By Nathan Busenitz @ http://www.sfpulpit.com
According to what I’ve been able to gather so far, the primary (really, the only) argument that the promoters of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” have produced is a statistical one.
According to their website, the show’s producers found a tomb in Jerusalem containing ten ossuaries (stone boxes in which the bones of the deceased were kept), which they believe date back to either the first century BC or the first century AD. Six of the ossuaries have names inscribed on the outside (five in Hebrew, and one in Greek).
The show’s creators assert that the six names (when translated into English) are Joseph, Mary, Jesus Son of Joseph, Mary [Magdelene], Judah Son of Jesus, and Matthew. These names, they contend, correspond to the names of Jesus Christ and His family. Based on the probability of first four of these names occuring together in the same tomb, they calculate a 600-to-1 statistical probability that this is Jesus’ family tomb (and the tomb of Jesus Himself).
But how impressive is their case, really?
Not very… their statistical case quickly falls apart when one considers the massive assumptions (and major difficulties) that undergird their conclusions. (To be honest, the whole thing reminds me of this book.)
First, the producers assume that they have rightly interpreted the names inscribed on the ossuaries. But this is unlikely. For instance, “Jesus, son of Joseph” is hardly legible. And “Mary Magdelene” (from “Mariamene e Mara”) is almost certainly an incorrect interpretation — since “Mara” is probably a contraction of Martha, and thus a second name (maybe even referring to a second person). Even the downloadable article on “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” website (by L.Y. Rahmani) acknowledges that this was probably a double name and that “the second name [is] a contraction of Martha.”
Second, their conclusion assumes that the relationships between each of the individuals in the tomb has been correctly identified. Was the individual whose remains are marked “Yose” (Joseph) married to the individual named “Maria”? Or (as the show’s producers assert) was the individual marked “Jesus Son of Joseph” married to the individual named “Mariamene e Mara”? There is no real way to know, beyond mere speculation.
Third, (as noted above) the show assumes that Jesus Christ was married (to Mary Magdalene) and that together they had a son (in this case, named Judah). Thanks to The Da Vinci Code, this is a popular notion nowadays. And, also thanks to The Da Vinci Code it is an idea that has been soundly refuted by evangelical scholars (see here and here, for example). If it can be demonstrated that Jesus was not married to Mary Magdalene, and that He did not produce a line of offspring, the entire “lost tomb” hypothesis collapses.
Fourth, the show’s premise essentially ignores the commonness of the names cited on the ossuaries. According to the show’s own research, “Joseph” was the second-most-common male name in first-century Israel, “Mary” was the most-common female name, and “Jesus” was the sixth-most-common male name.
To put that in today’s American society (according to a 1990 census), “Joseph” would be equivalent to the name “John” (as the second-most-popular name), “Mary” equivalent to the name “Mary” (which is still the most-popular woman’s name), and “Jesus” would be equivalent to the name “David” (as the sixth-most-popular name).
If we found a gravesite today in which there was a tombstone for “John,” and another for “David, John’s son” – Would we be able to assert with any degree of certainty which “David” we were talking about? I wonder how many “Johns” there are (or have been in the last two centuries) in the United States who have had a wife named “Mary” and a son named “Dave.” Certainly many more than just one.
Then, if we knew that the “David” we were looking for was unmarried and from Los Angeles, but the grave we found was for a “David” who was married and was buried in New York, what would we conclude?
Fifth, the show’s conclusion fails to account for the name Matthew (”Matia”). Despite the fact that there is no record of anyone physically related to Jesus Christ named Matthew, the producers simply assume that there must have been (since, after all, this has to be Jesus’ family tomb). In the end, since Matthew does not fit nicely into the show’s hypothesis, he is left out of the final statistical calculations.
Sixth, the producers fail to account for a host of other problems – such as
- the fact that Jesus’ family was from Nazareth, not Jerusalem; thus their family burial spot would have been in Galilee, not Jerusalem
- the fact that Jesus’ half-brothers James and Jude would die as Christian martyrs (despite knowing about Jesus’ remains and the family burial ground)
- the notion that Jesus’ family was able to conceal this family burial site from the entire early church (especially since putting the bones in an ossuary was a year-long process)
- the assumption that Jesus’ family could afford a wealthy burial place such as this; that the religious authorities (who hated Jesus) would have allowed them to hold on to it; and that those same authorities would have said nothing about the burial location of Jesus (and His family) in spite of their desire to debunk the resurrection
- the fact that Jesus’ family did a very ship-shod job of inscribing Jesus’ name into His ossuary, making it hardly legible (even though they deeply respected and venerated Him)
- the fact that neither Jesus nor His followers referred to Him as “Son of Joseph,” yet that is how the name is inscribed on this ossuary
If all of these “problem factors” were given proper statistical weight (and more could be added to this list), the 600-to-1 ratio would not only drastically decrease, it would totally reverse.
Much more could be said about all this (and indeed has been, per the sites we listed yesterday). As we noted then, we will try to keep you updated as more information is made available. In the meantime, don’t lose any sleep over “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.” It is simply not a serious challenge to the central doctrines of the Christian faith (despite the hype its producers are trying to create).
Speaking of sleep, it’s getting late. Perhaps I should follow my own advice, and go to bed.
Goodnight.
*****
Addendum:
I also wanted to highlight a couple other points:
(1) The show’s creators are trying to tie in the alleged ossuary of James (Jesus’ half-brother) to bolster their case — claiming that it was originally part of this same tombsite. The greatest problem with this (if it really is James’ ossuary) is that the James’ ossuary was discovered in the 1970s, while the “Yeshua” ossuaries were not discovered until the 1980s. Thus, James’ ossuary could not have been in the “Jesus family” tomb.
Also, the evidence of church history (from Eusebius) indicates that the place of James’ grave was well-known in ancient times, and that he was buried alone in a different part of Jerusalem.
(2) It has been pointed out by others that these ossuaries have been known about by scholars since the early 1980s. The reason the premise of this show has not been put forward before is that no serious scholars believe it to be credible. According to Joel Rosenberg’s website, the Israeli archeologist who originally discovered the tomb believes this new film is nonsense.
No comments:
Post a Comment