Five Before Chaos

…may actually have been found, in an archaeological site in the Holy Land.

Although the evidence contained in the film and book is hardly definitive, it is compelling. Inscribed in Hebrew, Latin or Greek, six boxes — taken from a 2,000-year-old cave discovered in March, 1980, during excavation for a housing project in Talpiyot, south of Jerusalem — bear the names: Yeshua (Jesus) bar Yosef (son of Joseph); Maria (the Latin version of Miriam, which is the English Mary); Matia (the Hebrew equivalent of Matthew, a name common in the lineage of both Mary and Joseph); Yose; (the Gospel of Mark refers to Yose as a brother of Jesus); Yehuda bar Yeshua, or Judah, son of Jesus; and in Greek, Mariamne e mara — meaning ‘Mariamne, known as the master.’ According to Harvard professor Francois Bovon, interviewed in the film, Mariamne was Mary Magdalene’s real name.

Nothing in the film or book challenges traditional Christian dogma regarding the resurrection. But it could pose a problem for those that believe Jesus’ ascension, 40 days after the resurrection, was both physical and spiritual. And, if further DNA testing were to link Jesus and Yose with Mary, it would call into question the entire doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

I have mixed feelings about this. Most importantly, one cannot rule out fraud, as the issue of the James ossuary illustrates. But if it turns out to be true, what will be the implications? This is basically saying that Jesus got married and had a child, didn’t rise from the dead, and wasn’t born of a virgin. And I realize many of you reading this are probably thinking, ‘Yeah, it’s not like we believed those things anyway, what’s the big deal?’

That’s what I’m trying to figure out. There’s pretty good odds that this could be for real, as Newsweek reports:

To calculate the odds, Mr. Jacobovici took the data to University of Toronto mathematician Dr. Andrey Feuerverger. Factoring in the commonality of these names in first-Century Israel, Dr. Feuerverger puts the odds of this tomb not belonging to Jesus and his family at one in 600.

Another estimate, commissioned by Dr. James Tabor, chair of the department of religion studies at the University of North Carolina, puts the odds at one in 42 million. “If you took the entire population of Jerusalem at the time,” says Dr. Taber, “and put it in a stadium, and asked everyone named Jesus to stand up, you’d have about 2,700 men. Then you’d ask only those with a father named Joseph and a mother named Mary to remain standing. And then those with a brother named Yose and a brother named James. Statistically, you end up with one person.”

But one can tell, even in the reporting, how much of a bombshell this could potentially be:

Good sense, and the Bible, still the best existing historical record of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, argue against Jacobovici’s claims. All four Gospels say that Jesus was crucified on the eve of the Sabbath; all four say that the tomb was empty when the disciples woke on Sunday morning. “The New Testament is very clear on this,” says Alan Segal, religion professor at Barnard College. “Jesus was put in a tomb that didn’t belong to him and then he rose and there was nothing left.”

“Good sense and the Bible?” Is Newsweek implying that doubting the historical accuracy of the Bible is somehow ‘bad sense’? Are they implying that the resurrection is actually ‘part of the historical record’, as in ‘actually happened?” So, if this story gets legs (as I’m sure it might be tough, considering how many reporters and news orgs won’t want to touch this), be aware of the subtle spin that implies that the Bible is somehow accurate in all of this.

It will be interesting to see how true believers react to this. If they try to use it as proof of Jesus’ existence, they’re also going to have to accept that the supernatural stuff was a bunch of bunk. But it’s not like that particular group tends to be swayed by ‘facts’. They don’t require evidence to believe what they do in the first place, so they might just ignore it. If it does turn out to be true, it’s another argument to use against the literalists. I’ll definitely be keeping an eye on this one.

UPDATE: More here.

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

Trackback URI | Comments RSS