The Jesus Mysteries, National Geographic Channel

Mary Magdalene (Alice Marshall), The Jesus Mysteries
(Juniper TV; National Geographic)

This weekend, National Geographic Channel are showing a two hour documentary entitled The Jesus Mysteries.  It is written and directed by David Caldwell Evans for Juniper TV and it is being shown internationally, including Australia (Friday 18th), the UK (Easter Day, 20th; Radio Times), Sub-Saharan Africa (Easter Day, 20th), and the USA (Saturday, 19th).  Here's the series blurb:

Jesus Christ is one of the most famous names in the history of mankind. But Gospel writers left out crucial details about pivotal events in Christ's life - historical moments that have been adapted, embellished and rewritten over the course of hundreds of years. This special re-examines elements of Christ's life and ministry, such as the nativity, the miracles and the crucifixion - questioning basic modern assumptions to reveal some surprising and often shocking details.

There are a couple of clips available.  The first focuses on "Rabble Rousing" and discusses the temple incident and features Bart Ehrman, Helen Bond, Larry Hurtado and me:

The second discusses Mary Magdalene, "Prostitute or Disciple", and features Kate Cooper and Helen Bond, alongside Alice Marshall as Mary Magdalene:





I was interviewed for this in July in St Andrews, Scotland, just before Helen Bond was interviewed too.  Although I have not seen it yet, I like the look of the mix of drama and CGI reconstructions with scholars' interviews.  And the handsome Jesus figure is played by Nick Simmons, son of Gene Simmons from the legendary rock band Kiss.  Here he is in the boat with Joseph of Arimathea:

Nick Simmons as Jesus in The Jesus Mysteries, National Geographic

This and other photographs suggest that there will be some idiosyncratic elements covered, including legends like Jesus in England.

Bible Secrets Revealed, History Channel

Candida Moss in Bible Secrets Revealed

Over on his XKV8R blog, Robert Cargill announces a new six part documentary to air soon on History Channel.  He writes:

I’m pleased to announce that a new documentary series will begin airing on History beginning Monday, November 11, 2013 at 10:00pm / 9:00 Central. 

The series is entitled, Bible Secrets Revealed, and is produced by Prometheus Entertainment for the History channel. 

The titles of the six episodes and their schedule of appearance are as follows: 

“Lost in Translation” – November 11, 2013
“The Promised Land” – November 18, 2013
“The Forbidden Scriptures” – November 25, 2013
“The Real Jesus” – December 2, 2013
“Mysterious Prophecies” – December 16, 2013
“Sex and the Bible” – December 23, 2013 

The documentary features dozens of the world’s top biblical scholars, religious studies scholars, archaeologists, and historians, who offer different points of view while addressing some of the more difficult readings in the biblical and extra-biblical texts. 

It is also worth note that portions of the documentary were filmed on site during the 2013 season of archaeological excavation at Tel Azekah.

There is a 30 second trailer available here:

Bible Secrets Revealed: Sneak Peak

The picture above is a screen grab; here are two more faces you may recognize:

Bart Ehrman in Bible Secrets Revealed

Francesca Stravrakopoulou

I have not yet seen this myself, though I was interviewed for the programme last summer here in North Carolina.  It looks like we will also see James McGrath and Robert Cargill (who was also a consultant) among many others.

Update (4.29pm): Robert Cargill provides a list of some of the scholars who will be appearing in the series.

Who Was Jesus? (BBC, 1977)

One of the neglected advantages of television documentary is its potential to act as archive, a resource for scholars.  On this blog I have often talked about documentaries likes a Jesus: The Evidence (Channel 4, 1984), which provides footage of many great and now deceased scholars, including Geza Vermes and Morton Smith.  In a recent article, I talked about how the Channel 4 series The Gnostics (1987) provides our only known extant footage of Mohammad 'Ali al Samman, the alleged discoverer of the Nag Hammadi codices.

Along similar lines, I have recently begun thinking about the potential of the BBC documentary from 1977 entitled Who Was Jesus? to inform us about New Testament scholars and scholarship of its day.  The difficulty, however, was in tracking down a copy.  The book based on the series, also published in 1977, is fairly easy to track down on the second-hand book market and I picked mine up for about £4.00 a couple of weeks ago (and it has "35p" pencilled into the inside cover).  The book is co-authored by Peter Armstrong and Don Cupitt and it is published by the BBC.

I think my parents had a copy of this book too since it looks very familiar to me.  I am also pretty sure that my mum (who was an RE teacher) made an audio recording of the series because I have some memories of having listened to it back in the day.  And I recall hearing John Fenton's voice, something that I now find confirmed by looking at the list of consultants, about more of which in a minute.

The book itself is an excellent, popular level introduction to historical Jesus study, clear, well-written, nicely illustrated and surprisingly contemporary in feel.  In fact, those who think that the study of the historical Jesus has made significant progress in recent years would be well-advised to take a look at this book written 36 years ago, with chapters on "the Jewishness of Jesus" and discussions of Jesus' apocalyptic, eschatological message, and stress placed on the Temple incident.  And those who think that interest in the idea that Jesus never existed is new will be surprised to find the book opening with a study of the question, "Did Jesus Live?"

Information on the documentary itself is less easy to come by, but according to the BFI website, it was two hours long and it was presented by Don Cupitt and produced by Peter Armstrong.  There is an impressive list of consultants: John Fenton, Nahman Avigad, L. Y. Rahmani, George Caird, Christopher Butler and Sydney Carter.  Given John Fenton's listing as a consultant, I am really hoping that my memory of his appearance is accurate and that I will get to see my former teacher  on film.

Anyway, this post is of course brought on by Peter Armstrong's released yesterday of a fascinating eighteen minute clip of the programme (Caird, Flusser and Cupitt on Who Was Jesus?).  Dare we hope for more?

Caird, Flusser and Cupitt on Who Was Jesus? (1977)

Peter Armstrong, producer of Who Was Jesus? (BBC, 1977), has uploaded a twenty minute clip of the programme to Vimeo, and it makes fascinating viewing.  The documentary was a two hour BBC investigation into the historical Jesus conducted by Don Cupitt, dean of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and one of the original media dons.  This segment of the programme features Cupitt interviewing George Caird in, one assumes, his office, with books neatly ordered on the shelves behind, followed by some footage of a woman (unnamed) handling Qumran fragments, gluing pieces together and looking at them under the microscope.  Then David Flusser is interviewed also, presumably, in his office with books and papers less neatly stacked up behind him:



There are so many features of interest here to those interested in the history of New Testament scholarship and TV documentaries.  I had never seen David Flusser on film before, so that itself is a fascinating experience.  And although I recently saw George Caird on film for the first time, in the Mansfield College video produced by the same Peter Armstrong, here one experiences another side of the man, somewhat more relaxed and frequently smiling.  His comments about Jesus not expecting the end of the world and instead expecting the end of Israel's world very much prepares the way for his student N. T. Wright.

The style of documentary is also fascinating.  On the evidence of this segment, audiences 36 years ago were more patient than they are now.  It is much less sound-bitey, more conversational and as a result -- I would say -- more engaging than many a modern documentary.  The piece really does not speak down to its audience, and even tackles the possibility of Aramaic sources behind Luke's Gospel using graphics that still look nice decades later.

And it's a reminder that Don Cupitt himself really was the master of this kind of documentary.  He cuts a younger and more dashing figure than I recall from the 1980s, and he has an inquisitive, non-patronising means of delivery.

I can't wait to see more of this documentary.  Many thanks to Peter Armstrong for making this section available, and thanks to Matthew Montonini for spotting it and blogging it.

Paul writing in TV Documentaries

Over on the Dunedin School, Deane Galbraith comments on a complaint by Jack Kilmon about the way television documentaries depict Paul writing his letters, with close-ups of Paul "writing gibberish". A new documentary called "After Jesus" is the occasion for the remarks (and Deane has an enjoyable comment, "at least they are getting something right!").

One of the issues that has always bothered me on this topic is the depiction of Paul actually doing the writing when we know full well that Paul dictates his epistles (Romans 16.22; Galatians 6.11;cf. NT Pod 2: Paul the letter speaker). When I was consultant on the BBC / Discovery Channel documentary Saint Paul (2003), I suggested that it would be fantastic if we could actually depict this one correctly, and have Paul dictating. Sometimes, though, historical accuracy alone is not incentive enough so I pointed out that by having Paul dictating his letters, we make it easier to depict dramatically. If Paul dictates, we are able to listen to him speaking the words of his letters.

I am happy to say that they took my advice, and even had the scribe writing on his lap rather than on an anachronistic desk. All was not completely plain sailing, though, and they disliked the idea of actually making the scribe Tertius (Romans 16.22) and so he was merged instead with Timothy, in part because they had a limited cast. And when it came to Paul in prison, they couldn't resist having Paul doing his own scribing work. Still, it shows that academic consultants can make a slight difference to perceptions of these things. All too often, the documentary makers don't actually ask them.

History of Christianity, Diarmaid MacCulloch

I don't think I've seen any of the bloggers comment on Diarmaid MacCulloch's new BBC4 series, A History of Christianity. MacCulloch is professor of the history of the Church at the University of Oxford, and this six part series began on BBC 4 last week. You can still catch it on the BBC iPlayer if you are in the UK. Details here:

A History of Christianity

It is based on a 1,200 page book that has recently been published to accompany the series. I loved the first episode. MacCulloch looks and sounds like a proper academic of the best kind, so obsessed with his area of expertise that he is eager to find ways to communicate it as clearly as possible to his audience. The really refreshing thing about the first episode is that MacCulloch goes east to find "the first Christianity", looking at Syriac Christianity, and venturing further east even to China to look at an extraordinary seventh century monastery.

If I had one minor criticism of the first half of the programme, it would be that it was just a touch too much like an illustrated lecture, with MacCulloch explaining things to the viewer while he walked around key sites. Eventually, there are some talking heads, and it is by engaging conversations that I think the best documentaries move forward. As soon as MacCulloch meets Martin Palmer in India, the programme gains in interest, and loses the virtual classroom feel. Mind you, I enjoyed watching MacCulloch trying to explain Christological controversies by mixing oil and water and wine and water, sitting in a restaurant.

MacCulloch appeared on Start the Week with Andrew Marr on Radio 4 a week or so ago, and some helpful person has extracted that section and uploaded to Youtube.

Watch "From Jesus to Christ" Online in toto

Back in 1998, there was a lot of talk among American e-listers about the PBS series From Jesus to Christ, a four-part exploration of the origins of Christianity that was generally thought to be a well produced documentary. The programme made a bit of an impact overseas too, partly because of a fantastic website and partly because it was repackaged and sold abroad. In the UK, we had it on Channel 5, with Terry Waite providing extra linking materials. I have always been a fan of the website, and I continue to recommend parts of it to my students to this day.

Well, now you can watch the entire documentary, online, for free:

From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians: Watch the full Program Online
"From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians" tells the epic story of the rise of Christianity. The four hours explore the life and death of Jesus, and the men and women whose belief, conviction, and martyrdom created the religion we now know as Christianity.

You can see scholars like Michael White, Elaine Pagels and Paula Fredriksen discussing Christian origins, and there are some nice visuals too. If you are interested, as I am, in the discovery of the Nag Hammadi documents, then take a look at Part Two, Chapter 7, Christianity in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries.

Secrets of the Cross, Episode 2: Who Really Killed Jesus?

The first episode of this series of four documentaries, Secrets of the Cross, was called Secrets of the Jesus Tomb and was broadcast on the UK network channel Five on 2 September (and reviewed here). The second documentary went out last Tuesday, so I am a little late with my review here.

Matt Page has provided an excellent review on Bible Films Blog and also on rejesus. Matt gets this one exactly right. There were some real strengths here -- the team of experts selected (Helen Bond, Ann Wroe, James Tabor, Shimon Gibson and one or two others) were excellent, the use of location shooting was well done, and on the whole the documentary approached its subject matter in a historically responsible way, albeit with an occasional unnecessary black-and-white history vs. theology contrast.

This documentary, which like the previous one is made by CTVC, avoided the extremes of fundamentalism on the one hand and sensationalism on the other, and it packed a decent amount of historical detail into the narration and the expert interviews without becoming convoluted. We heard about the Pilate inscription in some detail, and there was an enjoyable scene where Helen Bond, who was on screen more than anyone else, drew the key part of the inscription in the sand by the sea. As well as the experts, there was some newly filmed silent drama, in the modern documentary style, featuring a black Jesus, lots of blood, some Roman soldiers and several scenes with Pilate. It was quite well done, though it is difficult not to find it a bit distracting, especially if one is familiar with the inevitably superior film portrayals of the same events, which are of course too expensive to use in documentaries like this.

On the whole, the programme avoided cliché, though at one stage Jesus' actions "set him on a collision course" with Rome. The history was in the main responsibly done, and it avoided condescending to the audience. Among other virtues, the programme makers did not shy away from addressing the difficulty of the evangelists' portrayal of the Passion, especially Pilate's hand-washing and the crowd's blood guilt line in Matthew. The only minor criticism I would want to make would be that it presented a rather hard-and-fast line, explaining to the audience how things were without allowing for the inevitable difficulties of doing ancient history, with room for contrasting views among different scholars. Documentary makers sometimes underestimate the extent of the audience's interest in the process of doing history, and of weighing contrasting opinions.

After this greatly superior second entry in the series, I am looking forward to the third documentary, Mary Magdalene: Saint or Sinner, which aired tonight and is repeated on Sunday at 11am, and which is also available free to UK users on Demand Five.

Secrets of the Jesus Tomb, on Five

Last night, the British channel Five (one of the five network channels in the UK, and the youngest) aired a new documentary produced by CTVC (who have a short page on it here) entitled The Secrets of the Jesus Tomb. According to The Guardian, it achieved 1.4 million viewers, which is probably about par for the course for a Five documentary. Five documentaries are not aimed at a high brow audience and in general are relatively undemanding, with plenty of exposition and repetition, some over-simplification and a straightforward structure, a narrative with talking heads and some drama. This documentary sits soundly in that sub-genre. If you were looking for a BBC4 style documentary, you would be disappointed. If you are a New Testament scholar hoping to see something new or different, you would almost certainly be disappointed. But the casual viewer, with a limited knowledge of the subject area, with the telly on in the background while doing the washing up, would find it pretty easy viewing. That casual viewer might have found it enjoyable and even informative.

For those who have followed the Talpiot tomb controversy over the last eighteen months (covered extensively on this blog), this documentary would not have provided any surprises, but for those looking for an introduction to the story, it would have been useful. And the absence of Simcha Jacobovici, and a more sceptical conclusion to the documentary made it much easier viewing than the Discovery Channel original Lost Tomb of Jesus that aired in the US in March 2007.

This documentary told the story of the discovery of the Talpiot Tomb, featuring reminiscences from Amos Kloner and Shimon Gibson, and it then developed the theory that this could be Jesus of Nazareth's tomb with visuals of each ossuary, and the writing translated to English. The middle section of the documentary made the case for that identification with extensive comment from James Tabor who was apparently filmed in Jerusalem. The narration in this section featured a lot of oversimplification and side-stepping, especially the confident assertion that Jesus had sisters called Mary and Salome, and that his brothers Judas and Simon would not be in this tomb because they were still alive after 70CE. And the (I think weak) case that the so-called Mariamne inscription points to Mary Magdalene was overstated (see my posts on Mariamne, Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany, Mariamne and the Jesus Family Tomb, Mariamene and Martha, Stephen Pfann, The Statistical Case for the Identity of the "Jesus Family Tomb" and others in the series) as were several of the other elements in the case.

The middle section of the documentary was peppered also by comments from Bart Ehrman and Tal Ilan, who also appeared in the final, sceptical section of the film in which the idea that this could possibly be Jesus of Nazareth's tomb was seriously questioned. The statistical case was discussed and broadly dismissed, though unfortunately without contributions from those like Randy Ingermason who have published on this. By the end of the programme, the case for the identification was left looking pretty deflated, and our casual viewer who had held on all the way through, now having finished his washing up, might have wondered whether it was really worth spending the time on a case that seemed weak. Still more should have been done on the sceptical side, though, and I was disappointed by the lack of involvement of several experts who have contributed to the debate, especially Stephen Pfann.

The documentary makers should, however, be lauded for avoiding sensationalism and for sounding fairly reasonable, at least by the end of the programme. A few features showed some sensitivity to scholarly conventions, like the use of "BCE" and "CE" (unexplained in the programme) rather than "BC" and "AD", but at other points repeated cliché (Christianity rocked to its foundations) and banality (Jesus was not a Christian) will have turned away the educated viewer. And if they said that ossuaries were bone boxes once, they said it a hundred times.

I always look at the credits on programmes like this, not least so that I can see if I know any of those involved. One disappointment here was that there was no historical consultant or advisor listed. I think it is a mistake for documentary makers not to employ proper historical consultants. They are inexpensive, they can be a gold mine of valuable information and there are things that experts can see that the programme makers will miss. It is a way of improving the quality of the final product, avoiding errors and holding yourself to account.

Some have reacted unfavourably to the documentary, most notably Andrea Mullaney in today's Scotsman, who calls it "moronic" -- Real Life Stupidity on a Biblical Scale (HT: Jim West). Since Mullaney is rightly unimpressed by the claims explained in the new documentary, one wonders what she would have made of the original Discovery channel documentary, produced by Simcha Jacobovici, that allowed so little room for dissenting voices. Andrew Billen in The Times was not much more impressed:

The programme displayed a surer mastery of the obvious. “One of the most famous figures in history,” the commentary explained about Jesus, “the truth about his life remains a mystery. But one thing is certain: Christ was not a Christian. Christianity only came into being after he died.” The conclusion that this feeble documentary more or less arrived at was something else obvious: the tomb probably wasn't Jesus's at all.

Robert Collins in the Telegraph was a little more positive, though he ends with the comment that "Like all Turin Shroud-esque conspiracies, it’s irresistible until the contradicting evidence comes along to spoil all the fun."

Update (Friday): Matt Page comments on Bible Films Blog.

Today on Talpiot

In The Aramaic Blog, Steve Caruso has an update on the reading of the "Jesus, son of Joseph" inscription on one of the ossuaries in the Talpiot Tomb:

The Jesus Son of Joseph Inscription Part 2

and

The Jesus Son of Joseph Inscription Part 3

These posts are follow-ups to The Jesus Son of Joseph Inscription, mentioned here last week, Talpiot Tomb: Does it say Jesus?. Ed Cook commented on that post, and I added the comments in an update to the main post, and Steve Carruso now responds directly to those comments. As before, Steve has some useful illustrations.

Also this morning, Steve Goranson draws attention to a review of The Jesus Family Tomb by Joseph Fitzmyer, in America: The National Catholic Weekly:

Together at Last?
Joseph Fitzmyer

Fitzmyer focuses mainly on difficulties over the alleged MARIAMHNOU H MARA reading, and draws attention to issues also discussed here, especially in relation to Jacobovici's identification this character with Mary Magdalene on the basis of the Acts of Philip (Mariamne, Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany and related posts).

Talpiot Tomb Various

There are several additional things that are worth mentioning on the Talpiot tomb story from recent days. Randy Ingermanson has uploaded a clear, detailed investigation of the statistics and the tomb, co-written with Jay Cost. Some will remember his earlier piece, Statistics and the "Jesus Family Tomb". This piece builds on that one and takes it to a whole new level of thought and detail, though with the same conclusion, that the odds are strongly against this being Jesus of Nazareth's tomb. One particularly useful factor in the piece is the assigning of "Jesus factor", "Not Jesus factor" and "neutral factor" to the evidence, the kind of ground work I was attempting to do, in my ham-fisted way, with talk of "matches" and "non matches" and the difficulty of the latter not having been factored in to the documentary's thinking (The Statistical Case for the Identity of the "Jesus Family Tomb"). The new article is found here:

Bayes' Theorem and "The Jesus Family Tomb"

I have been lucky to be able to listen to the experts talking about the statistics in an email discussion initiated by James Tabor and featuring Randy Ingermanson, Jay Costs, Joe D'Mello and others.

Meanwhile, Robert Gundry has a guest post on Bruce Fisk's Crossings:

Robert Gundry on the physicality of Jesus' resurrection in earliest Christian proclamation

The post responds to James Tabor, partly on the Talpiot Tomb but also on The Jesus Dynasty. Speaking of James Tabor, you can now read a helpful summary of his thinking about the tomb on his blog:

The Talpiot Jesus Tomb: An Overview

This overview has brought about a series of responses by Darrell Bock on Bock's Blog, on Historical Context, Statistics, Inscriptions and Tabor's Hypotheticals.

In a March 13 post on Talpiot Tomb Various, I noted Michael Heiser on the ossuaries found at Dominus Flevit:

I want to draw your attention—and the attention of scholars and interested parties who read your blog—to a SECOND site that has all those names. In 1953-1955, Bellarmino Bagatti excavated the site of Dominus Flevit (“The Lord wept”) on the Mount of Olives. The excavation uncovered a necropolis and over 40 inscribed ossuaries – including the names of Mary, Martha, Matthew, Joseph, Jesus. These ossuaries are not, as far as I can tell, in Rahmani’s catalogue. I’m guessing the reason is that they are not the property of the Israel Antiquities Authority (see Rahmani’s Preface). The necropolis was apparently used ca. 136 BC to 300 AD. Here is a link that discusses the site. A few scanned pages of Bagatti’s excavation report (written in Italian) can be found here as well.

Now Antonio Lombatti emails:

I teach Medieval History (my field of research is the cult of Christian relics) and, while reading your excellent NT Blog, I came across the quotation of the Dominus Flevit excavations. There you quoted the Bagatti and Milik 1958 book which is, unfortunately, in Italian. Well, I am Italian... I got it and read it carefully. And I found out that on the 34 ossuaries Bagatti and Milik found there were (also) the following names: Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Judas, Mathew, Martha and... Mariame.

But, above all, the names Mary and Mariame were inscribed on the same ossuary and were found in the very same loculus. And, last but not least, the inscriptions were in GREEK.

The humour is still coming too. Chris Brady links to a delightful cartoon Tomb of Star Trek and there are plenty of places that crack the inevitable but still funny joke that the one thing that would have convinced them that this was Jesus' tomb would have been the discovery of a bracelet in there reading "WWID?"

It is worth mentioning too that discussion of the Talpiot tomb continues apace on the ANE-2 list, including regular contributions from Joe Zias and James Tabor.

SBL Forum: Tomb Latest

I was away during the latter part of last week so haven't blogged for a little. It's good to see on my return that François Bovon has clarified his role in the Lost Tomb of Jesus documentary over on the SBL Site:

The Tomb of Jesus
François Bovon

See my earlier comments on the use made of Bovon in Mariamne, Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany; the present article makes clear succinctly that "I do not believe that Mariamne is the real name of Mary of Magdalene" and with respect to the Acts of Philip, "My interest is not historical, but on the level of literary traditions." The one slightly troubling element in the piece is the first point:

First, I have now seen the program and am not convinced of its main thesis. When I was questioned by Simcha Jacobovici and his team the questions were directed toward the Acts of Philip and the role of Mariamne in this text. I was not informed of the whole program and the orientation of the script.

Having done some television myself, including several Discovery Channel documentaries (though usually BBC partnered programmes), I have been lucky never to have had that kind of experience and, to be honest, I am a little taken aback by it. I have always talked with the programme makers at some length before the interview, sometimes over a period of weeks and months and I have always known what the programme involved, even if the final product is often spun in a particular direction that I was not completely happy with. But I suppose that the lesson that this teaches is always to make sure that one knows what one is getting involved with.

The SBL Site has a couple of other fresh articles, Steven Fine, Concerning the Jesus Family Tomb and Jonathan Reed, In Response to Tabor. It has to be said that the SBL Forum has done a great job in producing speedy responses from scholars interested in the issue.

Further Updates to Discovery Tomb Website

On Friday, Joe D'Mello noted changes made on the Discovery Lost Tomb of Jesus website with respect to the statistical case. The site has also added more materials since it first went on-line. First, note the new Related Links page, which features follow-up materials on the internet on the tomb (e.g. Magness's article, Pfann's article, some of Tabor's materials) including this blog. Always nice to be mentioned! Most interesting, though, is a little feature only tangentially linked to the tomb, a beautiful graphic depiction of Israel in Jesus' day, with illustrations and clickable hotspots:

The Land of Jesus

A short blurb explains that information is drawn from Crossan and Reed's Excavating Jesus and the illustrations are drawn by Balage Balogh, "renowned as the finest archaeologist to have worked in Israel". It's a lovely looking sub-site and definitely one to recommend to students.

How to decipher the Yeshua` inscription

Further to my post the other day on Talpiot Tomb: Does is say Jesus?, I am grateful to James Tabor for sending over this PDF, which nicely illustrates Frank Moore Cross's reading of Yeshua` bar Yehosef. This graphical illustration was produced as part of the press pack connected with the Lost Tomb programme:

Jesus Inscription Breakdown (PDF)

Talpiot Tomb: Does it Say Jesus?

I've had a few days off from the tomb, so now it's back to business. One of the question marks over the Talpiot tomb ossuaries relates to the inscription alleged to say "Jesus, son of Joseph" (Yeshua` bar Yehosef). Rahmani (704) reads "Yeshua`(?)". Anyone who has taken a look at the inscription will understand the reason for the question mark, and several have expressed their anxiety over how one makes out Yeshua` here. As a non expert on such things, I have been looking around for some explanation of how the Yeshua` is derived, ideally with illustrations. As I have previously mentioned, some help comes from Michael Heiser, The Jesus Ossuary: A Critical Examination. But the piece I have been looking for, a kind of "idiot's guide" in which the letters are separated and the reading explained, is available in the following article:

The Lost Tomb of Jesus
Steve Carruso

The piece provides some nice illustrations, explaining how Yeshua` might be derived, adding a question mark over bar and providing some alternative suggestions for reading the letters in question, though none of them provide any recognisable, coherent names. He also asks the question whether the "cross mark" is in fact an aleph. Carruso is not an epigrapher, so I am not drawing attention to his piece as if to flag it up as expert commentary. Rather, I found it helpful for illustrating for non-experts the difficulties that some of the experts are seeing in interpreting the inscription as Jesus. The following thoughts and questions come to mind:

(1) Is Yeshua` the only viable suggestion for this combination of letters? Given the lack of plausible alternatives, it seems that Rahmani's suggestion is still the best, albeit one that requires a question mark to be present.

(2) Is there any chance that the so called "cross mark" is in fact an aleph? I recall seeing that this mark actually lines up with another mark on the lid, in which case there is presumably little chance that this is an aleph. It is a mark for aligning the lid properly.

(3) Are there parallels to this way of representing bar?

(4) In general, is it accurate to say that the person inscribing this ossuary has made a bit of a mess of it? Compared with the other ossuaries in this tomb, the inscription here is by far the hardest to read.

(5) In relation to the previous point, here is one of the major concerns about the potential identification of this ossuary with Jesus of Nazareth. How plausible is it that so little effort would have been made over someone of such obvious importance to so many as Jesus of Nazareth?

Update (22.01): Ed Cook comments, helpfully, to the following effect:

I don't think Caruso has divided the letters correctly. He assigns a long vertical shaft to the "shin", but this vertical is actually (in my opinion) the waw, and the letter he identifies as waw is, conversely, the left shaft of the shin. Also the triangle shape that is part of the yodh (these loops or triangles are common in the ossuaries) he assigns to the shin. In short, I do not believe that Caruso's site is a reliable source of paleographic information. The reading "Yeshua" looks likely to me based on the published drawing.

Discovery Website Adjusts Tomb Claims

Joe D'Mello emails me with the following (see previous posts in this thread):

-----------
I just checked the Discovery Channel website and noticed that all three changes have been made.
================================================================================

Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics & mathematics at the University of Toronto, has concluded a high statistical probability that the Talpiot tomb is the JESUS FAMILY TOMB.

changed to

Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics at the University of Toronto, has concluded (subject to the stated historical assumptions) that it is unlikely that an equally "surprising” cluster of names would have arisen by chance under purely random sampling.

===========

Taking into account the chances that these names would be clustered together in a family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the odds – on the most conservative basis – are 600 to 1 in favor of this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB. A statistical probability of 600 to 1 means that this conclusion works 599 times out of 600.

changed to:

Taking into account the chances that these names would be clustered together in a family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the probability under random chance of observing a cluster of names as compelling as this one within the given population parameters is 600 to 1, meaning that this conclusion works 599 times out of 600.

===========

"A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family."

changed to

A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is in the order of 600 to 1 that an equally "surprising" cluster of names would arise purely by chance under given assumptions.

---------------

Talpiot Tomb Statistics Update

Jack Poirier's article, which I mentioned the other day, on the Statistics behind the "Jesus Family Tomb", is now available at the Jerusalem Perspective Online:

The Statistics Behind "The Tomb"
Jack Poirier

This may be a good occasion to bring together in one place the other major articles on the statistical case:

Statistics and the "Jesus Family Tomb"
Randy Ingermanson

Examining the "Jesus Tomb" Evidence
Jay Cost

The Improper Application of Statistics in "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"
Stephen Pfann

Talpiot Tomb: Statistics
Includes several posts by Joe D'Mello

The last of these links is to all the material relevant to the statistical case from this blog, including several guest posts by Joe D'Mello, in interaction with Andrey Feuerverger, whose most recent statement is on his homepage.

Mariamene and Martha, Stephen Pfann

I mentioned earlier (Talpiot Tomb Various) Stephen Pfann's new reading of the "Mariamenou Mara" ossuary. He has published his full reading in a very clear, eight page illustrated PDF:

Mary Magdalene is Now Missing:
A Corrected Reading of Rahmani Ossuary 701
By Stephen J. Pfann, Ph.D.

I have to admit that to my untrained eye, the case is pretty convincing that we should, all along, have been reading this as MARIAME KAI MARA (Mariame and Mara). The thing that is particularly helpful in Pfann's piece is his illustrations of parallels to the way KAI is written here. The article is a model of clarity. But I should stress that I am no expert at all in reading inscriptions, so I am looking forward to hearing the learned reactions of other experts to this interesting new proposal.

The only thing that puzzles me a little is the title of the piece, "Mary Magdalene is now missing", in that it might be said that Mary Magdalene was never there in the first place, or at least that the case for her identification, even on the previous reading, was weak, as Pfann goes on to note in p. 2 of the current piece. In so far as the new reading provides us with a Mary and a Martha, we have one additional NT related name in the tomb (Luke 10.38-42; John 11-12). As Pfann points out, these are common names ("Yet Another Mary and Martha?", p. 6), so it is still a long way from Simcha Jacobovici's hoped for "Ringo", but the new reading does not detract from a modified case that could be mounted on the basis of a Mary and a Martha, all the more so in that the Acts of Philip, on which the programme makers are keen, assumes that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are the same person (See Mariamne, Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany). I should make clear that I would not want to make such a case, but I point it out for the sake of fairness.

Talpiot Tomb Various

I must admit that I thought interest in the Talpiot tomb would quickly die away, but I was wrong. Recent developments of interest include Michael Heiser's A New Twist in the Jesus Tomb Sideshow, which was circulated to lots of us today. Here's an excerpt:

I want to draw your attention—and the attention of scholars and interested parties who read your blog—to a SECOND site that has all those names. In 1953-1955, Bellarmino Bagatti excavated the site of Dominus Flevit (“The Lord wept”) on the Mount of Olives. The excavation uncovered a necropolis and over 40 inscribed ossuaries – including the names of Mary, Martha, Matthew, Joseph, Jesus. These ossuaries are not, as far as I can tell, in Rahmani’s catalogue. I’m guessing the reason is that they are not the property of the Israel Antiquities Authority (see Rahmani’s Preface). The necropolis was apparently used ca. 136 BC to 300 AD. Here is a link that discusses the site. A few scanned pages of Bagatti’s excavation report (written in Italian) can be found here as well.

Meanwhile, I've just received an updated version of Jack Poirier's article on the statistics and the tomb. It is to appear on Jerusalem Perspective Online but isn't there yet. As Jim West points out, Stephen Pfann has announced a re-reading of the "Mariamenou Mara" inscription -- see Scholar: 'Jesus Tomb' documentary got it wrong on CNN. And the SBL Forum carries responses by James Tabor to Jodi Magness and Christopher Rollston and to Jonathan Reed. On his blog, he promises breaking news.

I have one more thing to do, to complete my list of Errors and Inaccuracies later today. There are quite a lot still to get through. I am grateful to hear today from James Tabor that these have been reported back to those responsible for the site with a view to making corrections and adjustments.

Correction on Discovery Tomb Website

Thanks to Joe D'Mello (see previous posts in the "Jesus Family Tomb" Statistics series) for this update concerning the Discovery Tomb Website:

==================
Discovery Channel has made one correction!

Note that the following paragraph from the 'Tomb Evidence' PDF file:

Taking into account the chances that these names would be clustered together in a family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the odds – on the most conservative basis – are 600 to 1 in favor of this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB. A statistical probability of 600 to 1 means that this conclusion works 599 times out of 600.

has now been changed to

Taking into account the chances that these names would be clustered together in a family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the probability under random chance of observing a cluster of names as compelling as this one within the given population parameters is 600 to 1, meaning that this conclusion works 599 times out of 600.

I believe that this is an acknowledgement that the computed 600:1 odds really have no direct bearing to whether or not this is the family tomb of Jesus. It is very disappointing to note that Discovery is using a misleading play on words even in this "corrected" version. Notice that they are using the statistical term "population" (in this case the name combinations on the inscribed ossuaries in the roughly 1,100 family tombs) in a manner that the majority of readers will interpret as the "Jews who were living in the area at the time". There is a big difference! The odds would be much less with that latter interpretation!

While I am clearly happy that a change has been made - at least we are moving in the right direction - there are two other paragraphs (below) that are still not corrected, and I have e-mailed Dr. Feuerverger again inquiring why these were not changed. I hope that this will be the beginning of many changes that Discovery will make to correct inaccurate statements on their sites. Inaccuracies don't make for good and healthy debates!

"Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics & mathematics at the University of toronto, has concluded a high statistical probability that the Talpiot tomb is the JESUS FAMILY TOMB."

AND

"A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family."

====================