The Lost Tomb of Jesus: Truth and Fiction
James Cameron – famous for movies such as Titanic, Alien, and The Terminator – has recently produced a documentary for the Discovery Channel called The Lost Tomb of Jesus. This documentary follows the research of Simcha Jacobovici and his historical and archeological research into a first century A.D. tomb found near Jerusalem. Jacobovici claims to have found the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. From a Christian point of view, this is most important because if Jesus’ body has been discovered, then it means he was not raised from the dead and much of what the Church claims about Him is based on a lie. In short, it means we need to cancel Easter.
What Was Found
In 1980, a tomb was found in Jerusalem. In the tomb, the remains of family members in stone boxes (called ossuaries) were uncovered. For the rich who could afford these tombs, the dead were placed in a hole (called a loculus) carved out of the sides of tombs. These bodies would then decompose. Tombs had several loculi. When room was needed for new family members’ body, the bones of older, decomposed persons were placed in these stone boxes (ossuaries) and placed elsewhere in the tomb.
Six of the ossuaries in the “Jesus Tomb” had inscriptions explaining whose remains were in the ossuaries. They were:
· “Maria”
· “Matia”
· “Jose”
· “Joshua, son of Joseph”
· “Marriamne Mara”
· “Judah, son of Joshua”
The tomb labeled “Maria” is of a woman named Mary. The tomb labeled “Matia” is of a fellow named Matthew. “Jose” is a short version of Joseph. Something like “Joey”. Joshua was Jesus’ Jewish name.
So, without dispute, we have here a family where there is a Jesus, who was the son of a fellow named Joseph. And Jesus has a son named Judah. We also have a Mary, a Marriamne, a Jose, and a Matthew buried near by. We have no example of anyone in the ancient world being buried in such a tomb who were not all from the same family. So, these six people are almost certainly from the same family.
Claims
It is claimed by Jacobovici that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. “Marriamne” is Mary Magdalene. Judah is the son of Jesus. Because the tomb of Mary Magdalene does not have matching DNA to that of Jesus (meaning they are not blood relatives), he concludes that Jesus and Magdalene were married. Maria is the tomb of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Jose was the brother of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels. Matthew is an unknown relative, almost certainly not the Matthew mentioned in the Gospels since (again) only family would be in a tomb together.
It is also claimed that an ossuary discovered in 2002 was in this crypt. This ossuary has an inscription that reads: “Jacob, son of Joseph and brother of Jesus.” Jacob was James in Greek. Jesus had a brother named James who became one of the leaders of the early Church, and wrote the Letter of James in the New Testament.
It is also claimed that the word “Mara” attached to the name Marriamne means “Master” or “Lord” or “Teacher”. This shows that Mary Magdalene was considered the natural successor of Jesus and was also considered to be very important by the followers of Jesus.
Twelve Problems with These Claims
Simcha Jacobovici is a journalist and not an archeologist or historian. I am surprised, when looking at his evidence, that I know more about Biblical history than he does after years of research. I almost do not know where to begin with his ridiculous claims. His flaws are almost countless.
1. Names:
Jacobovici found a tomb in Jerusalem with graves containing the most common names of the era. Finding a tomb with the a Mary, Marriamne, Jesus, Judah, Matthew, and Joseph in like finding a family plot in an American cemetery with a James, John, Robert, Mary, and a Jane. A tomb with these names is not at all shocking.
Judea had recently been an independent nation. In between the New and Old Testaments, Judea rebelled against the Syrians who controlled their land. They became independent again for a short time, until the time of King Herod when Jesus was born. Their independence was spectacular. A small rebel army defeated the massive Syrian army many times. Jews naturally believed this was the work of God and they revered the family who had led the rebellion, making them Kings of Judea.
The leader of the rebellion was a fellow named Judah Maccabeus. His brother was Matthew. Consequently, for a few generations, the names Judah and Matthew became extremely popular.
At the same time, with this fighting spirit in the air, names like Mary and Joshua came back into vogue. Miriam (Mary) was the sister of Moses who sung a harsh little song when Pharaoh was drowned by God in the Red Sea. Joshua (Jesus) was the fellow who – through military prowess – wiped the Gentiles out of the Holy Land and settled the Jews there after the death of Moses. These warrior names were also in vogue.
Meanwhile, names like Joseph never went out of fashion. If the ossuary of James was also in this tomb (which is doubtful), the names James (Jacob) was also an old favorite.
2. Relationship to Each Other:
Given the ossuaries in the tomb, we know only this: Joseph was Jesus’ father, and Judah was Jesus’ son. Everything else Jacobovici claims after this is pure speculation.
The two Marys and Jose might all be Matthew’s children. Marriamne might be the wife of Joseph . . . or his third cousin twice removed. The point is we have absolutely no idea how these people were all related to one another. Jacobovici just combines them in a way that works for his personal agenda.
3. The Existence of a Jesus Family Tomb:
When Jesus died, Jewish law required that he be buried within 24 hours. The Gospels all attest that he was executed on a Friday, the eve of the Sabbath. For Jesus to be buried in accordance with Jewish law, he had to be buried before the Sabbath started. Otherwise, it would have been necessary to wait until Saturday night, thus exceeding the 24-hour time limit, and being in breach of God’s law.
As a man of no great wealth, Jesus would have been buried in a simple, individual trench grave dug into the ground, similar to the way we bury our dead today. A rock-cut tomb was for people who were very wealthy. However, there was no time to dig a trench and something needed to be done since the Sabbath was coming soon. So, Joseph of Arimathea stepped in and offered his tomb.
If Jesus was not raised from the grave, his body would have been moved to a trench grave, since his remaining in the tomb of a family which was not his own would have been startling and unprecedented. It is possible that when the women go to the tomb on Easter morning, they may have had the intent to move him to a trench grave.
There is much debate about the economic status of Jesus. Some people locate him among the poorest of the poor. Others locate him among the artisan class, having a little more money because of his carpentry trade. Others still think he was not a carpenter but a true rabbi who lived on the graces of others and, while never wanting for his basic needs, was not very wealthy. No reputable scholar thinks Jesus was a rich man, however. Therefore, there is no reason to think that Jesus would have even had such a tomb at all.
4. The Tomb’s Location:
People were buried where they came from. Jesus’ family tomb (if he was fabulously wealthy enough to have one) would have been in Nazareth, not in Jerusalem. There is no reason in the world that his family crypt would have been in Jerusalem.
5. Missing Appellation “of Nazareth”:
Usually, when a person was buried in a place that they were not from, they were listed as “of (Home Here)”. For instance, if I am buried in Lumberton, my tomb would read “Andrew of New York”. However, if I was born in Lumberton, when buried in Lumberton, my tomb would simply read “Andrew”.
Jesus was a Galilean. Nazareth was his home town. His tomb should have labeled him as “Jesus of Nazareth”, “Jesus of Galilee”, “Jesus the Galilean” or something similar.
6. The Locations of the James Ossuary:
Jacobovici claims that the ossuary uncovered in 2002 with the inscription “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” must have been in this tomb. This would increase the probability that this is in fact the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.
However, according to the man who found the James ossuary, James’ ossuary came from Silwan, not Talpiot, and had dirt in it that matched up with the soil in that particular spot in Jerusalem. Also, ancient Christian sources report that the tomb marker for James’ burial was close to where James was martyred near the temple mount, near the famous tombs in the Kidron Valley. Talpiot is nowhere near this location.
7. The Authenticity of the James Ossuary:
Let us assume for a moment that the James ossuary was actually there. The other problem which Jacobovici must come to terms with is IAA commission report from 2003 which declared the inscription on the James ossuary to be a modern forgery, and the September 2005 report by world-renowned authority Wolfgang E. Krumbein which showed the authenticity of the inscriptions on the ossuary to be inconclusive.
8. Jose’s Inscription:
If the Jose in the tomb is supposed to be the brother of Jesus, why was his ossuary tomb not labeled “Jose, brother of Jesus”. If the supposed James ossuary box was there, it was so labeled. Why would one brother be labeled as Jesus’ sibling, but not the other? Either Jose was not the brother of Jesus, or the James ossuary was not there.
9. Marriamne is not Mary Magdalene:
Jacobovici claims that Marriamne is Mary Magdalene because the named Marriamne is used for her in the Acts of Philip (a book which did not make it into the New Testament).
The problem here is that the Acts of Philip is written in Coptic. By Jacobovici’s own admission, every other ossuary in the tomb is inscribed in Aramaic (the language spoken in Judea at the time of Jesus). The official language of the Roman world in Jesus’ part of the Mediterranean was Greek. The classical language of Jesus people was Hebrew. Coptic was never used at any time in the history of that area, even after Jesus’ time.
Acts of Philip was written in the 300s A.D., while the New Testament gospels were written in the first century. So, the Acts of Philip is a much less reliable document for the history of Jesus’ time, compared to the New Testament gospels. In the New Testament, Mary of Magdalene is consistently referred to as “Maria”.
10. The Word “Mara”
Jacobovici claims that the word “Mara” means “Master”. This is also problematic. In Aramaic, a woman “master” or “teacher” should be “Martha” not “Mara”. “Mara” is masculine, for men.
Jacobovici misses the most common use of the word Mara in ancient Judea. In the book of Ruth, Naomi changes her name to Mara (“bitterness”) when he busband and children die and she is left without family. This book is read in synagogues every Shavuot. It was well known among Jews. It would not have been uncommon for a woman who outlived her family (a sadly common occurrence in the ancient world) to change her name to Mara.
That Marriamne might have been such a woman who was called Mara is pretty much the first thing that comes to my mind.
11. Absence of “Master” on Jesus Ossuary:
Let’s assume for a moment that Mara does mean “master” or “teacher”. If this is the tomb of Jesus and his family, why would Mary of Magdalene be called “Master” on her tomb, but not Jesus. Jesus was regularly called “Master” and “Lord” in the Gospels. He should have the same distinction. The term “Master” on a woman’s box but not on any other, implies that she is the head cheese.
12. The Marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene:
Jacobovici tested the DNA of Marriamne and Jesus. They did not match, meaninf that they were not blood relations. So, he says, they must be married. However, there is no genetic test for marriage. Marriamne may have been married to any male in that tomb, James, Matthew, or others who were not recovered.
Concluding Thought
None of these problems proves 100% that this tomb is NOT the last resting place of Jesus. However, taken all together, they come pretty darn close.
Tags: Historical Jesus, News, The Resurrection, The Crucifixion by Administrator
No Comments »
So, my friend has a follow-up question about the Jesus Seminar. He wonders if I would expect them to get a fair hearing from the rank and file of the laity of the churches when the propositions they are presenting are antithetical to the faith claims that those laity hold dear. I think that is a very faith question in deed. I see the Jesus Seminar as addressing two audiences of laity. The first is your “good churchy folk”. This, of course, is a technical term. But the other is the folks who are on the periphery of belief and ascent. These are the folks who are attracted by Jesus, maybe even claimed by Him, but are not able to recite the creeds of old and the pray the prayers of old. I would expect that if most of the laity listened carefully rather than allow themselves to have knee-jerk reactions to bad press releases, they may mind much of value with the Jesus Seminar. Borg has recently affirmed a form of panentheism which, while it very unconventional is not necessarily unfaithful to Christian witness as any process theology minded Methodist can make clear. In fact, I have a few clergy friends who find Borg’s panentheism very convincing. [Pan-en-theism] for those un-familiar is different from theism and pantheism. Pantheism is the idea that everything and God are the same. Theism is the traditional conviction-stance of the Church. It is the idea that there is a God and there is a world and the two relate to one another from outside. God invades when needed, but the two are distinct and separate. Pan-en-theism is the notion – in the middle – that does integrity to the distinction of God and the cosmos while allowing for the interpenetration of the cosmos and the Holy One of Israel. Panentheism believes that the world and God are not the same, but that God is always in the world doing things and that the world is – in a sense – “in God”. They are separate, but they are so melded together that their separateness is more formal and official than real and actual.] 
or her dying son. See, it was a common practice back then, that when someone was seen to be shedding tears for a person dying on a crucifix, that they would be dragged from the crowd and nailed to the next cross going up. The Romans believed that no one should shed a tear for enemies of the Caesar. 
