Our exploration of this second Talpiot tomb (i.e. the “patio tomb”) was in response to an informal but unanimous vote of approximately 47 scholars held at the end of the 2009 international Jerusalem conference “The Tomb of Jesus and His Family? Exploring Ancient Jewish Tombs Near Jerusalem’s Walls: The Fourth Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins,” organized by James H. Charlesworth. The papers from that conference are forthcoming in 2012 with Eerdmans press. As a group we agreed on little else, but all of us affirmed that exploring the nearby “patio tomb,” less than 40 meters from the so-called “Jesus” family tomb, might potentially yield more scientific information that would shed light on both tombs (and a 3^rd “ruined” tomb) nearby—all located on an ancient estate along the ancient road in the present area known Armon HaNetziv (the Promenade is meters away).  I thank Simcha Jacobovici and his amazing team for providing both the funding and the expertise to make such an exploration by robotic camera possible. We have described in our book the many seemingly insurmountable challenges we faced and overcame. It is all quite an extraordinary story. Rami Arav and I were granted the excavation license for both tombs by the Israel Antiquities Authority in 2009 (renewed in 2010, 2011) under the supervision of Janet Levy, chair of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Our operations were thoroughly professional and carried out according to IAA specifications with normal IAA supervision. We decided to concentrate first on the “patio” tomb that had been briefly examined in 1981 by Amos Kloner and his assistants in behalf of the IAA. All this is described in detail in both the book and the paper mentioned above.

The tomb contained a number of interesting features, as all tombs of this period and provenance do, but two ossuaries in particular drew our special consideration—nos.  5 and 6 (kokh 1) on our published map. No. 5 had inscribed what we have tentatively identified as a “Jonah and the great fish” image and no. 6 a fascinating 14 letter, four line inscription in Greek. Both of these are described in detail in my paper and several potential readings of the inscription are explored. These two finds in particular were the subject of a cordial but intense discussion and analysis sponsored by the National Geographic Society on May 19, 2010. Participants were: James Charlesworth, Steven Fine, Simcha Jacobovici, Robin Jensen, Chris Rollston, and me.  Eric Meyers and Rami Arav were invited but unfortunately could not attend since they were in Israel at that time. I later met with Eric Meyers and summarized for him what we had covered. Due to the sensitivity of the finds and the funds invested in the investigation by National Geographic (and now subsequently Discovery Television), we had all signed non-disclosure agreements which all of us have strictly abided by until released this week. Once the project was acquired by Discovery TV we brought in eight other scholars as our consultants, among them Richard Bauckham, Greg Snyder, and Dom Crossan. Since the others have not yet spoken publically I will not mention their names at this point. Taken together our consultants represent a distinguished and balanced group of art historians, textual experts, and scholars of early Christianity and ancient Judaism.

Just this week Eric Meyers has offered the following analysis in his essay on the ASOR blog forum:

“In fact, the image in the book is so poorly reproduced in my copy that one suspects it has been intentionally altered so that no one could see what the image really is. Indeed, the image actually seems to resemble a nephesh, or tomb monument, like those found in many places in Jerusalem in the first century CE and depicted on ossuaries of this very period (so for example in fig. 13 or 30 of Rahmani’s A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries, 1994). A nephesh is the above-ground monument of a tomb that marks the tomb below and the one(s) buried there.”

I will ignore the insulting insinuation regarding deliberate alternation but Eric Meyer’s suggestion, now supported so far as I can tell by Steven Fine (who first suggested this in D.C.), Jodi Magness, Chris Rollston, and Bob Cargill, Robin Jensen, and a chorus of others, that what we have called a “Jonah” image is in fact a nephesh, or tomb monument. This seems to be the main alternative put forth so far by various comments on the Web during the first 48 hours of our release. We considered this alternative at the time of the discovery, along with others (i.e., vase or amphora), as I have mentioned in my academic paper but for the reasons I will enumerate here we found the nephesh possibility decidedly unlikely.

1.  The disputed figure occupies the left panel of the front of the ossuary. The orientation of the figure, as shown in the photo in my book, is with what we identify as the tail of the fish at the top and the head of the figure pointed down, barely touching the bottom incised border of the ossuary. If this image is a nephesh it would be upside down—with its highly irregular “base” in the air, unlike any other example on ossuaries of which I am aware—and I would of course welcome any examples of anything close to this. Using Cargil’s example of the well known “Absolom pillar,” you would turn it on its head and it would be “leaning” over like our proverbial Pisa tower. The museum at Discovery Times Square, where the current Dead Sea Scroll exhibit is on display, has constructed two very lovely museum quality reproductions of both of these ossuaries and they are on display there now in a special exhibit. Since our photos were necessarily limited by our highly challenging circumstances—even with the amazing technical capabilities of the robotic arm—seeing the ossuary as it would look if we could bring it out of the tomb I think helps to orient oneself—especially regarding this idea that we are looking at a funerary monument or pillar. The craftsmen who constructed this replica tried to present most of the features accurately though one should not rely on this but our published photos for details (available at thejesusdicovery.org).

Museum reproduction of ossuary 6, Talpiot “Patio” Tomb

I should point out here that the right side of the front panel is only hypothetically drawn in here since it is blocked by the adjacent ossuary (see our map of this kokh published in my article and in the book). The square temple-like figure has some kind of pattern inside—probably a square within a square, but we can only see the portion showing here—that looks like a “gallows.”  The image we identify as a fish, however, is completely visible in the photos, though you have to put several together to get the composite view. We have done the best with what we have and I commend our team for its exceptional work, though there is no claim here that these museum reproductions, done by Discovery Times Square, are precise and accurate reflections of the ornamentation and images. They are close of course, but differ somewhat from our actual photographs. There are six little fish-like images incised along the upper border, and what appear to be a “half fish” on the right end, as if it is diving into the water (some have argued it is some kind of vessel but it makes no sense to draw it have way down in this way–it seem purposeful and resembles the tail and lower body of a fish diving under. The left end, as seen here, has an entrance like barred doorway. Seen in this perspective I think the hypothesis that this is a common, ordinary, nephesh is simply untenable and I am frankly surprised that anyone would seriously suggest it.

2. In both orientation and form I have seen nothing resembling this. Even the “curved” nephesh that Rahmani reproduces only has that appearance because it is squeezed between two rosettes—as Rahmani clearly explains—not because it represents the style of a nephesh. The same is the case for the images produced by Hachlili, Figueras, and others. Unfortunately that ossuary is not extant but its curved sides are exceptional—in contrast to the straight pillar-like shape that is normal. Our ossuary 6 image is free standing, so that in both shape and style it is clearly something quite different. Steven Fine was kind enough to provide me with all his published articles related to this question, including the one he posted today in this forum, and there is nothing even close to this figure in any of his examples, despite his claim in this regard. I challenge readers to take a look for themselves.

3) I am convinced, as are several others we consulted, that what we clearly have here is a “great fish” drawn in an eastern style. The oannes-like “stick figure” is quite clear, with two arms carefully postured, and two legs. We will publish a full paper on this shortly. As one of our consultants pointed out—the artist who draw this image is likely reluctant to represent a clear human figure in graphic form in this funerary context. The eye of the fish is clearly visible on the right side. I am not sure what the detached ｦ-like etching to the left of the figure might represent and I would welcome any suggestions. The head of the figure is being spat out onto land, wrapped in what we take to be the seaweed mentioned in the book of Jonah—thus its downward orientation to the border of the ossuary, representing land. If this is in fact a Jonah image its creator is taking his or her cues from the text of Jonah itself—not from a pattern of evolving types—since we have no Jonah images, or for that matter, any biblical scene from this period. The text of Jonah seems to provide the clues and that is how I have interpreted its several features as I explain in my paper:

I called out to the LORD, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried . . . Then I said, ‘I am driven away from your sight; yet I shall again look upon your holy temple.’ The waters closed in over me to take my life; the deep surrounded me; weeds were wrapped about my head at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever; yet you brought up my life from the pit (Jonah 2:2-6).

The half fish on the right side represented being taken under the waters; the door-like bars are the “bars of Sheol,” with the ossuary full of bones representing death, the fish expelling the stick-like human figure representing being brought up out of Sheol—again all taken from the text of our biblical book of Jonah. It is possible that the square-like structure on the right side represents a temple or hekalot idea—also mentioned in the text of Jonah.

I find this interpretation, that has been supported by a number of our consultants, to be much more compelling than the assertion that this is a common ordinary “pillar”—which I am convinced is simply is not the case. My sense, regrettably, is that personal issues, as reflected in the sometimes sarcastic and disrespectful tone of many of the reactions to our work have played a factor in shaping what could otherwise be a most profitable discussion of this fascinating ossuary.

My main purpose in this brief article has been to offer these brief observations on the discussion so far of ossuary 6, but since we also have a lovely museum reproduction of ossuary 5 as well I thought I would present it here so readers can orient themselves to just where the four-line Greek inscription appears on that ossuary.  Those living near or visiting New York can see these reproductions at the museum through April 15^th.

Finally, I must say that I am quite surprised at Eric Meyer’s assertion that even if this inscription does have to do with life after death it would represent nothing unusual on an ossuary. There are less than a dozen epigrams or epitaphs among the more than 600 ossuary inscriptions we have (Cotton, et al., CIIP) and all of them, with maybe one exception, have to do prohibitions against moving bones.   Whatever this one says it seems that it is anything but common—as all our consulting scholars initially agreed in the D.C. meeting. I anxiously await Chis Rollston’s translation since he too, if I understand him correctly, has now changed his mind and thinks this inscription is quite ordinary as is everything else found in this tomb.

Museum reproduction of ossuary 5, Talpiot “Patio” Tomb

Yesterday was the official release date of my new book, coauthored with Simcha Jacobovici, The Jesus Discovery. It has burst on the public scene with a flash of media attention and a flurry of initial academic responses–all in less than 24 hours. As is often the case with topics involving “biblical archaeology,” responses are often heated and controversial–all the more so since this book summarizes for a non-specialist audience the results of a decade of research on two 1st century CE Jerusalem tombs that we have identified as likely associated with Jesus of Nazareth and his earliest Jerusalem followers. After all, the very notion of “finding the tomb of Jesus” rightly smacks of cheap sensationalism to most academics–akin to bogus claims of locating the ark of the covenant, the holy grail, pieces of the true cross, or Noah’s ark. It simply fails the “too good to be true” test. At the same time, those Christians of a more theological persuasion are of the view that such a claim is impossible on the face of it since Jesus ascended bodily to heaven, precluding the possibility of his earthly remains ever turning up.

Most archaeologists and historians have maintained there is no material evidence related to the Jesus movement whatsoever–whether tomb, text, artifact, or inscription until at least well into the 2nd century CE. What we argue, based on our recent remote camera exploration of a sealed Jerusalem tomb in East Talpiot, a suburb of Jerusalem, is that such evidence has been found–and even more controversial, that it is related to the so-called Talpiot “Jesus” family tomb of 2007 fame, less than 200 feet away. The two tombs were discovered in 1980 and 1981 respectively. The “Jesus” tomb was excavated and the second tomb, that we recently surveyed, was sealed up and covered over by a modern condominium building.

I have just published an academic article detailing these recent discoveries at bibleinterp.com. There is also a web site that has a wealth of additional information: thejesusdiscovery.org, and the Huffington Post has posted the Preface of the book which offers an overview of its scope and contents. The book itself is broader than these new discoveries and correlates what we believe we have found with the nearby “Jesus” tomb and its unique contents.

What I hope to do over the next few days on this blog is try to sort through some of the media hype as well as the critical responses of my esteemed academic colleagues–especially those posted yesterday at the American Schools of Oriental Research blog site. After all, ASOR, with its flagship publication Near Eastern Archaeology (formerly The Biblical Archaeologist) is the primary professional organization devoted to the ancient Levant, and many of its members, of which I am one, work directly in the areas of ancient Judaism and early Christianity. I am neither an archaeologist nor the son of an archaeologist. My professional training has been as an historian of ancient Mediterranean Religions  (University of Chicago, Ph.D. with Jonathan Z. Smith and Robert M. Grant) but for the past 20 years I have involved myself in a half dozen archaeological excavations in Israel, all related to the focus of my study–namely late 2nd Temple Judaism and the early Jesus movement. Since even the executive director of ASOR, my friend Andy Vaughn, declared yesterday that the claims of our book had a “zero percent chance of being correct,” it seems, from my standpoint at least, there is a lot that needs to be said. Dr. Vaughn has announced that through the entire month of March the ASOR blog will consider the claims made in our book and invites scholarly response thereto. I am honored that he and his staff are willing to devote such attention to our findings and their proper interpretation. I truly look forward to a profitable discussion.

Birger Pearson’s piece at the BAS Web site addressing the questions of whether Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife? and Was Mary Magdalene a Prostitute? is really well done in my view. It is short but to the point. I see it as an advance over the article he did some years ago in Bible Review. Take a look and see what you think.

I have a long treatment of this subject with what I hope are some new thoughts in my forthcoming book The Jesus Discovery, co-authored with Simcha Jacobovici that will be released at the end of this month. Like many of my colleagues I was on the side of those who said the notion that Jesus might have been married was unhistorical hype and sensationalism. I say this plaining in my last book, The Jesus Dynasty, “While gripping fiction, this idea is long on speculation and short on evidence” (p. 4). Over the years I have educated myself on this subject, benefited from wonderful colleagues like Jane Schaberg, April DeConick, and Ann Graham Brock, plus taken in more deeply the implications of the Talpiot “Jesus tomb.”

I wrote my dissertation on the apostle Paul back in 1982 when I received my Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. I had the privilege to study with the late Norman Perrin in New Testament, Robert M. Grant for History of Christianity, and Jonathan Z. Smith for ancient Mediterranean Religious. Smith directed the dissertation. I published it in 1986 in Jacob Neusner’s Series, Studies in Judaism, under the title: Things Unutterable: Paul’s Ascent to Paradise.  In that book I tried to offer my analysis, at age 33, of my own take on Paul having studied him closely through college and graduate school.

Now, thirty years later, I have just completed a new study of Paul, one I hope will stand the test of time and offer new insights and understanding of his message and his mission. He has been called, rightly so in my view, the “founder” of Christianity. I know of no other book on Paul like this one. The interpretation it offers is in the tradition of F.C. Baur and Albert Schweiter (whose Mysticism of Paul the Apostle remains in my view the best book ever written on Paul), but the advancement of our understanding since these 19th and early 20th century scholars is considerable. That said, this is to announce that Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity, to appear in Fall 2012, is available for pre-ordering on Amazon.