Tomb of Jesus Archives - Page 7 of 9

The Battles Within the Holy Sepulcher Church

If you’ve ever wondered what the background is for the fistfights, the unmoving ladder, or the eternal state of disrepair of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, this essay by Raymond Cohen at The Bible and Interpretation is well worth reading. Cohen goes back to the Crusader period to explain where the “Status Quo” came from and how it has evolved over the centuries. The following paragraphs may stir your interest, and if the article itself does not satisfy, you can pick up Cohen’s recent book, Saving the Holy Sepulchre: How Rival Christians Came Together to Rescue their Holiest Shrine (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

Out of communion for centuries, six ancient churches are represented today at the Holy Sepulchre by communities of monks. The three major communities administering the Holy Sepulchre, the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholics—represented by the Franciscan Order—and Armenian Orthodox have their own chapels and share common areas, which include the stone of unction, the edicule containing Christ’s tomb, and surrounding paving. Two minor communities, the Coptic Orthodox and Syrian Orthodox, have rights of usage, but no say in the running of the church. The tiny Ethiopian Orthodox community, living on the roof, has no rights in the Anastasis….
In some respects, the Status Quo functions like a railway timetable, specifying for every day of the ecclesiastical year the time and place of services and processions conducted by the communities in public areas of the church. It also acts as a sort of property register, detailing possession of every stone and nail. Not a carpet can be laid, a candle lit, or a step swept unless it is the custom….
In the end, an inoffensive compromise design was agreed upon by church leaders and inaugurated in January 1997, enabling the scaffolding disfiguring the rotunda to come down. However, the restoration was unfinished: The edicule was left untouched, visibly disintegrating and only held together by steel bands; paving throughout the church was cracked and shabby; the electrical and sewage systems badly needed renovation, as did the malodorous public latrines….

You can read the whole thing here.

Facade of the Church the Holy Sepulcher, with ladder allegedly placed for repairs that were never agreed upon by church authorities.

Tagged Jerusalem, Tomb of Jesus

The Jesus Tomb Unmasked

I have received early word that Expedition Bible has just released The Jesus Tomb Unmasked. As you might expect from the title, this film reveals many of the falsehoods and distortions that were part of the recent sensational “discovery” of the burial place of Jesus, his wife, and his child in Talpiot, south of ancient Jerusalem.

The DVD can be purchased from Amazon for $7 (free shipping) and/or watched for free online. You can also view a trailer. The movie features some great footage and interviews with a number of knowledgeable scholars in Jerusalem, including Shimon Gibson, Stephen Pfann, and others. This movie deserves a much wider circulation than the $3 million production that this one refutes.

Tagged Jerusalem, Tomb of Jesus

The "Jesus Tomb": One Year Later

A well-written review of the controversy about the “Jesus’ Tomb” has been published on National Review. The author is Thomas F. Madden, a professor of history at St. Louis University, and he covers the events since the “discovery” last year in an engaging and humorous way. The article begins:

A year ago the Discovery Channel delivered a cheery Easter message to America’s Christians: Jesus is dead – and we found his tomb.
After much fanfare and hype, The Lost Tomb of Jesus aired on March 4, 2007 to an audience of 4.1 million viewers. The documentary, which was directed by the journalist Simcha Jacobovici (better known as the host of The Naked Archaeologist) and produced by James Cameron (better known as the director of Titanic and True Lies), revealed that the Biblical account of Jesus’ burial in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea and subsequent Resurrection was just wishful thinking. The truth, they claimed, was that the deceased Jesus was brought to his family tomb in Jerusalem, where he remained good and dead.
And Jacobovici and Cameron had the facts to prove it. For example, they revealed a stone ossuary (a repository for bones) that just possibly might have the words “Jesus, son of Joseph” on it. (The handwriting is poor, so scholars disagree on the actual inscription.) Another of the ossuaries has the name “Mary” on it. And another one is inscribed “Mariamene e Mara,” which — if you squint your eyes just right — looks like “Mariamne,” which was used by a writer more than 200 years later to refer to Mary Magdalene. Get it? That fits perfectly with the chronicle of ancient wisdom known as The Da Vinci Code, which asserts that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married! Even more startling, one of the other ossuaries bears the name “Judah, son of Jesus,” who must have been the son of Jesus and Mary (obviously born before Mary rushed off to have her daughter in Gaul, as The Da Vinci Code attests).

The rest is here.

HT: Joe Lauer

Tagged Tomb of Jesus

Jesus Tomb Hoax: The Trailer

The discovery of the “tomb of Jesus” began with a sensational film which was met by universal condemnation by scholars. One problem, though, is that the statements of scholars on blogs doesn’t have the reach or emotional impact of a big budget movie. Another production company now aims to set the record straight – with dramatic footage and interviews with the same scholars – but with a completely different conclusion: the “tomb of Jesus” is a hoax. The trailer for the movie has just been released.

Tagged Tomb of Jesus

A Response to the "Jesus Tomb" Theory

A new book on the “Jesus Tomb” is out: Buried Hope or Risen Savior? The Search for the Jesus Tomb, edited by Charles L. Quarles. The publisher, Broadman and Holman, describes the contents:

Buried Hope or Risen Savior? argues for the credibility of Jesus Christ’s resurrection, engaging the issue in relation to the recent “Jesus Family Tomb” claims that continue making headlines around the world. Among the contributors, Steve Ortiz (professor of Biblical Archaeology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) discusses the general background of this type of tomb and the archaeology of the Talpiot tomb site. Craig Evans (New Testament professor at Acadia Divinity College) writes about ossuaries and tomb inscriptions. Richard Bauckham (New Testament professor at Scotland’s University of St. Andrews) gives the history of Jewish names, extrabiblical writings, and Mary Magdalene. William Dembski (SWBTS research professor in Philosophy) discusses the statistical ev idence for the names found on the Talpiot tomb to have been “Jesus.” Mike Licona (North American Mission Board director of Apologetics and Interfaith Evangelism) responds to claims that finding the bones of Jesus would not disprove Christ’s resurrection. Gary Habermas (Apologetics & Philosophy chair at Liberty University) summarizes the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus. And Darrell Bock (New Testament professor at Dallas Theological Seminary) addresses the importance of the resurrection and how Christians should respond to challenges upon their faith.

On his blog, Justin Taylor notes the chapter by Ortiz, “The Use and Abuse of Archaeological Interpretation,” and he provides this extract from pages 29-30:

The scripts for all of these amateur portrayals are similar and follow the same basic 10 points: 1. The prevailing hypothesis affirmed by the consensus of the scholarly community is wrong. 2. The “discoverer” is not a trained archaeologist but is self-taught, and he knows the “true story” that all others have overlooked. 3. An expedition is planned for one season, and (lo and behold) at the first attempt they find exactly what they are looking for. 4. This is all documented while a camera crew happens to be filming the discovery. 5. The process is “detective work” that has been missed by the academic community, and they (amateur archaeologists) are the ones who are able to unravel the mystery or solve the problem that has perplexed the experts. 6. No new data is presented, only a reworking of previously published data. A corollary is that not all the data is consulted. 7. Upon the presentation of the discovery, the scholarly community scoffs at the find, and it is claimed that there is a secret monopoly by those in power to suppress the information. 8. The amateurs sensationalize the “discovery” by claiming that it is so revolutionary that it will change our way or thinking and our lifestyle. 9. The old “discovery” is presented to the media as a “brand-new” discovery. 10. Usually a book or movie comes out within a week of the “new” discovery. The presentation of The Lost Tomb of Jesus follows the above script.

Tagged Tomb of Jesus

Tomb of Jesus, Last Time

About a week ago there was a press release from the Third Princeton Symposium which clearly had Simcha Jacobovici’s hands on it (he’s the guy he made the multi-million dollar video-claim in the first place). Though I had no personal knowledge of the conference, I could smell deceit (well, it wouldn’t be the first time he tried to pull a fast one), so I ignored it here. Others did not (including JPost), so if you were one of those who bought his line that most scholars thought there’s a good chance that Jesus’ tomb was in fact discovered, you should be aware of the scholars that are denying his claim.

The two places to go are the NT Gateway Weblog for a statement by a dozen scholars, and The View from Jerusalem blog by Stephen Pfann that includes the individual statements of other scholars.

In short, there may be a handful of scholars who think that this might be the tomb; the rest of the scholars are rushing to deny the possibility and denounce the misleading press release. For the record, many scholars don’t accept a bodily resurrection of Jesus, but they just don’t think the evidence that this is the tomb is compelling. Hopefully, I’ll never need to say anything else about it here.

Update (1/26): The Jerusalem Post has a lengthy editorial on the conference. The Biblical Archaeology Society has compiled a list of statements from various scholars.

Update (1/28): Organizers of the symposium, have posted a statement on the Princeton Theological Seminary website. They note that the conference papers will be published in 2 volumes by Eerdmans.

Update (2/14): James Charlesworth has an article on “Rebutting Sensational Claims Concerning a Symposium in Jerusalem” on the SBL site. Charlesworth was the symposium organizer and moderator.

Tagged Jerusalem, Tomb of Jesus