“Jesus Tomb” Controversy Erupts—AgainIntroduction Talkback Add Your Comment
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 by 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. You can follow the heated discussion using the links below.
More on the Talpiot Tomb Controversy
Even though most of the conference attendees felt that the Talpiot tomb was unlikely to have been the tomb of Jesus, Simcha Jacobovici, director of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” issued a press release claiming that the conference had “vindicated” his program. Several conference participants then issued a statement to the contrary. 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. In addition to claiming that the Talpiot tomb contained the ossuaries of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Judah son of Jesus, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” 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. “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” was directed by filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici and produced by James Cameron, the director of the blockbuster movie “Titanic.” Many scholars immediately criticized the program, saying it contradicted much of what we know historically and that it made numerous dubious assumptions. At the end of the scholarly conference organized by the Princeton Theological Seminary, 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.
An Article by Rosenfeld, PelleGrino, Feldman, KrumbeinThey write in their article, here:http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/JOT.shtml "Each of the examined caves and each caves associated ossuaries in the Jerusalem area, exhibit in their patinas a unique elemental fingerprint. The patina of the unprovenanced James Ossuary exhibits geochemical fingerprints consistent with the patinas of the Talpiot ossuaries." A lot of questions could be answ • • • • • • • I don't believe this!!I am not sure why there is anyone claiming to have found the remnants/bones of Jesus and his family in some ancient tomb. It clearly states that Jesus' body was resurrected, leaving no room for doubt that any bones would be left behind. For the three days his body was in the actual tomb the Jews put him in, the women of the town found his body missing. So why are people making falsified claims? Jesus wasn't married nor did he have children. Its not mentioned anywhere in the bible of this. • • • • • • • Joe of IAAHi Joe, since you know that much, I need your help: if an archaeologist discover ancient bones. whom should he approach for explanation? The options are: Physio-enthropologist, or an anthropologist whose MA is on witch medicine among some people in Chicago area? I'm sure you would go the former. But I'm also sure you know some archaeologists who did exactly the opposite; they went to the witch medicine enthropologist. As for the $ - what letter is on the end of Zias? • • • • • • • Joseph of ArimethiaGood thing folks brought up the topic of Joseph of Arimethia living there in Talpiot near the tomb of Jesus and his family, as he recently moved there along with Johanna and the Wail. Stay tuned as PT Barnum was right when it comes to $igns and wonder$... • • • • • • • Test for DNAWouldn't testing more DNA give more results? There are modern people alive today who potentially claim to be from families who descend from Jesus' family, Caiaphas family, and the family of Joseph of Arimathea. I think if you tested more you could find out who was related to whom. • • • • • • • Tomb of Jesus and his familyCan we at least as scholars get to the point where we stop talking about the end times. The end times have been predicted for over 2000 years. Your end time comes when you die. Jesus did not rise from the dead. St. Paul perpetuated this myth because he thought it necessary to spread the teachings of Jesus. We need to move from the teaching of the resurrection of the body to the resurrection of the spirit a much better teaching. • • • • • • • Talpiot tells the Truth about JesusThe finding of the Talpiot Tomb is a divine message to our time! The Truth about Jesus is being revealed. Will Israel tell the Truth or deny the Truth of Jesus and True Judaism. Will the Israeli Justice System support the Truth or support the States suppression of the Truth. Jesus taught the True Judaism, Love one another; not love power, not love war, not love nations, but love one another. The Talpiot Tomb is the Divine Message that the End Times are near, Love one Another! • • • • • • • Truly Uncanny = Probably LegitLets put aside the fact that the people involved in bringing this discovery to light (Jacobovici, Pellegrino, & Tabor) have questionable overall credibility. Let's look ONLY at the discovery itself, the names on the ossuaries which were excavated legitimately in 1980: Mariame kai Mara = this literally says "Mary & Martha" (the sisters known from the NT). Joseh = NT Greek "Joses" (unique nickname of Jesus brother)...Jesus son of Joseph...The uncanniness of this cluster of names is astonishing... • • • • • • • The Talpiot TombIn my opinion the probability that it isn't the real thing is infinitely close to zero. Of the eight names inscribed on the ossuaries, four undoubtedly belong to Jesus' immediate family ("Yeshua," "Yehosef," "Marya" and "Yose.") Three other names belong to Jesus' extended family ("Matya" His cousin, "Mariame" mother of his son and "Mara" sister of this Mariame.) All seven names come straight from the NT. Eighth name of son Judah probably posthumously born therefore missing from Gospel accounts. • • • • • • • Jesus Family Tomb @TalpiotMuch Respect to Ruth Gath who stood behind her husband Yosef Gat's confession that Talpiot is the Jesus Family Tomb. Ruth Gath has integrity missing among the Israeli government and Conference "scholars". The Truth about Jesus will reveal the truth about "Judaism and Christianity" • • • • • • • Jesus Tomb was really found!The fact that Jesus family tomb was found in Talpiot Area is apparent from the symbol, alpha and Omega above the entrance of the tomb which means Jesus Christ • • • • • • • CongratsCongratulations, SJ on this journey into the personal lives of what may be the holy family. He presented and intersting possible chapter into the life of Jesus. In a time when such horrid things were happening, it makes sense to keep personal life (marriage - private). Did anyone even stop to consider perhaps out of consideration for a grieving wife and mother these facts were omitted. Out of instinct I feel there is some truth to it - I for one felt quite shaken upon the death of the child. • • • • • • • KnowledgeThere is no danger in knowledge only in blind faith. Mankind deserves to learn about its history(s) and no state, company or religious organisation should have the right to prevent us from learning about our past. It might very well help us to understand where we are coming from, what is going on right now and where were going or should go. It should be a question of love and respect and not of conspiracy, power or faith. We are stardust and god, whatever that is, is a part of all of us. • • • • • • • conspiracy?The Tomb had been definitively dated, by Prof. A. Kloner, and with no objection. And still, you may be right: there might be a sharp conspiracy, meant to "kill" the large controversy, in favor of . . . well, you name it. So far, the IAA (former employer of Prof. Kloner) refuses to allow for further excavation of the Tomb and the tomb nearby. There is no point in any discussion before they will permit it. This looks like a good reason not to permit. Is it a conspiracy? • • • • • • • The Beloved DecipleI thought the Talpiot Tomb had been definitively dated? If the precise date of this tomb has not been determined then I would have to agree with Wardell and say this is an IAA conspiracy. With so much importance this tomb should have every grain of sand analyzed and protected. Would IAA close controversial Isrealite site? Either the IAA does not trust Christians to handle the truth or there is a conspiracy. What other explanation is there? • • • • • • • From Controversy to ConspiracyThe Talpiot Tomb Controversy has been dragged out by the IAA. This is no longer a Controversy and has become a Conspiracy by the IAA to cover the truth about Jesus. The IAA knows that the Talpiot Tomb is Jesus' Tomb. The trial is part of a Conspiracy to silence Archeology from revealing the Truth. Jesus was born in 100 BCE and was killed in 67 BCE in the reign of Queen Salome and the Pharisees. I predict that the Talpiot Tomb is from this Maccabean time period, before Herodian times. • • • • • • • More on the Talpiot Tomb ControversyIt seems as this is matter of faith, whatever your view. The only proof of the traditional view is the many reports from people who claim to be eye witnesses. The other side is also a matter of faith as there is no physical proof of anything. One can only rely on connecting bits of information in a manner that seems to make sense, but how often are we wrong in our assumptions and just because it make sense is it really true? Neither opinion can be proved right now, it is a matter of belief. • • • • • • • to JulieYour interpretation of "Arimathea (Lion from the House of Mathea)" is probable to Hebrew speakers, and could even be considered brilliant. But it is, unfortunately, wrong; the "second" name Arimathea is a Greek derivative of Haramataim, a village\small town north-west of Jerusalem. As for the rest of your comment - I agree with you; we can only hope that the IAA will permit further excavations in the Talpiot Tomb and the Tomb nearby. • • • • • • • It makes perfect senseThe tomb makes perfect sense especially if one believes that Joseph Arimathea (Lion from the House of Mathea) was actually Caiaphas and a distant cousin of Jesus through Jesus' father, Joseph. History turned Caiaphas and Joseph Arimathea into two people. But if Joseph Caiaphas of Arimathea was a secret admirer of Jesus, asked for Jesus from the cross, and buried his family member in his tomb before Passover only to move him later, it makes perfect sense. Caiaphas plot hid Jesus from the Romans. • • • • • • • The symbol above the entramce of the Tomb says everythingOh My God! Surprise, Surprise!! Look at the symbol, the Alpha & Omega above the entrance of Talpiot Tomb! It says who is the owner of the tomb right away. • • • • • • • Maccabean names in the Jesus TombIn his book Simcha Jacobovici said Kloner told him that "Mariamne, which is a Hellenistic, Maccabean version of Miriam." Kloner is right, the Jesus Tomb is a Hellenistic Tomb from the time of Queen Salome. Jesus is the Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This Tomb is from 1st BCE, not 1st CE. This is the Jesus Tomb, the Dead Sea Scrolls gives the History of the real Jesus. True Scholars know it from the Talmud. The only question: Will Israeli Justice prevail and free Oded? • • • • • • • Jesus Family TombThe Biblical Scholars difficulty accepting the Jesus Tomb, brings to mind Jesus' words to the Pharisees: MT 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. The Scholars version of Jesus is a camel. No Tomb, No bone box, no Names, etc.... Hypocrite Pharisees are alive and thriving. • • • • • • • vindicatedSimcha Jacobovici has been castigated for saying that he feels "vindicated" by the symposium. People think he is referring to the results/conclusions of the symposium and therefore find his response inappropriate. But his so-called "vindication" seemed more about the attention that was engendered by his documentary for the Talpiot site than the conclusions of the scholars at the symposium. I think people misinterpret his meaning. • • • • • • • Jesus is the Teacher of RighteousnessThe Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jesus Tomb are related and both have been suppressed. The True meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls is buried in the Jesus Family Tomb. • • • • • • • Jesus died in Maccabean TimesThe real story of the Jesus Tomb is that Jesus lived and died in Maccabean Times. I believe the Tomb will be proven to be from the Maccabean Dynasty in 1st Century BCE! Jesus was the Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea Scrolls, who challenged the Pharisees. His movement became the Christian Movement. The conflict centered around the Calendar.Jesus used the Exodus Solar Jewish Calendar, not the post-Babylonian Captivity Lunar Calendar used by the Pharisees. • • • • • • • RedmilesOf 1000's of ossuaries, 8 others bear the name Maria (Latin) in Hebrew letters. Yosa/Yose is nickname for Joseph & is brother of Jesus, the only known account of a Yose & backed up in Scripture. The Mary Mara(meaning master/lord)ossuary believed Magdalene's,Gnostic Gospel/Philip refers to Magdalene as Mariamne (Greek for Mary).The "fingerprint" patina from inside the tomb matched the patina of the James Ossuary! Uniqueness & combo=truth. • • • • • • • Amharic Letter "L"Amharic letter "L" does not have the circlet. That is why the tomb symbol looks more like Ge'ez "L" or lawe. The offset circlet denotes the 6th position of lawe which can be interpreted as Priest/King. It also adds up to 36 which is tsadic. Jesus said he was a priest like Melchesedek King of rightousness. Melchesedek was born with the sign of a priest and therefore was not hereditary from the tribe of Levi. There are some scholars that propose the passage about Melchesedek was a later insertion. I have been trying to find corroborating evidence that the ancient name of Jerusalem was Salem - but have not had luck. Could it be this priest/king was from Leontopolis where there was the priest/king tradition? • • • • • • • Tomb Symbol denotes TeacherThe symbol on the Jesus Family Tomb is the Aramahic letter "L" designating The "Teacher of Righteousness". Jesus was the "Teacher of Righteousness" and also the Leader of the Nazarenes and Ebionims. • • • • • • • Jesus Tomb Controversy EruptsAgainJesus was born in 100 BCE under the Maccabean Dynasty of King Alexander Jannai and Queen Salome. He was not born in the 1st Century CE but the 1st Century BCE! The Talpiot Tomb is the Jesus Family Tomb. The names are Maccabean. Jesus is the Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hyrcanus II is the Wicked Priest. Jesus Tomb reflects his connection to the Maccabean Royalty. It is likely that Queen Salome is his Aunt. See: http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/a-memorial-to-jesus/129089 • • • • • • • Jesus' TombJesus' Tomb is in the mountains of Syria. The current reconstruction is wholly erroneous. In fact, Judea and Jerusalem were in the mountains of Modern-day Syria. This information is based on the brand-new theory doing its rounds, and elaborated in the book, 'THE BIBLE BETRAYED'. (http://www.amazon.com/dp/8190641824/) The Book is available on Amazon.com internationally. • • • • • • • What is the goal here?What is the incessant need to hunt this messenger who may or may not have existed; who may or may not have cheated death? What a deplorable state of affairs! Learned people clutching at bones and boxes, grappling with mere objects like rabid creatures on some misguided spiritual quest. What prophet ever placed any value upon the flesh and bones of any mortal? The most either side can hope to achieve is the right to say to the other; 'I told you so!' and then what? Frankly, if Jesus's bones are or were in a box, no devotee will believe it and non-Christian's will further crystalize their current position. I think all should step back and ask the question; what is the goal? The whole episode defies any logical foundation: what is the hope; to find the skeleton of Jesus or the Logos (see Justin) and mount it in a museum (like some defiled Egyptian mummy) nailed to a cross giving the wretched Jew no rest; waiting for the bones to somehow re-flesh and re-animate by the Sanctus Anima or the creature that left Noah - that mystical fire? What is the goal? To prove that nothing supernatural occurred and his northward ascent is fallacy? The true miracle is that this doctrine of the superatural has endured as long as it has, and I think that none are more surprised than the divines inhabiting the halls of Vatican City. Mr. Jacobovici, how about mounting a campaign to digitize everything in the Vatican Library so nearly everyone can stop fumbling about in the dark on innumerable subject matter. With that, I could see a clear-cut logic and a goal whereby EVERYONE would benefit and then Theological Scholars would have a cause worthy of their mighty intellects rather than over boxes and bones which in the end, may prove something but will in fact change nothing! • • • • • • • Record of Names In Each Loculus?According to diagram done by Shimon, the tomb has six loculus; five contained ossuaries. Does anyone have a record of the names on each of the ossuraries grouped together in each loculus. Of particular interest are the names on the three ossuaries nearest the entrance on the east wall, the two ossuaries on the west wall and the single ossuary on the right side of the north wall. Each of these loculus show a skull placed in front. Notes indicate broken ossuaries along with crushed skulls & bones were also found. Could this not compromise the "in situ" supposition? The tomb's diagram shows each of the ossuaries in question as denoted by a letter (a,b or c). Would not Gath & Gibson's "eleven day" excavation period include recording each of the names grouped in each loculus? Perhaps the grouping of names on the ossuaries found inside the tomb prompted Gath to privately express to his wife his gut feeling that he had excavated the tomb belonging to the family of Jesus. • • • • • • • The Ossuary of Jesus...?To those who ask why the body of Jesus wasn't hauled out of the Talpiot Tomb and paraded about to thwart the growth Christianity. From what I've read, while the ossuary of James, the brother of Jesus, MAY have come from the Talpiot Tomb -- which DID contain a number of ossuaries bearing names in common with Other members of Jesus' family -- the ossuary of Jesus has Non (YET) been found, in Talpiot; or, anywhere else for that matter. However, this does not mean that there is no body to be found. Other authors and researchers have revealed that there is a very good possibility that, having survived the crucifixion, Jesus retired to Southern France; where he lived to a ripe old age, with his wife Mary, the Magdelen, and their loving family. • • • • • • • Talpiot TombTo the reader who wondered why neither the Romans nor the Jews--that were hostile to Jesus--did not parade -his corpse around to prove Jesus is dead: You are assuming that Jesus and his followers were a BFD to the Romans and Jesus. Such a BFD that they would go to all that bother to combat what was a very tiny minor little sect, hardly a blip on the radar screen of Rome or Judaism.You're being anachronistic in reading the importance that Christianity later had backward into the early decades. • • • • • • • A forgotten FactAfter reading many of the comments on this blog I see on glaring omission. Jesus was resurrected from the dead. The bible teaches that After Jesus rose from the dead he performed many miracles and was seen by many people. At the end he was taken up into heaven on clouds surrounded by angles. There is no body to find. Another point I would like to make is this, Some Biblical Scholars believe that Joseph, the father of Jesus had died by the time Jesus had begun his ministry. If this is the family tomb why isn't Joseph buried there also? • • • • • • • Mara EtymologyMara means Lord or Great Mother. This took very little time to find out. Those scholars that translate it to Martha must be putting their fingers in their ears and humming. • • • • • • • TALPIOT TOMBIf the Talpiot Tomb is the "Jesus Family Tomb" why was the Patriarch of the Family, Joseph of Nazareth, not buried in the "Family Tomb"; what is he "chopped liver"? If Jesus was of the "House of David" (as was his "son") and a pretender to kingship, the descent was through the patriarch, Joseph (per Gospel of Matthew). Everybody and his brother was included at Talpiot except the key individual (according to Simcha), Patriarch Joseph. Why? Because the Talpiot Tomb "forgers" made the common 20th Century mistake to forget or disregard Joseph. Also, the reason IAA is so determined to prosecute Oded Golan is not really because of forgery, but because he is in possesion of stolen property: the James Ossuary was initially in the possession of the IAA. • • • • • • • Talpiot1. Both Jewish and Christian records attest to the fact that Christ's tomb was empty on the third day. Jews conclude a thief stole the body, Christians maintained the resurrection. 2. If Jesus did not go to the cross or if the tomb was not empty or if the Talpiot tomb was what some believe is the tomb of Jesus, why did not early opponents of the Christian message not just go to this tomb and point out that Jesus' body is here and the whole message of Christianity is false; the body proves it. No one ever did this. 2000 years later a movie maker knows more than all those in the first century A.D.? 4. If Talpiot is the real thing did James and Paul write before Jesus died? • • • • • • • Talpiot - Cold-War Covert OperationI propose that Talpiot was a covert disinformation operation of the cold-war to dis-credit the newly-elected (Oct. 1978) pro-Solidarity Polish Pope. John Paul II visits Poland June '79 in support of polish independence. Soviet Block intelligence collaborating with leftists Zionists "salt" a newly discovered tomb with Ossuaries (from IAA storage?). Besides Muslim Palestinians, the Vatican is the other prestigeous entity/nation state that can lay claim "Holy Land". Simcha states that the Sollel Boneh Co. unearthed Talpiot. "SB" is the oldest and one of the largest construction companies in Israel founded in 1921 by the socialist Federation of Laborters, the Histadrut which was the de-facto jewish government before Independence and was headed by David Ben-Gurion. Simcha states that Rivka Maoz, a Talpiot housewife called IAA. Mrs Maoz is not just a housewife studying to be a tour guide. She is a materials scientist with patents in her own name working for the Weizsman Institute of Science; why mischaracterize her? Talpiot was unearthed in March 1980 but it had no "traction" and after the Pope assasination attempt in May 1981, the Soviet bloc decided to bury Talpiot under concrete. BAR shoul invetigate further. • • • • • • • How Could We Ever KnowSlowly but surely I feel that we can only come to the conclusion that our view of Jesus and his disciples has been so distorted from fact that even if Jesus were to appear, we would never be able to recognize him. Our basic views of Jesus are so far that of Catholics, Gnostics and Jews with neither one being proven conclusively. • • • • • • • Other FindingsThere were two other findings; one was the chevron at the entrance and the second was (though misplaced) three skulls deliberately placed at corners of the tomb. Has anyone looked into whether this tomb may have been constructed by gnostics much after the first century? Jacobivici presumes that all tombs of this sort were made within a very short window of time (1st century). Well, what if one group decided to build a pysical representation of their beliefs of Jesus the man? • • • • • • • Jesus' TombI still don't see how a carpenter's family from Nazareth could afford such a grand tomb. Sounds reminiscent of NT scripture... 'is this not the son of a carpenter?' Like, 'what is so special about this person... they're not even rich... they don't have any clout!' I don't see any reason why not to investigate the tomb but see little, if any literature on how they afforded it. I mean, not even the tomb Protestants venerate is as grand, and we are supposed to believe that a rich man, Joseph of Aramathea owned it? It's just not making sense before we even get out of the gate. • • • • • • • Enochian Guild continuedEnoch, the scribe of rightousness, translated the Word of God onto the physical plane. Ge'ez, the first liturgical script, required learned priests to transcribe these devine emanations for mortal men. These Bene Elohim or Guild of Sacred Utterances passed the mystery knowledge in an unbroken chain from Enoch down to Jethro and from Jethro to Moses. Just as Thoth had written the name of the Pharaoh onto the Ished Tree of Knowledge, Jethro wrote the names of the Zaddokim onto the Staff of Life at the first Semicha. Ge'ez script has many layers of perfection. Peel one off and another, more devine utterance is revealed. Also, each letter has seven variations which designates vowel sounds; ideography symbolizes social order, astrography is a star chart and numerology is the mystery Gemantria. The symbol on the outside of the Talpiot tomb looks exactly like a Ge'ez Lawe (Hebrew Lamed). Pictographically, Lawe represents the staff of Moses and Torah. The offset circlet signifies the sixth column and symbolizes leader or chief. Lawe is Number 30 in Holy Gemantria and is added to number 6 for the sixth column (30 + 6 = 36). 36 is the number of the Tsaddik or Zaddok. This single letter could say that the occupants of this tomb are from the Guild of the Chief Zaddok of Torah and are the inheritors of the secret mystery knowledge passed down in an unbroken chain from Enoch. It's bold carving on the outside of the tomb implies with confidence that the Chief Zaddok of the temple is a pretender and is NOT the receipient of Enoch's secret knowledge. • • • • • • • Simcha JacoboviciWilliam Fields commented: "I find Simcha Jacobovici one of the most knowledgeable and interesting persons to come along in a generation. He has interested millions in archaeology and more specifically, Biblical archaeology. I cannot detect the slightest bias toward any one point of view. Jacobovici simply opens the issue, does a solid job of making his case and leaves it to the viewer/reader to contemplate. Does he not have the right to do this? Good for you Simcha and keep up the interesting work!"...... I agree for the most part. However, Simcha (after whom I have decided to name a child) did Not meet this high standard in an episode of Naked Archaelogist where he argues against all evidence that Moses alone wrote the Bible. He even refused to acknowledge the inconsistencies of Genesis which any second-grader could identify. This is the only time he has seemed biased about anything. In all, he has done allot to get people interested in archaeology. In fact, he inspired me to pursue my Masters in historical archaeology. Kudos Simcha! • • • • • • • Enochian Artisan ClansA 2001 article written by Paula McNutt, Spatiality and Marginal Social Groups in Ancient Israel, describes the tradition of Enochian artisan clans of scribes, musicians and smiths from Cain to Rechab. She asserts these clans are viewed with ambivalence by the settled societies with which they are associated. They are marginalized and yet are responsible for the basic elements of civilization. These artisan clans are both feared and respected because of their special knowledge, secrecy and separatness. An example of this would be the Beta Israel of the Ethiopian highlands. Their culture is indistinguishable from the dominant society and yet they are called "strangers". The way they differ is their artisan skills; they are weavers, smiths and potters. The way they are similar to other Enochian artisan clans is; they don't own land/semi-nomadic, they occupy highland areas, they maintain separateness and are shunned by the dominant culture. McNutt says these marginal characteristics are present in Kenites, Midianites and Rechabites. I was wondering why she didn't extend this group to include Nazoreans and Essenes? They meet the criteria of Enochian artisan clans; they exist on margins of settled society/semi-nomadic, are skilled artisans, occupy highland areas, and maintain a self-imposed separateness. Couldn't Jesus be described as the epitome of Enochian Zaddokim? And if so, would no more be tied to a tomb in Nazareth than Jethro was to Wadi Yatir. • • • • • • • Jesus' family tombI find Simcha Jacobovici one of the most knowledgeable and interesting persons to come along in a generation. He has interested millions in archaeology and more specifically, Biblical archaeology. I cannot detect the slightest bias toward any one point of view. Jacobovici simply opens the issue, does a solid job of making his case and leaves it to the viewer/reader to contemplate. Does he not have the right to do this? Good for you Simcha and keep up the interesting work! • • • • • • • BThis seems like more American sensationalism along the lines of the Da Vinci Code. Funny to see the producer to the documentary is a Hollywood filmmaker hoping to capitalise on billions of gullible Christians, non-Christians and atheists again, no doubt. I have seen photos of the so-called ossuary of 'James brother of Jesus' and with my uneducated-in-archeology eyes could see straight away that the letters inscribed in the stone are fresh, neat, sharp and clean. Definitely NOT 2000 years old. • • • • • • • Jesus Tomb Controversy EruptsAgainFrom what I have read about issues concerning the ossuary inscriptions, the cultural traditions of the time, Mary's name and other identity issues concerning the Talpiot tomb I am convinced it is not the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth the Jesus of the Bible. • • • • • • • 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), Μαριαμ (Mariam) is corrupted to Μαριαν (Marian). The confluence of Μαριαμ (Mariam) and Μαριαν (Marian), led to yet another variant, Μαριαμη (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 Nәtzarim community. At the very least, it would appear that the variant spelling with a ν (nu; "n") tracks back uniquely to the 1st-century Nәtzarim community. Μαριαμ (Mariam) is identified as Μαγδαληνη (Magdalaenae [corrupted to "Magdalene"]; "of Migdal," on the westernmost shore of Yam Kineret) in NHM 27.61 & 28.1 (both later redacted to Μαρια, Maria). The reverse is also true. Μαρια (Maria) is identified as Μαγδαληνη (Magdalaenae; "of Migdal") in NHM 27.56 (later redacted to Μαριαμ, 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 Μαριαμ (Mariam) or Μαρια (Maria), is a pedantic straw man that cannot rule out Μαγδαληνη--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 & Kilty’s 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.7—concerning the most appropriate name rendition for Mary Magdalene—as 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 justified—on an a priori basis—to 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 Bentley’s 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? • • • • • • • Feuerverger’s Paper on Talpiot TombPer James Tabor's blog: April 6, 2008 Feuerverger’s Paper on Talpiot Tomb Statistics Published Filed under: Talpiot Jesus Family Tomb — James Tabor @ 10:08 pm At long last, just over a year after the initial publicity over the Talpiot “Jesus Family Tomb,” 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). Feuerverger’s paper, titled “Statistical Analysis of an Archaeological Find,” 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 “A statistical analysis of the relatively common names engraved on the ossuaries leaves no doubt that the probability of the Talpiot tomb belonging to Jesus’ family is virtually nil if the Mariamene named on one of the ossuaries is not Mary Magdalene.” This is decidedly not the case, as Randy Ingermanson quickly pointed out on the Duke Web site: “I am no fan of the Talpiot tomb, but I do not agree with this part of the statement…I have studied Andrey Feuerverger’s statistical analysis in great detail and have done several computations of my own. It is not correct to say that the probability is “virtually nil” if you get rid of the Mary Magdalene hypothesis…The fact is that if you read the Mariamenou inscription as “just another Mary,” then Feuerverger’s calculations lose “statistical significance.” But they most likely still lead to a fairly high probability for the authenticity of the tomb… ” [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 “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. Both Ingermanson and Fuchs are among the respondents to the published Feuerverger paper. It now appears, with Feuerverger’s 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 “the names are common,” 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) didn’t 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 – which was more likely done just to shut everyone up - but they still had their beliefs about respecting the dead and desecration of the body…I 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 – remember touching a corpse caries it’s own lengthy list of rules and regulations that the priests weren’t 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 wasn’t necessary to them and their faith. And like I said before people don’t 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. I’m not sure what this has to do with anything but I’ll say one thing as a JEW – Christians are not being blamed nor have they been blamed for anything…I will admit they have done some things that were not nice (I am of course being very kind) but they haven’t taken nearly the persecution of some other religious people in the world like oh I don’t know…the 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 layman’s questions. So far a couple of people’s very good questions about Judaism and archaeology have gone unanswered. So if you don’t mind I’d 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 – they are standard or “universal” dimensions you could say. It’s 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 – its not rocket science. It’s 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 above…and it’s 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 doesn’t mean the size would be any different then any other box. (And I’ll 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 don’t actually take up that much room. I can see that you might think “oh a taller guy is going to need a bigger box” but when you break the bones down into a mass and put them in a box you don’t really need a box that’s 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 – you’d be able to tell the newer “disturbed” dust writing from the older “under the dust” 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 “style” 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 – 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 – 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 didn’t the inscription would be a later addition to the box – this doesn’t 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 isn’t like Jesus’ mother inscribing his box “just a few years later” its someone centuries later inscribing a box. I hope that example is clear. I don’t remember what the findings were about the box’s patina and whether is was or was not on/over the inscription but it is very important to whether or not the inscription is “real” and the real they are looking for is older then the 1980’s real…one 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! • • • • • • • Feuerverger’s Paper on Talpiot Tomb StatisticsFeuerverger’s 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 ‘nother 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 “metaphorical” so lets not get into a “but a disciple like John was a brother” debate) is required to take the deceased brother’s 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 wouldn’t 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 wasn’t (which would have been the oddity) THAT’S 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 didn’t 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 – you know being that he was her 1st son, the son she had with G-d – 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 Jesus’ children (even though they were fathered by the brother) therefore it raises the question about Jesus’ supposed line of descendants. If anyone born to Mary after Jesus’ death is considered his child by Jewish law then there would be a line of Jesus descendants BUT they wouldn’t be directly from Jesus – this complicates the whole matter immensely because then you DO have children of Jesus running around out there according to Jewish law but you DON’T 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 don’t think I have read anything about anyone exploring this…does 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 “John’s disciples” simply burying the body of ‘John’, 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 ‘natural’ 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 editor’s selected prophecy. More than likely a relative simply ‘took’ 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 prophet’s wife, saw were he was buried. Original Mark was probably an eyewitness account written in the first person by one of the prophet’s 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 that’s how his creator’s wanted him to portray him as a kind of wild prophet. Jesus was created to fill John’s place. In effect we have a bifurcation of an original prophet – 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 can’t 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 Solomon’s 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: “see the following article in the National Review and decide for yourself who's telling truth”. I did as you suggested, and my conclusion is that the “long list of distinguished symposium attendees” who “wrote their own letter decrying the press reports” 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 “A statistical analysis of the names engraved on the ossuaries leaves no doubt that the probability of the Talpiot tomb belonging to Jesus’s family is virtually nil if the Mariamene named on one of the ossuaries is not Mary Magdalene.” From a statistical point of view, this statement by the eleven so-called “distinguished attendees” 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 “distinguished symposium attendees” 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 14’ 09.58” 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 14’ 09.58” 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: “Then 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, “This 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 Lord’s presence. But he may come and go only through the entry room of the gateway.” 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 Messiah’s entrance through the Eastern Gate, and therefore closed the gate in order to make sure it wouldn’t 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 פקיד ("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 : "Jesus’ 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 Jesus’ 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 reburial. • • • • • • • NG 'dissing Discovery and the bone reportFor a few years the BBC, decided to join forces with Discovery so as to increase their world wide distribution. Having worked with both I told the BBC it probably would be a bad idea in terms of quality programming. They didn't listen and paid the price, the two have now separated. This is why you may see me from time to time on Discovery pgrms however just know that the directors, producers, crew were BBC. If that doc. in which you saw me was the 3 hour pgrm on the Historical Jesus, it was made at a fraction of what the Talpiot tomb cost, in fact, it has been one of the more successful documentaries in the last 10 yrs for the BBC. What was presented to you by SJ and the BAR crowd [contrary to Zias' numerous assertions in many venues, BAR was not involved in the Talpiot tomb program and has been critical of it--Ed.] would never have been tolerated by the BBC nor other EU producers, in fact working with the NG, one is called by independent individuals whose job is fact checking. Better be able to document what you are saying or it will end up on the cutting room floor. Another big difference with the BBC and other EU producers is that they pay academics whereas I was told by SJ that usually he doesn't pay academics as he's a 'investigative journalist'. When he wishes to get a 'free ride' from those not boycotting him he's a journalist however when he appears on camera suddenly he's a Naked Archaeologist. In my opinion he's neither, just flattering himself. Compare the BBC three hour production with the SJ doc. the latter being more of a 3.5 million dollar' one dawg trick' despite all that hype, it was only shown once and was passed on by the NG. Cameron getting a pass from NG, hard to believe, must have been a good reason. In fact, I'm not all that sure that Cameron had that much to do with it aside from lending his name and money. Will there be a 'repeat performance' with SJ. Don't bet the farm on it. As far as the bone report, though they already know the answer to this, whereas you may not, I have been asking for two months for a short publication list of Josef Gat, not those handful of articles penned by colleagues who added his name, but peer reviewed articles written by him. After 400 excavations, and a 'lifetime achievement award' you folks should be able to come up with a few, Two months ago I asked for 20, no answer, however I'm now willing to settle for 10, too much work, make it 5 and I will answer your query. The ball is in your court. • • • • • • • Zias on Discovery Last NightI saw the program last night on Discovery Channel about first century dwellings. Zias and Charlesworth were the experts. This must mean that Zias has no objection to archaeologists colluding with civilians to produce popular TV programs. So I am at a loss to understand the post denigrating Simcha for that very thing. Unless he wants to divert attention away from the Bone Report. I, too, would like more information on the Talpiot Tomb Bone Report. • • • • • • • Integrity vs Nielson ratingsNational Geographic on the Talpiot tomb An article appearing March 14th in the prestigious trade journal Variety, is a must read for colleagues involved in what has become ‘media driven archaeology and viewers alike. The author points out the difference between the policy of National Geographic verses other media outlets such as Discovery when it comes to creating, buying and showing documentaries. To illustrate his point, the author uses the James Cameron-Simcha Jacobvici Talpiot tomb 3.5 million dollar production. National Geographic, to their credit, passed on the offer to run the 2 hour documentary, despite the fact that they knew that ratings would be high due to all the hype. Whereas the author didn’t go into detail why they refused, one NC exc. relates that “no other network has an internal fact-checking operation like Nat Geo’s. It insists on fully annotated scripts with double sources for every fact”. Compare this with the SJ/Cameron production with non-disclosure contracts for those unfortunate enough to have participated without any fact checking, in fact, had there been any by Discovery, the documentary probably never would have run. It was only when they realized at the last minute that they had been ‘ill advised’ in many ways, e.g. the three panel of experts on tomb archaeology and burial practices, none of whom had ever excavated a tomb. As a result Discovery ran a live show after the two hour presentation, hosted by Ted Koppel who was by then fully aware that they had been mistaken in funding/hosting such a show. Unfortunately, it was late, viewers had fallen asleep during the two hour showing however Koppel to his credit and two colleagues certainly convinced those unfortunate viewers that they had been ‘to put it mildly’ taken for a ride by the media. Shortly thereafter, realizing that they were in deep trouble in terms of credibility Discovery commissioned another documentary on the whole process, interviewing colleagues and experts who were now ‘on’ to what had happened. This documentary, unfortunately, was so damming that they decided not to run it and canned the whole thing. Personally this documentary should be made available to academics and universities which should be a bitter lesson in terms of working with certain segments of the media which many of us have been boycotting for the past 7 years. Lastly, is it finished, probably not when you have 3.5 million running on it, a book or two, abandoned by colleagues and friends, boycotted by others, they simply move operations to another part of the world. For those of you in Great Britain, be aware and be warned that with some film makers and a colleague or two, ratings taken precedence over scientific integrity. It will be interesting to see now, in the post Dan Brown era, if they are able to revive something which originally appeared in the British press in 1996, (which the film makers failed to note) lasting but two days. Will it be rehash for cash, I hope not, for the future students of archaeology and science, who certainly deserve more. Joe Zias • • • • • • • My responseJoe, So far I’ve made it a policy not to answer all your libelous statements, but I'll make an exception this time because you purport at the outset to feel my “pain". Thank you for feeling my "pain" but I hate to disappoint you. I'm in no distress. The only thing that bothers me, as I told you at the conference, is that instead of sticking to the issues you keep attacking people personally, see conspiracies everywhere and resort to the lowest of tactics so as to cloud the facts with innuendo. In this latest rant you attack everyone who has posted a comment on this site as a pseudonym for me. For your information, my colleague Felix Golubev, can write his own postings. He's an Emmy winning filmmaker and journalist. If we're talking about feeling other people's pain, let me just say that I'm worried about you. In your mind, obviously, I'm an all powerful demon who not only writes all of Felix's postings, but also wrote Gat's widow’s statement and I have successfully manipulated the world's media including CNN, Time Magazine and the Jerusalem Post. Truly, Joe, speak to someone about these delusions. With respect to the press release, I've said repeatedly that I have no problem with it and, frankly, I would be proud if I had written it. So I don't know exactly what your revelation consists of. In other circumstances, I would have posted it. But, as it happens, the person who posted that press release, Janine Fawcett, works for Vision Television, the Canadian broadcaster of my film. In addition to giving Vision's coordinates to the media she also gave our company's coordinates. So what? I don't even understand what your point is unless it's part of the "Simcha controls the media" conspiracy theory. To save you further “investigations”, let me assure you that I am in constant contact with the media expressing my point of view and arguing for the hypothesis I have put forward in my film and book. So stay tuned there will be a lot of press releases coming out of Associated Producers. It’s called democracy. With respect to Professor Tabor's email, you are quite a detective getting your hands on an email that was circulated to thousands of people. There is nothing secret about the fact that "behind the scenes" I have been arguing for an academic consideration of the Talpiot tomb. I've spoken to virtually everyone concerned with this issue – pro and con - including you. Sometimes I have been able to persuade people to look at the facts, other times I have failed, partially because not many people are wiling to expose themselves to the kind of ad hominem arguments that you have been specializing in. So I don't know what you think you discovered with respect to Tabor's email. But let me assure you that as I write this I continue to talk to academics on all sides “behind the scenes". In fact, Joe, I'll also work with you “behind the scenes” if you finally come clean and tell us what happened to the Talpiot bones. After all, your only expertise at the IAA was as their “bone man”. In 1980, you would have been the one to have handled those bones. What happened to them? Why is there no bone report in the IAA files? Don't be afraid. Don't cover up. Just come clean. With respect to my "abandonment" by Discovery and other colleagues, I'm touched by your personal concern but you got the facts wrong. Since winning an unprecedented third Emmy in "Outstanding Investigative Journalism" after the broadcast of my film on the Talpiot tomb, my career has taken yet another turn for the good - thank God. Discovery did come under a tremendous amount of pressure by people who - like yourself – want to stifle a free and open debate on issues related to the Tomb. On numerous occasions you happily gloated that the film has not been re-broadcast in the United States. But why are you so happy with censorship? I for one am proud that I live in a democratic country, and am proud of the fact that people that have opinions that I do not agree with can still air their ideas. Why do you feel so differently about democracy? In any event, to make you feel better, my film is continually being re-broadcast around the world including Canada, Israel, France, Spain, Germany etc., and in the United States my book comes out in paperback today. Finally, here is my advice to you. Stop attacking people personally, especially the memory of the late Joseph Gat. Stop attacking his widow. Stop looking for conspiracies everywhere. Blog a little less and consider the facts a little more. And, please tell us what happened to the bones that were found in the Talpiot tomb. Is it possible, Joe, that the skull to which you shamefully sold access to the BBC for reconstruction was from the Talpiot tomb? Did that skull that was reconstructed and graced magazines worldwide as the “face of Jesus” really come from the “Jesus, son of Joseph” ossuary? • • • • • • • Jacobovici's responseCongratulations on a dignified reply, detailed, to the point and brief enough for my limited attention span. Religion runs on high-octane emotions and it seems good manners and reason are the first casualties. The more the faith, the less the charity! Good job the Spanish Inquisition is not still around or they would certainly pay you a visit! Learn a few things from the Christians - patience, persistence and dignity, and the belief that you are right! You are! And you are vindicated. All best wishes Jon Hulme • • • • • • • Simcha aka Felix and the Amazing Dis-GraceFor sometime now colleagues have been suspicious over some of the rants on this web site, penned by various people under a variety of names. According to one Canadian source close to the issue at hand, postings under the name Felix are actually written by Simcha. While this may be difficult for some readers to accept, I can fully understand your dilemma, abandoned by Discovery, colleagues, partners, can be difficult financially, emotionally as well as putting a damper on ones career. Simcha, personally, I understand your pain; in fact, I admit using from time to time alternative names, so as to confuse the readers, signing some of my postings as Joseph or Josef, in lieu of Joe. No one in fact, ever noticed it. Guess that I’ve been lucky. As for your abandonment by Discovery and their refusal to show the Talpiot tomb documentary a second time, hang in there, remember that media execs, also canceled the highly popular Jerry Springer show. There are however several points which we have problems understanding which are in need of clarification. Two are as follows: On Jan. 26 you posted on this web site that you had not contacted the media over this “I’m vindicated” phrase of yours in relation to the ‘lifetime achievement award’ .” I hate to cloud the issue with the facts, but I have issued no press release whatsoever. Unlike Meyers and Magness, I have circulated no “statement” and have collected no signatures. The so called vindication statement (with which I have no problems) is a press release issued by the Canadian broadcaster of my film, Vision Television, and to the best of my knowledge it has been picked up by no media whatsoever." However, despite your denial, here's the press release, it was sent out from Toronto immediately following the three day conference by your company- Associated Producers. << From: Associated Producers Toronto, Canada For Immediate Release Princeton conference vindicates Associated Producers James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici on “Lost Tomb of Jesus” Jerusalem, Israel (January 16, 2008) – Late Wednesday, at the closing session of a conference sponsored by the Princeton Theological Seminary which considered the headline grabbing claims made last year in a documentary film and book that the tomb of Jesus and his family have been found, the widow of archaeologist Yosef Gat, Ruth, rocked the proceedings. Ruth Gat attended the Princeton conference to accept a posthumous lifetime achievement award for her husband, a major figure in Biblical archaeology. As top scholars from around the world listened she stated, “My husband, the lead archaeologist of the East Talpiot tomb in southern Jerusalem, believed that the tomb he excavated in 1980 was, indeed, the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.” Gat’s widow said that her husband believed that the bone boxes that he removed from the tomb contained the mortal remains of Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdalene and Judah, son of Jesus. “The reason he never published his opinion,” she said “was because, as a Holocaust survivor, he feared that the announcement might spark anti-Semitism around the world. As a result, he took his secret to the grave.” Reached in Jerusalem, director/author Simcha Jacobovici said, “we feel totally vindicated. My work with James Cameron was the catalyst for an international symposium that has finally considered the evidence and is opening the door for further research. It’s time that the world seriously considered that the Jesus family tomb may very well have been located.” Lastly, the above press release implicates you I believe regarding those “behind the scenes efforts” that Tabor was speaking about in a posting to his followers around the world. If you haven’t remembered, the e-mail sent out by Tabor two days before the conference began, the posting reads as follows: “I fly to Israel tomorrow to take part in the Princeton sponsored international conference on "Jewish Burial and the Talpiot Tomb inContext." It looks like it will be a truly important event with most of the major scholars gathering to consider the Jesus Family tomb. This is a dream come through for me and something Simcha and I have worked for, behind the scenes, with………………., for many months now. Seems that the evidence presented here, particularly the ‘behind the scenes’ phrase demands some explanation from the two of you, particularly as you use in your press release the ‘royal we’. While you are at it, a few words about that press release which you claimed not to have sent, would be helpful as well, as it looks like it was scripted by you in advance. Joe Zias AKA Joseph, Josef • • • • • • • Felix vs. ZiasI've been following the exchange between Joe Zias and Felix. Bottom line: I can't believe how shameless Zias is. He was responsible for a bone report at the time of the Talpiot discovery and he didn't do his job...or did he cover up? There is no bone report! Now we find out that instead of reporting on bones he was selling access to skulls to the BBC. Was the skull from the Talpiot tomb? My god! • • • • • • • Ivory TowerWhy is it that Biblical Scholars think civilians don't have the capacity to discrimminate between fact and fiction? Why do they want to control our access to information? I mean, I could have told them it was bad to smoke while working on Dead Sea Scrolls because I have seen what smoke does to fabric. Why can't someone reconstruct the skull of a 1st century man from Judea? I know it's not Him. And why can't the Talpiot tomb be evaluated? Until there is definitive proof one way or the other, it will be of interest to many people. Please give us a little credit. • • • • • • • Joe ZiasThank you for substantiating everything that I have said about you. Anyone who reads your reply to my statement can see the clearly unhinged nature of your ad hominem attacks. You fantasize boycotts that don't exist, you keep talking about how much money everybody is making, and you now have even taken to attacking the memory of Joseph Gat and his widow. In your world, stating that he was "an honest, hardworking man" who did not deserve a Lifetime Achievement Award is being on his side. In your world, he would not have accepted an award. In your world, Simcha and I controlled the Princeton Theological Seminary and decided to give him an award so as to "play the Holocaust card". You truly need help. Joseph Gat served the IAA for 27 years. He was the man who excavated the Talpiot tomb. A conference partially dedicated to his tomb decided to recognize his work. His widow, who knew him a little better than you, was happy to accept the award on his behalf. No one objected until after she spoke her mind. She's in full possession of her faculties and to suggest that other people wrote her speech is insulting to her and a bald-faced lie. In your world, attacking Gat and his widow and making spurious charges against us is noble. In the real world, it's the worst kind of “Lashon HaRah", speaking the "evil tongue". Get on with life and stop spreading the venom. Finally, thank you for corroborating that you sold access to a first century Jewish skull to the BBC and Discovery. Again, you paint this vile exploitation of human remains as a noble act. According to you, selling access to bones that should have been turned over to the Rabbinic authorities, is an attempt to break the stereotype of a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jesus. You even put us in the blonde-hair, blue-eyed camp. The fact is that we cast Saleh Bakri, an Arab-Israeli, as Jesus in The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Hardly blonde or blue-eyed. The fact is no one needed you to sell access to dead Jews so as to break stereotypes. How do you sleep at night? What I suggest, Joe, is that you stop attacking scholars like Tabor, filmmakers like Simcha and me, widows like Ms. Gat, dead colleagues like Joseph Gat, and resist any temptation to sell access to bones that you may still have in your possession. • • • • • • • Burial PracticesLuke 16:19-31 about the rich man and Lazarus could well reflect two different types of burial practice and probably two different views of how the dead rise. The rich man dressed in purple and fine linen and living in luxury was no doubt a high priest. When the beggar Lazarus died he was taken straight to heaven (Abraham's side). (16.22) The writer was of the view that when he or someone like Lazarus died their spirit was immediately taken up in a manner very much like the so-called 'Essene' or prophetic view of the dead rising, such as in the writings attributed to Josephus. So the mode of burial for Lazarus was not that important. His body could simply have been buried in a plain earth grave with no particular construction. But the spirit of rich high priest was stuck with his body in his waiting place under the earth. This would have been a loculus in a rock cut tomb or may be the less selubrious loculus of a shaft grave as at Qumran. In any event, while waiting for whatever, the rich man could look up and see Lazarus at Abraham's side. • • • • • • • Appropos Amazing (Dis) GraceShalom Steven you might wish to add that to the best of my knowledge no one ever, at least not me, ever did a facial reconstruction of a woman called Mary, access was not sold, nor did I work with Discovery on this, Discovery has enough of a problem with Simcha, Tabor and Felix, leave them alone for the time being, it was not I. Joe • • • • • • • Felix , SJ , Tabor and the Amazing (Dis)GraceRather than reply to your 'rant' piece by piece I will address a few items. As to your query why aren't people backing up you, Simcha and Tabor over what you characterize as my venom? The simple answer is that you, Simcha and Tabor stand alone without any academic support by serious scholars whatsoever. No one takes any of your work seriously whether it be the Naked Archaeologist series, Exodus, James Ossaury, in fact it's embarrassing for scholars to watch. B. As for me wishing to work with you and Simcha, don't flatter yourselves, in fact, I have been partially successful in organizing a boycott of your work here in Israel for the past 7 years. This may have been one of the reasons that your film cost 3.5 million US and so long to make in that many colleagues boycotted you and continue to do so. You in effect turned to foreign scholars as you had little if any support with us here in Israel. C. As for the quality of this particular work, it's laughable, particularly when I saw the front page of that book by SJ, all those Jews with long hair. Looked more like Jesus Christ Superstar than reality. Read the texts, if you don't have the time and resources, take a look at the arch in Rome showing Jews with the menorah. Basic facts you cannot get right, d. This takes us to the facial reconstruction, I worked with the BBC attempting to show viewers that Jews 2,000 yrs ago, despite what you and Simcha show along with a cast of others that Jews were not blond, blue-eyed Swedes with a sun tan. The folks in marketing decided that this 'man in the street' was none other than Jesus himself. For 5 years I tried to put a stop to this foolishness and was only successful when lawyers got involved. E. as for anyones religious practices, what they believe in, I could care less, however when they manipulate, invent (Tabors' finding the tomb of Jesus in Safed a few yrs back, Jesus Baptizing at the so called Cave of John the Baptist ect) they we fight back as this is done for the media and the media like yourselves only. A case in point is SJ accusing Israel scholars of being anti-Christian here in Jrsm when the James Ossuary doc was shown as he was attacked by the academic community. Then a few yrs down the line you 'Pro-Christian' film makers rehash the Talpiot tomb story at the same time accusing us of being anti-Christian. We are neither, but we are driven by science and science only, having devoted our lives to this profession, only to see it set back by a handful of entrepreneurs for fame and fortune. F. lastly, rather than making this into a 'megilla' you and SJ mentioned that Josef Gat, a simple, hard working man, honest as they come was deserving of that bogus lifetime achievement award on behalf of his contribution to the profession and those 400 (sic)excavations that he did. We who knew him were shocked and knew that here you were not only using the Holocaust 'card' but inventing a scenario for your validation, whereas we knew that it was actually your script and your being implicated. Several weeks ago I challenged you and SJ on one of the blogs I believe, to publish a handful of peer reviewed articles which were written by Mr. Gat, excluding those few which were written by colleagues in which his name was added simply for courtesy. As of yet, you and the staff there for some reason have not been able to find any articles, which substantiates your claim. Where will it end, hard to tell however for several of us here in Jerusalem, we have moved from 2,000 BP to the 1940's. Meanwhile enlighten us by sending us some bibliography in which your betryal of Josef Gat was based. Honest as he was, he would not have accepted such an award. • • • • • • • Joe ZiasWhy aren't scholars distancing themselves from the unhinged venom that Joe Zias is spewing? Lately, he’s been attacking Professor James Tabor’s religious beliefs, the memory of the late Yosef Gat, the mental stability of his widow, and for a new low the implication that Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor are behind Ms. Gat’s statement that because Joseph Gat was a Holocaust survivor he was afraid to identify the Talpiot tomb as the Jesus family tomb for fear that this would provoke a worldwide wave of anti-Semitism. Zias now claims that Tabor and Jacobovici are using the Holocaust in the Talpiot tomb controversy. I thought I had seen the bottom of the barrel, but I hadn’t. Joe should watch the film I recently made with Simcha, “Charging the Rhino”, which details the destruction of his family in Romania during the Holocaust. But, again, why aren’t scholars distancing themselves from his ravings? In Joe’s world, he is a scholar. In reality, he holds a Masters degree in anthropology and no academic position whatsoever. In Joe’s world, he is a “forensic anthropologist”. In reality, he served as the IAA’s “bone man” during the most primitive years of Israeli archaeology, before he and the IAA parted company. In Joe’s world, he’s an archaeologist, epigrapher and an expert on ossuaries. In reality, he is neither an archaeologist nor an epigrapher nor an expert on ossuaries. In Joe’s world, everyone’s out for the money except Joe. In reality, he has approached Simcha and I on several occasions with various documentary ideas which we could never afford because he charges so much. A few years ago, there was the notorious case of the “Face of Jesus” which was both a documentary and a cover story in some popular science magazines. This was followed by the “Face of Mary”. In those instances, Joe sold access to the skulls of first century Jews – people that had nothing to do with Jesus or his movement – to the Discovery Channel for a reconstruction of what Jesus might have looked like. Again, this would all be sad if legitimate scholars weren’t making common cause with the man who thinks libel is a form of scholarly debate. • • • • • • • Talpiot TombI could not agree more with Eldad Kenyan that shifting debate to personalities rather than the careful study of evidence is the wrong way to approach discussion of the Talpiot Tomb. Of course, a popularized TV program is going to be criticized by some scholars because of its connection with pop culture entertainment. But increasingly, museums and scholarly institutions have themselves softened the boundaries between hard, cold academic information and investigative approaches and ways of reaching out to the larger community. Some of the information presented in the TV program (and subsequent book) did raise important questions in light of some solid evidence. That is the point at which scholarly debate and analysis should concentrate and move forward. Look at the audience that is now waiting for some objective opinions and some minds open enough to see beyond emotional accusations!! • • • • • • • Zias & CharlesworthMr. Charlesworth makes the same mistake he accuses reporters of making; publishing false information. Mrs. Gatt did not say her husband had found the Jesus family tomb. She stated that her husband THOUGHT he had found the Jesus family tomb. Big difference. Mr. Zias has basically threatened a student involved in the symposium; "The truth is that from the beginning, most of us have been boycotting their attempts to get us to cooperate, those that succumbed, paid the price. Unfortunately, some students will as well." Doesn't Mr. Zias know that other people read his posts? I sincerely hope that nothing bad happens to this student. No longer can scholars sit in their ivory towers with a firewall between them and the public. It's a brave new world and you don't have a monopoly on truth. • • • • • • • family tombIf the motivation behind finding ancient sites is to supposedly disprove the deity of Christ then it's crediblity will be highly questionalble. If it is to substianate what the Bible has always said, praise be to God. • • • • • • • Taipot Tomb ControversyIt is dismaying to see so-called scholars behaving like "children." Non-specialists count on scholars like you and others (Myers, et al) to represent yourself and your field with personal integrity. You are supposed to be scientists and historians, establishing facts and following them. Instead, your group behaves poorly, wastes time, and erodes our confidence in you. You professionals should change your ways and restore integrity to your respective fields. • • • • • • • Jesus' DivinityIt is unfortunate that, in an academic discussion on the possibility of the Talpiot tomb as being the tomb of Jesus and/or his family, someone should bring up a completely non-reviewable issue as the divinity of Jesus. Many people in ancient times were declared to be divine after their death, Augustus Caesar comes to mind, so to exclude the possibility of this at work in the Jesus tradition out of hand is academically untenable. This is not to say that I believe that Jesus was or was not divine, I am stating that using the issue of Jesus' divinity as evidence that the Talpiot tomb is not of his family is to use one disputed fact to discredit another disputed fact. Whether the tomb is or is not that of Jesus or his family needs to be evaluated based strictly upon the evidence the site itself has produced. • • • • • • • Joe ZiasSorry, I meant to say Joe Zias would certainly have remembered if the missing Talpiot ossuary had a James son of Joseph inscription. • • • • • • • Joe ZiasI presume the Felix in question is Felix Golubev of Associated Producers and the co-producer of the documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus. As for Golubev's questioning of Joe Zias' rememberance of an ossuary being plain from 28 years ago, what Joe Zias would certainly remember was if it had a Jesus son of Joseph inscription. So I go with Joe. The missing ossuary was plain. Secondly, Joe's words (if quoted by Felix correctly) about crucifixion marks on bones are not impossible, even for an individual with the name of Jesus. Ossuary bones with crucifixion marks might well have been a possibility, particularly if they were the bones of an aristocratic messianic type of priest, i.e. one of the kingdom of God types as suggested by Prof Jane Schaberg, for example with the popular priestly name of Jesus. And where else does one read about such messianic types if not in the DSS? Clearly, the writers of the DSS were only 'poor' for a short time - that is if they really did have all that treasure hidden at the time of the approach of the Roman army. Schaberg has no need to cloud the issue with Jewish mystical tradition. • • • • • • • The Missing Ossuary(II)In my former comment, the following declaration of Prof. J. H. Charlesworth has been published without Quotation Marks (" "), so it's mix in my answer. Now I'm sending again the declaration of J. H. Charlesworth: “At this point, we need to stress that despite reports to the contrary, the "missing" tenth ossuary of the Talpiot Tomb was cataloged. Its existence is recorded in Rachmani’s catalogue published in 1994. The Israeli Department of Antiquities retained nine ossuaries (Nos. 701-709) recovered from the Talpiot Tomb in 1980; in addition, a broken specimen was also recovered. It was without decoration or inscription and thus cannot be identified as the ossuary bearing the name "James." When hundreds of ossuaries pour into the Rockefeller Museum, those that are insignificant are sometimes put aside in preference to those deemed significant”. • • • • • • • Jesus' DivinityI would like to say something about the divinity of Jesus that might be throwing some of us off. Trying to cast Jesus as an ordinary human being who gets married, have children, and gets buried--bones and all--is a sad mistake. Christians do appreciate the bewilderment of those who have not experienced a spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ [a rebirth]in their not being able to understand his divinity, however. When Jesus Christ told his disciples that they would be where he was, he was not referring to the ground or to an ossuary. He was referring to a spiritual place that can only be discerned spiritually. People who are in a spiritual relationship with God and Jesus Christ are experiencing just what he meant by heaven [joy, peace, hope, love, etc.] This, unfortunately, cannot be explained to others. Jesus told Nicodemus, "Unless you become born again, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." Nicodemus had no clue as to what he meant--but his disciples did. Honest kudos to the archaeologists for their work in this field. However, the recipients of their knowledge will continue to be baffled by every discovery for they cannot see beyond the physical reality. Jesus was not a man like us. He was not married except to anything but his mission for mankind. Whatever non-believers might honestly do, do not cast Jesus Christ as one of us. That, my well-meaning friends, would be a grave mistake. • • • • • • • The missing ossuaryTo Felix: From the original report of Amos Kloner in 1996, we have the following findings. Kloner was very methodical in the report. He didn’t say that tenth ossuary was "broken", and the only and good reason is that this feature was not spoken of any other of the rest of ossuaries. Although he had said at the beginning of report that there was some broken ossuaries, when Kloner made the individual list of ossuaries he didn't describe the physical status of any of them. Mere the archaeologist discriminated the inscriptions and / or decorative figures. This doesn't suggest forgetfulness or negligence, but a certain way of working. Note, for example, the ossuary # 80505, which bears the inscription "Mary". If it weren't for this inscription, the description of this ossuary would be identical in everything to the tenth ossuary. Only the characteristic "plain" would be placed in the report of Kloner on these two box of bones. Again, this is a way of working. Amos Kloner used term "plain" like a generic description of the characteristics of these ossuaries. That is the reason, too, because the ossuaries without inscriptions (# 80,506, # 80,507 and # 80,508) have not been discarded. They had beautiful ornaments; in this way they could serve as a reference in future studies. (Note that one of this ossuaries, # 80,506, had also some unintelligible incisions). Now, a plain and smooth ossuary, with nothing that identify or adorn it, wouldn’t to serve for any research, in a way that the other ossuaries also couldn't serve. Thus, to discard it is a perfectly logical procedure. (Even more seeing that this ossuary was "broken", as the L.Y. Rahmani Catalogue notes. This fact doesn't come of "retroactive memory", but it's registered in L.Y. Rahmani Catalogue published with granting permission of original excavator Joseph Gath). Besides, it thinks that Joe Zias would get to find this anonymous ossuary without any distinction in the courtyard of the Rockefeller Center today is very difficult, after nearly three decades! The following declaration of Prof. J. H. Charlesworth in the recent Conference in Jerusalem lights up the situation (and, I think, supports my reasoning, too): “At this point, we need to stress that despite reports to the contrary, the "missing" tenth ossuary of the Talpiot Tomb was cataloged. Its existence is recorded in Rachmani’s catalogue published in 1994. The Israeli Department of Antiquities retained nine ossuaries (Nos. 701-709) recovered from the Talpiot Tomb in 1980; in addition, a broken specimen was also recovered. It was without decoration or inscription and thus cannot be identified as the ossuary bearing the name "James." When hundreds of ossuaries pour into the Rockefeller Museum, those that are insignificant are sometimes put aside in preference to those deemed significant”. It is to be noted that this whole argument is based in positive statements of scholars and is supported by something tangible - the Kloner’s report and Rahmani Catalogue; not on vague suspicions. If we can’t be based on a qualified and methodical report, that archaeologists use routinely to make your service, then we must stop making science. It seems impossible to believe that a box of bones that was under the hands of Joseph Gath, S. Gibson, Amos Kloner and physical anthropologist Joe Zias weren’t perceived to bears a inscription as one that is recorded in "James Ossuary". (One suggestion offered by Prof. James Tabor that the dirt of tenth ossuary possibly impeded the vision of the inscription seems impossible in the light of the fact that four scientists saw the ossuary. Note that it isn’t necessary demand that they had to translate the inscription at that time, but only see it). Regarding dimensions, the ossuary # 80,503 (recorded "Yeshua bar Yosef") measures 65x26x30cm. But it doesn’t mean that it’s the same “missing” ossuary obviously, though it only differs on a single side and by a 5cm difference. (The “missing” tenth ossuary measures: 60x26x30cm). The size is not decisive - similarities can happen. We can not disregard a variation on one side only because the difference is little. Amos Kloner, a scientist who is accustomed to data and numbers, responsibly pointed to the little difference. Even more seeing that the old ossuaries sometimes had pretty close dimensions – sometimes identical! Then the dimensions of ossuaries is only the first step of several other stages that need be done in order to identify this ossuaries, the “missing” and “The James Ossuary”. • • • • • • • talpiot tombIn my judgement, the tomb is not the tomb of the family or dynasty of Jesus, but possibly of important members of this kingdom of God movement, including Jesus. Various readings of one important ossuary inscription were proposed, including mariam he kai mara, mariamne kai mara and the disputed caritative or diminutive form. Eigraphers have more work to do, hopefully with enhanced techniques. I have argued that it is quite possible, even probable, from readings of canonical the Christian Testament gospels and the apocryphal Gospel of Mary, that some first century people regarded Mary Magdalene as "mara" - master. Thus I am one of the few voices from the conference in favor of serious consideration of the tomb as providing exciting opportunities for rethinking assumptions and perspectives, for understanding the wide variety of meanings of "resurrection," and the importance in this regard of Jewish mystical tradition of this time (cf. Knohl). • • • • • • • Joe ZiasIt's an interesting thing that Mr. Zias is pulling off. He has been very aggressive personally attacking anyone and everyone who thinks that the Talpiot tomb might be the tomb of Jesus. He uses terms such as "pimping the Bible", he accuses people of "deception", he refers to how much money everybody is supposedly making etc. etc. All of his attacks are personal, all of them unscholarly. But let's look at the facts. Joe Zias claims to remember a plain ossuary from almost 30 years ago. Can anyone take this seriously? Is there a human being on the planet exposed to as many ossuaries as Joe Zias has been exposed to that can think back almost 28 years and vividly recall a totally ordinary ossuary? Also, if Mr. Zias' memory is so good, maybe he can recall what happened to the bones. After all, he was not in the business of cataloguing ossuaries. During his tenure at the IAA, he was the physical anthropologist responsible for bone reports. And yet, there is no bone report in the Talpiot file. Strangely, Joe Zias can't remember anything about the bones. The same man who has perfect recall when it comes to plain ossuaries can't remember anything when it comes to bones. Why is Joe Zias on the attack? Why isn’t he on the defensive explaining to the world why there is no bone report? Interestingly, at the conference, he made a very strange remark. Talking about bones inside the “Jesus son of Joseph” ossuary, he said: “even if there were crucifixion marks on the bones from the ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ ossuary, that wouldn’t mean that this ossuary belongs to Jesus of Nazareth”. Really? What a strange statement. Maybe Mr. Zias’ unusual memory has finally kicked in and he’s trying to tell us something about the bones that disappeared without a trace in 1980. • • • • • • • TombI have a couple of nagging questions. One is why (when people die at different dates) a bunch of ossuaries found in one tomb would have similar dimensions. 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? 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. Hence I would have expected different sizes/styles of ossuary..no? 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-one to my knowledge has addressed the simple issue of how the experts know the inscriptions date from the period in question. Does the patina also cover the inscription? 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. • • • • • • • Tomb: TV broadcastHey Guys, Oregon Public broadcasting is showing this next week!! Tue, Feb 26, 10:00pm "Digging For Jesus: Explore top archaeological digs that bring us closer to revealing more about the man from Galilee." Is this an update or WHAT??? • • • • • • • The Missing OssuarySo the plain missing Talpiot ossuary of similar dimensions to the so-called James ossuary could have been inscribed after it was stolen to become the James ossuary. • • • • • • • Hustling...Felix, Felix who, is this the same Felix co-producer who along with Simcha who produced the film ? The same Felix who along with Simcha forced BAR to remove the editorial comment last week that you were a co-producer, which ran for a couple of days. Instead of this foolishness which is on par with he said, she said, how about producing a list of those 400 excavations of Josef Gat, which you invented to give his wife that bogus award. While you are at it, send a short list of his peer reviewed publications, 10 will do. Joe Zias • • • • • • • The missing ossuaryFor the record, there is no protocol among Israeli archaeologists for measuring ossuaries. Some archaeologists measure at the top, some in the middle, some at the bottom. Not very scientific, eh? So we unscholarly folks at Associated Producers (makers of the Lost Tomb of Jesus) devised a protocol for the IAA and asked them to measure the James ossuary on all sides, providing three measurements on each side i.e., top, middle, bottom. Since ossuaries are not symmetric, there are variations. The results: The so called missing ossuary in the Talpiot tomb has the following dimensions, according to Kloner: 60x26x30cm. The recent dimensions provided by the IAA for the James ossuary are: 56.5x26x30.2cm. As anyone can see, two sides are a perfect match. As for the length, there is a 3.5cm difference. Having said this, it seems that the missing ossuary has rounded out figures. There are no decimals. It seems that this was common practice at the site of a salvage excavation. Meaning, measure in round numbers and then get precise measurements at the Rockefeller Center when photographing the ossuaries. The missing ossuary is the only one of the ten Talpiot ossuaries that was not photographed. The tomb was found on Thursday and left overnight without a guard. I suspect that one was stolen that night. As a result, for the missing ossuary, we have rounded out dimensions from the first day, but no precise dimensions or photograph from the Rockefeller Center. In other words, the James ossuary is still a very good candidate for the missing ossuary. There are only twelve ossuaries in the entire Rahmani Catalogue that come as close to the James ossuary as a candidate for the missing ossuary. At the recent conference on the Talpiot tomb in Jerusalem, Kloner and Gibson made a big deal of the fact that the dimensions of the James ossuary and the missing ossuary don't match. As anyone can see from the above, they are pretty close. Kloner and Gibson also made a big deal of the fact that the missing ossuary was not missing at all but, rather, abandoned in the courtyard of the Rockefeller Center because it was a plain jane ossuary. In fact, Joe Zias recently ran around the courtyard looking for it - and failing - for a documentary film. Gibson, Kloner and Zias all said that the missing ossuary was "plain and broken" and therefore discarded. I'm sorry that we always cloud the issue with the facts, but Kloner's 1996 report says that the missing ossuary was "plain". It makes no mention of "broken". Ah, retroactive memory. Also, a glance at the Rahmani Catalogue shows that ossuary #80.506 from the same tomb was also "plain" and "broken". Did they chuck it out? No, it's still there and according to the catalogue it's been "reconstructed". Same with ossuary #80.507 and #80.508. In other words, three of the catalogued nine Talpiot ossuaries were "plain, broken and reconstructed". So much for the abandoned in a courtyard theory. Clearly, one of the ten Talpiot ossuaries went missing. Clearly, nothing was chucked out because it was plain, or even broken. Clearly, James is a good candidate for the missing ossuary. After all it does mention Jesus, the dimensions pretty much match and out of 30 patina samples it was the only one that matched Talpiot's other ossuaries. Of course, more testing of patina has to be done to get a wider database, but if it is confirmed that the missing ossuary is the James ossuary, the debate on the Talpiot tomb is over. • • • • • • • Anointing Jesus' bodySpeaking of a Jewish approach to the material, I'm flabbergasted by the suggestion that there is no way that Jesus would have been married. After the crucifixion, his male followers all go underground. Understandable, their leader has just been crucified for insurrection. So it's left to 3 women to "anoint" his body. Hello....no stranger touches a Rabbi's private parts before or after death if she's not related to him by blood or marriage. So who are the women? Mary the mom. Salome the sister. And Mary Magdalene....the devoted follower? Sorry sister. Only if you're married. End of story. • • • • • • • ResurrectionI find it amazing that Christians don't understand how Jews can believe in resurrection and still be aware that someone is in a grave. You don't have to go back 2,000 years to see this phenomenon. The Chabad Lubavitch movement based in Crown Heights, NY, believed that their Rebbe is Messiah. Then he died. Half accepted that he couldn't have been Messiah. The other half broke away. They continued to claim that he is alive and that he is Messiah. This despite the fact that anybody can visit his grave. In fact, for those who don't believe he died, the grave is not a pilgrimage site. In other words, Jews can believe in physical and spiritual resurrection while walking past the grave site of the one who they claim was resurrected. Rather than dismiss the Talpiot tomb by retroactively imposing gentile Christian theology on a first century Jewish Messiah figure, maybe it's time we understood the Jesus movement and their Rebbe on their own terms. • • • • • • • The Prophet's NameThat there was a first century Jewish prophet among prophets I have no doubt. I do not accept that the prophet's name was Jesus. The name Jesus is clearly the fabrication of a 'Pauline' editor wanting the prophet named appropriately for the Pauline doctrine of Jesus as a saviour crucified for sins. - 'But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.' (Mat.1:20,21) Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, which means the Lord saves. It is much more likely that the name of Jesus in the Talpiot 'Jesus son of Joseph' inscription was that of a member of a high priestly family. The writings attributed to Josephus contain numerous references to high priests and priests with the name of Jesus - someone might like to do a global search and tell us how many. T. C. Eskanazi wrote for the Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol.3, Page 771, 'Haggai and Zechariah refer eight times to Jeshua son of Jehozadadak the high priest (literally "the great priest") - a title relatively rare in the Hebrew Bible. ...Jeshua clearly exemplifies a new role for high priests. No preexile high priest possesses his power and prominece. Biblical sources attach to Jeshua unprecedented religious and civil authority and signal a redefinition of spheres of control....Jeshua's elevation initiates a theocratic authority that will continue to dominate much of the Second temple period until 70 CE.' • • • • • • • Jesus TombI was raised a Christian, and truth is truth, and I will not let it rock my Ark or my Faith if I find that Jesus was married. There is a story in the book of Jashar, that is not in the Bible. But is is mentioned there and that is the story of Abrahams birth. It is so much like the birth of Jesus , a similar story. Abraham was to become the father of many nations and so why not Jesus ? I have no problem with Jesus being the New Age Abraham and the Father of Many Nations. Only a person with weak faith would ridicule the work you have done, and you have in my opinion tried to be open about your find. • • • • • • • Why so personal?During the symposium, the people behind Joe Zias made any effort to divers the discussions from the points of debate to personal issues. I admit: they did quiet a good job. And here is the surprise: though they did a fairly good job, the symposium concluded what it did. A tiny minority did it! Now they turn to threats and personal insults. Go on, brave Joe. I'm sorry - I can't help you. I'm not "one of Simcha's employees". In fact, I would love to be, since I really need some funds for my Ph.D plan to go on. You and your kind will fade away, while truth shall win. That is: if you know what truth means. I will not deal with your personality any more. You do it much better than me, if you get the point, brave Joe. • • • • • • • EldadEldad who ????? As far as your monitoring postings for inappropriate content, was the editorial comment that two of the pro-Talpiot postings, were posted by SJ employees, which were later erased due to his insistence, inappropriate ? • • • • • • • Holy Land UniversityI've been following the controversy and I want to understand Professor Pfann's position. Is it academic? Or theological? Meaning, does he allow for the possibility that since Jesus lived, he also died and was buried in an ossuary, or does he - a priori - reject any tomb as a possible candidate since Jesus physically took his body to heaven? It seems to me that Pfann's position is theological, which is fine, but then there is no need to dress it up in academic jargon. For 27 years, the "Jesus, son of Joseph" inscription stood. Pfann was fine with it. Then when Jacobovici said it belonged to Jesus of Nazareth, Pfann said that it didn't say "Jesus, son of Joseph" at all. When everyone contradicted him he retreated but seems happy with a question mark after the inscription, and he also wanted to add the name "Choni" under the inscription. For 27 years, the “Mariamene e Mara" inscription was fine. Now that Jacobovici argued that it belongs to Mary Magdalene, Pfann is no longer OK with Rahmani's decipherment. But that's not all. The “Yose" inscription is “common”, the “Maria" inscription is "common" and despite what statisticians say Pfann insists that the cluster of names is particularly insignificant. It seems that everything is wrong with this tomb once it pointed to Jesus of Nazareth. Again, Pfann is entitled to his religious beliefs, but let's not dress them up with pseudo-academic arguments. • • • • • • • Threatening JoeI quote Joe Zias: "those that succumbed, paid the price. Unfortunately, some students will as well". That bad, huh? Don't you and the people who share your stand have any other means to stop such a tiny minority? Not many Students have participated in the symposium. I have been one of them, and the only one among them who supports the documentary general concept. As an active Ph.D student I can approve of Joe Zias' threat: a "big shot" was "sniffing" around me where I study. After Joe and is "party" understood that BAS will not stop the debate, they turned to simple threatening. Let me tell you, brave Joe: I'm not afraid of you or anybody. I keep and will keep my stand as long as you and others do not have better evidence than what you all have presented during the symposium. I have no intention to win - and no one to win. Truth will. Remember Galileo. • • • • • • • Tomb of JesusIs is not amazing that the Jews of the first century would have put a large sign and made special note of this tomb had it been for Jesus of Nazareth? The greatest way to kill the growing movement of the Way (Christianity) would simply show that Jesus was still dead! No, this is just another lame attempt to blast THE central, special claim of Christianity: that Jesus is the Christ, the very Son of God who died for the sins of all mankind and bodily rose from the dead. Oh, and bad science all this is as well. • • • • • • • Jesus TombLet 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? Think about it; Christianity could have been stopped dead in its tracks. Instead, most of those, including His brothers, died because of their faith. If there was a body to be produced, someone would have produced it. 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. • • • • • • • Tomb of JesusI have read most of the postings and know what a sensitive subject this can be. I saw the original airing and was quite impressed, and commemorate the naked archaeologist for his curiosity and display of courage with this subject. I too was once an athiest but have found my truth and not only by what I have read but by what I have questioned. I think Jesus is quite happy seeing that we are still passionate in our quest to find him or anything related to him. Any query is a step towards truth then discovery and should not be discouraged. • • • • • • • Jesus Tomb ControversyI was a fan of Simcha Jacobovici until I was researching another topic and discovered the documentary of the tomb of Jesus. What seems to be missing from the debate on this web site is that the osturary was owned by a known forger who was profiled on Simcha's own show. What I viewed as alternative views of historical thinking - thinking outside the box - now comes into question. While Jesus was buried in Jerusalem, his family would not have had a burial tomb there as others have stated. I may continue to watch "The Naked Archaeologist," but with much more skepticism and critical analysis. • • • • • • • "Jesus Tomb" controversyThe one fact that strikes me as proof that the tomb is not Jesus' is its location. Yes Jesus died too far from his hometown to take him back there for burial so he would have been buried in Jerusalem, but his family did not as far as anyone knows. The rest of his family would have been buried back in their hometown of Nazareth. There is no reason to believe his family would have moved to Jerusalem before or after his death or have their remains taken there for burial. Remember most people didn't travel very far from home and would not moved from their hometown unless some disaster destroyed the town. • • • • • • • Joseph vs JosesIt is noted that "The View from Jerusalem" is currently addressing the issue of "Joseph" and "Joses". In the posting of Feb 10 they state Matthew 13:55 uses "Joseph" in cotrast to "Joses" in Mark. The King Jame's versions, at least, use "Joses" in Mark and Matthew. • • • • • • • "Jesus Tomb" controversyThis controversy certainly has raised cries of "too much light" from those who are threated personally by the resurrected, living Savior, Jesus Christ! Ironic, isn't it, that what they claim as "light" (or enlightenment) is still the deepest darkness. By the way, who has an authentic sample of Jesus of Nazareth's DNA? Come now! Speak up! • • • • • • • Jesus TombI agree fully with the initial statement made by Prof. André Lemaire. I can only encourage BAR to stop arguing for that speculative nonsense. • • • • • • • Please readMr. Jacobovici, You must not let all these 'statements,comments' come to interfere with your most clear, and intelligent and , well quiet simply, commonsense, analytical view points. You have helped the 'average' person understanding but not in a bias way. I am no theologian, but you step through the whole processes of presenting identifying possibilities of ancient histories which may not be the norm, but that is why everyone is so 'miffed'. You are simply brilliant and I shall continue to follow you because I learn so very much and I respect you respectful and insightful and most important brilliant interpretation of ancient history. It has been an honor to comment on your behalf and to be able to submit this to you. I wish I could accompany you on your expeditions because they are truly amazing. Thank you for helping me learn and teaching me the hisotry that is out side the box! Respectfully and best regards Brenda Campbell • • • • • • • Tomb of Jesus and FamilyI am no scientist or archaeologist or scholar, however, it would seem reasonable to get and compare DNA from each and every tomb and go from there. IF already done let us have the results. • • • • • • • Ge'ez LamedT.Nelson, you may find a Ge'ez lamed that is replica of the tomb symbol; http://www.intelligirldesign.com/paper_gabriella.pdf on Page 5. Formal Ge'ez lettering does not "slant". The angle has a nub at the top and the sides have a slight curvilinear shape. The circle (vav) is perfect so the curvilinear shape with nub is intended as well. It is shaped like a wishbone which is also a symbol in cabalism. Maybe they have the same root; Lamed Vavnic? • • • • • • • Ge'ezTo comment on the above post about Ge'ez, I would note Lambdin's text, really one of the best in the field. The character for "l" in Ge'ez does not look like the upward pointing triangle with a circle found in the center. Instead, it has a left lean, with a projection on top. • • • • • • • Lost Tomb of Jesus filmFor those who didn't have a chance to see the film, you will not be able to see it on Discovery because they chickened out. You can order it from Amazon and make up your own mind. • • • • • • • BackpedalingIt is interesting that with all the scholars in the world pouring over every frame of Simcha's film, Simcha has stood by his investigation. In contrast, the statement put out by Meyers and Magness has already been edited and the negative references to Gat's widow removed. Now, with Prof. Camil Fuchs' strongly worded statement "The Statistics Are Not 'Nil'" will Meyers and Magness revise their statement once again? I thank BAR for this website because I can now check in to see which statement Meyers and Magness retract on any given week. • • • • • • • Yose/Yoseyto Serge Cazelais. Qoute: "it might be possible that the Talpiot Tomb was from this period", meaning "early Second Century". Well - no. All the archaeologists aprove and agree on the date of the Talpiot Tomb, that is: Second Temple Era, pre 70'. Qoute:"would it be possible that the name Yoseh...(such as what was found in Talpiot) should be read as Yoseha and not Yose". Answer: totally NOT. No way it is Yoseha. It could very well be Yosey, if we follow Kaufmann Mishna Manuscript. At most, the form Yose is earlier than the form Yosey. • • • • • • • FeldmanPosted on behalf of Serge Cazelais: It is possible that Yose was rare in Second Temple period but what about Yose the Galilean (trans. Yosey HaGelyly) ? He was well known among tannaim in the Mishna and lived around 132-35. So, in early Second Century, the name Yosey was probably common and it might be possible that the Talpiot Tomb was from this period. Also, would it be possible that the name Yoseh (with a final letter “He” such as what was found in Talpiot) should be read as Yoseha and not Yose ? Serge Cazelais Research Fellow Groupe de recherche sur le christianisme ancien Universite Laval, Quebec City • • • • • • • To all who fear the truth:If the world could keep fear at bay and correct its view of Jesus, while keeping the teachings that came directly from him, and give credibility to the remnants of true history that survived the inquisition (Jesus and Mary Magdelene were married), its likely the massive doses of sexual dysfunctions this world is experiencing would be greatly diminished. It matters HOW we see and experience GOD. You who fear will deny that the celibate view of Jesus and sexual dysfunction are connected. The billions of dollars in legal fees for sexual crimes the Roman Catholic Church has paid to sexual victims in their care is today’s concrete evidence, irrefutable evidence, undeniable evidence that the Church has “JESUS” WRONG. Believe what your eyes see and your ears hear. Don’t allow the history, which wealth and power has written, blind you and make you deaf and dumb. The energy output is worth it. Please press on Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor. • • • • • • • How do you compromise your expressed views to please the one who signs your paycheck?Those scholars, who fear for their salary (from institutions who DEMAND our view of Jesus remain fundamentally traditional or your out-the-door), their power, their prestige, and their self esteem, these are the ones accusing Simcha Jacobovici of seeking wealth and fame for himself with the documentation of his discoveries. Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor are among the bravest souls alive in humanity today. To date, those who run this world have made this world a dangerous place to seek TRUTH. And that’s all Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor want – enough credibility to allow permission and funds to do more research, research to uncover TRUTH. Press on dear ones. • • • • • • • To the sentient observer, Paul does reveal untold truth“If Paul could have given Jesus as an example for the celibate life-style, he surely would have. But in the end, the only example Paul had to share was himself.” Those compromises made around 325 AD (or in today’s language, CE) in Constantinople to help insure the “establishment” of that day could accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, too, couldn’t erase (along with all the other information deemed unacceptable) this fact about Paul without erasing what the establishment found favorable about Paul. PAUL NEVER MET JESUS! Here lies an ominous fact! And this fact places paramount doubt on the accuracy of the information about Jesus from any institution that portrays Paul as their primary witness to the life of Jesus. And who could ever deny that ending the crucifixion of Christians wasn’t worth compromising the facts. But it is past time to move on to the whole TRUTH, the TRUTH those who had to make the original compromises would surely have hoped and prayed would evolve over time. Please press on Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor • • • • • • • Jesus' Family TombI fully endorse what Rev. Cynthia A. Frado had to say. If believers of any faith seek to reject and even destroy physical evidence, facts, and even people that cast doubt on their beliefs, then they are living representatives of The Inquisition. • • • • • • • Yose - YoseyTO all: the form YOSE was extremely rare in secomd temple era. That is: about 100 years prior to Yose Hagelilee. The form Yosey was just as rare. We have one Hebrew Yose in Hebrew NT, and one Greek Yose in Greek NT. In both cases it's Jesus' brother. We also have only ONE inscribed Hebrew Yose on ossuary - THE ONE FROM Talpiot Tomb. According to Kaufmann Mishna Manuscript, 13th Century, the vowel under the ס (Samekh) of יוסה AND יוסי is Tseire, pronounced EI, like "day". indeed, in early Rabbinic Literature the forms יוסי and יוסה were more common, while in the late Rabbinic Literature the form יוסי is by all means prevaling. • • • • • • • Tomb SymbolThe symbol on the outer tomb looks like a proto-Amharic (Ge'ez) Lamed. Cabalist tradition says there are 36 rightous men and Lamed represents the number 36. Could the symbol mean that this is the tomb of a Lamed-Vavnic? • • • • • • • Rich or PoorFor those who believe that the NT shows that Jesus was a poor man: this statement by Jesus is quoted by John 12:8 "For you will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me!". That would seem to indicate (for those who take the Bible literally) that Jesus did not regard himself as one of 'The poor'. I have not seen anywhere any informed commentary on exactly how 'rich' a family would have needed to be to afford a small rock-cut tomb in that period. I'd love to know • • • • • • • Simcha's documentaryI thought some of you might be interested to know that I took the trouble to write to the Discovery channel and asked only when/if they would show Simcha's documentary again since it seems many here never got the chance to see it the first and only time. I suppose I shouldn't criticize them too much because the Beeb (supposedly free from political influence) never did show it! However this is the very disappointing response I got: "Dear Viewer: Thank you for contacting Discovery's Viewer Relations. We value your feedback, but are unable to answer every inquiry with a personal response." What a cop-out! You can contact them yourself at: http://extweb.discovery.com/ViewerRelations and fill out the information by choosing : Question regarding: Network/Program Related Network: (Select a Network) Program: Other Information Needed: EXPLORE Our webform will then route your e-mail to the appropriate Discovery Viewer Relations group for response. • • • • • • • Buried with the Rich?James Tabor wrote: "Everyone has assumed Jesus is placed in Joseph’s own tomb because of two words added by Matthew in his editing of Mark, namely “he laid it in his own new tomb” (Matthew 27:60). Luke does not have this. And Mark and John are crystal clear as to why this tomb was chosen. This interpolation by Matthew is clearly added for theological reasons, to claim that Jesus’ burial fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 53:9, that the grave of Yahweh’s “Servant” would be “with a rich man.” It has absolutely nothing to do with the historical Jesus. "http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/category/talpiot-jesus-family-tomb/page/2/ Actually, Isaiah 53:9 has: "He was assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death." There is no mention here of a rich MAN, as in Mat.27.57. The editors of the other gospels realised the stupidity of Matthew's editor having a rich man laboriously chiselling out his own tomb (Mat.27.60). In effect, all the gospel editors were guilty of using the idea from Isaiah of the prophet being buried with the rich, simply because they had him buried in a rock cut tomb which only rich types would be buried in. • • • • • • • What about Yose the Galilean ?It is possible that “Yoseh” was rare in Second Temple period but what about Yose the Galilean (trans. Yosey HaGalyly) ? He is a well known tannaim in the Mishna and lived around 132-35. So, in early Second Century, the name “Yose” was probably common and it might be possible that the Talpiot Tomb was from this period. Also, would it be possible that the name “Yoseh” (with a final “He” such as what was found in Talpiot) should be read as “Yoseha” and not “Yose” ? Serge Cazelais Research Fellow Groupe de recherche sur le christianisme ancien Université Laval • • • • • • • posting commentsAs can be seen from Serge Cazelais' comment, our system handles text only (no foreign letters, diacriticals, etc.). Mr. Cazelais, please send your note again but use transliterated letters only. Steven Feldman BAR • • • • • • • What about יוסי הגלילי ?It is possible that יוסה was rare in Second Temple period but what about יוסי הגלילי ? Yose the Galilean is a well known tannaim in the Mishna and lived around 132-35. So, in early Second Century, the name «Yose» was probably common and it might be possible that the Talpiot Tomb was from this period. Also, would it be possible that the name יוסה should be read as «Yosea» and not «Yose» ? Serge Cazelais Research Fellow Groupe de recherche sur le christianisme ancien Université Laval • • • • • • • Jesus Family TombWe, who seek to embrace higher truths that are meant to elevate our humanity, owe nothing less than respect and gratitude to Mr. Jacobovici and those associated with this discovery. I sense fear and trembling among people of faith who fear that certain facts might somehow sabotage what they have come to believe as true. There are as many interpretations of the Resurrection as there are stars in the universe, yet nothing can diminish the revolutionary power of Jesus' life, ministry and salvific message. Would this be somehow sullied or changed if he had been married, or if his mortal bones had remained earthbound? I think not. I would challenge that a faith based-upon such specific requirements is one that is painfully limited. This discovery warrants our openmindedness, our multi-disciplinary scientific resources, and our wonder and awe at the incredible possibilities that this presents. For once we have an opportunity that might lead us to discover the real Jesus, which in my opinion, creates more profound possibilities for faith, rather than diminishes them. Bring it on! Challenge, question, examine, test away...but do not trash, demean, or destroy those who have brought this discovery to light. We should be breaking bread with them and asking how we can be of assistance in furthering this investigation. I don't understand how tossing insults and blatant lies at someone because they have shaken/challenged your belief system could be Christian, at all. It seems to me that the search for truth transcends such pettiness...or, at least, it should. • • • • • • • Jesus TombAs an ordinary people without theological and archeological basics I just want to say, that there is nothing to shake faith in believing Christ. As in my country, although many Christians are under pressure and experiencing persecutions, they have met the Rising Jesus personally! • • • • • • • Jesus Family TombThank you for the opportunity to share my views on this subject. I watched the Discovery Channel's program the one time it was shown and also read the book The Jesus Family Tomb by the same people. They convinced me that there is a very high probability that this is the tomb of Jesus and some of his family. I think that fraud can be ruled out here, given the circumstances of the tomb's discovery and excavation. Therefore one must conclude that this Jesus is a real “historical Jesus” and those other remains are also real historical people. We all have read about the Jesus of the Bible who performed miracles, walked on water, rose from the dead, etc. Maybe they are two separate people and maybe not. Can Christians just accept that the Tolpiot Jesus was a real historical person and that their concept is a magical one who might also be a historical Jesus? I think they can, just like they are today accepting the Dead Sea scrolls and Nag Hammadi discoveries. At the end of documentary Larry King [it was actually Ted Koppel--Ed.] hosted a discussion among the producers and some professors of theology I think. I was shocked to hear one of them refer to this film as “archeo-pornography”! The part that he was objecting to was where actors with brown hair, skin and eyes depicted what Jesus and Mary Magdelan would look like if they were a loving married couple with their child in first century Palestine. To use the term “pornography” for this was astonishing to me and totally discredited him as a serious person in my eyes. To me what is pornography is labeling Mary Magdelan a prostitute for over a millennium without any evidence and the scandal of priests and ministers sexually abusing children, along with the church's attempt at cover-up. While we are at it let us look at their condemnation of birth control, masturbation, and their centuries of abusing gays and lesbians and Jews, often to the point of death. I was raised a Christian and although an atheist now, I still try to live my life by the principles Jesus taught. It is just fine with me if he had a wife and child that he loved, and totally consistent with everything he tried to teach us. I have enjoyed reading Biblical Archeology Review for many years now and again thank you for providing a opportunity to express my opinion. Also I assure you, you will never have to cancel my subscription. • • • • • • • proposed new excavationI'm thrilled to see that the tomb may be opened again for scientific excavation. But I'm horrified to read (Dr Charlesworth who was interviewed for Jerusalem Post said) "What is exciting for me is that we have Jews, Roman Catholics and Protestants working on this together, and their faiths are not a factor...". I am unwilling to say that an excavation conducted by academics who teach in religious institutions will necessarily introduce bias, but don't we need some scientists who have no religious faith to have some equal role in the excavation? Doesn't posterity deserve that? I think there's been too much damage to the evidence so far, and to have standards less than rigorous apply now would be catastrophic. • • • • • • • Family Tomb and ossuary of Y'shuaAll of the Gospels clearly state (to those of us who believe the writings)that the body of Y'shua was placed in a newly-hewn rock tomb, owned by a wealthy disciple-- Joseph of Arimathea (Matt.27:57-60; Mark 15:43-46; Luke 23:50-53; and John 19:38-42). Perhaps it is possible that this tomb in question (following the resurrection) became the family tomb... But if an ossuary reading: "Y'shua bar Y'hosef" was ever carved for him---the only tangible things to have been buried within it were his burial cloths(since Y'shua left behind nothing else!) Matt. 28:5-6; Mark 16:4-6; Luke 24:2-3; John 20:1-7. Whether this tomb(later) became his family's tomb- or the place of his ossuary (if it exists)still would not prove enough to those people who do not believe-in or listen-to the simple Truths within the Word! What exactly are they trying to find of The One Who has Risen!? If only they would look for him out of Love for him, then they will find him. John 20: 13, 26-29. Seek Him while he may be found. The Word says where to look. Thank You. • • • • • • • "Jesus Tomb"Having been an atheist at one period in my life I do understand trying to fulfill ones beliefs. The belief of finding Jesus' bones in a tomb is totally against all logical thought. He is and always will be "More Than A Carpenter". Check it out. • • • • • • • The "Jesus Family Toomb"This kind of anti-Biblical foolishness does nothing but damage to the name BIBLICAL Archaeology Society. Let's drop it. • • • • • • • Some Thoughts on Second Temple Views on the AfterlifeTo Geoff Hudson and Eldad Keynan: One way to resolve the question you raise and discuss concerning the expectations of the Sadducean High Priesthood regarding the afterlife and resurrection at the turn of the era would be to separate the two concepts. Thus it is quite possible that the Sadducees believed in an afterlife of the soul without having a formal belief in resurrection re-uniting body and soul. In that case it would be just as important, and maybe even more important, to them than to the Pharisees, to have elegant and status-appropriate tombs that would provide for the secure repose of their remains. Like their ancestors in First-Temple Judaic religion--and perhaps even going back to patriarchal times-- they seem to have believed in the very likely survival of the soul after death. This survival seems to have been greatly facilitated, in their minds, by the preservation of one's bodily remains, especially the bones, in a secure tomb. Egyptian-style mummification was not required, though it probably wouldn't hurt the process, as in the return of the patriarch Joseph's body to Canaan for burial. Indeed, one of the most dire threats made against the last of the kings of Judah by the prophet Jeremiah was that their bones would be scattered from their tombs by the invading Babylonians. The present concern by Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel for the proper re-burial of dis-interred human, especially Jewish, remains would appear to be a modern survival of this ancient belief system. As for the Talpiot tomb--I'm not sure we'll ever be able to resolve that to everyone's satisfaction. The occurrence of some of the key New Testament names together in the same tomb is certainly cause for speculation, though if one considers the Gospels, Acts and the Pauline Letters to contain all the key facts about Jesus and his disciples and relatives, such a tomb seems anomalous. I do believe that there was more of a factional split between the Nazorean community led by James, the "brother of Jesus" and the Apostolic Church that developed around Peter and Paul than the New Testament acknowledges. In some ways it was analogous to the later split in the followers of Mohammed between the Shia, who believed the Caliph (Successor) needed to be a blood-relative of the Founder, and the Sunnis, who believed that knowledge of his teachings and ability in carrying them out was what mattered in a Caliph. For various reasons, the Apostolics and the Sunni's generally won in their respective religions. There's even some reason to suspect that "The Family" may have set-up Paul to be arrested on the Temple grounds while fulfilling his Nazirite vow. His rant in Galatians against the followers of James suggests that Yeshuan love was sometimes in short supply in their relationship. Could there have been other "Family" secrets? Perhaps. In the Harry Potter book "Goblet of Fire," the elf Winky observes that "families has their secrets." Whether a secret interment in a suburban family tomb would have caught the attention of the Jerusalem religious authorities is hard to guage at this distance in time. Once the process was complete and the tomb was sealed without ceremony, I doubt that it would have been disturbed by the authorities except on the most obvious suspicions. The tomb is not externally identified and it may have been registered under the name of a follower not known to the authorities. But all of this can only be speculation. • • • • • • • Jesus' tombOh dear! Yet again we have archaeologists trying to develop their findings into theories that support their own views - or dare I say it biases. When Schliemann tried to force the information from Homer's Iliad onto his discoveries at Hisarlik he demonstrated the classic weakness of all of that profession - namely to try to get the "finds" fit the book or the theory. (for those of you who are interested read Eman Wilkins note on the web when you put "Where was Troy?" into your search engine. He believes Troy was in England - and with very good evidence to support it!) Finkelstein's comments on the invalidity of the first five books of the Bible also confuse the Jew with the need to re-think their origins. But despite all this if you truly believe then it is all an interesting and fascinating irrelevance. Please keep digging, keep finding more aretifacts, and then keep those theories coming - and for goodness sake make sure BAR gets to publish them early on. • • • • • • • Jesus OssuaryAfter reading all the comments, I read back through to see who has the most opinions. USA where free speech is one of our libertys. The quiet Man from Singapore, Riechard Ang. Has so quielty made his opionion known. Can we all appreciate he has spoken about religion at all. His libitery of a Bible and the word of God has been very brief. Our opionions will not change on this subject. Please give this man your hounor by reading his thought again. Please "Praise God" that today in Signapore a man can speak about Jesus openly without fear of his life. You can not find God's miracles without looking for His miracles. • • • • • • • Jesus TombI have read all the opinions on this subject. Opinions will not change. After reading them all I scrolled back through to see which country was the most opininated. Americans have grown up with the liberty to speak. There is one of the comments I read that was so wonderful that I didn't want any of you to miss. Riechard Ang, Singapore, wrote his opinion without fear. We cannot see God's miracles unless we look for God's miracles. His parents and/or his grandparents would have been killed for even saying the name Jesus. If you are inclined, please say, "Praise God" the word of God is still alive and spreading. No one can be right or wrong about Jesus tomb and does it really matter? But we surley can agree this man needs to be nodded to as an honour for learning that there was a Jesus and not have to live in fear of the concequences. • • • • • • • A Time for TruthI believe Jesus is such a highly evolved soul that he did not have to be born of this earth, as we do. But he chose to come to earth, knowing the hardships and pain he would have to endure, to help to teach us that LOVE is the only real power. He is the Son of God, just as we are all Children of God. I believe he is sadly disappointed to see how his teachings are wrongly interrpreted. The 'authors' of the NT, mere mortals with their own agenda, got to pick and chose what they would allow to be included or discarded. What a horror to be taught that Mary Magdelene was a prostitute, when she was perhaps the person Jesus loved most on earth. How many other things have the Church misinterrpreted? Was this religion built on a rocky foundation of lies? Oh what a web we weave! • • • • • • • TombsMr. Jacobovici: I have great curiosity in this subject but no stake in the outcome. The 'scientific' status-quo down the ages has displayed a degree of bias and chest-beating that is remarkable in it's close-mindedness and sometimes viciousness (from the very people who should not!). You have brought this very important matter (of the tomb) into the public consciousness when the IAA has done their best to suppress it. I thank you. You have done open-minded citizens of the world a great favor. I ask you now to step aside from defending yourself. Not that the emotional attacks aimed at you aren't wrong and cruel, but that regular folks can see through the ad-hominem stuff. Your anger is very understandable but not helping further the issue itself, in which we all share curiosity (or should!). It's not worth your attention! Please continue to inform the public: Like some others, I want to know what happened to the remains and if more tests could be done. Is it true there are no photos/drawings from Gat's original notes? What about the inscriptions? I've not seen addressed whether the inscriptions themselves could be faked (aside from the patina issue). Isn't that what the ongoing trial is about (the James ossuary)? Can you overcome the political lobby which is influencing the IAA and get them to fess up to their responsibility to protect the tomb/remains? • • • • • • • Mariamne OssuaryThe Chi/Rho anagram is seen superimposed on the 6-spoke wagonwheel as a symbol of earliest christianity. But the wagonwheel was really a 6-petal rose and was the symbol of Vered HaGalil. Another place to see this symbol is on the Mariamne Ossuary. • • • • • • • Simcha Jacobovicihaving now read the reply of Simcha Jacobovici to the criticisms of Magness and Meyers, together with the conference materials published here in BAR I am persuaded that the approach of Magness and Meyers leaves much to be desired from so-called academics and scholars. Indeed their personal attack approach is that of a freshman in High School who has yet to learn how to argue his or her points. I come to this conclusion from my experience as a retired judge who has heard all sorts of argument from all sorts of "scholars". • • • • • • • 'Sadducees'Eldad, Sadducees and Pharisees receive no mention in either the DSS or Philo. Their mention in the writings attributed to Josephus looks suspiciously like later interpolations. So may be it wasn't that Jews simply decided to live according to the rules of the Pharisees, but that the Pharisees were, in effect, instituted by the Romans and did, along with their followers, more or less what the Romans permitted. Given the choice, some priests remaining after the destruction of the temple would no doubt have re-built it and carried-on with their animal sacrifices for sins, according to the laws of Moses. But of course there was no choice. The so-called Sadducees were more than likely the high priests in favour of the temple cult, and messianic along with most other priests, in opposition to Roman rule, as per the DSS. Thus most of the high priests and their priest supporters were wiped-out, never to rise again. This is my view. Similarly, I see the Pharisees and Sadducees of the New Testament as later substitutes for priests and high prists in opposition to the prophet. • • • • • • • after life?to Geoff Hudson: nothing in your comment is unlikely. The "passed over" issue: as a participant of the symposium, I had that sense a few times during the discussions. And I did not think it was a coincidence. Time and hopefully excavations will assist us with knowing more. you said: "Would this blow out of the water for ever the idea that high priestly Sadducees didn't believe in resurrection? Things could then get uncomfortable for some Jews and Christians alike". Well, dear friend, Judaism made it's decision and it was really decisive: a Jewish life according to the pharisees ways, at least ever since the Temple destruction. So what ever the Sadducees believed or did not will not be uncomfortable for any Jew, as it wasn't for about 2000 years. Beyond all that, we have to find a tiny little point by which to connect this tomb to the Sadducees. I'm afraid this point has not been found...yet. Though I can think of some people who will have your idea as a new pollar point for debate. As long as "the issue" will continue as "passed over". • • • • • • • Finding the Tomb: What if it is? What does it change?What I don't have to believe or know for sure in-order to have eternal life and Yeshua did not say you have to do or believe these in-order to have eternal life. The virgin birth. That Yeshua would die for your sins. That Yeshua would rise from the dead or that he did rise from the dead. That Yeshua was crucified. That Yeshua is sitting at the right hand of G-d. That Yeshua is G-d. You don't have to ask Yeshua into your heart as done in the sinners pray by the church etc. None of the above statements are requirements for eternal life. Anyone ever read this before? Luke 18:13 But the tax-collector, standing far off, would not even raise his eyes toward heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God! Have mercy on me, sinner that I am!’ Luke 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his home right with God rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but everyone who humbles himself will be exalted.” Men, pastors etc. have conditioned us that we should believe everything that is in the N.T. and most do not even know there are scribal additions put in by man. If I disagree with something Paul wrote, then I am in error. Paul was human and pretty much just like any pastor or teacher today. Paul is not G-d and I don not have to believe anything Paul said to have eternal life etc. Men have also conditioned us to take sides, for example: When Yeshua says keep the commandments, teachers in christianity will say, well Paul said. I could care less what Paul said, I would rather adhere to what Yeshua said verses what Paul says. Yeshua said he spoke what YHVH told him or the words Yeshua spoke were from YHVH. I trust YHVH and believe that Yeshua spoke truth. I do not have to believe in Paul or the scribal additions that have been added to the N.T. • • • • • • • Symosium on Afterlife and Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism?The supposed aim of the "privately funded" conference supported by Princeton and Duke seems to have been lost in the furore over the Talpiot tomb. One might well suspect that this was intended by Princeton, Duke and others so that they could issue their statement declaring that the Talpiot tomb could not be that of the New Testament Jesus. So the important issue of who really was buried in these ossuaries and rock-cut tombs has been passed over. It seems to me that any second temple burial practice that preserved bones is an indication that those buried so, and those that buried them, believed in resurrection - the uniting of a person's spirit or soul with the person's body at some time after death. Thus Joe Zias might like to consider that trench graves, such as those in the Qumran cemetery, were simply another way of preserving bones of those who believed in resurrection. In terms of complication of construction, trench graves, ossuaries and rock cut tombs are almost on par, and have the same purpose. And, significantly, the DSS contain a number of references to Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones. • • • • • • • Eldad's CommentWith regard to Eldad's comment, does anyone in Israel seriously want to trace the anscestral/family relationships between the individuals whose bones have been found in ossuaries? Isn't there a high probability that these bones belonged to rich types who looked to enjoying a resurrected bodily existence in the hereafter? So what happens if they were high priestly families buried in these rock-cut tombs? Would this blow out of the water for ever the idea that high priestly Sadducees didn't believe in resurrection? Things could then get uncomfortable for some Jews and Christians alike. • • • • • • • Jesus Tombto Martin Quinn: "unfortunately", and obviously with no reason, the IAA vacuumcleaned all the Talpiot Tomb ossuaries under their control. And they did a good job, I guess. Why they did it? I'm not wise enough to know. may someone help? • • • • • • • Jesus Marriage and FatherhoodIt's always quite interesting to see how those who don't believe in Jesus spend not a little time in trying to prove that he didn't exist or that he was not who he said he was. Very interesting indeed. My reason for writing, however, is to point out a very simple idea about marriage and fatherhood. When someone is about to die, their major concern is the family that is being left behind. [Great pains are taken to see that they will be cared for.]I find it so hard to understand why a Jewish father such as Jesus, just seconds before his death, would fail to ask a true and trusted friend [John] to take care of his wife and child in the same way that he asked him to take care of his own mother. Not one mention is made of his mother and child-ever. Of course, there will be many reasons for this action on Jesus' part such as "wanting to keep them a secret for safety reasons" -- but...from John? Anyway, this was just an idea that I thought I'd put out there. Thank you. • • • • • • • Fulfilling the LawAccording to the NT, J-sus was perfect in keeping the Law. As a Jew, this would entail being married and having children. Also, Paul, who was not married, refers to himself in the NT as an example of celebacy, when he could have referred to J-sus. There are too many contradictions with respect to J-sus diety and the Talpiot findings to be ignored. • • • • • • • Tomb of Jesus - DNA TestsA question to Mr Jacobovici: Sir, I bought and read your fascinating book in one sitting and was enthralled. I also bought and watched the DVD. One question (of a few) that immediately leapt to mind was surrounding the DNA tests on the biological material found in the "Mariamne" and "Jesus" ossuaries. The tests puportedly showed that "Mariamne" and "Jesus" were not related through having the same mother - fair enough!. However, did you carry out similar tests on any remains found in the "Mary" and "Jesus" ossuaries - which, it would seem to me, would be the obvious start? Also, what about tests on any samples left in the "James" and "Jesus" ossuaries to see if these could have been, biologically, brothers? Also, any in the "Jesus", "James" and "Judas" ones? It seems to me that if there were any biological remains in these as well, it would go some way to help establishing, if nothing else, whether the remains in the "Jesus" ossuary could be related to "Mary" and also whether "Jesus", "James" and "Judas" have DNA (albeit degraded)from the same female line .i.e., the "Mary"? If I missed these points or explanations in the DVD and book, I apologise - I will check again to see if these are mentioned - but if not, it would be helpful for all of us who are interested in this remarkable discovery to know whether these tests were carried out, what the results were and, if they were not carried out, why not! Many thanks • • • • • • • Would It Matter?Does anyone how there believe in a Gnostic Jesus? Jesus was a person of Love and God. The God of the Old Testament was a God of wrath. I don't believe that God believes in punishing people. Jesus died for our sins? What kind of person would do that? Then the New Testament comes along and the "authors" invent cannabilism in the form of the eucharist by symbolically eating Jesus' body and blood! I'm not Jewish nor Catholic I am a Gnostic Christian who believed Jesus lived and died and rose in SPIRIT to ascend to the heaven with GOD above the wrathful god's heaven! • • • • • • • Tomb of JESUSI Do NOT believe this is the tomb of JESUS! I believe the word of GOD-theHOLY BIBLE! JESUS was born of a virgin birth,was GOD made flesh to dwell among/teach us and become our LORD & Savior, died on a tree for our sins, rose from the grave to overcome hell-death-and the grave AND ascended into Heaven to be seated at the right hand of GOD intercedig for us! No human remains left behind and certainly NO WIFE & Childre! The Whole Church is the Spiritual Bride of CHRIST JESUS, as the Bible says NOT one human individual! • • • • • • • blind faithI agree that this subject of the tomb of Jesus is very important to us all and Simcha is a very brave man to investigate this. I have often wondered about the Secret of Fatima that the Church would not allow truthfully revealed , going as far as disobeying the request of His Holy Mother. This should be dealt with too. • • • • • • • Jesus' Family TombIn reference to the lack of historical evidence of the existence of Jesus, there is more evidence of his existence than there is of Alexander the Great. No one questions whether he existed. Josephus mentions Jesus in his writings. Letters have been found written by members of the Roman Senate about Jesus. The letters later to the Jews and Gentiles by Paul and the apostles were written during the generation when the local people would have pointed out that the facts presented about the life of Jesus were bogus. Even the Pharisees did not question the existence of Jesus as an arguement against this gospel of the Messiah. He was buried in a rich man's tomb according to scripture. Perhaps Joseph of Arimathea allowed Mary and her family to be buried there after the Resurrection. • • • • • • • Jesus Tomb controversyHaving, by this point, read all the posted scholarly arguments, I conclude that this is 'much ado about nothing.' You know the old saying, "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." It is all a matter of how you look at a thing. The biblical text says Jesus of Nazareth came from an impoverished family (not likely to have ossuary burials)...and He Himself was said to have been buried in the tomb of a wealthy non-relative--and then physically resurrected on the 3rd day. I have attended, and benefitted from, several BAS-sponsored seminars/conferences--as well as conferences by other agencies with a concern for biblical archaeology. Sometimes presenters have sincere beliefs, supported by what they consider the best evidence. Others have books to sell and axes to grind. I especially remember one scholar telling us that the "earliest" New TEstament fragment came from 125 A.D.--100 years after Jesus' death. Later....while reading numerous other books (by liberal and conservative writers), I realized that the fragment from 125 A.D. was from the Gospel of John, written 95 A.D. In other words: only 30 years after time of composition....pretty good, considering the earliest MS of the I Ching is 1200 yrs after composition, earliest Koran is 600 yrs after Mohammed's death and so on......If a document cannot be trusted when it is only 30 yrs from date of compositon--why believe the Gospel of Mary Magdalene from 400 years later --or much of anything else?? • • • • • • • Tomb of JesusI remember watching the original airing of the Tomb of Jesus and noticed many claims that were unsupported. Some of the things that I noticed were the non-scientific ways that Simcha went about entering the tomb. I'm not an archeologist, but he seemed to approach everything with a smash and grab attitude. His claim that it was the family tomb of Jesus struck me as very odd since his father was a carpenter of little means who lived in the northern part of Israel, not Jerusalem. To suggest that this was a long-time family plot would be to suggest that Jesus descended from a very wealthy family who maintained two residences--one in the holy city and one in Nazereth. Another discrepancy I saw right away was if in fact this was the family tomb, why keep it in Jerusalem if you live in the northern part of the country? This would require that your burial be delayed while your family transported your body several days journey to Jerusalem--it goes against the custom of burial within 24-48 hours. If Joseph was a wealthy man, I would expect that the family plot be maintained right in Nazareth. The next discrepancy was the biblical account of Jesus being laid to rest in the tomb of a wealthy follower. The account in the Bible says that the Pretorian guard was placed outside the tomb entrance to prevent anyone from stealing the body. The guard consisted of 10 select Roman soldiers. I think that it was highly unlikely that Jesus' disciplines tip-toed in and stole the body so that they could move it to another wealthy family plot. It doesn't make sense and seems very impossible. And lastly, Simcha's claim that Mary was the wife of Christ was based soley on his own speculation. I clearly remember him saying in his film “What If” Mary was Jesus' wife, “What If” the disciples carried away Jesus body, this is what might have happened... this is pure speculation unsupported by physical evidence just for the sake of making a movie. What I did see was the grave of a very wealthy Jerusalem citizen whose family shared common names with that of many people living in Israel at the time--including Jesus of Nazereth. • • • • • • • The Conference BackersThe conference appears to have been a jolly for folk who had already made up their minds about whether or not this was the tomb of the New Testament Jesus. They simply concluded, in effect: We told you so. Of course they could invent all sorts of other justifications for such a conference. But one should not expect any better from a conference organised and backed by the Princeton Theological Seminary - a conference described as "privately funded" on their website. http://www.ptsem.edu/NEWS/talpiottombsymposium.php • • • • • • • tombThe bible reads that a rich man bought the tomb for himself.In the Gosspel of Matthew the rich man learns of Jesus death, and he donated his tomb for Jesus of Nazereth to be put in. Why is it when these shows display a theme of biblical proposations they don't use biblical text? I think and correct me if I'm wrong here,but they use what the Apostle Paul called false in the letter to Timothy "science" of men.If at all they do report science along with scripture,they would have a point,but don't be bais to one aduience of viewers. • • • • • • • jesus tombWhen I asked a question and flipped open one of his books,Sai Baba says " Jesus is the most passionate form of God " Think deep about that. Thanks. Riechard Ang 26Jan2008 • • • • • • • Jesus TombDiscarding for a moment the chances that Jesus really recurrected, for this tomb be the one Jesus was buried there are two alternatives: (1) Jesus didn’t die in the cross. It would require for the fact of the crucifixion to be a complete myth from the beginning to the end, with no basis in reality, or that the crucified one was another man, not Jesus who was substituted at the last moment. Both theories are very unlikely provided the ulterior vitality of the Jesus’ movement and the second one, when proposed by some gnostic sects, assumed a supernatural intervention whose plausability is not higher than that of the resurrection itself. (If there was a wrong identity, do you believe that the victim would have accepted his fate in silence and that the Romans and the temple’s authorities wouldn’t have checked if he was not saying the truth? None of them had interest in executing the wrong person. Jesus preached in the temple, nobody realized the difference?) (2) Jesus died in the cross but his body was secretly moved by his disciples from the first tomb to a second place, to give the impression of a supernatural intervention. Matthew procures to refute this idea, so we may deduce that it was the common explanation outside the Jesus’ movement. If this was the case, the disciples would have made the impossible to hide the corpse, to keep it for ever in a secret place so the fake was not revealed. Can be imagined a more stupid idea that to bury him in a family tomb, together with Mary Magdalene who was a prominent member of the Jesus’ movement and, to add insult to injury, carefully labelling the ossuary? The existence of an inscription is enough to convince me that this is NOT Jesus' burial place. • • • • • • • Jesus Tomb ConstructionAs an undergraduate student in the University of Maryland and living in Turkey, I wrote a paper on Turkish Home Construction. On the Anatolian Plateau in Turkey I found whole villages of connected homes with flat roofs. In Haran, I found beehive shaped homes made of mudbrick and constructed without the use of timbers. When I read the the Gospels in the Christian Bible, I read about how a group of friends dug a hole through the roof of the place where Jesus was teaching and lowered the paralytic through the hole. That roof seems to have been a flat roofed structure. I have seen tombs from the Christian period in Antiock of Syria (Antakia, Turkey now). When I see a photograph of a tomb that appears to be an "A:" shaped framed house, I have to question whether this could possibly be from Jesus' period, much less be the tomb of Jesus. Something simply doesn't seem right about it. • • • • • • • The Conference Organisers?So who were the "conference organisers" that approached Joe Zias to ask him to participate? Dr Jim West claims he would also like the answer to that one. But ten-to-one I bet the he already knows. • • • • • • • Wrong on every accountI am commenting now on the article Wrong on Every Account by Professor Craig Evans and Steven Feldman...in the article one of the points made in regards to proving that the Talpiot tomb isn't the tomb of Jesus is, that sort of tomb would be reserved for a rich family. In Isiah 53:9, the verse says 'they made His grave with the wicked; but with the rich at His death, because He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth' while speaking of the identity of Messiah. Could that passsage signify anything? • • • • • • • Mr. GibsonMr. Gibson says "In my estimation what came out of the Symposium is that there is no evidence—historical, archaeological, epigraphic, scientific (in terms of DNA and patina studies), architectural/artistic or otherwise—to support the idea that the Talpiot tomb was the family tomb of Jesus." What about the names on the ossuaries? How can you possibly ignore them? It's as if you are closing your eyes, putting your hands over your ears and humming. • • • • • • • CommentsJames Bottomly;Until now the posts have been very polite. Please, lets not digress into name calling as happens on every other forum. Thanks • • • • • • • New discoveries from the BibleI have just discovered the Ark of the Covenant in my back garden in Derbyshire, England. I am fearless of the consequences and demand a dedicated TV crew come and make a documentary at my location immediately. I confirm that I am entirely ignorant of over a thousand years of biblical scholarship, not to mention the numerous rival theories of endless schismatics, denunciations of heresy, etc, etc. I hereby cheerfully and of sound mind set off into this minefield determined to prove a simple-minded interpretation of a key battleground of religious arcana on the slenderest of evidence. I also vouchsage and affirm that in my child-like innocence I am entirely clueless of the effect the religious sledgehammer of this discovery will have on the brainless recipients of it around the world, indoctrinated in their local religious flavours. May the Good Lord have mercy on my deluded quasi-archeaological soul! • • • • • • • tombThe power of the media is and disappointing and frightning. It is encouraging that many of the scholars who dispute the claim are Israeli. • • • • • • • The Talpiot tombWhile I am no expert, and am in no way any kind of trained theologian, or archaeologist, maybe it is better because all I have to go on for an opinion is what I know from reading various versions of Jesus' life. if we look at Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John's account of his life there is no mention anywhere of Jesus being a family man. I have seen no where that states he was married, or that he had children. As an 'adolescent' ( very new to the study of) in the study of biblical archaeology, shouldn't the text or texts that have been found be used to establish if this even possible. By all accounts there is nothing mentioned about him being married, or bearing children. I would think that as zealous as Paul was, and taking into account the amount of time he spent writing on the subject, that if Jesus had been married and fathered children, Paul would have been able to use his example in any of his writings to the churches he ministered to. • • • • • • • Simcha's lack of integrityI attended the Talpiot Tomb conference as a non-scholar. Simcha's post-conference claim to vindication is not in accord with the content of the super-majority of the presentations or the obvious consensus of those in attendance, as can be observed from the post-conference statements by scholars (except the ever-persistent James Tabor). As example of his contribution to the debate, at one point Simcha was shouting at Amos Kloner, the district archaeologist when the Talpiot Tomb was discovered, inferring Kloner was not telling the truth about the "missing" 10th ossuary, which Simcha claims was the ossuary of James, brother of Jesus. Kloner, who was at the tomb at the time of its exploration, as well as Shimon Gibson, said the 10th ossuary was plain and broken, meaning it could not possibly be the James ossuary. Simcha could only shout, "show me the ossuary." He was trying to make something of the inability to now identify the plain, broken ossuary after years of inhospitable storage. In my opinion, Simcha lacks credibility and is trying to dupe the world into believing that scholar's at wortst have been engaged in conspiracies or at least have been guilty of gross ignorance or neglect. If he had been on the scene in the 1970's and 80's, no doubt he would have been in the middle of the the Dead Sea Scrolls conspiracy myths. Simcha is an entertainer trying to misrepresent himself by leading the world into believing he is more than a film maker; he is more accurately characterized as someone who seeks Hollywood-type fame and wealth, and has a keen sense for drama and less concern for the dullness of well-supported facts and scholarly analysis. • • • • • • • Jesus TombAfter seeing the documentary, I thought it was very likely that the tomb that was found WAS the Jesus family tomb. I also thought that the documentary was presented in the appropriate way. Conclusions were made, but other conclusions were mentioned as well. I was distressed over the absolute disregard that the IAA seemed to have for the discoveries that were made. I couldn't believe the way Jacobovici and his crew were forced to leave the area. It was like the FBI coming in to "secure the area", just so they could cover something up. I'm pleased that Simcha Jacobovici has remained strong and positive in the face of overwhelming adversity. Thank you Simcha! • • • • • • • Tomb of Jesus seminarAny objective and unemotional discussion of the possible archeological discovery of the tomb of Jesus and/or members of his family is so fraught with international political and religious biases and pitfalls as to be almost impossible. I have found some of the evidence possibly persuasive, at least to the point of continued investigation of all possible factors and scientific approaches that might bring some closure or provide weight of evidence in one direction or another. But any objective scholar (if such is possible in this context) trying to advance evidence that might support the claim that the tomb is indeed connected historically to the New Testament family of Joseph or Jesus runs the risk of short-term academic suicide. • • • • • • • Jesus Family Tomb VindicationI find it fascinating that rather than looking further into the claims of those who brought this tomb to light. Is it not time now to stop the bickering and start looking into the archaeological possibilities? From the start there have been so many SO intent on saying, "NO! It can't possibly be!" That it seems to me from the outside looking in that there have only been the most rudimentary studies done. If this even has the slightest possibility of proving the existence of one of the most influential men in history, wouldn't it be of utmost importance to do it right? Sitting around and argueing philosophy can be done after the fact - let's see NOW about scientifically proving that this IS what it has the potential to be....imagine that. Then look to the philosophy of it all - wouldn't it be Divine indeed if Jesus had a human side after all? He certainly did in the Bible. This find would be proof of that. Wouldn't THAT be something? Proof of something in the Bible found by archaeological evidence studied and catalogued by Archaeologists! Well, perhaps when they've finished bickering. • • • • • • • Jesus TombI find it interesting that we are entering into a new era of beliefs with the discovery of the Jesus Tomb and The Gospel of Judas. Though the DaVinci Code is composed of much fiction, maybe it has a lot more fact than we all know.I think it is time we wake up to the fact that things are not always as history writes them. Kudos to Simcha and Mrs Gat for standing up for the truth and not backing down. • • • • • • • Jesus TombThe purveyors of this nonsense have engegd in the worse form of journalistic schlock, even by the low standards of TV. BAS' credibility has plunged in my estimation by becoming a part of this pandering to the public's desire for Biblical "discoveries." What next? The discovery of the True Cross and the Holy Grail, all in one cave? • • • • • • • jesus tombThese guys are going to extra legnths to discredit this, although Simcha is squarrely, ive seen his shows, and he tends to be trying to discredit christianity and to prove everything dealing with judeaism to be authentic, I think that he hit the mother load this time, gentlemen and gentelladies, this is in my viewis the tomb of the man jesus. • • • • • • • tombI enjoy your emailed newsletters. I always find something of interest. This topic and all the various viewpoints that go with it, will be interesting. But consider this: if, in 1985, after the Challenger explosion, a few people had started preaching to the world that those astronauts had not died, but risen to life and been seen by them in physical form on earth? That is, seen physicaaly before being taken up to a special place next to God. Suppose that by 20055 there were churches all over the US, filled with people praying to, and glorifying, the various astronauts? Surely, the families and friends of these worshippers would be demonstrating proof of the astronauts' demise-- via film footage, scientific testimony, etc. This is the situation which faced Israel after the crucifixion of Christ. Twenty years later there were "churches" around the Mediterranean; 80 years later, a Roman official wrote his superiors about people who gathered weekly "to worship Christ as to a god." THAT was the generation that should have produced the body and pointed to the tomb--if there was one--in order to redeem their deluded kinsmen and countrymen. But they did not do any such thing. Why? What does that mean? • • • • • • • VindicationCurrent Biblical archeology and Current Biblical theology will not allow a vindication for either side. Its a wash. • • • • • • • Jesus TombInvestigate as much as you like. There will never be any proof found that this is the tomb of Jesus, simply because He didn't rose from the dead, body & all. Everything else is pure conjecture with no true physical evidence. • • • • • • • Closed or Open Minds?While an interpretation of an archaeological find that challenges cherished viewpoints should be expected to be controversial, the fact that there are conflicting interpretations should not be surprising or controversial at all. In this case the majority viewpoint of scholars happens not to help those who are predisposed to a minimalist viewpoint with regard to the death of Jesus of Nazareth. If they wish to formulate an airtight proof that Jesus died with no supernatural resurrection, this particular find seems rather flimsy evidence. True believers (including St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15) have for years pointed out that their entire faith stands or falls on the notion of the resurrection. All that is needed to topple this system of belief is to find the body of Jesus. That this tomb might not be the one must be extremely frustrating for those dedicated to the demise of orthodox Christianity. • • • • • • • Talpiot tombI am an Italian screenwriter and I have read hundreds of books about Jesus and the Bible. I am no scholar at all and I grew up in a Christian environment. I believe my opinion is unbiast though unprofessional. The feeling I get is that there is a huge prconception about admitting that the Talpiot tomb might be Jesus' burial place. The main arguments against the acceptance are based on New Testament scriptures and concepts, as though they were historical documents. Which you all know, better than me, that is not. • • • • • • • Ms. Burns' comment on Simcha and the "Tomb of Jesus"I am not quite sure I understand Ms. Burns statement. Is she saying that she and other "Christians" do not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth? If that is in fact the case, she cannot be a Christian, since that is the underlying belief of all Cristian faiths. Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but Simcah Jacabovich is NOT a trained archaeologist, he is a cinematographer. There is a BIG difference in the two. • • • • • • • JESUS TOMBI am very saddened to find that that James Tabor would stoop so low and find the Jesus Tomb idea even the least plausible. All I can add is get out your Greek New Testament and READ! • • • • • • • The "Jesus Tomb" ControversyThe greatest significance here is what was able to be brought together on this topic and the fact that BAS could bring it to us. As laymen and laywomen,we are indeed fortunate to have these resources. Rarely does this sort of thing happen where academia of any sort is made so available to us commoners. • • • • • • • jesus TombMr Joccobovici is a B S artist interestewd in making money and could care less about the life of Jesus and our Christian faith. Does he believe Jesus rose form the dead?? What evidence does he have that Jesus was married?? None Where does it say he was married?? Give me a quote that specifically says Jesus was married, when and where. I have heard it said, reliably, that Mr Jacobovici is a direct decendant of King David and wears a little cap like Solomon. !! Do you think that's true?? Bob Murphy. Esq. • • • • • • • Jesus tombJesus tomb is where the sacred church now lies over it and is visited by millions of faithful; not those who want to get some publicity 2000 years after Jesus burial. The word of those folks about 1700 years ago is better than publicity investigators and guys that like to sell movies and make money. R. Murphy, a long time subsciber to BAS, an excellent magazine. • • • • • • • "Tomb" of JesusIf this is the tomb of Jesus, how could the church have grown in 1st Century Jerusalem? All the enemies of Christ would have had to do is to take people to the tomb and say, "He did not rise from the dead like those guys told you. He's right here. See for yourself." Who would believe then? I am afraid that all those who would love this to be the tomb of Jesus will be disappointed. As the angel said "Why do you seek the living among the dead?" • • • • • • • DNA TestsIs it possible to conduct meaningful DNA tests on bones taken from ossuaries? Is it possible to trace family relationships in such tests? Fairly obviously bones from ossuaries found in rock-cut tombs belonged to aristocratic wealthy types, possibly high priestly families. Thus could DNA research tell us something about wealthy high priestly families such as how they intermarried or were related? Given this preservation of bones, it is difficult for me to think that the owners did not believe in bodily resurrection, seemingly in contradiction to what we read about aristocratic 'Sadducees' in the writings attributed to Josephus. If high priests daughters married high priests and their bones and their descendents bones found in ossuaries from rock-cut tombs were proven to be related, then one surely has a good indication of a high priestly belief in resurrection, regardless of what one reads in the writings attributed to Josephus. • • • • • • • Statistical probablilty600:1??? It's been said that there are three kinds of lies: 1. Plain old lies; 2. Whoppers; 3. Statistics • • • • • • • jesus' tombSeeing as there's no proof that anyone named Jesus Christ ever existed in human history, it seems idiotic to assume it's possible to find his tomb. But my own religion is based solely on faith, too. I can't seem to locate the tomb of the purple, Rolls-Royce-pooping elephant in whom I place my faith. • • • • • • • TalpiotBe sure not to miss Joe Zias' response to the Talpiot Conference. http://www.joezias.com/talpiot.htm • • • • • • • Don't confuse people with the facts if their mind is made upIn spite of the fact that all the archeologists and epigraphers who presented papers reject the claim that this is the tomb of Jesus Christ, or find it highly unlikely, there are many people who will believe this is the tomb of Jesus anyway. People will believe what they want, in spite of the facts. Some of the comments here illustrate that. We should seek truth and if the facts are 'hurtful', deal with it. • • • • • • • SimchaArcheology is good, so long that it is not manipulated. Please read Galatians chapter 1. Jesus is forgiving but you must believe He is the Son of God. • • • • • • • JesusWhy do I keep hearing about the name Jesus being inscribed in this tomb. The name Jesus did dot exist until the canonical Gospels were translated into Greek. His name was Yeshua??? • • • • • • • FinalizeI have felt all along that this was the tomb of Jesus and his family. I think that the IAA should let qualified archeoligists examine the tomb and the remaining ossuaries for further DNA info. to put the "likely" and "possibly" feelings to rest. Only then will we really know the truth. I also feel that any BAS staff member, that initially & publically disagreed with this project, should publically apologize. • • • • • • • “Jesus Tomb”Yes, the tomb needs to be investigated. I believe the message of Jesus was hijacked, almost from the beginning. I also don't believe in the Astrotheology that was added to his life story. Let's have the Truth!!! • • • • • • • Tomb of JesusJacobovici is so anti-christian and anti-christ it stinks to heaven. If Yeshua stood in front of him and introduced himself personally he would still say, "it can't be true." Anything Jacobovici says should be discounted 100%. Cameron is no better. • • • • • • • strong doubtsfrom my readings i have strong doubts -- maybe agree with dr charlesworth -- at most a jesus family clan tomb ==== a.e.b. johnson - usa • • • • • • • VINDICATION?Of course, investication must be thorough. After all we know that Jesus didn't mean what he said. Most certainly it proves human evolution is true even though many evolutionist don't claim that now. • • • • • • • tomb"Simcha is a brave man"? Are you serious! He is a charlatan who constantly misrepresents the facts and lies about how he has so much support. He has an agenda, discredit Christianity and make money in the process. Attacking Christianity is in vogue right now and the support Jacobovici is enjoying from certain quarters is simply more evidence of that. Try reading the comments of those who are protesting his "vindication" claim. Even if Jesus had died and been buried and the resurrection was nothing more than a fabrication do you honestly believe that those who were promulgating the resurrection myth would have allowed his body to have been buried in a tomb that anyone could go and see without removing it? Simcha's ridiculous claims that the DNA in the tomb of Mary not being related to the DNA in Jesus' tomb "suggests" that they were married is ludicrous. DNA can prove you are married? DNA can't prove anything beyond whether or not they were related, anything beyond that is speculative at best. And you can honestly take this person seriously? It is certainly evidence of the gullibility of people when the person they're listening to says something that they wish were true. Maybe some would, by faith, get aboard a ship with as many holes as Jacobovici's claims but I can tell I wouldn't. • • • • • • • OssuariesOne critical question remains unaddressed: If the "Mary Magdalene" ossuary belongs with the others, why is it labeled in Greek, while the others are labeled in Aramaic? Surely a husband and wife would share a common language, even in death. • • • • • • • Jesus's tombwhether or not this is the 'real' tomb of Jesus, you all are wasting time. You need to concentrate on "being born again" in the name of Jesus in order to be saved!I know this sort of news insures your weekly paycheck but be aware the signs are all around and time is being full filled. • • • • • • • Jesus TombI think anything like this needs to be investigated thoroughly and we HOLD out opinion until that has been done. Who know what we may find. Isn't this what archeology is all about? • • • • • • • VindicationI understood the vindication claim was simply that the tomb should be investigated - not that it had been declared genuine. I, too, believe this tomb should be further investigated. Also, I adamantly resent the implication by other archaeologists that Mrs. Gat was not being genuine in her characterization of her husband's opinion. I am sure that is hurtful. • • • • • • • SimchaSimcha is a brave man. Maybe now we can find out the true meaning of Jesus' message. I am sure it was not "worship me or burn in hell'. Simcha had advanced the cause of human evolution exponentially. Thank you and thank you Mr. Shanks for giving us Christians that don't believe in magic a voice. Mazel Tov. • • • • • • • |
FREE e-book! |
||||||||||||||||||
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY NETWORK LINKS |
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. 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.
