I meant to blog about this last week (CHT to the reader who sent the link reminding me!), but some of the individuals connected with the "Jesus family tomb" nonsensamentary that the Dicovery Channel aired have been backtracking on their claims–or otherwise clarifying them in ways not supportive of the filmmakers’ thesis.
THE JERUSALEM POST HAS THE STORY.
EXCERPTS IN BLUE:
The most startling change of opinion featured in the 16-page paper is that of University of Toronto statistician Professor Andrey Feuerverger, who stated those 600 to one odds in the film. Feuerverger now says that these referred to the probability of a cluster of such names appearing together.
That’s a significant alteration since–if you’ve got 600 tombs with names laying around–you’d expect there to be at least one random cluster with this group of names, and that’s assuming that the math is even right, which I have major questions about. Among the reasons are those pointed out by Frank Moore Cross:
In the film, renowned epigrapher Prof. Frank Moore Cross, professor emeritus of Hebrew and oriental languages at Harvard University, is seen reading one of the ossuaries and stating that he has "no real doubt" that it reads "Jesus son of Joseph." But according to Pfann, Cross said in an e-mail that he was skeptical about the film’s claims, not because of a misreading of the ossuary, but because of the ubiquity of Biblical names in that period in Jerusalem.
"It has been reckoned that 25 percent of feminine names in this period were Maria/Miriam, etc. – that is, variants of ‘Mary.’ So the cited statistics are unpersuasive. You know the saying: lies, damned lies, and statistics," Cross is quoted as saying.
And then there’s this:
The paper also notes that DNA scientist Dr. Carney Matheson, who supervised DNA testing carried out for the film from the supposed Jesus and Mary Magdalene ossuaries, and who said in the documentary that "these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely be husband and wife,"
Let me interrupt the excerpt to point out that this statement is TOTALLY LUDICROUS. If you’ve got a family tomb with 30 or more burial slots in it (ten ossuaries, each of which can hold the bones of 3 or more people) and you’ve got one lebelled "X son of Y" and another with the feminine name Z on it then it is COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE to infer from a DNA test that if they weren’t related that they are most likely husband and wife.
In a tomb containing multiple family members spanning several generations they could be any number of things: brother-in-law and sister-in-law OR nephew and non-biological aunt OR brother and adopted sister OR father and daughter-in-law OR grandfather and granddaughter-in-law OR great aunt and grand nephew–AND THAT’S ASSUMING THAT THEY’RE NOT RELATED BY *EITHER* THE MALE OR THE FEMALE LINE. If, on the other hand, you’ve only done a DNA test that shows that they don’t have a recent common *maternal* ancestor then it opens up even more possibilities of how they could be related (brother and step-sister, for example), so you’d better hurry quick to get it on the record that
[he] later said that "the only conclusions we made were that these two sets were not maternally related. To me, it sounds like absolutely nothing."
And then there’s this bit of dynamite:
Furthermore, Pfann also says that a specialist in ancient apocryphal text, Professor Francois Bovon, who is quoted in the film as saying the enigmatic ossuary inscription "Mariamne" is the same woman known as Mary Magdalene – one of the filmmakers’ critical arguments – issued a disclaimer stating that he did not believe that "Mariamne" stood for Mary of Magdalene at all.
Pfann has already argued that the controversial inscription does not read "Mariamne" at all.
How ’bout them apples?
Wow. I guess some stuff is so ridiculous on its face that there really is no need for any strenuous debunking.
There’s a headline in here somewhere;
“Amazing Self-Debunking Theories Save Apologists
Labor and Dead Trees”.
Though I should say, Jimmy’s earlier debunking was spot-on… but it’s just nice, I would think, to have a creampuff like this lobbed over the plate once in a while.
I just saw that horribly made piece of garbage and even [b]I[/b] picked holes through all of the weak theories and I’m no Jimmy Akin.
I think Ted Koppel was not convinced either during the Q&A after the documentary.
Another sign that it was junk was that the director fought with the professor whose support he was seeking during the Q&A as well.
Zing! Zang! Zung!
Sir,
Jesus Christ’s origin, His birth, His life, His teachings, His crucifixion, His resurrection and His Ascention is known from the sources of the Scripture only.Against that all the research and other writings are NON SENSE.Anybody who writes or say something about Jesus Christ; I am asking one question for them that they should research their origin and their great grand fathers, and their names then only they realise their foolishness.
Will Discovery produce and equally hype a ‘retractumentary’? Most people will likely never hear of articles like this one.
Will Discovery produce and equally hype a ‘retractumentary’? Most people will likely never hear of articles like this one.
Elijah, you said it!
If it’s not hyped-up sensationalistic garbage, then forget it.
Unfortunately, the particular source for this refuse happens to be Discovery, a supposedly respectable outlet.
Will Discovery produce and equally hype a ‘retractumentary’? Most people will likely never hear of articles like this one.
Of course not. It’s fashionable to smear and malign and Catholics — it’s the media’s favorite game!
nonsensamentary
Excellent!
The bit about the statistician, at least, is somewhat old news. He did an interview with Scientific American back, published March 2, where he clarified the claims made:
http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=13C42878-E7F2-99DF-3B6D16A9656A12FF
All of the points were made and addressed in the followup discussion with the filmmaker and producer on the night the show originally aired. None of this is new.
If correct, your point Mary?
Gee, Mary, nevermind the fact that the original documentary and its claims got FAR more airplay than these backtracks. I mean, it’s like the WaPo blowing a front page story and issuing a correction on page B15 the next day. Even if all that Jimmy is saying was said then, it has a long way to go before it receives the same level of exposure.
Now for my Onion-esque take on this:
Science Disproves Science
Atheists Express Disenfranchisement
After all the scholars behind the Discovery Channel Jesus Tomb documentary backtracked on the conclusions used to support the film’s main point on 11 April, atheists across the country expressed dismay.
“This was supposed to be the silver bullet,” sighed American Freethinker and Atheist Alliance President Andrew Floss. “With the irrefutable evidence to back the claim that their Messiah is dead and buried, we finally had the necessary ammunition to kill Christianity; which is the only religion that matters.”
Chairman of United Skeptics International Gunther Smith expressed similar dismay: “One of the main draws of the atheistic lifestyle is that it allows you to ridicule the narrow-minded and backward thinking of sheep-eyed believers.” He took a long drag on his cigarette and, turning his head aside to avoid making eye contact, he continued, “Now I don’t know what to not believe in anymore.”
Both figureheads agreed that the general consensus among atheists is one of general dismay. Atheists are faced with the conundrum that, if they want to believe the findings of people like James Cameron and Dan Brown, they must put faith in an unsound, illogical, improbable, and unscientific belief.
“But that would mean we would have to make a leap of faith too,” Floss said, “and we would loose all the higher ground.”
Smith agreed, “This is unacceptable. Who would we feel superior too?”
There is, however, hope in a compromise. Jonathan Lewis, Professor of logic for Thomas Aquinas University points out that this would not be the only leap of faith for atheists. “Atheists have always suspended the logic of cause and effect concerning the origin of the universe, for example.
“Every atheistic theory of the origin of matter contends that the matter was always preexistent in some form without ever having come from something or someone.
“This is as absurd as believing a mountain might not necessarily come about as the result of a chain of events but literally willed itself into being of its own accord.” Dr. Lewis said.
He went on to point out that the laws of cause and effect are the direct result of the belief in the Cause as taught by 13th century philosopher Thomas Aquinas.
Smith, however, expressed a third option. “Maybe if we believe in something like Kaballah or Sufism we could at least have coolness on our side.”
Thank you StubbleSpark, especially for this little gem:
“Now I don’t know what to not believe in anymore.”
Priceless.
They backtracked because they did not receive an invitation to Pope Benedict’s 80th birthday party (held today 16 April, with an estimated 100,000 well-wishers and party bashers – No one was reported to have brought the Pope empty gift boxes!) These doofs sorely wanted to have some cake and eat it too – sorry guys!
StubbleSpark – Superb! Many thanks!!
This is not the first nor the last time you will see or hear the ignorance of man. Those of us who know the truth will not be swayed. We are rooted and know where our Glory lies, in the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We must keep our focus and reach those we can with Gods Truth and not the ramblings of a man.
… the ramblings of a man.
Good work, Stubby! I especially liked the bit about ‘coolness on our side’.
I can’t say for a fact who is in the tomb….but I have been dscussing the symbols with the University of the Holy land, their ::theory:: is the symbols is a wreath and gable. I believe my discovery leads the symbols to be a Eye inside a door. In Paleo-Hebrew a triangle is a DOOR and a circle is a EYE. I’m not saying what the symbols is. I am going to copy and paste what my reply was to the University of the Holy Land.
What exactly is the Paleo-hebrew meaning for a circle?
What exactly is the Paleo-Hebrew meaning for a triangle shape?
I could be wrong but I think in Paleo-Hebrew standards the Circle is the symbol for a Eye and the Paleo-Hebrew meaning for a triangle to the the symbol for a door.
It is not uncommon for Circles to also be replaced with a dot when used in carvings and art right?
I believe if you look at before AD time era Canaaite-ish art the eyes of humans painted would be a triangle with a dot inside the triangle. I believe records states Jesus spoke with a canaaite woman before.
Now if you want to look into the chevron theory….I believe some areas of Egypt considered the Chevron a symbol that represented purity. In times before AD, Egypt also used a a carved Circle to represent eternity/never ending. Moses and Jesus both was well known for travels to Egypt and having knowledge of Egypt.
In Egypt the pyramid or triangle shape was used as a symbol to represent ascension.
If you was to look at the christian fish symbol….you will notice it is nearly identical of a symbol that was highly used in Egyptian paintings and carvings. This fish symbol along with the star of david was found merged as the earliest christian symbols and called the messianic seal. So knowing Moses, Jesus, and the rest of the early fathers of christian faith would have been very aware of the Egyptian culture and symbols…then it would not be too far from saying Egypt had a huge influence on their way of thinking when it came to symbols.
Now it would also be extremly safe to say that the early christians would of been very knowing of Paleo-Hebrew,
Now the most common use of the “circle” in the time era and location of the supposedly Jesus tomb was as a “eye”. the circle to represent a wreath in that time period and location was actually alot less commonly used than the “circle” being used as the “eye”. We also know from past discoveries from that general location that the triangle with a dot in the center was most commonly used in paintings of eyes on human paintings.
So now we know from past discoveries that the circle was commonly used as a “eye”.
What could the chevron/triangle be….was it the chevron that represented purity…or was it the paleo-hebrew symbol for a doorway. A eye that was pure…or a eye looking thru a doorway?
Sure you could say the chevron symbol has been used at that time for a gable…but really lets look at that idea…every single place that chevron design has been used as a gable there was something else with it…lets call them missing things “pillars”.
All art and carvings at that time and location of gables had pillars with them….this one is missing the gables for some reason. I personally find it unlogical to have a floating gable….If I was to do a gable painting or carving I would defiently add a pillar to it. Lets also take note of how high this carving is above the door….now lets look at all the past discoveries of “gables” in paintings and carvings….something does not fit because in this picture the “gable” is way too high above the doorway to be considered a “gable” carving.
Now I know there was this idea of the “eye of god” floating around Egypt at this time period…and I know the “eye of god” looked way different than the way we see it today….I know the “eye of god” was used by pagans in this time period…….and we know Jesus, Moses, and the rest of the early christians would have known about this Egyptian “eye of god”. But we also know symbols can be taken, changed, and the whole use be changed 100 percent. We all know the swastika is this really evil symbol for hate…..but the swastika was originally a symbol for good luck, it was a mutated christian cross that had the edges bent…..so the swastika was taken from the cross but the swastika and cross are nearly 100 percent different now. If you really want to look at the cross’s origin then look at Egyptian art and carvings and you’ll find something nearly exactly like it except at the top it is oval, and of course the early christians knew of the Egyptian’s cross looking symbol.
Egypt had a influence over the entire world, alot of their symbols and cultures was taken and mutated into something different and having different meanings….this is something we all know and still do to this very day.