Revisiting the tomb

Posted: Friday, April 06, 2007 7:56 PM by Alan Boyle

"Who do the people say I am?" The question posed by Jesus in Luke's gospel always gets a thorough airing this time of year. And during this Easter season, there are a few new answers to the historical questions about Christianity's founder. The most ballyhooed controversy focuses on the so-called "Jesus Family Tomb" - the freshly publicized claim that a burial place in suburban Jerusalem could have contained the bones of Jesus' kin, perhaps including his wife. (Mary Magdalene, of course - don't you know your "Da Vinci Code"?)

A good many Christians are thoroughly sick of hearing far-out hypotheses about the historical roots of their religion. But even if you're a true believer, there's still some good that could come out of all the books, magazines and TV shows: You don't have to accept the pop-culture premise to learn a lot about the culture that shaped Christianity.

Take the continuing flap over the Jesus Family Tomb: One of the best-known academic backers of the two-tomb theory, James Tabor of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, is still fighting the good fight on his "Jesus Dynasty" Web log - even during Holy Week!

In postings to the blog as well to the Society of Biblical Literature's online forum, Tabor ticks off the reasons why Jesus could have been laid to rest first within the tomb mentioned in the gospels, then later moved to another tomb that was perhaps set aside for the great teacher by his disciples.

I can't say I'm persuaded by the statistical analysis of how frequent various biblical-era names are. For a more orthodox perspective on what happened to Jesus' tomb, you're better served by my archived account about the claims made for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Nevertheless, if you read Tabor's views as well as the counterarguments from Jodi Magness, his colleague at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, you get some fascinating insights into how the rich and poor of 1st-century Jerusalem lived and died - all the way down to the details of rock-cut tombs, bone boxes and trench graves.

There's still more to glean from a Weblog called "Fact or Fiction? The Tomb of Jesus." The principal mission of this blog is to trash "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" and sell another book, titled "The Jesus Tomb: Is It Fact or Fiction." But you also get a look at the inner workings of the biblical scholarship trade (sometimes it's not a pretty picture) as well as tutorials on arcane subjects such as the symbology of Jewish funerary markings. Did you know that 1st-century bone boxes were marked with scratched X's - not to signify Christian faith, but to indicate which way to slide the lid?

Another example is "The Jesus Mystery," a new volume of scripture-based speculation written by Swedish documentary filmmaker Lena Einhorn. The book compares biblical accounts of Jesus and the apostles with Josephus' contemporary histories - and concludes not only that the time lines of the two tales had been scrambled up, but also that Jesus and the Apostle Paul may well have been the same person.

Again, I'm not convinced by the evidence for Einhorn's conclusions, but I'm interested in the history gleaned along the way: the archaeological traces of the high priest Caiaphas, for instance, or how the church fathers viewed the historical Jesus. One passage, citing Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" from the 2nd century, asserts that Jesus actually lived to be more than 50 years old.

It turns out that there's quite a debate over what Irenaeus really meant - which illustrates another point about unorthodox views of biblical history: Don't take everything you read at face value. (By the way, true skeptics would probably say the same thing about the orthodox view.) Scriptural speculation should eventually lead you to the firmer ground of 1st-century history, and such works as "Daily Life in the Time of Jesus" or "The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era."

If your tastes run toward a more transcendental discussion of faith and skepticism, you might want to check out "Is God Real?" - a package from Newsweek that includes an overview on the existential question, a debate between believer Rick Warren and skeptic Sam Harris, a column by Rabbi Marc Gellman and an "On Faith" forum with additional expert opinion.

Pop philosopher Deepak Chopra has his own take on the search for the historical Jesus over at The Huffington Post. And if you're just plain bugged by the religious establishment this Easter weekend, you may find kindred spirits over at the "Blog Against Theocracy" Web portal.

With that, here's wishing you a blessed and peaceful weekend - no matter what your religious persuasion (or non-persuasion) may be.

Update for 9:20 p.m. ET April 6: The University of North Carolina's James Tabor called me back toward evening on Good Friday, to say he was heading over to Israel during Easter weekend for a video shoot with a crew from Australia's "60 Minutes" show. Meanwhile, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" is still working its way around the world, with airings planned in France, Britain and other international markets. The show will likely be back on the Discovery Channel sometime after the Easter season.

Tabor said more revelations may well come from the "Lost Tomb" at Talpiot, as well as another apparently undisturbed tomb in the same area. In his view, the site is eminently worthy of a closer look - and he agreed that even if you don't buy into the religious angle, the discussion has led to a wider appreciation of the science behind scriptural scholarship.

"I am convinced that the Talpiot tomb deserves some attention and shouldn’t be debunked," he told me. "On the other hand, back off a little bit: People have learned what ossuaries are. ... People have learned what mitochondrial DNA is."

Update for 9:35 p.m. ET April 7: Another work focusing on 1st-century history is "Everyday Life in New Testament Times," written by A.C. Bouquet and published back in 1954. Yes, it was written 50 years ago, when the writing style was different. And it's very respectful of the biblical story, so don't expect any "Da Vinci Code" jaw-droppers. The best part is that it's freely available over the Internet, and you can even print out your own copy if you're so inclined. So I'll anoint "Everyday Life in New Testament Times" as this month's selection for the Cosmic Log Used Book Club. The CLUB Club highlights books with cosmic themes that should be available at your local library or used-book shop. Feel free to add your own suggestions for future club selections.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I'm sorry to hear that some Christians are "thoroughly sick" of the theories on this "Jesus" guy's burial. I have to hear their childish beliefs in gods day in and day out. It's 2007, how is it possible we still live amongst people who believe in gods?

[Commercial message omitted - AB]

Frank Rizzo, Hoboken NJ (Sent Friday, April 06, 2007 8:49 PM)

What in the heck would be wrong with Jesus having a wife? I think it is great and a son! wonderful.. It makes more sense than most other theories that are passed down as fact! It drives me crazy that these so-called religous zealots call the findings blasphemous when it could turn out to be the most exciting finding in all of history!

Mark Simoneau, Damar Kansas (Sent Friday, April 06, 2007 9:12 PM)

"With that, here's wishing you a blessed and peaceful weekend - no matter what your religious persuasion (or non-persuasion) may be."

Thank you, and the same to you!

Personally, I am amused by some of the strange, but interesting theories about the historical Jesus. The fact remains that no contemporary history from that time period even mentions the existence of such a person. This feeds the attempts to validate their faith by Christians throughout the history of the religion.

I can only wonder why someone would need to justify his/her faith. To me, it indicates that such a person is unsure of his faith...

A. Lisa Swift, Lemoore CA (Sent Friday, April 06, 2007 9:17 PM)

Paul and Christ the same person--? Was Paul a Schizo or fiction writer-? And how stupid were the early church fathers again now? That's a patently idiotic premise.

Grulg, Mexico Me (Sent Friday, April 06, 2007 9:30 PM)

How is it possible that we live amongst people who don't believe in God when the evidence points to the fact that most of us believe in God? Those that don't are in a small minority of people. Whether we believe in Jesus or some other God, most people believe and are not afraid to admit it. Those that do not believe in God seem to think that they can Mock, Ridicule, or somehow "Intellectualize" God out of existence. I can make fun of, mock, ridicule or try to deny the existence of the "Green Bay Packers" but that will never make them any less real. The truth of the matter is that those people that have had God manifest Himself in their lives will Believe no matter what non believers think, and the non believers will continue to ridicule that which they could not possibly understand. Time will tell, and I thank my God that I will never have to explain why I did not believe in Him when all of creation bears witness to his existence.

Jake Harris, The Dalles, Oregon (Sent Friday, April 06, 2007 9:35 PM)

In the book, Jesus Tomb: Is It Fact or Fiction? -- it clearly identifies certain problems with the documentary. First off, the supposed experts that they advertised in the press release were actually against the conclusion of the documentary. They were re-interviewed and many of their statements apparently were either misused or conveniently omitted from the film and book. So sad is the foolishness of man that we have to believe in deception and fiction instead of debating with facts.

John Derringer, Naples, FL (Sent Friday, April 06, 2007 9:45 PM)

There is no one presently living who knew or saw Jesus living and so, therefore, eyewitnesses are not possible. ALL so-called evidence is interpretation of ancient writings, and there will always be debate over these interpretations and among the interpretors. Who really knows what the verifiable truth is?

Steve Faraday, Willoughvy, Ohio (Sent Friday, April 06, 2007 10:25 PM)

I grew up in the South, (n.e. Ark.and s.e. Mo) Great uncle was Baptist minister, went to church at least 2 times a week till about 15 yrs. He sure could preach Hell, Fire, and Damnation if you went against the bible. Too many so called (religions) now, catholics, protestants, etc.,etc., they all think they are right, but most of them get along o.k. Now (they're not new) Muslims, want to annihilate anyone who doesn't believe in their ways, every war that has ever been fought, (and I did 2 of them) has been almost entirely about religion, something is wrong here. Religion is a man made thing but now without some past happenings. Most native populations world wide talk of superior beings coming from the sky when there were no flying ships or any sort. There propably is a superior being, but more likely, they did not live on this planet. The Mormons didn't start their so called Religion till the 1800's, now I'm not picking on them either, just an example. I have seen so called religions started just for a tax exemption, this is just B. S. because the Govt. doesn't want to P.O. some of the more established (religions) with their tax exemptions and votes.

Gene Morley Ash Fork, Az. (Sent Friday, April 06, 2007 11:00 PM)

to all those poor, willfully ignorant unbeleivers. I couldn't believe the audacity of the one man that spoke earlier, but here again freedom of speech gives voice to heaven and hell right... Anyway, Jesus was real, is real and will always be real; these are scientific, historic, and Biblical FACTS even the elephants know it..... Quit trying to find ways to escape reality and bow now

D Bryan, Barberton, Ohio (Sent Friday, April 06, 2007 11:13 PM)

Their are many non-biblical documentations, available to contemporary historians, of imperial Roman persecution of Christians in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D (C.E.) and of "a strange tale of the resurrection of a man known as Jesus" told by those persecuted Christians.

Joel Gabbert (Sent Friday, April 06, 2007 11:21 PM)

I am not skeptical about whether or not the tomb is of the biblical Jesus, nor do I believe it. I am extremely curious and fascinated by this discovery and would love to know more. However, should there ever be some groundbreaking evidence that it is indeed, wouldn't that push more people into believing in God instead of turning from him? I mean, here's the most physical evidence there is about the existence and people want to turn away from it saying it can't be because it would mean...what? If it were, I mean, there's Jesus...how can you deny the physical evidence? (I speak hypothetically here)

CMR, Rochester, NY (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 12:51 AM)

The stumbling block that all these "alternative" theories run afoul of is that all of the Biblical gospels were written, if not BY eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, then at least during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses and using eyewitness testimony. They were recognized as authoratative almost as soon as they were written - whereas all the alternative, Gnostic texts - the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel to the Hebrews, and the much-ballyhooed Judas Gospel - were written over a century later by second century authors posing as first century apostles. They weren't rejected for doctrinal reasons - they were rejected because they were forgeries, and pretty clumsy forgeries at that. The four Biblical gospels remain the earliest, best documented, and most accurate sources of information about the life of Christ.

Lewis B. Smith (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 1:25 AM)

WHY every year some people come up with new stories abt jesue?,,,,,

AND by the way....

WHY no body showing dare to write a single column challenging the prophet mohmd....?????????????????

try to even draw a single cartoon and see what happens.... i guess james camroon should make a small documentery of prophet mohd...or HE SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO CHRISTIANS...who are very kind to all these BS,,,coming year after year.....

raj macwan, jersey city, NJ (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 2:22 AM)

This is a question to Frank Rizzo and any others who are so positive there is no God (or gods): Why are you so sure about your belief being corect, at the same time you are so sure others' beliefs are incorrect? If you are an atheist or rational positivist, then you should be able to recognize the limits of the intellect, human senses, logic, and physical instruments. To be valid, any statement based on those must take into account their limitations....

William Jeffery, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 2:31 AM)

So we have a body. Why should christians be upset? If it is true-cool! But I doubt we will know for certain until Jesus comes and tells us himself. By the way, someone said there is no mention of Jesus outside of the bible. Didn't Claudius complain about the christians and their leader Jesus? He booted them out of Rome.

Rob Elger (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 3:16 AM)

It never fails to amaze me when I read articles which pooh-pooh religion on the basis of it is just too stupid or how stupid were the early church fathers etc.

Prior to the modern age writing was a scarce, expensive and highly valuable resource. So much so that very little recorded material survives from the time of Christ. It was, in economic terms, simply too expensive to waste on stupidity and nonsense.

In our modern world the written word is terribly cheap, commonplace and trite. Much writing and opinion is often the result of scant research and very little in the way of seeking understanding. It is blind, similar to the mental conditions resulting from the bigotry of the established religions. Some modern thinkers fear this modern shallowness to be the result a contrived political objective - popular ignorance masquerading as modern pragmatism. This to achieve the same level of ignorant subservience of a population with which the so called stupid early church fathers successfully created and then enslaved Christendom for nearly two thousand years.

I write here not of veracity of the theology and dogma. Rather more about the practical usefulness of organised religion. This has nothing to do with theology. It is to do with wealth, social control and political power. As such the early church fathers were far from stupid. They were extremely accomplished, highly intelligent and successful men who pulled off a massive global coup the like of which even the most accomplished minds of the modern can only wonder at. Later church fathers pulled off lesser coups against the mother church with the same motives. These required a state of ignorance of the general population.To recreate the state of ignorance of the general populations of 2000 or 3000 years ago one needs to undo the near universal literacy and education of the modern western world. The seeming inability of supposedly well educated persons to see & understand the teachings accredited (not just) to Jesus in an abstract or symbolic manner rather than to focus purely upon the literal is an indicator how very little our thinking has progressed since universal Christian thought & truth dominated western conciousness.

I am a late 20th Century rationalist and humanist. I, too, find the addiction of others to religious faith a strange & illogical phenomenon. However, I recognise the mental prowess of those who formulated (& still do)theology and then proceed to market it to millions.

David Cresswell (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 5:16 AM)

I believe in God and Jesus, but I love to find out as much about the history of that time period as I can. The Bible has be rewritten so many times by man and the church to fit the needs of those at the time, that it is unsure of some of the facts. Finding out more about the history of Jesus' lifetime actually helps me more understand his teachings.

I can never understand why some people are so dead set against looking at the Bible as a guideline for just simply living a good life and being kind to your fellow human beings regardless of their beliefs.

Tracey, NJ (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 8:13 AM)

I find it funny that an atheist always feels a need to explain to Christians why they are right and Christians wrong. Are you that unconfident in your beliefs that you have to convert others? I believe in One God, the Father Almighty the Creator of Heaven and Earth and in Jesus Christ His only son Our Lord. I am a proud Roman Catholic, and that is what I believe in. What you believe you have a right to. You go your way, and I’ll go mine.

Want to go fishing, or have a beer after work, if you are a decent person, then why not. We can talk football, baseball, or whatever. We’ll just skip the religious topics.

Just one thought though for the atheist. If you are living your life as if there is no God...........you better be right.........

Derek Meche (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 9:47 AM)

While the search for the historical Jesus is very informative about our Christian faith today (and, yes, A. Lisa Swift, there are non-Christian mentions of Jesus of Nazareth and his state execution), it should not be seen as the apex of the matter. The Christian confession (and I say the "only" Christian confession) is that Jesus is risen from the dead. It is either yes or no, nothing in between. So one must take the 1st century Palestine information and apply it to Jesus' teachings, but also hold fast to the idea of his resurrection. Anything else, frankly, is not a Christian confession.

Dr. Aaron Justice, Riverton, WY (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 10:10 AM)

I have learned more about God through Science than Church,although Church earns part of its usefulness by teaching moral code,without which we lose our Civilization.

Mike C Vallely Allen Park, MiI (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 10:20 AM)

I feel real sorry for those who don't believe in God Almighty and Jesus Christ. A lot of the people who don't are very smart people otherwise, for instance Carl Sagan, it breaks my heart that he didn't believe or trust in Christ. Jesus said, "There is only one way to heaven and that is through me." So that means only Christans and Jews will ever get to heaven except for the people who were never witnessed to who will be judged by their on merits. The White Throne Judgment will be a very sad day for many! Of course Jesus is real and he did rise again and he will judge all of us.

Robert Murdock, Alto,Tex. (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 10:25 AM)

I am not suprised by all of the various theories. Judaism, Islam and perhaps even Matrixism have their own differing stories as to how Jesus died and what that meant. Perhaps some of this recent theorizing is an attempt to posture the situation for a viable return. It might not be a coincidence that this kind of research is on the rise at the same time that anticipation of a second comng.

Jake Pliskin, Seattle, Washington (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 12:37 PM)

Whats really scary is that a recent poll suggests 90% of american adults believe in God and half of those don't believe in evolution.

Jesus never said he was the son of God as I understand it. However there are passages in the bible that sure suggest he actually did. Such as when he proclaims that the only way to the kingdom of heaven is through him. There are a number of contradictory writings in the bible.

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 12:41 PM)

The basic question religion must answer is 'What happens when we die?'

Is there an afterlife, do we get reborn or is there just nothing at all? As far as I can see it's all a matter of opinion. Nobody knows, but we are all going to find out.
Perhaps we get what we expect. Catholics go to Catholic heaven, Muslims go to Muslim Heaven, Pagans get reborn and athiests just get dead. That's a joke, of course. Personally I believe religion is the most personal of subjects, and not something that should be shared with anyone else, ever. It's not religion that has caused so much pain and suffering, but the churches that result from sharing beliefs. I'd like a church that had nothing to do with God or the gods, but rather concerned itself with the welfare of its members. The best way to pray is to feed the hungry, help the sick, raise children with love, and accept your fellow man as he is.

Bill Mullins, Belgrade, Maine (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 2:51 PM)

I can't resist jumping in again!!! ;)

FIRST - to the statement that the Bible has been re-written and edited so many times that the original text is lost or distorted beyond recall - poppycock! The New Testament is the best-documented work of antiquity, with thousands of manuscripts to review and compare for accuracy. We have two complete texts of the entire NT that date to very early in the fourth century (less than 300 years after the actual time the books were written) and over 3000 manuscripts of individual books and passages that predate those two texts! Some of the earliest fragments date within less than 50 years of the original writings. Even critical scholars agree that the New Testament has been passed down with a textual purity in excess of 99.5%.
NOW, as to another oft-repeated error - that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God, or a Deity - again, that is simply untrue. Look at the titles he gave himself - "Son of Man" (you have to be familiar with the OT to realize that title is a Messianic one), the "Bread of Life", the "Light of the World", etc. He accepted worship, and repeatedly asserted His absolute unity with the Father. His statement to the Pharisees - "Before Abraham was, I AM!" - was the clearest possible claim to deity he could have made.

So obviously, Jesus claimed to be God, or the Son of God - which amounts to the same thing. The big question is, WAS HE? Anyone making the statements listed above had to either be a charlatan or a madman, or else he had to be exactly who he claimed to be! So which was it? The empty tomb argues for the latter - which is why skeptics and secularists have been busy for 2000 years trying to discredit it!

Lewis B. Smith (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 4:16 PM)

"There are a few new answers to the historical questions about Christianity's founder"? WOW! I'm amazed how a much-accomplished, respected writer could be wooed so easily by entertaining, speculative hypotheses....to the point he could label them "answers". So could the Easter bunny be Jesus Christ reincarnate?

James Weekley, Greensboro, North Carolina (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 7:54 PM)

Wow, Seems to be a lot of talk about Jesus and whether of not he was real. Well, he was real. It is a matter of choice whether or not you believe He was the Son of God. Where is faith in all of this? A true Christiam does not need proof that Jesus is the Son of God. Now for the tomb of Jesus. Do you realy think they will find the bones of Jesus in a tomb? Of course not. He rose into heaven remember. Mary went to his tomb and found that he was not there, remember. Easter is a special time because it celebrates Christ's resurrection from the grave and his accesion into Heaven. Let's keep it that way and pratice freedon of Religion. We still have that in this country, right?

Scott Putzier, Seattle, WA (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 7:55 PM)

The Universe is what, at current best guess, 13 1/2 billion years old. 13 and a half BILLION years old. Can humans even comprehend that kind of time span? Doubtful. Humans in their current form are only a few hundred thousand years old. We've not been much more than grunting animals for only 10 or 15 thousand years. Both just blinks of an eye is cosmic terms. And you (the devout believer of any religion) claim that you have the answer to God? That your way is the only right way? And that you know in your heart of hearts that you are right and everybody else is wrong? Only the arrogance and folly of humanity would allow such thought. I admire anyone that has deep faith. I'm glad you get something out of it. Don't trash or pity me for not believing, and I won't accuse you of being weak minded.

Tim Ness, Minneapolis, Mn (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 8:23 PM)

L. B. Smith paraphrases C. S. Lewis and the Lewis argument still stands. Either Jesus was a world class kook or he was what he claimed to be. The empty tomb would rationally suggest the latter.

Ed Frank, Sun City Center, Florida (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 8:26 PM)

I have some problems with James Cameron's theory:

(1) Paul was raised as a Pharisee to believe in resurrection. In his letters (which appear to pre-date the Gospels) he insists that he is being persecuted for his belief in resurrection, not his belief in Jesus. If Jesus was alive, married and had a son, why would Paul choose Jesus as his poster child to prove resurrection was a valid concept?

(2) The Gospels are NOT eyewitness testimony. Our earliest surviving mss date to 250 AD, not 50 AD. A good chunk of the Gospels weren't created until after Titus destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The patchwork nature of that story suggests there were earlier versions of the Gospels dating back to 50 Ad or so, but those versions ended with Jesus dying on the cross and the Roman centurion saying "Surely this was a son of theos." (Drawing a parallel to the title used by Augustus Caesar.) In other words, there were no Empty Tomb and NO resurrection appearances in the Gospels BEFORE 75 AD or so.

(3) The Gospels can be dated to the period just after all of the authentic eyewitnesses died.

(4) Jesus was a common name in Palestine. It might have been "against the odds" for a man named Jesus to marry a woman named Mary, but it only had to happen ONCE. If we're comfortable with the odds against our own descent from tiny mammals ("You're one in a million... and so am I!") then I would have to question whether that ossuary belonged to the Jesus of myth and legend.

(4) Jesus never claimed to be a son of theos. If anything, that title was awarded to him in recognition of his death at the hands of a Roman official. The Son of Man was a character from popular fiction of the day, and if Jesus claimed it for himself, it would be like me claiming that I'm a Jedi Knight.

William Hays, Tustin, CA (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 9:35 PM)

James, I admit that I'm fascinated by the 1st-century era and maybe give more of a look than most folks would to issues ranging from the Gnostic gospels to Essene latrines. Not that I always buy into the claims. As I said in the posting, I'm not yet convinced by the claims for the Jesus Family Tomb hypothesis - particularly the statistical name analysis. And I'm definitely not signing onto the Jesus=Paul idea. But in the course of looking through the material, I did hear some things worth checking out about daily life in the 1st century, and that's my point: The interest in things like "The Da Vinci Code" can lead to further study of an important cultural milieu, regardless of what your religious belief (or non-belief) may be.

Alan Boyle (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 9:46 PM)

To begin with, there was a contemporary of the times that mentioned Jesus. Josephus mentioned him in passing while referring the Macabee up-rising in the Holy Land. All religions are based on faith, those who seek answers in science are either unsure of their faith, or have none.

Charles Todd, phoenix, AZ (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 10:03 PM)

So much for a science blog.

I have to listen to religious followers and their BS all the time, from our teachers to our politicians.

This is a science blog. Why don't you try acting like one? Let the religious nuts run their own blog, or make this a religious blog. But don't pretend to be science oriented if you are going to try to appease the religious.

Rod (Sent Saturday, April 07, 2007 11:57 PM)

Does anyone bother going to the source? The debate (if I recall correctly) is over this tomb near Jerusalem of a man named Jesus and his wife, Mary, and whether these two are Jesus of Nazareth, and His wife. I'm willing to take a look at the evidence itself (not someone else's interpretation of it.) The main point is whether the Jesus who was executed on a Roman cross outside Jerusalem is the same one in this tomb. If it is, let's eat, drink and be merry. The main premise of the entire Bible is that this life is temporary, but there is an eternal life of which we can be sure. The promise is given in the person of this same Jesus of Nazareth, who rose from the dead and was seen bodily by many people after His resurrection. If you would, read the 15th Chapter of First Corinthians, so you can see what is being said in context. Somewhere in there you will find the words, "If Christ (that's Jesus of Nazareth) is not risen (from the dead, in the context), your faith is useless..." Please show me the error of my ways by producing the remains of Jesus, for my belief is that He rose from the dead, and that some day in the future, I will, too. The test is given in the very foundational book of the faith, that if Jesus is not risen from the dead, I am a fool, as are all those who believe in His resurrection. This is not a question of 'if I believe He is risen,' it is a question of history: if Jesus is in that tomb outside of Jerusalem, close the churches and party, for your hope is gone. It is also not a question of 'if you believe he is dead in a tomb,' you need to be sure you are correct. If someone, somewhere, has come back from the dead, that must mean there is a power over death. If you aren't willing to investigate that, you're a bigger fool than you think I am for believing you're not going to die someday. At that point, you will need that power. For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever Believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

J J O'Brien, Lancaster, CA (Sent Sunday, April 08, 2007 4:20 AM)

Sorry, Rod ... I'll declare right here and now that this is not a 100 percent science blog. OK, maybe a 95 percent space and science blog, based on the category breakdown of postings over the past year. But some of what I'm interested in has to do with the intersection of science, religion, politics, celebrity and culture. In fact, I might have stolen the name "The Intersection" if Chris Mooney hadn't beaten me to it. ;-) So I'm afraid you'll have to endure that 5 percent or so that touches upon religion ... particularly the reflection of religion in anthropology (human origins), archaeology (ranging from ancient Egypt to the Roman era), biology (evolutionary theory and stem cells), neuroscience (near-death experiences) and so on. Again, sorry about that.

Alan Boyle (Sent Sunday, April 08, 2007 4:33 AM)

W. Hayes said: "In other words, there were no Empty Tomb and NO resurrection appearances in the Gospels BEFORE 75 AD or so. "

WRONG!!! First of all, with the exception of John, there is good evidence all of gospels were completed BEFORE the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Luke's gospel most probably dates to 62 AD, and in his introduction he clearly states "having interviewed those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the word". Paul in I Corinthians 15 discusses the critical importance of the Resurrection to Christian theology, and cites it using an old rabbinical formula "For I passed on to you that which I first received", indicating that he was quoting something he had been taught immediately after his conversion. The list of resurrection witnesses in that passage dates to within two or three years of the actual event.

And even John's gospel, completed sometime around AD 95 or so, was written by the last surviving apostle of Jesus - in the postscript to the book it is written "This is the disciple who witnessed these things, and we know that his witness is true."
So the gospels, by their own claim, DO contain eyewitness testimony, or else they are pure falsehood from the start. Unlikely that a creed which cherishes truthfulness would be build on a lie so convincing that its early adherents were willing to die for it, don't you think?

Have any of you people who delight in trashing the gospels ever actually READ them?

Happy Easter to all!

Lewis B. Smith (Sent Sunday, April 08, 2007 8:17 AM)

I am sitting here watching the snow come down on this quiet morning of FirstFruits (the climax of Passover fulfilled by Yeshua Messiah) I am blessed to have has the wisdom to gather with fellow believers last evening to consider these things; and to have this quiet time to read and reflect on what I know that I know that I know: He died as my sinless Passover Lamb according to the OT scriptures; He was buried as my unleavened Bread of Life, and raised to a glorified eternal state on the third day: the Sign of Jonah: the down-payment, first-fruit promise of my own future resurrection. These other "hypotheses" are a bit like like global-warming:
consensus science driven by popular opinion and pseudo-science. (How do they explain this weather?)

If I am wrong, (no doubt,we are) then what has been lost but a short miserable life lived in a world devoid of meaning or purpose? In the meantime, I will strive to practice true religion: James 1:27. This is what our Creator/Sustainer requires: "to do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with Him". If Jesus is not raised, then WE (all of us) are the most to be pitied among all HIS creatures, for he gave us the reason and intelligence to discern and acknowledge His existence. Like global warming, to be willfully ignorant has serious consequences: The Heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19) (but) the fool says in his heart (and on his blog?) 'there is no God' (Psalm 14) But the righteous (the one justified by faith/obedience) shall be blessed. (Psalm 1) It's not about being "correct", it's about being righteous in His sight. Paul realized he was "wrong" at the end of the 7th chapter of his letter to the Romans, but cries out to the One who can deliver him from this body of death we all live in. Jesus, my risen Saviour, is the answer. he saves wretches like me. There is no condemnation in Him.

Phil 478, Shipshewana, IN (Sent Sunday, April 08, 2007 10:01 AM)

Throughout the world, there are thousands, if not millions, of tombs and I bet there are at least some empty ones, perhaps the remains were destroyed, washed away, crumbled, or simply relocated to another burial place. The absence of remains from a tomb purported to be Jesus' wouldn't necessarilly mean Jesus was resurrected and rose to heaven. Even if they find an empty sarcophagus with the name Jesus written on it, I'd still be skeptical. As was mentioned before, Jesus was a common name 2000 years, occasionally, a sarcophagus or coffin is made, maybe with a name written on it, and then never used, got to put it somewhere, I guess.

As for religion, it shouldn't matter, as long as you don't try to impose your belief, or lack thereof, it's all right. For example, and this is based off some of the comments I read, if I understand Christianity, it's to love thy neighbor, not frighten people with what you believe to be the only way to live. If someone goes through the motions of belief only to escape the possibility of hell, are they truly believing in your God or are they simply boosting the ranks.

SB, Iraq (Sent Sunday, April 08, 2007 12:19 PM)

Alan, thank you for your posting on this subject. I am a Christian who believes in the literal resurrection of Christ, but I think I would be interested in this topic anyway for the same reasons you are. I love to read about space and science, but I'm also fascinated by archaeology and history. I think your point is valid that these controversies do sometimes help us become better informed, although I think the overall motive and effect of shows like "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" is lamentable. Unfortunately, most people never get past the sensationalist headlines and so never get a chance to hear about the good historical evidence that exists for the resurrection of Jesus.

The gospel writers were not disinterested third parties, but this does not automatically mean that their writings are fabrications. Paul's letters are even earlier, and contain largely independent attestations to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Within a few decades Christianity had grown large enough to attract the attention and persecution of the Roman government. Authors like Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus verify the existence of Christians and their faith in the resurrection of Jesus. These and other early sources do not deny that the tomb was empty, and they confirm that the disciples claimed Jesus rose from the dead. From a small band of Jewish peasants grew a movement that rocked the foundations of the Roman empire. An open-minded person must seriously consider that the resurrection of Jesus may be the best explanation for these events.

Bill Hensley, Houston, TX (Sent Sunday, April 08, 2007 12:57 PM)

I see. It’s just fine to believe in an omnipotent spirit being who created the universe and all that is in it in six days. But let someone claim to have seen a UFO or possibly have found the tomb of Christ, and that’s a different story. They must be nuts, right??

Right.

Just another lunatic (Sent Sunday, April 08, 2007 1:39 PM)

Here is some science for you, Rob. Scientists into quantum physics now "believe" that ALL matter in the universe is actually made of "light" particles, that is waves of pacticle light. The 3rd verse of the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible says, "And God, said, Let there be light: and there was light."

Just believe what the inspired Word says, and eventually "science" will prove it so.

Shane Gabbert, Silver City NM (Sent Sunday, April 08, 2007 3:33 PM)

It's easy to see how the gospels changed over time. In Mark 14:71, probably a very early version of the story, "Peter began to curse and swear, "I do not know this Man of whom you speak!" (end)

    If Jesus had brought Lazarus back to life in a tomb, why would Peter deny him?

At Mark 12:35 "while Jesus taught in the Temple, he asked, "Why do the scribes say the Messiah is the Son of David? (quotes Psalm 110) If David calls the Messiah Lord, how is he his Son?" (end) ie, Mark wanted Jesus to be the Messiah without being a descendant of King David, as the prophecies demanded.

   This wasn't good enough, so Luke 3:31 adds that Jesus is a descendant "of Nathan, of David, of Jesse..."

   But then Paul, a Pharisee who NEVER MET JESUS but saw an opportunty to sell his theory of resurrection.

In Romans, Paul wrote "... Jesus Christ who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared Son of God BY his resurrection from the dead..." (In the same way that Julius Caesar was declared a deity by a proclamation of the Roman Senate.)

   Some best-guess dates:

   1 Thessalonians (A.D. 50), Galatians (A.D. 54), Philippians (A.D. 54), Philemon (A.D. 54). First Corinthians (54-55 AD) toward the close of a three-year residency in Ephesus. Romans about 56-57.

   After Paul's letters became popular, the gospel accounts changed. The easiest way to change a gospel was to add more story at the end, and that happened. Several times. Mary met an angel outside the tomb who said Jesus was not there. Then, Jesus himself appeared to Mary. Once you understand how easy it was to add new words at the end of a handprinted codex or scroll, the resurrection appearances can be dated later than 75 AD, long after all the people who actually knew the facts were dead.

Matthew 27:46 "At about the ninth hour Jesus cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?""

   In the original version, all of the eyewitnesses reported that Jesus had been forsaken by God and died.

He died a noble death, as noble as any Emperor, and thus deserved the generic Jewish memorial of "Truly this man was a Son of YHWH."

William Hays, Tustin, CA (Sent Sunday, April 08, 2007 7:14 PM)

Few comments:

1)History - More copies of early Biblical texts than any other ancient book. You don't see people arguing about the veracity of Homer - why the Bible?

2)Who do men say that I am? - The issue here is that Christ did not leave a middle ground. He claimed to be God incarnate, His son. Either he lied, was looney, or was what he claimed. No middle ground, no compromise. If he wasn't what he claimed, then why do anything he said? He'd just be another man. But you can't call him "good" and say that he lied or was looney about something so crucial. (indebted to CS Lewis in this argument).

3)Difference - The reason Christians get tweaked about the whole "historical Jesus" issue is that if he didn't come back to life, then it is all meaningless. A death without a resurrection has no power - heck, that is what the Muslim's have. And the Buddhists. And the Hindus. And just about everyone else - Christianity is different in that it has a death and resurrection.

Dave Misal (Sent Sunday, April 08, 2007 8:36 PM)

Nothing like being late--I want to comment on the first poster.

Frank Rizzo wrote:
"It's 2007, how is it possible we still live amongst people who believe in gods?"

Perhaps because in 2007 (and more) years, no one has come up with a more plausible and understandable reason for why there is a universe?

(Note that my response above does not claim that the reason is correct, although I happen to believe it is. Rather, my claim is that saying God--there, I'll use a capital 'G'--is self-existent makes more sense to most of us than saying that the universe is self-existent.)

Mike Maxwell (Sent Sunday, April 08, 2007 9:27 PM)

How do you debate "facts" when everything we know is based on rewritten rewrites of things written 200 years (in a different language going through its death kibby) before the final copy was inserted into the Bible?

Fact? Let's get real here. Close to actual accounts or not let's not confuse what we know with "facts".

Ever hear of a game called Grape Vine?

I remember when I was in kindergarten our teacher had the whole class sit in a circle then she would whisper something into someone's ear, then they would turn and whisper it to the next person, and around it went until the last person said it out loud. Oddly enough the last person never repeated the original statement correctly.
For instance, Moses never parted the Red Sea...it was the ReEd Sea. So much for factual rewrites.

Eric, Concord, NH (Sent Sunday, April 08, 2007 10:57 PM)

I think this is interesting stuff and I agree that there is some overlap between history and science; namely, archaeology.

Religious fanatics will always threaten the non-believers, because that is what their reference manual teaches them to do. It's the same sort of technique used by used-car salesmen - "Buy this car right now or you'll miss out on a real DEAL!" or "If you die without JESUS, you'll go straight to HELL!"

They do not hold their own beliefs to the same scrutiny they hold the beliefs of others. Christianity is important to us - to our history, our culture, our understanding of ourselves. But it's not "true" in any reasonable meaning of the term. Christians are taught to memorize and repeat that their beliefs are "historic and scientific facts," but this is just like the story with evolution - they don't actually understand what the heck they're talking about - they just memorize some stupid statements and repeat them.

There is perversion of theology known as apologetics. The purpose of apologetics is to defend the truth faith - all of them. There are Islamic apologists, and mormon apologists, and catholic apologists. It's not about discovering truth - it's about winning the argument at any cost, and usually truthfulness is the cost.

I have forced my kids to read parts of the Bible. I think there's some really great stuff in it. There really is some stuff that is true in it, some that is beautiful, and some that is wise. But anyone who would read it as he would any other book would discover that there is a lot that is false, ugly, and stupid as well. (Apologists dishonestly misrepresent this by saying that the bad stuff is perpetrated by those who are disobedient to the God of the bible, GotB.)

The Bible is worth the read and is interesting (at parts). My dilemma is this: imagine you're talking with someone about a really good episode of Star Trek or a cool scene from Lord of the Rings - and suddenly the person you're talking to indicates that they actually believe these fictional stories represent scientific fact or known history. Suddenly you realize you're talking to a child.

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA (Sent Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:20 PM)

so let me get this straight...god created the entire universe over the course of six rotations of the earth on its axis, slowly moving around the sun? how was the earth already rotating and forming days and nights if god was still in the process of creating the universe? something sounds fishy...

Allen, Bible Belt, USA (Sent Monday, April 09, 2007 1:08 AM)

Alan,

I for one am glad you allow discussion about God and about religious beliefs on your science blog. For if we are truly part of a created world, then the scientific laws that govern our existence were created by the Creator, or at least manipulated by the Creator, to form not only our world but all the other galaxies out there in space.

The pursuit of knowledge is a human characteristic that should never be so one sided or dogmatic that the pursuer forgets to sanity check their conclusions.

Atheists use science to discredit God. Some overly zealous religious fanatics use God to discredit science. I think it helps to have a healthy combination and understanding of both. And although I can never make an atheist understand the peace and hope that resides in the hearts of those of us who believe in an existance after our physical death, I do hope that whatever peace and hope they get from science is enough to help them get through their short time here on earth.

Wayne, Alamogordo, NM (Sent Monday, April 09, 2007 10:24 AM)

Every statement made will always meet up with a counter-statement. We can debate and argue with one another. And for as long as we continue to do this the truth will always be hidden from us.

Jesus spoke in parables not to confuse but to inform those who truly believe in Him that He alone has power over life and death, and at the same time hide the truth from those who deny His true identity.

Those who fail to believe in His resurrection will always be searching for His empty tomb.

The Acts of the Apostles reveal that what is being said and done today to disprove the existence of Jesus Christ, also was said and done during the worldly life of Jesus Christ.

Who is Jesus Christ to oneself? We are born individally and we die individually!

John Wilding Montreal, Quebec (Sent Monday, April 09, 2007 10:54 AM)

i am a bit confused.if a tomb is found that could be that of jesus, whether empty or not, arguments could be made either way for its authenticity. If empty that could mean his followers moved the body so as not to be disturbed or destroyed by the romans. But if a body was discovered it would also back up the biblical account that when jesus rose he told his followers do not touch me for i am not of flesh,but only of spirit. Either way who's to say?

dan,west springfield,mass (Sent Monday, April 09, 2007 10:58 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=114539

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG