What do you think?
Rate this book
The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery That Will Change History Forever
Published in 2007 by Harper Collins, London
336 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
73 people are currently reading
472 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 77 reviews
October 11, 2020
In 1980, a discovery was made under the rubble of a construction site in Jerusalem--a tomb containing the ossuaries of Yeshua, Mary, Mary and Joseph, as well as "Judah, son of Yeshua"....Could this be the tomb of Jesus and Mary Magdaline? and if so they must have been married and had a son.....This should be the story of the century (if proven to be true). It's the writing style and faulty scholarship that really ruined this book for me. The authors were overly-dramatic and dazzled by their subject matter when archaeology is something to be taken seriously and it would have been enough if they could have stood behind their science and let the story sparkle on its own. Even though they did do DNA testing, science demands MORE testing. They have shown that their hypothesis is POSSIBLE but they didn't prove it.
September 21, 2015
This book contains interesting ideas and information. I learned a lot about ossuaries and some more on the history of the beginnings of Christianity. However, the book is geared towards the Discovery Channel documentary on this subject. Most of this book is the telling of the lead-up into the investigation into this family tomb, the filming, the testing, the secrecy of the project. There are some interesting speculations, some interesting DNA results and lots of history and documentation to suggest that many of the claims are possible.
The evidence as told is compelling but with plenty of uninvestigated areas and that leaves a lot of questions. With a discovery such as this that could/would change many outlooks, it's important to get the science and evidence together in a strong way. In this way, this book fails. It starts looking at the evidence but then doesn't seem to follow through entirely. Throughout the book, I wondered why more interest and more detailed testing wasn't and isn't being done. In the scientific world, one would think that interest in these ossuaries and bones would be phenomenal but the opposite seems to be true.
In Isreal's system of archeological finds, it seems that the bones in an ossuary are removed for reburial at the time of discovery. Where were the bones of these ossuaries buried? Why is DNA testing not done on these bones? Or is this something that will be happening in the near future? The statistical evidence is interesting (individually the names on the ossuaries are common but as a family group they are rare). The preliminary DNA testing done on material in the ossuaries is compelling enough to delve deeper.
One chapter was pure speculation. Thankfully, the authors stated that it was speculation. Throughout the book there are plenty of "if", "could be", "is possible" statements, which take away from the validity of the evidence but a find like this should be investigated to the full extent of the science available.
If this tomb is truly the tomb of Jesus and his family, this could change many views, through many factions. Wouldn't we all like to know the truth of these ossuaries and bones?
This was an interesting read but not one of solid evidence. It did, though, have interesting facts and history of ossuaries, Jerusalem and early Christianity and pre-Christianity.
The evidence as told is compelling but with plenty of uninvestigated areas and that leaves a lot of questions. With a discovery such as this that could/would change many outlooks, it's important to get the science and evidence together in a strong way. In this way, this book fails. It starts looking at the evidence but then doesn't seem to follow through entirely. Throughout the book, I wondered why more interest and more detailed testing wasn't and isn't being done. In the scientific world, one would think that interest in these ossuaries and bones would be phenomenal but the opposite seems to be true.
In Isreal's system of archeological finds, it seems that the bones in an ossuary are removed for reburial at the time of discovery. Where were the bones of these ossuaries buried? Why is DNA testing not done on these bones? Or is this something that will be happening in the near future? The statistical evidence is interesting (individually the names on the ossuaries are common but as a family group they are rare). The preliminary DNA testing done on material in the ossuaries is compelling enough to delve deeper.
One chapter was pure speculation. Thankfully, the authors stated that it was speculation. Throughout the book there are plenty of "if", "could be", "is possible" statements, which take away from the validity of the evidence but a find like this should be investigated to the full extent of the science available.
If this tomb is truly the tomb of Jesus and his family, this could change many views, through many factions. Wouldn't we all like to know the truth of these ossuaries and bones?
This was an interesting read but not one of solid evidence. It did, though, have interesting facts and history of ossuaries, Jerusalem and early Christianity and pre-Christianity.
July 10, 2018
I so want all of this to be true, and the odds are laid out right there, literally. I love biblical archaeology and a find like this, Jesus tomb or not, is impressive. But if it truly IS the final resting place of Jesus, it would be beyond impressive. It would be life-altering for many.
Full review to come. Maybe. I have to do more research - this usually involves long conversations with my pastor and me asking about a million questions while he patiently tries to answer every single one.
Full review to come. Maybe. I have to do more research - this usually involves long conversations with my pastor and me asking about a million questions while he patiently tries to answer every single one.
September 13, 2022
Bulldozers uncover a tomb - not unusual due to the thousands of years of history - and 'supposedly' stop work so archaeologists can quickly investigate. The Tomb of the Ten Ossuaries was uncovered in 1980, emptied of the ossuaries - one disappeared likely into the black market - and construction crews leveled it using the surrounding rock to line the basements of condos. Completely buried/gone save for the relics, a couple hand-drawn maps and one clear picture. All the bone fragments were returned to Jewish religious groups for reburial.
And years past - -
And the authors take readers on a side trip into early Christian history. The Judeo-Christians or Ebionites/Nazarenes were early followers of Jesus - they may have differences but scholars are suggesting and not firm regarding their theory. But they were Jewish followers of Jesus. Separate from Gentile followers until around 70 A.D. when Jewish followers were either gradually assimilated into the Gentile Christianity or re-absorbed into rabbinic Judaism. So for many years, Judeo-Christianity was a bit of a blind spot for the Gentile Christians.
Back to the present and an investigation into the names that appeared on the collection of ossuaries. Most of the names were popular and quite common but what were the chance of them being connected in one burial site. That is what Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino along with others tried to figure out. What was the actual chance that this was the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth's family.
Interesting set of circumstances and some surprising connections that only scholars would know. Is it the actual tomb of the Nazarene? I don't know. The authors' conclusion provide a summarized list of what information they have discovered. It certainly is one of those what ifs that people dream about happening - finding the actual ossuary even though any remaining bone fragments are mixed in with others reburied over the years.
2022-202
And years past - -
And the authors take readers on a side trip into early Christian history. The Judeo-Christians or Ebionites/Nazarenes were early followers of Jesus - they may have differences but scholars are suggesting and not firm regarding their theory. But they were Jewish followers of Jesus. Separate from Gentile followers until around 70 A.D. when Jewish followers were either gradually assimilated into the Gentile Christianity or re-absorbed into rabbinic Judaism. So for many years, Judeo-Christianity was a bit of a blind spot for the Gentile Christians.
Back to the present and an investigation into the names that appeared on the collection of ossuaries. Most of the names were popular and quite common but what were the chance of them being connected in one burial site. That is what Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino along with others tried to figure out. What was the actual chance that this was the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth's family.
Interesting set of circumstances and some surprising connections that only scholars would know. Is it the actual tomb of the Nazarene? I don't know. The authors' conclusion provide a summarized list of what information they have discovered. It certainly is one of those what ifs that people dream about happening - finding the actual ossuary even though any remaining bone fragments are mixed in with others reburied over the years.
2022-202
March 13, 2012
I read this book over four years ago, after watching the Discovery Channel DVD on the same subject. While the DVD is very good, this book fills in a lot of additional details that you don't pick up just from the DVD. They talk about the James ossuary, discovered separately in 2002 but now connected to the "Jesus Family Tomb" through the patina, which to me is actually one of the most convincing arguments in favor of the tomb's authenticity. The book just published, The Jesus Discovery: The New Archaeological Find That Reveals the Birth of Christianity now gives some additional interesting details about this tomb, in connection with another tomb discovered nearby with early Christian symbols.
The thing I like about this book is the awareness of the key controversies which surround the whole idea of a tomb of Jesus. They cut to the chase; it's pretty well written. To me, the Jesus tomb is quite plausible not because it is shocking but because it actually doesn't add that much to our knowledge, but confirms what we already knew. The main controversial implication is that Jesus had a son! The early Christians believed in the resurrection, but had a different concept than that of the orthodox. This book is well written and intelligent.
The thing I like about this book is the awareness of the key controversies which surround the whole idea of a tomb of Jesus. They cut to the chase; it's pretty well written. To me, the Jesus tomb is quite plausible not because it is shocking but because it actually doesn't add that much to our knowledge, but confirms what we already knew. The main controversial implication is that Jesus had a son! The early Christians believed in the resurrection, but had a different concept than that of the orthodox. This book is well written and intelligent.
April 1, 2009
I was pleasantly surprised by this book. I thought it was going to be one of those books that sensationalizes a trivial discovery, but the evidence and the arguments, admittedly a little rough around the edges, are quite compelling.
Is this the Jesus family tomb? I have no idea. It would be great fun if it was. But the discovery will never be taken seriously because, as the authors document, of political intrigues. Christians don't want anything to do with it because it fundamentally challenges belief in the resurrection.
I hope that some serious scholars take on the investigation and treat this as an important archaeological and historical discovery.
Is this the Jesus family tomb? I have no idea. It would be great fun if it was. But the discovery will never be taken seriously because, as the authors document, of political intrigues. Christians don't want anything to do with it because it fundamentally challenges belief in the resurrection.
I hope that some serious scholars take on the investigation and treat this as an important archaeological and historical discovery.
July 5, 2020
Fascinating and I'm unsure as to why it has such a low overall rating.
I'm old enough to vaguely remember this back in the 80s but didn't pay it too much attention as these sorts of things crop up very frequently.
If it is proved beyond all doubt that Jesus had skeletal remains it would destroy Christianity or at least parts of it so maybe the low ratings are from religious people whose very foundation would be destroyed if this were to be the case. I don't know.
What I do know is that I enjoyed it and anything that takes a different angle on popular themes and challenges said themes and beliefs piques my interest and this certainly did exactly that.
I'm old enough to vaguely remember this back in the 80s but didn't pay it too much attention as these sorts of things crop up very frequently.
If it is proved beyond all doubt that Jesus had skeletal remains it would destroy Christianity or at least parts of it so maybe the low ratings are from religious people whose very foundation would be destroyed if this were to be the case. I don't know.
What I do know is that I enjoyed it and anything that takes a different angle on popular themes and challenges said themes and beliefs piques my interest and this certainly did exactly that.
August 7, 2024
WAS A TOMB CONTAINING JESUS’ BODY, MARY MAGDALENE’S, AND OTHERS FOUND?
Filmmaker James Cameron wrote in the Foreword to this 2007 book, “with this stunning book, [the authors] have delivered … a veritable avalanche of [evidence]. Their investigation proves, I believe, beyond any reasonable doubt that a first-century Jewish tomb found in Talpiot, Jerusalem, in 1980 is the tomb of Jesus and his family. What’s even more electrifying is what the physical evidence from within the tome says about Jesus, his death, and his relationships with the other family members found in the same burial site. This book chronicles a three-year investigation of the most stunning archaeological find of the last century.” (Pg. vii-viii)
Authors Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino wrote in the first chapter of this 2007 book, “the Gospels attest to great concern among Jesus’s followers about shrouding his body and placing it in a tomb. Because he died late on a Friday afternoon, they needed to bring him to a tomb quickly, before the arrival of sunset and the holy Sabbath. Joseph of Arimathea’s … family tomb… would serve Jesus’s family until the body could be moved to a permanent resting place… The Gospels also say that … Jesus conquered death, left the tomb empty… But the gospels also hint at an alternative explanation for Jesus’s empty tomb. Matthew says there was another story circulating in Jerusalem… Although Matthew calls it a lie, according to the rumor, Jesus’s disciples secretly came by night and stole away with their Master’s body. As Matthew tells it, the story persisted among Jews for a very long time [Mt 28:11-15]. If the disciples took the body, there is only one thing they could have done with it. They could have reburied it. If Jesus was reburied, his family would have waited for his flesh to disappear and then stored his bones in an ossuary, sealed away forever deep in the recesses of his family tomb.” (Pg. 2-3)
They explain, “You may not think it a miracle… if you could have watched … an evolving Jewish tradition of building underground tombs filled with ossuaries being cut short before it could spread out of Jerusalem, or if you could have seen those who destroyed the tradition becoming, for archaeologists of the future, the paradoxical creators of a dating system more precise than any isotope… Somewhere … between … about 62-66 CE and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, a tomb was sealed, not very far from the Temple Mount. The deepest of the tomb’s enclosed ossuaries, some containing relics in a woven shroud, and the bones themselves awaited a prophesied Resurrection.” (Pg. 24)
Simcha recounts, “I first met Hershel Shanks on September 11, 2002… We had known each other for only a few hours when he said, ‘What if I told you that we’ve identified an ossuary in Israel that has an inscription on it that reads, ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus?’” (Pg. 25)
Later, they add, “In 70 CE, when Titus’s soldiers departed Jerusalem, they hoped that they’d left behind a dead province filled with dead people. Titus… believed he had put an end to the rebellious Jews and religious reformists for at least the rest of his lifetime, and perhaps for all time. Behind him, in the subterranean night, ten ossuaries lay facing the vanished the Jewish Temple, as if waiting for rediscovery, or rebirth, or both. And on one of them, these words seemed poised to endure forever: ‘Jesus, son of Joseph.’”(Pg. 67)
He reports, “Professor Camille Fuchs, a professor or statistics at Tel Aviv University, said that in evaluating ossuary inscriptions of this kind, we have to remember that only a small ELITE could afford family crypts and that inscribed ossuaries represented LITERATE people, who themselves were a fraction of the Jerusalem population at the time… I decided to ignore both wealth and literacy. At this point in my statistical analysis, my probability factor held at one in 2.5 million. Meaning, the odds were 2.5 million to one in favor of the Talpiot tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.” (Pg. 82)
He explains, “One of the defining characteristics of a tomb’s patina is that, like the organic gemstone amber, if it grows thick enough, it might preserve traces of marrow and dried blood, including DNA, the molecular software in which every human being is uniquely written.” (Pg. 93)
He states, “why would there be an ossuary … that has inscribed on it the name Judah, son of Jesus? Was he their son? In none of the Gospels, be they canonical or apocryphal, is Mary Magdalene---Mariamne---described as being married to Jesus. Nor is a child of Jesus ever mentioned. And yet, logically, if Jesus had a wife and son, either they would not have been spoken of at all, or they would have been spoken of in code.” (Pg. 105)
He notes, “Within a small circle of scientists, explorers, and scholars, an obscure tomb in a far-flung corner of the Jerusalem hills had captured the imagination like no other scientific subject. In 1980, the question of the ‘Jesus, son of Joseph’ inscription was answered with a quick and easy dismissal: all of the names were common. What was ignored … was that the names---taken individually---were not the issue. Rather, what should have been examined was the entire CLUSTER of names, which was indeed common.” (Pg. 111)
He asserts, “If these two ossuaries truly belonged to Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene, DNA tests would reveal that the two people buried within were NOT related. All scriptural records… were clear on one genealogical point: Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene … had no family ties. But what are the alternatives? People buried in the same tomb were related either by blood or marriage.” (Pg. 167-168) The tests revealed, “this man and woman do not share the same mother.” (Pg. 172)
He explains, “Combined with the New York patina-fingerprinting data… analysis of the patina encrustations that had resided inside key letters of the ‘James’ inscription now made a ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ case that the ossuaries inscribed ‘James, don of Joseph, brother of Jesus’ and ‘Jesus, son of Joseph’ had once resided inside the same tomb, for millennia. Statistically speaking, adding ‘James, son of Joesph’ to the Talpiot cluster would essentially prove that the Talpiot tomb was the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.” (Pg. 189)
James Cameron concludes in the final chapter, “In ... 2006, I screened my film 'The Tomb' for ... the Discovery Channel... After it was over... one said, 'Let's see... what's our lead line on this film? "Jesus's bones found?" ... "DNA Proves Jesus and Mary were married?" ... Or should we just stay simple, "They had a kid!"... After all is said and done, what did our sleuthing really turn up? ... [N]o one challenges the provenance of the ossuaries… The most dramatic of the six inscriptions boldly states: ‘Jesus, son of Joseph.’ Out of the thousands of ossuaries that have been found and catalogued, this is one of only two ossuaries that have this particular combination of names on it… the undisputed fact is that one of the plainest ossuaries ever discovered also bears what may be the most famous name in history” ‘Jesus, son of Joseph.’” (Pg. 194)
They note, “I guess it’s possible that a Jesus, son of Joseph other than Jesus of Nazareth could be buried next to a Maria and a Jos’e and another Mary known as ‘Mariamne the Master.’ But can any reasonable person imagine that there were two Jesuses in first-century Jerusalem with a father called Joseph, a close male relative called Jos’e, and two Marys in their lives---one called Maria and the other a Greek-speaking woman known as ‘the Master’?” (Pg. 206)
This book will be of keen interest to anyone interested in this discovery... but most of us may remain skeptical..
Filmmaker James Cameron wrote in the Foreword to this 2007 book, “with this stunning book, [the authors] have delivered … a veritable avalanche of [evidence]. Their investigation proves, I believe, beyond any reasonable doubt that a first-century Jewish tomb found in Talpiot, Jerusalem, in 1980 is the tomb of Jesus and his family. What’s even more electrifying is what the physical evidence from within the tome says about Jesus, his death, and his relationships with the other family members found in the same burial site. This book chronicles a three-year investigation of the most stunning archaeological find of the last century.” (Pg. vii-viii)
Authors Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino wrote in the first chapter of this 2007 book, “the Gospels attest to great concern among Jesus’s followers about shrouding his body and placing it in a tomb. Because he died late on a Friday afternoon, they needed to bring him to a tomb quickly, before the arrival of sunset and the holy Sabbath. Joseph of Arimathea’s … family tomb… would serve Jesus’s family until the body could be moved to a permanent resting place… The Gospels also say that … Jesus conquered death, left the tomb empty… But the gospels also hint at an alternative explanation for Jesus’s empty tomb. Matthew says there was another story circulating in Jerusalem… Although Matthew calls it a lie, according to the rumor, Jesus’s disciples secretly came by night and stole away with their Master’s body. As Matthew tells it, the story persisted among Jews for a very long time [Mt 28:11-15]. If the disciples took the body, there is only one thing they could have done with it. They could have reburied it. If Jesus was reburied, his family would have waited for his flesh to disappear and then stored his bones in an ossuary, sealed away forever deep in the recesses of his family tomb.” (Pg. 2-3)
They explain, “You may not think it a miracle… if you could have watched … an evolving Jewish tradition of building underground tombs filled with ossuaries being cut short before it could spread out of Jerusalem, or if you could have seen those who destroyed the tradition becoming, for archaeologists of the future, the paradoxical creators of a dating system more precise than any isotope… Somewhere … between … about 62-66 CE and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, a tomb was sealed, not very far from the Temple Mount. The deepest of the tomb’s enclosed ossuaries, some containing relics in a woven shroud, and the bones themselves awaited a prophesied Resurrection.” (Pg. 24)
Simcha recounts, “I first met Hershel Shanks on September 11, 2002… We had known each other for only a few hours when he said, ‘What if I told you that we’ve identified an ossuary in Israel that has an inscription on it that reads, ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus?’” (Pg. 25)
Later, they add, “In 70 CE, when Titus’s soldiers departed Jerusalem, they hoped that they’d left behind a dead province filled with dead people. Titus… believed he had put an end to the rebellious Jews and religious reformists for at least the rest of his lifetime, and perhaps for all time. Behind him, in the subterranean night, ten ossuaries lay facing the vanished the Jewish Temple, as if waiting for rediscovery, or rebirth, or both. And on one of them, these words seemed poised to endure forever: ‘Jesus, son of Joseph.’”(Pg. 67)
He reports, “Professor Camille Fuchs, a professor or statistics at Tel Aviv University, said that in evaluating ossuary inscriptions of this kind, we have to remember that only a small ELITE could afford family crypts and that inscribed ossuaries represented LITERATE people, who themselves were a fraction of the Jerusalem population at the time… I decided to ignore both wealth and literacy. At this point in my statistical analysis, my probability factor held at one in 2.5 million. Meaning, the odds were 2.5 million to one in favor of the Talpiot tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.” (Pg. 82)
He explains, “One of the defining characteristics of a tomb’s patina is that, like the organic gemstone amber, if it grows thick enough, it might preserve traces of marrow and dried blood, including DNA, the molecular software in which every human being is uniquely written.” (Pg. 93)
He states, “why would there be an ossuary … that has inscribed on it the name Judah, son of Jesus? Was he their son? In none of the Gospels, be they canonical or apocryphal, is Mary Magdalene---Mariamne---described as being married to Jesus. Nor is a child of Jesus ever mentioned. And yet, logically, if Jesus had a wife and son, either they would not have been spoken of at all, or they would have been spoken of in code.” (Pg. 105)
He notes, “Within a small circle of scientists, explorers, and scholars, an obscure tomb in a far-flung corner of the Jerusalem hills had captured the imagination like no other scientific subject. In 1980, the question of the ‘Jesus, son of Joseph’ inscription was answered with a quick and easy dismissal: all of the names were common. What was ignored … was that the names---taken individually---were not the issue. Rather, what should have been examined was the entire CLUSTER of names, which was indeed common.” (Pg. 111)
He asserts, “If these two ossuaries truly belonged to Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene, DNA tests would reveal that the two people buried within were NOT related. All scriptural records… were clear on one genealogical point: Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene … had no family ties. But what are the alternatives? People buried in the same tomb were related either by blood or marriage.” (Pg. 167-168) The tests revealed, “this man and woman do not share the same mother.” (Pg. 172)
He explains, “Combined with the New York patina-fingerprinting data… analysis of the patina encrustations that had resided inside key letters of the ‘James’ inscription now made a ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ case that the ossuaries inscribed ‘James, don of Joseph, brother of Jesus’ and ‘Jesus, son of Joseph’ had once resided inside the same tomb, for millennia. Statistically speaking, adding ‘James, son of Joesph’ to the Talpiot cluster would essentially prove that the Talpiot tomb was the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.” (Pg. 189)
James Cameron concludes in the final chapter, “In ... 2006, I screened my film 'The Tomb' for ... the Discovery Channel... After it was over... one said, 'Let's see... what's our lead line on this film? "Jesus's bones found?" ... "DNA Proves Jesus and Mary were married?" ... Or should we just stay simple, "They had a kid!"... After all is said and done, what did our sleuthing really turn up? ... [N]o one challenges the provenance of the ossuaries… The most dramatic of the six inscriptions boldly states: ‘Jesus, son of Joseph.’ Out of the thousands of ossuaries that have been found and catalogued, this is one of only two ossuaries that have this particular combination of names on it… the undisputed fact is that one of the plainest ossuaries ever discovered also bears what may be the most famous name in history” ‘Jesus, son of Joseph.’” (Pg. 194)
They note, “I guess it’s possible that a Jesus, son of Joseph other than Jesus of Nazareth could be buried next to a Maria and a Jos’e and another Mary known as ‘Mariamne the Master.’ But can any reasonable person imagine that there were two Jesuses in first-century Jerusalem with a father called Joseph, a close male relative called Jos’e, and two Marys in their lives---one called Maria and the other a Greek-speaking woman known as ‘the Master’?” (Pg. 206)
This book will be of keen interest to anyone interested in this discovery... but most of us may remain skeptical..
November 1, 2023
This was a great exhibition with a lot of suspension, especially interesting was that the author connected a few other books/gospels and consequently made his main thesis clear, these were indubitably, “Da Vinci code”, “gospel of Thomas” “dead sea scrolls” the author Simcha Jakobici is also pretty known from his videos on YouTube where he is also preoccupied with archeological findings and he always succeeded to give me reliability in terms of his conclusions, one should think twice before reading this book, as the title states this book may change your core view on Christianity, and I would get it if it would be difficult to accept (I also experienced a similar situation), I think there is no discussion in the reliability of this case since it is completely closed with evidence (which you get escorted through), moreover this is an ignored archeological finding as the writer stated, since it is against the main stream Christianity (due it the physical resurrection will be questionable). Definitely 5 stars.
November 30, 2025
Summary of the book’s claims (as of 2007, Date of Publication)
“The Jesus Family Tomb” recounts and argues for a bold and controversial thesis: that a modest first-century tomb discovered in 1980 in the East Talpiot (Talpiot) neighborhood of Jerusalem — the so-called Talpiot Tomb — is the actual family burial site of the historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth, together with his relatives, including what the authors suggest may have been his wife (or partner) and child.
Inside the tomb had been found ten ossuaries (limestone bone-boxes), six of which bore inscriptions such as “Jesus son of Joseph,” “Mary,” “Mariamne” (or “Mariamne Mara”), “Judah son of Jesus,” “Joseph,” and “Matthew.” The authors — Jacobovici and Pellegrino — claim that this grouping of names is too remarkable to be coincidental: they argue that statistical analysis, chemical/patina analysis of dirt, and even DNA testing (on what remains could be retrieved) support the idea that these ossuaries belonged to a single family.
Crucially, they identify the “Mariamne Mara” ossuary as that of Mary Magdalene (Mariame). They interpret “Mara” not merely as a personal name but as a title — “master” or “teacher” — implying that this Mariamne was a woman of authority. By extension, they argue that “Judah son of Jesus” shows Jesus had a son, which, along with the presence of Mary Magdalene’s ossuary, suggests that Jesus was married and had offspring.
Finally, the book supports the controversial idea that the missing 10th ossuary from the Talpiot tomb — unrecorded in the original 1980 excavation — is in fact the infamous James Ossuary inscribed “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” which had surfaced separately. If true, this would tie together other early-Christian figures tightly to this tomb.
Taken together, Jacobovici and Pellegrino present this as potentially “the greatest archaeological find of all time”: a dramatic re-writing of early Christian origins, suggesting not resurrection but burial, not celibacy but a family line — a version of history radically different from orthodox Christian claims.
For readers drawn to alternative or heterodox approaches — including feminist, pagan, or proto-gnostic leanings — the book offers a tantalizing vision: one where Mary Magdalene / Mariamne could be understood not as a footnote to a patriarchal religion, but as a central figure, a “master,” perhaps even co-equal or heir in a bloodline, challenging orthodox male-dominated narratives.
Scholarly and archaeological response at the time of publication (and immediately after)
From the moment the book and the companion documentary (The Lost Tomb of Jesus) were released in 2007, the reaction from the professional archaeological and biblical-studies community was overwhelmingly negative.
A key critic, Jodi Magness (a well-respected early-Judaism archaeologist), argued that the claims bypassed standard academic procedure: instead of publishing in peer-reviewed journals or discussing the hypothesis in professional forums, the authors opted for media sensationalism.
On the substance: many scholars note that there's no contemporary historical source — no 1st-century text — that describes Jesus being buried in a rock-cut family tomb in Jerusalem; nor is there any early tradition supporting a marriage to Mary Magdalene or a son named Judah.
Other major objections:
The tomb style (a rock-cut tomb with ossuaries) was typical of relatively wealthy Jerusalem families — while Jesus’s family, as described in the Gospels, came from Galilee and were unlikely to own such a tomb.
The ossuary inscriptions give no indication of Galilean origin. In first-century Judean tombs containing non-local individuals, inscriptions would often indicate geographic origin (e.g., “Simon of Berenike”). The absence of such hints is telling.
The “Mariamne Mara” reading as Mary Magdalene is speculative. The name Mariamne was one of several Greek variants of Miriam, and “Mara” could simply be another personal name, not a title meaning “master.”
The claim that the “James Ossuary” originally belonged to Talpiot and thus to the same family is widely rejected. Excavators of the Talpiot tomb (e.g. Amos Kloner) stated that the 10th ossuary was uninscribed; and the owner of the James Ossuary claimed to possess photographic documentation that predates 1980, implying it had nothing to do with the Talpiot find.
Finally, critics argue that the statistical analysis (the “1 in 600” chance, as calculated by the statistician Andrey Feuerverger, that such a cluster of names would occur by chance) depends on many questionable assumptions — about which names to include, about their relative frequencies, about which ossuaries to count, etc. If any assumption is off, the probability dramatically shifts.
In sum, by 2007 most experts considered the “Jesus family tomb” theory a media-driven sensationalism rather than a compelling scholarly hypothesis.
Developments since 2007 & current state of consensus
Over the years since publication, the critical consensus has only hardened. The overwhelming majority of archaeologists, epigraphers, biblical-studies scholars, and historians continue to reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as the burial site of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.
Recent scholarly writing (as late as 2025) still frames the claim as “wrong on every count,” noting that even if one grants all the speculative assumptions, the cumulative weight of improbability remains too great.
Key developments:
The chemical/patina analysis and dirt-composition matching between the Talpiot ossuaries and the James Ossuary, which the filmmakers used to support their claim, have not convinced specialists; many regard those tests as inconclusive or methodologically flawed.
More precise studies of naming patterns, ossuary inscriptions, and burial practices of first-century Judea have reinforced that names like “Jesus,” “Mary,” “Joseph,” “Judah” were extremely common, and that clustering of names—even seemingly “striking” combinations—was not particularly rare, especially in a city as large as Jerusalem.
The epigraphic and linguistic arguments for reading “Mariamne Mara” as Mary Magdalene, with “Mara” as title (rather than just another personal name), are broadly regarded as untenable.
No new corroborating historical sources — no early Christian, Jewish, Roman, or pagan text — have emerged that support the notion of a family tomb for Jesus with Mary Magdalene and children.
In short: while the claim remains alive in popular culture (especially among those drawn to alternative biblical history, gnostic or “bloodline” theories, or conspiracy-style challenges to orthodoxy), among scholars it has failed to gain any serious traction. The current consensus remains that the Talpiot tomb is almost certainly not the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth’s family.
Reflection from a Feminist / Pro-Pagan Perspective: Mary Magdalene, Mariamne, and the Power of the Marginalized
Reading “The Jesus Family Tomb” through a feminist, or pro-pagan, lens — one open to reclaiming marginalized or suppressed voices — I find aspects of Jacobovici and Pellegrino’s narrative sympathetic and provocative, even if ultimately unpersuasive as historical proof. From that vantage, the idea that “Mariamne” could represent Mary Magdalene is deeply alluring. In a patriarchal religious tradition that has minimized her role — casting her sometimes as “just a follower,” worse, as a repentant prostitute — the possibility that she was a respected teacher, a “master,” a founder or leader, and perhaps even a wife or consort worthy of burial with Jesus and a child, resonates powerfully.
If taken as symbolic rather than literal — as an imaginative re-reading of early Christian history in which Mary Magdalene re-emerges as a central, legitimate figure of female spiritual authority — the thesis offers hope for a lineage of holy women, a reclamation of suppressed female spirituality. From a pagan or earth-spiritual perspective, this can be read not just as a historical hypothesis but as a metaphor: a call to re-envision religious origins in a more gender-balanced, matriarchal-friendly light.
In that sense, even if the historical claims ultimately fail, the book serves a valuable role: it destabilizes orthodox, male-dominated Christian narratives, and invites readers — especially those skeptical of institutional religion — to wonder about what was lost, suppressed, or marginalized. It keeps alive a possibility that early Christianity (or pre-Christian spirituality around Jesus) may have had a different shape — one where women like Mary Magdalene / Mariamne played central, formative roles.
That said: as historical reconstruction — especially by a non-academic author — such metaphoric or symbolic appeal cannot substitute for sound evidence. And from a strictly evidentiary perspective, the flaws in their arguments (commonality of names, unjustified assumptions, lack of corroborating texts, dubious reading of inscriptions) remain almost fatal.
In the balance: the book works much better as a cultural/spiritual provocation than as a serious rewrite of early Christian history — which is perhaps fine, given the non-Christian, somewhat paganizing perspective of a reader such as myself.
On the Idea that the “Roman Empire never ended — it became the Roman Catholic Church” and Relevance to This Discussion
Your point about the continuity from the Roman Empire to the modern institution of the Roman Catholic Church touches on a longer-standing argument sometimes invoked in alternative histories: namely, that the structures of power and empire simply metamorphosed rather than disappeared, and that early Christian narratives were shaped (or re-shaped) under that enduring imperial influence.
Viewing “The Jesus Family Tomb” through this lens adds another layer of interest: if indeed the figure of Jesus — and possibly a “bloodline” — existed and was real in a way different from orthodox myth, then revealing (or speculating on) those roots might challenge not just Christian dogma but the institutional power that claims descent from, or continuity with, an older imperial order.
From a pagan / anti-imperial spiritual sensibility: the suggestion that Rome didn’t really fall, but reconfigured itself as the dominant religious institution of Europe, invites us to see Christianity not simply as a spiritual faith, but as political — a continuation of empire under new spiritual-legal guise. In that frame, recovering a more “authentic” Jesus (buried, mortal, with family) might be more than historical curiosity: it might be a symbolic act of de-colonizing spiritual — and political — memory.
Thus, the book acquires a kind of subversive appeal: whether or not its claims are true, its existence (and the reactions to it) reflect the ongoing struggle over religious authority, memory, lineage, and power — issues that resonate deeply with feminist, pagan, or anti-imperial worldviews.
Critical Conclusion: What the Book Does Well — and Where It Fails
Strengths / what the book achieves:
It brings attention to a remarkable archaeological find (the Talpiot tomb) that was previously obscure or overlooked by the general public.
It challenges orthodox Christian narratives in a provocative way, raising serious questions (or at least hypothetical possibilities) about early Christian origins, the role of women like Mary Magdalene / Mariamne, and the suppression of alternate memories.
It speaks to those of us outside Christian faith who want a version of biblical history that resonates with feminist, pagan, or heterodox spiritual values — giving us permission to ask “what if” about canonical stories, and to value suppressed voices.
Weaknesses / where it fails (as history / archaeology):
Its core claims rest on a series of interdependent assumptions — about identity of names, inscriptions, relationships — many of which are speculative or unjustified. If any one assumption fails, the overall thesis collapses.
It bypasses the standard academic process (peer-reviewed journals, scholarly debate) and leans heavily on popular media and documentary-style presentation. That undermines the credibility of its conclusions among professional scholars.
The statistical, chemical, and epigraphic arguments invoked have been widely criticized as methodologically unsound or inconclusive.
No corroborating historical texts, early Christian traditions, or non-Christian sources support the idea of Jesus being buried in a family tomb in Jerusalem, married to Mary Magdalene, and fathering children — which, given the magnitude of the claim, is a serious problem.
Thus, while the book remains an interesting, provocative piece of popular literature — and perhaps a useful work for reimagining spiritual history from an alternative vantage — it fails, in my view, as a credible, evidence-based re-writing of early Christian origins.
Personal Reflection: Why I Found It Compelling — and Why I Remain Skeptical (Yet Open)
As someone who does not subscribe to Christian faith, but who is fascinated by ancient history, archaeology, and the possibility of alternate spiritual lineages, “The Jesus Family Tomb” stirred me deeply. The idea that Mary Magdalene (or Mariamne) might have enjoyed a status of power — that the early spiritual movement around Jesus might have been more egalitarian, more inclusive of women, or even matriarchal — appeals to a pagan sense of the divine feminine. The notion that early Christianity could have looked very different, before institutionalization, before empire, before patriarchy fully co-opted the movement — that’s a powerful “what if.”
Yet I remain acutely aware that such emotional or spiritual appeal does not equate to historical truth. The many serious objections leveled by archaeologists, epigraphers, historians cannot be brushed aside simply because the idea is attractive. As of now, the weight of expert opinion leans heavily against the book’s central claims.
In the end, I treat “The Jesus Family Tomb” not as definitive history, but as a provocative hypothesis — a symbolic and imaginative re-visioning of early Christian (or pre-Christian) history that invites us to question orthodox narratives, to honor suppressed voices, and to imagine alternate spiritual lineages. For that alone, I value it — though I remain skeptical of its factual claims.
“The Jesus Family Tomb” recounts and argues for a bold and controversial thesis: that a modest first-century tomb discovered in 1980 in the East Talpiot (Talpiot) neighborhood of Jerusalem — the so-called Talpiot Tomb — is the actual family burial site of the historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth, together with his relatives, including what the authors suggest may have been his wife (or partner) and child.
Inside the tomb had been found ten ossuaries (limestone bone-boxes), six of which bore inscriptions such as “Jesus son of Joseph,” “Mary,” “Mariamne” (or “Mariamne Mara”), “Judah son of Jesus,” “Joseph,” and “Matthew.” The authors — Jacobovici and Pellegrino — claim that this grouping of names is too remarkable to be coincidental: they argue that statistical analysis, chemical/patina analysis of dirt, and even DNA testing (on what remains could be retrieved) support the idea that these ossuaries belonged to a single family.
Crucially, they identify the “Mariamne Mara” ossuary as that of Mary Magdalene (Mariame). They interpret “Mara” not merely as a personal name but as a title — “master” or “teacher” — implying that this Mariamne was a woman of authority. By extension, they argue that “Judah son of Jesus” shows Jesus had a son, which, along with the presence of Mary Magdalene’s ossuary, suggests that Jesus was married and had offspring.
Finally, the book supports the controversial idea that the missing 10th ossuary from the Talpiot tomb — unrecorded in the original 1980 excavation — is in fact the infamous James Ossuary inscribed “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” which had surfaced separately. If true, this would tie together other early-Christian figures tightly to this tomb.
Taken together, Jacobovici and Pellegrino present this as potentially “the greatest archaeological find of all time”: a dramatic re-writing of early Christian origins, suggesting not resurrection but burial, not celibacy but a family line — a version of history radically different from orthodox Christian claims.
For readers drawn to alternative or heterodox approaches — including feminist, pagan, or proto-gnostic leanings — the book offers a tantalizing vision: one where Mary Magdalene / Mariamne could be understood not as a footnote to a patriarchal religion, but as a central figure, a “master,” perhaps even co-equal or heir in a bloodline, challenging orthodox male-dominated narratives.
Scholarly and archaeological response at the time of publication (and immediately after)
From the moment the book and the companion documentary (The Lost Tomb of Jesus) were released in 2007, the reaction from the professional archaeological and biblical-studies community was overwhelmingly negative.
A key critic, Jodi Magness (a well-respected early-Judaism archaeologist), argued that the claims bypassed standard academic procedure: instead of publishing in peer-reviewed journals or discussing the hypothesis in professional forums, the authors opted for media sensationalism.
On the substance: many scholars note that there's no contemporary historical source — no 1st-century text — that describes Jesus being buried in a rock-cut family tomb in Jerusalem; nor is there any early tradition supporting a marriage to Mary Magdalene or a son named Judah.
Other major objections:
The tomb style (a rock-cut tomb with ossuaries) was typical of relatively wealthy Jerusalem families — while Jesus’s family, as described in the Gospels, came from Galilee and were unlikely to own such a tomb.
The ossuary inscriptions give no indication of Galilean origin. In first-century Judean tombs containing non-local individuals, inscriptions would often indicate geographic origin (e.g., “Simon of Berenike”). The absence of such hints is telling.
The “Mariamne Mara” reading as Mary Magdalene is speculative. The name Mariamne was one of several Greek variants of Miriam, and “Mara” could simply be another personal name, not a title meaning “master.”
The claim that the “James Ossuary” originally belonged to Talpiot and thus to the same family is widely rejected. Excavators of the Talpiot tomb (e.g. Amos Kloner) stated that the 10th ossuary was uninscribed; and the owner of the James Ossuary claimed to possess photographic documentation that predates 1980, implying it had nothing to do with the Talpiot find.
Finally, critics argue that the statistical analysis (the “1 in 600” chance, as calculated by the statistician Andrey Feuerverger, that such a cluster of names would occur by chance) depends on many questionable assumptions — about which names to include, about their relative frequencies, about which ossuaries to count, etc. If any assumption is off, the probability dramatically shifts.
In sum, by 2007 most experts considered the “Jesus family tomb” theory a media-driven sensationalism rather than a compelling scholarly hypothesis.
Developments since 2007 & current state of consensus
Over the years since publication, the critical consensus has only hardened. The overwhelming majority of archaeologists, epigraphers, biblical-studies scholars, and historians continue to reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as the burial site of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.
Recent scholarly writing (as late as 2025) still frames the claim as “wrong on every count,” noting that even if one grants all the speculative assumptions, the cumulative weight of improbability remains too great.
Key developments:
The chemical/patina analysis and dirt-composition matching between the Talpiot ossuaries and the James Ossuary, which the filmmakers used to support their claim, have not convinced specialists; many regard those tests as inconclusive or methodologically flawed.
More precise studies of naming patterns, ossuary inscriptions, and burial practices of first-century Judea have reinforced that names like “Jesus,” “Mary,” “Joseph,” “Judah” were extremely common, and that clustering of names—even seemingly “striking” combinations—was not particularly rare, especially in a city as large as Jerusalem.
The epigraphic and linguistic arguments for reading “Mariamne Mara” as Mary Magdalene, with “Mara” as title (rather than just another personal name), are broadly regarded as untenable.
No new corroborating historical sources — no early Christian, Jewish, Roman, or pagan text — have emerged that support the notion of a family tomb for Jesus with Mary Magdalene and children.
In short: while the claim remains alive in popular culture (especially among those drawn to alternative biblical history, gnostic or “bloodline” theories, or conspiracy-style challenges to orthodoxy), among scholars it has failed to gain any serious traction. The current consensus remains that the Talpiot tomb is almost certainly not the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth’s family.
Reflection from a Feminist / Pro-Pagan Perspective: Mary Magdalene, Mariamne, and the Power of the Marginalized
Reading “The Jesus Family Tomb” through a feminist, or pro-pagan, lens — one open to reclaiming marginalized or suppressed voices — I find aspects of Jacobovici and Pellegrino’s narrative sympathetic and provocative, even if ultimately unpersuasive as historical proof. From that vantage, the idea that “Mariamne” could represent Mary Magdalene is deeply alluring. In a patriarchal religious tradition that has minimized her role — casting her sometimes as “just a follower,” worse, as a repentant prostitute — the possibility that she was a respected teacher, a “master,” a founder or leader, and perhaps even a wife or consort worthy of burial with Jesus and a child, resonates powerfully.
If taken as symbolic rather than literal — as an imaginative re-reading of early Christian history in which Mary Magdalene re-emerges as a central, legitimate figure of female spiritual authority — the thesis offers hope for a lineage of holy women, a reclamation of suppressed female spirituality. From a pagan or earth-spiritual perspective, this can be read not just as a historical hypothesis but as a metaphor: a call to re-envision religious origins in a more gender-balanced, matriarchal-friendly light.
In that sense, even if the historical claims ultimately fail, the book serves a valuable role: it destabilizes orthodox, male-dominated Christian narratives, and invites readers — especially those skeptical of institutional religion — to wonder about what was lost, suppressed, or marginalized. It keeps alive a possibility that early Christianity (or pre-Christian spirituality around Jesus) may have had a different shape — one where women like Mary Magdalene / Mariamne played central, formative roles.
That said: as historical reconstruction — especially by a non-academic author — such metaphoric or symbolic appeal cannot substitute for sound evidence. And from a strictly evidentiary perspective, the flaws in their arguments (commonality of names, unjustified assumptions, lack of corroborating texts, dubious reading of inscriptions) remain almost fatal.
In the balance: the book works much better as a cultural/spiritual provocation than as a serious rewrite of early Christian history — which is perhaps fine, given the non-Christian, somewhat paganizing perspective of a reader such as myself.
On the Idea that the “Roman Empire never ended — it became the Roman Catholic Church” and Relevance to This Discussion
Your point about the continuity from the Roman Empire to the modern institution of the Roman Catholic Church touches on a longer-standing argument sometimes invoked in alternative histories: namely, that the structures of power and empire simply metamorphosed rather than disappeared, and that early Christian narratives were shaped (or re-shaped) under that enduring imperial influence.
Viewing “The Jesus Family Tomb” through this lens adds another layer of interest: if indeed the figure of Jesus — and possibly a “bloodline” — existed and was real in a way different from orthodox myth, then revealing (or speculating on) those roots might challenge not just Christian dogma but the institutional power that claims descent from, or continuity with, an older imperial order.
From a pagan / anti-imperial spiritual sensibility: the suggestion that Rome didn’t really fall, but reconfigured itself as the dominant religious institution of Europe, invites us to see Christianity not simply as a spiritual faith, but as political — a continuation of empire under new spiritual-legal guise. In that frame, recovering a more “authentic” Jesus (buried, mortal, with family) might be more than historical curiosity: it might be a symbolic act of de-colonizing spiritual — and political — memory.
Thus, the book acquires a kind of subversive appeal: whether or not its claims are true, its existence (and the reactions to it) reflect the ongoing struggle over religious authority, memory, lineage, and power — issues that resonate deeply with feminist, pagan, or anti-imperial worldviews.
Critical Conclusion: What the Book Does Well — and Where It Fails
Strengths / what the book achieves:
It brings attention to a remarkable archaeological find (the Talpiot tomb) that was previously obscure or overlooked by the general public.
It challenges orthodox Christian narratives in a provocative way, raising serious questions (or at least hypothetical possibilities) about early Christian origins, the role of women like Mary Magdalene / Mariamne, and the suppression of alternate memories.
It speaks to those of us outside Christian faith who want a version of biblical history that resonates with feminist, pagan, or heterodox spiritual values — giving us permission to ask “what if” about canonical stories, and to value suppressed voices.
Weaknesses / where it fails (as history / archaeology):
Its core claims rest on a series of interdependent assumptions — about identity of names, inscriptions, relationships — many of which are speculative or unjustified. If any one assumption fails, the overall thesis collapses.
It bypasses the standard academic process (peer-reviewed journals, scholarly debate) and leans heavily on popular media and documentary-style presentation. That undermines the credibility of its conclusions among professional scholars.
The statistical, chemical, and epigraphic arguments invoked have been widely criticized as methodologically unsound or inconclusive.
No corroborating historical texts, early Christian traditions, or non-Christian sources support the idea of Jesus being buried in a family tomb in Jerusalem, married to Mary Magdalene, and fathering children — which, given the magnitude of the claim, is a serious problem.
Thus, while the book remains an interesting, provocative piece of popular literature — and perhaps a useful work for reimagining spiritual history from an alternative vantage — it fails, in my view, as a credible, evidence-based re-writing of early Christian origins.
Personal Reflection: Why I Found It Compelling — and Why I Remain Skeptical (Yet Open)
As someone who does not subscribe to Christian faith, but who is fascinated by ancient history, archaeology, and the possibility of alternate spiritual lineages, “The Jesus Family Tomb” stirred me deeply. The idea that Mary Magdalene (or Mariamne) might have enjoyed a status of power — that the early spiritual movement around Jesus might have been more egalitarian, more inclusive of women, or even matriarchal — appeals to a pagan sense of the divine feminine. The notion that early Christianity could have looked very different, before institutionalization, before empire, before patriarchy fully co-opted the movement — that’s a powerful “what if.”
Yet I remain acutely aware that such emotional or spiritual appeal does not equate to historical truth. The many serious objections leveled by archaeologists, epigraphers, historians cannot be brushed aside simply because the idea is attractive. As of now, the weight of expert opinion leans heavily against the book’s central claims.
In the end, I treat “The Jesus Family Tomb” not as definitive history, but as a provocative hypothesis — a symbolic and imaginative re-visioning of early Christian (or pre-Christian) history that invites us to question orthodox narratives, to honor suppressed voices, and to imagine alternate spiritual lineages. For that alone, I value it — though I remain skeptical of its factual claims.
April 11, 2008
Imagine stumbling upon the final resting place of Jesus the Christ and his family. This seems something out of speculative fiction or mythology yet that is what the authors purport to have found.
A construction crew working in the Talipot suburb of Jerusalem in the 1980's accidently uncovered a tomb that has been dubbed the tomb of 10 ossuaries, which in and of itself is not miraclous as this occurs frequently.
But what is unsuual were the names inscribed on the ossuaries. The grouping would indicate that this was the final resting place of Jesus, Joseph, Mary, at least one of his brothers and a mysterous Mirianne, who later would be potentially identified as Mary Magedelene (she was known by her Greek name, Mirrianne). There is even a mysterious box of bones containing a Judas (or Judah) son of Jesus.
In all fairness Charles, the statistician does admit it is a 2.2 million to 1 long shot that the tomb is really the Jesus of Legend. Certainly Israeli archeologists dismissed such a connection due to the commonality of the names. One researher remarked you could shout the name, "Mary" in a 1st century Palestinian marketplace and a thousand women would turn their heads so common was the name.
However, our stalwart statistician will tell us that as common as the names were the grouping they are found in at Talipot is rare. In fact it would take the populations of 4 Jerusalems before that pattern would be repeated.
The story told in this book, a companion piece for the Discovery Channel documentary, is interesting and fun only the very credulous of readers would conclude that this is the final resting place of Jesus and company.
Yet it is still a pretty compelling argument and one that will challenge traditional concepts of Jesus death and ressurection. Perhaps he was nothing more than a local messianic teacher (a failed one at that by Jewish standards) upon which later generations would overlay a story of the resurected God-Man
The authors touch upon the short lived practice of secondary burial in 1st century Jerusalem and the significance of ossuary usage. They also give some insight into the Israeli Antiquities Authority and the antiguties business in general.
The book is destined to be contriversial given the large number of people that believe in the physical or bodily ressurection of Jesus and his ascension into heaven as well as the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary. The finding of mortal remains would cast doubt over many long time cherished traditions.
The writing is lively
A construction crew working in the Talipot suburb of Jerusalem in the 1980's accidently uncovered a tomb that has been dubbed the tomb of 10 ossuaries, which in and of itself is not miraclous as this occurs frequently.
But what is unsuual were the names inscribed on the ossuaries. The grouping would indicate that this was the final resting place of Jesus, Joseph, Mary, at least one of his brothers and a mysterous Mirianne, who later would be potentially identified as Mary Magedelene (she was known by her Greek name, Mirrianne). There is even a mysterious box of bones containing a Judas (or Judah) son of Jesus.
In all fairness Charles, the statistician does admit it is a 2.2 million to 1 long shot that the tomb is really the Jesus of Legend. Certainly Israeli archeologists dismissed such a connection due to the commonality of the names. One researher remarked you could shout the name, "Mary" in a 1st century Palestinian marketplace and a thousand women would turn their heads so common was the name.
However, our stalwart statistician will tell us that as common as the names were the grouping they are found in at Talipot is rare. In fact it would take the populations of 4 Jerusalems before that pattern would be repeated.
The story told in this book, a companion piece for the Discovery Channel documentary, is interesting and fun only the very credulous of readers would conclude that this is the final resting place of Jesus and company.
Yet it is still a pretty compelling argument and one that will challenge traditional concepts of Jesus death and ressurection. Perhaps he was nothing more than a local messianic teacher (a failed one at that by Jewish standards) upon which later generations would overlay a story of the resurected God-Man
The authors touch upon the short lived practice of secondary burial in 1st century Jerusalem and the significance of ossuary usage. They also give some insight into the Israeli Antiquities Authority and the antiguties business in general.
The book is destined to be contriversial given the large number of people that believe in the physical or bodily ressurection of Jesus and his ascension into heaven as well as the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary. The finding of mortal remains would cast doubt over many long time cherished traditions.
The writing is lively
February 16, 2018
The problem with this kind of book nowadays, post-Dan Brown anyway, is that many people will dismiss them out of hand as being Da Vinci Code-like. Still, even if the 'real' Jesus turned up nowadays, most Christians wouldn't believe he was the real Jesus. Neither would the archaeologists and/or biblical scholars who have made a very nice living thank you very much out of their view of things being the view. A bit like how Christianity became after Paul. More on that sort of thing at a later date. So, to come from another background than dusty academia, you better have all your scholarly ducks in a row. So, that is what a lot of this book is about. There is the premise, that they have found the tomb of the family of Jesus and then there is the background for that reasoning. To try and head critics off at the pass, they basically play devil's advocate with themselves, the whole time, to try and back up their findings before others try and tear them down.
It works very well, all in all. I'm not sure how respected James Cameron is in these circles, but I maybe would have left him as a shadowy backer, I'd suspect 'the director of Titanic' wouldn't carry much weight in scholarly circles. That the majority of objections come from Jewish scholars, is also good, as I'd assume they'd be more objective (I can't recall, but I think that Simcha is Jewish as well). I think too, that the title, second part, would refer to the fact that it would have been easier, less disruptive to their lives, if they had 'overlooked' the discovery. Maybe so. There is of course, a lot of background to the times when they say the tomb is from and about current Jewish laws and feelings, which is fascinating and equally as strong as the actual arguments for their hypothesis for me.
I used to and have read a lot of 'this sort of thing' in the past and this is perhaps one of the best, most open and non-sensational books I've read on the subjects.
The only book blog you need: Speesh Reads
Now a Facebook Page: Speesh Reads
It works very well, all in all. I'm not sure how respected James Cameron is in these circles, but I maybe would have left him as a shadowy backer, I'd suspect 'the director of Titanic' wouldn't carry much weight in scholarly circles. That the majority of objections come from Jewish scholars, is also good, as I'd assume they'd be more objective (I can't recall, but I think that Simcha is Jewish as well). I think too, that the title, second part, would refer to the fact that it would have been easier, less disruptive to their lives, if they had 'overlooked' the discovery. Maybe so. There is of course, a lot of background to the times when they say the tomb is from and about current Jewish laws and feelings, which is fascinating and equally as strong as the actual arguments for their hypothesis for me.
I used to and have read a lot of 'this sort of thing' in the past and this is perhaps one of the best, most open and non-sensational books I've read on the subjects.
The only book blog you need: Speesh Reads
Now a Facebook Page: Speesh Reads
September 14, 2014
I give this book four stars for being a page-turner, not as an endorsement of its credibility. This is the third book I've read about the discovery in 1980 of a first century tomb in Jerusalem containing ossuaries ascribed to Yeshua bar Yosef; Mariamne, also known as Mara; Maria; Yosa; Yehuda bar Yeshua; Matiah and Yaakov ben Yosef akhui diYeshua. The authors argue that the individuals so designated were Jesus; Mary of Magdala, his wife; Mary, his mother; Jose, his brother; Judah, his son; Matthew, another relative; and James, his brother and head of the organization after his death. The arguments are, presuming the honesty of the authors, at least plausible, though most are contested. What I'd like to do next is read a detailed critique of their books and their documentary on the matter.
January 26, 2014
I'm not into orthodox religion but even I found the evidence given here clear and concise. It amazes me how people can hold onto a dream against tremendous odds and hostility and still come out with evidence that would appear to be irrefutable. A definite read for anyone who has a passing interest in the story of a man who was remarkable for his time. A man who would still be causing huge eruptions across many of our academic disciplines 2000 yrs after his time. Far from being dull and boring the authors have brought the evidence and factual findings down to a laymans level in the hope that anyone who wants to know will find their answers here. I would heartily reccomend this read to everyone from serious scholar to the interested bystander
December 8, 2012
This is a book where you have to let you mind be ready to accept ideas that may be heretical or non-kosher. I like thses kind of books. They try to look at the facts without any sort of agenda, other than discovering the truth.
If you read the DaVinci, read about the Knights Templar and wonder what went on about two thousand yers ago, give this book a look. It may not be Shakespeare. It has two authours and you can tell. Although it would have been a good idea to give us a heads up when naration changes. Even if you do not believe the conclusion, you will still learn something about archealogy, relgion, history and the politics of all three in modern day Isreal.
If you read the DaVinci, read about the Knights Templar and wonder what went on about two thousand yers ago, give this book a look. It may not be Shakespeare. It has two authours and you can tell. Although it would have been a good idea to give us a heads up when naration changes. Even if you do not believe the conclusion, you will still learn something about archealogy, relgion, history and the politics of all three in modern day Isreal.
November 26, 2020
I like Charles Pellegrino but I do not like S. Jacobovici or Cameron as the latter two distort history and the evidence to fit the agenda they want to push.
The Jesus Family Tomb was more of a black mark against Dr. Pellegrino and he should not have been involved with Jacobovici or Cameron in this venture. Everything JAcobovici did was wrong and he should not be allowed anywhere near archaeology. While his Naked Archaeolo9ist series was interesting to a point, he made a fool of himself on more than one occasion and this is another one of those occasions
The Jesus Family Tomb was more of a black mark against Dr. Pellegrino and he should not have been involved with Jacobovici or Cameron in this venture. Everything JAcobovici did was wrong and he should not be allowed anywhere near archaeology. While his Naked Archaeolo9ist series was interesting to a point, he made a fool of himself on more than one occasion and this is another one of those occasions
Read
August 17, 2022Most of this has been debunked or recanted by the experts involved. The book is a lesson in confirmation bias. Cool if it was true but nobody will ever know. If it is, in fact, the greatest archeological discovery ever made, we’d be hearing about it constantly. This is the story of people who loved The Da Vinci Code so much they got someone to pay them to reenact it Raiders of The Lost Ark style.
November 17, 2014
Excellent book. The evidence is all there. Do with it what you will. I don't see why it is so controversial that Jesus was married and had a family. He was Jewish and Rabbis were encouraged to marry. There is nothing wrong with holding on to your beliefs but you cannot discount all the evidence all the time.
December 27, 2009
The book is much better than the tv special. It didn't try to glamorize or put ideas into your head, it just stated the facts and the reasoning. Very informative and I loved the archiological terms and explanations.
Read
August 16, 2008Oh, please! It would have been a bit less annoying had it been better written. Curse my obsessive need to finish any book I start!!!
March 30, 2024
There remain questions as to why they did not go further into the investigation.
August 20, 2024
Insightful and thought provoking
This investigation is so detailed to insure the reader of the tenacity of the men who knew that what they found would be questioned. The systematic research was carefully done to make sure that they covered every rule to satisfy all agencies. This book is not boring at all as some scientific books are. It reads more like a mystery novel. A really very exceptional read. As a Christian I thought I might have a hard time believing what was written. In all actuality I did not find any of it hard to believe. I was more disturbed by how much the "authorities" have hidden so much information that would prove what so many of us believe. Very sad really. I believe everyone should read this book and research what you might question to come to your own conclusion.
This investigation is so detailed to insure the reader of the tenacity of the men who knew that what they found would be questioned. The systematic research was carefully done to make sure that they covered every rule to satisfy all agencies. This book is not boring at all as some scientific books are. It reads more like a mystery novel. A really very exceptional read. As a Christian I thought I might have a hard time believing what was written. In all actuality I did not find any of it hard to believe. I was more disturbed by how much the "authorities" have hidden so much information that would prove what so many of us believe. Very sad really. I believe everyone should read this book and research what you might question to come to your own conclusion.
August 13, 2025
An interesting read.
I can take on faith that the family tomb of Jesus has been discovered. I believe that it is so, to prove to the nay sayers of King Jesus of Nazareth.
I just can't take of faith the web of deceit being woven in the false witness of Jesus & Mary being married and having a son.
The false witness being woven is that, the boy following Jesus after being captured follows him, as a point of logic that the boy is his son. However, on faith, I feel its telling us to follow and stick to Jesus through good and bad times like that of a child would to a trusted adult.
The false witness of woven as more proof that the boy is with Mary at the foot of the cross and Jesus basically saying protect our son. However, on faith, I feel that Jesus is telling them to not miss Him as he will never be far from them, where two or more are gathered together in His name, He will be there. Keep each other accountable.
Is it possible the boy is Mary's child... Maybe... But Jesus Christ is without sin.
Can you show me any proof that Jesus knew Mary as a wife, in any text from Jewish, Ethiopian, The Bible, other scrolls, etc., anything?
Not that I have ever read.
I can take on faith that the family tomb of Jesus has been discovered. I believe that it is so, to prove to the nay sayers of King Jesus of Nazareth.
I just can't take of faith the web of deceit being woven in the false witness of Jesus & Mary being married and having a son.
The false witness being woven is that, the boy following Jesus after being captured follows him, as a point of logic that the boy is his son. However, on faith, I feel its telling us to follow and stick to Jesus through good and bad times like that of a child would to a trusted adult.
The false witness of woven as more proof that the boy is with Mary at the foot of the cross and Jesus basically saying protect our son. However, on faith, I feel that Jesus is telling them to not miss Him as he will never be far from them, where two or more are gathered together in His name, He will be there. Keep each other accountable.
Is it possible the boy is Mary's child... Maybe... But Jesus Christ is without sin.
Can you show me any proof that Jesus knew Mary as a wife, in any text from Jewish, Ethiopian, The Bible, other scrolls, etc., anything?
Not that I have ever read.
October 13, 2024
The Jesus Family Tomb Tries Really Hard
Interesting read. This book tries to sell its premise that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child. It allows that Christianity can exist, and spiritual resurrection and ascension, while physically Jesus could have married, had a child and died. All a win-win. And it’s made credible by James Cameron, as if he were imminently credible. Then the argument descends into would’a, could’a, should’a as to why the science deserves to have been accepted and acclaimed, but wasn’t. Bottom line: the authors haven’t made their case sufficiently, and this is a complaint that that’s the case. On to the next….
Interesting read. This book tries to sell its premise that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child. It allows that Christianity can exist, and spiritual resurrection and ascension, while physically Jesus could have married, had a child and died. All a win-win. And it’s made credible by James Cameron, as if he were imminently credible. Then the argument descends into would’a, could’a, should’a as to why the science deserves to have been accepted and acclaimed, but wasn’t. Bottom line: the authors haven’t made their case sufficiently, and this is a complaint that that’s the case. On to the next….
February 28, 2021
Fascinating read yet I believe much skepticism is needed. Without being an expert or an archeologist, I feel like I was reading many weak conclusions, even as the mystery and discoveries unfolded in such a dramatic and engaging way. Most disturbing were the interpretations of who was part of Jesus’ biological family... there are surely a few schools of thought on this, and it’s clear that the researchers are promoting one. The findings are certainly amazing no matter what the conclusions are.
May 6, 2022
Convincing stuff when put together with the other books on the subject, namely, James D. Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty and Tabor and Jacobovici together in The Jesus Discovery. We very well may have the Tomb of Jesus. It would seem that this idea should be taken seriously, and I plan to look into the rebuttals and the agendas against it (I noticed that a lot of controversy about this is playing out on You Tube.) Well argued in all three of these books, especially Tabor's, who always has a unique and fascinating angle on all things New Testament.
January 10, 2025
I had a hard time putting this book down. I found it a very interesting subject with archaeological evidence. Although I am not sure I believe this based on my Christian beliefs, I found the topic compelling. It has made me think about some aspects of my faith to see the varying options and interpretations among them.
September 1, 2018
واحد من اروع وامتع الكتب التي قراتها في حياتي ممتع لدرجة انك لا ترغب في ترك الكتاب الي ان تلتهمه دفعة واحده يطرح الكثير من الاسئله ويعطي اجابات وتلميحات تطلق كلما بك من فضول ونهم لمعرفة شئ مختلف وجديد عن ما تعارف عليه الجميع
May 6, 2025
DNF. This was kinda boring for me. It was scientist and Hollywood making the case that Jesus was married to Mary and had a son because of names on ossuaries and locations. That's what I heard with one ear. Narration wasn't bad. The story just didn't grab me.
Read
December 23, 2017Mind blowing to me was how they stumbled on it in the first place...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 77 reviews