The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery and Evidence That Could Change History (Unabridged) [Audio Download]

Critics of this book about Jesus Family Tomb, as to it's observations and conclusions, make essentially the following arguments:
1. That the Jesus family would be buried in Nazareth, not Talpiot;
2. That the Jesus family couldn't have afforded a tomb like the Talpiot tomb;
3. That the "Jesus son of Joseph" ossuary is not inscribed "Yeshua" (Jesus) at all;
4. That the "Mariamne" ossuary didn't contain the remains of Mary Magdalene, but of two other women.

I believe the first three of these allegations against the book's premise don't carry much water. The fourth argument actually supports the conclusion that this is the real thing. My comments on these points:

1. Talpiot is the right place for Jesus' family tomb- Per Luke, 2:3-4, the family's LEGAL residence was Bethlehem, not Nazareth. The fact that Joseph and the pregnant Mary could not take the census in Nazareth but had to take it in Bethlehem indicates that Bethlehem was their DOMICILIUM under Roman Law. That basically means that they had no intention to reside in Nazareth permanently. Therefore it would have made little sense for them to have a family tomb in Nazareth, that they wouldn't be able to frequently visit at a later stage in their lives. They would have wanted a family tomb close to Bethlehem and Jerusalem, easily accessible also to future generations of the family. The fact is indeed that Mary and her children moved to Jerusalem around 30 AD.

The traditional name of Jesus in Hebrew, as reflected also in the Talmud, is "Yeshua Hanotzri." This appellation stemms from "Netzer" (Shoot or Branch). It alludes clearly to Isaiah 11:1, indicating the Royal birth of Jesus, to substantiate his claim for Jewish messianship. Not to indicate the place he comes from.

There's actually no evidence in Jewish sources, such as the Old Testament or the Mishna and Talmud, that a place called "Nazareth" even existed in or before the first century. I'm not disputing the evidence per the NT, that there was indeed a place called Nazareth. But to the best of my knowledge, there's no mention of Nazareth at all in any ancient writings outside the New Testament. So the place existed, but nobody knew about it. Therefore there was no reason to call Jesus "of Nazareth." Either in life or on an ossuary. He was called "Jesus the Branch" (of David) in Hebrew/Aramaic.

The line of argumentation detracting this discovery around the supposed Nazareth origin of Jesus' family may therefore be based on a very shaky foundation.

2. Talpiot is located about 2.5 miles North of Bethlehem. Jesus' family, of Davidic descent according to the New Testament, could have held the burial cave there even before it moved to Nazareth. Davidic birth was absolutely the most exalted in Judaism, always. The suggestion that any person of Davidic descent could be of the lowest social echelon, that couldn't fund or get funding for a burial cave, doesn't make much sense, if any. There's substantial evidence to the contrary, e.g. 1. Jesus had some very wealthy active supporters like Joseph of Arimatea and Nicodemus (known as Nakdimon ben Gorion in post biblical Jewish sources-one of the richest Jews in Judea); 2. Josephus A.J.,XX, 9:1. Note the prominence of James brother of Jesus.

3. The inscription on the Jesus ossuary does say "Yeshua bar Yehosef" ("Jesus son of Joseph")to my eye. All letters but one are quite clearly there. The only letter which is somewhat more difficult to discern at first blush is the second letter- "Shin". That's because it's written in a somewhat irregular form (in a regular Shin there are three teeth in the fork, pointing upwards. Here there are two teeth, pointing sideways to the right.) But that particular irregularity appears also on other ossuaries- notably numbers 9 (this one has two "Shin"- one with three teeth pointing to the right, and one with TWO teeth pointing to the right. Exactly like the subject inscription) and 121 in the Rahmani catalogue, which both feature also a "Yeshua." All this is NOT difficult for a Hebrew speaking person to identify.

4. The net is now abuzz with the following argument against the important significance of the find:

"The inscription, Pfann said, is made up of two names inscribed by two different hands: the first, "Mariame,'' was inscribed in a formal Greek script, and later, when the bones of another woman were added to the box, another scribe using a different cursive script added the words "kai Mara,'' meaning "and Mara.'' Mara is a different form of the name Martha.

According to Pfann's reading, the ossuary did not house the bones of "Mary the teacher,'' but rather of two women, "Mary and Martha.'"

Here's my answer to that:

If the Mariamne ossuary indeed housed the bones of Mary and Martha, these are two sisters of NT fame. One of them could have been married to "Jesus son of Joseph." -Whether or not she was Mary Magdalene (Maybe the Mary who ointed Jesus feet and then dried them with her hair- very intimate scene.) The other sister would than also automatically belong in the family. It still fits. Actually it increases the statistical odds that this is the real thing quite substantially.

This is a very intriguing possibility indeed, fitting perfectly with John 12:3. Some posters on an internet group where I participate actually suggested once that similar anointing was part of pre-wedding ritual of a Davidic King, per certain passages in the Song of Songs. Reminds me of the reaction to this find of a BBC reporter in 1996- It seems like all balls in the national lottery coming together.

My take on the names inscribed on the ossuaries is somewhat different than this book's: I believe the Mariamne-Phillip connection is somewhat speculative, but it's possible. I have no knowledge of Greek, so I can only discuss the two propositions, Assuming that the ossuary does say "Mary and Martha", here's what I think the names are:

1."Jesus son of Joseph;"
2. "Marya" (Name of Jesus' mother);
3. "Yose" (contraction of Joseph. Name of Jesus' 'father' and precise nickname of his fourth brother);
4. "Mary and Martha" -they must have been sisters because Jewish law didn't allow burial together of two unrelated women;
5. "Matya" - Name of Jesus' first cousin, son of his father's brother Alphaeus/Clophas. As James Tabor suggests in a different context, Matya could also well have been Jesus' half brother, considering a certain specific rule of the Torah (Deuteronomy 25:5-10.);
6. "Judah son of Jesus."

Therefore out of seven names inscribed on these ossuaries three names undoubtedly relate to Jesus' immediate family, and three other names relate to the same with a somewhat lower probability.
The seventh name is "Judah bar Yeshua"- must have been the son of Jesus and one of the siters "Mary or Martha. More probably Mary.

BOTTOM LINE- Ask yourself inversely a hypothetical question- If the Talpiot tomb hadn't yet been found, how would Jesus' family tomb have looked , which ossuaries would it have contained, to when would it have been dated and where would it have been located. Even if, like me, you're not formally educated specifically in any field related to this subject, anyone with general education and common sense who's curious enough could educate himself to form a perfectly valid opinion. The critics of this find are also less than perfectly qualified for the task- they are either Israeli archeologists with no real knowledge of the New Testament and other Christian sources, or Christian scholars with no thorough knowledge of Hebrew, Judaism and Jewish Law.

I would have thought of a tomb just like the tomb we're discussing. It fits perfectly with what I'd have expected Jesus' family tomb to be. Right place, right period, right names. There is al some important evidence supporting the same expectation- having to do with symbology- that this book addresses obliquely only in the conclusion.

(See also my review of the other edition ISBN-10: 0061192023 which addresses points raised by the other reviewer)

The book isn't really that challenging, and I read it in an afternoon. As someone else once said, always be suspicious of a book that claims a discovery that will change history.

The most terrible thing about the book is that the authors start with the conclusion that what they have found is the Jesus Family Tomb, and then look for the evidence that fits. That is not how sound scientific work should be conducted.

It really is full of guesswork, assumption, insinuation...nothing of any real substance and when coupled with the fact that many archaeologists, scientists, and historians have roundly condemned it leads you to the inevitable feeling that it's a money spinner and little else. Well, it did come out in time for Easter didn't it?

There is a heavy reliance upon a 4th century text, and they give it pre-eminence over 1st and 2nd century texts, for the only reason that it suits their beliefs. I'm sorry but that is just nonsense, you cannot determine the reliability of an ancient text by whether it agrees with your argument or not.

The reliance upon statistics has also been called into serious question, with mathematicians in the USA stating that as you pile on more assumptions (and having looked at Fueurverger's list the statistics cited by the book really depend upon a long list of assumptions) you are building a house of cards.

The experts cited in the book e.g. Dr. Matheson, Francois Bovon, Amos Kloner, Tal Ilan, are on public record as saying their words and work has been seriously distorted and misused, and again it leaves you wondering just how much within the book is actual fact, and how much is just fantasy and simply what the authors wanted to believe.

There are some rather unpleasant insinuations about Amos Kloner's beliefs regarding the tomb, which he is none too happy about and he denies them vigorously.
Dr. Matheson has stated that all he told them was the DNA samples were not maternally related. In his own words "It sounds like absolutely nothing."
Tal Ilan has stated that she was furious at the misuse of her work.
Francois Bovon has let it be publicly known that when he told the authors about the link between Mary Magdalene's name and the similar sounding name on the ossuary, he was only referring to literary tradition, not in a historical sense.
Joe Zias (highly qualified) has also in fact written a web page giving his own scathing review of the authors claims, citing all the things that are wrong with it too.

The book is so full of factual errors it is very difficult to know where to start, and the list would mean this review going way over the word limit. All I can say is, if you are going to read the book, make sure you have several reputable history, archaeology, and science books at your side to check up on everything.

Interesting piece of reading, although there is no proof at all which was very expectable since Jesus REALLY WAS ressurected and taken back to heaven since that's where he came from in the first place as the son of God Jehovah, not as a god himself.
But as I said, james Cameron delivers as he always does like when he did the dives to the Titanic. He's a genius who tried to get to the truth.