It would be Jesus' tomb if it weren't for the...

by Walyce Almeida | March 6, 2007 at 12:39 am | 1179 views | 2 comments

Here's the set-up. In 1980 a construction crew in the Jerusalem suburb of Talpiot chanced upon a first-century tomb, which are not uncommon in that city. The Israeli Antiquities Authority found 10 bone boxes there, and stored them in a warehouse. Some bore inscribed names: Jesus, son of Joseph; Maria; Mariamene e Mara; Matthew; Judas, son of Jesus; and Jose. Each name with the exception of Mariamene seemed common to their period, and it was only in 1996 that the BBC made a film suggesting that. given the combination, it might be that family. The idea was eventually discounted, however, because, as University of St. Andrews (Scotland) New Testament expert Richard Bauckham asserted in a subsequent book, the names with Biblical resonance are so common that even when you run the probabilities on the group, the odds of it being the famous Jesus's family are "very low."

That's just one of the arguments that oppose the tomb Titanic director James Cameron is documenting as being Jesus Christ's. Another argument in the same Time article above questions the motivation of Jesus' disciples to live the life the Gospels account while knowing that Jesus was still alive, married and had a child.

That won't happen with The Jesus Family Tomb by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino, a sidecar to Jacobovici's Cameron-produced Discovery Channel documentary. Jacobovici claims that 10 bone boxes from an ancient Jerusalem-area crypt bear such a suggestive combination of names (JESUS SON OF JOSEPH, MARY, JOSE) that it must be the holy family's tomb. His statistician has set the odds at 600 to 1 in favor. He thinks one inscription, MARIAMENE E MARA, denotes Mary Magdalene, and another, JUDAH SON OF JESUS, her son by the Saviour.

Other arguments not in the Time articles, but made by Tom Short, a pastor who evangelizes on college campuses across the country:

The burial was found in Jerusalem but Jesus and His family were from Galilee
Some of the names on the ossuary may be difficult to decipher
The particular type of ossuary in which the "discovery" was made was the type of a more wealthy family; Jesus' family were not known to be wealthy
For this discovery to be true, then the existence of Jesus Christ, his parents and his siblings have to be true; if their existence is true then the stories of them must be true but a contradiction lies in this because then only parts of the Bible would be found true - the part of Joseph, Mary and Jesus. What about the other parts? Either the disciples told the truth in the Gospels or they didn't?
If the disciples lied, their deaths defending the resurrection and death of Christ were in vain
If this "discovery" were true, we have to ignore the eyewitness accounts in the Bible and any other literature or archaeological evidence that may support the Bible
How did Jesus become the well-known and loved figure He is today?
The Bible gives very specific details as to what happened to Jesus: for example He was crucified on the hill of Golgotha, buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea's while both Mary's were still alive.
The tomb was sealed shut and watched by two Roman soldiers (back then, if soldiers didn't do their job, they would be killed)

That's a lot to take in but it's not enough information for someone who is truly interested in learning of the evidence that exists.

Flag this story

Upload

Make your good story a great story. Click here to add your photos & video to this story.

Crowd Power

Scan the web to add photos and videos to this story or add them from the NowPublic Archive.

Victoria Revay

at 02:35 on March 6th, 2007

good stuff:

This is interesting....

brichert

at 20:13 on March 7th, 2007

It is so disappointing that this has become a discussion between a discredited archaeologists and uninformed evangelicalists. This case was closed 25 years ago and is being brought up now only to capitalize on the Da Vinci Code success and the continued obsession with pseudo-reality drama. The archaelogists have left the site years ago for a reason - and I am not talking about cover-up Catholic priests, I am talking about secular scientists who could care less whether the claims are true or not.