Asking the Experts about Jesus’ Lost Tomb
March 5th, 2007
(By Nathan Busenitz)
Last night, the Discovery Channel aired it’s controversial “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.” Much has already been said about the so-called evidence presented by James Cameron and company. Today, we wanted to simply provide a list of quotes from leading scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) regarding their thoughts on the documentary.
We should note, at the outset, that our confidence in the reality of Christ’s resurrection does not rest on the findings of contemporary scholars, archeologists, or historians. It rests in the authoritative testimony of Scripture. Nonetheless, in light of the egregious claims made by this documentary, it is helpful to review some of the sharp criticism that it has both received and deserved. (Special thanks to Todd Bolen, professor at The Master’s College’s Israel Bible Extension campus, for his pointing us to many of these sources through his blog.)
*****
I. REGARDING THE OVERALL PREMISE OF THE DOCUMENTARY:
Prof. Amos Kloner, Israeli archeologist who oversaw the original discovery of the ossuaries:
It makes a great story for a TV film. But it’s completely impossible. It’s nonsense. (Online Source)
Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:
Well, it is only startling in terms of the sensationalism…. You are talking about a tomb that was discovered, as you said, well over two decades ago. The archaeologists there in Israel, who are the closest to this, have the greatest expertise, are not only looking at this with skepticism, but basically dismissing its claims. (Online Source)
Dr. Jodi Magness, Department of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill:
If Jesus’ family had been wealthy enough to afford a rock-cut tomb, it would have been in Nazareth, not Jerusalem… This whole case (for the tomb of Jesus) is flawed from beginning to end’ (Online Source)
And elsewhere:
The entire way this has been done has been an injustice to the entire discipline [of archaelogy] and also to the public. (Online Source)
Dr. William Dever, professor emeritus, University of Arizona:
The fact that it’s been ignored [since 1980] tells you something. It would be amusing if it didn’t mislead so many people. (Online Source)
And elsewhere:
It’s a publicity stunt, and it will make these guys very rich, and it will upset millions of innocent people because they don’t know enough to separate fact from fiction. (Online Source)
Dr. Leen Ritmeyer, biblical archeologist, Associate Professor at the College of Archaeology & Biblical History, TSW University:
It would have to be an archaeologist’s worst nightmare. Imagine — your careful academic work, as was Amos Kloner’s supervision of the tomb’s excavation for the IAA (Israel Antiquities Authority) in 1980 — hijacked by Hollywood. And that to produce a sensationalist documentary…. It is possibly the most cynical claim yet to be made in the field of Biblical Archaeology and only serves to give the subject a bad name. (Online Source)
Dr. Aren Maeir, Director of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Archeological Project and a lecturer at the Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies at Bar Ilan University:
Since, along with, most probably, the majority of archaeologists who deal with the ancient Levant, I have been asked about the question of the supposed tomb of Jesus and his family …, I thought that I should join the very clear message of the responsible archaeological community and say — this is HOGWASH!! (excuse my French!). (Online Source)
Dr. Laurence Stager, Professor of the Archeology of Israel at Harvard University:
From what I know about it at this moment, it sounds rather preposterous. (Online Source)
David Mevorah, Curator of the Israel Museum:
[Any theory that] this tomb was a tomb of the family of Jesus is a farfetched suggestion, and we need to be very careful with that. (Online Source)
Prof. L. Michael White, Director of the Institute for the Study of Antiquity and Christian Origins, Univeristy of Texas:
This is not archeologically sound. This is fanfare. (Online Source)
According to the Washington Post:
Leading archaeologists in Israel and the United States have denounced the purported discovery of the tomb of Jesus as a publicity stunt. (Online Source)
*****
II. REGARDING THE NAMES IN THE TOMB
Prof. Amos Kloner, Israeli archeologist who first catalogued the ossuaries:
The name “Jesus son of Joseph” has been found on three or four ossuaries. These are common names. There were huge headlines in the 1940s surrounding another Jesus ossuary, cited as the first evidence of Christianity. There was another Jesus tomb. Months later it was dismissed. Give me scientific evidence, and I’ll grapple with it. But this is manufactured. (Online Source)
Dr. Paul Maier, Department of History, Western Michigan University:
All the names – Yeshua, Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, Matia, Judah, and Jose – are extremely frequent Jewish names for that time and place, and thus most scholars consider this merely coincidental, as they did from the start. One-quarter of Jewish women at that time, for example, were named Maria. (Online Source)
Dr. Ben Witherington III, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary:
We have absolutely no historical evidence to suggest Mary Magdalene would have been called by a Greek name before A.D. 70. She grew up in a Jewish fishing village called Migdal, not a Greek city at all. It makes no sense that her ossuary would have a Greek inscription and that of her alleged husband an Aramaic inscription. … Mary Magdalene is called ‘Maria’ constantly in first century Christian literature, and indeed well into the second century as well. She is never called Mariamene or the like. … The second word on the Mariamene ossuary is Mara which is short for Martha another female name. It is not a reference to her being a master or teacher. … Jesus is never called ‘son of Joseph’ by anyone who knew him intimately in the NT — not by his family members, and not by his disciples. (Online Source)
Dr. Richard Bauckum, Professor of New Testament Studies, St. Mary’s College, University of St. Andrews, Scotland:
[After an extensive linguistic treatment, Dr. Bauckum concludes:] There is no reason at all to connect the woman in this ossuary with Mary Magdalene, and in fact the name usage is decisively against such a connexion.” (Online Source)
Dr. Andreas Kostenberger, Professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary:
The claim that Mary Magdalene’s bones were found in one of the ossuaries on the basis that the name “Mariamne” (Mary) is inscribed on it is bogus; the connection drawn here is pulled completely out of thin air. [Moreover,] If you had been Jesus and (for argument’s sake) had had a son, would you have named him Judas (same as Judah or Jude), like the man who betrayed you? (Online Source)
Dr. Stephen Pfann, President of Jerusalem’s University of the Holy Land and an expert in Semitic languages:
I don’t think it [the “Jesus” ossuary] says Yehoshua. It says Hanun or something. … [In any case,] the idea that the originator of a religion like [Christianity] would end up in such a plain ossuary is kind of telling as to whether this is really potentially the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth or not. (Online Source)
Dr. Dan Bahat, Israeli archeologist currently with the University of Toronto:
Yeshua was such a popular name during the Second Temple Period. The fact that you have such similar names is due to the fact that these were the prevalent names during that time. (Online Source)
Dr. Charles L. Quarles, Chair of Christian Studies, Louisianna University:
Even by the calculations of the authors of The Jesus Family Tomb [the book that parallels the documentary], there were approximately 1,008 men named Jesus, son of Joseph who lived in first-century Palestine! They calculate that 1 out of every 79 Jewish males in Palestine during the century of ossuary use was named “Jesus, son of Joseph!” (Online Source)
*****
III. REGARDING THE DNA EVIDENCE
Dr. Carney Matheson, Lakehead University Paleo-DNA Laboratory, the one who did the DNA testing for the filmmakers:
The only conclusions we made was that these two sets [from the “Yeshua” and “Mariamne” ossuaries] were not maternally related. To me it sounds like absolutely nothing. (Online Source)
Elsewhere, Matheson noted that possible relationships (which DNA cannot establish) could be:
…father and daughter, paternal cousins, half brother and sister (sharing the same father) or simply unrelated individuals. The media does what they want. (Online Source)
And elsewhere:
There is a statement in the film that has been taken out of context. While marriage is a possibility, other relationships like father and daughter, paternal cousins, sister-in-law or indeed two unrelated individuals [are also possible]… (Source: Discovery Channel debate with Ted Koppel which followed the documentary on Sunday night)
Dr. Darrell Bock, Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary:
There is the DNA showing that Mariamne and Jesus DNA residue do not match. Now with how many women in Judea would Jesus’ DNA not match? Even women named Mary/Mariamne? This proves nothing. … In fact, the fact that only two boxes were tested means that we do not even know if this is a family tomb, since the two tested show no relationship. The DNA could prove the exact opposite of what is being claimed. (Online Source)
Dr. James White, Christian apologist, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries:
One of the main “tests” I had in mind for this book [The Jesus Family Tomb] when I picked it up was this: Will the book honestly discuss the limitations of mitochondrial DNA? Will they admit that such analysis can only speak to maternal relations, not to paternal relations? Will they tell us what Dr. Carney Matheson has confirmed that such a test cannot rule out that Yeshua ben Yosef was the father of Mariamne? Or will they spin the results? The answer was: spin, spin, spin. (Online Source)
Dr. Al Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:
The DNA testing is to me the most laughable aspect of all of this. I mean, frankly, there could be a thousand, thousand different explanations for whatever DNA pattern they could find. (Online Source)
Dr. Gary Habermas, Chair of the Department of Philosophy and Theology, Liberty University:
The ONLY THING the DNA evidence establishes positively is that this “Jesus” and this “Mariamene” found in the tomb are not maternally related. This hardly shows that they were probably married! So this is only a guess. She could have been married to any one of the four men, or to other family members, or she could someone’s daughter. We must remember that family tombs were from extended families and were often multi-generational. So, Mariamene could have lived decades earlier or later than Jesus. (Online Source)
*****
IV. REGARDING THE STATISTICAL EVIDENCE
Prof. Andrey Feuerverger, statistician used by the filmmakers:
I must work from the interpretations given to me, and the strength of the calculations are based on those assumptions… If for some reason one were to read it [the name “Mariamene”] as just a regular form of the name Maria, in that case, the calculation produced is not as impressive, and the statistical significance would wash out considerably. (Source: Discovery Channel debate with Ted Koppel which followed the documentary on Sunday night. For more on the name “Mariamene” see Dr. Bauckum’s article here.)
Dr. Mark Goodacre, Associate Professor of New Testament, Duke University:
The major part of the case that the Talpiot tomb is Jesus’ family tomb is based on a statistical claim. … I think this case is severely flawed. The essential problem, as I see it, is that the matches between the Talpiot tomb and the early Christian literary record are factored into the calculations in a positive way, but the non-matches are simply ignored, or treated as neutral. This will not do. … In short, including Mariamne and leaving out Matia and Judas son of Jesus is problematic for any claim to be made about the remaining cluster. All data must be included. You cannot cherry pick or manipulate your data before doing your statistical analysis. (Online Source)
David Mevorah, curator of the Israel Museum:
[The chances this is real] are more than remote. They are closer to fantasy. … [Their statistics are] a good trick. … Statistics can bring empires down or build them up. But I wouldn’t build a theory of the most important person of the first century on statistics.” (Online Source)
Dr. Claude Mariottini, Professor of Old Testament, Northern Baptist Seminary:
Only gullible people can believe Cameron’s claim. In a recent interview on television, Jacobovici said that there is a statistical probability that this is the real tomb where Christ was buried. A person can manipulate numbers and arrive at almost any preconceived conclusion. You cannot prove historical claims by using statistics. (Online Source)
Dr. Charles L. Quarles, Chair of Christian Studies, Louisianna University:
[After an extensive treatment of the statistical probability of these names, Dr. Quarles notes that:] Approximately 1 out of 442 families in Palestine in this period were a Jesus, son of Joseph with close relatives named Mary and Jose/Joseph. … Consequently, the statistical argument does not prove at all that the Jesus of the ossuary is Jesus of Nazareth. It is neither statistically impossible nor improbable that this Jesus is another Jesus. (Online Source)
Dr. Tal Ilan, scholar who compiled the Lexicon of Jewish Names that was essential to the statistical calculations put forward by the documentary:
I think it [the lexicon] was completely mishandled. I am angry. (Online Source)
According to Yahoo! News:
The Israel Antiquities Authority declined to comment [about the recent documentary]. But in 1996 a spokesman said that the probability of the caskets belonging to the family of Jesus were ‘next to zero’. (Online Source)
For more on the improbable nature of these statistics, see here.
*****
V. REGARDING THE MISSING ”JAMES” OSSUARY
Robert Genna, Suffolk Co. Crime Lab Directory, who tested the patina samples for the film:
The elemental composition of some of the samples we tested from the ossuaries are consistent with each other. But I would never say they’re a match… No scientist would ever say definitively that one ossuary came from the same tomb as another… We didn’t do enough sampling to see if in fact there were other tombs that had similar elemental compositions… The only samples we can positively say are a ‘match’ from a single source are fingerprints and DNA. (Source: Discovery Channel debate with Ted Koppel which followed the documentary on Sunday night)
Prof. Amos Kloner, Israeli archeologist who first catalogued the ossuaries:
[When asked: What of the assertion that the 10th ossuary disappeared from your care and may be none other than the “James” ossuary?, Kloner responded:] Nothing has disappeared. The 10th ossuary was on my list. The measurements were not the same (as the James ossuary). It was plain (without an inscription). We had no room under our roofs for all the ossuaries, so unmarked ones were sometimes kept in the courtyard (of the Rockefeller Museum). (Online Source)
Dr. Joe Zias, Paleopathologist at Hebrew University, archeologist who worked with Amos Kloner on the original find:
Amos Kloner is right as I received and catalogued the objects, the 10th was plain and I put it out in the courtyard with all the rest of the plain ossuaries as was the standard procedure when one has little storage space available. Nothing was stolen nor missing and they [the filmmakers] were fully aware of this fact, just didn’t fit in with their agenda. (Online Source)
For more from Joe Zias see here.
Dr. Dan Bahat, Israeli archeologist currently with the University of Toronto:
I don’t think the James Ossuary came from the same cave. If it were found there, the man who made the forgery would have taken something better. He would have taken Jesus. (Online Source)
Dr. Mark Goodacre, Duke University, quoting John Poirer:
Another thing that doesn’t add up are the dimensions of the ossuaries in question. As I posted on this list on Oct 8, 2006, Tabor’s claim that “the dimensions of the missing tenth ossuary [from the Talpiot tomb] are precisely the same, to the centimeter, to those of the James Ossuary” is bogus. *BAR* lists the dimensions of the James ossuary as 50.5 cm x 25 cm x 30.5 cm, while the report on the Talpiot tomb published in *Atiqot* 29 (1996) 15-22, lists the tenth ossuary as measuring 60 cm x 26 cm x 30 cm. (Online Source)
Dr. Ben Witherington III, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary:
Much is made of the fact that the chemical analysis of the patina on the James ossuary and some of the ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb match up. This is not actually surprising at all since you can find terra rosa in various locales in and around Jerusalem. This analysis cannot prove that these ossuaries all came from the same place or were interred in the same spot. Terra rosa is not a soil specific to the Talpiot region! (Online Source)
*****
VI. REGARDING THE SCHOLASTIC CREDIBILITY OF THE PRODUCERS
Dr. Paul Maier, Department of History, Western Michigan University:
Please note the extreme bias of the director and narrator, Simcha Jacobovici. The man is an Indiana-Jones-wannabe, who oversensationalizes anything he touches. … As for James Cameron, how do you follow The Titanic? Well, with an even more “titanic” story. He should have known better. (Online Source)
Bruce Feiler, non-Christian author of Walking the Bible:
And therein is the truth of this tale: This exploitation of quasi-science is hardly new, but it’s still tawdry. The bottom line: There is more truth in Dan Brown’s fiction than in James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovichi’s fact. (Online Source)
Dr. Garret G. Fagan, Professor of Classics at Penn State University:
They’re not scientists, but they need to dress themselves in the clothes of science to pass muster… Television is not in the business of education, even with the so-called educational channels like Discovery. “Ultimately, they’re in the business of making money. … By the time the rebuttals come out, the mass media would have moved on to the next sensation and people will have this vague notion that they have found the tomb of Jesus. (Online Source)
Dr. Christopher Heard, Associate Professor of Religion, Pepperdine University:
Barely a year after misdating artifacts and misinterpreting texts (including the Bible) willy-nilly to try to convince viewers that the biblical exodus from Egypt really happened (albeit not like the Bible narrates it), James Cameron, Simcha Jacobovici, and Charles Pellegrino are back to try to convince us that a tomb unearthed in 1980 is “The Jesus Family Tomb.” … Jacobovici never let a fact get in the way of a good theory before. Why start now? (Online Source)
Very good summary. I’ll have to post a link to this on my site where I’ve been covering this extensively. You’ve found references I hadn’t seen yet. A very thorough inventory.
[…] Here is a better critique of the show than I could ever give — and here is a post discussing the interview show that followed the presentation last night. « Sermon: Genesis 12:1-9, Luke 13:31-35 […]
Great Post!
I enjoyed the film the lost tomb of jesus. It was well made and fair. However, the Koppel analysis after the film was horrible. Why does he have problems with adding dramatization to the film? Isn’t this a common practice in any history/discovery channel documentary?
Something about what Dr. Andreas Kostenberger said:
“… If you had been Jesus and (for argument’s sake) had had a son, would you have named him Judas (same as Judah or Jude), like the man who betrayed you?”
well, if Jesus had a son, he would have been born before the Judas betrayal.. how could he know that Judas will sell him out later?
[…] Christian Responses: Richard Bauckham, Craig Blomberg, Jon Bloom, Darrell Bock, Nathan Busenitz (and here), Scott Clark, Mike Heiser, Andreas Köstenberger (and here and here), Scot McKnight, Albert Mohler, James White (and here, here, here, MP3 interview, and here), James Emery White, Tyler Williams, and Ben Witherington (and here, here, and here). […]
[…] Nathan Busenitz put together a very helpful compilation of quotations from scholars covering a variety of issues. […]
Thanks for the post. Really appreciate the opinions of scholars on the controversial show which aired on Discovery last night.
My wife and I watched the first half of the show and it was obvious that they were trying to spin the news as if there is something new about this discovery. The tomb was discovered over twenty years ago and vented thoroughly by various scholars of the time. Yet the show last night almost dismissed such facts as if “they were not seeking the truth.”
If the Discovery channel was actually trying to “seek the truth”, then why were none of the objections raised here by these scholars even discussed? Why did they not balance the time between Cameron’s side of the story and the evidence which contradicts their findings? Then ultimately let the viewers decide the truth.
This show was about profit, not about truth. The evidence for Christ’s resurrection has been discussed and debated for almost two thousand years. No one has been able to contradict the biblical truth through archeology. Instead every archeological finding has only supported the scriptures accuracy.
Therefore brothers and sisters in Christ, “Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong” (1 Cor 16:13 NIV)
Jesus ossuary controversy resources…
Pulpit Magazine’s Resources on The Lost Tomb of Jesus
Don’t Lose Any Sleep Over Jesus’ Lost Tomb - Pulpit Magazine
Eight Reasons Why I Believe That Jesus Rose from the Dead, by John Piper
What Bones of Jesus? at Media Research Center
The Jes…
Thanks for the website. I’m sure we haven’t seen/heard the last of this theory and alike. Hopefully, if someone puts together a show that genuinely weighs the evidence for these claims it will get as much attention.
Mark,
Amen that this was done for profit. But it was also done because these men and many others like them love their sin. If they can disprove who Jesus was they aren’t accountable to anyone and can continue living in their sin without fear of God’s wrath.
Eddie
[…] “Asking the Experts about Jesus’ Lost Tomb” […]
[…] Pulpit Magazine has a compendium of comments from the WWW concerning said topic. (Hat Tip to Tim Challies) […]
[…] 2. The Pulpit Magazine had the following to say: Last night, the Discovery Channel aired it’s controversial “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.” Much has already been said about the so-called evidence presented by James Cameron and company. Today, we wanted to simply provide a list of quotes from leading scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) regarding their thoughts on the documentary. […]
[…] These are simply my observations and thoughts. Here are some links to sites with much better analysis and information than I can synthesize here: http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/05/asking-the-experts-about-jesus%e2%80%99-lost-tomb/ […]
For the “mysterious” chevron and circle being hyped on the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” site, please see:
http://confirmedword.blogspot.com/
There is also an article on the history of sensational claims from Talpiot.
Thanks,
R. Kirk Kilpatrick
Associate Professor of OT & Hebrew
MABTS
Nice job Nate. Thanks for all your hard work in this!
[…] March 5th, 2007 at 7:27 pm (redemption, Responsive Reid-ing…blogging Christian style, Reformed, Jesus, Christianity, News) For a full plate of scholarly responses to film-maker James Cameron and his “Tomb of Jesus” - PULPIT MAGAZINE has done a spectacular job of collecting those resources HERE […]
[…] It took all of about fifteen seconds for the critics to come out — and not from Christians. Now there are an inordinate amount of critics (here) who are distancing themselves and quickly from this project. […]
Thanks for this!
We’ve also been collecting articles and significant posts on this topic here.
A few considerations on this “discovery”: If Jesus did have a tomb,the place would have been converted very early in a pilgrimage destination, and we have no evidence about one in the first couple of centuries. If Jesus had had a known burial place, the opponents of christianity would have pointed at it and produced the body, instead of writing elaborate attacks. Mary of Magdala is never called “Mariamene” in the earliest source where she is named: the gospel of Mark. Besides, if the early disciples of Jesus had had the body, they could have, without a problem, spoken of exaltation to the heaven or of Jesus being with God, but they do not. The NT narrative implies a missing body. I am not defending the historicity of a physical resurrection of Jesus, only making the point that the NT narratives suppose a body that has been lost of is out of sight. Therefore, I think that there is historical evidence to conclude that the body of Jesus was missing (or lost or stolen, whatever) a few days after his crucifiction. The tomb in the Discovery program can be indeed the tomb of one Jesus, but who knows what Jesus. Certainly not the one they say.
[…] Nathan Busenitz put together a very helpful compilation of quotations from scholars covering a variety of issues. […]
[…] Christian Responses: Richard Bauckham (and here), Tony Beam, Craig Blomberg, Jon Bloom (and here), Darrell Bock, Sean Boisen, Rick Brannan (and here), Nathan Busenitz (and here), Scott Clark, Ray Comfort, Todd Friel, Mike Heiser, Andreas Köstenberger (and here and here), Scot McKnight, Albert Mohler, John Piper (MP3 interview), James White (and here, here, here, MP3 interview, here, here, here, here, and here), James Emery White, Tyler Williams (and here), and Ben Witherington (and here, here, here, and here). […]
[…] Asking the Experts […]
Has the Lost Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?
By Bruce Norquist Ph.D.
Years ago my family and I were touring some of the great sea lochs of Scotland. While on a charter vessel on Loch Ness, my three school age children craned their necks and squinted through the swirling fog to catch some sight of “Nessy” the Loch Ness monster. Shortly after that, the Discovery Channel produced a fascinating program provocatively entitled, “Loch Ness Discovered”.
A year after the Discovery Channel program aired, however, Christian Spurling, one of five co-conspirators behind the Loch Ness monster hoax, came forward after 60 years to confess that he had grafted the head and neck of a “sea serpent” onto the body of a toy submarine so that Robert Wilson could photograph the model monster. The people in the tourist industry around Loch Ness were stunned; this confession was going to cost them millions.
Similarly, the “single best piece of evidence” Sasquatch hunters had to prove the existence of Bigfoot was, after 36 years, proven to be a hoax. In 2004 Bob Hieronimous admitted that he had dressed up in a gorilla suit to serve as a model for film maker, Roger Patterson. Ironically, just one year earlier the Discovery Channel broadcast a show called Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. It was a documentary film which featured scientists from various disciplines analyzing the most compelling evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. Hieronimous’ story threw a monkey wrench in the producer’s plan to keep milking this hoax for more money.
Whether sinister in their intent or merely trying to make a buck or pull off a simple “practical joke”, there has never been a lack of hucksters to sell hoaxes to a gullible public. From the Piltdown man to the National Geographic Societies’ naive reselling of the “discovery” of the “stone age” Tasaday tribe in the Philippines to the Sports Illustrated April Fools Day coverage of a 168 mph hurler signed by the Mets, there is always a market for tall tales.
An early money making hoax is recorded in Matthew’s gospel chapter 28. The Roman guards at Jesus tomb are said to have accepted a large sum of money from the chief priests and elders in exchange for reciting the following script, “His disciples came during the night and sole Jesus body away while we were asleep.” So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. The result is that this story has been widely circulated even to this very day. (Mt 28:11-15) Something not unlike this has happened again
The day after the 2007 Academy Awards and near the beginning of Lent, James Cameron (the acclaimed Oscar winning director of The Titanic) announced that he had produced a feature length documentary that would change the course of human history. Cameron’s docudrama aired in March just prior to Easter of ‘07 on The Discovery Channel. In the documentary Cameron and director, Simcha Jacobovici, claim that they have produced convincing evidence that they have uncovered the mortal remains of Jesus of Nazareth. The show features a reenactment of Jesus disciples stealing His body from the tomb and hiding it in a nearby burial plot in order to be able to assert that Jesus had risen from the dead. Sound familiar?
Cameron laid the foundation for his re-enactment on two findings:
1.) The cluster of names found in the tomb in the Talpiot region near Jerusalem had some significant resemblance to the names in Jesus’ immediate family; Dr. Feuerverger, a mathematician from the University of Toronto, was brought in to assess the odds against finding just such a cluster of names. He concluded, based on his calculations, that the odds were six hundred to one that this tomb contained the earthly remains of Jesus.
2.) The DNA evidence also indicated that the ossuary (stone bone box) that contained the bones of a person Cameron identified as Mary Magdalene was not maternally related to the DNA in the box they identified as having once contained one Jesus son of Joseph and they therefore might have been married – and had a child named Judas together.
THE UNIQUE CLUSTER OF NAMES
It is doubtless an interesting coincidence that 2 of the 10 ossuaries (stone bone boxes) found in the Talpiot tomb indisputably have names on them that correspond to members of Jesus immediate family: one box is clearly marked, Mary; another box is clearly marked, Jose (which may correspond to one of Jesus earthly brothers, named Joseph). But that’s it. Some people think that there may be three, but the box that Cameron says was inscribed, “Jesus son of Joseph”, is actually marked with a nearly undecipherable scrawl that a leading expert, Stephan Pfan, has interpreted as, “Hunan, son of Joseph”. Likewise, the bone box that Cameron and company claim to have contained the remains of Mary Magdalene (or “Mary the Master”) cannot be read that way by any knowledgeable person; according to Richard Bauckham of The University of St. Andrews, it reads: Mariamne AND Mara. Reading the inscription as Bauckham suggests has led other experts to conclude that there were most likely two women, Miriamne and Mara who had their remains committed to one box. This was a common practice in the day.
We know that Jesus had at least 6 siblings: 4 brothers and at least two sisters. If Discovery Channel has found the lost tomb of Jesus’ family what are the odds that Simon and Judas and James (Jesus’ brothers) would all be missing? Why is Joseph (Jesus step -father) not among the names? And what about the names not connected with Jesus immediate family? Who is Matthew? What about Mara and Mariamne, who were they and why are they included among Jesus family members; and where did “Judas, son of Jesus” come from? There is absolutely no authentic historical data that indicates that Jesus of Nazareth even had a son. If this is the all important family of Jesus of Nazareth, why are four of the stone boxes not even labeled?
William Dever, who has been excavating ancient sites in Israel for 50 years - and is considered the dean of biblical archaeology among many U.S. scholars says, “I’m not a Christian. I’m not a believer. I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’ve known about these ossuaries for many years and so have many other archaeologists and none of us thought it was much of a story, because these are rather common Jewish names from that period.
Richard Bauckham gives us an idea of how common the names in this tomb really are. Most of the names in the tomb are very commonplace. No fewer than 1 in 5 women were named, Mary. 1 in 20 women went by Mara or Martha. Approximately 1 out of every 10 men were named Joseph; 1 out of every 30 men were named Jesus; Judah also was a popular name with 1 in 20 males answering to this name; Matthew was less common – but still, 1 in 50 were so named. A blogger on Ben Witherington’s site came up with his own (mathematically unsubstantiated but interesting) statistical analysis that in an around Jerusalem in the first century, there would likely have been no fewer than 228 Jesus son of Josephs (not that Jesus was ever called this by either his followers OR his detractors) and at least 25% of these sons of Joseph would also have had a mother named Mary. Bauckham adds that the name “Joseph” is written on 45 burial ossuaries and the name “Jesus” is found on 22 ossuaries. Even “Jesus son of Joseph” has occurred on ossuaries at least 3 or 4 times. The vast majority of families – like Jesus family of origin, however, would not have been able to afford stone cut tombs and chiseled coffins.
When the boxes were first found, they were meticulously analyzed and cataloged by well known Israeli archeologist, Amos Kloner. Kloner had this to say in an interview with the Jerusalem Post about Cameron’s documentary: “It is utter nonsense”. Likewise, Stephen Pfann, president of Jerusalem’s University of the Holy Land and an expert in Semitic languages, who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film’s hypothesis holds little weight.
Joe Zias, former curator for anthropology and archeology at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem from 1972 to 1997 and personally responsible for numbering the ossuaries in question described Cameron’s documentary in an e-mail to The Washington Post as a “hyped up film which is intellectually and scientifically dishonest.” Zias added, “Simcha [Jacobovici – the director] has no credibility whatsoever,” in an interview with Newsweek he is quoted as saying, “He got this guy Cameron, who made ‘Titanic’ or something like that—what does this guy know about archeology? I am an archaeologist, but if I were to write a book about brain surgery, you would say, ‘Who is this guy?’ People want signs and wonders. Projects like these make a mockery of the archaeological profession.” See Zias’ website: “Viewers guide to the Talpiot Tomb documentary” for more information.
It has been observed by other mathematicians that the statistical analysis of the cluster of names at the site was based on the following presuppositions:
1.) that the Mary on one of the ossuaries is the mother of the so-called “Jesus son of Joseph”, and
2.) that Mary Magdalene (whose name, they say, is on another box) is Jesus wife, and that
3.) Judah is Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s son and that
4.) Joseph (inscribed as the nickname Jose) is Jesus’ brother.
None of these suppositions, however, can be unambiguously supported by statistical, historical, archeological, theological, Biblical or mitochondrial evidence. What is more, there is no control sample of DNA from a known relative of Jesus of Nazareth to use as a comparison.
Notwithstanding, the press kit from James Cameron has compared the statistical significance of finding this cluster of two names together to the probability of a future archeologist finding the names of George, John, Paul and Ringo together in a Liverpool cemetery. This has led to some good fun among those in the press corps who are now asking if the Toronto statistician thinks that this proves that Jesus is the fifth Beatle.
In the face of scathing scholarly reviews and general ridicule from the popular press, Dr. Feuerverger released this statement after the Lost Tomb was aired: “It is not in the purview of statistics to conclude whether or not this tomb site is that of the New Testament family. Any such conclusion much more rightfully belongs to the purview of biblical historical scholars who are in a much better position to assess the assumptions entering into the computations. The role of statistics here is primarily to attempt to assess the odds of an equally (or more) ‘compelling’ cluster of names arising purely by chance under certain random sampling assumptions and under certain historical assumptions. In this respect I now believe that I should not assert any conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one of the NT family.”
THE DNA EVIDENCE
As far as the purported DNA “evidence” goes (to put it as charitably as possible) it would never hold up in court. First of all, it is of first importance to note that the burial boxes “discovered” by Cameron et.al. contained no human remains - whatsoever. The ancient ossuaries were first unearthed in an archeological dig that was undertaken over 27 years ago. As is the custom in such a case, the bones were ceremonially removed form the ossuaries and re-buried in unmarked graves - in 1980. The only thing that the film makers could do by way of gathering DNA evidence, therefore, was to scrape the inside walls of ancient and empty stone boxes. If the bits of encrustation scraped from off a stone box correspond in any way to the name on the box (and that is a stretch) all that can be determined thereby is whether or not they contain the remains of people who came from the same mother.
Knowing this, Cameron apparently only tested two boxes: the one that had at one time contained the bones of someone he identifies as “Jesus son of Joseph” and one that he says had once contained the bones of Mary Magdalene. Remember, these are the same two boxes that Dr. Stephen Pfan asserts should be interpreted to read “Hunan the Son of Joseph” and “Miriamne and Mara”. On account of the fact that the mitochondrial DNA Cameron gathered from these two boxes were from individuals who apparently did not have the same mother, the film maker jumps to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene the were husband and wife AND that they had a Son, Judas, buried with them. While there was a box in the tomb marked Judas son of Jesus, how do we know that it at one time contained the bones of Mary Magdalene’s son?
Talk about a leap of faith. No mention is made of the fact the box that they say once contained the bones of Jesus cannot be connected scientifically with Jesus of Nazareth. Moreover, they ignore the possibility that the DNA from box that they identify as having once contained the bones of Mary Magdalene - only shows (with a significant margin a error) that Hunan (the more likely occupant of the “Jesus” box) and Miriamne OR Mara (the probable occupants of the so-called Mary Magdalene box) have no matrilineal ties. They fail to point out, moreover, that either Miriamne or Mara could have been married to one of the other males in the tomb - or that one of the women could have been Hunan’s sister by a different father - or an beloved aunt (on his father’s side) or – Ringo Star’s great-great…great-grandmother. When asked why he didn’t have the remains of Judah tested to see if he was maternally related to the remains of Mara or Miriamne and why no test was run to see if the supposed remains of Jesus were maternally related to the casket marked with Mary’s name, Cameron said that the cost of the tests was an issue. Really?
The Washington Post reports that William G. Dever (mentioned above as excavating ancient sites in Israel for 50 years) offered the following: “It’s a publicity stunt and it will make these guys very rich, and it will upset millions of innocent people because they don’t know enough to separate fact from fiction.” Thus, in the estimation of most scholars, James Cameron and the Discovery Channel have launched a documentary so full of holes it makes the Titanic look unsinkable. In spite of this a companion book, “The Jesus Family Tomb,” has rocketed to sixth place on The New York Times “nonfiction” best-seller list. Problem being, when the same story was told before, people believed it. Gullible people will believe it again. So it is written: “And it came to pass that the pseudo-scholars and film makers accepted large sums of money to read from a script handed down to them by a rich producer. And the story they staged has been widely circulated among credulous people via print television even to this very day.” (Hezekiah. 43:18-19)
Our advice to the Discovery Channel: “Stick to your success with American Chopper.”