Missing Information in the Tomb

Jodi Magness, the Kenan Distinguished Professor for Teaching Excellence in Early Judaism in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, makes this interesting point in an article for the Biblical Archaeology Society.  She states in the piece that the archaeological evidence indicates that the tomb cannot be that of Jesus of Nazareth and His family.

...Being a Jew in the time of Jesus was not, strictly speaking, a religion, as it is today. Instead, Jews in the time of Jesus were Judeans—that is, people from the district of Judea, the area around Jerusalem. Judeans worshiped the national god of Judea (the God of Israel) and lived according to his laws. Other ancient peoples had their own national deities. During the two centuries before Christ, the Hasmonean kings (a Jewish dynasty descended from the Maccabees) had established an independent Jewish kingdom in Judea (this kingdom was eventually taken over by the Romans). The Hasmonean kings conducted a campaign of expansion, conquering neighboring peoples whom they forcibly converted to Judaism. Under the Hasmoneans, Galilee (to the north of Judea) and Idumaea (to the south) were Judaized, which means their non-Jewish populations began to worship the God of Israel and live according to his laws.

L. Y. Rahmani, an Israeli archaeologist who compiled a catalogue of all of the ossuaries in the collections of the state of Israel, observed that “In Jerusalem’s tombs, the deceased’s place of origin was noted when someone from outside Jerusalem was interred in a local tomb.” On ossuaries in rock-cut tombs that belonged to Judean families, it was customary to indicate the ancestry or lineage of the deceased by naming the father, as, for example, Judah son of John (Yohanan); Honya son of Alexa; and Martha daughter of Hananya. But in rock-cut tombs owned by non-Judean families (or which contained the remains of relatives from outside Judea), it was customary to indicate the deceased’s place of origin, as, for example, Simon of Ptolemais; Papias the Bethshanite (of Beth Shean); and Gaios son of Artemon from Berenike. Our historical and literary sources (such as the Gospels, Flavius Josephus, etc.) often make the same distinctions between Judeans and non-Judeans (for example, Galileans, Idumaeans, Saul of Tarsus, Simon of Cyrene, and so on). If the Talpiot tomb is indeed the tomb of Jesus and his family, we would expect at least some of the ossuary inscriptions to reflect their Galilean origins, by reading, for example, Jesus [son of Joseph] of Nazareth (or Jesus the Nazarene), Mary of Magdala, and so on. However, the inscriptions provide no indication that this is the tomb of a Galilean family and instead point to a Judean family....

Comments

[Kyl]

http://www.apollos.ws/ has by far the largest selection of audio and video apologetics on the web. It is called apollos.ws I know I would want people to tell me about it. This is one small sample http://www.apollos.ws/philosophy-of-religion-audio-d/ Go to their media sections in their database.

[Daniel Wynne]

Excellent information in both the above article and Kyl's comment/ plug about apollos.ws. Some of the names there are friends of STR.

[Jonathan]

It is really a totally dead issue with all these aditional facts, I belive. It is interesting to find out about them though. Thanks for the info.

[Kyl]

Although this is off topic, Stand To Reason and Scott Klusendorf’s Life Training Institute have the best pro-life training information on the planet!

[Keith Williams]

I know that the Most High God of creation is looking down on earth in laughter at this latest attempt to silence the message of his Son Jesus. It's also sad to know that alot of people would rather believe a simple lie, than seek the truth that is right in front of them. Thanks STR for bringing this info to light. People need to know all the facts of this issue. Keith.

[Keith Williams]

I know that the Most High God of creation is looking down on earth in laughter at this latest attempt to silence the message of his Son Jesus. It's also sad to know that alot of people would rather believe a simple lie, than seek the truth that is right in front of them. Thanks STR for bringing this info to light. People need to know all the facts of this issue. Keith.

[alan aronson]

Every post save the last one is about this silly program. Why did this nonsense shake you up so much? Why did so many secular people scoff at Cameron's project? Perhaps it's because we both respect the truth and understand how science works as well as the limits constraining both science and faith.

A lawyer from Berkeley isn't going to have much of value to contribute to biology and a Hollywood producer isn't likely to contribute much to archeology or undermine a major world religion.

All this fuss might seem to indicate a lack of confidence as well as a flawed approach to science and secularism. I am not a Christian and yet I seem to see your religion as having stronger legs than many of you do.

One or two posts would have done just fine.

[John Willis]

Alan,

I guess it depends on what you mean by the word "faith". If you have in mind the idea of Biblical faith, (a trust based on good reasons that seeks further understanding), then on face value, Cameron's documentary is a fair challenge to Christianity's central truth claim. As Greg pointed out in his townhall article, those who hold the (false) view that the Bible teaches blind faith, do not see the need to even respond to such a challenge. Because ultimately the evidence doesn't matter.

If you think the evidence does matter, then like me, you appreciate a fair discussion. In reality, at the end of the day, it is not my "faith" that saves me. It is the Object of that faith that does the saving. As Cameron's documentary makes some fundamental claims about that Person, I am very interested in the discussion and appreciate the fair handling of the evidence by the STR group. I don't think it's an inordinate amount of "air time" given the nature of the documentary's claim.

And let me also say this - after reviewing much of the evidence presented for and against Cameron's claim in the film, I can understand what you mean when you say that even though you aren't a Christian, you have more trust in the claims of orthodox Christianity vs. the film. Again, paraphrasing Greg, this is a "huge softball".

My only response to that is agreement in regards to the substance and disagreement in regards to the tactics. Put yourself in my shoes for a moment. If you were a Christian, why would you want to sit on the bench when Cameron's throwing batting practice? Please forgive us, if a few of us Christians use this oppurtunity to practice our apologetic swings. It's not forcing our religion on someone if we're just responding to an attack that is all over the net and on the nightly news is it?

Further, I think this is a great contrast to the widespread Muslim reaction to the not so long ago critiques of Mohammed in cartoons. How do Christian's react when challenged? Compare and Contrast my friend. If Christianity is ultimately about the truth, which I believe it is, then this is exactly the reaction one would expect. If Christianity isn't about the truth, but rather a personal faith, or a forced conversion, then we would expect other reactions then the one we find by groups like STR.

[Amy]

Brilliantly said, John.

Alan,

All that law professor did was take the agreed upon biological facts and look at them without the materialist philosophy. This is very different from what was done with the Jesus Tomb thing.

sincerely,
Todd

Hi Alan again,

It is similar to what we do with the resurrection when we ask:

What is the best explanation for the given historical evidence?

sincerely,
Todd

[Jonathan]

Hi Alan,
Well To me it is kind of fun, the more you learn the more you feel like laughing, except that there are probably some who are being led astray.

[alan aronson]

Hi John, good post, however referring to the accumulation of speculation as "evidence" is a way too generous. My problem isn't with a response; it's with the quantity and it would have been useful at the start to point out that break-through science doesn't happen in a documentary.

Hi Todd, this sword cuts both ways; if we maintain standards across the board, no ones faith would be shaken.

[John Willis]

Alan,

Thank you for your reply. What do you mean by "break-through science?"

And, as I understand your issue is not so much with a response, but the amount of air time given by Christian apologetic groups to respond to such a "softball" claim, what would you suggest is an acceptable amount of time? It sounds like you're suggesting that Christians employ a sliding scale of response time based on the quality of the counter-claim to Christianity's truth claims. While taken at face value this seems reasonable, I don't think this approach works in this case.

I think the amount of apologetic "air time" should be a function of the nature of the claim. For example, if someone were to claim abortion is moral, I would be willing to listen to their arguments. I am strongly against abortion and I think I have good reasons for this position. However, if that same person offers an arguement that I don't exist, or that circles are actually square, I would back away very slowly! In otherwords, I wouldn't spend a minute of my time attempting to refute claims that are non-sensical.

The claims by Jacobovich are not non-sensical. They may be weakly supported claims; he may be cherry-picking the evidence and resting his case on ill-conceived probability calculations; but he isn't claiming he's found evidence that Christ was both a bachelor and married to Mary Magdelaine.

Futher, Jacobovich seems sincere. He isn't viciously attacking Christianity. He isn't claiming that Christianity is a mental projection, nor is he aiming his attack at Christians themselves (ad hominem). He is raising the issue of Christianity's central truth claim - the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This historical fact, (if indeed it is a fact, which I believe it is) gives the Person of Christ incredible authority and credibility because He predicted He would do this! To paraphrase the Apostle Paul, if the resurrection is not a historical fact, you should have the utmost pity for me and my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, because we are following in the footsteps of a dead man who was either a lunatic or a liar!

So I think in this case it's the nature of the claim that dictates the apologetic "air time" and not necessarily the quality of the claim. Let me ask you this - why do you think it is that the "high quality evidence" for Christianity, (the four Gospels), gets such little "air time" in the mainstream press and the low quality evidence for ancient history (like this documentary) gets so much air time?

John

On the history of sensationalism related to ossuaries and some notes on the "chevron and circle" symbol as a Jewish "symbol," see:

http://confirmedword.blogspot.com/

[alan aronson]

Hi John, I would rank the claims here with the squared circle. A predictive post - "this is going to be a big nothing because science doesn't happen this way", followed by a "see I told you so and here are the reasons", would have been enough. Too much coverage gives the methodology credibility.

As for the Gospels, they are old news and form a base line that the Jacobovichs can play off of, The media picks it up because it fills the time slots with fluff instead of substance.