The Lost Tomb of Jesus, Part 3

Posted on March 19, 2007
Filed Under archaeology, fraud, religion, tomb, jesus |

Before we come back to Miriamne e mara, let’s talk about some of the arguments against Jacobovici’s conclusion, other than the ones that I have already raised, and that I think are valid.

Some of these are:

  1. Jesus was a poor man, and this is clearly the tomb of a wealthy middle class family. Therefore, this could not be the tomb of Jesus.
  2. Jesus was a Nazarene, and his family tomb would be in Nazareth, not Jerusalem. Therefore, this could not be the tomb of Jesus.
  3. Jesus had no son, and this tomb contains a Judah, son of Jesus. Therefore, this could not be the tomb of Jesus.
  4. There is no mention in the Gospels of a Matthew related to Jesus, and this family tomb contains a Matthew. Therefore, this could not be the tomb of Jesus.
  5. Jesus was God’s son, not Joseph’s. Jewish critics of Christianity referred to him as Jesus, son of Joseph, but he would not have been buried under that name. Therefore, this could not be the tomb of Jesus.

In my opinion, all of these arguments are specious, but let’s take them one at a time:

  1. Jesus was a poor carpenter. The Greek word translated into English as carpenter, is tekton, or artisan. This could include a whole host of occupations, of which carpenter is just one. The family could, indeed, be a wealthy one, as the family of a builder or developer might be today. In addition, Jesus was the founder of a religious sect. There is certainly evidence in the Book of Acts that finances were of some importance to the group’s leaders after the death of Jesus, and it is no stretch to think that Jesus’s family would have had access to donations from wealthy believers.
  2. Jesus was a Nazarene. True. But, from what evidence we have (including the Bible), several members of his family were in Jerusalem at the time of his death, and remained there afterwards. They could very well have purchased or commissioned a family tomb.
  3. Jesus had no son. I touched on this in the earlier post. There is no way of deciding this one way or the other. My opinion is that the Gospel writers were attempting to explain what was different about Jesus and that there was no particular reason for them to mention a family. Nor do they ever make explicit that he had no family, which would have been notable. In fact, they ignore most of his life.
  4. The Bible mentions nobody named Matthew as a relative. Again, the New Testament makes no claim to providing an exhaustive list of Jesus’s friends and relations.
  5. Jesus was God’s son. Well, if you have a child-like faith in the immaculate conception, the virgin birth, the corporal resurrection and the bodily ascension into heaven, you will never believe that Jesus’s body could be found. But, in the real world, we have to assume that none of those supernatural events actually occurred.

Miriamne e mara is now going to have to wait for Part 4.

Comments

3 Responses to “The Lost Tomb of Jesus, Part 3”

  1. Thomas Paine on March 20th, 2007 12:43 pm

    This subject got a bit of discussion awhile back at Faith-Based.

    Personally, I think it highly improbable that anyone would ever come up with much convincing evidence either way — certainly nothing that would cause anyone to change his/her beliefs.

    As a skeptic, I have long had considerable question whether a historical Jesus actually ever existed, or if so, whether he had much resemblance to the Biblical version (setting aside as fictional the miracles and resurrection).

    Assuming that Jesus DID exist, and that the basic (non-supernatural) narratives of the Gospels are at least partially factual, we still know fuck-all about his family, their economics etc, so unless researchers can find Holy Ghost DNA in some remains, I will remain skeptical as to whose bones those really are.

  2. Schadenfreude on March 20th, 2007 12:54 pm

    Obviously, there can never be definitive proof, and Jacobovici’s number of 599 chances in 600 is patently ridiculous.

    I don’t think that there’s any serious doubt that the man existed. It seems unlikely that he was the actual Son of God (>599 to 1 against).

  3. Thomas Paine on March 23rd, 2007 7:35 am

    Did Jesus Exist?

    I suppose the odds are somewhat better than those of his being the actual “Son of G_d” (>599 to one against), but evidence is pretty slim.

    The only non-Biblical references from the 1st Century are Josephus’ account, written perhaps 60 years after Jesus’ putative crucifixion (which itself was before Josephus’ birth). The available texts of Josephus’ history contain admitted 2nd or 3rd Century insertions, and the entire account is somewhat suspect.

    The fact that there is NO Jewish or Roman record from the time of his life suggests that if he was a real person, he did nothing of significance to come to the attention of either Jewish or Roman authorities.

    My own hypothesis is that he was largely the creation of St Paul, and likely was either totally mythical, or a conflation of several of the itinerant preachers, prophets and zealots known to have been active at that time.

Leave a Reply