The Talpiot Tomb Controversy
The Ossuaries
In the Talpiot tomb, there were 10 uncovered ossuaries. Listed as follows, these are:
701 Μαριαμηνου (?) Μαρ(?)
702 יהודה בר ישוע
מתיה 703
שע בר יהוסף 704..X
705 יוסה
מריה 706
707 no inscription
708 no inscription
709 no inscription
710 no inscription (confirmed by Joe Zias)
701 is read by Rahmani as “Of Mariamene, who is (also called) Mara; the documentary instead reads it as “The Master Mariamene”, taking Mara as מרה, which in Aramaic is the feminine form of “master, lord”, the Latin equivalent being “domina”, or “mistress” in the original English denotation. Although Semitic words have been found in Greek letters before (Sukenik provides some examples), I think making this connection is quite a leap in probability and plausibility. The documentary certainly did not put enough time or thought into making this connection. They spent more time dealing with Mariamene, which they assumed could be contracted into Mariamne. They then apparently made the connection to Mary Magdalene, since in the Acts of Philip, Philip has a sister named Mariamne, and apparently (since I don’t think the Acts have yet been translated into English, at least according to Harvard Magazine and Harvard University Gazette) this Mariamne is Mary Magdalene. However, the connection itself isn’t solid-proof. Instead the discoverer of the manuscript, François Bovon, doesn’t claim, as far as I can tell from sources, that this is definitely Mary Magdalene, but that only it is possible for her to be identified with Mary Magdalene. Not having the text in my hand, I cannot say one way or another.
And even if Mariamne was Mary Magdalene, the text is too late for positive associations. While I think there may be legitimate traditions in Gnostic writings, this one is way too far of a stretch to be considered. It was also pointed out that the name also occurs in Hippolytus, but as Mark Goodacre points out, there is no evidence that this is indeed Mary Magdalene. It’s far too tenuous to be said with any certainty. Moreover, Richard Bauckham points out that the manuscripts themselves disagree whether it’s a double mu or a mu and a nu.
Finally, as Richard Bauckham noticed and Rahmani rightly knew in the initial reports, and I seriously can’t believe the people involved in the documentary missed, Μαριαμενου (Mariamenou) can only be the Greek genitive of either Μαριαμηνος (Mariamenos, unlikely) or Μαριαμηνον (Mariamenon, a diminutive), and not, as it supposes, Μαριαμηνη (Mariamene).
Another thing I wanted to mention: now, I’m no expert in epigraphy, but if you look at the final letter in Mara and all the other alphas, it appears to have been made differently, with the letter beginning underneath the rounded stroke instead of above. I’m not sure of the significance of this - it’s hard to think it anything but an alpha. In any case, there’s the inscription for everyone to see. Perhaps someone more experienced in this field can weigh in with a judgement. Rahmani didn’t note anything unusual, so perhaps neither should I.
702 reads “Yehudah son of Yeshua”, or in common English, “Judah, son of Jesus”. Also, English readers, Judah and Judas are the same thing, one being the translation from Hebrew, the other being a transliteration from Greek, which translated the Hebrew. It should be well noted that no ancient document confirms that Jesus had a son by the name of Judah. The documentary takes the conspiracy theory approach to this: obviously if Jesus and Mary had a son, then they would want to hide him from the authorities. This is downright implausible. For starters, the ossuary held a child, so the child must have died young. If the child died young, then the early followers would not have needed to hide the identity of the child, since he was already dead. If it were part of the “repressed” traditions, then surely we would have heard something about him in the many gospels. But he doesn’t appear anywhere.
One part that bothered me in the documentary was the way it treated the saying of Jesus on the cross in John, “Woman, behold thy son” (John 19.27). They said that it possibly referred to Jesus telling his wife, Mary Magdalene, to watch over their son, presumed to be Judah. It does raise interesting questions.
The whole passage, 26-27 is “26 ἰησοῦς οὗν ἰδὼν τὴν μητέρα καὶ τὸν μαθητὴν παρεστῶτα ὃν ἠγάπα, λέγει τῇ μητρί, γύναι, ἴδε ὁ υἱός σου. 27 εἶτα λέγει τῶ μαθητῇ, ἴδε ἡ μήτηρ σου. καὶ ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνης τῆς ὥρας ἔλαβεν ὁ μαθητὴς αὐτὴν εἰς τὰ ἴδια.”
This translates to, “Thus Jesus, looking at his mother and the disciple standing by whom he loved, says to his mother, “Look (at) your son.” Then he says to the disciple, “Look (at) your mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to [his] own [home].”
The passage makes it clear that Jesus is talking to his mother the first time, both by the Greek itself, and in conjunction with the second thing he said, and the disciples actions. What’s more curious is that, something I never before noticed, was that Jesus addressed the beloved disciple while only there next to him were Mary his mother, Mary (wife) of Cleophas, and Mary the Magdalene. Perhaps there is more to Mary and Jesus than what is thought.
However, that issue to be explored is quite separate from this Talpiot Tomb issue, the one having no bearing on the other.
Finally, the Yoseh could possibly be Yoseph identified on Yeshua’s tomb. If so, as I understand it, the chances of this being Jesus tomb greatly decreases.
703 merely names Matia. Interestingly enough, in Sanhedrin 43a, a Yeshua appears with five disciples, one of them being a Mattai. One of the charges I laid against this documentary is that it was so underwhelming. I mean, how could they miss a golden opportunity like this?
But that aside, there are serious problems with the genealogy presented in the documentary. It stated that the genealogy in Luke, which belonged to Mary, contained numerous variants of Matthew. While it’s true that the genealogy in Luke did this, it should be pointed out that the genealogy in Matthew also contains a Matthan, but also that the genealogy in Luke is never identified with being Mary’s. The attempts to do so is usually attributed to apologetic reconciliation of the texts. Finally, while there may have been circulating traditions going around about the genealogy of Jesus (for which there are reasons why I think so), taking Luke’s genealogy as historical doesn’t seem to settle quite right. Genealogies are notorious for being mostly made up, so I seriously doubt this one, written down in Luke some 50-70 years after the death of Jesus, contains solid historical data.
704 is rather hard to read, with only the ayin being really clear to me, and the shin discernable. Even Rahmani says that it’s unclear, but that reading Yeshua is confirmed by ossuary 702. Once again, I mention how underwhelming the documentary was. After all, why didn’t they bother to point out that if indeed this was Jesus’ tomb, the X perhaps was significant, perhaps pointing out the method of dying, i.e. being crucified? After all, an early cross was X-shaped. It would have been stronger evidence for it, in my opinion, not that it has the strongest evidence for it anyway.
705 is the problematic one. Chris Heard wonders just how they made the connection with the Greek Ἰωσῆτος, but I am compelled to point out that not only is this the genitive of Ἰωσῆς, but another variants in the manuscripts include Ἰωσῆ, including some Aramaic. What concerns me more is the rarity of the connection between Jesus and Joses and this Yeshua and Yoseh. I don’t know the condition of the inside of the ossuary of Yoseh, but I do wish that DNA testing could be done. If coming back negative, than I would know longer have any creeping thoughts about this - it would kill the connection entirely. It’s bad enough as it is, but a negative for the two would utterly destroy any chance it has.
I wonder, do we know where the bones were reburied and if it is possible to access them for DNA testing?
Finally, 706 is Maria. As Kroner points out, Maria was a very common name, not “a rare Latinized form”. Moreover, he also points out that Mara was short of Martha. If so, then that is yet another blow to the idea that Mariameneou e Mara referred to Mary Magdalene.
The ossuaries 707-709 contained no inscriptions at all, and according to those cataloguing them, neither did 710. Moreover, as Tabor noted in the after-series, there is “evidence” that Oded Golan didn’t forge the inscription - a photograph dated to 1976, four years before the excavation of the tomb. That kills the James Ossuary connection, and stretches the “family tomb” idea even thinner.
Other Tombs
Among the other tombs, the documentary mentioned two specifically. One being the graves under the Dominus Flevit monastery, where a Simon Bar Jonah was found, and a symbol just like the one found in the Talpiot tome was found. The other tomb was “Shalom Forest” tomb, which also is in the Talpiot neighborhood, which contained ossuaries bearing inscriptions such as “Mariam daughter of Shi’mon” and “Yehosep son of qyp’.” The latter is described by Samuel R. Wolff in his article “Archaeology in Israel” (relevant material on pp. 151-152) from the American Journal of Archaeology (1993). In it Wolff merely states that the name “brings to mind the name of Caiaphas…mentioned by Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and in the New Testament (Matt. 26.3, 57) as the High Priest who presided at the trial of Jesus”. He then goes on to state that this is the first attestation of the family name.
This is very crucial in the understanding of how archaeology and historical sciences work. As the curator of the Israel Museum stated in reply to Jacobovici, “We never know for a hundred percent in archaeology.” While Jacobovici tried to pass off the other tomb as definitely Caiaphas’, no scholar that I am aware of has made the connection with such certainty that Jacobovici has made with his theories, yet Caiaphas’ name is even rarer than anything seen in this Jesus tomb, Mariamenon aside.
Other Criticism
Before I go, I want to clarify that much of what I said has probably been said by other bloggers. I have neglected to read much of the online debate, precisely for the same reason I didn’t blog on the topic at all until after I watched the documentary, but looking now around the blogosphere I see some ideas already commented on.
However, I also see some criticism that needs to be corrected. First I want to point out Mark Goodacre’s criticism of Ben Witherington, who does much the same as Jacobovici has done, i.e. make tenuous connections based on little evidence, all due to a name. I don’t know if Witherington still supports the identification of James with the James Ossuary (if it is indeed real), but if he doesn’t, than he is being hypocrticial in chiding James Tabor for switching positions, from initially thinking Jesus an illegitimate child of a Roman soldier, to now seeing Joseph as his father. People change positions all the time as new evidence comes out. That’s a sign of good scholarship, not bad scholarship.
Second, literary evidence is a little more than what we read from the texts verbatim. Often, we have to make connections. After all, names do get muddled up and confused. It is perfectly reasonable to think that a son has become a brother, or wife a faithful follower, especially when theological implications could play a role. The names Matya and Yehuda do play a part in the Jesus story. It’s not entirely accurate to say they don’t. What we should instead be saying is that, odd statistics aside, it takes too much stretching to make it fit. If you have to reach to a fourth century text to find the only surefire instance of the original name, while first century and later texts are ignored, then you have some serious problems with the conclusions. Let’s not be too hasty, however, and negate valid ways to identify historical characters. (Check out Danny Zacharias’ post to see what I am arguing against.)
Finally, as Tabor is rightly outraged by, apologetics have no place in scholarship. Luckily, I haven’t seen much of it, at least not by the blogs I’ve looked over so far.
I want to close this post with a quote by Jodi Magness:
…[B]y making this announcement in the popular media, Jacobovici, Cameron, and the others involved have chosen to circumvent the usual academic process. Archaeology is a scientific discipline. New discoveries and interpretations typically are presented in scientific venues such as professional meetings or are published in peer-reviewed journals, where they can be considered and discussed by other specialists. By first making the announcement in the popular media, those involved have precluded legitimate and vital academic discourse. This is because it is impossible to explain the many flaws of their claim in a one-minute segment on TV or the radio, or in 2-3 sentences in the newspaper, as I have been asked to do repeatedly since the announcement was made. The history and archaeology of Jerusalem in the first century are far too complex to be boiled down to a short sound bite, yet that is precisely what has happened here. This is a travesty to professional archaeologists and scholars of early Judaism and Christianity, and it is a disservice to the public.
I couldn’t agree more.
“I don’t know the condition of the inside of the ossuary of Yoseh, but I do wish that DNA testing could be done. If coming back negative, than I would know longer have any creeping thoughts about this - it would kill the connection entirely. It’s bad enough as it is, but a negative for the two would utterly destroy any chance it has.
I wonder, do we know where the bones were reburied and if it is possible to access them for DNA testing?”
According to Simcha Jacobovici in the Q&A afterward with Ted Koppel, all the ossuaries except those inscribed with “Yeshua” and “Miriamene Mara” had been “vaccuumed out.” Seems a little convenient, as the church lady might say.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:53 amGreat post, Chris. One suggestion: change the default font of posts in your style sheet to Arial Unicode or (even better) Palatino Linotype. Your Greek got mangled. And while Arial Unicode tends to work well for most accented characters, it’s definitely missing a few, but I’ve never had any missing characters in using Palatino Linotype on TLG and as my default browser font.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:48 pmFor information about the “mysterious” chevron and circle being hyped on the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” official site and also on the history of sensationalism from Talpiot (article Mar. 2), see:
http://confirmedword.blogspot.com/
RKK
March 5th, 2007 at 8:55 pm[…] Chris Weimer over at Thoughts on Antiquity has an excellent post on the whole debate that is well worth a read. […]
March 6th, 2007 at 12:29 am[…] There’s been a lot more activity on this since I last posted. Chris Weimer on Thoughts on Antiquity has a useful list of thoughts about it. Mark Goodacre did a live blog of the Discovery Channel show on New Testament Gateway followed by a summary of the followup programme. Read back through the rest of Mark’s blog where you’ll find links to all sorts of material on the Talpiot Tomb, including an updated piece from Richard Bauckham and some very interesting material by the statistician used by the film maker and another mathematician. The general scholarly consensus seems to be that the odds of it actually being Jesus’ family tomb are nowhere near as high as the film makers are trying to make out. […]
March 6th, 2007 at 3:31 am[…] There’s been a lot more activity on this since I last posted. Chris Weimer on Thoughts on Antiquity has a useful list of thoughts about it. Mark Goodacre did a live blog of the Discovery Channel show on New Testament Gateway followed by a summary of the followup programme. Read back through the rest of Mark’s blog where you’ll find links to all sorts of material on the Talpiot Tomb, including an updated piece from Richard Bauckham and some very interesting material by the statistician used by the film maker and another mathematician. The general scholarly consensus seems to be that the odds of it actually being Jesus’ family tomb are nowhere near as high as the film makers are trying to make out. […]
March 6th, 2007 at 5:35 am[…] Chris Weimer. […]
March 6th, 2007 at 6:59 am“a photograph dated to 1976, four years after the excavation of the tomb”
You mean 4 years before, right? If Tabor knows this, why does he support the connection?
March 6th, 2007 at 7:22 am“literary evidence is a little more than what we read from the texts verbatim. Often, we have to make connections. After all, names do get muddled up and confused. . . . Check out Danny Zacharias’ post to see what I am arguing against.”
Chris, you are surely misrepresenting me here. I clearly referred to a YouTube interview with Simcha and challenged his interpretation of John’s beloved disciple and Mark’s naked fleeing youth, not the enterprise of trying to make historical connections in literary texts. If it is a valid interpretation that he gave, then it would have to jive with the rest of the gospel, particularly his beloved disciple argument. His interpretation of these passages are off base in my opinion, and is therefore not a valid way “to identify historical characters.” I agree with you that names in the tomb match names in the gospel record, but particularly for the Judah, son of Jesus, his argument form the gospels didn’t touch on the name at all.
March 6th, 2007 at 7:37 amThanks for the correction on the date, Danny, and the clarification of your opinion.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:33 amYou wrote: “What’s more curious is that, something I never before noticed, was that Jesus addressed the beloved disciple while only there next to him were Mary his mother, Mary (wife) of Cleophas, and Mary the Magdalene. Perhaps there is more to Mary and Jesus than what is thought.”
Ramon K. Jusino thought about this discrepancy in the late 1990s (after reading Raymond E. Brown’s commentary) and arrived at a very interesting conclusion:
http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html
March 8th, 2007 at 5:04 amGreetings Chris W.,
In addition to the other online resources about “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” I welcome you to read my review of the movie — a sort of nitpicker’s guide — at www.curtisvillechristian.org/LostTomb.html . I also wrote a two-part analysis of the basic claims in the movie (written before it was broadcast, based on its promotional materials) at www.curtisvillechristian.org/TombOne.html and www.curtisvillechristian.org/TombOne.html . Dr. James Tabor currently seems to be objecting to critics who are “defending Christianity,” but hey, I’m a preacher; that’s part of my job! Anyway, I hope you enjoy the review.
Btw, in the first part of my two-part analysis, you will find a link to a 1924 translation of “Acts of Philip,” from which I quote at length in the review to make the point that it is not a simple record of missionary journeys (as it was presented in the movie). Probably the statement about an unpublished text of “Acts of Philip” pertained to the particular medieval copy co-discovered by Francois Bovon in 1974.
Also, I think that either Ben Witherington III really needs to slow down, or else he has decided to “fight dirty,” so to speak. Tabor has not changed his position about who sired Jesus; it’s still ambiguous, with a slight tilt toward a Roman soldier. His claims in “Lost Tomb” only require that Jesus was perceived as, and remembered as, the son of Joseph. There’s no need to attribute imaginary errors to Tabor; the ones he’s actually made are abundant enough.
March 10th, 2007 at 9:07 pmMr. Snapp, your web pages are severely messed up. When I look at them I just see sentences overprinted on top of other sentences. (It’s the same effect you’d get if you looked at an image of a palimpsest, with the contrast cranked up so high that the older ink and the newer ink both show as solid black.) I viewed your HTML source and I saw embedded NULs, and BR tags in the middle of sentences, and individual sentences broken into more than one DIV element, and position:absolute, and width:###px, and top:###px, and height:###px. These features are all considered defects in content that’s meant to be seen by the public, because they tend to create pages that look OK on your own computer but look like a disaster on other computers. I was able to understand your article by reading the HTML source, but even then it was difficult because it’s out of order: you have point #14 at the beginning, and point #1 in the middle, and point #13 at the end. Aside from the severe HTML defects, it’s a good article.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:01 pmThey look fine to me.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:29 pmDoes your browser have an “increase the text size” button? Try clicking it a few times, maybe then you’ll see the palimpsest effect. I found that I can get rid of almost all of the palimpsest effect, if I shrink the text down to very tiny letters.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:12 amAh, that’s why. I never change the text size, keeping it always on default.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:17 pmI’ve studied the Talpiot Tomb find for years, long before it became public knowledge following that TV documentary in 2007. I believe the find is serious, and warrants further study. I’m afraid critics of the magnitude of this discovery prevail for the time being because of the vehemence of their assertions, rather than the logic of their substance.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 pmThe critics basically argue:
1. That the Jesus family would be buried in Nazareth, not Talpiot;
2. That the ‘Jesus’ ossuary would have been inscribed ‘of Nazareth’;
3. That the Jesus family couldn’t have afforded a tomb like the Talpiot tomb;
4. That the “Jesus son of Joseph” ossuary is not inscribed “Yeshua” (Jesus) at all;
5. That the names inscribed on these ossuaries were supposedly common;
6. That the “Mariamne” ossuary didn’t contain the remains of Mary Magdalene, but of two other women;
I believe the first five of these allegations against the book’s premise don’t carry much water. The sixth argument actually supports the conclusion that this is the real thing. My comments:
1. Talpiot is the right place for Jesus’ family tomb- Per Luke, 2:3-4, the family’s LEGAL residence was Bethlehem, not Nazareth. The fact that Joseph and the pregnant Mary could not take the census in Nazareth but had to take it in Bethlehem indicates that Bethlehem was their DOMICILIUM under Roman Law. That basically means that they had no intention to reside in Nazareth permanently. Therefore it would have made little sense for them to have a family tomb in Nazareth, that they wouldn’t be able to frequently visit at a later stage in their lives. They would have wanted a family tomb close to Bethlehem and Jerusalem, easily accessible also to future generations of the family. The fact is indeed that Mary and her children moved to Jerusalem around 30 AD.
2. The traditional name of Jesus in Hebrew, as reflected also in the Talmud, is “Yeshu Hanotzri.” This appellation stems from “Netzer” (Shoot or Branch). It alludes clearly to Isaiah 11:1, indicating the Royal birth of Jesus, to substantiate his claim for Jewish messiahship. Not to indicate the place he comes from.
There’s actually no evidence in Jewish sources, such as the Old Testament or the Mishna and Talmud, that a place called “Nazareth” even existed in or before the first century. I’m not disputing the evidence per the NT, that there was indeed a place called Nazareth. But to the best of my knowledge, there’s no mention of Nazareth at all in any ancient writings outside the New Testament. So the place existed, but nobody knew about it. And those in close proximity in Galilee who did know about it, obviously thought derogatorily of it , cf. “can anything good come from Nazareth?” (John 1:46.) Therefore there was no reason to call Jesus “of Nazareth.” Either in life or on an ossuary. He was called “Jesus the Branch” (of David) in Hebrew/Aramaic.
The line of argumentation detracting this discovery around the supposed Nazareth origin of Jesus’ family may therefore be based on a very shaky foundation.
3. Talpiot is located about 2.5 miles North of Bethlehem. Jesus’ family, of Davidic descent according to the New Testament, could have held the burial cave there even before it moved to Nazareth. Davidic birth was absolutely the most exalted in Judaism, always. The suggestion that any person of Davidic descent could be of the lowest social echelon, that couldn’t fund or get funding for a burial cave, doesn’t make much sense, if any. There’s substantial evidence to the contrary, e.g. 1. Jesus had some very wealthy active supporters like Joseph of Arimatea and Nicodemus (known as Nakdimon ben Gorion in post biblical Jewish sources-one of the richest Jews in Judea;) 2. Josephus, A.J. XX, 9:1. Note the prominence of James, brother of Jesus.
4. The inscription on the Jesus ossuary does say “Yeshua bar Yehosef” (”Jesus son of Joseph”)to my eye. All letters but one are quite clearly there. The only letter which is somewhat more difficult to discern at first blush is the second letter- “Shin”. That’s because it’s written in a somewhat irregular form (in a regular Shin there are three teeth in the fork, pointing upwards. Here there are two teeth, pointing sideways to the right.) But that particular irregularity appears also on other ossuaries- notably numbers 9 (this one has two “Shin”- one with three teeth pointing to the right, and one with TWO teeth pointing to the right. Exactly like the subject inscription) and 121 in the Rahmani catalogue, which both feature also a “Yeshua.”
Still, the name “Yeshua” on this ossuary is among the most, if not the most, difficult to read names of all ossuaries listed in Rahmani’s catalogue of Jewish ossuaries. It is almost written as a person’s complex signature on a check. Contrast that with the patronymic following the first name. This is written in a simple straightforward fashion, which is very easy to read. There’s no other example in Rahmani’s catalogue of a first name that has to be deciphered, and a patronymic that’s so plain and clear. Is this merely a coincidence?
5. Mr. Huston on 3/13/07 made the following comment to my post:
“The inscription, Pfann said, is made up of two names inscribed by two different hands: the first, “Mariame,” was inscribed in a formal Greek script, and later, when the bones of another woman were added to the box, another scribe using a different cursive script added the words “kai Mara,” meaning “and Mara.” Mara is a different form of the name Martha.
According to Pfann’s reading, the ossuary did not house the bones of “Mary the teacher,” but rather of two women, “Mary and Martha.’”
Here’s my thought about that:
If the Mariamne ossuary indeed housed the bones of Mary and Martha, these are two sisters of NT fame. One of them could have been married to “Jesus son of Joseph.” -Whether or not she was Mary Magdalene (Maybe the Mary who anointed Jesus’ feet and then dried them with her hair- very intimate scene.) The other sister would than also automatically belong in the family. It still fits. Actually it increases the statistical odds that this is the real thing quite substantially.
This is a very intriguing possibility indeed, fitting perfectly with John 12:3. Intimate contact with a man, as described in this NT passage, was allowed only to a woman who was an immediate blood relative of that man, his wife (…or a working woman.) That’s all. Therefore Mary of Bethany was quite possibly by elimination Jesus’ wife or in the process of becoming his wife. In that context, Margaret Starbird already theorized that similar anointing with spikenard oil was part of pre marriage ritual of a Davidic king, per certain passages in the Song of Songs. Note also that intercourse by itself was sufficient under Jewish Law in certain circumstances to constitute valid marriage. That practice, termed Bi’ah marriage, was abolished in the 6th century, but it was lawful in Jesus’ time.
Mary of Bethany could have become pregnant by Jesus while he stayed at her house, shortly before his crucifixion. In that case it’s quite possible that she bore Jesus’ son posthumously and named him “Judah.” And in that case both she and her sister Martha would have become part of Jesus’ family, which earned them a place in the Talpiot family tomb..
Reminds me of the reaction to this find of a BBC reporter in 1996- It seems like all balls in the national lottery coming one by one.
I have no knowledge of Greek, so I can only discuss the two propositions. Assuming that the ossuary does say “Mary and Martha”, here’s what I think the names are:
* 1.”Jesus son of Joseph”(”Yeshua bar Yehosef” in Hebrew/Aramaic script;)
* 2. “Mary” (”Marya” in Hebrew/Aramaic script);
* 3. “Joseph” (”Yose” in Hebrew/Aramaic script. Precise nickname of Jesus’ second brother- cf. Mark 6:3);
* 4. “Mary and Martha” (”Mariame kai Mara” in Greek)-they must have been sisters because Jewish law didn’t allow burial together of two unrelated women;
* 5. “Matthew” (”Matya” in Hebrew/Aramaic script)- Name of Jesus’ first cousin, son of his father’s brother Alphaeus/Clophas. As James Tabor suggests in a different context, Matya could also well have been Jesus’ half brother, considering a certain specific rule of the Torah (Deuteronomy 25:5-10.) This rule was applied in Jesus time- see Matthew 22:24-28;
* 6. “Judah son of Jesus”(”Yehuda bar Yeshua” in Hebrew/Aramaic script.)
* Therefore out of eight names actually inscribed on these ossuaries (including the “Joseph” father of Jesus on the first ossuary) four names undoubtedly relate to Jesus’ immediate family, and three other names relate to the same with a somewhat lower probability. In any event, they all relate to Jesus’ extended family. Note that first century Jewish family tombs were usually a clan thing.
* The eighth name is “Yehuda bar Yeshua”- must have been the son of Jesus and one of the sisters Mary or Martha. More likely Mary, as explained above.
6. While the full versions of all these names were indeed common in Jesus’ time, the derivatives, nicknames and contractions were not. Thus “Yeshua” for Jesus was less common than “YeHOshua;” ditto “YeHOsef” instead of “Yosef” for Joseph; “Marya” for Mary was extremely rare in Hebrew/Aramaic script; “Yose” for Joseph is unique. Therefore out of these eight names, two are irregularities, one is a particularity, and one a singularity. Statistical studies should factor these facts, and all 7 names.
BOTTOM LINE- Ask yourself inversely a hypothetical question- If the Talpiot tomb hadn’t yet been found, how would Jesus’ family tomb have looked , which ossuaries would it have contained, to when would it have been dated and where would it have been located.
I would have thought of a tomb just like the tomb we’re discussing. It fits perfectly with what I’d have expected Jesus’ family tomb to be. Right place, right period, right names. I therefore believe that this matter, delicate as it obviously is, warrants further investigation. This could include opening and examination of the adjacent tomb, and forensic examination of the skeletal remains found in the Talpiot ossuaries, and apparently reburied back in 1980. These could hopefully be relocated by comparison to the mithochondrial DNA samples already taken from two of these ossuaries.
“The traditional name of Jesus in Hebrew, as reflected also in the Talmud, is “Yeshu Hanotzri.” This appellation stems from “Netzer” (Shoot or Branch). It alludes clearly to Isaiah 11:1, indicating the Royal birth of Jesus, to substantiate his claim for Jewish messiahship. Not to indicate the place he comes from.
There’s actually no evidence in Jewish sources, such as the Old Testament or the Mishna and Talmud, that a place called “Nazareth” even existed in or before the first century.”
Itamar Bernstein is more current and objective in his knowledge of the Talpiot Tomb and Yaaqov Ossuary controversies than those who are willing to defy the science and math in order to cling to their traditional belief systems (Christian doctrines and Jewish secularism)–including a fair number of academics and seminarians protecting their careers. Our website (www.netzarim.co.il) is a central place to update oneself to the many aspects and documentation that impinge on these related issues (in our History Museum, Mashiakh room, scroll down to Talpiot Tomb Complex and click on various “Burning Issues” icons).
Natzrat (Hellenized to “Nazareth”) is a combinative form derived from the verb meaning to act as a sentry. As a combinative form, Natzrat means “a sentry of…” Its location, protecting the northern flank of Har Megiddo on Via Maris, was almost certainly a shortened form of “Natzrat ha-Derekh” (sentry-outpost of the Way (of Maris / the sea). See our glossary entry for “Natzrat.” In the first century, particularly in this area, the outpost was probably a primarily-Roman garrison likely better known (to non-Jews) by some Hellenist appellation.
However, Mr. Bernstein has accepted a widespread error in equating “Notzri,” derived from the verb “notzeir” (to act as a sentry or prison keeper / guard), to “neitzer” (an offshoot, particularly from the roots of an olive tree) of Yeshayahu (Isa.) 11.1. According to Klein’s Etymological Dictionary, notzeir and neitzer are unrelated and derived from two unrelated roots: the verb, nawtzar and the noun “neitzer,” respectively (see our glossary entries for each).
There is no serious dispute that the correct Hebrew title appended to the 1st-century Pharisee Ribi (different from rabbi, see–again–our glossary entry) Yehoshua was “Neitzer”–NOT “Notzri” as, Mr. Bernstein correctly noted, derived from Yeshayahu 11.1. “Notzri” does NOT derive from Yeshayahu 11.1.
This, in turn, points to a long-buried misconception: the references in Talmud and other Judaic literature of the period refer to “Notzri”–a post-135 C.E. usage, not Neitzer; and to Yesh”u–a post-135 C.E. usage, NOT Yehoshua. This opens a maze too complex to deal with in such a forum. I can only point you to our website (www.netzarim.co.il) where the answers, explanations and documentation are found.
English translations of the NT Greek have been seriously mangled to bury the implications inherent in the title of “Neitzer,” blatantly rendering “of Nazareth” in 19 instances where the Greek means Neitzer (again, see documentation in our glossary entry). Mr. Bernstein is also correct that “Neitzer” indicates Ribi Yehoshua as the object of Yeshayahu 11.1, NOT to the outpost of Natzrat.
Yet another consequence of all of this is that the earliest followers of Ribi Yehoshua, Jews, were known by the plural of Neitzer: Netzarim.
Paqid Yirmeyahu
February 6th, 2009 at 2:44 amPaqid 16, The Netzarim, Ra’anana, Israel
Israeli Orthodox Jew (Teimani Baladi Dardai)
Advancing Logic as Halakhic Authority
Welcoming Jews & non-Jews
www.netzarim.co.il