Debunking the Resurrection? A Jesus Tomb?
This is a prior post from a previous blog that I spent a good deal of time on. I think Bock and others have continued the discussion and research past what I have written below but this is truly a good start for all the evidence that mounted.
"Just the Facts Ma'am"
This past Sunday, February 25, 2007, the press release said that the $4 million "documentary" The Lost Tomb of Jesus comes from executive producer James Cameron and director Simcha Jacobovici. The Press Release at the New York Public Library at 42nd St. and 5th Ave. at 11 a.m. accompanied by the supposed limestone burial bone box (ossuary; it measures 65 cm x 25 cm x30 cm) of "Jesus" and one belonging to "Mary Magdalene" brought to the fore the latest in Christmas and Easter specials that attempt to dismiss central tenets of the Christian faith. The "documentary" premieres Sunday, March 4, 2007 at 9 p.m. ET/PT on The Discovery Channel. A trailor is already available along with exclusive video. As Academy Award-winner Cameron said in the press release, "It doesn't get bigger than this. We've done our homework; we've made the case; and now it's time for the debate to begin." And preciesly so, Discovery Channel said Thursday that Sunday night's telecast will be followed by a discussion of the film moderated by Ted Koppel that will include critics.
The Print Media
The book The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History published by Harper Collins and written by Simcha Jacobovic and Charles Pellegrino was published/released the next day on Monday, February 26, 2007. This resonates with previous publications within the past few years, but on another level, namely archeaeology. For the more popluar examples see The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown,
Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History both by Michael Baigent. Though these are remarkably similar in its assertions the closest publication to The Lost Tomb of Jesus was an article Gardner published and then re-published March 31, 1996 London Sunday Times article. ADD INFO ON THIS ARTICLE HERE
The Primary Evidence
The tomb is located in a suburb of Jerusalem called Talpiot/Talpiyot on Dov Gruner Street. According to the timeline, it was discovered on March 28, 1980 by a construction crew developing an apartment comlplex. The Israeli Antiquities Authority sent archaeologists to excavate the site under the late Yosef Gat (March 24 - April 14, 1980). Shimon Gibson surveyed and drew up the tomb site (but published the findings in 1996; see the first two pages on the next link for Gibson's work). The archaeologists then moved the tomb's ossuaries (found en situ, that is, "a very good, undisturbed archaeological context" said Joseph Zias, Curator of Archeaeology and Anthropology for the Israel Antiquities Authority) into storage at Romemma. This is important because no one contests that these ossuaries are forgeries. The results were finally published in 1994 by L. Y. Rhamani in A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel describing the 10 ossuaries found at the Talpiot tomb (Nos. 701-709). The important pages of this volume for this discovery are found here along with the downloadable pdf version here thanks to the Discovery Channel's website. This contains Gibson's drawings of the tomb and the location of the artifacts found therein. As already mentioned this link includes Rhamani's work. Then a 1996 article by Amos Kloner from 'Atiqot 29 titled, "A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiyot, Jerusalm" pp. 15-22. Following the Kloner article, the pdf contains a stasticians work by Andrey Feuerverger, a professor at University of Toronto in Toronto, Ontario Canada. It needs to be said that Gibson, Rhamani, and Kloner are reputable archaeologists. So camp on the work presented in the pdf file above. That is the published data for the primary resources.
In the field of archeaeology published findings and scholarship has known about this tomb and its contents and under peer review no one claims that this find is of any significance to the Christian faith. If I remember correctly, there are approximately 6 ossuaries that have the name Yeshua/Jesus attached to it.
Ossuaries were used in the first century to store the bones of the dead after the body decomposed for a year. Some ossuaries are elaborate with designs and perhaps legs at the base or with arched or peaked lids. There is a good variety of options involved along with more basic boxes and lids. Following their purchase, names were sometimes inscribed on the ossuary before use. Following the insertion of the remains the lids were aligned and placed on top. These ossuaries were then stored in a tomb/crypt and even, at times, were stacked on top of each other. The key concept to get here is that the ossuaries were used after a year of decomposition to store the bones/remains. We have even found ossuaries with multiple bodies of bones still inside. The famous Caiaphas, the High Priest, as recorded in the New Testament (cf. Matt 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; 18:13, 14, 24, 28; Acts 4:6) had more bones than his own inside the single more ornate ossuary.
Six of the ten ossuaries found at this tomb site have inscriptions. Five of the inscriptions were in Hebrew/Aramaic and one is written in Greek. According to Kloner the proportion of Hebrew to Greek on discovered ossuary inscriptions is 4:3 (see his article "Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries" earlier in this blog). The names are as follows:
In Hebrew:
702: Judah, son of Jesus/Yehuda bar Yeshua
703: Matthew/Matia
704: Jesus, son of Joseph/Yeshua bar Yosef (Note that there are a few letters that are less certain on the name Yeshua indicated by the dot above the letters. The Yeshua reading is corroborated by the inscription on 702 referring to Yeshua, the father of Yehuda)
705: Joseph/Yose (the remark on Rhamani's work says, "The similarity of this ossuary and its inscription with that of Marya on No. 706, both from the same tomb, may indicate that these are the ossuaries of the parents of Yeshua' (No. 704) and the grandparents of Yehuda (No. 702)."
706: Maria/Marya
In Greek:
701: Mariamene e Mara/Mariamhnou (h) Mara (of Mariamene, [also called] Mara; Mariamene is a variant of the name Miriam, Maryam, and Marya)
This name is inscribed on at least 20 ossuaries according to Rhamani's 1994 work. That means this is the most common female name of the Second Temple period. Mara is a contraction of Martha and could be used here as the second name and is also known to be a very common female name of the time. It could however be interpreted as a second name for a second person's remains in the same ossuary. Perhaps it is a mother and a daughter or sisters or something else if indeed this ossuary had the remains of two individuals.
However, The Lost Tomb of Jesus press release is making the following claim concerning this inscription:
"Mariamene e Mara," which can be translated as, "Mary known as the master."Francois Bovon, professor of the history of religion at Harvard University, told Discovery News, "Mariamene, or Mariamne, probably was the actual name given to Mary Magdalene."
Bovon explained that he and a colleague discovered a fourteenth century copy in Greek of a fourth century text that contains the most complete version of the "Acts of Philip" ever found. Although not included in the Bible, the "Acts of Philip" mentions the apostles and Mariamne, sister of the apostle Philip.
"When Philip is weak, she is strong," Bovon said. "She likely was a great teacher who even inspired her own sect of followers, called Mariamnists, who existed from around the 2nd to the 3rd century." (Jesus Family Tomb Believed Found by Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News on February 25, 2007)
This is the most contested name and it is noteworthy that it is the only inscription in Greek. First More Ideas on the Name Mariamne to Come from Europe and Another Opinion-March 1 alerted us to the research underway. It should be noted that Bock has already seen The Lost Tomb of Jesus through the invitation of the Discovery Channel. He was supposed to fly to New York for the press release but was unable to because of the dust storm that blew into Dallas, TX on Saturday February 24, 2007. He was in LA for a regional ETS meeting and was delayed arriving in Dallas until Sunday, when he was supposed to be flying out to New York City. He was under a legally binding nondisclosure until the press release. I know this information because I attended the class I have with him on Exegesis of Gospel Narrative on Tuesday, February 27, 2007. We considered the inscription on Tuesday and Thursday March 1, 2007.
Later in the day, the best treatment on the only Greek inscription is given on a Guest Post by Richard Baukham on Chris Tilling's Christendom blog.
Baukham begins by saying, "I am fairly confident of what I’m now saying here, but ossuaries and onomastics are technical fields, and I’m open to corrections from the experts. I’ve no doubt that refinements of the argument will result from further discussion of the issues."
He continues first with some pertinent background:
All of the names on these ossuaries were extremely common names among Jews in Palestine at this period. We have a great deal evidence about this (the data is collected in the enormously useful reference book: Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, part 1 [Mohr-Siebeck, 2002], and also analysed in chapter 4 of my recent book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses [Eerdmans, 2006]). We have a data base of about 3000 named persons (2625 men, 328 women, excluding fictional characters). Of the 2625 men, the name Joseph (including Yose, the abbreviated form) was borne by 218 or 8.3%. (It is the second most popular Jewish male name, after Simon/Simeon.) The name Judah was borne by 164 or 6.2%. The name Jesus was borne by 99 or 3.4%. The name Matthew (in several forms) was borne by 62 or 2.4 %. Of the 328 named women (women’s names were much less often recorded than men’s), a staggering 70 or 21.4% were called Mary (Mariam, Maria, Mariame, Mariamme). (My figures differ very slightly from Ilan’s because I differ from a few of her judgments for technical reasons, but the difference is insignificant for present purposes.)Baukham goes on extensively concerning the inscription:
The Hebrew name Mariam was very popular among Palestinian Jews at this period, though hardly used at all in the diaspora. It was usually rendered in Greek in one of two forms: Maria and Mariamme (or Mariame). It could, of course, be simply written as Mariam in Greek characters (and this is the practice of the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, when referring to Mariam the sister of Moses, called Miriam in English Bibles). But we know only four cases in which this was done with reference to a living person of the early Jewish period. (One of these is Luke 10:39-42, referring to Mary the sister of Martha, though there is a variant reading Maria).Also see Bock's summary and public notice of Baukham's Blog-March 1 debunking the Mary Magdalene for maiamenoumara theory.
Much more popular were the forms Maria (the form used everywhere in the New Testament, except Luke 10:39-40, for all the various Maries it refers to) and Mariamme/Mariame (used, for example, by Josephus). Both give the name a more Greek form than the simple transliteration Mariam. Palestinian Jewish women who themselves used a Greek form of their name as well as a Semitic form (a common practice) would be likely to have used Maria or Mariamme. This accounts for the fact that the Greek form Maria is often found on ossuaries transliterated back into Hebrew characters as Mariah. (Odd as this practice might seem, there are examples for other names too.) This is what has happened in the case of the woman called Maria (in Hebrew characters) on one of the ossuaries we are studying.
It is worth noting that this Greek form of the name Miriam has nothing to do with the Latin name Maria, which also existed. The coincidence is just a coincidence. It was, however, a coincidence that Jews living in a Latin-speaking environment could have exploited, just as Jews in Palestine exploited the coincidental near-identity of the Hebrew name Simeon and the Greek name Simon. The woman called Maria in Romans 16:6, a member of the Christian community in Rome, may have been a Jew called Mariam in Hebrew (an emigrant from Palestine), or a Gentile with the Latin name Maria, or a Jew living in Rome who had the name Maria precisely because it could be understood as both Hebrew and Latin.
In the Gospels Mary Magdalene’s name is always given in the Greek form Maria, which is the New Testament’s standard practice for rendering Mariam into Greek, except for Luke 10:39-42. As we have noted it is standard Greek form of Mariam. However, from probably the mid-second century onwards we find some references to Mary Magdalene (often identified with Mary of Bethany and/or other Gospel Maries) that use the alternative standard Greek form Mariamme (or Mariame). These references are all either in Gnostic works (using ‘Gnostic’ fairly loosely) or in writers referring to Gnostic usage.
We find the form Mariamme in Celsus, the second-century pagan critic of Christianity, who lists Christian sectarian groups, including some who follow Mary (apo Mariammes). These may well be the group who used the Gospel of Mary (late 2nd century?), a Greek fragment of which calls Mary Magdalene Mariamme. This form of her name also appears in the Coptic (a translation from Greek) of the Gnostic Work the Sophia of Jesus Christ (CG III,4). The usage may have been more widespread in Gnostic literature, but the fact that we have most Gnostic works only in Coptic makes it hard to tell.)
This tradition of using the form Mariamme for Mary Magdalene must have been an alternative tradition of rendering her name in Greek. It most likely goes back to a usage within the orbit of Jewish Palestine (since the name Mary in any form was very rare in the diaspora and Gentile Christians would not be familiar with the name Mariamme ordinarily). But so does the usage of Maria in the New Testament Gospels, at least one of which is at least a century earlier than any evidence we have for giving her the name Mariamme. It would be hazardous to suppose that Mariamme was the Greek form of her name use by Mary Magdalene herself or the earliest disciples of Jesus.
The Gnostic use of Mariamme is also reported by Hioppolytus in his Refutation of All Heresies (written between 228 and 233). He says that the Naassenes claimed to have a secret teaching that James the brother of Jesus had transmitted to Mary (5.7.1; 10.9.3). What is especially significant is that the manuscript evidence is divided between two forms of the name: Mariamme and Mariamne (note the ‘n’!). It is probably impossible to tell which Hippolytus himself wrote. However, it is easy to see that, in a milieu where the name Mariamme was not otherwise known, the usage could slip from Mariamme to Mariamne.
These variant readings in Hippolytus are the first known occurrences of the form Mariamne (which the Discovery Channel programme claims is the same name as that on one of the ossuaries). Since it occurs in Hippolytus as a variant of Mariamme, and since the latter is well attested in Jewish usage back to the first century CE, it seems clear that the form Mariamne is not really an independent version of the name Mariam (independent of Mariamme, that is). But a late deformation of the form Mariamme, a deformation made by Greek speakers not familiar with the name. This must also then explain the usage in the apocryphal Acts of Philip (late 4th or early 5th century), where Mariamne is consistently and frequently used for the sister of the apostle Philip, apparently identified with both Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany.
We can now turn to the inscription on the ossuary, which has, in Greek: MARIAMENOUMARA. The two words Mariamenou and Mara are written consecutively with no space between. This makes it rather unlikely that two women are named here. But Rahmani takes a small stroke between the last letter of Mariamenou and the first of Mara to be a Greek letter eta (long e). He takes this to be the relative pronoun he Ieta with a rough breathing), reading: ‘Mariamnenou who [is also called] Mara.’ (Note that this is different, it seems, from what the Discovery Channel do when they read the eta with a smooth breathing, meaning ‘or’.) There are parallels (I gather from Rahmani) to this abbreviated way of indicating two names for the same person.
The form of the name on the ossuary in question is Mariamenou. This is a Greek genitive case, used to indicate that the ossuary belongs to Mary (it means 'Mary's' or 'belonging to Mary'). The nominative would be Mariamenon. Mariamenon is a diminutive form, used as a form of endearment. The neuter gender is normal in diminutives used for women. But the name Mariamenon is found only here in all our evidence for ancient Jewish names. It is, of course, a specifically Greek formation, not used in Hebrew or Aramaic.
This diminutive, Mariamenon, would seem to have been formed from the name Mariamene, a name which is attested twice elsewhere (in the Babatha archive and in the Jewish catacombs at Beth She’arim). Mariamene is an unusual Greek form of Mariam, presumably invented because it has a rather elegant hellenized form. When I first looked at this issue I was rather persuaded that the form Mariamne was a contracted form of Mariamene (which I think is what the Discovery Channel film claims), but I then found that the second and third century evidence (reviewed above) makes it much more plausible that the form Mariamne is a late deformation of Mariamme that occurred only in a context outside Palestine where the name was not known. So the Discovery Channel film’s claim that the name on the ossuary is the same as the name known to have been used for Mary Magdalene in the Acts of Philip is mistaken.
But we must also consider the rest of this inscription. The Discovery Channel film proposes to read Mara as the Aramaic word ‘the master’ (as in Maranatha). But, since we know that Mara was used as an abbreviated form of Martha, in this context of names on an ossuary it is much more plausible to read it as a name. This woman had two names: Mariamenon and Mara. It could be that the latter in this case was used as an abbreviation of Mariamenou, or it could be that the woman was known by Mariamenon, treated as a Greek name, and the Aramaic name Mara, conforming to the common practice of being known by two names, Greek and Semitic.
If the woman, for whatever reason, is given two different names on the ossuary, it is very unlikely that she would also have been known as Mariamene, even though this is the form of which Mariamenon is the diminutive. One other point can be made about Mariamenon. As a term of endearment it would be likely to have originated in the context of her family. But in that case, we probably need to envisage a family which used Greek as an ordinary language within the family. This does not mean it did not also use Aramaic, which would probably be the case if the names on the other ossuaries are those of family members closely related to Mariamenon. The family could have been bilingual even within its own orbit. Alternatively, the ossuaries in Aramaic could come from a branch of a big family or a generation of the family different from that of Mariamenon, such that their linguistic practice would be different. In any case, it is unlikely that the close family of Jesus would have spoken Greek within the family, and so it is unlikely that Mariamenon belonged to that close family circle.
The conclusion is that the name Mariamenon is unique, the diminutive of the very rare Mariamene. Neither is related to the form Maramne, except in the sense that all derive ultimately from the name Mariam. There is no reason at all to connect the woman in this ossuary with Mary Magdalene, and in fact the name usage is decisively against such a connexion.
With all that being said, the evidence is slim that this is Mary Magdalene. This could still be the wife of the Jesus in the tomb, but it is not a lady by the name of Mary Magdalene.
The DNA
Although the "documentary" has not yet aired, from what I can tell from the internet sources and from Darrell L. Bock who has already seen the show, it appears that this will be the claim: The statistics on the names and the DNA evidence leads to the probability that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. This is due to (1) the DNA of ossuary No. 704,"Jesus," and ossuary No. 701, "Mariamene," not matching (hence, they are a married couple in a family tomb) and (2) the patina on the stolen James ossuary and on ossuary No. 704,"Jesus," matches.
First, the DNA evidence. The press release writes,
Amos Kloner has refuted the stolen James Ossuary:Jacobovici, director, producer and writer of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," and his team obtained two sets of samples from the ossuaries for DNA and chemical analysis. The first set consisted of bits of matter taken from the "Jesus Son of Joseph" and "Mariamene e Mara" ossuaries. The second set consisted of patina — a chemical film encrustation on one of the limestone boxes.
The human remains were analyzed by Carney Matheson, a scientist at the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada. Mitochondrial DNA examination determined the individual in the Jesus ossuary and the person in the ossuary linked to Mary Magdalene were not related.
Since tombs normally contain either blood relations or spouses, Jacobovici and his team suggest it is possible Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple. "Judah," whom they indicate may have been their son, could have been the "lad" described in the Gospel of John as sleeping in Jesus' lap at the Last Supper.
Robert Genna, director of the Suffolk County Crime Laboratory in New York, analyzed both the patina taken from the Talpiot Tomb and chemical residue obtained from the "James" ossuary, which was also found around 1980, but subsequently disappeared and resurfaced in the antiquities market. Although controversy surrounds this burial box, Genna found that the two patinas matched.
"The samples were consistent with each other," Genna told Discovery News.
Upon examining the tomb, the filmmakers determined a space exists that would have fit the "James" ossuary. Given the patina match and this observation, Jacobovici theorizes the lost burial box could, in fact, be the "James" ossuary.
Nothing has disappeared. The 10th ossuary was on my list. The measurements were
not the same (as the James ossuary). It was plain (without an inscription). We
had no room under our roofs for all the ossuaries, so unmarked ones were
sometimes kept in the courtyard (of the Rockefeller Museum). Kloner: A great story, but nonsense by David Horovitz from The Jerusalem Post on Feb 27, 2007.
See also One more detail on the Supposed James Ossuary connection - March 2 by Darrell L. Bock and The Smoking Gun---Tenth Talpiot Ossuary Proved to be Blank by Ben Witherington on Thursday, March 01, 2007
The Statistics
The second argument The Lost Tomb of Jesus appears to make is according to Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, professor of Statistics and Mathmatics at the University of Toronto, he "has concluded a high statistical probability that The talpiot tomb is the JESUS FAMILY TOMB." He figures that the chances of these names clustered together in the family tomb "are 600 to 1 in favor of this being th JESUS FAMILY TOMB. A statistical probability of 600 to 1 means that this conclusion works 599 times out of 600."[sic]
Bock has been notified by others that the stats need to be scrutinized The Stats-Feb 28. So look for more information on this to come. Actually just now, being the fourth to read Bock's blog I now present a statistical counter that is being published elsewhere but is posted by Bock with permission from the Jerusalem Perspective:
Fun with Numbers: The Statistics behind “The Tomb” by Jack Poirier. After discussing its parallel to the Bible Code's poor statistics and the background of the forthcoming show, Poirier's important pieces are as follows:
What are the odds of each of those names separately appearing, and what are the odds of their appearing together, and in the form of the appropriate patronymic? Based on Richard Bauckham’s figures (from Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006], drawn in turn from Tal Ilan’s Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, part 1: Palestine 330 BCE – 200 CE [Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2002]), the single shot odds of a given male Jew in our period being named “Yoseph” (in any form) is about 8.30% and that of “Yeshua” (“Jesus”) is about 3.77%, while the single shot odds of a given female Jew being named “Mary” (in any form) is about 21.34% Having more than single shot chances (viz. having six chances for the male names [considered singly] and two chances for “Mary”), we find that the odds of at least one of the six being named “Yoseph” is about 40.56%, the odds of at least one in six being named “Yeshua” is about 20.60%, and the odds of one of the two female names being “Mary” is about 38.13%. (The formula is 1-(1-x)y, where x equals the odds of one occurrence in one shot and y equals the number of shots.) Calculating the odds of these all obtaining together involves multiplying their respective percentages, after changing the calculation for one of the male names from a sixfold shot to a fivefold shot (as one of the shots will already be taken by the granted occurrence of the first male name). Depending on which male name is taken first, the odds of all three occurring together within a field of six masculine and two feminine names is either 2.70% or 2.76%. Since a story on the ABC News website (“Bones of Contention”, dated Feb 26, 2007) cites archaeologist Amos Kloner as saying that there “are more than 900 buried tombs just like the ‘Jesus’ tomb within a 2-mile radius of Talpiyot” (quoting ABC News, not Kloner), we should not be surprised if several (if not dozens) of tombs should contain that same combination of names.
But what about the fact that “Yoseph” and “Yeshua” appear specifically in the patronymic relation of “Yeshua bar Yoseph”? Surely the odds of that happening are slighter. Of course they are, but they’re hardly as infinitesimal as the producers of this show would like us to think. The odds of one “Yeshua son of Yoseph” appearing, given two shots at it (there being two ossuaries with patronymics in this tomb), is found either by multiplying the odds of finding one “Yoseph” in two shots by the odds of finding one “Yeshua” in one shot, or of finding one “Yeshua” in two shots by the odds of finding one “Yoseph” in one shot. In other words, the odds are 0.60% (or 0.61%, depending on which order the names are taken), or one chance in 166.6 (or one in 162.7). Again, given the number of tombs in the area, that’s hardly a significant figure. In reality, the odds are slightly better, since the Jewish practice of papponymy (of naming a child after his grandfather) excludes the possibility of the same name appearing in both positions in the same patronymic. Adjusting for papponymy gives odds of 0.65% (or 0.72%), or one chance in 152.7 (or one in 139.5).
Now what if we combine the odds of finding the appropriate patronymic (“Yeshua b. Yoseph”) with the odds of finding “Yoseph” and “Mary” (or forms of those names) on the remaining ossuaries? Multiplying 0.65% (or 0.72%) by 22.90% (the odds of “Yoseph” appearing as the occupant of one of three remaining male ossuaries) and then by 38.13% (the odds of “Mary” appearing on one of the two female ossuaries), we obtain odds of just less than 0.06% (more precisely, of about one in 1711.5 or one in 1748.9). As small as that number appears, however, it is hardly telltale. This is readily visible from the great number of tombs there are—it’s hardly surprising that one of them should contain this combination of names. But even the numbers crunched above stand in desperate need of qualification. A few considerations about how the statistical set was delimited “after the fact” will explain what I mean.
By “after the fact”, I mean that what obtains in this tomb’s sampling is being treated as the only combination of names that could trigger the suspicion that this is Jesus’ family tomb, when in fact a number of other combinations of names could have done so with equal or more statistical impressiveness. Leaving aside James Tabor’s theory that the so-called James ossuary was stolen from this tomb (see below), one could imagine a scenario in which one ossuary read “Ya’akov” (= “James”) rather than “Yoseph”. Undoubtedly the same media sleuths that are on the case now would have been on the case in that alternative scenario, asking why we have those names and not some others. So in asking about the odds of “Yoseph”, “Mary”, and “Yeshua bar Yoseph” showing up, we (or rather they) are really asking a statistically less meaningful question. The better question is “What are the odds of any suggestive combination of names obtaining?”, and that question, with the numerous counterfactual scenarios that it maps, puts the combination of names in the Talpiot tomb in a more realistic light.
I wanted to keep this piece as short as possible, but mention should certainly be made of the fact that one of the two Mary’s in the tomb is being spoken of in the media as the Magdalene, although neither “Mary” ossuary identifies her that way, and there remains (in spite of Dan Brown et al) no hint of a suggestion in the early sources (that is, until the Gnostic Gospel of Philip) that the Magdalene ever became part of Jesus’ family. Mention should also be made of the fact that, although some names in the Talpiot tomb cannot be accounted for on the grounds of Christian tradition, they are being treated neither as a problem nor as a statistically neutral piece of information, but rather as pieces of positive evidence for identifying the tomb with Jesus—even to the point of construing these historically stray names as a statistical debt that naysayers must explain!! (That this is so is shown by something that Tabor posted on Jim West’s weblog on Feb 28, 2007: there he states, “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” [!]. He doesn’t see that three of these names are “after the fact” and thus should be laid aside as having no probative value whatsoever.) And, finally, mention should be made of the way in which Tabor is so insistent on identifying the James ossuary (which he believes is authentic) with the missing ossuary from Talpiot that he even incorporates its inscription into the statistical burden. And I’m willing to be money that the documentary doesn’t mention that the official report on the Talpiot tomb describes the missing ossuary as “plain” (meaning either that it is not the James ossuary or that the inscription on the James ossuary is more recent than the report). Neither (I’m willing to bet) does it mention that the length of the missing ossuary differs from that of the James ossuary by more than 9 centimeters.
All things considered, there is no way, in my opinion, that the Talpiot tomb should lead to a rewriting of the history of Jesus’ family.
Bock adds to the discussion:
One more thought that someone else communicated to me that I'd like to present for your thinking. Remember that the least common name in the tomb ossuary list is Jose, which pumps up the numbers in the statistical figuring, be3casue on its own it is so rare. However, that name is merely a variation of Joseph, the second most common male name of the period. Now in a family, the way one distinguishes between senior and junior is to give junior a nickname or shortened name, that is, a name of endearment. So in my own family we have three Joe's (one is Joe, the next generation is Joe Junior, and the third is now little Joe, even though now he is physically bigger than the other Joes! If we get to a great-grandson I am not sure what will happen to this efficient system). This renaming phenomena (but with variation) impacts the numbers of calculating the odds. It is often the case that the same name appears in the same family as the name is passed on through the generations and that a nickname will also appear. That means that Jose is not as rare or surprising in a family that already has a Joseph. What I do not know how to do is turn that point in a precise statistical direction. But what it means is that the largest factor contributing to the proposed 600 to 1 figure is severely compromised by this observation.
See also The Statistical Case for the Identity of the "Jesus Family Tomb" by Mark Goodacre on his The New Testament Gateway blog.
All that comes to mind is a Mark Twain quote:
Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Autobiography of Mark Twain
Based on the names found in the tomb, it appears to be the family tomb of the Jesus famously preached in the first century. Jesus is named on an ossuary in an almost graffiti script with an X which the show will claim is a cross. Jesus' ossuary is found near the ossuary of Mary "master" and "Judah son of Jesus." Hence, based on this we can see that Jesus was married and had a son named Judah.
However, the show does not stop there. They decide to test the DNA remains found in the base of the ossuary of Jesus with that of Mary "master" and find that the DNA does not match. Hence, they are not in the same family and they are in the same family tomb. Hence, they were married.
DNA along with the statistics of the names involved indicate that the tomb and ossuary were occupied with the remains of Jesus.
We talked extensively in class on Tuesday and today about an upcoming special on the Discovery Channel's upcoming Sunday March 4th with Dr. Bock. He has seen the Discovery Channel show a couple weeks ago. Since the press release on Sunday he is now free to talk about the matter. There were a number of things said in class today. Basically you have a lot of shotty ifs to build a case. A number of leaps beyond the evidence.
I recommend getting to know the material to be able to talk about it. Basically this is a stunt that most liberal scholars themselves say is unscholarly archeaeology.
Here's the link to Bock's Blog on this very material. He is conversant with many of the leading scholars on multiple levels as he spearheads a response. Pray for this very busy man right now. There are a lot of interviews and media outlets and interaction with others for the supporting evidence of his views that is taking place.
Here are the two posts on Bock's Blog related to this issue:
1. Hollywood Hype: The Oscars and Jesus' Family Tomb, What Do They Share?
2. No Need to Yell, Only a Challenge for Some who Need to Step Up and Could
When they do the whole stats thing with the names in the 1st Century, I'd like to respond: "There are lies, Damned lies, and statistics!"-Mark Twain.
London Sunday Times headlined the story as "The Tomb That Dare Not Speak Its Name."
Discovery's website: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html
Documents of the primary resources of the research in pdf:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/media/tomb_evidence.pdf
or go to the site to download or view: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/explore.html
Numerous news articles:http://news.google.com/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1113889362
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/185708
Conclusion
A number of things can be said here. First, a tomb and ossuary of Yeshua/Jesus was found along with others in Talpiot. However, we cannot be certain that it was the Yeshua/Jesus, the Messiah/Christ of the NT and first century preaching of the church and gospels. These are two seperate and distinct Yeshuas/Jesuses! I can affirm that a Jesus ossuary and tomb was found and more probably ascertain that it is not the famous Jesus Christ.
Remains of the Day: Scholars dismiss filmmakers' assertions that Jesus and his family were buried in Jerusalem
Christianity Today has posted a contest that moks the media! Take the 'Jesus Family Tomb' Coverage Challenge and Win: What media outlet did the worst job covering the Talpiot tomb news? mocks the news story from this past Sunday's press conference.
Was Jesus Married? One More Time Scot McKnight's
Jesus Creed
Who's Writing the Fiction Here? by Paul L. Maier on his Stand to Reason Blog
For a good survey see Archive for the 'Talpiot tomb' Category by Tyler F. Williams on his blog Codex
A pdf article named The Jesus Ossuary: A Critical Examination by Michael S. Heiser was presented at the 2003 NEAS Annual Meeting in Atlanta, GA under peer review also deals with these matters on a technical level.
E. Talpiot residents adjust to possibility they're Jesus's neighbors by Shelly Paz from The Jerusalem Post on Feb 27, 2007.
disregard
Director defends Jesus tomb findings: James Cameron is convinced remains are of those of Christ, family on February 26, 2007 by?
Claims about Jesus' 'lost tomb' stirs up tempest: Experts blast suggestions that his bones were found in 1980 by Marshall Thompson on February 26, 2007 for the AP (Associated Press)
Crypt Held Bodies of Jesus and Family, Film Says by Laurie Goodstein on February 27, 2007.
Article on Bock's work Jesus Junk: Professor scoffs at Lost Tomb of Jesus documentary by Glenna Whitley from the Dallas Observer on March 1, 2007.
Lakehead University Scientist Analyzes DNA From Lost Tomb of Jesus MARCH 2, 2007 - 12:01 ET
Discovery Channel puts off Jesus documentary telecast. After Roman Catholics threatened to protest the Discovery Channel the Discovery Channel decided it will not air The Lost tomb of Jesus in India.
PROBLEMS MULTIPLY FOR JESUS TOMB THEORY BY Ben Witherington on Wednesday, February 28, 2007
THE JESUS TOMB? ‘TITANIC’ TALPIOT TOMB THEORY SUNK FROM THE START by Ben Witherington on Monday, February 26, 2007
Discovery's Cruci-Fiction?
Good Quotes:
Joe Zias, the former curator of the Rockefeller Museum of Jerusalem who personally worked with the ossuareis in question, told Newsweek, "He's [Jacobovici] pimping off the Bible." 'Tis the Season for Controversy: The Sensationally Spun "Lost Tomb of Jesus" Documentary
"Much ado about nothing" Clergy, scholars debunk 'Last Tomb of Jesu' [sic]
Rev. Robert Schenk questioned the movie's credibility, calling it "nothing more than a modern-day circus sideshow." and Dr. Jerry Johnson, president of Criswell College in Dallas and host of radio show Jerry Johnson Live!, told PRWeek, "The only reason Cameron did the press conference was publicity: publicity at the expense of Christianity."Cameron's 'Tomb' spurs massive coverage and ire
"The Jacobodavinci Code," Leonardo emerges from Talpiot tomb to redo 'Last Supper'
"[T]he head of the Catholic league in New York City denounced the findings of the documentary as a whole, calling it a 'Titanic fraud.'" Jesus documentary attacked by all
Posted by P. Smith at 10:24 AM
|
1 comments
