On the "Jesus Tomb"

I thought it would be worth taking a sidetrack from Scriptural analysis, to bring you the comments from a very good analysis of the recent "documentary" on the so-called "Jesus Tomb" that aired on the Discovery Channel a few days ago. Here is the direct link to the full comments from Dr. Andreas Kostenberger.

Here is a portion of his "score-card" of the documentary.

As did many of you, I watched the Discovery Channel special on the Jesus tomb and the discussion moderated by Ted Koppel afterwards. Before I give you my score card, allow me to make a few comments.

(1) In my view it is very unfortunate that Simcha was not more restrained in jumping to sensationalist conclusions in his film. Since by his own acknowledgment he is neither a scholar nor an archeologist, he should have refrained from pushing his own preferred conclusion as hard as he did. Hiring a few consultants like James Tabor who are sympathetic to his views is not enough. Contrary to Simcha’s claims, he is not merely “reporting the news.” He is seeking to propagate the unsubstantiated theory that the “Jesus tomb” contained the remains of Jesus and his family.

(2) Having said this, I welcome the publication of the data associated with this find (though I wish the discussion could have been put on a more proper scholarly footing from the beginning). In my view, the find, rather than disproving Jesus’ resurrection and the truth of Christianity, actually lends additional credence to the biblical record. For example, it suggests that the names in the Gospels are eminently well attested for the biblical period.

(3) Most likely, the tomb contains the remains of a Jesus son of Joseph (or of a different name if “Jesus” turns out to be the wrong reading); his son Jude or Judah; and several other family members including two Marys and a Matthew. All these were very common first-century Jewish names. I actually believe the presence of the inscription “Judah son of Jesus” is a strong argument against this being Jesus’ family tomb, since it is highly unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth had a son (the movie’s attempt at construing a conspiracy/suppression theory notwithstanding).

(4) The movie’s attempt to link Jude with the “Beloved Disciple” of John’s Gospel is certainly creative, and should be added to the list of conjectures of late that the “Beloved Disciple” is Thomas, Lazarus, or Mary Magdalene, but it is completely ludicrous. John 19:26 says explicitly that Jesus said to his mother - not Mary Magdalene! - “Woman, look, your son.”

(5) I completely agree with Darrell Bock’s comments on the show following the Discovery Channel special that the Christian belief in Jesus’ bodily resurrection excludes the notion that Jesus’ bones may have been in the ossuary. This is why, contrary to the Roman Catholic representative on the panel, it makes all the difference in the world whether or not this is “Jesus’ family tomb.” James Tabor and Simcha simply do not understand the biblical teaching (in line with Jewish beliefs, as Bock correctly noted) and the early Christian beliefs regarding Jesus’ bodily resurrection.

Enough said.

Here is my 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? A 14TH-CENTURY MS. OF THE ACTS OF PHILIP

On what basis is the further assertion made that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife? DNA EVIDENCE INDICATING THEY DID NOT SHARE THE SAME MOTHER

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)? NO REFERENCE MADE

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? NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT MADE

Unsubstantiated assertions and lacking explanations:

Is any explanation offered why Jesus’ family tomb would have been in Jerusalem? NO

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

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? NO

Is any explanation offered why scores of Christians died a martyr’s death for what they knew was a fraudulent claim? NO

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.] REPEATEDLY, STATISTICAL EVIDENCE IS CALLED “COMPELLING”

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. YES, IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT 1 IN 4 WOMEN WERE NAMED MARY

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

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? NO

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 mentioned in the program? NOT MENTIONED

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? NO REFERENCE MADE TO MARIAMENE BEING CONNECTED WITH MARTHA IN THE ACTS OF PHILIP

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?” I CONCLUDE THAT THE DOCUMENTARY WAS HIGHLY TENDENTIOUS AND BIASED; IT CONTAINED NUMEROUS GAPS IN LOGIC, UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTIONS, AND FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE

Understanding the Misunderstood

Most of the discussion that we'll be focusing on as time goes on, will be based on difficult passages of Scripture. As this is the case, it will be important that we're all working off the same page, so to speak.

Before we can begin to discuss arguments from the texts of Scripture, we must first understand what Scripture is, and what Scripture is not. We must come to a definition of terms, before delving into what Scripture says. If we were to neglect this starting point, it would not be long before misunderstandings surfaced due solely to an inadequate beginning. And so we examine first, this Book I hold in my hand. What is it? Where does it come from? What is its history, and what makes it unique?

I harbor no illusions that I'll completely answer all these questions for you, but I can and will answer them in the manner that satisfied me as I sought out the answers for myself. I will share with you what I have found, in hopes that you will see what I see. If not, well... I can do no more. Nevertheless, it is here we must begin.


"For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)



It is from the above two New Testament passages primarily, and from many others as well, that we derive our stance on the Bible. The observation that is continually surfacing from those who challenge the authenticity, infallibility and/or the inerrancy of the Bible, seems to be "That's absurd! How can it possibly be inerrant, when there are so many different versions and nobody uses the same one?!" Or the reaction is an immediate judgment of the sort that goes, "It's just a book written by man (and many different men, at that), so of course it's not infallible."

An honest observation, and I will give an honest reply. The plain and simple answer is that when we discuss the concept of Scripture being inerrant, we're not talking about any of the English versions or translations of the Bible, whether it be the King James Version, or even the Latin texts that were used for centuries. We're not even talking about the copies of the Greek and Hebrew texts that were passed around by the early Church, which we have compilations of available to us today.

What we're talking about, when we say that Scripture is inerrant, are the originally penned writings of the original authors of the original books. In other words, as Paul put ink to paper (or as the case probably was, as he dictated them to a scribe), we believe that the Holy Spirit was working with and through Paul (and the other writers), in a way that we do not, and cannot, fully understand, in order to bring to the Church the authoritative Word of God.

Each writer obviously maintained their own perspective and flavor of writing, which is evident from the texts, but overall, there is an incomparable cohesiveness to the whole of Scripture, due to the fact that there is One overall Overseer throughout the history of the writing process.

So if we're talking about the original texts, then you may ask "What good are these translations and other versions then?" Another good question, to be sure. We do not have any of the originally penned texts of Scripture at all. But what we do have, are thousands of scraps and bits of very early copies of texts, and a few very early complete manuscripts containing the whole Bible (or at least most of it). And so what we have is a history full of attempts at compiling those copies of the Greek and Hebrew texts (the original languages that the Bible was written in), and then translating them into common language, in order that they be useful for the common man.

Unfortunately, that history is also full of attempts by corrupt individuals and mislead groups of people, who desired to use Scripture as a tool for power. "He who controls the Holy Book, controls the masses," seems to be the overarching theme throughout history.

On the upside, that same history is also dotted with bright spots, where various individuals (such as John Wycliff, John Hus, William Tyndale, and Martin Luther, to name a few) struggled and sacrificed to ensure that the common man had open access to the Word of God, as it was originally intended. You may read more about the history of the Bible Translation here.

In summary, what we need to realize, is that reading and studying the Bible is just as much an academic activity as it is a spiritual one. Due diligence in research and thought is needed in order to "rightly divide" Scripture, to use a biblical term. If one approaches the Bible with a purely academic approach, it's very likely you will not glean from it as much as you could. Likewise, if one approaches Scripture with the attitude that research, intellectual study, and the academic pursuits have no place with the Bible, then we are seriously limiting our ability to understand what the intended communication is to be. There must be a balance and a use of both the spiritual and the intellectual. One without the other is the recipe for terrible doctrines that work counter to the intent of the message of Scripture.