As some of you know who have followed the story, the Dead Sea Scroll exhibit that was earlier at Discovery Times Square in NYC has now moved on to Philadelphia. Few seem to realize that included in this very comprehensive exhibit which was put together by the every talented James Sanna, are not only the Dead Sea scrolls but a trove of other archaeological artifacts from the IAA State of Israel collection, including–you guessed it–four of the ossuaries from the Talpiot “Jesus” tomb: namely Yeshua bar Yehosef, Mariamene Mara, Yose, and Matya. We filmed the ABC Nightline special (link here is you missed it) on the new Talpiot Tomb discoveries back in April in the Discovery Times Square exhibit and it was interesting to watch the droves of visitors in the exhibit hall walking obliviously past the display of the ossuaries, tucked behind a glass window.

Jesus Family Tomb Ossuaries at Dead Sea Scroll Exhibit

Unfortunately, Jude son of Jesus had to stay home as he is on special display in the Israel Museum and Maria is stored in the basement of the museum so far as I know. Other cities are to follow, I think Chicago is next, and it looks like it might be just in time for the SBL/AAR/ASOR/Bible Fest meeting, which could be most interesting. Maybe some of us might end up organizing something around this as there already are some things planned on the various programs dealing with the new Talpiot “patio” Tomb discoveries. I am doing a paper for SBL on both the Jonah image and the Greek inscription, also a lecture with the BAS Bible Fest, and Simcha Jacobovici and I are part of a forum on archaeology and the media hosted by Mark Goodacre, Robert Cargill, and Christian Brady, also for SBL. What would be nice would be some kind of forum/debate on the Talpiots tombs more generally but so far I don’t think anything like that has been included in the program. With the latest publications of the trial evidence on the James ossuary, which few of its naysayers seem to have noticed (see the comprehensive report “Implications of the “Forgery Trial” Verdict on the Authenticity of the James Ossuary” by Rosenfelt, et al. here), and all the other new evidence available for discussion, most of it posted now at bibleinterp.com (search “talpiot”), it would certainly be a topic of great interest. At the same time the comprehensive volume of papers from the January, 2008 Jerusalem conference titled: The Tomb of Jesus and His Family? Exploring Ancient Jewish Tombs Near Jerusalem’s Walls, eds. James H. Charlesworth and Arthur C. Boulet (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012) will be published and available at the annual meetings in Chicago.

I mentioned the breaking story in the Toronto Globe and Mail last week that reported Prof. James H. Charlesworth’s discovery of the inscription “YONH: (Yod, Vav, Nun, Heh) on the controversial Jonah and the fish image on the ossuary in the Talpiot “Patio” tomb (also known as Talpiot Tomb B). Below is an untouched photo from our HiDef camera with natural color that shows very clearly the lines of the inscription, including the “Nun” that some have questioned as two broken lines. Here one can see the lines are clearly connected. One has to compare several photos in contrasting light to see what is apparently intended in this engraving. Bruce Zuckerman and others have demonstrated this with scripts and it is particularly true with artifacts such as ossuaries, that are engraved. However, I should point out that even in the photos originally posted, here below, with the Hebrew letters highlighted, the nun is unbroken, despite some claims to the contrary. What has confused some is that there is a splotch or imperfection in the stone, right below the vertical juncture of the letter Nun, that some have mistaken for a continued line. It simply is not there. In fact our CGI representation has the lines of this Nun unconnected, despite claims to the contrary. Those who have charged that one can only see these clear Hebrew letters by ignoring lines that are clearly present or joining together lines that are clearly not conjoined are mistaken. Some have even objected that the letters need to be linearly aligned, which is obviously incorrect as even a glance at the 600 or so ossuary inscriptions we have will quickly demonstrate. Inscribed names are written in all sorts of configurations–even vertically and zig-zaged.

In this engraving, which is complex and very carefully executed, some lines are part of the mouth of the fish, the eye, and the stick figure, and thus overlap or intersect with the inscribed name YONAH. The large “eye” of the fish has been added by extra lines, not part of the letters Yod and Vav, but barely touching. In the same way the “mouth” of the fish, with its straight line, serves also as the line of the stick figure. Finally, the curve that encloses the whole, similar to other engraved fish images, giving the effect of the fish head/gills, is not part of the letters. There are also a few very faint scratches and indentations that are not part of the engraving. One who is not used to looking at ossuary inscriptions might find these letters a bit clumsy and imprecise, but just a glance through some of the parallels in Rahmani’s Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries from the period show the almost infinite variety of individual graffito styles and informal representations (see, for examples, nos. 15, 26, 35, 76, 82, 107, 456, 704, 705, 706, 783). It is interesting that some of the best parallels to these letters come from the nearby “Jesus” tomb.

Untouched Photo from HiDef Camera

Untouched Photo Showing Different Contrast

Prof. Charlesworth has spent his long and amazingly productive career reading texts and manuscripts of the late 2nd Temple period and he does not need me to defend his ability to decipher such materials. In fact he has devoted much of his time in recent years to difficult readings in some of the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts that have faded with age or through poor atmospheric conditions. However, anyone who spends just a bit of time with Herodian script, even just paging through the Hebrew/Aramaic inscriptions on ossuaries in Rahmani’s Calogue of Jewish Ossuaries, will see that these four letter forms on the ossuary are clear once the lines are correctly identified.

Yonah in Modern and Ancient Script

A few years ago Prof. Stephen Pfann, working on the “Shimon bar Yonah” ossuary fragment, for which he offered a re-reading (Shimon bar Zila), speculated about how an inscription reading “Jonah” from this period would look and his results were surprisingly close to what we have on our Jonah image–though in a more informal graffito lapidary script.

Prof. Charlesworth is completing a more comprehensive analysis and I bow to his expertise and offer these few observations of my own.  In the meantime it looks like his discovery is getting a wider circulation:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-04/uonc-hia041812.php

I can’t help but think that some of the initial reaction last week was a bit of the “knee-jerk” variety, only because the name Jonah in the mouth of the fish would pretty well end the six weeks of back-and-forth in the blogging world regarding this iconic image as to whether it is a funerary monument, a perfume flash, a Hellenistic krater-vase, an amphora, or–God forbid–an image of JONAH and the fish! I am hoping colleagues might calmly reconsider and allow this interesting discovery of Prof. Charlesworth to be more than scoring points tit-for-tat in some kind of “blogging war” on the internet. If we indeed have an image of Jonah and the big fish on this ossuary then it will be most useful for us to discuss what that might mean in terms of its implications within late 2nd Temple Judaism so that our discussions can move on in positive ways. Even though I have referred to this image in a kind of shorthand as a symbol of “resurrection” and connected it to the Jesus movement, more precisely it has to do with ascent to heaven, rebirth, being re-clothed in heavenly garments, and sitting/ruling/reigning in heavenly glory at the “right Hand” (Enochian materials, Dead Sea Scrolls, Hechalot and Merkabah traditions). In the case of Jesus worship it reflects the very earliest “Christology,” even predating Paul, as reflected in the hymn he quotes in Philippians 2:5-10 based on Genesis 2 and Psalm 110. It finally comes down to the “two powers in heaven” notions that Daniel Boyarin has so beautifully summarized for a non-technical audience in his latest work, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ. That we have the first archaeological evidence for these ideas from the Herodian period is truly quite remarkable and it is unfortunate that the discussion has become clouded with vituperative exchanges.

NOTE ON THE PHOTOS: Since some have falsely charged that we have manipulated, altered, or otherwise “photoshopped” images related to the Talpiot tomb B findings here is an official “on record” statement by Felix Golubev, director of our technical operations, in consultation with William Tarant of General Electric Technologies, about the photos here published as well as all photos we have released related to our investigations:

Attached are two best images of “Yonah” inscription in question. One image came from the high definition camera and the other one from the fiber-optic video probe. None of these images were altered, enhanced or even colour corrected. The difference in colour is due to how these two cameras process light. In the HD image, you will notice that the subjects on left and on the right are out of focus. This is because the HD camera has a shallow depth of field and when you zoom in whatever is in front goes out of focus. On the left, we are looking at the wall of the koch, on
the right – is the edge of the ossuary with 4 line inscription. Felix Golubev, via e-mail April 21, 2012

Thirty-two years ago today, on “Maundy Thursday,” before Passover/Easter an ear-piercing dynamite blast shattered the morning’s peace, ripping through the rugged hills of Armon HaNatziv (i.e., the “place of the High Comissioner”) just south of the Old City of Jerusalem–today known as East Talpiot. Exposed on that day was the striking facade of what has now become known by many as “the Talpiot Jesus tomb.” This simple facade so caught the eye of archaeologists Amos Kloner, who supervised the tomb’s excavation in April, 1980, and co-author Boaz Zissu, that they chose a color photo of the tomb as the cover of the Hebrew version of their masterful survey, The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period.

In the year 30 CE, also on this Thursday before Passover/Easter, the Galilean messianic claimant known as “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” was crucified by the Romans just outside the Old City and put in a hastily chosen temporary rock hewn tomb that just happened to be near the place of crucifixion just as the time for the evening Passover Seder drew near. By sunset Thursday evening Jesus’ bloodied and mutilated corpse was sealed away in this unfinished tomb, safe from predators and segregated from the living who were “ritually pure” for the Seder meal until permanent burial preparations could be carried out by Joseph of Arimathea after the back-to-back Sabbaths–Friday (Passover) and Saturday (the weekly Sabbath).

Jesus Crucified on the Mount of Olives painted by Balogh Balage (2005)

Later Christian tradition put Jesus’ last meal with his disciples on Thursday evening and his crucifixion on Friday. We now know that is one day off. Jesus’ last meal was Wednesday night, and he was crucified on Thursday, the 14^th of the Hebrew month Nisan. The Passover meal itself was eaten Thursday night, at sundown, as the 15^th of Nisan began. Jesus never ate that Passover meal. He had died at 3pm on Thursday afternoon.

The confusion arose because all the gospels say that there was a rush to get his body off the cross and buried before sundown because the “Sabbath” was near. Everyone assumed the reference to “the Sabbath” had to be Saturday—so the crucifixion must have been on a Friday. However, the day of Passover itself is also a “Sabbath” or rest day—no matter what weekday it falls on. In the year 30 AD Friday, the 15^th of the Jewish month Nisan was also a Sabbath—so two Sabbaths occurred back to back—Friday and Saturday. Matthew seems to know this as he says that the women who visited Jesus’ tomb came early Sunday morning “after the Sabbaths” (Matthew 28:1).

As is often the case, the gospel of John preserves a more accurate chronology of what went on (See John A. T. Robinson, The Priority of John, 147-156). John specifies that the Wednesday night “last supper” was “before the festival of Passover.” He also notes that when Jesus’ accusers delivered him to be crucified on Thursday morning they would not enter Pilate’s courtyard because they would be defiled and would not be able to eat the Passover that evening (John 18:28). John knows that the Jews would be eating their tradition Seder meal Thursday evening.

Reading Mark, Matthew, and Luke one can get the impression that the “last supper” was the Passover meal. Some have even argued that Jesus might have eaten the Passover meal a day early—knowing ahead of time that he would be dead. But the fact is, Jesus ate no Passover meal in 30 AD. When the Passover meal began at sundown on Thursday Jesus was dead, hastily put in the nearby tomb until after the festival.

There are some hints outside of John’s gospel that such was the case. In Luke for example, Jesus tells his followers at that last meal: “I earnestly wanted to eat this Passover with you before I suffer but I won’t eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Luke 22:14). A later copyist of the manuscript inserted the word “again” to make it say “I won’t eat it again,” since the tradition had developed that Jesus did observe Passover that night and changed its observance to the Christian Eucharist or Mass. Another indication that this is not a Passover meal is that all of our records report that Jesus shared “a loaf of bread” with his disciples, using the Greek word (artos) that refers to an ordinary loaf—not to the unleavened flatbread or matzos that Jews eat with their Passover meals. Also, when Paul refers to the “last supper” significantly he does not say “on the night of Passover,” but rather “on the night Jesus was betrayed,” and he also mentions the “loaf of bread” (1 Corinthians 11:23). If this meal had been the Passover Paul would have surely wanted to say that but he does not. For Paul, as the authors of John, Jesus did not “eat” that last Passover–he was the Passover in a powerfully mystical and symbolic way (1 Corinthians 5:7-8; John 19:36).

As late as Wednesday morning Jesus had still intended to eat the Passover on Thursday night. When he sent his two disciples into the city he instructed them to begin to make the preparations. His enemies had determined not to try to arrest him during the feast “lest there be a riot of the people” (Mark 14:2). That meant he was likely “safe” for the next week, since the “feast” included the seven days of Unleavened Bread that followed the Passover meal. Passover is the most family oriented festival in Jewish tradition. As head of his household Jesus would have gathered with his mother, his sisters, the women that had come with him from Galilee, perhaps some of his close supporters in Jerusalem, and his Council of Twelve. It is inconceivable that a Jewish head of a household would eat the Passover segregated from his family with twelve male disciples. This was no Passover meal. Something had gone terribly wrong so that all his Passover plans were changed.

Jesus had planned a meal Wednesday evening alone with his Council of Twelve in the upper room of the guesthouse in the lower city. The events of the past few days had brought things to a crisis and he knew the confrontation with the authorities was unavoidable. In the coming days he expected to be arrested, delivered to the Romans, and possibly crucified. He had intentionally chosen the time and the place—Passover in Jerusalem—to confront the powers that be. There was much of a private nature to discuss with those upon whom he most depended in the critical days ahead. He firmly believed that if he and his followers offered themselves up, placing their fate in God’s hands, that the Kingdom of God would manifest itself. He had intentionally fulfilled two of Zechariah’s prophecies—riding into the city as King on the foal, and symbolically removing the “traders” from the “house of God.”

At some point that day Jesus had learned that Judas Iscariot, one of his trusted Council of Twelve, had struck a deal with his enemies to have him arrested whenever there was an opportunity to get him alone, away from the crowds. How Jesus knew of the plot we are not told but during the meal he said openly “One of you who is eating with me will betray me” (Mark 14:18). His life seemed to be unfolding according to some scriptural plan. Had not David written in the Psalms, “Even my bosom friend, in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted the heel against me” (Psalm 41:9). History has a strange way of repeating itself. Over a hundred years earlier, the Teacher of Righteousness who lead the Dead Sea Scroll community, had quoted that very Psalm when one of his inner “Council” had betrayed him (Thanksgiving Hymns 9. 23-24)

When Judas realized the plan for the evening included a retreat for prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane after the meal, he abruptly left the group. This secluded spot, at the foot of the Mount of Olives, just across the Kidron Valley from the Old City, offered just the setting he had promised to deliver.

Thursday morning, 6am, April 5, 2012 Jerusalem

God and weather permitting I am giving a lecture tomorrow evening (Thursday, February 11th), at the Center for Jewish Studies, UNC Asheville, titled “What Kind of a Jew Was Jesus: How Texts and Archaeology Tell us a New Story.”

What I want to try to do is place Jesus within the parties and politics of his time (thanks to Morton Smith’s rubric here) in terms of what Michael Stone so aptly called “Scriptures, Sects, and Visions” within Late 2nd Temple Judaisms of his time. I am a historian not an archaeologist, so I want to mostly deal with texts, but texts within a context, such a Qumran (which combines site and texts!) and Mt Zion, that has every bit to do with material evidence as well–based on some of my experiences in the field. My intention is to highlight several of what I consider to be the most telling archaeological discoveries

Here is a press release and a news-story in the local Asheville paper, most of which I would own up to:

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20100207/LIVING/302070018/1311/ADVERTISING

http://www.unca.edu/news-events/news/2010/2/tabor

Maybe I will see some of you there.

A lavish mainstream article, just out in the latest issue of Smithsonian (January, 2010) is sure to further confuse the public on the status of the question–”Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?” Author Andrew Lawler has done his homework, but his article gives the impression that the dissenting theories of Yuval Peleg, Norman Golb, and even the Donceels, are somehow something new and earthshaking, challenging the so-called “Essene” hypothesis.

In fact there is widespread and general agreement among 98% of Dead Sea Scrolls scholars that the sectarian group that composed bulk of the Dead Sea Scrolls, call them “Essenes,” or any number of their self-designations (“New Covenanters” “Son of Light” “The Community”), did in fact inhabit the settlement at Qumran, hiding their scrolls in caves in and around the site around the time of the 1st Jewish-Roman revolt (66-73 CE). This is confirmed by the archeology of Qumran as well as its landscape and setting.

Curious readers and non-specialists should obtain as a most basic and comprehensive source, besides a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls in English (I recommend the Geza Vermes edition), the readable, comprehensive, and reliable volume by James Vanderkam and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  This book, more than any single source, truly offers a useful analysis of every aspect of the Dead Sea Scrolls, including a fully documented discussion of the “Essene” hypothesis and alternative theories of composition.

So far as the Smithsonian article goes, fortunately Stephan Goranson and other readers have already begun to post various corrections, qualifications, and caveats under “Comments” on the Smithsonian website, for example:

The Hebrew origin of the name which came through Greek spellings into English as “Essenes” is indeed in some of the Qumran scrolls as a self-designation–in scrolls recognized on other grounds as Essene. This Hebrew root has been recognized as the source of “Essenes” by some scholars as early as 1532, and in every century since, in effect, predicting what appeared in some Qumran scrolls, as various scholars today (e.g. James VanderKam of Notre Dame) recognize.
For more details on this source, ‘osey hatorah, observers of torah (which their opponents would not call them), see:

http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/Essenes_&_Others.pdf

Goranson, Stephen. “Others and Intra-Jewish Polemic as Reflected in Qumran Texts.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam, 2:534-551. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

My own modest contribution to the subject, published with Joe Zias and Stephanie Harter-Laiheugue, is a journal article ” Toilets at Qumran, the Essenes, and the Scrolls, New Anthropological Data and Old Theory” in Revue de Qumran 22:4 (2006): 631-640, in which we pair the references to latrines in the Scrolls with passages in Josephus on the Essenes, showing how the physical site of Qumran (both cemetery and toilets) reflect the practices of the sect.