Jesus' tomb buried in controversy

The Discovery Channel aired a documentary that some say is just an attempt to make money
By: Tess McBride News reporter

http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/03/08/News/Jesus.Tomb.Buried.In.Controversy-2764618.shtml

Throughout the millennia, the subjects of Jesus and Christianity have become as much historical as religious. "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," a documentary which aired Sunday on the Discovery Channel, claimed Jesus' family tomb was discovered, fueling both possibility and controversy as viewers examined the science behind Christianity.Produced by James Cameron, the director of "Titanic," the two-hour documentary began gaining publicity early last week when questions started arising over the accuracy of Cameron's claims that this is Jesus of Nazareth's tomb, and whether he was married and had a son.Since the airing of the show, scholars, religious leaders and students have commented on what they saw, if they believe it's accurate and what effect they think it will have on Christianity.What the documentary saysThe documentary begins by explaining the basics of what was found before venturing into what it could possibly mean.In 1980 in Talpiot, the suburbs of Jerusalem, Israeli construction workers discovered the 2,000-year-old tomb while digging the foundations for an apartment building.On the outside of the tomb, above the entrance, there was a decorative symbol, a chevron - an upside-down V - and a circle below it. Found on the inside were ten ossuaries, which are limestone boxes used to store the bones of the dead. "Five of the 10 discovered boxes in the Talpiot tomb were inscribed with names believed to be associated with key figures in the New Testament: Jesus, Mary, Matthew, Joseph and Mary Magdalene. A sixth inscription, written in Aramaic, translates to "Judah Son of Jesus," according to a Discovery Channel news article.Because of the extreme commonality of these names, the ossuaries were recorded and written about in scholarly journals, but the idea that these were the remains of Jesus and his family, including his wife, Mary Magdalene (also known as Mariamne) and their son, Judah, were not widely considered.The documentary states according to a statistical study, "the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family" according to the grouping of the names (including "father" or "son" on the inscriptions). The film also documents mitochondrial DNA testing of the mother line, gathered from human residue found in the ossuaries of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The tests proved the two were not maternally related."That means a couple of things. They were not siblings. They were not mother and child or father and daughter. They were unrelated. People buried in tombs are related in one of two ways: either by blood or by marriage. The results revealed an explosive possibility: that these two individuals, Jesus, son of Joseph, and Mariamne, were likely related by marriage," the Discovery Channel Web site stated.What a student saysUniversity student Bassel Menzalji said even though he's Muslim and doesn't follow Christian beliefs, he watched the documentary because the subject is sparking controversy."I believe in Jesus, but I also believe in Mohammed and I also believe in Buddha," Menzalji said, who added that he didn't know if he thinks the documentary was accurate or if it was made for the money and headlines. He said, "It doesn't matter is it's fake or real," because it caught peoples' attention.Either way, Menzalji found the documentary interesting and doesn't think the controversy will affect Christianity and the religion's followers."You can't just take away something that touches so many people's lives," he said. "Science and religion don't really mix."What a professor saysUniversity religious studies professor Daniel Falk said the documentary was based on unsound facts and was irresponsibly made. He said it exploited archeology and was created for economic, rather than scientific, gain."This is part of a broader problem in archeology today, partly in the Bible, where stuff gets exploited for making money," he said. "The fundamental arguments behind the documentary have yet to be proven."Falk, who specializes in early Judaism and Biblical studies, said the knowledge of this tomb and the names on the ossuaries have been known and studied by experts, the majority of whom are not convinced this was the tomb of the Biblical Jesus due to the commonalty of the names."These were known by experts in the field and then you (have) someone knowing nothing about archeology making these huge claims," he said.Falk added that a significant error in the documentary was the assumption that the ossuary of James, Jesus' brother, came from the same tomb, which the show said turned up on the black market in 2002 and is inscribed, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.""It remains doubtful the James ossuary came from the same tomb," Falk said.The documentary said experts could test the mineral particles gathered from James' ossuary and compare them with particles from the other ossuaries in the tomb, also including random ossuary samples in the study, to prove James' ossuary came from the same tomb.Falk said this would not conclude the ossuaries are from the same tomb because many of those buried in Jerusalem came from the same area of land, which he has visited, and it would be likely they had the same mineral deposits.What a pastor saysDr. Britt Minshall, a pastor and theologian of the United Church of Christ in Baltimore, has appeared as a religious consultant on FOX News Channel, CNN, and ABC.Minshall said that he, too, believes the Discovery Channel's motives are financial in airing the documentary, which, in his opinion, is not authoritative in any way.The engraved chevron and circle symbol over the entrance to the tomb is not consistent with that of the time of Jesus, said Minshall, who "has served as a religious consultant for archaeological expeditions in Africa, Central America, and the Middle East," according to his bio.Minshall said he believes the tomb was set up, not by the show's producers, but by worshipers and/or entrepreneurs around the eighth or ninth century."It's possible some rich guy who lived in Jerusalem at the time wanted to make a shrine," he said.Another possibility he said was that the tomb was "like a circus side show," created for the crusaders who would often purchase bones of alleged Biblical mentions to show their friends and families at home. The tomb could have been a form of entertainment for them, Minshall said.Despite "doing wonders for the Discovery Channel's ratings," Minshall doesn't believe this will harm Christianity."If you study Christian history over the past 2,000 years, it's a blood bath. If we didn't destroy Christianity, nobody else would," he said.

Cameron documentary on Jesus’ tomb troublesome

BY NATHANIEL PETERS THE MIGHTY COMMA

http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/2007-03-08/opinions/17007

This past Sunday, the man who taught us that our hearts will go on aired a documentary claiming to have found the burial site and remains of Jesus, his wife Mary Magdalene, their son and some of Jesus’ brothers. James Cameron, the director of the “Terminator” movies and “Titanic,” joined forces with Israeli-born filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici to air “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” on the Discovery Channel. The documentary tells the story of the finding and decoding of 10 ossuaries — burial boxes containing the bones of the deceased — whose inscriptions, the filmmakers claim, translate as the names Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Judah (the supposed son of Jesus) and the brothers of Jesus, Matthew and Joseph.
The New York Times entitled its review “Leaning on Theory, Colliding with Faith.” The article began by noting that creationists reject the theory of evolution and many still venerate the Shroud of Turin; therefore, archaeological evidence calling the resurrection of Jesus into question will not shatter the faith of many Christians. However, what Cameron and Jacobovici have produced does not pass the muster of sufficient evidence for most archaeologists in the United States and Israel, let alone diehard religious believers. The Talpiot ossuaries should give anyone with a devotion to legitimate scholarship cause to question their authenticity.
The Times itself noted that “even an amateur can see that the ifs are stacked to support one hypothesis.” To begin with, the main argument of the film is not archeology, per se. According to MSNBC, Cameron says that the evidence they have produced is based on sound statistics. However, a professor of mathematics at the University of Toronto calculated that the odds of all six names appearing in one tomb would range from one in 600 to one in 1 million.
As their second argument, the filmmakers claim that Mariamene, the name found on the box also labeled Jesus, is a form of Mariamne, the name given to Mary Magdalene in the Acts of Philip. While this text is treated as gospel truth in the film, it has dubious historical authenticity.
Third, the absence of a genetic link between the remains of Jesus and Mariamene leads Jacobovici to believe that the two are husband and wife.
In the face of these conjectures, a number of archaeologists have protested the hijacking of their discipline for the sake of easy publicity. Leading the charge is Amos Kloner, the Israeli archaeologist who examined the site and first wrote on it in 1996. He declares that the story is “nonsense” and that it “fails to hold up by archeological standards.”
William Denver, who has been excavating sites in Israel for 50 years and whom the Washington Post calls the dean of biblical archaeology among U.S. scholars, agreed. He was quoted in the Post saying, “I’ve known about these ossuaries for many years and so have many other archaeologists, and none of us thought it was much of a story, because these are rather common Jewish names from that period. It’s a publicity stunt, and it will make these guys very rich, and it will upset millions of innocent people because they don’t know enough to separate fact from fiction.”
Jodi Magness, an archaeologist and professor at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, added that by holding a news conference and airing a documentary instead of taking a more academic route, the filmmakers “have set it up as if it’s a legitimate academic debate, when the vast majority of scholars who specialize in archaeology of this period have flatly rejected this.”
Most of all, archaeologists reject Jacobovici’s assertion that the ossuary purported to belong to James, another brother of Jesus, comes from the same tomb as this one. A few years ago, the James ossuary was revealed with much pomp and circumstance as a sure sign that the James of the Bible was not only a real person, but truly the brother of Jesus. In 2003, while many scholars disputed the discovery, Jacobovici made a documentary film about it for the Discovery Channel. Today, Jacobovici maintains the ossuary’s validity, while the Israeli government has charged five suspects with forgery in its creation.
The Times concludes its review of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” saying that it raises many “touchy issues” that would be better left untouched, such as using DNA testing to determine the veracity of the Virgin birth. While the historical claims of religions are bound to be “touchy,” that should not make them any less appropriate to investigate. The question of Jesus’ body remains a very important one for over one third of the world, but that makes it no less of a historical claim that could be proven or disproven to a certain extent by archaeological evidence. Whether we could find such evidence if we wanted to is open to debate. However, any investigation of religious historical claims that purports to be archaeological or scientific should use valid scholarship and not pander to sensationalism if it desires to seek the truth.

Look deeper than bare bones

By Sarah Cash

http://media.www.westerncourier.com/media/storage/paper650/news/2007/03/07/Opinion/Look-Deeper.Than.Bare.Bones-2762301.shtml

Every year the entertainment industry produces a new movie or research finding related to one of the most harassed religions in the world - Christianity. Dan Brown's novel-turned-movie "The DaVinci Code" and fragments of the Gospel of Judas are some of the most recent religion-based scandals offered by the media. This past Sunday, the Discovery Channel aired the newest; a documentary called "The Lost Tomb of Jesus."This film, produced by History Channel personality Simcha Jacobovici and "Titanic" director James Cameron, made several claims that had both Christians and archeologists in an uproar. After watching the film, it was easy to see why.The film's premise centered on the discovery of six labeled ossuaries, or bone boxes, which were first uncovered in one tomb in Talbiot, Jerusalem, in 1980. The boxes, according to the film, were singular because of the names inscribed on their sides: Jesus, son of Joseph; Maria; Jose (Joseph); Matthew; Mariamne e Mara (possibly Mary of Magdalene); and Judah, son of Jesus.These names, all found in the New Testament of the Bible with relation to Jesus of Nazareth, led to the film's suggestion that researchers had uncovered his family tomb, which further led to the "probability" of Jesus not only being married to Mary Magdalene and fathering a child (Judah), but of his Biblical resurrection being only spiritual, since the presence of an ossuary denotes bones being left behind.However, the film appeared to use only two determining factors as its basis. First, DNA tests of bone fragments from the Magdalene and Jesus tombs determined that the two inhabitants were not from the same matrilineal descent; the documentary suggests that since tombs included only family members, this means the two people must have been married. One might also be interested to know that these were the only two ossuaries that received DNA testing, which Jacobovici confirmed in a discussion entitled "A Critical Look" that was held on Discovery immediately following the film's premiere.The second piece of evidence is four statistical studies the filmmakers commissioned. According to Jacobovici's statement in a washingtonpost.com article, the studies determined that the odds of the parti cular names all appearing in a single family tomb from the first century are "somewhere between 600 and 2.4 million to one."Those are the film's claims in an abbreviated nutshell. Discovery.com/tomb has additional film clips and articles for anyone whose interest is piqued. Hopefully it is clear, however, that the amount of evidence is not only minimal but also shamefully shallow, especially for a film that was given $3.5 million from Discovery, according to newsweek.com.While archeologists were disgusted at the lack of thorough testing and the film's dramatic portrayal of "history," another group was even more outraged, and here is where Christians come into play. "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" suggests that if this information is true, a fundamental belief of Christians may be overturned. Christians believe that after Jesus was crucified and buried in a sealed, temporary tomb, he was resurrected on the third day and left nothing behind besides burial cloths. These beliefs, and the idea that Jesus returned in human form to prove his divinity, are found numerous times in the New Testament of the Bible.Now that all of this background information is on the table, more important issues can be raised. Leading professionals in the fields of archeology and religious studies both denounced the credibility of the documentary, stating in the "Critical" discussion following it that they found no reason to believe any of the claims were true. With, to use a term of Sunday evening, so much weight against a "chain of ifs," why has the media blown this film out of proportion?Headlines such as "Christians Split Over Claim of Christ's Tomb" (newsweek.com) are completely untrue and only perpetuate an unnecessary divide between a group of people trying to uphold its beliefs and the media. It's a common thought (and a Biblical reference) that faith is believing in things unseen, so why would the faith of true Christians be challenged over dubious physical evidence? Believers have been fighting the same war since fossils of dinosaurs surfaced, suggesting evolution. The host of the "A Critical Look," Ted Koppel, ended the spirited discussion with a gem of a statement: "What happens to faith in the face of inconvenient truth?" He asked. "Not much."To be fair, history is always worth a second study, and the producers of the documentary have every right to advance physical research, especially when it really is as fascinating a coincidence as this. Why do "journalists" such as those who worked on this film, however, have to turn information into sensationalism? Whose interest does it really serve to add dramatic music and re-enacted, first century scenes with paid actors? It's asking the old question of how fact and fiction are kept apart. Perhaps the American public watching "education television" should be wary of what they are seeing.One of the professors who spoke after the film, Judy Fentress-Williams from the Virginia Theological Seminary, made a terrific point. She said that Christians need to be critical of what they believe and watch, especially with programs like this, which are selective in what they present. However, this can be applied to any person participating in any media. Think for yourself. Consider who interprets information and what personal beliefs may be at stake in believing it. History proves that people thrive on sensationalism, but it doesn't mean we should blindly believe in it.

The Discovery Channel Mistake

By Kevin Roeten on Mar 06, 07

http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7422_0_1_0_M

On March 4 the Discovery Channel aired a documentary, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” produced by James Cameron, Oscar-winning director of the “Titanic.” Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici, the film’s archaeological “expert,” claim to have discovered the tomb of Jesus and his family. They also claim to have found evidence that Jesus had a son with, guess who, Mary Magdalene.
If it sounds just like the Da Vinci Code all over again, you’re right. But where author Dan Brown employed psuedo-art history, Cameron and Jacobovici have conscripted an archaeological theory rejected years ago by established experts in the field. In an interview on the Today Show on February 26, Cameron confessed, “I’m not an archaeologist, I’m a filmmaker,” which about says it all. (Oh, by the way, Cameron and Jacobovici have also co-authored a book, “The Jesus Family Tomb.")
Meredith Viera, co-host of the Today Show, acted as if she were interviewing Albert Einstein just after he discovered the theory of relativity: “If this is correct, what are the implications? They’re huge,” Vieira said.
But here is the rest of the story, or should I say hoax.
Ten ossuaries or “bone boxes” were unearthed in 1980 during a construction project south of Jerusalem. The ossuaries were removed and stored with the Israeli Antiquities Authority. Six of the boxes are marked with names: 1) Yeshua bar Yosef, Hebrew for ‘Jesus son of Joseph’; 2) Maria, or Marya; 3) Matthew, or Matya, understood to be another relative, probably on Mary’s side; 4) Yose, understood to be a brother of Jesus’; 5) Mariamene e Mara,interpreted by the filmmakers as Mary Magdalene; and finally, 6) “Yehuda bar Yeshua” or Judah, son of Jesus.
The existence of the ossuaries reported in 1996 by the London Times made identical claims to those of Cameron and Jacobovici. Historians say these were very common names during that time. Cameron and Jacobovici, however, are relying on the estimates of statisticians that boxes marked with these names could belong to any other family. Their expert in the film says the chances are one in 600, which Cameron and Jacobovici conclude make the ossuaries very likely the real thing.
Samples of the remains were taken to DNA experts who established there was no genetic link between the boxes containing “Jesus” and “Mary Magdalene,” which are interpreted as establishing them as husband and wife. According to the Discovery Channel film, “Perhaps they were married, and perhaps it was kept secret to protect a potential dynasty, a secret hidden through the ages, a secret we just may be able to uncover in the holy family tomb.” I wonder if Dan Brown is going to sue the Discovery Channel for stealing intellectual property?
This is not the first time Jacobovici or the Discovery Channel have been associated with fraudulent claims about archaeological finds. In 2002 Jacobovici publicly supported the authenticity of the so-called ossuary of James, brother of Jesus, which was found to be a forgery by experts. The Discovery Channel dutifully reported on the James ossuary as if it were an established scientific fact. But it was determined that the words “brother of Jesus” were added to the box at a later date. Jacobovici has never backed away from his claim that the ossuary of James is authentic. It turns out that the James ossuary came from the original ten uncovered in 1980.
In the last few days, archaeological experts have come forward to denounce the film and the book. They did the same in 1996 after a BBC documentary reported a similar story on the ossuaries. Amos Kloner, an expert on Israeli tombs and the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the conclusions reached by Cameron and Jacobovici have no archaeological validity: “They just want to get money for it,” Kloner commented (2/26/2007, Associated Press). Kloner told the BBC News website, “I don’t accept the news that it was used by Jesus or his family.”
Another expert in ancient antiquities, Professor L. Michael White, from the University of Texas, expressed doubt about the claims: “This is trying to sell documentaries,” he said, adding a series of strict tests needed to be conducted before a bone box or inscription could be confirmed as ancient. “This is not archeologically sound, this is fanfare” (2/26/2006, Reuters).
Finally, there is the comment of Joe Zias, an archeologist at the Rockefeller University in Jerusalem for twenty-five years. Zias remarks, “Simcha [Jacobovici] has no credibility whatsoever” (Press release, 2/26/2006, Catholic League). The Discovery Channel is supposed to broadcast programming about scientific discovery and exploration. The field of biblical archaeology boasts numerous experts with established scientific credentials. Why not commission a group of them to produce a film that would reveal the ongoing exploration of ancient sites in the Holy Land, such as that at the base of the Temple Mount itself?
The answer must be that the Discovery Channel is not interested in science that is respectful of its own methods or the beliefs of millions who believe in the sacred story of the Saviour who rose from his tomb.

Losing respect over 'lost tomb of Jesus'

Millions of Christians are offended by this recent 'discovery' of the so–called tomb of Jesus

By Malcolm Hedding

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3373218,00.html

The documentary "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" which claims that the burial cave of Jesus and his family, including a child, has been found in East Talpiot, in Jerusalem, has stirred controversy and drawn widespread media attention, much of it disturbing and even offensive.
It has been disturbing because serious scholars in the disciplines of archaeology and related scientific fields here in Israel have long ago debunked this claim as, at the very best, sensational.

However, the glee with which some in the print and broadcast media in Israel 'latched on' to this story was not only irresponsible but worrying. The anchor on one evening news broadcast pressed a scholar in an interview to assert that this discovery would shake Christianity to its core.

By this she meant that it would break the foundations of the faith, since Christianity rests squarely on the resurrection of Jesus! No resurrection, no Christianity! It is as simple as that.

Now, before we are accused of putting our heads in the sand, let me say that should there ever be conclusive proof, that is, totally verifiable proof that Jesus did not rise from the dead, we Christians would have to reconsider our position. It is my estimation, however, that this will never be found.

Further, the Hebrew Bible also contains accounts of resurrections and ascensions to heaven, so belief in such events should not be so easily dismissed by those of the Jewish faith.

Dubious science
It has been offensive, because this type of incautious reporting does nothing to improve Christian-Jewish relations. It furthers the offence and undermines the good work that we have all been doing in this regard. To use dubious science to discredit another religious system is unwise and unhelpful, and simply raises age–old antagonisms without cause.
Millions of Christians are being offended by this recent 'discovery' of the so–called tomb of Jesus in East Talpiot and the fact that reputable Israeli archaeologists and related scholars have shown restraint and responsibility in the face of this sensationalist 'find' should serve as a lesson to the media as well.

As a Christian minister with a proven track record of pro-Israel activism, I humbly ask our Israeli friends to desist from furthering this travesty.

Local scholars skeptical of Lost Tomb of Jesus claims

They don't believe the tomb ever belonged to Christ's family

By MIRKO PETRICEVIC

http://www.therecord.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=record/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1173221417239&call_pageid=1024322085509&col=1024322199564

The latest project to cast doubt on the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ drew mixed reviews from a panel of local scholars.
The makers of Lost Tomb of Jesus "have a flood of very provocative data," John Miller said. "In their zeal to connect all the dots, they went too far."
Miller, a retired professor of biblical studies at Conrad Grebel University College in Waterloo, was one of three local academics yesterday to watch the film.
Lost Tomb of Jesus, a collaboration between Toronto filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici and Academy Award-winning director James Cameron, has sparked debate ever since it was broadcast in the United States and Britain last week. It made its Canadian debut last night.
The film asserts that odds are 600-1 that a collection of small limestone boxes, or ossuaries, found in Jerusalem in 1980 contained the bones of Jesus of Nazareth.
The filmmakers say names inscribed on the boxes -- Jesus son of Joseph, Judah son of Jesus, and Mary -- are probably those of Jesus Christ, his wife Mary Magdalene and their son Judah.
DNA testing of human residue found inside two of the boxes indicates that bones in the ossuaries were not related by blood, so they were probably married, the filmmakers say.
The panel viewing the film at The Record yesterday included Miller, Bill Klassen, retired professor at Waterloo's St. Paul's College, and Michele Daviau, professor of Near Eastern archeology at Wilfrid Laurier University.
None is convinced the Talpiot tomb belonged to Jesus of Nazareth's family.
Some challenged the filmmakers' assumptions when referring to New Testament genealogies of Jesus. Others said the parameters on the chemical analysis on ossuaries and DNA tests on human remains found inside were too narrow. Some challenged the filmmakers' reading of the ossuary inscription ascribed to Mary Magdalene.
On the other hand, the film does the world a service by highlighting the complexity of what happens when archeologists make a discovery, then try to make sense of it, Klassen said.
Throughout the viewing, many of the filmmakers' numerous arguments were followed by caveats by the panel.
For example, the Talpiot tomb is between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
Daviau said a more likely site for a Jesus family tomb would be in Galilee, where Jesus lived most of his life.
"That's where the disciples supposedly go after Jesus rises," she said. "They go back to Galilee. They're not going to stay around Jerusalem. It's a dangerous place for them."
Also, Israelites at the time used different burial techniques, said Daviau, who has conducted archeological digs in Holy Land tombs.
Some bodies were buried in wood or lead coffins. Others were placed in tombs and, after decomposing, their bones were placed among those of relatives from several generations.
Ossuaries were heavily used in the Jerusalem-Jericho area, she said, and not widely used in Galilee.
One of the ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb was inscribed in Greek. The filmmakers make a case that it belonged to Mary Magdalene.
But Miller argues that part of the inscription could indicate the name Martha.
Each name found inscribed on the ossuaries was common in Israel at the time of Jesus.
But the filmmakers say the combination of names inscribed on the ossuaries, names associated with Jesus, make the odds at least 600-1 that the tomb belonged to the Holy Family.
There is an added twist.
In 2002, an Israeli antiquities collector revealed an ossuary inscribed with the words "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus."
The makers of Lost Tomb of Jesus say one of the 10 ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb disappeared. So they arranged for a forensic test of the patina, or chemical residue, covering the James ossuary and compared it to one of the ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb. They say both ossuaries came from the same tomb.
If so, they calculate the probability of the Talpiot tomb being Jesus Christ's would be 30,000-1.
But Daviau said the test was too limited. Researchers would need to inspect patina on all the ossuaries found in all Talpiot tombs.
It's possible the James ossuary came from the Talpiot region, but not the tomb in question, she said.
Also, she said, there is evidence the James ossuary was photographed in the 1970s, before the Talpiot tomb was uncovered.
The local scholars said their opinions were only for this slice in time.
As more information comes forth, they agreed, their opinions will change on various parts of the film.
Much more evidence is needed, Daviau said.
"Our opinions now are likely to change, but that doesn't mean they will reverse, necessarily."

Jesus and re-visionary history

By Kenneth L. Waters Sr.
San Gabriel Valley Tribune

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_5362591

BIBLICAL archaeology has become the new gold rush. Not for professionals who know the field, but for novices who want instant fame. It only takes a sensationalized discovery and several rushes to judgment. We had it all in Sunday's "Lost Tomb of Jesus" on the Discovery Channel.
Producers Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron apparently want us to join them in several logical leap-overs. No proof exists that we have a family tomb of Jesus, but let's call it that. Statistical odds against certain biblical names in the same first century tomb mean nothing without knowing the names in all first century tombs, but let's ignore that.
DNA evidence without a control sample from a known family member of Jesus tells us nothing of his relationship to these burial remains, but let's ignore that problem also.
Gnostic and apocryphal literature produced in the second to fourth centuries contain no historically reliable reports about biblical personalities and events, but let's pretend they do. Both catalogue documentation and forensic testing show the so-called James ossuary did not come from this tomb, but let's pretend that it did.
Jacobovici and Cameron would apparently have us to ignore all the well-rehearsed arguments against a case like theirs. If Jesus was married, Paul would have said so in 1 Corinthians 9:5. A family tomb of Jesus couldn't have been kept secret in first century Palestine. A family tomb of Jesus would have been a shrine, especially if it did not contain the body of Jesus, or simply prevent the rise of the Jesus movement if it did. A tomb would have been in Nazareth, not Jerusalem.
"Mary," "Jesus," "Joses," and "James" (in Hebrew:
Miriam, Joshua, Joseph, and Jacob) are common names even in the Bible, and would have been more so in the world of the Bible as names of Hebrew heroes.
Statistics? What are the odds that three Jameses would come together to once again bury Jesus? Furthermore, the Jerusalem church leaders were consistent with Paul in explicitly affirming the bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
History is firm that his brother James and other followers of Jesus, who would have known the disposition of his body, nevertheless lost their own lives for steadfastly believing in the bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
Jacobovici, Cameron and co-author Charles Pellegrino thus practice a curious reasoning: Begin with an unproven premise, select evidence to support it, and ignore all evidence to the contrary. This is pseudo-science at its best ... or perhaps I should say, worst.
A string of media events have been staged around revisions of biblical history: "The Da Vinci Code" (book and movie), the "Gospel of Judas," and now the "Jesus Family Tomb." It is interesting how this re-visionary history
movement builds upon itself. Although they are unproven, items such as the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, the birth of their child, existence of secret gospels and gospel secrets, suppressed features of Christian history, and conspiracy and political intrigue in early Christianity become planks in a struggling counter-cultural biblical market.
It seems that by continually recycling these themes pundits hope to gain the status of self-evident proofs in the popular market. I wonder if this is the best we can expect from our educational TV channels. It is time we return to a more reasoned discussion.
Something happened in the days after the crucifixion of Jesus that inspired the first disciples with unshakeable faith and confidence, even in the face of persecution, imprisonment, torture, and death. Attempts to explain this phenomenon in terms of a fabrication, hallucination, delusion, or hoax have not been successful.
Remarkably, the only explanation that accounts for all the historical and literary data is the one provided by the first disciples themselves, namely, the bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
Kenneth L. Waters Sr., Ph.D., is associate professor of New Testament at Azusa Pacific University.

'Jesus Tomb' Panelists Point to Holes in Director's 'Archaeoporn'

by Kevin Jackson, Christian Today US Correspondent

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/jesus.tomb.panelists.point.to.holes.in.directors.archaeoporn/9820.htm

WASHINGTON DC, USA - A panel discussion moderated by Ted Koppel, former anchor of ABC's Nightline, was held late Sunday night to discuss the implications of the new controversial documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus, which reported the supposed discovery of Jesus’ bones and his family’s tomb, including alleged wife Mary Magdalene and son Judah.The debate, which was named The Lost Tomb of Jesus: A Critical Look and aired directly after the documentary on the Discovery Channel, addressed the implications the film has on Christian faith and spoke about possible weak points in director Simcha Jacobovici’s argument.“Simcha has done his job now,” explained Koppel. “He’s brought everyone in the tent [to speak].”The show was split into two segments: the first dealing with possible errors that could be found in the film, the second talking about the theological ramifications that could come about.As a first question, Koppel asked about the DNA testing that Jacobovici ran and why he did not push it as far as it could go. The evidence that the filmmaker provided could only make small claims to whether Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.Jacobovici, a Jewish archaeologist and filmmaker, noted that they could only obtain sufficient DNA from two of their ossuaries, boxes that hold remains of the dead. The rest were vacuum cleaned.“I followed the DNA as far as I could,” explained the archaeologist. “I’m not a university. I’m a filmmaker …. Now let the critics weigh in.”Following this, two of the present Christian panelists expressed that they thought his research was poor, and how it puts archaeology in a bad light.“It’s like a romantic game and treasure hunt,” noted Jonathan Reed, professor of religion at the University of La Verne and author of Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts. He added that it seemed that the conclusions of the film were already drawn in the beginning.“I call it ‘archaeoporn,’” stated William Dever, an archaeologist with 40 years experience of digs in the Middle East. “It’s exciting, but in the end, it’s wrong. It isn’t a long lasting relationship.”The program then when on to talk about the impact that media has on viewers.“Visual imagery carries a certain power that the spoken word does not. You have made recreations in which you show Jesus and Mary Magdalene,” said the moderator. “You don’t say that it happened but by depicting it, you lend a power to that theory that it wouldn’t otherwise have.”Jacobovici responded by saying, “My job as a filmmaker and a journalist was to tell a story.”“You dramatize,” added Koppel. “I’m not sure with most newscasts [if that would be okay]. You dramatize.”The panel then went on to talk about the “missing” James ossuary that may have been a part of the tomb and would help support the claims of the director.Koppel summarized a statement that he had received from Amos Kloner, one of the first people to excavate the original tomb. “When he was in the tomb, he counted 10 ossuaries and he (Kloner) says the missing ossuary was, in fact, unmarked. Because of that, it was put in a courtyard at the Rockefeller Museum.”James Tabor, chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, answered the proposal by saying that the dirt may have been covering the James inscription and that Kloner may have just missed it when first recording. Reed countered by asserting that there would be no way Kloner would have done that.As a final topic for the first segment, the panelists talked about the significance of the statistics that were done and whether they really can conclude much from it.In the second segment, three theologians were brought in to talk about the impact that the film would have on Christian faith.“What I am is a believer,” explained Father David O’ Connell, President of the Catholic University of America in Washington. “It’s a faith that I didn’t just discover. It’s a faith that was handed onto me.”When Darrell Bock, professor of New Testament Studies at the Dallas Theological Seminary, was asked what his conclusion on the film was, he expressed that he was “schizophrenic” about it, noting that the production was actually well done.“But the frosting, the hypothesis, is a real problem because there are so many steps that are needed to connect the dots and I just don’t think you can connect those dots,” said the theologian.Judy Fentress-Williams, Assistant Professor of Old Testament at Virginia Theological Seminary, also explained how the documentary is a reflection of American culture. She described how journalism has become more and more about entertainment. Because of that, Christians need to be more critical thinkers.“I’m delighted this (discussion) is happening,” concluded Jacobovici. “As a filmmaker, I wanted everyone to weigh in.”“[My statistics say] it’s 600 to 1. Let’s say it’s 60 to 1. Let’s say it’s 10 to 1. Let’s say it’s 50-50. This is still a great story.”

Special Report: Has James Cameron Found Jesus's Tomb or Is It Just a Statistical Error?

Should You Accept the 600-to-One Odds That the Talpiot Tomb Belonged to Jesus?

By Christopher Mims

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

When Associated Producers, the production company behind the new documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus, contacted Andrey Feuerverger, he was, to put it mildly, surprised. "This is not in the usual run of things one gets to do," notes the University of Toronto statistician dryly, alluding to Associated Producers's somewhat unusual request that he calculate the odds of a tomb in Israel being the last resting place of Jesus Christ.
Despite his previous lack of interest in biblical archaeology, Feuerverger would spend two years on what turned out to be a labor of love. At the end of all of his figuring, he told the documentarians, including director James Cameron of Titanic fame and award-winning investigative journalist Simcha Jacobovici, that there was a one in 600 chance that the names—Jesus, Matthew, two versions of Mary, and Joseph—scribbled on five of the 10 ossuaries (or caskets for bones) found in the Talpiot tomb could have belonged to a different family than the one described in the New Testament.
When Cameron and Simcha announced Feuerverger's calculations along with a package of other evidence (including forensics, DNA and archaeology) earlier this week, it sparked a media firestorm.
Some news outlets reported that Feuerverger's odds had really been as high as one in a million, which the statistician denies. That "is not a number I would want to ever think originates with me," he says.
Meanwhile biblical archeologist James Tabor of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, the primary historical advisor on the production team, reported on his blog that he calculated the odds were one in 250,000 that another family of that period would have the same names as those scrawled on the bone boxes.
Even the Discovery Channel, which is set to air the controversial documentary on Sunday, March 4, seemed confused by Feuerverger's calculations, declaring on its Web site that that the odds are "600 to one in favor of this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB."
What Are We Calculating Here, Anyway?
Feuerverger says he was neither asked nor did he attempt to calculate the odds that the Talpiot tomb was the final resting place of Christ, the Messiah. As Aleks Jakulin, a statistician at Columbia University, points out, "I doubt Professor Feuerverger really estimated 'the odds that these ossuaries were not Jesus's family's final resting place.' Instead … one should say that one in 600 families (on the conservative side) would have that particular combination of names purely by chance, based on the distribution of individual names in the population."
Such a calculation assumes all kinds of things, and is highly dependent on one's starting assumptions. For instance, "A Christian would use [the probability that Jesus is in a coffin] equals zero, because of ascension, so the discussion stops right there," Jakulin says. "Someone else would instead assume that there was a single Jesus, one out of five million."
A Statistical Analysis Is Only as Good as Its Starting Assumptions
"I have to tell you that a statistician working with a subject matter expert, in this case biblical historical scholars, essentially is obliged to rely on assumptions that come from them," explains Feuerverger. "It's not a secret that the assumptions are contestable. I tried to stay with things that vaguely seemed reasonable to me, but I'm not a biblical scholar. At the end of the day, I went with specific assumptions and I try to make clear what those assumptions were."
Among the assumptions that Feuerverger made to yield his odds: that the scholarly text he used as a source of names (to determine the frequency and distribution of Jewish monikers in the era of Jesus) was a representative sample of the five million Jews who lived during that era. He assumed this even though the text, called the Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity was published in 2002 and only includes 2,509 names.
Scan The Lexicon of Jewish Names, which includes names from ossuaries, ancient texts and every other source available, and you will learn that the names unearthed in the so-called Jesus Family Tomb were among the most common of that era. One in every three women listed in the Lexicon was named Mary, for instance, and, at that time, one in every 20 Jewish men was called Yeshua, or Jesus.
Tal Ilan, who compiled the Lexicon of Jewish Names and who vehemently disagrees with the assertion that this could be Jeus's tomb, says that the names found in the tomb "are in every tomb in Jerusalem. You can get all kinds of clever people who know statistics who will tell you that the combination is the unique thing about [these names], and probably they're right - if you want just exactly this combination it's more difficult to find. But my research proves exactly the opposite - these are the most common names that you could expect to find anywhere."
It was only when Feuerverger assumed that some of the names were exceptional, and fit with scholars' beliefs about the historical family of Jesus, that his calculation became worthy of advertising. According to Feuerverger, the most important assumption by far was the one that dealt with the inscription that appears on the ossuary that the documentarians assert belonged to Mary Magdalene.
"The extraordinariness of the Mariemene e Mara inscription gets factored into the calculation as a very rare name," says Feuerverger. By the logic of the historians and archaeologists enlisted by the production team, this inscription is so rare that Feuerverger could safely assume that this was the only woman who possessed this name out of all of those listed in the Lexicon. This changed the odds that this tomb belonged to just any Mary Magdalene from roughly one in three to one in 80.
A Debate Rages Over the Archaeology Behind the Statistics
Other scholars think the assertion that the inscription Mariemene e Mara, written in Greek, refers specifically to Mary Magdalene is ridiculous. Jodi Magness, an archaeologist with an interest in early Judaism at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, argues that any Jews buried in Jerusalem who were not natives would have had their home towns appended to their names when they were inscribed on ossuaries. (Despite scholars' beliefs that Jesus's entire family hailed from outside Jerusalem, none of the inscriptions on the ossuaries in the contested burial cave include other birthplaces.) Magness also believes that if Jesus's family were wealthy enough to own a burial cave, it would have been in his home town of Nazareth and not in Jerusalem.
U.N.C. Charlotte archeologist Tabor, a consultant on the documentary who has studied over 500 burial chambers throughout Israel, pooh-poohs the naysayers. "Mariemene e Mara means 'of Mariemenu, the Master,'" he says. "This is a title. It means 'This is the ossuary of Mariemene, known as the Mara.'" His opinion—which is consistent with Feuerverger's assumptions but clashes with those of many of his peers—is that this is a completely unique name, supporting his hypothesis that this is the grave of the Mary Magdalene.
Tabor also disagrees with critics who dismiss the fundamental premise of his and Feuerverger's calculations—that the family of Jesus would have been buried in caves typical of wealthier Jews and not in the shallow dirt graves that were common in that era. To some extent, this is a debate over the nature of evidence. Many biblical scholars and archaeologists, including Magness, accept that the gospels of the New Testament have some historicity to them, because they are the only direct historical accounts of the death of Jesus. But Tabor, on his blog, quotes scholars who argue that there is no reason these texts should be given more weight than any other piece of evidence.
Tabor responds to the charges that it is improbable that Jesus and his family had a burial cave in Jerusalem by noting that "if you know anything about messianic movements, the followers provide for their leader—they don't just throw him in a ditch when he dies. … Think of any Jewish sect—they take care of their rabbi. There's no evidence this family ever went back to Galilee. James [Jesus's brother] dies in Jerusalem, Mary and his brothers are there—there's no indication that anybody went back to Nazareth."
In other words, Tabor argues that it is not only likely that the family of the Jesus could have afforded a burial cave, but that it most likely would have opted for one in Jerusalem.
Both sides of this debate are extraordinarily difficult to prove given the paucity of historical evidence, something this controversy has in common with nearly all archaeological and historical disputes. "As archaeologists we are always reconstructing a picture based on incomplete evidence," notes Magness.
As a result, the calculations made by Feuerverger and others rest on premises that must be decided by historians and archaeologists, who are still far from agreement on even the basics of the Talpiot tomb. "I did permit the number one in 600 to be used in the film—I'm prepared to stand behind that but on the understanding that these numbers were calculated based on assumptions that I was asked to use," says Feuerverger. "These assumptions don't seem unreasonable to me, but I have to remember that I'm not a biblical scholar."