On March 28, 1980, a construction crew developing an apartment complex in Talpiot, Israel (South of Jerusalem) uncovered an ancient tomb.  Inside the tomb were 10 Jewish ossuaries, or bone boxes, dating somewhere between the 4th century B.C. and the 1st century A.D. (for a brief explanation of this burial process see my post from Nov 3, ’06, describing my own visit to a similar, yet less ornate, 1st century tomb in Israel).  Among the names inscribed on six of the bone boxes were Jesus, Joseph, Judah, Mariamene e Mara, Mary, and Matthew.

On March 4, 2007, the Discovery Channel premiered a docu-drama called, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.”  The thesis of the program was that this 27 year old archeological discovery is actually the family burial tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, complete with Jesus’ own bodily remains as well as those of his supposed wife, Mary Magdalene, and their child, Judah.

Is this thesis really supported by facts? 
How should Christians respond?
THE NAMES:
An initial question you might ask is, “If this discovery is 27 years old, why hasn’t anything been said already about it containing the bones of Jesus of Nazareth?”  The reason is that scholars—unlike Academy Award winning Titanic director, James Cameron—have understood the real issues with the names discovered in the Talpiot tomb.  The collection of names is statistically ordinary.  Meaning, these names were extremely common among Jewish families living in Palestine during this time period.  In fact, it might be more unusual if a Jewish family burial plot did not contain some combination of these names.  For instance…

Mary:
During the time of Jesus, one in every four women (25%) were named Mary.  In fact, we don’t even have to read very far into the New Testament gospel narratives to bump into a sometimes confusing number of characters named Mary, do we?

Jesus:
In his writings, 1st century A.D. Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus refers to 21 different people from his own time who were named Jesus.  And knowing that historians are selective, think how many thousands of other people who were not mentioned in history books and yet shared this typical name.  Far from unique, Jesus was a favorite name among Jewish mothers.  Though we pronounce the name “Jesus,” and have therefore maybe forgotten its significance in Jewish history, this name is none other than “Joshua.”  Joshua was Moses’ assistant and successor, the military leader chosen by God to lead the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan.  The meaning of the name is that God will save (an understandably popular name for those living under foreign oppression and waiting for God’s deliverance).  There have even been multiple ossuaries that have been discovered bearing the more specific inscription, “Jesus, son of Joseph,” both of these being unremarkable names.  In fact, the Bible itself refers to others named Jesus (Col 4:11).

Mariamene e Mara:
According to the Discovery docu-drama, the name Mariamene e Mara is another name for Mary Magdalene.  However, there is no known way to derive one of these names from the other.  In truth, the name “Mariamene e Mara” simply means, “Mary also known as Mara.”  It would be a huge leap to think that this Mary/Mara is the same Mary who was from the region of Magdala, a small village in Galilee.  There just is no evidence to suggest this identity claim.
  
DNA Analysis:
The only DNA analysis that was conducted was between Jesus and Mariamene e Mara (it’s interesting that no DNA tests were done with Judas, the supposed son of Jesus and Mariamena, and his “parents”).  The results showed one thing, and one thing only—that they were not maternally related.  Therefore, given that they were in a common tomb, it is possible that Mariamene e Mara was this Jesus’ wife, daughter, paternal cousin, aunt, sister-in-law, or even an unrelated person.  That’s all.  But DNA testing has not shown that any of these so-called “family members” are even related, though it’s possible they may have been.  The only DNA testing that’s been done—between Jesus and Mariamne—came up negative.  To say more is sheer speculation, and not supported by DNA.  One wonders why the creators of this docu-drama only mentioned the option of “wife” as a possible relationship.

THE TOMB:
Other highly problematic elements of this alleged “Jesus tomb” are the kind and location of the Talpiot tomb itself.  Jesus’ family was a poor family from Nazareth, not a middle to upper-class family from Jerusalem.  The discovered tomb in question is far too ornate to have belonged to a lower-class family such as Joseph the carpenter.  If the lower-class family of Jesus did have a family tomb it would have been in Galilee, not the capital city of Jerusalem.  So, this tomb is not only the wrong kind of tomb, it’s also in the wrong location.

WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH?
So what you have in the Discovery docu-drama is at best a creative guessing game.  The entire statistical argument offered in the T.V. program is based on the statistical significance of the ossuary names being in particular relationships to one another.  To name just a few of these contingencies needed for the Jesus Tomb thesis to even get off the ground (there are many, many more!):

If this Jesus is the biblical Jesus of Nazareth, and if he was married to Mariamene e Mara, and if Mariamne was a nickname for Mary of Magdala, and if Jesus had a brother named Matthew, and if Jesus had a son named Judas, and if the now-famous James ossuary belonged to James the half-brother of Jesus, and if Jesus’ lower-class family relocated their family tomb (along with Joseph’s already dead body) to an upper-class plot in a town other than their own, and if the remains of Jesus’ mother, Mary, were transported from Ephesus in Asia Minor to Jerusalem, and if the most well attested historical fact of Jesus’ death (his burial in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea) is wrong . . . then you’d have all of Jesus’ family together in one tomb.  But that sure is a lot of “ifs,” and there are many, many more!

OBJECTIVE REPORTING?
Though the researchers of this T.V. production claim to be merely connecting the dots, we should wonder why it is that they connected the dots the way they did.  There are multiple other legitimate ways to connect those same dots.  However, as we can imagine, none of these other legitimate connections would offer so titillating or earth shattering a story as theirs, would it?

A BETTER HISTORY:
What the Discovery docu-drama offers is a thesis based on bone boxes.  On the contrary, the Christian gospel offers a thesis based on documents—historical record.  The best sources we have on the historical person of Jesus are from 1st century writers like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and Paul.  These sources appear to be evenhanded historical accounts.  They are not mystical or esoteric reports.  Instead, they purport to be critically researched records (Lk 1:1-4) of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.  And they bear the internal marks of authenticity, recording even embarrassing (Lk 24:1-9) and self-condemning (Lk 24:25) events that would have been better left out had the accounts been mere after-the-fact creations, spun for the benefit of the authors and their community.

If you are a follower of Jesus don’t get defensive when hearing assertions like those made in “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.”  We must remind ourselves that historical evidence is on the side of the biblical account of Jesus.  I think we also have to see challenges like this not primarly as a threat to our faith, but instead as a golden opportunity to speak with truth and winsomeness into our culture.  We ought to celebrate any conversation our world may be having about the historical person of Jesus; not because we affirm their conclusions but because where there is the smoke of interest in the person of Jesus, we may, with truth and love, fan that into the flame of faith in Jesus as King.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Why is it, do you think, that Christians can become so quickly defensively when challenged in this way?

2. Why is it, do you think, that many critics are so quick to “spin” the information regarding the historical Jesus?

3. Do you tend to view your Christian faith as being historic and evidential, or as a sort of don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts faith (blind faith)?

4. What questions still remain in your mind about those issues brought up by “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” or others challenges to the historic Christian faith?