Items tagged jesus

Jesus as Israel

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 02:35:09 GMT

If you click on "Downloads" above you'll be able to find a longish, but rather unpolished and work-in-progressive paper on the typological structure of Matthew. Thanks to Ralph and Emeth Smith for pdf-ing it for me and uploading it to this site.

Paul and Israel

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:55:09 GMT

N. T. Wright's views on Paul and justification will be misconstrued if they are examined outside the context of his views on Israel's history and Jesus' role in that history. That is, Wright's work is of a piece – his historical Jesus studies are essential to a proper understanding of his historical Paul studies.

How does this work? Wright says that God called Israel into covenant as an answer to the problem of human sin. Abraham is the antidote to Adam, and through Abraham God intends to bring blessings to the nations by gathering a single worldwide family in Abraham's seed. Israel, however, proved as sinful as the nations; the problem is "the hidden Adam in the Jew," which is particularly evident in Israel's "meta-sin" of boasting in her special place in God's purposes.

As a result of Israel's fall and failure, Israel is sent into exile, and continues in that cursed condition until Jesus comes. Israel is also called as a representative of the nations, as a nation that bears the sins and uncleanness of the world, which is "heaped up" in Israel, in order finally to be removed in and by the Messiah.

Jesus is the true Israel, who is faithful where Israel failed. Yet, Jesus suffers the curse of His people and participates in their fate. In His death, God's judgment against Israel's sin comes to a climax, as Jesus suffers the ultimate exile. His resurrection is, however, the end of exile, the "exhaustion" of the curse of the covenant. The Spirit's coming is the sign of a renewed covenant, and in this renewed condition Gentiles are welcomed along with Jews into the people of God.

On this construction, Torah was never designed to be the means for fulfilling God's purposes for the nations. Torah sets up boundaries between Israel and the nations, and thus was never the ultimate order of God's people. Further, Torah in fact brought curse to Israel. Torah is thus subordinate to the promise of a universal people given to Abraham; the Torah that came hundreds of years after Abraham didn't cancel the promise, but was part of God's means for realizing the promise. With the climax of the covenant, God redefines His people, as already anticipated by OT prophecy and promise. No longer is the people of God identified by Jewish markers of circumcision and other works. Rather, God's people is marked out by the presence of faith, the firstfruits of the Spirit's work.

Justification should be fit into this redemptive-historical framework. Justification is the event of God's vindication of His people; it is by faith because the ones to be vindicated are the ones who have faith in Jesus. Israel had long looked forward to the day of God's righteousness, the day on which God would condemn Israel's enemies and vindicate His people in a great law-court event. To be judged righteous means to be vindicated in this judgment. The question between Jews and Gentiles is what marks a person as a member of the people to be vindicated: Works of Torah, or faith in Jesus? Wright doesn't think that the boasting that Paul condemns is condemned because it is a striving for self-recognition; it is rather the national righteousness, the notion that Israel's vindication can be assured by doing the works of Torah.

And Thus Spoke Angelz, and Verily, the Great Ship Sank

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:55:36 GMT

-- James R. White

Jesus Tomb Film Scholars Backtrack?

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:15:04 GMT

   I must have been sent half a dozen or more links to this article in the Jerusalem Post. While it is interesting, it is nothing new. Just the media begrudgingly admitting what we were saying from the start, actually, and what I documented in From Toronto to Emmaus. Specifically, we well know that Bovon and Matheson have, from even before the airing of the film, made public comments about the misuse of their statements. Feuerverger had posted what might be called an "adjustment" of his views within the first month as scholar after scholar pointed out the misuse of his calculations by Jacobovici, just as Dr. Stamps did in my book. Pfann's paper is discussed in the book as well, so, there is truly nothing in this article that is not noted (with the exception of the Feuerverger "adjustment") and documented in From Toronto to Emmaus.
   What is still missing from the discussion is the data on The Acts of Philip. Given the prevalence of the use of such sources by so many enemies of the Christian faith today (need I say Gospel of Thomas yet again?) I continue to wonder why it is that almost no one is willing to call this work what it really is: a work of fourth century vegetarian fiction. This is probably due to the fact that the academy has bought into the value of resurrecting gnostic fantasies from the mid second century, and besides, one of the easiest ways to "get published," find a dissertation topic, etc., is to promote some kind of gnostic viewpoint, so, that does not leave you in a position to describe these works for what they really are.
   In any case, I have been encouraged by the positive feed back as people have begun receiving their copies of From Toronto to Emmaus, and I continue to ask our friends to pray that God will give the book a wide audience and that it will be used as an evangelistic tool to His glory and honor. -- James R. White

Update Article on “Jesus Tomb Controversy”

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:25:09 GMT

Scholars associated with research and film on the Jesus Tomb have revised some of their statements. The Jerusalem Post explain the changes here.

Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology Contrasted

Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:51:41 GMT

Apologetics Roman Style

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:55:04 GMT

Enough of demonstrating that you can find sophistry alive and well even in Texas. But I did notice this wonderful comment from Prejean that brings us full circle:

Regarding Catholic responses to the Jesus Tomb story, that's another example of laughable scholarship, so the most common Catholic response has been to laugh it off.

   If you follow the link it is to Mark Shea. In the first paragraph Shea demonstrates that he really has no idea what the argument is from Jacobovici (he seems to think Cameron is the brain child of the film and book, which is untrue), and even misrepresents it.
   This is a very common means of responding to the Talpiot Theory. I call it the Ostrich Defense. Just stick your head in the sand and laugh about how "silly" the argument is. I mean, isn't that what Barbour and Madrid and Prejean have done with the criticisms of Roman Catholic positions offered by myself, Eric Svendsen, Bill Webster, etc.? Of course. Mockery is a great defense when you are only concerned about keeping your core constituency happy. But it is not an actual apologetic. It does not fit with the command in 1 Peter 3:15, does it? Most assuredly not. It surely does not help those who are confused by such attacks, and it does not help the saints to grow in grace and knowledge. You do not become deeply rooted in truth with your head stuck in the sand.
   Let's say the scholarship in The Lost Tomb of Jesus is laughable. So what? Do you respond to laughable scholarship with...laughter? Or do you respond with sober, sound examination that demonstrates the inconsistencies of the argumentation? The Ostrich Defense has led to the situation we face in education today. We raise our children in the church, send them off to the local college or university, and there they find themselves unarmed and ill prepared to deal with the gun-slinging professor of philosophy and world religions who has The Lost Tomb of Jesus on constant reruns in his classroom and whose bookshelf is filled with the works of John Shelby Spong and The Jesus Seminar. Many find Mormonism as a religion laughable, too. That does not mean you do not prepare yourself to give a reasoned response to their claims.
   It does not surprise me that this is the popular view from Rome, for in reality, she has no foundation upon which to do apologetics anyway, given the mythical character of her own definitional, self-defined dogmas. When you have to play so fast and loose with history as Rome's defenders do, you are crippled when it comes to meaningful apologetics. But there is no reason for those outside of Rome's sphere of power to behave in such a fashion. The Talpiot Theory gives us a chance to proclaim the truth about the very central affirmation of the faith. It is hard to do that with your head in the sand.
-- James R. White

An Incredible Turn Around!

Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:07 GMT

Thanks to the diligent work of Mike Gaydosh of Solid Ground Christian Books, his staff, and my volunteers (Marie Peterson, Carrie Gambill, the rest of the #prosapologian crew), the period of time between my decision to publish a response to The Lost Tomb of Jesus film and the accompanying book, The Jesus Family Tomb, which I believe I made on March 1st, and the time when it will be in my hand (I believe Monday, April 2), is simply astounding. One month! I did not actually start writing until the 5th, so it was less than a month from the start of the project until the book was produced and shipped and in my possession. Truly an amazing testament to what you can do if you just work hard at it!
So now comes your turn. This book needs to get to believers so that they can be prepared. But it also needs to get in the hands of unbelievers who find this kind of argumentation compelling. We are going to put together a special offer as soon as we can including the book, the "Empty Tomb of Jesus" t-shirt, and a tract I am writing especially for use with the book. That's my current project. So keep watching the blog for details, and join us in using this error-filled attack upon the faith as a starting point to proclaim the truth to a world intent upon disbelief and rebellion. -- James R. White

Jesus Christ: The Interpretive Key to the Scripture

Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:48:09 GMT

Jesus Christ: The Interpretive Key to the Scripture
With Four Examples of Doctrinal Errors that Arise When this Key is not Used.

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. " (John 5:39, 40)
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" - (1 Tim 2:5)

"The Scriptures should be read with the aim of finding Christ in them. Whoever turns aside from this object, even though he wears himself out all his life in learning, he will never reach the knowledge of the truth." - John Calvin

I have recently had the privilege of reading a phenomenal book that I highly recommend to all teachers of the Word. That book was Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics by Graeme Goldsworthy. Its thesis is simple: the Gospel (or, Jesus Christ) is the Key to all Christian Hermeneutics. During the course of reading, his focus got me to thinking about its antithesis which would be that almost all errors and inconsistencies in our understanding of Bible texts occur when our interpretation is less than Christ-centered. This is foundational. Unless our study, however diligent, leads us to see that all Scripture points to Jesus Christ, our study is in vain. The importance of the Bible (OT & NT) is that it testifies about Jesus Christ (John 1:43-45, Acts 3:18, Acts 17:2-3, 2 Tim 3:14-15,1 Pet 1:10-12, Rom 1:1-3, 16:25-27, Luke 24:25-27 & 44-46).

Studies in John (Lesson 13: Jesus’ High-Priestly Prayer)

Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:12:17 GMT

I. The Altar of Incense

During the course of our journey through the gospel of John, we have also taken a journey through the tabernacle, and we have seen how all of its imagery is fulfilled in Jesus. He is the Lamb of God, offered upon the brazen altar at the entrance to the courtyard. He is the laver by which the priests were cleansed, and in him is the water of everlasting life. He is the table of the bread of the presence, nourishing those who eat of him with the true life of fellowship with God. He is the candlestick, the tabernacle's only source of light. And now, just before he offers himself up for our sins, we see that he is likewise the fulfillment of the symbolism in the altar of incense.

Interpreter of Gnostic Texts: Simcha Jacobovici

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:51:08 GMT

It pains me to explore the content of the Gospel of Thomas, as if it actually contained historical facts (it does not). Simcha Jacobovici thinks it does, and has put forth a story grid to fit the facts from this Gnostic book. For example, on page 98 in The Jesus Family Tomb, Jacobovici creates a story around facts culled from this alleged gospel. He speculates the spiritual and physical journey of Mary Magdalene had been "unusually difficult":

"As recorded in the Gospel of Thomas, Simon and Peter, in sayings 22 and 114, eventually rose and spoke out against Mary Magdalene. Declaring that a woman was not worthy of spirit-life, the two men demanded that Mary be ejected from the congregation. And Jesus replied, with more than a hint of wry humor, 'Behold! I shall guide her as to make her male, that she too may become a living spirit like you men- and...male and female [are made] into a single one, so that the male will not be male and the female will not be female' (Gospel of Thomas, saying 114)."

The Gospel of Thomas can be found here. Let's take a look at the citations offered.

Saying 22:
Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the (Father's) kingdom." They said to him, "Then shall we enter the (Father's) kingdom as babies?" Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Saying 114:
Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

   Saying 22 has no correspondence to the story put forth by Jacobovici. There is nothing mentioned about Peter or Mary Magdalene, or any hint of dissention between them. Rather, it expresses a Gnostic teaching about making male and female into a single one. It is put forth as a positive thing, that maleness and femaleness are to be blended together so they cease having particular gender attributes. Some even interpret saying 114 to be teaching the same Gnostic principle rather than a statement of the spiritual superiority of maleness.
   In 114, note that it was not Simon and Peter, but Simon Peter. The Gospel of Thomas does not flow as a historical narrative, but rather lists one hundred and fourteen alleged sayings of Jesus. In other words, the idea that Simon and Peter [or Simon Peter] "eventually rose and spoke out against Mary Magdalene" is not an element of a historical narrative, simply because the Gospel of Thomas is not a historical narrative.Nothing eventually happened. Note also how Jacobovici interprets saying 114, "Jesus replied,with more than a hint of wry humor." There is nothing in the text that suggests wry humor put forth by Jesus.
   Jacobovici doesn't even mention that saying 114 was probably added to the Gospel of Thomas at a later date. He assumes Thomas actually wrote the Gospel of Thomas on page 109, without a shred of evidence to substantiate it. On the other hand, James Cameron's introduction states of the Biblical Gospels, "There is no historical evidence that any of the authors, if in fact they were individuals, actually heard the words of Jesus from his own lips" (p. ix). So, Thomas wrote the Gospel of Thomas, but Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never knew Jesus, and probably didn't write the books attributed to them.
   The front cover of The Jesus Family Tomb touts the evidence presented could change history. Well, if double standards, poor use of sources, and forced conclusions become standard historical methodology, then indeed, Simcha Jacobovici's book will be a groundbreaking work. -- James Swan

12 Lessons from the Jesus Tomb Saga

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:12:54 GMT

Here is what I think we can learn from the Jesus tomb saga. This is especially dedicated to my�and your!�graduate students.

1. First do the research, then make the movie.

2. Don�t just hire consultants who you know already agree with you; what�s the value of that?

3. Don�t rely uncritically on the work of others, even experts in the field, especially when your central thesis depends on it.

4. Avoid getting infatuated with your own theory so that you are no longer able to evaluate the evidence objectively.

5. Don�t be tempted to �follow the money�; follow the evidence instead. Be on a quest for truth, not fame or fortune.

6. Don�t circumvent the peer review process and address yourself directly to the public; your scholarly reputation will almost certainly suffer if you do.

7. Don�t persist in a state of denial when you�ve been proven wrong. Admit your mistake; everyone else already knows it anyway. Denying the obvious will only make you look even more ridiculous.

8. Don�t miss the subtle clues�a backwards �N,� a supposed �U� that looks a lot more like an �I��even if it requires you to change your theory.

9. Be modest in stating your case. Don�t overreach.

10. Don�t use statistics or DNA evidence to pad a weak case.

11. Don�t confuse your theory with the facts.

12. Develop a healthy respect for the need for expertise in a certain area before making confident pronouncement of things you know little about.

I�d love to hear from you on this one. Do you agree with these lessons? Can you add more?

An Insight into the Mindset of "Tomb Believers"

Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:06:24 GMT

As my readers know, I have been working very hard on the tomb story, doing the kind of background reading and research necessary to provide a sound response. But, despite the energy I have been investing, some think we are merely providing a "knee jerk" reaction. Here is an e-mail that came in last night:

Yea, okay. Let me first start out by saying. I'm no [sic] suprised [sic] at the close-minded repplies [sic] the "Christian" population is spewing from the bowls [sic? probably meant "bowels"] of ignorance. my [sic] reason for saying this? well [sic--broken caps key?] you people are close minded of course. and [sic] any notion that your words and "laws" are wrong is an insult and you point out some strong points just to cast doubt on this find. I have not 1% [sic] shred of doubt this is the tomb of Jesus. becuase [sic and sic] I know Moses started this christianity [sic] c**p [edited] and people picked up on it to be the "out-casts" to oppose the rulers of their time. It would have died out if it wasnt [sic] for the Roman Emperor ( forgot his name ) google it, he proclaimed that jesus [sic] WAS the son of the ONE true god and they all had to follow him or die. On another area of this Tomb business. Is why [sic] is it so hard to accept that its true. [sic] how [sic] incredible are the odds that this is NOT the tomb.... how many families back then would have all the names correct... honestly are you people this thick headed? wake [sic] up and accept that there is no purpose or god. we [sic] evolved and maybe yes something created us. but [sic] why the h**l [edited] would there be millions of stars and one belief? there [sic] isn't imagine [sic] another world of intelligent people. and [sic] think of their religions. yea [sic].... was their jesus [sic] green?

And here I am documenting facts about inscriptions, the encratite community of Asia minor (source of The Acts of Philip), Gelasius' condemnation thereof, and mitochondrial DNA! Goodness. -- James R. White

The Final Nail in the...Ossuary

Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:20:12 GMT

   For the serious minded person, this controvery is over. Finished. Dr. Stephen J. Pfann of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem has just posted his paper, "Mary Magdalene is Now Missing: A Corrected Reading of Rahmani Ossuary 701" here. And with this information the case is quite literally closed. Without Mariamne, Jacobovici and his team have nothing whatsoever. Pfann makes a compelling case that the proper reading is "Mariame and Mara (Martha)," and given that Mariame is a normative form, the discussion is truly over, for as I have said repeatedly, the Mariamne identification is the heart of their theory. It was already a done deal in that the Acts of Philip do not, in fact, provide them with what they need in any way, shape, or form, but now that issue is irrelevant as well, in the sense that they can't even get to the Acts of Philip with a compelling counter-reading of the ossuary staring them in the face.
   I have been focusing upon The Acts of Philip, the DNA evidence, etc., and all of that is, in fact, important. But the one area I knew I would not be able to address to any depth was that of the inscriptions, and the reason is not difficult to see:

Without the ability to use different angles of light, or at least have multiple very high-resolution scans, people remote from the actual inscriptions are at the mercy of those who have actually examined the inscriptions "up close and personal." Most of the images I have seen have either been moving (in video), or were not high enough resolution scans to allow any kind of close examination, as in the image above. While you can make out the broad strokes, any kind of critique of the reading is difficult to do. I had seen alternative readings. Bauckham had suggested Mariamenou Mara, and this made sense, grammatically, in Greek. There was no question that Mara was a full name, not a title, as suggested by Tabor and the Jacobovici team. But Pfann's very clear reading helps a great deal. Here is the inscription again:

Pfann points out the differences in orthography between Mariame and the following kai Mara, and he is quite right. But since most do not read Greek, here is his colorized tracing of the text:

This should help you to see the terms in perspective. Now, "kai" doesn't look a lot like kai, but Pfann goes into detail on other examples of this connetive being written this way. The fact that kai is a connective (the word "and") means that just as in English, it could be abbreviated or shortened, similar to our own "&."
   So what we have is a second hand adding "and Mara," which would indicate that first Mariame's bones were placed in this ossuary then, at a later time, Mara's were added. It is not uncommon to find the remains of multiple people in a single ossuary (amazing how small we are when reduced to our skeletal remains), and as I have noted, Kloner's article averages 1.7 people/ossuary in the Talpiot tomb. So whose remains were tested via mitochondrial DNA analysis? Mariame? Mara? We have no way of knowing, since we don't even know they were the only people in the ossuary. One thing is for certain, it wasn't Mary Magdalene.
   Of course, this is not going to slow me down on the book. This information must come out, and, what is more, this entire situation provides us with a glowing example of the kind of apologetic challenge to the faith we can expect in the future. What is more, do you really think those who want to disbelieve will be convinced by this kind of evidence? Did truth stop Dan Brown? Not at all. What is more, do not under estimate the human mind. "Mary...Martha...Mary and Martha! That's Mary and Martha, so, Lazarus must have been in one of the unmarked ossuaries, so, it is the family tomb of Jesus after all!" Stranger things have happened.
   In any case, it is fascinating to read the response posted on the Discovery website. First, they finally admit that the film and book do, in fact, directly contradict Christianity:

The film and book suggest that a first-century ossuary found in a south Jerusalem cave in 1980 contained the remains of Jesus, contradicting the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven. Ossuaries are stone boxes used at the time to store the bones of the dead.

Then the article reports,

   In Israel on Tuesday for a screening of the film, the Toronto-based Jacobovici welcomed Pfann's criticism, saying "every inscription should be re-examined."
   But Jacobovici said scholars who researched the ossuary in the past agreed with the film's reading. "Anyone who looks at it can see that the script was written by the same hand," he added.
   Jacobovici has faced criticism much tougher than Pfann's academic critique. The film has been termed "archaeo-porn," and Jacobovici has been accused of "pimping the Bible."
   Jacobovici attributes most of the criticism to scholars' discomfort with journalists "casting light into their ossuary monopoly."
   "What we're doing is democratizing this knowledge, and this is driving some people crazy," he said.

Democtratizing this knowledge? Or pandering falsehoods for money? That's the question. -- James R. White

The "Tomb" statistics

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:13:37 GMT

According to the documentary "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," the odds for all of those names coming together to fit the profile of Jesus's family is 600-1. Not so fast, says statistician Carl Bialek, the Wall Street Journal's "Numbers Guy." [subscription required]

But the one-in-600 calculation is based on many assumptions about the prevalence of the names and their biblical significance. For purposes of his calculations, Prof. Feuerverger relied on new scholarly research that links the inscription "Mariamene e Mara" with a name for Mary Magdalene. (The filmmakers suggest that she was Christ's wife and that they are buried with a son, Judah -- claims hotly denounced by traditional Christians.)
Had the professor assumed the inscription could be for any Mary, a very common name then, it would be far less likely that Christ's family is in the tomb. The mathematical finding would become "statistically not significant," Prof. Feuerverger tells me. Similarly, the name "Yose" -- as one of Jesus' four brothers was called in the Gospel of Mark -- is a derivative of Yosef, another common name. There, too, the finding would be less conclusive if the professor had considered "Yose" applicable to any Yosef.
Even if there was consensus on the interpretation of the names, there are no comprehensive records showing how frequently they occurred in the population at that time. Prof. Feuerverger relied on modern books about ossuaries and ancient texts to tally the occurrence of certain names in the area then. That falls far short of a complete census.

"As you pile on more assumptions, you're building a house of cards," says Keith Devlin, a Stanford mathematician and NPR's "Math Guy." (Scientific American also challenged the calculation on its Web site.)

More on the Abuse of Truth in The Lost Tomb of Jesus

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:06:49 GMT

   We all know James Cameron knows how to use a camera to create an emotional impact. Sadly, when his starting information is grossly flawed, the results can be downright deceptive. Let's take the Mariamne inscription. Fourth century encratite text--a group of ascetics condemned by the orthodox followers of Jesus, and that quite rightly; that is, the author(s) of The Acts of Philip were vegetarians who disallowed marriage and procreation, and as such, were rightly condemned, given the plain teaching of New Testament texts on the propriety of marriage, and the fact that meats are given to men to be used for his life and health, see Hebrews 13:4, Col 2:16. They are not even remotely connected to the first century; they are not carrying some "tradition" that goes back in history. They are creating fictional stories to promote their movement, nothing more. Francois Bovon, the leading scholar on the Acts of Philip, has written to me just recently, indicating that his identification of Mary Magdalene with Mariamne of The Acts of Philip is "on the level of literary traditions and not on the level of history" (e-mail from Francois Bovon to James White, March 8, 2007). Bovon is talking about literary connections between texts like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdala, etc., all texts far removed from the first century and the events of Jesus' life. The Mary Magdalene they fabricate shares only one thing with the Mary Magdalene of history: her name. The gnostics loved latching onto names in the New Testament about whom we know little; they would then fill the name with fanciful stories, all designed to give a "spin" that would support their own theology. They could not make their case from the original followers of Jesus, so, they had to fictionalize stories to gain followers. The Acts of Philip draws upon preceding texts that have already fictionalized Mary Magdalene, and, in the opinion of Bovon, fills its own woman, Mariamne, with the characteristics of the previously created gnostic version of Mary Magdalene. But Bovon recognizes this is a literary connection, not a historical one, and further, he admits that "the name Magdala does not appear in the Acts of Philip."
   So are the viewers of the tomb film given a fair, balanced, accurate picture of the sources being used to make wild historical connections in the theory of the filmmakers? Judge for yourself:

   By the way, the book and film loves to talk about how many names have been found on ossuaries. What you need to keep in mind is that only around 250 incriptions have been found, mostly of men (ie., 1000 ossuaries, 20-25% with inscriptions = 250 inscriptions). The database is therefore quite small, so to find an "unusual" inscription is only relevant---if you already have the conclusion you are wanting to find in the "evidence." -- James R. White

An Excellent Example of the Scholarship of The Tomb

Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:43:23 GMT

   To say that The Lost Tomb of Jesus is a biased work is to engage in a tremendous understatement. It is very easy to document the bias of this work, and its incredible level of inaccuracy when presenting historical subjects related to the Christian faith. It lives and breathes in the air of the "Gnostic Academy," that popular area of religious study focused upon resurrecting the heresies of the early gnostics and investing in their every word authority far beyond anything granted to orthodox Christian writings.
   Here is an excellent example. Watch this video carefully. You have hooded monks in the darkness committing ancient texts to the flames while the narrator speaks of "church fathers" in the "second century." The intention of the filmmakers is anything but merely presenting "facts." See for yourself:

   Let's consider the facts. The second century was a difficult time for Christianity. This was the century of severe persecution in many portions of the Roman empire. The church was racked with the struggles produced by trying to answer the question, "What do you do with those who give in under torture?" This was a movement without political power, and without the ability to be "suppressing" anything at all. While the filmmakers directly assert editing of the gospels by these same men, they do not offer a scintilla of argument in support of their accusations against them. Evidently, Christian martyrs, as long as they are orthodox in their theology, can be slandered and lied about with impugnity in the Discovery Channel universe.
   But most amazing is the assertion that the church "suppressed" two documents in the second century: the Gospel of Mary Magdala, and the Acts of Philip. Just how did this allegedly happen? You see, the Gospel of Mary Magdala was written in the middle of the second century at the earliest. This would mean its distribution, even amongst the minority gnostic community, would take time. What evidence is provided that a book that may not have even been written during the second century was "suppressed" by a persecuted Christian church during the second century? This is even more so the case with The Acts of Philip which Francois Bovon, the Harvard scholar featured in the film itself, identifies as a fourth century work. Were these hooded monks of the second century (monasticism was just developing at this time) prophetic so as to suppress a book that would not be written for more than a century in the future? This kind of wide-eyed abuse of history would be humorous, if it was not placed in the context of attacking the very heart of the Christian faith.
   The reality is that the popularity of these ancient gnostic texts, which themselves are unconcerned with history (being written long after the events they portray), derives from the contemporary rise in "women's studies" in the academy. The pagan foundations of gnosticism included the concept of "the divine feminine," and hence, in today's academic climate, those gnostics were cutting edge! The gnostic texts of Nag Hammadi and elsewhere do portray conflicts between male leaders, like the Apostles, and women like Mary Magdalene. But rather than this representing a true historical connection to the events that took place in Judea in the early decades of the first century, it represents the conflict between the very commandments of Christ and His Apostles recorded in the New Testament and those who wished to overthrow their authority in later cults and schisms. They created "myths" to attempt to establish their beliefs, and both The Gospel of Mary Magdala and The Acts of Philip are nothing more than apologetic tracts written by idiosyncratic groups at a later time in the history of the church. They contain no meaningful history and have no meaningful connection to Jesus and the Apostles. To grant them equality with the gospels in authority or relevance is the height of absurdity; but to given them more authority and relevance, as has been done in this film and book, demonstrates either a historical naivete of shocking depth or, more likely, a bias and prejudice that goes well into the realm of simple dishonesty in the name of making money. -- James R. White

A Reason for Concern

Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:10:06 GMT

   I must confess, I am concerned. Over the past few days as I have been writing, gathering primary resources, and in general immersed in this project, I have taken the time to listen to the responses being offered by others. I am desirous of learning as much as I can from others, and I am truly hopeful that others will provide strong replies for the benefit of God's people as well. But to be honest, I have been disappointed by what I have heard.
   Today while riding I listened to a two hour response from a national program aired the Sunday night the film aired on the Discovery Channel in the US. Now, granted, the book had only been out for four days at that point, and while I had obtained it that day and had it read by the evening of the next, I am focused upon this topic. Others might have other projects "in the way," so it was not too surprising that the scholar being interviewed showed no familiarity with the book. As a result, some of the responses were far less "full" than they could have been, and some were just not accurate. That is understandable: all of us "pre-book" and "pre-movie" were going only on what was currently available. But we are now "post-book" and we should be hearing focused, clear, compelling refutations.
   Then, on Friday of this week, I listened to an hour long discussion of the tomb issue on a much more widely heard program. Now we are talking about a program that, unless it was not live at all, took place a full ten days after the book came out, and almost a week after the film aired. And once again, the scholar being interviewed gave not the slightest sign of having read the book, watched the film, watched the Today Show segment, the Larry King program---nothing. He could not even pronounce "Jacobovici" correctly. He knew nothing about mitochondrial DNA or the limitations of its ability to speak to familial relationships; he never mentioned (in what I heard) the true nature of the Acts of Philip, Francois Bovon, etc. Instead of providing in-depth refutation of the film and book based upon actual research and simply doing your homework, the premise was mocked and ridiculed. A wonderful opportunity for education was completely missed.
   I am very concerned that many in the post-evangelical church are taking the "mock it, dismiss it" route in response to the film. We have an opportunity here, and I, for one, do not wish to see it wasted. You see, we all know that this will not be the last time this kind of attack is launched. Someone will undoubtedly take this story and re-work it, remove some of the more obvious errors that come from Jacobovici and Pellegrino lacking any and all theological knowledge, repackage it, add in a few twists, and another book will come out. What is accomplished if all you did last time was mock the argument? But if we take this time to expose the roots of this kind of abuse of history, educate serious believers about how to do their own digging, their own thinking, their own de-mythologizing of supposed scholarship, you have equipped them to handle the next attack before it even comes, while rooting and grounding them in the faith. It is like the old saying: Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Give a surface-level, "easy" response to the tomb story now, and you might keep people happy. Teach them to think through these things and learn about the groups that existed outside the church and whose writings are the darlings of the current crop of unbelieving anti-Christians and you equip them to deal with the next dozen attacks upon the faith that will come out.
   That is why just this evening I corresponded again with Dr. Carney Matheson about the DNA evidence. I realized earlier today that I had not seen the slightest bit of discussion about how they would handle multiple people's bones being placed in the same ossuary. He was kind enough to respond and clarify. Yesterday I was corresponding with Francois Bovon of Harvard, and I was gathering original text materials in Greek and French for the chapter on the very heart of the Jacaobivic/Pellegrino/Cameron argument: that Mariamne is Mary Magdalene. I will be providing information on the Acts of Philip regarding its textual history and character, and the world-view from which it arises. I have found that it is not technically "gnostic" as in virtually identical to the Nag Hammadi texts, the Gospel of Thomas, etc. Same general genre, but this comes from an encratite group, a group of vegetarian acetics who eschewed sex and marriage (a really good way to make sure your movement does not last very long). Is it not obvious that a text that presents Mariamne as a virtuous icon would not fit in with the idea of her being the wife of Jesus and the mother of a son? That is why Bovon says his identification of Mariamne as Mary Magdalene is not an identification relevant to history but solely a literary parallel. For that matter, in his article on the subject he draws a number of parallels between the Mariamne of this fourth century fictional literature and the Virgin Mary. Hardly the kind of thing you will find in the tomb movie.
   In any case, it is my intention to once again take the offensive and use this attack upon our faith as a means of presenting its truth. But to do this properly we must do our homework and engage the topic without giving in to the temptation to simply "mock" it. So I ask for your continued prayer and support while I seek to put all this information into a readable, usable form. -- James R. White

Jesus Tomb Wrap-Up

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:02:31 GMT

Time to wrap up the matter of the �Jesus family tomb,� don�t you think? I conclude that this is a serious case of overreach. The book that in its subtitle claims that it contains �the Evidence That Could Change History� and the sensationalist claim that it propagates�are most likely going to be thrown into the trash heap of discarded theories in biblical archeology.

Let�s see if you agree that, soberly assessed, this is what we know of the �Jesus family tomb�:

1. The �Yeshua bar Yehosef� (if this is the correct reading) is almost certainly not the Jesus of the Bible. This man had a son named �Yose,� but there is complete silence in our historical sources that the Jesus of the Bible had a son, named �Yose� or otherwise.

2. The �Mariamenou-Mara,� alleged to be �Yeshua�s bar Yehosef�s� wife, Mary Magdalene, is almost certainly not Mary Magdalene, and may have been related to �Yeshua� (almost certainly not Jesus of the Bible) in any number of ways. There is no historical evidence whatsoever that Mary Magdalene was called �Mariamene� during her lifetime or at the time she was buried. Curiously, this is the only inscription in Greek (not explained by the makers of the �Jesus tomb� special).

3. The �Maria,� alleged to be Jesus� mother, is one of a very large number of women bearing that name in first-century Palestine. There is no information regarding her family relationship to �Yeshua bar Yehosef� whatsoever.

4. Nothing is known about the person named �Matia� (the ninth-most common name in first-century Palestine).

5. �Yose� was a common abbreviated form of �Yehosef� (the name of �Yeshua�s� father).

6. �Yehuda bar Yeshua� was the son of the �Yeshua bar Yehosef.�

The only demonstrable family relationships are therefore as follows:

Yehosef

[father of]

Yeshua

[father of]

Yehuda

All three are exceedingly common names, with Yehosef being the second-most common name in first-century Palestine, Yeshua the sixth-most common, and Yehudah the fourth-most common name.

Beyond this, the fact is that we do not know how �Mariamenou-Mara,� �Maria,� �Yose,� and �Matia� were related to these people.

In this regard it is also very important to remember that even though we only have six persons named in ossuary inscriptions from that tomb, there may have been as many as 35 buried in this family tomb. This surely must have an important bearing on computing statistics but has thus far been largely overlooked.

Add to this the fact that the inscriptions are in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, which may suggest that we have here a multi-generation tomb (noted by Witherington).

One final question: In light of the fact that �Mariamenou� is in the genitive case,� and �Mara� was a common abbreviation for �Martha,� is it possible that the woman�s name was �Martha [daughter of] Mariamene [Mary]�?

To conclude, I believe the past week or ten days surrounding the airing of the �Jesus tomb� special have been highly instructive. They have been instructive with regard to the need to sift through evidence carefully before jumping to conclusions. They have shown the need for specialized expertise in biblical studies, archeology, statistics, and so on. They have also revealed massive ignorance with regard to the nature of Jesus� resurrection and the way in which it is indispensable for the Christian faith.

Surely, as we prepare to celebrate Easter, we owe a debt of gratitude to God and the way in which he has used the makers of the �Jesus tomb� special to deepen our appreciation for Jesus� death, burial, and resurrection�the Christian gospel�and the way these events are reliably portrayed in the New Testament. The myth propagated by the makers of the �Jesus family tomb� special cannot hold a candle to the reality of the resurrection of the Jesus of the Bible. Truly, what others meant for personal profit, God meant for our good and his greater glory.

SOURCES USED: For an excellent discussion of what we know about the six names in the ossuary inscriptions see Richard Bauckham�s �The alleged �Jesus family tomb.�� See also Craig Blomberg, �Did They Really Find Jesus� Bones?� and four major blogs by Ben Witherington dated February 26, 28, March 1 and 5. A helpful list of some of the best responses to the �Jesus tomb� theory is found here.

The Empty Tomb

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:40:41 GMT

The fact that Jesus� tomb was found empty is reported early, by multiple sources, by eyewitnesses, and with non-Christian corroboration. Thus:

"Former Oxford University church historian William Wand writes, 'All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.'" (Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2004], p. 73)

"Without addressing Jesus� resurrection appearances, Vermes 1973: 41, another Jewish scholar closely acquainted with the primary evidence, opines that 'the only conclusion acceptable to the historian' must be that the women actually found the tomb empty." (Craig Keener, A Commentary On The Gospel Of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], p. 705, n. 308)

The large majority of scholars accept the empty tomb as a historical fact. See, for example, here.

Testimony to the empty tomb is found in every gospel and Acts, and it�s mentioned or implied in other sources. The accounts have some common elements, including details unlikely to have been fabricated. The tomb is first found empty by women, and the testimony of women was largely considered of little value in that culture, while the male disciples are in hiding and unbelief. The burial is associated with an individual, Joseph of Arimathea, who is named, has a prominent place in Jewish society, and belongs to a group that the early Christians wouldn�t have wanted to compliment with such an account (the religious leaders of Israel who had Jesus crucified and were persecuting the early church). The early Jewish opponents of Christianity affirmed that the tomb was empty (Matthew 28:11-15; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 108; Tertullian, On Spectacles, 30). Contrary to what some people claim, Justin Martyr and Tertullian aren�t just repeating what they read in Matthew�s gospel. Both of them give details in their accounts that aren�t mentioned by Matthew, and both Justin and Tertullian were interacting with the Jewish opponents of their day, so they would have been in a position to know what arguments the Jewish opposition was using.

Sometimes people ask why we don�t know where Jesus� tomb was if His burial place was known to the early Christians. But we do have a good idea of where the tomb was:

"That Jesus' followers would forget the site of the tomb (or that officials who held the body would not think it worth the trouble to produce it after the postresurrection Jesus movement arose) is extremely improbable. James and the Jerusalem church could easily have preserved the tradition of the site in following decades (Brown 1994: 1280-81), especially given Middle Eastern traditions of pilgrimage to holy sites (though admittedly evidence for early veneration there is lacking, perhaps because the body was not there � Craig 1995: 148-49, 152)�.the Catholic Holy Sepulchre and tombs in its vicinity date to the right period. The tradition of the latter vicinity [Holy Sepulcher] is as early as the second century (when Hadrian erected a pagan temple there; he defiled many Jewish holy sites in this manner � cf. Finegan 1969: 164), and probably earlier. Good evidence exists, in fact, that this site dates to within the first two decades after the resurrection. This is because (1) Christian tradition is unanimous that Jesus was buried outside the city walls, and no one would make up a site inside (cf. Heb 13:12; Jn 19:41); (2) Jewish custom made it common knowledge that burials would be outside the city walls (4 Bar. 7:13; Wilkonson 1978: 146); (3) the traditional vicinity of the Holy Sepulcher is inside Jerusalem�s walls; (4) Agrippa I expanded the walls of Jerusalem sometime in the 40s A.D." (Craig Keener, A Commentary On The Gospel Of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], p. 695)

Some people argue that the earliest Christians may have believed in a resurrection involving an exchange of bodies, with the old body remaining in the tomb, rather than a transformation of the body in the tomb. Or they suggest that the early Christians might have believed in the resurrection without ever examining the tomb to see whether it was empty. But both scenarios are highly unlikely:

"And although Jesus might have been embodied in a new body, this was not a possibility that would readily have occurred to first-century Jews; they would have expected his embodiment to go with an empty tomb. But if the Gospel writers felt that a Resurrection required an empty tomb, presumably Christians of a decade or two earlier would have felt the same � St Paul would have felt that. So if there was a belief held by anyone in the Church or outside it that the body of Jesus still lay in its tomb, surely St Paul would have felt the need to explain how really the fact that the body was still in the tomb made no difference to Resurrection faith. Those whom he is addressing in 1 Corinthians who held that 'there is no resurrection of the dead' would have had an argument to support them - even Christ�s body was still in the tomb - which would need to be answered. But of course there is none of that in 1 Corinthians or anywhere else in the New Testament (and no evidence of later deletions of any such passages)�.it beggars belief that the disciples could have affirmed the Resurrection of Jesus without checking the tomb as soon as they could" (Richard Swinburne, The Resurrection Of God Incarnate [New York: Oxford University Press, 2003], pp. 160-162)

We have good reason to believe that the account of a guard at the tomb is historical, so how could the body have been removed with a guard there? If the early opponents of Christianity knew of a common practice involving the transfer of a body from one tomb to another, and they thought that such a transfer might have occurred with Jesus, why didn�t they say so instead of using the argument that the disciples stole the body?

In a debate on the resurrection with Gary Habermas in April of 2000, Antony Flew, who at that time was an atheist, replied to Habermas� presentation of the historical evidence for the empty tomb:

"I don�t think you should be apologetic about this at all. These facts are facts and I could rather wish that in these topics more people were prepared to face facts rather than run away and say, 'Mustn�t say that.' No. This is a very impressive piece of argument, I think�Because, you know, it�s very difficult to get around this�.Well, we have no independent witnesses. There are all sorts of ways of removing bodies. I�m not going to offer a theory because I simply don�t think one can reconstruct the story of what happened in the city and all that long ago and we haven�t got the sort of evidence that one might have today with the invention of cameras and all the rest of it�.I don�t offer anything to cover the empty tomb evidence." ("Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?" [Chattanooga, TN: Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, 2000], pp. 17-18)

Is the Discovery Network Burying the Tomb “Documentary”?

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:40:19 GMT

Industry magazine suggests that Discovery has intentionally downplayed its movie regarding an alleged discovery of Christ’s family tomb. Article HERE.

‘Jesus Tomb’ Panelists Point to Holes in Director’s ‘Archaeoporn’

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:31:02 GMT

“A panel discussion moderated by Ted Koppel, former anchor of ABC’s Nightline, was held late Sunday night to discuss the implications of the new controversial documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus, which reported the supposed discovery of Jesus� bones and his family�s tomb, including alleged wife Mary Magdalene and son Judah.” Christian Post has more…

Another Commentator on the Tomb Story

Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:21:10 GMT

I would like to comment on your Jesus family tomb article. You can always find arguments to support your belief system and disregard other arguments that do not fit in with your beliefs. This is only natural. Because you only chose to choose quotes from people that would like to discredit the documentary it is clear where you stand. I found the film to have a very compelling argument. The filmmakers truly believed they 'may have' found something profound. They are not saying it is definitive proof but encourage discussions and further scientific study. It amazes me how many had their minds made up before it even aired.... I'll continue to view this issue with an open mind and the question.. what if? John

Well, John, I suppose I could pull a Simcha here and say, "Hey, you haven't read my book, so you really can't say anything," but I'll avoid that.
Most of my commentary on the topic has been done on radio programs and web casts, actually, and in those programs I have played every bit of audio recording I could find, allowing Jacobovici and Pellegrino and Cameron and Tabor to define their own terms and make their own claims. So it is simply false to say I have only quoted those who "agree" with me. The fact is, John, I was writing about this before there were others to agree with me in the first place! The problem is that Jacobovici et al are making wild claims that even secular scholars identify as far-fetched, and part of their M.O. has been to play fast and loose with the data they have at hand (such as the mitochondrial DNA evidence). Further, I have quoted from men like Carney Matheson, from correspondence I have had with him, and he was the DNA expert used in the film! So how can you possibly make the assertion you have? The filmmakers do not just suggest that they "may have" found something profound. May I ask you if you have read the book? I surely have. For example, on page 172 we read,

Impossible. But the details extracted from the tomb so far had failed consistently to negate the conclusion and were in fact adding up, one positive indicator after another, in support of it. They had begun to read the DNA of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Unimaginable. But there it was.

You say they are encouraging discussions and "further scientific study." John, if that was their goal, they would have submitted this information to the scholarly community and allowed it to go through the process set up for that kind of inquiry. They by-passed all of that, remember? If I may quote Jodi Magness of the Archaeological Institute of America,

First let me point out that by making this announcement in the popular media, Jacobovici, Cameron, and the others involved have chosen to circumvent the usual academic process. Archaeology is a scientific discipline. New discoveries and interpretations typically are presented in scientific venues such as professional meetings or are published in peer-reviewed journals, where they can be considered and discussed by other specialists. By first making the announcement in the popular media, those involved have precluded legitimate and vital academic discourse. This is because it is impossible to explain the many flaws of their claim in a one-minute segment on TV or the radio, or in two or three sentences in the newspaper, as I have been asked to do repeatedly since the announcement was made. The history and archaeology of Jerusalem in the first century are far too complex to be boiled down to a short sound bite, yet that is precisely what has happened here. This is a travesty to professional archaeologists and scholars of early Judaism and Christianity, and it is a disservice to the public.

How does this media circus they have created encourage "further scientific study"? It doesn't. Just the opposite.
If you wish to talk about having your mind made up, how about considering the dismissal of sound, solid NT scholarship in favor of the most wild, speculative gnostic fantasies? Can you not see that it was Jacobovici and his group that had their minds made up from the start, and then chose what "facts" they would present, and which ones they would ignore? Such is surely the case. -- James R. White

Tales from the Crypt

Tue, 06 Mar 2007 20:59:53 GMT

Gary Habermas on the tomb.

HT: Frank Walton

Number crunching

Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:06:01 GMT

Interpreting Dr. Feuerverger's 1:600 odds calculation.

Answers in Genesis Founder Labels Claims in ‘Jesus Tomb’ as Nonsense

Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:50:32 GMT

In this story from OneNewsNow.com we are told, “The president of Answers in Genesis [Ken Ham]�says there’s no new information in a documentary that chronicles claims by archaeologists that they have found a coffin containing the bones of Christ.”

Making Lemonade Out of Lemons: Using the Talpiot Tomb as a Witness by Dr. James White

Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:19:20 GMT

From the blog at www.aomin.org, Dr. James White writes:

It is the morning after. Those with an interest in the subject of the resurrection have already seen the film. As most of you know, today I launch into a high-speed book writing project to attempt to collect, collate, and present in a clear and understandable fashion the main arguments and facts regarding the Talpiot Tomb, DNA, patina, statistics, gnostic writings and the like. But at best, that book will not be out until Easter. So how about today? Rather than hope no one will ask you what you think, I believe we should be on the offensive---without being offensive. As I suggested with The Passion and with The Da Vinci Code, let's use this situation to God's glory and for the proclamation of the truth.

Well, it sure looks like the experts have put a crink in your religion! Actually, just the opposite. Instead, we have yet another example of how those who oppose the resurrection of Christ are willing to manipulate facts just to get maximum impact. In reality, the main problem with the film and book is its sensationalistic bent that leads Jacobovici and Cameron, etc., to take otherwise interesting historical facts and twist them into an attempt to turn a regular Jewish tomb into the family tomb of Jesus.

But they have DNA evidence! Yes, mitochondrial DNA evidence that conclusively proves that the tiny bone fragments recovered from ossuaries 80-500 and 80-503 came from people who were not related to one another maternally. Nothing more....

The Tomb Story on Iron Sharpens Iron Today and Tomorrow

Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:13:30 GMT

I will be joining Chris Arnzen on Iron Sharpens Iron today and tomorrow on the tomb story. Here's the link. Listen in at 3pm EST. -- James R. White

Interviews with Ben Witherington and Darrell Bock

Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:36:41 GMT

An interview discussing the "Jesus tomb" discovery.

Piper on Jesus� Tomb

Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:29:10 GMT

John Piper speaks on the "Jesus tomb" discovery.

Viewer�s Guide to Jesus Tomb Special

Sun, 04 Mar 2007 03:54:06 GMT

Does Christianity, like the Titanic, have holes so big that it will sink tomorrow night when the television special on the �Jesus tomb� finally airs on the Discovery channel? Whatever suspense is left, after a blizzard of advance publicity and now that the Discovery channel has posted most of the �evidence� on its website, focuses on the airing of the program and the following discussion moderated by Ted Koppel (left and liberal; will he be neutral and objective when it comes to the �Jesus tomb�?).

Here is my modest attempt at a Viewer�s Guide for those of us who are planning to watch the Jesus tomb special. Here is what to look for (you may want to use this as a kind of score card):

Possible gaps in logic:

On what basis is the assertion made that the dead person named �Mariamene� in one of the ossuaries is to be identified with Mary Magdalene?

On what basis is the further assertion made that Mary Magdalene was Jesus� wife?

Does the special refer to the possibility that �Mariamene e Mara,� rather than �Mary, known as the master,� may rather mean �Mary and Martha� (with �Mara� being a short form of �Martha�; see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 89)?

Is acknowledgment made of other possible explanations why the �Jesus� and �Mariamene� do not appear to share the same DNA, such as that this woman may have been the wife of a brother of that �Jesus� or a non-relative placed in that tomb for some other reason?

(Note, by the way, that it is completely unnecessary for the makers of the TV special to assert that �Mariamene� is Mary Magdalene, and that Mary Magdalene was Jesus� wife. Regardless of the identity of �Mariamne,� if Jesus� bones were in one of the ossuaries, this would sink ship �Christianity� and refute the resurrection.)

Unsubstantiated assertions and lacking explanations:

Is any explanation offered why Jesus� family tomb would have been in Jerusalem?

Is any explanation offered why there is no ancient evidence for such a tomb?

Is any explanation offered why, if there was such a tomb, no enemy of Christianity in the first or second century A.D. pointed to this tomb as evidence that the Christian claim of Jesus� resurrection was false?

Is any explanation offered why scores of Christians died a martyr�s death for what they knew was a fraudulent claim?

Possible overstatement and misuse of sciences:

Is the impression given that statistics �prove� that the �Jesus� whose bones may have been placed in the ossuary was the Jesus of Christianity? [Remember, statistics hardly ever �prove� anything.]

Is acknowledgment made that over 1,000 men named Jesus, son of Joseph lived in first-century Palestine? That many men named Jesus had parents named Joseph and Mary, both being exceedingly common names? And so on.

Is DNA testing used to dazzle the viewing audience, as a sort of deus ex machina, to cover up an otherwise weak case?

Is reference made to the fact that we do not in the first place have any undisputed DNA from Jesus or anyone in his family?

Other unstated possible problems:

Is acknowledgment made that the inscription �Jesus� is itself uncertain? Rahmani�s Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries, posted on the Discovery Channel website, says that �The first name, preceded by a large cross-mark, is difficult to read, as the incisions are clumsily carved and badly scratched.� Is this even mentioned in the program?

Does the special concede that the only possible source identifying �Mariamene� with Mary Magdalene is the Acts of Philip, available to us in a 14^th-century text), which seems to associate this �Mariamene� with Martha and thus identify her, not with Mary Magdalene, but with Mary of Bethany?

To conclude: As you watch the Jesus tomb special, ask yourself the question in light of the above �Viewer�s Guide�: �How plausible is the case made that the tomb contained the bones of Jesus, Mary Magdalene his wife, their son Jude, and other members of Jesus� family?�

Look also for possible bias in �reporting,� as the makers of the �documentary� claim, �news� or �facts.� The question here is, �Do reporters of news, like members of a jury, have a responsibility to exercise caution in connecting the dots of a given case, and do they have an obligation to acknowledge other possible explanations beside their own?�

P.S.: Here is what Prof. Amos Kloner, who oversaw the archeological work at the �Jesus tomb� in 1980, says about the theory propagated by the Discovery Channel special: �It makes a great story for a TV film. But it�s completely impossible. It�s nonsense. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle class family from the 1^st century CE.�

FOR FURTHER READING: Material used in preparing the above material includes � �Lost Tomb� is no open-and-shut case� by Sam Allis, Boston Globe (March 3, 2007); an open letter from Paul Maier, Department of History, Western Michigan University (dated February 25, 2007); �Initial Impressions of The Jesus Family Tomb� by Charles Quarles, Chair of Christian Studies, Louisiana College (February 28, 2007); and �Kloner: A great story, but nonsense� by David Horovitz, The Jerusalem Post Online Edition (February 27, 2007).

The "Jesus Tomb"

Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:15:58 GMT

The tiresome story of the "Tomb of Jesus" rolls on, proving once again the eagerness with which unbelief will grasp at anything to believe a lie. Informed responses can be found at the following sites: Andreas Kostenberger, Ben Witherington, Darrell Bock, and Charles Quarles.

Dr. Carney Matheson Responds

Sat, 03 Mar 2007 01:21:34 GMT

I am every thankful that Dr. Matheson, the paleo-DNA expert who is featured in The Jesus Family Tomb and in the film to be seen on Discovery this weekend replied to my e-mail today. He must be deluged right now! I feel sorry for him. In any case, I had asked the following:

On page 172 of The Jesus Family Tomb you are quoted as follows:

"That this man and woman do not share the same mother," Matheson said quickly and conclusively. "They cannot be mother and child. They cannot, maternally, be brother and sister. And so, for these particular samples, because they come from the same tomb--and we suspect it to be a familial tomb--these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely have been husband and wife."

Given that mitochondrial DNA analysis can only address maternal relationships, leaving open the possibility that 80-503 was, in fact, the father of 80-500, and the mitochondrial DNA analysis could not address this, is the preceding quotation accurate to your recollection? Did you inform Simcha Jacobovici of the possible paternal relationship?

He replied in less than three hours (despite the book indicating he "rarely checks e-mails"):

This work was done as a service. We did not know who they suspected these individuals to be from. On the report it concludes that these two profiles from two different individuals were not maternally related. That is all the report states. When they did the filming and on the documentary they asked every question under the sun with permutations and manipulations. I provided the investigators with all the possibilities. They were not brother and sister, mother and child, maternal cousins, maternal grandparent and child etc. I also mentioned all of the possibilities, which I should not have done in hindsight. These included, father and daughter, paternal cousins, half brother and sister (sharing the same father) or simply unrelated individuals.
The media does what they want.

Please note the last portion of what is said here: "I also mentioned all of the possibilities, which I should not have done in hindsight. These included, father and daughter, paternal cousins, half brother and sister (sharing the same father) or simply unrelated individuals." There is not a whisper of this in the book. Not a word. You tell me why these possibilities were simply left out when Dr. Matheson reported them? -- James R. White

Blomberg Respopnds

Sat, 03 Mar 2007 02:28:49 GMT

I know I said I thought I'd stop posting on the "Jesus bones" discovery. But one of the fruits of this controversy is that in the course of responding to this foolishness there is a wonderful opportunity to learn more about archeology and the reliability of the gospels. With that in mind, here is Craig Blomberg's response.

(HT: Vitamin Z)

Quick Additional Information

Sat, 03 Mar 2007 01:21:35 GMT

With the film airing in only a few days, this item of information is very interesting. We are getting a number of very helpful e-mails, and Laurie sent us a URL with this information in it. Jacobovici discusses in the body of the book and its conclusion the work of Bellarmino Bagatti and the "necropolis" he uncovered in Jerusalem called Dominus Flevit. There is an ossuary there inscribed "Simon, son of Jonah." Quite interesting indeed. But, what Jacobovici neglected to mention, in the chapter in the book or in the conclusion, is some of the other names found in the necropolis there in Jerusalem, including "Mary, Martha, Philo the Cyrene, Matthew, Joseph, Jesus" (source). Woops, that would not help your theory much, would it? So, that did not make it into this "carefully researched" work. One of our channel regulars did a little looking around when I mentioned this and came up with this site with documentation from Bagatti on the Peter ossuary. Just another helpful item to have ready for the Monday Morning Deluge coming your way. -- James R. White

Dr. Gary Habermas Weighs in on “Lost Tomb of Jesus”

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:36:48 GMT

Dr. Gary Habermas who has authored dozens of books on the resurrection of Jesus and is one of our generation’s foremost apologists and theologians has weighed in on the up-coming film the “Lost Tomb of Jesus”. If you are looking for information on how to refute this attack on the Christian faith, then Habermas’ site has some good concise arguments that you can use. (Habermas even quotes from Chris Rosebrough, who is one the regular contributers on this site.)

Click Here to Read Habermas’ Lost Tomb rebuttal.

Explosions Rock Colo. Spgs.; James Cameron in Hiding

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:41:37 GMT

March 2, 2007; Colorado Springs, CO -- Explosions were heard throughout Colorado Springs this morning as angry Christians took to the streets protesting James Cameron's documentary, Something We Made Up While Inhaling Fumes From An Ancient Tomb.

"This mockumentary is an attack on our religious beliefs," said one masked man toting an AK47. "This insult to Christianity will not go unchallenged."

Another man, carrying an RPG, shot at a police barricade near Acacia Park before police shot him dead. There has been no word on the number of police deaths, but experts fear Colorado Springs could be decending into sectarian violence (although thus far officials have stopped short of calling it a civil war).

Colorado Springs, known to many as the Mecca of Evangelicalism, is home to nearly 100 Christian organizations. James Cameron, the producer of the documentary, has been in hiding since early this morning when he came out of his home and saw his shadow, thus discovering six more weeks of Global Warming.

ACCC Responds to “Bones of Christ” Claim

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:37:15 GMT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Bethlehem PA � An upcoming Discovery Channel program contends that two ancient ossuaries (bone boxes first discovered in 1980) once possibly contained the earthly remains of Jesus Christ. The assertions, which were sure to raise objections from Evangelical Christians who believe the Scriptural account of Christ�s resurrection and His bodily ascension into heaven, have been given extensive coverage in mainstream media.

The documentary, entitled The Lost Tomb of Jesus (a.k.a. The Jesus Family Tomb), was produced by Hollywood film maker James Cameron (The Terminator, Titanic), who took his material chiefly from the book The Jesus Family Tomb.

According to Dr. John McKnight, the claims support a hidden agenda. �It is not unusual for secularists to cast aspersions upon the Scripture. While trying to hide behind a facade of scholarship and intellectual respectability, they are in fact driven by an anti-Christ agenda which the media seem happy to accommodate,� said the president of the American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC). �This (documentary) is but another in a succession of anti-Christ expressions from proponents of the religion of secularism. One detects no restraints of dignity or scruples when the subject is Jesus Christ: He is fair game so long as promoters figure there is a buck to be made,� he added, speaking from his Darlington, Maryland, office.

Organized in 1941, the ACCC is a national coalition of churches which stand for the literal interpretation of Scripture. Dr. Ralph Colas, ACCC executive secretary, added his response to the hype of The Lost Tomb of Jesus documentary.

�The February 26 issue of Newsweek magazine ran an article promoting both the book and the documentary, including only a few sentences from people actually qualified to speak of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. But we get plenty of quotes from apostates posing as theologians who willingly give any blasphemy a positive twist in exchange for 15-seconds of fame,� Colas said.

Colas believes he sees a different standard applied to Christianity. �Think of the hue and cry, shrill threats and car bombs if derogatory statements had been made about some Muslim deity,� he added. �How about those Belgian cartoons featuring Allah: I wonder why the U.S. media didn�t run them?� he asked.

The official position of the ACCC on The Lost Tomb of Jesus is to urge all Christians to reject the heretical teaching it represents, and to call upon The Discovery Channel to cancel its plans to air it. �The word �documentary� implies that you substantiate something with facts. This film is not only spiritually blasphemous, but lacks any credible scientific evidence,� Colas said.

Bible-believing Christians � those who consider the Scriptures to be the actual word of God � would automatically reject the documentary�s premise, as it stands in stark contrast to the gospels� accounts of Christ�s resurrection, the lode stone of all Christian doctrine. It is the doctrine upon which salvation (eternal life) is based.

American Council of Christian Churches
PO Box 5455
Bethlehem, PA 18015

www.amcouncilcc.org

Dr. Ralph Colas,
Executive Secretary
(610) 865-3009
accc@juno.com

HT: Greg Linscott

A few items from the conclusion of The Jesus Family Tomb (Updated)

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:22:45 GMT

   Certain aspects of the conspiracy theory laden movie/book by Jacobovici and Pellegrino have not yet been given much attention in the media or in the Christian responses thereto. As our regular readers know, I will be launching into a book-length rebuttal and examination when I return home Monday. But till then, a few items should be noted:
   1) Jacobovici was central in the production of the Discovery Channel's special on the 'James, brother of Jesus" ossuary special a few years ago. Clearly, there isn't a thimble-full of objectivity on his part in the analysis of sources used in his work, and he was the prime mover in "connecting the dots" through the use of a-historical gnostic sources from centuries later to "read back" Mary Magdalene into the Mariamne ossuary.
   2) So central to this entire web of speculation and theorizing (maddeningly littered with "obviously" and "probably" and "it is most likely" phrases attached to historical absurdities) are the a-historical gnostic writings removed far from the original context in geography (one can't even connect the authors to the original locations), time (they were writing hundreds of years later), language (a consideration in and of itself fatal to the tenuous attempts to do linguistic gymnastics) and religion (gnosticism has always been, and always will be, fundamentally antagonistic to foundational pillars of Judaism and Christianity) that this project should be called the "Gnostic Fantasy of the Jesus Family Tomb."
   3) Jacobovici is so wedded to this gnostic spin that he spends a good portion of his conclusion to the book arguing that the author of the Gospel of Thomas was, in fact, "Judah son of Jesus" from the Talpiot tomb (ignoring, of course, the original language of Thomas, the fact that it would have been written nearly a century after the destruction of Jerusalem and after the Judah ossuary was placed in the tomb--was there a fax in that ossuary I wonder?). The result of his over-riding theory on his part, especially when it comes to his use of biblical materials, is startling. I will post some of his arguments from Scripture as soon as time allows.
   4) It is so very sad to see these men obscure solid scientific data. One of the main "tests" I had in mind for this book when I picked it up was this: Will the book honestly discuss the limitations of mitochondrial DNA? Will they admit that such analysis can only speak to maternal relations, not to paternal relations? Will they tell us what Dr. Carney Matheson has confirmed that such a test cannot rule out that Yeshua ben Yosef was the father of Mariamne? Or will they spin the results? The answer was: spin, spin, spin. Look at this direct quote from the conclusion, page 207: "However, they were able to extract mitochondrial DNA from both the Jesus and Mariamne ossuaries. This allowed them to confirm that these were indeed Middle Eastern people of antiquity and that they were not related." This is simply false. In an e-mail dated 2/26/07 Dr. Matheson frankly stated, "This can only identify maternal relationship of which the two remains do not share. However we cannot exclude paternal relationship using the mtDNA." And shortly after, "However the DNA results only show they are not maternally related the rest is the conclusions of the producer and the other researchers." Surely Matheson informed Jacobovici of this. Jacobovici somehow forgot. Or did he? This cavalier handling of vital information should reflect upon the entire project.

Quick Update:
   For purposes of complete disclosure I wanted to note that in the brief chapter on the DNA analysis Matheson is quoted as properly indicating the limitations of mitochondrial DNA analysis in reference to familial relationships. However, never once in the book is the factual reality that a father/daughter relationship could exist between Yeshua ben Yosef (ossuary 80-503) and Mariamne (80-500) noted, let alone considered, expanded upon, or discussed. Instead, on page 172, Dr. Matheson is quoted as follows, and then the story moves quickly on.

"That this man and woman do not share the same mother," Matheson said quickly and conclusively. "They cannot be mother and child. They cannot, maternally, be brother and sister. And so, for these particular samples, because they come from the same tomb--and we suspect it to be a familial tomb--these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely have been husband and wife."

I have inquired of Dr. Matheson concerning his recollection as to whether Jacobovici was clearly informed of the limitations of the analysis, and will appraise my readers upon his reply. -- James R. White

"Jesus Tomb" Roundup

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:22:30 GMT

I think this will be my last post on the tomb story: Denny Burk has a great roundup of the many responses. Dr. Burk seems correct in this judgment: " Except for the initially credulous coverage by the mainstream media, the rejection has been virtually unanimous."

Jesus Tomb Refutations, Contd.

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 01:52:15 GMT

Andreas Kostenberger and Darrell Bock weigh in on the "Jesus tomb" discovery.

Larry King Live

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 01:52:16 GMT

Here's a transcript (scroll down to the second interview) of Albert Mohler being interviewed, along with the producers of the Jesus-tomb documentary, on Larry King Live.