Ink and Blood: A Review of the Exhibit

The exhibit “Ink and Blood” is now showing in an extended run at the Museum of Idaho in Idaho Falls. Called “a barnstorming traveling circus of ancient Bibles” by Edward Cook on his blog, it consists of a large collection of relatively early Old and New Testament manuscript fragments, including some very small pieces of Dead Sea Scroll fragments, and a large collection of early Latin and English bibles. The exhibit has received mixed reviews in the blogosphere (see Cook’s review or also here or here or here). After driving up from Salt Lake City to check it out myself, I felt it could use another review. In short, it is a bit of a barnstorming traveling circus and it is not particularly critical in a scholarly sense. Nonetheless, not everything has to play to the tweed and tenure set. I recommend it for anyone interested in biblical manuscripts and, in particular, early printed English bibles, provided they have even a bit of a geeky interest in old books.

The exhibit was put together by William H. Noah, M.D., of Tennessee, whose family and patients must be very tolerant of his interest in bibles and biblical manuscripts. The collection spans a long period of time, including 3000 years or so B.C. up until the printing of the English bible in America. Among the earlier pieces in the collection are some very small fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a fragment of a 3^rd Century A.D. manuscript of the Gospel of John, and fragments of 4^th Century A.D. manuscripts of the Septuagint (early Greek translation of the Old Testament). Hand-produced Latin bibles of the Middle Ages are also present, along with several beautiful copies of Books of Hours (early prayer books). The core of the exhibit, however, is a large collection of the first bibles in English. Included are copies of Wycliff’s early (1400s) translation from the Latin, Tyndale’s New Testament (the first English translation from the Greek), a Great Bible (produced by Thomas Cranmer at the request of Henry VIII), and a first edition Geneva Bible (often called the Pilgrim’s Bible). It’s a veritable smorgasbord of bibles!

Now, all museum exhibits have an argument to make (or an axe to grind), and the focus of this exhibit is Noah’s portrayal of the development of the bible as a heroic story culminating in the production of a bible in English for the common people. And not just any bible, mind you, but the King James Bible, a translation portrayed as the acme of all English translations in the exhibit materials. This is a bit of an overly simplistic telling of what is actually a more complex history. Personally, I found the adulation the exhibit gives to the King James translation to be a bit ironic. On the one hand the exhibit rightly notes how the Latin translation had become unreadable for nearly all lay people by the middle of the second millennium C.E. On the other hand, it’s odd to then exalt the King James translation, which is now more than a bit antiquated itself. It’s English, yes, but does anyone really talk like that anymore?

I should also point out also that one of the manuscripts (the Marzeah Papyrus) has not yet been fully authenticated and may well be a fake (see a nice discussion here). I caught a couple of simplifications in some of the supplementary exhibit texts. While you have to credit Noah, a non-specialist, for putting together a generally objective and accurate history (as far as it goes), if you’re a heavy duty biblical scholar, or even a medium duty one, you may well take issue with the exhibit organization and the supplementary materials.

But hey, there’s a reason for barnstorming! Those of us out in here in the sticks don’t get to just hop a plane to London (and Leipzig, and St. Petersburg, and St. Catherine’s Monastery) to check out the Codex Sinaiticus. The bibles and manuscripts are wonderful to see, and I’d still recommend going even if you’re only half the geek I am. I was thrilled to view the 3^rd Century fragment of the Gospel of John. While small, you can clearly see the hand of the scribe (probably not one of the better scribes for the time) and a page number at the top! It provides a direct link to ancient Christians who had to produce their Gospels by hand instead of downloading them off the internet. The prayer books are beautifully illuminated, and seeing one open to the beginning of Vespers with the Latin for “Oh God make speed to save us” on the page also made me feel connected to more distant keepers of the Daily Office.

The printed English bibles are also very much worth viewing. I was surprised to see how many of these early Bibles had marginal cross references (e.g. “see Romans 1:5”). The Geneva Bible has extensive marginal commentary directing the reader to “proper interpretation;” also ironic since early reformers first wanted people to have direct access to the biblical text and then apparently quickly worked to rein in the people's interpretations!

For those of us who aren’t likely to have many opportunities to visit original documents such as these, the exhibit allows you direct access to the types of details usually only seen by scholars. I could certainly have a ball haggling with the curator over some of his more dramatic claims, and there is a good reason that scholars produce nuanced histories. Nonetheless, I was captivated by that old, old fragment of the Gospel of John and stunned by the fine-lined beauty of the illustrated medieval bibles! The exhibit has drawn thousands of visitors. Clearly, there is a huge interest on the part of the general public in seeing these documents and getting a dose of manuscript history. I challenge the scholarly community to roll up its sleeves and do a better job; to share their work with the general public in as direct a manner. In the meantime, while I’ve nitpicked Noah’s story here, I still very much appreciate having been given the opportunity to see this collection and I commend him for sharing it with the public!

Sensational Archaeology: The Jesus and Mary (and others) Tomb

In “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” producer James Cameron of Titanic fame and director Simcha Jacobovici make the stunning claim that in 1980 the family tomb and bones of Jesus of Nazareth, the focus of the Christian Gospel, was found in a the neighborhood of East Talpiyot in Jerusalem.

Moreover, his mother Mary and his brothers, including James the Great were also found. Even more stunning, the bones of Mary Magdalene were also there. And, if these claims weren’t dramatic enough to drive people to watch the Discovery Channel program (and buy the DVD and book), they argue that Jesus’ son, Judas, a son he secretly had with Mary Magdalene, was also buried in the same tomb. Honest-to-goodness scientific tests were performed – DNA tests and chemical tests – that allegedly supported the central case and story. Surely, this corroborates The Da Vinci Code! Finally, proof that the novel we all enjoyed so much is true! Finally proof that an article of faith so important to many Christians and a “stumbling block” (1 Corinthians 1:23) for non-Christians – the bodily resurrection of Jesus – is not.

What are we to make of this? Cameron and Jacobovici strongly imply that the information they discuss has been hidden from the public for 27 years by faithful Christian archaeologists who do not wish their faith tested by the new data. Many of these archaeologists immediately fired back rebuttals. Other scholars weighed in on the various scientific claims made by the films producers. Religious and non-religious pundits provided their interpretations of the facts, non-facts, and/or meaning of the claims in standard 600-word op-ed pieces. The press tried hard to fit both the pros and cons into easily digestible articles.

Unfortunately, the arguments for or against the claims made by Cameron and Jacobovici are neither simple nor easily digestible. The tomb did not contain inscriptions or writings that said, in effect, “This is the last resting place of the mortal remains of Jesus of Nazareth, the preacher of Galilee, leader of Simon Peter and the twelve apostles, crucified by Pontius Pilate in A.D. 30.” The Cameron-Jacobovici argument is based on interpretations of scratches and scrawls on small stone bone boxes or ossuaries. The interpretation of these scratches are amplified by a series of supporting arguments based on complicated statistics that are further based on a series of what Cameron and Jacobovici see as reasonable and likely assumptions. The counter-arguments rest on a careful understanding of details that Cameron and Jacobovici breeze over in their dramatic video program.

I believe the counter-arguments vastly outweigh the relatively superficial claims made in “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.” I am an archaeologist by training and experience, though I am not a specialist in the archaeology of 1^st Century Jerusalem or even the Middle East. I am also potentially biased as a practicing member of the Episcopal Church. However, as an Episcopalian, with our roots in the Anglican tradition, my theology is based on scripture, tradition, and reason. The third pillar – reason – is extremely important to me both as an Episcopalian and an archaeologist. If the data from the East Talpiyot tomb did strongly provide new physical evidence of Jesus of Nazareth, I believe we Christians would be obligated to take this evidence very seriously as we explore the meaning of the scriptures we find so important and the traditions that we have practiced for nearly 2000 years. The first step, though, is to examine the evidence and the arguments and see if the claims are worth taking seriously.

Brace yourself, I intend to do this in more than 600 words, and not easily digestible ones at that. I have dredged up the scholarly technical report on the original tomb excavation and read various, long, counter-arguments. I don’t think you need to be an expert on 1^st century Jewish burial practices in Jerusalem (as Amos Kloner, the author of the technical report is), to see that the sensational claims made by Cameron and Jacobovici are little more than entertaining television. The contents of the East Talpiyot tomb itself, and a careful examination of the actual hard evidence (or lack thereof) behind Cameron and Jacobovici’s story indicate that, sadly, we Christians have little to learn here.

The East Talpiyot Tomb

The tomb in question was exposed by construction in 1980 in the East Talpiyot neighborhood of Jerusalem. Although now fully within the modern metropolis of Jerusalem, during the 1^st Century CE (or “Common Era,” a term used by Near Eastern archaeologists in lieu of the more Christianized “A.D.”) this tomb would have been well outside the walls of the city in an area used for many burials and family cemeteries. The tomb is carved into the soft local limestone and chalk of the area. It consists of a carved exterior courtyard, an entrance door with a carved façade, an interior room or antechamber, two low platforms or arcosolia, and seven niches or kokhim, extending out from the antechamber. The entrance façade is carved with a relief consisting of a rare and unusual pointed gable over a circle and an incomplete rosette.

The form of this tomb, courtyard, interior chamber, arcosolia, and kokhim, is consistent with the type of tombs common in the Jerusalem area during the last century BCE (Before Common Era, equivalent to “B.C.”) and the 1^st Century CE. A small number of pottery fragments found in the tomb are of the type used in the area during the same period, up to about 70 CE. No other form of dating, such as radiocarbon dating, has been applied to the tomb and its contents. Nothing about the form and contents of the tomb as currently reported eliminates the possibility that it could have been used by the family of Jesus of Nazareth in the 1^st Century CE (see Kloner in the references, or for an interesting discussion of burial practices, see Magness in the references).

Inside the niches or kokhim were 10 ossuaries. These consisted of small rectangular stone boxes, generally about 3-4 feet long by 1-2 feet wide and tall. Such ossuaries were used during this time in Jerusalem to hold bones left after soft body tissues had decayed. The general burial practice, widely attested by archaeology, contemporary written accounts, and even some elements of Biblical accounts, was to place the newly dead in the tomb either on benches, on arcosolia, or in the kokhim or niches. After the body had decayed, the bones would be gathered and placed in the ossuaries to create room for more bodies. Over time, it was common for the remains of several individuals to end up in the same ossuary.

A number of the ossuaries in the East Talpiyot tomb are carved, including several with carved or incised names. As the names on the ossuaries are the primary evidence cited by Cameron and Jacobovici, it is worth describing each ossuary in detail. I will follow the numbering sequence used by Amos Kloner in his 1996 technical publication on the tomb (see references).

1. This ossuary is elaborately carved with decorative rosettes, circles, and zigzags. A scratched inscription in Greek is present along one side. It consists of two words translated by Kloner as “Mariamene Mara.” Mariamene is a variant of the name Miriam or Maryam or Mary. The word or name “Mara” is a bit more difficult to translate. Kloner argues that it is a contraction of Martha, and that the inscription was intended to read “Mary [also called] Martha.”
2. Ossuary 2 is also an elaborately carved ossuary with rosettes and zigzags. This ossuary has the clearest name present, the only one that can properly be called engraved (as opposed to scratched or incised). The name is in Hebrew and very clearly reads “Yehuda son of Yeshua.” Yeshua was the Hebrew name that was later rendered into the Greek Iesous, which was later poorly translated into what we now call Jesus. The name reads, in English rendition, as “Judas, son of Jesus.”
3. The third ossuary lacks decoration. It has a less-carefully carved inscription on the outside in Hebrew that reads “Matya.” Inside the ossuary is also scratched the name “Matya.” Both were shortened forms of Matiyahu, now translated as Matthew.
4. Ossuary 4 is also undecorated. Scratched on the outside below the rim is a very poorly incised name in Hebrew. Kloner interprets the scratchings as “Yeshua son of Yehosef,” although he admits that the name “Yeshua” is unclear. He describes it as “superficial and cursorily carved.” If we take his interpretation as correct, the carving can be rendered in modern English as “Jesus, son of Joseph.”
5. This undecorated ossuary has another incised or scratched name in Hebrew reading “Yosé,” a contraction of Yehosef or Joseph.
6. Ossuary 6, is an undecorated ossuary with the Hebrew name “Marya” or Mary incised on the exterior.
7. This ossuary is decorated with rosettes and zigzags. It also has a large mason’s mark, but it lacks a name.
8. This ossuary is similar in decoration to Ossuary 7 and lacks a name.
9. This ossuary, lacking a name, is elaborately carved with rosettes and zigzags. No name is present.
10. The final ossuary is similar to Ossuary 9 and also lacks a name.

Other bones were also found in the tomb, but not within ossuaries. Following standard practice in Israel, the bones from the ossuaries and the tomb were reburied quickly after discovery in 1980 and were not analyzed.

Them’s the facts and all the facts as cataloged in 1980 and formally reported in 1996. Cameron and Jacobovici amplify these facts with two additional, carefully conducted and valid scientific tests, discussed in greater detail below. One of these two tests involved contents that are indisputably part of the East Talpiyot tomb. They conducted mitochondrial DNA testing of small bone fragments found in Ossuary 1 (Mariamene Mara) and Ossuary 4 (Jesus (?) son of Joseph). These tests indicated that the bone remnants sampled from Ossuary 1 and 4 were not from individuals who shared maternal genes, i.e. they were not brother and sister (or half-brother and half-sister or mother and child).

So, because I’m likely to be biased as an archaeologist who also tries to be a faithful Episcopalian, I’ll try to summarize these facts in the manner that is most sympathetic to Cameron and Jacobovici’s claim that this tomb contains the family of Jesus of Nazareth. To wit: The East Talpiyot tomb dates to the time of Jesus of Nazareth and contained ossuaries inscribed with the names Jesus son of Joseph and Mary Mara. DNA tests from bone fragments found in these ossuaries indicate that if the fragments represent the remains of the individuals named on the ossuary the Jesus son of Joseph individual was did not share a mother with Mary Mara and they could have been husband and wife. The tomb also contained ossuaries with the names Judas son of Jesus (possibly a child of Jesus son of Joseph and Mary Mara), Mary (possibly Jesus’ mother), Yosé (nickname for Joseph, brother of Jesus, attested in certain manuscripts the Gospel of Mark), and Matthew (a possible member of Jesus’ family not attested in the Gospels). The tomb also contained four other ossuaries with no names on the exterior and the remains of other individuals not placed in ossuaries.

Not bad. As stated by Jacobovici in the video, none of the names contradict the Gospel accounts. It is certainly perfectly reasonable to ask whether this tomb contained Jesus of Nazareth and his family. There is no doubt that it is worth at least a little further investigation. Since archaeologists didn’t take this up in any great and public detail 26 years ago, what do Cameron and Jacobovici say?

The “Lost Tomb of Jesus” Argument

The essence of the Cameron-Jacobovici argument is as follows: The tomb dates to the right time period, and the names on the ossuaries are consistent with Jesus of Nazareth, Mary his mother, Mary Magdalene, Joseph his brother, his likely son Judas, and his brother James. The odds that such a combination of names would occur in a tomb are extremely small, 30,000 to 1, and therefore it is highly likely that the tomb represents the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. Sound’s reasonable, right? But wait, where did this James, brother of Jesus ossuary come from? It’s not listed in the original report!

Ah, we need to look at their key points in detail. I’ll give these points letters to distinguish them from the archaeological data. Here’s what the film claims:

1. Ossuary 4 definitively contains the name “Jesus, son of Joseph” consistent with the Gospels. The filmmakers provide a single scholar who makes this argument.
2. The name on Ossuary 1 is definitively Mary Magdalene. The filmmakers cite the Acts of Phillip, a text dating to the 4^th Century CE where Mary Magdalene is identified as Mariamene. They also argue that the term “Mara” meant “Great” and that Mary Magdalene was probably an apostle (a reasonable argument can be made for this), and that therefore the term Mariamene the Great probably should be read as Mary Magdalene. After making this argument, the filmmakers then treat the hypothesis that “Mariamene Mara” means “Mary Magdalene” as fact and use it to build further arguments.
3. The name Yosé on Ossuary 5 matches the name used in some manuscripts of Mark 6:3 to indicate a brother of Jesus, and it is a rare nickname for Joseph. It therefore definitively indicates the brother of Jesus attested in Mark 6:3.
4. The Virgin Mary is attested in Christian tradition (though not in the Gospels) as having died in Jerusalem, therefore the Marya ossuary (#3) contained the remains of the Virgin Mary.
5. Ossuary #2 (Judas, son of Jesus) is likely a son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and Ossuary #3 (Matya or Matthew) is conceivably a previously un-attested brother.
6. Mitochondrial DNA analysis of small bone remains still present in Ossuaries 1 and 4 (Mariamene and Jesus son of Joseph) indicate that the individuals represented by the remains were not related in the maternal line. (Indeed, the narrator dramatically intones that “Perhaps Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, as the DNA results suggest.”)
7. One of the original 10 ossuaries recovered from the tomb was missing when the filmmakers arrived. Another ossuary, found on the illegal antiquities market and having the same dimensions as the missing ossuary, was recovered by the Israeli Antiquities Authority. This ossuary bore the inscription “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus.”
   Chemical analysis of the patina or residue on the “James Ossuary” matches residue from an ossuary in the East Talpiyot tomb. Therefore, an additional attested brother of Jesus, James (see Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55, and other references) was originally present in the tomb.
8. Although the filmmakers agree that the names in the tomb are common names from the period, combined, the odds that the names Jesus, Mary, Yosé, and Mary Magdalene would randomly co-occur in a tomb are 600 to 1 against. Add in the name James, and the odds are 30,000 to 1 against the co-occurrence. Ergo, the tomb must represent the family of Jesus of Nazareth. The filmmakers’ source for this argument is one Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics and mathematics at the University of Toronto. He stated that 'the odds are at least 600 to 1 in favor of the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb. In other words, the conclusion works 599 times out of 600.'" Jerusalem Post, Feb 27, 2007.

Whew! Looks like an unbeatable case, doesn’t it?! Let’s take a closer look at each of these points.

The Counter-Argument

Let’s start with the points that are definitely true. There are traditions that Mary died in Jerusalem (D). The name Yosé on Ossuary 5 does match the name used in some manuscripts of Mark 6:3 to indicate a brother of Jesus, and it is a rare nickname for Joseph (C). Ossuary 3 (Matya or Matthew) could be a previously un-attested brother of Jesus, and Ossuary 2 (Judas son of Jesus) could be a previously un-attested son of Jesus (E). The mitochondrial DNA analysis was very professionally done, and definitely indicated that the remains of at least some of the individuals, possibly the only individuals, in Ossuaries 1 (Mariamne Mara) and 4 (Jesus son of Joseph) did not share the same mother (some of argument F). The chemical analysis, also well done, on the “James” ossuary did indicate that the chemical composition of the patina from this ossuary did match the chemical composition of another ossuary from the tomb, reducing the probability that the ossuary came from another tomb (part of Point G).

While true, these points don’t add much to the argument that this tomb represents the family of Jesus of Nazareth. Later traditions regarding the location of the Virgin Mary’s death do not prove that a particular ossuary in a particular tomb in Jerusalem containing the name Mary is the Virgin Mary. This name occurs on 20 other ossuaries from the same time period in Jerusalem, it is, in fact, along with Miriam, one of the most common female names of the time. The possibility that Ossuaries 2 and 3 may represent previously unmentioned relatives of Jesus of Nazareth does not indicate that they are relatives of Jesus of Nazareth. The mitochondrial DNA analysis does not indicate that Ossuary 1 contained Mary Magdalene, and it does not indicate that she was married to the individual in Ossuary 4 (Jesus son of Joseph). The narrator’s statement that the DNA results suggest such a marriage is patently untrue and an exaggeration. DNA tests say nothing, nothing at all, about whether or not people are married! The DNA results only indicate that those two individuals didn’t have the same mother or weren’t mother and child, nothing more. While the ossuary itself of the “James Ossuary” may have been from the tomb, the inscription on this ossuary is another matter entirely, which I will deal with below.

Now, let’s look at some of the more problematic arguments.

The name carved on Ossuary 4 is not clearly “Yeshua” or Jesus (Point A). While the Hebrew words “son of Joseph” are fairly clear, the Hebrew letters forming what can be interpreted as Yeshua are very badly scrawled and unclear. The first letter, in fact, what should be a Hebrew letter “Yodh” does not appear similar to any other Yodh letters on other ossuaries. Indeed, it is not similar to the letter “Yodh” carved on five other ossuaries with “Yeshua” inscribed on their exteriors. It is a very odd letter that is very hard to interpret. Perhaps it is not even a Hebrew letter at all but some scratches which effectively make the original Hebrew illegible. The second letter, “Shin,” on Ossuary 4 is also unclear. Although it is possible to interpret the letters as forming the name “Yeshua,” it is also equally possible to make the argument that Ossuary 4 reads “[Scribble] son of Joseph.” Other scholars have noted the problems with the translation (see Heiser in the references).

The name carved on Ossuary 1 is NOT Mary Magdalene (Point B). It reads Mariamene Mara. Period. Reliance on a single instance of Mary Magdalene spelled as Mariamene from a document dating centuries after her death and a convoluted interpretation of “Mara” as “Master” and therefore as “Apostle” and therefore as Mary Magdalene is not a fact no matter how often the filmmakers treat it as fact. No matter how you slice it, there is no unequivocal “Mary Magdalene” identified in the tomb. The DNA tests don’t show it, and they certainly don’t show that she was married to the individual in Ossuary 4 (Point F). This argument really stinks. Furthermore the actual Mariamene Mara ossuary is definitely an ossuary where the name doesn’t fit the hypothesized “family of Jesus of Nazareth” attested in the Gospels. So, to repeat, Mary Magdalene is not accounted for in this tomb. Her name isn’t there. End of story.

There was NO “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus” ossuary found in the East Talpiyot tomb (Point G). Regardless of any missing and/or recently found ossuaries, the ossuaries from the tomb were inspected thoroughly and carefully cataloged at the time of excavation in 1980. None of the ossuaries read “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus.” I have the excavation report, I have examined the photographs, no such inscription was present. I can’t conceive of a scholar like Kloner omitting such an inscription were it present. The “James Ossuary” cannot have come from the East Talpiyot tomb, and the filmmakers would have known that as they flourished the original excavation report in the film itself. This is an ugly bit of sensationalism.

Furthermore, the inscription on the “James Ossuary” has been thoroughly debunked as a fake, and a poor one at that. A team of established scholars independently concluded based on multiple and separate lines of evidence that the “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus” inscription was a bad forgery (click here for the study and here for more details). The ossuary itself, the stone box, may represent the missing 10^th ossuary as suggested by the dimensions and the chemical analysis, but it DID NOT have “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus” carved on it when found. A reasonable possibility is that a thief stole the 10^th ossuary from the East Talpiyot tomb or the warehouse where it was stored and then faked the “James" inscription on it. Nonetheless, this inscription cannot be used to support the Cameron-Jacobovici argument in any way. Indeed, pretending that this inscription could have come from the East Talpiyot tomb, when the filmmakers knew full well that no such inscription was found, is disingenuous at best. This is a horrible argument proving nothing, and statistical arguments based on this modern fake inscription are just plain wrong,

Which leaves us with the statistical arguments (Point H). The truth is that the 30,000 to 1 or even 600 to 1 arguments have also been seriously questioned by other statistics experts. Fundamentally, the statistical arguments are flawed because 1) we don’t have enough lists of “family” name occurrences for the time period in question to use for a statistical analysis and 2) such family name occurrences are the key question for any statistical analysis. To put it as simply as possible, the statistical analysis used in the film is based on the assumption that names are randomly distributed in a population and across families. As anyone interested in genealogy knows, names are not randomly distributed in a population, rather they tend to cluster in families and repeat in patterns within the family. Since we don’t have “family directories” or even census data from the time period in question, we have no way of knowing whether or not the co-occurrences of the names “Jesus, Mary, Joseph, etc.” in a single tomb are rare or common. The names in question are certainly common, and the co-occurrences may be uncommon, but we currently have no way of knowing.

Minimally, though, the claim made by Feuerverger that the statistical odds he calculates indicate the tomb is likely to be the tomb of the family of Jesus is not something supported by the statistics. At most the numbers might support the idea that the co-occurrence of these names in a single tomb would be slim, but the statistics say nothing about the historical identity of the people attached to the names. You could try and say these names are unlikely to co-occur in tombs in the Jerusalem area, and then try to argue that the odds are these family names are so rare as to only possibly be the family of Jesus of Nazareth. However, you could only do this if we knew the frequencies of co-occuring family names for this time and place, which we don’t. This argument is very well made by Stephen Pfann and can be found on the web here. In sum, the statistical argument is based on several flawed assumptions and has been pushed too far in the film. It sounds scientific-like, but it ain’t.

Overall, then, when examined in detail the argument is not as solid as it first appears. What we actually have is a tomb with ossuaries containing the names Mary, Mariamene Mara, Yosé, Matya, Judas son of Jesus, and [Scribble, maybe Jesus] son of Joseph along with anywhere from 5-30 other unnamed individuals in the tomb (depending on how many times multiple individuals were present in the ossuaries). There is no “James brother of Jesus” ossuary in the tomb, and no proof of Mary Magdalene. There is not even proof that the remains in the Judas son of Jesus ossuary have the remains in the “Mariamene Mara” ossuary for a mother. What is present is a tomb from the right time period, with some very common names on ossuaries, common names also shared by some of the people identified in the Gospels as associated with Jesus.

There is no strong case to be made, however, that we can confidently link these people with the individuals named in the Gospels. This lack of a case is probably why the archaeologists who investigated the tomb didn’t report the information in huge press releases. They were aware of the implications of even a single ossuary with “Jesus, son of Joseph” on it, but the overall evidence that this tomb is anything other than one of a number of family tombs for a wealthy family in or near Jerusalem isn’t very good.

Other archaeological problems posed by the tomb are ignored by Cameron and Jacobovici. If you were to build a hypothesis about where the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth’s family would be and what it would look like based on the biblical accounts, this tomb would not fit the model. In the first place, the tomb is in Jerusalem instead of Galilee (Nazareth) where his family was from. Even if you assume Jesus himself had to be buried quickly in Jerusalem to cope with Jewish burial requirements, you have to ask why multiple brothers would also be brought to Jerusalem for burial. Secondly, archaeological investigations in Galilee indicate that Galileans didn’t use ossuaries at this time! (See Aviam in the references). It’s odd enough that the tomb isn’t in Galilee, it’s really odd that if it was a tomb of Galileans that it would evidence burial practices alien to Galileans. Finally, Jesus’ family is described in the Gospels as poor, and this tomb is not a poor tomb. It has an external courtyard and many of the ossuaries are finely carved. Fewer than half the tombs excavated in the Jerusalem area have courtyards and the majority of ossuaries are not carved. While it might be possible to come up with convoluted answers to these questions, Cameron and Jacobovici don’t even try. Rather, they downplay or outright ignore any question that doesn’t support their theory.

What Cameron and Jacobovici have done is create a sensationalistic story. It meets all the characteristics of sensationalism, even of propaganda – release in mass publications and the press without scholarly peer review, emphasis of particular arguments and disregard of others, presentation of hypotheses as facts, and use of vague accusations of “cover-ups” on the part of those who disagree. Further proving their status as entertainers and not scholars, they also engage in a bit of near tomb-robbing. During one portion of the program, they identify a likely spot for the original tomb. Securing permission from the local apartment residents, they break into a sealed area and actually find the original tomb and enter it and explore it. While making for dramatic television, this entry violated both Israeli antiquities law and all archaeological ethics. No ethical professional archaeologist will disturb an archaeological site, as they did in the film, without having a sound set of peer-reviewed research proposals and without the necessary archaeological permits. Cameron and Jacobovici cross the line into sensationalism and share more in common with tomb robbers than archaeologists.

Closing Reflections: Archaeology and Theology

That said, as an Anglican and an archaeologist, I do think it is too bad that the archaeological evidence from this tomb isn’t more informative of Jesus of Nazareth, his family, and his death, burial, and resurrection (bodily or otherwise). I disagree with the general position of a number of other pundits of faith who have essentially argued that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith unrelated to scientific data; that information from a tomb “wouldn’t matter” for faith even if it were true. I firmly believe that part of God’s gift of creation to us is our reason, sense, and ability to learn about creation and its ongoing revelation.

Within my Episcopalian and Anglican tradition, I believe that a valuable source for theological reflection—reflection about God, God’s revelations to us, and God’s purpose for creation—is reason. Science is and should be a source for such reasoned theological reflection. If this tomb did provide good information about God’s revelation in the form of Jesus the Christ I would welcome those data joyfully. Whatever was present would help us to understand and reflect on the meaning of that central Christian mystery, the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians (and non-Christians) have been debating the nature and meaning of the resurrection event described in the Gospels for nearly 2,000 years. We all could use some more information to bring to the discussion. When I see that information, I will, indeed, rejoice!

References

Another rebuttal, whose points are well taken and occasionally indirectly integrated into my piece, can be found here.

Aviam, Mordechai
2004 First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective. In Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches. Ediged by Douglas R. Edwards, pp.7-24. Routledge, New York.

Heiser, Michael S.
2003 The Jesus Ossuary: A Critical Examination. Paper presented at the NAES Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia.

Kloner, Amos
1996 A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiyot, Jerusalem. 'Atiqot 24:15-22.

Magness, Jodi
2005 Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James. Journal of Biblical Literature 124:121-154.

Acknowledgments

This piece has benefited greatly, yet again, by my outstanding researcher who wishes to remain anonymous. Dr. Elizabeth Perry also reviewed and provided great comments. I would also like to thank Rev. Joel Nau of Lumen, for his advice and input.

Archaeology and St. Paul's Tomb

Just before Christmas last year, the Vatican press office announced that the tomb of St. Paul of Tarsus—apostle, martyr, and patron of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Salt Lake City—had been exposed by archaeological excavations in the Papal Basilica of Saint Paul’s Outside the Walls in Rome. The church and tomb had long been a pilgrimage destination for those seeking connection with St. Paul, although the tomb itself had not been easily visible for more than 150 years. As an archaeologist and communicant of St. Paul’s, I’ve noticed an interest in the story, and I’ve put together this brief review of the evidence and issues, using the limited information available to the general public, for those who are curious.

Before I launch into what is really a fascinating and complicated story, I must provide a few caveats. Although I have a Ph.D. in Anthropology with specific training and focus on the field of Archaeology, my training and experience is not in either Roman or early Christian archaeology. Furthermore, the terrifically dull, but detailed, archaeological technical report that I would ordinarily use to evaluate the findings is not yet widely available as they just finished the excavations. My comments perforce are limited to works published for the general public. May my fellow archaeologists and the good Lord forgive my presumption and any errors of commission or omission.

The archaeological excavations brought to light the tomb itself, the actual stone sarcophagus or coffin, believed to contain the mortal remains of Paul, reportedly killed in Rome in the first century A.D. Paul is arguably a prominent, if not the chief, architect of the formal religion of Christianity. After a dramatic vision of the risen Jesus, he went on a series of missionary expeditions that were a major reason Christianity grew from a small sect within Judaism to the world religion it is today. At least six of his letters are incorporated in the New Testament. He is a central figure in the book of Acts. Oddly enough, despite his importance, we have no contemporary accounts of his death and burial.

However, a strong tradition within the Christian Church dating to at least the 2^nd century holds that he was martyred in Rome around A.D. 64 on the order of the Roman Emperor Nero. Tradition also holds that, as a Roman citizen, he was beheaded by a sword rather than being tortured, crucified or thrown to wild beasts. Accounts from the late first to mid-second century A.D. strongly suggest that he was buried along the road from Rome to the Port of Ostia known as the Ostian Way. The first Basilica of St. Paul’s Outside the Walls was built in A.D. 324 by the emperor Constantine. He built over a spot alongside the Ostian Way that was firmly believed at that time to be the tomb of the Apostle. The present church is on the floor plan of a major remodel that occurred about 75 years later. Although subsequently further enlarged, remodeled (multiple times), flooded by the Tiber River, sacked by invaders, hit by earthquakes, and burned down at least once over the intervening centuries, this church, and its altar specifically, were understood to lie over the tomb of St. Paul.

Although the American press reported this story as the discovery of a “lost” tomb of St. Paul, the truth is that the location of the venerated tomb was well known. It had simply been completely closed over after a remodeling of the church. The recent excavation was intended to re-expose the tomb for the benefit of pilgrims. The Vatican and their archaeologists knew exactly where it was and essentially cut into the existing walls and the floor of the sanctuary in a very precise manner. They exposed portions of the sides and top of a large stone sarcophagus or coffin. Small slabs of marble engraved with the words “Paulo Apostolo Mart” meaning “Paul, Apostle, Martyr” were also recovered in proximity to the coffin. These slabs have several holes cut into them, and the sarcophagus has evidence of a single, now-filled, hole as well. Such holes were commonly used by pilgrims in the ancient and medieval world to push cloth and other objects through to touch the tomb or even the purported remains of the apostle, and thereby create portable memorials of their pilgrimage experience.

Reports from the excavations indicate that the sarcophagus, in addition to being labeled as containing St. Paul, is in a location that supports many aspects of early Church tradition surrounding Paul’s last resting place. The coffin is reported as firmly integrated into what archaeologists call an archaeological “context” or set of physical associations with other remains. In this case, it may well be associated with the first church built on the site in A.D. 324 by Constantine. The archaeologist reported that it was certainly associated with the remodeled basilica built around A.D. 400. This means that it is linked spatially to other archaeologically remains, usually by physically touching them. In this case, the tomb is probably physically associated with foundation and other structural features of the earliest churches on the site. In essence, the dating and nature of those churches are well established by archaeological data and multiple, independent, historical accounts. The coffin is fully and clearly integrated into that construction. The holes provide evidence of pilgrimage. Therefore, we can be very confident that (at a bare minimum) the recent excavations demonstrate that the Vatican archaeologists have re-exposed a tomb that has been considered to be St. Paul’s tomb for more than 1600 years and that hasn’t moved much, if at all, over that time. This result is no small thing and pretty cool in and of itself!

What everyone really wants to know, though, is “Does the coffin contain St. Paul?” This question has not yet been answered and likely cannot be answered. The Vatican archaeologists have not yet opened the tomb, nor have they announced even whether they plan to do so or not. If opened, archaeology can, at best, provide murky answers. Despite what shows like CSI imply, archaeology is actually not very good at identifying specific people, especially long-dead people. Although scientific studies of human skeletal remains can tell us a lot about people—their sex, approximate age at death (in 5-10 year intervals), their height, general health and diet, and whether they suffered any traumas or diseases that affected their bones—these studies don’t provide specific information about the identity of a given person. They can narrow down possibilities, but that is all.

The use of much-vaunted DNA studies (and DNA is very hard to extract from old bone) are not likely to demonstrate the presence of Paul in the tomb. DNA can only definitively identify a person if you have a living relative for comparison or if you have other known remains, like hair, skin, saliva, blood, etc., of the person in question. This is not likely in the case of Paul, a self-described bachelor, whose known relics are dubious at best. Through comparative studies DNA might be able to reduce possibilities for the ethnicity and/or origin of the person in the tomb, but DNA studies will not return the answer “Yes, this is Paul of Tarsus.”

It would be possible, by destroying a large portion of the bones, to get a radiocarbon date for when the person died, but such dates have error ranges of at least 100 or more years. Rather than providing a precise date of, say, A.D. 64, radiocarbon dates are generally expressed as something like “A.D. 60 plus-or-minus 50 years”, meaning the item in question dates to “somewhere between A.D. 10 and 110.” Such a result would not be particularly helpful!

Were the Vatican to open the tomb, the “best” evidence to support the theory that St. Paul is in the coffin, would be the skeletal remains of a male, greater than 50 years old, with evidence of blunt trauma to the cervical vertebrae of the neck, who died sometime between A.D. 10 and 110. This is only circumstantial evidence of the presence of Paul, even if pretty good circumstantial evidence. However, if only a few key bones were missing—such as the pelvis, cervical vertebrae, portions of the skull, bones which are often missing—any conclusions quickly become much more questionable. I have personally excavated more than 20 human burials in my career, some of these in stone tombs. Of these, I’ve been able to identify age and sex on less than a handful. Preservation of bone, even in tombs, is always dicey. Opening the tomb might very well not provide any additional conclusive evidence of the presence of St. Paul. Indeed, the coffin may very well be empty.

Further complicating matters, when you really delve into the meager historical accounts surrounding the tomb, and you look hard and critically at the evidence, the odds that the tomb contains St. Paul start to look even less encouraging.

There are no eyewitness accounts of Paul’s death and burial, and the New Testament nowhere describes these events. He is first noted as a martyr in a letter of Clement, an early Bishop of Rome, written around A.D. 100, nearly 40 years after Paul’s presumed execution. Clement does not discuss Paul’s execution or burial in any detail; he only notes that he was martyred. The earliest detailed account of Paul’s alleged beheading was written in the Acts of Paul. This work also relates that Paul’s neck spouted milk after the sword fell, and that Paul rose from the dead. It fails to note the manner or location of Paul’s burial. Notably this account was not considered, even by the early Church, to be sufficiently valuable or trustworthy to be included in the New Testament.

The earliest account of some sort of tomb structure associated with Paul appears to date to A.D. 200-220. One Caius the Presbyter is quoted as saying “I can show you the trophies [tomb monuments or memorials] of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or Ostian Way you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.” This quote is found only in a book by the Church historian Eusebius, who wrote his book in A.D. 320 or so, about 100 years after the original quote was written. This fragmentary quote appears to the first reference to a tomb of an apostle on the Ostian Way. If you combine it with other accounts suggesting that Peter was martyred near the Vatican hill (and present Basilica of St. Peter) and other accounts suggesting Paul was beheaded on the Ostian Way, and if you assume he was buried near the locale of his martyrdom, and if you assume that Caius is indeed referring to Peter and Paul, this account is the first reference to a tomb of Paul on the Ostian way. It is, of course, notably imprecise, as the Ostian Way runs for miles and the location of the tomb is not specified with reference to any other landmarks. Nonetheless, Constantine’s basilica, located on the Ostian Way, was built at about the same time that Eusebius quoted Caius. It is clear then that the early Church considered the spot to be the location of Paul’s tomb, and it has been venerated as such ever since. We should bear in mind, though, that veneration doesn’t equate to scientific proof.

To summarize, our best historical evidence for the general location of St. Paul’s tomb comes from a book written more than 250 years after his death which quotes a book nearly 100 years older that itself was written at least a half century after the death in question. It would be like placing a memorial over President George Washington’s tomb (died 1799) today, using a source written recently that is itself based on a book written in 1850 that said something like “the memorial to our beloved leader is on the road to Richmond.” This isn’t horrible evidence, but it isn’t great evidence either. One presumes there were other beliefs and traditions supporting the evidence used by the early Church to identify St. Paul’s tomb, but these accounts are not available to us any more.

Further complicating matters are other stories relating that Paul’s remains were moved about at least once, and possibly several times, before reaching the location that would become the church of St. Paul’s Outside the Walls. They may have lain for a time in Roman catacombs. Hiding and/or moving his remains soon after his death is likely, given that Paul’s martyrdom probably occurred during Nero’s murderous persecution of the Christians. This was a time when Paul’s friends and supporters, if not martyred themselves, would have feared for their lives. Even supposing they could have recovered his body, the chances that a marginal, often detested, religious group could have entombed it along a major highway and kept those remains undisturbed through several centuries when Christians were outlaws seems slim. The coffin itself, a large, expensive, and engraved item, is not likely the production of such a harried group, and is more likely to have been made at or around the time of the construction of the basilica. Minimally, the recently exposed tomb is not likely to have been St. Paul’s first or only resting place, and the sarcophagus is not likely to have been the coffin of the church built by Constantine, which other stories say was one of solid bronze.

Despite these uncertainties, however, the results of the recent archaeological excavations remain interesting. The work has re-exposed to view what is clearly a very old coffin believed to contain the mortal remains of St. Paul for more than 1600 years. The excavations have demonstrated that the current locale is at least firmly associated with the first churches on the site. It is also located along a road that an early account, written 50-75 years after Paul’s death, identified as the road where an apostle (probably Paul) was buried. Thus, the archaeology supports much of the tradition but cannot prove the tradition.

So what do I make of all this, as an archaeologist and an Episcopalian? Archaeologists can (and do) nitpick each other’s arguments to death, much as I have done here. One could also, reasonably, argue that the archaeological and historical evidence for Paul’s burial at St. Paul’s Outside the Walls could be a whole lot worse. Certainly, nothing in the recent excavations directly contradicts the church tradition. Perhaps we shouldn’t be asking archaeology and science for proof and justification of our beliefs and hopes. What speaks to me in particular about the re-exposure of this sarcophagus is the connection it makes to St. Paul, whether or not he actually rests in that coffin.

I think all humans long for an earthly connection, however tenuous, to the divine. As an Episcopalian, I believe that St. Paul, a one-time persecutor of early Christians, had a stunning personal connection with the divine in his vision of the risen Christ. He teaches us of grace and the power of redemption by faith. He went on from his experience, even though saddled by his background and culture, to preach a stunning message of equality in Christ for ALL people. His mission and letters brought joy and hope to new churches around the Mediterranean; churches that are the ancestors of our churches.

The tomb in St. Paul’s Outside the Walls has, for nearly 2,000 years, been our best earthly connection to this apostle, and through him, the astonishing prospect of conversion of the heart and salvation by divine grace. Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people have sanctified this place by their visits, even trying to reach through the stone to touch St. Paul himself. The new excavations firmly demonstrate the long history of pilgrimage to St. Paul’s Outside the Walls. I would love to join that throng myself.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the assistance of a researcher and editor who provided significant assistance with the background research on the recent archaeology and the history of the tomb. This researcher/editor has requested to remain anonymous, but their input is significant, pervasive, and greatly appreciated. The author also thanks Dr. Heather Stettler and Dr. Elizabeth Perry for archaeological review and editorial input. These folks did their best; you may blame me alone for any remaining errors and omissions.