Liberty Theological Seminary

The Lost Tomb of Jesus: Is it Jesus’ Tomb or Not?

RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED FOR APOLGETICS

APOL 610

BY

JOSHUA YATES
STUDENT ID #3534755

Contents

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….………….…...2

PART I: THE JESUS TOMB (DVD) CLAIMS

BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE TALPIOT TOMB.…………………………..……......2

THE OSSUARIES AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE……………………………………….……4

STATISTICS………………………………………………………………………….…………4

PART II: NAMES ON THE OSSUARIES AND THEIR CONNECTIONS

YESHUA BAR JOSEPH………………………………………………………………………..5

MARYA AND JESUS’ FAMILY TREE…….…………………………………………...…….7

MATYAH ……………………………..………………………………………………..………8

YOSEH/YOSAH.…………………………………………………………………………….…9

MARIAMNE E MARA …………………………………………………………….…………11

YEHUDAH BAR YESHUA…………………………………………………………..………15

PART III: CONCLUSION

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS…………………………………………………………….…..16

CONCLUSIONS……………………………............................................................................17

WORKS CITED……………………………………………………………………………….19

Introduction

There have been many archaeological finds that have indicated certain things about Scripture over the years. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls helped us understand even more about the Bible that we hold in our hands today and confirmed much of its validity and accuracy. Thousands of documents and other archaeological finds have been uncovered and continue to be uncovered that strengthens the case that the Bible and the events within it are historically accurate.

In 1980, a tomb was discovered in the Jerusalem neighborhood of East Talpiot. Ten ossuaries (bone boxes) were discovered in this tomb and some had names on them. Out of this discovery has come a controversy that has sparked vigorous debate within Christendom, the secular world and everyone in-between. This paper seeks to draw out the information in the documentary DVD, analyze the information given about the specific ossuaries that had names on them (six of the ten ossuaries found in the tomb had names inscribed on them) and draw some conclusions on whether or not this tomb could actually be the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” based upon the names inscribed on the ossuaries found within.

PART I: THE JESUS TOMB (DVD) CLAIMS

Basic Information About the Talpiot Tomb

The entire claim of The Lost Tomb of Jesus is based on the a priori notion that Jesus was temporarily buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. Jewish tradition dictated that when a person died, their body had to be placed in their final resting place with twenty-four hours of their death. As in the case of Jesus, His death was the day before the Passover began and had Jesus’ family waited until they could get him into a family tomb, they would’ve had to break the Passover law and work during the Passover by placing him into that tomb after sundown.

The theory is (from Matthew) that Joseph of Arimathea had a tomb that was located near Golgotha and offered it to Jesus’ family for a temporary burial. Then, after Passover was completed, Jesus’ family went to the tomb to remove his body and then re-bury him in a family tomb. This had to be done in secret since Jesus was crucified as a criminal and that brought shame upon the family. Jesus’ family was at this re-burial. One year later, the family returned one last time to take the bones of Jesus and place them in an ossuary (a bone box) with his name inscribed on the side for his final resting place as per Jewish custom from 20 BC to AD 70.¹

In 1980, in east Jerusalem (Talpiot), a new apartment complex was being built. During the process of using dynamite to get rid of unneeded dirt, the builders uncovered a tomb that was 2000 years old. This tomb had façade that had a chevron and a circle above the entrance which seemed to symbolize something.² “The tomb was excavated by several Israeli archaeologists, including Joseph Gath, Amos Kloner and Shimon Gibson.”³

Inside, ten ossuaries were found, six with names inscribed upon them. The ossuaries were claimed by the Israel Antiquities Authority and the bones within the ossuaries were given to Jewish religious leaders in order to re-bury the remains. The names inscribed upon the ossuaries included:

• Aramaic: Yeshua bar Yehosef (Jesus son of Joseph)

• Aramaic: Maryah (Mary)

• Greek: Mariamenou e Mara (Mary)

• Aramaic: Yoseh (Joseph)

• Aramaic: Matyah (Matthew)

• Aramaic: Yehudah bar Yeshua (Judah son of Jesus)⁴

The Ossuaries and Their Significance

The first name found was the name, Jesus son of Joseph. That name and description alone bore no real significance as there were many men named Jesus and Joseph during this time period. The “WOW” factor here is that the tomb had the names of six people in it that, in some way, were related to Jesus. Each name is connected in the ideas presented in The Lost Tomb of Jesus. This will be discussed later in the paper.

Statistics

Statistical probabilities were comprised and computed by Prof. Andre Feuerverger from the University of Toronto. Prof. Feuerverger indicates at the beginning of his interview that if the names are taken individually, there is no real connection between them and there is nothing special about the names found written on the six ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb.⁵ However, when the names are looked at in unison, the statistical probability is extremely high! The combination of the names within the tomb seems to match the historical Jesus of Nazareth and indicate that this is possibly the tomb of the family of Jesus Christ.

Prof. Feuerverger took the frequency of the names found in the Talpiot tomb and compared them with the statistics of the recurrence of that name in Jesus’ day. The name probabilities came out to: Jesus son of Joseph: 1 in 190 (.5%), Mariamne: 1 in 160 (.6%), Matia: 1 in 40 (2.5%), Yose: 1 in 20 (5%) and Maria: 1 in 4 (25%). This gives you a probability of 1 in 97,280,000 that the tomb is NOT the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. The professor then eliminates Matia all-together since he is not a known member of Jesus’ family. The equation then becomes smaller, yet still impressive: a 1 in 2,400,000 chance that the tomb is NOT Jesus of Nazareth’s final resting place. Next, Prof. Feuerverger divides the denominator by four to account for any biases in the historical data that we have today. This brings the probability down to 1 in 600,000. Finally the equation is divided by 1000 to adjust for all possible first century tombs. This takes the answer to the final equation presented in The Lost Tomb of Jesus to a 1 in 600 chance that the Talpiot tomb is NOT the final resting place of Jesus of Nazareth if Mariamne can be linked to Mary Magdalene.⁶

PART II: THE NAMES ON THE OSSUARIES AND THEIR CONNECTIONS

Jesus son of Joseph (Yeshua bar Yehosef)

“The reading ‘Yeshua son of Yehosef,’ or ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ is quite solid and confirmed by several of the world’s leading epigraphers…”⁷ It seems as though there is no real question as to what the inscription says. The name is badly scratched and nearly illegible, however most scholars agree that it should be read as Jesus.⁸

The inscription on the ossuary is a “graffiti-style” and messy. The inscriptions on ossuaries were not meant to be on display, rather they were intended to identify the remains of a particular family member as a “tag.” Since Jesus was a carpenter and his family had meager means, there is no real reason to think that there would be an ornate ossuary with a grand inscription.⁹

Ultimately, there is no way to really determine if the ossuary that has the inscription of Jesus son of Joseph on it is actually the final resting place of Jesus of Nazareth unless more information is obtained. The name Yeshua seems to be somewhat common. Out of all the male names compiled by Tal Ilan (Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Palestine 300 BCE to 200 BCE), Yeshua has a frequency of occurring about 4 % or 103 times out of 2509 names listed by Tal Ilan.¹⁰&¹¹ The reality that the ossuary says, “Jesus son of Joseph,” would take the probability of it being THE Jesus higher, however not to a final conclusion. Prof. James Tabor says, “…depending on how one understands such terms, I would say the name is known but relatively uncommon.”¹² Even with that stated, if one was to call out the name “Yeshua” in a crowded marketplace in Jerusalem, the probability that someone would respond would be decent.

It must also be stated here that it seems like the inscription of “Jesus son of Joseph” is an extremely informal way of “tagging” the ossuary of the man that was called the Messiah and Lord. The members of Jesus’ family and his disciples truly believed that Jesus was the Messiah and treated him as such during his life. It must be believed that they would’ve given him as much, if not more, honor than that in his death. Tabor claims that Jesus’ legal name was “Jesus son of Joseph” and that other ossuaries that held rabbis and teachers had no inscriptions that indicated their position.¹³ However, this was no “normal” rabbi. It stands to reason that there would be a further inscription indicating that this ossuary held the Messiah.

The names of the other ossuaries must be taken into account. Christian tradition must be taken into account as well as other historical and archaeological finds. In order for the tomb to be fully classified as the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, all of the ossuaries in that tomb would have to belong to members of the “Jesus family.” This is where the other ossuaries come into play and have much significance as to the validity of this claim.

Mary (Marya or Maria) and Jesus’ Family Tree

Jesus was a member of an earthly family. The Bible tells us that Jesus was conceived without the “seed” of man; he was born of a virgin. However, since Joseph was the husband of Mary, Jesus was born into a natural, legal family in the lineage of King David. Mary and Joseph both were descendants of the tribe of Judah, and David. Jesus had two sisters (by Christian tradition), Salome and Miriam, and he also had four brothers from the Gosepel of Matthew: Simon, Judah, James and Joseph. The DVD claims that Joseph, their father, probably died in Nazareth and would’ve been buried there. Jesus’ mother, Mary, on the other hand, probably died in Jerusalem (again, Christian tradition) and would’ve been buried in the family tomb with Jesus there.¹⁴

The script on one of the ossuaries found in the Talpiot tomb indicated that it contained the remains of a Marya (Maria). The only form of the name, Mary, that is indicated in Scripture is Maria. It is assumed that Mary would’ve followed the teachings of Jesus and taught them to others. She would’ve gathered a decent following had this been the case. The name, when written in Hebrew, is very rare (according to the DVD claims).¹⁵

Once again, the form of the name cannot be the most important thing when it comes to analyzing the names on these ossuaries. Different forms of a name could be written by a family member just because that’s what that family member wanted. This form of Mary, written in Hebrew is not as rare as is indicated. Craig Evans and Steven Feldman write:

“This is not convincing, however, for “Mariah” (written in Hebrew letters) is found on ossuaries from Mount Scopus (see L.Y. Rahmani, A Catalog of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel, ossuary no. 26), the Mount of Olives (no. 27), Jericho (no. 55), in Jerusalem (for example nos. 48, 49, 53, 56-58) and elsewhere (nos. 33-36, 41). Moreover, the name “Maria” (written in Greek letters) occurs in Josephus (Jewish Wars 6.201) and on ossuaries (Rahmani nos. 25, 28, 46). There is nothing about the name – written in Hebrew or Greek – that points to Mary the mother of Jesus.”¹⁶

Also, just under 25% of the women had the name “Mary” (in one form or another) in Jerusalem at the time of the Virgin Mary’s life! This is not as impressive as the DVD would have the audience to believe.¹⁷

Matthew (Matyah)

At first glance, Matthew doesn’t seem to fit with the Jesus family whatsoever. Typically, families would name offspring with names from within the family tree. It does not seem that there are many Matthew’s in the lineage of Jesus’ family. The formal geneology of Joseph does not include any Matthew’s, however, in Luke 3 we find Mary’s geneology. There are many forms of the name Matthew in her lineage. Matthew is a priestly name and it shows up. This name does not disqualify the Talpiot tomb from being the tomb of Jesus, as it seems to fit with Mary’s lineage and, thus, could definitely appear in Jesus’ family.¹⁸

This ossuary seems to be in a “neutral” category (at best) when it comes to proving whether or not the Talpiot tomb is the final resting place of Jesus Christ. While no one can rule out that there was a Matthew that was related to Jesus, we cannot confirm it with the historical, archaeological and Biblical data that we have today, either. This requires interpretation in order to fit within the tomb. The fact that an ossuary with the name Matthew on it seems to lean a bit toward a “not-Jesus factor”¹⁹ as the ONLY place where the name Matthew appears is in the lineage of Mary down the line a bit. Matthew was a disciple of Jesus, but there is no evidence that disciples were buried with their rabbis in a family tomb. The dead were buried with their family, not outside their family.

Joseph (Yoseh/Yosah)

The name inscribed on the “Joseph” ossuary, Yoseh, seems to be extremely unusual. Yose was used quite common in ancient Israel and in today’s Israel, however, Yoseh was hardly ever used, claims Prof. James Tabor in The Lost Tomb of Jesus.²⁰ It is interesting to note that one of the places that the name “Yoseh” is found is in the book of Mark, naming Joseph, the brother of Jesus. The Gospels don’t tell us much about Jose (Joseph). Of all the ossuaries ever found, this is the only one found with the term Jose (Yoseh) on it. Jacobovici states in the DVD, “…Jose…and that’s an incredible thing because, according to Jewish law, if someone has a nickname you have to put their nickname on their tombstone or casket…and it’s the nickname that appears right here next to Jesus son of Joseph…the brother was known as Jose, not Joseph…and it’s in exactly the same configuration, Jose (Yosah).”²¹

Prof. James Tabor writes:

“…However, the specific name Yose in Aramaic (Yod, Wav, Samech, Heh) is extremely rare. It is found only once on an ossuary, namely the one from this Talpiot tomb with only two other examples known (a papyri and an inscription). The name in Greek (Iose or Ioses) is equally rare with only five examples listed by Tal Ilan outside the N.T. gospels. In contrast, the nickname, Yosi is quite common with dozens of examples listed by Tal Ilan. It continues to be a very common Israeli nickname for Yehosef today.”²²

There are two things to consider when coming to the occurrence of the name “Yosah/Yoseh.” The individuals in the DVD seem to use the names Yoseh AND Yosah interchangeably. This is an error in linguistics according to my research. Evans and Feldman write:

“The filmmakers also misunderstand another of the names found in the Talpiot tomb. The name YWSH should be pronounced “Yosah” (as Professor Tal Ilan in fact does in the documentary), not “Yoseh,” as the documentary consistently does. “Yosah” is not the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek form Joses, the name of Jesus’ brother (as in Mark 6:3 and elsewhere). The Hebrew equivalent is YWSY (and is found on a number of ossuaries in Greek and in Hebrew). The documentary’s discussion of this name is very misleading.”²³

This fact at least disqualifies that this ossuary relates back to Jose, the brother of Jesus as indicated in the Gospel of Mark. It may also disqualify the whole tomb from being the tomb of Jesus Christ. This is yet another “not-Jesus” factor that Ingermanson refers to.

We must also consider the same thing that we considered for the ossuary expected to be the Virgin Mary’s. The name Joseph has a number of variants in Hebrew including Yehosef, Yosef, Yose and others. Mark refers to Joses (an English form for “Yose”) and Matthew calls the same brother of Jesus, Joseph. It seems to be likely that the brother went by both forms of the name in his lifetime.²⁴ “Just as Matthew and Mark each had to choose one of the forms of the name for this brother, so the stonemason had to choose one of the variant forms to inscribe on the bone-box. It is irrelevant whether he chose a common form or uncommon form. It’s still the same man inside the box!”²⁵

Mary (Marimne E Mara)

Originally, this ossuary’s inscription had been translated as another form of the name, Mary. The “Mara” that is included would conclude the translation as “Mary, otherwise known as Mara.” The question was then asked, “Would it make sense that there are two “Mary’s” in the tomb along with Jesus Christ?” It was concluded that it might make sense if the second name, Marimne E Mara, was actually Mary Magdalene.²⁶

Christian tradition suggests that Mary Magdalene and her brother Phillip were preachers to the Greek-speaking Jews. It’s quite likely that her followers and family would’ve written her name in Greek. This ossuary is the only one in the entire tomb that has a Greek inscription on it. Much conjecture has taken place over this particular ossuary. If, in fact, this ossuary is the final resting place for Mary Magdalene, it would be a large step toward proving the Talpiot tomb as the Jesus family tomb. The statistical analysis by Prof. Feuerverger that indicates a probability of 600 to 1 odds that it is NOT the tomb of Jesus, hinges on whether or not this ossuary belongs to Mary Magdalene.

The claim is made that Mary Magdalene was a leader in the “Jesus movement” and that she might have actually been the real originator of the Christian church (Tal Ilan in the DVD). As the New Testament was formed and the church didn’t ordain women, Mary had a kind of “slop” campaign placed on her, indicating that she was a prostitute rather than a preacher and missionary as early Christian writings indicate. “The strong leadership exhibited by Magdalene would’ve been regarded as “suspect” by an evolving, male-dominated church. So from the second century, when church fathers began suppressing dozens of early Christian writings, the church rejected two texts that held Mary Magdalene in highest regard – The Gospel of Mary Magdalene and a text describing her brother’s ministry, the Acts of Phillip.”²⁷ Then, in 1974, in Greece, Francois Bovon found a copy of the Acts of Philip and, in it, found a reference to Mary Magdalene. She is seen as a Christian missionary in this book and there is no mention of her past. She is at the same level of any other male missionary and carries the title “apostle.” This gives the impression that the inscription of “Mara” on the ossuary might be pointing to the Aramaic translation, “master.” The Acts of Phillip also records Mary Magdalene’s name as “Mariamne.”²⁸ Bovon states, “Mariamne is the same woman as Mary of Magdala, or Mary Magdalene, in the synoptic gospels and in some non-canonical texts like the Gospel of Mary, Pistis Sophia, etc.” (Note Bovon’s comment is related to the occurrence of Mariamne in the Gospel of Phillip.)²⁹

In this case, most scholars flatly disagree with the possibility that this ossuary can be attributed to Mary Magdalene. There are many different issues that arise when considering this ossuary and there is not enough time to go through all of them here, but we will discuss some.

The first objection to this ossuary’s inscription is the “why” behind this ossuary being in the tomb of Jesus Christ. If, in fact, this is the ossuary of Mary Magdalene, why is she in the tomb of Christ? She was in no way related to Jesus. The Lost Tomb of Jesus attempts to identify Mary Magdalene as the wife of Christ. However, there is no historical documentation that Jesus was married. We know that some of the apostles were married, and there is no reason that Jesus’ marriage would’ve been kept secret as there was nothing wrong with rabbi’s being married. In contrast, it is noted that many were married. The only reason we would find Mary Magdalene’s ossuary in the family tomb of Jesus is if she were married to Jesus…that just is not the case.

Dr. Francois Bovon, who the Jesus Tomb People use to classify the ossuary’s inscription as Mary Magdalene’s is quoted as saying,

“As I was interviewed for the Discover Channel’s program The Lost Tomb of Jesus, I would like to express my opinion here…having watched the film, in listening to it, I hear two voices, a kind of double discours. On one hand there is the wish to open a scholarly discussion; on the other there is the wish to push a personal agenda. I must say that the reconstruction of Jesus’ marriage with Mary Magdalene and the birth of a child belong for me to science fiction…I do not believe that Mariamne is the real name of Mary of Magdalene. Mariamne is, besides Maria or Mariam, a possible Greek equivalent, attested by Josephus, Origen, and the Acts of Philip, for the Semitic Myriam.” ³⁰

Even more issues arise as you consider the other claims of the film as they pertain to the “Mary ossuary”:

• The Acts of Philip was written four centuries after the time of Jesus, thus placing it beyond any historical significance.

• The Mariamne in the Acts of Philip is also identified at the same time as Mary of Bethany. But Mary of Bethany is a totally different person than Mary Magdalene.

• Mariamne is a common variant of the name Mary. King Herod had a wife whose name was spelled both “Mariamne” and “Mariamme.”

• The name on the ossuary is actually “Mariamenon”, not “Mariamne.”

• In the New Testament, Mary Magdalene’s name is spelled “Maria”, exactly the same spelling as Mary the mother of Jesus.³¹

The probability of this ossuary being the final resting place of Mary Magdalene is extremely low. The inscription of this particular name does not make it any more likely that this is Mary Magdalene’s ossuary than had it had any other variant of the name Mary inscribed upon it.

Judah son of Jesus (Yehudah Bar Yeshua)

The last ossuary to have a name inscribed upon it has the inscription of Judah Son of Jesus. The DVD claims that this is the son of Jesus Christ (using the assumption that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married). This is assumed to prove that this is the tomb of Christ. It is claimed that if Jesus really did have a son, it would have been kept a secret. This son would’ve been the heir to the Jewish royal throne and would be a target of arrest and crucifixion by Roman authorities. The apostles were being executed by the Roman and Jewish authorities and that would’ve been the same fate of a son of Jesus. Judah is proposed to possibly be the “disciple who Jesus loved” in the book of John. This disciple remains unnamed to “conceal the child’s lineage.” The connection is made at the crucifixion when Jesus declares that Mary should behold her grandson as her son and Judah should view Mary as her mother.³² The narrator does speak of the possibility that the very existence of a son in the Talpiot tomb might indicate that this cannot be the tomb of Christ, however it is done within the context of using the combination of names as an almost impossibility that this is NOT the final resting place of THE Jesus.

The largest piece of evidence against whether or not Jesus had a son is the fact that there is nowhere in historical finds or in Biblical literature indicating that Jesus had a son. “There is no credible evidence anywhere, at any time, that suggests that Jesus had a wife or a child…A wife of Jesus would have been a celebrated figure; children would have occupied honored places in the church.”³³ An example of this happening is the fact that James, the brother of Jesus, was the leader of the Jerusalem church.

In effect, the fact that there is a “son of Jesus” in this tomb argues against the claim that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. Since all historical documentation does not suggest a wife or a child, this makes a strong argument. Ingermanson states,

“…the argument doesn’t work that way (that this ossuary proves that Jesus had a son). You have to first demonstrate that the Jesus in the tomb IS Jesus of Nazareth based on the evidence you have. And the evidence we have is that Jesus of Nazareth very likely didn’t have a son.”³⁴

It just does not make sense that a son of the Messiah would be hidden for any period of time.

This son could not possibly have been the “disciple who Jesus loved” from the Gospel of John as the claim is made in the film. John makes it clear that the “disciple who Jesus loved” outlived Peter and the other disciples and who was the ultimate person behind the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John is dated somewhere after AD 90. Judah son of Jesus would’ve had to die before AD 70 in order to be placed in an ossuary, since that is the about the time that the use of ossuaries ended in Jewish custom. The math does not allow for Judah to be “the disciple who Jesus loved.”³⁵

PART III: CONCLUSIONS

Other Considerations

The statistical evidence that is presented is up for debate. How the statistics were reached is under much scrutiny and controversy. I am not a statistician, so I cannot argue as to the validity of the numbers. However, through my research, I have found that there are so many factors that have not been included in the statistics that definitely give the numbers a bit of a bias. There are too many “fuzzy factors” (as Ingermanson states) for the numbers to be a definite answer. No archaeological find, when reported by the archaeologist, is without bias. There is no historian that can claim that their reports are totally without bias. Each individual’s worldview comes into play when interpreting archaeological finds and historical evidence.

Conclusion

I have given evidence both for and against the ossuary claims made in the film, The Lost Tomb of Jesus. As with any research, I brought my worldview that Christ is not in the tomb with me. I feel that the information provided in the film also has an agenda of a need to prove that the Talpiot tomb is the tomb of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, there are just too many variables to come to a dogmatic conclusion such as that. The reality that the names of the ossuaries in the tomb don’t match the historical record definitely does not allow for the tomb to be proven to be Jesus’ final resting place. There can be a relationship contrived by the information given in the film, but some of that information is a large stretch, as indicated in each section with the names that were found in the Talpiot tomb.

With the information that is available to us, there is no way to completely discount that the Talpiot tomb as Jesus of Nazareth’s tomb. On the flip side, there is no way to completely prove that point, either. My interpretation of the evidence is that there is that it is NOT the tomb of the Jesus family. There are too many irregularities in the historical and archaeological record that do not allow for this to be the tomb of Jesus Christ. The ossuaries and their name combinations, while interesting, cannot prove this fact. Also, being that my worldview holds that Scripture is the ultimate authority for life and history, Jesus had no need for a tomb. He rose from the dead three days after he was laid in the tomb of Joseph of Aramathea. He was seen by his disciples. He was seen by Mary Magdalene. He was seen by crowds of 500 or more. He didn’t stay in a tomb or an ossuary for that matter. He is alive today. The evidence leans heavily toward this not being the tomb of Christ…my faith confirms it.

WORKS CITED

Bovon, Francois. 2007. The Tomb of Jesus, Society of Biblical Literature, available from http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=656, Internet.

Cameron, James and Jacobovici, Simcha. 2007. The Lost Tomb of Jesus (DVD). AP Tomb Productions Ltd.

Cost, Jay and Ingermanson, Randy. 2007. “He Is Not Here,” Or Is He? A Statistical Analysis of the Claims Made in The Lost Tomb of Jesus, available from http://www.ingermanson.com/jesus/art/tomb/HeIsNotHere.pdf, Internet.

Dembski, William A. and Marks, Robert J. II. 2007. The Jesus Tomb Math, available from http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/Research/EILab/Resources/Tomb/Jesus_Tomb_Math_Dembski-Marks.pdf, Internet.

Evans, Craig and Feldman, Steven. 2007. The Tomb of Jesus? Wrong on Every Count, available from http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbKCtombevansfeldman.html, Internet.

Ingermanson, Randy. 2007. Bayes’ Theorem and the “Jesus Family Tomb”, available from http://www.ingermanson.com/jesus/art/stats2.php, Internet.

Ingermanson, Randy. 2007. Statistics and the “Jesus Family Tomb”, available from http://www.ingermanson.com/jesus/art/stats.php, Internet.

Kilty, Devin T. Ph.D., P.E. and Elliott, Mark, Ph.D. 2007. Probability, Statistics and the Talpiot Tomb, available from www.lccc.wy.edu/Index.aspx?page=547, Internet.

Magness, Jodi. 2007. Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?, available from http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=640, Internet.

Phann, Stephen. 2007. The Improper Application of Statistics in “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”, University of the Holy Land, available from http://www.uhl.ac/JudeanTombsAndOssuaries.html, Internet.

Tabor, James. 2007. Doggedness and the Talpiot Tomb, The Jesus Dynasty Blog, available from http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/05/22/doggedness-and-the-talpiot-tomb/, Internet.

Tabor, James. 2007. Imagining A Hypothetical Jesus Family Tomb, The Jesus Dynasty Blog, available from http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/05/26/imagining-a-hypothetical-jesus-family-tomb/, Internet.

Tabor, James. 2007. The Name Yoseh on the Talpiot Tomb Ossuary, The Jesus Dynasty Blog, available from http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/09/02/the-name-yoseh-on-the-talpiot-tomb-ossuary/, Internet.

Tabor, James. 2007. The Talpiot Tomb Façade, The Jesus Dynasty Blog, available from http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/05/05/the-talpiot-tomb-facade/, Internet.

Tabor, James. 2007. The Talpiot Tomb: Separating Truth From Fiction (Completed), The Jesus Dynasty Blog, available from http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/04/29/the-talpiot-tomb-separating-truth-from-fiction/, Internet.