Wow: James Cameron Documentary- No Ressurection, Jesus Tomb and body found?

[Dave1001]

If Cameron did the same due diligence for this as he did for his Titanic documentary, he could go down in history as the greatest debunking showman of all time, surpassing even Houdini.


http://time-blog.com/middle_east/


February 23, 2007 6:55
Jesus: Tales from the Crypt
Posted by Tim McGirk | Comments (18) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This
Brace yourself. James Cameron, the man who brought you 'The Titanic' is back with another blockbuster. This time, the ship he's sinking is Christianity.

In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.

No, it's not a re-make of "The Da Vinci Codes'. It's supposed to be true.

Let's go back 27 years, when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb. of Jerusalem. The earth gave way, revealing a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets. Archologists were summoned, and the stone caskets carted away for examination. It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.
Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names.

There was also this little inconvenience that a few miles away, in the old city of Jerusalem, Christians for centuries had been worshipping the empty tomb of Christ at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Christ's resurrection, after all, is the main foundation of the faith, proof that a boy born to a carpenter's wife in a manger is the Son of God.

But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family.

Ever the showman, (Why does this remind me of the impresario in another movie,"King Kong", whose hubris blinds him to the dangers of an angry and very large ape?) Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. News about the film, which will be shown soon on Discovery Channel, Britain's Channel 4, Canada's Vision, and Israel's Channel 8, has been a hot blog topic in the Middle East (check out a personal favorite: Israelity Bites) Here in the Holy Land, Biblical Archeology is a dangerous profession. This 90-minute documentary is bound to outrage Christians and stir up a titanic debate between believers and skeptics. Stay tuned.
--Tim McGirk/Jerusalem

[Dave1001]

It's phenomenologically interesting that Jesus' dna may have been recovered in the same period that technology now exists to "ressurect" him. It would be in the form of cloning, which wouldn't be an exact ressurection, but would sort of mirror a "second coming". I don't think this is some sort of biblical prophecy fulfillment, but I've long thought that Jesus might have created Christianity to maximize constituents for his future technology-based ressurection. The piece of the puzzle that didn't make sense was his missing body -it would make technology based ressurection somewhat harder. So now that his body may have been kept in a well-hidden tomb, his odds of ressurection in some form seem somewhat better. And he's got quite a trust fund waiting for him.


Although he might have done better for himself if he had followers put him in permanently cold/frozen portion of the artic, or failing that, in a bog. Don't know to what degree, if any, it would have aided the preservation of his brain's neural structures.

[Darat]

It's phenomenologically interesting that Jesus' dna may have been recovered in the same period that technology now exists to "ressurect" him. It would be in the form of cloning, which wouldn't be an exact ressurection, but would sort of mirror a "second coming". I don't think this is some sort of biblical prophecy fulfillment, but I've long thought that Jesus might have created Christianity to maximize constituents for his future technology-based ressurection. The piece of the puzzle that didn't make sense was his missing body -it would make technology based ressurection somewhat harder. So now that his body may have been kept in a well-hidden tomb, his odds of ressurection in some form seem somewhat better. And he's got quite a trust fund waiting for him.


Although he might have done better for himself if he had followers put him in permanently cold/frozen portion of the artic, or failing that, in a bog. Don't know to what degree, if any, it would have aided the preservation of his brain's neural structures.

Dave1001 - you are joking?

[Dave1001]

Dave1001 - you are joking?

Nope, but I'm speculating. What would you do if you didn't want to permanently cease existing, but happened to be born 2000 years ago?

The basic logical chain that technology improves, and in the future, there might be technology to revive people that stayed above some threshhold of non-deteriation seems like it could be accessible 2000 years ago. One could analogize from the ability to fix broken bones the way people today do analogies from the ability to do more advanced medical repairs.

Jesus' game plan seems to me to be a pretty good one giving his starting point, if indeed he wanted to maximize his odds of (future) persistence.

[Darat]

Nope, but I'm speculating. What would you do if you didn't want to permanently cease existing, but happened to be born 2000 years ago? ...snip...

Sincerely believe in an afterlife...

[cyborg]

You know what I'm thinking?

Well I'm going to tell you.

Star Trek: TNG, Series 6, Episode 23, Stardate 46852.2, Rightful Heir

Sorry Dave, you're about 15 years too late for that idea.

[temporalillusion]

Well first, how would Jesus know to preserve his body for a potential future resurrection, not knowing if DNA or that sort of thing?

Second, if the genetic material is used to create a new person, it wouldn't be Jesus. Just because two people share the same genetic code doesn't make them the same person (twins).

Third, if a new person was created with the genetic material, the new person will have a new mind and experiences, they won't recall the life experiences of the person who's genetic material was used to create them.

EDIT: Or we could just get the Bene Tleilax to grow a ghola and reawake the past memories! :D

[Ryokan]

I'm not sure Jesus, or the people of his time, was aware of scientific advancement. I think that's pretty recent, not any earlier than 19th, possibly 18th, century.

[Dave1001]

Well first, how would Jesus know to preserve his body for a potential future resurrection, not knowing if DNA or that sort of thing?

Second, if the genetic material is used to create a new person, it wouldn't be Jesus. Just because two people share the same genetic code doesn't make them the same person (twins).

Third, if a new person was created with the genetic material, the new person will have a new mind and experiences, they won't recall the life experiences of the person who's genetic material was used to create them.

EDIT: Or we could just get the Bene Tleilax to grow a ghola and reawake the past memories! :D

Right, I understand those concerns and I think they were anticipated in the OP. I look at it more as a question of maximizing odds rather than garunteeing future persistance.

Let's say one has a mechanical toy 2000 years ago, and wants to maximize the odds of having it be able to work 2000 years in the future. It would make more sense to hide and bury the toy, and perhaps even to get people to believe in a religion that it's in their interest to repair the toy of whatever degradations occur to it using whatever resources they have when they encounter it in the future. I think these basic thought processes were developable 2000 years ago, before knowledge of DNA.

And I agree a clone is likely more like an identical twin then a new vessel in which one's subjective conscious naturally exists. However, I do think a clone gets one closer to revived subjective consciousness than does scattered, cremated ashes. Not quite as good as a brain with perfectly preserved synaptic connections, where in theory all one needs is a little electrical jump start, but the gap does seem narrowed a bit. That's why I mentioned technological threshholds. Revival of non-cryogenically preserved humans seems beyond the technological singularity for both us and people of Jesus' time, but it seems reasonable to think that preserved dna improves one's odd of clearing whatever threshhold there will be for revival than no preserved dna.

[Dave1001]

I'm not sure Jesus, or the people of his time, was aware of scientific advancement. I think that's pretty recent, not any earlier than 19th, possibly 18th, century.

I think greek and roman figures like Archimedes were widely known about and seen as innovators, even if a language of scientific advancement hadn't been developed at that time. Thus I think the concept of a new discovery that hadn't existed at a prior time, built on earlier discoveries, wasn't completely rejected or undiscovered by people of Jesus' time.

[Dave1001]

Nope, but I'm speculating. What would you do if you didn't want to permanently cease existing, but happened to be born 2000 years ago? ...snip...
Sincerely believe in an afterlife...

Sure, but what's wrong with strategy diversification. Fortiutiously, one can attempt to sincerely believe in an afterlife and try to maximize one's odds of persisting in the event that one doesn't exist (or that one is ineligible for it).

[cyborg]

Sure, but what's wrong with strategy diversification.

Nothing. But you're applying it in a situation where the persons involved couldn't have possibly comprehended such strategies.

[Jekyll]

There's a Robert Rankin book where someone tries to clone Jesuses (one for every major world religion), but one turns out to be evil and must be stopped.....

[gnome]

Is there any confirmation from other sources that James Cameron is planning such a project?

[temporalillusion]

Right, I understand those concerns and I think they were anticipated in the OP. I look at it more as a question of maximizing odds rather than garunteeing future persistance.

Let's say one has a mechanical toy 2000 years ago, and wants to maximize the odds of having it be able to work 2000 years in the future. It would make more sense to hide and bury the toy, and perhaps even to get people to believe in a religion that it's in their interest to repair the toy of whatever degradations occur to it using whatever resources they have when they encounter it in the future. I think these basic thought processes were developable 2000 years ago, before knowledge of DNA.

And I agree a clone is likely more like an identical twin then a new vessel in which one's subjective conscious naturally exists. However, I do think a clone gets one closer to revived subjective consciousness than does scattered, cremated ashes. Not quite as good as a brain with perfectly preserved synaptic connections, where in theory all one needs is a little electrical jump start, but the gap does seem narrowed a bit. That's why I mentioned technological threshholds. Revival of non-cryogenically preserved humans seems beyond the technological singularity for both us and people of Jesus' time, but it seems reasonable to think that preserved dna improves one's odd of clearing whatever threshhold there will be for revival than no preserved dna.

Even the idea of keeping the physical form around in as good a condition as possible may not be something they'd even think of. Maybe it would make more sense to them to preserve some blood? Or some breath? Looking at what actions they might take to achieve a goal based on today's knowledge isn't reasonable to me. But sure I'll go with that, assuming that Jesus a) wanted to preserve himself for a future and b) he created Christianity not because he thought he was God's son (otherwise no need to preserve anything) but to have followers that would eventually resurrect him.

Either way, having a clone gets one no closer to "revived subjective consciousness" than does having a photo, or an old shoe.

If you go with current concepts and understanding, the DNA has no relation to a person's memories, the patterns they build up in their brain over their life, etc.. If Jesus's brain was somehow preserved intact, then yes it'd be a matter of waiting for technology to catch up. Otherwise, having a fully grown twin of Jesus walking around gets us no closer to having the original.

If you go with the idea that somehow in the future we'll figure out how to revive dead consciousnesses with unknown technology, then assuming that the DNA is what's required makes no sense. Since we don't know the technology, don't have any inkling where the technology might come from, we have no way of guessing what might be needed. So again having a fully grown twin gets us no closer. For all we know, it gets us further away! Maybe growing a twin later on disturbs the resonance of the person's consciousness in the fabric of space, making recovery of initial memories impossible?

If anything, a clone of Jesus would be a tool of the church itself, raised for their goals, not his own. ;)

[Dave1001]

Even the idea of keeping the physical form around in as good a condition as possible may not be something they'd even think of. Maybe it would make more sense to them to preserve some blood? Or some breath? Looking at what actions they might take to achieve a goal based on today's knowledge isn't reasonable to me. But sure I'll go with that, assuming that Jesus a) wanted to preserve himself for a future and b) he created Christianity not because he thought he was God's son (otherwise no need to preserve anything) but to have followers that would eventually resurrect him.

Either way, having a clone gets one no closer to "revived subjective consciousness" than does having a photo, or an old shoe.

If you go with current concepts and understanding, the DNA has no relation to a person's memories, the patterns they build up in their brain over their life, etc.. If Jesus's brain was somehow preserved intact, then yes it'd be a matter of waiting for technology to catch up. Otherwise, having a fully grown twin of Jesus walking around gets us no closer to having the original.

If you go with the idea that somehow in the future we'll figure out how to revive dead consciousnesses with unknown technology, then assuming that the DNA is what's required makes no sense. Since we don't know the technology, don't have any inkling where the technology might come from, we have no way of guessing what might be needed. So again having a fully grown twin gets us no closer. For all we know, it gets us further away! Maybe growing a twin later on disturbs the resonance of the person's consciousness in the fabric of space, making recovery of initial memories impossible?

If anything, a clone of Jesus would be a tool of the church itself, raised for their goals, not his own. ;)

Well, I think you're a pretty informed person in disagreement with me (my favorite type).

I'll focus on what I think your best points are.
1. I disagree that a reasonable thinker, now or 2000 years ago, would think preserving a photo (or the roman equivalent) gets one closer to revived consciousness than preserving a body as well as possible.

I agree that since it's functionally beyond a technological singularity, it's possible that revival through cloning (not the path I claim Jesus did or could have conceived of -I think it would more likely be revival through repair) could actually harm a conscious entity's odds of future existence. It's also possible that a pink cube will instantly appear in front of me due to a quantum fluctuation. But I think all available evidence is that a living clone is somewhat closer to being a conscious entity than a photo. For one thing, one now has a living brain in some ways similar in structure to one's own. It seems somewhat less of an engineering problem to develop that brain the same way, and recreate the old neural structures, and then somehow transfer that state of conscious awareness which last existed 2000 years ago into the new clone's brain. All far beyond current technology, but the clone seems to me to get us substantively closer than the photo.

Anyways, some good ideas in your post. Thanks for making this interesting :)

[Dave1001]

Nothing. But you're applying it in a situation where the persons involved couldn't have possibly comprehended such strategies.

That's where I disagree with you and some other posters. I think an intelligent Roman could certainly comprehend the general outline of such a strategy. And a particularly brilliant one could formulate it.

[cyborg]

That's where I disagree with you and some other posters. I think an intelligent Roman could certainly comprehend the general outline of such a strategy. And a particularly brilliant one could formulate it.

They didn't see the world as we do now.

You are applying modern eyes to the situation.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

They didn't see the world as we do now.

You are applying modern eyes to the situation.

Think Egyptians. Think mummies. Maybe, even 2000 years ago, some could think of preserving a body for a soon to come resurection?

Re the OP: Do you mind that I am just a tiny, little bit skepical? :boggled:

[Dave1001]

They didn't see the world as we do now.

You are applying modern eyes to the situation.

Sure, we all have modern eyes. But we can attempt to determine how some people thought (and could of thought) 2000 years ago. As for "they", you're talking about a planetary population of probably a few million. There was likely a diversity of viewpoints in that era, and like I've said since the OP, I don't see intrinsic limits preventing someone from innovating thought along these lines 2000 years ago.

[Dave1001]

Think Egyptians. Think mummies. Maybe, even 2000 years ago, some could think of preserving a body for a soon to come resurection?

Re the OP: Do you mind that I am just a tiny, little bit skepical? :boggled:

Oh, you should be very skeptical. I certainly am.

[Zygar]

I think my main concern regarding DNA is the claim that DNA was used to identify Jesus's body! How could that possibly be true given that no one is known to be a descendant of him or his siblings?

Basically, I am saying that this is a ridiculous hoax.

Not to mention James Cameron is a gigantic media whore, so his backing of this only makes me more cynical.

[Dave1001]

I think my main concern regarding DNA is the claim that DNA was used to identify Jesus's body! How could that possibly be true given that no one is known to be a descendant of him or his siblings?

Basically, I am saying that this is a ridiculous hoax.

Not to mention James Cameron is a gigantic media whore, so his backing of this only makes me more cynical.

He may be a media whore, but he doesn't seem to be a hoaxster -at least not as of yet.

As for dna evidence, let's wait and see how it was used. A particularly impressive example would be if they mdemonstrated with DNA that the Joseph and Mary in the tomb were the genetic parents of the Jesus in the tomb, and the Jesus and the other Mary in the tomb were the parents of the son in the tomb. Even if all of those names were common 2000 years ago in that region, I think the odds of a Joseph + Mary ---> Jesus + Mary (Magdalene) ---> offspring genetic bloodline would be statistically less probable than if they all had different relationships to each other than that. It would bolster the case that it was indeed the historical Jesus in that tomb.

[temporalillusion]

I'll focus on what I think your best points are.
1. I disagree that a reasonable thinker, now or 2000 years ago, would think preserving a photo (or the roman equivalent) gets one closer to revived consciousness than preserving a body as well as possible.

I didn't mean that a reasonable person would think that, I'm saying that it IS that; a photo does not get you any closer than a clone does.

But I think all available evidence is that a living clone is somewhat closer to being a conscious entity than a photo. For one thing, one now has a living brain in some ways similar in structure to one's own. It seems somewhat less of an engineering problem to develop that brain the same way, and recreate the old neural structures, and then somehow transfer that state of conscious awareness which last existed 2000 years ago into the new clone's brain. All far beyond current technology, but the clone seems to me to get us substantively closer than the photo.

Anyways, some good ideas in your post. Thanks for making this interesting :)

How is it an engineering problem though? An engineering problem means the science is there you just have to work out the details. Sure you've got a working brain, but that's like having a working etch-a-sketch; you still need the patterns that are the person. How do you recreate those old patterns without the original? There's nothing in the DNA to help you, it's about as useful as an old photo. Even if we had the brain to transfer the pattern from, if we had the ability to transfer the pattern onto a new brain we could likely do it onto any brain, why would we need the brain created by the original genetic code? Or even transfer it into a computer.

So I don't think having a clone gets us any closer to having the original person.

[MondoAtheist]

It would be cool to see Robert Price(Bible Geek) in this. He's been my favorite Jesus Debunker, if one wants to call it/him that. And he's always seemed to come off very intelligent on the subject. So I hope Cameron has some people like him. Because I don't know if Cameron is one to be super credible for debunking Jesus. Anyways, I hope this will turn out well, and not botched.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Oh, you should be very skeptical. I certainly am.

Sorry. English by birth. Understatement, you know.
;)

[Björn Toulouse]

Were the remains mummified as were the Egyptians? Each one of the remains?

[edge]

This guy who found a coffin has forgotten that Jesus was wrapped in a cloth.
What’s next Moses’ coffin, besides that Who’s got a sample of Jesus’ DNA?


The coffins which, according to the filmmakers held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene will be displayed for the first time on Monday in New York.

Film makers is the key word here.

James Cameron Documentary This man HATES Christianity. I have heard of him before.

According to the filmmakers, the film’s claim is based on close work with world-famous scientists, archeologists, statisticians, DNA specialists and antiquities experts.
No Names at all.
And the advertisement to what sounds like a bad remake.

The Jesus Tomb is a 90-minute documentary by Emmy-award winning documentary filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici. Jacobovici?s most recent films include James, Brother of Jesus, Impact of Terror and the Exodus Decoded. The Jesus Tomb is co-produced by James Cameron, director of many acclaimed films including The Terminator and Titanic.
The Jesus Tomb is where Indiana Jones and the Da Vinci Code come to life and change the way we look at the world.

This is all off your link Dave1001 and sounds like the great lie that's spoken of in the bible.

[Gbob]

Well, expect a week of watching fundies and psuedo-scientists go after each other in the press. James Cameron is supposdley going to unveil the bodies of Jesus and Mary Magdalene on Monday;

http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/02/jesus_tales_from_the_crypt.html

I get a headache just thinking about what side will manage to annoy me the worse with bad science.

DNA testing confirming this? Great Xenu, the potential for idiocy is amazing.

[ChristineR]

He may be a media whore, but he doesn't seem to be a hoaxster -at least not as of yet.

As for dna evidence, let's wait and see how it was used. A particularly impressive example would be if they mdemonstrated with DNA that the Joseph and Mary in the tomb were the genetic parents of the Jesus in the tomb, and the Jesus and the other Mary in the tomb were the parents of the son in the tomb. Even if all of those names were common 2000 years ago in that region, I think the odds of a Joseph + Mary ---> Jesus + Mary (Magdalene) ---> offspring genetic bloodline would be statistically less probable than if they all had different relationships to each other than that. It would bolster the case that it was indeed the historical Jesus in that tomb.

There's no Joseph in the tomb, though. The best they could do would be mother, son, daughter-in-law, grandchildren and possibly none of the above. If father turns out to be in tomb, that would mess that theory up. Of course the article doesn't tell us if that's actually what they found.

Even assuming the DNA checks out after 2000 years, how do they know that "son" is Jesus? If there were exactly two females in the tomb, then presumably they were Mary and Mary, but which of the males is which? Funny, they don't tell us how they figured out any of this.

I remain skeptical, alas...

[Dave1001]

I didn't mean that a reasonable person would think that, I'm saying that it IS that; a photo does not get you any closer than a clone does.



How is it an engineering problem though? An engineering problem means the science is there you just have to work out the details. Sure you've got a working brain, but that's like having a working etch-a-sketch; you still need the patterns that are the person. How do you recreate those old patterns without the original? There's nothing in the DNA to help you, it's about as useful as an old photo. Even if we had the brain to transfer the pattern from, if we had the ability to transfer the pattern onto a new brain we could likely do it onto any brain, why would we need the brain created by the original genetic code? Or even transfer it into a computer.

So I don't think having a clone gets us any closer to having the original person.

First, just because the technology or science is beyond a technological singularity doesn't make something less of an engineering problem. Engineering problems are task oriented rather than discovery oriented, in my opinion. For example, Democritus could have conceived of the engineering problem of manipulating individual atoms to spell a word before the science was developed to do so. Before it was even clear that the science could be developed to do so.

As for whether a clone gets us any closer to having the original person, I don't think this has much to do with a revival-odds maximiziing jesus 2000 years ago (he would likely be more focused on minimizing disorganization of his corporeal components) but I think my last post on this topic spelled out pretty clearly while I think it likely gets us closer than a photo, even if the details of how one gets from clone to revived subjective conscious entity is beyond the current technological singularity. I don't think you raise new issues here for me to address.

[Dave1001]

There's no Joseph in the tomb, though. The best they could do would be mother, son, daughter-in-law, grandchildren and possibly none of the above. If father turns out to be in tomb, that would mess that theory up. Of course the article doesn't tell us if that's actually what they found.

Even assuming the DNA checks out after 2000 years, how do they know that "son" is Jesus? If there were exactly two females in the tomb, then presumably they were Mary and Mary, but which of the males is which? Funny, they don't tell us how they figured out any of this.

I remain skeptical, alas...

Ah, my bad. Well from a statistical sense I do think it would bolster their case, perhaps very strongly, if the dna shows genetic relation as

Mary ---> Jesua "son of Joseph" + Mary (Magdalene) ---> Judah "son of Jesua"

Even if the names were all common in that era, I would think that pattern of genetic relation would be statistically a bit less probable.

As for other posters who question Cameron's scientific integrity, I didn't hear it questioned at all in his previous documentaries on deep sea life and the Titanic (he did a documentary on the titanic too, not just a fiction movie).

The dispassionate experts will weigh in on this. If it holds up, this will be a popularization of one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time. If it doesn't, Cameron's reputation will be shattered, and he'll become a bit of a joke and a punch line, like Geraldo with Capone's vault.

[ChristineR]

Ah, my bad. Well from a statistical sense I do think it would bolster their case, perhaps very strongly, if the dna shows genetic relation as

Mary ---> Jesua "son of Joseph" + Mary (Magdalene) ---> Judah "son of Jesua"

Even if the names were all common in that era, I would think that pattern of genetic relation would be statistically a bit less probable.

As for other posters who question Cameron's scientific integrity, I didn't hear it questioned at all in his previous documentaries on deep sea life and the Titanic (he did a documentary on the titanic too, not just a fiction movie).

The dispassionate experts will weigh in on this. If it holds up, this will be a popularization of one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time. If it doesn't, Cameron's reputation will be shattered, and he'll become a bit of a joke and a punch line, like Geraldo with Capone's vault.

I agree, if the DNA, the names on the tombs and various dating techniques support this then it will be a major discovery!

I'm skeptical that they have all this information. :)

[TobiasTheViking]

You know what I'm thinking?

Well I'm going to tell you.

Star Trek: TNG, Series 6, Episode 23, Stardate 46852.2, Rightful Heir

Sorry Dave, you're about 15 years too late for that idea.

nominated. :)

[sphenisc]

There's no Joseph in the tomb, though. The best they could do would be mother, son, daughter-in-law, grandchildren and possibly none of the above. If father turns out to be in tomb, that would mess that theory up. Of course the article doesn't tell us if that's actually what they found.

Even assuming the DNA checks out after 2000 years, how do they know that "son" is Jesus? If there were exactly two females in the tomb, then presumably they were Mary and Mary, but which of the males is which? Funny, they don't tell us how they figured out any of this.

I remain skeptical, alas...

According to this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/24/wjesus24.xml

there's a "Yose, a common form of Joseph".

[Meadmaker]

Here's a prediction.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that someone presents scientific evidence that a family with the right names and relationships can be reasonably well documented from that tomb.

The only people who will believe that these are the remains of THE historical Jesus are people who have insisted, until now, that there is no evidence of an historical Jesus.

[Jekyll]

Here's a prediction.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that someone presents scientific evidence that a family with the right names and relationships can be reasonably well documented from that tomb.

The only people who will believe that these are the remains of THE historical Jesus are people who have insisted, until now, that there is no evidence of an historical Jesus.

And Dave1001, and a fair few of the bible scholars if the evidence is good enough (demonstrations of veneration by proto-Christians etc.), and a fair few Anglicans, Unitarians, theologians and other fence sitters.

Oh and we can add all the, "Jesus was a wise man but not the son of god", crowd as well so that's the majority of Jews and Muslims and possibly Hindus. We can throw in the majority of (non-Christian) China as well.

So, I'd say at least half the world's populations could be convinced of this if there's backing from sufficient experts and TV stations.

Assuming the story turns out to be somewhat convincing, of course.

[sphenisc]

I'd like to ask those who currently believe in the ascension of Jesus, what possible combination of evidence from this site, if any, would be sufficient to convince you that this was the NT Jesus and that he hadn't ascended?

[Freddy]

The only thing is, all of the names identifying the bodies were very common names at the time. Which would put the odds of this being the actual Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdeline, etc., at slimmer than slim (assuming that they were real to begin with). I just don't see how this could possibly be verified, and without verification it is utter garbage, considering how common names like Jesus and Mary were. Verdict: this is publicity whoring and nothing more. Nothing sells better than inciting a controversy by insulting Christians, who will then respond angrily, some of them intelligently but most with stupidity equal to or even greater than that of the author of the controversial whoring (see Brown, Dan).

[Dave1001]

The only thing is, all of the names identifying the bodies were very common names at the time. Which would put the odds of this being the actual Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdeline, etc., at slimmer than slim (assuming that they were real to begin with). I just don't see how this could possibly be verified, and without verification it is utter garbage, considering how common names like Jesus and Mary were. Verdict: this is publicity whoring and nothing more. Nothing sells better than inciting a controversy by insulting Christians, who will then respond angrily, some of them intelligently but most with stupidity equal to or even greater than that of the author of the controversial whoring (see Brown, Dan).

I noticed you didn't address how the odds would change if they showed genetic relationships that match biblical accounts. By your own logic, it could make the odds of this being the "actual" Jesus, Mary, and Mary Magdeline considerably higher. At the least, I'd be interested in reading your views on that, given that it was discussed in this thread but you don't mention it in your post.

[Myriad]

I'm very skeptical of this story. And yet...

The thing is, Cameron's not an idiot. He has the money to hire the best scientific and technical talent available to perform diligent testing. And he's shown a willingness to spend a lot of money that way before.

Not only that, but he has everything to lose. If his claims are less than convincing, if he's left any scientific detail uncovered, if he's been at all credulous of someone else's exaggerated or unsupported claims, he goes from "the man who directed the top-grossing movie of all time" to "the idiot who thought he found Jesus's body." Permanently. He loses big, unless he has at least enough evidence to sustain a long-term inconclusive result (or better).

If there's DNA he'd better have tested it and the results had better support his hypothesis. If there's material to be carbon-dated he'd better have carbon-dated it and the results had better support his hypothesis. If there are mummified remains he'd better have imaged them in every possible way, and the results... you get the idea. But he must know this too, unless I'm wrong about him not being an idiot.

That is, assuming the whole story isn't just a rumor that got Cameron's name tossed into it somehow.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[RandFan]

Here's a prediction.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that someone presents scientific evidence that a family with the right names and relationships can be reasonably well documented from that tomb.

The only people who will believe that these are the remains of THE historical Jesus are people who have insisted, until now, that there is no evidence of an historical Jesus.I suspect most would remain skeptical. I'm skeptical and would continue to be so without very strong evidence and I doubt that there would ever be sufficent to remove all doubt. At best we could come to a degree of likelyhood as to whether or not this was Jesus.

[Dave1001]

I'm very skeptical of this story. And yet...

The thing is, Cameron's not an idiot. He has the money to hire the best scientific and technical talent available to perform diligent testing. And he's shown a willingness to spend a lot of money that way before.

Not only that, but he has everything to lose. If his claims are less than convincing, if he's left any scientific detail uncovered, if he's been at all credulous of someone else's exaggerated or unsupported claims, he goes from "the man who directed the top-grossing movie of all time" to "the idiot who thought he found Jesus's body." Permanently. He loses big, unless he has at least enough evidence to sustain a long-term inconclusive result (or better).

If there's DNA he'd better have tested it and the results had better support his hypothesis. If there's material to be carbon-dated he'd better have carbon-dated it and the results had better support his hypothesis. If there are mummified remains he'd better have imaged them in every possible way, and the results... you get the idea. But he must know this too, unless I'm wrong about him not being an idiot.

That is, assuming the whole story isn't just a rumor that got Cameron's name tossed into it somehow.

Respectfully,
Myriad

That sums up my thoughts too. Nominated. The next few weeks should be interesting as his announcement is supposed to be on Monday.

[geni]

I'll focus on what I think your best points are.
1. I disagree that a reasonable thinker, now or 2000 years ago, would think preserving a photo (or the roman equivalent) gets one closer to revived consciousness than preserving a body as well as possible.


The romans burned bodies but built statues by the 1000.

[Dave1001]

The romans burned bodies but built statues by the 1000.

Right. And compare consumer investment in SUVs versus 5 point harnesses in 2007. Many humans (probably most) don't make decisions to rationally maximize their outcomes compared to our best ability to determine what the best decisions are for them to make. (Sorry if that was poorly worded). But atleast a few humans do functionally seem to be rational outcome maximizers for themselves. Perhaps Bill Gates and George Soros are examples. Perhaps Jesus was too. Speculating what I would do if I was born 2000 years ago, elements of Jesus' apparent possible strategy don't seem so bad.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I have advance knowledge of the DNA testing and it does prove one part of the Bible story true -- the part about being born of a vigin -- Jesus' DNA test proves he was female. :boggled:

[Big Les]

I have advance knowledge of the DNA testing and it does prove one part of the Bible story true -- the part about being born of a vigin -- Jesus' DNA test proves he was female. :boggled:

That explains the hair, and the dress. But not the beard...

[The Atheist]

Can't be taken seriously, apart from a "what if?" scenario. I'll give you 100:1 odds that ANY credible evidence ever surfaces, for starters. Sounds like a well-known movie/book ploy. Dan Brown, anyone? Honesty & reputation vs money, who do you think wins?

Any dumb crap wins an audience. For chrissakes, people still pay to watch Uri Geller.

In the "what if?" category; wouldn't you like to be a fly on the walls of the Vatican if someone did find his body?

[Malachi151]

As The Atheist said, 100 to 1 that this is bogus. It's quite silly really, as though #1 this wouldn't have already been found long ago if it were real and #2 there was no Jesus in the first place, thus its obvious there could be no "body", just fantasy.

[Dave1001]

As The Atheist said, 100 to 1 that this is bogus. It's quite silly really, as though #1 this wouldn't have already been found long ago if it were real and #2 there was no Jesus in the first place, thus its obvious there could be no "body", just fantasy.

I'm more in the camp of Myriad than of you or The Atheist on this. I wouldn't put the odds at 100 to 1 right now that this will be quickly (within a week or a few weeks) exposed as bogus, with widespread dismissal of it by neutral experts.

In fact, I'd put the odds at maybe 3:1 that it will at least be undecided and a source of continuing debate by the dispassionate experts on this topic for at least a few years. I doubt James Cameron would risk his credibility and his footnote in history for worse odds than that.

In any event, I think we'll have a clearer picture when we hear Cameron's announcement Monday and the initial responses of the neutral experts over the next week or so.

[a_unique_person]

I walked through a Spanish cemetery once. Jesus and Mary are definitely buried there.

[DOC]

Well even if it was true and not a hoax of some kind, the Bible says in (Matthew Chapter 28 verse 12) that there were people ("some" Jewish religious leaders of Christ's day who offered the soldiers of Christ tomb money to say that Jesus' disciples came and stole the body). So if there were people around at that time willing to use that kind of trickery surely they could of found a group limestone boxes of some anonymous family and marked the boxes with Jesus and his family and followers names. Its too convenient a story. Also the Romans, who fed Christians to the lions, surely could have forged the limestone boxes also...

Dan Brown made a lot of money off Jesus and I think others are going to try to do the same. Whenever theres a lot of money to be made, fraud and deception is usually close by.

[RationalReverend]

Uhhh, the professor who made the discovery, although interviewed by Cameron, has already said it was plain bunk.

http://drjimwest.wordpress.com/2007/02/24/the-tomb-what-the-archaeologist-in-charge-said/

[Dave1001]

Uhhh, the professor who made the discovery, although interviewed by Cameron, has already said it was plain bunk.

http://drjimwest.wordpress.com/2007/02/24/the-tomb-what-the-archaeologist-in-charge-said/

Well, if the story as reported on that blog is accurate, Cameron's reputation will take a deserved hit.

However, on the other hand, your linked source Dr. Jim Wst is a baptist minister, which indicates there might be a bias and an incentive to claim Cameron's documentary is bunk, or that others think so.

http://drjewest.googlepages.com/cv

In any event, this already demonstrates Cameron's claim will be under the strongest scrutiny, by many vested interests, which is a good thing.

[RationalReverend]

Well, if the story as reported on that blog is accurate, Cameron's reputation will take a deserved hit.

However, on the other hand, your linked source Dr. Jim Wst is a baptist minister, which indicates there might be a bias and an incentive to claim Cameron's documentary is bunk, or that others think so.

http://drjewest.googlepages.com/cv

In any event, this already demonstrates Cameron's claim will be under the strongest scrutiny, by many vested interests, which is a good thing.

Well, if he was making the claims on his own, then you would be correct, but if I remember correctly he quoted another article from a newspaper.

[Dave1001]

Well even if it was true and not a hoax of some kind, the Bible says in (Matthew Chapter 28 verse 12) that there were people ("some" Jewish religious leaders of Christ's day who offered the soldiers of Christ tomb money to say that Jesus' disciples came and stole the body). So if there were people around at that time willing to use that kind of trickery surely they could of found a group limestone boxes of some anonymous family and marked the boxes with Jesus and his family and followers names. Its too convenient a story. Also the Romans, who fed Christians to the lions, surely could have forged the limestone boxes also...

Dan Brown made a lot of money off Jesus and I think others are going to try to do the same. Whenever theres a lot of money to be made, fraud and deception is usually close by.

Sure, it's theoretically possible that fraud occured, including fraud 2000 years ago. The experts will be weighing in soon, and I look forward to scientific analysis on the likelihood (or unlikelihood) of fraud explaining the "evidence" in this instance.

[RationalReverend]

Ok, here we go, the article is from the Jerusalem Post, and they directly cite the man who did the research himself.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894508893&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Skeptic Guy]

I would say you are all being kind by putting the odds at 100 to 1. It's more like 1000 to 1. DNA evidence? Don't hold your breath.

Are you sure this isn't Kurt Cameron?

[Dave1001]

Ok, here we go, the article is from the Jerusalem Post, and they directly cite the man who did the research himself.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894508893&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Well, that certainly doesn't look good for Cameron. Not necessarilly a death knell yet, but we'll see how the opinions of the other experts break down soon.

[RationalReverend]

IMO, it can't be a death knell, because his inane theory had no life to begin with. It is an old discovery and the guy who oversaw the dig points out that it cannot be the same Jesua.

[Dave1001]

IMO, it can't be a death knell, because his inane theory had no life to begin with. It is an old discovery and the guy who oversaw the dig points out that it cannot be the same Jesua.

We'll read about the take of other dispassionate experts soon. No need for any of us to rush to conclusions one way or another on this yet.

[RationalReverend]

Maybe next week Cameron will have a docudrama on the Sniffex.

[Big Les]

I remember seeing a documentary about this tomb ten years ago and thinking it was wild speculation even as a credulous teenager. I can't believe it's the same find recycled and rehyped.

[Skeptic Guy]

I thought this was interesting article from cnn.com about the supposed "documentary".

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/26/jesus.sburial.ap/index.html

Including a total misrepresentation of what skeptics would like:


"I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," Pfann said. "But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."

[AgingYoung]

....Oh and we can add all the, "Jesus was a wise man but not the son of god", crowd as well so that's the majority of Jews and Muslims and possibly Hindus. We can throw in the majority of (non-Christian) China as well.
...

Muslims believe Jesus was translated to heaven by God and wasn't crucified.
They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did.(Quran 4:156)
God lifted him up to His presence. God is Almighty, All-Wise.(Quran 4:157)

.... Not quite as good as a brain with perfectly preserved synaptic connections, where in theory all one needs is a little electrical jump start, ....

:) yep, that's what my pappy always said...

Gene

[Dave1001]

funny reader comment to an articl on this:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23386857-details/I've+found+the+coffin+of+Jesus%2C+says+film+direct or/article.do

Well, if this is true I will be heading to a temple instead of church this weekend.

- Mike, Omaha, USA

[Skeptic Guy]

Don't change your plans.

[LovleAnjel]

Even if DNA was able to link the remains in the tomb in the correct family tree to be the "Jesus family", that still does not prove it was them. Play the game with your own family. If I stumble on a grave marker for Marie, Stanley, Stanley, and Joseph, and the relationships are all correct, that does not mean my grandparents, father and uncle are actually the ones buried in those plots. Even if the same last name is on it. Creepily coincidental, but not proof.

Keep in mind, Cameron is a filmmaker, so his reputation rests on presenting a story in an engaging and entertaining way. Whether or not something he produces represents the full truth (or any truth at all) is essentially immaterial.

[Skeptic Guy]

Better yet, define the "correct family tree to be the 'Jesus family'". No one knows what that family might be, you would need to have a known sample of DNA from someone known to be of Jesus's family. But since no one knows even if there was a Jesus, leave alone have his DNA, it aint' going to happen.

As you say, the best you are going to do is confirm whether those buried together are related or not.

[Garrette]

I'd like to ask those who currently believe in the ascension of Jesus, what possible combination of evidence from this site, if any, would be sufficient to convince you that this was the NT Jesus and that he hadn't ascended?None. Speaking as an ex-believer who is still very close to many believers, I can say with reasonable certainty that the vast majority will simply modify their beliefs, probably to something along the lines of saying that the ascenscion was only spiritual and that the body itself required (re)burying afterwards.

Then they would simply stop thinking about it before the cognitive dissonance became too great.

[The Atheist]

I remember seeing a documentary about this tomb ten years ago and thinking it was wild speculation even as a credulous teenager. I can't believe it's the same find recycled and rehyped.

Yep, the same thing I think with every chain letter, pyramid game, absurd fashion.

If people took to recycling paper the way they've taken to recycling bollocks, there'd be 43.6% more trees on the planet.

[Malachi151]

delete

[Foster Zygote]

Muslims believe Jesus was translated to heaven by God and wasn't crucified.

Some early Christian sects thought the same thing. It's not hard to imagine that Mohamed was exposed to Christian beliefs that didn't make it into the Roman Catholic canon.

[Foster Zygote]

I'm tired of reading declarations that skeptics are salivating at the thought that this might debunk Christianity once and for all. The implication being that skeptics are only willing to scrutinize ideas that they disagree with. Well I for one detect an aroma of fetid dingo's kidneys surrounding this whole story.

[RationalReverend]

Some early Christian sects thought the same thing. It's not hard to imagine that Mohamed was exposed to Christian beliefs that didn't make it into the Roman Catholic canon.

It's not hard to imagine, because it most definitely happened. The Quran for example contains passages blatantly borrowed from the infancy Gospel of Thomas.

[Renfield]

Better yet, define the "correct family tree to be the 'Jesus family'". No one knows what that family might be, you would need to have a known sample of DNA from someone known to be of Jesus's family. But since no one knows even if there was a Jesus, leave alone have his DNA, it aint' going to happen.

As you say, the best you are going to do is confirm whether those buried together are related or not.

Somehow from there the conclusion is drawn that this has to be Jesus's family. Pretty ridiculous, especially when you hear telling us that the probability is a million to one that its true. Worst abusers of statistics since Dembski.

[Big Les]

Any idea whether we can see the film yet?

This (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17349123/) interview is interesting:

You have to remember that the tomb was dismissed in 1980, when it was first discovered, for two reasons. It wasn’t even published. Even a report wasn’t written. We wouldn’t have known it existed except for literally a handful of archeologists. Like four people; five people. It was dismissed today by people who haven’t seen the film. They are still dismissing. One is yes there were two Marys, but the second Mary wasn’t Mary Magdalene, and these were common names. Therefore, there is nothing to it. It’s like finding John, Paul, and George, but it doesn’t mean you found the Beatles. The people who were dismissing this as common names were archeologists. Yes, they have a skill set, but it’s not statistics. So what we did was we asked statisticians if is this impressive, if this is compelling. And what they said was individual the names may be common, but the cluster is statistically compelling.

REALLY?????

[Skeptic Guy]

Yep, the same thing I think with every chain letter, pyramid game, absurd fashion.

If people took to recycling paper the way they've taken to recycling bollocks, there'd be 43.6% more trees on the planet.

Or when you hear that someone has finally found Noah's Ark every 5-10 years or so.

[jeremyp]

These tombs were discovered 27 years ago?

I reckon that's false. They were really discovered 28 years ago and whoever discovered them chiselled the names Mary, Joseph, Jesus, Mary (or Aramaic equivalents) on to some of the coffins and then covered up the tomb and waited for the next sucker.

[jeremyp]

I have advance knowledge of the DNA testing and it does prove one part of the Bible story true -- the part about being born of a vigin -- Jesus' DNA test proves he was female.
That explains the hair, and the dress. But not the beard...
She liked going to stonings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeq2Utm0nU

[Dave1001]

Keep in mind, Cameron is a filmmaker, so his reputation rests on presenting a story in an engaging and entertaining way. Whether or not something he produces represents the full truth (or any truth at all) is essentially immaterial.

No, that's not true for documentary filmmakers, the hat Cameron claims to be wearing for this piece. If the science behind this film is poor, his reputation will deservedly take a major hit.

[JPK]

Good evening Skeptic Guy.
Better yet, define the "correct family tree to be the 'Jesus family'". No one knows what that family might be, you would need to have a known sample of DNA from someone known to be of Jesus's family. But since no one knows even if there was a Jesus, leave alone have his DNA, it aint' going to happen.

As you say, the best you are going to do is confirm whether those buried together are related or not.

Agreed. Why did Cameron do this? Shouldn't this be on the Povitch or Springer show? They seem to have more experience doing DNA/paternitiy testing. Now that would be funny!
JPK

[JamesM]

You have to admire the quality of evidence being used to establish that this is The Jesus. Consider:

The tomb says Jesus had a dad called Joseph. The Bible says YES!
The tomb says Jesus had a mum called Mary. The Bible says YES!
The tomb says Jesus had a wife called Mary. The Bible says no... but that just means the Bible was WRONG, which is a YES!
The tomb says Jesus had a son called Joshua. The Bibles says no... but that just means the Bible was WRONG, which is a YES!
The tomb says Jesus died and then stayed dead. The Bible says no... but that just means the Bible was WRONG, which is a YES!

How convenient!

But man, this Bible seems to have been wrong on some pretty important points, like wife, child and deadness. At this point, I wouldn't even trust it to get the name of Jesus right. He was probably called Yitzhak or something. So if the tomb says Jesus, that ought to be evidence against it being the tomb of old whatsisname.

[Opus]

Anybody watch Larry King just now? No archaeologists to be seen, just Cameron, a producer, Albert Mohler (head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary here in KY), and some really, really, angry Catholic dude. (His name eludes me. I just remember Mohler because he's from my neck of the woods.) It is indeed a peculiar sight to see Baptist and Catholic officials suddenly arguing ferociously about the importance of scientific evidence...

All this DNA evidence stuff is goofy though. Even if there's any to be had, what will it prove other than that the people in the tomb are related to each other? Granted, if it turns out their unrelated skeletons it would unmask it as a hoax, but if they're all related, so what? They're just a family. (Unless of course they find magic unidentifiable God DNA...then I'm concerned.)

[largeprimenumber]

Clearly, all they need to do is compare the DNA fragments from the tomb with the DNA of some transubstantiated wine.

[Skeptic Guy]

Anybody watch Larry King just now? No archaeologists to be seen, just Cameron, a producer, Albert Mohler (head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary here in KY), and some really, really, angry Catholic dude. (His name eludes me. I just remember Mohler because he's from my neck of the woods.) It is indeed a peculiar sight to see Baptist and Catholic officials suddenly arguing ferociously about the importance of scientific evidence...

All this DNA evidence stuff is goofy though. Even if there's any to be had, what will it prove other than that the people in the tomb are related to each other? Granted, if it turns out their unrelated skeletons it would unmask it as a hoax, but if they're all related, so what? They're just a family. (Unless of course they find magic unidentifiable God DNA...then I'm concerned.)

I bet you you are talking about William Donohue of the Catholic League and defender against "Catholic bigotry" the world over. And a loon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donohue

But I'm just guessing.

[Opus]

Yeah, that was him.
Angry, angry man...

[Kopji]

Insightful comment from someone living near the new tombs:

"It will mean our house prices will go up because Christians will want to live here," one woman said.

[Meadmaker]

Clearly, all they need to do is compare the DNA fragments from the tomb with the DNA of some transubstantiated wine.
:)

[Tony]

You know what I'm thinking?

Well I'm going to tell you.

Star Trek: TNG, Series 6, Episode 23, Stardate 46852.2, Rightful Heir

Sorry Dave, you're about 15 years too late for that idea.

I've actually met Kahless a couple times.

[andyandy]

You have to admire the quality of evidence being used to establish that this is The Jesus. Consider:

The tomb says Jesus had a dad called Joseph. The Bible says YES!
The tomb says Jesus had a mum called Mary. The Bible says YES!
The tomb says Jesus had a wife called Mary. The Bible says no... but that just means the Bible was WRONG, which is a YES!
The tomb says Jesus had a son called Joshua. The Bibles says no... but that just means the Bible was WRONG, which is a YES!
The tomb says Jesus died and then stayed dead. The Bible says no... but that just means the Bible was WRONG, which is a YES!

How convenient!

But man, this Bible seems to have been wrong on some pretty important points, like wife, child and deadness. At this point, I wouldn't even trust it to get the name of Jesus right. He was probably called Yitzhak or something. So if the tomb says Jesus, that ought to be evidence against it being the tomb of old whatsisname.

lol :)

[andyandy]

it is a relatively interesting story....but i'd want to know about the statistical methods that were employed....there seems a bit of post hoc analysis going on....

anyone have the links to the research/reasoning?

[dogbite666]

The only thing is, all of the names identifying the bodies were very common names at the time. Which would put the odds of this being the actual Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdeline, etc., at slimmer than slim (assuming that they were real to begin with). I just don't see how this could possibly be verified, and without verification it is utter garbage, considering how common names like Jesus and Mary were. Verdict: this is publicity whoring and nothing more. Nothing sells better than inciting a controversy by insulting Christians, who will then respond angrily, some of them intelligently but most with stupidity equal to or even greater than that of the author of the controversial whoring (see Brown, Dan).

Lets see, we have some tombs with names like Jesua, Mary, Joseph...etc...etc so we can guess that they are maybe related. Those names were common, but all those names in the same family, all together in a hidden cave. They are obviously important people as the tombs are decorative and well made. So we can guess that this family was important.

So, we have an important group of people buired around the time of Jesus with names which match Jesus's family. Either:

1) this is indeed the tomb of Christ.
2) it is another family who died around the same time and all had the same names.
3) Its a hoax.

Now you could probably rule out 3 by carbon dating etc so that leaves us with 2 options. 1, doesn't fit the Bible account so must be false! no?

In a book which describes a man who magically turned water into wine, another man who parted the red sea, and sooooooo much other ludicrous rubbish I am inclined to believe that Jesus didn't actually accend to heaven, he died like the rest of us mortals and his body was buired or destoyed.

I just love reading some reports about this story, even Time dismiss this as rubbish:

"There was also this little inconvenience that a few miles away, in the old city of Jerusalem, Christians for centuries had been worshipping the empty tomb of Christ at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Christ's resurrection, after all, is the main foundation of the faith, proof that a boy born to a carpenter's wife in a manger is the Son of God."

Lets see, an empty tomb, fits with Bible story about a person accending magically to heaven. On the other side of town a complete tomb, names dates etc.........Oh! how unfortunate! It goes against what the Christians believe therefore it can't be true!

I can't wait to see how the powers that be in the Christian faith respond to this.

[Phrost]

It looks like Cameron is doing this with his friend, the "Naked Archaeologist" guy who's responsible for an absolute travesty of a show on the History Channel that seems to desperately try to prove some aspects of Judaeo-Christianity true.

For that reason alone it's probably not worth holding one's breath for, but I can't get my head around why these guys of all people would come out with this.

[Jekyll]

Muslims believe Jesus was translated to heaven by God and wasn't crucified.


Whoops. Thanks.

[This Guy]

I certainly find this interesting. I'm eager to see what comes out of it all.

My take is that IF the bodies can be placed in about the right time, and IF one Mary shows DNA that his mother would have, and the other doesn't indicate a relative, then I think this "news" will certainly get folks talking!

Of course it won't be proof of anything beyond a mother and son having died and been buried with someone else.

I think that IF the order of death can be determined from what's available, and the "Jesus" died before either "Mary", and IF the other male shows DNA expected of a brother or no relantionship, rather than a son (apparently not what is being claimed, I know), then we might be on to something! If the dating hits around 30 AD for the death of the "Jesus" body, and has a high degree of expected accuracy for whatever testing method would be used (that's all above my head) and all the rest holds true also, we might have a winner! But it would still only be speculation. I think this string of evidence would be pretty strong. Basic biblical agreement, and right time and relationships. I would certainly have to give it some strong thought before I discarded the idea. But it still wouldn't PROVE anything, IMHO.

One archaeologist, on the local morning news today, asked the question, in regard to the DNA evidence, "What are you going to compare the DNA to? God?" or something like that. He kind of threw his hands up at that point, as if to say it's all ridiculous.

Should be an interesting next week or so ;)

[Dave1001]

it is a relatively interesting story....but i'd want to know about the statistical methods that were employed....there seems a bit of post hoc analysis going on....

anyone have the links to the research/reasoning?

Yup, that sums up how I feel too. My interest right now centers on the statistical methods.

[Yukon]

Try this link for some interesting info...including why they can't perform DNA testing on the bones. ...which could determine whether the child is related to the remains of "Jesus" and "Mary Magdalene".

Well, I can't post the link...dang rules.
Go to Discovery dot com slash convergence slash tomb slash explore (boy, writing that sucked!)

[Yukon]

Yup, that sums up how I feel too. My interest right now centers on the statistical methods.

At the above mentioned website (discovery.com) they talk about the statistics of these family members being the "holy family" when taking biblical accounts into consideration.

[Dave1001]

Here's a link to a list of the experts. With the possible exception of Dr. Charlie Pellegrino, they seem well-credentialed.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/bios/bios_02.html

The listed statistician:


Dr. Andrey Feuerverger
Professor of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Toronto
Andrey Feuerverger holds a B.Sc. in Honours Mathematics from McGill University and a Ph.D. in Statistics from the University of California, Berkeley. Currently, he is a Professor of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Toronto. He has broad research interests primarily, but not exclusively, in statistical theory and applications, and has authored approximately fifty refereed scientific publications. He has also taught a wide variety of courses in statistics at every imaginable level. He is currently Coordinator of Graduate Studies for Statistics at University of Toronto. He is proud of the fact that his Erdos number is 3 (earned in two different ways) and that he holds one pending U.S. Patent. He is an elected Fellow of the I.M.S.

[Skeptic Guy]

Yeah, that was him.
Angry, angry man...

Yes, he is. He sees any questioning of Christianity as a direct assault on Catholicism. I don't know where this perception that there is a bias against Catholicism comes from. IMO, it's the other way around.

Here's a link to a list of the experts. With the possible exception of Dr. Charlie Pellegrino, they seem well-credentialed.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/bios/bios_02.html

The listed statistician:

And he likes long walks on the beach and hates negative people. Sorry, just seemed like a personal add there for a bit. I would be more interested in hearing from a legitimate archaeologist than a statistics professor.

[Dave1001]

Yes, he is. He sees any questioning of Christianity as a direct assault on Catholicism. I don't know where this perception that there is a bias against Catholicism comes from. IMO, it's the other way around.



And he likes long walks on the beach and hates negative people. Sorry, just seemed like a personal add there for a bit. I would be more interested in hearing from a legitimate archaeologist than a statistics professor.

Did you check the link?

Here's the archeologist listed. I'm not sure how to judge his credibility.



Dr. Shimon Gibson
Senior Fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research
Shimon Gibson is a British-born archaeologist working in Israel and the Palestine Authority territories. He studied at the Institute of Archaeology, University College, London, where he also completed his Ph.D. on ancient landscapes in the Levant. He is currently in charge of excavations on Mount Zion. He is the author of The Cave of John the Baptist, published in 2005, which unveils the first archaeological evidence of the historical reality of the Gospel story. In 1980, he was one of the first archaeologists inside the Talpiot tomb. He assisted in the excavation of the Talpiot tomb and in mapping its interior.

[Dave1001]

There's a strong rebuttal of some of the skeptical points made in this thread and in the media in Dr. James Tabor's blog, below. His responses seem well-written, intelligent, and reasonable (he covers everything from dna evidence to the frequency of the name "Jesus") and he seems well-credentialed. His blog seems to me to be the first evidence that this isn't a simple hoax or idiotic claim that will be quickly dismissed. They might have a stronger case than many of us initially thought.

http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/

A sample of Tabor's rebuttals on his blog


[Criticism:] The name “Jesus” was a popular name in the first century, appearing in 98 other tombs and on 21 other ossuaries

[Rebuttal by Tabor:] I guess it depends on what one means by popular. Based on Tal Ilan’s comprehensive survey of forms of the name “Joshua” (Yeshua/Jesus) from 330 BCE to 200 CE in both literary and inscriptional sources we get 103 examples or a 1 in 17.9 ratio compared to all male Jewish names known. As far as ossuaries go, however, the only one that has come from a provenanced tomb with the name “Jesus son of Joseph” is the Talpiot tomb. But the real issue is not the “popularity” of an individual name, but the probability of this cluster of names occuring in a single small family tomb with ten ossuaries, and further, to what degree these names, in the forms we have them, fit or don’t fit what we know historically of Jesus and his family.


http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/bio.html


James D. Tabor is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where he has taught since 1989. He previously held positions at the University of Notre Dame (1979-85) and the College of William and Mary (1985-89). His undergraduate and M.A. degrees were in Biblical Languages (Pepperdine University), and his Ph.D. is from the University of Chicago in the area of Biblical Studies, with an emphasis on Christian Origins and ancient Judaism, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, John the Baptist, Jesus, James, and Paul.

[Dave1001]

Edit

[Malachi151]

There's a strong rebuttal of some of the skeptical points made in this thread and in the media in Dr. James Tabor's blog, below. His responses seem well-written, intelligent, and reasonable (he covers everything from dna evidence to the frequency of the name "Jesus") and he seems well-credentialed. His blog seems to me to be the first evidence that this isn't a simple hoax or idiotic claim that will be quickly dismissed. They might have a stronger case than many of us initially thought.

http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/


http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/bio.html

From his post:

No one is claiming anything of the sort. What has been shown is that the Mariamne in the tomb is not a mother or sister of the Yeshua bar Jehosef. At this point that is the only DNA test result we have but it is solid data that can be used in analyzing the possible relationships between the six individuals named in this tomb.

Wouldn't DNA evidence LINKING the other Mary to the Jesus be the most important evidence? Why waste time with a test that shows people aren't related? To me this smells of a baiting technique.

If there is no link between the Mary and the Jesus, this story is over.

I don’t know upon what Witherington bases this charge. I have seen a bit of misleading material on his Web site posted by readers on the statistical question. Baukham would be the first to tell anyone he is not a statistician. It is not the case that Dr. Feuerverger and others have used only the names preserved on ossuaries for their name frequency figures. Also, frankly, I am more inclined to listen to a renowned professional statistician of the impecable stature of Dr. Feugerverger than various Christian bloggers, or even Dr. Witherington.

I guess it depends on what one means by popular. Based on Tal Ilan’s comprehensive survey of forms of the name “Joshua” (Yeshua/Jesus) from 330 BCE to 200 CE in both literary and inscriptional sources we get 103 examples or a 1 in 17.9 ratio compared to all male Jewish names known. As far as ossuaries go, however, the only one that has come from a provenanced tomb with the name “Jesus son of Joseph” is the Talpiot tomb. But the real issue is not the “popularity” of an individual name, but the probability of this cluster of names occuring in a single small family tomb with ten ossuaries, and further, to what degree these names, in the forms we have them, fit or don’t fit what we know historically of Jesus and his family.

From what I saw they arrived at a chance of 100 to 1 to 1000 to 1, hardly big odds of finding these names together.

I largely agree with this and in my book, The Jesus Dynasty I state that clearly. However, sometimes we learn from new evidence and it might well be that this tomb offers us that evidence. The presence of a Judah son of Jesus does not make this the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, but if the weight of other evidence points in that direction then we have to consider this as a possibility.

Belch!

John 1:45 “Philip found Nathanael, and said unto him, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” All Jewish males are described as the “son of x,” with the father’s name. I don’t think it likely that Joseph was the father of Jesus, but by taking Miriam as his wife when she was pregant he in effect is becoming his “legal” father and he was known then as “son of the carpenter,” or “son of Joseph.” The only other name that comes to us is “Yeshua ben Panthera.” There is no reason to hold the view that “Jesus son of Joseph” is not a fully appropriate name for Jesus of Nazareth.

LOL, the writer of John is hardly an early follower, John may well be a 2nd century writing! Secondly, I'm put my explanation that "Jesus" never existed and was called a "carpenter" because of the Jewish mythology about "wisdom" or "logos" having been said to to be present and a helper when God created the world.

This is completely untrue. I am amazed that Ben would say such things. I don’t know that he has never seen or been in the tomb and I wonder if he has examined the ossuaries at all. The tomb is very small and modest, not at all aristocratic, and it is in an area running from Silwan to Talpiot that Gibson and Zissu, in an extensive survey of tombs of the area, have identified as those of a poorer class, in contrast to the monumental tombs nearer the Old City. Actually both the James ossuary, which Ben knows well, and the Jesus son of Joseph ossuary are exceptionally modest and plain.

The James ossuary is fake, so who care?

Actually one “Mary” has the form of the name consistently used for Jesus’ mother: Maria, very rare in Aramaic, and the other “Mary” is Mariamene, known in early Christian sources as the form of the name “Miriam/Mariam” used for Mary Magdalene. This does not prove the second Mary is Mary Magdalene, but it indicates that whoever this Mary is, she has a form of the name associated with her. The DNA evidence then shows that this “second” Mary is not the sister of Jesus, which could have been possible in a small tomb of this size, assuming it belonged to his family. What we try to do here is test hypotheses. For example, if we had a Bernice or a Shelamzion in this tomb we would have to ask, what possible connection might this be to Jesus of Nazareth. But in the case of Jesus, the two most intimate women in his life, the ones who washed his body for burial, were Maria his mother and Mariamne or Mary Magdalene. Should it surprise us that they would be next to him in death as in life? I find the scene itself very moving.

So why not test the Mary that you thought was his mother, DUH! Setup!

I agree and I guess I am one of the few “liberal” scholars who thinks that the empty tomb story in Mark 16 is historically probable. Most of my colleagues say it is a later legend.

Belch!

[Dave1001]

Dr. Tabor definitely has the language of an evidence-based thinker and skeptic down, finishing his most recent blog post thusly:


My own view is that with or without the James ossuary included, the cluster of names is quite striking and significant, but with the James ossuary included there can be little doubt that in March of 1980 a bulldozer accidently uncovered the Jesus Family tomb.

What bothers me most about the approach of Witherington, Bock, and others is their beginning assumption that this can not be the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, their approach is not an open quest for evidence but an apologetic effort to save the faith. The conclusions one draws then are determined without even looking at the evidence. The only task is to refute and charge others with “bogus” ideas, not to examine and consider what we can know. I think there is a better way.


Professor Tabor does have a disturbing tendency of wanting to set theists up as foils. I'd prefer he and others focus on the skepticism of fellow empiricists, the most dangerous critics.

From what I've read so far, I don't think claims that this may be the family tomb of a real, historical Jesus can be quickly dismissed. I'd like to see more thorough critiques and analysis by the appropriate experts, Dr. Tabor's follow-up defenses, etc.

I've been impressed with the quality of Dr. Tabor's defenses so far, although not by his foil-seeking tendency of not dealing forthrightly with his most effective critics and acknowledging what should be strong default skepticism of a claim like this.

[Malachi151]

What irks me is that this sets up a situation where the "religious" are going to have their faith affirmed, because I think we all know that this isn't really what he claims it to be.

It will be one more failed attempt to "disprove the faith", which will just add another notch to the faithful.

[davefoc]

I was surprised by the notion that finding the actual body of Jesus would disprove the notion that Jesus was resurrected and went to heaven.

I never figured that many that Jesus atoms went to heaven. I assumed that this meant his soul made the journey but the matter that made up Jesus was still here on earth.

Even if this isn't exactly the way a Christian might see the situation right now, if the actual body of Jesus was found it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to change Christian theology so that it was consistent with what I thought it was in the first place.

[Freddy]

Lets see, we have some tombs with names like Jesua, Mary, Joseph...etc...etc so we can guess that they are maybe related. Those names were common, but all those names in the same family, all together in a hidden cave. They are obviously important people as the tombs are decorative and well made. So we can guess that this family was important.

So, we have an important group of people buired around the time of Jesus with names which match Jesus's family.

Except that's just the thing. Jesus and his family were not important until Christianity became widespread, and that happened a couple hundred years after his death. Jesus was a nobody, his father was a carpenter. When he died, he had nothing to his name, and he had maybe a couple dozen followers who were also nobodies and who were too scared to be publicly associated with him, let alone spring for an important looking tomb for him that they couldn't afford anyway. Important looking tombs cost money. He would most certainly not have been buried in an important looking tomb, unless he was dug up and reburied after he was widely believed to have been the son of God. But his followers, if they knew where he was initially buried, would not want to put him in an important looking tomb with his family if they were preaching that he had been resurrected. That doesn't make any sense.

[andyandy]

Except that's just the thing. Jesus and his family were not important until Christianity became widespread, and that happened a couple hundred years after his death. Jesus was a nobody, his father was a carpenter. When he died, he had nothing to his name, and he had maybe a couple dozen followers who were also nobodies and who were too scared to be publicly associated with him, let alone spring for an important looking tomb for him that they couldn't afford anyway.

evidence?

[Malachi151]

I was surprised by the notion that finding the actual body of Jesus would disprove the notion that Jesus was resurrected and went to heaven.

I never figured that many that Jesus atoms went to heaven. I assumed that this meant his soul made the journey but the matter that made up Jesus was still here on earth.

Now you are spouting 2nd century heresy!

[Freddy]

evidence?

Jesus, if he existed, was the son of Joseph the carpenter. Carpenters were not rich. There is no evidence that Jesus had money, or that he had many followers at the time of his death. All the evidence we have from Jewish, Roman and Christian sources (granted, it must be taken with a grain of salt) suggests that at the time of his death he had only a handful of followers, who were themselves not important people. If he had been buried in the same place all this time, why would Jewish and Roman sources from that time report that his followers stole his body? You can argue that the Roman accounts were written after Christianity took over, I suppose, but I'd like to see evidence of that. As for the Jewish sources, that explanation is obviously no good for them. If you want to say that ancient historians were so inaccurate that their work is worthless, then you are simply wrong. But even if they were, the Jewish and Roman sources agree. It's unlikely they would have made up the same story, and if the Romans got it from the Jewish historians then there goes the claim that the Christians tampered with the reporting of history (and if they had, they probably wouldn't have called the founders of their faith thieves.

I just think it is much more likely that his followers stole his body than that James Cameron has found it. I'm certainly not saying that there is no possibility it is Jesus' body, but there is at least as much (and I think more) reason to believe that it isn't than that it is.

[Dave1001]

Jesus, if he existed, was the son of Joseph the carpenter. Carpenters were not rich. There is no evidence that Jesus had money, or that he had many followers at the time of his death. All the evidence we have from Jewish, Roman and Christian sources (granted, it must be taken with a grain of salt) suggests that at the time of his death he had only a handful of followers, who were themselves not important people. If he had been buried in the same place all this time, why would Jewish and Roman sources from that time report that his followers stole his body? You can argue that the Roman accounts were written after Christianity took over, I suppose, but I'd like to see evidence of that. As for the Jewish sources, that explanation is obviously no good for them. If you want to say that ancient historians were so inaccurate that their work is worthless, then you are simply wrong. But even if they were, the Jewish and Roman sources agree. It's unlikely they would have made up the same story, and if the Romans got it from the Jewish historians then there goes the claim that the Christians tampered with the reporting of history (and if they had, they probably wouldn't have called the founders of their faith thieves.

I just think it is much more likely that his followers stole his body than that James Cameron has found it. I'm certainly not saying that there is no possibility it is Jesus' body, but there is at least as much (and I think more) reason to believe that it isn't than that it is.

On the wealth point, I believe that according to Dr. Tabor as written in his blog, the tomb is not one of a wealthy family, but rather middle class to lower middle class.

[bignickel]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned just how brilliant a meme this is.

From now on, whenever some biblethumper gets in your face, and asks you if you've been saved, you can say "by that guy whose body they found in that tomb? Didn't you people say he rose from the dead?"

The meme itself is, I think, quite devastating when talking with the faithful. Especially if you mention Occam's Razor. Once this meme is brought up, the biblethumper is at a serious disadvantage for the rest of the (possibly short) conversation.

[ail]

So, we have an important group of people buired around the time of Jesus with names which match Jesus's family. Either:

1) this is indeed the tomb of Christ.
2) it is another family who died around the same time and all had the same names.
3) Its a hoax.

Now you could probably rule out 3 by carbon dating etc so that leaves us with 2 options. 1, doesn't fit the Bible account so must be false! no?




I am betting that this will be eventually be proven to be a hoax.

I believe the carbon dating of the contents will show up as around 2000 years old. It is relatively easy to plant 2000 years old bone fragments as well as bones of his relatives.

It is much harder to fake the stone tomb with appropriate etched names. This is where I believe this fake will be exposed.

There has been many similar hoaxes in the last 10-15 years. I am currently tracking done these stories.

I think some people are laughing all the way to the bank with Camerons money with this one. Cameron will probably still make a profit on this exposure regardless.

[davefoc]

I am betting that this will be eventually be proven to be a hoax.



If we're taking bets here, I'd bet against it being a hoax. The situation is very different than with the James ossuary. These relics have an established provenance and there haven't been any experts stepping forth and claiming that they are hoaxes as there were with the James Ossuary.

Overall, this doesn't have the feel of a hoax to me. It has the feel of some overhyped evidence designed to promote a questionable documentary that will be mostly forgotten in six moths.

[Big Les]

If it was a hoax, it would likely have been set up to be rather more conclusive and convincing. I'm just not getting the "kicker" here -perhaps someone can explain to me why Cameron et al think this is such an open and shut case.

Even if it's a 1 in 1000 shot; so what? Improbable things will always happen given enough time.

[cgallaga]

The Discovery Chanel page does discuss experts and methodology a bit

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html?dcitc=w99-502-ah-1024

[Dave1001]

If we're taking bets here, I'd bet against it being a hoax. The situation is very different than with the James ossuary. These relics have an established provenance and there haven't been any experts stepping forth and claiming that they are hoaxes as there were with the James Ossuary.

Overall, this doesn't have the feel of a hoax to me. It has the feel of some overhyped evidence designed to promote a questionable documentary that will be mostly forgotten in six moths.

Me too. At worst, I suspect this is most like the claims a few years back that scientists had found definite evidence of life on Mars. It's understandable that even legitimate scientists can have their standards of evidence corrupted in their desire to be the first to announce a discovery as big as life on Mars or discovery of the tomb of a historical figure as large as Jesus. Thus, the appropriate response from the rest of us is a high degree of skepticism. I like that Dr. Tabor does seem to be answering that skepticism forthrightly in his blog.

[Dave1001]

One has to admire the transparency of this group claiming to have discovered Jesus' family tomb. For example, here's a message board on the discovery channel website where you can directly question and receive answers from the experts involved:

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/cfrm/f/5001981278

[cgallaga]

I agree , but there is so much noise in that discussion forum as well :(

[Beerina]

It's phenomenologically interesting that Jesus' dna may have been recovered in the same period that technology now exists to "ressurect" him. It would be in the form of cloning, which wouldn't be an exact ressurection, but would sort of mirror a "second coming".

Star Trek did it!

They resurrected the Klingon savior/whatever "Kahless" via cloning some blood on his official blade from Some Place Of Honor. Actually, they did this secretly and then tried to use the clone as the actual "second coming".

It should be interesting how Mightily this offends Yahweh. If making graven images or spilling one's seed on the ground pisses Him off, what is cloning his official avatar going to do to him? Kinda rolling graven images, sacrilidge, creating life, and mocking the resurrection all into one glorious outrage!


I don't think this is some sort of biblical prophecy fulfillment, but I've long thought that Jesus might have created Christianity to maximize constituents for his future technology-based ressurection.

Which would have been a miscalculation on his part, given how it slowed technological development as centers of enlightenment abandoned them for a thousand years.

Although he might have done better for himself if he had followers put him in permanently cold/frozen portion of the artic, or failing that, in a bog. Don't know to what degree, if any, it would have aided the preservation of his brain's neural structures.

Well, it would have definitely aided a cloning resurrection. Granted, that would no more help him than it would us, but if he were God, then perhaps he can psychically transfer back into the cloned body in a way we cannot.

[Dave1001]

Star Trek did it!

They resurrected the Klingon savior/whatever "Kahless" via cloning some blood on his official blade from Some Place Of Honor. Actually, they did this secretly and then tried to use the clone as the actual "second coming".

It should be interesting how Mightily this offends Yahweh. If making graven images or spilling one's seed on the ground pisses Him off, what is cloning his official avatar going to do to him? Kinda rolling graven images, sacrilidge, creating life, and mocking the resurrection all into one glorious outrage!




Which would have been a miscalculation on his part, given how it slowed technological development as centers of enlightenment abandoned them for a thousand years.



Well, it would have definitely aided a cloning resurrection. Granted, that would no more help him than it would us, but if he were God, then perhaps he can psychically transfer back into the cloned body in a way we cannot.

My speculation doesn't center around Jesus being God, but rather a hustler who wants to persist and happens to be born 2,000 years ago, rather than 20 years from now.

Also, I think it's debatable whether or not christianity significantly slowed scientific progress over the past 2,000 years. Quite a bit of good scientific advancement was done by smart people who studied complex mathetmatical concepts like infinities under the pretext of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a needle.

[Retrograde]

The tomb says Jesus had a dad called Joseph. The Bible says YES!
The tomb says Jesus had a mum called Mary. The Bible says YES!
The tomb says Jesus had a wife called Mary. The Bible says no... but that just means the Bible was WRONG, which is a YES!
The tomb says Jesus had a son called Joshua. The Bibles says no... but that just means the Bible was WRONG, which is a YES!
The tomb says Jesus died and then stayed dead. The Bible says no... but that just means the Bible was WRONG, which is a YES!


I think the reasoning - for want of a better word - would be more like

"The tomb says Jesus had a wife named Mary, the Bible says no, therefore THE TRUTH WAS SURPRESSED!"

Depending on the source, "Mary Magdalene" may have been one, two or three different people, Dan Brown notwithstanding. Mary seems to have been a common name - Mark 15:40 mentions Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph being at the crucifiction (I'm using the Latin Vulgate version).

My guess, based on the limited information? Possibly a coincidence of names - names do follow fashion to some extent (know many Ednas or Ethels under 70?) or an early hoax/attempt to cash in on pilgrims. Human nature being what it is, they probably had people way back when eager to make a few drachmas or whatever off gullible visitors to the holy land - and we have good evidence that Constantine's mother was there looking for relics c. 300AD. DNA analysis shows some relationships among the bodies? Well, even today relatives are often buried near each other, so that's not surprising.

For me, the confirming bit is the fact the inscriptions were written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Aramaic and Hebrew makes sense for c. 30, maybe Greek due to the Hellenistic influence, but Latin just seems wrong. The earliest writings of the Church were in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, mostly the latter due to Paul's influence, with Latin not becoming widely used for a couple of centuries. Without any supporting evidence such as carbon dating of the bodies and associated grave goodd, dating of the inscriptions, dating of the site itself, I'm leaning towards a combination of old coincidence + wishful thinking.

[Meadmaker]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned just how brilliant a meme this is.

From now on, whenever some biblethumper gets in your face, and asks you if you've been saved, you can say "by that guy whose body they found in that tomb? Didn't you people say he rose from the dead?"

The meme itself is, I think, quite devastating when talking with the faithful. Especially if you mention Occam's Razor. Once this meme is brought up, the biblethumper is at a serious disadvantage for the rest of the (possibly short) conversation.

When I first read this, I was thinking that it was seriously wrong, because I suspect it will turn out that there's no real evidence that this was THE Jesus, and the faithful guy would be able to point that out.

However, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is decent evidence that these were at least bones of people who had the same names as the people in the story, and that there is no further evidence about who these people were. This puts the faithful in a position where someone can claim, "Yes, I believe Jesus lived, and those are his bones." The faithful person is then left arguing about lack of scientific evidence for those bones belonging to THE Jesus.

Suddenly he's trying to make the case for Christ, and citing lack of evidence as a reason to disbelieve an alternative theory. It will be a tough sell.

[ImaginalDisc]

When I first read this, I was thinking that it was seriously wrong, because I suspect it will turn out that there's no real evidence that this was THE Jesus, and the faithful guy would be able to point that out.

However, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is decent evidence that these were at least bones of people who had the same names as the people in the story, and that there is no further evidence about who these people were. This puts the faithful in a position where someone can claim, "Yes, I believe Jesus lived, and those are his bones." The faithful person is then left arguing about lack of scientific evidence for those bones belonging to THE Jesus.

Suddenly he's trying to make the case for Christ, and citing lack of evidence as a reason to disbelieve an alternative theory. It will be a tough sell.

That would make a great Agatha Christie novel, "Murder on the New Jerusalem Express." The villain kills the Messiah, because they know he'll ascend to Heaven. No evidence. Brilliant!

[Dave1001]

I think the reasoning - for want of a better word - would be more like

<snip>



Well, here's the actual reasoning from Dr. Tabor:

http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/

There's no need for any of us to speculate on the reasoning when we can go straight to the source.

[Retrograde]

Well, here's the actual reasoning from Dr. Tabor:

http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/

There's no need for any of us to speculate on the reasoning when we can go straight to the source.

I have read his analysis, and IMHO it says the say thing in many more words. I don't doubt he's sincere in his interpretation - I just think there may be more reasonable explanations than the lost tomb of Jesus. A 1st century family burial is exciting enough in and of itself: why make more claims?

I'm a skeptic, and I want extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims. I would like to see some analysis by other archeologists - I don't count Pellegrino and Jacobovici as top-rung experts.

[Kopji]

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Seeing how some of how the other ancient finds have turned out, there remains the possibility that we will compare this to the marksman who hit the bullseye by stabbing the target with the arrow when nobody was looking.

[This Guy]

I'm a bit confused on which "bodies" they actually have.

But, let's speculate a bit :D

If they have Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, what if they were able to prove Mary was the Mother, and Joseph was the father?

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think this "find" will ever do more than give speculation that the bones belong to whom they think. I don't think there will ever be 100% proof that they are Jesus and the rest.

But, what if? ;)

Ok, it's senseless speculation, but it might be fun :D

[andyandy]

Well, here's the actual reasoning from Dr. Tabor:

http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/.

it's gone!

it's a conspiracy :boxedin:

[Starrman]

funny reader comment to an articl on this:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23386857-details/I've+found+the+coffin+of+Jesus%2C+says+film+direct or/article.do

Well, if this is true I will be heading to a temple instead of church this weekend.

- Mike, Omaha, USA

Not as funny as this one:

"Jesus was a common name and if you doubt that, look in the phone book today. Jesus is listed hundreds of times as a first name."

Dr. Ben Pierce, Moorseville, USA

[Dave1001]

it's gone!

it's a conspiracy :boxedin:

Not as of my checking just now. It seems to be up in all its glory.

[Dave1001]

Good sum up of the state of the discussion in Scientific American. It seems to me that the case that this is the Jesus family tomb has legs. I think don't think it will be either quickly dismissed or quickly universally accepted. I'd like to read more about how messianic movements took care of their leaders upon death, to get a sense of the likelihood that Jesus' family would have been taken care of in this way.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa003&articleId=14A3C2E6-E7F2-99DF-37A9AEC98FB0702A

[Kopji]

The Discovery Channel has posted a pdf of some of the excavation notes and information about the site and inscriptions.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/media/tomb_evidence.pdf

The informality (general sloppiness) of the inscriptions does not lend support to the idea that Jesus and his family, although a poor family, might have been provided a tomb by his reverent followers.

I could be convinced otherwise though, are there other rabbinical tombs that show the same casualness with the inscriptions?

The linkage of the tomb with the earlier find of the 'James the brother of Jesus' ossuary is bothersome. If this new 'find' were actually going to be a hoax, it would not be an original idea. A similar strategy was successfully promoted in Mormon historical circles by Mark Hofmann.

A successful hoax could work something like this: ALL the ossuaries were originally unmarked when found previous to their public discovery. They were all inscribed then, and made to look old . One inscribed as being the brother of James could be removed and later used to confirm the authenticity of the other boxes (not 'found' yet). The remaining boxes were covered back up and left for discovery later, to be used as evidence of the authenticity of the James ossuary or vice versa.

Not saying they did that, only that at least one known hoaxer/fraud has used that technique.

[Orphia Nay]

I think my main concern regarding DNA is the claim that DNA was used to identify Jesus's body! How could that possibly be true given that no one is known to be a descendant of him or his siblings?

Basically, I am saying that this is a ridiculous hoax.

Not to mention James Cameron is a gigantic media whore, so his backing of this only makes me more cynical.

If the tomb was discovered 27 years ago, and they've had all this time to do tests, and the tests show compelling evidence, surely the story warrants a big producer and release?

I'm starting to think some of these cynical (as opposed to skeptical) hoax allusions seem to belong in the Conspiracy Theories forum, where other paranoia based on no evidence is found. ;) :p


By the way, Prince Michael of Albany is alleged to be a descendant of Jesus. Laurence Gardner (one of Queen Elizabeth II's geneaologists)'s book, "The Bloodline of the Holy Grail" goes into detail. I'd be interested in the results of a DNA test comparing his to the Jesus bones'.
a) there could be positive result (which would be very interesting); or
b) they won't match (which could mean one, or both are fakes).


I'd like to ask those who currently believe in the ascension of Jesus, what possible combination of evidence from this site, if any, would be sufficient to convince you that this was the NT Jesus and that he hadn't ascended?

Excellent question. I might put that to some believers I'm discussing this with in another forum.

[Orphia Nay]

Somehow from there the conclusion is drawn that this has to be Jesus's family. Pretty ridiculous, especially when you hear telling us that the probability is a million to one that its true. Worst abusers of statistics since Dembski.

Yup, that sums up how I feel too. My interest right now centers on the statistical methods.

I'm not terribly good with statistics, but the Discovery Channel article makes the results sound pretty impressive:

"But Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics and mathematics at the University of Toronto, recently conducted a study addressing the probabilities that will soon be published in a leading statistical journal.

Feuerverger multiplied the instances that each name appeared during the tomb's time period with the instances of every other name. He initially found "Jesus Son of Joseph" appeared once out of 190 times, Mariamne appeared once out of 160 times and so on.

To be conservative, he next divided the resulting numbers by 25 percent, a statistical standard, and further divided the results by 1,000 to attempt to account for all tombs — even those that have not been uncovered — that could have existed in first century Jerusalem.

The study concludes that the odds are at least 600 to 1 in favor of the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb. In other words, the conclusion works 599 times out of 600."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc_02.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000

[Malachi151]

Here is my commentary on it:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/blog/index.blog?entry_id=1650704

I thought the Biblical scholarship was horrible.

[Skeptic Guy]

Here is my commentary on it:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/blog/index.blog?entry_id=1650704

I thought the Biblical scholarship was horrible.

Malachi, like you, my biggest complaint was that it relied so heavily on the supposed genealogy of Jesus and Mary. Given, as you point out, that there is so much discrepancy between genealogical lists contained in the NT and so much that is contained there made up, you don't have anything to base your analysis on.

Like Orpia Nay, I am not one for statistics, however the real scientists/archaeologists they had on seemed to indicate that the names "Jesus", "Mary", and "Mariamne" were much more common than the producers suggested. I don['t know how much that matters, but would like to hear from others on that point.

They also were trying to tie-in the "James, son of Joseph" ossuary to the same tomb. Though there seemed to be a match on the patina the archaeologists they had on after the docudrama seemed unimpressed. They suggested that the results would have had to be compared with much larger sample size.

And finally, the docudrama really made me howl when they suggested that since the "Mariamne" and "Jesus" were not related then they were probably married. Though they tried to back-pedal from that statement in the after-party discussion.

[Meadmaker]

My wife and I watched it, and came away pretty impressed. However, I cautioned at the end that it was easy to be impressive when you get to control the presentation. It provided food for thought, but without checking out the claims, it didn't mean much.

There were two things that sounded very persuasive. First, the James Ossuary evidence. However, I was aware that their version of events was very much disputed. If you could get independent confirmation that 1) the James Ossuary came from that tomb and 2) there was an inscription on it when it came out of the tomb, that would really be something. However, I didn't believe that was the case, having read about that ossuary in the past, and knowing that a lot of it was a matter of dispute. In other words, while it sounded persuasive, it didn't persuade me, because I knew that they might be stretching it.

The second thing I thought sounded very pursuasive was the discussion of the name "Mariamne". I had never heard of "Mariamne" before, so I was easily led down a path by the producers. It seemed to me that they were saying two things. First, that the name "Mariamne" was incredibly rare. Second, that one of the only known uses of that name was for Mary Magdalene, in the Acts of Phillip.

So, off to google. Put in "Mariamne". What pops up? "The wife of Herod the Great". In other words, that name was known, and in fact was the name of a famous queen. It seems fairly reasonable to assume that the name of the queen might show up among some baby name lists at about that time. Second, the "Acts of Phillip" does indeed have a character named "Mariamne", but it doesn't equate Mariamne with Mary Magdalene. It just has her as a female follower of Jesus.

Finally, I could see right away that regardless of the epigraphic evidence, the statistics presented on the show were garbage. Perhaps more on that later.

So, we have a very impressive sounding show. However, we know that they presented the James ossuary evidence as if it were nearly conclusive, when we know that this is a subject of great dispute. Second, we know that they distorted one of their main points, having to do with "Mariamne". Third, we know that they used lousy statistics to present a more impressive case than was justified. Anyone who has read the Skeptical Inquirer for a long time will recognize all of these warning bells of fraud.

I think it is very interesting. It's even possible that this is indeed the tomb of Jesus. I would like to know more about the evidence related to the names Mariamne, Mariah, and Jose that they found so interesting. However, on first glance, it looks like overblown, unsubstantiated, claims, hyped up to produce some sales.

[davefoc]

I believe for practical purposes the James Ossuary has been proven to be a hoax. If the program didn't make this clear, then that is a significant hit against the credibility of the creators of this documentary.

I put together this overview of news about the James Ossuary about a year ago in this thread:
http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?t=60&page=5&highlight=james+ossuary


Rough overview from my point of view:
Lots of people without the appropriate skill sets but with the appropriate biases decided to claim that the Ossuary was not a fake or was probably not a fake.

The IAA (Israel Antiquities Authority) has determined that it is a fake.

The alleged forger (Oded Golan) has been arrested for forging the inscription.

A shop owned by Golan with tools useful for forging antiquities was discovered.

Ancient text experts have suggested that just based on the text that the inscription is suspect because of unusual spelling. These unusual spellings are known on only one other artifact, and Golan had access to that artifact and that artifact might have served as source material for creating a fake inscription.

Other items that have passed through Golan's hands have been declared to be fakes by the IAA.

The Biblical Archeology Review that first published stories about it continues to push the idea that it might not be fake going so far as to publish a form where you can petition to reexamine the Ossuary for authenticity. The IAA has refused.

good overview article
http://www.davidrowan.com/2005/05/is-oded-golan-behind-biblical.html

esoteric scholarly criticism of IAA conclusion
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_HarrellrespondstoJAS.pdf

bbc article on Golan and his fakes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/solomon_prog_summary.shtml
Archeology article on the Ossuary and Golan
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/ossuary/

IAA final report
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Committees_report.htm

BAR petition
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbPetition.asp

One thing that I couldn't find was an update on Golan and the status of the charges against him. As late as April 2004 he was still out and about claiming that he was the victim of a great injustice at the hands of the IAA that was out to prove that only artifacts discovered at authorized dig sites are reliable and that artifacts without provenance are fakes.

My conclusion:
What a bunch of non-sense. This is a straightforward forgery case. Wishful and probably religiously biased views by pseudo-experts coupled with some potentially financially incentivized views by other experts allowed a routine hoax to be wildly misrepresented in the media.

[Kopji]

There was a panel discussion afterward with Tom Kopel moderating, and a few good points raised. A couple things became clear:

The producers seem more than a little naive about the wedge that this has the potential to drive within Christianity. There is a large segment of Christianity that would probably be willing, even glad to have some evidence that Jesus was a real person and the gospels were based on real events, even if distorted over time.

The rest though, would need a major theology adjustment to accept a body of Jesus. Belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is what puts the fundamental in fundamentalist. To accept that there is a body is much like denying the virginity of Mary.

A conclusion that everyone seemed to agree on and shook hands over is that faith is mostly immune to any contrary evidence and none of this will matter, except maybe to unbelievers who feel Jesus never existed. So it is possibly viewed as a win-win.

The question about if this is a hoax is not CTish because there is a court case going on in Israel over the 'James' box. If that were shown to be a hoax, it will definitely cast a shadow over this entire matter. It does not seem inappropriate to question the assumptions that underly the impressive statistics. The original site survey documents do not even state with 100% accuracy the meaning of the texts. There is quite a lot of "might be" in there.

So to some extent what we have is exactly what they are being accused of - starting with the conclusion and selecting evidence so that it supports that conclusion.

[Zygar]

If the tomb was discovered 27 years ago, and they've had all this time to do tests, and the tests show compelling evidence, surely the story warrants a big producer and release?

Historically, that has not been the case. Although something of this magnitude may deserve it, most biblical archaeology is barely given any press whatsoever because so little of it has any leg to stand on.

I'm starting to think some of these cynical (as opposed to skeptical) hoax allusions seem to belong in the Conspiracy Theories forum, where other paranoia based on no evidence is found. ;) :p

I am cynical because so far I have seen absolutely no concrete evidence of anything from any biblical archaeology. Also because this is exactly the sort of thing that someone like James Cameron would make look incredibly good for publicity's sake, only to flop majorly in scholarly review.

That said, I have looked further at the evidence thus far available, and I think that even the scientists involved aren't stating as fact that they have Jesus in a box.

By the way, Prince Michael of Albany is alleged to be a descendant of Jesus. Laurence Gardner (one of Queen Elizabeth II's geneaologists)'s book, "The Bloodline of the Holy Grail" goes into detail. I'd be interested in the results of a DNA test comparing his to the Jesus bones'.
a) there could be positive result (which would be very interesting); or
b) they won't match (which could mean one, or both are fakes).

emphasis mine

I am aware of the book, and I would just like to point out that the phrase "Holy Grail" is in the title. This geneaology is in the same category with the "DaVinci Code" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". Both of which have been sufficiently trounced by any and every scholar who has bothered to look at the facts.

[Skeptic Guy]

My wife and I watched it, and came away pretty impressed. However, I cautioned at the end that it was easy to be impressive when you get to control the presentation. It provided food for thought, but without checking out the claims, it didn't mean much.

There were two things that sounded very persuasive. First, the James Ossuary evidence. However, I was aware that their version of events was very much disputed. If you could get independent confirmation that 1) the James Ossuary came from that tomb and 2) there was an inscription on it when it came out of the tomb, that would really be something. However, I didn't believe that was the case, having read about that ossuary in the past, and knowing that a lot of it was a matter of dispute. In other words, while it sounded persuasive, it didn't persuade me, because I knew that they might be stretching it.

The second thing I thought sounded very pursuasive was the discussion of the name "Mariamne". I had never heard of "Mariamne" before, so I was easily led down a path by the producers. It seemed to me that they were saying two things. First, that the name "Mariamne" was incredibly rare. Second, that one of the only known uses of that name was for Mary Magdalene, in the Acts of Phillip.

So, off to google. Put in "Mariamne". What pops up? "The wife of Herod the Great". In other words, that name was known, and in fact was the name of a famous queen. It seems fairly reasonable to assume that the name of the queen might show up among some baby name lists at about that time. Second, the "Acts of Phillip" does indeed have a character named "Mariamne", but it doesn't equate Mariamne with Mary Magdalene. It just has her as a female follower of Jesus.

Finally, I could see right away that regardless of the epigraphic evidence, the statistics presented on the show were garbage. Perhaps more on that later.

So, we have a very impressive sounding show. However, we know that they presented the James ossuary evidence as if it were nearly conclusive, when we know that this is a subject of great dispute. Second, we know that they distorted one of their main points, having to do with "Mariamne". Third, we know that they used lousy statistics to present a more impressive case than was justified. Anyone who has read the Skeptical Inquirer for a long time will recognize all of these warning bells of fraud.

I think it is very interesting. It's even possible that this is indeed the tomb of Jesus. I would like to know more about the evidence related to the names Mariamne, Mariah, and Jose that they found so interesting. However, on first glance, it looks like overblown, unsubstantiated, claims, hyped up to produce some sales.

The archeologists were pointing out that the "Acts of Phillip" dated from the 4th Century or three hundred years after Jesus and Mary Magdelane. Before that she was not known as Mariamne, so that made me think that they were really reaching to attach significance to the name. However, on of the docudrama guys said there was another reference to Mariamne as early as 3rd Century(?).

I have no idea how rare Mariamne was at the time Jesus was supposed to be around, but it does seem reasonable that if there was a Queen named Mariamne, then people might want to name their kid after her. Or maybe, must maybe they found the tomb of Queen Mariamne instead!

[Malachi151]

My second blog post on this issue:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/blog/index.blog?entry_id=1651011

This time addressing specific claims of Christian apologists. (or an apologist)

[Meadmaker]

However, on of the docudrama guys said there was another reference to Mariamne as early as 3rd Century(?).

During the panel, there was a brief reference to a second century reference, that was specific to Mary Magdalene, but I don't know how seriously it could be taken.

Or maybe, must maybe they found the tomb of Queen Mariamne instead!

I was thinking maybe Joseph of Arimathea. He was sufficiently impressed with Jesus that he named his kids after him and his followers. Joseph, himself, was in one of the unmarked boxes.

[DangerousBeliefs]

I came away from the show thinking "Wow, this is going to make a lot of people happy and angry... on both sides of the debate."

Here, we may have the very first validation that Jesus was a real person... only to -surprise- find out he was probably a real (flesh, blood - not god) person.

But I had more questions than answers...

Why wasn't all the dna examined?

What about the other ossuaries?

What was written on the wall in the crypt?

[Retrograde]

I was thinking maybe Joseph of Arimathea. He was sufficiently impressed with Jesus that he named his kids after him and his followers. Joseph, himself, was in one of the unmarked boxes.

Seems more plausible to me: according to the gospels he was wealthy enough, and owned a rock tomb near Jerusalem which he made available to Jesus' family after the crucifixtion. There's the matter of proving that he really did exist, that he had children, and that this is really their tomb, but the hypothesis seems to fit what few known facts there are just as well.

Malachi151, thanks for the links in your analysis, particularly to the article on the Talpyot tomb controversy.

[CapelDodger]

So, off to google. Put in "Mariamne". What pops up? "The wife of Herod the Great". In other words, that name was known, and in fact was the name of a famous queen.
Herod actually married two Mariamnes. In fact, Mariamnes crops up all over the Herodian family tree.

Mariamne was a common name amongst the Maccabees, the Hasmonean family. They laid claim to the Davidic inheritance and a certain amount of the Messianic thing. The Herodians were actually Idumeans, a tribe that had only recently converted to Judaism at the point of a sword. The Herodians were rich and had Rome (with many pointy things and people to point them) to back them up, but for extra "legitimacy" they married into the Hasmonean family. Not that the strategy worked, since the Herodians killed almost all of their half-Hasmonean sons. They didn't trust them - and probably couldn't. These sons gained more local status from their maternal line than they did from the paternal. Imagine the temptation to engineer an early succession, with a very good chance of success. As long as it's cleared with the right Romans beforehand, of course.

It seems fairly reasonable to assume that the name of the queen might show up among some baby name lists at about that time.

It was in some ways an act of passive defiance.

[normdoering]

If Cameron did the same due diligence for this as he did for his Titanic documentary, he could go down in history as the greatest debunking showman of all time, surpassing even Houdini.


http://time-blog.com/middle_east/

Probably not. Here's my review:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/tv-review-lost-tomb-of-jesus.html

[Orphia Nay]

emphasis mine

I am aware of the book, and I would just like to point out that the phrase "Holy Grail" is in the title. This geneaology is in the same category with the "DaVinci Code" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". Both of which have been sufficiently trounced by any and every scholar who has bothered to look at the facts.

Yes, I agree that the Gardner book is along the same tenuous lines as those two, but there would still be people who'd like to see DNA tests done.

[Meadmaker]

I wonder if there's an easily accessible catalog of names found in similar tombs near Jerusalem. It could be a fun Skeptical Inquirer article to have a contest to see if other tombs had clusters of names that could "only" be Jesus' family. Of course, there might not be the Jesus son of Joseph, but really, you wouldn't expect that, would you? After all, for one reason or another, his bones wouldn't be expected in a tomb.

[Kopji]

This is such a subject of wide interest, it would be nice to apply some regular science to it. What could disprove this as Jesus's tomb?

This question does not seem entirely falsifiable, but findings might significantly impact the statistical analysis they've done.

The pdf link I posted earlier is interesting for anyone interested in the subject. IMHO the site survey and report is nice work, especially for being done in a few short days. This could be an example for what might be minimally expected by excavators of places like... Nazareth.


http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/media/tomb_evidence.pdf
This (warning, 2.5mb download) is a collection of four documents:

Document 1: (2 pages)
Shimon Gibson
Published maps of the Talpiot Tomb
(1980?)

Document 2: (2 pages)
Original Report on the Talipot Inscription
L.Y. Rahmani
"A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of The State of Israel"
1994

Document 3: (5 pages)
Amos Kloner
"A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Taliypot, Jerusalem"
Atiquot (Jerusalem) vol 29 (1996) pp15

Document 4: (1 page)
Statics overview summary of Andrey Feueruerger


The discussion about if this were the 'real' tomb of Jesus is not new. This email snippet is from 1996.

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/library/ane/digest/v03/v03.n126

...They're published in:
Author..... Rahmani, L. Y.
Title...... A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections
of the State of Israel
Place...... Jerusalem
Publisher.. The Israel Antiquities Authority, The Israel Academy
of Sciences and Humanities
Date....... 1994
Collation.. 1 volume (xii + 307 pages + 135 plates)
ISBN....... 965-406-016-7


There are four names associated with this research. `

Joseph Gath is mentioned as the excavator - Desceased

Shimon Gibson
What a lucky guy, he also found the tomb of John the Baptist
http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/experts/archeologists/shimon_gibson.html

Gibson is closely associated with James Tabor http://www.jesusdynasty.com/

Amos Kloner
Prof. Amos Kloner oversaw the archaeological work at the Talpiot tomb when it was discovered during construction in 1980. He is the author of the 1994 article in the pdf.

Says it is all bunk during a recent interview.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894527185&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

There is a bibliographic reference for names of the period in Kloner's article. This was "The Names of the Hasmoneans in the Second Temple Period.
By T. Ilan 1987
EI 19:238-241 Hebrew; English Summary p 70

My personal bias would be that any criticism of work associated with Tabor or Gibson requires utmost skepticism. Both authors have definite agendas.

Note: The name Taliypot is spelled several differnet ways and may all be correct. Internet searches should probably look for information under each spelling.

[Kopji]

As specific examples of possible cherry picking data to fit an agenda, the following comments were in the original report on the tomb, but omitted from other discussions:


'Jesus, Son of Joseph'

The first name, preceded by a large cross mark, is difficult to read, as the incisions are clumsily carved and badly scratched.

It is not mentioned in the TV program that the name could only be assumed because of the other ossuary which read 'Judah son of Yesuha'


'Yose'
The similarity of this ossuary and its inscription with that of Marya on no 706 both from the same tomb, may indicate that these are ossuaries of the parents of Yeshua (704) and the grandparents of Yehuda (702).

The TV program went into considerable detail about this being one of Jesus's brothers who had an unusual name spelling. The original report says none of this. The report implies that Yose might be the father, due to the similarity of script with 'Mayra'.

Similar ambiguity exists about the name ascribed to Mary of Magdalene. The original reports imply it might be a dual name, and to make it otherwise requires insertion of characters that 'might be worn off'.

[RichardR]

Any statisticians here?

These are the probabilities that the filmmakers came up with for each person found in the tomb.

1. Jesus Son of Joseph - 1 in 190
2. Maria - 1 in 4
3. Mariamne - 1 in 160
4. Jose - 1 in 20

They multiply these all out, divide by 4 (to adjust for biases - not sure why it's 4 but never mind), then divide by 1,000 to adjust for all possible first Century Jerusalem Tombs.
The final figure was 600 to 1 in favor of it being Jesus' Tomb.

A couple of things occur to me about this, and I'd be interested in the views of anyone who understands stats better than I do:
The individual probabilities listed above are the probabilities the individual names would appear in a tomb. But there were ten bone boxes and yet they are only using 4 names out of the 10 bone boxes. Wouldn't that reduce the probabilities? For example, if Jesus Son of Joseph is 1 in 190, surely the probability of a Jesus Son of Joseph out of 10 possible bone boxes would be less - perhaps 190 / 10 or 1 in 19?
If the above is true, how would the other three probabilities be affected?
Surely the 1 in 600 isn't 1 in 600 that it's Jesus' tomb, it's 1 in 600 that these names would have randomly appeared? Surely it's only 1 in 600 that it's Jesus' tomb if these 4 people are exactly who we would be expected to find in Jesus' tomb. But isn't "Matthew" someone we wouldn't have expected to find? Shouldn't the presence of "Matthew" reduce the probability?
Anyone know why the factor of 4 is used?
Why divide by 1000? Surely there would be more than 1000 tombs in the whole of Jerusalem in the first century?

[Dave1001]

Any statisticians here?

These are the probabilities that the filmmakers came up with for each person found in the tomb.

1. Jesus Son of Joseph - 1 in 190
2. Maria - 1 in 4
3. Mariamne - 1 in 160
4. Jose - 1 in 20

They multiply these all out, divide by 4 (to adjust for biases - not sure why it's 4 but never mind), then divide by 1,000 to adjust for all possible first Century Jerusalem Tombs.
The final figure was 600 to 1 in favor of it being Jesus' Tomb.

A couple of things occur to me about this, and I'd be interested in the views of anyone who understands stats better than I do:
The individual probabilities listed above are the probabilities the individual names would appear in a tomb. But there were ten bone boxes and yet they are only using 4 names out of the 10 bone boxes. Wouldn't that reduce the probabilities? For example, if Jesus Son of Joseph is 1 in 190, surely the probability of a Jesus Son of Joseph out of 10 possible bone boxes would be less - perhaps 190 / 10 or 1 in 19?
If the above is true, how would the other three probabilities be affected?
Surely the 1 in 600 isn't 1 in 600 that it's Jesus' tomb, it's 1 in 600 that these names would have randomly appeared? Surely it's only 1 in 600 that it's Jesus' tomb if these 4 people are exactly who we would be expected to find in Jesus' tomb. But isn't "Matthew" someone we wouldn't have expected to find? Shouldn't the presence of "Matthew" reduce the probability?
Anyone know why the factor of 4 is used?
Why divide by 1000? Surely there would be more than 1000 tombs in the whole of Jerusalem in the first century?

You raise some good points. I think the 1000 you mention in the end is what all those frequencies were in relation to. Such that in a sample of 1000 tombs, the name frequencies would be:

1. Jesus Son of Joseph - 1 in 190
2. Maria - 1 in 4
3. Mariamne - 1 in 160
4. Jose - 1 in 20

respectively.

[Meadmaker]

Any statisticians here?

These are the probabilities that the filmmakers came up with for each person found in the tomb.

1. Jesus Son of Joseph - 1 in 190
2. Maria - 1 in 4
3. Mariamne - 1 in 160
4. Jose - 1 in 20

They multiply these all out, divide by 4 (to adjust for biases - not sure why it's 4 but never mind), then divide by 1,000 to adjust for all possible first Century Jerusalem Tombs.
The final figure was 600 to 1 in favor of it being Jesus' Tomb.

A couple of things occur to me about this, and I'd be interested in the views of anyone who understands stats better than I do:
The individual probabilities listed above are the probabilities the individual names would appear in a tomb. But there were ten bone boxes and yet they are only using 4 names out of the 10 bone boxes. Wouldn't that reduce the probabilities? For example, if Jesus Son of Joseph is 1 in 190, surely the probability of a Jesus Son of Joseph out of 10 possible bone boxes would be less - perhaps 190 / 10 or 1 in 19?
If the above is true, how would the other three probabilities be affected?
Surely the 1 in 600 isn't 1 in 600 that it's Jesus' tomb, it's 1 in 600 that these names would have randomly appeared? Surely it's only 1 in 600 that it's Jesus' tomb if these 4 people are exactly who we would be expected to find in Jesus' tomb. But isn't "Matthew" someone we wouldn't have expected to find? Shouldn't the presence of "Matthew" reduce the probability?
Anyone know why the factor of 4 is used?
Why divide by 1000? Surely there would be more than 1000 tombs in the whole of Jerusalem in the first century?

The stats are done very, very, badly, if you ask me. I'll try to address why I think so.

Let's start with the probability that a tomb containing 10 ossuaries would contain a Jesus son of Joseph. One out of every 190 males in the first century in that region was named Jesus, son of Joseph. I'll assume that there are five males and five females. I don't know that, because four of the ossuaries had no names, but the probabilities of the names are based on sex of the individuals. (We have Joshua (Jesus), Jose, Judah, Maria, Mariamne, and Mattia) With five chances for a Jesus son of Joseph, the odds are approximately 1 in 38 (190/5). (Actual probability=1-(189/190)**5)

You've got four male ossuaries left. What's the chance for a Jose? About 1 in 5. If the two are independent, then a collection of five male ossuaries yields 1 in 190 (or thereabouts) for a Jesus son of Joseph plus a Jose. Now, what's the chance of having two Mary's in the tomb?

Well, one in 4 were named Mary, so 3 in 4 were not. What's the chance that the first 2 ossuaries are Marys, and the last three are not. That's 1/4*1/4*3/4*3/4*3/4, or 27/1024. But it would also be a "hit" if we were to have the 1st and 3rd, 2nd and 5th, etc. We have to multiply by the number of ways to arrange two things out of five, which is equal to 5*4/2=10. 270 of 1024. Let's call it 1 out of 4, because there's already plenty of roundoff error. More won't hurt.

So, given 5 males and 5 females of that time period, the odds that the collection will contain 1 Jesus son of Joseph, 1 Jose, and 2 Marys is right around 1 out of 760.

Let's leave that for a minute, and go back to your questions, because it has some relevance. Your first question gets to the heart of an error in their method, and it's an elementary error. Suppose you were dealing cards, and you wanted to know what the chance was of an ace high straight. You could say that the first card had to be a 10. That's 1 in 13. Then a Jack, another 1 in 13, then a queen, king, ace, etc. Each one is 1 in 13, and you multiply together. Right? Wrong, because you would be just as happy with 10, A, J, Q K. By just multiplying, you've gone way, way over. An obvious way to see it is to note that their probabilities wouldn't change if there had been 11 ossuaries, or 1000 ossuaries (but see later).

Your third question is about Matthew. They said they were being conservative by throwing him out, even though he could easily be a Marian relative. Hogwash! They threw him out because he didn't fit. There's no reason he ought to be there. We don't know who would have been in Jesus' tomb, but the presence of a Matthew doesn't influence things one way or another. It's like a blank box. It's fair to throw him out, but you have to count his box in there.

However, it brings up an important point. They are giving full credit for Jose at 1 in 20, because that's the frequency of Jose in the population. However, Jesus had four brothers. Any one of them would be a "hit", just like Jose. Therefore, it should be, instead of the chance of Jose, perhaps the chance of James, Jose, Judas, or Simon. Suddenly, the probability goes way, way, up that this cluster will occur randomly.

Fourth question- the factor of 4. I studied probability, not statistics, but they're really, really, closely related. There's no factor of 4. Flim flam. To be generous, they might be grossly oversimplifying some actual calculation they did.

Fifth question- Actually, it's estimated that there were only about 1000 tombs. Tombs were expensive. However, is that relevant? We know that these people were in a tomb, but we don't know if the main Jesus was in a tomb with his family. If we knew, or had reason to suspect, that there was a Jesus family tomb, then this factor of 1000 might matter. Since we don't know that, we have to look at the probability that these names would occur in the general population, not just in the tomb-buried people.

To do a real calculation of probabilities, you would have to make some specific assumptions and it's too complicated for me, but we can see some things wrong with what they actually did. First, they neglected the non-hit ossuaries, including Mattia and Judah, as if they didn't matter. Second, they considered the tomb buried population, instead of the general population. Third, and most amazingly, they did a straight multiplication, which is just so very wrong it's almost unbelievable. In fact, it's so incredibly wrong that I wonder if that factor of 4 actually is the correction factor to get rid of the straight multiplication. In other words, it has nothing to do with just "being conservative". Perhaps it has to do with, "We can't explain probability in a documentary, so we'll fudge the calculations and say we are being conservative". Fouth, they counted the Jesus, Jose, Mary, Mary, combination as if it were the only relevant combination that would be considered a "hit" for the Jesus family tomb. What if down the street there were a Mary, Simon, Judas, Jose, James, tomb? That would be five people that the Bible tells us were related, missing one guy who was executed. That sounds like a more likely Jesus family tomb to me. What about a Jesus son of Joseph, one Mary, plus Simon and James?

Take all that stuff into account, and the probabilities go way, way, down. It becomes an interesting coincidence that these biblical names were found together, but not a very unlikely one.

That's why they needed the 1 in 160 for Mariamne. The show tried to make a case that Mary Magdalene=Mariamne, so that they could use the much lower probability in the calculations. Two Marys is easy to find, but a Mary and a Mariamne would be much less likely by coincidence. So, was Mary Magdalene named Mariamne? If she was, the show didn't prove it. The show pointed to a character named Mariamne in the Acts of Phillip. What the show didn't say was that the Acts of Phillip didn't identify Mariamne as Mary Magdalene, and the two characters didn't have much in common. The Magdalene=Mariamne identification is a stretch with, as best I can tell, no real basis in history.

If you could convince me that a lot of people thought that Mary Magdalene's real name was Mariamne, before this tomb opened up, then you might have something solid, as I thought while watching the show. However, it turns out that there were plenty of Mariamnes in Judea, and I didn't see anything which suggested that Mary Magdalene was one of them.

[Dave1001]

The stats are done very, very, badly, if you ask me. I'll try to address why I think so.

Let's start with the probability that a tomb containing 10 ossuaries would contain a Jesus son of Joseph. One out of every 190 males in the first century in that region was named Jesus, son of Joseph. I'll assume that there are five males and five females. I don't know that, because four of the ossuaries had no names, but the probabilities of the names are based on sex of the individuals. (We have Joshua (Jesus), Jose, Judah, Maria, Mariamne, and Mattia) With five chances for a Jesus son of Joseph, the odds are approximately 1 in 38 (190/5). (Actual probability=1-(189/190)**5)

You've got four male ossuaries left. What's the chance for a Jose? About 1 in 5. If the two are independent, then a collection of five male ossuaries yields 1 in 190 (or thereabouts) for a Jesus son of Joseph plus a Jose. Now, what's the chance of having two Mary's in the tomb?

Well, one in 4 were named Mary, so 3 in 4 were not. What's the chance that the first 2 ossuaries are Marys, and the last three are not. That's 1/4*1/4*3/4*3/4*3/4, or 27/1024. But it would also be a "hit" if we were to have the 1st and 3rd, 2nd and 5th, etc. We have to multiply by the number of ways to arrange two things out of five, which is equal to 5*4/2=10. 270 of 1024. Let's call it 1 out of 4, because there's already plenty of roundoff error. More won't hurt.

So, given 5 males and 5 females of that time period, the odds that the collection will contain 1 Jesus son of Joseph, 1 Jose, and 2 Marys is right around 1 out of 760.

Let's leave that for a minute, and go back to your questions, because it has some relevance. Your first question gets to the heart of an error in their method, and it's an elementary error. Suppose you were dealing cards, and you wanted to know what the chance was of an ace high straight. You could say that the first card had to be a 10. That's 1 in 13. Then a Jack, another 1 in 13, then a queen, king, ace, etc. Each one is 1 in 13, and you multiply together. Right? Wrong, because you would be just as happy with 10, A, J, Q K. By just multiplying, you've gone way, way over. An obvious way to see it is to note that their probabilities wouldn't change if there had been 11 ossuaries, or 1000 ossuaries (but see later).

Your third question is about Matthew. They said they were being conservative by throwing him out, even though he could easily be a Marian relative. Hogwash! They threw him out because he didn't fit. There's no reason he ought to be there. We don't know who would have been in Jesus' tomb, but the presence of a Matthew doesn't influence things one way or another. It's like a blank box. It's fair to throw him out, but you have to count his box in there.

However, it brings up an important point. They are giving full credit for Jose at 1 in 20, because that's the frequency of Jose in the population. However, Jesus had four brothers. Any one of them would be a "hit", just like Jose. Therefore, it should be, instead of the chance of Jose, perhaps the chance of James, Jose, Judas, or Simon. Suddenly, the probability goes way, way, up that this cluster will occur randomly.

Fourth question- the factor of 4. I studied probability, not statistics, but they're really, really, closely related. There's no factor of 4. Flim flam. To be generous, they might be grossly oversimplifying some actual calculation they did.

Fifth question- Actually, it's estimated that there were only about 1000 tombs. Tombs were expensive. However, is that relevant? We know that these people were in a tomb, but we don't know if the main Jesus was in a tomb with his family. If we knew, or had reason to suspect, that there was a Jesus family tomb, then this factor of 1000 might matter. Since we don't know that, we have to look at the probability that these names would occur in the general population, not just in the tomb-buried people.

To do a real calculation of probabilities, you would have to make some specific assumptions and it's too complicated for me, but we can see some things wrong with what they actually did. First, they neglected the non-hit ossuaries, including Mattia and Judah, as if they didn't matter. Second, they considered the tomb buried population, instead of the general population. Third, and most amazingly, they did a straight multiplication, which is just so very wrong it's almost unbelievable. In fact, it's so incredibly wrong that I wonder if that factor of 4 actually is the correction factor to get rid of the straight multiplication. In other words, it has nothing to do with just "being conservative". Perhaps it has to do with, "We can't explain probability in a documentary, so we'll fudge the calculations and say we are being conservative". Fouth, they counted the Jesus, Jose, Mary, Mary, combination as if it were the only relevant combination that would be considered a "hit" for the Jesus family tomb. What if down the street there were a Mary, Simon, Judas, Jose, James, tomb? That would be five people that the Bible tells us were related, missing one guy who was executed. That sounds like a more likely Jesus family tomb to me. What about a Jesus son of Joseph, one Mary, plus Simon and James?

Take all that stuff into account, and the probabilities go way, way, down. It becomes an interesting coincidence that these biblical names were found together, but not a very unlikely one.

That's why they needed the 1 in 160 for Mariamne. The show tried to make a case that Mary Magdalene=Mariamne, so that they could use the much lower probability in the calculations. Two Marys is easy to find, but a Mary and a Mariamne would be much less likely by coincidence. So, was Mary Magdalene named Mariamne? If she was, the show didn't prove it. The show pointed to a character named Mariamne in the Acts of Phillip. What the show didn't say was that the Acts of Phillip didn't identify Mariamne as Mary Magdalene, and the two characters didn't have much in common. The Magdalene=Mariamne identification is a stretch with, as best I can tell, no real basis in history.

If you could convince me that a lot of people thought that Mary Magdalene's real name was Mariamne, before this tomb opened up, then you might have something solid, as I thought while watching the show. However, it turns out that there were plenty of Mariamnes in Judea, and I didn't see anything which suggested that Mary Magdalene was one of them.

Did you read the actual explanation from the statistician involved? Or are some of these critiques of his work from you based on 3rd hand descriptions of his work? If so, some of your critiques may be of straw men.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Why wasn't all the dna examined?


That's what ruined the whole theory for me. They only tested material from two "high profile" ossuaries. (Thanks "The DaVinci Code.") When the results don't match, they loudly proclaim, "AHA! Mariamne MUST have been married to Yesuha!" We were told of 4 other males buried in that tomb, why couldn't she have been married to any of the them? Why not check the genetic relations between Mariamne and Judah, or between Maria and Yeshua? That would have helped prove their case.

Either Cameron and co. run out of money, there wasn't enough material in any of the other ossuaries to make a test, or they didn't want to take that gamble.

What about the other ossuaries?

What was written on the wall in the crypt?

Errr... Move along! Nothing to see here. We've got a documentary to sell... I mean make.

[RichardR]

The "divide by four" rationale is explained (http://www.ntgateway.com/weblog/2007/03/correct-interpretation-of-dr-andrey.html):

This is the bias error calculation. They've divided by 4 (not 10).

It basically means... assuming there are another 3000 tombs undiscovered... the likelihood of finding these THREE names together is 1 in 600.I don't know if this is valid (it's a comment on a blog) but it's all I've found.

[Retrograde]

One thing that bothers me about the name analysis is that there seems to be an assumption that names are distributed is some regular fashion. I'll be the first to admit that I know little about Jewish onomastics (fancy word for naming practices) at the time, but I wonder if it was common for certain names to be used by certain families, or certain classes at higher rates than one would find in the populace as a whole (or at a lower rate, for that matter) - naming the kid after grandpa Yesus because the first born son is always named that way, or after uncle Yesus because he may leave him some money, or after that Hero of the People Yesus of Nazerath who was executed last year for his failed rebellion or whatever. What I'm trying to get at is that naming is not a random process.

A second question is why didn't all the boxes have names? I can think of a few possibilities, from running out of money for the ancient stonecarvers to modern forgers not being able to think of any more names associated with Jesus. I'm not an archeologist - especially not a Biblical one - but it's interesting that these unmarked boxes get pretty much ignored. (BTW, weren't there at least 2 different styles of letters on the named tombs?)

Without the bones, about the only thing that can be said is that some people with names that seem to match those of people in the New Testament were buried sometime in the 1st century or thereabouts. Even if the bones were exhumed, there will still be problems of chain of evidence, possible contamination, etc.

BTW, my own interpretation, based on total lack of Hebrew and reading one paper on one website is that "Mara" refers to someone called Martha-or-the-equivalent, but that may be because of my own biases towards Martha, the sister of Lazarus and Mary. But everyone knows she's buried in France ( Of course it's true: I've seen her tomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarascon), and as we know 50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong!)

[RichardR]

One more thing occurred to me, and I’d be interested in anyone’s views on this.


As I wrote before, the 1 in 600 probability is not 1 in 600 that this is the tomb of Jesus, it is 1 in 600 that there would be a tomb with these four names in it. For this to be a 1 in 600 that it is the tomb of Jesus, these four people would have to have been known to have been close family to Jesus and therefore would be in his tomb. Am I correct here? Can anyone see any flaw in that logic? How do we “know” who would be in the close family of Jesus? The Bible presumably – and other ancient documents.

However, AFAIK, none of these ancient documents has Magdalene (or Mariamne) as Jesus’ wife, so we can not assume that Mary Magdalene was a relative (ie wife) of Jesus. This is the conclusion they are drawing from these four names (assuming for now that Mariamne really is Mary Magdalene). But they’ve included the low probability of the Mariamne name (1 in 160) in the calculation to get the 1 in 600. Surely they’re assuming their conclusion – that Jesus was married to Mariamne – in the calculations of the probabilities? Aka circular reasoning. Am I right here?

Surely they should use just the people known to have been Jesus’ family – let’s say just the three: Jesus, Maria, Jose. The probability of this (assuming all the other math is correct), is therefore 600 / 160 – just less than 4 to 1. So we would say that there is a 4 to 1 probability this is Jesus tomb AND Mariamne / Magdalene was a relative of Jesus (perhaps a wife). A little different.

[Meadmaker]

Did you read the actual explanation from the statistician involved? Or are some of these critiques of his work from you based on 3rd hand descriptions of his work? If so, some of your critiques may be of straw men.

They are from the show itself or web sites associated with the show. They still might be 3rd hand descriptions of his work, but they are as described by the show's producers.

[Meadmaker]

However, AFAIK, none of these ancient documents has Magdalene (or Mariamne) as Jesus’ wife, so we can not assume that Mary Magdalene was a relative (ie wife) of Jesus. This is the conclusion they are drawing from these four names (assuming for now that Mariamne really is Mary Magdalene). But they’ve included the low probability of the Mariamne name (1 in 160) in the calculation to get the 1 in 600. Surely they’re assuming their conclusion – that Jesus was married to Mariamne – in the calculations of the probabilities? Aka circular reasoning. Am I right here?

Yes, although not quite. You could ask the following question:

What possible names would be found among Jesus' family? Then, if you took all possible combinations, you could ask, what is the probability of finding those people in a collection of names of people in one family? Then, if you did that, and found a matching tomb, if the original probability was very, very, small, you could conclude that this is probably the Jesus family tomb.

As it is, they have to assume that Mariamne=Mary Magdalene, and that Mary Magdalene somehow belongs there.

Consider a thought experiment. Suppose the tomb actually contained an inscription that read "Mary of Magdala". Now that would be something, because we only have ever heard of one of those, and we might be able to infer that this is the one we have heard of, because she is found next to Jesus son of Joseph, and another couple of people who were related to Jesus. And then, we could reasonably ask what she was doing there.

Instead, though, we have a "Mariamne". The producers of the show said that this was the actual name of Mary Magdalene. If you could show that that was indeed the case, you would have something, but as far as I know there is no source, including the Acts of Phillip, that makes that connection.

Also, there is a Judah son of Jesus, and so it seems likely that Jesus (the one in the tomb) had a wife, and if Jesus (assuming he was THE Jesus) did have a wife, then Mary Magdalene would be a good candidate, because she was present at his death and crucifixion, and seemed to play a role in his life. But, really, it is all speculation, and those speculations were in fact incorporated into the calculation. (i.e. They were erroneously incorporated, because they assumed the conclusion.)

[Meadmaker]

The "divide by four" rationale is explained (http://www.ntgateway.com/weblog/2007/03/correct-interpretation-of-dr-andrey.html):

I don't know if this is valid (it's a comment on a blog) but it's all I've found.



The blog you linked to had a lot of good information, but that comment isn't part of it. Somehow, my professors never mentioned a "bias error calculation". It's nonsense.

The opening comments on the page are spot on, though. The one in 10 number used in the blog's opening pose had a mathematical basis. The 4 as a "bias error calculation" does not.

[Kopji]

A clarification on the statistics.

This is from the pdf on the Discovery Channel website:

Taking into account the chances that these names would be clustered together in a family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the odds – on the most conservative basis – are 600 to 1 in favor of this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB. A statistical probability of 600 to 1 means that this conclusion works 599 times out of 600.


So they are not claiming the tomb has a 1 in 600 chance of being Jesus's tomb, they are saying that 599 times out of 600 they reach the conclusion that it is Jesus's tomb.

[Meadmaker]

Interesting comments from the statistician, Andry Feuerverger

http://fisher.utstat.toronto.edu/andrey/OfficeHrs.txt

As I noted, when I saw the documentary I thought it was amazingly bad statistical work. I figured this guy Feuerverger was someone no one could take seriously, because the calculations were just plain bad. (Like, straight multiplication, and a mysterious factor of 4 that didn't seem to fit, and ignoring the possibility of similar "hits".)

It turns out that maybe Feuerverger made none of those mistakes. As best I can tell from his note, he is saying that the calculations shown aren't really his. He did indeed make some assumptions, some of which were highly contentious, and calculated a probability of 1 in 600. Then, the producers of the show made up some other, different, calculations that sounded nice and also had a probability of 1 in 600.

Professor Feuerverger has submitted a paper with his real calculations, and that paper is undergoing peer review.

[RichardR]

Scientific American interview with Andrey Feuerverger. (http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=13C42878-E7F2-99DF-3B6D16A9656A12FF)

[Meadmaker]

In the interview, it talks about all sorts of factors that have to be factored into the statistical work. None of those factors appeared in the documentary or associated web sites. I have to conclude that the calculation that appeared in the documentary is fiction. Only the final number and the basic assumptions used by Feuerverger have any actual connection to his work.
The calculations shown were pure pseudoscience. Apparently the filmmakers didn't think that all of that math stuff was really important.

Meanwhile, using the real calculations, the fake calculations, or common sense, there's a common thread. If you assume that Mariamne is just another Mary, and is not specifically well suited to Mary Magdalene, you reach the conclusion that this is a tomb with some common Jewish names, that happened to have the same names as a group of well known literary characters from the same era.

[RichardR]

Consider a thought experiment. Suppose the tomb actually contained an inscription that read "Mary of Magdala". Now that would be something, because we only have ever heard of one of those, and we might be able to infer that this is the one we have heard of, because she is found next to Jesus son of Joseph, and another couple of people who were related to Jesus. And then, we could reasonably ask what she was doing there.

Instead, though, we have a "Mariamne". The producers of the show said that this was the actual name of Mary Magdalene. If you could show that that was indeed the case, you would have something, but as far as I know there is no source, including the Acts of Phillip, that makes that connection.

Also, there is a Judah son of Jesus, and so it seems likely that Jesus (the one in the tomb) had a wife, and if Jesus (assuming he was THE Jesus) did have a wife, then Mary Magdalene would be a good candidate, because she was present at his death and crucifixion, and seemed to play a role in his life. But, really, it is all speculation, and those speculations were in fact incorporated into the calculation. (i.e. They were erroneously incorporated, because they assumed the conclusion.)
I’m not 100% sure I understand you. Are you saying that even if the tomb actually contained an inscription that read "Mary of Magdala", that they would still be assuming the conclusion by including her in the calculation? Or are you saying it’s only assuming the conclusion if they say "Mariamne" was the actual name of Mary Magdalene?

[Meadmaker]

I’m not 100% sure I understand you. Are you saying that even if the tomb actually contained an inscription that read "Mary of Magdala", that they would still be assuming the conclusion by including her in the calculation? Or are you saying it’s only assuming the conclusion if they say "Mariamne" was the actual name of Mary Magdalene?

It's not surprising you might have misunderstood. I'm not sure my last message was all that coherent. I'll try again.

When the calculation was made, they assumed that "Mariamne" was a very, very, good fit for Mary Magdalene, and they incorporated that assumption into the calculation. They assumed in fact that "Mariamne e mara" was a better fit for Mary Magdalene than any other tomb inscription ever found. The calculations (both the real ones and the fake ones) then said, "Hmmm...we have someone who happens to have the same, very rare, name as Mary Magdalene, and she just happens to be next to Jesus Son of Joseph, and there is another Mary in the same tomb, and also the name of one of Jesus' brothers." What are the odds of that?

So, the conclusion that they assumed in their calculation was that "Mariamne e mara" had a very high likelihood of being Mary Magdalene. It's almost as if they were asking, "What's the chance that this was some other Mary Magdalene buried next to some other Jesus son of Joseph, and some other guy who has the same name as one of Jesus' brothers, and a woman with the same name as his mom."

The problem with that assumption is that "Mariamne e mara" isn't really a very good fit for Mary Magdalene at all. In my last post, what I was trying to say is that if they had, instead, found an inscription that said "Maria of Magdala" they would have been justified in asserting that there was a good chance that she was indeed the Mary Magdalene of the Bible, and incorporating that into the calculation to decide if this was likely the tomb of THE Jesus and his family.

[RichardR]

OK, I think I understand that better. You’re saying the filmmakers decided "Mariamne e Mara" was the correct way to represent Mary Magdalene rather than (say) just Mary, or “Mary Magdalene” – and they used the low probability of "Mariamne e Mara" in the calcs. (They assumed their conclusion.) But they should have used the percentage for all Marys – which would have been much higher odds than the specific "Mariamne e Mara" they did use.

They assumed the conclusion ("Mariamne e Mara") and used the extreme low probability of "Mariamne e Mara" to prove their point. Ie, they’re assuming "Mariamne e Mara" is the only correct inscription for the biblical Mary Magdalene.

[Meadmaker]

Yes

[Jekyll]

OK, I think I understand that better. You’re saying the filmmakers decided "Mariamne e Mara" was the correct way to represent Mary Magdalene rather than (say) just Mary, or “Mary Magdalene” – and they used the low probability of "Mariamne e Mara" in the calcs. (They assumed their conclusion.) But they should have used the percentage for all Marys – which would have been much higher odds than the specific "Mariamne e Mara" they did use.

They assumed the conclusion ("Mariamne e Mara") and used the extreme low probability of "Mariamne e Mara" to prove their point. Ie, they’re assuming "Mariamne e Mara" is the only correct inscription for the biblical Mary Magdalene.

But we're not interested in the question 'What is the probability that Mary was represented by "Mariamne e Mara"?' we're interested in the question 'What is the probability that "Mariamne e Mara" represents Mary?'

Imagine that you came across a giant glowing temple patrolled by 10 foot angels with flaming swords, who sang the praises of Jesus Christ who's body, they claimed, was buried in there. If all of this happened you'd give me quite good odds (I'd hope) that Jesus was buried inside.

However, there is bugger all chance that Jesus was buried like that.

And this is what's going on with the probability calculations of Mary, you might find it very unlikely that she'd be buried as "Mariamne e Mara", but having found a grave marked like this, that's not the important question. The important question is, 'What are the odds that it's not her?'

[Meadmaker]

And this is what's going on with the probability calculations of Mary, you might find it very unlikely that she'd be buried as "Mariamne e Mara", but having found a grave marked like this, that's not the important question. The important question is, 'What are the odds that it's not her?'

Right. And the filmmakers said, more or less, that the odds were very small that it was not her. Their reasoning was

1. Mariamne e Mara means "Mary known as the Master", which would be a good name for Mary Magdalene, but for very few other Marys.
2. Apocryphal literature referred to Mary Magdalene as "Mariamne", especially the Acts of Phillip.
3. Mariamne is a very rare form of Mary, so there are very few other Marys whose given name was Mariamne.

The problem with 1. is that "Mara" is the feminine form of "mar", which means "master". However, "mar" is an Aramaic word, and the inscription is in Greek. An alternative reading would be "Mariamne known as Martha". That would indicate that Mariamne went by a nickname.

Another alternative, and this is purely speculation on my part, is that Mara was a name given on conversion. I don't know how old the Jewish custome of naming ceremonies is, but I'm guessing it goes all the way back to Biblical times. Today, children are named in naming ceremonies, and if their given name is not very Jewish, they are given Hebrew names. Thus, my son's middle name on his birth certificate is Christopher, but at the temple, he is written down as Simcha. Similarly, converts get a new name if their old one isn't Jewish enough, or just if they like one better, to symbolize their new lives. I'm guessing that Mariamne was a Greek speaking woman who, in that time, may have worshipped Greco-Roman gods, until marriage, when she took on a new name, Martha.

The problem with 2. above , is that the Acts of Phillip did have a character named Mariamne, but she was not identified as Mary Magdalene, nor as the wife of Jesus, nor as anything other than a disciple of Jesus and the sister of Phillip. There's no particular historical evidence that I am aware of that Mary Magdalene was named "Mariamne".

The problem with 3 is that Mariamne was indeed much rarer than "Marya", but it wasn't all that rare. Its most famous holder was Herod's wife. Therefore, even if you found a "Mariamne", you wouldn't know which one you found.

[RichardR]

Thanks Meadmaker (and others).

I just blogged The Lost Tomb of Jesus (Not) (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/03/jesus_tomb_lost.html). Let me know if you think I got anything wrong.

[Jekyll]

Right. And the filmmakers said, more or less, that the odds were very small that it was not her.
Sure, I can believe that the odds have been distorted.

BTW Richard, this bit is wrong.
They are assuming that Mary Magdalene would be in the tomb. Perhaps that is possible, since Jesus knew Mary Magdalene. But, even if this were true, and Mary Magdalene was in the tomb, the inscription on her ossuary could just as easily be “Mary of Magdala”, or even just “Mary”, instead of “Mariamene e Mara”. Now, plain “Mary” would have the much higher probability of 1 in 4 (40 times more likely than “Mariamene e Mara”), thus reducing the overall odds considerably. To arrive at the 1 in 600 figure they have to assume that Mary Magdalene can only be called “Mariamene e Mara”, which means they assumed their conclusion.

They haven't assumed that M.M. can only be called “Mariamene e Mara”, but that that name can only refer to her. Which makes the all the stuff about a probability of 1/4 for just Mary irrelevant.

I think the guy you link to is wrong about this as well.
http://www.ingermanson.com/jesus/art/stats.php

His argument about "Mariamene e Mara" not containing any more information than the name Mary is just as bad as saying that "Randall Ingermanson" doesn't narrow down who I'm talking about any more than saying Randy. He'd need to show that "Mariamene e Mara" is a nickname that's no more likely to apply to Mary Magdalene than any other Mary and this clearly isn't the case as it is not a common nickname and the speculation that Mariamene is Mary precedes the discovery of the tomb.

[Meadmaker]

and the speculation that Mariamene is Mary precedes the discovery of the tomb.

Does it? If that's correct, then there would be some merit to the filmmakers' case. If I could find a discussion, pre-tomb, of why Mary Magdalenes' name was actually "Mariamne", then you could increase the probability that the Mariamne in the tomb was Mary Magdalene...at least somewhat.

[Jekyll]

Does it? If that's correct, then there would be some merit to the filmmakers' case. If I could find a discussion, pre-tomb, of why Mary Magdalenes' name was actually "Mariamne", then you could increase the probability that the Mariamne in the tomb was Mary Magdalene...at least somewhat.

A quote from that blog Richard was linking to:
To begin with, let's note that Simcha and Charlie apparently convinced Dr. Feuerverger that the second Mary inscription is definitely a reference to Mary Magdalene. Dr. Feuerverger is a statistician, not a historian, and he accepted their claim that the 4th century apocryphal document, "The Acts of Philip," could be relied on as proof that "Mariamenon" is Mary Magdalene. They attribute this conjecture to Dr. Francois Bovon of Harvard University, but it's a conjecture.

Which is presumably this guy...
http://www.hds.harvard.edu/faculty/bovon.html
but I haven't tracked down the claim itself.

[RichardR]

BTW Richard, this bit is wrong.


They haven't assumed that M.M. can only be called “Mariamene e Mara”, but that that name can only refer to her. Which makes the all the stuff about a probability of 1/4 for just Mary irrelevant.
Yeah, I was thinking about that last night and this morning I rewrote that bit. You're right - they're assuming “Mariamene e Mara” has to be Mary Magdalene.

I think the guy you link to is wrong about this as well.
http://www.ingermanson.com/jesus/art/stats.php

His argument about "Mariamene e Mara" not containing any more information than the name Mary is just as bad as saying that "Randall Ingermanson" doesn't narrow down who I'm talking about any more than saying Randy. He'd need to show that "Mariamene e Mara" is a nickname that's no more likely to apply to Mary Magdalene than any other Mary and this clearly isn't the case as it is not a common nickname and the speculation that Mariamene is Mary precedes the discovery of the tomb.
Not 100% sure about this, but I think I'll delete that reference anyway. It just confuses things.

Thanks for the input.

[Dave1001]

Right. And the filmmakers said, more or less, that the odds were very small that it was not her. Their reasoning was

1. Mariamne e Mara means "Mary known as the Master", which would be a good name for Mary Magdalene, but for very few other Marys.
2. Apocryphal literature referred to Mary Magdalene as "Mariamne", especially the Acts of Phillip.
3. Mariamne is a very rare form of Mary, so there are very few other Marys whose given name was Mariamne.

The problem with 1. is that "Mara" is the feminine form of "mar", which means "master". However, "mar" is an Aramaic word, and the inscription is in Greek. An alternative reading would be "Mariamne known as Martha". That would indicate that Mariamne went by a nickname.

Another alternative, and this is purely speculation on my part, is that Mara was a name given on conversion. I don't know how old the Jewish custome of naming ceremonies is, but I'm guessing it goes all the way back to Biblical times. Today, children are named in naming ceremonies, and if their given name is not very Jewish, they are given Hebrew names. Thus, my son's middle name on his birth certificate is Christopher, but at the temple, he is written down as Simcha. Similarly, converts get a new name if their old one isn't Jewish enough, or just if they like one better, to symbolize their new lives. I'm guessing that Mariamne was a Greek speaking woman who, in that time, may have worshipped Greco-Roman gods, until marriage, when she took on a new name, Martha.

The problem with 2. above , is that the Acts of Phillip did have a character named Mariamne, but she was not identified as Mary Magdalene, nor as the wife of Jesus, nor as anything other than a disciple of Jesus and the sister of Phillip. There's no particular historical evidence that I am aware of that Mary Magdalene was named "Mariamne".

The problem with 3 is that Mariamne was indeed much rarer than "Marya", but it wasn't all that rare. Its most famous holder was Herod's wife. Therefore, even if you found a "Mariamne", you wouldn't know which one you found.

Your last sentence is kind of binary, which is weird, because it seems more appropriate to talk about how this various information affects the odds, rather than It is/isn't Mary Magdalene in a binary sort of way.

[Jekyll]

Not 100% sure about this, but I think I'll delete that reference anyway. It just confuses things.

Honestly, I'm not sure if I'm right either. I'm just putting the argument out so I can see what other people think.

Thanks for the input.
No problem.

[Meadmaker]

Honestly, I'm not sure if I'm right either. I'm just putting the argument out so I can see what other people think.



The professor's description of the real calculations suggest that he didn't actually assume that it was or was not Mary Magdalene, exactly. He did, however, assume that "Mariamne e Mara" was a better description of Mary Magdalene than any other inscription ever found in any tomb. More accurately, he did the calculations two ways, one with that assumption, and one saying it's just another Mary. Of course, the two calculations had hugely different answers.

As for the fitness of "Mariamne" as Mary Magdalene, based on the Acts of Phillip, I think that's pretty lousy evidence. All speculation by history professors aside, from what I have read, the text doesn't say anything about that. I think it's a case that all unnamed women associated with Jesus become Mary Magdalene, like the prostitute who was saved, or the woman washing his feet. Neither are named in the text, but both became associated with Mary Magdalene.

[Jekyll]

As for the fitness of "Mariamne" as Mary Magdalene, based on the Acts of Phillip, I think that's pretty lousy evidence. All speculation by history professors aside, from what I have read, the text doesn't say anything about that. I think it's a case that all unnamed women associated with Jesus become Mary Magdalene, like the prostitute who was saved, or the woman washing his feet. Neither are named in the text, but both became associated with Mary Magdalene.

Idle googling tells me that there is no completed translation of the acts of Philip into English yet, so I'm not sure what you're basing this on.

[Malachi151]

Once you throw out the conspiracy theories, however, the idea that "Jesus had a child" which is totally unattested to by any source at all, despite the fact that we have numerous books even by church fathers that discuss every known heresy, the idea that this is Jesus with a son named Judah is pretty absurd.

Likewise, a family tomb such as this would had to have been visited around 20-40 times with all of these different people in it, so the idea that the tomb of Jesus could have been kept secret under these circumstances is also absurd.

Likewise, the idea that the very followers of Jesus would have buried his bones and then proclaimed his resurrection is absurd.

The whole thing is just plain stupid.

[Skeptic Guy]

The discussion as to whether the "Mariamne" referenced on the ossuary was actually Mary Magdalene may be moot...or not.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/13/jesus.tomb.ap/index.html


The inscription, Pfann said, is made up of two names inscribed by two different hands: the first, "Mariame," was inscribed in a formal Greek script, and later, when the bones of another woman were added to the box, another scribe using a different cursive script added the words "kai Mara," meaning "and Mara." Mara is a different form of the name Martha.


It may be that someone buried Martha with Mary to save space...

Maybe...

[Larry Lovage]

Behind my head as I type, the Discovery channel is showing Jim Cameron's Exodus Decoded. Essentially he has apparently found a new Velikowsky, attempting to explain every one of the events in the Exodus (including the plagues of Egypt etc) in "scientific terms".

Essentially I wanted to create a new thread entitled "Does anybody know just when James Cameron lost his marbles?" given his sudden interest in fake and unverifiable Biblical "evidence". But I thought I'd do the decent thing and search for his name first, and popped this thread up.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I've been wondering the same thing. Perhaps he grew used to large sums of cash following Titanic?

There is another thread further down called Debunking the Exodus Code.