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.

I was rather amazed to see the number of Blogs, articles, and media treatments over Easter weekend that triumphantly declared that the issue of whether the Talpiot “Jesus tomb” might have belonged to Jesus of Nazareth and his family to be “dead and buried” forever, to use a bad metaphor. It was as if one could hear a collective sign of relief, if not celebration, over what was declared to be a universal repudiation of any basis whatsoever to the thesis presented by James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici in their Discovery Channel documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.”

Typical of this barrage was the sardonic treatment by Thomas F. Madden titled “Not Dead Yet: The Lost Tomb of Jesus–one year later,” published on the National Review Online Web site. It was predictably picked up in dozens of Blogs and Internet venues and waved like a victory flag. Indeed, Madden ends his article with the tongue-in-cheek declaration “Christians will just have to make do with the empty tomb.” The problem is, Madden’s article was absolutely riddled with factual errors and unfounded assertions, so much so that I found myself wondering if he could have possibly done even the most basic reading of the pros and cons of the discussion over the past year. It is one thing to debate evidence, and to try to come to considered judgments, but quite another for an academic historian to present such a poorly researched treatment of a subject with such obvious theological overtones. It seemed to me to be a case of predisposition and sarcasm ruling over factual deliberation and reasoned discussion.

In the interest of “getting the facts straight,” which surely has to be a prelude to any proper consideration of the topic, I will attempt in a subsequent post or two to offer a fair summary of where the discussion of the Talpiot tomb does stand “one year later.” I also want to present some new evidence that I hope will serve to advance the discussion.

In the end, for so many, theology really controls the discussion. Unfortunately, from an historical perspective, this theology is narrowly conceived and by some measure even “non-biblical.” It presupposes that the hope of “resurrection of the dead” as it developed in late 2nd Temple Judaism, involves reviving the physical body, what Paul calls the “image of dust.” Paul’s metaphor of the physical body being shed like old clothes, leaving the naked “soul,” which is then “re-clothed” with an incorruptible “heavenly” body (i.e., mode of being), goes a long way toward explaining how the “sea” can give up the “dead that are in it’–a conundrum the Greeks liked to use to poke fun at the Jews for believing in a “bodily” resurrection. Their mistake, like those who quizzed Jesus about the nature of the resurrection, was to imagine the “new body” was somehow dependent upon, or even reflective of, the old, i.e., the decayed corpse of dust. To quote Jesus to those literal minded detractors of the idea of resurrection of the dead, “You err, knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Mark 12:24).

There is a most intriguing stained glass window in the Kilmore church (“Church of Mary”) in the village of Dervaig on the Scottish Isle of Mull. The scene shows a Jesus figure in a most intimate pose with a woman named Mary who appears to be pregnant. Under the figures is a quotation from Luke 10:42 “Mary hath chosen that good part which shall not be taken away from her.” I want to thank Jennifer Duba-Scanlan, a colleague I know through e-mail, for pointing this out to me, as well as calling my attention to the Keith Akers post on the Talpiot tomb that I mentioned recently.The Web site to which I was referred understands the “Mary” in the image to be none other than Mary Magdalene, but Luke’s account (10:38-42) is set in an unnamed village, presumably in the Galilee, in the home of two sisters–Martha and Mary. It is a story unique to Luke in which the sister Mary is commended for her desire to “sit at Jesus feet” and listen to his teaching, presumably with the male disciples, while Martha attends to household serving.

**Wendy Pond just pointed out to me that the text actually says that “Martha welcomed Jesus into her house,” when “they,” namely the Jesus entourage, came to a certain village. It does not say that Mary lived there, but just that Martha had a sister called Mary. It is possible that this “Mary” has been traveling with the group, suggests they stop at her sister’s house for a meal and rest, and she has developed the practice of gathering and sitting with the men. Even though Luke introduces these women as if they are “new” to the story, it is clear from the way Jesus speaks to them in the core tradition that he knows them both well. The “good portion” that Mary has chosen appears to be her desire to hear and learn the words of the Teacher.

The scene raises a most interesting question. Who is this particular “Mary,” in Luke’s story and is she possibly to be identified with “Mary of Bethany,” in Jerusalem, mentioned only in the gospel of John, who also has a sister named Martha and a brother named Lazarus? This is the Mary who anoints the feet of Jesus (11:1-2). The answer is neither easy nor obvious, despite the similarity of names. Are there two pair of sisters named “Mary and Martha” or just one?

Other than Jesus’ mother Mary, there are two other intimate Marys in Jesus’ life about whom we have narratives–Mary Magdalene and Mary, sister of Martha. One of the most puzzling challenges in our New Testament gospel traditions is to sort through the various stories regarding these two (or three?) Marys, and the ways in which they intersect with the stories of Jesus being “anointed” before his death. Here are the bare facts in outline form:

• Mark (14:3-9) contains the core story of Jesus being anointed by an unnamed woman at Bethany two days before Passover while reclining at a meal in the house of “Simon the leper.” The woman pours an alabaster flask of expensive oil over his head. Jesus accepts her gesture, defends her against those to call it a waste, and says that “she has anointed my body beforehand for burial.”

• John (12:1-8) recounts that six days before Passover, also at Bethany, Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus, anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped them with her hair. Jesus defends her in a similar manner but says that she should keep the ointment “for the day of my burial.”

• Luke (7:36-40) relates a separate story, much earlier in Jesus’ career, in which an unnamed “sinful woman” anoints Jesus’ feet with an alabaster flask of ointment, wetting them with her tears and drying them with her hair. Jesus tells this woman that her sins are forgiven. The story is strangely juxtaposed, in the immediate verses following, with Luke’s first reference to “Mary called Magdalene” from whom seven demons had gone out. Does Luke intend to imply that Mary Magdalene was a “street woman,” a sinner, and thus healed by Jesus of demonic influence?

These appear to be three separate scenes of anointing, with important differences in content and setting, yet somehow related or “intertwined.” Many scholars have suggested that behind the three accounts lies a single core story, but the consistent elements are rather bare: Jesus is anointed with a costly ointment by a woman; the woman is criticized by others, but defended by Jesus.

In subsequent Christian tradition Luke’s “sinful woman” was indeed identified with Mary Magdalene, who was in turn, quite often, identified with “Mary of Bethany,” sister of Martha. However, since we know of “Mary of Bethany” only in the gospel of John, and she seems clearly distinguished from Mary Magdalene, this identification does not seem to stand up–in John at least. But to further complicate matters, it is indeed Mary, known as Magdalene, who does go to the tomb early Sunday morning with the intention of “anointing” Jesus body for burial–so somehow that motif is connected to her, on one level or another.

The anointing stories in John and Mark are close enough, despite differences of details, to be related. The story in Luke seems to stand independently, and could well be a way of introducing Mary Magdalene. However, the Mary, sister of Martha, in Luke 10, is not so readily identified with Mary of Bethany–who clearly lives in Jerusalem. In fact, it seems hard to make such a case. She could be just “another Mary,” or it is possible, as in the stained glass window in the Kilmore church, that she was indeed the one known as Mary, “the one called Magdalene.” What most characterizes her in this story is that she is a woman among the male disciples, strong and confident of her place of “sitting at the feet” of the Rabbi. It is certainly interesting that this image of Mary as the one who conveys the message of Jesus is the dominant image one finds in subsequent non-canonical traditions about Mary Magadalene, as Jane Schaberg and others have so ably pointed out.

I remain convinced, for reasons I will soon explore in this Blog, that the ossuary inscription in the Talpiot tomb that Rahmani read as “Mariamene also known as Mara,” is the best interpretation of the names, however, as many are now suggesting, if it does indeed read “Mariam and Mara=Martha,” referring to two women, they would indeed most likely be sisters. Given the complexity of our evidence above it is entirely possible that Mary Magdalene did have a sister named Martha.

Keith Akers, author of The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity, has written a thoughtful post titled “Implications of the Jesus Family Tomb at Talpiot” at his Website. I really appreciated Akers’s book on Jesus and learned a lot from him. I have found anything he writes to be well thought through and valuable to read. In his essay on the Talpiot Tomb he raises the issue of how diverse groups of early Christians began to formulate their understanding of what was essentially affirmed in the teaching of “resurrection of the dead,” whether that of Jesus, or the raising of the dead more generally at the end of the age.

The discussion of the important differences between the Greek affirmation of the “immortality of the soul,” and the Jewish concept of “resurrection of the dead,” is an essential part of this discussion. Most students of Christian Origins are introduced at some point to Oscar Cullmann’s classic Ingersoll lecture at Harvard in 1955, “Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?: The Witness of the New Testament,” subsequently published with other essays in an edited volume, Immortality and Resurrection (Macmillan) by Krister Stendahl, now out of print. Fortunately, there is a version of the substance of lecture on the Web. What Cullmann showed so clearly is that one must not gloss over the important differences in these two classic Western ways of viewing death and afterlife. However, a half century of research subsequently has shown that the theological differences Cullmann pinpoints are not as airtight as they might appear, when viewed through the lens of the critical historian of ideas. The magisterial study of Alan Segal, Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion changes the entire landscape of the discussion in this regard. Its rich content and analysis is essential to any informed discussion. If anything one finds that there is a blurring between the sharp distinctions that Cullmann posited, with Jews affirming “resurrection of the dead,” or even “resurrection of the body,” in complex and nuanced ways, often parallel to so-called “Greek” views of immortality. One result is that the literal physical remains of the dead play little to no part, other than in a metaphorical way, in the more sophisticated affirmations that the “dead” experience ongoing existence either in another realm, or in an age to come. Thus in the book of Revelation (20:11-13), the “sea gave up the dead that were in it,” and those resurrected dead “stand” before the throne of God in judgment, but the writer obviously has no interest in affirming a literal recovery of “bones and flesh,” or reanimated corpses, long ago “returned to dust.”
Akers’s reminds us that Jews and early Christians were quite aware of the complex nuances of their affirmation of “resurrection of the dead,” and that a literal view of restored “bones and flesh” was not their central concern nor their most fundamental challenge. There was something much more profound at stake that had to do with an “anthropological” view of the whole human person–thus Paul’s category of a “new body,” but a spiritual one, not one of flesh and blood. This was in contrast to the “naked” state of death, before the spirit is “reclothed.” We are essentially dealing with metaphors here but the clothing analogy seems to be a good one, as Paul develops it in 2 Corinthians 5. He apparently likens the body of flesh and bones to old clothing, and one’s immediate “death” as a naked state of the disembodied “spirit,” (i.e., Greek “immortal soul”). Accordingly, putting on a “new spiritual body” is akin to putting on new clothing, with the old shed or left behind. In that system of understanding resurrection literal “tombs” are irrelevant, whether literally in the ground, or symbolically “in the sea.”

At the invitation of Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici has issued a formal statement in reply to the various stories that appeared in the press, and in particularly to the Meyers/Magness declaration that he had manipulated the media covering the Princeton Talpiot tomb conference. His reply is now archived on the Biblical Archaeology Society Web site as part of a new feature section titled “Airing Differences: ‘Jesus Tomb’ Controversy Erupts–Again.” As one who has been often misquoted, misrepresented, or had statements poorly contextualized in news stories, even by conscientious journalists, I applaud Shanks for trying to air all sides of this contentious topic.

I continue to think the Jerusalem conference was a most positive development, despite some of the rancor and heated moments. Charlesworth is to be commended for his hard work and his willingness to bring together all sides of the issues, even with the resulting sparks and emotions. The volumes of papers and proceedings will demonstrate, I think, the high academic quality of most of the presentations. I have corresponded by e-mail with a majority of the attendees, those who did not sign the Meyers/Magness, and quite a few of those who did. My sense is that most of us found the conference to have been a valuable contribution to the discussion of both the Talpiot tomb and broader questions of Jewish burial in Jerusalem in late 2nd Temple times.