Recently there has been minor uproar over the publicity leading up to the TV documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus. This documentary is to discuss a 26 year old archaeological dig and the subsequent investigation. The archaeological dig unearthed a burial cave in which 10 ossuaries (boxes used to keep the bones of departed ancestors) were found. On 6 of the ossuaries were inscriptions. The inscriptions included one with the name “Mary”, one that said “Jesus, son of Joseph”, one that said “Mariamene e mara” and another that said “Judah, son of Jesus”. They speculate that "Yose" is a nickname for "Joseph" and "Matthew" may have been a member of Mary Magdalene's family. The producers of the documentary, which includes James Cameron, director of the movie, Titanic, make the claim that these are the ossuaries of Jesus Christ, his mother, Mary, his wife, Mary Magdalene, and a son Judah. They make no claim about the other six ossuaries). What is their evidence in support of this conjecture? (1) Burial caves were often family affairs in which the bones from several generations would be stored. (2) Mariamene e mara was a name that is associated with Mary Magdalene. (3) The ossuaries have been reliably dated to the 1st century CE. (4) DNA analysis suggests that the person whose bones were in the “Jesus, son of Joseph” ossuary was not genetically related to the person whose bones were in the "Mariamene e mara” ossuary. This is consistent with Jesus and Mary Magdalene having been husband and wife. (5) Over the burial cave was a carved symbol that has been found associated with other early Christian artifacts. (6) A statistical analysis suggests that the odds are 600 to 1 in favor of it being the burial site for Jesus Christ. I am an atheist. I have argued long and hard against many claims of Christianity. If this burial site were truly the burial site of Jesus, it would go a long way to discrediting Christianity. The remains of Jesus’s bones in the ossuary would conclusively indicate that he was not bodily resurrected as Christians claim. Without the resurrection, there is no reason to believe in Jesus’s divinity. In short, I would find it a welcome confirmation of my belief that at a fundamental level religions in general and Christianity in particular are badly flawed. However, despite the evidence presented above Christians have been vociferous in their skepticism. And you know what? I applaud them for it. I think they are RIGHT to be so. The data presented above doesn’t make me believe the claim in the least. First, “Joseph”, “Mary”, “Jesus”, and “Judah” are among the most common names of 1st century Jerusalem Jews. Second, the derivation of Mary Magdalene’s name has been the subject of controversy. Many names have been associated with Mary Magdalene and "Mariamene e mara" is not on the short list. Third, thousands of 1st Century ossuaries have been found. Fourth, DNA analysis is not as straight-forward as one may think. Many people have handled the bone boxes in the 26 years since they have been discovered. Everybody sheds DNA-containing cells. Without any information on how the DNA was isolated it is a likely (perhaps moreso) that whatever DNA was sequenced was from someone else who contaminated it. Even if it weren’t, just because some burial caves were family affairs, doesn’t mean they all were. It is highly likely that the “Jesus, son of Joseph” never even knew the “Mariamene e mara”. Fifth, just because the symbol has been associated with other early Christian artifacts doesn’t mean it was Christian. It could just be a geometrical pattern people of the day thought attractive. Even if it were Christian, when was it carved on the burial cave? There were no Christians prior to Jesus, so it is unlikely that a Christian symbol would have been carved on it at the time of his death. So without having seen the documentary, none of the positive evidence seems to withstand scrutiny. What about negative evidence? Is there evidence against the hypothesis? I think there is. For one thing, Jesus was from a poor family. Why does his family rate a burial cave? The bible says that he was buried in the tomb of a well-to-do Jew, Joseph of Arithmathea. If the tomb was that of Joseph of Arithmathea then why is there no ossuary with his name on it? For another thing, ossuaries were normally kept in the family’s homeland. Jesus was from Galilee in the north, not Jerusalem. If he were married and with a family, it would not have been wise for them to hang around Jerusalem after he was crucified. So to the Christian, I say congratulations on your skepticism. You are right to be skeptical. That is the way everyone SHOULD be when they hear reports like this. But … why do you do it only when the conclusion is one you find distasteful? You SHOULD be just as skeptical when the result is one you find appealing. In fact, a case could be made for being MORE skeptical when the result is one you find appealing, simply because there is a natural tendency to accept it. Let me use another example to illustrate. In 2002, there was another major uproar over a 1st century ossuary. This one had the inscription “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” on it. The inference that was drawn from the inscription was that the bone box of James the Just, the supposed brother of Jesus. This was no threat to Christianity. No claim could be made that Jesus’s bones were inside, so the resurrection was not threatened. Furthermore, if it were truly the burial box of the brother of Jesus Christ, it would be the first archaeological evidence that Jesus actually existed. There was a HUGE rush to validate the box. Noted paleographer Andre LeMaire, authenticated it. He did so even though the box itself was found in the private collection of Oded Golan who had only a hazy recollection of where he had purchased it from. Herschel Shanks (of the influential Biblical Archaeological Review) and Ben Witterington (a noted evangelical scholar) rushed a book out praising the discovery and its significance as proof of the biblical Jesus. Even liberal scholar, John Dominic Crossan, called it the most important biblical archaeological find in history. Soon however, another paleographer described abnormalities visible to her just from photographs of the inscription. She was dismissed because she hadn’t examined the ossuary itself. Next, Oded Golan was found to be quite the shady character. He was trained as an engineer, but didn’t work as an engineer. He seemed to make his money by buying and selling biblical artifacts. In fact, he had sold two others of significance that he claimed to have happened upon. Then Golan was found to have in his possession just the tools needed to forge the inscription on the ossuary. Herschel Shanks decried the character assassination of this “godly” man and defended him to the hilt. Next, the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) did some tests and showed that the patina of the letters had been artefically applied recently, not naturally over a 2,000 year time span. Shanks advertised in the Biblical Archaeological Review for some credentialed scientists to show how such a patina could come about naturally … and two or three did. Finally, the Israelis found Golan’s co-conspirator who admitted his involvement. He along with Golan and a couple of others were tried and found guilty of forging the inscriptions on not only the James ossuary but several other noted biblical artifacts as well. Where was the skepticism there? The box had no provenance (that means nobody knew where it came from). “Joseph” and “Jesus” were still some of the most common names for the time, and “James” was not far behind. Only one other ossuary had an inscription invoking a brotherly relationship. Why didn’t this seem strange to the experts? Why this rush to acceptance? Why the tenacious defense? Because they WANTED to believe it. It was reassuring to their faith. The whole affair has cast an umbrella of suspicion over all unprovenanced biblical antiquities. It has (deservedly) besmirched the reputation of several noted biblical scholars who fell for the ruse. That is the price one pays when one goes out of their way to fool themselves. It may well be that James Cameron and company are atheists who have gone out of their way to fool themselves too. I suspect that to be the case. But I don’t yet know it. I will wait for the documentary to come out and take a close look at the evidence once it actually presented. I will do like what I do to evidence presented in favor of Jesus, I’ll judge it skeptically. I’ll ask myself not only if the evidence fits the hypothesis, but also are there alternative explanations that are as likely or more so than the one advocated by the documentary. I’ll ask myself, "What doesn’t fit?" and "Is what doesn’t fit of importance?" I suspect I’ll come away disappointed. I suspect I’ll end up not believing because I doubt if they will answer the objections I have already come up with. But it is much better to be disappointed than it is to be fooled by your own hand. Regards, Darwin’s Beagle