Posted on : Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:03:59 GMT | Author : Discovery Communications, Inc.

SILVER SPRING, Md., Feb. 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Given the worldwide interest in the subject, Ted Koppel, Managing Editor of the Discovery Channel, will moderate “The Lost Tomb of Jesus: A Critical Look,” a panel versed in archaeology, theology, Biblical research and other related disciplines immediately following the Sunday premiere of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.”
Koppel, who has no connection to the production of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” will bring his independent journalistic perspective to the evidence introduced in the documentary. The hour-long discussion will have minimal commercial interruptions and will present the many voices, opinions and beliefs related to the film’s content. The panel will explore the filmmakers’ profound assertions and challenge their assumptions and suggested conclusions.

“Inevitably, on a subject as important as this, there will be many unanswered questions,” said Koppel. “I expect to raise as many of those as possible.”

The forum, produced by The Koppel Group and anchored by Managing Editor Ted Koppel, will air at 11 PM ET/PT on Sunday, March 4, immediately following the world premiere of the documentary which airs at 9 PM ET/PT.
Discovery Communications, Inc.

The Christian blogging world is bursting at the seams with all sorts of confident assuarances that there is nothing to the “Jesus Family Tomb” story that broke into the headlines yesterday. Some of the predetermined protests though seem to give one the feeling of “whistling in the dark.” Unfortunately the inaccurate information that is circulating about the research represented in both the book, The Jesus Family Tomb and the documentary, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” to air this coming Sunday at 9pm, has made many if not most of these reactions moot. In this rush to judgment without hearing any of the facts, one detects a bit of paranoia. I noticed this on the Larry King Show last night as the president of the Southern Baptist Convention tried to defend the faith based on a host of erroneous information and assumptions related to the Talpiot tomb. Ben Witherington lists ten reasons that he thinks the case for the Talpiot tomb being that of Jesus of Nazareth are “bogus” that are making their way all over the Internet today. In my view most of them are largely misconceived. I offer here just a few brief comments but urge those interested in this topic to read the book just published which addresses almost all of these. It is difficult to carry on discussion when the main content of the evidence is not clear to those who are making their assertions.

So, I present here a few clarifications that I hope will bring some light to those who are interested in keeping up with the facts:

1) By all ancient accounts, the tomb of Jesus was empty, making it highly unlikely that it was moved to another tomb, decayed for one year’s time, and then the bones put in an ossuary

I agree and I guess I am one of the few “liberal” scholars who thinks that the empty tomb story in Mark 16 is historically probable. Most of my colleagues say it is a later legend. However, that the temporary tomb into which Jesus’ body was hastily put at sundown, as Passover began, was never intended to be a permanent place of burial. Mark does not identify it as even the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, nor do Luke and John, and John makes clear it was a tomb that just happened to be nearby and was used for 24 hous until proper funerary rites could be carried out after Shabbat. What happened to the corpse of Jesus is a matter we can not resolve by historical inquiry, but that it was moved seems certain. At any rate, the Talpiot tomb, by 70 AD, if it is associated with Jesus of Nazareth, seems to have become the intimate final resting place for Jesus son of Joseph, his brother Jose, his brother James, his mother Maria, another Mary, known as Mariamene, a Matthew, and a Jude son of Jesus, plus three other ossuaries unnamed.

2) There is no DNA evidence that this is the historical Jesus of Nazareth

The only DNA tests have shown that the Mariamne in the tomb is not a mother or sister from his mother, of the Yeshua bar Jehosef. At this point that is the only DNA test result we have but it is solid data that can be used in analyzing the possible relationships between the six individuals named in this tomb.

3) The statistical analysis is untrustworthy

Dr. Andrey Feuerverger did the basic statistical work and as it is not my field I am not able to make this judgment. I do know that he is one of the most highly regarded statisticians in the field and has worked on this for over two years. I have also consulted independently with two other mathematicians trained in statistics to run some of my own queries. Dr. Feuerverger will publish his work in a peer reviewed journal but for now we are pleased that he has shared his preliminary results with us. One can find documents on this and other matters at the Discovery Web site (Go to Enter Tomb, then download Documents).

4) The name “Jesus” was a popular name in the first century, appearing in 98 other tombs and on 21 other ossuaries

Based on Tal Ilan’s comprehensive survey of forms of the name “Joshua” (Yeshua/Jesus) from 330 BCE to 200 CE in both literary and inscriptional sources we get 103 examples or a 1 in 17.9 ratio compared to all male Jewish names known. As far as ossuaries go, however, the only one that has come from a provenanced tomb with the name “Jesus son of Joseph” is the Talpiot tomb. But the real issue is not the “popularity” of an individual name, but the probability of this cluster of names occuring in a single small family tomb with ten ossuaries, and further, to what degree these names, in the forms we have them, fit or don’t fit what we know historically of Jesus and his family.

5) There is no historical evidence that Jesus was ever married or had a child

I largely agree with this and in my book, The Jesus Dynasty I state that clearly. However, sometimes we learn from new evidence and it might well be that this tomb offers us that evidence. The presence of a Judah son of Jesus does not make this the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, but if the weight of other evidence points in that direction then we have to consider this as a possibility.

6) The earliest followers of Jesus never called him “Jesus, son of Joseph”

John 1:45 “Philip found Nathanael, and said unto him, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” All Jewish males are described within the culture as the “son of x,” with the father’s name. The name of the father was often not written on ossuaries but when it was it offers us a further identity hook. I don’t think it is likely that Joseph was the father of Jesus, but by taking Miriam as his wife when she was pregant he in effect becomes his “legal” father and Jesus is then known as “son of the carpenter,” or “son of Joseph.” The only other name that comes to us is “Yeshua ben Panthera.” There is no reason to hold the view that “Jesus son of Joseph” is not a fully appropriate name for Jesus of Nazareth.

7) It is highly unlikely that Joseph, who died earlier in Galilee, was buried in Jerusalem, since the historical record connects him only to Nazareth or Bethlehem

I am not aware of anyone who has claimed that Joseph, husband of Mary, was buried in this tomb. Most of us assume he was buried in Galilee, while the family itself, though from Galilee, takes up residence in Jerusalem under the guardianship of James after Jesus’ death. Those who died before 70 CE would likely be buried in a family tomb in the Jerusalem area. The “Joseph” in the tomb has the rare nickname Jose and in terms of the “Jesus Family Tomb” hypotheis he would most likely be the “lost” brother of Jesus known as Joses in Greek. Jesus had four brothers: James, Jose, Shimon, and Jude. We know lots about James, a bit about Jude, and we know that Shimon took over at James’s death. But what about Jose? He drops from the record. The evidence from this tomb would indicate he died before 70 CE, thus explaining why he did not take the lead after James, even though he was the second eldest, and accordingly, why he would then be found in this tomb.

8) The Talipot tomb and ossuaries are such that they would have belonged to a rich family, which does not match the historical record for Jesus

This is not the case. I have been in the tomb and it is quite small and modest, not at all aristocratic. It is in an area running from Silwan to Talpiot that Gibson and Zissu, in an extensive survey of tombs of the area, have identified as those of a poorer class, in contrast to the monumental tombs nearer the Old City. Actually both the James ossuary, and the Jesus son of Joseph ossuary are exceptionally modest and plain, as are the majority of the others. There are photos and full documentation on the Discovery Web site. (go to Enter the Tomb, then download documentation).

9) Fourth-century church historian Eusebius makes quite clear that the body of James, the brother of Jesus, was buried alone near the temple mount and that his tomb was visited in the early centuries, making very unlikely that the Talipot tomb was Jesus’ “family tomb”

It is very likely that 4th century Christians identified the monumental tombs in the Kidron Valley with that of James and other early Christians. Zias has recently shown that the Absolom monument, for example, was identified with Zechariah, father of John the Baptist. This traditional tomb of James has no historical connection to him, but was the tomb of the sons of Hezir, a priestly family. It is possible James was buried in the Kidron area, we can not be sure from this record of Eusebius, because of this confusion, but even so, his bones and ossuary could have well ended up in the family tomb. The question is whether we can now match the patina “fingerprint” of the James ossuary with those in the Talpiot tomb. There is good evidence that is the case and it is based on blind tests of over 30 other ossuaries of the area taken at random from various tombs. The same person who authenticated the James ossuary in terms of its geological characteristics was involved in these tests. As it turns out, the patina in a given tomb environment shows growth patterns and ratios of minerals specific to the tomb it is in over the centuries. The James ossuary is a dead match for the rest of the Talpiot ossuaries but fits none of the others tested from a wide sampling of tombs.

10) The two Mary ossuaries do not mention anyone from Migdal, but simply has the name Mary, one of the most common of all ancient Jewish female names

In fact one “Mary” has the form of the name consistently used for Jesus’ mother: Maria, very rare in Aramaic, and the other “Mary” is Mariamene, known in early Christian sources as the form of the name “Miriam/Mariam” used for Mary Magdalene. This does not prove the second Mary is Mary Magdalene, but it indicates that whoever this Mary is, she has a form of the name associated with her. The inscription also reads, “he Mara,” which means the “lord” or “master” or “also known as” “lord” “master,” according to Tal Ilan, but it is in the feminine. The DNA evidence shows that this “second” Mary is not the mother or sister through the same mother, of Jesus, which could have been possible in a small tomb of this size, assuming it belonged to his family. What we try to do here is test hypotheses. For example, if we had a Bernice or a Shelamzion in this tomb we would have to ask, what possible connection might this be to Jesus of Nazareth. If Yeshua and Mariamne were maternally related, then she would be his sister or mother. But in the case of Jesus, the two most intimate women in his life, the ones who washed his body for burial, were Maria his mother and Mariamne or Mary Magdalene. Should it surprise us that they would be next to him in death as in life? I find the scene itself very moving. We are not here “proving” that Mariamne is Mary Magdalene but in considering how the names in the tomb might fit the Jesus family it seems a likely match.

My own view is that with or without the James ossuary included, the cluster of names is quite striking and significant, and has a high probability of being the Jesus Family tomb. Of course with the James ossuary included there can be little doubt that in March of 1980 a bulldozer accidently uncovered the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

What I find most difficult when it comes to discussions are those who have as their beginning assumption that this can not be the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. I have no investment in this tomb whatsoever and I have wanted to pursue the best evidence possible, and at any point something might have turned up in our investigation that would make it highly unlikely that this was the tomb of Jesus. Those who have predetermined views do not appear to be pursuing an open quest for evidence but an apologetic effort to save the faith. The conclusions one draws are determined before the evidence is examined, and no matter what the evidence shows, it can not show that this tomb belonged to Jesus of Nazareth. As a result one does not get discussion and a free and honest exchange of information and ideas, with mutual gain, but a “battle” in which one side charges the other with “bogus” ideas and makes it their main effort to refute an opponent. I think there is a better way.

“Had these names not been found in a single tomb that was professionally excavated I would have said, 100 percent, that what we are looking at are simple forgeries. I find it very interesting that we have this completely unique combination of names. This thing definitely, I think, is worth some further research.” Joe Zias to the BBC

A little history here. Back in 1996 when the existence of the Talpiot tomb and its interesting cluster of names broke headlines (see the Introduction to my book, The Jesus Dynasty for an account of how this unfolded) via a BBC special produced by Ray Bruce and his associates, just about everyone interviewed, from Tom Wright to Amos Kloner all said the same thing: these are common names, and they mean nothing in terms of this “Jesus son of Joseph” being potentially related to the Nazarene Jesus. At that time there was only one lone voice to the contrary, and that was Joe Zias, then curator at the Rockefeller museum. Through years of dealing with ossuaries, epitaphs, and even fakes and forgeries, Joe immediately realized that if these names indeed came from a single tomb it was the cluster or grouping of names that made this tomb significant and he called for further investigation when everyone else could only talk of how “common” the names were. He was in fact so impressed with this cluster that he said had he not known they were from a single tomb, excavated by competent archaeologists (Joseph Gath, Shimon Gibson, and Amos Kloner), he would have to assume the names were forged since they were so unique as a set.

I agree with Joe to this day and I think his trained instincts were right. Accordingly I welcome the latest investigations that have surfaced this week. There is still a lot to sort out but the dismissal of the entire matter with the refrain, “the names are common,” simply shows that one has not seriously examined the evidence (see my post below for my own outline thereof).

I am in NY this weekend to participate in the press conference on the so-called “Jesus Family Tomb” tomorrow. This is the “Talpiot tomb” that I discuss in the Introduction to my book, The Jesus Dynasty. That Introduction offers a fairly comprehensive discussion of the basic background of the breaking story and it can be read on-line at ABC News. At the time I finished that book, in November, 2005, I told as much of the story as I knew. Since that time much more has become clear. A full panel of experts on DNA, statistics, epigraphy, archaeology, forensics, and biblical studies will participate in an open discussion covering the results of a four year investigation of this tomb and its contents. Two of the ossuaries will be on display, that of Yeshua bar Yehosef and Mariamene, the two upon which DNA tests were carried out. There is a made for TV documentary that will present the basic story called “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” that will air on Discovery Channel March 4th at 9pm EST (and at various other times in Canada, the UK, Israel, and Europe, check local listings). A book, titled The Jesus Family Tomb by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino goes on sale tomorrow. The book chronicles both the four year research project and its results.

For the past few days I have read many news reports and Blogs on various aspects of the Talpiot tomb as aspects of this story have “leaked out” and lots of inaccuate and erroneous information has spread rather crazily on the internet. Because of a non-disclosure agreement that protected all of us working on this research I have not written in any detail beyond what I cover in the Introduction to The Jesus Dynasty. Following the press conference tomorrow that all changes. Now with all the facts officially released I will do my best to share with readers of this Blog what appears to be our present state of knowledge about this tomb. I will also be participating with a number of scholars in a Discussion Forum at the Discovery Web site.

The term “Christkillers” is an ugly one as it is used today, and as it has been used for centuries by those who hate Jews. It has become a central justification for this special kind of Christian anti-semitic thinking. But one has to ask, what is the origin of the term and the idea, that is that the Jews are guilty of “killing Christ,” or, as it is sometimes put, of “Deicide,” that is “killing God”?

As far as I can determine the first mention of this idea as a blanket charge against “the Jews” comes from Paul’s earliest preserved letter, written to his followers living in the Greek town of Salonica or Thessalonica around the year AD 50. He writes:

“…the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be save–so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath has come upon them at last!” (1 Thess 2:15-16).

What makes this passage important in terms of the development of Christianity is that it breaks new ground by laying a blanket charge that it was “the Jews” who killed Jesus, who displease God, and who oppose humankind. The strong vituperative language that Paul uses here is not really what makes the passage important in terms of the history of Christian anti-semitism. Actually, various Jewish groups (Essenes against Pharisees, Pharisees against Sadducees, Nazarenes against Pharisees) often use very ugly language in castigating their fellow Jews for their beliefs, practices or perceived moral failures. It is neither the language nor the vindictive spirit (You are going to hell and I am glad of it!) that marks Paul’s outburst here as exceptional. What stands out is that he addresses his condemnation against Jews as a whole, even though he himself was a Jew. In other words it was “the Jews” who are guilty of all these things and will be soon and rightly punished. It is a small step from this sort of thinking and the decision to take a bit of this justly deserved punishment of the “Jews” into one’s own hands.

But there is another fateful passage in the New Testament that pretty much “seals the deal” on this whole blanket “Christkiller” charge. It is found only in Matthew’s gospel and scholars are convinced it is an expression of author’s own sentiments, which are very similar to Paul’s, rather than any accurate record of history. The scene is at the trial of Jesus when the Roman governor Pontius Pilate delivers Jesus over to be executed by crucifixion. According to Matthew:

“And all the people answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children’” (Matthew 27:25).

With these chilling words 1900 years of Christian persecution against the Jews was both launched and justified. After all, had not the Jewish people asked for this? Had they not freely taken upon themselves the label “Christkillers,” so that any fate suffered by the Jews, however inflicted, was in the end well deserved?

Today to most of us I think these ideas sound utterly repugnant and shocking in their blatant condemnation of an entire people, even a people who were yet to be born. But all one has to do is spend a bit of time on the Web with Google searches for any common anti-semitic terms and ideas, and the amount of thinking of this type so readily available at a keystroke or two is truly staggering.

I am not saying that Paul or the author of the gospel of Matthew were “anti-semitic” in the full sense of that word as it develops in subsequent Christian thinking. But I am convinced that the sentiments that they express in these passages are the beginnings of a way of thinking that easily developed into, or was translated into, justification for the most horrible and unspeakable attrocities against the Jewish people. The power of language in human affairs is without match. And whether Paul or the writer of Matthew were sincerely following their vision of God’s will or not, their language and what it implies, and came to imply, is sad beyond measure.
One might easily take these sentiments, and many did, and conclude that at the bottom of all the woes of human history is one group–the Jews.