 1 in 8, 464.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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