I find it somewhat amazing that so many freely expressing opinions on the controversial Talpiot “Jesus” tomb and/or the “James ossuary” have not kept up with even the most minimum of the latest research on the topic. I find this is the case even with all too many of my academic colleagues, not to mention a host of others, most with an evangelical Christian bias, who regularly “trash” the idea that this tomb might arguably be that of Jesus of Nazareth. It seems everything but the facts are brought into play here.

I was reminded of this today with the publication of the excellent article by Prof. Kevin Kilty and Mark Elliot of the University of Wyoming, reviewing the latest published views of my colleague Jodi Magness. In her latest book, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus, Prof. Magness offers a spirited argument that there is little to no likelihood that the Talpiot tomb, or the James ossuary, have any connection with the Jesus movement. The problem is, as Kilty and Elliot so clearly demonstrate, is her argument and even her information is as flawed as it is outdated.

Most of what Prof. Magness argues has been addressed previously, see for example my exchange with her now archived at the SBL Web site: http://sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=651.

No one can keep up with everything in our rich and ever complex field of biblical/archaeological studies but on a subject as controversial and as potentially important as this, it seems a minimum expectation for those wanting to engage in discussion would be to be up to speed on at least the basic research. Lamentably, such is not the case.

Here are a few of the basic articles, all readily available at the Web site bibleinterp.com, that are fundamental to any informed discussion of these subjects. If one is not willing to spend an hour or so reading through these I have to honestly question to what degree such a person is interested in a high level and informed discussion based on facts. As I say to my students on any topic we cover–read, read, please read–then express your views!

M. Elliott and K. Kilty, “Inside the Numbers of the Talpiot Tomb.”  http://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/tomb2.pdf

M. Elliott and K. Kilty, “Probability, Statistics, and the Talpiot Tomb.” http://www.lccc.wy.edu/Media/Website%20Resources/documents/Education%20Natural%20and%20Social%20Sciences/tomb.pdf

Jerry Lutgen, “The Talpiot Tomb: What Are the Odds?”http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/tomb357926.shtml

M. Elliott and K. Kilty, “Talpiot Dethroned.” http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/talpiot357921.shtml

Eldad Keynan, “Jewish Burials.” http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/burial357907.shtml

Oded Golan, “The Authenticity of the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet Inscriptions.” http://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/Authenticity_Letter.pdf

A. Rosenfeld, C.Pellegrino, H. R. Feldman, and W.E. Krumbein, “The Connection of the James Ossuary to the Talpiot (Jesus Family Tomb) Ossuaries.” http://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/JOTalpiot3.pdf

M. Elliott and K. Kilty, “The James Ossuary in Talpiot,”  http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/kilell358029.shtml

Eldad Keynan, “Obscurities Around the Tomb of the Holy Sepulcher” http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/tombs358017.shtml

There is a most interesting and helpful article on the Talpiot “Jesus” tomb titled “Talpiot Dethroned” by Kevin Kilty and Mark Elliot on the Web site The Bible and Interpretation. Kilty and Elliot have previously  published two papers on the subject of the statistical probabilities of the names-cluster found in the tomb, “Probability, Statistics, and the Talpiot Tomb,” and  “Inside the Numbers of the Talpiot Tomb,” which can be downloaded as a PDF files here and here respectively. This latest article focuses on some of the more recent academic discussion of the “statistics” related to the Talpiot tomb names and attempts to point our some of the fundamental errors in getting the facts straight that appear to be quite common on a number of fronts, including a fairly extensive treatment of Dallas Theological Seminary professors Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace in their 2007 book, DeThroning Jesus.

One new feature at the Web site The Bible and Interpretation is that “Comments” are open on the various articles and posts. There is a most interesting exchange regarding this present article between Kilty/Elliot and Randy Ingermanson, who has also published work on the statistics related to the Jesus tomb. Ingermanson is a rare breath of fresh air in the discussion, despite my own disagreement with his conclusions, in that he has shown himself to be as open-minded as he is honorable in the way he goes about dealing with this quite controversial topic.

In case you missed it, if you are interested in why all the statisticians seem to disagree on their conclusions when it comes to the Talpiot “Jesus” tomb the article by Jerry Lutgen, “The Talpiot Tomb: What are the Odds” is also posted on The Bible and Interpretation.

It has been my observation that so much that has been written about the tomb found in 1980 in East Talpiot south of the Old City of Jerusalem, the so-called “Jesus tomb,” has been heavy laden with emotion, presuppositions, and agendas both hidden and more obvious. Accordingly, it was refreshing to read the enlightening essay by Jerry Lutgen, “The Talpiot Tomb: What are the Odds?”  recently posted on the Web site “Bible Interpretation.” You can read it in full here:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/tomb357926.shtml

Mr. Lutgen’s point might be taken to be an obvious one, mainly that presuppositions heavily influence the work of even the most sober and scientifically oriented statisticians but I found his treatment clear and helpful in sorting through the complex maze of mathematics related to the cluster of names on the ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb. He takes for his comparisons the papers of three statistical studies by Andrey Feuerverger, Randall Ingermanson, and Kevin Kilty & Mark Elliot, and tries to get at the heart of the matter of what drives the numbers, and thus affects the outcomes or conclusions on probability.

Lutgen’s work supports a position I have advocated for quite some time regarding the application of statistical methods to the Talpiot tomb.

I do not think it is possible to construct any meaningful statistical model that will tell us whether this tomb, or any other, might be the hypothetical Jesus of Nazareth family tomb. There are simply too many variables and no one could account for them all, or even anticipate them. Who would be in such a tomb? Where would it be located? How large would it be (inner family only or wider circles)? Would ossuaries likely be plain or decorated? Would inscriptions be Aramaic or Greek or both? And so on and on it goes. The point is we can neither know nor accurately imagine any of these things? The list of potentially factored variables could be infinite.

The function of statistics with regard to onomastics is to establish simple probabilities. That is, what is the likelihood that this particular cluster of names (taken either in generic form, e.g. Yehoshua/Mariam/Yehosef or nickname form Yeshua/Maria/Mariamene/Yose) might occur more than once? That is it. In my own work I have preferred to be conservative and use generic forms of the names in the Talpiot tomb, forms that are then much less rare than those we actually have. But the calculations are firm and the method is sound.

For example, if we had a tomb with the four most common male and female names: Joseph, Judah, Mary, and Salome, with no patrynomic tags, we might have hundreds of tombs with such a cluster based on standard name frequency data for 2nd Temple Palestinian Judaism. These data hold up quite well for ossuaries as well as other onomastic data (literary, inscripitions) taken as a whole (Rahmani compared with say Tal Ilan, or Hachlili).

In the case of the Talpiot names, the data show that this cluster, in these relationships, would not occur more than once, even in a high estimate of Jerusalem population over several decades/ generations. Such a conclusions does not establish mathematically the probability that this is the Jesus of Nazareth family tomb. It has to do with the rarity of the cluster. In other words, it is a response to the oft repeated claim–”oh, the names are common,” with the implications that any number of tombs of the period might contain this same configuration of names. This is the approach that Fuchs used in accessing how common it would have been to have a “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” The probabilities can be worked out with precision and the data on frequency of name distributions is sound and reliable. Essentially, this is what Feuerverger’s work on probability involves, though he did factor in various caveats in order to be as conservative as possible in his calculations. This is the Ockham’s razor of probability theory.

Randy Ingermanson and others have suggested that a more Bayesian model be used on the Talpiot inscriptions but I think the task is exceedingly problematic in that it rests upon an infinitely variable prediction of possibilities and expectations, many of which are historically disputable, that are impossible to gauge in a quantifiable way. I surely do not want to discount these efforts and I have welcomed all of these studies, but in terms of method and task, the two approaches are “apples” and “oranges.” I wonder if we will be any nearer to saying anything mathematically about the names in this tomb fitting, or not fitting, an imagined tomb of Jesus of Nazareth than we are at present. As I see it, the identification task has not to do with mathematics or probability, but with proposopography, the kind of thing that Rollston and Bauckham have begun to explore. If one can show that these names either fit, or do not fit, what we as historians might posit as a hypothetical “Jesus family tomb,” then we have something to discuss. Thus our tasks when it comes to the names are: epigraphy, statistics, and finally, history or prosopography. I have published my own attempt at that task in the periodical Near Eastern Archaeology 69:3-4 (2006):132-136, which can be downloaded in PDF format here: TalpiotNEA-Tabor

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 Wikipeida, 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 recently ran 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 is a 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.”

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 “Naassenes” 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?

It seems to me that this result is relevant to discussions of how “common” the name “Mariam” was during this period. 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 names–including 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 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.

The Toronto Globe and Mail, Canada’s leading newspaper, ran a story yesterday titled “University of Toronto Scientist Puts Odds on Lost Tomb” that headlines Prof. Andrey Feuerverger’s statistical conclusions on the Talpiot Jesus tomb. Award winning writer Michael Posner, author of the piece, also offers a kind of “state of the question” update on a number of current issues related to the academic discussion of the tomb and its significance. It can be accessed on-line .

U of T scientist puts odds on lost tomb

Chance that ancient Jerusalem burial tomb did not contain bones of Jesus and family
calculated at 1 in 1,600

MICHAEL POSNER
FROM TUESDAY’S GLOBE AND MAIL
APRIL 22, 2008 AT 4:17 AM EDT

A University of Toronto mathematician is lending new support to the controversial claim that
an ancient burial tomb near Jerusalem once held the bones of Jesus of Nazareth and his
family.

In a peer-reviewed article published last month in the prestigious Annals of Applied
Statistics, Andrey Feuerverger places the odds of the 2,000-year-old tomb not belonging to
the Jesus family at 1 in 1,600.

This figure is even more bullish than the 1-in-600 figure that Dr. Feuerverger calculated a
year ago, when interviewed for The Lost Tomb of Jesus, a $4-million documentary produced
by James Cameron and directed by Toronto’s Simcha Jacobovici.

The tomb, now sealed beneath a housing development in Talpiot, east of Jerusalem, was
accidentally discovered in 1980. Its contents included 10 limestone ossuaries, six of which
were inscribed with evocative names, including “Jesus, son of Joseph, Maria, Jose [perhaps a
brother of Jesus], Mariamne, Matya and Judah, son of Jesus.”

It was Judaic custom at the time to place a deceased’s bones, a year after death, into bone
boxes stored in family tombs. Archeologists stumbling across these crypts typically turned
the remaining bone fragments over to Orthodox officials for reburial; inexplicably, there is
no report of what happened to the bones found at this site.

The film, adducing DNA evidence that suggested Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have
been married and had a son named Judah, triggered a tsunami of debate. Many orthodox
Christians viewed its claims as challenging the very foundations of the faith, which maintains
that Jesus never married, never fathered a child and, three days after he died, was resurrected
physically and ascended to heaven.

In the past year, six books and three other documentary films have been released, all
attempting to refute the thesis of The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Websites and bloggers, academic
and lay, have led a vituperative chorus denouncing the film as sensationalism and its findings
as shoddy science.

The filmmakers say orthodox Christianity has even flexed its power to suppress their
message. There’s no hard evidence of such tactics, but Britain’s Channel 4, which paid
£200,000 for British rights to the film, has yet to broadcast it. Discovery U.S., which aired
the documentary a year ago to enormous ratings, has since declined to rebroadcast it.
For years, archeologists attempted to deflect speculation about the tomb, saying that the
names inscribed on the Talpiot ossuaries were common to the period. But Dr. Feuerverger’s
analysis rejects that argument, noting that while the individual names might have been
common, this specific cluster of names so resonant of the New Testament is not. Indeed, in
January, at a symposium with about 50 academics in Jerusalem, no one made the case for
commonality.

Instead, opponents have challenged Dr. Feuerverger’s historical assumptions, notably that the
unusual Greek name Mariamne found on one of the ossuaries is an appropriate designation
for Mary Magdalene.

But even discounting the Mariamne assumptions, Dr. Feuerverger’s 51-page paper says that
the tomb has a 0.48 chance of belonging to Jesus. That means, says James Tabor, head of
religious studies at the University of North Carolina, “that if we had two tombs to examine,
one of them would be the Jesus tomb. With Feuerverger’s paper in print, a more responsible
discussion of the Talpiot tomb name frequencies and statistics can take place.”

One surprise development at the Jerusalem conference was the appearance of Ruth Gat,
widow of the Israeli archeologist who first excavated the Talpiot tomb. Presented with a
lifetime achievement award on his behalf, Mrs. Gat told the assembled academics that her
husband had died with the conviction that the tomb belonged to Jesus Christ and his family.
A Holocaust survivor, Mr. Gat had confided his views to his wife. He never went public, she
explained, because he feared doing so would produce a global backlash of anti-Semitism.

“The fact is,” maintains Mr. Jacobovici, the filmmaker, “that the conference shifted the
fulcrum of academic opinion from ‘couldn’t possibly be the Jesus tomb’ to ‘very well might
be.’ ”

Although most scholars remain deeply skeptical – 15 of those at the Jerusalem parley signed
an online manifesto rejecting the Jesus tomb arguments – cracks have formed in the academic
front.

“I don’t believe the idea can be simply dumped into the garbage heap of pseudo-science and
history,” says Israeli geologist Aryeh Shimron. “And no manifestos are going to change my
mind that easily. It deserves further, very detailed scientific study.”

University of Detroit professor Jane Schaberg, one of the world’s ranking experts on Mary
Magdalene, says it is “quite possible, even probable,” that the inscription on that ossuary
describes Magdalene and adds that the tomb “may very well belong to Jesus and his
followers, as opposed to Jesus and his family. My gut tells me it’s a movement site.”

What are the implications for orthodox Christians? “It means they should start studying what
was meant by resurrection in the first century,” Dr. Schaberg says. “Resurrection is not a
simple thing, where the body just stands up and walks out.”

“We might be dealing with the most tangible evidence ever of the existence of Jesus and his
family,” adds University of Toronto social historian Claude Cohen-Matlofsky. Even the
conference’s lead organizer, Princeton University’s James Charlesworth, a New Testament
scholar, said afterward, “I have reservations, but I can’t dismiss the possibility that this tomb
was related to the Jesus clan.”

Symposium delegates ultimately voted unanimously to reopen the investigation into the
Talpiot tomb as well as a second still unexamined crypt only nine metres away. So far, no
action has been taken.

© Copyright 2008 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc.,
444 Front St. W., Toronto, ON Canada M5V 2S9
Phillip Crawley, Publisher