Missing the Cemetery for the Tombs
Days since I have been accused of slander: 2.
Days since the Talpiot Tomb could be considered meaningful to early Christianity: 4018.
The way one considers the evidence (read: name cluster) of the Talpiot Tomb is the source of dispute. For some, evidence counts for the re-working (I won't say disproving) of the Jesus narrative. For others, the Jesus narrative itself is distanced from this tomb because of some of its factors.
First, let me consider Prof. Tabor's blog from today.
1. Prof. Tabor quotes a friend of his, David, who highlights the rarity of name clusters. This, of course, is the point of debate. David uses his own family as an example of rare name clusters. This, of course, is a red-herring as the probability of the names he cites are far rarer than the Jesus tomb clusters. (I am sure that Aaron son of Ellard, Brother of Tim, Brother of Paul is pretty rare. Maybe the only one in Canada. But this doesn't show the probability of the Jesus Tomb name cluster.) Prof. Tabor also uses his own family as name cluster--again making the same error as his friend David. Name clusters are fascinating and worth comparing. But one cannot move between 20th c. names and 1st c. names to make the point.
2. Prof. Tabor says that the statistician did not use "Mariamenou [he] Mara" as being Mary Magdalene. This is correct. However, Andrey Feuerverger says that he assumed that "`Marianemou e Mara' is a singularly highly appropriate appellation for Mary Magdalene." That a name is highly appropriate is not the same as saying it is the person. It does, however, skew probability, making the name "more probable" to be connected with Jesus of Nazareth because of what we know about their relationship. The assumption that this was appropriate for Mary Magdalene had connections with the Acts of Philip, which is not an historical document, and which Randy Ingermanson points out actually makes Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany the same person. Strange to apply this assumption to the probability, then. What makes it even stranger still is that Richard Bauckham has suggested this isn't even the same name as in the Acts of Philip. The probability therefore *increases* for connecting a Mary with a Jesus son of Joseph (still a question worth considering). Now that that's cleared up...
3. Prof. Tabor uses the familial inscription on the James ossuary to bolster the case. But this is misleading. First, it has not been demonstrated, as Prof Tabor points out, that the James Ossuary has not been demonstrated to have been found in the Talpiot tomb. Second, part of the reason the James ossuary is of importance is the inscription "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus." It is extremely rare to have inscriptions of "brother" on ossuaries unless the brother is exceedingly famous, which, of course, Jesus of Nazareth came to be. This evidence does not, however, add to the name cluster in the tomb for it being Jesus of Nazareth, partially b/c the Jude ossuary does not have this inscription (being Jesus' brother). We have a Jude ossuary found in the same tomb as a Jesus son of Joseph ossuary. (Important: One wonders why James, who was better known in the 1st c. early church would have the inscription "brother of Jesus" while Jude, who was not as well known and would have needed the added information for identity, would not. One could argue that by being buried in the same tomb that the connection would be made for its discoverers, but then one suspects that the James ossuary would not have been found in the Jesus tomb [why the added info if he's in Jesus of Nazareth's tomb?], or that his ossuary was at least moved there. But if it was moved there and the Jesus of Nazareth tomb was well known enough to be found years later, then the rise of early Christianity, especially in Jerusalem and its Jewish roots, makes no sense.)
Second, Randy Ingermanson also points out that the discovery the Judah son of Jesus actually points against it being Jesus of Nazareth for reasons I've talked about on this blog before. Why would no historical sources record such a son? There are no historical, theological, or personal reasons this would have happened, that I can think of, at least. Indeed, such a son would have been pivotal in a Jesus movement after his death. This fact does not count as evidence for it being Jesus of Nazareth. It is, at best, a fact to be interpreted after one decides it is Jesus of Nazareth.
Days since the Talpiot Tomb could be considered meaningful to early Christianity: 4018.
The way one considers the evidence (read: name cluster) of the Talpiot Tomb is the source of dispute. For some, evidence counts for the re-working (I won't say disproving) of the Jesus narrative. For others, the Jesus narrative itself is distanced from this tomb because of some of its factors.
First, let me consider Prof. Tabor's blog from today.
1. Prof. Tabor quotes a friend of his, David, who highlights the rarity of name clusters. This, of course, is the point of debate. David uses his own family as an example of rare name clusters. This, of course, is a red-herring as the probability of the names he cites are far rarer than the Jesus tomb clusters. (I am sure that Aaron son of Ellard, Brother of Tim, Brother of Paul is pretty rare. Maybe the only one in Canada. But this doesn't show the probability of the Jesus Tomb name cluster.) Prof. Tabor also uses his own family as name cluster--again making the same error as his friend David. Name clusters are fascinating and worth comparing. But one cannot move between 20th c. names and 1st c. names to make the point.
2. Prof. Tabor says that the statistician did not use "Mariamenou [he] Mara" as being Mary Magdalene. This is correct. However, Andrey Feuerverger says that he assumed that "`Marianemou e Mara' is a singularly highly appropriate appellation for Mary Magdalene." That a name is highly appropriate is not the same as saying it is the person. It does, however, skew probability, making the name "more probable" to be connected with Jesus of Nazareth because of what we know about their relationship. The assumption that this was appropriate for Mary Magdalene had connections with the Acts of Philip, which is not an historical document, and which Randy Ingermanson points out actually makes Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany the same person. Strange to apply this assumption to the probability, then. What makes it even stranger still is that Richard Bauckham has suggested this isn't even the same name as in the Acts of Philip. The probability therefore *increases* for connecting a Mary with a Jesus son of Joseph (still a question worth considering). Now that that's cleared up...
3. Prof. Tabor uses the familial inscription on the James ossuary to bolster the case. But this is misleading. First, it has not been demonstrated, as Prof Tabor points out, that the James Ossuary has not been demonstrated to have been found in the Talpiot tomb. Second, part of the reason the James ossuary is of importance is the inscription "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus." It is extremely rare to have inscriptions of "brother" on ossuaries unless the brother is exceedingly famous, which, of course, Jesus of Nazareth came to be. This evidence does not, however, add to the name cluster in the tomb for it being Jesus of Nazareth, partially b/c the Jude ossuary does not have this inscription (being Jesus' brother). We have a Jude ossuary found in the same tomb as a Jesus son of Joseph ossuary. (Important: One wonders why James, who was better known in the 1st c. early church would have the inscription "brother of Jesus" while Jude, who was not as well known and would have needed the added information for identity, would not. One could argue that by being buried in the same tomb that the connection would be made for its discoverers, but then one suspects that the James ossuary would not have been found in the Jesus tomb [why the added info if he's in Jesus of Nazareth's tomb?], or that his ossuary was at least moved there. But if it was moved there and the Jesus of Nazareth tomb was well known enough to be found years later, then the rise of early Christianity, especially in Jerusalem and its Jewish roots, makes no sense.)
Second, Randy Ingermanson also points out that the discovery the Judah son of Jesus actually points against it being Jesus of Nazareth for reasons I've talked about on this blog before. Why would no historical sources record such a son? There are no historical, theological, or personal reasons this would have happened, that I can think of, at least. Indeed, such a son would have been pivotal in a Jesus movement after his death. This fact does not count as evidence for it being Jesus of Nazareth. It is, at best, a fact to be interpreted after one decides it is Jesus of Nazareth.
Labels: Jesus Tomb
posted by Aaron Perry at
8:56 AM
3 Comments
