Deoxyribonucleic Acid:
It appears that some of the unfounded claims of the documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus are supposed to be excused due to reliance on “science.” DNA research is a science but the documentary’s conclusions are not scientific. Here is one such claim made by DSC,
“The film also documents DNA extraction from human residue found in two of the ossuaries and reveals new evidence that throws light on Jesus’ relationship with Mary Magdalene.”1
If you found my DNA how could you prove that it was mine? You would have to extract DNA from me and match it up. Finding DNA in an ossuary that says Yeshua does not tell us who this Yeshua was.Note this interesting comment by Simcha Jacobovici regarding “Ossuary 80/503 ‘Yeshua bar Yosef’ – ‘Jesus, Son of Joseph’”:
“there is a large cross mark right next to the name ‘Jesus.’ A cross, deliberately carved. The archaeologists, however, immediately and ever since, dismissed this as a mason’s mark. Besides, they say, Christians didn’t use crosses until the time of Constantine in the 4th century. This ‘Jesus, Son of Joseph’ ossuary couldn’t belong to that Jesus, son of Joseph. Back in 1926, another ‘Jesus, son of Joseph’ ossuary was discovered_[it] is on display at the Israel Museum. It is in no way connected with Jesus of Nazareth but instead is on display to send a message: don’t get excited if you find archaeological mention of any ‘Jesus.’ The name is common.”2
[He emphasized the word “that”]
Simply stated, since there is no independent DNA control sample the storytelling in the documentary about Jesus, His alleged wife and His alleged child are simply unfounded and merely disguised as science.
We are told that since the DNA in the Yeshua and the Mariamne ossuary does not match the best explanation, considering that they are in a family tomb and yet not genealogically related, is that they were husband and wife. But how do we know this? Because it fits the theory. In fact, Yose may have been married to Mariamne and Yeshua could have been their son. Then Yeshua could have been married to Maria and had a son named Yehuda.
For proof that Jesus was married the documentary relies heavily on The Acts of Philip. They particularly rely on the most complete version of the text ever found.
In 1974 AD a 700 year old manuscript of the 4th century text of The Acts of Philip that contained “an early description of Mary Magdalene, unmarked by later Christian tradition.” Think about it; some three centuries after the time of Jesus and Mary Magdalene a text was written. We then find a manuscript that dates to circa fourteenth century which is considered the most reliable version. At this point we may state that the skeptics will instantly embrace, accept, exalt and proclaim the absolute truth of any text that contradicts the New Testament. They do this by establishing different standards for that which will back up what they already believe; if it contradicts the New Testament it must be true-clearly, this is a substandard double standard. Therefore, they consider The Acts of Philip to be, pardon the pun, gospel truth (in this regard my essay of the gospel of Judas may be relevant). In reality, The Acts of Philip does not mention “Mary Magdalene” but it does include some interesting stories about the conversion of a talking leopard and goat.
Of course, we have no historical evidence that Jesus was married or that He had a child. I wrote about this in “Their Own Whims and Lusts” – Liberal Scholars and Jesus’ Marriage. Ah, but there is no evidence because it was kept secret-lack of evidence is not evidence, we cannot say that we know that it is true because there is no evidence.