I agree. They are at odds. I don't believe in any way shape or form in creationism. I do believe in evolution. The Bible was never meant to be used to as a science text to tell us how the earth was made. That is why it isn't a problem for Christians to believe in scientific evolution as most do. That is why I brought in the Robin Hood analogy. That book wasn't meant to tell you the true history of all those involved. Again the bible isn't meant to be about laying down rules. It isn't just a list of rules. It is about exploration, questioning, and deeper understanding. Your analogy was about the source of living your life, and you claimed that people could only have one source. I showed you that different sources could be used for different aspects. Once again the bible isn't about a set of rules some of which have to be followed or not followed. The bible is about helping you form good judgement in life, and developing understanding. It isn't a one size fits all book of rules. They go hand in hand. Just admiring something doesn't help you understand. But it can lead you to want to understand that. I don't stop just because nature is awe inspiring. It certainly doesn't prevent me from believing in scientific evidence.
newplayer; Following on Franchiseblade's point is that he is free to interpret the Bible how he feels is right. He is a rational actor and as being rational he can still choose to accept some of the Bible and reject some of it based on his own rationality and experience. What you seem to be asking him to do is to be all or nothing in regard to the Bible. As a self-declared atheisist though I'm not sure you're in a position to decide how a self-declared Christian should be interpretting the Bible. Anyway as a matter of whether God exists and if whether the idea of the existence of God conflicts with a empiracal evidence and a rational understanding of the Universe there are more opinions on that than a literal Biblical view. There are many who believe in God but don't believe in the literal view of the Bible or in Christianity.
Daddy, please hear this song that I sing, In your heart there's a spark that just screams for a lover to bring a child to your chest, That couyld lay as you sleep, And love all you have left Like your boy used to be, long ago, Wrapped in sheets warm and wet. Blister, please, with those wings in your spine, Love to be with a brother of mine, How you love to find your tongue in his teeth, in a struggle to find sacred songs that you keep Wrapped in boxes so tight, Sounding only at night as you sleep. And in my dreams you're alive and you're crying, as your mouth moves in mine, soft and sweet, Rings of flowers round your eyes and I’ll love you for the rest of your life (when you’re ready) Brother see we are one and the same, And you left with your head filled with flames and you watched asyour brains fell out through your teeth, push the pieces in place Make your smile Sweet to see, Don’t you take this away I’m still wanting my face on your cheek. And when we break We’ll wait for our miracle, God is a place where some holy spectacle lies. And when we break We’ll wait for our miracle, God is a place you will wait for the rest of your life. Two-headed boy, She is all you could need, She will feed you tomatoes and radio wire, And retire to sheets safe and clean, But don’t hate her when she gets up to leave. Push the pieces in place
Well, I just got around to watching the show which I had DVRed. And I must say it is a very compelling case that they made that the tomb was in fact Jesus and his family. And I am heartened by the fact that it is so easily accessible, even though sealed for now. So, what does it say about Christianity? Nothing, because the ascension could still happen but in a spiritual sense. I am sad that I missed the debate that followed, I hope they replay it so I can record that as well. It was an AWESOME show, and in my mind, I am convinced a bit, but they really need to do a DNA test on Mary -Jesus Mother, and Judah, his son. If those match up....I am convinced. DD
This is gonna end up being a double post from the other thread...but, really? It was so dramatized. The part at the end about Jesus' son being his "beloved disciple??" Huh?? "We know that no Biblical scholars feel this way, but here's what we believe." They didn't connect the dots at all. Discovery Channel is pulling the documentary. I've yet to read one positive take on this by any scientist from any discipline who wasn't paid to be in the documentary. I was very disappointed, honestly. Since there are a few stragglers who still contend that Jesus never existed, I saw this as an opportunity to address that. I don't think they addressed anything. Now I'm reading/hearing that they completely mistranslated Mary Magdalene... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/4638314.html Stephen J. Pfann, a textual scholar and paleographer at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, said the makers of The Lost Tomb of Jesus incorrectly identified an ancient ossuary from the cave as belonging to the New Testament's Mary Magdalene. After analyzing the inscription, Pfann published a detailed article on his university's Web site refuting claims that the ossuary includes Mary's name. According to Pfann's reading, the ossuary did not house the bones of "Mary the teacher," but rather of two women, "Mary and Martha." Here's Pfann's article: http://www.uhl.ac/MariameAndMartha.pdf
http://www.casperstartribune.net/ar...es/range/64a52779f301a38a8725729f00267b83.txt Have they found Jesus? By BRUCE CHILTON New York Bard College Monday, March 19, 2007 Prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., the Jewish population of Jerusalem buried their dead in a distinctive way. Bodies were laid out for a year in burial caves. After that, their bones were either deposited in a common pit or, when wealth permitted and status demanded, gathered into a limestone box called an ossuary. At the time of transfer into this tiny coffin, the name of the deceased was sometimes scratched onto the side or back of the bone box. In 1968, the ossuary and skeleton of a young man who had been crucified by the Romans was unearthed, complete with a nail driven into his heel. This discovery showed that the victims of crucifixion were not necessarily tossed to the dogs after their executions, as was commonly repeated since the end of the 19th century. It could mean that Jesus was indeed buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. Another myth was laid to rest in 1990. It had been said that the Jewish opponents of Jesus in the Gospels were made up, and their names fabricated. But that year, the ossuary of Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest at the time Jesus was executed, was discovered at Abu Tor near Jerusalem. A new television program, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," focuses on another burial cave found south of Abu Tor, at Talpiyot, in 1980. In the cave, several ossuaries with inscriptions were found. One of them probably states "Jesus, son of Joseph" in Aramaic. (I say "probably," because there is dispute in deciphering the scrawled script and additional scratches in the first word.) Amos Kloner, the lead archaeologist at the time, catalogued and described the find. So why didn't he call adequate attention to this discovery? This question is the premise of the documentary, which argues that the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) is afraid to admit that it has been keeping Jesus's coffin in storage all these years. But in fact, the IAA did call attention to everything they found in the tomb, professionally and critically, and made a careful presentation of the results in published form. Yet Simcha Jacobovici remains dissatisfied. He argues that a vital factor has been overlooked by archaeologists. Although both "Jesus" and "Joseph" were common names, and well represented in ossuaries, what about the statistical improbability of other names appearing with Jesus' that are also associated with him in the Christian Bible? Simple math is explained repeatedly in the program: the observation that, although, say, "John" and "Jackie" and "Joseph" are all common names, the likelihood of finding them all in the same grave is remote, unless we are dealing with the Kennedy family. In some ways, Mr. Jacobovici, who also shared the writing credit, rises to his own challenge, placing himself in the role of intrepid archaeologist and investigative reporter, bravely struggling against the bureaucrats of the IAA. Mr. Jacobovici, who presents his rhetoric as a carefully-crafted case, has clearly learned much from the show's producer James Cameron, the director of blockbusters like "Titanic" and "Terminator." The climax of Mr. Jacobovici's argument is that Jesus was buried in the cave with Mary Magdalene, that she was his wife, and that their child is buried along with them. By pressing into that conclusion in a relentless rhythm, Mr. Jacobovici bypasses some basic questions. For example, if Jesus's followers actually had enough money to buy a lavish mausoleum, why did they mark his tomb as "Jesus, son of Joseph"? After all, the earliest writings in the Christian Bible show they referred to him in Aramaic as "Lord," "Messiah," and "Son of God." In a world of special effects, we are accustomed to sliding past these and other issues. The key special effect, however, poses a problem for the program. The simple fact of the matter is that the name of Mary Magdalene does not appear on any ossuary in this alleged Jesus family tomb. Instead, a Greek form of the name Mary (in the Greek alphabet, not Aramaic) shows up, a form affected by wealthy ladies in Jerusalem whose families could afford ossuary interment. The evidence of this name suggests that the tomb is in fact not the last resting place of Galilean peasants, but the mausoleum of an aristocratic family in Jerusalem with pretensions to Hellenistic culture. Mr. Jacobovici has somehow turned this rich dowager into Jesus's svelte wife (as she appears in the program's re-enactments). He pulls in Harvard professor Francois Bovon, who says -- quite rightly -- that in a 14th-century copy of a fourth-century text the Greek name "Mariamne" might be a reference to Mary Magdalene. That, of course, is completely beside the point. Did Mr. Bovon know that he would be quoted to make a claim from such late sources about a first-century ossuary? He seems uneasy in the interview, and the result shows he had good reason to be worried. In the end, he served as the stunt double in a special effect that did not come off, and his unease signals the alert viewer to the weak thinking behind the program. Ossuaries will no doubt continue to illuminate the events and setting of first-century Jerusalem, including Jesus's last days in the city. Viewers of this program might well enjoy it as an introduction to the topic, as well as a caution
http://www.ulv.edu/campustimes/031607/news_stories/reedtomb.htm Reed questions Jesus tomb find Posted March 16, 2007 Madison Steff Staff Writer It is believed by many that 2,000 years ago in first century Jerusalem, Jesus of Nazarene was crucified by the Romans. Gospels claim that he was buried in a tomb and two days later, Mary Magdalene, one of his closest disciples found the tomb empty. On March 4, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” produced by Academy Award winner James Cameron, premiered on the Discovery Channel and offered what some believe to be evidence that Jesus’ disciples took his body to give him a permanent burial. The body would be left for one year and then his family and disciples would return for the final burial of his bones in the family tomb. In 1980 in Talpoit, Jerusalem construction workers uncovered a tomb with an unusual marking above the entrance containing six deep chambers called locules. Inside these locules were 10 ossuaries, containers for holding the bones of the dead, one which is labeled in Hebrew, “Jesus son of Joseph.” According to Cameron and investigative journalist and filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, this is in fact the final resting place of Jesus of Nazarene. Immediately following the documentary, veteran journalist and television news anchor Ted Koppel decided to add depth and debate to the subject with a televised forum, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus: A Critical Look.” Jonathan Reed, professor of religion at the University of La Verne and co-author of “Excavating Jesus” and “In Search of Paul,” was invited to attend the forum along with several others not connected to the documentary, bringing independent and critical perspectives to the table. “The issue is not science versus faith and religion but good science versus bad science,” Reed said. One of the first issues brought up for discussion was about the DNA testing that took place during the documentary. During the film small amounts of DNA were taken from the ossuaries labeled “Jesus son of Joseph” and “Mariamene e Mara” (believed to be Mary Magdalene) to prove that they were not related. The question brought to attention was that if they did DNA testing to prove that these two people were not related why weren’t the other ossuaries such as “Juda son of Jesus” or “Maria” (believed to be the mother of Jesus) tested to prove that they were related? “If they are looking so hard to find something they are going to do everything they can to make it appear as if they have,” said Sarah Sawyer, a University of La Verne graduate with a double major in anthropology and religion. Jacobovici’s response was that those were the only ossuaries with enough DNA for them to test and maybe now more testing will be done. Another major concern is that one of the ossuaries was never recorded when put into storage and is now missing. Jacobovici claims that the missing ossuary is owned by a private collector and is marked “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” The dimension of the ossuary is similar to the others found in the tomb as well as the petina, the chemical film surrounding the box, but the real issue is that the missing ossuary was originally said to have had no markings. “I think it is interesting that they are making these types of claims,” Sawyer said. The Israel Antiques Authority has since confiscated the ossuary and it is currently on trial to determine if the artifact is even authentic. The debate became rather intense at times and it appeared that Reed and Jacobovici bumped heads more than a few times. “He desperately wants the documentary to be taken seriously and I didn’t,” Reed said. Reed along with many others feel that there are several details in both the book and the documentary that are incorrect. “It is a series of lies and half truths strung together,” Reed said.
Max, I watched the press conference on the website yesterday after the post. They addressed a lot of those questions and said that they are just starting the debate. For instance, why is everyone convinced that it is THE Caiaphas? There is no proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was the guy in the bible. Of course it fits into theologins thinking and doesn't challenge any beliefs so it is relatively benign to agree that it is the Caiaphas mentioned in the bible. They also addressed the DNA bit, by saying that there was more material in Mary and Jesus' ostuaries than the others, and that the testing is to continue- hopefully in a follow up documentary. They also addressed the Mary Magdalene bit and whether or not Jesus' family could afford a burial chamber. They contend that the followers would have taken care of Jesus and his family as a matter of respect. But the statistical probability that all of the people named in Jesus family, and Mary Magdeline are buried in one tomb are pretty danged high. This could, in fact be Jesus tomb, if the inscriptions are correct, too bad they buried the bones already.... And they are pulling the documentary? Where did you hear that? Was it due to pressure put on by the church? DD
This one has a part I heard mentioned by a friend the other day. That a few scholars question whether or not they even translated Jesus' name correctly. Something about there not being a "J" in Aramaic or Hebrew...and "Y" was used...Jesus' name is Yeshua in his native tongue. But the ossuary has a "J" on it...or something like that. http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/March/03/style/stories/02style.htm Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar who was interviewed in the documentary, told The Associated Press that the film's hypothesis is sketchy: "How possible is it? On a scale of one through 10 — 10 being completely possible — it's probably a one, maybe a one-and-a-half" Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun" William Dever, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona and an expert on Near Eastern archaeology who has worked in Israel for decades, said experts have known about these ossuaries for years: "The fact that it's been ignored tells you something. It would be amusing if it didn't mislead so many people" Anthropologist Joe Zias, who was the curator for anthropology and archaeology at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem from 1972 to 1997 and personally stored and numbered the ossuaries, is even more outspoken. "What they've done here," Zias said, "is they've simply tried in a very, very dishonest way to con the public into believing that this is the tomb of Jesus or Jesus' family. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus" For one thing, he says, Jesus' family was poor. Those who paid for the tomb were middle-class, at least. "If Jesus' family did have the cash, the family tomb would likely have been situated in Nazareth" Like many scholars, Zias is contemptuous of Jacobovici's credentials and motives: ""¦What does this guy know about archaeology? I am an archaeologist, but if I were to write a book about brain surgery, you would say, 'Who is this guy?' Projects like these make a mockery of the archaeological profession"
Read the articles I posted. There is concern about the literal translations of the ossuaries, themselves. We have scholars saying that the name Mary Magadalene isn't on the ossuaries at all. Again..I have not seen one report of one person coming out to support these findings who wasn't in the documentary as a supporter. But I've seen a ton of criticism. Seriously...do a google news search on the world "ossuary"....it's one criticism after another. I guess we see this every Easter. It's a Judas book that's gonna expose Christianity...or a DaVinci Code movie...and it all sells really well, for sure. It causes us to question, which is a good thing. But the scholars seem to be saying these guys are being disingenuous in presenting this as a "documentary." And apparently the Discovery Channel agreed with that as well.
And we have scholars saying it is on the ossuaries. It is going to take some debate for a final conclusion to the matter. And, in a lot of cases those people you are quoting are part of the process. The documentary makers are not saying IT IS Jesus tomb, but they are saying it could be....and if the translations are correct the statistical probability is that it is the tomb. And in every case, first you have the people criticizing the work, then actually looking into it....it will be a long process....and the guy that ran the mueseum has to say what he said, he would look like an idiot if he sat on the tomb for so many years. DD
this is where you lose me. the tone of that documentary was absolutely, "look what we found..this is it!" and then speculated about the life of the child and how he was the "beloved disciple" with a touching dramatized scene of him at the foot of the cross. give me a break. you have to connect the dots a little better than that. they come out and say, here are the translations...and the mathematical probabilities make it impossible for this to be anyone but them. but those equations fall down big time when you take away the Mary Magdaelene name. I've read some estimates to suggest that around 50% of the women living in Jerusalem in that day were named Mary. There are about 6 Marys I can think of in the Gospels, alone.
http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/201359 Particularly when a Hollywood giant like Cameron attaches his name to the project. Ten years ago, the BBC produced a documentary making similar claims about the Talpiot tomb. It sank without a trace, except for a similar round of scholarly dismissals. This time, marketing has made the difference in terms of attention. "The tomb has been published and has been analyzed," said Dr. Bryant Wood, of Akron-based Associates for Biblical Research. "... They're kind of presenting it as some new archaeological discovery." Wood, who said one of his staffers did earlier research on the Talpiot tomb, noted that "no reputable scholar has come forth with this theory. "Other people have been aware of these names, and yeah, they're the same as what we encounter in the New Testament, but you can't make the connection." Carey noted the connections between Jacobovici's claims and the storylines of earlier discoveries. "There's the legend about Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene and their producing a son, something no credible historian believes," Carey said. "There's the assumption that the controversial James ossuary was originally in this same tomb, but archaeologists who have studied the James ossuary trace the dirt on it to another location. "... And there's the claim that DNA evidence can somehow prove Jesus' family line." Cameron and Jacobovici said traces of human remains in two ossuaries showed that the Jesus in one box and the Mary in another were not related on the maternal side; scholars were quick to point out that the DNA analysis didn't look at relations among the other ossuary occupants. Dr. David Dorsey, a professor of Old Testament at Evangelical School of Theology in Myerstown who has worked on archaeological excavations in Israel, said archaeologists, whether Christian or secular, will scoff at "Jesus tomb" claims because the names on the ossuaries were so common in first-century Palestine. The range of names then, he said, was so narrow that people began using nicknames or hometowns to distinguish one from another — Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph of Arimathea, Judas Iscariot, for instance. A Discovery Channel article about the special contends, "All leading epigraphers agree about the inscriptions. All archaeologists confirm the nature of the find. It comes down to a matter of statistics. A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters ... concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family." Except that not all scholars even agree about the inscriptions. One of the critics, Dr. Richard Bauckham, professor of New Testament at St. Andrews, has questioned the filmmakers' contention that the inscription on one ossuary is a name used for Mary Magdalene. The Greek name — the other ossuaries' inscriptions are in Aramaic — not only isn't attested as one used for Mary Magdalene, Bauckham wrote online, but it's definitely not "Mary the Master," as the filmmakers argue. Wood said that's the most gaping hole in the filmmakers' theory. The Greek is, according to Cameron and Jacobovici, a translation of Mariamne, which they say is a name used for Mary Magdalene. But Wood said that the Acts of Philip, the fourth-century "Gnostic gospel" the filmmakers are referring to, doesn't say Mary Magdalene was called Mariamne. "In fact, it indicates that this was a name for Mary, sister of Martha," Wood added. "It says in this Acts of Philip that it was she — Mariamne — that made ready the bread and salt at the breaking of bread, but Martha was she who ministered to the multitudes and labored much. "... If you can't make that connection, then the other names are just common names, and you really can't connect them at all to Jesus' family." "To assume they are a particular person in a particular family is a real stretch," Soden, of LBC, said. On the Internet, statistics experts have laid waste to the 600-1 odds as shoddily calculated. The Jerusalem Post quoted Bar-Ilan University Professor Amos Kloner, the archaeologist who supervised the excavation of the tomb in 1980, dismissing the "Jesus tomb." "The name 'Jesus son of Joseph' has been found on three or four ossuaries," Kloner told the Post. "These are common names. There were huge headlines in the 1940s surrounding another Jesus ossuary, cited as the first evidence of Christianity. There was another Jesus tomb. Months later it was dismissed. Give me scientific evidence, and I'll grapple with it. But this is manufactured." Jacobovici and Cameron have said the 10th ossuary found in 1980 has vanished, and they contend the "James ossuary" — a bone box inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" that came to light in 2003 and that some suggested held the remains of Jesus' younger brother James — is the missing ossuary. Its owner, collector Oded Golan, is on trial in Israel for antiquities fraud. "Nothing has disappeared," Kloner retorted. "The 10th ossuary was on my list. The measurements were not the same (as the James ossuary). It was plain," with no name on the 10th box.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-feiler/the-jesus-tomb-meets-the-_b_42637.html How about this from scientists that were in the film? : Not a single archaeologist has spoken in favor of the two central claims of the show: first, that the statistical chance that this collection of names on burial ossuaries in Jerusalem does not belong to the family of Jesus is 600 to 1; and second, that the fact that DNA residue found in the ossuaries of "Jesus, son of Joseph" and "Mariamne," whom the filmmakers claim is Mary Magdalene, are not related matrilinearly means they "must have been married" and had the child in the tomb. As for the first claim, Jacobovici said in his debate with me and elsewhere that we should not ask archaeologists to do statistics. We should ask statisticians. By week's end, even the statistician he relies on the film, Andrey Feuerverger, was backing off his claims, stating that he only ran math based on the information given him. "It is not in the purview of statistics to conclude whether or not this tombsite is that of the New Testament family. Any such conclusion much more rightfully belongs to the purview of biblical historical scholars who are in a much better position to assess the assumptions entering into the computations." He then adds, "In this respect I now believe that I should not assert any conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one of the NT family." As for second claim, the evidence that the film and book produce is almost comically low. The film asked scientists to perform DNA tests not on any bones, but on "residue" found in only two of the ossuaries, the one belonging to "Jesus" and the one belonging to the Mary they claim to have been Mary Magdalene. That's all. The DNA concluded they did not come from the same family. There is no evidence the two ever met, no evidence they are the same age, no evidence they were married, no evidence they had any children. None. As Charles Pelegrino, one of the filmmakers, explained to me in the green room at CNN: They didn't even test the residue of ossuary they claim to have belonged to the child. He thinks they could do so "in about twenty years." Dr. Carney Matheson, the scientist from Lakehead University who did the DNA testing for the filmmakers,/B] has pointed out publicly that his work was mangled. "The only conclusions we made was that these two sets [from the "Yeshua" and "Mariamne" ossuaries] were not maternally related," he said. "To me it sounds like absolutely nothing." He added, "There is a statement in the film that has been taken out of context. While marriage is a possibility, other relationships like father and daughter, paternal cousins, sister-in-law or indeed two unrelated individuals are also possible." Yet another of the archaeologists in the show, the one who analyzed the names, has also now declared herself outraged. "I think it's completely mishandled. I am angry," said Tal Ilan. ][To see a list of all the professional reactions, click here.] The bottom line: In a field notoriously splintered with academic rivalries, there is unanimity that the claims cannot be proven. Sure they are possible in an abstract way, but they hardly rise to the level of conviction presented in the film, the book, and the press conference.
Seems to be not much of a coincidence that this comes out a few years after the success of the Da Vinci Code. Sounds a lot like Cameron saw the success of that concept and decided to try to duplicate it in a more real-life way. Basically, take a bunch of correct facts and weave them together into a fictional storyline and attract lots of attention and money.
I htink he's annoyed he didnt get to make the DaVinci Code movie. Probably woulda had the albino be revealed as a cyborg from the future.
particularly troublesome, in my opinion, is the fact that you have some of the scientists Cameron relied on to support his conclusion saying, "wait...you misrepresented what i said, and i'm angry about it." I'm GUESSING that's why the Discovery Channel pulled it.
Not really. The filmmakers/narrator said that an used rather poor circular reasoning to make the inscription linked to Mary Mag. The DNA testing was silly...it was the weakest kind of test and all it said wa they didn't have the same mother. They could have been half-siblings or anything else. There is no reson to think that they would have had to have been married. Even if they were, there is no link at all to Mary Magdalene (especially when but one - written 300 years later - of the sources said she was not buried there). The tone of the thing was overly dramatic and the "twist" at the end about the baby was pure fiction and like schoolgirl gossip in tone. I agree with what was written in one of the articles Max posted...whenever they gave camera time to a legit scholar that scholar looked a little uneasy and confused...almost a "why are you here?" attitude. I wonder how much of the shows subject matter they really disclosed to them. Finally, the patination link between the "James" ossuary and the tomb was oversimplified. It was not an exact match and it would not have been as uncommon for there to be similarities as they tried to make it seem. No doubt they came from the same area, but there are a lot of tombs in the region.
Here are a few quotes on the subject Again, I haven't found ONE who stands up to say he thinks the findings and conclusions were legit: http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/05/asking-the-experts-about-jesus’-lost-tomb/ Dr. Jodi Magness, Department of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill: If Jesus’ family had been wealthy enough to afford a rock-cut tomb, it would have been in Nazareth, not Jerusalem… This whole case (for the tomb of Jesus) is flawed from beginning to end’ (Online Source) And elsewhere: The entire way this has been done has been an injustice to the entire discipline [of archaelogy] and also to the public. Dr. William Dever, professor emeritus, University of Arizona: It’s a publicity stunt, and it will make these guys very rich, and it will upset millions of innocent people because they don’t know enough to separate fact from fiction. Dr. Aren Maeir, Director of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Archeological Project and a lecturer at the Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies at Bar Ilan University: Since, along with, most probably, the majority of archaeologists who deal with the ancient Levant, I have been asked about the question of the supposed tomb of Jesus and his family …, I thought that I should join the very clear message of the responsible archaeological community and say — this is HOGWASH!! (excuse my French!). Prof. L. Michael White, Director of the Institute for the Study of Antiquity and Christian Origins, Univeristy of Texas: This is not archeologically sound. This is fanfare Dr. Stephen Pfann, President of Jerusalem’s University of the Holy Land and an expert in Semitic languages: I don’t think it [the “Jesus” ossuary] says Yehoshua. It says Hanun or something. … [In any case,] the idea that the originator of a religion like [Christianity] would end up in such a plain ossuary is kind of telling as to whether this is really potentially the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth or not. Dr. Charles L. Quarles, Chair of Christian Studies, Louisianna University: Even by the calculations of the authors of The Jesus Family Tomb [the book that parallels the documentary], there were approximately 1,008 men named Jesus, son of Joseph who lived in first-century Palestine! They calculate that 1 out of every 79 Jewish males in Palestine during the century of ossuary use was named “Jesus, son of Joseph!” Dr. Darrell Bock, Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary: There is the DNA showing that Mariamne and Jesus DNA residue do not match. Now with how many women in Judea would Jesus’ DNA not match? Even women named Mary/Mariamne? This proves nothing. … In fact, the fact that only two boxes were tested means that we do not even know if this is a family tomb, since the two tested show no relationship. The DNA could prove the exact opposite of what is being claimed. Dr. Mark Goodacre, Associate Professor of New Testament, Duke University: The major part of the case that the Talpiot tomb is Jesus’ family tomb is based on a statistical claim. … I think this case is severely flawed. The essential problem, as I see it, is that the matches between the Talpiot tomb and the early Christian literary record are factored into the calculations in a positive way, but the non-matches are simply ignored, or treated as neutral. This will not do. … In short, including Mariamne and leaving out Matia and Judas son of Jesus is problematic for any claim to be made about the remaining cluster. All data must be included. You cannot cherry pick or manipulate your data before doing your statistical analysis. Dr. Paul Maier, Department of History, Western Michigan University: Please note the extreme bias of the director and narrator, Simcha Jacobovici. The man is an Indiana-Jones-wannabe, who oversensationalizes anything he touches. … As for James Cameron, how do you follow The Titanic? Well, with an even more “titanic” story. He should have known better. Bruce Feiler, non-Christian author of Walking the Bible: And therein is the truth of this tale: This exploitation of quasi-science is hardly new, but it’s still tawdry. The bottom line: There is more truth in Dan Brown’s fiction than in James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovichi’s fact Dr. Garret G. Fagan, Professor of Classics at Penn State University: They’re not scientists, but they need to dress themselves in the clothes of science to pass muster… Television is not in the business of education, even with the so-called educational channels like Discovery. “Ultimately, they’re in the business of making money. … By the time the rebuttals come out, the mass media would have moved on to the next sensation and people will have this vague notion that they have found the tomb of Jesus.
