“Geologist claims Jesus was married… and had a SON:
Expert says he has proof son of God was buried in 'family tomb' along
with wife Mary and his brother” screams the
headline. The sensational
headline, along with the release date on Easter weekend, should be our
first warning to take the announcement with a grain of salt.
To understand what these claims are, we need to go back to a (widely
discredited) documentary, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” released by
documentarist Simcha Jacobovichi in 2007.
“The Lost Tomb” in question, now called the Talpiot Tomb, was
discovered in 1980. It contained ten ossuaries – a type of small coffin
for holding bones – dating to the first century or perhaps a little
earlier. Some of the ossuaries had names: Yeshua bar Yehosef (Jesus son
of Joseph), Maria (Mary), Yose (Joseph/ Jose), Yehuda bar Yeshua (Judah
son of Jesus), Mariamene e Mara (Miriam [and] Martha), and Matya
(Matthew). One blank ossuary was measured and then stored with other
blank ossuaries. None of this was very surprising, since tombs and
ossuaries are common archeological finds in and around Jerusalem.
But Jacobovici asserted that this was Jesus’ family tomb: “Jesus son of Joseph” is
the
Jesus of the New Testament; “Mariamene e Mara” is a single person, Mary
Magdalene, who was married to Jesus; and Judah is their son. Others in
the tomb include Mary the mother of Jesus, Jose the brother of Jesus (Mk
6:3) and an otherwise unknown Matthew. In addition, Jacobovici claimed
that the famous James ossuary, inscribed with “James son of Joseph
brother of Jesus” originally came from the Talpiot Tomb (rather than
being from the Silwan area east of the Temple, which is what experts
have previously claimed). That rounded out Jesus’ family by including
another of Jesus’ brothers, James (Mk 6:3, Gal 1:19).
Before we tackle the new claims this year, let me briefly explain the
problems with Jacobovici’s original documentary. At the time of the
documentary, many experts in archeology (some Christian, some Jewish,
some with no particular beliefs) examined the claims that the Talpiot
Tomb contained Jesus and his family, and they roundly rejected it. Their
main reasons:
- All of the names found in the tomb are very common in ancient
Israel. Some estimate that during the three-to-four generation period
that the tomb was in use, there were about 1000 men with the name “Jesus
son of Joseph” living in Jerusalem, and many more outside Jerusalem.
Archeologists have catalogued three other ossuaries with the name “Jesus
son of Joseph.” Mary / Miriam, along with spelling variants, was the
name of 21% of Jewish women! A papyrus find from the early second
century gave evidence for another family with the names Jesus, Simon,
Mary, Jacob and Judah, so this combination of names is not strange.
- Jacobovici made much of the DNA evidence showing that some of the
males in the tomb are related, but Mariamene is not related to Jesus. He
claimed that this was proof that the two were married. It doesn’t take
much to see the silliness of this claim. Mariamene could have been the
wife, daughter, half-sister, or cousin of any of the males in the tomb;
the DNA test only proved that the two did not share a mother.
- Ossuaries were often reused. Amos Kloner, the archeologist who
oversaw the initial find, estimated that the ten boxes contained the
remains of 17 people, and that the surrounding tomb contained another 30
sets of remains. In particular, the ossuary labeled “Mariamene e Mara”
may have contained the bones of two women who died at different times
(it may also have been a name and a nickname). So there is no way to
tell if any of the bones tested correspond to the names on the boxes. In
addition, since the ossuaries and remains were handled by several
people after the discovery, it is even possible that the DNA tested came
from a modern archeologist.
- Jacobovici heavily relied on statistical work: what were the odds
that this clustering of names was just coincidental, rather than being
connected to Jesus’ family? A statistician quoted in the documentary,
Andrey Feuerverger, estimated that the odds were 1 in 600 that the
collection of names was mere coincidence. But Feuerverger based this on
multiple faulty assumptions that were given to him by Jacobovici. Among
the faulty assumptions: Jesus’ family had a tomb in Jerusalem (begging
the question!); Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene; the name Mariamene
is highly likely to refer to Mary Magdalene; a son of Jesus named Judah
is historically plausible; and others. Since all of these assumptions
are highly suspect, the resulting odds are not worth much.
So what is new this year? In an attempt to bolster
the claim that the James ossuary comes from the Talpiot tomb, Jacobovici
asked a geologist to examine the patina on the ossuaries from the
Talpiot Tomb and the James ossuary. Patina is a layer that builds up on
ancient artifacts from centuries of exposure to dust in the environment.
The geologist, Aryeh Shimron, says that there is a close geological
match between the patina on the James ossuary and the ossuaries in the
Talpiot Tomb, thus (says Jacobovici) providing proof that the James
ossuary was taken from Talpiot.
Do the claims of the geologist bolster Jacobovici’s “Tomb of Jesus”
idea? Not really. Here are some problems with the new claims.
- The James Ossuary was photographed in 1976. The Talpiot Tomb was
discovered and excavated in 1980, so it is very unlikely that the James
Ossuary is from the Talpiot Tomb
- The so-called “tenth ossuary” from the Talpiot Tomb was measured
and described as having no inscription. The James Ossuary has different
measurements and an inscription. So the “tenth ossuary” from Talpiot is
not the James Ossuary.
- The idea being floated that this is an "eleventh ossuary" that was
somehow removed much earlier than 1980, while the rest of the tomb was
left intact, seems like mere supposition, with no real evidence.
- This method of evaluating patina for location is interesting, but
untested. No one has demonstrated that the composition of the patina
could be used to identify the specific place of origin for an artifact.
It has not yet been tested in enough locations. It is quite possible
that the James ossuary was in another tomb that was filled in with the
same kind of soil.
- So far, patina analysis has primarily been used to prove that the
false patina on forged artifacts does not match the patina expected for a
genuine artifact. In fact, patina analysis is uncertain enough that
archeologists have sometimes been unable to agree on whether the patina
on other artifacts (such as the Jehoash inscription) is genuine.
- The geologist who did this work has never done any previous research on patina.
- The James Ossuary itself is on shaky ground. Because it was bought
on the antiquities market rather than uncovered by an archeological
team, its inscription may be forged. Experts remain divided on its
authenticity.
Conclusion? Yet another sensational claim about Jesus. News agencies
report them because they are sensational, not because they are based on
solid scholarship.