The Discovery Channel has been running the much-hyped The Lost Tomb of Jesus, which I haven’t seen yet but hope to catch on a rerun. The documentary, produced by James Cameron (Terminator, The Abyss, Titanic), explores a tomb found near Jerusalem which contained ossuaries bearing these inscriptions: Jesus, son of Joseph; Maria; Mariamene (the name by which Mary Magdalene was known), Joseph, Matthew, and Judah, son of Jesus.
The movie’s website says that in the early-First Century, there was a practice of second burial: a body would be wrapped and put into a tomb until a year or so later when the bones would be gathered and placed in an
ossuary (in this case a box made of limestone) and the ossuary put back into the tomb. In this way, tombs could hold the remains of multiple members of a family.
Since the movie ran, I have been reading with interest the material online that is disputing the authenticity and certainty of the movie’s content: That these were all very common names and that the “Mariamene” that appears on one box is actually two different names, each inscribed in a different handwriting. And it goes on. What is interesting is that many of those offering to discredit the findings seem to be more interested in archaeology than Christianity.
Central to Christian beliefs is that Jesus arose from the dead, emerged from the tomb, and proceeded to appear to hundreds of people before ascending into Heaven before their eyes. Discovering the bones of Jesus would disprove these eyewitness accounts, expose the resurrection as a hoax, and debunk Jesus as the Messiah. All of Christianity hinges on Jesus’ power over death—his ability to give us life eternal. Without the resurrection, the prophecies are not fulfilled and Jesus is not The Way.
We’ll never be able to prove that these are the bones of Jesus. There is no DNA to match. (Though, I wonder if anybody checked the wrist and ankle bones for signs of nail marks.) Of course, we’ll never be able to disprove it for the same reason.
But anybody who has pursued a relationship with Jesus knows very well that he is alive and is the Messiah. Belief in Jesus being who he says he is is a result of spiritual experience, not physical proof.
Spiritual experience aside, common sense answers to a couple of questions will speak volumes on behalf of Jesus’ authenticity. First, is it really possible that 2000 years ago the son of a carpenter and his small group of nobodies could concoct a story and pull off a deception that would have millions worshipping him today?
Others in the Bible have performed miracles and healings. Moses parted the sea and caused water to gush from a rock in the middle of the desert. Elijah raised a boy from the dead. It was all possible because these men were filled with the power of God. Miracles happen only through the power of God. If Jesus were a deceiver, he would not have had the power of God; his miracles would not have happened. Without the miracles, what would draw crowds of ten-thousand to hear Jesus speak? Even if Jesus were the most charismatic person ever to have lived and the disciples were all borderline insane but master storytellers, is the average person going to believe them without seeing some proof? There is just no way, in an age without mass communications, when most were illiterate, that Jesus could have garnered the kind of fame necessary for people to rally behind him, and the religious community to consider him a threat, if he had nothing substantial to offer.
Even so, let’s say they were successful in pulling off this hoax. To what end? Where is the gain for any of these men? At some point, it fast becomes a losing proposition. Wouldn’t any reasonable person throw in the towel and say, “Just kidding,” before the first nail was driven in? So maybe Jesus wasn’t reasonable. Maybe he was a lunatic. Maybe he was the
Jim Jones or
David Koresh of his day, willing to die to further his deception.
But what about the other guys? After Jesus is dead and sealed in the tomb and doesn’t come out, what is their motive for continuing the story? After witnessing the cruel beating and the brutal crucifixion, why would Peter not go into hiding instead of subjecting himself to the same thing? And Stephen? Why would he not flee instead of continuing the story and winding up being stoned to death. As they are lobbing rocks at him, he continues to proclaim Jesus as Lord and asks forgiveness for his stoners.
Maybe Peter and Stephen were total nut jobs, too. But what about Saul? He oversees Stephen’s stoning, but then later changes his name to Paul and joins the other team, only to spend most of the rest of his life being beaten in prison. How does that make sense?
Forget the major players for just a minute. The Christian church was persecuted for hundreds of years after the resurrection. As a father, why would I teach my daughter and son something that could surely get them killed unless I witnessed something—something like Jesus walking around with the nail marks in his hands and feet—something so amazing that the only possible explanation is that Jesus is the Son of God? Otherwise, wouldn’t I act to save my children’s lives? You can’t possibly suggest that the entire population was insane.
It is simply not possible that a hoax of this magnitude could have been engineered. It makes no sense that those involved would have continued to perpetrate the fraud after Jesus’ death. It makes even less sense that those not involved would risk their families’ lives by continuing to tell a story they weren’t completely convinced of. This story would never have lasted the 300 years of Roman persecution if it weren’t true.
The most logical answer is the simplest one—just as it’s written: Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, who lived among us, was crucified and died, but arose from the dead on the third day, and still lives today.
