The Tomb of Jesus?

 

Dr. Robert C. Newman

Emeritus Professor of New Testament & Christian Evidences

Biblical Theological Seminary

 

There has been a good deal of hype in the last few days regarding the discovery of the alleged tomb of Jesus.  The tomb, excavated in Talpiot, a suburb of Jerusalem in 1980, included a number of ossuaries, several of which were inscribed with names that are suggestive of Jesus and his family.  Here we wish to analyze various alternative explanations of the data.

 

Alternatives:

 

1. Tomb of Jesus.  The tomb really is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, the alleged Messiah.  He died but did not rise from the grave.

 

Pro: The name fit is impressive.  See the discussion by proponents of this view.

 

Con: Given the immediate belief in JesusÕ resurrection and the prominence of JesusÕ family in the early Christian movement, is it really believable that they would have a bone-box in their family tomb with his name on it?  Their wealth and prominence would have been inextricably linked both to JesusÕ messianic claims and to belief in his resurrection!  A first century fraud in which a Jesus-family tomb was invented by opponents of Christianity would make more sense.  It should also be noted that deciphering the ossuary inscription as ÒJesusÓ has been questioned, and that ÒHanunÓ is a possibility.

 

2. Tomb of JesusÕ Family.  The tomb is the tomb of some relatives of Jesus, but he was never buried there.

 

Pro: The name fit is equally impressive.  Since Jesus had a brother named Jose(ph), it would require only that this brother named a son of his ÒJesusÓ to explain all the ossuary inscriptions.

 

Con: We have no evidence that JesusÕ brother Jose(ph) named one of his sons ÒJesus.Ó

 

3. Tomb of Some Other Family.  The tomb has no connection with Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Pro:  Though the name fit is impressive, the names are really rather common ones in the period. (The Loeb edition of the works of Josephus identifies 21 different individuals named Jesus in its indices.)  There is no evidence in the tomb that tells us the relationship of the names on the various ossuaries; thus there is no reason to believe that the ÒJosephÓ on one ossuary is the husband of the ÒMaryÓ on another, or that the ÒMariamneÓ on one ossuary is the wife of the ÒJesus son of JosephÓ on another.  Besides, Jesus adoptive father Joseph has apparently already died before JesusÕ ministry begins.  Why would he be buried in Jerusalem when the family was living in Nazareth?

 

Con: Only the name fit can count against this, as there were many thousands of people who lived and died in Jerusalem during the several generations that bone boxes were used in Jewish burial procedures.

 

Summary:

 

There is excellent evidence that JesusÕ resurrection was believed from the very beginning of the Christian church and that the opponents of Christianity had no better argument than that JesusÕ disciples stole his body from the tomb while the guards delegated by Roman and Jewish authority to keep any such thing from happening were asleep.  See the various discussions by Gary R. Habermas, for instance.  This would hardly be the case if JesusÕ family tomb included a bone-box with his name on it and his bones in it!

 

The fulfillment in Jesus of the biblical predictions concerning the Messiah is quite impressive.  See my discussions in various PowerPoint talks on the IBRI website at www.ibri.org, and in the books Robert C. Newman, ed., The Evidence of Prophecy and John Warwick Montgomery, ed., Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question.