Thanks for your responce, and I will check out you link, but before I do that, let me respond to some of your comments.I must say that I have been left very confused by a significant amount of what you said.
They employed a statistician from the University of Toronto. What he had done is taken all of the known ossuaries in Jerusalem and juxtaposed them by the five names in alleged Jesus tomb. He discovered that names like Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were very common in that time. I believe the odds were something like anywhere between 1:5 and 1:40 people in Israel had those names. However, the name "Mariamne" was quite unique, even in Aramaic. Then he calculated what the odds were of all of those names being in the same family. The odds then jumped a bit higher. Here is how he did it. I don't think the hyperlink will directly link you to the statistics page. If not, click on "Enter the Tomb." Then go to "supporting evidence," on the lower lefthand corner. Then click on "statistical evidence."
Let me try it this way.Ill respond to you first, then later I will read the link.Maybe that is flawed, but allow me to go this route please.
Here's the problem though. They only mentioned six of the twelve names in the tomb. They neglected to mention or factor in Matia, Judas, Shimon, Miriam, and Salome who were also found at the site in their statistical figures, even though Shimon and Judas (Jude) are in fact listed in the Bible as two out of four brothers of Jesus.
How is that flawed?It sounds like a match between the Bible and the site. That would mean that long and unlikely odds were met.
The issue of 12 names does offer the possibility for contradictions though.Were there any?
Secondly, it has been claimed by a few sources who helped with the expedition that Jacobovici neglected to relay that the tomb carried the bones of about 35 different individuals, and about half were from these ossuaries.
VERY interesting.
So about 16-19 were from these ossusaries?
How many ossuraries were there?
You said there were 12 names.
This is data that can be used for sure.
Thirdly, they had only one dissenting opinion on the actual program, but he and a few of his colleagues assert that Jacobivici is too tempted to think clearly because the translation of the names on the ossuaries may not be accurate.
The program spin doesnt matter much.The data does.
The quaternary example is that the sole discovery of the DNA analysis was that Mariamne and Yeshu were not maternally related. The speculation then becomes that Mariamne and Yeshu must have been married because why would a non-family member be in the same tomb unless they were married. But that does not mean any one was married to another, nor does it mean that if Mariamne was married to anyone it was specifically to Yeshu. It could have meant marital ties to any other male found in the tomb. Therefore, the DNA evidence is literally the weakest link they have. Nor does it mean in any way, shape, or form, that its Jesus or Mary Magdalene inside those ossuaries.
And how does that weaken the case?
From what I see, the names match. The case is quite strong that this is the Jesus tomb. What leads ou to figure this to be a contradiction with the Bible? Quite the contrary.
There is no substitute for the fact that the controversy surrounding Jesus' resurrection was a top priority of that day. Everyone wanted to know where Jesus' body was. That would have come to light immediately if they not only knew where his body was in the temporary burial site, but even more so after the fact when they placed his bones in the ossuary. Aside from which, archaeologists have been scouring Israel for centuries trying to find his body or his family members. This particular tomb was discovered in 1980. This isn't a recent discovery. Rabbi's even installed a tube in the ossuary, which is now custom, on every ancient ossuary site. There is no one with greater vested interests in demolishing the resurrection story than strict adherents to Judaism who view Jesus as a false messiah-- and yet, they didn't.
Do you have any evidence that people believed in the ressurection before the Temple destruction in 70AD?
I know you and I would like to believe that, but is there significant amount mainstream scholarship and extant historical documentation to prove such? Or any at all?
It very possible-based on historical documentation-(though my faith will fill in the gap between c30AD and 70AD) that people didnt believe in the ressurection till after 70AD.The destruction of Temple records and chaos may not have allowed people to know where tombs were buried when the ressurection "myth" was "invented".
Im not saying I believe that, but it is a historical possibility.
We need to keep our minds on several alternate routes when there are various historical possibilities based on scanty historical fragments.
Archaeologists havnt exactly been falling all over themselves looking for Jesus in a common tomb actually,despite what you have said.(common in the sense that it is like most tombs with many ossuaries, though the "common" people of that day couldnt afford it)Infact their attitude has been that the name was common, and it wouldnt be worthwile to look in such a place.Ditto for his family members.
Discovery came out with a program about a year ago when the gospel of Judas was found in Egypt and the Da Vinci Code was a hot topic. They alleged that Mary Magdalene and her son, borne of Jesus, fled to France and started their own line. How, then, can Mary and the alleged son of Jesus, Judas, be buried in an ossuary in Jerusalem? Did they recant their previous sentiment? Did they retract their previous claims? No. They simply didn't mention it. So was Mary in France or in Israel?
The Discovery Channel has an official platform that says that they accept the historical details of a fictional 4th century manuscript when it refers to events from the turn of the first century AD? Do they also have a platform that accepts 4th century fictional writings that covers the late BCE period?
They took Dan Browns own admitted fictional work and decided to believe it?
You conclude that based on a single program they ran?
I didnt even know the Discovery Channel was the issue here.But, if an occasional program makes their "Statement Of Faith" , then they are much more conservative on biblical issues than 99% of mainstream academics. I have a VHS set fo their documentary Pharoahs and Kings by David Rohl.It actually supports the historical reliability Exodus and Conquest event.
The odd thing is that I always assumed this, as well as other programs, didnt reflect their beliefs.
But if you insist on using an isolated program as reflecting their beliefs, then this is further evidence that this "Jesus Tomb" issue is really the tomb of the Jesus from the Bible.Because the Discovery channel is apparantly ultra-conservative with regards to the issue of Biblical reliability.Unknown to me prior to reading post #200 I must admit.
Lastly, the buzz concerning the James ossuary was a compelling piece of evidence for many Christians because it corroborated the account of Jesus. But it was quickly deemed as a forgery by naysayers and it fell into obscurity. But now they are changing their tune. Now they say that the James ossuary was not "entirely" a fraud. They say that only the last part of the inscription is a forgery, but the rest is authentic based on patina evidence that places James' ossuary within the tomb found in Jerusalem. I guess as long as they believe that Jesus is dead, that James' ossuary no longer poses a threat.
The tables have turned indeed but it has to do with fundamentalist Christian conclusions. The entire body of non-Christian posters and especially scholars (aside from Biblical Archaeology Review)have held firm in their conclusions on the James Ossuary.The only exceptions (like Shanks of BAR)have *nothing* to do with this Jesus Tomb issue.
Nemesis
Is it possible that this is Joseph and Mary's family tomb? Sure, that's humanly possible. Is there any actual evidence, aside from speculation and barely even a nugget of circumstantial evidence linking any of the biblical characters to that site? No.
Nimrod
My conclusion so far is that this "Jesus Tomb" is a powerful discovery and all but the most liberal forms of the Christian faith are severely challenged due to its discovery.
Nemesis
I don't think the challenge substantiates any worry on the part of Christians any more than the Di Vinci Code did.
The Da Vinci code was fictional and has ZERO percent relevance to this Jesus Tomb issue.The Jesus Tomb is a 100% extant archaeological discovery from the first century AD.
Perhaps one can argue that this contemporary Jesus Tomb matching the names of figures around Jesus in the Gospels is due to the late date (compared to Jesus's deat c30AD)of the Gospels giving fictional names, and thus the unlikely name match is just "circumstantial"?
I sure wouldnt make that argument, but its the best I can come up with to match reality with your above statement.
If there is any actual outrage over this amongst Christians, none of which I've seen, then perhaps they need to look at it from your perspective. However, perhaps you are not seeing it from the Christian vantage point. For years, decades, and centuries, people have been preoccupied with trying debunk Jesus in various forms and theories. Why they care so much is anybody's guess. The disconfirming evidence is usually nothing more than a paper tiger, used in a way to rhetorically refute the claims made by their opponents. This new theory is no different. There is a whole lot of fluff about this whole thing and makes it puff up larger than what it really is. They are literally basing it all on a few names to say, oh yes, this is Jesus of Nazareth. The DNA evidence is nil. The statistical evidence is of no consequence, because even supposing it was accurate, 1:600 are odds that good to me. If the lottery were those odds, even I would play, everyday.
Then this tomb has taken that "1" match in 600.The fact is that the 1 in 600 is a conservative estimate.The 1 in 2400 is a moderate estimate. That means that of all the Jerusalem tombs,you wouldnt have a chance of finding these names.You could have 600 more Jerusalems (with the same amount of tombs)and the odds of finding these names would be just 1 IN ALL 600.Thats the conservative estimate.
That would mean that you would need roughly 1000 Jerusalems for 2 matches.That would make the odds likely that there could be another family match this cluster of names, and then that Jesus could be the one who ressurected.
The point is, this is just another attempt to malign Jesus, whether it was Cameron or Jacobivici, who have a flair for the dramatic. So, perhaps your "disgust" is extremely misguided. I'm a Christian and I'm not disgusted by this effort. If anything, it makes me chuckle. I don't let things like this give me a bad hair day. Perhaps you should adopt a similar lifestyle and leave your disgust for things that are truly disgusting.
This is an archaeological discovery,plain and simple.
™ Version 4.2
