Monday, January 21, 2008
The Talpiot Tomb Controversy Revisited
The folllowing statement, which also appears on the Duke University Religion Department Blog, is posted here at the request of my colleague Professor Eric Meyers, and Professor Jodi Magness of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Scroll down to the bottom of the post for the list of signatories. Note: slightly revised on 24 January 2008:
--
The Talpiot Tomb Controversy Revisited
A firestorm has broken out in Jerusalem following the conclusion of the “Third Princeton Theological Seminary Symposium on Jewish Views of the Afterlife and Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism: Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context.” Most negative assessments of archaeologists and other scientists and scholars who attended have been excluded from the final press reports. Instead the media have presented the views of Simcha Jacobovici, who produced the controversial film and book “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” with Hollywood director James Cameron, and who claims that his identification has been vindicated by the conference papers. Nothing further from the truth can be deduced from the discussion and presentations that took place on January 13-17, 2008.
A statistical analysis of the 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. Even the reading of the inscribed name as “Mariamene” was contested by epigraphers at the conference. Furthermore, Mary Magdalene is not referred to by the Greek name Mariamene in any literary sources before the late second-third century AD. An expert panel of scholars on the subject of Mary in the early church dismissed out of hand the suggestion that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus, and no traditions refer to a son of Jesus named Judah (another individual named on an ossuary from the Talpiot tomb). Moreover, the DNA evidence from the tomb, which has been used to suggest that Jesus had a wife, was dismissed by the Hebrew University team that devised such procedures and has conducted such research all over the world. The ossuary inscribed with the name “Jesus son of Joseph” is paralleled by a find from another Jerusalem tomb, and at least one speaker said the reading of the name “Jesus” on the Talpiot tomb ossuary is uncertain. Testimony from archaeologists who were involved in the excavation of the Talpiot tomb leaves no doubt that the “missing” tenth ossuary was plain and uninscribed, eliminating any possibility that it is the so-called “James ossuary.”
The identification of the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus’ family flies in the face of the accounts of Paul and the canonical Gospel, which are the earliest traditions describing Jesus’ death and burial. According to these accounts Jesus’ body was placed in the tomb of a prominent follower named Joseph of Arimathea. Since at least the early fourth century Christians have venerated the site of Jesus’ burial at the spot marked by the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. In contrast, not a single tradition, Christian or otherwise, preserves any reference to or recollection of a family tomb of Jesus anywhere in Jerusalem.
The smoking gun at the conference was the surprise appearance of Ruth Gat, the widow of the archaeologist who excavated the tomb in 1980 and has since passed away. Mrs. Gat announced that her husband had known about the identification all along but was afraid to tell anyone because of the possibility of an anti-Semitic reaction. However, Joseph Gat lacked the expertise to read the inscriptions. Jacobovici now says that Mrs. Gat’s statement has vindicated his claims about the tomb.
To conclude, we wish to protest the misrepresentation of the conference proceedings in the media, and make it clear that the majority of scholars in attendance – including all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb - either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly speculative.
Signed,
Professor Mordechai Aviam, University of Rochester
Professor Ann Graham Brock, Iliff School of Theology, University of Denver
Professor F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Princeton Theological Seminary
Professor C.D. Elledge, Gustavus Adolphus College
Professor Shimon Gibson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Professor Rachel Hachlili, University of Haifa
Professor Amos Kloner, Bar-Ilan University
Professor Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Professor Lee McDonald, Arcadia Seminary
Professor Eric M. Meyers, Duke University
Professor Stephen Pfann, University of the Holy Land
Professor Jonathan Price, Tel Aviv University
Professor Christopher Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion
Professor Alan F. Segal, Barnard College, Columbia University
Professor Choon-Leong Seow, Princeton Theological Seminary
Mr. Joe Zias, Science and Antiquity Group, Jerusalem
Dr. Boaz Zissu, Bar-Ilan University
--
The Talpiot Tomb Controversy Revisited
A firestorm has broken out in Jerusalem following the conclusion of the “Third Princeton Theological Seminary Symposium on Jewish Views of the Afterlife and Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism: Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context.” Most negative assessments of archaeologists and other scientists and scholars who attended have been excluded from the final press reports. Instead the media have presented the views of Simcha Jacobovici, who produced the controversial film and book “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” with Hollywood director James Cameron, and who claims that his identification has been vindicated by the conference papers. Nothing further from the truth can be deduced from the discussion and presentations that took place on January 13-17, 2008.
A statistical analysis of the 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. Even the reading of the inscribed name as “Mariamene” was contested by epigraphers at the conference. Furthermore, Mary Magdalene is not referred to by the Greek name Mariamene in any literary sources before the late second-third century AD. An expert panel of scholars on the subject of Mary in the early church dismissed out of hand the suggestion that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus, and no traditions refer to a son of Jesus named Judah (another individual named on an ossuary from the Talpiot tomb). Moreover, the DNA evidence from the tomb, which has been used to suggest that Jesus had a wife, was dismissed by the Hebrew University team that devised such procedures and has conducted such research all over the world. The ossuary inscribed with the name “Jesus son of Joseph” is paralleled by a find from another Jerusalem tomb, and at least one speaker said the reading of the name “Jesus” on the Talpiot tomb ossuary is uncertain. Testimony from archaeologists who were involved in the excavation of the Talpiot tomb leaves no doubt that the “missing” tenth ossuary was plain and uninscribed, eliminating any possibility that it is the so-called “James ossuary.”
The identification of the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus’ family flies in the face of the accounts of Paul and the canonical Gospel, which are the earliest traditions describing Jesus’ death and burial. According to these accounts Jesus’ body was placed in the tomb of a prominent follower named Joseph of Arimathea. Since at least the early fourth century Christians have venerated the site of Jesus’ burial at the spot marked by the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. In contrast, not a single tradition, Christian or otherwise, preserves any reference to or recollection of a family tomb of Jesus anywhere in Jerusalem.
The smoking gun at the conference was the surprise appearance of Ruth Gat, the widow of the archaeologist who excavated the tomb in 1980 and has since passed away. Mrs. Gat announced that her husband had known about the identification all along but was afraid to tell anyone because of the possibility of an anti-Semitic reaction. However, Joseph Gat lacked the expertise to read the inscriptions. Jacobovici now says that Mrs. Gat’s statement has vindicated his claims about the tomb.
To conclude, we wish to protest the misrepresentation of the conference proceedings in the media, and make it clear that the majority of scholars in attendance – including all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb - either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly speculative.
Signed,
Professor Mordechai Aviam, University of Rochester
Professor Ann Graham Brock, Iliff School of Theology, University of Denver
Professor F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Princeton Theological Seminary
Professor C.D. Elledge, Gustavus Adolphus College
Professor Shimon Gibson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Professor Rachel Hachlili, University of Haifa
Professor Amos Kloner, Bar-Ilan University
Professor Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Professor Lee McDonald, Arcadia Seminary
Professor Eric M. Meyers, Duke University
Professor Stephen Pfann, University of the Holy Land
Professor Jonathan Price, Tel Aviv University
Professor Christopher Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion
Professor Alan F. Segal, Barnard College, Columbia University
Professor Choon-Leong Seow, Princeton Theological Seminary
Mr. Joe Zias, Science and Antiquity Group, Jerusalem
Dr. Boaz Zissu, Bar-Ilan University
Labels: Talpiot tomb
Comments:
I am no fan of the Talpiot tomb, but I do not agree with this part of the statement: "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."
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. (Almost everybody agrees that you should eliminate it.)
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. (To my knowledge, Feuerverger has not done this calculation, although Jay Cost and I have, and likewise Kevin Kilty and Mark Elliott. Depending on assumptions, you can get as high as 49%, or you can get very close to 0.)
From a mathematical point of view, the key issues are these:
1) Should "Yoseh" be regarded as a rare form of "Yehosef" or should it not?
2) What is the relative probability that Jesus had a son, as compared to other Jewish men of Jerusalem?
3) What is the relative probability of Jesus being buried in a rock-cut tomb, as compared to other men of Jerusalem?
These are issues of archaeology and history, and so I leave them to experts in those disciplines. I am just a math guy and all I can do is point out which points in the calculation affect the probability the most strongly.
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. (Almost everybody agrees that you should eliminate it.)
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. (To my knowledge, Feuerverger has not done this calculation, although Jay Cost and I have, and likewise Kevin Kilty and Mark Elliott. Depending on assumptions, you can get as high as 49%, or you can get very close to 0.)
From a mathematical point of view, the key issues are these:
1) Should "Yoseh" be regarded as a rare form of "Yehosef" or should it not?
2) What is the relative probability that Jesus had a son, as compared to other Jewish men of Jerusalem?
3) What is the relative probability of Jesus being buried in a rock-cut tomb, as compared to other men of Jerusalem?
These are issues of archaeology and history, and so I leave them to experts in those disciplines. I am just a math guy and all I can do is point out which points in the calculation affect the probability the most strongly.
I agree with you.
In fact, I think that a better statement would say:
"A statistical analysis of the relatively common names engraved on the ossuairies leaves no doubt that the probability of the Talpiot tomb belong to Jesus' Family is very low, if the mariamene named on one of the ossuaries is not Mary Magdalene, and Yoseh regarded as a common shortened form of Yehosef,"
In fact,
(Kilty & Elliot):
"If we consider Yoseh as meaning more than merely finding the inscription \Joseph" on a ossuary, how does this change arguments based on probability? (...) the name Yoseh is so rare that it changes probabilities and expectations by a factor of about 29. if we repeat the calculation using Bayes' Theorem
that we made in Equations 4 through 6 using the name Joseph rather than
Yoseh, the probability P(B) becomes 0.0010025 and the a posteriori proba-
bility falls to around 6%. This is only one-eighth the value (49%) obtained
using Yoseh in the calculation"
Nehemias
In fact, I think that a better statement would say:
"A statistical analysis of the relatively common names engraved on the ossuairies leaves no doubt that the probability of the Talpiot tomb belong to Jesus' Family is very low, if the mariamene named on one of the ossuaries is not Mary Magdalene, and Yoseh regarded as a common shortened form of Yehosef,"
In fact,
(Kilty & Elliot):
"If we consider Yoseh as meaning more than merely finding the inscription \Joseph" on a ossuary, how does this change arguments based on probability? (...) the name Yoseh is so rare that it changes probabilities and expectations by a factor of about 29. if we repeat the calculation using Bayes' Theorem
that we made in Equations 4 through 6 using the name Joseph rather than
Yoseh, the probability P(B) becomes 0.0010025 and the a posteriori proba-
bility falls to around 6%. This is only one-eighth the value (49%) obtained
using Yoseh in the calculation"
Nehemias
What a silly statement. This is the best a group of "scholars" could come up with?
To translate: "If you make all the same assumptions we do, and throw out any fact we don't like, then there is no chance we could be wrong! Take that! Thbbbweww!"
Can these people be serious when they say that finding a tomb of Jesus "flies in the face of canonical accounts" is actually cited as a piece of evidence? Can the belief of the inerrancy of scripture be considered "evidence"? By "scholars?"
These people should be ashamed.
The gospel accounts are the earliest traditions? For sure? Or just the earliest we know of? Given the contradictions in the four gospels as they relate to the resurrection/discovery of the empty tomb, can any serious scholar cite them as "evidence" about the fate of the body of Jesus?
Not to mention that only one gospel says that Jesus was placed in Joseph's tomb, another gives a different account, and certainly none of the gospels say he was never moved. How could they, given that they said he was resurrected? This is "evidence" in the same way that the Shroud of Turin is evidence of the resurrection.
300 years after Jesus' death, quasi-pagan tradition developed about a site, and that is "evidence?"
These people need to get over the fact that there was a film they don't like made about this topic. Boo hoo hoo. Grow up.
paulf
To translate: "If you make all the same assumptions we do, and throw out any fact we don't like, then there is no chance we could be wrong! Take that! Thbbbweww!"
Can these people be serious when they say that finding a tomb of Jesus "flies in the face of canonical accounts" is actually cited as a piece of evidence? Can the belief of the inerrancy of scripture be considered "evidence"? By "scholars?"
These people should be ashamed.
The gospel accounts are the earliest traditions? For sure? Or just the earliest we know of? Given the contradictions in the four gospels as they relate to the resurrection/discovery of the empty tomb, can any serious scholar cite them as "evidence" about the fate of the body of Jesus?
Not to mention that only one gospel says that Jesus was placed in Joseph's tomb, another gives a different account, and certainly none of the gospels say he was never moved. How could they, given that they said he was resurrected? This is "evidence" in the same way that the Shroud of Turin is evidence of the resurrection.
300 years after Jesus' death, quasi-pagan tradition developed about a site, and that is "evidence?"
These people need to get over the fact that there was a film they don't like made about this topic. Boo hoo hoo. Grow up.
paulf
# posted by 
: 10:09 PM
: 10:09 PM
paulf,
I'm afraid you've seriously misread the statement, and that your reaction is rather misinformed.
First of all, the reason for *this* group of scholars (and not another) is that this group represents those who participated in the meeting. That, of course, is the correct group to sign this sort of statement, as the statement's purpose is to contradict the media reports about what participants at this meeting said. And, in spite of what you seem to imply, there are certainly no slouches on the list. (I'm not sure what more you want, or what "heavyweight" you think might weigh in on the opposing side.)
Your translation of their statement leaves a lot to be desired. All of the assumptions that they ruled out of court they did so for compelling reasons. Can you name one that wasn't?
The reference to the canonical accounts has nothing to do with a "belief in the inerrancy of scripture". It has to do (as the statement makes clear) with the shape of the earliest traditions, and of the lack of any tradition supporting Jacobivici's alternative story.
I think that just about all the signatories are open to the possibility that the earliest traditions we have might be wrong. They're just concerned that the shape of the extant evidence be given its proper weight.
It isn't fair to say that the signatories need to "grow up" about a film "they don't like". What they really "don't like" is the media perpetuating a lie about what transpired at this meeting.
I'm afraid you've seriously misread the statement, and that your reaction is rather misinformed.
First of all, the reason for *this* group of scholars (and not another) is that this group represents those who participated in the meeting. That, of course, is the correct group to sign this sort of statement, as the statement's purpose is to contradict the media reports about what participants at this meeting said. And, in spite of what you seem to imply, there are certainly no slouches on the list. (I'm not sure what more you want, or what "heavyweight" you think might weigh in on the opposing side.)
Your translation of their statement leaves a lot to be desired. All of the assumptions that they ruled out of court they did so for compelling reasons. Can you name one that wasn't?
The reference to the canonical accounts has nothing to do with a "belief in the inerrancy of scripture". It has to do (as the statement makes clear) with the shape of the earliest traditions, and of the lack of any tradition supporting Jacobivici's alternative story.
I think that just about all the signatories are open to the possibility that the earliest traditions we have might be wrong. They're just concerned that the shape of the extant evidence be given its proper weight.
It isn't fair to say that the signatories need to "grow up" about a film "they don't like". What they really "don't like" is the media perpetuating a lie about what transpired at this meeting.
# posted by : 1:11 PM
: 1:11 PM
I dare say the name of Jesus was not uncommon among aristocratic messianic priestly types who wished for one of their sons to be the next messiah. And doesn't it seem odd if these wealthy aristocrats preserved bones in ossuaries but didn't believe in resurrection? Do not the Scrolls in fact give some indication of such a belief, as Vermes has written? This is seemingly in contradiction to what one reads in the writings attributed to Josephus about so-called Sadducees. I can only think this is later editorial dissimulation. Rich folk never like to miss-out, even if they had to wait a little while for their rising.
Thus I believe that the Talpiot tomb had nothing whatsoever to do with the prophet of the NT. Nor did the prophet have anything to do with any such tomb, regardless of what one reads in the extant NT. I say this because prophetic types, such as 'Essenes' believed that when a person died, the person's cleansed spirit instantaneously rose to be with God. Thus burial in the ground of a corruptible impure body was perfectly satisfactory. Such folk were glad to leave their bodies behind.
Thus I believe that the Talpiot tomb had nothing whatsoever to do with the prophet of the NT. Nor did the prophet have anything to do with any such tomb, regardless of what one reads in the extant NT. I say this because prophetic types, such as 'Essenes' believed that when a person died, the person's cleansed spirit instantaneously rose to be with God. Thus burial in the ground of a corruptible impure body was perfectly satisfactory. Such folk were glad to leave their bodies behind.
There are a few typos in the statement:
First paragraph: "Jaocobovici" for "Jacobovici"
Signatures: "Choon-Leon" for "Choon-Leong"
http://www.ptsem.edu/PTS_People/Faculty/seow.php
"Gutavus" for "Gustavus"
http://gustavus.edu/
Why are Magness and Meyers given the title "Professor", whereas the other professors on the list are not given the title?
First paragraph: "Jaocobovici" for "Jacobovici"
Signatures: "Choon-Leon" for "Choon-Leong"
http://www.ptsem.edu/PTS_People/Faculty/seow.php
"Gutavus" for "Gustavus"
http://gustavus.edu/
Why are Magness and Meyers given the title "Professor", whereas the other professors on the list are not given the title?
John Poirer:
Sorry, these people are acting like a bunch of babies. I know they are distinguished scholars, which is what makes it even more galling.
They don't like the stories about the conference? Again, cry me a river, welcome to the real world. Maybe it would be helpful if they CITED SOME ACTUAL STORIES and refuted them specifically.
Was every last story about the conference wrong? It sounds like they are unhappy that anyone dare report anything they did not approve in advance.
Mrs. Gat's statement was indeed noteworthy and extremely newsworthy. Their dismissal of it because it doesn't agree with their preconceptions is really disgraceful. What basis do they have to dispute what a man said to his wife?
I'm not an expert in this field, but there are some who come to different conclusions about the other issues they cite. Even if most of their conclusions are right, that doesn't mean Jesus of Nazareth wasn't buried there. I tend to doubt that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, but I think this statement both distorts and overemphasizes the importance of the married angle to the Jacobovicci documentary (which I saw on TV, but didn't read the book).
My guess is that most of these scholars do not believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus, which means he has to be buried SOMEWHERE. Why not here? The Bible stories, having a theological angle to push, are exactly wrong to cite, since they detail a story that by historical standards MUST BE UNTRUE.
Sorry, these people are acting like a bunch of babies. I know they are distinguished scholars, which is what makes it even more galling.
They don't like the stories about the conference? Again, cry me a river, welcome to the real world. Maybe it would be helpful if they CITED SOME ACTUAL STORIES and refuted them specifically.
Was every last story about the conference wrong? It sounds like they are unhappy that anyone dare report anything they did not approve in advance.
Mrs. Gat's statement was indeed noteworthy and extremely newsworthy. Their dismissal of it because it doesn't agree with their preconceptions is really disgraceful. What basis do they have to dispute what a man said to his wife?
I'm not an expert in this field, but there are some who come to different conclusions about the other issues they cite. Even if most of their conclusions are right, that doesn't mean Jesus of Nazareth wasn't buried there. I tend to doubt that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, but I think this statement both distorts and overemphasizes the importance of the married angle to the Jacobovicci documentary (which I saw on TV, but didn't read the book).
My guess is that most of these scholars do not believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus, which means he has to be buried SOMEWHERE. Why not here? The Bible stories, having a theological angle to push, are exactly wrong to cite, since they detail a story that by historical standards MUST BE UNTRUE.
# posted by : 3:12 PM
: 3:12 PM
As several posts to this article mentioned, we regarded the name Mariamene as neutral in our calculations. We have always maintained that Yoseh/Joseph is a significant name concerning the tomb. If we consider Yoseh, a name located on one of the ossuaries, as meaning more than a variant spelling of Joseph, the difference, as noted by the other posts, changes the probabilities dramatically. Just the inscriptions “Jesus Son of Joseph,” “Mariam,” and “Yoseh” are significant enough as a cluster to suggest that scholars should revisit the entire matter. Those interested our calculations can find our essay here at www.lccc.wy.edu/Index.aspx?page=547 .
Mark Elliott
Kevin Kilty
Mark Elliott
Kevin Kilty
Readers who are interested in the statistical analysis that Randy Ingermanson and I conducted can go here for a non-technical summary:
http://www.ingermanson.com/jesus/art/stats2.php
They can go here for an in-depth technical review: http://www.ingermanson.com/jesus/art/tomb/HeIsNotHere.pdf
-Jay Cost
http://www.ingermanson.com/jesus/art/stats2.php
They can go here for an in-depth technical review: http://www.ingermanson.com/jesus/art/tomb/HeIsNotHere.pdf
-Jay Cost
# posted by : 11:16 PM
: 11:16 PM
In Mark 12.18, I would see "who say there is no resurrection" as dissimulation with regard to the belief of so-called 'Sadducees' who were in reality the High Priests confronting the prophet. Thus the 'Sadducees' DID believe in the resurrection of the body and in the possibility of the enjoyment of marriage in heaven. They simply posed a tricky question to the prophet that might arise if someone had married several wives. These rich folk thought they were going to have earthly pleasures in heaven. No wonder they preserved their bones in ossuaries and rock-cut tombs! I further suggest that the prophet answered by saying that when men rise from the dead, they are spirits. These can rise instantaeously and are asexual.
I strongly agree with "paulf." What are these pseudo-elitist ivory tower fluffheads trying to pull here? What are THEY counting as "evidence"? Their probability analysis is completely off-base. They insulted people. They went off half-cocked with this "statement." On a broader perspective, given the fact of evolution, does it makes sense for a "God" to have a "son"? Why was the stone rolled back when Jesus could've walked through the tomb walls, and so on? These so-called "scholars" should write 500 times, "I will not write any more stupid statements." NathanP.
# posted by : 6:27 PM
: 6:27 PM
Since Randy Ingermanson is a "believer," thus has a deep vested personal interest in pooh-poohing any analysis that might upset his belief applecart. I read some of Randy's website; he has a fantastical imagination and has applied it to his so-called "statistical analysis." NathanP.
# posted by : 6:54 PM
: 6:54 PM
Why doesn't Randy just ask Jesus if the Talpiot tomb is his family's tomb, and then tell us the answer. NathanP.
# posted by : 6:56 PM
: 6:56 PM
I’ve always found it curious that we only know about a physical ascension from Luke - and not the other synoptics - as if his body floated into the sky (I heard the air gets thin up there )& that Paul and Peter seem to preserve a different tradition with Jesus ascending as a spirit. I know, there are different interpretations of those passages. Also troubling are those verses in Isaiah that seem to imply Jesus is a family man - Isaiah 53:8 “…and who can speak of his descendants?” Oh, they told me in college, “because he never had a chance to have any,” - but then verse 10 goes on: “…he will see his offspring and prolong his days.” I know, you will just try to explain that away. Good luck with that.
I’m no fan of Jacobovici sensationalism so when this whole tomb thing came out I scored a copy of Rahmani’s “Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries” and transferred the data onto an Excel spreadsheet so I could play with it. I’m still playing with it. I made it into a student exercise at the time and tried to impress my Sunday School class. Look how common their names are, etc. Got mostly yawns as I recall but I figured case closed and lets move on.
Eventually I realized I wasn't moving on, though. It’s still stirring around in my feeble head-bone. What do we really know about the resurrection. Maybe Jesus got out of a heavily guarded tomb because he walked out as a physical man. (I wouldn’t have arrested him either under those circumstances.) Maybe he was around for awhile and even got to see his wife and kids. And then when his time was over he left his physical body to be buried in the family tomb, or the movement tomb – (hmmm, what are they keeping from us in that tomb next door???)
Personally I find a group letter of this sort amusing. Everyone rushing to take a stand – [hey, I even see my old Hebrew professor in that list!] No no no, we can’t find Jesus’ body, this will ruin everything! Not for me, though. For me, finding the body of Jesus would be a real faith boost.
I don’t know who was really buried in that tomb. But a part of me is really pissed that there is a possibility the actual bones of Mary, Jesus and so forth were literally “stolen” by the Orthodox community only to be reburied and out of the hands of the Christian community. Wouldn't that be the mother of all historical ironies.
dnlowen@gmail.com
-Daniel Owen
Post a Comment
I’m no fan of Jacobovici sensationalism so when this whole tomb thing came out I scored a copy of Rahmani’s “Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries” and transferred the data onto an Excel spreadsheet so I could play with it. I’m still playing with it. I made it into a student exercise at the time and tried to impress my Sunday School class. Look how common their names are, etc. Got mostly yawns as I recall but I figured case closed and lets move on.
Eventually I realized I wasn't moving on, though. It’s still stirring around in my feeble head-bone. What do we really know about the resurrection. Maybe Jesus got out of a heavily guarded tomb because he walked out as a physical man. (I wouldn’t have arrested him either under those circumstances.) Maybe he was around for awhile and even got to see his wife and kids. And then when his time was over he left his physical body to be buried in the family tomb, or the movement tomb – (hmmm, what are they keeping from us in that tomb next door???)
Personally I find a group letter of this sort amusing. Everyone rushing to take a stand – [hey, I even see my old Hebrew professor in that list!] No no no, we can’t find Jesus’ body, this will ruin everything! Not for me, though. For me, finding the body of Jesus would be a real faith boost.
I don’t know who was really buried in that tomb. But a part of me is really pissed that there is a possibility the actual bones of Mary, Jesus and so forth were literally “stolen” by the Orthodox community only to be reburied and out of the hands of the Christian community. Wouldn't that be the mother of all historical ironies.
dnlowen@gmail.com
-Daniel Owen
![[Valid Atom]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed"){kind=small}
