New Interviews Online with Gibson and Zias and Pfann – March 18
Independent interviews are starting to come in now. Two of the most important involve Shimon Gibson and Joe Zias on the Vision media site.
Both worked on ossiaries for the Israeli Antiquities Authority and with the team of Amos Kloner.
You can check out their latest take at:
http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/blog.aspx?id=2492
\
The two key elements in play in these interviews involve the fact that multiple people could be in a single adult ossuary and that extended family could be found in such a tomb. This complicates the DNA testing because one can’t know whose DNA is being tested. So these are significant observations.
Independent interviews are starting to come in now. Two of the most important involve Shimon Gibson and Joe Zias on the Vision media site.
Both worked on ossiaries for the Israeli Antiquities Authority and with the team of Amos Kloner.
You can check out their latest take at:
http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/blog.aspx?id=2492
\
The two key elements in play in these interviews involve the fact that multiple people could be in a single adult ossuary and that extended family could be found in such a tomb. This complicates the DNA testing because one can’t know whose DNA is being tested. So these are significant observations.
Stephan Pfann has added observations ont he Mariamne ossuary inscription. It can be found at: http://www.uhl.ac/Lost_Tomb/MaryAndMarthaNote/
His conclusion is still that two names are involved as well as two hands:
"However, this inscription clearly was written in two distinct script styles (standard Greek documentary script and Greek cursive script). This being the case, then two scribes were involved in the writing process and we can assume on separate occasions. In my judgment, in order not to do violence to the epigraphic evidence, the inscription should only be read as:
1) MAPIAMH KAI MAPA: "Mariame and Mara""
If so, this would also complcate the DNA claims.
3 Comments
jnjwallen
DNA in question?
Were not Mary and Martha sisters? How would things be complicated in that..Judah son of Jesus was still shown in the tomb and these ossuaries were placed ceremonially next to eachother? Why try and skate the other facts?
bock
DNA in Question – dlb
Jeff:
The Martha and Mary who were sisters do not include the Mary who is Mary Magdalene. Mary and Martha were from Bethany. Mary Magdalene was from Migdal. The confusion comes because in 591 AD Gregory the Great equated the sinful woman of Luke 7:35-50 with Mary Magdalene of Luke 8:1-3 with the Mark who anointed Jesus in John 12. However, the sinful woman of Luke 7 is not Mary of Bethany, nor is she Mary Magdalene. So, yes, Martha and Mary are sisters, but that Mary is not Mary Magdalene. No skating by the facts here.
Hope this helps.
dlb
Nehemias
Stats
Dr. Bock,
I agree with you.
Tabor:
“If we ask all the males named Jesus to stand, based on the frequency of that name, we would expect 2,796 to rise. If we then ask all those with a father named Joseph to remain standing there would only be 351 left. If we further reduce this group by asking only those with a mother named Mary to remain standing we would get down to only 173. If we then ask those of this group with a brother named Joseph to remain standing only 23 are left. And finally, if we add the condition of just one brother named James, there’s less than a 3/4 chance that even 1 person remains standingâ€.
My comments: But we don’t know if Mary in the Talpiot tomb was Yeshua’s mother. We also don’t know if Yose and Yeoshua were brothers. Probably, the entire family of Mr.Yeoshua were buried in Talpiot tomb (mother, father, cousins, uncles, aunts and so on).
Christopher A. Rollston http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=649 :
“Note, however, that for these six inscribed ossuaries from the Talpiyot Tomb, there are just two personal names with patronymics: (1) Yehuda bar Yeshua’ and (2) Yeshua’ bar Yosep. This is a pivotal issue because without patronymics it is not possible for someone in the modern period to ascertain the precise kinship relationships of antiquity (…) For example, the assumption of these scholars is that the Yoseh of the Yoseh Ossuary was the son of Yosep. However, there is no patronymic on this inscription and so to assume that Yoseh was the son of Yosep (and thus the brother of Jesus) is problematic. That is, Yoseh could be the son of Mattiyah, or the son of Yehudah, or the son of Yeshua’. Perhaps, he was the father of Maryah, or the father of Miriamne, or Mattiyah. Maybe he is the uncle of one of these. Perhaps, Yoseh was the son or father or brother or uncle of someone who was buried in one of the ossuaries that does not contain an inscription. It is possible to suggest that he was a cousin of someone in the tomb (…).
Similarly, for Maryah, the assumption of those propounding that this is the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth is that this woman is the mother of Yeshua’ bar Yosep. However, it is tenable to suggest that she was the wife of Yehudah, or the wife of Yoseh, or the wife of Mattiyah, or the wife of Yeshua’. She might have been the benevolent and kind aunt of someone buried in the tomb. She might have been the cousin of someone buried in the tomb. Sometimes we have complementary data. For example, an ossuary from the Kidron Valley is inscribed with the words: “Shalom, wife of Yehudah.”[25] However, for Maryah we simply do not have such data; thus, to assume that a modern scholar can discern and make an affirmation about the nature of some relationship is risibleâ€.
My comments: So, using Tabor analogy, I think that if we ask “only those with†at least, a close relative “named Mary†(mother, or aunt, or cousins, or niece), almost all of those “Jesuses†would remain standing. And after, if we ask those of this group with a close relative named Joseph (brother, cousin, father, uncle, nephew) to remain standing, much more than 23 are left.