The View from Jerusalem

Assessment of the Facts: The Media and Three Surveys by the Tomb Symposium Participants

on

The Third Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins

“Jewish Views of the After Life and Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism
Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context”

Jan 13-16, 2008 in Mishkenot Sha’ananim, Jerusalem

An initial assessment of the results of the recent Symposium which was published by the media was quickly rejected by most of the Symposium participants. Most of the media assessments gave a general statement about the conclusions drawn by the “50″ participants as a whole. (See conference list of presentations for the participants.)

“Although most of those who spoke at yesterday’s seminar said it was possible the tomb was that of Jesus, Jacobovici’s film was taken with a grain of salt.” Haaretz

“The gathering of world scholars, which some had expected would conclude by dismissing claims linking the tomb to Jesus, wound up inconclusively, but with wide-ranging agreement that the matter required further investigation.” Jerusalem Post

“Until now, international perception of the academic consensus has been that the Talpiot tomb ‘could not be’ the Jesus family tomb. In contrast, 50 of the top scholars in the world now concluded that the Talpiot tomb ‘might very possibly be’ the tomb of the ‘Holy family.’” Marketwire

“Experts Split on Supposed Jesus Tomb: The conference ended with no firm conclusions and with experts divided on the likelihood of the tomb containing Jesus’s family. Charlesworth has not made up his own mind.” United Press International

“After three days of fierce debate, the experts remained deeply divided.” Time Magazine

At times the media became more specific and gave personal statements about the tomb’s historical significance made by individual participants, including the symposium’s chair James Charlesworth (Time), the Jerusalem district archaeologist at the time Amos Kloner (JPost), the tomb’s draftsperson Shimon Gibson (JPost, Haaretz), and historian Israel Knohl (Haaretz).

Simcha Jacobovici’s press representative J9 Communications (see Jim West’s posting on this) singled out a group of four who, they say, had ascertained the identification of the Tomb with Jesus as being “likely”:

“Although some academics continue to deny the possibility, leading New Testament scholars such as Professor Jane Schaberg (Mercy), Professor Claude Cohen-Matlofsky (University of Toronto), Israel Knohl (Hebrew University) and Professor James Tabor (University of North Carolina at Charlotte) all indicated that they thought it was ‘likely’ that the Talpiot tomb was indeed the lost tomb of Jesus.”

(However, the assertions of this report do not at all match the actual statements of Israel Knohl and Jane Schaberg (and not exactly James Tabor) found in the “Fair Representation” survey published in View from Jerusalem).

Three surveys launched by the symposium participants themselves

A large number of participants in the symposium felt disappointed in the media’s portrayal of their view concerning the connection of the Tomb on Dov Grunner St. in the East Talpiot district of Jerusalem to Jesus of Nazareth and his family. In response, they decided to speak out for themselves.

The Fair Representation letter solicited and received the personal statements from a number of participants. The value of this collection is that it allowed the participants to provide a more individualized response, free from the interpretation of the media and the limitations of the general statement.

Two general statements have been published by participants of the symposium:

One general statement was drafted by Professors Jodi Magness and Eric Meyers with the participation of a number of the other participants. The strength of this general statement is that it involved a range of issues treated by an overall group of participants and brought together the signatures of a number of participants who did not find the need to publish their own personal statements.

A general statement by the symposium steering commitee was published on the Princeton Seminary web site. This is valuable since it becomes the official statement by the administration of the Symposium, chaired by Prof. James Charlesworth with D. Mendels, M. Aviam, G. Mazor, S. Gibson and D. Bahat.

A number of participants also provided a more lengthy version of their own statements through their own blogs (or as guests on other blogs), including April DeConick, Stephen Pfann, Christopher Rollston, James Tabor and Joe Zias. If the 25 or so statements (both personal and signatories for general statements) of participants thus far, can be taken to be a fair sampling . . .

The experts are not “split” or “deeply divided” over the issue that the Talpiot Tomb is that of Jesus of Nazareth. Let us be clear on this and to which degree the participants would entertain the possibility of being so.

Who believes that the Talpiot Tomb is actually both the Tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and also his family?

The most positive statement for the tomb being that of Jesus of Nazareth and his family comes from James Tabor who is “convinced that the Talpiot tomb is possibly, and even likely, the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth”.

Who believes that the Talpiot Tomb is not the Tomb of Jesus of Nazareth but is that of his family or members of the Jesus movement?

According to his public statement at the end of the conference, although James Charlesworth denies that this could be the Tomb of Jesus, he “can’t dismiss the possibility that this tomb was related to the Jesus clan.”

Jane Schaberg stated “In my judgement, the tomb is not the tomb of the family or dynasty of Jesus, but perhaps of important members of the movement.” (including Mary Magdalene)

Among those who remain unconvinced that this tomb is related in any way to Jesus of Nazareth, who would be at least encourage further study of the possibility?

Israel Knohl is not convinced of any of it, since the fact that more evidence is needed encourages further study. “I am not convinced that the Talpiot tomb is that of the family of Jesus. This is a possibility that should be explored with more evidence. ”

Others remain pessimistic:

Geza Vermes (Second Temple historian) stated “Apart from a handful of participants, the large majority of the assembled scholars consider the theory that the Talpiot ossuaries contained the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family as unlikely after the conference as it has been before. In my historical judgment, the matter is, and in the absence of substantial new evidence, should remain closed.

Shimon Gibson (archaeologist) stated “In my estimation what came out of the Symposium is that there is no evidence – historical, archaeological, epigraphic, scientific (in terms of DNA and patina studies), architectural/artistic or otherwise – to support the idea that the Talpiot tomb was the family tomb of Jesus. . . . I also repudiate the claim made by the film-makers of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” that the Symposium had in any way vindicated their argument. In fact, the opposite is true and scholars were hard-pressed to find any evidence supporting the notion of a Jesus family tomb at Talpiot.”

André Lemaire (epigrapher) stated “On the whole, it seems clear enough to me not only that the identification of the Talpiot tomb as the family tomb of Jesus is not probable or even likely but that it is very improbable.”

Christopher Rollston (prosopographer and epigrapher) stated “it is not methodologically tenable to posit that this Talpiyot tomb can be considered the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.”

Rachel Hachlili (archaeologist and expert on family tombs) stated “The East Talpiyot tomb could not be identified with a tomb of Jesus of Nazareth for a significant reason …”

Stephen Pfann (epigrapher and historian): “I don’t believe there is any case, even remotely, that can be convincingly made for this being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.”

The Princeton general statement of the Symposium steering committee (made by J.H. Charlesworth (chair), D. Mendels, M. Aviam, G. Mazor, S. Gibson, D. Bahat) stated: “‘Most archaeologists, epigraphers, and other scientists argued persuasively that there is no reason to conclude that the Talpiot Tomb was Jesus’ tomb.’ Unfortunately, many of the initial reports in the press following the symposium gave almost the exact opposite impression, stating, instead, that the conference proceedings gave credence to the identification of the Talpiot tomb with a putative family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. As is abundantly clear from the statements to the contrary that have been issued since the symposium by many of the participants, such representations are patently false and blatantly misrepresent the spirit and scholarly content of the deliberations.”

The Duke general statement of participants (signed by M. Aviam, A. Graham Brock, F.W. Dobbs-Alsopp, C.D. Elledge, S. Gibson, R. Hachlili, A. Kloner, J. Magness, L. McDonald, E. Meyers, S. Pfann, J. Price, C. Rollston, A. Segal, C-L. Seow, J. Zias, and B. Zissu) “To conclude, we wish to protest the misrepresentation of the conference proceedings in the media, and make it clear that the majority of scholars in attendance – including all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb - either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly speculative.”

About half of the participants responded. In the end, nearly all would agree that the identification of the Talpiot tomb with that of Jesus and/or his family is really little more than unfounded speculation.

On the last night of the Talpiot Tomb Symposium, the statement by Joseph Gath’s widow Ruth had the archaeological community mystified. She provided the assembled scholars and media with the dramatic story of a conversation with her husband where he expressed his fears that he had excavated the actual tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

Earlier in the conference, the participants were shown recently revealed receipts for the ossuaries from Mr. Gat, who recorded that only 4 inscriptions in the tomb had been deciphered. With word out among the participants and the media that he had died in the early 1980’s, how could he have been able to arrive at that conclusion before Joseph Naveh had the opportunity to decipher the very difficult “Yeshua? bar Yehosef” inscription?

It was thought that perhaps we heard the widow wrong or perhaps her memory was not as clear as it should be.

On Friday, The Jerusalem Post corrected its first, early ’80’s dating of Gat’s death to the early 90’s:

“He said Gat, who died in the early 1990s (and not soon after the 1980 dig, as erroneously reported in Thursday’s Post)…”

In fact, Amos Kloner clarified to me yesterday, Joseph Gat died on June 14, 1993, only a year before Rahmani’s catalogue was published.

Well then, that changes things. Joseph Gat actually died several years after the “Yeshua? bar Yehosef” inscription had been deciphered by Naveh. This means that he could have heard of the decipherment of the names within the Department and arrived at his own conclusions, voicing his apprehensions to his wife, without revealing them to others.

Apologies may indeed be due to Mrs. Gat, with all due respect! (Even bloggers can rush to press. I have changed this part of my posting “One more nail in the Ossuary” accordingly).

Does this tip the balances toward confirming the Lost Tomb hypothesis of the filmmakers? Not at all.

The observation that Joseph Gat had believed that the tomb was that of Jesus of Nazareth only goes to illustrate that speculation concerning the tomb was already alive and well during the early 90’s, well before Ray Bruce proposed this in the BBC special of ‘96. This new piece of history is but a distraction from the current issue since, with the exception perhaps of Joseph Naveh’s tentative decipherment of the “Yeshua? bar Yehosef” inscription, other essential scientific data, available to us today, were unavailable at that time.

Our job as human beings is to treat Ruth Gat’s memories with respect. As scholars our work is to continue to scrutinize the data that is available and to evaluate it carefully, being mindful of our limitations.

“This is my statement:

I believe that there is enough evidence from the papers at the conference to form the following conclusions:

on DNA

Mark Spiegelman, the teacher of the film’s DNA expert, denied that the tests could produce trustworthy results. The DNA of the ossuaries was not protected over time from contamination, nor were the samples taken in such a way that they would have been protected them from further contamination. The source of DNA from either ossuary could be from more recent sources, including people and animals. The fact that mitochondrial DNA from two ossuaries does not match means nothing, according to experts on hand.

on Statistics
The mathematician A. Feuerverger has recently produced a paper dealing with probabilities for family groups in antiquity which has been applauded as a major advancement by various mathematicians and statisticians, including the respondent, Prof. C. Fuchs. Using this method, and based upon assumptions provided by the filmmakers, Feuerverger determined that there is a 1:1600 likelihood (previously 1:600), that this was the family tomb of Jesus Christ. However, if the assumed historic figure Mary Magdalene is removed from the list, he then reduces the likelihood to 1:48. Furthermore, if Yoseh proves to be a common name, then Feuerverger holds that there is no case left for this being the tomb of Jesus. Fuchs, a statistician, criticized Feuerverger’s methodology in that it does not account for negative features, including missing names and the extra names that are in this family tomb, which should bring the probability down considerably. He does not believe that this could be the tomb of Jesus from a statistical viewpoint.

on Maria/Mariame/Mariamenou
The epigraphers on hand, J. Price and S. Pfann agreed on the letter by letter reading of the inscription on the so-called Mary Magdalene ossuary, though they did not agree on the presence of two scribal hands (note, however, that Pfann provided evidence from microscopic photos for the two hands). Both Price and Pfann read: MAPIAMH KAI MAPA (or MAPIAM H KAI MAPA). Either way, both agreed that the names are common forms of Mary and that the all-important and unusual form Mariamne (with an “N”) is not to be found in this inscription, as the original catalogue incorrectly reads and the filmmakers insist.
Pfann showed from some microscopic photos of the so-called “Yeshua? bar Yehosef” ossuary, that the name Yeshua? is written with a different tool from that used in the last part of the inscription. It is scrawled in a cursive style over an earlier name that had been partially erased. Both names utilized the “bar Yehosef” part of the inscription. This indicates that this individual of the hardly-readable name Yeshua? was not the first family member to be interred in this ossuary, and certainly not the first to be interred in the tomb (against the storyline of the filmmakers).

Gnostic Gospel expert A. De Conick pointed out that “Mariamne” does not actually begin to be used for Mary Magdalene until the 3rd century CE and even then, not exclusively. The Mariamne of the Acts of Philip, used to support the filmmakers’ claim, is actually a composite of two “Mary” characters from the New Testament: Mary of Bethany (the sister of Martha and Lazarus) and Mary Magdalene. In addition, she is purported to be the sister of Philip, a designation known only from the Gnostic gospels and in tension with the New Testament accounts.

S. Pfann pointed out that the sole first-century historical witnesses to Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of Jesus, the New Testament, provides mixed uses of the two names Mariam and Maria for both characters, since every Mary had a formal name “Mariam” and an informal name “Maria” (like Jennifer/Jenny; Kathleen/Kate; Elizabeth/Betty). In the New Testament, Mary the mother of Jesus is designated Mariam 13x and Maria 6x, while Mary Magdalene is called Mariam 4x and Maria 11x. (Note that the scale tips in the opposite direction toward “Maria” for Mary M.) In all cases, the earliest witness Mark uses “Maria” for both women. If anything can be derived from this, it is that if there is indeed a “Lady Mary” in the ossuary, it should refer to the mother of Jesus, rather than to Magdalene (not seriously!).

on Joseph/Jose
Similarly, the formal and informal names Yehoseph and Yoseh (Joseph/Joseh) were merely names that were commonly applied to the same person, depending upon the social context (like James/Jim; Robert/Bob; William/Bill). In the Mishnah and Tosefta, Yehosef is rare and Yoseh (Kaufman ms.) is by far preferred (sages of the Hasmonean period onward). [ for more] In the NT the same brother is called IWSE (in Mark) and IWSEF (in Matthew). Although there are a few YWSEH Hebrew inscriptions on the ossuaries (2x) the Greek inscribed ossuaries are all IWSH/IOSE (no Josephs). Guess what? The NT manuscripts are written only in Greek (thus, perhaps IWSE should well be expected there).

If one brings this data into the statistical analysis, then the picture changes completely. Concerning name usage in the first century see “How do you solve a problem like Maria”.

Meanwhile, I don’t believe there is any case, even remotely, that can be convincingly made for this being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

On the one hand, this film has challenged us to consider afresh the methods by which we explore the realia of Second Temple Period History. On the other hand, unfortunately, the true family of this tomb has experienced a kind of “identity theft,” brought upon it in such a way that it is difficult to extricate this family’s story from that of the family of Jesus of Nazareth. In a way, we must now “demythologize” the current story of this tomb in order to allow the actual history of this Judean family to be told through the tantalizing morsels that have been left behind.

Prof. Stephen Pfann

Professor of Second Temple History and Literature

University of the Holy Land, Jerusalem”

Summary form of the statement:

Stephen Pfann’s statement:
January 23, 2008

“This is my appraisal of the various panels combined:

1) There is a high probablity of contamination of the ossuaries with foreign DNA and the fact is that Mitocondrial DNA irrelevant for determining family relations. (Spiegelman and Cox)

2) The probability calculations were based upon highly speculative assumptions that Mary Magdalene was in one ossuary and that IOSE is both a surprising name in the Greek New Testament and among the ossuaries. (Feuerverger and Fuchs)

3) MARIAMH KAI MARA or MARIAM H KAI MARA is the correct reading of which are exteremely common first century names, not MARIAMHNOU (said to be the typical name of Mary Magdalene by the filmmakers). (Price and Pfann)

4) A. De Conick pointed out that “Mariamne” does not actually begin to be used for Mary Magdalene until the 3rd century CE and even then, not exclusively.

5) In the New Testament, Mary the mother of Jesus is designated Mariam 13x and Maria 6x, while Mary Magdalene is called Mariam 4x and Maria 11x. (Note that the scale tips in the opposite direction toward “Maria” for Mary M.) In all cases, the earliest witness Mark uses “Maria” for both women.

6) The Greek New Testament the same brother of Jesus is called IWSH (in Mark) and IWSEF (in Matthew). It is likely that this reflects informal and formal spellings of names applied to the same individual. All catalogued Greek ossuaries have IWSH (or IOSE) and not Joseph.

7) The difficult-to-read name “Yeshua?” is not the first name to be written on the “Yeshua? bar Yehosef “ossuary but was overinscribed over an earlier name that was erased. This indicates that the tomb’s use was not initiated by the death of this “Jesus” as is asserterted to be the reason for the remainder of his family to be interred in the Jerusalem area.

8 ) Two of the six names Mattiah and Judah son of Jesus are never mentioned in the New Testament. There is no suggestion that Jesus was ever married at all (let alone to Mary Magdalene) in any historical source.

9) All of the “surprising” features of the names on the Talpiot tomb’s ossuaries which form the assumptions used in the probabilities calculations are in error or actually not remarkable. The rest is left to speculation.

I don’t believe there is any case, even remotely, that can be convincingly made for this being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

On the one hand, this film has challenged us to consider afresh the methods by which we explore the realia of Second Temple Period History. On the other hand, unfortunately, the true family of this tomb has experienced a kind of “identity theft,” brought upon it in such a way that it is difficult to extricate this family’s story from that of the family of Jesus of Nazareth. In a way, we must now “demythologize” the current story of this tomb in order to allow the actual history of this Judean family to be told through the tantalizing morsels that have been left behind.

Prof. Stephen Pfann
Professor of Second Temple History and Literature
University of the Holy Land, Jerusalem”

Pfann’s epigraphic credentials are here

“A short additional statement:

The East Talpiyot tomb could not be identified with a tomb of Jesus of Nazareth for a significant reason: In all references in the New Testament Jesus is named only Yeshua with no patrononymic (i.e., “son of”). Why then would the name ‘Yeshua son of Yehosef’ be inscribed on an ossuary of a person known only as Yeshua? More likely an inscription on the ossuary of Jesus would have been ‘Yeshua from Nazareth’ or ‘Yeshua son of Mariame’.”

Prof. Rachel Hachlili
Zinman Institute of Archaeology
University of Haifa

“My contribution:

In my judgement, the tomb is not the tomb of the family or dynasty of Jesus, but perhaps of important members of the movement.

Various readings of the possible Mary Magdalene inscription were proposed: including mariam he kai mara, mariamne kai mara, and the disputed caritative or diminutive form. Epigraphers have more work to do,hopefully with enhanced techniques. I have argued that it is quite possible, even probable, from readings of NT gospels and the apocryphal Gospel of Mary, that some first century people regarded her as “mara” - master. Thus I am one of the few voices from the conference in favor of serious consideration of the tomb as providing exciting opportunities for rethinking “resurrection” and the importance of Jewish mystical tradition of this time (cf. Knohl).

Jane Schaberg
Professor of Religious Studies and Women’s and Gender Studies
University of Detroit Mercy”

“I have argued in print (in the journal Near Eastern Archaeology) and at the Princeton Symposium that because (a) the names attested on the inscribed Talpiyot ossuaries are all quite common and because (b) just two of the six inscribed ossuaries have patrononymics (i.e., “son of”), it is not methodologically tenable to posit that this Talpiyot tomb can be considered the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

Note also that although titles and geographica (statements about the region from which the deceased hailed) are attested in the corpus of ossuaries, none is attested in this Talpiyot tomb. Thus, the necessary conclusion, based on the cumulative epigraphic data, is that the proposal that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth must be considered sensationalistic speculation based on a strained and tenuous interpretation of the evidence.”

Christopher Rollston, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University; Toyozo Nakarai Professor of Old Testament and Semitics, Emmanuel School of Religion.

In case our readership is wondering why these recent statements from symposium members have made their way into this web site, here is the letter that prompted them:

“Dear fellow participants,

Since the last night of the symposium, you undoubtedly heard of a number of media blurbs on the results of our meetings which represented all of our findings in the following ways:

“Although most of those who spoke at yesterday’s seminar said it was possible the tomb was that of Jesus, Jacobovici’s film was taken with a grain of salt.”  Haaretz

“The gathering of world scholars, which some had expected would conclude by dismissing claims linking the tomb to Jesus, wound up inconclusively, but with wide-ranging agreement that the matter required further investigation.”  Jerusalem Post

“Until now, international perception of the academic consensus has been that the Talpiot tomb “could not be” the Jesus family tomb. In contrast, 50 of the top scholars in the world now concluded that the Talpiot tomb “might very possibly be” the tomb of the ‘Holy family.’” Marketwire

“Experts Split on Supposed Jesus Tomb”: “The conference ended with no firm conclusions and with experts divided on the likelihood of the tomb containing Jesus’s family. Charlesworth has not made up his own mind.”  United Press International

“After three days of fierce debate, the experts remained deeply divided.”  Time

Are these statements true? I think we might be able to assemble a fair consensus vote from among members of the symposium by publishing preliminary short individual statements. If you would be willing to provide a short statement (one to 600 words) about your present position on the subject in the light of the symposium (whether for or or against the Jesus Tomb hypothesis) we can combine these as a witness to the present views of the participants. (I would propose to make these statements immediately available on the internet. This can stand in place of the rather varied and often careless appraisals of our positions presented by the media.)

The following is provided by Eric Meyers. Please feel free to add yours.

S. Pfann

Prof. Eric Meyer’s statement:

“Here is what I can say:

I was shocked that the near universal scholarly consensus that the Talpiot tomb could not be the Tomb of Jesus was ignored by the press. In a surprise move Simcha Jacobovici addressed the group at the closing session and made special mention of the speech of Jospeh Gat’s widow about his fearing to tell the world about his discovery in 1980. The problem with this is that several Israelis noted that Gat could not have known the meaning of the inscriptions since he did not read epigraphy let alone appreciate their potential significance had he been able to decipher them.”

Eric Meyers
Bernice and Morton Lerner Professor of Judaic Studies at Duke University, and former President of the American Schools of Oriental Research”

Although these statements will be considered preliminary, this collection of statements will serve as fair representations of the actual positions of the participants at the end of the conference. Final assessments and statements must be reserved for after the symposium papers are full published.

Most of the participants have been contacted, as many email addresses as could be found. Any other participants that have not received this letter should please send your statement to:

stephen.pfann@uhl.ac

Others who may want to go on record with a statement may do so by composing and adding one to the comments section of this posting.

S. Pfann

“I wanted to add my statement to your collection. The Blog entry today was not my views on the tomb, but some overall comments on the conference as a whole. Here is my statement:

I am convinced that the Talpiot tomb is possibly, and even likely, the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth for the following reasons (stated not elaborated, see NEA for the full exposition)

Historical: Jesus was put in a temporary tomb and would likely be moved to a permanent location in the Jerusalem area where his family took up residence over the next 40 years. If we then imagine who might hypothetically be in a pre-70 CE “Jesus family tomb” we come up with an inner core group of: Jesus, any wife or children he might have, his brother Yose, who likely died before 70, his widowed mother Mary, and any wife or children of Yose.

Epigraphical: The names Yeshua bar Yehosef, Yose, which is in fact extremely rare despite statements to the contrary, Maria, and Mariamene, correspond remarkably to the hypothetical “group.”

Statistical: Even without any a priori inclusion of Mary Magdalene in a Jesus family tomb, just the names we have, based on Kilty’s calculations, endorsed by Fuchs, yields a .48 probability. This is far from random, in fact it means if we had two tombs to look at one of them would probably be the Jesus family tomb. Even one in ten would be interesting but .48 I find quite compelling, given the other evidence of history and epigraphy. One can take any other “Yeshua” tomb we have, just as a comparison, and all of them are immediately disqualified or have no names that fit what we might expect in our pre-70 hypothetical Jesus family tomb. Remarkably, this one does.

There are other things I won’t include here but this to me is enough to suggest we should consider this site as possible to probable and not dismiss it. I think lots of this comes down to language. It is one thing to say that one does not find evidence to conclude this is the Jesus family tomb, but that is quite different from saying that the positive evidence outweighs the negative.

The only “negative” evidence of which I am aware would be the idea that Jesus was celibate or never had a child. I think this is highly unlikely, given the practice of eliminating women from our accounts (all the apostles, for a start). Also, I think one can make some positive arguments for Jesus being married, but won’t summarize them here.”

Dr. James D. Tabor
Chair, Dept. of Religious Studies
UNC Charlotte
Charlotte, NC 28223

The following statements by symposium participants are more lengthy and were produced on the following blogs:

Prof. April DeConick’s statement on the conference: forbiddengospels.blogspot.com

Prof. Christopher Rollston’s statement: drjimwest.wordpress.com

Prof. James Tabor’s statement: jesusdynasty.com/blog

There are still more to come.

This is André Lemaire’s statement:

“Dear Colleague,

Thank you for your message.
The identification of the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus is mainly based on four arguments:
- the 10th missing ossuary should be the James ossuary
- the Greek name Mariamènon/Mariamènè is typical of Maria Magdalena
- the name YWSH is a rare name
- The DNA test shows that bone of the Mariamènon/Mariamènè ossuary have no family relation with that of the YShW‘ BR YHWSP ossuary.
During the conference, these four arguments were shown to be wrong while other contradicting facts have to be considered.
On the whole, it seems clear enough to me not only that the identification of the Talpiot tomb as the family tomb of Jesus is not probable or even likely but that it is very improbable.

André Lemaire