Daniel Distant writing in the Christian Post:
The radical assertions of both findings [presented by archaeologist and professor James Tabor and filmmaker Simcha Jacobovic] contradict many things modern Christians believe: Jesus Christ rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, leaving no trace of a tomb or bones behind, according to the Bible. In addition, no scripture ever mentioned Jesus marrying or having children in over 30 years on earth.
Many experts agree with the Christian viewpoint that the controversial findings are false, not only for faith’s sake, but to prevent archaeological and scientific misuse as well.
I have my doubts on this one. Like the James ossuary, it’s all a little too “pat”.
Also, if I understand correctly, there is a Greek or Latinized version of the name, “Mary” (“Maria”).
But if that’s the case, and the authors are arguing for a very early, Jewish provenance for the tomb’s contents, then why in the world would any of its artifacts contain non-Judean Greek or Latin script? Would not “Mary” be rendered in Hebrew or Aramaic as “Miriam” or some such Hebraic-Jewish name?
According to researchers (Pelligrino) involved in the project, the Talpiot ossuary labled Yeshua seems not to have ever contained a full complement of bones, just a carpal bone fragment and some unusual fabrics.
Carpal bones seem to be removed from the body during the gruesome crucifixion process, one was taken by those (Joseph or one of the Mary’s), plus the linens left in his tomb and placed as relics of sorts in the the ossuary. I first read this a couple years ago, it made me think that the ossuary was a rememberance or memorial to the risen Lord who was the center of the new faith.
If we buy Simcha and James’ conjecture, that the jar is a fish and the inscription supports the idea of a belief in resurrection, than I think it is possible that the evidence supports the belief that Christ rose again, a belief held by those whose tomb was built nearby.
Rather than solving any mysteries about the origin of Christianity, the odd couple simply have deepened the ones we all ready have.
Here is a quote by Pellegrino:
” A skeleton was never placed in the (Yeshua) ossuary. The only things that appear to have been placed in the ossuary were two shrouds of unusual composition (one a burlap-like material, the other flax based linen woven on a loom with a high degree of cotton contamination [consistent with the Turin Shroud but not with fina wool burial shrouds in other ossuaries and in Ttabor-Gibson’s Tomb of the Shroud]) … The only bone found inside the ossuary, evidently wrapped or folded in with the shrouds, was consistent with a single metacarpal.
No other biological or chemical traces of larger amounts of bone were present. … New York’s former medical examiner, Zugibe, discovered that during crucifixion he would expect several metacarpals to pop out of the wrists, like wisdom teeth. (He’s actually demonstrated this on cadavers, and compared the results with the image of the Turin man.) He noted that the metacarpal was the only bone he could think of finding in a burial cloth-bearing ossuary, consistent with crucifixion as a cause of death.”
Interesting…
Thank you royalcanadian for the direct quote from Pellegrino. I am gratified that I no longer seem to be in a minority of one, in being prepared to be open-minded about the possibility of the Talpiot site being indeed the Jesus Family Tomb.
The various outageous speculations of Jacobovici had the unfortunate effect of provoking a fairly predictable response from the Christian far-right, in such videos as “The Jesus Tomb Unmasked” as if the discovery of a Jesus ossuary had to be a denial of the resurrection, whereas the Pellegrino comments clarifies the situation, and even adds to the case. It is to be expected that wrist-nailing would indeed pop out a few carpal bones, such as the one found there.
Likewise, it is also to be expected that the IAA would also wish to cover their butts, considering the incompetence with which they seemed to have dealt with this site and the artifacts found there, a potentially highly significant finding for primitive Christian historiography.
Much is made in the “Jesus Tomb Unmasked” video of how common in 1st c Judaism were the particular names found at Talpiot. However they conveniently avoid the question of the particular combination of names.
Of the 10 ossuaries registered, 6 were incribed with a total of 7 names. If the James ossuary is included (it has the same patina as the others), then there were 8 names.
Here are the frequencies(f) of the names found, that are included in a total population of 231 ossuaries with 286 names:
Mary (Miriam, Maria): f = 20, p = 6.99%; Talpiot occurrences x = 2;
Jesus (Yeshua) f = 10, p = 3.50%, x = 1;
Joseph (Yosa) f = 19, p = 6.64%, x = 2;
Judah (Judas, Yehuda) f = 18, p = 6.29%, x = 1;
Matthew (Mattitiyahu, Mattai) f = 8, p = 2.80%, x = 1.
Given that there is a collection of 1st c Jewish ossuaries inscribed with seven names at random, then the combined probability of obtaining the Talpiot combination falls to:
P = 8.73 x 10^(-5) = 1 in 11,456.
If the exercise is reworked to include the James ossuary, then the probability falls to 1 in 38,140.
So that considering the combination as such, changes the likelihood completely from that peddled by the deniers.
It is now probably far too late to obtain any other useful or meaningful scientific evidence about this case, as the ossuaries have been cleaned of their contents which have been placed in some common grave. The only thing that can be hoped for, is to look for some textile match between the fibre traces and the Shroud or Sudarium artifacts. I’m not aware of any progress in any such attempt.
Although the body of Jesus may have been originally laid in some other tomb close to Golgotha, (Holy Sepulchre???) it seems not unreasonable that his burial cloths and any other residue, should be placed in an ossuary at a family tomb. The cloths after all were unclean and a place had to be found for them in accordance with prescribed requirements. Joseph of Aramathea might well have been the kind of wealthy patron who would be prepared to make such provisions for Jesus’ family.
I think it is a shameful scandal the way this whole matter has been treated, and it reflects no professional credit on anyone involved with it.
Further to mine above, I also ran a set of 1000 random simulations on the names that would appear on seven ossuaries. This was based on a standard Operations Research “Monte Carlo” technique which you can check out in any Operations Research handbook. If R R >= 0.0699, then name Joseph would appear, etc. If R >= 0.2622, then the name would not qualify.
Of the 1000 simulation runs:
85 runs included the name combination Jesus and Joseph;
25 runs included the combination Jesus & Mary & Joseph;
Only 6 runs included the combination Jesus & Mary & Joseph & (Judah or Matthew)
None of the 1000 runs included the full combination Jesus + Mary + Joseph + Judah + Matthew.
This demonstrates the unlikelihood of getting the full combination of names that occurred at Talpiot, notwithstanding that the individual names by themselves were quite common.
Glitch in my posting above: WordPress doesn’t seem to like logic expressions!?
If 0.0699 greater than R, name Mary appears;
If 0.1364 greater than R greater than or equal .0699, name Joseph appears;
Etc …
If R greater than or equal 0.2622, name does not qualify;
Otherwise, results as reported above.
Dave,
Statistically speaking, the Jesus family given name very low frequency you refer to is only valid within an exceedingly too narrow range of 1st century CE RICH Judean/Galilean names(286) to be credibly representative of the 250,000-300,000 Judean and Galilean RICH & POOR families which lived at the same period of time. The way you express odds makes it a very weak argument to offer for a true identification of Jesus’ family tomb. Your result is most inconclusive as it might well be highly misleading.
Correction: “the Jesus family given name combination very low frequency”
Dave, from “Gospel reductio ad nihilum/nihilistic ILLITERALISM” to “LITTERALITISTiC statistics” it must be a long way.
Correction: ‘LITTERALISTIC statistics”
Although I agree with Daveb that this whole tomb business has been ‘screwed up’ and possibly since the beginning; ‘somewhat’, I will add. One must contemplate a couple of things; The carpal bone found in the ossuary bothers me, as scriptures clearly state ‘not a bone will be broken’, doesn’t it? Then one must understand the Jesus family tomb would most likely not be located in Jerusalem, and if it was, it would definately be noted on the ossuaries along with the names, as that was tradition e.g; (Jesus of Nazarath). The James ossuary has absolutely nothing to do with this tomb whatsoever (this was a rather dubious conjecture made by Simcha) as this was their ‘missing’ 10th ossuary which turns out was not missing at all, but a unmarked, empty and broken ossuary noted in the original tomb escavation, as stated in the video link I posted…I’m not making a definate statement here to my consideration of whether or not this can be the Jesus family tomb but just saying it seems improbable from all the evidence and also recognizing the mis-representation of evidence put forth by a couple of dubious money+media hungry people.
Oh and as for the statistics on names; remember Simcha et al, also make a dubious claim with absolutely no grounds; that the Mariamne ossuary is that of Mary Magdelane…pure conjecture!
R
1. The Names in the Tomb
A. Paucity of Patronyms
Most of the names in the tomb lack patronyms. That is, we have no idea of the relationships between the people in the tomb. This applies to “Jesus son of Joseph” and either of the Marys in the tomb. Jacobovici (and Dan Brown, another scholar) wants people to think that Jesus and one of the Marys (the one whose name allegedly reads “Mariamne,” and alleged reference to Mary Magdalene) as being married.But why not brother and sister? Aunt and nephew? Grandmother and grandson? Second cousins twice removed? No patronyms = guesswork. The same goes for any of the other names lacking patronyms. There is ZERO evidence in any ancient text that Jesus was married to anyone. For example, you can click here to watch some exciting screen capture videos of me searching the Gnostic gospels (in vain) for a Jesus’ marriage. You can see Goodacre’s list of errors in regard to the “Mariamne” red herring as well.
B. The Commonality Issue
Most of the names in the tomb are common. The retort to this is that the assemblage of these names in a single tomb is not common. But how would we know that? Rahmani lists 227 inscribed ossuaries, many of which are from the same tomb, and so few family tombs have actually been discovered. The most reasonable scholarly estimates of the population of first century Jerusalem at no more than 100,000, most of whom were Jews (Samuel Rocca, Herod’s Judaea [Mohr Siebeck, 2008], p. 333). So let’s say 75,000 Jews in first century Jerusalem. Numerically, there would have been many more family tombs than have been discovered, so any estimate of the rarity of any collection of names is based on navigating without instruments. The point: Rarity in terms of the data we have is not the same as rarity in terms of the data that corresponded to a first century Jerusalem reality. Not having the latter gives no warrant to substituting the former and pretending it’s the latter. That’s a little thing I like to call “cheating.”
The statistical likelihood of this being Jesus’ family tomb is also greatly influenced by the name Yoseh. If this name is just a variant of the more common Joseph, the probability that the tomb is truly that of Jesus of Nazareth is 2-3%. If, on the other hand, Yoseh is a rare name, then the probability is 47%. Mark Goodacre has pointed out for years now that Yoseh and Joseph are interchanged in the gospels for the same person:
The difficulty over (1) is that the names Joses and Joseph are clearly regarded as similar or the same in the New Testament. Mark 6.3 calls Jesus’ brother “Joses” while the parallel in Matt. 13.55 calls him “Joseph”. Matthew clearly regards Joseph as an alternative, preferable way of saying “Joses”. Likewise, the character who appears in Mark 15.40 and 15.47 is called Joses in Mark and Joseph the Matthean parallel (Matt. 27.56). Moreover, the fact that this character may be a different character than the brother of Jesus also witnesses against the alleged extraordinary nature of the name. The same Joseph / Joses variation is found in the texts too, and not just here in Matthew but also in Acts 4.36, Joses / Joseph Barnabas.
So, if we go with the data we have for the persons actually in question (Jesus’ family) the name is not rare; it is a variant for “Joseph.”
2. Logical Coherence
A. Yoseh and Judas
The above issue with the name Yoseh is important for another reason. On one hand, Jacobovici would have us be breathlessly astonished with how his evidence coincides with the gospels, while on the other hand, we are to ignore where it simply is not. Goodacre succinctly notes this inconsistency in two regards:
(1) They claim that “Yoseh” is significant because it is rare, a claim that does not take the New Testament evidence seriously.
(2) They do not regard “Judas son of Jesus” as contradictory evidence for the identification with the Jesus family.
Honestly, we are supposed to believe Jesus had a son (by Mary Magdalene) and named him JUDAS!? Yes; that is what we are asked to believe.
B. Logic Check
I can’t help asking what to me are some obvious questions:
•This tomb was not hidden underground. Given its famous occupants, how is it that no enemy of the early church, Roman or Jewish, simply didn’t end Christianity by exhuming the bones of Jesus of Nazareth from his own tomb showing the whole thing to be a sham?
•“Matthew” is a name on one of the ossuaries. So, presuming with Jacobovici that he is the Matthew who wrote the Gospel of Matthew, and that Jesus of course was long dead before he wrote it, how in the world would Matthew get away with that scam? No one local in Jerusalem knew it was a scam? Seriously
Good points RC, and thanks for the clarification below about the carpal bones.
R
Hi Ron,
I meant to add that, according to the medical examiner who did the research on post mortem anatomy, the carpal bones were not actually broken. They “popped out” like wisdom teeth. So the scriptures do not seem to be contradicted, which is important to me as a Christian.
Quote from Ron : “that the Mariamne ossuary is that of Mary Magdelane…pure conjecture!”
Here’s what I want to say about that : This is exactly like the idea that the word “tetradiplon” MUST mean a burial shroud of more than 4 meters long !!! :-)
THIS IS PURE CONJECTURE TOO !!!
Unfortunately, unlike the lost tomb of Jesus hypothesis, since this hypothesis made by Wilson is pro-authenticity, everyone here seems to put aside his critical judgment when it comes the time to analyze it…
The best conclusion I’ve ever read about the Mandylion hypothesis was written in 1969 by Maurus Green, an historian and a Benedictine monk.
Here it is : “The difficulty of Wilson’s thesis is the question whether the Image was of the head only, as it appears in art, or whether it did indeed bear a full-length, though secret, image of the whole body of Christ, a secret that escaped somehow to form the “full-length” tradition we have just examined. If Wilson CAN prove his case, we will not only have solved the mystery of the Turin Shroud’s whereabouts during the first millennium, we will also have a most remarkable account of its by no means inconsiderable place in Byzantine history.
Until he can do so, it seems PRUDENT to think of the Edessan Image and the Shroud as TWO DISTINCT THINGS, while noting the close connection between them.”
Sorry folks but if you’re honest like me, you must say that the last part of Green’s conclusion is still true !!! Effectively, Wilson hasn’t been able to show us a clear proof to scientifically comfort his hypothesis. All he has been able to do until this day is to bring many highly speculative (and partial) arguments that come mainly from theological and legendary sources. And the problem is this : there will ALWAYS be some serious doubts about the reliability of those kind of sources when it comes to find a real physical description of a relic. Sorry but those things that were put forward by Wilson (like the “tetradiplon” term) are not what we can call “scientific proofs”… A real solid scientific proof would be to find an ancient text, ideally written by an eye-witness, that makes a clear link between the Mandylion of Edessa and/or the Abgar legend and a burial Shroud of Christ (or, at least, with some burial cloth). It’s maybe sad for some people, but the there is absolutely no such thing in any ancient sources that exist. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !
In fact, the reality is precisely the opposite ! Effectively, there exist a whole bunch of evidences coming from many ancient documentary and artistic sources (often written or done by some eye-witnesses) that just goes completely AGAINST the hypothesis of Wilson ! Here’s just an example of that : Dating from the 11th or the 12th century, there is a liturgical book of the Byzantine Church named “Synaxarion”. This was a book that told the story of the life of many Saints and Martyrs. Remind that this was written many years after the arrival of the Mandylion in Constantinople, at a time when, according to Wilson, the real burial aspect of the cloth had already been discovered. In this book, we find a version of the Abgar legend that is mainly traditional, i.e. that tell the story of the formation of the image of ONLY the face of Christ BEFORE his Passion, during his minister. In other word, in this book, there is absolutely no chance that the author could refer to the Mandylion as a burial shroud and there’s absolutely no chance that he refer to a full body image ! And the most important thing about this Synaxarion book, is the intro of the part where the author talk about the Abgar legend. Here’s what we can read : “In life, you wiped your form onto a linen cloth. In death, you were placed in the final linen shroud. A manmade tile bears your form, not made by human hands, my Christ, creator of all.”
You see ??? The author of this official document from the Byzantine Church makes a clear distinction between the Mandylion and the Shroud as two separate objects. Even more, he makes a clear distinction between the Mandylion, the Shroud and also the Keramion, which is a tile that, according to the “Narratio de Edessena” version of the Abgar legend, showed the same image than the Mandylion (i.e. only the face of Christ).
And clear distinctions like that between the Mandylion, the Shroud and the Keramion exists in many other ancient documents, like the manuscript of Nicolas Mesarites, who was, in 1201, the guardian of the relics of Christ in the Pharos chapel and the manuscript of Robert de Clari, who visited the Pharos chapel in 1203. Note folks that those 2 manuscripts came from eye-witnesses and have not a legendary or theological style !
In summary, since Wilson hasn’t been able to find one real solid scientific proof for his hypothesis (this is the reality and I don’t make this up), we should conclude the same thing than Green, i.e. that the Mandylion and the Shroud were two distinct things, even if a close connection surely exist between them. This conclusion come from a real historian and his “grounded” and “prudent” as it should be. This is a perfect example of what I call “good science” !!!
Even if Green, in his 1969 article, was interested by the hypothesis of Wilson, he was professional enough not to give him a blank check !!! On the contrary to many pro-Shroud people, we cannot say that Green was “blinded” by Wilson and, on this point, I can add : AS IT SHOULD BE in regard of all the ancient documentary and artistic sources we have !!! Unfortunately, this was not the case with some other historians later on…
And, for the close connection that surely exist between the Mandylion and the Shroud, I think the hypothesis of Paul Vignon is, by far, the best we have to explain it, i.e. that the Mandylion was a false relic of a living Christ (without any injuries) made during the 6th century by the Byzantine Church in order to fight the Monophysitism heresy. In this scenario, the Shroud image would have been the primary source for the creation of the Mandylion and the Church would have act like that, simply because the Shroud, with a naked Christ and all the blood on it, would have been considered as scandalous by most faithful of that time (I think the best term would be “religiously incorrect” for that period of time). Of course, this is only an hypothesis, but, in regard of all the ancient sources and in regard of the historical and religious context of that time, I really think it is the most likely hypothesis we have that can explain both the connection of the Mandylion and the Shroud AND also the fact that there is not much record of a burial Shroud of Christ in ancient sources before the 11th century in Constantinople…
I have nothing more to say about that !!!
1. Re Max comment, March 7, 8:52am:
Source for statistics on name frequencies is: “L. Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries, Israel Antiquities Authority and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities (Jerusalem: 1994)” which can easily be found.on the Internet. The IAA quoted this source in their attempts to rebut Talpiot as being “The Jesus Family Tomb”. My purpose was to show that, despite these names being very common in 1st c Jerusalem, the likelihood markedly increased when the full Talpiot combination was considered. In a population of 917 ossuaries, 286 names appeared on 231 inscribed ossuaries; 686 ossuaries were uninscribed. Agreed that the relatively small sample of 286 names will introduce a sampling error when applied to the full Judean / Galilean population at the time, and it cannot be an exact calculation without knowing the full census of names. However the principle that the likelihood is very much greater when a combination of 7 or 8 names is considered, instead of just individual names on their own certainly remains valid. It is not a “very weak argument”, and it is not “misleading”!
2. Re Max comment, March 7, 9:12am:
Your words not mine. You must draw your own conclusions. I couldn’t possibly comment!
I hold a respectable degree in civil engineering, have had a fascinating 40 year career spanning a wide spectrum of engineering and management disciplines. I also hold majors in mathematics and religious studies, and minors in literature and various other liberal arts disciplines and accounting management. Before I lost my hearing, I also used to play Beethoven sonatas, and had several dramatic interests. I have found this comprehensive approach to suit my temperament best, providing me with a well-rounded outlook, rather than having a narrow focus on an obscure specialty of my own invention!
3. Re Ron comment, March 7, 10:15am:
Presence of the carpal bone in the Jesus ossuary is highly suggestive of a wrist-nailed crucified victim, and could be expected. To invoke the isaiah scripture “not a bone will be broken” is highly dubious, and is merely following a literalistic interpretation of an evangelist’s comment. I don’t know that the carpal was in fact broken.
There is no known record of a Jesus family tomb in Nazareth, but there is a possible candidate at Talpiot. After the resurrection, Matthew has the disciples returning to Galilee, whereas Luke has them staying in Jerusalem. Certainly there were family members who were living in Jerusalem (e.g. James). There are also various other traditions as well, some of them highly questionable, and merely supportive of claims made by various ancient churches.
The question of the James ossuary remains contentious. Excavation work at the site was hindered by ultra-Orthodox rabble indulging in their regular pastime of stoning the archaeologists. The work at the site had to be hurried, and it is credible that errors were made. The IAA initiated a vindictive prosecution for fraud against the collector Oded Golan, probably because he was suspected to have been involved in the antiquities black market. The IAA was later obliged to abandon their case against him. The Golan “James” ossuary was taken to Canada and subject to various scientific tests – electron microscope, ultra-violet – and the inscription dated to 63AD, the year of St James martydom, Subsequent tests showed that the patina on this ossuary matched the patina on the other Talpiot ossuaries.
Concerning the so-called Mary Magdalene ossuary, this is just one of the outrageous claims made by Jacobovici, which does nothing to enlighten the case. If Talpiot is indeed the family tomb, the presence of the “Judah son of Jesus” ossuary can be explained by the prevalent practice of adopting orphans, possibly the credible sort of compasionate action that Rabbi Yeshua might well have done. I’ve commented elsewhere about this.
I am not asserting that Talpiot is definitely the “Jesus Family Tomb”, and surely there are vested interests contaminating the case; Although I find the combination of names reasonably persuasive. But there are enough signposts to show how badly the whole business has been mishandled, and sufficient doubt remains as to justify being more open-minded about the possibility, than the rantings of fundamentalist Christians who imagine that their cherished beliefs are being over-turned in reacting to allegations that are not even asserted.
4. Re Yannick comment, March 7, 4:52pm:
This has to be one of the more coherent cases that I have seen Yannick make in respect of the Mandylion and Shroud being two separate objects, although I don’t necessarily agree with his conclusions.
There was more than one cloth taken from Edessa to Constantinople. In the summer of 944 AD, the Emperor deputed Abraham, bishop of Samosata to receive the Mandylion. Apparently he recognised the Orthodox copy as spurious, and was only satisfied when he had the Monophysite and Nestorian copies also handed over to him. One of these may have been the cloth which came to be known as the “Veronica”, and possibly later as the Holy Face of Manoppello.
Hello Dave ! Thanks for you good words versus my comment. You wrote that you still disagree with my conclusion. In fact, it is not my own little conclusion but the one written in 1969 by the historian Maurus Green !!! Here it is again : “Until Wilson can PROVE his case, it seems PRUDENT to think of the Edessan Image and the Shroud as TWO DISTINCT THINGS, while noting the close connection between them.”
Personally, after a very long and extensive research of every ancient sources that talks about the Mandylion, the Abgar legend and/or the Shroud of Christ, I firmly believe that this conclusion is still 100% correct ! After all those years, I think it’s fair to say that Wilson has never been able to PROVE his hypothesis in a correct scientific way. Sorry but you cannot consider some speculative arguments as being real scientific PROOFS.
So, since Wilson have failed to prove his case, I say (with Maurus Green and many other historians) : Please, in regard of all the ancient sources, if we want to stay scientificaly correct, we must consider the Mandylion and the Shroud like 2 different objects with a probable connection that exist between them. But it’s one thing to think there’s a relation between the 2 objects (the Vignon’s markings are a good evidence of that connection) and it’s another thing to believe they are one and the same !!! The reality is this : There’s not a single authentic and solid fact that can prove this assertion from Wilson… Until he can find one solid FACT to really prove his case (and not just some extrapolations or speculations), I think it’s scientificaly right to consider the Mandylion as a different relic than the Shroud. And here’s my good question again : If this was really the case, WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL WITH THIS ??? That doesn’t mean the Shroud isn’t authentic at all !!! I really think that nobody here should fear that Wilson hypothesis have some good chances to be wrong… I don’t see any problem with that possibility versus the authenticity of the Shroud. In fact, other hypothesis (like the one by Vignon) can be more viable in regard of the historical and religious context of the time…
Correction to my posting #12.4 above re Yannick posting:
According to one reconstruction, the Veronica, “acheiropoietos”, was said to have reached Constantinople in the 6th c, disappeared from there in 705, possibly to preserve it from a bout of iconoclasm, and arrived in Rome sometime during 715-741. No trace of it could be found in 1608 when the chapel it was in was demolished. The “Holy Face of Manoppello” was written up in 1640, with an alleged origin dating back to 1506.
Clearly if the Veronica was in Constantinople in the 6th c and was lost from there in 705, but was later in Rome, it could not have been among the artifacts recovered by Bishop Abraham of Samosata in 944AD.
I don’t know if using scripture can ever be described as being ‘dubious’, especially if one believes in scripture….Then there is the simple fact of an ossuary of Jesus actually existing makes no sense, in so many ways. Such as Why? Why would anyone have an ossuary created for one whom they believed had risen and were also preaching he had risen? Wouldn’t that be a little strange or counter to one’s ideals? Where did the carpel bone come from? as everything pertaining to the body including any blood which could be captured, would have been buried within the Shroud as required by Jewish law. Remember nothing was mentioned found in the tomb but a few cloths. So in this story, basically one is to believe someone found a carpel bone in the tomb (even though christ’s body had been raised in entirety), held onto it for a year then placed it in another tomb? Also although none of these members of the family were from Jerusalem, none of the ossuaries state those buried were from another location, which was customary to do so. The Mariamne ossuary (very dubiously depicted as that of Mary Magdelene) can basically be eliminated from any statistical calculation, which was my point. Just because a Jesus family tomb has yet to be found anywhere else doesn’t give any more credence to the Talpiot tomb and in fact there is no proof that anyone of Jesus’s family stayed in Jerusalem whatsoever, (that I am aware of) except James who was (apparently) stoned in Jerusalem. The James ossuary and using the patina has any kind of evidence is quite dubious as it may have come from the same area or even the same hill. Personally I’d like to believe the James ossuary in itself is real but unfortunately since it’s provenance is not known (being it was not professionally escavated) and the bones were discarded we will never know for sure….I was actually quite lucky to view the ossuary when it was here at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto.
R
Dae,
You wrote: « Agreed that the relatively small sample of 286 names will introduce a sampling error when applied to the full Judean / Galilean population at the time, and it cannot be an exact calculation without knowing the full census of names. However the principle that the likelihood is very much greater when a combination of 7 or 8 names is considered, instead of just individual names on their own certainly remains valid. It is not a “very weak argument”, and it is not “misleading”! »
Actually it is as long as the real family links are totally unknown for most of them. You cannot tell who is who as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt or cousin. What do you mean by family name exactly? Can you discriminate between extended and non extended family names? Were the family names those of Galileans, Judeans and/or diaspora Jews? You cannot tell either. Most unfortunately it does seem you make a serious confusion between the principle of archaeological/historical Reality and that of plain hard Statistics.
Because you are a mathematician, shall I understand that, in « your brain, eye and ear », using the Gospels as testimonies of Rabbi Yeshua’s burial is ‘dubious’ to attempt any reconstruction in the light of the Turin Shroud while using literalistic statistics (from an exceedingly small sample of only 286 names inscribed on 1st century CE ossuaries) is highly persuasive to « reasonably » infer that the Talpiot tomb is Jesus family tomb? Good to you as a self-proclaimed ancient Judean, Galilean and diaspora Jews given name statistician! Good to you as a self-proclaimed archaeologist!
You also wrote: “I hold a respectable degree in civil engineering, have had a fascinating 40 year career spanning a wide spectrum of engineering and management disciplines. I also hold majors in mathematics and religious studies, and minors in literature and various other liberal arts disciplines and accounting management. Before I lost my hearing, I also used to play Beethoven sonatas, and had several dramatic interests.”
HOW UNIMPRESSIVE & LAUGHABLE!
Then you add: “I have found this comprehensive approach to suit my temperament best, providing me with a well-rounded outlook rather than having a narrow focus on an obscure specialty of my own invention!” underrating me to overrate you yourself as “having a wide focus on several illuminating specialties of other’s invention”.
HOW SELF-DELUSIONAL & “PATHETICFUL”!
Correction: “to overrate you yourself as having a wide focus on several specialties of OTHERS’ invention.”
Max, Your words not mine. You seem to have made your judgment. I couldn’t possibly comment!
It was just in case you couldn’t judge yourself with the same measure you judged me…
Max’s own specialty may be put into context, if he is able to find a small booklet “The Specialist” published by Charles Sale in 1930. However I doubt he may be able to find it in the ivory tower libraries he no doubt frequents. He must endeavour to search for a well-used tattered copy in the better second-hand book stores in his neighbourhood. Some 50 years after Sale wrote his masterpiece, it had sold a million copies, hardback, and had been translated into 10 languages. It was still in print in 1992.
I first came across “The Specialist” in 1956, in the Drawing Office where I received my first training. It provided me with an indispensable grounding for my education.
I have little doubt that Max would be able to decipher it, and decrypt the underlying message.
It is only about 3000 words long.
Should he be unsuccessful in his search, he may be able to obtain an inkling of its contents by checking out the site: http://www.jldr.com/specialist.htm
Daveblablabla!
Correction: Dave blah blah blah!
Royalcanadian,
I do agree with you except for the number of Judeans, Galileans and diapora jews who actually lived/died in the Holy land. Shall I remind you when Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Second Temple, there were 1,100,000 Judeans/Galileans & diaspora Jews killed (Siege for 134 days, April 14 – September 7, from Passover to Yom kippur).
One more thing: 1st century = 2 and a half generations of Judeans, Galileans & diaspora Jews.
Truthfully, I don’t think this argument can ever come to a conclusion, we must just settle on our own interpretations. As our friend Dave pointed out, this whole Tomb thing has been totally messed up from the start…For me, it would just be pure conjecture from this point on, to come to any conclusion(s). As in many archeaological finds, it is inconclusive and hopefully with some luck they will find more tantilising ‘finds’ in the future (and record them properly and professionally)….
This topic leads me to wonder; Why much, much more has not been found? In the decades of these Jewish burial practices one would think there would be tens of thousands of tombs and ossuaries to be discovered, and what about the ‘mass-graves’?? One can only expect more is still to be discovered….I look forward to it anyway :-)
R