Academy Award winning director James Cameron and Emmy Award winning investigative journalist Simcha Jacobovici have joined forces and produced a documentary film claiming to have identified the tomb and physical remains of Jesus of Nazareth. The show is entitled “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” and it airs on March 4, 2007 on the Discovery channel.
If true, Christianity as we know it is doomed. In 1 Corinthians 15:14-15 the apostle Paul (who claims to be an eye-witness of Jesus’ resurrection) says, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ.”
In short, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the central pillar of proof put forward by the New Testament authors to substantiate Jesus’ claims to deity and the forgiveness of sins offered to humanity through Jesus shed blood on the cross. The Apostle Paul argues that If Jesus didn’t bodily rise from the dead then Christianity is a FALSE religion and should not be followed or observed.
The important question that needs to be answered is “Did Cameron and Simcha find Jesus’ remains, or is their case as ‘unsinkable’ as the Titanic?”
Although the film hasn’t aired, there is enough ‘evidence’ posted on the internet already to begin drawing conclusions.
Here is what we know so far.
In 1980 a tomb was discovered in Talipot inside of modern Jerusalem that contained 10 stone ossuaries (bone boxes). Six of the ossuaries had names carved on them identifying the occupants.
The names are as follows.
1. Jesus son of Joseph
2. Mary - Written in Aramaic
3. Mary - Written in Greek as Mariamne
4. Jose - a ‘rare’ nickname for Joseph
5. Matthew
6. Judah son of Jesus
At first glance these names have a striking similarity to the names of people from the New Testatment. Although critics are already pointing out the fact that these names were very common names for people who lived in and around the holy land during the 1st century, Simcha and Cameron’s documentary uses DNA evidence and statistical analysis in order to draw the conclusion that this is Jesus’ family tomb. They claim that the odds of it not being Jesus' tomb are HIGHLY improbable. Click Here to Watch Simcha’s ‘Football Field’ Analogy.
Taken at face value Simcha and Cameron appear to have built a rock solid case against Christianity. However, if you spend even a little time critically analyzing their claims then you realize that Cameron and Simcha have done nothing more than build a Da Vinci Code like house of cards that crumbles as soon as you blow on it.
Faulty Assumptions and Alternative Histories
The film’s statistical analysis is its strongest proof for the Talipot Tomb being Jesus' family tomb . HOWEVER, in order for their statistical interpretation of this evidence to be true we must assume five things about the occupants of the tomb. These assumptions in some cases require us rewrite history or subscribe to an 'alternate history'. Here are the five 'alternate history assumptions' that must be true in order for the film's statistical analysis to have any weight or merit.
1. We must assume that the Jesus and Jose of this tomb are brothers.
Why? Because if they are not brothers then the statistical chance of this tomb being THE tomb of Jesus of Nazareth becomes VERY low.
2. We must assume that Mariamne is Mary Magdalene.
The statistical case for this tomb being Jesus' HEAVILY depends on this assumption. The evidence put forth by the filmmakers to support this claim is a 4th Century Gnostic document entitled “The Gospel of Philip”. It claims that Mary Madgalene’s real name was Mariamne. It is important to note that a document written more than 300 years after the life of Mary Magdalene has no chance of being more authoritative than documents written in the 1st Century and/or during Mary’s lifetime. That being said, none of the 4 Biblical Gospels, all of which were written shortly after Jesus death and resurrection refer to Mary Magdalene as Marimne.
3. We must also assume that Jesus of Nazareth was married to Mariamne and together they had a son named Judah.
Again there are no credible 1st Century documents that support this assumption. This assumption is more akin to the Da Vinci Code than sound historical and archaeological scholarship.
4. We must assume that the Matthew found in this tomb was somehow related to Jesus’ mother but is NOT her son.
We have no documentary evidence of a Matthew in Jesus’ family. Therefore, the filmmakers have to find a way to ‘explain him away’. His presence in the Talipot tomb messes up their theory that this is Jesus’ family tomb. So they had to fabricate a theory that would explain his presence. The filmmakers also have to explain why certain people are missing from the tomb. This leads to the next assumption.
5. We have to assume that the James ossuary originated from this tomb even though there is no solid evidence that links it to this site.
This is critical because if this tomb is Jesus’ family tomb, then three of Jesus’ brothers are inexplicably missing from this site. They are James, Judas and Simon. The filmmakers go out of their way to attempt to prove that the James ossuary belongs to this tomb because that reduces the number of missing brothers to only Judas and Simon. Click here for more information on the James ossuary.
>>Adendum: In order for the James ossuary to be part of the Talipot Tomb it cannot have been unearthed prior to March of 1980. That is when the Talipot Tomb was discovered. New evidence and testimony submitted in the Antiquities Fraud Trial of Oded Golan, the owner of the James Ossuary shows that the ossuary was photographed in the 1970s. The Toronto Star reported today...
"Former FBI agent Gerald Richard testified that a photo of the James ossuary, showing it in Golan's home, was taken in the 1970s, based on tests done by the FBI photo lab. The trial resumes tomorrow.Jacobovici conceded in an interview that if the ossuary was photographed in the 1970s, it could not then have been found in a tomb in 1980."
The end result of all of these assumptions is the family tree/tomb inhabitants chart shown below.
This chart is taken from the films official discovery channel website. Please notice that this chart is still unsure as to how Matthew and Mariamne are related to the other inhabitants of the tomb. The reasons for this uncertainty is twofold. First, the presence of Matthew and Miriamne do not fit the written records of Jesus' family. The second is a direct result of the DNA evidence collected by the filmmakers.
One would expect that since the filmmakers make a point of mentioning DNA evidence that they’d be able to use that evidence to support their assumptions. But they don’t. The official Discovery Channel site says this, “By studying the DNA bone fragments and residue from ossuaries, scientists may be able to determine familial relationships between the various people buried in an ancient tomb. In the case of the Talipot tombs, researchers were able to extract usable tissue samples from only two of the ossuaries - the “Mariamne” and “Yeshua bar Joseph” boxes. Those two samples were sent to the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario, a facility that specializes in analyzing ancient remains.. The lab was able to recover mitochondrial DNA from the samples and determined that the two individuals were not maternally related. According to the lab’s Dr. Carney Matheson, because the two sets of remains were found in what is suspected to be a familial tomb, the two people “would most likely be husband and wife.”
In other words, the ONLY THING the DNA evidence proves is that the Jesus and Mariamne found in this tomb are not maternally related. The film's producers argue that this proves that Mariamne was married to Jesus. But, it is entirely possible that she could have been the wife of Jose, Judah or even Matthew.
The Cards Come Crumbling Down
One of the linch pins in Cameron’s and Simcha’s statistical analysis is the assumption that Jose is the brother of Jesus. If the Jose of the Talipot Tomb is Jesus' brother then the statistical case for this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth is much stronger. If Jose is not Jesus' brother then their statistical case case begins to crumble.
This leads us to ask an important question... Why should we believe that the Jose found in this tomb is the brother of Jesus?
Answer: We shouldn’t!
The principle of Occam’s Razor compels us to look for the simplest interpretation of the evidence that this site presents us. That being the case let’s look for a simple interpretation that fits ALL the evidence that doesn’t require us to subscribe to Templar conspiracy theories or to rewrite history.
Simcha readily admits that Jose is a rare nickname for Joseph. Therefore, it would make far more sense to identify Jose (Joseph) as the father of the Jesus in this tomb instead of his brother. When we do that the family tree begins to look A LOT different than the family tree of Jesus of Nazareth. Here is what it now looks like.
Not only is this a more plausible reconstruction of the family tree for the inhabitants of the Talipot Tomb, it PERFECTLY fits the evidence that the tomb itself presents us. Jose, which is a nickname of Joseph is present along with his wife, two of his sons, Jesus and Matthew, his daughter-in-law Mariamne and his grandson Judah.
In this reconstruction we do not have to account for missing brothers, stolen ossuaries, marriages that were not supposed to have taken place, throw out eye-witness documentary evidence, believe in the Easter Bunny or find a way to explain away people like Matthew who ‘aren’t even supposed to be in that tomb.”
When the family tree is reconstructed in the most simple way that fits the evidence it becomes clear that this is NOT the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. Instead it is most likely the tomb of a middle-class or wealthy 1st Century family from Jerusalem.
In short, Simcha and Cameron are engaging in the archaeological equivalent of ‘identity theft’ by trying to force the evidence into proving that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.
Although Jesus of Nazareth had a father named Joseph, he did not have a brother named Matthew, nor was he married, nor did he have a son. If we had found Jesus’ family tomb we would have found his brothers James, Jose, Simon and Judas along with his father Joseph and his mother Mary. The reason James, Simon and Judas are missing is quite simple, they are not buried there because this is not their family’s tomb.
The Statical Analysis Falls Apart
The film's statistical underpinnings also collapse as soon as you properly consider the tomb’s evidence.
The film claims that the probability of the Talipot Tomb being Jesus’ family tomb is 600 to 1 or 599 times out of 600 it would be Jesus’ Family tomb.
The way they came up with that figure is by determining a probability for each of the names mentioned in the tomb then multiplying those probabilites by each other then adjusting the figure for unintentional biases and all possible first century tombs.
Since neither Matthew nor Judah were ‘explicatively’ mentioned in the Gospels they did not use their probabilities in the statistical analysis.
Here are the probabilities that the filmmakeres came up with for each person found in the tomb.
1. Jesus Son of Joseph - 1 in 190
2. Maria - 1 in 4
3. Mariamne - 1 in 160
4. Jose - 1 in 20
The combined 'raw' probability of all of these people appearing in the same tomb is 1 in 2,400,000.
They then divided 2,400,000 by 4 to adjust for unintentional historical biases and were left with 1 in 600,000.
They then divided 600,000 by 1,000 to adjust for all possible first Century Jerusalem Tombs.
Their final figure was 600 to 1 in favor of it being Jesus Tomb.
Sounds convincing doesn't it?
Yet, notice that they removed Matthew and Judah because they were not ‘explicatively’ mentioned in the gospels. Yet, they are keeping Mariamne in their formula despite the fact that she is also NOT ‘explicatively’ mentioned in the gospels. Their reason for keeping her in the formula is based on “evidence” from a 4th Century ‘Gnostic’ gospel.
This is the equivalent of ‘cooking the books’ with bogus data. As previously mentioned, no 4th Century gnostic text is capable of 'trumping' the eye-witness testimony provided by the 4 New Testament Gospels. Sadly for Simcha and Cameron, the first century gospels DO NOT mention a Mariamne and trying to equate Mary Magdalene with Mariamne is intellectually dishonest. Therefore, Mariamne goes.
Let’s see how that affects the statistical results.
The raw statistical computation is now 1 in 15,200
After adjusting for unintentional biases and all possible First Century Jerusalem Tombs the probability of the Talipot Tomb being Jesus’ family tomb is falls to 3.8 to 1.
When you consider that Jose is probably Jesus father and that his birth name is Joseph and you adjust the probability accordingly to 1 in 8, the statistical chance that the Talipot Tomb is the THE tomb of Jesus of Nazareth falls to 1.5 to 1.
But wait, it gets worse for the film’s producers.
The Statistical Probability that All Five of Film’s "Alternate History Assumptions" are True
Since Simcha and Cameron are defending the film’s conclusions based upon its statistical ‘soundness’, It is only fair to test their assumptions using the same statistical methods. Here are the results of that analysis.
Assumption 1 - That the Jesus and Jose of the Talipot Tomb are brothers. 1 in 3 chance they are brothers.
Assumption 2 - That Mariamne in the Talipot Tomb is the Mary Magdalene of the New Testament Gospels. 1 in 1000 chance she is.
Assumption 3 - That Jesus of Nazareth was married to the Mariamne of the Talipot Tomb. 1 in 1000 chance that he was.
Assumption 4 - The Matthew found in the Talipot Tomb is related to Mary but is NOT her son. 1 in 10 chance that he is.
Assumption 5 - The James Ossuary is originally from the Talipot Tomb. 1 in 2 chance that it is.
When we calculate the statistical probability that all five of these "alternate history assumptions" are true the raw score is a 1 in 60,000,000 chance that all five are true.
When we adjust the probability for unintentional historical biases and all possible first century Jerusalem tombs we are still left with a 1 in 15,000 chance that all five of the films assumptions are true. In other words, 14999 times out of 15,000 Simcha’s and Cameron’s assumptions regarding the alternate history that is necessary to conclude that the Talipot Tomb is that of Jesus Christ will be false.
The statistical probability that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth is so slim as to be thoroughly unconvincing. There is a better chance of the ‘magic bullet theory of JFK's assination’ being true than this tomb being the tomb of Jesus Christ.
Quite simply, the evidence for Jesus' resurrection from the dead as laid out by the eye-witness testimony found in the New Testament documents still stands. Simcha and Cameron’s efforts, although they make for provocative television do not supply the evidence necessary to overturn the Biblical record.
No comments:
Post a Comment