Jesus' Tomb

James Tabor sent me an email this week to note a new study on the statistics for the Jesus Tomb. The study is “Probability, Statistics, and the Talpiot Tomb,” authored by Profs. Kevin Kilty and Mark Elliot.

Jim Tabor has updated his blog on the tomb and come up with a "new" argument for Jesus being married, besides workign over the 20 issues he sees ont e family tomb (issues we already have covered).

The argument in fact is not so new. I dealt withit years ago in dealing with the daVinci Code phenomena.

He argues that in 1 Corinthians 7 the hypothesis that if Jesus had been single, it would have been affirmed in the case that Paul makes for remaining single there.

Gang:

The John Ankerberg shows on the Tomb and other related Jesus issues are up on the web.

There are four shows toal. Two deal with the tomb, the others with Jesus issues in general, including the latest on the Gospel of Judas. The book by "Benedict Iscariot" (really a member of the British House of Lords) and Frank Moloney is the topic of the third show, and the latest book by Elaine Pagels and Karen King on Judas is also treated.

First, let me begin by apologizing for the blog being down for about 36 hours. Just one of those things.

We were down but not out. So now we are back up and running.

I have returned from presentations at Southeastern Baptist and Beeson Divinity School. My thanks to both schools who were great hosts. The Southeastern visit was to be on a panel of experts discussing the short versus long ending of Mark 16 (I hold the short ending was original). The Beeson visit was on Jesus in the High Definition Public Square. This evaluated how Jesus is being presented to the public and how churches can get preapred to respond by gaining some understanding of these issues. Most of the Jesus material will appear in a book that I am doing with Dan Wallace to be released around Christmas time. I am finding there is a great deal of interest on this topic as I travel-- and frankly -- most in the church have little idea what is going on or how to discuss the issues that are raised. Our hope is that works like The Missing Gospels and the book to come will be of real help to the average person who wants to discuss these topics and can get them started without requiring a degree in rocket science!

For those who want a sustained look at the issues tied to the tomb, the John Ankerberg show started airing last night. It will be four shows. The first is up and is available over the Net.

Try this URL:

www.johnankerberg.org.

Then look for the broadcast of the last week. It is up now for the first week's show. This works through the names on the ossuaries in detail. For friends who are interested in details it is a concise 23 minute presentation.

Jim Tabor has recently posted a blog denying a connection between the first tomb of Jesus and Jospeh of Arimathea's tomb.

Now there are some interesting things going on here. He mentions Mark and John, but minimizes Matthew (as well as not handling Matthew consistently as a source).

Matthew 27:57-60 reads, "Now when it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut in the rock. Then he rolled a great stone across the entrance of the tomb and went away."

Here is my response to Tabor's list of five points on hypothetical fits. Numbered entries are his. My responses follow one point at a time.

_______________

Tabor 1. The father Joseph would not be buried in this tomb as he would have died earlier and been buried perhaps in Galilee, so the Yose is likely not the father of the Yeshua bar Yehosef.

_____

My comment on this one: This is a reasonable inference.

Here is a fine blog by Robert Gundry on 1 Corinthians 15. It appears at:

http://normtroubles.blogspot.com/2007/03/robert-gundry-on-physicality-of-jesus.html

___________________

Robert Gundry

There’s an element in the current discussion of Jesus’ family tomb, so-called, that needs more scrutiny, it seems to me. I have in mind the agreement or disagreement between the earliest oral and literary traditions of what happened to Jesus’ corpse, on the one hand, and the interpretation of an ossuary found at Talpiot as having contained the secondarily buried bones of Jesus of Nazareth, on the other hand. If I understand Professor James Tabor correctly, he believes:

Now we look at Tabor's remarks about the inscriptions. Here is his summary:

________________

The Inscriptions: There were ten ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb with six inscribed. This is actually a rather high percentage, as normally only about 20% of ossuaries have names on them. It is not the case, as has been reported, that the remains of up to 35 additional individuals were found in this tomb. The only records we have regarding bones found outside the ossuaries are the official reports of the excavator, the late Joseph Gath, who indicates two or perhaps three other individuals at the most. The Talpiot tomb is a small, modest pre-70 CE family burial cave with a dozen or so individuals buried inside, six of whom we can know by name. Here are the ten ossuaries with their inscriptions in their transliterated Aramaic and Greek forms:

I now look at the Tabor entry on the issue of the statistics, which bears much of the weight of the hypothesis:

________________
Statistics: Although the names are “common” as is so often pointed out by so many, it does indeed seem to be the case that the statistical grouping of these particular names in this particular tomb is far from common. This is confirmed by the mathematical probabilities based on name frequencies, or more directly, by looking at the names in tomb after tomb of which we have record. Nothing like this occurs anywhere else. This is, after all, the only tomb known with a “Yeshua son of Joseph.” Even if the probabilities were 50/50 the tomb would be of great interest and worth examining in this regard. As it stands they are surely much higher than that. Statisticians often point out that “common sense” when it comes to probability theory, is often quite misleading. What we have to ask is what are the probabilities of these six names occurring together in a 1st century Jewish family tomb, namely: Mary, a second Mary, Jesus son of Joseph, Jude son of Jesus, Joseph, and Matthew. I have independently consulted with several statisticians who work with demographics and probability theory with the following results.

I plan now to respond to Jim Tabor's summary one point at a time. Today I look at his remarks about the historical context.

Here is Tabor's summary on this point:

____________________
The Historical Context: I do not find it unlikely or improbable that the family tomb of Jesus might be found in the Jerusalem area. I have argued elsewhere that neither the social status of Jesus and his family, nor their Galilean origins, stand contrary to the idea. All our evidence points to Jerusalem as the center of the Jesus movement after his death, with James and the family taking up permanent residence there. The tomb itself is small and very modest, quite plain, as are most of the ossuaries, and it is away from the city on the road to Bethlehem. My understanding of the Nazarene movement, as it began to thrive in the 40s through 60s CE, is that one would expect, rather than doubt, that the inner family wouldreceive such an honored and traditional burial somewhere in Jerusalem. If, as seems likely, Jesus’ body was taken from the temporary rock hewn tomb used for emergency purposes the Passover weekend he died, and he was subsequently moved to a permanent place of honorable burial, a tomb like this one in east Talpiot makes sense. One would expect then, as other intimate family members died, they would have likewise been placed in the same small tomb. Our earliest Gospel, Mark, knows of no “resurrection appearances,” and many scholars see his proclamation that the disciples will “see him in Galilee” as a reference to a “second coming” or Parousia. Some have scoffed at the very possibility of “finding the tomb of Jesus” as sensational and ridiculous nonsense. It is much like someone claiming to have found the “ark of the covenant” or any other Indiana Jones type nonsense. My view is that regardless of films, books, or hype, the tomb is a material reality that is worthy of full academic discusison [sic].
____________________

Here is Jim Tabor's response to my earlier post today. I simply post it below as is. The numbered paragraphs are mine. His response is below.

____________

(1) Tabor still insists that ossuary no. 10 is "missing, described as plain." As all the reports of those involved have indicated, this ossuary is not missing. It was catalogued, noted and described in the original offical reports (as Rhamani's catalogue and Kloner's article shows), and treated as all such plain ossuaries were: set aside with all such plain ossuaries, since it had nothing of special value to note. In fact, I saw Kloner's original notes on this when I was in israel. He showed them to me. It is this kind of "fudging" with the facts (or at least not noting key details tied to the find) that have left many others so frsutrated with how the documentary has presented its case.

Jim Tabor, the biblical scholar and historical consultant on the Lost Family Tomb Documentary and Professor at the University of North Carolina (Charlotte), and I have been emaling back and forth privately about the evidence for the last few weeks. Today he emailed me his currect take on the evidence for the tomb belonging to Jesus' family which he has posted on his web site.

I note the URL, as the text is full and is best read in context.

François Bovon of Harvard has spoken out on the Society of Biblical Literature web site on his role in the special. It is a pretty straightforward account of what took place and how he sees the discussion:

Here it is:

"As I was interviewed for the Discovery Channel's program The Lost Tomb of Jesus, I would like to express my opinion here.

"First, I have now seen the program and am not convinced of its main thesis. When I was questioned by Simcha Jacobovici and his team the questions were directed toward the Acts of Philip and the role of Mariamne in this text. I was not informed of the whole program and the orientation of the script.

This post is thanks to a tip from Danny Zecharias and his blog that has a response from Craig Evans (http://www.deinde.org/story/2007/3/2/203419/9162). This URL has the entire article.

In this part of the blog, Evans discusses the Chevron, reinforcing our earlier post today.

It goes:

"And finally, there are no Christian markings or inscriptions in the Talpiot Tomb. Moreover, there is no indication that this tomb was ever venerated or visited by pilgrims (e.g., in contrast to the "House of Peter" in Capernaum). Absence of such evidence argues against identifying the Talpiot Tomb as the Tomb of the Family of Jesus. In the documentary much is made over the chevron (or upside down V), beneath which appears a circle. It is suggested that this is an early Jewish Christian symbol. However, this design appears to reflect the circles (probably handles) that appear on the ends of several ossuaries. Many of these ossuaries have gabled lids. When viewed from the end one sees a chevron above a circle (see Rahmani, nos. 251, 408, 473, 596, 597 especially; there are other examples). R. Kirk Kilpatrick has called our attention to the chevron-circle pattern and the Jerusalem temple, depicted on coinage, as in the example below [Place URL in your browser for image of the coin]:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_O3dXyVqV9Mo/Rex5TL_PrtI/AAAAAAAAAAk/-nB-u9EHWTw/s320/coin_philip_bm.jpg"

We have said little about the "chevron," th epart triangle witht he circule underneath that the Special claimed was a secret symbol.

Now Joe Zias, at www.joezias.com, has come forward ot note what this symbol is.

Here is what he says. SJ is the filmmaker The BAR crowd is how he links those who did this speicla with those who broke the James ossucary story:

"THOSE UNUSUAL SYMBOLS- Quadruplicity vs duplicity. According to SJ the symbol on the tomb façade is used astrologically to represent something called quadruplicity, or the quality of cardinality. I would argue that its more in the realm of duplicity. This is where the media hype goes totally out of control, seems the BAR Crowd had been reading too much Da Vinci Code. If there is anything which suggests deliberate manipulation of the data it is here. For example, in the film, one of the main ‘experts’ from the BAR Crowd suddenly discovers on camera the fact that a inverted V is scratched on an ossuary as if it has some deep hidden mystical meaning. Had the ‘expert’ read the catalogue of LY Rahmani (pg.19) on ossuaries, he would have seen that 40 % of ossuaries have markings! In fact, this deliberate attempt to fool the public reaches a new height when SJ then goes to the Jewish tombs of Dominus Flavit and proclaims that those ossuaries discovered decades ago with X’s scratched on the lid and body, are ancient Judeo-Christian symbols. Scholars have known for decades that those X’s and cross like markings on ossuaries mean one thing and one thing only, the sliding lid goes this way! Reverse the lid and it will not fit. Duh…so much for Judeo-Christian symbols, a fact that all of them should have known, particularly the BAR Crowd, seems it didn’t go well with their agenda.

Here is a full email from Joseph Zias, one of those who worked on this tomb about the 10th tomb.

_________

"
If there is one thing that angers academics here in Jerusalem, directly connected to the story, it is how Cameron and the BAR crowd have willfully manipulated data in a most dishonest and cynical way to sell the their film, book as well as the book called The Jesus Dynasty upon which much of the story is based.
One can see this manipulation and deliberate deception in the following posting by someone from Toronto (surprised ?) supporting the premise of the film and the books. He writes as follows when questioned about the film:

I am now back in Dallas. Things appear to be settling down on the tomb front. No real new information or responses to report.

The process of public vetting seems to be playing itself out. We are in a time when such disclosures directly to the public mean that the public will have to allow the public vetting process to take place before embracing or rejecting such directly made claims. What iis so interesting about this particular example is the near unanimity that this claim has little substance to it, given that there are so many points in the linkage to get to the conclusion that are suspect.

Independent interviews are starting to come in now. Two of the most important involve Shimon Gibson and Joe Zias on the Vision media site.

Both worked on ossiaries for the Israeli Antiquities Authority and with the team of Amos Kloner.

You can check out their latest take at:

http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/blog.aspx?id=2492
\

The two key elements in play in these interviews involve the fact that multiple people could be in a single adult ossuary and that extended family could be found in such a tomb. This complicates the DNA testing because one can't know whose DNA is being tested. So these are significant observations.

Richard Bauckham has just sent me notice that he will be posting information on tying names to literary figures. This will appear soon on Chris Tilling's blog (http://www.christilling.de/blog/ctblog.html).

This is a helpful treatment and he notes the best cases for solid indentification so far. Here is a key section of it:

_________
. In my judgment the list below is of the ones for which there is a good case. I have given references (pages in E or H) to useful discussions in these books: Craig E Evans, Jesus and the Ossuaries (Baylor University Press, 2003); Rachel Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period (Brill, 2005). The latter, by the way, is a very informative work that I have not seen referred to in this debate; it has much more about tombs, ossuaries and inscriptions than the title might suggest (but frustratingly lacks proper indices).

I am now in Chicago. The audio interviews we discussed with Stephen Pfann and Amos Kloner are now up and running.

These interviews were conducted becuase those interviewed wanted to set the record straight about the "Jesus Tomb" documentary. It is full of observations and also shows where some scholars legitimately engage each other with some distinction of opinion. One thing they agree on is that this tomb is not as significant as the documentary claimed.

Beware the Ides of March! I depart Israel having had a wonderful time at Ben Gurion University, where the lectures on the Missing Gospels were well recieved and many of the Israeli listeners made comparisons to issues dealing with orality and tradition in the Old Testament. It was a great time of interaction and I thank the Department of Bible, Archaeology, and Ancient Near East and the Deichmann Lectureship program for being such warm hosts. Tal, Anna, Kana, Zipi, and Roland all deserve special thanks. Keep up the good work and study. My thanks also to Stephen and Claire Pfann, Amos Kloner and Tal Ilan, for agreeing to be interviewed. Finally, thanks to Stephen Bramer, colleague and trusted guide for my first trip to Israel.

Dr. Stephen Pfann, whose audio taped interview can be found here, is arguing the Mariamne inscription has been misread. Here are parts of the story.

JERUSALEM (AP) - A prominent scholar looking into the factual basis of a popular but widely criticized documentary film that claims to have located the tomb of Jesus said Tuesday that a crucial piece of evidence filmmakers used to support their claim is a mistake.
Enlarge this Image
Jesus Family Tomb
(Photo: AP / Kathy Willens)
Investigative journalist, director, producer and writer Simcha Jacobovici, left, points to an ossurary - a small casket to store bones -- he and others say may have once held the remains of Mary Magdalene, beside another that may have held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth, right, during a news conference in New York, Monday, Feb. 26, 2007.

Gang:

I have given all but one of my lectures on the Missing Gospels. It has gone very well, with many Israeli scholars noting parallels to issues they face in their study of the Mikra (OT). The people here have been wonderful and the country is lovely. The University of Ben Gurion has been a wonderful host.

I append a full email I got today from Michael Heiser about another site with lots of tomb names. Here it is:

I spoke with Roland Deines today (of Nottingham). He makes the argument that Israel in this period had around 4 million.

Doing the math based on the catalog of Tal Ilan on the names over three centuries, he suggests that we have a Jesus, son of Joseph about 1 out of every 740 ossuaries. That means 3,034 ossuaries with that name, based on how many ossuaries we now have (900+) and the names we have already with Joseph and Jesus link (3) and moving up to 4 million. This works, if the basic ratio of names we have is correct. This is where his comment stopped.

Here is a short note I posted on a scholarly chatsite today. It contains elements of the Kloner interview.

Update: click here for the interviews with Dr. Amos Kloner and Dr. Stephen Pfann.

I am now in a locale where I can reply easily and directly. The issue with the DNA involves only the two tombs of Mary and Jesus. All it proves is a non-match biologically between them at a maternal level. Of course, that simply means they are not siblings or parent-child. It CANNOT prove they were married. The geneticist on the special made that statement assuming that the assumptions of the test about the family tomb, etc were correct (which was, of course, the question).

Last night I had the honor of meeting Prof Dr. Amos Kloner, who teaches at Hebrew University and was a key figure in the Israeli Antiquities Authority (Step[hen Bramer of the Seminary was with me). Kloner permitted me to interview him for 40 plus minutes and we have it all on audio.

Update: click here for the interviews with Dr. Amos Kloner and Dr. Stephen Pfann.

I visited the tomb site today. Actually the site is sealed up, but I have pictures of the entrance down.

The site is in an apartment complex and is in a garden between two sets of buildings. It also is quite a way from the Old City.

On another front, I got to see the dig at the Pool of Siloam (John 9). There are new roads from the time of Herod being discovered here. I got to walk on it today. It is the most exciting of the current digs underway in Jerusalem.

In the midst of seeing the sights here (and this place is like no other), I am getting soem interviews with principals on the tomb.

Update: click here for the interviews with Dr. Amos Kloner and Dr. Stephen Pfann.

Yesterday I got 30 minutes with Stephen Pfann, who helped identify the inscriptions on the special. Today I hope to interview Amos Kloner, who oversaw the original excavation of the site. I cannot hook up my computer directly herer yet. As soon as I can you will get access to these interviews.

I write to you this morning from Jerusalem. Today I will visit Caesarea by the sea and Jerusalem's old city.

I also hope to have dinner with one of the people present int eh special, Stephen Pfann. I will report on his impressions tomorrow.

Not much else to report from here. I hope to see the site of the tomb in the next few days. It looks like I will not have time to get in and apply to see the ossuaries. I'll know more about that tomorrow.