The Tomb is Still Empty

He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
~Matthew 28:6

When the angel said these words to the women who came to see Jesus in the tomb, the angel was making the point that Jesus is not in the tomb. Rather, He has risen victorious over death, and through His death we are redeemed. The women could enter the tomb (as Peter and the other disciple did) and see that his burial cloths were still in the tomb, but Jesus was no longer lying there. This great event has been the center of the Christian faith ever since -- Jesus is not there and His tomb would never contain Him.

2,000 years later, a certain group of filmmakers led by Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron, tried to put Jesus back into the tomb by speculating that the bone box that they found in a tomb near Jerusalem (the Talipot tomb) was actually the tomb of the Jesus who Christians have faithfully proclaimed rose from the dead. Using evidence found in the tomb, they tried to make the case that the Talipot tomb was the Jesus family tomb -- a tomb that also contained the remains of Mary Magdalene.

Many people and organizations (of which the CADRE was a minor but proud contributor), including many scholars, immediately responded by pointing out numerous flaws in the evidence and the logic that led Mr. Jacobovici and Mr. Cameron to reach such a staggering conclusion. But despite the on-rush of objections, there always remained the test of time: would history vindicate Jacobovici, Cameron and their seemingly outrageous claims?

Well, history rarely renders its judgments very quickly, but it certainly can give a strong indication as to which way it will go. In the case of the Talipot tomb, an article in the National Review Online entitled Not Dead Yet: The Lost of Tomb of Jesus — one year later by Thomas Madden demonstrates fairly conclusively that it is extremely unlikely that history will be kind to Jacobovici. The article notes many of the reasons that the community strongly came out and rejected the arguments of Jaocobici and Cameron. It notes how scholars whose work was used in the documentary made written responses claiming that "their remarks had been mischaracterized or falsified."

Ultimately, the Jesus Family Tomb theory found little support by any significant groups. It's most viable potential audience -- people who believe all kinds of religious conspiracy theories -- were already committed to the belief that Jesus never existed in the first place so they couldn't back the idea that the Talipot tomb was the tomb of the actual Jesus of Nazareth without admitting that He was an actual person. In short, the film and book were pretty much considered (as Mr. Madden correctly notes) the religious version of "cold fusion."

Madden goes further and notes that the Jesus tomb is now a year old, and the situation hasn't improved for Jacobovici and Cameron's theory.

Over the past year, the scholarly consensus on the tomb has become virtually unanimous. As Dr. Jodi Magness of the Archaeological Institute of America wrote, the documentary’s claim is “inconsistent with all of the available information - historical and archaeological — about how Jews in the time of Jesus buried their dead, and specifically the evidence we have about poor, non-Judean families like that of Jesus. It is a sensationalistic claim without any scientific basis or support."

The article goes on to conclude (quite appropriately):

In time, though, the Lost Tomb of Jesus and its parent, The Da Vinci Code, will fade away, joining the long parade of past pseudo-history fads like Erich Von Daniken’s Chariot of the Gods? and Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision.

The Jesus Tomb Hoax

Last year, a book with accompanying film entitled "The Jesus Tomb" claimed that the burial box of Jesus -- the same Jesus revered as the risen Savior by millions of Christians -- had been found. Published on this blog were several articles (many of which can be found here) that contained arguments and resources for reasonably concluding that the claims by the authors/filmmakers were . . . well, more than a bit forced. As time has passed, it seems to me that few people, if anyone, still claims that this particular tomb at Talipot was the tomb of the same Jesus, son of Joseph, who is revered in the Bible.

Now, apparently some new filmmakers have decided to follow in the footsteps of the original film and book. They have chosen to re-examine the evidence and in the process interview the very same experts that the original filmmakers used to buttress their rather weak arguments. The result of these new filmmakers' efforts is a new documentary film entitled "The Jesus Tomb Hoax". The trailer for the upcoming film can be seen here.

The trailer seems to suggest that the original filmmakers parsed the words of the experts used in the original film in a way that was not agreeable to those experts. This is a rather serious charge which, if true, would mean that there was not even an attempt to review the evidence honestly and with integrity. While I was personally critical of the original book and film because I think that it erred in many ways, I don't recall claiming that the filmmakers were outright manipulating the evidence to drive an agenda. If this trailer supports what it seems to say about the misuse of the evidence and experts, then absent an apology from Mr. Jacobovici, Mr. Cameron and the others involved in the making of the original film, they have proven themselves to be little more than snake-oil salesmen.

A Better Documentary on the So-Called Jesus Tomb

Earlier this year, the discovery of the so-called Jesus Tomb caused a lot of people to conclude that the body of Jesus had been found along with the body of Mary Magdalene. For our part, we tried to bring some reason back to the discussion with various posts about the finding showing what a huge leap had to be made from the discovery to the labelling of these bone boxes (and bones, in some cases) the bodies of Mary Magdalene and Jesus. You can find some of our comemnts here, here, here, here, here and here. Others have done marvelous jobs of showing that this alleged finding was not what the filmmakers claimed and that most archaeologists rejected their claims outright.

Now, there is a new documentary by Martin Himel that further demonstrates the failure of the original Jesus Tomb documentary filmmakers to make their case. Another take on the 'Jesus tomb' reveals that Mr. Himel has prepared a documentary entitled "Archaeological Minefields" which examines the claims of the original Jesus Tomb documentary and shows that the former was quite limited.

In his work, Himel found two ossuaries with the inscription "Jesus, son of Joseph," even though the impression in Jacobovici's film was that the inscription was unique.

Perhaps the most damning of Himel's findings is that ossuaries were routinely reused over several generations, and that the 10 ossuaries in the Jesus tomb may have held up to 35 separate sets of bones. In the film, archaeologist Joe Zias calls it "intellectually dishonest" to suggest each box held one set of bones.

That means the inscriptions found on the ossuaries do not necessarily represent a nuclear family, as implied in Jacobovici's film. It also indicates that results of DNA tests on bone fragments in the boxes labelled "Jesus" and "Mary Magdalene" are largely meaningless. The results had suggested the people were married, since they weren't related.

"This obviously becomes an issue with DNA," says Himel, who says in the film that Jacobovici is criticized by experts for trying to prove a "pre-existing conclusion."

The reasons to doubt the certainty of the original documentary keep piling up.

("Archaeological Minefields" aired November 12, 2007 on Vision TV. I hope that it is rebroadcast in the future since it sounds as if it was quite informative.)

The James Ossuary Trial Continues

At the time of the last update regarding the James Ossuary, several co-defendants had pleaded guilty to charges of fraud and the trial of Oded Golan -- owner of the James Ossuary -- had begun. (It should be noted that the co-defendants who plead guilty to fraud were apparently not involved in the possession or presentation of the James Ossuary and most were not connected to Mr. Golan). An expert witness for the prosecution had caused a stir by testifying that the James Ossuary was authentic. There was also talk of a picture of the James Ossuary dating from the 70's showing the inscription on it.

Now that almost ten months have passed, where does the trial stand?

The Pictures

The rumor about pictures dating from the 70's appear to be true. At least, copies of the pictures were given to the press and they will be submitted as evidence during the trial. However, can you see the inscription on the pictures and are they themselves authentic? Here is how Haartez describes the pictures:

In the defense's photographs, dated 1976, the ossuary is shown on a shelf, apparently in Golan's home. In an enlargement, the whole inscription can be seen with great difficulty. The photo was examined by Gerald Richard, a former FBI agent and an expert for the defense. Richard testified that "Nothing was noted that would indicate or suggest that they were not produced in March 1976 as indicated on the stamps appearing on the reverse side of each print."

So, the pictures may be authentic. But if they are, how do they help Mr. Golan's case? The argument is that no one would forge the inscription in 1976 and then wait almost 30 years to try and profit from it. This makes some sense and may play havoc with the prosecution's time line. This is all the more problematic because the indictment accuses Mr. Golan of forging part of the inscription "recently."

It should also be noted that there may be an extra incentive for forging pictures of the purported forged inscription. Not only does it help Mr. Golan's case, but the law in Israel states that any antiquities found after 1978 are the property of the state.

The Pantina

Pantina is a chemical compound that is often found on ancient artifacts and can be useful in dating objects or testing their authenticity. It has become an issue in the James Ossuary trial because the prosecution admits that most of the inscription on the ossuary is genuine, but alleges that Mr. Golan added, "brother of Jesus" to make the connection to the biblical James. If this is true, one would expect the pantina formation on "brother of Jesus" to be of more recent origin. Apparently, a prosecution witness -- Prof. Yuval Goren -- admitted on cross-examination that there is "genuine ancient patina" on two letters of the name "Jesus" on the ossuary. This would count against a modern forgery.

A Connection to the Jesus Tomb?

Perhaps the most remarkable but least trustworthy news lately about the James Ossuary is that it actually came from the sensationalized Jesus Tomb. James Cameron's "special" made this allegation. In fact, the Jesus Tomb theory itself has fallen apart and is not taken seriously by the academic community and the connection with the James Ossuary is even more tenuous. In short, there is nothing to the claim. For more, just search for Jesus Tomb and BK's posts on the subject will bring you up to speed.

Why is it Taking so Darn Long?

Oded Golan was indicted in December 2004. Trial was supposed to begin on May 19, 2005, but was delayed until September 4, 2005, after the defense complained that the prosecution produced evidence on the eve of trial. So we are two years plus five months from the indictment and over a year and a half from the beginning of trial. In the United States, once a trial starts, it generally continues more or less consecutively and rarely lasts more than a few weeks. Not so in Israel.

Probably the key factor in the length of this trial is the lack of a jury. The judge will decide the issue (as is the rule in Israel). In my experience, this leads to longer trials not shorter (in calendar days, not necessarily in court hours). With a jury there is always the pressure to get it done so the 14 jurors (usually there are two alternates) can get back to there lives. Not so with judges. Especially this judge, apparently. The trial plan was for the judge to hear witnesses on two days for each of the first six months. The initial plan called for 126 prosecution witnesses, which at the rate they were proceeding would have put the trial at lasting between 10 and 15 years. No one expects it to take that long, but that should give you an idea of why this is taking so long.

Jesus Tomb backtracking continues

The Jerusalem Post put up a story last week, April 11th, concerning various pro-J-Tomb advocates racheting back a bit on their claims, under pressure from critics on every side of the aisle.

This is somewhat different than cases where a scholar was interviewed for the film and then later revealed that they were taken out of context. This is more like statistician Professor Andrey Feuerverger trying to come up with a more realistic way of keeping that 600:1 odds number (and commissioning alterations to a J-Tomb page on the Discovery Channel website); or DNA scientist Dr. Carney Matheson revising his original statement that "these two individuals [i.e. Jesus bar Joseph and Mary / Mara], if they were unrelated, would most likely be husband and wife."

In addition, Professor Francois Bovon--quoted in the film as saying the enigmatic ossuary inscription "Mariamne" is the same woman known as Mary Magdalene--has now issued a disclaimer. I'm not _entirely_ sure this counts as an actual retraction, instead of clarification of convenient miscontext by the filmmakers; but there's some of that, too, from Harvard university professor Frank Moore Cross.

(I'm being vague about the results because it's the Jerusalem Post's story and I don't want to scoop them on it. Details can be found here. Though I think the details aren't going to be all that surprising to anyone who has been keeping up with the crits. {wry g})

Hat tip to s8int.com for the info!

The King of Stories -- Anastasis

Introductory note from Jason Pratt: see here for the previous entry; and see here for the first entry of the series. (It explains what I'm doing, and how, and contains the Johannine prologue.)


An earlier guest author for the Cadre, Anne A. Kim, aka "Weekend Fisher", has also compiled a slightly different, and slightly more traditional {g}, way of solving for the Resurrection ranges, so to speak, here.]



Anastasis


...now look!--a severe earthquake occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and wallowed away the stone and sat on top of it...

...and his appearance was like lightning, and his garment was white as snow...

...and the guards shook for fear of him...

...and became like dead men...


.......

Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene is coming early to the tomb (along with someone else, apparently; the Disciple says that this is "the other Mary", maybe meaning Mary the mother of James and Joses whom he had previously mentioned), while it is still dark--

and she sees the stone (already) lifted from the tomb!

And so she is running

and is coming to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus was loving,

and is saying to them:

"They have taken away the Master out of the tomb--and we do not know where they have laid Him!"

So Peter and the other disciple went forth, going to the tomb; and the two were racing alike; but the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter, and so came first to the tomb (says the Evangelist).

Now stooping, and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he didn't go in.

So Simon Peter is also coming, following him, and entered the tomb; and he is seeing the linen wrappings lying here, and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but folded up in a place by itself. (i.e. where it had been tying the jaws together so that they wouldn't go slack during the interment.)

The other disciple, who had first come to the tomb, also entered then.

And he saw; and he believed--for they did not yet understand the scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. (i.e. the Beloved Disciple now understood, or even already understood and was expecting this; but Peter and the others didn't yet.)

So the disciples went away again, to their own places (or homes).


.......

Now on the first day of the week, very early, the women who had come with Him from Galilee are coming to the tomb when the sun was risen, bringing spices that they might anoint Him.

And they were saying to one another, "Who will wallow away the stone for us, from the entrance of the tomb??"

Yet looking up--they are seeing the stone had been wallowed away (already, i.e. for them), for it was extremely large.

But when they entered--they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

Now it happened that while they were being perplexed about this--

look! Two men stand by them, dressed in dazzling attire!

...as they entered the tomb, they saw one young man, sitting at the right (where the body would have lain), having been clothed in a white robe (says the Follower instead...)

And they (the women) were overawed.

And as the terrified women bowed their faces to the ground, they (the figures) spoke to them:

"Why do you seek the Living One among the dead?" (said one)

"Do not be overawed!" (said the young man) "I know you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified! He has risen; he is not here! See? Here is the place where they laid him!"

"Remember how He spoke to you, while He was still in Galilee," (said one) "saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."

And they remembered His words...

...and they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them...

"Now go quickly and tell his disciples he has risen--and Peter!" (called the young man) "Tell them: 'He is going before you into Galilee! You will see him there, just as he said to you (Thursday night on the way to Geth Semane)!' See!--I have told you...!!"



...but they told no one, not a thing (says the Follower).

For they were fearing--

[Note: here the Follower's text abruptly ends...]


.......

Now Mary (Magdalene) was standing outside the tomb weeping (continues the Evangelist, sometime after the Beloved Disciple and Peter had departed); and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb...

--and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and one at the feet.

And they are saying to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?"

She is saying to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord... and I do not know where they have laid him."

When she had said this, she turned around

(away from these two remarkable figures--who are far more restrained than what had frightened the other women so?? Or perhaps she suddenly realized the question hadn't come from them...)

and sees Jesus standing there

but did not know that it was Jesus.

Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?"

Supposing Him to be the groundskeeper, she is saying to Him:

"Sir!--if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away...!"

(evidently Jesus makes no reply, and Mary turns to go)

Jesus is saying to her: "Miriam!"

She is turning and saying to Him in Hebrew:

"Rabboni!!"

which is to say, 'Teacher' (explains the Evangelist).

Jesus is saying to her: "Touch Me not!--for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to My brethren, and say to them: 'I am going up to My Father, and to your Father, and My God, and your God!'"

Mary the Magdalene is coming to His disciples (then), saying "I have seen the Lord!"--and that these things He said to her.


.......

Now look!--Jesus met (Mary Magdalene and the other Mary?), saying "Rejoice!!"

And they came up and took hold of His feet, and worshiped Him.

So Jesus is saying to them:

"Stop fearing!--go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they shall see Me."

And they ran with great joy to tell it to the disciples.


.......

Now while they (the various women) were on their way...

Look!--some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened.

And when they had assembled with the elders and counseled together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said:

"You are to say: 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.'

"And if this should come to the ears of the governor (Pilate), we will win him over, and make you free from worry."

And they took the money,

and did as they were instructed,

and this story (says the Disciple) was widely spread among the Jews,

to this day.


...but many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised (noted the Disciple, from earlier in his account),

and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection (the Disciple clarified), they entered the holy city and appeared to many.


Matthew 27:53
Matthew 28:1-15
Mark 16:1-8
Luke 24:1-8
John 20:1-18

[Next time: Returns]

The King of Stories -- And On That Day He Rested

Introductory note from Jason Pratt: see here for the previous entry; and see here for the first entry of the series. (It explains what I'm doing, and how, and contains the Johannine prologue.)


And On That Day He Rested

(The storytellers continue in harmony...)

Now when all the groups who had come together for this sight, observed what had happened, they began to return (to the city), beating their breasts (in grief).

And many women were there; who had followed Jesus from Galilee, waiting on Him--among whom was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and Joseph, and Salome the mother of the sons of Zebedee. They stood at a distance, with all His acquaintances, seeing these things.


.......

Now, after these things, as evening was already coming...

Look!--a rich man from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, named Joseph! A good and fair-minded man, a prominent member of the Sanhedrin, who himself had been a disciple of Jesus and who was waiting for the kingdom of God.

He had not consented to their plan and action (explains the Scholar)--but he had only supported Jesus privately, out of fear of the Jews (adds the Evangelist, meaning Jewish leaders.)

This man had gathered courage, and gone in before Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

Now Pilate marvels, if Jesus is dead already; and summoning the centurion, he questioned him as to whether He was dead long ago. And he ascertains this from the centurion.

So Pilate ordered it to be given over to Joseph.


Now Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, newly bought.

And Nicodemus also came (adds the Evangelist)--the one who first had come to Him by night--bringing a package of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds in weight.

And so they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.

Now in the area where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been laid. This tomb was Joseph's, which he had (had) carved out in the rock.

So on account of the Jewish day of preparation, because this tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

And Joseph wallowed a large stone against the entrance of the tomb, and went away.

[Plotnote: Joseph probably did not intend for Jesus to stay in this tomb, except over the Passover weekend. The shelves which are mentioned here were used for letting the body decay down to the bones, which would then be interred in an ossuary box. The myrrh and aloes, aside from having nice symbolic value, were intended to help keep the smell down a little.]

But Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, the mother of Joses; they had followed after, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid, and were sitting opposite the grave.

Now they returned (to the city), and when the Sabbath was over (at sundown on Saturday) they bought and prepared spices and perfumes, that they might come and anoint Him (since there hadn't been time to properly wash and care for the body).

But on the Sabbath they rested... according to the commandment.


.......

Now on the next day, which is after the preparation (Saturday evening), the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, and said:

"Sir... we remember that when that deceiver was still alive, He said 'After three days I rise again'!

"Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure, until the third day, lest the disciples come and steal him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead!'--and the last deception will be worse than the first!"

Pilate strongly declared to them: "You have a guard! Go away!--you may make it secure as you know how!"

And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone.


Matthew 27:55-66
Mark 15:40-47
Luke 23:48-56
John 19:38-42

[Next time: Anastasis]

Still More on the Jesus Tomb

When this stops being a topic of interest, I'll stop writing about it. However, until that time, I will (at minimum) be referencing you to articles that I find interesting that come across my e-mail. Today, there are two. The first comes from Michael Heiser,

Dear Professors and other Bloggers

I’d like to report something of potentially great interest with respect to assessing the Jesus tomb theory offered by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino (and, by extension, James Tabor).

Many scholars have demonstrated the glaring weaknesses of this theory with respect to the inscriptions, the names themselves, the shaky logic, etc. And despite the clear, coherent response to the statistical framework and analysis offered by my friend Randy Ingermanson, the public continues to be bludgeoned with the “improbability” of it all. Well, it appears that having the names of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Matthew, and Martha (“Mara”) on ossuaries at one location isn’t as improbable as Jacobovici, Pellegrino, and Tabor would have the world believe.

I want to draw your attention—and the attention of scholars and interested parties who read your blog—to a SECOND site that has all those names. In 1953-1955, Bellarmino Bagatti excavated the site of Dominus Flevit ("The Lord wept") on the Mount of Olives. The excavation uncovered a necropolis and over 40 inscribed ossuaries – including the names of Mary, Martha, Matthew, Joseph, Jesus. These ossuaries are not, as far as I can tell, in Rahmani’s catalogue. I’m guessing the reason is that they are not the property of the Israel Antiquities Authority (see Rahmani’s Preface). The necropolis was apparently used ca. 136 BC to 300 AD. Here is a link that discusses the site. A few scanned pages of Bagatti’s excavation report (written in Italian) can be found here as well.

I’ll be tracking down this report (and perhaps buying an Italian dictionary). I found this information last night (actually 2:00am) while working on my portion of a lengthy response to the Jesus tomb theory (to be co-authored with Randy Ingermanson). I didn’t want to wait until that was done to alert scholars to this so we can collectively look at this data. It appears that the statistical odds touted in such assured terms have taken a sound beating – fifty years ago.

There’s one more really intriguing thing about the Dominus Flevit site. It is referenced by Jacobovici with respect to his argument about the cross symbol’s antiquity, and Bagatti’s book is in his bibliography. And yet he and Charlie Pellegrino somehow overlooked the fact that ossuaries were found at that site with all the names accounted for. One can only guess whether the omission was due to careless scholarship or an effort to deceive the public.

Mike Heiser, PhD
Academic Editor, Logos Bible Software

Also, of interest for later today:

Power up your computers for a special Converse with Scholars program on Wednesday, March 14th at 8 PM EST!

Our first half hour will feature a special presentation on the Talpiot tomb by author and speaker Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

The following hour will feature a panel discussion between Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Michael R. Licona, and Daniel B. Wallace. The panel will share its insights and answer your questions about the latest media craze surrounding Jesus!

Main Presenter
8-8:30 PM EST

Robert M. Bowman, Jr., is the award-winning author of a dozen books and over two dozen published articles. Rob is Manager of Apologetics & Interfaith Evangelism at the North American Mission Board and is currently writing a book (to be published by Kregel later this year) on the Talpiot tomb.

Panelists
8:30-9:30 PM EST

Michael R. Licona, a New Testament historian specializing in evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, is Director of Apologetics & Interfaith Evangelism at the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. Mike is the author of four books, the most recent being Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate on the Resurrection (Baker, 2006).

Daniel B. Wallace is Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, and senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible. His numerous publications include Reinventing Jesus (Kregel, 2006) and Dethroning Jesus (Nelson, forthcoming).

Join the discussion Wednesday, March 14th at 8 PM EST.

The Jesus Tomb -- An Example of Wikipedia Form of Scholarship

Newsbusters has an interesting piece about the Jesus Tomb entitled Main Scholar On Jesus Tomb Angry Over Unscientific Claims, MSM Takes a Pass. The thrust of the article is that the people who do actual archaeology have found the Jesus Tomb documentary to be offensive and to misuse their work. A couple of the quotes are worthy of note.

First, the article notes that the program was, shall we say, rather slanted towards supporting the hypothesis of Mr. Jacobovici. There was not much in the way of balance from the large numbers of archaeologists and others interested who have set forth in numerous places their disagreements with what I think are the absurd claims of the documentary.

Even the New York Times gave a semi-honest assessment in their TV review that stated that the film is based on one sided hypothesis. However that doesn't prevent them from injecting some credibility into the documentary with one liners such as the following:

Almost all the scholars interviewed support the filmmakers’ case, though one doubting Thomas is included, David Mevorah, a curator at the Israel Museum. "Suggesting that this tomb was the tomb of the family of Jesus is a far-fetched suggestion," he says. "And we need to be very careful with that."

Doubting Thomas, get it? Quaint. Of course this begs the question about the scholars that weren't interviewed.

Certainly, I don't think that everytime that someone is trying to present their case that they are obligated to present every argument against their position. However, when the theory is strongly opposed, there should be, at minimum, an attempt to counter that evidence. I am not sure that such a thing has been done here. Instead, they have proceeded with this theory as if it were all but settled on its principle points and completely ignored the broad chorus of scholars who have set out very strong reasons for disagreeing.

The article later has a fascinating quote:

Jodi Magness, a professor of archeology and Jewish history of that period at UNC Chapel Hill said the following in the Scientific American report.

Let me tell you what I think. So first of all if you're writing for Scientific American, so it's important to point out that this debate is taking place in a most unscientific of manners.

Archaeology is a scientific and academic discipline and there are proper fora for these discussions--if you're a scholar and you have something you want to present to the larger world, there are proper ways of doing that, specifically publishing papers in peer reviewed journals or at meetings, so your colleageus can respond to it.

If after that you can go ahead and announce that and people can say "Well I've responded to this," then that's fine. But I've been slammed with [interviews for] this now - it was announced in the public media.

I'm reacting to something that has not been published or peer reviewed and I haven't even seen the film - the entire way this has been done has been an injustice to the entire discipline and also to the public.

I think it's a very important point to make - that this is almost a wikipedia form of scholarship. They're presenting it or setting it up as though we have a discovery and you can react and it's all legitimate and valid which it's not.

Wikipedia form of scholarship? What a slam! Wikipedia has become notorious for its inaccuracies. A recent study by Nature found that Wikipedia is very inaccurate even in areas which are not particularly contentious. In the areas where there are disputes, the format of the contributor encyclopedia makes the information less and less accurate because anyone can add anything that supports their pet ideas about the theory without any concern as to whether such a viewpoint is accepted by the majority of scholars. By comparing this "documentary" with Wikipedia, Jodi Magness has hit the nail on the head -- the makers of this documentary are just like the contributors to Wikipedia who want to try to make their pet theory mainstream regardless of the reasons (held by what appears to be an overwhelming majority of scholars) to treat it as not worthy of consideration.

The Jesus Tomb as Archaeo-Porn

I missed the show last night about the Jesus Tomb, but others did not. One prominent archaeologist interviewed about the "find" called in archeo-porn, described by Ben Witherington as "the worst sort of misuse of archaeological evidence to support a tendentious theory that is so speculative it requires linking one weak hypothesis to another to another to reach a conclusion." Read the rest of Witherington's blog review for details.

If you want a review from a less conservative scholar, I would suggest you check out Mark Goodacre's live blogging of the show. He quite succinctly notes that the entire theory rests on the identification of Mary Magdalene not only as being in the tomb in another ossuary, but having been Jesus' wife with whom he had children. Such a foundation is perhaps one of the weakest possible and puts us off in DaVinci Code territory. Goodacre predicts, "this will continue to be discussed for a couple of days after this broadcast, but then interest is going to die down."

Update: After swimming through comments about the show on various blogs, including this one, two things strike me. First, almost no one is even attempting to defend the claim that Mary Magdalene's remains are in the tomb and that she was married to Jesus. Second, those who claim to have liked the show and found it persuasive are not exceptions to rule no. 1, but instead spend their time complaining that "nothing could ever convince [evangeliclas, Christians, conservative Christians, etc.] that their faith is not true." This is a classic non sequitur in that it tells us nothing about the evidence and argument related to this claim. Instead, it comes across as whining because no one is taking this particular claim seriously. Well, the reason that the laity and the scholars are unconvinced by the argument is because it relies on very tenuous and unconvincing historical claims. If you want to complain about evangelicals or conservative Christians not being convinced by the evidence, you might want to wait until you have a claim actually supported by the evidence. This one is not it.

More Debunking of the "Jesus Tomb"

Mark Goodacre, of NT Gateway, had previously refuted the claim made by proponents of this theory that Jesus was buried with his wife, Mary Magdalene. After learning more about the Jesus Tomb claims, he now critiques the statistical arguments that supposedly shows why we should pinpoint Jesus Christ as the occupant of the tomb when the names involved were incredibly popular in Jesus' day. Basically, the promoters of the theory concocted a relationship for which there is no evidence -- Jesus' supposed marriage to Mary M. -- and ignored other occupants of the tomb, which if included would have added substantial evidence against the notion that this is Jesus Christ's tomb. As Goodacre concludes,

In short, including Mariamne and leaving out Matia and Judas son of Jesus is problematic for any claim to be made about the remaining cluster. All data must be included. You cannot cherry pick or manipulate your data before doing your statistical analysis.

Christianity Today also has an article that reports that so far New Testament scholars and historians are not impressed. Critical scholars who find the claims as baseless as they are sensationalistic include, Darrel Bock, Ben Witherington, Paul Maier, Scot McKnight, and Gary Burge. Burge, I think, captures the essence of what is going on:

"This is really a brilliant example of archaeological sensationalism," said Gary Burge, professor of New Testament at Wheaton College. Burge notes that allegations like Jacobovici's are nothing new. "It happens again and again in the Holy Land that people win their 15 minutes of fame by discovering some new burial cave."

Update: Richard Bauckham has weighed in over on Ben Witherington's blog. The main focus of his critique is the claim that the Mariamenou in the tomb was Jesus' wife, Mary Magdalene. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that the two occupants were even married, Miraomenou is certainly not Mary Magdalene.

Update2: Bauckham's blog entry is up at the site at which he is guestblogging.

Update3: Darrel Bock has some good info on the number crunching purportedly supporting the Jesus Tomb proponents.

The Jesus Equation -- Looking at the Numbers

What sold author Simcha Jacobovichi of the Jesus Tomb on the idea that the tomb and ossuaries discovered at Talpiot 26 years ago were the tomb and ossuary of Jesus and Mary Magdalene were the odds behind that combination of names appearing in a single tomb. The Jesus Tomb website calls it the "Jesus Equation". In a short video, he makes reference to an analogy of engaging in an archaeological dig in Great Britain 2,000 years from now and finding the tombs of three people together identified on their tombstones only as John, Paul and George. Now, John, Paul and George, of course, are very common names in Great Britain, but taken together they have a strong significance -- they are three of the Fab Four.

Of course, if you were the archaeologist who did Mr. Jacobovichi's analogous dig 2,000 years from now, would you conclude based on the names of Paul, George and John alone that the three graves were the graves of the actual Beatles? I expect that you'd recognize that identifying those three graves as the graves of John Lennon, George Harrison and Paul McCartney based on such scant evidence would be unwarranted.

But Mr. Jacobovichi goes farther: he posits as part of his analogy finding a fourth grave nearby for Richard Starkey. Of course, Richard Starkey is Ringo Starr's real name. Now, to find the grave of Richard Starkey next to those of Paul, George and John would mean something, wouldn't it? By the same method he argues that since Mariamne has been identified as the real name of Mary Magdalene, this is what pushes the conclusion that the "Yeshua bar Yose" (Jesus, Son of Joseph) ossuary is the ossuary of Jesus Christ. He then proceeds, on another page, to post the numbers that he thinks demonstrate that the probability of these names being brought together is so significantly small that these ossuaries have to be the ossuaries of the Holy Family.

I have a few problems with the analogy and the numbers used to support them. First, as to the analogy, let's add in some more facts. Suppose that we know or have good reason to know where John Lennon is buried. Would we be so ready to assume that the four tombstones represent the Beatles? Probably not. Well, we have a good idea from other sources that Mary Magdalene wasn't buried in Jerusalem. There are competing stories, but the best attested appears to be that she was buried in Constantinople. Other stories place her tomb in France. But what is interesting is that there is no tradition that says she was buried in Jerusalem. Moreover, good authority tells us that Jesus wasn't buried at all since he ascended into heaven, so we have reason to doubt, at the outset, any claim that this is his body in the same way we have reason to believe that the four graves couldn't include John Lennon because he is elsewhere.

Moreover, as I pointed out in an earlier post on the name "Mariamne", it isn't at all certain that Mariamne is the true name of Mary Magdalene. Certainly, a fine professor at Harvard holds that belief, but I think there is strong reason to question that identification. And even if "Mariamne" was Mary Magdalene's real name (which remains questionable), there is no reason to believe that the ossuary of "Mariamene e Mara" is the tomb of the Mariamne described in the Acts of Philip and identified as Mary Magdalene by Professor Bovon. To use Mr. Jacobovichi's analogy, it would be similar to finding with the tombstones of Paul, George and John near a tombstone for a Ricard. The differences in the name may be significant. Also, it may be hard to tell how common the name of "Mariamne" is, even though it is clear from all of the Marys bumping around the New Testament that Mary and variations on that name must be very common. In Dr. Witherington's post on the subject, he states "21% of Jewish women were called Mariamne (Mary)". So, even if "Mariamne" is Mary Magdalene's true name, it is hard to say that fact proves taht this particular "Mariamne" is Mary Magdalene from the New Testament.

But here is where the numbers get confusing: Mr. Jacobovichi's figures estimate that the use of Mariamne in New Testament times would be 1 in 160. Dr. Witherington's numbers (obtained from Richard Bauckham, Professor of New Testament Studies and Bishop Wardlaw Professor, St Andrews) would say that it is 1 in 5. Mr. Jacobovichi places the odds of "Jesus, Son of Joseph" at 1 in 190. But it is hard to believe that Mr. Jacobovichi's numbers are accurate since, as Dr. Witherington points out, about 1 in 14 men had the name Joseph and about 1 in 26 of them had the name Jesus. Now, what that means is that for every 26 Josephs, statistically speaking, one would name their child Jesus. Assuming that Jerusalem had a population of 80,000 at the time of Jesus, and assuming that 40,000 of those people were male, then there would have been approximately 2,867 Josephs living in the city (1 out of every 14 assuming 40,000 men). If there were 2,867 Josephs having children, again speaking statistically, 110 of those would name their child Jesus. In other words, there would be at least 110 men named "Yeshua ben Yose" who lived in Jerusalem while Jesus was visiting the city during the Passion Week. Now, let's assume that this burial tomb is more than a snapshot in time, i.e., there is a period of about 70 years from the digging of the tomb until the destruction of Jerusalem that these people could have been placed in these tombs. Over that time, there were almost certainly at least two separate generations that lived in Jerusalem. That means that there were at least 220 men named "Yeshua ben Yose" -- again, speaking statistically.

How many of these were buried with Mariamenes who they were not maternally related to? Well, if one in five women in the city were Marys and assuming the same as above, i.e., that there were two separate generations of 80,000 people over the 70 years from the digging of the tombs until the destruction of Jerusalem, then there would be 16,000 Marys/Mariamenes over that time. Seems pretty likely that a lot of people would be buried with women named Mary/Mariamene with whom they are not maternally related. (Certainly, it appears that there were at least eight other ossuaries in this particular tomb and it's doubtful that they were all related to her maternally except Yeshua ben Yose.)

But wait, there's more. For whatever reason, an ossuary for Matia was also found in the Talpiot tomb. Now, there is no mention of a "Matia" as a relative of Jesus in the Bible. So, what should we do with that? Mr. Jacobovichi decided not to include him in the calculations. "Nevertheless, to allow for any possible criticism regarding the inclusion of Matia (or Matthew) – since this name is not explicitly referenced in the canonical Gospels – Feueverger decided to eliminate him from the equation." Personally, I think that the fact that there was a Matia in the tomb who is nowhere mentioned in the Gospels shouldn't be taken as a non-factor. It seems to me that the inclusion of Matia in the "family tomb" should discount the possibility that it is Jesus' tomb. To go back to Jacobovichi's Beatles analogy, suppose that we found five tomb markers in England 2,000 years from now which markers were labelled simply Paul, George, Richard, John and Bernard. Doesn't the inclusion of Bernard who is nowhere to be found in connection with the Beatles (at least, none I can think of at present) make a case that these tombstones don't belong to the Beatles -- especially if you're arguing that the tomb in which the grave markers were found is supposed to be the "Beatles only" tomb? I think it does.

I haven't even yet mentioned that the tomb includes an ossuary for the son of this Yeshua named Judah. Again, the New Testament says nothing about Jesus having a son. Thus, again, it seems to me that if there is the inclusion of an ossuary for the son of Jesus and we have no reason to beleive that Jesus had a son other than this ossuary, that argues that this isn't the same Jesus as described in the New Testament. Thus, again, I would argue that the appearance of this ossuary for Judah, son of Yeshua, in the tomb should significantly reduce the probability that the Yeshua found in the tomb is the New Testament Jesus Christ. (The Jesus Tomb page on this Judah ossuary is so forced and speculative as to be funny.)

Again, looking at the numbers, I don't see where anyone could conclude that this is necessarily (or even likely) to be the tomb of Jesus of the New Testament. It is what archaeologists have always contended -- an interesting coincidence of names without any strong reason to believe that it is Jesus of the New Testament.

(Edited 8:21 pm to correct some typos and for easier reading.)

The Acts of Philip, Mariamne and the Jesus Tomb

One of the claims made on the website about the bone boxes found at Talpiot in 1980 is that one of the ossuaries is inscribed with the name of "“Mariamene e Mara”. From this, it is concluded that this particular ossuary was the ossuary of Mary Magdalene. Why? According to the Jesus Family Tomb website:

From the Acts of Philip, a fourth century work ostensibly written about Mary Magdalene’s brother, Phillip, and recently recovered from a monastery at Mt. Athos in Greece, Professor François Bovon (Harvard University) has determined that Magdalene’s name was "Mariamne."

So, the reason that this is supposed to be Mary Magdalene's ossuary is because of the use of the name "Mariamene" which is close to the name of "Mariamne" from the Acts of Philip. Is this a particularly strong claim?

First, I should point out that the claim on the website is overstated. Dr. Bovon hasn't "determined" that the woman named "Mariamne" is Mary Magdalene. The word "determined" connotes that it is the final word on the matter. In fact, the first definition for "determine" is "to settle or decide (a dispute, question, etc.) by an authoritative or conclusive decision." But, as other sources seem to show, Dr. Bovon isn't making a claim of final determination. Rather, he simply "believes" it to be Mary Magdalene (of course, it is an informed belief, but it remains his belief and I have found nowhere that other scholars are largely in agreement with that belief). Certainly, it is an overstatement to claim (as the Jesus Tomb website does here) that "Mary Magdalene is often identified by the name 'Mariamne.'" (emphasis added)

Second, the Acts of Philip is hardly a contemporaneous work with the Gospels or the Epistles. It is apparently the work of an heretical community that lived in the Fourth Century -- at least two hundred fifty years after the events of the New Testament. It includes tales of talking leopards (v. 96: ". . . lo, a great leopard came out of a wood on the hill, and ran and cast himself at their feet and spoke with human voice: I worship you, servants of the divine greatness and apostles of the only-begotten Son of God; command me to speak perfectly"), a talking baby goat (v. 97: ". . . after I had wounded it, it took a human voice and wept like a little child, saying to me: O leopard, put off thy fierce heart and the beast like part of thy nature, and put on mildness . . . "), and a fierce black dragon (v. 102: "They journeyed five days, and one morning after the midnight prayers a sudden wind arose, great and dark (misty), and out of it ran a great smoky (misty) dragon, with a black back, and a belly like coals of brass in sparkles of fire, and a body over 100 cubits long, and a multitude of snakes and their young followed it"). But this is the type of literature that comes from heretical groups, and the group that produced this document was of that type. According to Harvard Magazine:

Among the revelations turned up in this unexpurgated Acts of Philip, especially in the story of a visit to Hell, are glimpses of a heretical community whose members may have written or transmitted the text. Devoted to ascetic practices, the group flourished in Asia Minor during the fourth century A.D. Members were to eat no meat, drink no wine, shun wealth, and abstain from sexual intercourse. Both sexes wore men's clothing made only from plant fibers. Even the sacrament of the Eucharist was modified, with water replacing wine. Sect members believed that this level of purity not only guaranteed salvation after death, but allowed them to "talk with God" in this life.

Within the community, women as well as men served at all levels. One list mentions "presbytides" (female elders, or priestesses) alongside "presbyters" (male elders, or priests). Deaconesses are paired with deacons, as are virgins with eunuchs. (It is unknown whether the latter rank required surgery or merely celibacy.)

Such groups did not escape the notice of the official church. The council of Gangra (circa A.D. 343) declared such ascetic excesses to be anathema, and another fourth-century council, at Laodicea, "forbade the appointment of presbytides," says Bovon.

Now, certainly, Dr. Bovon is a well-respected researcher, and it certainly is possible that the Mariamne of the Acts of Philip is Mary Magdalene of the New Testament. As the Harvard Magazine article notes, "the name 'Mariamne' is a variant of 'Mary,' and when the third-century Christian writer Origen mentions the Magdalene, he uses the quite similar name 'Mariamme.'" But notice that Origen, who lived and wrote one hundred years closer to the events, uses the name "Mariamme" when the name used on the ossuary is "Mariamene". Is that close enough to conclude they are talking about the same woman?

What can we learn about woman named "Mariamne" from the Acts of Philip? Well, to start with, this woman was the "sister of Philip." Now, it could be that that language is used in the same way that Christians (and the Bible sometimes) use the terms "brother" and "sister" when referencing any other Christian. But the context seems to suggest that the reason she is called sister of Philip is to single out who she is. Here is the text of verse 94 of the Acts of Philip where the "sister" term is referenced:

94 It came to pass when the Saviour divided the apostles and each went forth according to his lot, that it fell to Philip to go to the country of the Greeks: and he thought it hard, and wept. And Mariamne his sister (it was she that made ready the bread and salt at the breaking of bread, but Martha was she that ministered to the multitudes and laboured much) seeing it, went to Jesus and said: Lord, seest thou not how my brother is vexed?

Now, if the term is being used generally, why doesn't it say later, "but Martha his sister was she that ministered . . ."? It seems apparent to me that the use of the term here is to show that Mariamne is really the actual flesh and blood sister of Philip. Now, this would be new information from the New Testment that doesn't seem to reference Mary Magdalene as being the sister of the Apostle Philip.

What else does the Acts of Philip tell us about this Mariamne? The Encyclopedia Magdalena gives this nice little summary of the activities of Mariamne in the Acts of Philip,

• she prepared bread and salt for the "breaking of bread"
  
• Jesus called her "chosen among women"
  
• she should not wear her summer dress (also translated as "women's aspect")
  
• she assisted with healings
  
• she baptized converts
  
• she assisted in the slaying of a dragon
  
• when threatened, she turned into a glass box or a cloud of fire
  
• she is prophesied to die in the Jordan river
  

Okay, so she prepared bread and salt and Jesus called her "chosen among women". Those might be consistent with Mary Magdalene even though nothing in the Bible says either of those things about her. But, of course, if one is going to accept that "sister" could have the Christian meaning where every believing woman is a "sister" to every Christian, then the phrase "chosen among women" could simply be a reference to the fact that she is a believer (e.g., Mark 13:20) which would not single her out for any special status whatsoever. Moreover, I don't have a problem with her participating in healings or baptizing converts -- those also seem to be consistent with what any believer was capable of doing during the early years of teh church. But slaying a dragon and turning into glass boxes or clouds of fire? Doesn't that effect the credibility of this book?

What I am driving at is this: the Acts of Philip is a late, exaggerated account of the life of Philip, the Apostle, that were drawn up by a heretical community who wrote about a woman named Mariamne who may or may not be Mary Magdalene. This is a highly tenuous strand to base a claim that a box carved with a similar (not identical) name of "Mariamene" is Mary Magdalene of the New Testament.

More on the Jesus Tomb

Heart, Soul, Mind and Strength has done an excellent job of pulling together more information about the bone boxes that I discussed yesterday.

Also, it is interesting what the official website for the Lost Tomb of Jesus says is the relevance of this discovery:

“The Lost Tomb Of Jesus” does not challenge the fact of the Resurrection. It does, however, ask viewers to consider the possibility that it occurred from another tomb.

The writer of the Gospel of Matthew (28:12-15) addresses a rumor that was circulating in Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion, a rumor that we suggest can be taken for the truth. The rumor was that the disciples came by night to remove Jesus’ body from the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a temporary tomb close enough to bury Jesus before sundown on the Sabbath. They would have moved Jesus to safeguard his remains from desecrators.

His followers then would have taken Jesus to a permanent tomb, a family tomb.

Theologically speaking, even if Jesus were moved from one tomb to another, this does not negate the possibility that he was resurrected from this second tomb. Our documentary does not address the issue of whether or not the Resurrection took place, and how. Belief in the Resurrection is based not on which tomb Jesus was buried in, but on alleged sightings of Jesus that occurred after his burial as documented in the Gospels.

It is also a matter of Christian faith that Jesus, on the fortieth day after the Resurrection, ascended to Heaven. Christians accept the Ascension as a fact; however, they have long debated certain issues around the Ascension.

For example, if Jesus ascended into Heaven, does that mean Heaven is "up?" Did Jesus really sit in a throne at the right hand of God or is this actually a metaphor? And finally, was the Ascension spiritual or physical? Did Jesus leave his body behind or did he take it with him?

If Jesus’ mortal remains have indeed been found, this would contradict only the idea of a physical ascension. However, it says nothing against the possibility of a spiritual one nor does it dispute the idea of the Ascension.

Obviously, if there was a finding of the real tomb of Jesus, that would have incredilbe implications for the Christian faith because Christianity is built on the claim (backed by evidence found in historical records) that Jesus actually, physically rose from the dead and bodily ascended into heaven.

Counter-cult Apologetics has also gathered together a number of responses to this "discovery". One of the links is to Dr. Paul Maier who has written a piece entitled Who's Writing the Ficiton Here? in which he gives more reasons for rejecting this tomb as being the tomb of Jesus. He notes (among other things):

5) What in the world is the “Jesus Family” doing, having a burial plot in Jerusalem, of all places, the very city that crucified Jesus? Galilee was their home. In Galilee they could have had such a family plot, not Judea. Besides all of which, church tradition – and Eusebius – are unanimous in reporting that Mary died in Ephesus, where the apostle John, faithful to his commission from Jesus on the cross, had accompanied Mary.

* * *

8) Please note the extreme bias of the director and narrator, Simcha Jacobovici. The man is an Indiana-Jones-wannabe, who oversensationalizes anything he touches. You may have caught him on his TV special regarding The Exodus, in which the man “explained” just everything that still needed proving or explaining in the Exodus account in the Old Testament! It finally became ludicrous, and now he’s doing it again.

Right now, I can say that I find this find of the "Jesus Family Tomb" interesting, but for the reasons I stated yesterday plus the additional reasons posed by Weekend Fisher at Heart, Soul, Mind and Strength, I find it far from convincing that this is the actual tomb of the Jesus Christ.

==========

Addendum: Dr. Ben Witherington has posted about the problems with identifying these burial boxes as being those of the Jesus, Mary and Joseph described in the Bible. His post is entitled THE JESUS TOMB? ‘TITANIC’ TALPIOT TOMB THEORY SUNK FROM THE START and includes some information provided by Richard Bauckham about how common the names of Joseph, Mary and Jesus were at that time. One of his points is actually a number of points related to the problems from what we know from history:

The historical problems with all this are too numerous to list here: A) the ancestral home of Joseph was Bethlehem, and his adult home was Nazareth. The family was still in Nazareth after he was apparently dead and gone. Why in the world would be be buried (alone at this point) in Jerusalem? It’s unlikely. B) One of the ossuaries has the name Jude son of Jesus. We have no historical evidence of such a son of Jesus, indeed we have no historical evidence he was ever married; C) the Mary ossuaries (there are two) do not mention anyone from Migdal. It simply has the name Mary-- and that's about the most common of all ancient Jewish female names. D) we have names like Matthew on another ossuary, which don't match up with the list of brothers' names. E) By all ancient accounts, the tomb of Jesus was empty-- even the Jewish and Roman authorities acknowledged this. Now it takes a year for the flesh to desiccate, and then you put the man's bones in an ossuary. But Jesus' body was long gone from Joseph of Arimathea's tomb well before then. Are we really to believe it was moved to another tomb, decayed, and then was put in an ossuary? Its not likely. F) Implicitly you must accuse James, Peter and John (mentioned in Gal. 1-2-- in our earliest NT document from 49 A.D.) of fraud and coverup. Are we really to believe that they knew Jesus didn't rise bodily from the dead but perpetrated a fraudulent religion, for which they and others were prepared to die? Did they really hide the body of Jesus in another tomb? We need to remember that the James in question is Jesus' brother, who certainly would have known about a family tomb. This frankly is impossible for me to believe.

Playing Wack-a-Mole with the Jesus Tomb

Have you ever played Wack-a-Mole? For those that haven't, the game is an electronic game in which various moles are hidden in holes just below the surface of the game board. When the game is running, the moles pop up out of their holes. The person playing the game is given a hammer to wack them on the heads before they fall back below the surface of the game board. Of course, wacking a mole on the head doesn't stop the moles from popping up -- each time you wack a mole a new mole pops up to take it's place.

In the area of Christianity, there is a different type of Wack-a-Mole game going on. Stories that have been debunked over and over again keep popping back up as if they are new and somehow unanswerable. Such a story is apparently popping up again in the form of the Jesus, Mary and Josephy ossuaries. According to Mysterious bones of Jesus, Joseph and Mary :

In a scene worthy of a Dan Brown novel, archaeologists a quarter of a century ago unearthed a burial chamber near Jerusalem.

Inside they found ossuaries, or boxes of bones, marked with the names of Jesus, Joseph and Mary.

Then one of the ossuaries went missing. The human remains inside were destroyed before any DNA testing could be carried out.

While Middle East academics doubt that the relics belong to the Holy Family, the issue is about to be exposed to a blaze of publicity with the publication next week of a book.

Entitled The Jesus Tomb and co-written by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino, the book promises the inside story of "what may very well be the greatest archaeological find of all time".

Some of the ossuaries will be at the book launch in New York, released by the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The story began in March 1980 when Yosef Gat, an archaeologist employed by the IAA, surveyed a burial chamber on the south-eastern approaches of Jerusalem.

The area was being developed into the latest suburb of the city, East Talpiot, and bulldozers had uncovered an archaeological site.

Mr Gat found a standard-looking Jewish tomb dating from the era of King Herod, the Jewish king known for his ambitious building works and for his murder of infants at the time of the birth of Jesus.

After crawling into the necropolis Mr Gat found the main chamber had been silted up with soil and debris, with six "kokhim", coffin shaped spaces leading off the main chamber where human remains were housed.

According to Jewish rites, bodies would be left for a year or so to decompose in the "kokhim" before relatives came back to gather the bones and store them in ossuaries.

Mr Gat found 10 ossuaries bearing inscriptions. Some were in ancient Greek and some were in Hebrew.

One inscription said "Jesus, son of Joseph", another said "Mara", a common form of Mary, and another said "Yose", a common form of Joseph.

The authors were unavailable for comment yesterday but it is understood they base their claim that the burial chamber contained the remains of the Holy Family on their own study carried out inside the structure.

The chamber has been closed for years because a building was constructed on top of it but the authors got permission to break through an apartment block floor.

They claim to have found human material on which they performed DNA testing in a New York laboratory.

"Tests prove the names are genetically of the same family and statistically, there is a one in 10 million chance this is a family other than the Holy Family," the pre-publication publicity for the book said.

The problem, of course, is that this is largely nothing new. I remember reading about the discovery of these boxes years ago. These same bone boxes came to light again in 1996 when they became the subject of a BBC documentary. Now, in 2007, they appear again as if this is somehow new news.

Could they be the burial boxes of Jesus Christ, Mary (either Magdalene or Mary, the mother of Jesus) and Joseph, Jesus' father? Well, yes, it's possible, but not particularly likely. You see, the names Jesus, Joseph and Mary were very common names in Jerusalem at that time. Finding bone boxes with that combination of names is like going to a cemetary, finding the undated grave stones of John, Mary and Steven, and concluding that they were some people you knew who had those names. Possible, but certainly not enough to be convincing.

Back when these items were the subject of a 1996 documentary on the BBC, The Herald published an article about the bone boxes that is obviously still informative today:

An eminent church scholar has dismissed the finding of tomb relics bearing the names of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph as no more than "an interesting coincidence".

Dr. Tom Wright, the Dean of Lichfield, spoke out after experts said they might have uncovered the tomb in which Christ and his family were laid to rest.

Nine caskets for bones, known as ossuaries, have been discovered, six of them marked with significant biblical names.

However, Dr. Wright said it was "laughable" that anyone could have tended the body of Jesus without it becoming public knowledge.

He said early Christians had been adamant that Christ's body was resurrected - and this was the reason the religion survived the centuries.

Dr Wright, a former Oxford don and a member of the Church of England Doctrine Committee, added: "I have read pretty well everything that has been written and can see no other explanation other than the body was resurrected."

* * *

Dr Wright said: "These were very common names at the time and it would be like someone in 2000 years time claiming to have found the tomb of the royal family because it contained the names Charles, son of Philip, Andrew and Diana.

"This is no more than an interesting coincidence."

What about DNA testing? Isn't that new? Of course, DNA testing requires some base for reaching a determination. Do we have a sample of DNA from Jesus or any of the members of his family that would allow them to determine whether these bone boxes belonged to the Jesus Christ described in the New Testament? Of course not. The best DNA testing will do is establish that these bodies may have come from people who lived in the area around the same time. But the bone boxes can establish that without the need for DNA testing at all. Notice what the article claims: "Tests prove the names are genetically of the same family and statistically, there is a one in 10 million chance this is a family other than the Holy Family." Okay, they are of the same family -- we could deduce that from the inscriptions (so much for DNA providing superior insight). But it isn't DNA that shows that "this is a family other than the Holy Family"; rather, it is statistics. And I think that a better statistical analysis would show that it is only a 1 in 1000 chance that this is "the Holy Family."

Personally, I will try to follow the story to see if there is anything new, but for now, I feel like this is simply another mole popping up to replace one that has previously been given a really hard wack.

=========

Addendum: Plenty of updates for further information can be found in my follow up post, More on the Jesus Tomb.