The Lost Tomb of Jesus, Part 4

Posted on April 13, 2007
Filed Under archaeology, Science, fraud, religion, tomb, jesus |

Just to give you some idea of what we’re dealing with, here is a picture of the actual “Jesus” inscription:

As a result of the crudeness of the inscription, there has been more than one reading of it. In my opinion, the following is the most reasonable interpretation:

To my eye, the area where the question mark is can only reasonably be interpreted as “bar” - “son of”, giving “[cross] Jesus, son of Joseph”.

The cross is intriguing. Jacobovici argues that it represents the last letter of the Aramaic alphabet and links it to the Gospel of John (correction: Revelation, but, since it was probably written by the same person as John, the argument stands), suggesting that Jesus didn’t speak Greek, and so would not have said alpha and omega, but alaph and tau. Tau, in the 1st century AD, was written as a skewed cross. I am uncomfortable with that link, as John is a later gospel, non-synoptic, and has whiffs of Gnosticism. Nonetheless, what we are seeing is quite possibly an early Christian symbol. To be fair, it may also be a stonecutter’s mark, indicating how to put the lid on the ossuary.

So, there we have yet another reason why Jacobovici’s contention that there is a 599 in 600 chance that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth is bunk. While I think that Jesus, son of Joseph is the most reasonable interpretation of the inscription, I have to say that there is a several percent possibility that the inscription doesn’t say Jesus at all.

Addendum: (better photo)

I should also credit Steve Caruso for his terrific series of posts on this inscription.

2nd Addendum: I should note that it is Jacobovici who contends that the initial cross is a tau and that this is how it was written in the 1st century. Personally, I would agree with Steve Caruso that it looks an awful lot like an alaph.

Comments

4 Responses to “The Lost Tomb of Jesus, Part 4”

  1. bright on April 13th, 2007 12:51 pm

    One more installment? Please?

  2. Schadenfreude on April 13th, 2007 12:54 pm

    Oh, there’s more. It’s a bottomless pit.

  3. Archaeopteryx on April 13th, 2007 6:15 pm

    Looks like some other folks–including the statistician quoted in the movie–think it’s bunk, too.

  4. Schadenfreude on April 13th, 2007 6:41 pm

    The 600:1 number was always crap. That depended absolutely on one of the ossuaries being that of Mary Magdalene, a fact not in evidence.

Leave a Reply