Chapter One
LIE #1
Jesus' Family Tomb Has
Been Discovered
". the odds [are] 2.5 million to one in favor of the Talpiot tomb being the
tomb of Jesus of Nazareth."
-The Jesus Family Tomb
The family tomb of Jesus has been discovered!
That's what I was hearing on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC
along with several other news channels. The buzz was that a
tomb discovered in the Jerusalem suburb of Talpiot in 1980 has
turned out to be the tomb of Jesus and His family. Several
ossuaries were found in the large tomb and one of the inscriptions
read "Jesus son of Joseph," and four others were purported to
have the names of Jesus' other family members.
An ossuary is a bone box. For the well-to-do, the custom was
to keep the dead body for a year or so until the flesh rotted; then
the bones were placed in a limestone box where they could remain
for centuries. So this latest finding suggests that after Jesus died,
His disciples laid His body in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea
and then returned to steal His body to keep it somewhere until
the flesh decomposed, and that later the bones were reburied in
an ossuary in the family tomb.
After hearing the reports, I bought a copy of the book The
Jesus Family Tomb, by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino.
I read it on a flight to Phoenix and then I watched the
two-hour Discovery Channel documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus,
that detailed the discovery of the tomb. It was cleverly, and
shall I say seductively, presented with the clear agenda of
persuading people that the location of the bones of Jesus had been found.
Many people are asking: What are the chances that these
authors could be right? And what difference would it make to
Christianity if in fact the bodily resurrection did not occur?
WHAT WAS DISCOVERED
When this tomb was first discovered in March 1980, it included
ten ossuaries and dozens of skeletons, some of them on various
shelves along the tomb walls. Because such burial sites are
common in Israel, the bones no longer exist today-either having
been disposed of or destroyed by vandals. Six of the ten
ossuaries in this particular tomb were inscribed, the others were not.
Reportedly, the following inscriptions were found:
Yeshua bar Yosef-Jesus, Son of Joseph
Mariamene e Mara-Mariamne, also called Master
Maria-a Latinized version of the Hebrew "Miriam"
Matia-Matthew
Yehuda bar Yeshua-Judah, son of Jesus
Yose (or Yosa)-a nickname for Joseph
Let's review these six names to better understand the claims that
are being made. The primary ossuary reads "Jesus, Son of Joseph"
and would have contained the bones of Jesus; "Mariamene e
Mara" is supposedly a reference to Mary Magdalene, the wife
of Jesus; "Matia" refers to Matthew, who was a disciple of Jesus
but not a relative (no one knows why his ossuary would have
been placed in the family tomb of Jesus); "Judah, son of Jesus" is
believed to be the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene; and finally
"Joseph" who is listed in the Gospel of Mark as a brother to Jesus
(Mark 6:3).
Before I proceed, I should point out that only nine of the ten
ossuaries were actually catalogued when the Talpiot Tomb was
excavated in 1980. The tenth had no markings and since
ossuaries are common in Israel, it was deemed of no special value and
left to be discarded or sold.
However, both in their book on The Jesus Family Tomb and
on the Discovery Channel documentary, the authors argue that
the tenth was actually the ossuary of James, the brother of Jesus.
If this ossuary, which has been widely publicized, was originally
in the tomb, they believe there is even a greater probability that
the names are those of the family members of Jesus.
However, we can quickly dispense with the notion that the
ossuary of James was originally in this "family tomb." First, it
was found in the 1970s-before the discovery of the so-called
family tomb of Jesus in 1980. Second, the original archaeologists
who found the Talpiot Tomb assure us that the tenth ossuary
was simply not catalogued because it had no markings. Third,
the dimensions of the James ossuary do not match the recorded
dimensions of the tenth ossuary found in the Talpiot Tomb.
Fourth, fourth-century historian Eusebius says that the body
of James (the half brother of Jesus) was buried alone near the
Temple Mount and that his tomb was visited in the early
centuries. And finally, at least part of the inscription on the James
ossuary was deemed forged, and Oded Golan, the man who
bought it, is currently on trial for fraud.
Facts, however, did not get in the way of the hype that
surrounded the revelation that the family tomb of Jesus had been
found! The authors requested patina testing to be done on the
soot or dust of the James ossuary to see if it matched the
materials found in the tomb. To their own delight, they declared, "It
is a match!" But the scientist who did the tests backed away
from such a conclusion, saying that the test did not prove that
the James ossuary had been in the Talpiot Tomb but only that it
was possible it had been there. In other words, the "match" only
meant that the James ossuary was consistent with the Talpiot
Tomb; presumably it would have been consistent with other
tombs as well. The bottom line is that the testing establishes no
positive links to the tomb.
Without the James ossuary, we still have five names, all
purportedly linked to the family of Jesus. So, we must ask, could this
be the place where the bones of Jesus were buried?
Moviemaker James Cameron was involved in the project and
wrote the preface to the book on the family tomb. He says that
the conclusions of the documentary are virtually irrefutable and
stunning in their implications. He writes that the story told about
Jesus' family tomb "is pieced together from hard physical
evidence, evidence that cannot lie."
So, what shall we believe?
DISPENSING WITH MYTHS
Before we evaluate the evidence, we must dispense with some myths
and rather foolish notions that have surrounded this discussion.
The first bit of nonsense says that if the bones of Jesus were
discovered, it would not affect the Christian faith. Incredibly, I
saw self-proclaimed Christians on television saying that if the
documentary were true, it wouldn't invalidate Christianity. After
all, the argument goes, Jesus arose spiritually not physically.
The book The Jesus Family Tomb perpetuates the same fantasy
by arguing that the discovery of Jesus' bones would not harm
Christianity because "the New Testament does not tell us that its
chroniclers believe that Jesus, when he ascended, needed to take
his entire body with him!" That's like saying that Columbus
crossed the ocean spiritually, but not physically. According to
these authors, Christianity would not be affected if Jesus did not
rise from the dead!
Let us say it boldly: If the bones of Jesus were discovered,
our faith would collapse like a house of cards held together by
ropes of mist! For one thing, Jesus predicted that He would
rise from the dead in His body (Luke 9:22 and John 2:18-22).
Furthermore, the whole point of Jesus' death and resurrection
is that He redeemed us body, soul, and spirit. Jesus conquered
death, and because He lives we shall live also.
Understandably, when Jesus appeared in His resurrected
body, the disciples were so astonished that they were tempted
to think they were seeing a ghost. So Jesus said to them, "Why
are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at
my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost
does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have"
(Luke 24:38-39). Then, as further proof, He asked if they had anything to eat
and they gave Him a piece of broiled fish, which He ate in their
presence (Luke 24:41-43).
Consider the explicit words of Paul:
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless
and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to
be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about
God that he raised Christ from the dead And if Christ
has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your
sins. 1 CORINTHIANS 15:14-15, 17
If Christ has not been raised, we are shown to be false witnesses of God! Our faith is futile and we are still in our sins.
The notion that Jesus rose from
the dead with a new body, while
His old body lay in the grave, is
a modern idea and is contrary
to the Jewish understanding of
resurrection.
If Jesus' bones rotted in an
ossuary, our faith is in vain and
we are of all men and women
most miserable. We have no hope of heaven, no hope of seeing
Jesus-and we have believed a lie. Like the old country preacher
Vance Havner used to say, "If the resurrection of Jesus is a myth,
then I am mythtaken, mythified, and mytherable!"
There is, of course, a form of Christianity that does not need
an empty tomb. But it is a powerless kind of Christianity that is
unable to save us from our sins-a Christianity that has no
confidence in the final triumph of Jesus over sin and death, and that
reduces Christianity to the wishes and ideals of other religions.
But before we assign Christianity to the dustbin of history, we
have to ask: How valid is the claim that the family tomb of Jesus
has been found? How does the evidence that these are the bones
of Jesus compare to two thousand years of historical discussion
and research on this topic? More on that in a moment.
We must dispense with a second inconsistent notion-the
claims that the Bible should be treated differently than other
ancient books. For some reason, when it comes to the Bible, the
standard rules of textual analysis do not apply. For example,
in his preface to The Jesus Family Tomb, James Cameron says
of Jesus, ". a compelling case has been made that he never
existed at all but was a myth created to fulfill a specific need."
He continues, "Until now, there has been zero physical
evidence of his existence. No fingerprints, no bones, no portraits
done from life, nothing. Not a shred of parchment written from
Jesus' own hand." So, Cameron says, this discovery of the tomb
of Jesus is doing Christianity a favor because now at least we know
He existed! At last Christians can breathe more easily!
The question, of course, is this: What if the same standard of
evidence were used for the existence of Plato, Socrates, or Julius
Caesar? Do we have fingerprints of these historical individuals?
Of course not! Even if we had fingerprints of Jesus, how could
we know that they were His? The value of fingerprints applies
only when they are compared to existing fingerprints to see if
a match can be discovered. Clearly, Cameron's requirement is
preposterous.
Do we have the bones of Plato, Socrates, or Julius Caesar? Of
course not! Do we have portraits drawn from real life? Of course
not! So why don't we conclude that they are but myths created
to fill a specific need? No fingerprints, no bones, no portraits from
life. Nothing.
By insisting on evidence that is demanded of no other
historical figure, Cameron has in a single sentence dispensed with
both Christian and pagan sources that affirm that Jesus lived
and was put to death, and also that He rose from the dead. The
shared results of centuries of scholarship are neatly set aside
by the demand for a level of evidence that in principle cannot
exist.
Given this kind of methodology, we get a hint early on as
to how the evidence for Jesus will be treated. From now on,
the Bible will be quoted only when it supports a theory, and
will be summarily dismissed when it disproves a theory. These
researchers are willing to accept a story that describes the burial
of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea because it can be
pressed into service to support their family-tomb theory, but
they are unwilling to accept the next paragraphs in Scripture,
which describe the resurrection of Jesus with equal detail. Many
such examples exist throughout the book.
Finally, we must dispense with the notion that the Gnostic
Gospels present a more reliable historical account than the
canonical Scriptures. The Gnostics were teachers who tried to
combine Greek philosophy with Christianity. Their so-called
Gnostic Gospels were written later than the New Testament
Gospels and were known by the early church to be fraudulent.
They do not even purport to be historical. Yet in books such asThe Da Vinci Code and The Jesus Family Tomb, these later
documents are quoted as if they are infallible.
While The DaVinci Code was advertised as fiction (though it
purported to be historical fiction), The Jesus Family Tomb claims
to be sober history. And yet, as we shall see, the authors must
turn to a dubious fourth-century text to make a crucial
identification of one of the ossuaries in the family tomb.
THE MATTER OF PROBABILITY
So, let's go back to our original question. What is the probability
that the Talpiot Tomb is indeed the family tomb of Jesus? In their
book, Jacobovici and Pellegrino say that the odds of these names
occurring together randomly is one in 2.5 million. The Discovery
Channel special modestly suggests that the odds are one in six
hundred. Still, these are very great odds that would point to this
Talpiot Tomb being the tomb of Jesus and His family.
We must begin with what the authors also acknowledge,
namely that the names on the ossuaries were very common in
New Testament times. Scholars tell us that there are about eighty
tombs and about twenty-six ossuaries with the name Jesus on
them. The exact number is disputed because the inscriptions
on ossuaries are notoriously difficult to decipher and not all
are agreed on. However, to find the name Jesus inscribed on an
ossuary is not in itself remarkable, since about one out of every
twenty males was named Jesus.
Twenty-five percent of all the women who lived during the
time of Jesus were named Mary, which explains why there are
six Marys in the New Testament. And among the 233 ossuaries
catalogued, the name Joseph appears about 14 percent of the
time. So the experts agree that about one out of seven males
was named Joseph.
The fact that these names were so common in the first
century explains why, when archaeologists discovered this tomb
in 1980, no one thought this could be the tomb of Jesus and
His family. The ossuaries were carefully catalogued and put
into the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) warehouse in Israel.
Then, more than ten years later,
the BBC told the story of the
tomb, and Amos Kloner, Israel's
most prominent archaeologist,
affirmed that these were
common names and that it was
far-fetched to say that this could be
the tomb of Jesus' family.
So the report simply disappeared off
the news radar, only to be
recycled in a sensational book and a
Discovery Channel special. The
fact that the BBC viewed it as a
nonstory should tell us something about its importance.
But the authors of The Jesus Family Tomb say that they did
take the fact that the names were common into account, and
still reached a high degree of probability that this was Jesus'
tomb. So we have to analyze their results more carefully.
Probabilities are based on assumptions; bad assumptions lead
to bad probabilities.
Although the "Jesus, Son of Joseph" ossuary is the most
significant, second in importance is the ossuary with the inscription
"Mariamene e Mara," which is said to belong to Mary Magdalene,
the wife of Jesus. How do the authors conclude that this name
refers to Mary Magdalene, since the names are very different?
They argue that some members of the early church called
Mary Magdalene Mariamne, and the authors appeal to the
Aramaic to say that the word Mara means "master." They translate
the inscription as "Mariamne Master." From this, the fiction
is developed that Mary Magdalene was not only the wife of
Jesus, but also recognized to be His lead disciple.
(Continues.)
