I’ve gotten numerous links from readers (CHTs all round!) about the Tomb of Jesus nonsense that is being peddled by James Cameron and The Discovery Channel.
I plan to have a response to this soon, but I just wanted to let y’all know it’s coming.
Till then . . .
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
What a titanic load of horse manure.
“What a titanic load of horse manure.”
HA!!
I think this story should be terminated. :\
Okay, enough with the corny puns. I heard that this was actually discovered in 1981, and the original archaeologist says that Cameron’s story is bunk.
Unfortunately, I think it would take more than coughing up an empty tomb to quell this nonsense. Maybe if we could find a gravedigger’s receipt for Joseph of Arimathea.
Oh good gracious! *That* Cameron? I’m not excessively mortified, since our national media keeps calling him a national hero and a representative of Canada to the world.
*sobs*
err.. I’m *now*
Looking forward to it, Jimmy!
Why I was trying to do the “CatholicSphere roundup” on my blog (in addition to my assessment of the matter), I came looking for something from you. Finding nothing, I figured you were taking the time to provide your usual high-quality level of information.
Does anybody with ENOUGH sense and historical knowledge of the times know that the name JESUS was a COMMON NAME (much like “JOHN” is a common name in our day) way back then at the time of Jesus and, therefore, this tomb of Jesus could have been anybody’s at that time?
The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning “Jehovah is salvation.” Though the name in one form or another occurs frequently in the Old Testament, it was not borne by a person of prominence between the time of Josue, the son of Nun and Josue, the high priest in the days of Zorobabel. It was also the name of the author of Ecclesiaticus of one of Christ’s ancestors mentioned in the genealogy, found in the Third Gospel (Luke 3:29), and one of the St. Paul’s companions (Colossians 4:11). During the Hellenizing period, Jason, a purely Greek analogon of Jesus, appears to have been adopted by many (1 Maccabees 8:17; 12:16; 14:22; 2 Maccabees 1:7; 2:24; 4:7-26; 5:5-10; Acts 17:5-9; Romans 16:21). The Greek name is connected with verb iasthai, to heal; it is therefore, not surprising that some of the Greek Fathers allied the word Jesus with same root (Eusebius, “Dem. Ev.”, IV; cf. Acts 9:34; 10:38).
Though about the time of Christ the name Jesus appears to have been fairly common (Josephus, “Ant.”, XV, ix, 2; XVII, xiii, 1; XX, ix, 1; “Bel. Jud.”, III, ix, 7; IV, iii, 9; VI, v, 5; “Vit.”, 22).
“What a titanic load of horse manure.”
“I think this story should be terminated.”
Truly a tell from the Abyss! What a bunch of True Lies!
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist)
Now, if people don’t believe the excerpt I posted above, here’s another source:
Most Western, Latin derived, sources agree that this man’s name was Jesus (Latin: iesus). In the Greek alphabet, as recorded in the New Testament, it was ᾿Ιησοῦς. Using the scholarly reconstruction of Classical Greek pronunciation, it would be pronounced in IPA: /iˈeˈsuːs/, however the New Testament was written in Koine Greek which was probably pronounced differently, in particular with the possible addition of the palatal approximant and variance in the pronunciation of eta, thus: /jɛːˈsuːs/ or /jiːˈsuːs/.
Given that this was an extremely common name in the first century Jewish world, this is quite credible.
Josephus alone mentions some twenty or so men called “Jesus” in his writings, four of whom were high priests, and no fewer than ten belonging to the first century.
So, my question is, if this tomb were, in fact, that of JESUS; how do we KNOW for certain that it is the tomb of OUR Jesus if the name “JESUS” was such a common name???
Cameron claims he as DNA evidence. How exactly is he planning on using this to prove anything? I’ve heard he is going to use this to establish that it doesn’t match that of the one for Mary (Magdalene) that he allegedly found, but so what?
Did he swab the Shroud of Turin while no one was looking?
Here’s the official site. they’ve got forums for debate. Pretty freaky stuff but its got a bunch of info on DNA etc.
http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com
While the media seems to have no trouble entertaining controversial theses which would, if true, cast Christianity in a bad light, the same is not true for theses which would diminish the cachet of Judaism. Where is a James Cameron to promote a documentary discussing Professor Ariel Toaff’s contentions that the so-called ‘blood libel’ might have some factual basis after all? (See Haaretz, for details.)
Here’s the official site. they’ve got forums for debate. Pretty freaky stuff but its got a bunch of info on DNA etc.
http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com
Hmmmmmm…. let’s see.
Richard Dawkins explains religion to us…
Dan Brown explains history to us….
Al Gore explains climatology to us…..
James Cameron explains archaeology to us……
We don’t know for certain. However, that’s where the film-makers use of statisticians comes in. Their statistical models claim to show that the concurrence of all of these names in one ossuary (Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Mary Magdelene, Judah, son of Jesus) is statistically improbable.
Of course, this really still doesn’t mean that it is Jesus Christ. Just that it is improbable for those names to show up together, and of course we all know of a Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and Mary Magdelene.
I’m not enough of a statistician to argue against this. However, this is really what the argument is about: Is it possible and/or likely that there was another family in Jerusalem with the names Jesus, Joseph, Mary, and Mary Magdelene (the potential son is irrelevant). Also, is it possible that these are poor translations/are these really the same names? Otherwise, all that they have found is an ossuary. . .check that, they didn’t even find it/it was found 26-27 years ago.
The argument against this documentary will have to address the statistics used, and/or translations. We can all argue with pure logic that if this Jesus’ bones were in an ossuary in Jerusalem all this time, why would all the church Fathers go to their graves, some martyred, arguing that Jesus rose from the dead. However, those arguments will fall on deaf ears to those who buy the statistical anomoly regarding the names in/on the ossuary.
Unfortunately, we may have to wait for the documentary to see what the “statistical evidence” really is, and how they arrived at it.
Pseudomodo:
Great Point!
I still waiting Pee Wee Herman to explain RELIGION to us!
Layne –
You say:
Their statistical models claim to show that the concurrence of all of these names in one ossuary (Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Mary Magdelene, Judah, son of Jesus) is statistically improbable.
That doesn’t mean (as I believe you subsequently attempted to indicate, but I’d like to stress the point even further) that it is actually impossible any more than statisical models would claim to show that all six numbers being odd and appearing in one LOTTO ticket is statistically improbable.
Certainly there will be enough apologetics work to debunk this madness (Amy Wellborn’s blog links to a great post from Ben Witherington, for example).
However, I am greatly concerned for the huge numbers of young people who live in our hype-a-minute world. I teach high school, and I know first-hand, that all of the latest scandalous “news” is on the tounges of our teenagers.
They digest this and move on to the next piece of gossip, without reflecting upon it. Eventually, it becomes another piece of information somewhere in their heads that will tug at them later in life.
What they don’t get, however, is the hype of the debunking of the scandal. They’ve already floated on to the next big news.
So, this story will plant a great seed of doubt that will never go answered until much later in life. And by that time, the idea that maybe, just maybe, they’ve already found Jesus’ bones will be so much a part of them that they’ll never really be able to shake it.
However, I am greatly concerned for the huge numbers of young people who live in our hype-a-minute world. I teach high school, and I know first-hand, that all of the latest scandalous “news” is on the tounges of our teenagers.
Cajun Nick:
You speak the TRUTH, Brutha!
When the Da Vinci Code came out, my young siblings and relatives couldn’t help but get caught in the hype and, because of our culture these days, lend some credence to this sensationalistic filth!
I think Mr. Cameron spent a little too much time in water a little too deep while making Titanic.
Actually….
Pee Wee Herman gave us all a lesson on sociology.
“On July 26, 1991, Ruebens was arrested for ************ in a triple X-rated theater in Sarasota, Florida. He was arrested again on November 16, 2001 after his Hollywood Hills home was searched and the police found over 30,000 pieces of erotica, some depicting children under the age of 18. Reubans was charged with a misdemeanor and in March 2004, he pleaded guilty to a single count of possessing obscene material.”
I heard on Catholic Radio that the original archeologist and scientists were so outraged that they made a list of just the top 10 reason that this is a bunch of bunk.
Anyone with a link to that? Cajun Nick, you might could use that with the youth, I had thought about copying it for after Sunday Mass, if I can find it.
That’s just it –
If Dan Brown can act as an “expert” in history, Al Gore as that for climatology, and James Cameron for archaeology, then why not Pee Wee Herman for religion???
Is it because Dan Brown sold millions for his piece of filth, or Al Gore having invented the Internet, or James Cameron having done the Titanic, that all these charlatans should be given such credence?
AnnonyMouse,
Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, in public school, I’ve got to be much more subtle in how I present any apologetic work for Catholicism and Christianity (even though 99.9% of the student body is raised in a Christian household).
I’ve mostly got to follow the advice of St. Francis – Preach the Gospel daily; use words if necessary.
Nevertheless, I do feel comfortable enough with my students to breach these topics, and I’m sure I’ll find a way to work it in.
If the bones are not in some tomb where are they since Heaven is a spirit state occupied only by soul spirits and the Holy Spirit, the Father in Heaven and Jesus at the right hand. How does that work since spirits have no hands?
The word “glorified bodies” I don’t believe appears in any of the four gospels. It does appear in three epistles but the passages are confusing e.g. 1 Cor 15: 44-45, “When buried it is the physical body, when it is raised it will be the spiritual body. There is of course the physical body so there has to be a spiritual body. The first man Adam was a created living being but the last Adam is the life-giving Spirit. ”
One assumes that a spiritual body or life-giving Spirit has no bones.
Of course we could start a discussion about the mythical Adam or the real Adam and his African bones apparently buried in Africa some 60,000 years ago.
See also: See also :http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/02/crosson_bones_and_wounds.html
If the bones are not in some tomb where are they since Heaven is a spirit state occupied only by soul spirits and the Holy Spirit, the Father in Heaven and Jesus at the right hand. How does that work since spirits have no hands?
As the GOSPEL mentions, Jesus was RAISED both BODY and SOUL!
As John 20: 25-27 says:
25 The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 ¶ And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said: Peace be to you.
27 Then he said to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither and see my hands. And bring hither the hand and put it into my side. And be not faithless, but believing.
—OR—
As your HERO, Crossan, would say, his body was probably eaten by dogs!
What I would do is put a bug in their ear, Nick. ON their way out I would say…oh by the way students…if you want to see what some other REAL experts have to say about this…go to the website http://www.whateverthewebsiteis.com. Unless you just want to take the media’s word for it.
Check it out for yourselves.
Thank God for what you do.
Also, Realis, how about Elijah in the Old Testament???
Elijah in the Old Testament was assumed into heaven:
2 KINGS 2:11
11 And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold, a fiery chariot and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
In other words:
With God, anything is POSSIBLE!
I once heard that scientifically-speaking, bumble bees shouldn’t be able to fly, but they do!
What! Jesus and Mary had a son and are buried in Jerusalem?! I thought they were buried in France and had a daughter!! What gives!
What I find truly sad about the whole thing is the participation of archaeologist/documentarian Simcha Jacobovici, a man I used to respect.
Jacobovici has a program on the History International Channel called “The Naked Archaelogist” that looks at various issues related to biblical archaeology. Occasionally he does it with tongue planted in cheek, but in the end he usually concludes that the archaeological evidence generally supports the the biblical narrative.
In short this is a man who knows about both biblical archaeology as well as how to make an engaging and interesting documentary. But instead he chooses to take the low road of the Dan Brown school of biblical history.
Jacobovici is an investigative journalist, not a credentialed archaeologist. In other words, he’s not a real archaeologist, but he plays one on TV.
I know he’s not, but he’s done enough documentary work in the field to know the difference between good archaeology and bad.
+J.M.J+
>>>Cameron claims he as DNA evidence. How exactly is he planning on using this to prove anything?
Okay, here’s the scoop on the DNA:
They were only able to gather DNA from the “Jesus” and “Mariamne” boxes (they assume that these ossuaries contained the remains of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene). The bones were reburied a long time ago, so they derived the DNA from the decayed remains of human flesh clinging to the inside of the boxes.
However, they were only able to test the mitochondrial DNA – which can only reveal whether the two subjects have the same mother. For some reason, they were unable to use DNA from the cell nucleus, which could have told us more about these people.
Anyway, the mitochondrial DNA revealed is that this man and woman did not have the same mother, so from this Cameron and Jacobovici speculate that these two might have been husband and wife! Well, yeah, it might mean that – or maybe they were half-siblings with the same father, or step-siblings, or cousins, or father and daughter, or paternal uncle and niece – or maybe she was his sister-in-law, married to one of his brothers (Matai or Yose?). There’s no other evidence in the tomb that this “Jesus” and Mariamne were husband and wife, so it’s sheer conjecture on their part, trying to fit these remains into their “procrustean bed” theory that this is Jesus’ family.
Since they couldn’t test the DNA from any of the other remains in the tomb, they have no evidence that the Maria was “Jesus'” mother (her ossuary does not say that she is) or how Yose or Matai were related to anyone else in the tomb. All we know for sure is that A) this “Jesus” was the son of someone named Joseph, B) Jude was the son of “Jesus” and C) “Jesus” and Mariamne did not have the same mom. Using this scant evidence as a foundation, they build an edifice of heavy speculation and try to pass it all off as “scientific.”
>>>Their statistical models claim to show that the concurrence of all of these names in one ossuary (Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Mary Magdelene, Judah, son of Jesus) is statistically improbable.
Actually the names are Jesus, Yose, Maria, Mariamne, Judah and Matai (ie. Matthew – which of course is NOT a name that occurs among Jesus’ relatives in Scripture, but they conveniently gloss over that fact).
Cameron and Jacobovici claim that “Maria” must be the Virgin Mary because that was the name she was known by among Latin Christians. What a strange argument! Why would a first century Aramaic-speaking Jewish family put a Latin name on her ossuary – just because a small number of Latin-speaking Gentile Christians at the time happened to call her “Maria”? What about all the Greek-speaking Christians who called her “Mariam”? Or the family itself that surely called her Maryam? Why would they chose a language spoken way off in Rome over their own native tongue? (Latin wasn’t yet the lingua materna of the Church, of course).
They also claim that “Mariamne” must be Mary Magdalene because that is supposedly the name she is known by in the Gospel of Mary. Of course, that “gospel” is a third century Gnostic forgery and so hardly reliable (scholars are also divided on whether the “Mary” in that gospel is Magdalen or someone else). Also, Mariamne was a very popular name in first century Israel – as were many of the other names on those ossuaries.
(BTW, Mary Magdalene was known as “Maria Magdalena” in Latin. So if they used the Latin “Maria” for Jesus’ Mother, why not “Maria Magdalena” for His alleged “wife”? Inconsistent arguments.)
Moreover, at least one archeologist even disputes the theory that the name on the ossuary is “Jesus” – he says it looks more like “Hanun”! Evidently, ancient Semitic script is difficult to decipher.
There’s just so many holes in this theory; I pray not too many people will be taken in by it.
In Jesu et Maria,
Which is it? Was HE eaten by dogs a la Realist and Crossan or does this tomb contain HIS bones?
Liar, lunatic,or Lord where do you stand? Who do you say that HE is?
The risen Christ expressly declares that his risen body has bones — and that the apostles can manifestly see for themselves that this is the case (Luke 24:39).
Dear Realist:
You posted a link to an article by John Dominic Crossan to back up your musings.
Unfortunately, it is my sad duty to inform you that anyone who uses John Dominic Crossan as an authority to vouch for anything immediately has less credibility than someone who says “The little sparkly pixies at the bottom of my garden told me so!”
Never mind; better luck next time, eh?
May Lent be fruitful and Easter glorious for you.
+J.M.J+
Oh yeah, as to the “statistical improbability” – the way I heard it explained by these guys on Larry King Live is as follows:
If you asked a stadium full of first century Jews, “Who among you is named Jesus?” a certain number would stand up. If you then asked those Jesuses, “And who among you has a father named Joseph… a mother named Maria… a wife named Mariamne… etc.,” less and less of them would be left standing. When you finally rolled through all his relatives, only 1 in 600 would remain standing. Therefore there is only a 1 in 600 chance that this tomb does not contain the family of Jesus of Nazareth!
The problem here is that they are assuming that the “Maria” in this tomb is the mother of the “Jesus/Hanun” – again, there is not evidence of this. They are assuming that the Mariamne is his wife – no evidence of that either!… Etc. etc. They begin with the assumption that this is Jesus of Nazareth’s family tomb and reason out their statistics from that starting point. Yet they have not proven that assumption to be true, so both their logic and statistics are fatally flawed.
In Jesu et Maria,
I was quite aware of my reference to JDC’s take on the tomb documentary. Hopefully, you read his comments.
To summarize his views: Bones or no bones, the Good Word has been spoken and is being practiced by billions and that will not change.
…the Good Word has been spoken and is being practiced by billions and that will not change.
Realist:
That was (surprisingly) a rather a remarkable comment (as compared to those in the past)! =^)
At the very least, I’d hope that it would not change. However, the secular media appears rather determined to affect that.
Because Richard Dawkins already explained religion for us. Religion is not so complicated that we need two people to explain it to us. But Pee Wee could do Ethics, I suppose.
To me, this whole ‘iceberg in a teapot’ seems like finding an old grave in France which says something like, Charles, son of Louis and Marie, and trying to claim from that scanty evidence that you’ve located the ‘real’ Dauphin.
…the Good Word has been spoken and is being practiced by billions and that will not change.
However, the Good Word, which includes our Lord and Savior rising from the tomb and his body ascending in to heaven, must be rooted in TRUTH. If the word is not truth, then it is empty and there is no salvation.
This is why it matters. Christ’s body was not eaten by dogs nor was it found in 1981. He reigns body and soul in heaven and will do so untill the end of time.
italics off
sorry
Nutcrazical wrote:
“Because Richard Dawkins already explained religion for us. Religion is not so complicated that we need two people to explain it to us…”
That’s just it, Nutcrazical.
Pardon me, but I thought JESUS explained the Christian Religion to us and, yet, people have, again and again, felt the need to explain and re-explain time and again.
If what you say is true —
That is: “Religion is not so complicated that we need two people to explain it to us…”
Then what of the millions who insist on explaining Christianity to us over and over again???
As I’ve mentioned in another thread, it’s no wonder Our Lord established a Church in the first place!
Esau, I think Nutcrazical was engaging in humor.
That’s just it —
I find it very humorous at people’s need to re-invent the wheel so-to-speak.
Everyone knows that Mary went to Ephesus with the beloved disciple and Apostle John the Evangelist, and she died there, and her tomb is empty too. (Assumption, anyone?)
My point on Witherington’s site was: listen, my people were there, and we know about these people. If these things were true, we would have known it all along. Christians venerated relics from the beginning. There is NO RECORD of venerating the relics of Jesus. There were no relics to venerate!
When you are well read in the early church fathers, some of whom were trained by the Apostles themselves, and you know the small-t tradition, you have the discernment to reject this bunk. Ahistorical Christians are more susceptible in chasing rejected Gospels and crazy theories. Their people weren’t there and they don’t know the people who were there.
Hmmm…Easter must be coming soon, here come the heretics! LOL
Wethington’s blog entry is worth a read, however. I comboxed there and asked the apostolic fathers to pray for us!
To me, this whole ‘iceberg in a teapot’ seems like finding an old grave in France which says something like, Charles, son of Louis and Marie, and trying to claim from that scanty evidence that you’ve located the ‘real’ Dauphin.
Pope Benedict’s parents were named Mary and Joseph.
Does that mean that the Pope… is JESUS??? Wow! I guess “His Holiness” is an apt title indeed!
😛
Oh, and Mark Shea’s blog has an amusing recount of the wacko heretic theories over recent years. Read the combox, there is much amusement to be found there. Such as the latest news: Jesus Christ was the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby! LOL
http://markshea.blogspot.com/search/label/SRTSCTIVF
What is the statistical probability that a man rose into heaven, I wonder?
StubbleSpark,
By HIS own power, or someone else’s? 😉
JoAnna, good one! 🙂
It takes more faith to believe this Jesus’ Tomb story than it does to believe in the bodily resurrection!
Logically speaking, even if Jesus was buried and did not rise from the dead, and even if Mary wasn’t assumed into heaven, does it make sense to anyone who is NOT a believer, that Joseph’s corpse would be moved from Nazareth to Jerusalem, and Mary moved from Ephesus to Jerusalem?
I heard on EWTN Live today from Fr Mitch that the hoax-proved ossuary of “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” from several years back was taken from this very gravesite. Does anyone know if that’s correct? And if that’s true, that lends negative credibility to an already ridiculously stupid claim.
One more movie pun: Cameron has been taken over by “The Thing”…..
I do know that the “James Ossuary” was proved to be a fake. The “discoverer” forged the patina.
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=16370
http://www.archaeology.org/ossuary/
How do you do the fancy insertions of links and such? I can do it on UBB but not here. 🙁
I’ve heard that it was “forged, but accurate”.
bill912 wrote: I’ve heard that it was “forged, but accurate”.
Wasn’t that what Dan Rather said about Bush’s National Guard papers?
All the while I thought the FBI started the Witness Protection Program but it seems it was started by the early Christians…So while the apostles, Paul and others were busy proclaiming the Gospel message that Jesus had died on the cross and was risen, he was actualy laying low in some house in Jerusalem with his wife, kid(s) Mom, cousin, brothers, and dog…
How could so many be so duped – and to think that no one ever thought to check if Jesus was listed in the Jerusalem Telephone White Pages…
God, have mercy!
PS Rosemarie – great comments!!! God bless.
Rosemarie wrote:
“If you asked a stadium full of first century Jews, “Who among you is named Jesus?” a certain number would stand up. If you then asked those Jesuses, “And who among you has a father named Joseph… a mother named Maria… a wife named Mariamne… etc.,” less and less of them would be left standing. When you finally rolled through all his relatives, only 1 in 600 would remain standing. Therefore there is only a 1 in 600 chance that this tomb does not contain the family of Jesus of Nazareth!
“The problem here is that they are assuming that the “Maria” in this tomb is the mother of the “Jesus/Hanun” – again, there is not evidence of this. They are assuming that the Mariamne is his wife – no evidence of that either!… Etc. etc. They begin with the assumption that this is Jesus of Nazareth’s family tomb and reason out their statistics from that starting point. Yet they have not proven that assumption to be true, so both their logic and statistics are fatally flawed.”
The strange thing about the media reports is that they want to have the argument both ways. You need to be working under the assumption that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that they had a son in order to generate the 1 in 600 probability that the U of T prof came up with. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus did in fact marry.
Then they turn around and say that the discovery of the tomb is evidence for the fact that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that they had a son together. In other words, A provides support for B, and B provides support for A. This is such obvious circularity that it is hard to know what to say about it. Do they actually take this argument seriously?
Realist,
Perhaps the non-glorified bones reside in your head ;] I guess that would make you a…
Happy Easter!!!!!!
“This is such obvious circularity that it is hard to know what to say about it. Do they actually take this argument seriously?”
Of course they don’t. they are not stupid people. You get no viewership boost with the head line:
WASHED UP DIRECTOR, WHO HASN’T MADE A MOVIE IN A DECADE, PERPETRATES HOAX THAT INSULTS BELIEFS OF 2.1 BILLION PEOPLE.
As someone said elsewhere, the authorities gave Judas 30 pieces of silver to point Jesus out…what wouldn’t they have paid for his bones, to shut up the early Christians? Yet NO ONE said – “Oh, right here…in this clearly marked grave!”
Second, as I believe C.S. Lewis said, men will die for things they believe to be true, but not for what they know to be false. Why be crucified upside-down, suffer imprisonment and torture, etc. if all the while you knew Jesus had not been resurrected?
Hmmmmmm…. let’s see.
Richard Dawkins explains religion to us…
Dan Brown explains history to us….
Al Gore explains climatology to us…..
James Cameron explains archaeology to us……
What next?
Hillary explains women to us….
WASHED UP DIRECTOR, WHO HASN’T MADE A MOVIE IN A DECADE, PERPETRATES HOAX THAT INSULTS BELIEFS OF 2.1 BILLION PEOPLE.
Hey now! He did Dark Angel. Ohh wait…that was a rip-off of various anime like Ghost in the Shell. 🙂
Sir,
I think James Cameron and his compnions are non sense and for the cheap publicity.
Formerly, the Roman Catholic Church and its faithful had persecuted with corporeal punishments, nowadays with the media persecution.
Praise the Lord, Ave Maria.
I’m curious, Esau, on where you get the idea that koine pronounced the yodh as a ‘j’. My understanding is that that is an error that came from Americans pronouncing German spellings, where the letter ‘j’ has the ‘y’ sound, which the yodh actually has.
And that “Jehovah” is a fairly amazing mistake, because it is reading the text completely wrongly. The Massoroth put the vowel pointing for Elohim or Adonai under the Tetragrammaton, so that lectors in synagogues would not accidentally pronounce the divine name. The Germans didn’t know that, and put those vowels into the Tetragrammaton, and then ignorant Americans pronounced with a J to add insult to injury.
YHWH — He Who Causes To Be
Yeshua/Yehoshua — Joshua or Jesus
Ya’acov — Jacob
Yochannon — John
And so on. Sigh.
The thing to be concerned about here, and to pray about, is all the souls that will be lost due to this work that Cameron is participating in.
Rosemarie,
1st century Hebrew script is easy to read, even though it isn’t the same font as the box script we are familiar with. For that reason I find the whole argument that it took 20 years to decipher to be very very suspicious.
Dr. Eric, last I knew that was a -claim- made by skeptics, and that the possibility that the James Ossuary is authentic remains fairly significant. There are historical indications, including a painting involved in this whole matter. It may be as likely to be authentic as the Sudarion and the Shroud.
I’m curious, Esau, on where you get the idea that koine pronounced the yodh as a ‘j’.
Puzzled,
Please tell me where exactly did I state this???
The above, as indicated, were extracts I gathered from, for example, secular sources in order to demonstrate the fact that JESUS was a common name back then.
As concerns the name of Jehovah:
I’m sure a person with so highly intelligent as you actually know the origin of the name Jehovah, right???
At any rate, it is as follows:
If you go into the Old Testament, and you read the Old Testament in Hebrew, you will see the name of God presented there with the letters, or the Hebrew equivalent of the letters, Yhwh. In Hebrew, they’re called “Youdth-hey-wow-hey” (Unfortunately, I’m unable to produce in writing its exact pronounciation); but, in English, we call them: Yhwh.
Now, the reason why it’s represented that way is because Hebrew, at this time, did not have vowels.
They only wrote down the consonants in the words that they used, and so, as a result of that, it’s a little hard – I mean, as a result of that: you just have yhwh is presented as God’s name and you were expected to know the vowels that you would fill in to actually to be able to say His name.
We think we’ve been able to more or less reconstruct what those vowels were based on other knowledge and, thus, it’s thought that the most probable pronounciation of God’s name at the time was: Yahweh (Yahv-vway).
But, that’s a little bit speculative because Hebrew just didn’t have vowels at this time.
Now, what happened though was in the course of time, two different things happened:
1. The first one was that people started treating the name Yahweh as so holy, they didn’t want to say it anymore; and so what they would do is instead of saying Yahweh they would say: Adonai.
Adonai is a Hebrew word that means: my Lord.
2. Then, in the Middle Ages, vowels started to be written in Hebrew and to write them, they would use little dots that they would put above or below or sometimes inside the Hebrew letters to remind people of the fact that when they were reading Scripture in the Synagogue, they weren’t supposed to say Yahweh when they got to the Yhwh; but to remind them to say Adonai – they wrote the vowels of Adonai above and below in the letters Yhwh and if you take the Adonai vowels: a o i and you put them around Yhwh, you get a name that sounds like: Yah-ho-vah or Jehovah.
In the course of time, some people started to say the name of God that way and, in fact, my memory is that it was actually a monk from Spain who proposed just calling God Jehovah like that – obviously, with a Spanish pronunciation rather than an English one; but that’s where it came from.
Does that help???
Puzzled,
I hope the above suffices.
Now, my turn: *sigh*
+J.M.J+
kaneohe: Thanks; God bless you too. 🙂
Puzzled writes:
>>>1st century Hebrew script is easy to read, even though it isn’t the same font as the box script we are familiar with. For that reason I find the whole argument that it took 20 years to decipher to be very very suspicious.
From: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/26/D8NHI2MO2.html
Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film’s hypothesis holds little weight.
“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.”
“How possible is it?” Pfann said. “On a scale of one through 10 _ 10 being completely possible _ it’s probably a one, maybe a one and a half.”
Pfann is even unsure that the name “Jesus” on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it’s more likely the name “Hanun.” Ancient Semitic script is notoriously difficult to decipher. (emphasis mine)
Reports from various other media outlets contain the same line; it appears to be commentary on the writer’s part, not a statement from Pfann himself.
My husband skimmed the tie-in book at B&N yesterday. He said that the alleged “Jesus” name was inscribe on a part of stone that had irregular, varigated lines through it (or something like that) which made it hard to decipher. The book itself apparently admits the difficulty.
In Jesu et Maria,
I THOUGHT IN 1980 THESE OSSUARYS WHERE OPENED AND THE BONES WERE REMOVED AND BURIED IS THAT TRUE
+J.M.J+
Yes, it is standard practice in Israel to rebury any remains the archeologists discover. As I explained above, the DNA was derived from residue of human remains on the inside of the ossuaries.
In Jesu et Maria,
How do you do the fancy insertions of links and such? I can do it on UBB but not here.
Try this. If you want to link to Jimmy’s site, for example, and you want the link to read “JIMMY AKIN” you would do the following:
[a href=”www.jimmyakin.org”]JIMMYAKIN[/a]
but use <> instead of []
JIMMYAKIN
JIMMYAKIN
I think you need to add http:// to it.
Regarding the James Ossuary, although there are weighty reasons for believing part of the inscription is a forgery, it’s actually not an airtight case. Reportedly ancient patina was found in the part of the inscription that was allegedly forged (or at least that’s what the few remaining defenders of the James Ossuary are saying).
In any case, at Ben Witherington’s weblog, there is conclusive proof that the James Ossuary did NOT come from Talpiot, but most likely came from Silwan. According to the archaeologists who actually did the site report on Talpiot and catalogued the ossuaries, the allegedly missing 10th ossuary from Talpiot is not missing, and has no inscription on it, so it can’t be the James Ossuary. Even more, Cameron, Jacobovici, and Tabor were even told by those archaeologists that the 10th ossuary is not missing and has no inscription on it, so the only reason they would continue to suggest that the “missing” ossuary is the James Ossuary is because they are more interested in pushing their theory and selling books than they are in seeking the truth and accepting it.
According to my brother’s calculator, you have about a one in five million chance of getting any particular euchre hand, but every time you play euchre you get several hands, all equally unlikely. What are the chances of that?
This is called the illusory bias; I learned about it in psychology. We think we’re more likely to get the nine of hearts, queen of spades, ten of diamonds, ace of clubs, and jack of diamonds than we are to get four aces and the jack of spades, but in fact the probability of getting either hand is identical.
So what if there’s a 1/600 chance of finding these names together? Somebody wins the lottery every day.
When this item hit the news I could not but wonder: why again; why in Lent; what is their real aim? etc….
Today’s article in the CSM describes one of the people involved as “Apparently unfazed – perhaps even pleased – by all the controversy.” What a surprise!
In the released preface of his upcoming book on Jesus Christ, Pope Benedict mentioned Romano Guardini’s book “The Lord” and I have made it part of my Lenten reading. Earlier today I happened across part of the answer to my questions. In the chapter Forgiveness of Sins, Romano writes:
“What does it mean to be a sinner? To sin not only against a certain person or thing, but to fail sacred truth and justice? To stand in opposition not only to the eternal moral code, but also to the living and holy God, imitating Satan’s age-old attack, the creature’s senseless but profoundly exciting attempt to dethrone, degrade and destroy his Creator. Earthly sin is likewise directed against the sacred, god-drawn life in man, and works itself out in the degradation and destruction of natural life. Sin does not remain in the solitary cell of the individual conscience, but swiftly spreads to become a community of error and fate. Stronger or weaker, overt or clandestine, conscious or unconscious, hesitant or determined, its ultimate sense is destruction.”
Grace and Peace
Cameron claims he has DNA evidence. How exactly is he planning on using this to prove anything?
I have wondered that myself. He would compare this DNA to what exactly? The “Jesus DNA” on file somewhere?
Not that I give ANY credence to this guy, but even with DNA samples the best he could hope to prove is that the remains in question had DNA similar to other known Israelite folks…
(Years ago I watched a PBS special on Peruvian mummies found in the caves of the andes and supposedly through DNA testing they were able to determine it was a distant ancenstor of a local family of indigenous people. I thought it was rather fascinating that these descendants came face to face with the remains of an unkown ancestor.)
The great St. Paul says that if the resurrection of Christ is false, then we’re wasting our time with Jesus altogether…
And if Jesus is a falicy, then his mother Mary, and her special nature by association with her Son, is also a big hoax…
And if Mary is a misleading story designed to confuse and befuddle the masses, then Fatima, Lourdes, LaSayette, Boardman, Zeitoun, Medjugorje, etc., etc., etc.,…witnessed by thousands of Christians and non-Christians alike, in reasonably contemporary times, is also an intentionally fraudulent concoction of such gigantic proportions that it boggles the mind how anyone short of God himself could utterly fool so many for so long…
So what I can say with certainty is…Cameron and his stooges do the Devil’s work, and the documentary, based on a foundation of dishonesty and twisted half-truths will, like the DaVinci Code and other hideous works, be proven utterly false…
John,
Amen.
Folks,
Can we please not declare unapproved apparitions as “approved” when, in fact, the Church has not declared it so herself!
Medjugorje had NOT been approved!
WE MUST BE CAREFUL!
If we TRULY TRUST the Church, then let’s just leave SUCH DECISIONS to her, shall we? Mind you, Christ had given the Church His Authority and not us.
In fact, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith actually spoke to this point, not definitively or finally, but spoke to the point in 1998. There, the Church told us that as of that point in time in 1998, the Church, the Scared Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, declared that the Church is in agreement with the local bishop when the bishop said that up to that point, there is no evidence of anything supernatural occurring — that’s what the Church said. In fact, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who was then prefect of the C.D.F. at the time. Though the apparition is still under investigation.
However, the Church did say (and this is a pretty strong statement) that there’s no evidence of anything supernatural up to that point.
Now, the Church went on to say that there could be no official pilgrimages to Madjegoria.
Also, we cannot pray to Our Lady of Madjegoria officially, it mentioned.
Liturgically-speaking, Catholics as private individuals – be they a bishop, a priest, or a lay person – can go there on pilgrimage, but we cannot make any official sort of proclamation that there’s Our Lady of Madjegoria or make liturgical prayers to her as such.
Basically speaking, the Church has not affirmed it — but it has put out a bit of a caveat there.
The DNA evidence was to prove that the people found together IN A WAREHOUSE by the filmmaker (ie, he didn’t discover the tomb, but just found these ossuaries lying in a warehouse) are one family.
So the DNA evidence makes sense, but showing this is one family doesn’t say much — and can act AGAINST the identification of this being Jesus since, in all the records we have, there is no indication of Jesus having a son! (Not even the gnostics tried that one).
None of the earliest Jewish and Roman critics of Christianity ever suggested that Jesus did not exist or that his body/bones were ‘over there’.
The only contemporary alternative explanation was that His followers stole the body and fabricated the story of the resurrection. If there was even the slightest whiff that Jesus did not exist or that His remains were available, then this tradition would have been passed on by the critics of Christianity, whether it was true or not. cf conspiracy theories regarding Kennedy’s assassination despite the official report.
Christianity began because the disciples of Jesus claimed to have met Him after His death and because the tomb was empty. They gained nothing in this life except persecution and death, and if they were even moderately devout Jews, could expect punishment in the next life for making up such a blasphemous story.
The burial custom of better-off Jews at the time involved internment in a cave-like tomb for a year, to allow the flesh to rot. After which the bones were stored in an ossuary (bone box), probably in the same, usually, family tomb. Friends and family would pray at or near the tomb for the deceased at various ritual and other times. ie the location of the body/bones would be known to family and friends and to a wider audience if the deceased were a local notable.
Why would Jesus’ disciples make up the story of the resurrection yet label and preserve the evidence which would refute it?
There is a simple test that could be done.
Take James Cameron and Mel Gibson and put a black hood over thier heads. Lead them up a scaffold and put a hangmans noose around each of thier necks. Go over to the lever, put your hand on it and ask them:
“You have each made your personal statements about Jesus Christ. Are you prepared to die for this belief?” I speculate that only one of them will willingly drop through the door and it won’t be Cameron.
To those who think this a bit far fetched I offer you the witness of the martyrs through twenty centuries.
The DNA evidence, or more specifically the mitochondrial DNA from the samples Cameron obtained from the ossuaries, will identify familial genetic relationships to the mother if they exist…the names found in the ossuaries are Jesus, Yose (Joseph), Maria (Mary, Jesus’ mother), Mariamne (Mary Magdelene), Judah, and Matai (Matthew).
So what’ll be interesting in the Cameron documentary is whether Cameron will have the intellectual honesty to produce the following DNA results, if they exist, that would necessarily refute Cameron’s thesis that he and his team have located the non-vacant tomb of Jesus:
1. Genetic link or even tests done to determine whether genetic link exists between Joseph and Jesus.
2. Genetic link or even tests done to determine whether genetic link exists between Mary Magdelene and Jesus, Joseph, or Mary.
3. Genetic link or even tests done to determine whether genetic link exists between Joseph and anyone reported to be the offspring of Jesus.
A positive link established via any of these tests, between any of the aforementioned parties as I’ve listed them, would certainly exclude the bones Cameron and his team report on, from being matched to Christ and his family as it exists according the New Testament biblical accounts.
Plan on Cameron making non-specific references to family DNA, while providing no evidence that would certainly refute the outlandish claims he makes.
John
Will someone please inform me when Jimmy gets his article on the “Jesus Family Tomb” posted? I want to put a link for it on my blog. I will be in Israel and not able to surf as freely. So, if someone let’s me know, I would be appreciative. My email is sray@rc.net.
Thanks,
Steve Ray
In 2002 Ben Witherington said this about his phony James Ossuary:
“This is probably going to be the biggest New Testament find in my lifetime, as big as the Dead Sea scrolls.”
In 2007, James Cameron said this about HIS phony ossuaries:
“This is the biggest archeological story of the century. It’s absolutely not a publicity stunt.”
The press in Witherington’s native Kentucky have delicately raised the issue of the pot calling the kettle black, I mean, the pot calling the ossuary cracked in Witherington’s overheated (the gentleman protests too much) protestations against the latest “biggest New Testament find” in his lifetime.
See: http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/16791591.htm
The IAA decided that the unprovenanced ossuary on which Ben Witherington gambled and loss his credibility was a fake. He is left with supporting conspiracy theories about the IAA in support of a forger and seller of fake antiquities, Oded Golan, and little else.
But Witherington’s protestations aren’t really about Golan, or even about the so-called James Ossuary. They’re all about Witherington.
He used the so-called “James Ossuary” as a base to launch attacks on the Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God.
Consumed with the desire to “one up” the Church, he overreached and is still overreaching.
Now that his precious, yet phony James Ossuary is being sold as the missing 10th ossuary in the Jesus Tomb by Cameron and Jacobovici. (the same Jacobvici who helped him with HIS documentary on the James Ossuary, shown on… you guessed it, The Discovery Channel!).
In news coverage of the ongoing trial of antiquities forger Oded Golan, Witherington said that he would stand by the “authenticity” of the phony James Ossuary REGARDLESS of the trial’s outcome!
He’s not interested in proof. He’s only interested in getting the word of Witherington out.
Too bad that he cannot see that he has reaped what he has sown.
One phony ossuary has yielded a crop of ten.
Mr. Akin, I hope that you reference your rebuttal of Ben Witherington’s (‘Bad Aramaic Made Easy’) James Ossuary based attacks on the Mother of God in your upcoming J-Tomb piece.
“This is probably going to be the biggest New Testament find in my lifetime, as big as the Dead Sea Scrolls.”
The way he worded it, it could be construed that he didn’t know that the Dead Sea Scrolls were an Old Testament find.
But maybe he studied at the same Divinity School as Howard Dean (“My favorite New Testament book is Job”).
Leo,
The question is what happened after the crucifixion. Does anyone really know? The Apostles and other followers apparently ran for their lives.
Twenty to thirty plus years later Paul et al started writing about the sayings and ways of Jesus. To make him comparable and competitive to the Caesars, and other Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Persian and Babylonian gods, did they give Jesus some god-like qualities? Miracles and physical resurrection were apparently scribal ways to embellish the lives of gods.
There has been much conjecture about the true burial site for Jesus, from mass graves for the crucified, no burial but eaten by wild dogs/crows on the cross, buried in a shallow grave with lime to enhance decomposition and of course the burial in “Joe A’s” tomb.
What is interesting is that scripturally the number of attestations and their timing gives credence to burial in “Joe A’s” tomb.
(1) 1Cor 15:4a
(2a) GPet 2:3-5a; 5:15b; 6:21-24
(2b) Mark 15:42-47 = Matt 27:57-61 = Luke 23:50-56
(2c) John 19:(31-37*)38-42
(2d) Acts 13:29
The resurrection accounts cannot be verified using the same techniques.
If you accept Heaven to be a spirit state (as per Aquinas), Jesus’ bones are not in Heaven so maybe we are about to see the long lost burial vault of “Joe A”.
I know its impolitic to simply post a link, say, Read this and get back to me.” but I can hardly restate Peter Kreefts arguments without using too much of the com-box.
1 Jesus died Jesus rose— Christianity
2 Jesus died Jesus didn’t rise—apostles deceived or Hallucination
But decieved by whom? The priory of Sion?
3 Jesus died Jesus didn’t rise—apostles myth-makers Myth :
If myth why no mytic elements? ie bands of angels flying down and taking retribution on the evildoers. Also there are clear elements meant to be taken as eyewitness reports. The writers of this account clearly meant to be taken as witnesses not mythmakers.
4 Jesus died Jesus didn’t rise—apostles deceivers Conspiracy
Same as #2. Decieved by whom? for what purpose? Here some iterject that the apostles themselves were liars. Ever seen a band of 12 liars tortured to death and not one jump up and say, “I made it all up, let me go” ?
5 Jesus didn’t die — Swoon
a. The romans were experienced at killing people. Show me anyone else who swooned at their crucifixion and the romans released for dead.
b. Jesus had a spear stuck through his side.
c. He was placed in a cold tomb with sheets wound around him. Not exactly a way to help someone out of a swoon. The people who buried him considered him dead.
d. The tomb was sealed and guarded by unfriedly troops. It is conjecture but also reasonable that the very peoople concerned with Jesuses followers walking off with his body would have kept spies and overt watchers from the moment his body was removed. Perhaps the priests were in on the fix too?
Realist: you seem to forget the promise of bodily resurection. The Gospel accounts of seeing Jesus after he died and having to be convinced he was alive and Paul’s own argument that if Jesus is not resurected then we are the worst of all fools.
Also you argue that Paul wrote things thirty years later thus somehow it becomes questionable. Bear in mind he was speaking to a generation who had known Jesus. Before he wrote his the Gospels were preached verbally and perhaps already ciruclating in written format. If this weren’t all about Jesus but, let’s say an account of the Korean war, written 30 years later with 100’s of people who have the event in living memory do you think this would be dismissed so easily?
Well at least most on this site are fools for Christ….you are well read but seem unable to logicly process what you’ve read.
More here: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm
Twenty to thirty plus years later Paul et al started writing about the sayings and ways of Jesus.
Even granting your timeline — why on earth do you think they picked Jesus rather than any other of the putative messiahs floating about?
Mary,
Good question. The number of disciples? The “filler” of John the Baptist’s shoes and ideas? Right time and place? The message? Anti-Roman stances? Peaceful rebellion? A fellow peasant? The experience of Saul before Paul with the movement? All of these?
The people who will watch this show and believe it are probably descendants of those who believed that P.T. Barnum’s “Cardiff Giant” really was the petrified remains of a giant. (It was actually a piece of carved granite). On the other hand, there *could* be a way to make a profit from these folks. Now let me see…Where did I put those deeds I had printed up on that swamp land in the Mojave Desert that I have for sale?
Am I mishearing Cameron? Is he actually saying in his interviews “…well I’m not a theologist…”
Does that make him a “symbologist” like the Robert Langdon character of Da Vinci Code? If so, is he sending a “cryptic message” telling us believers that he is only in this to make money and defile the name of Jesus?
Watson, we’ve just broken the code!!
The question is what happened after the crucifixion. Does anyone really know?
Does anybody really know what time it is?
“The IAA decided that the unprovenanced ossuary on which Ben Witherington gambled and loss his credibility was a fake.”
Lost his credibility with whom? Witherington seems to still be respected in his field, whether or not the James Ossuary turns out to be a fake.
“He is left with supporting conspiracy theories about the IAA in support of a forger and seller of fake antiquities, Oded Golan, and little else.”
Not exactly. He also supports his continued belief in the authenticity of the James Ossuary by arguing that ancient patina has been found inside the name “Jesus” on the ossuary, part of the inscription that allegedly was forged. If he’s right about the patina, it would appear the IAA’s experts erred in their analysis of the inscription. Witherington also mentions a photograph of the ossuary that seems to date from the 1970s and that seems to show the allegedly forged part of the inscription, before Golan is alleged to have forged that part of the inscription. If Witherington is right about those things (something I’m not at all sure of), then it would appear the James Ossuary is not only authentic, but could well be the ossuary of St. James the Lord’s Brother.
“He used the so-called ‘James Ossuary’ as a base to launch attacks on the Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God.”
True, but so what? Even if the James Ossuary is really the ossuary of St. James, that wouldn’t prove that “brother of Jesus” means St. James was the uterine brother of Jesus. Witherington could be right about the ossuary even though he’s all wrong about the Perpetual Virginity. It seems to me that in your opposition to Witherington’s arguments against the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity, you are “overreaching” in your desire to prove him wrong (or rather, to triumphantly declare him wrong and to ridicule him).
“In news coverage of the ongoing trial of antiquities forger Oded Golan, Witherington said that he would stand by the ‘authenticity’ of the phony James Ossuary REGARDLESS of the trial’s outcome! He’s not interested in proof. He’s only interested in getting the word of Witherington out.”
Joe, a criminal trial is not a scientific forum, and a trial’s outcome is not scientific proof. Courts get it wrong all the time. He’s still standing by the James Ossuary, regardless of the court outcome (whereas you have convicted Golan of forgery regardless of the court outcome) because he thinks the science supports his belief in the authenticity of the entire inscription on the ossuary. If a judge or a jury says one thing, but the science proves the opposite, should we accept the opinion of the judge or jury and ignore the science?
“Too bad that he cannot see that he has reaped what he has sown.”
So you are comparing 1) a possibly fake inscription on an ossuary that if authentic would not disprove the Catholic doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity with 2) undoubtedly authentic inscriptions on ossuaries that, if they really belonged to Jesus and His family, would disprove all of Christianity?
“One phony ossuary has yielded a crop of ten.”
The ossuaries are all authentic. The only thing is dispute is whether or not “brother of Jesus” is a forgery that was added to the James Ossuary.
Here’s what I would guess is a close approximation to what really happened…
In 1980, the excavation of a building site occurs as a contractor prepares to construct a group of apartment units in a residential suburb or Jerusalem. As a result, a tomb is unearthed containing 10 ossuaries. None, or perhaps even one or two of the osuaries might have had names scrawled on them in Hebrew; all common names found in the 1st century A.D.
Knowing, like most experienced contractors in the area, that good money exists in the sale of ancient burial artifacts, the contractor, or perhaps some local explorer who learned of the find and its possible monetary significance, contacts an antiquities dealer who has the historical linquistic knowledge and scientific background (like the James ossuary guy) to at a minimum dramatically increase the value of the ossuaries by “naming” them pursuant to New Testament biblical accounts. But, getting caught stealing an ossuary from an historical site is big trouble in Israel, so the dealer limits his take to one ossuary for later sale, and marks the others to increase the value of his ossuary when the fraudulent link in his ossuary between Jesus and his family is eventually noticed and made public. Unfortunately for the dealer though, the markings made on the other ossuaries identifying them as those from the family of Jesus, go unrecognized and lie dormant on shelves in a IAA warehouse in Israel for years.
But would the dealer have had access to pull-off his scheme? As the Discovery program indicated last evening, local kids in the neighborhood were in and out of the tomb so frequently that the authorities in the area had to place a stone/cement cap on the entrance to the tomb to keep them out. This would suggest that access to the tomb was pretty easily had, and a person seeking to make big bucks and abscond with one or more of the ossuaries would quite likely have had the opportunity and motivation to do so.
In fact as last night’s documentary dragged on, Cameron via his forensics team all but concluded that the James Ossuary was the missing tenth ossuary from the “Jesus” tomb (ten ossuaries were originally found in 1980, but only nine are now accounted for at the IAA warehouse, and the patina on the James ossuary allegedly matches exactly the patina sample taken from the other nine ossuaries found in the “Jesus” family tomb). Certainly the link between the James ossuary fake, and the present set of fakes should not be overlooked, and I suspect will eventually lead to our identifying the master culprit in this scheme, whose aim has been to get rich by robbing skeptical Christians of their Bodily Risen Lord.
Since the tomb which was found in 1980 had not been re-opened since the times of Christ, we know that ten ossuaries had been in the tomb for approximately 2000 years, and were authentic ossuaries, and quite possibly bore a familial relationship to each other. We can also conclude that if the James ossuary faker could get the James ossuary out of the tomb undetected, then he could also quite likely get some or all of the other ossuaries out of the tomb undetected, or in the alternative, obtain entrance to the tomb and “mark-up” the other previously unmarked ossuaries, unobserved. Motivation=money!
The James ossuary faker then perpetrates his fraud and makes his dough off the one ossuary he’s retained in his possession. A number of years later he tips off the press, and Cameron comes in and locates a slew of apparently authentic ossuaries bearing the names of Jesus and his family, all thanks to the clever and timely works of our faker…statistically significant and all.
And since the Ossuaries are made of very weak, almost “chalk-like” limestone materials, and the inscriptions on the ossuaries could have been made using any hard stone or specialized scrawling tool from anywhere inside or outside the tomb, and because patina analysis within the scrawl marks is a very imperfect science, we may never be able to tell when the inscriptions were made on the Tomb ossuaries…twenty or two thousand years ago…your guess…
Peace!
Come on, folks!
Isn’t it just a little too suspicious that Cameron, who hasn’t done any notable work for quite awhile, suddenly decided to produce some Da-Vinci-Code-esque documentary following the heels of the Da Vinci Code Movie hysteria???
The marketing of this Cameron/Da Vinci Code documentary is quite remarkable, if you consider all the free advertisement from both the Christian and secular sources as well as the other elements that went into its promotion; not to mention, it actually followed up on the Da Vinci Code Movie craze; thus, its time-to-market was ripe!
No one seems to have an open mind about this tomb. Just as there can be motives of credibility, i.e. arguments in favor of Christian faith, so surely can there be arguments, legitimate, against Christian faith. The rational man must decide which arguments have the more weight. According to Catholicism, he then makes an assent of faith aided by but not compelled by the evidence.
I should follow up and say that whether certain parties like it or not, all the controversy generated from its promotion as well as those that came about due to the previous screening of the Da Vinci Code Movie last year (which, by the way, helped set the stage for it and cannot help but propel its success as it already provided the groundwork for it in the hearts of the general public, be they believers or not), could only help (unfortunately) to bring it a certain level of marketing success.
Please note folks, that the 4:12:16 John posting is not the same John author who posted at 3:42:25 and elsewhere.
Please note folks, that the 4:12:16 John posting is not the same John author who posted at 3:42:25 and elsewhere.
Thanks 5:50:52 PM John for clarifying that!
It did sound kinda odd that John 4:12:16 said something that seemed out of character for John 3:42:25!