|
| |
Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Found?
James Cameron, the Oscar winning
Hollywood director who brought us the
Terminator and Titanic movies, along
with Simcha Jacobovici a
producer-director have made a
documentary (to be aired March 4, 2007)
that alleges they have found the tomb of
Jesus and that the evidence therein
shows Jesus was married to Mary
Magdalene, had at least one child named
Judah, and, of course, that Jesus did
not physically rise from the dead.
On March 28, 1980, just outside of
Jerusalem in the neighborhood of
Talpiyot, construction workers  accidentally
uncovered a 2000 year old cave holding
10 ossuaries. An ossuary is a burial box
used to store bones. Six of the 10
ossuaries had names on them:
"Jesus, son of Joseph; Maria;
Mariamene; Matthew; Judas, son of Jesus;
and Jose, a diminutive of Joseph."1
The allegation is that Jesua is Jesus,
one of the Maries is his mother, the
second is his wife, Mariamene is Mary
Magdalene, that Matthew is a disciple,
and Judas is Jesus' son; hence, the
claim that it is the tomb of Jesus.
When the ossuaries were first
discovered, the bones were removed and
buried. (I could not find out what
happened to them, but it appears they
are lost.) Later, scientists
examined the ossuaries and found
"forensic evidence" inside the
containers. They did DNA tests on
the remnant biological material and
found that Jesua and Mariamene are not
genetically related. This implies
that they were a couple, not siblings.
In other words, it would be similar to
having a mother, a father, and a son
buried in the same tomb. The child
would be related genetically to the
mother and the father. But, the
mother and the father would not be
genetically related to each other; that
is, they wouldn't have the same parents.
The facts seem to be there, but what
does it mean?
Note: At the end of this paper
are important issues and questions
regarding the tomb and the ossuaries
that argue against this being the actual
tomb of Jesus.
What should be our reaction to the
find?
What I'm going to say here may
surprise a lot of Christians, but we
should be open minded about the evidence
and not dismiss it in a knee-jerk
reaction  and
say it is a hoax, or a conspiracy.
If the evidence is factual and stands up
to cross examination, then we need to
deal with it as the set of facts they
are. If Christianity is true, then
it should fear no facts -- and neither
should its adherents.
However, please understand that if
the archaeological evidence is verified,
the tomb and ossuaries do not disprove
Christianity. They only
demonstrate that there is a family tomb
from the time of Jesus with the same
names of those found in the gospel
accounts -- which can have other
explanations, as you'll see below.
Remember, the gospels are eyewitness
accounts and are substantially different
in evidentiary value than empty
ossuaries with biblical names inscribed
on the outside. There is a huge
difference between them regarding their
interpretive and evidentiary
significance.
Examine the evidence
The evidence needs to be examined!
If it stands, it stands. If it
falls, let it fall. But, what would
be substantial evidence against
Christianity is if bones were discovered
in an ossuary, or tomb containing
something like Jesus' name on it,
stating he was the son of Nevertheless,
for Christians to automatically dismiss
the evidence without first examining it,
is to forfeit credibility in the eyes of
unbelievers, many of which already think
that Christians are irrational and
refuse to believe facts. Joseph,
from Nazareth, and that those bones had
nail marks in the wrists. But,
without a body, it is difficult to
establish Jesus' death, burial, and lack
of resurrection. In fact, not
having a body is exactly what the gospel
accounts say is the case and that seems
to be the case with the ossuaries.
Remember, they did have bones in them,
but they are lost and cannot be
examined. So, it cannot be stated
which bones they were or if the bones
matched the genetic material found
within. They might not since
families used ossuaries to hold more
than one generation. Sometimes
they held up to six.
Nevertheless, for Christians to
automatically dismiss the evidence
without first examining it, is to
forfeit credibility in the eyes of
unbelievers, many of which already think
that Christians are irrational and
refuse to believe facts. We have
an opportunity to present a rational,
non-emotional position and demonstrate
that our faith is not so weak that our
first reaction to the claim that Jesus'
tomb has been found is to dismiss before
even looking at it.
Remember, looking at evidence and
using logic is what Jesus taught us to
do. Jesus said to doubting Thomas
in John 20:27, “Reach
here your finger, and see My hands; and
reach here your hand, and put it into My
side; and be not unbelieving, but
believing.” Jesus himself urged
Thomas to examine the evidence and
believe based on that evidence. In
other words, Jesus taught to examine
evidence and make a logical conclusion
based up it. Of course, the Bible verse
presupposes Jesus' resurrection is a
fact, but still the principle to examine
evidence is taught in Scripture.
Shouldn't we do what Jesus taught?
Christians, don't make these
mistakes
The initial response by a lot of
Christians will be to react emotionally.
But, I have some suggestions.
- Don't make the mistake of saying
that the evidence can't be true
because a Hollywood movie director
made the documentary.
- Just because an unbeliever
makes a film claiming he has
found the tomb of Jesus, doesn't
mean what is in it is false.
Unbelievers can discover truth.
So, don't dismiss it outright.
- Don't make the mistake of saying
the evidence is false because it
disagrees with your beliefs.
- Beliefs don't make something
true -- for example, Mormons
believe God came from another
planet. Believing it
doesn't make it so.
Nevertheless, Christian beliefs
are based on evidence, i.e., the
eyewitness accounts in the
gospels, the resurrection of
Christ, etc. So, if we
look at facts in one area, we
should continue to do so in
other areas.
- Don't make the mistake of
concluding that if the evidence is
verified under cross examination,
that it means Christianity isn't
true.
- At best all it shows is that
there is a family tomb with
common biblical names inscribed
on ossuaries. This isn't
proof of anything contrary to
the gospel accounts. There
are no bones in the ossuaries.
In other words, there is no body
and this cannot be demonstrated
to be Jesus' tomb.
- Don't blow a good witnessing
opportunity
- This topic will generate
discussion. So, print up a
few copies of this article, have
them ready to give to people,
and discuss the real issue of
Christ's resurrection which
demonstrates who he was and what
he did. This way you can
then have an opportunity to
present the gospel.
- Again, don't just dismiss it
outright. Use it.
Critics, don't make these mistakes
Likewise, I suspect the initial
response by critics of Christianity will
be to jump on the bandwagon and say that
Christianity is proven false without
examining the evidence, or considering
counter arguments and questions.
So, I have some suggestions for the
critics as well.
- Don't assume that what is
presented in a documentary is
automatically fact.
- Wait until it is cross
examined before making
assertions. In other
words, get both sides of the
argument before making
judgments.
- Make sure your conclusions are
logical, not merely inferential
- If the evidence is factual,
what does it mean? Does it
prove that it was Jesus
in the ossuary? Not at
all. Does it prove
Christianity is false?
Hardly. If you are eager
to find contradictory evidence,
don't let your eagerness blind
your objectivity.
- Don't jump on the band-wagon and
start condemning Christianity
because the findings can be
interpreted against it.
- There are important issues and
questions to be raised as you
will see in the next section.
Those questions and others like
them are relevant to the
discussion on what the evidence
means and need to be addressed
before drawing
"absolute"
conclusions.
- Don't make the mistake of
concluding that if the evidence is
verified under cross examination it
means Christianity is false.
It doesn't.
- It only means that a family
tomb with ossuaries containing
biblical names has been
discovered. This is
evidence, but it can be
legitimately interpreted in
different ways - see below.
But, is it conclusive proof that
Christianity is false? Not
at all. It isn't proof
they have found the tomb of
Jesus.
Important issues and questions
Following is a list of issues and
questions that I think are worth
examining in regard to this recent
discovery.
- The names on the ossuaries were
very common at that time.
- "Charlesworth of
Princeton Theological Seminary
says he has a first-century
letter written by someone named
Jesus, addressed to someone else
named Jesus and witnessed by a
third party named Jesus."2
This demonstrates the
commonality of the name Jesus.
Isn't it likely that other names
would be common as well?
Think about it. The name
"Mary" occurs in the
gospels several times in
reference to different women.
Also, If Christianity were on
the rise in the culture, it
makes sense that people would
adopt Christian names as they
eagerly moved away from the
imposing Roman Empire's rule.
This would increase the name
frequency.
- "'Jesus' and 'Joseph'
were common names of the time,
and another ossuary bearing the
same inscription [Jesus son of
Joseph] was revealed by
archaeologist Eleazar Levi
Sukenik in a 1931 lecture in
Berlin. However, this
ossuary is set apart by its
presence in a tomb alongside
others bearing names associated
with Jesus' family…"3
The fact is that "Jesus son
of Joseph" exists elsewhere
in archaeological findings.
- 25% of the Jewish women in the
first-century Judea had the same
name of Mary.4
Again, this is evidence of
a very common name usage.
- The ossuaries are inscribed in
different languages: Aramaic,
Hebrew, and Greek.
- Jesus, James,
Judah are inscribed in Aramaic.
Yose (Jose, Joseph), Maria, and
Matthew are in Hebrew. "Marianmene
e Mara" (Mary Magdelene) is
the only one written in Greek.
If the tomb is of Jesus' family,
why are the inscriptions in
different languages?
- Does this suggest that
different individuals, perhaps
in different times, and of
different backgrounds were
buried in the tomb?
Remember, families used the same
tomb and ossuaries for
generations. Therefore, we can
expect to find the same tomb to
have ossuaries with different
inscriptions, in different
languages, along with similar
DNA since the same families
would be using them. See
point 5 below.
- The Inscription dates are from 1
B.C to 1 A.D.
- "Frank Moore Cross, a
professor emeritus in the
Department of Near Eastern
Languages and Civilizations at
Harvard University, told
Discovery News, "The
inscriptions are from the
Herodian Period (which occurred
from around 1 B.C. to 1 A.D.).
The use of limestone ossuaries
and the varied script styles are
characteristic of that
time."5
- This is important because the
gospel accounts record Jesus'
life up to 33 years of age.
If Jesus lived long enough to
get married, have a child, etc.,
it would be after he was 33.
If Jesus died around 50 A.D.
(just picking a date), then how
do we account for Jesus' bones
being buried in an ossuary that
has an inscription dated from
about 1 B.C.? Shouldn't
the inscription be dated to some
time after, say 33 A.D.?A. This
is solid evidence against the
ossuaries being of Jesus family.
- Families were buried in their home
towns.
- In this case it would have
been Nazareth, not Jerusalem.
Jesus was known as Jesus of
Nazareth. If this really
is the tomb of the biblical
Jesus, then why is he buried
somewhere other than his
hometown, Nazareth? This
would have gone against Jewish
culture and custom.
- Also, shouldn't the burial
inscription have read
"Jesus of Nazareth" or
"Jesus of Nazareth, son of
Joseph" if it were the
Jesus of the New Testament?
- There was a two day burial
window under Jewish law.
This meant that a person had to
be buried within two days of
death. Therefore, he might
not be buried in his hometown.
However, after the body
decomposed and only the bones
were left, it would appropriate
to move them. Since
ossuaries contained only bones,
why is it located in Jerusalem
and not Nazareth?
- The same ossuaries were used for
generations to store bones
- Point two is supported by the
fact the same ossuaries were
used for several generations to
house bones, sometimes
containing as many as six sets.
This would mean that the
contents therein could be of
family members long after the
time of Christ. It could
even be of non genetically
related individuals, by
marriage, who get added to the
tomb later on – which might
explain why the inscriptions are
in different languages.
- Having similar genetics in the
ossuaries doesn't prove it is
Jesus' tomb. It only
proves there are similar
genetics. There is no
known way to establish that the
genetics in the ossuaries are
those of Jesus. At best,
it can only be inferred and
inferences are not fact.
- The family of Jesus was poor.
Joseph was a carpenter and couldn't
afford such an elaborate burial.
- To have a tomb and various
ossuaries made was an expensive
undertaking. Since Joseph
was a carpenter, Jesus would've
learned his trade from his
father. Carpenters were
not rich. Therefore, how
is the existence of an expensive
tomb with ossuaries explained in
light of this information if it
is supposed to be at the family
of Jesus? This does not
support the idea that it was
Jesus’ tomb. In fact, it
speaks against it.
- What of the existing documents
(gospels).
- The gospels in the New
Testament are excellently
preserved historical documents
that are consistent with the
time, place, and culture in
which they claim to describe.
If Jesus did not rise from the
dead, then what about the
gospels accounts? Are they
fakes, compilations, lies,
forgeries, or legitimate and
accurate historical documents?
- Are these eyewitness accounts
contained in the gospels less
valuable than names on ossuaries
found in a tomb? Surely,
an explanation needs to be
established to account for the
claims of the gospel accounts if
in fact they were lies or
fabrications.
- If the gospels are used to verify
the names on the ossuaries, why are
they not also used to verify that
Jesus rose from the dead?
- There seems to be an
inconsistency in using the
Gospels to verify the names on
the ossuaries but then deny the
claim of those same Gospels
concerning Jesus' resurrection.
Why accept the names but reject
the resurrection when both are
described in the same documents?
Is it because the
presuppositions of those who
examine the evidence do not
allow for the miraculous?
If that is the case, then
beliefs are forced upon evidence
and the evidence is interpreted
in light of those beliefs.
- Please see the articles
related to this topic: Since
the New Testament writers were
biased, can we trust their
testimony?; The
Christians were mistaken about
Jesus' resurrection; The
Disciples stole Jesus' body and
faked His resurrection.
- The Acts of Phillip
- In the book The Acts of
Phillip is the term "Mariamene"
which some scholars think it
refers to Mary Magdelene.
Therefore, the inscription in
the tomb which uses that term
has been linked to the biblical
Mary Magdelene via this old
document. However, the oldest
copy of the Acts of Phillip is
from the fourteenth century and
is a copy of a fourth century
text.5
How reliable is the document
known as the Acts of Phillip?
"The text is generally
considered to have been a late
4th or early 5th century
fantasy, involving miracles and
supposedly clever dialogue,
which it claims caused Phillip
to win many converts."6
So,
is phrase in a fantasy-based
document evidence that Jesus
married Mary Magdelene?
- Why aren't there any accounts of
Jesus having a family recorded in
any reputable ancient writings?
- This is, essentially, an
argument of silence and is not
the best argument.
Nevertheless, there is no
credible historical evidence
suggesting that Jesus had a
family. If Jesus were that
important of a figure and if he
had a family, in contradiction
to the gospel accounts, then why
are there no reliable records of
this recorded anywhere?
- If Jesus had a son, and a
wife, and was walking around
Israel, it would have been
around the time that the gospels
were being circulated which were
initially written anywhere from
the 40's to the 60's, with John
possibly written later.
See "When
were the gospels written and by
whom?". You'd
think that the Jews and Romans
would have countered the
circulating gospels by simply
saying, "Hey, Jesus lives
with his wife and son over in
Jerusalem."
- Also, after the gospels had
been circulating and Jesus' son
was alive and well (as the
ossuary evidence has been
interpreted to support),
certainly someone (Jewish and/or
Roman) would have documented
that Jesus indeed had a son in
contradiction to the widening
distribution of the gospel
records. After all, both the
Jews and the Romans had reasons
to not want Christianity to
flourish. So, why are
there no such accounts of Jesus'
son in existence?
- Why didn't the critics of
Christianity produce Jesus' body?
- This is similar to point ten.
Since the Jewish culture as well
as the Roman authorities did not
want Jesus' resurrection to be
believed, since it contradicted
both of their theological and
social power structures, and if
Jesus did get married and
have children, then why is their
no record of those authorities
producing the person and/or body
of Jesus? You'd think this would
have been settled long ago if
Jesus really did live and breathe
after the gospels' recorded
resurrection and Acts account of
his ascension.
- Statistical analysis of the names
- How do they know which names
were and were not common in
those days? Isn't this a
relevant question to ask when
making statistical analysis?
Joseph, Jesus, and Mary were
very common names at the time.
As Christianity grew, it would
make sense that people would
take the names of Jesus, Mary,
Joseph, etc., as a sign of
respect for and identification
with their Christian beliefs.
- Statistics can be manipulated.
We're not suggesting that these
statistics were, but there needs
to be an explanation dealing
with how common the names were
in the culture at that time and
the criteria needs to be
examined.
- Even if the statistical
analysis shows the coincidence
to be improbable, it still does
not demonstrate that Jesus was
in the ossuary. After all
there are too many other
questions and problems that
counter that conclusion.
- Counter evidence
- Archaeologist says it
isn't Jesus' tomb.
"In 1996, when the BBC
aired a short documentary on the
same subject, archaeologists
challenged the claims. Amos
Kloner, the first archaeologist
to examine the site, said the
idea [of the tomb being that of
Jesus] fails to hold up by
archaeological standards but
makes for profitable
television….It was an ordinary
middle-class Jerusalem burial
cave…The names on the caskets
are the most common names found
among Jews at the time…The
cave, it [Kloner's report] said,
was probably in use by three or
four generations of Jews from
the beginning of the Common Era.
It was disturbed in antiquity,
and vandalized. The names on the
boxes were common in the first
century (25 percent of women in
Jerusalem, for example, were
called Miriam or a
derivative)."7
- Incorrect reading of
names? "Pfann
[a biblical scholar at the
University of the Holy Land in
Jerusalem] is even unsure that
the name "Jesus" on
the caskets was read correctly.
He thinks it's more likely the
name 'Hanun.'"8
- Alternate burial site
locations.
"James Tabor, a Biblical
scholar at the University of
North Carolina at Charlotte and
the leading academic voice who
lends enthusiastic, if
qualified, support to
Jacobovici's claims, wrote that
he looked for, and found, a
legendary tomb of Jesus near the
city of Safed."9
-------------------
_____________
End Notes
1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/page/2/
2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/page/4/
3. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/explore.html
4. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/explore.html
under Maria
5. http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/
02-25-2007/0004533923&EDATE=
6. http://www.answers.com/topic/acts-of-phillip
7. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/26/jesus.sburial.ap/index.html
8. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/26/jesus.sburial.ap/index.html
9. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/page/4/
Has the tomb of Jesus been found
|
|
