http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=2130
Discovering the Truth About “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”
[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by one of A.P.’s
auxiliary staff scientists. Bryant holds two Masters degrees, and is
enrolled in Masters study in Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology and
Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, as well as doctoral
studies at Regions University. He has participated in an archaeological
dig at Tell El-Borg in Egypt and holds professional membership in both
the American Schools of Oriental Research and the Society of Biblical
Literature.]
Reinventing the Son of God is big business. Every year around Easter,
Christians can expect to see the latest challenge to the historical
picture of Jesus in magazines like
TIME and
Newsweek. For producers with bigger budgets, movies and television
specials provide slick visuals to illustrate these new “truths.” There
has been a recent flurry of these productions, ranging from popular
novels to announcements about lost gospels, that allegedly will
revolutionize how we understand the New Testament. For anyone with an
interest in the sensational, the most recent addition to the growing
host of heresy does not disappoint.
A new documentary titled
The Lost Tomb of Jesus aired on the
Discovery Channel on March 4, 2007. At the helm were award-winning
filmmakers James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici. The documentary promised
to shed new light on Jesus through the earliest artifacts connected to
the rise of Christianity. They claimed to take us to the tomb of Christ
Himself, showing that He was a historic figure in spite of those who
would claim Him to be nothing more than a myth. Are they doing
Christians a favor, or are they doing more harm than good?
THE FIND
In the modern Jerusalem suburb of Talpiyot, a construction crew
uncovered an ancient tomb while digging for a new apartment complex in
1980. Archaeologists immediately were called in to document the find in a
salvage operation, lasting from March 28 to April 14 of that year
(Kloner, 1996, 29:22). The find was a rock-cut tomb with 10 limestone
ossuaries (bone boxes), six of which bore inscriptions identifying the
occupants as Jesus, Joseph, Matthew, Simeon, and two Marys. The names
were common ones to the period, so the archaeologists thought nothing of
them. No special significance was attached to the tomb. The excavators
finished their work, the construction resumed, and the ossuaries were
placed in storage. Bone fragments found inside the ossuaries were buried
in a cemetery according to Orthodox Jewish custom. The tomb soon lay
buried, hidden by modern development.
 |
Twenty-three years later, filmmaker Jacobovici began working on a
documentary on the ossuary of James, the brother of Jesus. He observed
that there were several ossuaries with familiar names, including Jesus,
Joseph, and Mary. Could this be the holy family of the New Testament? He
explored the work of the original excavators and found the evidence too
tantalizing to pass up. After talking with the archaeologists who
worked on the dig and writing a proposal, his work began. The fruit of
his labor is the new documentary,
The Lost Tomb of Jesus, which features the hidden tomb that supposedly contained the remains of Christ.
In order to determine the accuracy of the theory presented in the documentary, we first must look at the important idea of
convergence.
When the historical, archaeological, and biblical evidence is
interpreted and weighed, we expect there to be harmony. The three will
converge, or come together. There may be cases where evidence from one
area might be lacking, but we do not expect the evidence to be in
conflict without adequate explanation. This is a key factor in
determining whether Jacobovici’s conclusions are right or wrong.
Tales of Tombs and Ossuaries
 |
|
A typical Palestinian rock-cut tomb
|
Rock-cut tombs were used in antiquity at least as early as the eighth century
B.C.
They are artificial underground caves in the bedrock slopes of
Jerusalem, nearly always located outside the city walls (Magness, 2005,
124[1]:122-123). They were choice burial sites for those wealthy enough
to afford them, while those with less financial means settled for trench
graves, similar to those used in modern cemeteries. Families used
rock-cut tombs over several generations, a practice which is reflected
in biblical phrases such as “he slept and was gathered to his fathers”
(2 Chronicles 34:28). They usually appear only in periods where the
Jewish people had a measure of political independence.
In Jewish tombs, there were two burials involved for a single
individual. In the initial or primary burial, the body would be placed
on a
loculus or
kokh (rectangular burial niche) for
the body to decay. About a year later, the bones would be gathered
together for a secondary burial, usually in a limestone ossuary (bone
box). Ossuaries began to appear during the reign of Herod the Great,
dateable perhaps to 20-15
B.C. (Rahmani, 1994, p. 21). Their use continued at least until the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in
A.D. 70, but may have extended through the early second century.
Archaelogical Evidence
One of the primary problems with connecting the Talpiyot tomb with
Jesus Christ involves the expense of owning such a tomb in antiquity.
Even modest tombs were outside the price range of most people. Further
complicating the matter is the fact that Jesus and His family never are
portrayed as wealthy enough to afford a rock-cut tomb. If Joseph died
early, as suggested by some who note his absence in Jesus’ adult life,
an additional financial burden would have been placed on the family,
further decreasing their already minuscule chances of owning a tomb.
On the Biblical Archaeology Society Web site, scholar James Tabor (who
supports the idea that the Talpiyot tomb could be that of Jesus) has
objected to comments about the default burial of Jesus being in a trench
grave along with others who were too poor to own a rock-cut tomb. He
argues that it seems only natural that a popular religious leader like
Jesus would be given an honorable burial by His devoted followers
(Tabor, 2007). However, Rahmani’s
Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries
notes that the name of Jesus is carved clumsily on the ossuary (labeled
as no. 701). If this is the tomb of a popular religious figure, why
give Him a simple, unadorned ossuary with only His name shoddily
scrawled on the outside? Tabor’s objection clearly does not fit the
evidence.
Another problem is that Jesus and his family did not come from
Jerusalem. Joseph and Mary originally were from Bethlehem, and settled
in Nazareth. While ossuaries frequently have the names of a person’s
father or mother, ancient sources also typically make a distinction
concerning the place of a person’s origin, as in the cases of Simon of
Cyrene and Saul of Tarsus. Ossuaries in Jerusalem have been found that
indicate a person’s place of origin when they were not originally from
that city. If the tomb were truly that of Jesus Christ, we would expect
Him to be identified on the ossuary as “Jesus of Nazareth” rather than
“Jesus son of Joseph.” No one in the Talpiyot tomb is identified by
place of origin. This evidence strongly suggests that the people buried
in the tomb were natives of Jerusalem.
Additional evidence concerning the names on the ossuaries found in the
Talpiyot tomb complicates the conclusions drawn by the documentary. The
ossuary of the woman identified as Mary Magdalene is problematic, and
conflicts with other evidence. First, if the ossuary belonged to Mary,
we would expect her to be identified as “Mary of Migdal,” as she is in
the New Testament (Luke 8:2).
Second, scholars are divided on how to translate the wording of
MARIAMENOU MARA
(the name appearing on one of the ossuaries), whether it gives two
names for the same woman (“Mary, who is called Mara”) or if it indicates
the names of two women—Mary and Martha—meaning that two people were
buried in the same ossuary, which was not unknown (there are cases of as
many as five people buried in a single ossuary). Stephen Pfann’s piece
on the Society of Biblical Literature homepage disputes the reading used
by the documentary, arguing that the inscription should be read
MARIAME KAI MARA
(Pfann, 2007). In this case, the inscription would refer to two women,
Mariam and Martha. Most scholars now appear to be accepting Pfann’s
corrected reading of the ossuary’s inscription, concluding that the
remains of two individuals shared this ossuary.
An additional problem with “Mary Magdalene’s” ossuary is that the
inscription is in Greek. According to the documentary, Mary spoke Greek
and helped her brother Philip in evangelistic work. In reality, Mary
Magdalene came from Migdal, a small Jewish fishing village. Usually in
the first century, only upper class Jews spoke Greek. The average Jew
would have spoken Aramaic. So why is her ossuary inscription written in
Greek? This evidence suggests a Jerusalemite woman named Mary who was
from the upper classes, and whose family could afford to bury her in a
rock-cut tomb.
The program claims that “Mara” in the inscription means “teacher,” a
conclusion with which no reputable scholar agrees. The word is actually a
shortened form of the name “Martha.” It is suggested that Francois
Bovon, Frothingham professor of the history of religion at Harvard
Divinity School, has equated Mariamne with Mary Magdalene (Desmond,
2000). Bovon has denied this claim, however, in a letter sent to the
Society of Biblical Literature in which he says the “reconstructions of
Jesus’ marriage with Mary Magdalene and the birth of a child belong for
me to science fiction” (Bovon, 2007).
One final concern regarding the archaeological evidence: a primary
assumption of the documentary is that the James ossuary comes from the
same tomb in Talpiyot. The program claims that the 10th ossuary went
missing during the original work on the tomb. To rebut this claim,
Israeli archaeologist Joseph Zias has posted an excellent “viewer’s
guide” to understanding the documentary on his Web site
(www.joezias.com). Zias shows that the
FBI proved
the James ossuary was photographed in the 1970’s because of a criminal
investigation against Oded Golan, the ossuary’s current owner (Zias,
2007). If the James ossuary was already in Golan’s possession when the
tomb was discovered, it could not be the tenth “missing” ossuary. Zias
also shows that he had indeed accounted for the tenth ossuary when the
original work was done, and that it had no inscription.
Scientific Evidence
People in the Western world are trained to think that scientific
evidence assures the quality of any product. Advertisers make sure the
public knows that their work has been “scientifically proven.” This
gives the consumer the idea that independent, objective research has
gone into its production. The commercials for
The Lost Tomb of Jesus did much the same in advertisements leading up to the premiere of the documentary.
The first major area of evidence concerns the
DNA testing performed on two of the ossuaries, those of Jesus and Mary. Mitochondrial
DNA was tested by the Paleo-
DNA
Laboratory at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario (Jacobovici
and Pellegrino, 2007, pp. 167-174). It was determined that the two
individuals in this tomb were not related to each other. Since this was a
family tomb, the documentary suggests, the two
must
have been husband and wife. But the only thing this test proves is that
Jesus and Mary did not have the same mother. In addition, there are a
number of other possibilities in terms of family relations. Mary could
have been Jesus’ daughter, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law through
marriage to a brother, sister-in-law from a previous marriage of his
father, mother-in-law from a subsequent marriage of his father, or
paternal cousins, with more distant relations remaining as further
possibilities. To leap to the conclusion that the two must have been
married to one another is problematic and prejudicial, to say the least.
 |
|
Exterior view of a Jewish rock-cut tomb
|
In addition to the
DNA evidence, further proof
from statistics is supposed to support the claim that this is the tomb
of Jesus. Andrey Feuerverger of the University of Toronto assembled the
statistical evidence, shown on the Discovery Channel Web site, which
supposedly proves the tomb to be that of Jesus (2007). Unfortunately,
the names represented on the ossuaries are extremely common. In his
book,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckman indicates
that the male names in the tomb are among the most popular, with Simon
ranking first, Joseph second, Judah fourth, and Jesus sixth, with Mary
being the most common female name (Bauckman, 2006, p. 70). This is why
archaeologists initially thought nothing of the tomb when it was
discovered. While the names corresponded to those of Jesus’ family in
the gospel records, they were also the most common names in the first
century. The equivalent today would be trying to find a modern cemetery
that did not have anyone named Smith or Jones. Taking this evidence into
account, the documentary claims that while the individual names are
common, the
cluster of names is not. After all, how many families in the first century could have people named Joseph, Jesus, and Mary?
While the argument initially sounds convincing, a number of problems
persist with the statistics presented on the Discovery Channel Web site.
In a letter to his colleagues posted on the Internet, Feuerverger
admits that he made a number of assumptions before he performed his
calculations. First, he assumed that the Joseph (Yose) of the ossuary
and the Joseph, father of Jesus, are two different people—an unprovable
assumption. He also assumed that the second Mary refers to Mary
Magdalene, forcing a virtually statistical certainty that this is the
tomb of Jesus. But this interpretation is impossible, as discussed
earlier. A third assumption is that the presence of unknown people, such
as Matthew and Judah, do not invalidate the statistical evidence,
though that assumption goes against the historical evidence
(Feuerverger, 2007).
The statistical evidence is invalid because the names on the ossuaries
do not match the evidence for several reasons. First, there are two
persons for whom the historical evidence does not account (Matthew and
Judah). Furthermore, there are other family members that are missing,
including His brothers James and Jude, and sisters Salome and Mary (who
are named only in later tradition; cf. Mark 6:3). The documentary
contends that Yose (Joseph) is not the father of Jesus. This contention
drives the statistical probability higher, yet the documentary never
addresses the fact that the Yose in the ossuary and the father of Jesus
could have been the same person. Admittedly, this is not certain, but
there is no good reason why the father of this Jesus could not have gone
by Yose. Actually, a facsimile of the
Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries
presented on the Discovery Channel Web site shows that Rahmani’s
opinion was that Yose very well could be the father of the Jesus in this
tomb. Finally, attributing the ossuary to Mary Magdalene further
inflates the statistics, though no evidence exists to connect the name
on the ossuary to her. It also assumes that the Matthew of the ossuary
is a relative of Mary, but not her son, despite a lack of any evidence
to support that possibility.
The final piece of scientific evidence involves the use of “patina
fingerprinting.” Patina is a thin layer of buildup on the surface of an
artifact due to chemical reaction with the environment. According to the
program, the makeup of the patina holds clues about the tomb. Though
touted as an important piece of information in the documentary, it is
completely inadmissible as evidence. The use of the term
“fingerprinting” is a misleading description, since it gives the viewer
the impression that the science behind the process is exact. The truth
is, the procedure is not exact, nor would we expect it to be. The patina
evidence is rigged from the start. The patinas from ossuaries
discovered in other environments are tested and shown to be different
from the ossuaries in the Talpiyot tomb. Those in the Talpiyot tomb were
tested and shown to be relatively similar. But these conclusions are to
be expected. The real test is whether ossuaries from tombs
similar
to the Talpiyot tomb are different, which would strengthen Jacobovici’s
case. But there is no reason to expect substantial differences in
patina evidence from similar environments. No way exists to connect a
single ossuary with a specific tomb. The use of this evidence is
intellectually dishonest.
Historical Evidence
While the evidence from archaeology and science—the main underpinnings
of the documentary’s premise—has been shown to be lacking, the program
faces further difficulties in terms of the historical evidence. The
basis for the documentary is drawn in part from later, extra-biblical
traditions. It is strange, though perhaps to be expected, that the
documentary draws on sources centuries later than the New Testament
gospel accounts—further evidence of the utter lack of objectivity in the
documentary. Rather than using the gospel records of Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John (which have demonstrated their historical reliability and
are accepted even by most non-believing scholars—see
Lyons and Miller, 2004, 24[6]:57-63), the documentary is guided by pseudepigraphical works of highly dubious historical value.
The major problem is that no evidence exists to suggest that Jesus had a
wife and child. There is no hint Jesus ever was married (
Lyons,
2006). While archaeology occasionally fills in gaps left out by
historical evidence, this fact would not have gone unmentioned in the
earliest sources. The marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene is found
nowhere in the ancient evidence.
The statistical probability of the Talpiyot tomb being that of Jesus
hangs on Mariamne and Mary Magdalene being one and the same. Yet no
early evidence connects the two. The only connection available comes from the
Acts of Philip,
an uncertain and widely disputed text, whose earliest surviving copy is
from the 14th century, though possibly dated to the fourth. The text
not only fails conclusively to connect Mariamne with Mary Magdalene, it
has a few other discrediting features—including talking animals.
Speaking from the historian’s perspective, it is grossly irresponsible
to dismiss the best sources and use disputed evidence to support an
already-drawn conclusion.
Response of the Early Church
Finally, we must examine the response of early believers to Jesus. In
the gospel accounts, after the crucifixion of Christ, the disciples are
depicted as a band of disillusioned idealists. They thought their
Messiah was dead and gone, buried in a tomb, when He was supposed to
save the world. Despite their initial disenchantment, they soon
transformed into powerful preachers bent on evangelizing the
Mediterranean world. Going on missions that put them directly in harm’s
way (cf. Acts 8:1-3; 2 Corinthians 11:23-27), they defied worldly
authorities for the cause of Christ. Why the turnaround?
Being a Christian did not bode well for one’s health. History records
that all of the apostles but one were martyred. So was James, the
brother of Jesus. Even the average Christian at the time could expect to
be executed if discovered by the Roman authorities. Of all the
religious choices in the first century, why choose the one with the
shortest life expectancy? It is hard to believe that such a religion
would be the chosen course of people who had put Jesus’ body in the
tomb, then later placed His bones in an ossuary. They would have been
reminded of the lie every time the next family member was buried, at the
very time people were preaching His resurrection. The only explanation
for this complete inability to face reality would be insanity.
We are at a loss to find any other explanation for the dramatic
turnaround of some of the fiercest defenders of the faith in the early
church. There was tension in the family of Jesus, which would have
included His brothers James and Jude (Mark 3:31-34). Paul actively
persecuted the church (Acts 8:3). It is difficult—if not impossible—to
explain such a dramatic reversal of men who were originally skeptics and
even enemies of Christ.
In early church history, absolutely no awareness of this family tomb is
indicated. During the reign of Constantine the Great, traditional sites
of New Testament significance were marked. Churches were constructed
over venerated locations, such as the purported burial place of Jesus
and the site of his ascension to heaven, and even the site identified as
Peter’s house. Before the reign of Constantine, Christians commemorated
the final resting place of Jesus’ brother James. Yet, we are supposed
to believe that the early church inexplicably lost track of the real
tomb, in spite of the fact that it was used for at least four
generations, until the end of the first century? Even so, the location
never appears in Christian traditions or the writings of the early
patristic writers. Christianity shows no awareness of the tomb from
earliest times.
Both Roman and Jewish authorities were hostile to the early church. If
the documentary is correct, all they had to do was point to the ossuary
occupied by the body of Jesus to refute utterly the Christian claims of
His resurrection. Yet there was no body to be produced. The fact that
the body of Jesus was missing may well be reflected in a stone monument
found in Nazareth in 1878, dubbed the “Nazareth Inscription Against
Grave Robbing,” possibly dating to the time of the Roman emperor
Claudius (
A.D. 41-54). The inscription states that tomb-robbing is a capital crime under Roman law. Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome in
A.D.
49 because of problems generated by the budding Christian faith. He
also may have issued this order because of problems concerning the
claims that Jesus rose from the dead. This observation is uncertain,
however, and so must be weighed with caution (Ferguson, 2003, pp.
586-587).
In the end, the tomb discovery has wide-ranging theological
implications. Some of the most basic tenets of the Christian faith hang
upon the bodily resurrection of Christ. While the producers of the
documentary have downplayed this aspect, claiming that Jesus could have
had a spiritual resurrection, their view is yet another instance of
failure to understand properly the ancient evidence. The unusual aspect
of Christ’s resurrection was not that it was physical—which is what the
Jews anticipated. The unexpectedness of it is the fact that it occurred
before the end of time. According to Jewish belief, resurrection was
physical, as can be seen in the book of 2 Maccabees. In chapter 7, one
of several individuals being tortured expresses the belief that his
mutilated body parts would be restored in the resurrection. In 2
Maccabees 17:46, a man named Razis, who committed suicide by pulling out
his own intestines, called upon God to restore them to him again,
presumably in the afterlife. It has been suggested that the point of
having an ossuary was to preserve the bones for a physical resurrection
(Rahmani, 1981, 44[3]:175-176).
Responses from Experts
While critics of the Christian faith make fun of believers scurrying to
do damage control in the wake of the documentary’s premiere, it is not
Christians who are leading the charge against the film, but atheists and
agnostics. The majority of the archaeologists who have denounced the
program are unbelievers. Their ire is not because the program
controverts the gospel message, but because it violates standards of
scientific and academic professionalism (Thompson, 2007). The
established process of presenting new discoveries and interpretations is
by means of scholarly venues, such as papers presented at professional
conferences and articles published in peer-reviewed journals. By
announcing the findings of the program in the popular media, complete
with a perfectly-timed news conference to coincide with the release of
the book and documentary, Cameron and Jacobovici have stepped on the
toes of scholars everywhere.
Amos Kloner, the archaeologist who initially worked on the excavation
and later published his findings in 1996, argues that the documentary is
nothing more than a commercial enterprise (Nissenbaum, 2007). Kloner’s
colleague in the excavation, Joseph Zias (one-time curator of the
well-known Rockefeller Museum in Israel), has lamented that the
documentary makes a mockery of the archaeological profession (Zias,
2007). From their comments in the popular media, it is readily apparent
that both men, who are reputable archaeologists—but unbelievers—are
frustrated with the project.
Some of the harshest language about the documentary came immediately
after its airing. In a scholarly program that discussed the validity of
the documentary’s radical claims,
The Lost Tomb of Jesus—A Critical Look,
Ted Koppel interviewed two archaeologists. The first was William Dever,
arguably the most recognized American archaeologist. The other was
Jonathan Reed, a well-respected archaeologist who currently excavates at
the site of ancient Sepphoris. Dever, who noted that he was not a
believer and did not “have a dog in this fight,” labeled the program a
“docu-drama.” Reed was even more hostile in his evaluation, denouncing
the documentary as “archaeo-porn.” Reed’s evaluation of the evidence was
that the theory is much like a chain made up of links, but one in which
each link has a tremendous number of “ifs” that makes the final product
difficult to accept.
It must be noted that Cameron and Jacobovici were unable to find
archaeological experts to agree with their conclusions. While a few
scholars have been sympathetic to the premise of the documentary, no one
has endorsed it carte blanche. The vast majority of experts are
frustrated, even angry, about it. In addition to the comments by Dever
and Reed noted above, other archaeologists have expressed dismay and
quickly moved to refute the thesis of the program. Jodi Magness,
professor of archaeology at the University of North Carolina, has
published articles on the Web sites of the Society of Biblical
Literature and the Archaeological Institute of America exposing the
shortcomings of the documentary (2007). Joseph Zias’ viewer’s guide
posted on his Web site refutes nearly every claim made by the show,
giving additional insight into what went into the program behind the
scenes (2007). Tel Ilan, the scholar whose
Lexicon of Jewish Names
was used in providing the evidence for the statistical research
presented in the program, has expressed outrage that her work has been
connected to the documentary. The Web site of
Scientific American
has quotes from both Ilan and Magness expressing their anger and
frustration (Mims, 2007). The verdict of the scholars? Professionals
have given responses ranging from irritation to anger and disgust.
Indeed, reaction of the experts is almost unanimously negative.
CONCLUSION
When one steps back from the documentary and looks to see if filmmakers
handled the evidence properly, the result can be described only as pure
disappointment. Rather than converging, the scientific, archaeological,
and historical evidence are thrown into chaotic disarray. Evidence from
one area is pitted against evidence from another. The best sources are
dismissed, while disreputable sources are given an undeserved prominence
in the conclusion of the program. Jacobovici has been unable to find
any expert who will agree with him. The evidence is cherry-picked to
create the appearance of the strongest possible case, but the end result
is that the chain of evidence is weak at every link.
These artifacts have been known for 27 years, yet no one of scholarly
repute has thought much of them until now. As vocal as critics of
Christianity are, it is strange that this sleeping giant has lain
undisturbed for nearly three decades. This is the kind of ammunition
that the Bible’s detractors drool over, yet it never made a blip on the
radar despite being published in 1996 and being featured on a
BBC
special the same year. Apparently, it takes a filmmaker to connect the
dots on 2,000 year-old “evidence” that contradicts Christianity.
The Lost Tomb of Jesus has the potential to shake Christianity
to its core, but the utter lack of good evidence means the documentary
goes forth more with a whimper than a bang. Both Cameron and Jacobovici
have admitted that neither is an archaeologist or scientist. They make
it appear as if anyone with a budget and a film crew can do archaeology.
This is painfully obvious at the end of the program, when Jacobovici
goes to find the location of the tomb. He eventually discovers it and
removes the concrete slab that seals it shut, essentially committing
archaeological “breaking and entering.” Eventually, a representative
from the Israel Antiquities Authority shows up to force the intruders to
leave. Jacobovici demonstrates a flagrant disregard for proper
procedure; the same may be said for the rest of his work.
In the wake of the program’s premiere, it appears that those involved
are attempting to distance themselves from the project. In an e-mail to
evangelical theologian James White posted on the Alpha and Omega
Ministries Web site, Dr. Carney Matheson (the scientist responsible for
DNA
testing on the Jesus and Mary ossuaries) indicated that his responses
in interviews with the filmmakers were manipulated (White, 2007). In a
letter to his colleagues, Andrey Feuerverger, the statistical expert
from the University of Toronto, emphasizes the assumptions that went
into his calculations (2007). Even the Discovery Channel is refusing to
promote the documentary, and now appears to be backing away from it.
Despite drawing over four million viewers for the premiere, the channel
has not celebrated its ratings. Subsequent re-airings of the show were
cancelled. The channel scheduled the panel debate in
The Lost Tomb of Jesus—A Critical Look quite abruptly, the conclusions of which cast serious doubt upon Jacobovici’s findings.
Do Christians have anything about which to worry?
Not at all.
The documentary’s conclusion is based on poor use of evidence and
faulty statistics. The evidence in the documentary has been skewed, even
manipulated—a charge brought by scholars who have no spiritual stake in
the program. While the documentary makes for sensational television, it
has no scholarly basis. Rather than the evidence achieving convergence,
the documentary pits different aspects of the evidence against other
aspects. The difficulties in reconciling the scientific, archaeological,
and historical data in a meaningful way can be solved by one simple
solution: this is not the tomb of Christ.
If we could travel back in time nearly 2,000 years to the territory now
occupied by the suburb of Talpiyot in modern-day Jerusalem, we could
observe Jesus’ funeral, with mourners dressed in first-century Jewish
garb solemnly marching toward a rock-cut tomb. The family of the
deceased would gather around sorrowfully to lay their beloved to rest in
the cool, stone chamber. A year later, they would put his bones in a
limestone ossuary. Our hearts would go out to the family—even though the
deceased was not Jesus of Nazareth.
REFERENCES
Bauckman, Richard (2006),
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Bovon, Francois (2007),
The Tomb of Jesus, [On-line],
URL: http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=656.
Desmond, Peter H. (2000), “Woman Priests, Vegetarians, and Summer Dresses: Fourth Century Church Tales,”
Harvard Magazine, May-June, [On-line],
URL: http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/0500113.html.
Ferguson, Everett (2003), “Back”grounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), third edition.
Feuerverger, Andrey (2007), “Dear Statistical Colleagues,” [On-line],
URL: http://fisher.utstat.toronto.edu/andrey/OfficeHrs.txt.
Jacobovici, Simcha and Charles Pellegrino (2007),
The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence that Could Change History (New York, NY: HarperCollins).
Kloner, Amos (1996), “A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiyot, Jerusalem,”
Antiqot, 29:15-22.
Lyons, Eric (2006), “The Real Mary Magdalene,” Apologetics Press, [On-line],
URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3059.
Lyons, Eric and Dave Miller (2004), “Biblical Inerrancy,”
Reason & Revelation, 24[6]:57-63, June, [On-line],
URL: http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=416.
Magness, Jodi (2005), “Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James,”
Journal of Biblical Literature, 124[1]:121-154.
Magness, Jodi (2007), “Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?” Society of Biblical Literature, March 2 and April 3, [On-line],
URL: http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=640 ; Archaeological Institute of America, [On-line],
URL: http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10408.
Mims, Christopher (2007), “Says Scholar Whose Work Was Used in the
Upcoming Jesus Tomb Documentary: ‘I think it’s completely mishandled. I
am angry’,”
Scientific American, March 2, [On-line],
URL: http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=says_scholar_whose_work_was_used_ in_the&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1.
Nissenbaum, Dion (2007), “Tomb of Jesus, Son Found, Film Reports,”
Chicago Tribune, February 27, [On-line],
URL: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0702270145feb27,1 ,1790100.story.
Pfann, Stephen (2007), “Mary Magdalene is Now Missing: A Corrected
Reading of Rhamani Ossuary 701,” Society of Biblical Literature,
[On-line],
URL: http://sbl-site.org/PDF/Pfann.pdf.
Rahmani, Levy Yitzhak (1981), “Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs and Tombs, Part One,”
Biblical Archaeologist, 44[3]:171-177, Summer.
Rahmani, Levy Yitzhak (1994),
A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority).
Tabor, James D. (2007), “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth and the Talpiot Yeshua Tomb,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbKCtombtabor.html.
Thompson, Marshall (2007), “Claims about Jesus’ Lost Tomb Stir Up Tempest,”
MSNBC, February 26, [On-line],
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17345429/from/RSS.
White, James R. (2007), “Dr. Carney Matheson Responds,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1809.
Zias, Joseph (2007), “Deconstructing the Second and Hopefully Last Coming of Simcha and the
BAR Crowd,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.joezias.com/tomb.html.
In
May 2004, 16-year-old Erica Basoria asked her boyfriend, Gerardo
Flores, to stomp on her belly, since she did not want to give birth to
his twin sons, and her own efforts to kill her babies had been
unsuccessful. Flores complied and subsequently was arrested on the basis
of Texas’ 2003 Prenatal Protection Act which extends the protections of
the entire criminal code to “an unborn child at every stage of
gestation from fertilization until birth” (“State Homicide Laws...,”
2006). His lawyer argued that the Texas law used to prosecute was
unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Flores received a double capital murder
conviction with two concurrent life sentences, making him ineligible for
parole for 40 years—a ruling that was upheld by the Texas Ninth Court
of Appeals (Ertelt, 2007).