Session 6 – The tomb and the Shroud
In this session we will look at two topics, the
supposed tomb of Jesus that was discovered,
and the shroud of Turin
Much information was taken from the
following source when dealing with
the tomb of Jesus:
Michael S Heiser PhD – Association for
Biblical Research, Biblical Archeology
Did we find Jesus’ tomb?
On March 4, 2007, the Discovery Channel
aired The Lost Tomb of Jesus
The discovery was based off the
recently published book at the time,
The Jesus Family Tomb
If we actually discovered Jesus’ grave, that
sure would mess up Christianity
The tomb housed ten ossuaries (bone
boxes),several of which bore inscribed
names intimately associated with
Christianity, including Jesus,
Mary, and Joseph.
The authors also claim that one of the
ossuaries in the tomb housed the bones of
Mary Magdalene, proving Jesus and Mary
Magdalene were married
In the documentary released on the
Talpiot family tomb of Jesus, all but
one scholar issued disclaimers and
objections to how they were portrayed
in the movie as supporting the discovery
being the tomb of Jesus
Realize also, the tomb was known to
specialists years before the discovery was
announced, and was rejected by the vast
majority of scholars as being the real tomb
Dr. James Tabor, Professor and Chair of the
Department of Religious Studies at the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
was the one individual who argued for the
discovery because of other views he had
previously held that it seemed to support
Tabor articulates his theory in his recent
book, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden
History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the
Birth of Christianity
Tabors views can be summarized
as followed:
He rejects the virgin birth, but does not
say Joseph was the father. Instead,
Mary had relations with a Roman
soldier named Panthera
This idea was first proposed by Celsus in
the late second century AD.
According to his view, John the Baptist and
Jesus were both royal priestly messiahs, John
first and then Jesus, and they’re teachings
were about coming back to the Torah and
seeking the Kingdom of God
According to the theory, after John was
killed Jesus went to Jerusalem to confront
the Jewish religious rulers and point out the
corruption and demanding a return to
righteousness and the Kingdom of God
Jesus expected God to protect him as he
did this, but he ended up getting
crucified because of it
After that, Jesus brother Joseph takes over,
and after him James leads the group
Jesus and John both were both royalty from
the line of David, which means his brothers
were also! Thus they were forming a sort of
Davidic dynasty
What we have in Christianity today is not
what Jesus actually taught according to
Tabor, but instead it’s the teachings of Paul
who disagreed with Jesus and is responsible
for modern day Christianity
Because of these views, the idea of Jesus
tomb fits well within his theory, because he
never rose from the dead
Tabor gives some arguments to support this
being the tomb of Jesus, let’s look at them
THE NAME "YOSEH"
Tabor says the ossuary that has the
name Yoseh (Hebrew letters, yod-wawsamech-heh; Joseph) belongs to
Jesus’ brother who has the same
name in the gospels.
What did Tabor write himself?
“In the time of Jesus, that is, in 2nd Temple
times, before the Destruction of Jerusalem
in 70 CE, this nickname Yoseh is extremely
rare in either Hebrew or Greek. As far as
Hebrew goes, it is found only here, in the
Talpiot tomb, on an ossuary, and one other
time in a slightly different, but equivalent
spelling (Yod, Samech, Hey), on an ossuary
from Mt. Scopus…
It is also found once on a tomb inscription from
the period (Jason’s Tomb), and once in apapyrus
from Wadi Muraba’at (pre-135 CE). In Greek, its
equivalent forms (Ιωσε/Ιωση/Ιωσης), which are
usually translated Yose/Jose or Joses/Joses in
English, occur on only five ossuaries. In contrast,
the full name Joseph/Yehosef is found on 32
ossuaries and many dozens of literary references
in the period...This nickname Jose/Joses in
Greek is found in Mark 6:3 as the nickname for
Jesus’ brother Joseph. (2007b).
“…Of course this alone does not prove that
the Yoseh in the Talpiot tomb is the brother
of Jesus. But the data does indeed argue that
as a rare nickname, known only on a handful
of ossuaries and from two inscriptions of the
period, found in a tomb with a “Jesus son of
Joseph,” Yoseh is quite striking. And that
Mark knows this as the unique and rare
nickname of Jesus’ brother Joseph, is surely
significant evidence.”
Understand, He admits the name is used in
other instances, and is not unique to the
Biblical text (that text is one among several)
but steers it towards his theory
We actually have no evidence that the Yose
found in the tomb is related to anyone else
in the tomb, and if he is we have no idea
how because his ossuary doesn’t include
any information on kinship
The only way that we can show that the
Jesus in this tomb is the actual Jesus of
Nazareth is if the other individuals match the
historical records that we have
It would be easy to imagine things and
make connections in our minds that are not
made in reality for us, if we are going to
make a good decision on this tomb we need
to look at the evidence, and not speculate
We have six ossuaries with these inscriptions:
• Mariamenou [e] Mara (“Mary, who is
Martha / lord”); or
(Mariamē kai Mara; “Mary and Martha”)
(Pfann 2007)
• Yhwdh br Yshw’ (“Judah/Jude, son of Jesus”)
• Mtyh (“Matiyahu”; “Matthew”)
• Yshw’ br Yhwsp (“Jesus, son of Joseph”)
• Ywsh (“Joseph/Yose”)
• Mryh (“Mary”)
Dr. Michael S Heiser said the following in
response to these names: “Notice that only
two of the names have what is called a
patronym—a descriptive phrase denoting
family affiliation or ancestry (e.g., “Jude, son
of Jesus”; “Jesus, son of Joseph”).What this
means is that, in terms of data that actually
exists,the Talpiot tomb tells us only that we
have a Jesus who was the son of a Joseph,
and a Jude who was the son of a Jesus.
We know nothing about the other relationships
of the other people in the tomb. Despite this
paucity of information, Jacobovici and his
associates know how the mind works. Since
millions around the world are familiar with the
names of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and Mary
Magdalene—whether because of Biblical
literacy or The DaVinci Code—the creators of
the Jesus Family Tomb documentary assume
correctly that when a person hears those names
presented together,
the mind will immediately cluster them in a
manner associated with the New Testament.
The mind therefore “defaults” to the
supposition that these people are related in the
way the New Testament describes, and so the
mind is predisposed to equate them with the
actual New Testament characters. But that is
not what the data from the tomb tell us, since
there are no patronyms that produce that
conclusion—it is just where the mind goes
subconsciously.”
What we do not know
We do not know if this is a family tomb
If it is a family tomb, we don’t know who is
closely related and who is distant relatives
We do not know if the people buried there
were adults of children
Though it is assumed, we do not know that
Mary in the tomb is the mother of Jesus
It is assumed that Mariamenou, considered
to be Mary Magdalene, is married to the
Jesus of this tomb… there is no evidence
We have no information on if either Mary
was married to the Joseph in the tomb
The second argument is the statistical
rarity of this combinations of names being
found together
The claim is because of the name Yoseh
(Hebrew) as a shortened nickname for
Joseph is extremely rare, it means
statistically this must be Jesus’ tomb
Keep in mind, every other name, and the
full name Joseph, are EXTREMELY common
names at the time
Is the name Yoseh actually that rare though
in the way that it is used?
There has been many arguments from
statisticians on both sides debating how
likely it is for these names to all be together
But the arguments from the unbiblical side
always assume this extremely rare nickname
referring to Jesus’ brother in the Bible
As mentioned earlier, that name is only
found in three other times in archeology
The problem arises because Mark 6:3 is
written in Greek, not in Hebrew, and you
cannot prove by any means that when
dealing in the Hebrew language, Jesus’
brother went by the shortened Yoseh! It’s
never used that way in the Bible
The Greek name does not have a one-onone comparison to the shortened Hebrew
version, it can either be the long Joseph,
or short Yoseh
There are other problems (published by the
Duke University Religion Department
Instead of reinventing the wheel, or
rewriting the following (well written)
arguments, I will instead quote the paper
published by Duke University that was
signed and authored by the following
individuals throughout the next few slides:
Signed,
Professor Mordechai Aviam, University of Rochester
Professor Ann Graham Brock, Iliff School of Theology, University of Denver
Professor F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Princeton Theological Seminary
Professor C.D. Elledge, Gustavus Adolphus College
Professor Shimon Gibson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Professor Rachel Hachlili, University of Haifa
Professor Amos Kloner, Bar-Ilan University
Professor Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Professor Lee McDonald, Arcadia Seminary
Professor Eric M. Meyers, Duke University
Professor Stephen Pfann, University of the Holy Land
Professor Jonathan Price, Tel Aviv University
Professor Christopher Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion
Professor Alan F. Segal, Barnard College, Columbia University
Professor Choon-Leong Seow, Princeton Theological Seminary
Mr. Joe Zias, Science and Antiquity Group, Jerusalem
Dr. Boaz Zissu, Bar-Ilan University
Statistically, the odd’s of this
tomb belong to Jesus are
extremely low if Mariamene
(named on one of the
ossuaries) is not Mary
Magdalene. The reading of
the name inscribed
Mariamene was contested by
epigraphers very early on in
this discovery (but you won’t
hear about that.)
Furthermore, Mary Magdalene is not
referred to by the Greek name Mariamene
anywhere in literature before the late
second-third century
“An expert panel of scholars on the subject
of Mary in the early church dismissed out of
hand the suggestion that Mary Magdalene
was married to Jesus, and no traditions
refer to a son of Jesus named Judah”
“Moreover, the DNA evidence from the tomb,
which has been used to suggest that Jesus had
a wife, was dismissed by the Hebrew University
team that devised such procedures and has
conducted such research all over the world.”
“The ossuary inscribed with the name “Jesus
son of Joseph” is paralleled by a find from
another Jerusalem tomb, and at least one
speaker said the reading of the name “Jesus” on
the Talpiot tomb ossuary is uncertain.”
The idea of this being the tomb of Jesus flies
in the face of everything we have in the early
sources of the gospels and Paul that say Jesus
was buried (alone) in a tomb by Joseph of
Arimathaea after his crucifixion
There are strong traditions on which tomb
Jesus was buried in, and non of them point
to the tomb discovered
“To conclude, we wish to protest the
misrepresentation of the conference
proceedings in the media, and make it clear
that the majority of scholars in attendance –
including all of the archaeologists and
epigraphers who presented papers relating to
the tomb - either reject the identification of
the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family
or find this claim highly speculative.”
Briefly on the Shroud
The Shroud of Turin is a 14foot-long linen cloth with
the faint image of a man.
Imagine the cloth going from
feet to head along a man’s
back, then folding over the
head to continue back
to the feet.
Many Christians think this is the shroud of
Jesus and that the supernatural energy from
the resurrection burned an image into the
cloth. The shroud first appears in history in
1390 in France and was moved to Turin, Italy
in 1578. Fire and water damage from 1532
are visible on the shroud.
Those who believe this is the true burial
cloth says it shows signs of the crucifixion in
the image (and the beating beforehand)
The first problem is scriptural. Doesn’t fully
match what the Bible says:
“[Simon Peter] saw the strips of linen lying
there [in the tomb], as well as the cloth
that had been wrapped around Jesus’
head.” (John 20:6–7)
The Bible doesn’t record a single shroud, but
two pieces. There is also no evidence people
buried their dead this way at that time
“They took the body of Jesus and bound it in
linen wrappings with the spices, as is the
burial custom of the Jews.” (John 19:40)
This wasn’t just a pinch of spice though, it
was around 100 pounds that Nicodemus
brought (John 19:39)
Next we face an artistic problem that the
shroud faces, because it should drape
around the head, but it doesn’t
Was this a fake and forgery?
Selling religious relics was very common in
the medieval days, it’s been said there were
enough pieces of the cross sold to build a
ship! And enough nails from Jesus’ hands to
hold that ship together
This was not the only shroud, history
records forty of them that have
been discovered
In fact, our first well-documented discussion
of the shroud in 1390 states that it is a
forgery and that the artist was known.
C-14 dating says that the linen is from the
1300s, there is evidence of tempera paint
creating the image, blood 2000 years old
should be black not red, pollen found on the
shroud is from Europe, not Israel (Debated
point), and the problems go on and on
On the flip side, there are arguments
that make it sound true
1. The cloth and what is on it
The image bears the marks of everything
that you would expect from the crucifixion,
the nail marks in his hands, the evidence of
the crown, and the beating that he went
through before the crucifixion
The shroud would be expensive, and thus
they say Joseph of Arimathaea
(rich man) would own that
The pollen is claimed to be correct for
Israel at that time
Adding to the mystery is travertine
aragonite limestone (road dust) almost
exclusively found in the vicinity of
Jerusalem, is also on the Shroud around the
knees and feet.
2. The substance comprising the
image is still unknown
Most scientists agree we do not know how
(what “paint”) this image could be formed
The image over the shroud did not sink into
the linen (like the blood, or paint would) it
only penetrates the first two
microfibers (and that’s consistent over the
entire shroud) which a human couldn’t do
3. The formation of the image
According to World-renowned Shroud
researcher Professor Giulio Fanti of Padua
University in Italy, the image on the shroud
has to be the result of radiation released in
the form of an electrical discharge. In
layman’s terms, a burst of light and energy.
How can someone in the 13th century
or before do this?
4. The age of the cloth
The C-14 date for the “middle age forgery”
is around 1260 – 1390. The carbon-14 test
was performed on an outer piece of the
Shroud that had been sewn on later for
handling purposes.
New dating by looking at decay rates of
microscopic fibers date the shroud from
300 B.C. – 200 A.D.
Memory Verse
1 Corinthians 15:13-14: “But if there is no
resurrection of the dead, then Christ is
not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then
our preaching is empty and your
faith is also empty.”