“Jesus Tomb” Controversy Erupts—AgainIntroduction Talkback Add Your Comment
Many scholars immediately criticized the program, saying it contradicted much of what we know historically and that it made numerous dubious assumptions. “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” was directed by filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici and produced by James Cameron, the director of the blockbuster movie “Titanic.” Now a second wave of controversy has been sparked in the wake of a scholarly conference organized in Jerusalem by the Princeton Theological Seminary to assess the likelihood that the Talpiot tomb is indeed the tomb of Jesus. A dramatic moment came at the end of the conference when Ruth Gath, the widow of Yosef Gat, the original excavator of the Talpiot tomb in 1980, told the audience that her husband had believed that the tomb was indeed that of Jesus but had kept his views private for fear of stoking a worldwide anti-Semitic backlash. Despite Ruth Gath’s revelation, most of the conference attendees felt that the Talpiot tomb was unlikely to have been the tomb of Jesus. Immediately after the event, however, Jacobovici issued a press release claiming that the conference had “vindicated” his program. Several conference participants then issued a statement to the contrary. You can follow the debate on this rancorous issue in this special section of our Web site. Here you can read the scholars’ statement, Jacobovici’s press release and initial comments by several scholars. Not surprisingly, those comments have led to more comments and reactions, which we will post as they become available.
Canticles of CanticlesIs the reference from Canticles of Canticles? Mary as compared to the Tower of David? • • • • • • • Jesus Tomb ControversyI would like to add a minor bit of information, which I read once. I apologize for not being able to locate the precise reference but, as I have over a 1000 books in my library, I shall be a month in searching for it. I read somewhere that a possible analysis of Mary Magdelene's name is not Miriam (or Maryam) of the place Migdal, but perhaps Mary the Tower (of Faith), along the same lines that Simon (or Shimon) was the Rock (or more precisely the linch-pin or cornice of the arch, also of Faith). This was in a book written by a Biblical scholar and as soon as I have located the specific reference I will post again. As a linguist, I will add the minor note that the Greeks could not end a word with the latter "m" and had to amend this lady's name with something else, as they did the goddess Astart at an earlier date. Common feminine endings included the letter "e" in Athenian Greek, the letter "a" in the Greek spoken elsewhere, as at Sparta, the letter "n" and the letter "s" (as transcribed into Roman or Latin letters). Thus the various forms into which Mary's name now appears. • • • • • • • Jacobovici, Pelligrino, & TalpiotI've read Jacobovici and Pelligrino's book, "The Jesus Family Tomb" and watched the discovery channel documentary. Both capitalize on sensationalism and try to dazzle the audience with numbers and statistics about probablity of people with those names being found in the same tomb...which might prove something if human behavior resembled anything like an algebra problem. It's a tomb full of common 1st century Jewish names and the fact that the supposed Mary Magdalene of the tomb is inscribed as "Miriamne" and not "Maria" actually seems to work against Jacobovici's assertions doesn't seem to phaze him. He's relying too much on a 2nd century gnostic text for his assertion that Mary would be called Miriamne rather than documented 1st century witnesses such as, say, the Gospels. Get a life, Simcha. • • • • • • • Jesus TombIn the index to my copy of "The Works of Josephus." I count thirteen different individuals named Jesus! We should not be surprised to find others. Rather you archaeologists should be looking for these other historical individuals. • • • • • • • Access to Annals of Applied StatisticsThe IMS has left draft versions of the papers that appeared in Annals of Applied Statistics (AAS) at the following URLs: http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/1322?confirm=2afe8806 http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/2567?confirm=8e6940c8 http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/2258?confirm=6f17236a http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/2134?confirm=51b89ebc http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/2285?confirm=d867945a http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/2593?confirm=563f7b9b http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/2705?confirm=96febe0f http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/2702?confirm=37d9f6b3 http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/2787?confirm=604bb55f The last is Feuerverger's response. Please see the second sentence of paragraph -2 on page 6 of this document which references his original paper (the first document). These draft versions differ little from the published versions. Regarding the pay-per-view approach to accessing the final, published versions The AAS is a journal for professional statisticians--in particular members of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org). The journal is supported by subscription ($196 for four issues) and (unlike BAR and a number of other fine magazines) does not use advertising for additional support. If you take a look at the table of contents of any issue of AAS you will note that its general appeal is to a somewhat limited audience. And, by the way, while I am a statistician, I neither work for nor am I a member of the IMS. • • • • • • • Miryam=Mariam=Marian=MariamneThere is other, and earlier, precedent for the nu ending replacing the mu ending in the Hellenist name for Miryam: Mariam. The following is quoted from my glossary entry for "Miryam" in the Netzarim website (www.netzarim.co.il): "Four times -- in Papyrus 45 (ca. 255 C.E.), Papyrus 66 (ca. 200 C.E.) and Codex Sinaiticus mss. of "John" 11 (v. 19, 28, 31, 45), as well as in the Codex Vaticanus ms. of "Romans" (16.6), ÎαÏÎčαΌ (Mariam) is corrupted to ÎαÏÎčαΜ (Marian). The confluence of ÎαÏÎčαΌ (Mariam) and ÎαÏÎčαΜ (Marian), led to yet another variant, ÎαÏÎčαΌη (Mariamae), a sui generis, mainly associated with translations of Josephus' accounts (apparently not found in the original Greek) of the Herod family, being corrupted to "Mariamne." (Neither Mariamae nor "Mariamne" is found in the NT.)" The difficulty arises because Marian in some of these passages refers to the "Mary" of Beit Ani (Bethany). Was she, or was she not Miryam of Migdal becomes the issue. I mentioned this to Prof. Tabor and it didn't seem very interesting to him. I find it interesting, nevertheless, because P-66 provides earlier--the earliest so far--precedence for the mutation of the nun into the Hellenized version of the Hebrew Miryam (Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies dates to 234 C.E. & Acts of Philip dates to the last half of 4th century.) P-45 brackets Hipplytus; all of which are a full century earlier than the Acts of Philip. Thus, the earliest witnesses of the name of the woman named in The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (and in the later, Roman-redacted Hellenist NT) also bear witness to the mutation of nu as the final letter. Josephus, knowing the Hebrew name ended in mem, then appears to have assumed the nu, eta was the appropriate Hellenized form: mu, nu, eta. As my glossary entry concludes: "Thus, there appear no other instances outside of the 1st-century NÓtzarim community. At the very least, it would appear that the variant spelling with a Îœ (nu; "n") tracks back uniquely to the 1st-century NÓtzarim community. ÎαÏÎčαΌ (Mariam) is identified as ÎÎ±ÎłÎŽÎ±Î»Î·ÎœÎ· (Magdalaenae [corrupted to "Magdalene"]; "of Migdal," on the westernmost shore of Yam Kineret) in NHM 27.61 & 28.1 (both later redacted to ÎαÏÎčα, Maria). The reverse is also true. ÎαÏÎčα (Maria) is identified as ÎÎ±ÎłÎŽÎ±Î»Î·ÎœÎ· (Magdalaenae; "of Migdal") in NHM 27.56 (later redacted to ÎαÏÎčαΌ, Mariam). Both names are applied to the Miryam from Migdal. Therefore, the controversy over the reading of the "Mariamne" ossuary of the Talpiot tomb, whether ÎαÏÎčαΌ (Mariam) or ÎαÏÎčα (Maria), is a pedantic straw man that cannot rule out ÎÎ±ÎłÎŽÎ±Î»Î·ÎœÎ·--whichever variant becomes the eventual reading!" It would appear from this that Mariamne sometimes refers to Miryam of Migdal and at other times to Miryam of Beit Ani, sister of Elazar. However, the tendency to see these as two separate women is tenuous. They may be one and the same woman--which would explain Ribi Yehoshua being intimate with "Miryam" in both instances. Where is the contradictory evidence that Mariamne isn't Miryam? Or that Miryam of Migdal isn't Miryam of Beit Ani? Paqid Yirmeyahu Paqid 16, The Netzarim Israeli Orthodox Jew Advancing Logic as Halakhic Authority Welcoming Jews & non-Jews www.netzarim.co.il • • • • • • • Mariamene is Mary MagdaleneFrom the Jesus Dynasty/James Tabor Blog: June 1, 2008 "There's Something About Mariamne with an N" "One of the most fascinating names inscribed on the ossuaries in the Talpiot "Jesus Family" tomb is the unusual and rare form of the Greek inscription for a Mary, as first published by the learned L. Y. Rahmani in 1994: MARIAMNENOU (HE) MARA: of Mariamene, who is (also called) Mara [IAA 80.500, CJO 701: L. Y. Rahmani (A Catalog of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel, Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities and Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994)] Rahmani understood the name as a neuter genitive of the name MARIAMNENON, which is in turn a diminutive form of MARIAMENE. Although this reading has been only lately questioned and disputed by various scholars, (Pfann, Price, Puech, et al.), who have proposed it be read as MARIAME KAI MARA or MARIAM HE KAI MARA (Mariame AND Mara OR Mariam also known as Mara), whether referring to two women or one by two names, what I find really interesting about Rahmani's reading is the presence of the Greek letter Nu or N, in other words: MariameNe. I for one have not been so quick to dispute the skilled and sharp eye of Rahmani, supported now after further reexamination by Prof. Leah Di Segni and incorporated into Amos Kloner's official report on the tomb. Mary in English takes various forms in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Coptic: Miriam, Mariam, Mariame, Mariamme, and Maria, but the name spelled with an N, as Rahmani read this ossuary, is virtually unknown in antiquity (see E. Stanley Jones, ed., Which Mary: The Marys of Early Christian Tradition, Atlanta: SBL, 2002). I say "virtually" unknown, for a reason, so bear with me here. Now here is where things get really interesting. If you do a search for Mariamne, spelled with an N, on Wikipedia, you will read that it is a name frequently used in the Herodian Royal house for Mariame or Mariamme. If you search further on Google, again for Mariamne spelled with an N, even excluding references to the inscription in the Talpiot tomb, you will find dozens of hits. If you read many English or French editions of Josephus's works you will find dozens of references to Mariamne, spelled with the N. And finally, even Voltaire wrote a play called Herode et Mariamne, yes, you guessed it, spelled with an N. And yet the fact remains, so far as I have been able to discover, all these sources, from Wikipedia, to Josephus in translation, and even Voltaire, have no basis in any Greek texts from Antiquity. My guess is that the root of this widespread misunderstanding comes from translations in English and French of Josephus that incorrectly put Mariamene for the name Mariame. But the original Greek has no Nu or N. I had a colleague run a search on Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, the University of California at Irvine data base that has collected and digitized all of Greek literature from Homer to the fall of Byzantium in 1453. Currently this collection contains 3800 authors, 12,000 texts, and about 99 million words-and it is updated quarterly. UNC Charlotte and most major universities are subscribers to the TLG Library and search engine. Non-subscribers can access a trial version, see the TLG Web site for information. We asked for all examples in extant Greek literature of the name Mariam spelled with an Nu, or N. Our results were rather amazing. As it turns out this very unusual form of the name Mariam in Greek, namely any form containing the N, popped up in only two works--the Acts of Philip and Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies, and in both works the reference was to the woman named Mary Magdalene in our Gospels. There are multiple references in the Acts of Philip to Mary Magdalene and her apostolic mission and travels. However, the reference in Hippolytus is of particular interest in that he mentions a Jewish-Christian group of Nassenes who taught that James the brother of Jesus handed on the secret tradition of Jesus to Mariamene. Hippolytus flourished in the late 2nd century CE and he was linked to Irenaeus, who in turn was linked to Papias. If there are other instances of any form of the name Mariam spelled with an N we missed them and would be glad to have them pointed out. But assuming this data result is correct, what if one asks the question differently? If we begin with the Talpiot tomb inscription, read as Mariamene, spelled with an N, that surely Rahmani and Di Segni would vehemently deny has anything to do with Mary Magadalene, and just ask two related questions: Where in all of Greek literature do we know this unusual form of the name? Is/are there any identifiable woman/women in all of antiquity who was/were known by this form of the name Mary? So far as I can discover the answer is clear. Our only references, outside the Talpiot tomb, are to a single woman, Mary Magdalene. It seems to me that this result has great force. Rather than one having to jump to the 2nd century or the 4th century, to desperately find a parallel to Mariamene in the Jesus Tomb, is not quite the opposite the case? When one searches the linguistic evidence for this form of the name no one other than Mary Magdalene turns up. I think this fact should give us a bit of pause. Whether the Talpiot tomb can ultimately be identified with that of Jesus and his family or not, what an odd turn of events that the odd and completely rare occurrence of Mariamne spelled with an N would turn up in a 1st century tomb containing these other namesincluding Jesus son of Joseph. That Rahmani and Di Segni read the name in that way, and still do, without the least inclination to connect it to Jesus of Nazareth, seems to me to be all the more telling in terms of an honest linguistic reading. However, given this result, perhaps all the criticism that Jacobovici received for jumping from a 1st century tomb with the name Mariamene to a 4th century gnostic text like the Acts of Philip, should be reconsidered." ___ from Pistis Sophia: "Blessed Mary, you whom I shall complete with all the mysteries on high, speak openly, for you are one whose heart is set on heaven's kingdom more than all your brothers." • • • • • • • Jennifer D: Kilty Logic InvalidClearly, you cannot spot elementary flaws in logic. Dr. Kilty's statistics may be fine but he has used the statistics in attempt to connect a framework of intuitive thinking that is logically invalid, resulting in a gross exaggeration. There is no way that his premise could lead to his stated conclusion; a conclusion echoed by Prof. Tabor, that "This result is far from "virtually nil," in fact it is very close to 1/2, meaning if we had two tombs to examine, one of them would be the Jesus tomb." No logician could miss that blunder. I inquired to Dr. Kilty who confirmed this was his view in his email to me of 2008.05.04, stating: "Therefore the posterior probability of Talpiot being the Jesus Family Tomb is one in two, approximately. James Tabor's statement catches the essence of this in that if we excavated all tombs in the area we would expect to have two of them with a similar set of names to examine, and what then follows logically from our first assumption is that one of the two would be that of the Jesus Family." This means that Prof. Tabor did, as he stated to me, rely on Dr. Kilty's work, merely echoing the blunder. After pointing out to Dr. Kilty that he had not, and could not, present logic to demonstrate his conclusion he conceded that "Yes, the press statement attributed to him is not accurate." This, despite having confirmed earlier (above) that it was his own view. The full text of these messages can be seen in my website in our Convention Center. Scroll down to :2008.05.08 1345; Talpiot Tomb - Paqid Yirmeyahu Invalidates Kilty-Elliot Logic. Dr. Kilty's conclusion is an exaggeration that is logically invalid. Dr. Feuerverger's work, by contrast, appears straightforward and impeccable. I'm not arguing either a minimalist or maximalist view. I seek a logical analysis of historical evidence. Paqid Yirmeyahu Paqid 16, The Netzarim Israeli Orthodox Jew Advancing Logic as Halakhic Authority Welcoming Jews & non-Jews www.netzarim.co.il • • • • • • • Minimalist vs. MaximalistThank you JD. The Talpiot Tomb debate seems to be dying out because of a lack of new facts to support either the minimalist or maximalist view. BAR does a good job of allowing both sides to present their arguments. Since I am not in either camp, it's hard to find a venue that will allow a 3rd view discussion. If anyone has any 3rd view information, please email me at thelamedvovnic@gmail.com. • • • • • • • StatisticsHear ye, hear ye, Susan Burns! Well said: short, sweet, and to the point. • • • • • • • Rejection of the Statistics From the OutsetIf one happens to think that Jesus of Nazareth is a fabrication of creative authors, and that there are other good reasons for the Talpiot names, then it is not unreasonable to reject any statistical mathematics that tries to prove the existence of the New Testament Jesus. Why should you scratch your head over some mathematics that you don't believe from the outset? If someone could come up with a genuine ossuary inscribed "James son of Judas and brother of Simon", I might sit up. • • • • • • • StatisticsSB: There is little question that the author has certain biases, and that he may have been a little over-zealous in his refutations, despite the fact that he does have a good grasp of statistics. Centuries ago, there was a great debate over the selection of which sources were to be included in the New Testament, which means that the ones selected may have been more for propoganda purposes than for purposes of presenting the most reliable accounts. Thus it makes no sense to simply discount the other possible sources merely because they didn't make the final cut. There are other Jewish accounts that also cannot be dismissed simply because they don't fit the prevailing views. In these biblical studies, I am always amazed, not just at how much religious bias is included in one's perspective concerning these issues, but in how much bias is included in the perspective of those who claim to present professional, "scholarly" views. I have long been impressed at how objective a few scholars, such as James Tabor, can be. Sadly, they seem to represent the exception rather than the rule. • • • • • • • StatisticsJK: Thanks for that article. The author does a fine job of proping up the church's view of the death of Jesus using church doctrine. I think the whole point of the scholarship of people like Schaberg and Tabor is pointing out that there are other sources that should be considered. When you pretend that other sources than gospels are nonexistent, is that really scholarship? Isn't that something more like propaganda? • • • • • • • Feurverger's PaperSusan Burns and others: I know for a fact that even some of the people who initially pointed out the general statistical approach to Jacobovicci and Tabor well before the documentary came out, and who assisted in the ongoing review and analysis of the statistics, were not rewarded with a a copy of his paper or those of the referees. That being so, to Feurverger's own detrimnet, we can instead read the criticisms of Feurverger's paper, some of which are being freely distributed by the more generous "referees". You can download Randy Ingermanson's rebuttal here: http://www.ingermanson.com/jesus/art/tomb/IngermansonTombComments.pdf • • • • • • • Talpiot Tomb Statsper Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor http://www.jesusdynasty.com/blog/ April 16, 2008 Inside the Numbers on the Talpiot Tomb There is a new article on the Web by historian Mark Elliot and mathematician Kevin Kilty. It is titled Inside the Numbers on the Talpiot Tomb, and is available for downloading on the Web. [see the Jesus Dynasty blog for the link to downloading the article] I quote here their modest opening paragraph: Inside the Numbers of the Talpiot Tomb By Mark Elliott and Kevin Kilty March 20, 2008 The Talpiot Tomb has generated controversy, scholarly debate, and analysis over the past year. It created an academic stir that shows no sign of ceasing just yet. Lately, some scholars have made comments that we view as doubtful and others have made assertions in some instances not supported by the data at hand. If you have not read their former contribution, that has become absolutely essential to understanding the quite technical discussion of the frequency statistics of the names, it is also available for downloading on the Web and can be read with great profit. It is unfortunate that the work of qualified scholars such as Feuerverger, Elliot, and Kilty has not yet been factored into the mainstream discussion of The Tomb by the scholars. This was widely evident at the Princeton Seminary conference on the Talpiot tomb that met in Jerusalem in January. It has also become abundantly clear in subsequent Web and media comments thereafter by various Talpiot tomb gainsayers. I think this misunderstanding stems, in most cases, from a lack of understanding of how statistics work with regard to the Talpiot tomb names. Accordingly, Elliot & Kiltyâs latest is a welcome breath of fresh air in this regard. It is written in plain language and is accessible to the non-specialist. • • • • • • • Feuerverger's PaperT Student quotes a snippet about Mariamne from Feuerverger's paper on the Talpiot Tomb. It is not clear what is from Feuerverger and what has been added by T Student. Unfortunately, since I am a nobody I cannot access the paper and determine for myself the context of the snippet. Is this merely a way for the IMS Journal AOAS to sell magazine subscriptions? And isn't this unethical? • • • • • • • Ossuary designsOssuarys from the East Talpiot tomb have a design that has been used by Christians from the time of Jesus. It is a legacy of the Jewish faith and it can be regarded as the first and oldest symbol of Jesus. The designed is believed to be associated with the virgin Mary and therefore handed down to Jesus from her. • • • • • • • Mary a Prophetess?Mary was made a virgin in the story to fulfil the selected prophecy of the editor. The editors of the gospels were clever and realised they had to make out that the fictitious pregnancy of Mary was against Jewish law. She became a prophetess, that is she was filled with the Spirit, not with child. As a supporte of the temple cult, Joseph, that is Caiaphus, the high priest to whom she was betrothed, wanted to put her away privily, probably in prison. Mary was the daughter of a high priest (I suggest Ananias). The garbled story of John being in prison was Mary in prison. It was Mary who asked for the hand of the prophet, not the daughter of Herodias for the head of John - Herodias always was married to Herod Antipas. The garbled story about Herodias in the writings attributed to Josephus was brought into line with the story in the gospels. Thus the editors of the writings attributed to Josephus were working hand-in-glove with the editors of the gospels. • • • • • • • A Simple-minded ViewI am not sure what I hope to accomplish with this post except that some of it seems to really get out of hand. I watched the film and read through these posts and the few articles and mentions both pro and against. I must admit many of the posts particularly from someone named Joe Zias(sic) seem largely emotional. And there are others. I would have thought that this would be a forum for thought and logical and factual discouse. I must admit that a good deal is but at the same time some does seem juvenile. I hope that investigations continue and discussions flourish without being restricted by mere rhetoric. I am by the way not an expert or a scholar. I am actually a simple-minded,sometimes 'expert' database person. I really hope that research continues in this area. By the way I live in Plano Texas and have no connection to anyone in this forum. Kindly do not call me Simcha or I will get really hacked. Thanks • • • • • • • Feuerverger's Paper on Talpiot TombThose who are interested Feuerverger's analysis of the odds of the Talpiot tomb being the JFT should read the statement available on his web(http://fisher.utstat.toronto.edu/andrey/OfficeHrs.txt) in which he asks readers to be careful about the accuracy of quotes being attributed to him. The following quote from his rejoinder may help to clarify other information that has been presented in this blog. He states, "Without benefit of the last element, that is, (g), of the itemization above, I do not regard the assumption A.7âconcerning the most appropriate name rendition for Mary Magdaleneâas being equally adequately justified by the remaining elements (a) through (f) on that list. In particular, this means that we cannot (on the basis of our RR procedure) say that the Talpiyot find is statistically significant in any meaningful way. Readers who wish to form their own judgement on this should note that the germane question here is not whether or not Mariamne was the actual name of Mary Magdalene, but whether or not we are justifiedâon an a priori basisâto say that the rendition Mariamenou [η] Mara provides a better fit to the name of Mary Magdalene than any of the others, whilst bearing in mind that she is repeatedly referred to in the NT as having come from Migdal, and is not referred to there as Mariamne. We shall see below, however, that this matter is not yet closed." Note, too, that a number of the discussants point out the perils of statisticians and Biblical scholars crossing disciplinary lines. As Feuerverger also states, "Some of Bentleyâs comments, for example his closing remarks about archeologists and archeology being now at odds with statistics and with statisticians admittedly make for provocative and dramatic reading; unfortunately pressures of time do not permit me to enter into such debates." I suggest that those who truly wish to understand the statistical debate follow Feuerverger's suggestion and take the time to read the papers for themselves. • • • • • • • Birth of JesusAnother incredible story is the journey Mary made from Nazareth to Bethlehem on the back of a donkey while 9 months pregnant. Has anyone ever approximated how many days this journey would have taken by donkey? My guess is at least a week. • • • • • • • Jesus and Mary MagdaleneTerry, in response to you comment regarding Jesus' omission of his wife in his final request to John, I must refer you to an interesting verse found at John 19:25-26 which states, "(25) Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary magdalene. (26) When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Dear woman, here is your son." [NIV Bible] What piqued my interest in this verse was the fact that the author left out the mention of Jesus' wife while mentioning the "wife of Clopas." I understand and appreciate Jewish law regarding the care of the deceased brother's wife by one's brother, but why would the author of this text choose to leave one wife out of the message yet include another--in the same sentence? At all or most Christian funerals, the deceased relatives are ALWAYS mentioned at some point. [I do not know if this also occurs at Jewish funerals?] This point may seem insignificant, but given the stormy controversy over Jesus' marital status, it bears consideration, I feel. I find it difficult to believe that this was just some careless ommision in the book of John. For wouldn't it have been only too simple to say, "Mary, the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene, the wife of Jesus?" Boy--what a lot of anguish this would have prevented! • • • • • • • Synoptic ProblemSusan: Thanks for that link. The succession theory is very well thought out and makes sense from that perspective. The incredible, exaggerated degree to which Mary's illegitimate pregnancy as an unmarried "virgin" was progressively covered up in the Gospels only serves to emphasize that she likely did have an illegitimate pregnancy according to Jewish law. • • • • • • • Synoptic ProblemFor an excellent commentary on the synoptic problem see post #5 Re: Jesus and the Virgin Birth Text on BAR forum http://forum.bib-arch.info/index.php?topic=91.0 • • • • • • • Writer's Use or Abuse of Written SourcesGeoff: To me, the Synoptic Problem is one of the key issues when trying to make sense of the NT stories and determining fact from fiction. The missing infancy story from two of the Gospels: Mark and John (both which start with the ministry of John the Baptist), does seem to indicate that there were originally several distinct accounts of various parts of the overall story. That alone seems strange. For example, why would a witness ONLY write about his infancy and nothing else? But going back to your initial point, how do you piece together that Zechariah was a legitimate historical character, that both John the Baptist and Jesus were fictional characters, and that the other missing original historical character was an actual son of Zechariah who was the true prophet? • • • • • • • Feuervergerâs Paper on Talpiot TombPer James Tabor's blog: April 6, 2008 Feuervergerâs Paper on Talpiot Tomb Statistics Published Filed under: Talpiot Jesus Family Tomb â James Tabor @ 10:08 pm At long last, just over a year after the initial publicity over the Talpiot âJesus Family Tomb,â the formal paper of Prof. Andrey Feuerverger of the University of Toronto has appeared in The Annals of Applied Statistics, the academic journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (Vol. 2, no. 1, March, 2008). Feuervergerâs paper, titled âStatistical Analysis of an Archaeological Find,â runs just over 50 pages with notes and bibliography. It is introduced by editor Stephen E. Fienberg and followed by another 50 pages of material from ten professional respondents. Feuerverger then offers a dozen page Rejoinder. Fortunately, for those not near a research library the entire issue, devoted to this subject, is available on the Web through Project Euclid. This article should put to rest the many spurious claims that Feuerverger subsequently recanted his views on the probabilities of the Talpiot Tomb belonging to Jesus of Nazareth and his family, most recently repeated by Thomas Madden on the National Review Web site over Easter. It will also show the complete inaccuracy of the assertion made by a number of scholars following the January Princeton Seminar conference in Jerusalem that âA statistical analysis of the relatively common names engraved on the ossuaries leaves no doubt that the probability of the Talpiot tomb belonging to Jesusâ family is virtually nil if the Mariamene named on one of the ossuaries is not Mary Magdalene.â This is decidedly not the case, as Randy Ingermanson quickly pointed out on the Duke Web site: âI am no fan of the Talpiot tomb, but I do not agree with this part of the statementâŠI have studied Andrey Feuervergerâs statistical analysis in great detail and have done several computations of my own. It is not correct to say that the probability is âvirtually nilâ if you get rid of the Mary Magdalene hypothesisâŠThe fact is that if you read the Mariamenou inscription as âjust another Mary,â then Feuervergerâs calculations lose âstatistical significance.â But they most likely still lead to a fairly high probability for the authenticity of the tomb⊠â [I should point out here that Ingermanson has his own calculations, with results significantly lower than Feuerverger, that he publishes as one of the responders to Feuerverger in this special issue of Annals, so that his comment here is not about his own views, but an admirable attempt to be fair with Feuerverger.] Based on the calculations of Elliot and Kilty, whose paper can be downloaded from the Web, and as discussed by Camil Fuchs, who along with Andrey Feuerverger, sat on the panel at the Jerusalem conference dealing with statistics, the name cluster, even leaving Mariamene out entirely, with no assumptions regarding Mary Magdalene, shows a probability factor of .48. This result is far from âvirtually nil,â in fact it is very close to 1/2, meaning if we had two tombs to examine, one of them would be the Jesus tomb. Both Ingermanson and Fuchs are among the respondents to the published Feuerverger paper. It now appears, with Feuervergerâs paper in print, that we have finally reached the point where a more responsible and accurate discussion of the Talpiot tomb name frequencies and statistics can take place. We can at least say that anyone who asserts âthe names are common,â as a way of dismissing the evidence, is either completely ignorant of what we now know, or uninterested in an informed and truly academic discussion. I want to commend Prof. Feuerverger for his thorough work and his doggedness over the past months to remain professional and take the high road academically when so much was being published about him and his views that was so totally inaccurate and even slanderous. • • • • • • • To Sarah:I had given up on this site because the main theme is bitching and defending, which are not relevant issues for me. A friend alerted me to the fact you answered my questions so I thank you for the acknowledgment. The reason I asked about the buy eight/get one free ossuary concept is because one of the articles linked states that the fact the ossuaries are the same size is 'evidence' they came from the same tomb. I thought that was bunk when I read it and from your reply I see you'd likely agree with me. On the issue about the inscription, you have confirmed what I would also have surmised: that patina indicates the age of the inscription. So why is there any doubt about the 'forgery' of the James ossuary? I mean, of course, the 'modern' forgery trial going on, not the issue of whether the script is from 1960 years ago or from 1952 years ago. These are just two of the no-brainers that the experts have not seen fit to comment on. My questions were openers but perhaps education regarding the issues is not what is important to them. But because I abandoned this site in irritation at the usual base tone of the discussion, I shall resist the urge to reply sarcastically to your question 'have I ever seen a skeleton'. Let's hope one of the experts will leave off bickering for 5 minutes and contemplate these questions. The words layman and intellectual are not mutually exclusive, but one might judge from the tone of the general discussion here that the words expert and insightful are. • • • • • • • Writer's Use or Abuse of Written SourcesGeoff: I plan to respond to your other comments later, but I wanted to thank you for providing the link to the Synoptic Question articles. It's very encouraging to see this important issue being pursued again. • • • • • • • Writer's Use or Abuse of Written SourcesJohn, the paper given by F. Gerald Downing at the recent Oxford Conference In the Synoptic Problem makes quite interesting reading. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~rege0695/index.htm • • • • • • • Jesus the JewSarah: Why don't Christians know more about what it means to be a Jew? I can understand before mass media; but what about now? There are thousands of Christian Institutions dedicated to parsing each word of scripture and yet have no understanding of what it means to be a Jew. Some are even located in Israel! • • • • • • • Even the Experts are unsure of what is original in the SynopticsJohn, with regard to my comment "If editorial work was being done on all the synoptics at the same time or close in time, how can one ever be sure what is truly original?", you might like to read Mark Goodacre's blog for Thursday April 10,2008; http://ntgateway.com/weblog/index.html • • • • • • • to SarahAn interesting theory and not totally out of question. You are right about the Jewish law (the Yibum law). But there are more details and Jewish laws that could prevent the process you have descibed. Anyway - you are around Jesus' fatherhood. That's what important. • • • • • • • terryand one more if you don't mind... The questions posed by Jim in February were: Let me get this straight; followers of Jesus ran around claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead yet all the while His body was lying in a tomb? Wouldn't you think the Jews or the Romans of His day would have just ordered the body put out on public display to shut the disciples up? Or maybe even His own brothers, who didn't believe His message until sometime after His death? No because A) they (the Romans and Jewish authorities) didnât care that they were running around claiming this stuff and B) it would have been sacrilegious to pull a dead man out of a tomb and prop him up. They may have cared enough to crucify him â which was more likely done just to shut everyone up - but they still had their beliefs about respecting the dead and desecration of the bodyâŠI mean come on!? And on top of that the Jewish authority were not about to touch a dead body of a man they cared nothing for â remember touching a corpse caries itâs own lengthy list of rules and regulations that the priests werenât going to go through just to show up a dozen or so men and a couple of women⊠If there was a body to be produced, someone would have produced it. Really? Why? It wasnât necessary to them and their faith. And like I said before people donât go around propping up the dead unless they really, really have to. And it seems to me that no one was really all that concerned THEN whether or not these people were telling the truth or not about their dead Rabbi. Instead, some guards were bribed and a bunch of people persecuted. Had they shown the body, all of you who hate Christians and blame them for all the woes in the world would have to pick on someone else. Iâm not sure what this has to do with anything but Iâll say one thing as a JEW â Christians are not being blamed nor have they been blamed for anythingâŠI will admit they have done some things that were not nice (I am of course being very kind) but they havenât taken nearly the persecution of some other religious people in the world like oh I donât knowâŠthe Jewish people! I think they have EVERY right to make THAT claim⊠• • • • • • • terryWhile you guys do a great job at attacking and debating each other you do a terrible job of answering the laymanâs questions. So far a couple of peopleâs very good questions about Judaism and archaeology have gone unanswered. So if you donât mind Iâd like to answer another one⊠The questions asked by Bundini in February were: Why (when people die at different dates) a bunch of ossuaries found in one tomb would have similar dimensions. They would have similar dimensions for the same reason dinner plates and shoe boxes have similar dimensions â they are standard or âuniversalâ dimensions you could say. Itâs just a box to put the bones of the dead in. You have a guy down the street who makes them standard size standard shape and so yes boxes of different ages WILL have relatively similar dimensions. The art or decoration may change with time and price will be different between plain vs. decorated, but there will always be the standard size which will rarely change â its not rocket science. Itâs just like today when you go to purchase a standard size coffin⊠Did the family pre-order a bulk number of ossuaries (buy 8, get one free) or is there some other explanation for this odd fact? No, see explanation aboveâŠand itâs NOT an odd fact. I would have thought that when the re-burial was done (a year after death, or whatever) an ossuary of the desired size would be ordered at that time. It probably was. But like I said before that doesnât mean the size would be any different then any other box. (And Iâll say it again) Just like buying a coffin today, they tend to come in standard sizes. Hence I would have expected different sizes/styles of ossuary..no? No you would not have different sizes. Have you actually ever seen a skeleton? They donât actually take up that much room. I can see that you might think âoh a taller guy is going to need a bigger boxâ but when you break the bones down into a mass and put them in a box you donât really need a box thatâs all that different from one person to the next. My second question is about the inscriptions. We hear a lot about patina and how they match but I assume an inscription could be cut at any time (i.e. possibly forged). No, that is not true. If I graffiti a wall 5 years ago with red paint the elements will change the paint over time and it will look different then if I graffiti it with red paint today. Or consider this, think of patina as dust settling on furniture. If something was written before the dust settled it would be older then if I ran my finger through the dust and wrote something new â youâd be able to tell the newer âdisturbedâ dust writing from the older âunder the dustâ writing⊠No-one to my knowledge has addressed the simple issue of how the experts know the inscriptions date from the period in question. This is based on the characters of the alphabet as well as the patina and the âstyleâ of the boxes (i.e. artistic styles of different time periods). The Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek change form and shape over time. The Hebrew I write when I teach my students today looks nothing like the Hebrew written 2,000 years ago. You can easily Google this and see examples of how the writing has evolved â this is also a no brainer or as I said earlier not rocket science. As well art changes over time as we can all see just by looking at art through the centuries â we date things based on this. These are just a few of the MANY ways archaeologists can date things as simple as inscriptions. Does the patina also cover the inscription? Yes it would have to. If it didnât the inscription would be a later addition to the box â this doesnât make it any less real (hold off your attacks) what I mean is, if I died and my mom put my bones in a box and then 10 years later thought it might be nice to put a sweet little inscription on my box saying who I am it would be 100% authentic, just post mortem. The argument here is that supposedly this inscription isnât like Jesusâ mother inscribing his box âjust a few years laterâ its someone centuries later inscribing a box. I hope that example is clear. I donât remember what the findings were about the boxâs patina and whether is was or was not on/over the inscription but it is very important to whether or not the inscription is ârealâ and the real they are looking for is older then the 1980âs realâŠone would hope⊠I'm not questioning the discoveries. In fact, I'm fascinated by the whole subject but I wish someone would address those issues which obviously raise questions in the layman's mind. Done and done! • • • • • • • Feuervergerâs Paper on Talpiot Tomb StatisticsFeuervergerâs Paper on Talpiot Tomb Statistics has been published in the Annals of Applied Statistics. Unfortunately, I do not have a subscription and viewing is not open to the public. Maybe BAR will post this paper online so that civilians may read and determine conclusions for themselves. In previous battles, Herschel Shanks has been the wedge breaching the wall of the ivory tower. Hopefully, he will do so again. • • • • • • • terryThis is a whole ânother can of worms... I know this may be a little late (as it is April and the question was posted end of January) but Carol Gray-Javid if you are still reading these comments, to answer your question about why Jesus would not have asked John (for example) to care for his wife and children would be because of Jewish law. In Jewish law when a man dies it his brother (by blood not âmetaphoricalâ so lets not get into a âbut a disciple like John was a brotherâ debate) is required to take the deceased brotherâs wife (in this case Mary) as his own and care for her. Therefore! Jesus would NOT have asked anyone BECAUSE he would have assumed that BY JEWISH LAW one of his bothers would have taken her as their wife. Keep in mind these testaments are written with the assumption that the reader knows Jewish custom and life and therefore wouldnât mention such basic details like what would happen to a wife if her husband died (they covered those details for us in the OLD Testament). This is also why a wife is never mentioned period because the writer(s) assume you know that Jesus would have been married and if he wasnât (which would have been the oddity) THATâS what would have been mentioned. The real question that should be asked is why would he ask John to care for his mother, and not the question of why he didnât ask John to care for a wife? Since Mary (the mom) had other family to take care of her there would have been no reason to request such a thing from John unless what Jesus really meant was care for her emotional well being because this death of mine with be very difficult for her â you know being that he was her 1st son, the son she had with G-d â those important details. And after writing this post I realize it might be interesting to explore the possibility of one of his bothers taking Mary as a wife. The reason being because law also requires that ANY children had with that wife would have been considered Jesusâ children (even though they were fathered by the brother) therefore it raises the question about Jesusâ supposed line of descendants. If anyone born to Mary after Jesusâ death is considered his child by Jewish law then there would be a line of Jesus descendants BUT they wouldnât be directly from Jesus â this complicates the whole matter immensely because then you DO have children of Jesus running around out there according to Jewish law but you DONâT have a direct line to Jesus himself. The DNA of course would show up as a relative of Jesus but not as a child. Anyone have any ideas about that aspect? In all my years as a Biblical Archaeologist I donât think I have read anything about anyone exploring thisâŠdoes anyone know if anyone has? • • • • • • • The Burial of the ProphetJohn, it is interesting that there is no birth narrative in Mark, but there is in Luke and Matthew. This alone might lead one to conclude that Mark was earlier, and that the birth narratives of Jesus and John were fabricated. But suppose there always was some sort of dramatic real birth narrative about the prophet, but the editor of Mark had not worked-out how to incorporate it for the new cult of Jesus. He could only create his story with John as a forerunner and baptiser of his Jesus. Thus may be the editor of Luke has passed-on some real authentic information about the birth narrative from a source that Mark even knew about but could not incorporate. Mark generally appearing to be earlier does not necessarily mean it should be used as the standard text to make decisions about the other synoptics. The same applies to the text in Matthew about âJohnâs disciplesâ simply burying the body of âJohnâ, suggesting that the burial was in an earth grave, not in a tomb as in the earlier Mark. I suggest this was the known or remembered information about the way in which the prophet was buried. The editor of Matthew simply retained the original ânaturalâ information which could well have come from a written source used by both Matthew and Mark. If editorial work was being done on all the synoptics at the same time or close in time, how can one ever be sure what is truly original? But the burial account of the prophet in Mark 15:46 does appear to be a simple, quick procedure, suggesting that the body was placed at a spot near the place of death. The important/rich man Joseph is clearly a fabrication to fulfil the editorâs selected prophecy. More than likely a relative simply âtookâ the body (possibly with head separated) from where it lay after the stoning, and wrapped it in linen. I suggest either James or Simon, one of the sons of the prophet, placed the body in the earth, not a rock cut tomb. Mary, the prophetâs wife, saw were he was buried. Original Mark was probably an eyewitness account written in the first person by one of the prophetâs sons. • • • • • • • Jesus TombPaqid, I went to that site...odd to find someone who thinks like you do. Wexler was right that Anger = Fear, I am here for the scientific part and everyone argues. • • • • • • • The Burial of "John"Geoff: Thank you for elaborating on your theory. I was under the impression that it was generally understood that Mark was written before Matthew, so I wonder how you determined that in this case, it was the reverse - that Matthew's version (supposedly based on Mark) was the more accurate. However, I find your theory fascinating and very synchronistic, as I have, for some time, but especially over the last few weeks, been very interested in the character "Zechariah", about which so little seems to have been written. I always felt that he represented a very important individual and that there might have been much more written about him that has somehow disappeared. The only interesting detail remaining is his position as priest of the course of Abia (8th of 24 courses). Who do you feel was Zechariah's real son (the prophet)? • • • • • • • controversyWow... you are basing an entire theory on what some old lady said? You guys are a bunch of idiots. I'm sure you will not post this since you monitor all postings but if you are going to talk about something so ridiculous then the least you can do show the argument from both sides. • • • • • • • The Burial of 'John'Mark 6:29 has:"On hearing this, John's disciples came and took his body and laid it in a tomb." It seems as though the editors of Mark wanted to have a burial of their John like the burial of their Jesus in a rock-cut tomb. May be the reader is supposed to imagine John had a rich disciple with a spare slot in his family tomb. But more realistically, Mat.14:12 has:"John's disciples came and took his body and buried it." I believe this is the authentic record of what happened to the body of the prophet Jesus (so called). It was buried in a simple earth grave. And I am not saying that Jesus was really John, but I do think that the original prophet of the original New Testament was the son of Zechariah, as the reader is initially led to believe in Luke 1. 'John' is introduced and then killed-off to distance Zechariah from his real son, the real prophet of history. Then the fictious Pauline Jesus son of Joseph follows to replace the fictitious John, creating more separation from Zechariah. The story about the death of 'John' at the hands of Herod Antipas is also completely fictitious. • • • • • • • TALPIOT TOMBHas anyone investigated whether to Tomb is a setup by the elders of the Jerusalum Temple, to discount the resurrection of Jesus. They had motive ,opportunity and prior culpability (Mat 28 v11-15) • • • • • • • Tabor and TalpiotMr. Joe Zias: "Take a look at his finding the tomb of Jesus in Safed, and then his finding the tomb of Jesus in Talpiot, guy got around quite a bit." Now whose reputation should be discarded? All Tabor said was that R. Abraham Luria (the famous AR"I), declared a certain grave close to Safed is Jesus' grave. Tabor never said this "find" is actually Jesus' grave. The AR"I has "found" a lot of graves and tombs around Safed and named them after Jewish sages. He also thought Jesus was a Tsadik. So What? Another qoute of Zias: "...with this which angers all of us." Some truth, at last... Yes indeed, they are angree. But why? I wish to remind everybody that Zias is still ignoring the bone report questions. Why, Honest Joe? I am only sorry that really honest people follow Joe's points, by which he is leading them to discuss everything BUT the bone report. And another question, since the money subject is up: how much the TV people paid Joe for an access to a certain skull? • • • • • • • Tabor and TalpiotGeoff, this tomb placement by Tabor is one of many reasons why we are so angry with all of them. There are serious people out there, like yourself, even though you and I may disagree on many things, particularly Qumran who are confused by the media. You are trying to determine several things based upon what you find in the public record. I do the same, however Tabor's tomb placement is a deliberate falsification aimed at the media, literary agents, hustlers and film makers, as it certainly sounds as if the folks wished for the deceased to have a 'room with a view'. The view here is to the west, overlooking a valley and in no way can anyone see Jerusalem. Tabor knew this however this fact does not sell books. It's statements like this, once I read the book, seeing my name in the preface, that angered me to the point that I completely severed relations with him and others connected with the Talpiot tomb doc. I believe that another colleague did the same as in the second editions his name as well disappears. Has he acted in good faint, in any kind of faith, I would let it pass however the book is rife with this stuff and is geared to Nielsen ratings, nothing more. Take a look at his finding the tomb of Jesus in Safed, and then his finding the tomb of Jesus in Talpiot, guy got around quite a bit. I could go on and on, however students, others like your self believe that it's the truth from 'Sinai' and waste an incred. amt. of time with this which angers all of us. It's has less to do with Jesus of Nazereth and more to do with the 'money changers in the Temple' which we academics are trying to cast out. Read the SBL reviews of the book and have a look at the Google photo which he publ, and you can see the Hill of Evil Consul to the north obscuring the view. An honest mistake, I think not. The book is now according to his web site, appearing in it's 12 translation. If you could somehow get Discovery to release the follow up on the tomb which they did, it would be a mitzva, however from what we hear it was so embarrassing that Discovery didn't wish to dig the hole they found themselves in any further. It can and it will get worse. • • • • • • • Talpiot Tomb for a High Priestly FamilyGeoff, there is at least one other tomb in the adjacent area, so if that also belonged to a priestly family, that would add support for the theory. I think, in light of all the questions and unresolved theories, the most rational thing to do is to build support for the investigation of the second tomb. At this point there are far too many conjectures and not enough proof either way. Some of this could possibly be resolved with a little more archaeology. Concerning the point whether the pre-war first century chief/high priestly families were messianic, there is a little difficulty. The temple had become corrupt during the decades prior to the war, and it is not clear whether the priests had been replaced by Roman apointments who were more supportive of Roman policies. It is possible that some of the priests that had been replaced moved elsewhere to places such as Qumran, carrying with them whatever sacred documents they were able to secretly remove. From photos and other information that I have seen, there is a valley running through Talpiot, but the Talpiot tomb is actually east of Talpiot, on a high ridge of land. Not very far from the tomb is an overlook from which you can see Jerusalem, including the Temple. I'm not sure if, by "valley" Joe Zias meant a small local valley, or one of the major valleys. If he meant a small local valley, then that is possible. I have always found James Tabor to be an exceptionally honest man, and since he has been at the tomb, it doesn't make sense that he would fabricate the information. But if that is the case, I would have to agree that it does not look good for his reputation. Concerning your theory about Jesus being a fictional creation to fill John's place, I think that a plausible view. Can you elaborate on this theory? • • • • • • • Talpiot Tomb for a High Priestly Family?John, Ezekiel 40:45,46 has: "The room facing south is for the priests who have charge of the temple, and the room facing north is for the priests who have charge of the altar." Presumably, the former priests were wealthier and more influential than the latter. So on your thesis, one might expect to find a line of posh family tombs of priestly families along a line south of the temple. Now I don't know whether that is correct or not. But I think it is OK to surmise that the Talpiot tomb was indeed that of a wealthy high priestly family. It is also my belief that most, if not all such pre-war first century chief/high priestly families were messianic, and were responsible for the pre-war removal of their sacred documents from Jerusalem to the caves near Qumran. And the graves at Qumran are not that dissimilar from the Talpiot tomb, but presumably were for the poorer sort of priests. Clearly, the first century prophet was in opposition to the priests, the law and the temple cult of animal sacrifices. It therefore seems most unlikely that one of the prophet's followers would place his body in a tomb created for opponents. As for James Tabor writing on his blog that the location of the Talpiot tomb was on a raised area from which one can view Jerusalem and Bethlehem, it seems that he has some answering to do if Joseph Zias is correct in stating the opposite. If Zias is correct about such a simple matter, it does not look good for the reputation of James Tabor. John the Baptist preached in the wilderness because thatâs how his creatorâs wanted him to portray him as a kind of wild prophet. Jesus was created to fill Johnâs place. In effect we have a bifurcation of an original prophet â one original turned into two fictitious. • • • • • • • Still aliveTo John Koopmans: WELL DONE. Let me know if you need the secrete of protection against the (intelectual)inquisition. It has been found 3 Km. south of Jerusalem. (LOL?). • • • • • • • Tomb location significant ?According to Hudson who quotes Tabor, that one can view Jrsm from the tomb, one can see neither Jerusalem nor Bethlehem from the tomb, which sits in a valley between the two. Both cities are obscured by a ridge to the north and a ridge to the south. The Northern ridge is called the Hill of Evil Counsel, a rather apropos name for the books and the doc. which followed. Tabor's statement is on par with the fact that the James Ossuary may have come from the Talpiot tomb, now that the Ossuary was declared by Discovery a top ten hoax of all time, I think that in a way it typifies the whole tomb story and the integrity of some of those involved. Remember folks it's Niel$en ratings, nothing more and some students suffer the most. • • • • • • • Significance of Tomb LocationGeoff Hudson: Thank you for your post. I would have also expected the most important tombs to be located directly in a line east of the temple. However, there are none - the majority of the ones close to the temple are in a line southeast. The four cardinal directions from the Temple were very significant. In fact, in Ezekiel 40 we find: "44. Near the inner gates were two rooms. They were in the inner courtyard. One room was next to the north gate. It faced south. The other one was next to the south gate. It faced north. 45. The man said to me, 'The room that faces south is for the priests who are in charge of the temple'." Based on this, if I wanted to have a tomb that could not be easily found, and if I was from a family of priests, I would want it located directly south of the temple, "South" being a very important direction for Priests. You mention the imporatance of a tomb located so that both Bethlehem and Jerusalem could be viewed. Therefore, it can only be that much more significant when, not only are these conditions met, but it is also located exactly south of the Temple platform with no variance. This canât be a coincidence, and in combination with your location parameters, is incredibly significant location criteria. As for your distance of 2.5 miles, this is not correct. The actual distance is about 2.93 Kilometers, or 1.82 miles. I often walk to work a distance further than that. I have also portaged in rough wilderness land distances much further than that while carrying a 60 pound load on my back. There was a road from Jerusalem to the Talpiot site, and a couple of men or a donkey pulling a cart with a body that distance would be no problem at all and take only an hour or two. As for the Temple, you are correct, and that is why John the Baptist preached in the wilderness. But it was not the Temple itself that was important. What was important was the Temple location which was the sacred location of Solomonâs Temple and the location of where the Ark stood. It also had other important significances. • • • • • • • Significance of Tomb LocationOn April 27 2007, James Tabor posted a Google Global map of Jerusalem, showing the location of the Old City and the Talpiot tomb to the south. http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/04/25/locating-the-talpiot-tomb/ John, my idea of being aligned with a gate usually means facing it, as if to go through. I can't see any great significance in the the alignment of the Talpiot tomb with the north-south direction of the eastern wall of the temple. More important, is Tabor's comment with regard to the tomb location: "it is on a raised area from which one can view the panorama of Jerusalem to the north and Bethlehem to the south." Now the kind of folk who get to choose such a privileged burial site, are usually rich and powerful. And we are more than likely considering the burial site of a high priestly messianic family, the view to Bethlehem, the city of David being of great messianic significance. No doubt the living members of the family imagined the waiting spirits of their dead relatives enjoying the views towards Jerusalem and Bethlehem. But James Tabor neglected to mention that the distance from the Old City is about 2.5 miles. This was hardly convenient for the rapid transfer of a body from Jerusalem close to the eve of a Sabbath. And you get the impression that the prophet was not that enamoured with the temple anyway. Rather he apposed the priests and regarded the temple and the law as defunct. • • • • • • • Ms. BurnsSorry to confuse, I was not talking about you or your post. I was talking about the weak willed men all through history that chose to bully the intellectual process of investigation and discovery...and the weak willed men of today, that are repeating this behavior, and will cast disparaging comments about those who have the courage to question. • • • • • • • Talpiot Tomb - Still AliveJoe Zias - Thanks for the link You state: âsee the following article in the National Review and decide for yourself who's telling truthâ. I did as you suggested, and my conclusion is that the âlong list of distinguished symposium attendeesâ who âwrote their own letter decrying the press reportsâ were the ones not telling the truth. This conclusion is based on the letter which contains a statement that is clearly untrue. This statement is âA statistical analysis of the names engraved on the ossuaries leaves no doubt that the probability of the Talpiot tomb belonging to Jesusâs family is virtually nil if the Mariamene named on one of the ossuaries is not Mary Magdalene.â From a statistical point of view, this statement by the eleven so-called âdistinguished attendeesâ is completely erroneous and misleading and clearly demonstrates how scholars are inapropriately using their professional status to make public declarations about areas in which they obviously have no expertise (i.e. statisitics). This type of practice must stop since the public relies on professionals for their information and assumes that professionals do not use their misuse their authority by stepping outside of their area of expertise. The statement was made in connection with a paper by Elliot and Kilty. The paper suggests that the Talpiot tomb name cluster, even if it does not include the name Mariamene as a potential for Mary Magdalene, shows a probability of .48 of belonging to the family of Jesus. This is close to .5 (or 1/2), which means that if we were to examine two tombs, one of them could be the tomb of Jesus' family. The statement above suggests that the probability .48 is "virtually nil" leaving the impression that there is virtually no chance that the tomb could the tomb of Jesus. Without even having to go into statisitical jargon (I am a statistician), to show very simply how completely ludicrous this statement is, if you were to purchase a lottery ticket, and your chances of winning were about 1 in 2 (i.e. half of your tickets would be a winning ticket), would you call your chances of winning "virtually nil"? Yet this is exactly what eleven professional "experts" have stated. In my opinion, the credibility of these eleven individuals is "virtually nil". Thus, all those âdistinguished symposium attendeesâ who signned their names to this letter are the ones who are obviously not telling the truth. • • • • • • • Talpiot tomb-a dead story ?For one of the best and fair post conference analysis of the controversy see the following article in the National Review and decide for yourself who's telling truth. Remember it's Nielsen ratings vs science http://article.nationalreview.com /?q=YmQwZjI5NWQ4Zjg1NTlkYjgzY2Y4NGExOTNiYTE1YTE= • • • • • • • Tomb SymbolSusan: my apologies for not seeing the hidden smiley symbols :-) Although I was involved in some of the background statistical calculations concerning the Talpiot Tomb (I am a statistician) I am also not a biblical scholar, archaeologist, etc. However, seeing how many of the "professional" biblical community behaved during the heated Talpiot Tomb debate, and how some pretended expertise in areas where they obviously were grossly incompetent (e.g. statisitcs), I think that often the ideas and theories of us "nobodies" can match up quite well with the so-called "professionals". Unfortunately, without trying to be negative, I think that Biblical Scholars have a very long way to go with their "profession" before it can be it can achieve the degree of respect and professionalism and objectivity which us "nobodies" expect from such an organization. I belong to a Professional organization and we have a Code of Conduct and Standard of Practice that I think the "Professional" Biblical Scholars should take a very good look at. It would help them become the type of community they deserve to be. • • • • • • • Previous commentDid I sound angry? I assure you it was not meant that way. My point is that I am a nobody from nowhere so I have nothing to lose by putting out my theory. Maybe they should allow us to use smiley faces. The alignment of the tomb is compelling indeed! • • • • • • • Talpiot Tomb - Fascinating New DiscoveryConcerning the location of the Talpiot tomb, I made a fascinating, verifiable discovery a few weeks ago, which I not seen mentioned by anyone else. I conveyed this informaiotn to Simcha and James Tabor. Simcha suggested that I present the findings here. In short, the observation involves the significance of the specific latitudinal alignment of the Talpiot Tomb. Before I explain the significance of the alignment, it is important to recognize that the exact location of the Temple in the Temple Mount area is a matter of great debate. There are generally three main theories of where it was located: 1) the Temple Mount at the Dome of the Rock (Dr. Leen Ritmeyer, Dr. Dan Bahat); 2) the Temple Mount to the North - still on the mount platform (Dr. Asher Kaufman); 3) the Southern Hypothesis - not on the existing platform (Tuvia Sagiv). There are very convincing arguments for each of these theories. However, while these locations differ somewhat from a north-south location, they differ very little from an east-west latitudinal direction. It is also important to recognize that there is compelling archeological evidence to suggest that the east wall surrounding the old city was built over the remains of the wall as it existed during the destruction of the Temple. Remains of the original wall have been found at the base of the existing wall. To some extent, this fixed location of this wall is the reason why the three locations of the temple to not vary much in an east-west direction. There are many different ideas on actual layout and dimensions of the Temple actually looked. However, it is agreed that it was aligned east-west, with the Holy of Holies towards the west end of the Temple. There is also general agreement that from west to east there was the Holy of Holies, the sanctuary, the altar and court of the priests, the Court of the Women (Court of Prayer), and the eastern wall, separated from the Temple by a portion of the Court of the Gentiles. What is most important to recognize, is that there were four or five "gates" all exactly aligned on an east to west direction from the sanctuary to the eastern wall, which permitted the rising sun to shine directly through the gates and into the sanctuary. It is this same corridor that the priest on the Mount of Olives could look directly through when he sprinkled the ashes or blood of the red heifer during his rituals. According to the Mishneh Torah, Commentary Halachah 5 & 6, there were five gates that lined up in an easterly direction from the Holy of Holies to the Eastern Gate: 1) the gate of the sanctuary entrance hall; 2) the gate of Nicanor (entrance to the Temple Court of the Priests); 3) the gate of the Women's Courtyard (also called the Beautiful Gate); 4) the gate of Chayl; and 5) the Eastern Gate (also known as the Golden Gate or the Shushan Gate). The Nicanor Gate is of special significance, since it is this gate which is symbolized on early Roman coins as well as over the opening to the Talpiot Tomb. It is also important to recognize that the Holy of Holies was considered to be the centre of the world and the four directions from here (north, south east and west) were of enormous significance. Much is written about these directions in the Old Testament, which I won't burden you with here (read Ezekiel 40 for example). Recognizing how important these directions were to those closely associated with the Temple, I decided to use Google Earth to determine the co-ordinates of the Talpiot Tomb and compare them with the co-ordinates of the Temple. You can imagine my shock when I discovered that the Talpiot Tomb is EXACTLY south of the Temple Mount platform!!! The latitudinal co-ordinates of the Talpiot Tomb are: 350 14â 09.58â When I checked the co-ordinates of the Temple Mount, I found that this coordinate falls EXACTLY along the eastern edge of the existing smaller raised level platform on which stands the Dome of the Rock (within the larger Temple Mount platform). The coordinates are: 350 14â 09.58â The edge of the platform is about 267 feet from the centre of the Dome of the Rock and about 340 feet from the eastern wall. Based on proposed measurements for the Temple and the proposed locations, this is a very likely the exact latitudinal location of one of the Temple Gates, possibly the Gate of Nicanor, the Beautiful Gate (exactly as located by Ritmeyer). The importance of the four or five gates to the story of Jesus cannot be emphasized enough. The Eastern Gate was the only entrance from the east and faced the Mount of Olives. As we learn in Luke 19, it was the very gate that Jesus rode into Jerusalem and to the Temple on a donkey when he came down from the Mount of Olives. In Ezekiel we read: âThen the man brought me back to the east gateway in the outer wall of the Temple area, but it was closed. And the Lord said to me, âThis gate must remain closed; it will never again be opened. No one will ever open it and pass through, for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered here. Therefore, it must always remain shut. Only the prince himself may sit inside this gateway to feast in the Lordâs presence. But he may come and go only through the entry room of the gateway.â Ezekiel 44:1-3 (NLT) The Eastern Gate was rebuilt by the Byzantines sometime in the sixth or seventh century, the Byzantines rebuilt the Eastern Gate. The Ottoman Sultan Suleiman sealed the Eastern Gate with stones in the year 1541, and it remains sealed to this day. Historians do not agree on why he did this, although there are legends that say that Suleiman had learned about prophecies which predicted the Messiahâs entrance through the Eastern Gate, and therefore closed the gate in order to make sure it wouldnât happen during his reign. In addition he built a cemetery directly in front of the gate, since he knew that a Jewish Holy man would never defile himself by walking through a Muslim cemetery. According to Jewish tradition, the Messiah will once again enter Jerusalem from the east, through the gate, which has a special holiness. The Divine Presence was known to appear through this gate in the past and will appear again. According to the Koran, the just will pass through this gate on the Day of Judgment. Thus the eastern Gate or Shushan Gate is of very great significance, as is all the eastern gates that led to the Holy of Holies. According to legend, it is through this gate that the Messiah will once again go through at the time of Judgment. Thus it seems fitting that whoever owned the Talpiot Tomb would place great significance on alignment of the eastern gate as a symbol of death and resurrection. If it was the tomb of the Messiah, it would have been of even greater significance. Perhaps the symbol over the tomb is a symbol of the eastern gate with the rising sun. In conclusion the exact alignment of the Talpiot Tomb with one of the gates of the Temple can hardly be a coincidence. Even the general alignment with the platform of the Temple itself is extraordinarily significant, especially when one considers how accurate even that alignment would have been for those times. But when we combine the specific alignment with the location of one of the Gates to the Talpiot Tomb, a degree of certainty arises which equates the importance that the family of this tomb placed with the Temple, especially the Temple Gates. One can only conclude that this alignment, along with everything else that has been found concerning this tomb so far, is of great importance and requires further study. If you have Google Earth, you can very easily and quickly verify my findings. It's so obvious, simple and convincing that I find it hard to understand why nobody has seen this connection before. • • • • • • • Tomb SymbolSusan: No need to be so defensive. You suggested a theory and I was just asking general questions about it to see how it stands up - just normal procedure. I think you also misunderstood what I said. By the "offset mark", I was only referring to the mark between the legs of the Ge'ez Lamed, equivalent to the circlet, which I feel looks more like a comma or Yod than a circle. Also I agreed earlier that the symbol is not a chevron in the pure sense. I also agreed that the symbol closely resembled the Ge'ez Lamed (except for the "vav"). As for the simile concerning liturgy, using Latin for such is common practice, but was using Ge'ez a common tradition for those who spoke Hebrew? Are there other tombs with Ge'ez letters in the Jerusalem area? • • • • • • • Anger = FearI often wonder why a "theory" stimulates such anger? All through out human history there have been men with radical ideas that go against the grain of popular thinking. This simply might be the case...or it might not, but what I am certain of is that any time there is a backlash against a person's thoughts, ideas and theories...the anger usually stems from fear. Fear of change, fear of being wrong, or the biggest fear of all, a change of a belief. If Jocobovici's theory is believed to be "untrue" then people should discount it as such, remain skeptical until proven false or true, and move on. But, the level of anger, alone, stimulated buy the idea that this might be the tomb should give pause. It is a great indicator of something: the level of fear that it might be true. The Earth is not flat, but it took brave men to prove it. • • • • • • • Tomb SymbolJohn: I do not see the offset mark on the legs. I am just a civilian so I am not worried that my career will be destroyed if I am wrong. But in 4,000 years when archaeologists dig up Catholic cemetaries will they wonder why the gravestones are in English but the liturgy is in Latin a dead language? Paqid: The Talmud states that the world is sustained on at least 36 tzaddikim (Sanhedrin 97b;Sukkah 45b). The number 36 in gemantria combines 'lamed' (30) and 'vav' (6) therefore these tzaddikim were called Lamed Vov. I believe lamed has always been 30 and vav has always been 6. Should every ancient tradition be discredited after someone writes a fictitious account? If the symbol looked at all like a chevron I would certainly entertain your theory. But it does not. • • • • • • • Sharing your painDear Simcha, Eldad, Pakid, et al now that the Discovery Channel, who ran the Talpiot Tomb doc (but once) decided that the James Brother of Jesus ossuary is one of the top ten 10 hoaxes in history, I would like to reiterate again, we understand you pain as well as your $hame. For the rest of you out there supporting this business, they certainly need some support, so sign that BAR petition to the IAA asking for the ossuary to be restudied and please help SJ with those 5 peer reviewed articles of my late colleague who received the 'lifetime achievement award'. They certainly could use a bit of help at this low point of their careers, having been abandoned by pretty much everyone. Remember when it appears I will put something up on my web site on the question of the skeleton remains, pro-bono, gratis whatever... • • • • • • • Lamed-Waw (36) Anachonistic"Gershom Scholem, who created the field of Kabbalah studies as a scholarly discipline" shows, in his chapter "The Tradition of the Thirty-Six Hidden Just Men" (in his book, "The Messianic Idea in Judaism"), that the "Lamedvavnik" idea you suggest is based in the "Da Vinci Code"-like popular novel, "The Last of the Just," a mix of ideas that didn't come together until Middle Ages Kabbalah. (The 4th century Abaye first introduced the number 36, one of several numbers forwarded, but this had nothing to do with the far more recent Middle Ages Lamed-vavnikim of Eastern Europe -- which, BTW, didn't extend to Middle Eastern Jews. Even the 4th century is anachronistic. None of the popular mystic suggestions are logically compelling. More likely, the two symbols suggested simpler ideas (see http://www.netzarim.co.il/Museum/Sukkah03/Sukkah03.htm#Talpiot ) • • • • • • • Destruction of Archeological EvidenceKathy - I'm upset about the Talpiot Tomb fiasco too, but that doesn't hold a candle to the destruction of archeological evidence wreaked by bulldozers and dumptruck on the Temple Mount. You should be far more upset about that. See http://www.har-habayt.org/ and the History Museum in our website http://www.netzarim.co.il • • • • • • • Tomb SymbolSusan: That's the closest representation to the symbol that I've ssen so far, including the offset mark between the legs. The only difficulty is that the Lamed contains what looks like a comma between the legs, rather than a complete circlet. The use of Ge'ez would also need to be explained, since it doesn't appear on the ossuary inscriptions. • • • • • • • Tomb SymbolJohn: The circle is offset? That shoots down Zias' theory of ossuary handle replication. But gives more credence to my Lamed Vavnic theory. Google Lamed Vavnic or Lamed Vov. Here is a link for the script; http://www.ancientscripts.com/ethiopic.html • • • • • • • ChevronSusan Burns - I agree that the symbol only vaguely resembles a chevron but cannot be defined as such. Both legs are clearly curved inwards, and the symbol rather appears to resemble the symbol for a cave or hollow mountain. Interestingly, the circlet is significantly offset to the left from the centre of the legs, a detail that I have previously not seen mentioned. • • • • • • • The bonesI saw Simcha's program. It's the only one of his programs I've ever seen. Clearly, most of the world had never heard of the tomb until then. That is a total disgrace. I don't give a damn about the mud-slinging and propaganda bandied about on this site, it's not of value to the general public. But I am furious that the IAA showed such complete disregard for the bone (dust, whatever it was) materials that had lain there for 2000 years only to be treated to their religious notions of 'proper' burial or worse, destroyed for scientific purposes forever because of what it might reveal or what embarrassing backlash it might provoke! It's the worst archeaological abuse I've ever heard of and high time the laws were changed in Israel to PROTECT materials that might have ANY historical importance. It's an outrage against the rights of mankind to know. The knowledge that belongs rightfully to ALL citizens of the world has been manipulated and possibly destroyed forever. I wish there was an international court with power to bring them to justice and oversee any digs in Israel from here on! • • • • • • • Simcha's ProgramsI think Simcha has done many wonderful documentaries to bring biblical things to regular people. I have enjoyed all of them. If one steps away from things written and rewritten hundreds of years after Jesus death. Just what he said was the important thing. Jesus was a jew. The "Jesus tomb" was well presented and should give rise to though and just maybe some will study the early jesus followers. Good going Simcha!! • • • • • • • Moving OnApparently the IAA does not have internal controls. It's hard to understand how any artifact that passes through their doors can be termed "provenanced". But can we move on? For instance: why do posters refer to the symbol on the outside as a chevron. Every chevron I have seen has straight legs. Anything else would defeat the purpose of a chevron! Also, the circle is perfect so it is not a mistake of the carver. • • • • • • • Scholarly Lesson For Alias Proph. Z.I'm confident that most readers realize that Z's insulting misrepresentation is a childish ploy to divert attention and avoid dealing with the facts! Paqid Yirmeyahu is no alias, as even the most feeble attempt to check the bio in the website (cited several times) would have revealed. Unsurprisingly, however, his jumping to wrong conclusions betrays and reconfirms his habitual, irresponsible lack of scholarly care and diligence, consistent with the guy who disses Yoseiph Gat, "lost" the bones in question and, as curator, was ultimately responsible for "losing" ossuary IAA 80-509 -- which later turned up revealing that "someone" had made a profit selling it (since Oded Golan paid for it). Gee, I wonder why Proph. Z is so defensive. Further, every scholar in the field -- but not Josef Z -- knows that Ś€Ś§ŚŚ ("paqid") is a Hebrew title spelled pei-quph-yud-dalet -- and that the quph is transliterated with a "q," not a "k." Apparently, this is yet another scholarly convention of which anthropologist with the alias Josef Z is unaware as he evades the avalanche of questions about his own negligence, and perhaps opportunistic culpability, and relies, instead, on childish schoolyard ad hominems to attack everyone who questions him. Lest anyone doubt, I predict Proph. Z will continue the same because he has no alternative. That should be crystal clear to everyone. So attack away Proph. Z. You have no credibility and don't matter. To quote from my website yet again, "There hasn't been such an outburst of academic hysterics, misrepresenting Christian beliefs and ad hominems as science, since the Church throttled Galileo for claiming the earth revolved around the sun because it would have forced the Church to concede--in the words of the Distinguished Professor Jodi Magness--"that we must reject our earliest traditions about J*esus." How scientific! • • • • • • • The Deal...Dear Nicole, Shalom, good to hear from you particularly as you are not using an alias as Pakid Y. and a few others have been. I had hoped to hear from you a few weeks/months back after you mentioned that you observed me in some documentary running around the courtyard of the Rockefeller Museum,looking for that missing ossuary, aka James the son of Josef, brother of Jesus'. I asked for the name of the documentary in order to verify that indeed it was me and you promised to get back in touch with me, as of today nada. No big deal, as it probably wasn't me. At the same time I asked you, SJ and Felix alias whatever, for a bibliography on Josef Gat whom he decided to give that bogus 'lifetime achievement award to. According to Simcha he had excavated 400 (sic) sites I felt that a bit of bibliography would be useful and asked, for reasons of space, give me 10, if that is time consuming, then make it 5 peer reviewed articles which were not penned by LYR, Gibson and Kloner with his name added for reasons of courtesy. Approximately 2 months have passed and those 5 articles have not been found which seems to suggest that the whole affair was scripted from the beginning for reasons of 'I'm vindicated' aka 'I'm implicated. Anyway, as I told SJ I understand his pain, now that everyone has abandoned him, the Talpiot tomb and now to make matters worse, Oded's forger gets outed on 60 Minutes by Bob Simon, bad karma. Anyway to assuage his pain, here's the deal. As I have been waiting for two months for that bibliography/resume and that reference where I run around the courtyard looking for James who was sitting all the time on Golan's toilet (see www.joezias.com)seems with luck I finally found it. Comply with the above request, and I will post/answer everything you have asked for, for the umpteenth time. As it will take up a bit of space I will post it on my web site under the Viewers guide to the Talpiot documentary www.joezias.com As your reply to my request should be brief, post it here and I will reply as soon as humanly possible. I forgot one thing, a word or two from SJ about that Egyptian hustling for the folks in Tel Aviv certainly would be interesting for the list and give that 'graduate student'(sic) who posts here from time under different aliases, hoping SJ will pay for his edu. a job. Good luck and shalom Joe aka Josef • • • • • • • KeynanTo dear scientific Mr. Zias, Prof. Madden and every body else. I wish to present here a really highly scientific statement : "Jesusâ disciples may have visited the tomb on the third day to conform to this Jewish custom. But by that time, he had risen". Who states so? Well, not a theologist, not a priest, not even a historian. The statement maker is the well known Prof. A. Kloner himself. Where? in : 'Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesusâ Tomb?'. The Burial of Jesus. Eds. K. E. Miller et al. BAS. Washington, DC. 2007. 9-13, p 13. I am honored to qoute him scientifically. Prof. Kloner is a very highly appreciated archaeological scientist. Is this statement in contrast to science? I leave the answer to the readers. [Note: Kloner is recounting the burial of Jesus from the point of view of the New Testament accounts.--Ed.] • • • • • • • answer the questionsHi Joe, As you know I work with Simcha and I have fun checking this site to see if you ever answer a question. Simcha asked you two questions; what happened to the bone report? (as you know there is no record of Joseph Gat turning over bones to the religious authorities. You're just making that up). Was the skull that you provided to the BBC for money the skull that came from the Jesus son of Joseph ossuary? Are you ever going to answer these questions? Nicole aka Nicole • • • • • • • joezias@yahoo.comGood to see that this Easter weekend got some of you riled up and ranting again under aliases, or was it that 60 Minutes item about the Egyptian forger who admitted manufacturing objects for Oded Golan the past 15 years. Seems that a handful of pro-James Ossuary, Talpiot tomb supporters have some soul searching to do, now that Oded and friends got outed and SJ is back in town. As I told SJ, I understand your pain. • • • • • • • Mariamne Kai MaraThis ossuary is key to evaluating the Talpiot Tomb. Wouldn't now be a good opportunity for a Mary Magdalene symposium? Bring all interested parties together including the excavators of Magdala. Hold it somewhere in the Galilee (Vered HaGalil?). A DNA sample of the relic hand in Mount of Olives Church could be obtained and compared to DNA from ossuary. The Vatican could contribute any documentation they have hidden away. If they have nothing hidden, a sincere apology for besmirching her reputation could be the symposium highlight. A serious attempt to understand her without using the word "virgin" or the word "prostitute" would be refreshing. Any extant Magdalene traditions or representations could be discussed. My personal favorite stands on an island in New York Harbor holding a torch. • • • • • • • Science vs Religious Hysterics & Fear of AntisemitismAnthropologist and curator ultimately responsible for the loss of Ossuary IAA 80-509, Joe Zias, confuses a Prof. of History who describes the Christian Crusades' capture of Yerushalayim as "restor[ing] formerly Christian lands to Christian control" (www.trans4mind.com/counterpoint/madden.shtml), John F. Madden, with a scientist. In his own words, Prof. Madden's chief problem with the Talpiot Tomb Complex is that "The truth, they claimed, was that the deceased J*esus was brought to his family tomb in Jerusalem, where he remained good and dead." That Mr. Zias refers readers to such a criticism as being scientific is consistent with his longstanding defensiveness that is anything but scientific. Prof. Madden misleads by dismissing the world's most renowned epigraphers' reading of the Yeshua ossuary inscription. Scientific? I think it must be a Purim joke. The spurious Da Vince code that Madden tries to bring into the dicussion has nothing to do with the Talpiot Tombs, but charlatan academics making hysterical religious claims outside of their field of expertise and unable to deal with the scientific evidence attempt, instead, to imply roguery by association, which is cheap and unscholarly. Contrary to Madden, the tomb was discovered by construction workers, not archeologists; by the admission of the archeologists and anthropologists involved was never analyzed (other than, perhaps, by Yoseiph Gat), and no meaningful scientific results were ever published. "Plain, broken" and a hasty measurement, none of which, when ALL of the evidence is examined corroborates rather than excludes the ossuary (www.netzarim.co.il/Museum/Sukkah03 /Sukkah03.htm#Talpiot), is either 3rd grade -- or suppressing evidence -- but it is not science. Moreover, contrary to extensive obfuscation, all indications are (www.netzarim.co.il/Museum /Sukkah03/Sukkah03.htm#Talpiot) that the ossuary lost by Amos Kloner and Joe Zias, IAA 80-509, is one and the same Yaaqov ossuary, raising the odds 30,000 to 1 that the Talpiot Tomb is that of Ribi Yehoshua and his family. Arguing that the 1 is correct and the 30,000 not correct is hysterical religion, not science. Prof. Madden wonders "what real archaeologists do all day." For Madden's "real" archeologists -- and anthropologist -- involved in this dig, it certainly wasn't keeping up with the 10th ossuary scientifically, was it? Madden relies on circular reasoning upon his real base: depending on Amos Kloner and Joe Zias -- the two who are responsible for the loss of the ossuary!!! Where are all of the other scientists? Of some 50, 14 (aside from Kloner and Zias) signed a protest letter. Math lesson for Madden and Zias: 28% is not the consensus. Religious hysterions aside, the consensus accepts Dr. Krumbein and most of the gathering of the Forgery Conference who contradict the guys who lost the ossuary. The "consensus [is] well summarized by paleographer Ada Yardeni: 'I am sure that it is no fake, unless Oded [Golan] comes and tells me he did it. So he's a genius. But I don't believe it.' A forger would have had to be superior to the world's best experts in nearly a dozen technical specialities. That is what isn't possible! (www.netzarim.co.il/Museum /Sukkah03/Burning%20Issues%20Talpiot%20Tomb.htm). Madden's reference to the Koppel "denials" is more obfuscation (www.netzarim.co.il/Museum /Sukkah03 /Sukkah03.htm#Talpiot) and his quotation of Jodi Magness unscientific statements (www.netzarim.co.il/Museum/Sukkah03 /Burning%20Issues%20Talpiot%20Tomb.htm#Magness) is contradicted by the consensus at the Forgery Conference (www.netzarim.co.il/Museum/Sukkah03 /Burning%20Issues%20Yaaqov%20Ossuary.htm#BASForgeryConf and www.netzarim.co.il/Museum/Sukkah03 /Burning%20Issues%20Yaaqov%20Ossuary.htm#JFCAppendix). "Dismis[sing] out of hand the suggestion that M*ary Magdalene was married to J*esus" is a religious hysteric; laughably unscientific. The Pharisaic expectation that a Ribi be married and a father is a fact. Scientists don't regard silence or lack of evidence as disproof. It is his claimed Catholic celibacy that is improbable. The Christian belief that J*esus wasn't married, had no children and ascended to heaven so his grave is an impossibility is religious hysterics at unscientific odds with Pharisaic reality. When granted that Ribi Yeshua was likely married and had children, then the question reduces to whether Miryam of Migdal was that woman and Yehudah Bar-Yeshua that son -- certainly NOT an impossibility as the religious hystericists proclaim as "science." If he was, instead, married to a Jewess with a different name that, too, is possible; but, so far, not as well supported by evidence as Miryam of Migdal. The lack of these "traditions" in the NT, aside from the fact that the NT represents Hellenism far than historic Judaism, bespeaks religious fervor, not science. Madden also falls back on rumor of a different ossuary inscribed "Yeshua Bar-Yoseiph" -- which no one has come forward to document, apparently no archeologist has gone on record as substantiating and no photograph has surfaced. Unlike the religious hystericists, I don't claim it's "impossible." But I do insist that the documentation, preferably with a photograph, be produced and proven... just as the "lost" 10th ossuary must be produced and documented proven as that 10th ossuary, or, by definition, it IS lost. Critics just can't have lost, sloppy and scientific all in the same bucket. • • • • • • • Article in National ReviewBut Thomas F. Madden, Professor of History and Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, is yet another literalist historian on par with Levick and Goodman. I agree with most of his comments about 'The Lost Tomb of Jesus' being cheesy. But just as cheesy is his belief that Joseph was a carpenter, that 'Jesus' was born in Bethlehem, and without being conceived, and that he was laid to rest in a new tomb cut out of rock by the rich Joseph of Arimathea - all fulfilling prophecies of course. • • • • • • • Ad-HominemIt seems to me that Mr. Zias is using the well known tactic of attacking the speaker instead of his thesis. Shameful • • • • • • • National Review - Not Dead YetThe National Review article by Thomas F. Madden cites 4 reasons why this is not the tomb of Jesus. The first 3 reasons can be summarized; Cuz the Bible Tells Me So. The 4th reason is a blatant misrepresentation of the statistical position. It doesn't even mention what happened to the bones. Mr. Madden is not the most sarcastic and hyperbolic critic of the documentary, but he is very close. • • • • • • • Talpiot tomb-a dead story ?For one of the best and fair post conference analysis of the controversy see the following article in the National Review and decide for yourself who's telling truth. Remember it's Nielsen ratings vs science http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmQwZjI5NWQ4Zjg1NTlkYjgzY2Y4NGExOTNiYTE1YTE= • • • • • • • Logical AnalysisA logical analysis of the evidence and documentation, filtering out the religious hysterics and likely cover-up conspiracy, is found at www.netzarim.co.il. (Click on the tomb photo in the navigation panel on the left.) Paqid Yirmeyahu Paqid 16, The Netzarim Ra'anana, Israel • • • • • • • Keynanto Susan Burns and every other good points maker: you all are right, but having this debaet with Joe Zias is just pointless. Some of you have already noticed his attitude: debating personalities so as not to debate the core scientific questions. Joe made his own enemies list, which is indiscriminately growing larger every day. Every person or group are good enough to be on Joe's list, as long as they do not agree with him. so I wish to help you keep yourself out of one of Joe's traps: he and his superiors claim the tomb was hastily excavated according to an agreement between the IAA and the orthodox Jews. Unfortunately, the tomb has been discovered in 1980, but the agreement has been signed only in 1984. Dear Joe knows that very well, as well as his superiors do. And Joe still refuses to tell us how much he got to allow certain media people to film a certain skull. You see, Joe, do not throw rocks on others when you live in a glass house. • • • • • • • Bone ReportJoe, I am not in the information loop of any group. I am simply an interested civilian. It was not clear in the documentary what happened to the bones and now I know why; nobody knows! And I only researched (googled) after your Let's Make a Deal post. If I am on any side it is the side of Mrs. Gatt. Her husband survived the holocaust, immigrated to a foreign country and built an exemplary life. He is now being used as a pawn and scapegoat. How sad. Why don't you ask Mrs. Gatt what she remembers about the bones? Is it because you won't like the answer? • • • • • • • Skeletal remains vs bibliography does the latter exist ?Susan, if you already knew this, which the film makers as well knew they why were you asking for a report on the bones ? Setting up a straw man so as not to have to deal with that bibliography ? Remember out of those 400 (sic) excavations touted by Simcha and the Tabor for the "lifetime achievement award' you folks have been silent and failed to produce any. Calls for an explanation ? The ball is still in your court. Joe • • • • • • • Bone ReportHere is a portion of an interview given by Joe Zias to First Followers (Jesus' Teachings, Then and Now) JZ No, I think one of two things may have happened: the religious people may have come and gotten them after the archaeologists went home, or the archaeologist Gath, who is now deceased, gave them to the religious people. PN In other words, they were never brought back to the laboratory for sexing? JZ No, I turned my office upside down to try to find out where these bones were, or if there ever was a report. There never was a report on any of this. PN So you just got the ossuaries back? JZ Empty, yes. And I put the 10th one out in the courtyard. The following is from an article by BibleProbe.com; Kloner writes, "The bones within these ossuaries were in an advanced stage of disintegration" (page 16). He says nothing about the human skulls that Gibson saw and put in his drawing. In a final note in his article he says, "After the completion of the excavation, the bones were reburied" (page 22). Amos Kloner apparently was not involved in the excavation and writes his report based on the information compiled by the excavator, the late Joseph Gath. It would seem both Zias and Kloner think Gath gave the bones to the ultra-orthodox for re |
Claims that the family tomb of Jesus has been found in the East Talpiot section of Jerusalem have sparked bitter debate for a second time. The first furor occurred in March 2007 when the Discovery Channel aired “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” which claimed that the Talpiot tomb not only contained the ossuary (bone box) of Jesus but also that of Mary Magdalene, who the program claimed had been Jesus’ wife, and also that of a Judah son of Jesus, who the program suggested had been the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The program further suggested that one ossuary, originally discovered along with nine others in the Talpiot tomb but which has since been lost, was in fact the “James brother of Jesus” ossuary that first made headlines of its own in late 2002.