Jesus Tomb - A followup to an email

 



THE LOST TOMB OF JESUS -

This Sunday the Discovery Channel will debut a made-for-TV documentary titled "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." Filmmakers claim that a tomb in the Talpiot neighborhood of Jerusalem is the final resting place of Jesus of Nazareth and several members of his family. Not only does the documentary seek to undermine the deity of Christ, it attempts to substantiate the Magdalene Heresy made popular by Dan Brown's bookThe DaVinci Code.



(This is called guilt by association. Called a logical fallacy)







The Talpiot tomb was originally discovered in 1980. It is a large tomb that contained ten ossuaries (an ossuary is a chest that holds skeletal remains). (Some) Archaeologists say there is nothing extraordinary about the tomb, but filmmakers (and some archaeologists) believe they have made a discovery that will shake the very foundations of Christianity. They believe the tomb contained the remains of Jesus of Nazareth, as well as his mother Mary, his father Joseph, and other family members. They also speculate that one of the ossuaries found in the tomb contains the remains of Mary Magdalene. According to the filmmakers, their "discovery" supports claims that Jesus and Mary Magdalene where married and may have had children. (If true it would support this)



A Fraud of Titanic Proportions



The writer, producer, and director of the Discovery Channel documentary is Simcha Jacobovici and its executive producer is James Cameron, the man who brought us the film Titanic. Jacobovici was the driving force behind the documentary, however he is not an archaeologist (so someone who does research on their own is . . . ) and his speculations leave many questions unanswered. In fact, most (many) of the scholars who have reviewed his claims - even those who are not Christians - have raised objections to the validity of his assertions(of course there are questions). Jacobovici lays out an impressive array of data, including the results of DNA-testing and statistical analysis. However, while Jacobovici does a good job of selling his speculations, he can't actuallyprove any of them (shall we discuss proof?). (Some) Scientists and (Some) scholars around the world have been quick to point out the many holes in his theory.



When the Talpiot tomb was originally excavated more than 26 years ago, the ossuaries were taken to the Rockefeller Archaeological Museum outside the Old City of Jerusalem. Joe Zias, who was the curator for anthropology and archeology at the museum from 1972 to 1997, personally numbered the Talpiot ossuaries. Zias has criticized on the Discovery Channel documentary saying, "Projects like these make a mockery of the archeological profession." (I would say that to if I screwed up on the single biggest find ever) He further stated that the show's producers have "no credibility whatsoever." (I would agree can they not do research and contact experts?)



What's in a Name?



Of the ten ossuaries found in the tomb, six of them had inscriptions. Although in some cases, the "inscriptions" appear to be little more than crudely scratched names (This is important? why? many of the instritopns that we have are crudly scratched). The names archeologists found carved on ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb were: Jesus son of Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, Matthew, Judas son of Jesus, and Jose (a diminutive of Joseph). Producers of the documentary believe that Mariamene (or Mary) is in fact Mary Magdalene. However there is no evidence directly connecting Mary Magdalene to the Mary in the tomb (As I recall no one said there is). Furthermore, scholars are quick to point out that these were all very common names. The name Mary is one of the most common of all ancient Jewish female names (go read http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/02/26/joe-zias-on-the-talpiot-tomb/). In fact, during the first century, nearly 25 percent of women in Jerusalem, for example, were called Miriam or some derivative of that name. Even the name "Jesus" was a popular name in the first century; it has been discovered in at least 98 other tombs and on 21 other ossuaries (True, Yeshua and Joshua both deriviative names are rather common; the arguement that is made is the names are in close approximation, startically clustarted, starts removing some of the questions. Therefore, if you have a room full of people named Bill and asked how many of you are Bill the son of Bob - very few would stand.)



The Gnostic Gospels



Much like DaVinci Code (Back to guilt by association) author Dan Brown, the documentary's producers relied heavily upon the so-called "Gnostic gospels" to support their conjectures concerning Jesus and Mary Magdalene (in particular the Gospel of Phillip). (Many Christian) Scholars widely agree that none of the Gnostic gospels contain historically reliable information about the life of Jesus and that all were likely written in the second century or later - in contrast to the contemporaneous eyewitness accounts in the New Testament (likewise many other scholars, mostly non-christians, argue there is some validity to the gnostic gospels) . The Gnostic gospels are not really "gospels" at all, but rather they are filled with unverifiable claims and were written under false pseudonyms in an attempt to gain legitimacy (i.e. the "Gospel of Philip" was not written by Philip, nor was it even written during his lifetime) (Okay here we are back at proof. There are many scholars including many christian scholars who argue that Mt, Mk, Lk did not write what they wrote, that for most of them, except maybe Mk was written post 70) . These documents emerged during the centuries following the ministries of the Apostles and were universally rejected by the early church. The Gnostic gospels include The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Truth, and about four dozen others. (Timing is everyhthing is it not? The earliest FRAGMENT [p52], notice that word FRAGMENT, of two or three verses from the gospel of John dates to about 125AD. Nearly 1 centuary after the events. Most of the other writings are later. For the record most scholars agree that most of Paul's writings are authentic.)



The Ossuary of James



In addition to his other claims, Jacobovici believes that the now-infamous ossuary of James is authentic and that it may have come from the Talpiot tomb (This is conjucture, as I recall most Christians were on the James band wagon big time back in 01-02) . (In 2003, the Israeli Antiquities Authority declared that the inscriptions on the James ossuary were modern forgeries. To this day, the ossuary's province of origin remains unknown (Correct) . The collector who owned the ossuary has since been convicted of forging various other ancient artifacts.) According to Newsweek, the technique Jacobovici uses to "prove" the match between the James ossuary and the Talpiot tomb is a technology he calls "patina fingerprinting," which was essentially invented for the purposes of the film. (This is bad becasue? Are we saying that most new inventions are bad? Okay, so this is a little over the top, even for me, however this patina fingerprinting is still in the infant stages and will need time to sort out. )



The Truth of the Matter



Amos Kloner is the archaeologist who oversaw the work at the tomb in 1980 and who authored the official report on the dig. He says the burial cave is not extraordinary. "It's a typical (here it is typical, later it is for rich people) Jewish burial cave of a large size. The names on the ossuaries are very common names or derivatives of names. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the first century CE." (so we never change out viewpoints? Glad I do not beive in the divine right of kings) Recently he told The Jerusalem Post that, "It makes a great story for a TV film. But it's impossible. It's nonsense." (Again, if I screwed up I would cover my butt also. )



The conjectures presented in "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" are filled with holes (like most theories) . According Amos Kloner's report the tomb was disturbed in ancient times, and vandalized. Some of the biggest questions that remain unanswered relate to this early break-in: who vandalized the cave, when, what did they do there and why? (Does this vandalized cave, negate the whole thing, I think not.) Also, it is highly unlikely that Joseph, who died in Galilee, was buried in Jerusalem (he would have most likely been buried in Nazareth or Bethlehem) (The Joseph is not Dad Joseph but Yosef son of yosef as claimed by the writer) . The Talipot tomb and ossuaries also clearly belonged to a rich family. Why would Jesus' family have a tomb outside of Jerusalem if they were from Nazareth? (Becasue Jerusalem had the Temple? He died in Jerusalem? Jerusalem was the center of Jewish life? ) Why would they have a tomb if they were poor? (If the theory is correct, are we saying that a popular Rabbi would not have rich friends like say, Joesph of Arimethia or say Nicodeamus? For the record Nick was quite rich, this is from the Talmud) More importantly, there is no DNA evidence to suggest that the remains in the Talipot tomb are that of the historical Jesus of Nazareth (Correct. How would you test that? Nor in 2000 years will there be any evidance that your grandfather's DNA was his) . There is also no historical evidence that Jesus was ever married (other then the gnostic gospels) or had a child (other then the gnostic gospels) . Nor can the filmmakers refute historical evidence of Jesus' resurrection (funny how that is not included here - yes I know of two solid arguments) . Even the Roman centurions who were given the task of guarding the Jesus' tomb acknowledged that it was empty (according to who? ) . After which, Jesus appeared in the flesh before hundreds of witnesses. (again according to who)



Ben Witherington, a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, commented on the documentary saying, "Unfortunately, this is a story full of holes, conjectures and problems. It will make good TV and involves a bad critical reading of history. Basically, this is old news with a new interpretation (glad we have the same exact interpretations for the last 2000 years) . We have known about this tomb since it was discovered in 1980. There are all sorts of reasons to see this as much ado about nothing."



While the Discovery Channel documentary may (may not? does not sound convincing, you mean like, it MAY BE TRUE? ) not be true, it does indeed make for good television. Even more unfortunate, it makes for convincing television. No doubt many who see it will be deceived. In times like these, when we find ourselves amidst an ever-increasing barrage of conflicting information, it is important to rely on God's Word for guidance and to remember that grace and truth come by Jesus Christ.

(When I finally get a copy of this and watch it, I will be 10x more critical of it then I am here. )