Content
© Ian W. Scott
2007
|
A Startling "Discovery"
In his documentary "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" on the Discovery Channel, the journalist Simcha Jacobovici has
caused a sensation with his claim to have found the tomb of Jesus--with the bones resting peacefully inside! This
would seem to refute the fundamental Christian belief that Jesus was raised from the dead, that his disciples
found the tomb empty on Easter morning.
"Why do so many scholars . . . agree that his conclusions are flawed?"
Jacobovici also claims that the remains in the tomb show Jesus had a child
with Mary Magdalene. Given our culture's appetite for the kind of revisionist histories offered up in The DaVinci Code,
these kind of claims are hardly surprising. Still, any thinking Christian will feel the need to ask whether Jacobovici
is right. Have archaeologists found the bones of Jesus?
What is surprising, though, is how quickly and overwhelmingly
professional historians and archaeologists (many of them with no Christian commitment) have condemned Jacobovici's
documentary as distorting and misleading. Why? What, in a nutshell, is the
evidence presented by Jacobovici? Why do so many scholars--who can so seldom agree about anything--agree that
his conclusions are flawed?
Below is a brief summary of the evidence presented in the documentary, an overview of Jacobovici's claims
about the meaning of this evidence, and a survey of what leading scholars in the field have been saying in response. At the
bottom of the page you will also find links to other online discussions of Jacobovici's theories. My hope is that this
will help you to be well informed as you weigh these sensational claims about "The Lost Tomb of Jesus."
The Evidence
- In 1980 a cave-tomb near Jerusalem (known as the Talpiot tomb) was excavated by Amos Kloner, an Israeli
archaeologist.
- The tomb contained ten ossuaries, the boxes used in ancient Jewish burial to store the bones of a dead
individual after the flesh had decomposed.
- As is common, six of the ossuaries bear inscriptions indicating whose remains are inside.
- The names on the ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb include:
- Yeshua(?) ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph)
- Maria (Mary)
- Yoseh(or Yosah) (Joseph)
- Matia (Matthew)
- Mariamnou Mara (Mary the Master, or Mary Martha)
- Yehuda bar Yeshua (Judah son of Jesus)
- DNA testing on remains from the box labeled "Yeshua" and the one labeled "Mariamene Mara"
indicate that these two individuals were not related through a common mother.
The Claims
- The odds of the names Yeshua, Joseph, Mary, and Mariamne Mara appearing in the
same family tomb are roughly 1 in 600.
- Since these names were all associated with Jesus of Nazareth, it is extremely unlikely that the tomb would belong
to any other family.
- The man named Judah, identified as "son of Yeshua," is thus most likely the son of Jesus of Nazareth
- The woman named Mariamne (or Mariamene) Mara is the same woman identified in the New Testament as Mary Magdalene.
- Since the Mary Magdalene and Jesus in the Talpiot tomb were not blood relatives on their maternal side, they
were most likely husband and wife.
How Scholars Have Responded
- Is the name "Jesus" even present in the tomb?
- The archaeologist who originally excavated the Talpiot tomb was not certain that the name on the
first ossuary was actually "Yeshua." A facsimile of the inscription is available in an article by biblical
scholar Craig A. Evans, who confesses that he "can't see Yeshua'" in the scrawled letters at the beginning of the
ossuary inscription (click here).
- Is it really so unlikely that this collection of names would be found together in the same tomb?
- Yes and no. . .
- It is actually quite likely that many tombs in Judea would contain people with some form of the names
Yeshua, Mary, and Joseph in them. The Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity (2000)
"These are the most common names that you could expect to find anywhere"
~ Tal Ilan
shows that 1 in 3 Jewish women were named Mary, and 1 in 20 were named Yeshua. Tal Ilan, the author of that
book, has commented that these names "are in every tomb in Jerusalem.
. . . these are the most common names that you could expect to find anywhere" (source).
This is striking, since it is Ilan's Lexicon which the documentary makers used as the basis for their "1 in 600"
statistic.
- The figure 1 in 600 seems to give the likelihood that we would find a specific form of the name Mary ("Mariamne")
along with Jesus, Joseph, etc.
Yet there is no reason to think that Mary Magdalene would have used this form of the name Mary (see
the discussion about Mary below). Moreover, this particular form of Mary is comparatively rare. So if we ask how
likely it is that we would find any form of the name Mary ("Mariam," "Maria," "Mariamme," etc.) along with Jesus
and Joseph, the chances become much, much higher.
- Is Mary Magdalene buried in the tomb?
- The evidence is slim
- The figure which is supposed to be Mary Magdalene is the woman identified as "Mariamnou." Jacobovici takes this as the
genitive form of the name "Mariamne," and suggests that this is the same form of the name which is used for Mary Magdalene in the 2nd century
writing The Gospel of Philip.
- Yet this the name on the ossuary is not exactly the same as the name used in the Gospel of Philip.
Richard Bauckham has shown that the name on the ossuary is actually a genitive form of "Mariamnon," a diminutive
form (or "pet name") of Mary which is nowhere used for Mary Magdalene. Moreover, even "Mariamne" is not identical to
the form used in the Gospel of Philip, which is "Mariamene" (note the extra e). For the details of Bauckham's argument,
click here.
- Moreover, all of our first-century sources about Mary Magdalene call her by other forms of the name Mary.
The Gospel of Philip was written some time in the latter second-century AD, at least a hundred
years after the events of Jesus' life. In our first-century sources about Mary Magdalene (primarily the canonical
Gospels) Mary Magdalene is identified using the forms "Maria" or "Mariam".
- Likewise, there is no evidence that the second name in the ossuary inscription, "Mara," is connected with Mary Magdalene.
"Mara" may
(as the film makers argue) be an honourary title meaning "Master," sometimes used
". . . neither Mariamnon nor Mariamne are the
forms of the name Mary used by Mary Magdalene."
in the same way we would use "Sir." The name "Mara" was also used, though, as a short form for the common name
"Martha." So the inscription may simply identify this woman as "Mary, [also known as] Martha." Even if the name
on the ossuary is "Mary the Master," there is still no reason to think that this is Mary Magdalene. The title "Mara"
is totally unrelated to the epithet "Magdalene," which means "from the region around Magdala."
- Does the DNA evidence show that the person named "Yeshua" was married to "Mariamnon Mara"?
- No. It simply shows that they were not related through a common mother.
- It is still quite possible that this Yeshua and Mariamnon had the same father, i.e., were half-siblings.
This was especially common in the ancient world, when the rate of death in childbirth was so high and men would
commonly re-marry and father more children with his second wife.
- Even if "Yeshua" and "Mariamnon" are not blood relatives, this still does not tell us that they were married or
had a child together. It is equally possible that this woman was the wife of one of the other men in the tomb.
- Even the technician who did the DNA testing for the documentary is quoted as saying "The only conclusions
we made was that these two sets were not maternally related. To me it sounds like absolutely nothing" (source).
- Are there symbols on the tomb which connect it with Christians?
- No. For example, Craig A. Evans has pointed out that the "chevron" above the tomb doorway is actually a common
motif in early Jewish iconography. Appearing, for example, on Jewish coins, it generally represents the front gable of
the Jerusalem temple. Far from connecting this tomb with Jesus' followers, then, it suggests that the family buried there
were traditional, pious Jews.
- No Christian symbols or sayings of any kind. As Craig Evans has observed, we would expect to find at least
some honorific title attached to Jesus' name on his ossuary, but this "Yeshua" is identified only by the name of
his father.
- How likely is it that the family of someone like Jesus of Nazareth would be buried in this tomb outside Jerusalem?
- While possible, it is unlikely
- Jesus' family was from Nazareth, not Jerusalem, so the natural place for them to be buried would be Nazareth, far
to the north in the district of Galilee. It is true that some first-century sources suggests that Jesus' mother and brothers
remained in Jerusalem. But these same first-century sources (the book of Acts and some of Paul's letters) also
agree that Jesus' tomb was empty on the third day after his crucifixion. None of them indicate either that Jesus
was married or that he had children.
- Jodi Magness, a prominent archaeologist of Israel, has pointed out that if this were Jesus' family, the
"It would be very unusual to have a whole family of non-Jerusalemites
buried in a Jerusalem tomb, and yet for none of them to be identified as being born elsewhere."
names on the ossuaries would normally include some geographical epithet like "from Nazareth." Yet there is no such
label attached to any of the names in the Talpiot tomb. People did not move
nearly as much in ancient Judea as they do today, and people's identities were strongly shaped by their place of birth.
Normally, then, people who lived outside the area where they were born would carry geographic nicknames. Jesus himself seems
sometimes to have been known as "the Yeshua from Nazareth." It would be very unusual to have a whole family of non-Jerusalemites
buried in a Jerusalem tomb, and yet for none of them to be identified as being born elsewhere."
Other Discussions of "The Jesus Tomb"
|