Simon of Cyrene : Called to Carry The Cross

March 18, 2007

Luke 23:26; Mark 15; Matthew 27

The story is often told about Jackie Robinson the first African American to play major league baseball. He faced jeering crowds in every stadium. While playing one day in his home stadium in Brooklyn, he committed an error. The fans began to ridicule him. During a delay in the game Robinson stood at second base, humiliated, his head down and began to sob. The fans jeered and threw things at him. But about that time, Brooklyn’s shortstop Pee Wee Reese, came over and stood next to him. He put his arm around Jackie Robinson and faced the crowd and as they stood there the fans grew quiet. Robinson later said, “That arm around my shoulder saved my career.”

Today I want to look at the story of a man mentioned briefly in the gospels: Simon of Cyrene. He also comes and puts an arm around Jesus. He’s the third face around the cross we’re looking at. Two weeks ago we saw Pontius Pilate, then last week was Peter and next week we’ll look at the apostle John. Simon was the man who was called to carry the cross when Jesus could no longer carry it himself. Jesus was alone and the crowds were screaming at him and jeering him. And Simon an innocent bystander put his arm around Jesus, gathered him up from the ground and helped him carry his cross.

Simon ’s role is brilliantly developed in the movie The Passion of the Christ. In the movie we see Simon putting his arm around Jesus and together they carry the cross to Golgotha. And Simon says to Jesus at one point, “Its not far, we’re almost there.”

THE STORY

Everything we know for certain about Simon is found in just three verses. In Matthew chapter 27 we see the soldiers of the Roman guard leading Jesus out of Pilate ’s palace to Golgotha where they are going to crucify him. And in verse 32 of Matthew ’s gospel, the Bible says, “As they were going out they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.” In Luke 23:26 it says “As the led Jesus away they seized Simon of Cyrene who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.”

And finally Mark 15:21 says “A certain man from Cyrene, Simon the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country and they forced him to carry the Cross.” Mark’s readers must have known who Alexander and Rufus were, and there is a Rufus mentioned in Romans 16:13, a leader in the church in Rome. It may have been the same person.

It was customary that a man condemned to be crucified carry his own cross to the place of his crucifixion. There is something disturbing about a person having to carry the instrument of his death. It is like someone carrying the rope that is going to hang him, or someone sharpening the ax that will chop off his own head. Jesus is not allowed to have a moment of peace before his death, because the reminder of his death is, literally, on his shoulders.

THE VIA DOLOROSA

The path that Jesus walked from Pilate ’s palace to Calvary is known as the Via Dolorosa or the “way of suffering.” You can visit the Via Dolorosa today in Jerusalem where it is tradition says Jesus carried his cross. It is a narrow path, enclosed by stonewalls on both sides. The Via Dolorosa would have been crowded with people that day. Jerusalem would swell to from 40,000 to 250,000 people at Passover. The Roman soldiers would have had to separate the crowds to create a narrow path for Jesus and the criminals who would be taking this journey to the place of crucifixion.

In that crowd was Simon of Cyrene. The Bible says he had just come in from the country. He had come from Cyrene, a large city in North Africa where many Jewish people lived. Simon made the pilgrimage to the holy city during the time of the Passover to celebrate and make his sacrifice at the temple. The trip to Jerusalem would have been a long and difficult one for Simon. 855 miles by land, 57 days to walk. 35 days by camel or horse… 723 miles by sea at least 6 days of sailing, plus 1 to 2 days over land. For Simon this was perhaps a once in a lifetime journey. It might have even been a planned for years. His family was probably with him. Simon probably got lost as he entered Jerusalem. He may not have known his way around the city and got caught in pedestrian traffic. He accidentally found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. When Simon had come to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover little did he know he would end up meeting God’s Passover Lamb!

Roman soldiers had the authority to conscript any citizen into temporary service. Simon was like a kid in the classroom who doesn’t want to be called on by his teacher. Imagine him, eyes lowered trying to be inconspicuous. But at random the soldiers seize him from the crowd and force him to carry the cross.

WHY WAS SIMON RELUCTANT?

There are a few reasons why Simon might have been reluctant to carry this cross. For one it was A FILTHY TASK. Jesus’ sweat and blood would have drenched the cross by the time Simon picked it up. Imagine the blood of Jesus running all over Simon. It was also A DIFFICULT TASK. Someone suggested that the crossbeam weighed somewhere between 200 and 300 pounds! Imagine carrying a 300 pound beam a mile or so. It was not pleasant. I am sure that Simon had a sore back after this. It was also AN EMBARRASSING TASK. Only harden criminals carried a cross. It was a sign of guilt and depravity. Simon was a law-abiding citizen and in the movie he makes it known to everyone and the Roman soldiers that he was not a criminal. It was an INCONVENIENT TASK. Simon didn’t come to Jerusalem to carry a cross. He had just spent 50 days walking to Jerusalem and he gets there and he has to lug a 300-pound cross through the streets of a strange city. This was supposed to be a memorable time for him and now he is inconvenienced by this disgusting, bloody criminal who is so disabled he can’t even walk.

CALLED TO CARRY THE CROSS

When I watched The Passion of the Christ the scene with Simon of Cyrene I was reminded of Jesus’ words in Mark 8:34-35.

If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.

Jesus lays down a requirement for his followers. In fact, he implies that if anybody does not take his cross and follow him he is not worthy of him and cannot be his disciple. I love what John Stott says about this: “One might say, every Christian is both a Simon of Cyrene and a Barabbas. Like Barabbas we escape the cross, for Jesus died in our place. Like Simon of Cyrene we carry the cross for he calls us to take it up and follow him.”

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO CARRY THE CROSS?

What does it mean to take up the cross? It means simply to DENY SELF. “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself.” To deny oneself means to turn away from the idolatry of self-centeredness. It means to die to self. Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it like this, “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” In a real sense, Jesus calls you to a crucifixion: your crucifixion. When we follow him, we are to crucify ourselves, our desires, our possessions, our reputations. It means I no longer live for me. What I want no longer matters. When you carry a cross it is a sign that an execution is taking place: your execution.

Paul wrote in Galatians 5:24, “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its selfish passions and desires.”

WE ARE SELF CENTERED

Do you know who I have found to be some of the most self centered and selfish people in the world? Christians. I hear Christians say, “Well, I didn’t like the church service today, the music didn’t fit my taste.” “I don’t like that church, the pastor didn’t say hello to me.” “I don’t want to work with children, I want to go to worship, I need to be feed.” “I can’t believe that I wasn’t asked to sing or speak in the service. I never get asked.” “I’ve served that church as a leader for years and no one has ever thanked me. I just want to be appreciated.”

Let me ask you a thought-provoking question? Why did you come to here today? Did you come for yourself or did you come for God? Did you come to get something or give something? We even come for selfish reasons. Folks, if there is one lesson in life Jesus Christ wants to teach you is that IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU.

WHY IS IT SO HARD TO DENY SELF?

Why is it so difficult to deny self? For one is it difficult because it goes CONTRARY TO WHAT SOCIETY TEACHES. We live in a self-worshipping culture. 2 Timothy 3:1-2 says (I’m paraphrasing), "In the last days, life will very difficult. People will love only themselves and their money." It is easy to get sucked into the self-centered ways of this world.

Self-denial is also difficult because it goes contrary to our INHERENT SINFUL NATURE. We are born with an innate desire for immediate self-gratification. One of the first words a child learns is “mine.” Parents you don’t have to teach your children to be selfish. It’s ingrained, inherited from Adam. How can children be so self-centered? Aren’t they innocent? No, there is something inside all of us that gravitates to self-centeredness.

HOW TO DENY SELF?

Well how do we take up the cross of self-denial? How do we begin to release this selfish ambition we all have. Let me give you four ways.

All of us came up through school knowing that there are four things you do in math: add, subtract, multiply and divide. I think you can take those same four things and use them to grow spiritually and to learn real self-denial and God-dependence.

First, ADD. The first step in taking up your cross is…taking up your cross! The image of Simon of Cyrene is that of picking up that crossbeam. So also, when you set your face to following Jesus, there are some things to add to your life. You add worship and study and prayer and fellowship.

And as time goes on, we keep adding. You don’t stop adding. There are new disciplines to bring into our lives. Giving is a spiritual discipline designed to make us less materialist. Add that one. Add evangelism as a spiritual discipline: the planned intention of sharing your faith in Jesus with others. Add rejoicing. That’s a great spiritual discipline that makes us more God-centered as less circumstance centered.

Second SUBTRACT. Take something out of your life that serves as a barrier to spiritual growth. A lot of people have heard of “giving up something for Lent” like meat or chocolate. What’s the idea? Well, there are a lot of things that can serve as spiritual barriers. We can get addicted to all kinds of things. The first of the Ten Commandments warns us “You shall have no gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3) Sometimes that’s easier said than done. TV, your job, your boyfriend, time spent “online” can all crowd out God.

One Biblical practice that is all about “subtract” is fasting. Fasting is a period of abstention or self-denial. We usually think of fasting in terms of food and that is it primary manifestation. But fasting teaches you to deny self. It teaches you to put your desires on the backburner. It is an exercise not in self-discipline as much as in self-denial. Fasting puts things into context: do I hunger and thirst more for God or for lunch? There is a power that comes from real Biblical fasting. The real purpose of Lenten practices is to teach Christians self-denial. It comes from a deep down yearning to deny self and remind yourself that in order to follow Christ you must take up the cross. I think Lent is a good and proper exercise for Christians as long as we don’t make it a test of spirituality.

The third is MULTIPLY. I already mentioned evangelism, but let me mention it again. God’s will is that believers be spiritually fertile. In John 15:8, Jesus says, “This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.” He wants to be fruitful. He wants us to share our faith, to share how great and good Jesus is. Do you know what the hardest part of evangelism is? It’s crossing the room, opening your mouth. It’s that little fear of being thought foolish. My advice: just go for it! 1 Corinthians 4:10 says we’re fools for Christ anyway!

The last is DIVIDE. Divide your time and resources and give a nice chunk to God and to the needs of people. Rick Warren says, “I’m convinced that to be spiritually and emotionally healthy and balanced, that everybody needs some form of service on at least a weekly basis, where they voluntarily give themselves away without receiving any personal benefit in return.”

You have 168 hours this next week. God doesn’t want you to spend them all on yourself. The world says, "Live for you. Get all you can." And Jesus Christ says the exact opposite -- "Live for others. Give all you can." The word says, “Who wants to burden yourself with others and their problems.” Jesus says, “Bear one another’s burden.” We do that with the way we treat the poor, with the time we give, with the money we give. That “dividing” does a beautiful thing is in, and reaches into our hearts and makes us more Christlike. There is no better way to teach you self-denial than to serve and to put others ahead of your self. Isn’t that what Jesus did for you? I doubt Jesus desired to be crucified, but he denied self and went to the cross for you. Now he asks you to do the same for others.

I want to be like Simon of Cyrene. When Jesus comes along, He calls me to come alongside and calls me to help, it may be inconvenient. It may be dirty. It may hurt. It may cost me something. It may embarrass me. But I will not let Him carry it alone. Will you as well step up and carry the cross as well?

By the way, at the end of this message, we showed the video clip 'The Cross or the Crowd", which is available for download at www.imagevine.com.

“…Denied by Simon Peter”

The second installment in my Lenten series...

Mark 14:27-31, 66-72

March 11, 2007

We’re continuing this week, as we come up to Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday, to go to the events right before Jesus died. We’re looking at four people who played roles in that day. Last week we looked at Pontius Pilate, who judged Jesus worthy of death and sent Him off to be crucified; today we’ll look at Peter, who denied Jesus despite being a follower for the three years leading up to the crucifixion. Next week, we’ll examine an interesting minor character in the story: Simon of Cyrene, the man who was forced to carry Jesus’ cross the last part of the walk to Golgotha. And we’ll finish with the disciple John, the only disciple actually present with Jesus when He was dying on the cross.

Now, the reason to look at these people isn’t just to learn about them. There’s value in just that, learning about people in the Bible, but we want to do more than that. The real value is when you get a lesson or two from someone’s life. And these life lessons bring us closer and closer to Jesus. When you look at Pilate, we have a total spiritual failure. Then with Peter we have a believer who falls flat on his face but recovers. With Simon of Cyrene, we get a lesson about walking with Jesus and bearing our own cross. And then finally with John, we get a lesson in faithfulness to the end.

I have a dear friend from Puerto Rico, Victor Felix. Today he’s back in Puerto Rico, but for ten years he was the pastor of the First Spanish Baptist Church of Philadelphia. That’s in a lousy neighborhood, full of crack houses and warring gangs. Victor had a great ministry with the street toughs there. “They’re all the same,” said Victor. “Talk to them on the street, they’re all macho. Get them alone, they talk about their mamas and the fathers they never knew. It’s all peer pressure. They don’t come to Christ because they’re afraid of what the other guys will say. They don’t want to be thought of as wimps.”

You don’t have to be a street tough to think this way. We don’t want to stand out in a crowd. We don’t want to look like a fool. And the one way that will do it every time is to be labeled a religious fanatic. For many, a Christian is somebody who’s lost their mind. On one college campus, students were asked what they thought of when they heard the word “Christian.” Among the more interesting answers were “losers,” “insecure people,” and my personal favorite: “pimply-faced geeks.”

In the media, call someone a “Christian fundamentalist” and it’s like code: “This person is a crazy loon with a low IQ. You can ignore him.” Funny, the term “fundamentalist” originally meant someone who held to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, is now the longest four-letter word in American history.

Talk about appearing tough and not wanting to look like a fool, and you’re talking about the disciple Peter. This man, sometimes called the “prince of the apostles” sometimes talks and acts like, as the Brits say, a blooming idiot. So many times in the gospels we see him do and say the dumbest things. Actually, what we see him say and do are often the very same things we would have done in his place!

Let’s zero in on the night before the death of Jesus. It’s Passover Eve, AD 30. Jesus and His followers have gathered to eat the Passover. During the meal, Judas slips out to betray Jesus. When they were done there, they walk out together to the west slope of the Mount of Olives to a Garden called Gethsemane. As they walk along, they talk about many things, one in particular: Jesus says that when the moment of true testing came, they would all abandon Him. We read in Mark 14:27-31:

27"You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written:
" 'I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.’

28But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."

29Peter declared, "Even if all fall away, I will not."

30"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times."

31But Peter insisted emphatically, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the others said the same.

And I’m sure that Peter and all the others meant it. They over-estimated themselves—something we’re all inclined to do.

Did you catch that odd thing Jesus says—“tonight, before the rooster crows twice, you’ll deny me three times.” These roosters didn’t just crow at dawn. They’re in the habit of crowing at about 12:30 AM, then 1:30 then 2:30. No, I don’t know how they tell time, they just do. The soldiers who kept watch even called this night watch “cock crow.” What Jesus is telling Peter is that before 1:30 AM that night, he would deny Jesus three times. It must have seemed completely unbelievable to Peter.

At lot can happen in a few hours. You can go from secure to fired, from healthy to struggling for life, from married to abandoned, from secure to ripped off. It doesn’t take long. And it didn’t take long this night.

They arrived at Gethsemane. Jesus goes off to pray alone, and the hours drag on. Peter and the others nod off to sleep. Then, a sudden noise and wide awake. Guards, Temple and Roman guards! Peter drew his little scabbard and cut the ear off a man named Malchus! There’s blood everywhere! Disciples run, Jesus is in chains, but Malchus—well, Jesus heals him. Peter and John flee the scene together, down toward the city. Ahead of them they see the flickering lights of the procession taking Jesus to the home of the High Priest, Caiaphas.

In John 18:15-16, John tells us that he actually knew the high priest. A good guess is that his father Zebedee had done business with Caiaphas. John was able to use that acquaintance to get entry to the room where Jesus was being questioned, and to allow Peter to stay in the courtyard.

Let’s not be too rough on Peter. At least he’s there. That’s more than could be said of the nine disciples who ran off like rabbits. Peter is tough, a strong man, but that strength works against him that night. Look at Mark 15:66-68:

66 While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. 67 When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him. "You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus," she said. 68 But he denied it. "I don't know or understand what you're talking about," he said, and went out into the entryway.

She recognizes him, and says as much: “You were with that Nazarene.” Peter was obviously thrown, and gives her what was the formal wording for a legal denial: “I don’t know or understand what you’re talking about.” If that’s so, why does he slink back to the shadows of the entryway? Let’s count: that’s denial number one.

Now look at Mark 15:69-70a:

69When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, "This fellow is one of them." 70Again he denied it.

The shadows don’t work; the servant girl gets chatty and tells the others, and he denies it again. Denial two.

On to vs. 70b-72:

After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean." 71He began to call down curses on himself, and he swore to them, "I don't know this man you're talking about." 72Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: "Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three times." And he broke down and wept.

The little group of servants and guards must have been talking about this odd stranger. Then it hits them: he must be one of Jesus’ men because of his Galilean accent. Cornered, Peter either can fight or run. He couldn’t physically run, so his soul went AWOL. So he swore and cursed and said, “I don’t even know this Jesus guy!” Denial three.

Here’s how I imagine it. After his little rant, there’s a moment of quiet. The only sound you hear is the crackle of the wood on the fire. In the glow of the fire, you can see Peter’s breath. Then the quiet is disturbed by the sound of a rooster’s crowing. And Peter remembers.

Luke 22:61 adds an interesting detail. At that very moment, perhaps from a window above, Jesus turned at look right at Peter. Put yourself in Peter’s place. It was an awful moment. It was the worst moment of Peter’s life.

One of the great evidences of the accuracy of the Christian faith is the way all the defects of its characters are put on display. From Abraham to Moses to David and now with Peter, you get the whole truth, even the ugly half of it. Peter’s no hero. That night he was just an ordinary guy trying to save his skin.

One lesson you can draw from this is that anybody, repeat anybody, can fall. Here he is the numero uno apostle and at the first sign of enemy shelling, he bugs out. The lesson for all of us is, “Take heed unless you also fall.”

Jeff H_____. You don’t know him, but I can’t forget him. He was the youth pastor at the church I interned at when I was in seminary. You know the TV show Everybody Loves Raymond? Well, they could have made a show called “Everybody Loves Jeff.” He was Mr. Popularity. Wherever he went, fun followed. After seminary he went from Massachusetts down to eastern Pennsylvania to pastor a small church. Something went wrong, really wrong with Jeff. One day, all on one day, Jeff resigned his church, left his wife and moved in with another woman, all on the same day. Last I heard he was working as a social working, and working on a drinking problem as well. I hope he’s turned back to the Lord, but don’t know. He cut off all his ties to his old friends. What a fall.

So there’s a warning to us all here in Peter’s story. But there’s more. Fortunately for us, we know how the story ends.

We know that Jesus was one of the first at the empty tomb of Jesus. We know that before that day was over, he would see the risen Lord.

We know that a few weeks later, Jesus sought Peter out for a special time of restoration on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Even as Peter denied Jesus three times, Jesus gave him three times to affirm his love for the Lord.

We know that Peter was acknowledged as the leader of the apostles, and of the new church in Jerusalem. It was Peter who was the great preacher of the day of Pentecost. It was Peter who opened the door for Gentiles to become part of the Kingdom of God, and then went on to a lengthy ministry of preaching and teaching to message about Jesus in Asia Minor and finally in Rome.

And we are told in tradition that Peter at the end laid down his life as a martyr, crucified in Rome around 65 AD.

What a turnaround. Many people doing what Peter did that night would have given up and stayed away. Some would have even killed themselves like Judas did.

Maybe you’re out in the courtyard as far as God goes. You feel far from God. And you feel like you put yourself there. Maybe you did. Maybe you denied Jesus too. Maybe not so much in words but in deeds.

And you think your life is beyond repair. It’s like a car. A lot of things you can fix. But then there’s other things you can’t. Your frame is twisted and your engine is busted and your axel is twisted. You’re totaled.

I usually stay away from illustrations too long ago in history, but I’m going to break that rule and tell you a true story from American history. Many years ago in Tennessee there was a soldier. He was known for being a tough guy, the kind of guy who’d start a fight in a saloon just for the fun of it. In the army, he raided what was then Spanish territory in Florida chasing Seminole Indians. He came across some British subjects there in Florida, who he hanged just for the thrill of it.

Later, people told him that politics was almost as fun as Indian fighting, so he ran for a seat in the statehouse. Pretty soon he was the undisputed leader of his party in Tennessee, which in those days meant that you’d get a seat in the US Senate, which is what he did. And in the Senate he was a rising, star, thanks in no small part to his willingness to use the same bare-knuckled talents he’d used in war in politics.

One day he was back home in Tennessee. There was a famous evangelist back in those days by the name of Peter Cartwright. Cartwright was a rough and tumble frontier preacher who personally baptized over 12,000 converts over his long ministry. He came to a church near this Indian-fighter turned Senator’s home. Curious, the Senator decided to slip in after the singing had begun and see if this man was as good a speaker as people said.

But there was one little problem. As he came in, the pastor recognized who he was and whispered to Cartwright. Now what he whispered was a mistake. He said that in view of their honored guest, he ought to be careful that he didn’t say anything to offend him. Big mistake. That was like saying, “Sic ‘em!” to a dog.

Cartwright got up to speak, and was preaching the message about Jesus and how we need to turn our lives over to him. Everybody, he said, needs Jesus. And about halfway through his message he said,

I understand that there is a US Senator among those present today. And if he does not repent of his sins and accept Jesus Christ as his Savior and Lord, he will just as lost and anyone else who has never asked God for forgiveness.

A hush fell over the congregation. Some expected him to storm out in anger. Instead, he admired Cartwright’s boldness and conviction. A burning was set afire in his heart. He thought of all the mean and violent things he’d done over the years, and he felt drawn to Jesus as never before. A few days later, he invited Peter Cartwright to his home, where he and his wife gave their lives to Jesus Christ. And he and Cartwright became fast friends. So much so, that Peter Cartwright was invited to the inaugural of that man, Andrew Jackson, when he was elected president of the United States.

Andrew Jackson knew that day what Peter learned from Jesus first hand when the Lord rose from the dead. There is no valley too wide for God’s love to cross—no life too wicked, no deed so terrible that God can’t reach across and make it right through the death of His Son on the cross.

So there’s no need to stay in the shadows. Let His light do its work. Come home to the love of God. That’s God’s invitation to you today.

“…Suffered Under Pontius Pilate”

For Holy Week, I will post four messages I shared over the last few weeks. We start with a message about Pilate.

Mark 15:1-15

March 4, 2007

Over the next four weeks, as we come up to Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday, I want to take you to the day Jesus died. We’re going to be looking at four people who played roles in that day. Those four are Pontius Pilate, who judged Jesus worthy of death and sent Him off to be crucified; then we’ll look at Peter, who denied Jesus despite being a follower for the three years leading up to the crucifixion. Then we’ll examine an interesting minor character in the story: Simon of Cyrene, the man who was forced to carry Jesus’ cross the last part of the walk to Golgotha. And we’ll finish with the disciple John, the only disciple actually present with Jesus when He was dying on the cross.

Now, the reason to look at these people isn’t just to learn about them. There’s value in just that, learning about people in the Bible, but we want to do more than that. The real value is when you get a lesson from someone’s life. And these life lessons bring us closer and closer to Jesus. When you look at Pilate, we have a total spiritual failure. Then with Peter, a believer who falls flat on his face but recovers. With Simon of Cyrene, we get a lesson about walking with Jesus and bearing our own cross. And then finally with John, we get a lesson in faithfulness to the end.

I want to start today with Pontius Pilate. Pilate was a spiritual disaster. And at the heart of Pilate’s disaster is that he was a coward. There’s no sin in being afraid, but it is a sin to be a spiritual coward. And that’s what Pilate was, a spiritual coward.

Let’s look at his life. Pilate hated his assignment as Roman governor of Judea. He never understood the Jews and certainly that he never understood Jesus.

It’s ironic that his name is remembered in the Apostles’ Creed, an ancient creed that millions of Christians around the world recite as an affirmation of their faith. Part of that creed reads:

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.

“He suffered under Pontius Pilate.” That’s the legacy of Pilate: He made Jesus suffer on the cross. Who is this man Pilate? And why do I call him a coward?

We can piece together a lot from sources outside the Bible. He came from a prominent Roman family, one that had many men who had military careers and had served in public office. We know he was posted to Judea in 26 AD. We also know he was an awful governor.

The Jews were unusual people as far as the Romans were concerned. They were fanatic about their God—a God no one could see. There were no statues of the God of Israel, and that seemed very odd to the Romans. Instead, the Temple at Jerusalem was the focus of their faith. Festivals of sacrifice—especially Passover—were at the center of Jewish religion.

To people like Pilate, the Jews were unreasonably exclusive. Here he was, the governor of Judea, but even he could not approach the Temple. Instead, well outside the temple there was a fence with a sigh warning any Gentile that if they got closer, they would be put to death. Few ever dared to test this.

Pilate showed complete insensitivity to Jewish scruples. Previous Roman governors declined to set up Roman standards in Jerusalem because of the Roman gods depicted on the standards. Pilate did, to the protest of all, especially the Jewish Council of Elders, the Sanhedrin. Reluctantly, he backed down. But he retaliated by setting up golden shields at the fortress in Jerusalem and minting coins with the same symbols. Again, there was protests and after a time, he backed down again.

So he set his mind to a practical problem: water for Jerusalem. An aqueduct was needed, and the temple treasury was running a huge surplus. He appropriated the money needed, then, you guessed it, the people protested that “holy money” was being used for secular purposes—and by a Roman! But this time, Pilate didn’t back down. An angry mob of protesters, mostly from Galilee, gathered in the outer courtyard of the Temple. Pilate ordered his soldiers to crush what he saw as a rebellion. Many died that day. And many influential members of the Sanhedrin wrote Caesar asking that Pilate be fired.

That was the situation Pilate was in when Jesus came before him. He felt his governorship was hanging by a thread and he saw the case of Jesus as nothing but trouble. Compared to some other matters that had come before Him, Jesus was a minor nuisance. But he was determined not to bungle this case.

What did he know about Jesus before that day? He must have known some things. He must have known that He was a popular traveling teacher from Galilee. He must have known that He was an opponent of the hypocrites who ran the Temple and who dominated the Sanhedrin. He must have known that some considered Him the Messiah.

The messiah thing was the most troubling part about Jesus. For the Jews of Judea and Galilee, the Messiah was expected to be a warrior king who would reestablish the throne of David. Pilate’s predecessors had dealt with two so-called Messiahs, and his successors would deal with two more.

But Jesus was different from all the others: no one had ever seen Him even hold a sword. Instead, all reports spoke of Him teaching the crowds and of miraculous healings. This Jesus was impressive, but He seemed to be only interested in religious things—things Pilate didn’t understand or even care to learn about.

But everything changed on Thursday night, the night before Passover. Sometime that evening, a message came from the Sanhedrin: we intend to arrest Jesus and bring Him before you tomorrow morning for capital crimes. Do we have your support? Pilate saw this as an opportunity to get on the good side of the Sanhedrin. Pilate told them to proceed.

How do we know that Pilate was informed at this point? There are two clues found in the gospels. First, Jesus delayed a long, long time in the Garden of Gethsemane. That can best be explained by the fact that it took time for Judas to go the leaders of the Sanhedrin, for them to decide to act, for a messenger to get the message to Pilate and wait for his answer, and them to send out the “temple police”, a Jewish contingent of soldiers. Also, John 18:3 implies that there were Roman soldiers involved in the arrest party as well. All this would have take a few hours to put together.

The second clue that Pilate had been informed on Thursday night is found in Matthew 27:19. We’re told of a message that came to Pilate from his wife in the midst of Jesus’ trial:

While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him."

By the way, we know her name: Claudia Procula. Again, this makes the most sense if Pilate had decided to go along with the Sanhedrin, ordered a detachment of soldiers to go with the messenger, and then went back to his living quarters and mentioned what was going on to Claudia.

Now, Friday morning comes. Jesus has been found guilty of blasphemy by a hastily called meeting of the Sanhedrin in the middle of the night. Now He’s transferred over to Pilate on charges that the Romans cared about: rebellion and claiming to be king. Look in Mark 15:1-5:

¹Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, reached a decision. They bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.

²"Are you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate.

"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.

³The chief priests accused him of many things. ⁴So again Pilate asked him, "Aren't you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of."

⁵But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed.

“Pilate was amazed.” Actually meeting Jesus surprised Pilate. Jesus said so little in His defense—it was if He was stupid or crazy—or if He wanted to die.

The one time He answers Pilate in this passage is when Pilate asked Him directly, “Are you the King of the Jews?”

And Jesus’ answer is literally, “You say.” Just two words in Greek: Su legeis. The NIV translates His words as “Yes, it is as you say,” which is a little different. Actually, Jesus was being a little guarded about His answer. Here’s why: Pilate saw being “King of the Jews” as being a political rebel against Rome. Jesus saw being “King of the Jews” as being God’s Messiah. So His answer kind of splits the difference, as if He were saying, “Well, yes, but what I mean by ‘King of the Jews’ and what you mean isn’t the same.”

Other than that, Jesus is pretty much silent, something foretold hundreds of years before in Isaiah 53:7:

He was oppressed and afflicted,

yet he did not open his mouth;

He was led like a lamb to the slaughter,

and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,

so he did not open his mouth.

Pilate does all the talking; Jesus is silent. He is silent because of His confidence in the plan of His Heavenly Father. He knows there is no way forward that does not include the cross.

The cross lies at the center of the plan of God. He must die on the cross. He must pay the price for forgiveness there. Only the God-Man, Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man can pay the price. Only God is pure enough to pay that price; only a man can die for the sins of mankind. The cross is a necessity. You can’t get around it.

Of course, Pilate couldn’t even imagine anything like this. He must have seemed to Pilate to be the strangest rabbi in Israel. But the issue for Pilate wasn’t one of truth or justice: it was, “How do I take care of the Jesus case in a way that doesn’t hurt my standing with Rome?” He didn’t need another embarrassment.

That’s when a possible solution presented itself. You can read about it in Mark 15:6-14:

⁶Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested. ⁷A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. ⁸The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did.

⁹"Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, ¹⁰knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. ¹¹But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.

¹²"What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?" Pilate asked them.

¹³"Crucify him!" they shouted.

¹⁴"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.

But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"

Here’s a possible solution: a custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover. Pilate didn’t want to acquit Jesus and throw the Sanhedrin into a rage; on the other hand, he really didn’t want to find Him guilty, because He really seemed harmless. Plus, there was that dream his wife had. Remember? I mentioned that earlier. It’s recorded in Matthew 27:19. She sent this message:

"Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him."

Romans were very, very superstitious. There looked at dreams, weather, cloud formations, even the spatter from a wine glass as omens and signs. But dreams were taken very seriously. Pilate must have been sweating when he finished reading that note from Claudia.

So Pilate tries to get out of the jam by offering the people a choice between a thug named Barabbas and the Rabbi from Galilee, Jesus. He thought it would be an easy way out. They call out for Barabbas. And more than that. We read in John 19:12, someone called out, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”

That was Pilate’s “tipping point.” His whole career—even his whole life—depended on being a “friend of Caesar.” Being a “friend of Caesar” meant being part of the circle of advisors and administrators around Emperor Caesar Tiberius. The very idea of losing that status was too much. You can almost hear Pilate thinking: “Let the Galilean die! My career is more important than this Jesus.”

Look at vs. 15:

Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

Pilate was a coward. It was fear that made him put Jesus to death. Yes, he made a big show of washing his hands, putting all the blame on the crowd, but there’s no getting around the fact that Jesus died on a Roman cross at the hands of Roman soldiers and under the direction of him, the Roman governor.

I want us to think about fear for a minute. Fear is the thing that unites us to Pilate. We all have our fears. Pilate had Jesus crucified because of his fear of losing his status.

There’s a passage over in Revelation 21:8 that I didn’t understand for many years. It says that the cowardly will end up in the lake of fire—what the Book of Revelation calls hell. The reason I didn’t understand it is that while I always knew that being a coward wasn’t a good thing, it never seemed bad enough to get a special mention on a person’s ticket to hell!

It took getting really involved in evangelism for me to understand what the big deal about cowardice was. The reality is that it’s fear that keeps a lot of people away from Jesus. Not fear of Jesus. Fear about what people will think, or fear of what they think that they might be losing.

And there’s a difference between having fear and being a coward. In battle, everybody’s afraid. The only people who aren’t afraid are crazy. You change from being afraid to being a coward when you surrender to your fears and let them take over. Pilate changed from being afraid to being a coward when he sent Jesus to die.

Today, you may have fears about being a follower of Christ. You’re afraid of being labeled a religious freak. You’re afraid of the cost, and there is a cost. You’re afraid of the lifestyle changes that will demand. And you’re right; following Him involves a new way of life. You’re afraid of the weird people you’d be identifying with. I understand that fear. I remember back in 1971 when I was on the verge of following Him. My intellectual objections held me back, but they were being answered one by one. But as I thought of what that would mean—remember I was a teenager at the time—all I could think of was the fact that whenever I went by a church it seemed to be full of old wrinkly people who smelled funny. (Sorry, that’s what I thought!) I was afraid of being identified with them. I wanted to be with, you know, cool people.

But it was Jesus Himself that drew me in, and then, guess what? I found that the coolest people in the world were the ones following Him!

Today is a good day to say no to your fears and to say yes to your faith, to say yes to Jesus. Pilate collapsed and gave into fear and is remembered for that for all time. The Bible says, “The perfect love of God drives out fear” (1 John 4:18). You don’t have to do be fearful. Put your trust in Jesus today. He will never ever disappoint you. You can have confidence in Him. Today’s the day!

PRAYER
END

Science and Homosexuality: Not a Barrier to Objection

Harold Meyerson is a writer for the uber-leftist LA Weekly, and last week he had a jolly good thrashing Al Mohler in his column. In part, he wrote (and believe me, I edited out the most rantish sections):

Science is stealing up on America's religious fundamentalists, causing much alarm. Consider the dilemma of the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville and a leading figure in the Southern Baptist firmament. Writing in his blog this month, Mohler acknowledged that "the direction of the research" increasingly points to the possibility that a "biological basis for sexual orientation exists." Should sexuality be determined in utero, Mohler continued, that still wouldn't justify abortion or genetic engineering...

But once you recognize homosexuality as a genetic reality, it does create a theological dilemma for the Mohlers among us, for it means that God is making people who, in the midst of what may otherwise be morally exemplary lives, have a special and inherent predisposition to sin. Mohler's response is that since Adam's fall, sin is the condition of all humankind.

...Mohler's deity, in short, is the God of Double Standards: a God who enforces the norms and fears of a world before science, a God profoundly ignorant of or resistant to the arc of American history, which is the struggle to expand the scope of the word "men" in our founding declaration that "all men are created equal." This is a God who in earlier times was invoked to defend segregation and, before that, slavery.

...By effectively insisting that God is a spiteful homo-hater, his followers saddle him with ancient phobias and condemn him to the backwaters of American moral life.

-------------------------------------------------

Let's be clear here: the issue for Meyerson is that "fundamentalists" are anti-scientific dimbulbs. They need to be marginalized, and he's the man, er, person, for the job. The issue is not really homosexuality. That being said, what about the evidence that "God" is "making gays"? This is such a stereotypical example of flawed logic that only blind ideology got it past his editor. By this logic, genetic predisposition, no matter how dangerous, is a positive act of God. For example, we have plenty of evidence that alcoholism is partly determined by genetics. So are certain cancers. So is that fact that I have glasses sitting on my nose. In a fallen world, DNA is not excluded.

Personally, I remain a skeptic about the scientific evidence for the simple reason that there's a lot of pressure to cook the data if you want to be in the favor (attitudinally and monetarily) of academia.

Patrick, the Missionary Genius

Patrick (his Latin name was Patricius) was at least a third generation Christian, the son of a deacon and grandson of a priest. He was born in southwest Britain, likely in the 380s AD. Early in his life, however, he did not follow his parent's example. But when he was 16 years old, God found a wat to get his attention.

Fierce Irish raiders broke through the now weak defenses of the Romans, and attacked Patrick's town. He was carried away as a slave, sold to a warrior chief, and was sent to work in Ireland caring for livestock. Suffering from constant hunger, cold and loneliness, he turned to God for strength, and from then on became a man of prayer.

When Patrick was about 22, he heard a voice saying, "You do well to fast. Soon you will return to your homeland." Soon the voice spoke again, "Come and see, your ship is waiting for you."

Taking this as his instruction to escape, he fled 200 miles to a southeastern harbor, where he boarded a trade ship, and eventually made it back to Britain. At home, Patrick had a dream of Irish people calling to him - "Please, holy youth, come and walk with us again." Patrick's heart was moved for his former captors, and he decided to go.

He went to France to study and in time was ordained as a deacon. The church leaders were apparently not confident in Patrick's ability as a missionary, and at first sent another man. But after only a year the first worker passed away, and Patrick, now past 40, was at last allowed to go to Ireland.

When Patrick arrived, aside from a few small churches, most of the Irish were pagans, worshiping everything from planets to plants. Magic and even human sacrifice was practised by the druids and priests. Patrick's strategy was not to take away people's beliefs in spirits, but to expose them as demons and show that God's power was greater.

Of course, he met with stiff opposition, and was constantly in danger of being murdered by the druids. Patrick, however, convinced a local king to tolerate Christianity, and when the king's brother was converted, Patrick was granted land on which to build a church.

Soon he moved on to other unreached areas. When there was a group of new Christians, he would build a guest house and a church, and, if he had the support of a wealthy landowner, he would also build a monastery, as a center of learning and missionary training. The process was highly participative: new converts were enlisted in ministry as fast as possible. In only fifteen years' time he had evangelized across Ireland, and was now well known as a man of God. He planted some hundred churches and baptized perhaps a hundred thousand believers.

The Celtic churches and Celtic missionary movement was largely a part of Patrick's ministry. Women played a large role in the ministry, although Patrick himself was careful not to even accept gifts from women, to avoid any mark on his reputation. Patrick continued in ministry for 30 years, and it's said that Ireland became literate for the first time in his generation. He died in the 460s, in his 70s. By then, Ireland has become roughly 80% Christian.

The learning and Christian heritage that Patrick left is still with us today, even in the area of law. Patrick was instrumental in laying the foundations of law in Ireland based on the ten commandments. Patrick was also among the first to speak out against slavery, with a passion that only a former slave could have had.

After Patrick's death, while chaos was sweeping across a fallen Roman Empire and the illiteracy was becoming the norm, the now literate Irish saved many of the classics of religious and secular literature that would have been lost. Irish clery were called upon to staff churches as far away as Austria! One missionary, in the power of God, made a remarkable difference in the course of history.

In the later years of his ministry, rumours about his past and suspicion about his methods were rumbling around in his homeland of Britain. The Roman church eventually rejected most of the Celtic church's wise missionary strategy in terms of seeking indiginous forms of expression of the gospel.

So may you have a grand St. Patrick's Day. And may it be a day to remember and to follow the example of one of the greatest missionaries in the history of the church: Patricius the Apostle to Ireland.

TransMin Topples Talpiot Tales

This email was issued from Transformation Ministries today regarding the claims of the Talpiot tomb by James Cameron.

Dear Pastor and Church Leader:

On Sunday, March 4, 2007, James Cameron (Director of the movie "Titanic") aired a program on the Discovery Channel called, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." In it, Cameron claims to have scientific proof that they have found the bones of Jesus and his family in a tomb in Jerusalem.

I've included here a Christian response as written by Dr. Wes Brown. Please feel free to make this available to your congregation.This past Sunday we were at the First Baptist Church of Pomona where Carl Toney showed a 5-minute video on this subject. You may access this video on his website at http://carltoney.googlepages.com/currentevents.

Sincerely,

Dale Salico, Executive Minister

Transformation Ministries

Christian Response to the Claims of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”
Wesley H. Brown*

On March 4th the Discovery Channel aired a made-for-TV documentary entitled “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” claiming to present archaeological evidence that Jesus of Nazareth’s family tomb was discovered in Jerusalem, including an ossuary (a limestone bone box) with Jesus’ name etched on it. James Cameron, the producer, well known for producing Titanic, showed one of the ossuaries with Jesus’ name in a New York press conference, but failed to mention that Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew) was a popular name found on 21 other ossuaries! Some major archaeologists and other scholars who saw the film, agree with archaeologist and author Jodi Magness that “the tomb is not—indeed cannot—be the tomb of Jesus and his family.”[1]


The tomb’s contents and the film’s claims

In 1980, ten ossuaries were found in a tomb in East Talpiot in Jerusalem which dates from the first century. Six of the ossuaries had names scratched on the outside-- the names of people similar to those mentioned in the New Testament—Jesus, Maria, Mariamne (a variant of Mary which they claim was Mary Magdalene), Yose (said to be Joseph), Matia (said to be Matthew), and Judah son of Jesus. “What are the chances of those people being buried in one tomb unless they were the family of Jesus of Nazareth?” the film asks, and then presents statistical studies to try to convince a viewer that it was indeed Jesus of Nazareth’s family tomb.

Director Simcha Jacobovici, claims that this discovery demonstrates that Jesus of Nazareth was actually buried with other family members in this tomb. Furthermore, it asserts that the tomb is evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, by whom he had a child named Judah. (This sounds like someone wanting to give evidence for the theory in Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code.)

First century burials and what was found

Excavations of the tomb were undertaken by Israeli archaeologist Amos Kloner in 1980 when the entrance to the tomb was discovered as contractors prepared to construct new apartment buildings. Many first century tombs, cut into rocky hillsides, have been found around Jerusalem. Almost all of them have places to lay the body of the deceased, called “arcosolia” – shelf-like ledges on which the body of the deceased was placed, or “kochim” (Hebrew, or “loculi” in Greek) -- slots cut directly into the rock wall, about six feet deep, two feet wide, and arched at the top. About a year after the placing of the body for decomposition, the bones were gathered and placed in an ossuary or bone box.

Kloner found ten ossuaries in that tomb, six of them with names scratched on the outside, as stated above. The ossuaries were taken first to the Rockefeller Museum where the bones were carefully removed from the ossuaries, and respectfully reburied. This is commonly done because of the strong objections of Orthodox Jews when any buried human remains are moved. The ossuaries were later moved to a huge Israel Antiquities Authority warehouse in Beit Shemesh, where hundreds of other ossuraries are stored.

Kloner told ABC news that the tomb and ossuaries were “interesting but of no particular archaeological importance.”[2] He said there are many more buried tombs with ossuaries just like the "Jesus" tomb. Of those ossuaries, 71 bear the name “Jesus” and two “Jesus son of Joseph.” The tomb in Talpiyot is one of them. But the inscription, he said, was barely decipherable and therefore questionable.[3]

Why major scholars reject the film’s claims

1. The earliest accounts of the death and burial of Jesus are in the Gospels in the New Testament. Magness says that the Gospel accounts of Joseph of Arimathea placing the body of Jesus in his family tomb cut into the rock, is consistent with practices in the first century revealed in archaeological findings around Jerusalem.[4] Acceptance of the theories of the film demand a rejection of the earliest traditions about Jesus. Assumptions make a very big difference. The film assumes that Jesus of Nazareth, if resurrected, ultimately died, his body deteriorated, and his bones were placed in an ossuary that they have identified. Christians begin with the assumption that the Gospels are historical and reliable, and that an ossuary with the name Yeshua/Jesus must contain the bones of another person of the same name.

2. “Names on the ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb are extremely common among the Jewish population of Jerusalem in the first century.”[5] It is estimated that 25% of women were named Mary/Miriam/Mariamne. Jesus (Yeshua) was also common. Tal Ilan, author of Lexicon of Jewish Names, estimates that about one Jewish man in 20 was named Yeshua (Jesus) in the first century. So we can’t be sure which Jesus this was, and we have no record elsewhere of Yose and Matia being in Jesus’ family.

3. The name “Mariamne” (Greek) on the ossuary is followed by “Mara,” meaning Master, but which the film said should be interpreted “leader” or “teacher”. The film proposes that this is Mary Magdalene, referring to “The Acts of Philip” fromthe 2nd or3rd century. This is a big leap of speculation. Why was the name in Greek while others were in Aramaic or Hebrew? The filmmakers, says Magness, “transform the small Jewish town of Magdala….into ‘an important trading center’ where Greek was spoken.”[6]

4. People who were buried in rock-cut tombs were from wealthy families or benefited by wealthy friends’ making a place, even temporary, for their burial.

This is consistent with the Gospel accounts that say that Joseph of Arimathea made his rock-hewn tomb available for Jesus’ burial. Magness comments, “Jesus’ family, being poor, presumably could not afford a rock-cut tomb, as even the more ‘modest’ ones were costly.” She suggests that Jesus’ family may have had a burial place in Nazareth or Bethlehem, but it would be unlikely in Jerusalem. Poor people were usually buried in a trench-type grave, and covered with dirt. Few of these graves have survived from the first century, but ossuaries from first century rock-hewn tombs around Jerusalem are numerous.

5. The Discovery Channel website about the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” supports the
theory that the disciples came and stole the body of Jesus-- to bury it in a permanent family tomb! Matthew (Matt.28:12-15) calls this a lie that was circulated. But the website also claims that the film does not challenge the belief in the resurrection! The website says, “Even if Jesus' body was moved from one tomb to another, however, that does not mean that he could not have been resurrected from the second tomb.”[7] So what happened? Did he later die a second time, was buried, and ultimately his bones were placed in an ossuary with his name?? Most Christians believe that after Jesus’ resurrection, he never died again but is forever alive.

6. Scientific American, on its website, has gotten into the debate about the tomb because of the involvement of Andrey Feuververger, a professor of mathematics and statistics in the University of Toronto. The Discovery Channel’s website claims that Feuerverger's calculations show that the odds are "600 to one in favor of this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB." But which Jesus? Director Simcha Jacobovici assumes that the ossuary found in that tomb was of Jesus of Nazareth, with his bones in it. Most Christians would not talk about statistical odds because they do not believe that Jesus’ body remained in any tomb, but was resurrected and later ascended. To be sure, a man named “Jesus” died, and was buried, and his bones were finally placed in an ossuary, but it was not the Jesus of the New Testament!

7. Fragments found at the bottom of the ossuaries of “Jesus” and “Mariamne” were examined for their DNA, and it was shown that they did not have the same mother. The film speculates from that information that they must have been a couple who married and bore the person whose ossuary identifies the bones of “Judah son of Jesus”. There is no evidence that the bones of these two had originally been husband and wife. But even if they were, the Jesus whose bones were found was not the Jesus of Nazareth of the Gospels. Ultimately, most Christians trust the historicity and basic reliability of the Biblical record more than the speculative proposals of the filmmakers.

As Magness writes, the film is “a sensationalistic claim without any scientific basis or support.”[8]

8. If Jesus was not buried in the tomb in East Talpiot in Jerusalem, where was he most likely buried until his resurrection? The best scholarship points to the Church of the Resurrection, its Greek name (a.k.a. the Church of the Holy Sepulchre). The Biblical Archaeology Society has just released an excellent ebook entitled The Burial of Jesus. Go to http://www.swiftpage5.com/SpeClicks.aspx?Acc=TransMin.Lorena&SPCED=C070312125100&LNK=0&UId=569 where there is information on how to access the ebook. The article by Dan Bahat, “Does the Holy Sepulchre Church Mark the Burial of Jesus?” is the best I have seen on the history and archaeology of that location and why it should be considered the real place of the tomb of Jesus. If one visits the church, it is important to remember that there is nothing that remains of the original rock-hewn tomb because in 1009 A.D., under orders from the fanatical Muslim caliph Khakim in Egypt, the cave and tomb of the resurrection were destroyed, down to bed rock. Most of what people see today around the tomb is reconstruction from the early 19th century.

Many evangelicals prefer the Garden Tomb because of its uncluttered, open air environment with evidence of an ancient tomb and garden. The Biblical Archaeology Society has two articles about the Garden Tomb in the ebook which were written by the two best authorities on the archaeology of that area, Gabriel Barkay and Jerome Murphy-O’Conner. Ultimately, it is not the location of the tomb, but the fact of the resurrection that is the most important. Thanks be to God that the tomb was empty and the Lord is risen indeed!

*Wesley Brown served as American Baptist representative in Jerusalem for almost 12 years, wrote “Christian Comment” in the Jerusalem Post for eight years, and was on the staff of the Ecumenical Institute for Theological Research, Tantur, Jerusalem. He has returned to Jerusalem often, leading seminars. He earned his Ph.D. in Social Ethics at the Univ. of So. California.

[1] Jodi Magness, “Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?” online, Biblical Archaeology Society, http://www.swiftpage5.com/SpeClicks.aspx?Acc=TransMin.Lorena&SPCED=C070312125100&LNK=1&UId=569 March 5, 2007. Magness, who teaches in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of No. Carolina at Chapel Hill, received a Ph.D. in Classical Archaeology from the Univ. of Pennsylvania, and has participated in more than 20 excavations in Israel and Greece. She is the author of the award-winning The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Eerdmans, 2002) and “Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James,” in the Journal of Biblical Literature 124(2005).
[2] Matt Gutman, “Bones of Contention: Archaeologist Disputes Claims in James Cameron’s ‘The Lost Tomb of Christ,” ABC News on line, Mar.7, 2007 http://www.swiftpage5.com/SpeClicks.aspx?Acc=TransMin.Lorena&SPCED=C070312125100&LNK=2&UId=569= 2905662&page=1
[3] Ibid.
[4] Jodi Magness, “What Did the Tomb of Jesus Look Like?” in The Burial of Jesus, ebook of The Biblical Archaeology Society, March 2007, p. 13
[5] J. Magness, op.cit., p. 4
[6] Ibid.
[7] http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/theology/theology.html
[8] J. Magness, op.cit., p.5

TransMin Posts Resouces on Talpiot Tomb

A Righteous Separation

This was posted today on the Christianity Today website. The statements regarding the ABCUSA or Cornerstone aren't 100% accurate, but the thrust is on target.

Church Divorce Done Right

Denominational splits just aren't what they used to be.

Ted Olsen posted 3/07/2007 09:09AM

When I asked Orlando Sentinel religion reporter Mark Pinsky if he'd covered the February meeting where as many as 150 Presbyterian Church (USA) congregations made plans to leave the denomination, I wasn't terribly surprised when he answered no.

Related articles and links

The New Wineskins meeting was within walking distance from his office, Pinsky said, but "we sense some fatigue among general readers on the 'maybe this mainline denomination will split' story. Editors are saying, 'Get back to us when there is a split.' It's the Lucy and the football thing from Peanuts."

It's a sentiment shared widely by religion reporters, including many of us here at CT. Rarely does a week go by that we don't hear rumors of denominational departures. But discussion and dissatisfaction typically trump actual decisions to leave.

Not that the mainline exodus is a myth. Within the past year, entire regions of the American Baptist Churches USA, representing hundreds of churches, dropped their ties to the national body. Due to a few dramatic votes, the departures got more attention than 225 congregations that left the United Church of Christ (UCC). They left after the UCC adopted a resolution in July 2005 that endorsed same-sex marriage. The 67 "Faithful and Welcoming" orthodox churches who work from within the UCC face an uphill battle for mere tolerance: The denomination's official blogger, on the UCC's site, characterized one such group as dedicated to destroying the UCC from the inside.

Though not universal across the mainline, the exodus seems to be happening on a scale not seen since the fundamentalist-modernist battles of nearly a century ago. That's fundamentalist in the historical sense, referring to the group of orthodox Protestants who opposed the rise of scientific naturalism in their churches and held to the fundamentals of the faith, like the reliability of the Bible and the reality of miracles.

When theologian J. Gresham Machen led traditionalists out of the Presbyterian Church, they created a new denomination: the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. But today, New Wineskins rejected such a plan and instead has begun negotiations to join the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

Likewise, many churches that split with the Episcopal Church in earlier times accepted broken ties with the worldwide Anglican Communion. Today's orthodox exiles, by contrast, make membership in global Anglicanism non-negotiable. A mélange of archbishops leads them from abroad. Thanks to these archbishops' efforts, some of the earlier breakaway groups are now pursuing reunion with the global body.

It's not that today's evangelical evacuees are less entrepreneurial than yesterday's; it's that they're less satisfied with independence and informal parachurch networks. Even those who form new networks don't shape them like those of their fundamentalist predecessors, who equated leaving with disfellowshipping. Some fundamentalists attacked orthodox believers who stayed in denominations as betrayers and collaborators. By contrast, the new Cornerstone Church Network, the successor to the renewal group at the center of the American Baptist exodus, is open to both current and former American Baptist congregations.

There are many reasons for such magnanimity between the orthodox who leave and those who stay. Remembering the antipathy from earlier departures is surely one of them. But so is hope. The walkouts know that mainline renewal from the inside can be successful, as seems to be happening in the United Methodist Church, for example. And recent events in the Anglican Communion belie the narrative of continual decline toward liberalism.

Episcopal bishops' reaction to the February meeting of Anglican primates may reveal the biggest difference between the fundamentalist exodus and today's. Machen lamented that liberals of his day were dishonest in reciting "I believe" creeds they did not really believe. That's still true. But now Episcopalians are complaining that they're forced to choose between "staying true to our understanding of the inclusive gospel or staying true to our commitment to being a constituent member of the Anglican Communion."

They're starting to get it. It is they, not conservatives, who have been leaving all along.

Burying the Talpiot Jesus Tomb Myth

Jodi Magness is the Kenan Distinguished Professor for Teaching Excellence in Early Judaism in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Writing today on the Biblical Archaelogy Society Website, she weighs in the the current claims of Jacobovici and Cameron regarding the Talpoit Tomb. She does not write from the standpoint of accepting the authority of Scripture on historical matters, and I would distance myself from her statements regarding the accuracy of the Biblical text. I reproduce her comments here to demonstrate that it's not just the "fundy right" that sees huge problems with the Talpiot claims.

In the new documentary film, The Lost Tomb of Jesus (which appeared on the Discovery Channel on March 4th), director Simcha Jacobovici and producer James Cameron claim to have identified the tomb of Jesus and his family in the Jerusalem suburb of Talpiot. The tomb itself is not a new discovery; it was excavated in 1980 and published by Amos Kloner, an Israeli archaeologist. What is new is the sensational claim that this is the tomb of Jesus and his family. Although Jacobovici and Cameron are not scholars, their claim is supported by a handful of archaeologists and religious studies specialists. On the other hand, many archaeologists (including Kloner) and scholars of early Judaism and Christianity reject their claim. Having seen the film, I agree with Kloner and the others; the Talpiot tomb is not—indeed, cannot—be the tomb of Jesus and his family.

I would first point out that by making this announcement in the popular media, Jacobovici, Cameron, and the others involved have chosen to circumvent the usual academic process. Archaeology is a scientific discipline. New discoveries and interpretations typically are presented in scientific venues such as professional meetings or are published in peer-reviewed journals, where they can be considered and discussed by other specialists. By first making the announcement in the popular media, those involved have precluded legitimate and vital academic discourse. It is impossible to explain the many flaws of their claim in a one-minute segment on TV or the radio, or in two or three sentences in the newspaper, as I have been asked to do repeatedly since the announcement was made. The history and archaeology of Jerusalem in the first century are far too complex to be boiled down to a short sound bite, yet that is precisely what has happened here. This is a travesty to professional archaeologists and scholars of early Judaism and Christianity, and it is a disservice to the public.

Now let us consider the claim itself. We have no contemporary accounts of the death and burial of Jesus. Our closest sources (in time) are the canonical Gospels, specifically the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke), which are thought to have been composed about 30-50 years after Jesus’ death. Although the canonical Gospels may not be accurate in every detail, most scholars agree they contain some historical information. The claim that the Talpiot tomb is the tomb of Jesus and his family contradicts the canonical Gospel accounts and means that we must reject our earliest traditions about Jesus. Those who identify the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus support their claim by citing later, non-canonical traditions such as the Gospel of Philip.

The Gospel of Mark (15:42-46) describes the death and burial of Jesus: “When the evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council [in a similar account, the Gospel of Matthew describes Joseph as a wealthy man], who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. …he [Pilate] granted the body to Joseph. Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.”

How did the Jews of Jerusalem bury their dead in the time of Jesus? The Gospel accounts describe Jesus as having been laid to rest in a rock-cut tomb. Rock-cut tombs consisted of one or more burial chambers hewn into the bedrock slopes surrounding the city of Jerusalem. Burial chambers were lined by single rows of burial niches (called loculi), with each niche cut into the walls about the length of a person’s body. Each rock-cut tomb belonged to a family and was used by the members of a family over the course of several generations. When a member of the family died, his/her body was wrapped in a shroud and placed in a loculus. The opening to the loculus was sealed with a stone slab, and the entrance to the rock-cut tomb was also sealed with a stone. Eventually, over the course of generations, the loculi became filled with burials. When it became necessary to make space for new burials, the earlier remains (consisting of bones and burial gifts) were cleared out of the loculi and placed in small boxes (ossuaries). Sometimes the relatives scribbled the name(s) of the deceased on the outside of the ossuary when they placed the remains in the box.

The Gospel accounts provide an accurate description of Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus’ body in a loculus in his family’s rock-cut tomb. Because rock-cut tombs had to be cut by hand out of bedrock, only the upper classes (wealthy Jews like Joseph) could afford them. The poorer classes of Jewish society—the majority of the population—buried their dead in simple, individual trench graves dug into the ground, similar to the way we bury our dead today. This involved digging a rectangular trench in the ground, placing the deceased (wrapped in a shroud) at the bottom, and filling the trench back in with earth. Usually a crude headstone was set up at one end of the grave. Ossuaries are associated only with rock-cut tombs; bodies interred in trench graves were not dug back up for deposition in an ossuary.

Now let us reconsider the Gospel accounts. Jesus was crucified on Friday. This is consistent with what we know about Jesus’ background, as the Romans generally reserved crucifixion for the poorer classes, who they regarded as common criminals. Why did Joseph of Arimathea request Pilate’s permission to bury Jesus? Jewish law requires burial within 24 hours of death. However, burials are prohibited on the Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday). According to the Gospel accounts, Jesus died on the eve of the Sabbath (late Friday afternoon), just before sundown. For Jesus to be buried in accordance with Jewish law, he had to be buried before the Sabbath started; otherwise, it would have been necessary to wait until Saturday night, thereby exceeding the 24-hour time limit.

Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy follower of Jesus, was concerned to ensure that Jesus was buried in accordance with Jewish law. Jesus came from a poor family that presumably could not afford a rock-cut tomb. Under ordinary circumstances he would have been buried in a trench grave. However, there was no time to dig a trench grave before the beginning of the Sabbath. Therefore, as the Gospels tell us, Joseph hastened to go to Pilate and requested permission to take Jesus’ body. He laid it in a loculus in his own rock-cut tomb, something that was exceptional (due to the circumstances), as rock-cut tombs were family tombs.
When the women entered the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea on Sunday morning, the loculus where Jesus’ body had been laid was empty. The theological explanation for this is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

However, once Jesus had been buried in accordance with Jewish law, there was no prohibition against removing the body from the tomb after the end of the Sabbath and reburying it. It is therefore possible that followers or family members removed Jesus’ body from Joseph’s tomb after the Sabbath ended and buried it in a trench grave, as it would have been unusual (to say the least) to leave a non-relative in a family tomb. Whatever explanation one prefers, the fact that Jesus’ body did not remain in Joseph’s tomb means that his bones could not have been collected in an ossuary, at least not if we follow the Gospel accounts.

Although the Gospel accounts of the death and burial of Jesus might not be completely accurate from an historical point of view, they are consistent with our literary and archaeological information about how the Jews of Jerusalem buried their dead in the time of Jesus. The Gospels also show familiarity with Jewish law, conveying Joseph’s concern to bury Jesus before the Sabbath. They make it clear that Joseph was not trying to “honor” Jesus by burying him in a rock-cut tomb (a modern, anachronistic concept, since there was no shame associated with burial in trench graves, which was the accepted practice). Instead Joseph wanted to ensure that Jesus was buried within 24 hours, in accordance with Jewish law.

Jesus’ family, being poor, presumably could not afford a rock-cut tomb, as even the more “modest” ones were costly. And had Jesus’ family owned a rock-cut tomb, it would have been located in their hometown of Nazareth, not in Jerusalem. For example, when Simon, the last of the Maccabean brothers and one of the Hasmonean rulers, built a large tomb or mausoleum for his family, he constructed it in their hometown of Modiin. In fact, the Gospel accounts clearly indicate that Jesus’ family did not own a rock-cut tomb in Jerusalem—for if they had, there would have been no need for Joseph of Arimathea to take Jesus’ body and place it in his own family’s rock-cut tomb! If Jesus’ family did not own a rock-cut tomb, it means they also had no ossuaries.

A number of scholars, including Kloner, have pointed out that the names on the ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb are extremely common among the Jewish population of Jerusalem in the first century. But beyond this there is a bigger problem. Being a Jew in the time of Jesus was not, strictly speaking, a religion, as it is today. Instead, Jews in the time of Jesus were Judeans—that is, people from the district of Judea, the area around Jerusalem. Judeans worshiped the national god of Judea (the God of Israel) and lived according to his laws. Other ancient peoples had their own national deities. During the two centuries before Christ, the Hasmonean kings (a Jewish dynasty descended from the Maccabees) had established an independent Jewish kingdom in Judea (this kingdom was eventually taken over by the Romans). The Hasmonean kings conducted a campaign of expansion, conquering neighboring peoples whom they forcibly converted to Judaism. Under the Hasmoneans, Galilee (to the north of Judea) and Idumaea (to the south) were Judaized, which means their non-Jewish populations began to worship the God of Israel and live according to his laws.

L. Y. Rahmani, an Israeli archaeologist who compiled a catalogue of all of the ossuaries in the collections of the state of Israel, observed that “In Jerusalem’s tombs, the deceased’s place of origin was noted when someone from outside Jerusalem was interred in a local tomb.” On ossuaries in rock-cut tombs that belonged to Judean families, it was customary to indicate the ancestry or lineage of the deceased by naming the father, as, for example, Judah son of John (Yohanan); Honya son of Alexa; and Martha daughter of Hananya. But in rock-cut tombs owned by non-Judean families (or which contained the remains of relatives from outside Judea), it was customary to indicate the deceased’s place of origin, as, for example, Simon of Ptolemais; Papias the Bethshanite (of Beth Shean); and Gaios son of Artemon from Berenike. Our historical and literary sources (such as the Gospels, Flavius Josephus, etc.) often make the same distinctions between Judeans and non-Judeans (for example, Galileans, Idumaeans, Saul of Tarsus, Simon of Cyrene, and so on). If the Talpiot tomb is indeed the tomb of Jesus and his family, we would expect at least some of the ossuary inscriptions to reflect their Galilean origins, by reading, for example, Jesus [son of Joseph] of Nazareth (or Jesus the Nazarene), Mary of Magdala, and so on. However, the inscriptions provide no indication that this is the tomb of a Galilean family and instead point to a Judean family.

The identification of the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family is based on a string of problematic and unsubstantiated claims, including adding an otherwise unattested Matthew (Matya) to the family of Jesus; identifying an otherwise unknown son of Jesus named Judah; and identifying the Mariamne named on one of the ossuaries in the tomb as Mary Magdalene by interpreting the word Mara (which follows the name Mariamne) as the Aramaic term for “master” (arguing that Mariamne was a teacher and leader). To account for the fact that Mary/Mariamne’s name is written in Greek, the filmmakers transform the small Jewish town of Migdal/Magdala/Tarichaea on the Sea of Galilee (Mary’s hometown) into “an important trading center” where Greek was spoken. Instead, as in other Jewish towns of this period, generally only the upper classes knew Greek, whereas poorer Jews spoke Aramaic as their everyday language.

Taken individually, each of these points weakens the case for the identification of the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family. Collectively these points are devastating, since the statistical analyses presented in the film are based on certain assumptions made about these names.

The identification of the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family contradicts the canonical Gospel accounts of the death and burial of Jesus and the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus. The claim is also inconsistent with all of the available information—historical and archaeological—about how Jews in the time of Jesus buried their dead, and specifically the evidence we have about poor, non-Judean families such as that of Jesus. It is a sensationalistic claim without any scientific basis or support.

Paul Maier Weighs in on Talpiot Tomb

A Skeleton in God's Closet? Paul Maier Responds

Paul Maier, Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University, once wrote a "theological thriller" on what would happen if someone claimed to discover Jesus' bones. It was called A Skeleton in God's Closet. Professor Maier yesterday sent out this email to "friends and readers" regarding the new documentary that has parallels with his fictional scenario:

Paul L. Maier, Ph.D., Litt.D

Department of History

Western Michigan UniversityKalamazoo, MI 49008

February 25, 2007

Dear Friends and Readers,

Thanks for the profusion of e-mails I’ve received over the last two days regarding the Talpiot tombs discovery in Jerusalem, a.k.a., “the Jesus Family Tomb” story. Some of you also suggested that “life seemed to be following art” so far as my A Skeleton in God’s Closet was concerned. Believe me, this is not the way I wanted my novel to hit the visual media!

Alas, this whole affair is just the latest in the long-running media attack on the historical Jesus, which – we thought – had culminated in that book of lies, The Da Vinci Code. But no: the caricatures of Christ continue.

Please, lose no sleep over the Talpiot “discoveries” for the following reasons, and here are the facts:.

1) Nothing is new here: scholars have known about the ossuaries ever since March of 1980. The general public learned when the BBC filmed a documentary on them in 1996. James Tabor’s book, The Jesus Dynasty, also made a big fuss over the Talpiot tombs more recently, and now James Cameron (The Titanic) and Simcha Jacobovici have climbed aboard the sensationalist bandwagon as well.

2) All the names – Yeshua, Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, Matia, Judah, and Jose -- are extremely frequent Jewish names for that time and place, and thus most scholars consider this merely coincidental, as they did from the start. One-quarter of Jewish women at that time, for example, were named Maria.

3) There is no reason whatever to equate “Mary Magdalene” with “Mariamene,”as Jacobovici claims.

4) So what if her DNA is different from that of “Yeshua” ? That particular "Mariamme" (as it is usually spelled today) could indeed have been the wife of that particular “Yeshua.”

5) What in the world is the “Jesus Family” doing, having a burial plot in Jerusalem, of all places, the very city that crucified Jesus? Galilee was their home. In Galilee they could have had such a family plot, not Judea. Besides all of which, church tradition – and Eusebius – are unanimous in reporting that Mary died in Ephesus, where the apostle John, faithful to his commission from Jesus on the cross, had accompanied Mary.

6) If this were Jesus’ family burial, what is Matthew doing there – if indeed “Matia” is thus to be translated?

7) How come there is no tradition whatever – Christian, Jewish, or secular – that any part of the Holy Family was buried at Jerusalem?

8) Please note the extreme bias of the director and narrator, Simcha Jacobovici. The man is an Indiana-Jones-wannabe, who oversensationalizes anything he touches. You may have caught him on his TV special regarding The Exodus, in which the man “explained” just everything that still needed proving or explaining in the Exodus account in the Old Testament! It finally became ludicrous, and now he’s doing it again. – As for James Cameron, how do you follow The Titanic? Well, with an even more “titanic” story. He should have known better.

There are more arguments, to be sure, but I want to get this off pronto.

With warm regards,

Paul L. Maier

Campolo's Inversion of Values: An Illustration of What's Wrong with the ABCUSA

I first heard Tony Campolo speak back in college (Alderson-Broaddus in Philippi, WV) and was transfixed. Here was a man possessed of the gospel. I have quoted him frequently, use his illustrations (always a compliment from a preacher) and been challenged by him.

But Tony has a tendency to let his enthusiasms overshadow his theology. Almost twenty years ago, he agreed to change a passage in one of his books when he rhetoric about the poor produced an expression of defective theology. His wife is an advocate of the Welcoming and Affirming position regarding homosexuality--something Gordon McDonald alerted me to back in the late 80s when he and his wife attended the church I pastored in New Hampshire.

Then I read this...

From an article in the Pueblo (CO) Cheiftain, Tony Campolo is quoted:

"I think that Christianity has two emphases. One is a social emphasis to impart the values of the kingdom of God in society - to relieve the sufferings of the poor, to stand up for the oppressed, to be a voice for those who have no voice," Campolo said.

"The other emphasis is to bring people into a personal, transforming relationship with Christ, where they feel the joy and the love of God in their lives," he said. "Fundamentalism has emphasized the latter; mainline churches have emphasized the former. We cannot neglect one for the other."

Notes the Baptist minister, affiliated with the American Baptist Churches: "There are 2,000 verses of Scripture that tell us we must be committed to protecting the poor and the oppressed. . . . There is no concern of Scripture that is addressed so often and so powerfully as reaching out to the poor."

First, I have no argument that the Gospel has a special compassion and message to the poor. The church I pastor disburses between six and ten thousand dollars a year to immediate assistance, and that doesn't could many more thousands in indirect aid.

But for Campolo to maintain that the two grand emphases of the gospel are (1) the social justice needs of the voiceless and (2) a personal relationship to God is specious biblically--especially when stated in that order.

This inversion of values we see in Campolo is exactly what's wrong with the ABCUSA as well. The emphasis on "soul liberty" as a higher value than Biblical authority is what caused the ABC of the Pacific Southwest (now known as Transformation Ministries) to seek separation.

An inversion of values is no small thing. Correct values mixed improperly is a potent poison.

Tony, I love you man, but you are so wrong.

More on Cameron's Titanic Tomb Claims

Reaction to James Cameron's claims to have located the tomb of the unresurrected Jesus has been coming in fast and furious. Here's a skepical article that appeared yesterday in the New York Times, not exactly a bastion of cultural conservatism. It correctly shows the Dan Brown connection in Cameron's mind:

Crypt Held Bodies of Jesus and Family, Film Says

Ruby Washington/The New York Times

Boxes said to contain residue of the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdelene yesterday at a news conference in New York promoting a documentary.


By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Published: February 27, 2007

A documentary by the Discovery Channel claims to provide evidence that a crypt unearthed 27 years ago in Jerusalem contained the bones of Jesus of Nazareth.

Moreover, it asserts that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, that the couple had a son, named Judah, and that all three were buried together.

The claims were met with skepticism by several archaeologists and New Testament scholars, as well as outrage by some Christian leaders. The contention that Jesus was married, had a child and left behind his bones — suggesting he was not bodily resurrected — contradicts core Christian doctrine.

Two limestone boxes said to contain residue from the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene were unveiled yesterday at a news conference at the New York Public Library by the documentary’s producer, James Cameron, who made “Titanic” and “The Terminator.” His collaborators onstage included a journalist, a self-taught antiquities investigator, New Testament scholars, a statistician and an archaeologist. Several of them said they were excited by the findings but uncertain.

“I would like more information. I remain skeptical,” said the archaeologist, Shimon Gibson, a senior fellow at the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, in an interview after the news conference.

In recent years, audiences have demonstrated a voracious appetite for books, movies and magazines that reassess the life and times of Jesus, and there is already a book timed to coincide with this documentary, which will be on the air next Sunday.

“This is exploiting the whole trend that caught on with ‘The Da Vinci Code,’ ” said Lawrence E. Stager, the Dorot professor of archaeology of Israel at Harvard, in a telephone interview. “One of the problems is there are so many biblically illiterate people around the world that they don’t know what is real judicious assessment and what is what some of us in the field call ‘fantastic archaeology.’ ”

Professor Stager said he had not seen the film but was skeptical.

Mr. Cameron said he had been “trepidatious” about becoming involved in the project but got engaged out of “great passion for a good detective story,” not to offend and not to cash in.
“I think this is the biggest archaeological story of the century,” he said. “It’s absolutely not a publicity stunt. It’s part of a very well-considered plan to reveal this information to the world in a way that makes sense, with proper documentation.”

The documentary, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” revisits a site discovered by archaeologists from the Israel Antiquities Authority in the East Talpiyot neighborhood of Jerusalem in 1980, when the area was being excavated for a building.

Ten burial boxes, or ossuaries, were found in the tomb, and six of them had inscriptions. The Discovery Channel filmmakers say, and archaeologists interviewed concur, there is no possibility the inscriptions were forged, because they were catalogued at the time by archaeologists and kept in storage in the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The documentary’s case rests in large part on the interpretation of the inscriptions, which they say are Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Matthew, Joseph and Judah.

In the first century, these names were as common as Tom, Dick and Harry. But the filmmakers commissioned a statistician, Andrey Feuerverger, a professor at the University of Toronto, who calculated that the odds that all six names would appear together in one tomb are one in 600, calculated conservatively — or as much as one in one million.

One box is said to be inscribed “Yeshua bar Yosef,” in Aramaic, an ancient dialect of Hebrew that is translated as “Jesus son of Joseph.” The second box is inscribed “Maria,” in Hebrew. Maria is the Latin version of “Miriam” — a name so common in first century ancient Israel that it was given to about 25 percent of all Jewish women. But the mother of Jesus has always been known as “Maria” (which in English is “Mary”). The documentary says that while thousands of ossuaries have been discovered, only eight have had the inscription “Maria” spelled phonetically in Hebrew letters.

The third box is labeled “Matia,” Hebrew for Matthew, and the filmmakers cite a reference in the New Testament to buttress their claim that Mary had many Matthews in her family and it would make sense to find one in the family tomb.

The fourth box is inscribed “Yose,” a nickname for the Hebrew “Yosef,” or “Joseph” in English. Again, the filmmakers turn to the New Testament Gospels, which refer to four “brothers” of Jesus: James, Judah, Simon and Joseph. Scholars disagree whether these were actual brothers, companions or cousins, but the filmmakers infer that the inscription refers to a brother of Jesus.
DNA testing was commissioned after remains were found by archeologists in this tomb in Jerusalem in 1980.

Perhaps the most shaky claims revolve around the inscription on the fifth box, which the filmmakers assert is that of Mary Magdalene. It is the only inscription of the six in Greek, and says “Mariamene e Mara,” which the filmmakers say can be translated as “Mary, known as the master.”

The filmmakers cite the interpretation of a Harvard professor, François Bovon, of the “Acts of Phillip,” a text from the fourth or fifth century and recently recovered from a monastery at Mount Athos in Greece. The filmmakers say that Professor Bovon has determined from the “Acts of Phillip” that Mariamene is Mary Magdalene’s real name.

The filmmakers commissioned DNA testing on the residue in the boxes said to have held Jesus and Mary Magdalene. There are no bones left, because the religious custom in Israel is to bury archeological remains in a cemetery.

However, the documentary’s director and its driving force, Simcha Jacobovici, an Israeli-born Canadian, said there was enough mitochondrial DNA for a laboratory in Ontario to conclude that the bodies in the “Jesus” and “Mary Magdalene” ossuaries were not related on their mothers’ side. From this, Mr. Jacobovici deduced that they were a couple, because otherwise they would not have been buried together in a family tomb.

In an interview, Mr. Jacobovici was asked why the filmmakers did not conduct DNA testing on the other ossuaries to determine whether the one inscribed “Judah, son of Jesus” was genetically related to either the Jesus or Mary Magdalene boxes; or whether the Jesus remains were actually the offspring of Mary.

“We’re not scientists. At the end of the day we can’t wait till every ossuary is tested for DNA,” he said. “We took the story that far. At some point you have to say, ‘I’ve done my job as a journalist.’ ”

Among the most influential scholars to dispute the documentary was Amos Kloner, former Jerusalem district archaeologist of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who examined the tomb in 1980.

Mr. Kloner said in a telephone interview that the inscription on the alleged “Jesus” ossuary is not clear enough to ascertain. The box on display at the news conference is a plain rectangle with rough gashes on one side. The one supposedly containing Mary Magdalene has six-petalled rosettes and an elaborate border.

“The new evidence is not serious, and I do not accept that it is connected to the family of Jesus,” said Mr. Kloner, who appears in the documentary as a skeptic.

New Testament scholars also criticized the documentary as theologically dangerous, historically inaccurate and irresponsible.

“A lot of conservative, orthodox and moderate Christians are going to be upset by the recklessness of this,” said Ben Witherington, a Bible scholar at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky. “Of course, we want to know more about Jesus, but please don’t insult our intelligence by giving us this sort of stuff. It’s going to get a lot of Christians with their knickers in a knot unnecessarily.”