(Please don't go ballistic until after you've read my second article. Thanks! )
THE LOST TOMB OF JESUS
“Where there’s smoke, there’s fire” and there is one hell of a lot of smoke surrounding The Lost Tomb Of Jesus documentary, and everyone involved with the project. So there must be fire. If this were an earlier time we all know that the folks involved would already have been consumed in a literal fire. Thankfully no Bible crazed Jesus junkie has yet tried to murder anyone “for the glory of Jesus” over this documentary and I hope the situation remains that way.
Whether you’re a rabid hamster fundamentalist spitting venom from behind the walls of the Citadel of Credulity, or a cool sophisticate thumbing your nose at the whole issue, you have to admit this discovery is interesting. In fact, I find it fascinating and downright funbecause of the knee-jerk reaction from both sides of the issue!
Fundiot: “GRRRR! It’s a FAKE you godless heathen! How DARE you question Christian consensus! Bring forth the rack and chopping block!”
Sophisticate: “Oh how those pseudo-scientists and quasi-scholars do carry on with their lack of understanding of even the simplest principles of True Science! If only I could elevate them to my own lofty level of scientific certitude! Bring me my air-sickness bag!”
I’ll continue to surf the scientific wave, thank you. Unfettered by immutable allegiance to any particular position on any matter of science, even archeological science, I’ll keep my mind open and see where the evidence leads. At this point, I’m a staunch mythicist, convinced that Jesus Christ is a pastiche of the many dying-and-rising Godman myths such as Adonis, Mithras, Attis, Osiris, etc. (I even wrote my Master thesis defending this very position) However, being of an actual scientific bent, rather than a purely academic bent, I remain open to new knowledge as it becomes available. Science is not a series of immutable decrees handed down from Mount Newton by the gods of Empiricism. Rather, science is an ever changing series of tentative hypotheses subject to alteration at any moment due to new discoveries. Many academics--and even scientists--stake their careers on a particular position and when that position topples, so do their reputations and careers.
So, rather than have you climb the Mount Everest of evidence that Jesus Christ is entirely Mythical, I’ll deal with the evidence at hand concerning the “lost tomb of Jesus.” If it turns out that Jesus is historical after all, that the evemerists are right, it’s no skin off my nose or career. Or my worldview. I’m not threatened by a historical Jesus Christ, especially one who died and was buried like anyone else, whose bones were dug up and reburied two thousand years after his entombment.
I’ve been having great fun, as I said, in reading the reactions from both sides of the fence. The Biblical literalists are predictable, having ceased having original thoughts at some point in the Dark Ages. “The Shroud of Turin provesJesus rose bodily from death!” “The Bible says Jesus rose bodily from death! The Bible is the Word of God! It says so right here in 2 Timothy 3:16!” “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!” “Them thar sign-tists always be a-sayin’ sum dum junk lahk we cum frum munkeys n such. Ya’ll kain’t trust a sign-tist cuz they always be a-changin’ they story!”
Or: “This is bad science, it‘s nonsense. We don’t have a signed affidavit from Joseph of Arimathea attesting that this tomb is genuine. There is no unbroken chain of documentation here! We have no samples of the nuclear DNA of Jesus to compare with the mitochondrial DNA found in the Jesus ossuary. These names being together in a tomb mean nothing! NOTHING I tell you! Don’t yammer at me about statistics! I’m a scientist! I know all about statistics! Plus, the gospels have absolutely no historical validity whatsoever! Yes, this is very bad science indeed. Harrumph.”
When asked to be specific as to how and in what ways this archaeological find is “nonsense” these “experts” and “scholars” become haughty and arrogant and begin personal attacks on the producers of the documentary.
Let’s review the evidence as it’s known so far concerning the “Lost Tomb of Jesus.” Number one, the tomb is an actual bona fide archeological discovery, made in 1980 by a genuine group of certified and pasteurized degree-holding archaeologists. The tomb was photographed extensively, mapped, ten ossuaries were removed and cataloged, all but one was warehoused, and the tomb was then filled with old copies of the Jewish Bible and sealed. Then an apartment complex was built above the site. When the tomb was discovered in 1980, opened, and the ossuaries counted and measured, the tenth ossuary went missing before it could be photographed and warehoused.
The practice of allowing a corpse to decompose for a year, then placing the bones in a stone box--an ossuary--was a Jewish practice of very short duration. Roughly one hundred years, from 3O BCE to 70 CE. The practice ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Roman general Titus. So, we’re dealing with a very narrow slice of time, very narrow indeed. Plusit’sexactly the time frame in which Jesus Christ supposedly lived. We’re not dealing with a Jewish practice that extended for many hundreds or thousands of years. Rather than countless millions of such ossuaries as there would be if this was a practice the Jews engaged in for thousands of years, there are only thousands of such ossuaries. This radically increases, almost exponentially, the chances of finding the tomb of Jesus if in fact he was an historical person because it radically reduces the number of ossuaries lying buried. The fact that only families with a significant amount of money--not necessarily rich--could afford such tombs brings the number of ossuaries down even more. (Despite the Christian oral tradition that Jesus was a “poor carpenter” the Gospels nowhere say Jesus was either poor or a carpenter, only that he was “the son of a carpenter.” Jesus hobnobbed with the rich according to the Gospels. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemas were both members of the Sanhedrin, Mary Magdalene had friends in high places that contributed to the ministry of Jesus)
On one of the ossuaries the words “Jesus son of Joseph” is etched. Arguments claiming that the etched words are fakes don’t hold up. A patina builds up on these stone ossuaries over time, hence a recent etching would not have this build-up, this patina, for it would have scraped the patina away. The etched words do indeed have the patina expected. The same with all of the etched words on all the ossuaries. They’re all ancient, bearing the patina of two millennia.
“That doesn’t mean anything! Lots and lots of ossuaries that say “Jesus son of Joseph” have been found!” I’ve read this claim on a number of message boards. It’s a bald-faced lie, an example of the fundiot practice of “lying in defense of the truth.” A fundiot will say or do anything, even lie through their teeth, or repeat known lies, to uphold and defend their shaky world-view. Only on ONE other ossuary have the words “Jesus son of Joseph” been found, but no one knows its origin because it was found in someone’s basement not in a scientifically datable environment. That’s it, just one other such ossuary out of many thousands. So, an ossuary bearing the words “Jesus son of Joseph” is rare indeed.
One critic of the validity of the tomb of Jesus had this to say:
“The names Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were extremely common in the first century. About one quarter of the women in Jesus’ time were named Mary. Another common name was Joseph. Also, about one in ten males bore the name Jesus. Dr. Evans has stated that about one hundred tombs have been discovered in Jerusalem with ossuaries bearing the name Jesus. About two hundred ossuaries bearing the name Joseph have been found. The name Mary is found on one out of every four ossuaries so far discovered.”
True, these are common Jewish names of the first century, and have no significance when found alone, but when found in combination with other names associated with Jesus Christ in the Gospels their significance multiples nearly exponentially. This was dealt with in the docudrama if one was paying attention and not allowing one’s mind to race ahead. This is another example of dishonesty on the part of the critics. They do not tell you that when these common names are found in combination with each other in the same tomb with “Jesus son of Joseph” the chances of their being anyone but the Jesus around whom Christianity was founded become nil. These statistical probabilities were pointed out clearly and plainly in the program, but I’ll review them here:
If you were to assemble all of the Jewish people of the first century into a single innumerable crowd, and were to call out “How many men here are named Jesus?” one out of every ten male hands would go up. That’s a multitude! If you were to call out, “How many men named Jesus also have a mother named Mary?” the numbers would thin out considerably to a fraction of the original number. Then if you were to call out, “How many men here named Jesus who have a mother named Mary also have a father or step father named Joseph?” the crowd would thin even more to a very tiny fraction of the original number.
If you were then to call out “How many men named Jesus that have a mother named Mary, a father or stepfather named Joseph, also have a wife, sister, aunt, or cousin named Mariamene e Mara?” the number thins out to only one man. Why? Because the name Mariamene e Mara has only been found on this one single ossuary! Out of the many thousands of ossuaries found, the name Mariamene e Mara is found on none other! It is conceivable that such an ossuary still lies buried, but if so it has yet to be found.
To further complicate matters for critics, “Mariamene” only occurs in two places other than on the ossuary found in the tomb of Jesus. “Mariamene” occurs in the Gospel of Phillip--which is early, from the second century--and is applied to Mary Magdalene, as well as to the mother and a sister of Jesus. Here is the verse, verse 36, from the gospel of Philip:
“There were three Mariamenes who walked with the Lord at all times: his mother and sister and [the] Magdalene, this one who is called his companion. Thus his mother and sister and mate is [each named] Mariamene.”
Here we are informed that the mother of Jesus, his sister, and his mate/wife are all called Mariamene, therefore the name Mariamene is definitely connected with Magdalene, as well as his sister. So, the Mariamene ossuary might be the sister of Jesus or it might be his wife, the Magdalene. Which is more likely? Mitochondrial DNA tests of the bone material left in the Jesus and Mariamene ossuaries was tested and the bones are not of people of blood relation. Since they are not genetically related, that rules out a sister or mother or aunt or cousin and narrows it down to the Magdalene as being the Mariamene on the ossuary. She is called the mate of Jesus in the gospel of Philip.
This identification is further strengthened by the long tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which refer to Mary Magdalene as “Mariamene.” They have done so since the fourth century based on early liturgical textual evidence. Orthodox liturgical texts date back to the very early centuries, to at least as far back as the time of Saint Basil the Great, the early fourth century. Probably much earlier, based on the Gospel of Phillip evidence.
On her Feast Day, Saint Mary Magdalene is honored in the Orthodox Churches as “Mariamene.” Now that the world is discovering, from the Gnostic Gospels, the place of Headship that Mary Magdalene played in early Christianity as “the apostle to the apostles” it becomes clear why she is called “Mara” or “Master!” Her place of leadership once surpassed that of any of the male apostles!
Some of the opponents of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus stated: “The first use of ‘Mariamene’ for Mary Magdalene dates to a scholar who was born in 185 AD, suggesting that Magdalene wouldn't have been called that at her death.” The “scholar” they’re slyly referring to is the anonymous author of the gospel of Philip! This sort of dishonesty-by-omission is typical of those committed to an ideology or preconceived notion rather than facts. They oppose the “tomb of Jesus” on ideological grounds rather than evidential grounds, factual grounds. If they are so sure of their position, why be sneaky and dishonest and not simply come right out and admit that they’re referring to the anonymous author of the gospel of Philip? Why be vague and say “a scholar who was born in 185 AD”? Because that would undermine their own position since in other places they throttle the gospel of Philip as “untrustworthy.” The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society engages in this same sort of “lying for the truth.” This same sort of oily two-faced behavior. One can lie by what one omits just as surely as by what one includes.
These opponents, living two millennia removed from the time period of Jesus, are quite sure that “Mariamene e Mara” being applied to Mary Magdalene in 185 AD by the apostle Philip “suggests that Mary Magdalene was not called such at her death.” What nonsense! It doesn’t suggest anything of the sort. That’s circular reasoning and wishful thinking on their part: “We have an ossuary that says ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ and another that says ‘Mariamene e Mara’ but this is not evidence that this is Mary Magdalene because the name ‘Mariamene e Mara’ is not applied to Mary Magdalene until 185 AD.” That is classic circular reasoning.
What these people are purposely hoping you won’t notice is that “Mariamene” IS APPLIED TO NO ONE ELSE ANYWHERE IN ALL OF HISTORY EXCEPT MARY MAGDALENE, THE SISTER OF JESUS, AND HIS MOTHER. Plus, it has been found NOWHERE ELSE except in the gospel of Philip, the ossuary from the Jesus tomb, and in the liturgical texts of the Eastern Orthodox Church that honor Mary Magdalene by this name! So, please excuse me if I find that fact to be impressive evidence that the Mariamene e Mara ossuary is indeed the ossuary of Mary Magdalene when coupled with the mitochondrial DNA evidence.There is no excuse for the dishonest methods of the critics and opponents of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus. Yet that doesn’t cause me to lie and twist evidence and leave out important facts. (If I’m leaving out anything important it’s simply because I’m unaware of them.)
There’s no escaping it folks, unless your mind is made up and you‘re simply looking for ways to weasel out of the facts. Finding a first century tomb with ossuaries bearing the names “Jesus son of Joseph” “Maria” and “Mariamene e Mara” lends great weight to the argument that this is indeed the tomb of Jesus Christ IFJesus is an historical person. (And that’s a big if) The statistical wonders don’t stop there, however. Within the tomb was also found an ossuary with the name “Joses” (the diminutive of Joseph) etched upon it. If you turn to the Gospel of Matthew 13:55 and 27:56, Mark 6:3 and 15:40, 47, you will find that Joses was an “adelphos” of Jesus. The Koine Greek word “adelphos” is a very elastic word. It can be used to mean “brother” “step-brother” “half-brother” “cousin” and even “brother in the faith.” In other words, it’s a generic word that should be translated as “male relative” or “male kin.” The same holds true for “adelphi.” It simply means “female relative” or “female kin.” “Joses” according to the New Testament, was a male relative of Jesus Christ!
So, again, finding an ossuary with the unusual name “Joses” in the same family tomb with “Jesus son of Joseph” “Maria” and “Mariamene e Mara” brings the statistical probabilities down to nil that this is anyone else but the Jesus Christ around whom the Christian religion began IF Jesus Christ is an historical person. Again, that’s a big if.
Yet there’s more.
There is another ossuary with the name “Judas son of Jesus and Maria” inscribed on it that came from this tomb! The name “Judas” is also the name “Judah” and it too was a common enough name in first century Palestine. However, that such a name should be found in the same tomb with all of the other names that are associated with Jesus in the Gospels again powerfully reinforces the astronomically extreme statistical unlikelihood of this being anyone but the Jesus around whom Christianity began. Some argue “The Gospels don’t say that Jesus was married or had children, so this proves it’s not his tomb! Plus, Judas certainly wouldn‘t have betrayed his own father!” As to sons betraying their fathers, history has an example or two lying around.
By the time the Gospels were written (late first century or early to mid second century) Jerusalem had already been destroyed, the Jews dispersed, and Christianity had morphed from a primarily Jewish messianic sect to a primarily Gentile mystery religion. Women, marriage, and childbearing had become “unspiritual” and even “sinful” so it was no wonder that the marriage and children of Jesus were covered up.
However, there were other more sinister energies at work. The new male Christian leadership was succeeding in beating down the earlier, primarily female leadership, putting women “in their place.” So it’s to be expected that any marriage of Jesus and his children would be hushed up in order to keep women from having any basis on which to lay claim to spiritual authority in the emerging Catholic Christian churches. May Magdalene, whose influence in the early Church is now becoming apparent through the studies of the Gnostic texts, was demoted by the early Catholic Church to the status of a whore forgiven by Jesus for her sins. It was only recently that Rome recanted their grievous misogynist error. (With all the boy buggery, and embezzling of church money going on in the Catholic Church, it’s a wonder the Pope has time to say anything but “Mia culpa!”)
Finally, there is indeed significant NT evidence that Jesus was married. The term “rabboni” is an intimate term of endearment that only the wife of a rabbi would use in addressing a rabbi. Mary Magdalene addressed Jesus as rabboni in the Gospel of John, in the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane. Also, when Jesus said to Mary in the Garden of Gethsemane “Touch me not” the Koine Greek word for “touch” is “hapto” and it means “ignite a fire” in a number of its NT usages. (Luke 8:16, 11:33, 15:8, Acts 28:2) Is this a reference to igniting the fires of sexual desire through touch? It’s certainly possible and reasonable.
The behavior of Jesus and his mother Maria at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee makes no sense at all unless it was his wedding. Wedding guests did not concern themselves with whether or not the wine had run out. Only the mother of the groom would assume such duties. Note also that the name of the groom is not given in the story of the wedding in Cana. However, Jesusis prominently displayed, and when the Master of Ceremonies thanks the groom for the excellent wine headdresses his comment to Jesus!
Furthermore, Jesus is again and again addressed as “Rabbi” in the gospels and nowhere is there any indication this was a mere “honorific.” I have consulted by email and by phone with Jewish rabbis and have been told there was no such thing as an honorary rabbi. Mainstream Christians try to turn the fact that Jesus was a rabbi into a mere “honorific” because ALL RABBIS WERE REQUIREDTO BE MARRIED MEN! Not merely “expected” to be married men. So, anyone you hear droning and intoning “There is no evidence in the New Testament that Jesus was married” is just plain ignorant or “lying for the truth.”
Also found in the tomb was an ossuary bearing the name “Matthew.” Matthew was not as common a name as the others. It was more unusual. However, if you look at the genealogy of Maria in Luke, you will see that she had several ancestors named Matthew or a variant thereof. So, the name is consistent with her ancestral names, hence is a likely name for a Jewish mother to give to a son. Discovering an ossuary bearing the name “Matthew” in a tomb with ossuaries bearing the names “Jesus son of Joseph” “Maria” “Mariamene e Mara” “Joses” and “Judas son of Jesus and Maria” (All names from the life of Jesus Christ in the Gospels) means that the tomb is astronomically unlikely to be anyone other than the Jesus Christ around whom Christianity was foundedif Jesus Christ is an historical person. One Ivy League statistician that the producers of the “Lost Tomb Of Jesus” docudrama consulted put the odds at about 28,000,000 (28 million) to one that this is not the tomb of Jesus Christ! There were less than ten million Jews in Palestine in the time of Christ, which means it simply isn‘t numerically possible for this tomb to be anyone other than Jesus Christ. However, rather than go with this very realistic figure of twenty-eight million to one, the producers of the docudrama chose to go with the amazingly overly conservative estimate of six hundred to one made by a much less prestigious scholar. They did this in order to demonstrate they were not trying to “prove” anything. In fact, they kept trying to disprove their own hypothesis!
The following claim has been made about the producers of the film by opponents:
“Are Cameron and Jacobovici right about the names they claim are on the ossuaries? According to many experts, no. Some names are in Hebrew, some in Aramaic, and one is in Greek. This demonstrates they were not buried in a similar time period. It’s unclear that the name “Jesus” is on any of the bone boxes. Dr. Evans’s personal examination of the ossuary was inconclusive. Stephen Pfann, a scholar of the Bible tenured at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, is uncertain that the name "Jesus" on the ossuaries was correctly deciphered. He is of the opinion that "Hanun" is the more likely reading. It’s notoriously hard to decipher ancient Semitic writing.”
This is horse feathers. Greek was the “lingua franca” (common language) of the Roman Empire. It was the language of science/philosophy, commerce, and literature. No matter what one’s native tongue was in the Roman Empire, one also spoke Greek, and that included the Jews and Israelites. So, having Greek names alongside Aramaic and Hebrew names, as well as hybrids of the two, is no argument against them having been interred in the same time period. Also, as we already learned, this Jewish practice of burial via ossuary only lasted one hundred (100) years at the MOST! This is a very narrow slice of time, historically speaking. So YES they were INDEED interred in a similar time period.Plus, it’s the very time period that Jesus supposedly lived. These so-called “scholars” know this but they conveniently leave these facts out because these facts are inimical to their argument.
Who are the “many experts” these opponents mention? It sure would be nice to have a few names of these “many.” The names aren’t given because the people making this claim haven’t had a bowel movement in decades. From my viewing of the program and my viewing of the hour-long press conference which was held before the show (not the Ted Koppel circus after the show) I heard none of the scholars involved quoted as saying they were unsure that the name Jesus is on the ossuary. If such has now occurred, I’m not surprised, given the amount of intense heat those men are receiving from flaming zealots on both sides of the fence!
So, the disingenuous scholars that are opponents to the authenticity of the Jesus Tomb are also misrepresenting the facts about the honest scholars who examined the names on the ossuaries. Each such honest scholar concluded the name is “Jesus.” If they have since recanted (which I am unaware of) it’s no stretch of the imagination that they did so out of fear of the rising hysterical backlash and accompanying threat to their careers (and possibly lives) from feverish zealots in both camps. If you have certain, conclusive, verifiable knowledge that the world-class scholars that unanimously declared the name on the ossuary to be “Jesus” have now changed their minds, please come forward and inform me. Thank you.
The name “Mary” which is on one of the ossuaries is a peculiar form of the name: “Maria.” Not the usual form “Miriam.” “Maria,” which is a hybrid of Hebrew and Greek, is EXACTLY THE NAME OF THE MOTHER OF JESUS GIVEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT! See any Greek interlinear of Matthew 1:16, 18, 2:11, 27:56 Mark 6:3, 15:40. In fact this odd spelling is also used on occasion for Mary Magdalene and Mary the sister of Martha, so it was by no means unknown in the time of Jesus! (It pays to look behind what these zealots with minds super-glued shut say because they usually only tell you whatever facts support their argument, and just like fundamentalists some of them lie like rugs)
This sort of intellectual subterfuge is inexcusable. This is stooping to as low a level as the fundies and their “lying for the truth.” Greek being the common language of the Roman Empire is a universally known fact to historians who specialize in the period, as well as those historians who specialize in other periods. The opponents to the authenticity of the Jesus Tomb are counting on the ignorance of the masses in order to make their deceptive point. Shame on them and may their credibility, reputation, and careers be tarnished thereby.
The critics are correct that just because the mitochondrial DNA of “Jesus son of Joseph” and “Mariamene e Mara” do not match does not mean they are husband and wife. The producers of the docudrama admit that openly. The critics make it sound as though the producers of the docudrama hold hard and fast to that position. They do not, and their critics know it. The critics are counting on you not knowing it so they can make the producers of the docudrama look foolish. In point of fact, the producers of the docudrama are actively seeking to have the two ossuaries swabbed for nuclear DNA, a far more sophisticated test! They are calling for more genuine scholars, on both sides of the issue, to get involved and sort the matter out. As we have seen, however, the Orthodox Church identifies Mariamene with the Magdalene, and the Gospel of Phil identifies Mary Magdalene as Mariamene and calls her the mate of Jesus.
The attacks and misrepresentations and outright lies from the critics reveal a deep seated irrational unreasonableness when it comes to this issue. As I said, many of them have staked their entire careers and credibility on Jesus being ahistorical, hence their fiery zealotry and lies. However, unlike their critics, all along the way the producers of the docudrama kept trying to destroy their own hypothesis, but the facts kept supporting it.
I read one critic who said that the tomb couldn’t possibly be that of Jesus Christ because Jesus was from Nazareth and would have been buried in Nazareth. This “scholar” is also lying through his teeth because he knows that the town of Nazareth did not exist in the time of Jesus Christ. That’s correct folks. The Romans kept voluminous records of all their conquered regions, and the town of Nazareth does not appear on any list of the towns of Palestine until a century (or two) after the time of Christ, even though towns far smaller than Nazareth are included. The probable explanation is that Jesus was a Nazarite, a Jewish male who had taken the Nazarite vow, and the word Nazarite later became confused with the word Nazareth.
This “scholar” is hoping that laypeople will not be privy to this information, and therefore you will be all the more likely to fall for his lies if you’re kept in the dark.
If
Jesus Christ is an historical person, then he was crucified just outside the walls of first century Jerusalem. Recall that Joseph of Arimathea had the body of Jesus placed in a freshly hewn tomb on Joseph’s property very near to Jerusalem. We read in the Gospels of an early rumor that the followers of Jesus stole the body from the tomb. It’s not difficult to imagine the disciples drawing the guards away from the tomb with some noise and fire long enough to do a little body-snatching and place the corpse of Jesus in another tomb so that the Romans could not defile it further. The disciples would not have dared move the corpse from its Jerusalem tomb because the Romans would be searching for the fragrant stolen corpse among all caravans departing Jerusalem. So there the body stayed, and the rest of his family were buried with him. Even the son that betrayed him, Judas.This also explains why the enemies of Jesus did not parade the corpse of Jesus through town, or even expose the location of the tomb. The body was gone and the location of the new tomb was unknown. There were thousands of tombs in and around Jerusalem! Were they going to search them all? How would they know one badly decomposed male corpse from another? The body was allowed to rot for a year until it was merely bones, so at least a year went by before the corpse was reduced to bones and placed in an ossuary.
The disciples of Jesus moved the corpse from the tomb on the property of Jospeh of Arimathea and reburied it in a secret tomb a few miles from Jerusalem, foiling any further attempts at desecration by the Roman and Jewish authorities.
Critics also ask why historians contemporary with Jesus don’t mention his tomb. Well, you have to first know about the tomb and its location before you can write about it. Yes?
A website that attempts to pass (premature) judgment on this matter closes with quotations of some scholars saying the tomb is a fake. Some of these scholars are little more than fundamentalists, hence not genuine scholars at all but simply highly trained Bible Defenders. ALL of them misrepresent the facts or leave out important facts, and even lie. Most had nothing whatever to do with the project. ALL of them are being premature in passing judgment. That is NOT scholarly, so these “scholars” should simply learn to be quiet and actually investigate an issue before weighing in with a verdict. All the evidence isn’t in, not by many light years. My own opinion is that Jesus is Mythical, but I could be wrong. It may be that Jesus Christ existed and soon after his death and the disappearance of his corpse, all sorts of stories began to be told of him and he was quickly deified. This is called evemerism. I’m not in the evemerist camp, but my mind is open to facts, reason, logic, evidence. Hopefully I will never invest my whole life, career, and being into such an issue as so many of the Academia Nuts have.
I will now take a closer look at the title “Mariamene e Mara” which means “Mariamne also called Master.” This means the ossuary is that of an elite woman, a “Mara,” a “Master.” The New Testament makes it plain that Mary had friends in high places, friends who helped fund the ministry of Jesus. “Mara” is a masculine term applied to men. This strongly indicates that Mariamene was involved in actions and duties normally reserved for males in Jewish society. This accords with the depiction of Mary Magdalene in the Gnostic gospels as a leader who is loved by Jesus above all the other apostles. He appeared to Mary Magdalene first in all four biblical Gospels, and she is the first to carry the Gospel to the male apostles. (Who of course did not believe the words of a “mere woman.”) This makes Mary Magdalene “the apostle to the apostles.” Since she was with Jesus at his crucifixion (whereas most of the male followers had run away like scared bunny rabbits) this gives her even more honor. Add to that the fact that she was most likely the wife of Jesus and the title “Master” makes sense.
In the Greek Orthodox Church, Mary is a Saint, the Holy Myrrh-Bearer and “Equal-to-the-Apostles.” She is also honored as “Mariamene.” In the Gnostic texts Pistis Sophia as well as the Gospel of Philip we discover that Mary Magdalene was sister to Philip (one of the twelve apostles) and Martha, and Jesus called her “chosen among women.” Yet the Catholic Church, once they had beaten the Gnostic and Jewish Christians underground or killed them, pronounced her to be a reformed whore. Where is the honor in that bit of misogyny?
We learn too from the Gospel of Philip that Mary performed miracles and baptized converts, and that she died at the Jordan River near Jerusalem. Not in France or Ephesus as some legends claim. Mariamene aka Mary Magdalene, was indeed a Master, a Mara.
Now on to the James ossuary!
As I pointed out earlier, one of ossuaries went missing after it was measured but before it could be studied and then warehoused. No one knew what became of it and it was written off as lost or stolen. Then a few years ago an ossuary popped up out of nowhere, bearing the inscription, “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” Alarm bells almost instantly sounded. “Surely this is not possible!” was the hue and cry. (Never mind the fact that the ossuary of the high priest Caiaphas had already been found, as well as the ossuary of “Simon son of Jonah” [the apostle Peter] and the ossuary of Simon of Cyrene!) The ossuary was examined and was found to be a genuine first century ossuary based on chemical analysis (spectral chromatography) of the patina that had collected on it over the span of two millennia. The fact that it was a genuine first century ossuary was not the problem. The problem was the second half of the inscription, the words “brother of Jesus.” However, the “scholarly critics” don’t tell you this. They simply tell you that the fellow who owns the James ossuary is on trial for fraud, leaving out the fact that the only fraud he is accused of is in adding the fraudulent words “brother of Jesus” after the authentic words “James son of Joseph.”
Even to an untrained eye such as my own, it’s obvious that another hand etched “brother of Jesus” into the side of the stone box. The two styles of writing are very different. Also, the words “brother of Jesus” have no build up of patina within them as one would expect if that part of the inscription was two millennia old. Obviously that part of the inscription was recent and therefore a forgery. Not so with the words “James son of Joseph.” That portion of the inscription does indeed bear the patina of ages.
Interestingly enough, the man who owns this ossuary says he bought it in 1980, precisely the time that the tenth ossuary from the tomb of Jesus went missing! Also, the James ossuary is the exact same dimensions as the ossuary that went missing from the tomb of Jesus. Remember, those stone boxes were not built on assembly lines, but were custom built according to the length of the femur of the skeleton to be interred. So they’re all different sizes. The James ossuary fits the dimensions of the missing tenth ossuary exactly!
The “Pièce de résistance ” however is the fact that spectral chromatography of samples of the patina on the Jesus Tomb ossuaries, and spectral chromatography of the patina on the James ossuary, are a precise match! When these tests were conducted, many ossuaries that are not from the Jesus tomb were also tested as a control group. The result? None of the patinas of the other ossuaries matched the ossuaries from the Jesus Tomb, only the James ossuary matched and it matched perfectly!
Folks, that’s a slam dunk! J
The James ossuary, minus the bogus later inscription “brother of Jesus” is in fact the tenth ossuary that was stolen shortly after the tomb was discovered. So, with the addition of James to the Jesus tomb and all the other names from the life of Jesus Christ, the chances that the “lost tomb of Jesus” is a tomb of some Jesus other than Jesus Christ is exactly zero. However, there are none so blind as those who will not see. So, many otherwise competent scholars are making fools of themselves by lying, distorting, covering up, equivocating, performing verbal contortions and mental gymnastics, all to protect their reputations. Its pathetic. Science is about evidence and following where the evidence leads. Academia, however, is about holding tenaciously to a theory one has based ones entire reputation and career on, evidence to the contrary be damned!
These same odious ogres ask why the producers of the film wish to make money from the discovery of this tomb, when in fact these opponents are themselves gainfully employed in The Jesus Biz in one way or another! Millions of people make money in The Jesus Biz, and have done so since the very time of Jesus! What hypocrisy, lies, half-truths, truth-twisting, are these “scholars” who oppose this find NOT willing to resort to? They will resort to whatever it takes to undermine a legitimate archaeological find that undermines their set-in-concrete worldview. Why? To protect their careers in The Jesus Biz!
That said, I am not convinced this is the tomb of Jesus Christ, though I am certainly open to it being so. More study, testing, and HONEST debate need to be done before I would be willing to admit I’ve been wrong. (I emphasize the word honest because I know that dishonesty will continue unabated by the fundies and “scholarly” critics. Call me Don Quixote) If I’m wrong and Jesus is an historical person, then my Master thesis is kaput! However, I am indeed open minded as this article has demonstrated. I feel badly for those whose minds are made up and refuse to be confused by the facts. I find them odious and abjectly pathetic.
For those Christians who feel the Tomb of Jesus is an attack on their faith, it isn’t. The NT is notoriously unclear as to whether the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a spiritual or physical event. The reader should do some thinking for themselves and Google the subject of the resurrection of Christ and see that both sides of the argument have solid Biblical support.
For me--if this turns out to be the genuine tomb of Jesus--it makes Jesus more concrete, more real, and more interesting by far. At this point Jesus Christ is simply a symbol of my own Christ Nature. He would still be that if he is an historical person, but he would also be the first actual human to have fully realized his own Christhood. That makes him a more important and far more interesting character. For then he actually walked upon the stage of history. Then all the millions of hours of study by thousands of scholars trying to piece together what actually happened in the life of Jesus then become important rather than irrelevant and silly.
However, as I have repeatedly stated, I do not consider the “tomb of Jesus” to be anything of the sort, and will give my reasons why in my next article.