Part 6 (1/2)

The infamous ”Jesus Family Tomb” at Talpiot in Jerusalem thus reflects little more than the common usage of the names found therein. Since the modern archaeological era, there have been several tombs not only with the name of Jesus in them but also with the phrase ”son of Joseph.” There was, in effect, nothing sensational about this decades-old discovery. Regarding the Jesus tomb, Dr. Habermas remarks: The Names ”Joseph” and ”Jesus” were very popular in the 1st century. ”Jesus” appears in at least 99 tombs and on 22 ossuaries. ”Joseph” appears on 45 ossuaries.... ”Mary” is the most common female name in the ancient Jewish world.2 Ill.u.s.trating how widespread was the name ”Jesus,” in 1945 at another Talpiot site Professor E.L. Sukenik found two ossuaries with name ”Jesus” inscribed on them and crosses carved into them. Sukenik subsequently p.r.o.nounced these discoveries the ”earliest Christian evidence.” Despite Sukenik's enthusiasm, these ossuaries have now been excluded as evidence, as discussed by Bruce in New Testament Doc.u.ments: ...it now seems fairly certain that the inscriptions have nothing to do with Christianity, but refer to two separate first century individuals named Jesus, neither of them being Jesus of Nazareth.3 In fact, the inscription on the ossuary first unveiled by Sukenik was ”Jesus, Son of Joseph,” which stunned his audience until he informed them that the two names were very common during the first century. Moreover, in 1873 French archaeologist Charles Clermont-Ganneau had discovered some 30 ossuaries near Jerusalem, some of which contained the names Jesus, Judah and Salome on them. As these artifacts were inscribed with crosses, Ganneau made the case that they were Christian.1 The fact remains, however, that these artifacts too have since been determined to be Jewish, not Christian. Signs of the cross, in fact, do not necessarily represent a Christian symbol, and artifacts possessing them cannot automatically be deemed Christian. Pre-Christian Jews and Pagans also used the symbol of the cross, particularly within the context of religion. This fact of the pre-Christian cross may explain why in the gospels Christ is depicted as telling his followers to ”take up” their ”crosses.” (Mk 8:34) Over 50 years prior to the discovery of the notorious ”Jesus Family Tomb” at Talpiot there occurred other finds of similar significance at the Dominus Flevit site in Jerusalem, with some 40 ossuaries, upon certain of which appeared the names Jairus, Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Martha, Matthew, Lazarus, Salome and Zechariah-all appellations appearing in the New Testament. These discoveries have all been ruled out as evidence of the historical Jesus and the gospel tale. Another tomb at the same site, which was excavated by the Italian archaeologist P. Bagatti, yielded a bone box or ossuary with the name of ”s.h.i.+mon bar Yonah,” which was deemed in 1962 to be that of the apostle Peter. The brouhaha about that discovery petered out quickly, especially since tradition depicts the apostle dying at Rome, not Jerusalem, and being buried under St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. In fact, the discovery of the purported tomb of Peter at Rome was announced by the Pope in 1950, making it obvious why this later find at Jerusalem escaped notice. Peter's relics themselves were purportedly found in 1968 in the same Roman tomb. Few people outside of Catholicism have taken these claims seriously, and the skepticism regarding all such discoveries is well placed, in consideration of the vast bogus relic and artifact industry that has been in play for millennia.

Indeed, one fact which needs to be kept in mind whenever we hear about archaeological discoveries that may be pertinent to biblical lore: The forgery and fraud within this field have been rampant over the past centuries, beginning in earnest with the Christian convictions of Emperor Constantine's mother, Helena. Those individuals who stood to benefit financially from Helena's religious fervor were only too happy to provide her with whatever ”artifacts” she desired-and the result has been the highly profitable and widespread counterfeit relic and artifact industry. Included among these countless bogus artifacts and sites are the ”one True Cross,” the Holy Sepulcher at Jerusalem, and, apparently, the supposed house of St. Peter at Capernaum. Of course, Christianity has not been alone in this practice of fabricating relics and artifacts; in reality, it has built upon and perfected a longtime habit of the priesthood in general around the world.

The Pilate Inscription and Caiaphas Tomb.

One archaeological find that is widely hyped as providing ”evidence” of the gospel story is a Latin inscription on a stone found at Caesarea, Israel, that purportedly mentions Pilate. The pertinent part of this inscription is peculiar in that it has been cramped in below a neatly laid-out phrase referring to a previously unknown term ”Tiberium,” possibly a temple of Tiberias. Indeed, it seems as if the ”I” and ”T” in the word ”PILATUS” have been sloppily inserted into another word. Be that as it may, the existence of Pontius Pilate is not in question here, as we already know much about him from Josephus and Philo. Even if this inscription is original, it proves little more than that the gospel story was placed in a particular historical setting using a number of historical characters. Another of these figures would be the high priest Caiaphas, whose family tomb was apparently found in 1990. Again, the discovery of this artifact serves only to validate that the gospel story was given a historical setting; it does not verify the events of the tale or the historicity of its other main characters. Nor do either of these finds add anything to our knowledge of who Jesus was.

The Crucified John.

Apologists also hold up the bones of a crucified victim from the first century named Yehochanan as evidence of the grotesque practice of crucifixion. It is odd that there are no other such discoveries, in consideration of the impression given by Christian history that this practice was significantly widespread in Judea. In any event, such finds, along with those of coins, boats, diaper pins and a.s.sorted other artifacts and relics simply establish a historical or quasi-historical milieu into which the gospel story was placed, rather than providing evidence that the tale is true.

The other archaeological discoveries listed by apologists such as F.F. Bruce to demonstrate the purported historical reliability of the New Testament consist almost exclusively of the same type of circ.u.mstantial evidence, such as an inscription defining a ”wall of part.i.tion” in the Jewish temple, the ”Pool of Bethesda” at Jerusalem, or inscriptions found at Corinth in Greece naming an ”Erastus” and apparently concerning a ”synagogue of the Hebrews.”

Furthermore, there are countless temples, precincts, statues, inscriptions, pottery and other artifacts of the Greek G.o.ds all over Greece and elsewhere-many in the exact places where ancient authorities such as Herodotus and Pausanias recorded they would be. Does that fact mean the stories of the Greek myths are true? Was Zeus Pateras-G.o.d the Father-a real being who impregnated the virgin Danae by way of a golden shower? Was their offspring, the virgin-born Son of G.o.d, Perseus, a real person who walked the earth? The swampy site of the water-monster the Hydra has been found in Lerna, Greece-does this discovery mean that its killer, the hero and demiG.o.d Hercules, also born of a mortal woman and G.o.d the Father, really existed and performed the miraculous deeds he was supposed to have accomplished? And so on, through many thousands of such archaeological sites and finds around the world that relate to G.o.ds and G.o.ddesses of antiquity. Indeed, the archaeological finds that prove the historical setting and background of many myths, Greek, Roman and otherwise, are extremely abundant-much more so than those corresponding to Christianity. If we were to apply the ”argument of abundance” used in the discussion of the New Testament texts to the archaeological finds of ancient Greece, we would need to admit that the Greek G.o.ds were ”authentic!”

Again, upon close inspection, it is clear that all of the archaeological finds held up as proofs of early Christianity const.i.tute circ.u.mstantial evidence. After all these centuries, there has emerged, in fact, not one solid sc.r.a.p of evidence of Christ's advent or even the existence of his immediate followers. It seems amazing that so many people for so long have been fervently and diligently seeking evidence to prove or at least flesh out the gospel story-yet, they have invariably come up empty-handed!

Despite the lack of hard, scientific evidence, and after making erroneous claims as to the discredited textual ”evidence” regarding the existence of Jesus Christ and the historicity of the gospel tale, Christian apologists nevertheless set forth declarations such as the following from Dr. Geisler: The primary sources of the life of Christ are the four Gospels. However there are considerable reports from non-Christian sources that supplement and confirm the Gospel accounts. These come largely from Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Samaritan sources of the first century.1 Here Geisler is evidently referring to Suetonius, Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus and Thallus; however, as has been demonstrated, the value of these ”considerable reports” is dubious to non-existent. Moreover, the a.s.sertion that all these ”sources” come from the ”first century” is extremely misleading.2 In this same apologetic vein, Habermas also concludes that ”ancient extra biblical sources do present a surprisingly large amount of detail concerning both the life of Jesus and the nature of early Christianity.”1 Christian scholar Dr. Ben Witherington likewise puts forth the same sort of conclusion: ”It is simply not true...that we have had no hard evidence for Jesus' existence before now except in the Bible. That ignores mentions in ancient Roman and Jewish historians such Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus.”2 As we have seen, this a.s.sessment cannot be reasonably and scientifically upheld.

Ignoring all these facts, and using a logical fallacy of appealing to authority and not on the basis of any valid credible and scientific evidence, Christian scholars and apologists also make statements such as those of F.F. Bruce: Some writers may toy with the fancy of a ”Christ-myth,” but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the ”Christ-myth” theories.3 After investigating these purported evidences from Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny and Tacitus, however, Bruce further acknowledges, ”We are thus thrown back on the New Testament writings as our primary doc.u.ments,”4 evincing that the New Testament itself const.i.tutes ”well-tested... source-material.” Yet, in a footnote to these remarks, Bruce further comments: The NT writings were not, of course, designed as historians' source-material, and apart from Luke-Acts are not written in historiographical style... (Emph. added) Hence, while admitting that there is no historical evidence for the life of Christ, and noting that the gospels themselves were not ”designed as historians' source-materials,” Bruce nevertheless dismisses the rational deduction that Christ himself may not be historical, going so far as to imply that anyone who comes to such a conclusion cannot be considered a historian-despite the fact that there is essentially no history to go on! To put it another way, after discovering that there is basically no historical evidence for Jesus, with not even the gospels serving as ”historian's source-material,” it is a.s.serted that no ”unbiased historian” can reach the conclusion that Christ may be non-historical. In dealing with the investigation of a ”historical” Jesus, then, we are faced with a hopeless and absurd Catch-22.

In reality, the puzzling and embarra.s.sing deficiency of historical and archaeological evidence for the greatest man who ever lived and who was famed far and wide has made many people wonder about the story itself, causing them to doubt the most fantastic elements, including the bulk of Christ's signs of divinity. In order to add to our picture of who Jesus was, we will therefore need to inquire elsewhere, in light of this paucity of data, keeping in mind that, again, we cannot afford to avoid disquieting conclusions in our quest for truth.

Who are Elijah and Elisha?

Now it happened that as he was praying alone the disciples were with him; and he asked them, ”Who do the people say that I am?” And they answered, ”John the Baptist; but others say, Eli'jah; and others, that one of the old prophets has risen.”

Luke 9:18-19.

We cannot look to contemporary extrabiblical evidence to determine who Jesus really was. We may, however, follow certain internal clues that might give us some ideas. For example, at Luke 9, when discussing who people say he is, Jesus's disciples respond that some believe him to be ”Elijah.” In Matthew (11:14), Jesus identifies John the Baptist as Elijah instead. Who was Elijah? Why does he appear with Moses next to Jesus during one of Christ's most miraculous events, the Transfiguration?

In the Old Testament (2 Kings 2:11), the esteemed Jewish prophet Elijah ended his earthly career by being taken up into heaven alive, such that ”the Jews expected he would return just before the advent of the Messiah, whom he would prepare the minds of the Israelites to receive.”1 In the last book before the New Testament, the prophet Malachi (”My messenger”) says: ”Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at h.o.r.eb for all Israel.

”Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.” (Mal 4:4-5) Thus, in the biblical book, chapter and verses directly preceding the gospel of Matthew it is said that Elijah would appear ”before the great and terrible day of the Lord,” an interpreted reference to the coming of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Elijah is the messiah's forerunner, the same as John the Baptist.

Concerning the transfiguration scene in the gospels, which places both Elijah and Moses on either side of Jesus, Christian commentator Matthew Henry (1706-1714) states: These two were Moses and Elias [Elijah], men very eminent in their day. They had both fasted forty days and forty nights, as Christ did, and wrought other miracles, and were both remarkable at their going out of the world as well as in their living in the world. Elias was carried to heaven in a fiery chariot, and died not. The body of Moses was never found, possibly it was preserved from corruption, and reserved for this appearance. The Jews had great respect for the memory of Moses and Elias, and therefore they came to witness of him, they came to carry tidings concerning him to the upper world. In them the law and the prophets honoured Christ, and bore testimony to him. Moses and Elias appeared to the disciples; they saw them, and heard them talk, and, either by their discourse or by information from Christ, they knew them to be Moses and Elias; glorified saints shall know one another in heaven. They talked with Christ. Note, Christ has communion with the blessed, and will be no stranger to any of the members of that glorified corporation. Christ was now to be sealed in his prophetic office, and therefore these two great prophets were fittest to attend him, as transferring all their honour and interest to him; for in these last days G.o.d speaks to us by his Son, Heb. 1:1.1 Hence, Moses and Elijah materialize next to Jesus in order to confer their authority on him, and, therefore, as the voice of G.o.d commands at Matthew 17:5, we should ”listen to him.” Regarding these events, David Brown remarks: Moses represented ”the law,” Elijah ”the prophets,” and both together the whole testimony of the Old Testament Scriptures, and the Old Testament saints, to Christ; now not borne in a book, but by living men, not to a coming, but a come Messiah, visibly, for they ”appeared,” and audibly, for they ”spake.”1 Jesus is made to appear talking with Moses in order to show that he is the fulfillment of Mosaic law, while Elijah is there in order to demonstrate that Jesus is his heir, i.e., the messiah, as well as the fulfillment of the prophets. As Jesus says at Matthew 5:17, ”Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Furthermore, by G.o.d's voice booming from the heavens, Jesus's place as His Son is exalted higher than the law and the prophets. The scene also serves to ill.u.s.trate that Jesus could not be Elijah, as was suggested by some in the gospel story, because Elijah is there with him.

Moreover, if, as Jesus says, John the Baptist is Elijah, then logically Jesus would be equivalent to Elijah's Old Testament successor, Elisha. Indeed, as ”Elisha” means ”G.o.d is salvation,” so too does ”Jesus.” Who is Elisha? Why would he be comparable to Jesus himself? Let us look at the events in the life of Elisha in comparison to that of Jesus. Elisha's life, it should be noted, is portrayed in the Old Testament in greater detail than that of Elijah, which indicates that he possesses some importance.

Elisha and Jesus Comparison.

Elisha.

Jesus.

Anointed or christed by his forerunner, Elijah. (1 Kings 19:16) Baptized or ”cleansed” by his forerunner, John. (Mt 3:13) a.s.sociated specifically with the number 12. (1 Kings 19:19) Has a circle of 12 disciples. (Mt 10:2) Immediately leaves his mother and father to follow Elijah. (1 Kings 19:20) Directs disciples to immediately leave their parents in order to follow him. (Mt 4:22) Goes to Gilgal (”a wheel, rolling”). (2 Kings 2:1) Goes to Galilee (Heb: ”Galiyl”: ”circuit”) and Golgotha (Heb: ”galal”: ”to roll”).

Appears in Bethel (”house of G.o.d”). (2 Kings 2:2) Appears in Bethlehem (”house of bread”).

Goes to Jericho. (2 Kings 2:4) Goes to Jericho. (Mk 10:46) Takes on the mantle of Elijah (John). (2 Kings 2:13) Takes on the mantle of John (Elijah).

Crosses the Jordan river by miraculously parting the waters. (2 Kings 2:14) Crosses the sea of Galilee by miraculously walking on the water. (Mt 14:24) Curses some boys, destroying them. (2 Kings 2:24) Curses a fig tree, destroying it. (Mt 21:9) Replenishes the land with water. (2 Kings 3:20) Gives the woman at the well the ”living water.” (Jn 4:10-11) Replenishes the ”heart” with ”living water.” (Jn 7:38) Miraculously increases oil to fill empty jars. (2 Kings 4:1-6) Miraculously turns water in jars into wine. (Jn 2:7-9) Causes an old woman to conceive miraculously. (2 Kings 4:14) Is the product of a miraculous conception.

Called the ”man of G.o.d.” (2 Kings 4:16) Called the ”son of G.o.d.”

Prays to the Lord in a room with the door shut. (2 Kings 4:33) Specifically instructs on prayer to the Lord in a room with the door shut. (Mt 6:6) Raises a child from the dead. (2 Kings 4:34) Raises a child from the dead. (Mt 9:25) Miraculously feeds the mult.i.tudes, starting with small amounts of food and ending up with leftovers. (2 Kings 42-44) Miraculously feeds the mult.i.tudes, starting with small amounts of food and ending up with leftovers. (Mt 15:34-37) Heals a leper. (2 Kings 5:12-14) Heals lepers.

Restores sight to the blind. (2 Kings 6:20) Restores sight to the blind.

Saves Israel from foreign invasions and influences; is Israel's savior. (2 Kings 6:8-23; 9:1-3) Saves the lost sheep of Israel from foreign influences; is Israel's savior.

Is threatened with death by Israel's king. (2 Kings 6:31) Is threatened with death by Israel's king. (Mt 2:13) Delivers Israel in a day of ”good news.” (Gk: ”evangelias”) (2 Kings 7:9) Delivers Israel with his ”good news.” (Eng: ”gospel”; Gk: ”evangelion”) Predicts famine in Israel. (2 Kings 8:1) Predicts famines and other disasters. (Mt 24:7) The man of G.o.d wept. (2 Kings 8:11) The son of G.o.d wept. (Jn 11:35) Elisha's ”servant” becomes king of Syria, ”betrays” Israel. (2 Kings 8:13) Jesus's disciple betrays him, the Lord of Israel.

As can be seen, the lives of these two figures, Elisha, the Old Testament man of G.o.d named ”G.o.d saves,” and Jesus, the New Testament son of G.o.d named ”G.o.d saves,” run very closely in several salient instances. At first glance, there also seem to be some serious differences between Elisha and the later Jesus, such as Elisha's display of wrath when he destroys boys and causes blindness and leprosy. Even here, however, Elisha and Jesus are alike, as in the non-canonical early Christian text depicting Christ's childhood, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (c. 185 ad/ce?), a ”lost book of the Bible,” Jesus is portrayed as an angry boy who kills and maims people. In one episode (3:1-3), a furious five-year-old Jesus calls the young son of Annas the scribe a ”G.o.dless, brainless moron” and vows to make him ”wither away,” instantly killing him. In the next chapter, Jesus kills a boy who b.u.mps into him. When the parents of the murdered child complain, Jesus causes them to go blind. (5:2) Jesus next sa.s.ses his stepfather, Joseph, when the latter goes to punish him for these deeds. When a teacher tells Joseph that he should commit Jesus to his care, the young savior laughs and remarks: ”Really, teacher, what my father has said to you is true. I am the Lord of this people and am here in your presence and have been born among you and am with you. I know where you are from and how many years there will be in your lives. I am telling you the truth, teacher, when you were born, I existed. And if you want to be a perfect teacher, listen to me and I will teach you wisdom which n.o.body knows except me and the one who sent me to you. For you are my disciple and I know you, how old you are and how old you will live to be. And when you see the cross my father has described, you will believe that everything I have said to you is true.”1 Throughout the Infancy Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as a belligerent and arrogant little boy, as well as a violent killer who soon makes everyone afraid of him. He is also depicted as the lord and savior who raises up a playmate who had fallen off a roof and died. (9:5) The boy Jesus further saves a man who had chopped off his own foot with an axe, and he creates clay birds that he miraculously animates, among other miracles. Even without using this non-canonical Christian text, Jesus's fiery personality can be seen in the gospel accounts, as at Mark 1:43, when Jesus ”sternly charges” and sends away a leper who was pestering him. At Mark 3:5, Jesus becomes peeved with the Jewish authorities: ”And he looked around at them in anger...” In the well-known pericope of the moneychangers, Jesus takes a whip and violently and angrily overturns their tables. Mark 10:14 also depicts Christ as ”indignant” at not being allowed to touch the children brought to him for healing, rebuking his disciples for preventing the exchange. While such an emotion might seem understandable, Matthew (Mt 19:14) and Luke (Lk 18:16) both omit it, possibly for purposes of public relations.

Joseph, a Type of Jesus.

Another prominent Old Testament figure who shares some interesting parallels with Jesus is Joseph, son of Jacob/ Israel, famed for his ”coat of many colors.” The correspondences between Joseph and Jesus include the following: * Jesus, also a ”son of Jacob/Israel” (Mt 1:2) is born of a miraculous birth, as is Joseph, whose mother, Rachel, was previously barren but miraculously conceives. (Gen 30:22-24) * Jesus has 12 disciples; Joseph is one of 12 brothers. (Gen 35:22) * Joseph is a shepherd (Gen 37:2); Jesus is the ”Good Shepherd.”

* Joseph was rejected by his family, as was Jesus.