There is a substantial quantity of background material available to the interested non-specialist. In using this
material the reader should be aware that most of this material has been prepared by persons who are clearly
either supporters or critics of the proposition. In many cases, it is clear that the religious beliefs of certain
authors have heavily influenced there opinions. The reader can decide on a case-by-case basis whether on not
that is a good thing.
For those interested in material beyond the references given below, one can easily enter the search terms
“talpiot tomb” or “Jesus tomb” into your search engine or at your favorite bookseller and find a large quantity of
added material.
Following are some useful sources, sampling from both sides of the argument. For several references the editor
has supplied a potential link to the material on the internet. While an effort has been made to confirm these
links, readers may find that some of them are not operative, for which the editor apologizes in advance.
1. Tabor James D. (2009), TaborBlog, http://jamestabor.com/blog/
James Tabor (Ph.D. 1981, University of Chicago) is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte. In his blog Dr. Tabor has several posts which relate to various aspects
of the Talpiot Tomb. They are organized under the category “Talpiot Jesus Family Tomb ”. Several of the “line
of argument guides” will reference specific posts from Dr. Tabor’s blog.
See in particular - http://jamestabor.com/2007/04/29/the-talpiot-tomb-separating-truth-from-fiction/
2. Tabor, James D. (2007), Testing a hypothesis, Near Eastern Archaeology 69: 3-4,
http://jamestabor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/TalpiotNEA-Tabor.pdf
In this article Tabor examines how the Talpiot Tomb fits with what could be expected from a hypothetical Jesus
family tomb. This paper molds much of the material found in his blog into an argument for the possibility that the
Talpiot tomb is the family tomb of Jesus. One may still want to read through his blog as it adds a good deal of
flavor to his arguments.
3. Jacobovichi, Simcha and Pelligrino Charles, (2008) , The Jesus Family Tomb: The Evidence Behind the
Discovery No One Wanted to Find, Harper, San Francisco
This book presents the most comprehensive review of the facts and arguments in favor of the proposition that
the Talpiot Tomb is the family tomb of Jesus. This book updates a 2007 treatment of this subject under a similar
name.
See the http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com which is a website for both the 2007 version of the book and a film (see
below)
4. Jacobovichi, Simcha and Cameron, James, (2007), The Lost Tomb of Jesus,
This documentary, told in docudrama style, is basically a companion to the book – “The Jesus Family Tomb”.
This material is available in multiple formats:
Website: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html
DVD: http://store.discovery.com/detail.php?a=DSC-65159#tabs
DVD(Directors Cut): http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Tomb-Jesus/dp/B000OHZJSC/ref=sr_1_1?
ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1257087471&sr=8-1
5. Gibson, Shimon, (2009), The Final Days of Jesus, Harper, San Francisco
Gibson provides a rich account of the final days in the life of Jesus that is anchored in archaeological evidence.
The book concludes with an Excursus that provides an overview of the Talpiot Tomb and a brief explanation of
why Gibson does not accept the Talpiot Tomb as the family tomb of Jesus.
6. Amaral, Joe and Atkins, Chris, (2007), Unearthed: The Talpiot Tomb, Legacy Pictures, Milton, Ontario
This DVD documentary reviews many of the arguments for and against the Talpiot Tomb and generally comes to
the conclusion that it is unlikely that the Talpiot Tomb is the family tomb of Jesus. Available at:
http://www.amazon.com/Unearthed-The-Talpiot-Tomb-Dvd/dp/B002EEV74S/ref=sr_1_3?
ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1257087689&sr=8-3
7. Habermas, Gary, The Secret of the Talpiot Tomb (2007), Holman Reference, Nashville
This short book provides a broad set of criticisms of the Talpiot Tomb proposition. The author generally employs
arguments based on history, but he also incorporates his religious views of the resurrection into his criticism.
Habermas, Gary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus: A Response to the Discovery Channel Documentary, http://www.
garyhabermas.com/articles/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus/losttombofjesus_response.htm
This web article is basically a summary of the arguments made in his book.
8. Shanks, Hershel and Witherington, Ben, (2003),The Brother of Jesus, Harper, San Francisco
This book provides the basic facts and historical context surrounding the James Ossuary.
9. Tabor, James D. (2006), The Jesus Dynasty, Simon and Shuster, New York
This book offers an interpretation of the life of Jesus and the origins of Christianity. Of particular relevance to the
Talpiot Tomb, Tabor provides a detailed examination of the family of Jesus, giving us one point-of-view about
who we might expect to find buried in a Jesus family tomb.
10. Lutgen, Jerry, The Talpiot Tomb: What are the Odds?, (2009), (click here)
This essay demonstrates that the wide range in odds estimates offered by several authors is due to differences
in historical, archeological or epigraphic assumptions employed by these authors, as opposed to disagreements
over statistical methodology. Please note that Lutgen is the editor for this site.
11. Feuerverger, Andrey, Statistical Analysis of an Archeological Find, The Annals of Applied Statistics,
Volume 2, No. 1, March 2008
http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handle=euclid.aoas/1206367805
Feuerverger provides an extensive review of the background material that is relevant to making an odds
estimate. He further proposes an essentially new method for dealing with this type of name data based on the
concept of “surprisingness. He presents odds estimates that make a strong case that the Talpiot Tomb is the
family tomb of Jesus.
12. Elliott, Mark and Kilty, Kevin, Probability, Statistics and the Talpiot Tomb, June 10, 2007, www.lccc.
wy/index.aspx?page=547
This paper uses the same basic data as Feuerverger, but makes its calculations using a simpler but roughly
similar approach as Feuerverger. However, they differ from Freuerverger on some important historical and
archaeological assumptions. Their odds estimates essentially show that there are neither strong odds for or
against the proposition. This paper also includes a useful discussion of the Dominus Flevit necropolis.
13. Ingermanson, Randall, Analysis of the Talpiot Tomb Using Bayes Theorem and Random Variables,
January 3, 2008, http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/aoas/99g/supplement.pdf
As with Elliott and Kilty, this paper uses a variation on the method employed by Feuerverger. It also bases it
estimates on its own set of historical and archeological assumptions. Ingermanson’s odds estimates essentially
show that there are strong odds against the proposition that the Talpiot Tomb is the family tomb of Jesus.
14. Arnold, Philip (2009), Talpiot and Jesus Christ, Reunion Institute, Houston (click here)
This unpublished paper develops the argument that the Talpiot tomb can not be the burial location because if it
had it would have been know and it would have altered the course of Christian history.
15. Wilson, Barrie (2008), How Jesus Became a Christian, Saint Martin’s Press, New York
This book demonstrates how early Christianity, as spearheaded by Paul, was distinct from the Jesus movement
centered in Jerusalem and under the initial leadership of James.
16. Schonfield, Hugh (1965), The Passover Plot, Bantam Books, New York
This book was among the first to popularize the theory that Jesus did not die while on the cross and that he
was essentially involved in a “plot” to fulfill prophesies associated with the Messiah, while still surviving the cross.
His theory, taken as a whole, is now regarded as highly speculative by most experts. However his book opens up
some interesting possibilities regarding the modus operandi of Jesus and provides useful insights into the world
in which Jesus operated.
17. Tabor, James D. (2007), Testing a hypothesis, Near Eastern Archaeology 69:3-4, http://jamestabor.
com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/TalpiotNEA-Tabor.pdf
In this general background paper on the Talpiot Tomb, Tabor provides his reasoning in support for 1) the
“Yeshua bar Yosef” reading, 2) associating Yoseh with a brother of Jesus, 3) associating Maraimene with Mary
Magdalene and 4) associating Marya with Mary the mother of Jesus.
Readers may also want to search the Tabor blog under these names in order to find more detailed information
regarding each one.
18. Pfann, Stephen, 2007, Mary Magdalene in Now Missing, University of the Holy Land,
http://www.uhl.ac/MariameAndMartha/
Pfann provides a detailed discussion as to why the so-called Mariamene inscription should be read as “Mariame
and Martha”.
19. Pfann, Stephen, (200&), How do you solve a problem like Maria,
http://www.uhl.ac/Lost_Tomb/HowDoYouSolveMaria/
Pfann argues that “Maria” is not as rare as proponents claim and is no more likely a name for the mother of
Jesus than the name “Mariam”.
20. Pfann, Stephen, (2008)Yoseh can you see?, University of the Holy Land, http://www.uhl.ac/blog/?p=448
Pfann argues that no certainty can be attached to the association of the “Yoseh” inscription with a brother of
Jesus.
(Note: that the link to Pfann’s alternate rendering of the Yeshua inscription is no longer available.)
21. Bovon, Francis, Harvard Divinity School, Letter to the Society of Biblical Literature, http://www.sbl-site.
org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=656
In this short letter Bovon clarifies his position regarding the Mariamene ossuary. Proponents used Bovon as a
source for associating Mary Magdalene with this name. Bovon states that this association should be regarded as
literary rather than historical.
22. Pond, Wendy, (2007), Guest Post on Sorting out the Marys, TaborBlog
http://jamestabor.com/2008/02/23/guest-post-on-sorting-out-the-marys/
In this post on the TaborBlog, Pond makes the case that the New Testament is unwittingly telling us that Mary
Magdalene was very likely the wife of Jesus.
23. Tabor, James (2007), Was Jesus Married?, TaborBlog
In this post Tabor makes the case for Jesus being married.
http://jamestabor.com/2007/05/01/was-jesus-married/
24. Tabor, James (2007), The Talpiot Tomb: Separating Truth from Fiction, TaborBlog
The referenced blog makes a general argument for the possibility that Talpiot tomb is the family tomb of Jesus.
See paragraph #12 for Tabors argument that Jesus could have had a son.
http://jamestabor.com/2007/04/29/the-talpiot-tomb-separating-truth-from-fiction/
25. Byrne, Ryan and Mcnary-Zak, Bernadette, Resurrecting the Brother of Jesus, UNC Press, 2009
In addition to reviewing the evidence against the authenticity of the “James Ossuary”, the authors provide
interesting material about the role of archeological finds and the manner in which they are dealt with in our
society.
26. Elliott, Mark, Bible and Interpretation (website), http://www.bibleinterp.
com/articles/James_Ossuary_essays.shtml
This website offers a section that is largely dedicated to articles related to the “James Ossuary”, although it also
includes some material on the Jehoash Tablet. Readers will find and interesting give-and-take on a variety of
subjects related to the “James Ossuary”.
27. Witherington, Ben, Ben Witherington Blog,
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/05/ossuary-rises-from-patina-dust-latest.html
This entry points to a series of blog entries relating to the authenticity of the “James Ossuary”. Of particular
interest in Witherington’s comments of the report from a Professor Krombein which criticizes the IAA report that
called the authenticity of the “James Ossuary” into question.
28. Kalman, Mathew, James Ossuary Trial Jerusalem Blog,
http://jamesossuarytrial.blogspot.com/2009/02/ancient-seal-discovered-by-israel.html
This is the blog of the only journalist who has followed the details of the entire trial against Oded Golan.
29. Shanks, Herschel, Israel Antiquities Authority vs. Conspiracy of (Alleged) Forgers,
http://www.bib-arch.org/debates/antiquities-trial-00.asp
This link points to a collection of articles related mostly to the James Ossuary forgery trial of Oded Golan.
Shanks expresses the belief that the trial is near collapse and that Golan will be exonerated of charges related to
the James Ossuary.
30. Lutgen, Gerald, Did the set of names from the Talpiot tomb arise by chance?, 2010, (click here)
Lutgen makes it clear that the names found in the Talpiot tomb did not arise by chance. There could be many
reasons for this non-chance occurrence, only one of which is that the Talpiot tomb is the family tomb of Jesus.
This result is important because many of those opposed to the Talpiot tomb as the family tomb of Jesus often
state that the names found in the tomb must have arisen out of chance given that individually some of these
names are common.
31. Magness, Jodi, Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered, March 5 2007, http://www.archaeological.
org/webinfo.php?page=10408
Magness makes several arguments agains the Talpiot tomb, including that the family would either have been
buried in Galilee or that they would have been too poor to afford a large rock-hewn tomb of the Talpiot type in
Jerusalem.
32. Kilty, Kevin, Elliott, Mark. Talpiot Dethroned", http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/talpiot357921.shtml
The article reviews many of the arguments given against the Talpiot tomb and it challenges many of them. In
particular it contains a nice discussion of the importance of the Yoseh inscription and how this impacts the
argument that names in the Talpiot tomb arose by chance.
33. Shanks, Hershel, et al, Jerusalem Forgery Conference(aka "Real of Fake") , 2007, Biblical Archaeology
Society, http://www.bib-arch.org/e-books/barcompanion-forgery.asp
This is the report of a conference convened by the BAS in 2007 for the purpose of reviewing evidence of forgery
relating to several important but contested artifacts, including the James Ossuary. Hershel Shanks, BAS editor,
prepared a summary of the conference in which he concludes that the James Ossuary is most likely authentic,
even while expressing concern regarding its association with Oden Golan, a suspected forger. The report also
contains a extensive appendix in which the conference attendees express their views on the artifacts. The
opinions of the expert physical scientists and epigraphers generally support the conclusions of the editor
34. Netzarim website,http://www.netzarim.co.il/Museum/Sukkah03/Burning%20Issues%20Talpiot%20Tomb.
htm
This website is brought to you by the Netzarim who make the following claim for themselves: "The Netzarim are
the only followers of Ribi Yәhoshua as Mashiakh on the planet since 135 C.E. (!) who are in good standing in the
same community in which Ribi Yәhoshua and the original Netzarim lived, practiced and taught — i.e., recognized
by Pharisaic (today's Orthodox) rabbis as Jews and geirim in good standing." Their site offers a very extensive
review of the Talpiot tomb and its associated issues. The reader will also find that the site has a definite point-of-
view that at a simple level would be described as favorable to the Talpiot tomb being the family tomb of Jesus.
However, it really strives to make a much bigger historical point about the nature of Jesus (Ribi Yәhoshua) and
the original Netzarim. Even if the reader does not accept the religious and historical point-of-view of the site, you
will still find it interesting and thought provoking, A starting point into the site has been offered in the reference.
However, the site can be somewhat difficult to navigate,so some patience on your part will be required to fully
explore its relevant content.
35. Krumbein, Wolfgang, Preliminary Report: External Expert Opinion on three Stone Items, September 2005,
http://www.orientalisti.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Krumbein_2005.pdf
Professor Krumbein studied the physical properties of the James Ossuary, along with two other stone items, and
issued this detailedreport regarding the likelihood that these items were modern forgeries. In the case of the
Jesus ossuary Krumbein concluded that there is no physical evidence that points to the James Ossuary as being
a modern forgery. Furthermore he concludes that this ossuary was held outside of a cave environment for a
period in excess of 150 years.
36. Rosenfeld, Amnon, Feldman, Howard, Archaeometric Overview of the Jehoash Inscription and the James
Ossuary, January 2007 (click here)
This document is a companion to the Jersalem Forgery Conference. In this report the authors show pictoral
evidence for why they do not believe that the James Ossuary is a modern forgery.
37. Baigent, Michael, et al, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, 1982, Dell, New York
This book presents evidence that a shadowy French group called the Prieure de Sion in some form represents a
bloodline of Jesus through Mary Magdalen rooted in what is now Provence. It presents evidence that well back
into the dark ages through to this day there has existed organized groups who have held such beliefs. It
attempts to weave together tales involving the Knights Templars, Cathars, alchemy, Merovingian royalty, Mary
Magdalen devotees and others into this story. While some of this material has been shown to be misinterpreted
or driven by hoaxes, this book still succeeds at convincing the reader that there has been adherents to a core
idea of a bloodline of Jesus through Mary Magdalen for a very long time.
38. Starbird, Margaret, The Woman with the Alabaster Jar, Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail, Bear & Co.,
Rochester NY
This book picks up on themes raised in the Holy Blook, Holy Grail. It focusses heavily on the sometimes hidden
or obscured symbology of the late dark ages and early Renesaince that demonstrates that major, but evolving
groups held the belief that a bloodline of Jesus through Mary Magdalen was rooted in what is now the Provence
region of France.