Lost Tomb of Jesus?

We watched the Discovery Channel special last night, and the Ted Koppel hosted discussion afterward. For those who may have missed it, the film examines evidence from a tomb first discovered in 1980 during construction of an apartment complex in Jerusalem. Construction was temporarily halted while archaeologists retrieved the contents and made an archaeological record of site. 10 ossuaries, small limestone boxes used to store the bones of the dead after decomposition, were found in the tomb which was dated to the 1st century. The Israel Antiquity Authority had 9 of the 10 ossuaries in storage (one was never received, or has since been lost). 6 of them were inscribed with names the filmmakers claim can be linked to the genealogy of Jesus, including:

• Maria – a Latinized form of Mary
• Matthew – a name common in Jesus’ maternal lineage
• Simon
• Jesus son of Joseph – in Aramaic
• Mariamne – in Greek, and a name reportedly used for Mary Magdalene in the Acts of Phillip (her brother)
• Judah son of Jesus – the most decorated ossuary

I now understand some of the criticism that has been leveled against the docudrama. As a scientist, it bothers me that a “journalist/filmmaker” went down in the tomb without any scientific backup. I think this lack of scientific rigor is a detriment to the overall hypothesis. At this point, even if the filmmakers are correct, or even on the right track, they’ve given their detractors too much ammunition to tear their hypothesis down thanks to their sloppy science.

I especially take exception to the genetic evidence, which was grossly misrepresented. They were able to retrieve bone fragments from two of the ossuaries, the one inscribed “Jesus” and the one marked “Mariamne.” The DNA was too degraded to get nuclear evidence, but there was enough material to examine the mitochondrial DNA.

Mitochondria are the little powerhouses of the cell, converting nutrients into cellular energy. They also contain their own DNA, which is passed primarily (~99%) from mother to offspring. This occurs because the mitochondria you inherit come from the egg, so you share your mitochondrial DNA with your mother and her maternal female ancestors. In the figure below, the pink individuals all share the same mtDNA, while the green individuals share a different mtDNA lineage.

From the film, it appears that the ancient DNA lab probably sequenced part of the hypervariable region, standard procedure when conducting mtDNA analysis, and looked for differences in the sequences. The lab found that the two individuals in the Jesus and Mariamne boxes were not maternally related because the sequences were not the same, fine. That’s it. The filmmakers go on to say:

That means a couple of things. They were not siblings. They were not mother and child or father and daughter. They were unrelated.

They are correct in stating that the two individuals are not mother and son. But the other two statements are patently false, and display their total lack of understanding of genetic testing and mitochondrial inheritance.

• They could have had the same father, but different mothers, which would make them half-siblings with different mtDNA.
• Because mtDNA is inherited through the mother’s line, they absolutely can not say that these two individuals are not father and daughter. If they were the father would have gotten his mtDNA from HIS mother, and the his daughter would have gotten her mtDNA from HER mother, who are, barring incest, two different women. Fathers and daughters would not be expected to have the same mtDNA.

And because they are unrelated, the filmmakers conclude:

People buried in tombs are related in one of two ways: either by blood or by marriage. The results revealed an explosive possibility: that these two individuals, Jesus, son of Joseph, and Mariamne, were likely related by marriage.

That’s stretching the science too far. They haven’t proved that Jesus and Mariamne were not related, just that they didn’t have the same mother. So while they have an interesting hypothesis, they fall into the same trap most journalists do when reporting science. They don’t understand it, and in this case, they’re twisting it to suit their own ends. James Cameron stated:

“We’ve done our homework; we’ve made the case; and now it’s time for the debate to begin.”

No, they didn’t. And the academics will shred them for it.