1 Demythologyzing the Talpiot Tomb: The Tomb of Another Jesus, Mary and Joseph By Stephen Pfann, Ph.D. University of the Holy Land [Pl. 1: Photo of Tabor, Jacobovici, Cameron with CJO 701 and 704] The 2007 documentary on the Talpiot Tomb produced by Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron in cooperation with professor of religion James Tabor, superimposed the faces of Mary Magdalene, Jesus and Mary the mother of Jesus on the the tomb's ossuaries including those pictured above. This image has captured the imagination of many by attaching the identity of the first century's most famous family to these ossuaries. The documentaryʼs claim that these ossuaries can be identified as those of Jesus and his family is based on the following assumptions: 1) the cluster of names found in the tomb includes the names Joseph, Mary, Jesus and Joseh makes this tomb statistically significant; 2) finding an ossuary a Jesus son of Joseph and, perhaps more importantly of a "Mary also called Mara", perported to be Mary Magdalene, providing the "Ringo", the linch pin, that forms the basis of an astounding hypothesis. 3) the existence of other followers of Jesus, including Simon Peter, in Jerusalem's necropolis increases the likelihood that Jesus' family tomb appropriately belongs in the same area. According to the hypothesis built upon these premises, it would be extremely unlikely if it was the tomb of anyone other than the central character of the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth and his family. However, marshalling in the inscriptional evidence on names at our disposal from the Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries and Dominus Flavit it becomes clear that these names are far from unique, in fact they are among the 1st century Jewish worldʼs most common names. As a result, finding them together in the same tomb should not surprise us. Thus there is good reason to believe that identifying these ossuaries as those of Mary Magdalene, Jesus and Mary is a form of identity theft. The Jewish family of Joseph of Talpiot would almost certainly object if they could speak up today. This article provides a full epigraphical analysis of the three inscriptions upon which the hypothesis is based. Careful epigraphic analysis reveals that a) the inscriptions central to the films argument have been misread, b) separate scribal hands have written the different names which changes the number of individuals and identities of 2 those who had been buried in each ossuary . The evidence brought here discredits the hypothesis that the Talpiot Tomb is Jesus of Nazarethʼs family tomb. The final section of the article begins to explore the profile of the family buried in this tomb, providing a new basis for scholarly discussion. If we allow the tomb and the ossuaries to speak for themselves we learn not of the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth but of the family tomb of a certain Joseph of Talpiot otherwise unknown to history. Let the original family of the Tomb speak for itself: Demythologyzing the Talpiot Tomb. "The first time they have been laying side by side in 2000 years" Simcha Jacobovici Faces of the actors Mary Magdalene, Jesus and Mary were superimposed over the ossuaries in the film. Indelibly infused on the façades of ossuaries belonging to another family: not Jesus of Nazareth, but perhaps, a Jesus of Talpiot. In this way we have witnessed a form of identity theft, an identification which the original family of this tomb would almost certainly and strongly object to if they could speak up today. But what about this original family? What story would they tell? This story lies silently in the tomb, its bones and its ossuaries. I would like to explore here the story of the family which the tomb itself can whisper of with a few tantalizing indications that lie there if we could only allow the tomb to speak for itself. Contrary to Jacobovici’s assumption, the names found in the ossuary are not rare. In fact, they are among the most common names known from the inscriptional evidence of the 1st century. Below I present basic data from the current corpus of inscriptions, that allows us to frame the discovery in the Talpiot tomb within its proper epigraphical context.In order to create a statistical probability with which to assess the Talpiot tomb names, one must first create a working database. This can be done by making a general overall census of inscribed ossuaries based primarily upon the Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries. Such a survey of the entire corpus of inscribed ossuaries brings to light the proportions of names and the ethnic character of those in first century CE Judea able to afford burial in ossuaries and tombs. Remarkably, only 72 different Jewish names are represented among the 286 personal names found on the 233 inscribed ossuaries. The reason there are more names than ossuaries is because some ossuaries contain two or three names using the formula "x son of y." These 72 personal names include their shortened forms and their Greek or Latin equivalents. What are the implications for establishing a statistical probability of occurrence? We must bear in mind the following points: • We see that a very small pool of personal names was used when naming a child in first century Judea and Galilee.1 • Only 72 different names are represented in the inscriptions. • A remarkably low 16 of the 72 personal names account for 75% of the inscribed names (214 in all), • Thus 16 names account for 92% of the 233 names inscribed on the corpus of Jewish ossuaries. 1 When compared with the large pool of individual personal names in use today in North America and Europe. 3 • All of the names that are associated in the Gospels with Jesus of Nazareth and his family (father ‘Joseph’, mother ‘Mary’ and brothers ‘Jacob/James’, ‘Joseph/Joseh’, ‘Simon’, and ‘Judah/Judas/Jude’2) are found in the list of the sixteen most commonly inscribed names. • Four of these names: Simon, Mary, Joseph and Judas are among the top five in the frequency list of names appearing below. If we count up the total occurences of these names, we arrive at 109 out of 286 names. This is fully 38% of the entire list of names appearing in the inscriptional corpus. This underscores just how extraordinarily common the names of Jesus’ family are. The frequency list of personal names on the inscribed ossuaries is as follows: Salome (Shalom, Shlomzion) 26 Simon (Shim'on) 26 Mary (Miriam, Maria) 22 Judas (Yehudah, Yudan) 21 Joseph (Yehoseph, Yoseh) 19 Lazarus (El'azar, Eli'ezer) 16 Joezer (Yeho'azar) 13 John (Yehonan) 12 Martha 11 Jesus (Yeshua') 10 Saul 10 Ananias (Hananiah) 10 Matthew (Mattitiyahu, Mattai) 8 Jonathan (Yehonatan) 6 Jacob/James (Ya'aqov) 5 Ezekias (Hezekiah) 4 Total names extnt 4x or more 214 Other less common names include: 3x: 'Amah, Hanan, Shalum, Shappira 2x: 'Azaviah, 'Ahai, Haniah, Hanin/Hanun, Yatira, 'Ezra, Shamai, Seth The names in the Talpiot tomb were apparently not just "common" but "extremely common." Based upon inscriptions from the corpus of published ossuaries, viewed along side the witness of names published in contemporary literature of the first century, statistically speaking, we find the following frequency for each of the relevant names: For males,3 • 7% are named "Jesus" • 13% are named "Joseph" or "Jose" • 15% are named "Judah" or "Judas"/"Yudan" For females, • 31% are named "Mariam" or "Maria".4 2 This list of names gives the official form and its more “familiar” forms, including those appearing in standard English translations of the New Testament: hence “James,” even though the Greek manuscripts have “Jacob.” 3 Since there are 144 males and 70 females in the inscriptional corpus, this percentage is arrived at by dividing the number of cases of the apearance of “Jesus” (10 times) by the number of total male names (144). 4 By extending the statistics to the various tombs of various sizes in the Jerusalem area, these statistics can also be applied to the interred who have gone nameless. Thus, statistically, • statistically, one out of every 10 average-sized tombs would have a "Jesus son of Joseph."5 In the Talpiot Tomb, there is a real possibility that, out of the 10 inscribed names, there were represented there minimally • 2 Joseph/Joses (CJO 704 and 705) • 2 Mariam/Marias (CJO 701 and 706) There is also a serious possibility that we have 6 • 2 Yeshuas/Yehoshua (CJO 704 and 702) The Jesus Tomb hypothesis rests almost entirely on the statistical improbability of this specific collection of names occurring randomly. The hypothesis is based on the notion that if the individual names are rare; a fortiori (how much more so) is it unlikely that these names were brought together by mere chance in one tomb? However, given that these names are each quite common, it should come as no surprise to find them together. As pointed out above, the statistical data from the inscriptions would render a likelihood of finding these same names together in 1 of every 10 tombs. We may conclude that the Jesus Tomb hypothesis is based on faulty assumptions about the rarity of such names in the first century CE. The Jesus Family Tomb Hypothesis is further weakenned by the fact that the key inscriptions have been misread. The number of hands have been misidentified, leading to the mistaken conclusion that only one person’s bones were laid to rest in each ossuary. However, close analysis reveals that multiple scribal hands are present and multiple sets of bones were interred in each ossuary. The correct reading of the inscriptions provides a renewed basis for discussion of this tomb and its actual family.