I remember an apocryphal story about a famous modern theologian being called by the Vatican. He was told that the bones of Jesus had been discovered, and the Pope was wondering what to do. He slapped his head and said, "Oh, no; Jesus really DID live!"
Modernized biblical scholars of a century ago struggled with the question of whether there was an actual historical Jesus, or if he was an artifact of the faith of the early Church. Few of any serious academic stature now believe that the Jesus of Scripture didn't really live. The modern and post-modern questions turn on whether we can trust the documents describing his life and teaching as reliable, along with the accounts of his having been raised from death.
Dan Brown's infamous 'The DaVinci Code' has stirred this pot, as has an interest in writings not included in the Bible which make claims to Jesus having married, fathered a child, and dying of old age. Suffice it to say, as I have written elsewhere, that serious scholarly support for these notions is extremely thin and rather easily dismissed by those willing to use reason to consider the claims, not to mention Scripture itself.
Just about the time things have begun to settle, we get big news that is at least more interesting than the final destination of the body of Anna Nicole Smith.
No less than James Cameron of "Titanic" fame has produced a documentary with the title, "The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History" to be aired March 4 on the Discovery Channel.
Wow, and golly! What shall we say of this amazing discovery on Discovery? One thing I am tempted to mention is that Cameron made the announcement right after Al Gore received an Academy Award and a rock star's welcome for a documentary film. Does Cameron sniff another Oscar? It would be cynical to suspect that, so I'll resist the temptation.
I want to make some comments on this announcement, but first I must add the caveat that there are bloggers galore more qualified to address this subject who are busy doing so. My comments will be more general and less technical, but timely. This story is all over the news, and Larry King devoted a segment to it, skewed as it was by his choice of those who argued for orthodoxy.
Let's take a quick look at the arguments of Cameron's group.
1) The statistical probability that this tomb could be for anyone but Jesus of Nazareth and his family is slim to none. Hmm.... if Cameron, James Tabor, et al., are correct, the odds of this NOT being the tomb of Jesus are very small. But this analysis is based on some critical assumptions.
One is that Jesus would be buried as 'Jesus, son of Joseph.' It was widely believed that he was an illegitimate child, born of Mary but with a different father. Jesus never used this title for himself, even though he did claim Joseph as his 'dad'. It is simply improbable that even IF this were the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth that this would be on his ossuary, given the high profile of his public ministry.
The statistics adduced also assume that Jesus was married and had a son. (All Dan Brown fans, please stand up and shout, "Amen!") More on this below, but there is no evidence for this. One thing IS sure: the names found in the tombs were common names.
2) It is argued that the DNA evidence supports the claim that this is the tomb of Jesus and his family. Let's start with that of Jesus and Mary. The DNA sampled is different, so this must mean they were married, right? If you don't have a problem with that, let me give you an example. I have a stepdaughter. If someone were to examine the DNA of my family and found that Jenna's DNA shows she is unrelated to me, would the conclusion be that we must be married? This would be a completely unsupported inference.
The DNA of others in the tomb does show they were related. Okay; so what? An immediate problem is that thre is no available DNA to serve as a control sample from anyone actually proven to be related to the family of the biblical Jesus. It seems an empty claim for the sake of publicity.
3) I want to point out some of the more obvious historical problems, in no particular order. One is that if Jesus were to be buried with his ancestral title, 'son of Joseph', why was he buried at Jerusalem? The ancestral home of Joseph was Bethlehem, and his adult years where he raised his family were at Nazareth. The move to Jerusalem would be strange in that culture.
As to the ossuaries (bone containers) in which the bones were found, one says, 'Jude, son of Jesus'. I don't doubt that someone named Jesus once said, "Hey, Jude!" to his kid. But 'Jesus' was a very common name in that cultural/historical context, and there is not one shred of actual historical evidence that the Jesus of the Bible had any children.
Another ossuary has the name 'Matthew' on it, which is found in no list of the brothers of Jesus. The name 'Mary' is on another ossuary. It is a name we know, but perhaps the most common of all ancient Jewish female names. Several of the other ossuaries have names with no known connection to Jesus of Nazareth.
Bones were not put into an ossuary until at least a year after death, as it usually took that long for the skin to sufficiently dessicate to disassemble the skeleton. One can readily imagine why one would wait that long. Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea after dying on the cross. Both ancient Jewish and Roman sources document that the tomb was empty on the third day.
Did Peter and the other apostles remove the body and hide it elsewhere? This is improbable for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that all of them but John were killed for their claim that Jesus was risen from the grave. John was the only one to die in old age, and as a political prisoner of Rome, exiled far from home to the island of Patmos. All he had to do was admit the fraud, and he could go home. He didn't, insisting otherwise to the end of his days.
Christianity did indeed spread rapidly and the institutional Church became very powerful. But the original apostles who claimed to have witnessed and touched the risen Jesus had nothing to gain by it, other than imprisonment, torture, and a martyr's death. It is irrational to believe they were perpetrating a hoax for the purpose of starting a new world religion when not a single one of them ever broke under torture or threat and changed his story.
4) The Israeli archaeologists working on this excavation have dismissed the idea of this being the tomb of the biblical Jesus as fantasy "without any proof, whatsover." (Dr. Amos Kloner of Bar Ilan University).
5) The early Christian historian Eusebius writes of the tomb of 'James the Just', known brother of Jesus, as a pilgrimage destination located near the Temple Mount. It would have been bizarre to bury him there if the grave of his more famous brother was located elsewhere. Talpiot, the site of the tomb of the upcoming documentary, isn't even actually in Jerusalem, but located in a field a ways from the city.
Many will dance to the sly music of Jesus and the Family Tomb, and many will use this to justify their unbelief and lack of faith in a way similar to those who believe Dan Brown was telling the truth in The DaVinci Code. (I at least hope this documentary is better than the film version of Brown's book. I felt sorry for Tom Hanks and Ian McKellen, superb actors, having to keep straight faces in delivering some of their lines.)
But for those willing to keep their wits about them and think through the issues and consider what is at stake, I suspect they will find that Cameron's real business is entertainment and making money, and see this project as consistent with his record. Scholars of actual repute are hardly lining up to support the claims of this story even when they may not actually be believers in orthodox apostolic Christianity.
Enjoy the show, but don't get suckered. Most won't, unless they believe that Walt Disney's Dumbo proves elephants can fly and talk.
My apologies for the length and any tedium. I believe it was Blaise Pascal who once added a postcript to a letter saying, "I would have written a shorter letter but didn't have enough time."