Debunking “The Tomb Of Jesus”

Michael Coren will have the director on his show tonight (Thu; 8pm). I expect him to lose the debate badly!

THURSDAY, March 8 – The Tomb of Jesus? A debate between film maker Simcha Jacobovici and New Testament scholar Dr. Craig Evans.

http://www.michaelcoren.com/

Get your VCRs ready!!

I agree with the apologist’s positions against the Jesus Tomb for entirely different reasons. Mr. Cameron, I believe should be given every opportunity to explain himself. He should then bear the full brunt of criticism should his evidence be found wanting.
Both Cameron and Dan Brown have invented myths and suppositions from events that are not proven without doubt to have happened. The Gospels have painted Christ as a known celebrity throughout Jerusalem and Galilee yet the local historians existing at that time (the true contemporaries of Jesus)have not one peep to mention anything remotely similar to the Gospel writers. These Gospel writers are completely unknown. Matthew and Luke have borrowed large excerpts from Mark so we can therefore safely conclude that the Gospels were NOT eyewitness accounts but written at least fifty years after the resurrection.
These are the more disturbing points that one needs to address not some made up farcical and sensational headlines about Jesus and his family situation. The first century has not left us with much which has fuelled and continues to fuel fantastic stories that seems to transcend our seemingly consistent natural laws and our ability to reason.
Cheers
Robert

Robert, regarding the historicity of the Gospels, I encourage you to read this article found on Catholic Answers’ website. Check out also the “Augustinian hypothesis” and “Papias” entries in Wikipedia. As for the lack of other historical sources that talk about Jesus and his ministry, it can be argued- from the point of view of a 1st century non-believer- that 1) his death by crucifixion put him among hundreds of other ‘common criminals’ and religious zealots of the time, and that 2) even if part of his ministry was mentioned in a non-Christian source, perhaps the Christian communities of the time didn’t bother copying those manuscripts for future generations since they didn’t offer a Christian understanding of who He was and thus the manuscripts were lost.

Luke- a Greek physician- says at the beginning of his Gospel that he took the time to investigate the writings that were circulating about Jesus and that he interviewed living witnesses. We have no reason to doubt his words.

According to Wikipedia, Papias is quoted from Eusebius of Caesaria (writing in the fourth century BC). Papias is dated approximately 125AD, almost 100 years after the resurrection.

Your points of 1) and 2) can only be speculative at best. Philo of Alexandria and Justus of Tiberius both wrote in the same time frame of Jesus. Both wrote extensive works on many small sects in Jerusalem at this time. Much of Philo’s works have survived today. Justus’ works have not but one of the early church figures of the sixth century laments that his works do not mention “our lord”.

As for Luke, if had written down many of what Peter had to dictated to him (and not in order) why would he indeed need to borrow so much his own writings from Mark (approximately 60-65%)? Surely, the author could solely rely on Peter’s testimony and not some other writer.
The other problem with Luke is that his work has not been referenced before Iraneous in 180AD. With the possible exception of Tertullian, no other writer, church father or historian references Luke or his works until at least 120 years after the resurrection. In fact, the same goes for all the Gospels. Why is it that they are not referenced once before 170-180AD? That stretch gives me great reason to be concerned.

My apologies – Justus Tiberias was a first century historian. His works were read by Photius in the 9th century. It was Photius who lamented that none of his works mentions the Lord.
Thanks
Robert

The historicity of the Gospels is a fascinating subject. Although I don’t have the slightest doubt in my mind and in my heart about the authenticity (and authorship) of the four Gospels (if so, I would’ve never become a priest), there are some good articles about the subject on NewAdvent dot org. Check out the Gospel of Saint Luke entry. There is also this guy (I don’t know he is) who offers an interesting hypothesis that a huge part of the Gospel of Matthew might have been put together by Philip the Deacon (one of the 7 deacons in Acts) (article in French however). There is also this article by the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

As for the Gospels not being referenced all that much, that doesn’t bother me very much. So many historical facts we take for granted and that are generally accepted by historians are not even mentioned sometimes before hundreds of years after the event. Why is it that when it comes to Christian documents, we don’t apply the same standards? There is strong evidence (and many scholars maintain this) that Luke wrote both his Gospel and Acts before the destruction of the Temple in A.D.70 and the martyrdom of Paul in the 60s. So his Gospel is not neatly referenced until st. Iraneus or Papias. It doesn’t mean the Christian communities were not already living the faith and using his writings. In his second letter to the Corinthians (about AD 56), Paul speaks about a “brother” that he sent with Titus of whom “all the Churches sing the praise about the Gospel”. He might very well be speaking about Luke, his companion. Luke is usually not associated with Peter, Mark is. The sources of Luke’s Gospels are probably the “sayings of Jesus” that circulated in the different communities– also used by Matthew and Mark– and also Philip’s own witnessing (see Acts 21:8), the apostle John and Mary herself (which would account for the infancy narratives).

Father Morrier,
Thank you for your insight. I believe you are sincere and honest in your beliefs otherwise, as you say, you would never have become a priest.

My perspective is more from an historical perspective. I believe that there is a new methodology, a new way of looking at history. Challenges are now everywhere in all periods of History. It is not good science techniques to take anything for granted.

You asked why Christian documents are not being applied with the same standard. There are two reasons. The standard itself is changing and the supernatural claims require an understandable more scrutiny.

I have noticed that a good part of your last note was hypothetical. I am actually more interested in the historical elements. The fact that no one specifically quotes from the Gospels until well after 170AD is disturbing. Also that there were no venerations to Jerusalem, Bethlehem or Nazareth until 300AD around the time of Constantine I.

The further you go back in time towards Jesus’ era, the less details of Gospel stories are available. The further you move away from Jesus’ time, the more the stories become detailed.
None of my arguments are faith-based. They are simply trying to piece together the true historical development of the Gospels.

”The books quoted by Justin [in his "Apologies" AD 153-155] are called by him “Memoirs of the Apostles”. This term, otherwise very rare, appears in Justin quite probably as an analogy with the “Memorabilia” of Xenophon (quoted in “II Apol.”, xi, 3) and from a desire to accommodate his language to the habits of mind of his readers. At any rate it seems that henceforth the word “gospels” was in current usage; it is in Justin that we find it for the first time used in the plural, “the Apostles in their memoirs that are called gospels” (I Apol., lxvi, 3). These memoirs have authority, not only because they relate the words of Jesus, but because, even in their narrative parts, they are considered as Scripture (Dial., 49: citing Matthew 17:13). This opinion of Justin is upheld, moreover, by the Church who, in her public service reads the memoirs of the Apostles as well as the writings of the prophets (I Apol., lxvii, 3). These memoirs were composed by “the Apostles and by those who followed them” (Dial., ciii); he refers in all probability to the four Evangelists, i.e. to two Apostles and two disciples of Christ (Stanton, “New Testament Canon” in Hastings, “Dictionary of the Bible”, III, 535).” (source NewAdvent.org Catholic Encyclopedia).

I said that if I doubted the “authenticity (authorship) of the Gospels”, I would not have become a priest. That’s not exactly what I meant. If I doubted the authenticity (integrity) of the events related in the Gospels, well– then yes– becoming a priest of the Church would’ve be quite pointless. It would signal a lack of faith in the authority of the Church and the truth of its doctrine, not a good thing for a priest! But the question of authorship doesn’t really bother me, although I tend to be traditional in my beliefs about this particular question. (I favor the Augustinian hypothesis). But is it really “Matthew” who put together the first Gospel, or a ‘Matthean community’, or Philip the deacon, that doesn’t really change anything. Their purpose was to tell the story of Jesus’ public ministry, what he said, what happened, his miracles, his death and resurrection… Their “memoirs” of these historical events– eventually put together as “gospels”– were used in the life of the early Church, as they came together to pray, read Paul’s letters, read a part of what would become Mark or Luke’s or even John’s Gospel. In the early 2nd century, they probably read letters of Ignatius (Antioch) as much as they read the letters of Paul, Peter and James. They had the oral tradition, the living witnesses, the martyrs…

“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. Knowing this, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For these words did not come through the impulse of men: but the holy men had them from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 16.20-21).

Again,there is no clear indication that the “Memoirs of the Apostles” are exactly that of the four Gospels. You again are using phrases such as “in all probability”. I am not saying what you are writing is untrue but it is not as sure or likely that it is what really transpired.
Ironically, you quote 2 Peter which a good majority of New Testament scholars consider pseudepigraphic (not possibly written by Simon Peter himself).
For an interesting read, please also see Minucius Felix a second century apologist. In his apology, Octavius is defending charges against Christianity in which it is said that Christians worship a man on a cross. Octavius strenuously denies these charges. An interesting read from a Christian apologist.