Abnormal Interests

« The Kilamuwa Phoenician Inscription
Main
That's One Side of Me »

February 26, 2007

Against My Better Judgment - The "Jesus Family Tomb"

After spending part of Sunday and today contemplating the implications of the wise words of Chris Heard, "But the main reason I won’t blog a long review of the documentary is that I don’t have sufficient expertise in New Testament studies and 'historical Jesus' studies," I decided to write something on the so-called "Jesus Family Tomb" anyway. I certainly will not write a review of the upcoming "documentary" by Simcha Jacobovici who also brought us the error filled "Exodus Decoded."

The archaeological sources for any discussion of this first century CE tomb complex in East Talpiyot, Jerusalem are Amos Kloner, 1996, and Levi Yizhaq Rahmani, 1994 (see complete references below). I have not been able to get hold of Rahmani's book but I have a copy of Kloner's article here as I write. As far as I can tell, Kloner reproduces all or most of Rahmani's relevant work. The tomb was opened in 1980 and a salvage excavation began soon after.

Allow me to quote at some length from Kloner's , 21, concluding discussion.

Based on the accumulated evidence from hundreds of tomb caves in Jerusalem and its vicinity, the sequence of quarrying and interment in the burial care is reconstructed as follows: 1. The quarrying of the cave, the preparation of the kokhim [burial shafts - des] and the primary internment with in them. 2. The collection of bones and the placing of ossuaries in some of the kokhim, which were thus invalidated for primary burial, the practice of primary burial continued in the remaining kokhim. 3. The carving of arcosolia [niches - des] either contemporaneously with or subsequent to the previous activities. The arcosolia were originally intended to accommodate ossuaries. 4. The primary internment in Kokh 4 [one of the kokhim - des] and the conversion of the arcosolia from their original function of housing ossuaries to receiving the recently-interred for primary burial.

This burial cave was probably used for three or four generations. The finds, which included small quantities of sherds, allow for a Second Temple period dating, i.e. from the end of the first century BCE or the beginning of the first century CE until approximately 70 CE.

Notice what it doesn't say; no mention of this being the family tomb of the Jesus of the Christian New Testament. I am completely confident that if it even crossed Kloner's mind that this was the family tomb of Jesus he would have said something about it.

In the light of all the hubbub about the forth coming "documentary," Kloner has now said something about it.

But archaeologist Professor Amos Kloner, who documented the tomb as the Jewish burial cave of a well-off family more than 10 years ago, is adamant there is no evidence to support claims that it was the burial site of Jesus.

"I'm a scholar. I do scholarly work which has nothing to do with documentary film-making. There's no way to take a religious story and to turn it into something scientific," he told AFP in a telephone interview.

"I still insist that it is a regular burial chamber from the 1st century BC," Kloner said, adding that the names were a coincidence.

"Who says that 'Maria' is Magdalena and 'Judah' is the son of Jesus? It cannot be proved. These are very popular and common names from the 1st century BC," said the academic at Israel's Bar Ilan University.

Kloner said that of 900 burial caves found within four kilometres (two and a half miles) of Jerusalem's Old City and from the same era, the name Jesus or Yeshu was found 71 times, and that "Jesus son of Joseph" had also been found. [RawStory]

I worry about the use of "proved" but I do agree that there is no way, based on this tomb, to raise the probability of these assertions to even a level of reasonably plausible.

Bill Dever made this comment,

The fact that it's been ignored tells you something," said Dever, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. "It would be amusing if it didn't mislead so many people." [CNN]

Of the 17 ossuaries found in the tomb, six contain inscriptions: five in Hebrew and one in Greek. Kloner, 16-17, tells us the ratio of inscribed ossuaries is higher than expected and the ratio of Hebrew to Greek inscriptions is also higher than expected. Kloner puts the common ratio at four Hebrew inscriptions for every three Greek inscriptions. Two of the inscriptions seem to be beautifully engraved, the others range from little more than crude scratches to more readable, but less than impressive, writing. Kloner, 16-20, describes all six of the inscribed ossuaries plus four others, two of which have zigzags and mason's marks. A side note: It might be better to think of the "Hebrew" inscriptions as Aramaic.

Let's look at three of the inscriptions.

First, the inscription on ossuary IAA 80-501, reads, יהודה בר ישוע. It is among the better-engraved inscriptions and was written without the spaces I inserted in my transcription. It reads something like Yehuda son of Yeshua. Both names are extremely common. The first name would be pronounced Judah in English and, according to statistics provided by Kolner, 18, 6.5% of the male population in the period had this name. This is close to the numbers reported to Ben Witherington by Richard Bauckham. The second name is Jesus. At the time of Kolner's article it was found on five ossuaries in the collection belonging to the State of Israel. Kolner tell us it is the sixth most common name.

Second, the inscription on IAA 80-506, also written without spaces, reads ישוע בר יהיסף, "Yeshua (?) (Jesus) son of Yehosef (Joseph)." There are a number of mason's marks on the ossuary and the inscription is, in my opinion, very poorly executed. In fact, the reading of Yeshua is unclear. Kolner, 18, thinks it is confirmed by the reading is IAA 80-501. Kolner, 18, says this of the inscription, "In contrast to the other ossuaries in this tomb, the incisions are here superficial and cursorily carved." Using the Bauckham numbers, about 6.2% of the population had Joseph as a name. One should also remember what Kolner said with regard to this inscription in the interview cited above, the name "Jesus son of Joseph" has been found elsewhere in the same era and general location.

Third, IAA 80-500 has the following inscription, Μαριαμνου Μαρα. Kolner, 17, reads this as Miriam Martha. He takes Μαρα to be a contraction for Martha and used as a second name. He inserts an ή between the names. Both names are extremely common in the period.

So what can be made of all this? Very little. Jacobovici appears to be sensationalizing an otherwise unremarkable discovery now over two decades old. There is nothing here that should cause consternation for believers or give hope (or consternations) to non-believers. Theological issues will not be dispelled or supported by archaeological discoveries. This tomb is no exception.

Perhaps the best way to judge the upcoming movie is to measure the extent that it interacts with the two references below. If it interacts closely with these works, bringing plausible evidence to the discussion and doesn't go much beyond them, then it may actually be a documentary. If it goes off in flights of fancy and drags in irrelevancies than it isn't.

Update: February 26, 2007 8:30 PM

Edward Cook identifies the other ossuary with Jesus bar Joseph on it, Rahmani 9. Ed says this of the previously known inscription,

The first was found in 1926 in the basement of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine by E. L. Sukenik (one of the first Western scholars to read the Dead Sea Scrolls). It too caused a brief sensation and then was forgotten. The provenance is unknown, although the Jerusalem area is probable. I haven't noticed any mentions of this ossuary in all the hoopla. The existence of two "Jesus bar Joseph" ossuaries suggests that the names were so common that, inevitably, different individuals would share the same name.

Go give Ed's whole post a read.

Update: February 27, 2007

Carl Zimmer at the Loom has a short post that addresses journalistic responsibility and the Jesus Family Tomb documentary. Carl quotes a New York Times article as follow:

In an interview, Mr. Jacobovici was asked why the filmmakers did not conduct DNA testing on the other ossuaries to determine whether the one inscribed "Judah, son of Jesus" was genetically related to either the Jesus or Mary Magdalene boxes; or whether the Jesus remains were actually the offspring of Mary.

"We're not scientists. At the end of the day we can't wait till every ossuary is tested for DNA," he said. "We took the story that far. At some point you have to say, 'I've done my job as a journalist.' " (emphasis Carl's)

To this Carl all so correctly says,

Now it seems to me, as a journalist, that Jacobovici's job as a journalist would be to report on peer-reviewed research published in a scientific journal by a team of experts who had no financial stake in the success of a show. Once he starts commissioning DNA tests of his own, he's taking on an entirely different set of responsibilities. For example, it's up to him to make sure that the DNA has not been contaminated by archaeologists.

Please read Carl's whole post.

References:

Posted by Duane Smith at February 26, 2007 4:17 PM | Read more on Archaeology |

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2039

Comments

Posted by: Gary Hurd at February 28, 2007 9:29 AM

Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.

Tags: