The Jesus Discovery

by James D. Tabor

  The statistical studies ask how often this set of names would occur by chance if they were drawn randomly from the entire set of names in use during the period of time in question. As the probability of this set of names occurring by chance goes down, the probability that this is the family tomb of the New Testament Jesus goes up.

  What Lutgen shows is that the numbers will vary significantly depending on how the names Jesus son of Joseph, Mariamene, and Yoseh are treated. If the latter two are taken as generic names for Mary and Joseph, two of the most frequent male and female names of the period, then the probability that this is the tomb of the family of Jesus comes out quite low.

  For example, if Yoseh is taken as just another generic Joseph, you get a probability of only 3 percent, but if it is taken as the rare form discussed above, the probability rises to 47 percent. If you add a rare Mariamene with a generic Joseph you get 81 percent. But if you count both names as rare—which we believe they are—factoring in their rarity, the probability rises to 99.2 percent. This high percentage might not be intuitive, but it is mathematically sound, given the data we have on name frequencies.

  We do not believe that statistics alone prove one way or the other that the Talpiot Jesus tomb is that of Jesus of Nazareth but the statistics do show that the oft-repeated assertion that lots of tombs in Jerusalem would likely have a similar set of names is false.

  We have spent countless hours studying every entry in the ossuary inscription catalogues of Levi Rahmani and Hannah Cotton, the two major catalogues of ossuary inscriptions. We began to realize, after looking at tomb after tomb represented by all 600 inscriptions that have been found, that of the thousand or more known tombs that have been opened and examined in Jerusalem over the past hundred years there is not a single one other than this Talpiot tomb for which one could even make an argument that it might be the family tomb of Jesus. It is not as though there are a half-dozen or so other possible tombs that might fit Jesus and his family, and we have chosen to focus on this one. There are no others. The other tombs that have a Jesus inscription of any kind are clustered with names like Shelamzion, Chananiya, Shapira, Dositheos, Daniel, Menachem, or Sara, names that have no known association with Jesus of Nazareth or his family in our texts.

  THE SECOND BURIAL OF JESUS

  In trying to match the Talpiot Garden tomb with the historical record, we begin with what we know about the burial of Jesus of Nazareth from our earliest sources—the New Testament gospels. Although the apostle Paul (whose letters are even older than the gospels) knows the tradition that Jesus was “buried,” he provides no narrative details that we might analyze historically (1 Corinthians 15:4). It is often assumed that the gospels report that Joseph of Arimathea took the corpse of Jesus and laid it in his own new tomb late Friday night, but a careful reading of our gospel accounts indicates that the tomb into which Jesus was temporarily placed did not belong to Joseph of Arimathea—as we discussed in chapter 1.

  Mark implies that it was the pressing necessity of a quick temporary burial brought on by the nearness of the Sabbath that prompted Joseph of Arimathea to act in haste and approach the Roman governor Pontius Pilate for permission to bury Jesus’ corpse (Mark 15:42–47). The gospel of John makes this point even more explicitly, stating plainly, “Now in the place he was crucified was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb . . . so because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there” (John 19:38–42).

  This initial burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea was a temporary measure because the Passover Sabbath was hours away. It was a burial of necessity and opportunity. This particular tomb was chosen because it was unused and happened to be near the place of crucifixion. The idea that this first tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea makes no sense. What are the chances that Joseph of Arimathea would just happen to have his own new family tomb conveniently located near the Place of the Skull, or Golgotha, where the Romans regularly crucified their victims?25 Amos Kloner, who supervised the excavation of the Talpiot Jesus tomb, offers the following analysis:

  I would go one step further and suggest that Jesus’ tomb was what the sages refer to as a “borrowed (or temporary) tomb.” During the Second Temple period and later, Jews often practiced temporary burial . . . A borrowed or temporary cave was used for a limited time, and the occupation of the cave by the corpse conferred no rights of ownership upon the family . . . Jesus’ interment was probably of this nature.26

  Mark indicates that the intention of Joseph was to complete the full and proper rites of Jewish burial after Passover. Given these circumstances, one would expect the body of Jesus to be placed in a second tomb as a permanent resting place. This second tomb would presumably be one that either belonged to, or was provided by, Joseph of Arimathea, who had both the means and the formal responsibility to honor Jesus and his family in this way. Accordingly, one would not expect the permanent tomb of Jesus, and subsequently his family, to be near Golgotha, just outside the main gates of the city, but in a rock-hewn tomb elsewhere in the Jerusalem area, most likely where Joseph of Arimathea would have had a burial cave on his own estate.

  James the brother of Jesus became leader of the Jesus movement following Jesus’ death in 30 CE. Our evidence indicates that the movement was headquartered in Jerusalem until 70 CE when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. The core group of followers banded around Jesus’ family and the twelve apostles, who took up residence there as well, even though most of them were from Galilee.27 This evidence points strongly toward the possibility of a Jesus family tomb in Jerusalem.

  A JESUS FAMILY CLUSTER

  Based on our earliest textual sources we propose the following list of individuals as potential candidates for burial in a hypothetical Jesus family tomb:

  Jesus

  Joseph his father

  Mary his mother

  His brothers, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, and any of their wives or children

  His sisters: Salome and Mary (if unmarried)

  Any wife or children of Jesus (if he was married with children)

  There are other names we simply do not know, such as the names of Jesus’ brothers’ wives or any of their children. These possibilities are based on our understanding of how family burial caves were populated in the period. If a woman was married, she would be in her husband’s tomb, if not, she would be in her father’s. A widow might be in her son’s tomb.28

  If we next ask which of these individuals might hypothetically be buried in a pre–70 CE Jesus family tomb in Jerusalem after the year 30 CE when Jesus was crucified, we have a specific chronological framework in which to test our hypothesis. Seventy CE is the year the Romans devastated Jerusalem and exiled much of the Jewish population. Normal Jewish life, including the common use of burial caves around the city, diminished.29 Taking this date we come up with a more chronologically restricted list of potential candidates, since we would only include those in the family that we can assume might have died between 30 and 70 CE:

  Jesus

  Mary his mother

  Joses and James, his brothers

  Any wives and children of his dead brothers

  Any wife and children of Jesus who died before 70 CE

  We would eliminate Jesus’ father, Joseph, because he seems to have died decades earlier, probably in Galilee, and we have no record of him in Jerusalem in this period (see Acts 1:14). Jesus’ mother, Mary, given her age, could likely have died before 70 CE, and as a widow, according to Jewish custom, she could have been put in the tomb of her oldest son. Jesus’ brothers Simon and Jude apparently lived past 70 CE, according to our records, so they should be eliminated from our list.30 Jesus’ brother Joses is a strong candidate for inclusion since he is the “missing brother” in our historical records. When James is murdered in 62 CE, it is Simon, the third brother, not Joses, the second, who takes over leadership of the movement—indicating that Joses had most likely died by that time. The New Testament letters of James and Jude testify t
o their influence, and we even have an account of the death of Simon by crucifixion, but nothing survives whatsoever regarding Joses. Given the culture it is likely that Jesus’ sisters would have been married, and thus buried in the tombs of their husbands, so they are not prime candidates for the Jesus tomb. Since we have no textual record of wives and children of either Jesus or his two brothers who died before 70 CE we can only say hypothetically that if such people existed they might have been included.

  As for the two Marys in the Talpiot tomb, there were three intimate “Marys” in Jesus’ life: his mother, a sister, and Mary Magdalene. Indeed, it was Mary Magdalene, his mother, and his other sister, Salome, who attended to his burial rites (Mark 16:1). Family intimates carried out this important rite of washing and anointing the naked corpse for burial. As we will discuss later, our DNA tests on the bones from the Mariamene ossuary indicate the woman buried inside was not Jesus’ sister or mother. It seems a logical possibility that she could be the “third” Mary, namely Mary Magdalene, his follower and close companion, based on her inclusion as a named intimate in our earliest records.

  We find it striking that five of the six inscriptions correspond so closely to a hypothetical pre–70 CE family tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem as we might imagine it based on historical evidence—Jesus son of Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, Yoseh, and Judah the son of Jesus. The one inscription we can’t account for in terms of what might be expected in our hypothetical Jesus family tomb is Matya or Matthew. The name is relatively rare, just 2.4 percent of males, as we have seen. We have noted that the name Matthew occurs more frequently than any other name in the family genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:23–31), so it is quite possible that such a name would be given to a close relative. Although we might not be able to identify who this Matthew was, or his familial relationship to Jesus, it is a name that fits comfortably in the cluster.

  We find this hypothetical “fit” between the intimate pre–70 CE family of Jesus of Nazareth and the names found in this tomb quite impressive and it argues strongly against an out-of-hand dismissal of the tomb as possibly, or even likely, associated with Jesus of Nazareth.

  SUMMING UP THE OBJECTIONS

  There have been five major objections put forth against the hypothesis that the Talpiot Jesus tomb is likely the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth:

  1. The names in the tomb are common.

  2. Jesus had no wife or children.

  3. Jesus and his family were too poor to have afforded a cave burial tomb.

  4. Jesus would have been buried in Nazareth, not in Jerusalem.

  5. Jesus’ body was resurrected and taken up to heaven.

  Each of these objections is in our view invalid. We have discussed the first and have shown that quite the opposite is the case. We will address the second in the following chapter. One major scholar has argued the third and we will consider it below. The fourth is simply not the case. All our textual evidence places the death and burial of Jesus in Jerusalem, not in Galilee. Since it was forbidden in Jewish law and custom to transport a corpse, the idea that Jesus’ body would have been taken to a family tomb in Galilee is without any basis.31 The final objection is theological, not historical, but since the Patio tomb shows evidence for faith in Jesus’ resurrection by his earliest followers, adjacent to the Talpiot Jesus tomb, these original disciples obviously had a different understanding of the resurrection of Jesus from those who imagine it involved reviving a corpse and transporting it to heaven.

  Were Jesus and his family—or even his group of close followers—too small, insignificant, and poor to have a family burial cave in Jerusalem?32 The argument is made that whoever took the body from the initial cave burial would have buried him in a simple trench grave with no marker since the family was too poor to have afforded a rock-hewn tomb. This objection overlooks the fact that at least one follower of influence and means, Joseph of Arimathea, did in fact see to the initial burial in a rock-hewn tomb. Why would one assume that either Joseph, or other followers of means who were devoted to Jesus’ messianic program, would not be able to provide a permanent tomb? We also have evidence that a group of wealthy and influential women, including Mary Magdalene, were supporting Jesus’ movement financially, had followed him from Galilee, and were involved in the preparation of spices and ointments for his proper burial (Luke 8:1–3). The descriptions and circumstances all fit well with the idea of a body prepared for burial in a rock-hewn tomb with ossuaries.33

  The Jesus movement, led by James his brother following his crucifixion, was headquartered in Jerusalem for the next forty years and its numbers and influence were sufficient to be noted by Josephus in the Antiquities.34

  On more general grounds, this objection overlooks the extraordinary devotion that followers exhibit toward their spiritual and messianic leaders. Mark tells us that the followers of John the Baptizer went to collect his body and that they placed him in a tomb (Mark 6:29). The Syriac Ascents of James recounts how devout followers of James buried another murdered leader, known in some traditions as Stephen, in a tomb close to Jericho to which they made an annual pilgrimage.35 The study of apocalyptic and messianic movements, both ancient and modern, makes clear that devoted groups have the collective means to support their leaders. It is an open and debated question in the field of Christian origins as to whether Jesus was poor and without means of any sort, but even if that were true, to rule out the likelihood that devoted followers of means would have provided him and his family with a place of burial is unwarranted.

  The Talpiot tomb is quite modest in size and arrangement, measuring under three by three meters and less than two meters high. It is nothing like the more monumental decorated tombs closer to the city. Also, of the six inscribed ossuaries, four are “plain,” and only two are “decorated” (Mariamene Mara and Yehuda bar Yeshua). We do not believe that the mere existence of a modest rock-hewn tomb of this type indicates high status and wealth. The comprehensive Kloner and Zissu survey of Jewish burial in and around Jerusalem in the period indicates little evidence of trench burials. Instead rock-hewn burial tombs were the norm for most of the population. As one moves away from the “front-row” seats near the Old City, the tombs south of Akeldama, around the Mount of Offense, and south into Talpiot are often more modest in form and size.36

  THE TALPIOT TOMBS IN CONTEXT

  The recent discoveries in the Patio tomb, which was likely located on a wealthy estate with two other tombs, one now destroyed, the other the Jesus family tomb, provides a completely new context for interpreting and understanding both the site and its possible connection to Jesus and his family. The latest advances in archaeological methodology have stressed that context is everything; nothing should be interpreted in isolation. Scholars call this method “landscape archaeology.” What one attempts to do is re-create the larger context for a given archaeological site. For a cluster of tombs just outside an urban area this is particularly important. We have already stated that the original excavator of both tombs, Joseph Gath, notes in his reports that in the immediate vicinity of the tombs was an oil press, cisterns, the remains of a plastered installation that might have been a ritual bath, stone boundary walls, and terraces. Although some of these installations showed evidence of a later date, in the Byzantine period (4–5th centuries CE), Gath’s descriptions indicate that they had been reused in later times. His conclusion was that these tombs in the time of Jesus were part of a large farm or wealthy settlement.37

  Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy Jewish leader, a member of the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish court of the nation, who had enough status and influence to request Jesus’ body from Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea. Because the temporary tomb near the site of the crucifixion was found empty on Sunday morning, it is easy to miss the obvious point. Joseph of Arimathea was given charge of the proper burial of Jesus according to Jewish law and custom. Such a burial involved much more than temporary protection of the corpse from violation through the Passover festival and the Sabbath day. He
had taken on the obligation to give Jesus a proper burial, a sacred responsibility in the Jewish tradition. The most likely hypothesis is that he would have provided a permanent place on his own land.

  So far we have not found an inscription inside the Patio tomb linking Joseph of Arimathea to the site. But circumstantial evidence points in that direction. The designation Arimathaia in Greek (Mark 15:43) comes from the Hebrew word rama, meaning the “height.” The Greek form Arimathaia seems to represent the Hebrew Ramathaim—meaning the “two heights.” Everyone assumes this reference is to a city, based on Luke 23:51, but it more likely referred to a location with two prominent “heights.”38 Jerusalemites today refer to the Talpiot tomb area as Armon Hanatziv—the “Place of the High Commissioner,” referring to the high ridge overlooking Jerusalem where the British high commissioner once had offices and today the United Nations has its headquarters. It is hard to imagine the area two thousand years ago as it is so built up with modern construction, but looking south from Jerusalem toward Talpiot, two prominent ridges are clearly visible.

  The Jesus tomb is modest and quite small, with four plain ossuaries. The Patio tomb is clearly the more important tomb on the estate. It is much larger and the niches are nicely carved and gabled. Of the eight ossuaries originally in the tomb, only two are plain, the rest highly ornamented. One of the plain ones is the one with Jonah and the great fish. Since we now know it was first on the right, as one entered the tomb, it might well have been that of the master of the estate as we have noted. The obvious question is, why would a wealthy landowner with money to provide such ornate ossuaries choose such a plain one for himself and his family, fill it with bones, and have the “sign of Jonah” carved on the front? And why would someone of the family, whether the original master or not, incise a four-line testimony to God “lifting up” the dead? And who would write “Mara” on an ossuary, over a still unfinished rosette? Was it a female of the family named Mara, or was it someone wanting to honor the “Lady,” perhaps even the one in the Jesus tomb nearby? Finally, writing the Divine Name—Jehovah, once in Greek, another time in Hebrew—on an ossuary, is not only unusual, it would be considered heretical by Jews of that time.