Jesus’ burial site found - film claims

  • Thread starter Thread starter DVIN_CKS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is an interesting letter from Dr. Paul Maier,Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University and author of A Skeleton in God’s Closet. “Interestingly, it [Cameron’s Film] bears striking similarity to Dr. Paul L. Maier’s fiction A Skeleton in God’s Closet, which turns out to be a plot to discredit Christianity.” (from the www.str.org blog, February 25, 2007)

Here is Dr. Maier’s letter:

Paul L. Maier, Ph.D., Litt.D
Department of History
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI 49008

February 25, 2007

Dear Friends and Readers,

Thanks for the profusion of e-mails I’ve received over the last two days regarding the Talpiot tombs discovery in Jerusalem, a.k.a., “the Jesus Family Tomb” story. Some of you also suggested that “life seemed to be following art” so far as my A Skeleton in God’s Closet was concerned. Believe me, this is not the way I wanted my novel to hit the visual media!

Alas, this whole affair is just the latest in the long-running media attack on the historical Jesus, which – we thought – had culminated in that book of lies, The Da Vinci Code. But no: the caricatures of Christ continue.

Please, lose no sleep over the Talpiot “discoveries” for the following reasons, and here are the facts:.
  1. Nothing is new here: scholars have known about the ossuaries ever since March of 1980. The general public learned when the BBC filmed a documentary on them in 1996. James Tabor’s book, The Jesus Dynasty, also made a big fuss over the Talpiot tombs more recently, and now James Cameron (The Titanic) and Simcha Jacobovici have climbed aboard the sensationalist bandwagon as well. He
  2. All the names – Yeshua, Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, Matia, Judah, and Jose – are extremely frequent Jewish names for that time and place, and thus most schol-ars consider this merely coincidental, as they did from the start. One-quarter of Jewish women at that time, for example, were named Maria.
  3. There is no reason whatever to equate “Mary Magdalene” with “Mariamene,”
    as Jacobovici claims.
  4. So what if her DNA is different from that of “Yeshua” ? That particular :Mariamme” (as it is usually spelled today) could indeed have been the wife of that particular “Yeshua.”
  5. What in the world is the “Jesus Family” doing, having a burial plot in Jerusalem, of all places, the very city that crucified Jesus? Galilee was their home. In Galilee they could have had such a family plot, not Judea. Besides all of which, church tradition – and Eusebius – are unanimous in reporting that Mary died in Ephesus, where the apostle John, faithful to his commission from Jesus on the cross, had accompanied Mary.
  6. If this were Jesus’ family burial, what is Matthew doing there – if indeed “Ma-tia” is thus to be translated?
  7. How come there is no tradition whatever – Christian, Jewish, or secular – that any part of the Holy Family was buried at Jerusalem?
  8. Please note the extreme bias of the director and narrator, Simcha Jacobovici. The man is an Indiana-Jones-wannabe, who oversensationalizes anything he touches. You may have caught him on his TV special regarding The Exodus, in which the man “explained” just everything that still needed proving or explaining in the Exodus account in the Old Testament! It finally became ludicrous, and now he’s doing it again. – As for James Cameron, how do you follow The Titanic? Well, with an even more “titanic” story. He should have known better.
There are more arguments, to be sure, but I want to get this off pronto.

With warm regards,

Paul L. Maier

(taken from www.str.org blog February 26, 2007.)
 
Give it a few days until it comes out and people get to see what it actually says. Two weeks from now, you’ll find more responses than you know what to do with. 👍
I was just telling someone earlier this afternoon that I expect people will come out of the woodwork to refute the documentary’s claims after it airs. I’m a little anxious waiting to hear what biblical scholars have to say but I think it’s best for everyone to wait until they actually see it. Someone from one of the universities here had a few things to say on our local news last night but like all the hoopla surrounding the Judas Gospel, the firestorm will come after it’s all aired. Or so I hope.
 
Thanks Lazer. You are, of course, correct. I will be patient. Also, thanks Sandusky. I don’t dislike James White. I don’t particularly care for a lot of his debating tactics. However, I won’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Thanks for the resources. I’ll check them out. God bless you both. And remember, as much as we discuss disagreements with each other, we must be united against those who would have both of us become irrelevant.

Josh
This is off-topic but I have to tell you that I often think of the old Fritos jingle when I see your user name. 😃
 
Maybe this was the tomb of some delusional guy who called himself Jesus…
Jesus was a common name, so no need for delusion.

While I was thinking about this last night, though, I did wonder - why would Mary Magdalene have her ossuary labeled Mary ‘The Master’ (Supposedly it was due to her powerful preaching in advance of Christianity), but Jesus is simply ‘Son of Joseph’? That alone doesn’t square, to me. Especially if you take the claim that the James ossuary - which has its own problems - is entirely real. Jesus is important enough on that ossuary to be directly named as a brother. Why the inconsistency?

From what I’m reading now, the ‘master (mara)’ which the film claims is on Mariamne’s ossuary is likely an abbreviation for Martha. Which would mean two women in one ossuary, supposedly not unusual for the time. But if that’s true… who is this Martha? What does this do to the DNA testing they performed?

Gaps keep turning up in their conclusions. Their strongest claim relies on statistical probabilities of these names turning up, but doesn’t address extra names that turn up (Matthew? Possibly Martha?) or names that don’t turn up that we’d expect to. All this alongside other questions Witherington and others have raised. (Another one I’m curious of is just how many ossuaries are in the tomb? I’ve seen 10-14, some unmarked, and something about a deeper chamber with possibly more ossuaries. What happens to the statistical probabilities of turning up common names when you’re boosting your sample size this much out of a single locale, and ignoring any seemingly out of place names?)
 
I don’t think the “documentary” (mockumentary? dollarmentary? marketingmentary?) is even worth watching. I would neither waste my time nor give them the satisfaction of viewership.

What is being presented in this show is nothing new. The “discovery” occurred 27 years ago, and has already been thoroughly examined by hundreds of scholars – Christian, Jewish, secular, etc.

The “big news” being reported now is the sheer number of scholars who are criticizing the findings and its effects on the reputation of archeology (it’s bad archeology).
 
I’ve rounded up several Catholic blog entries out there that either explain aspects of the historical and Scriptural problems or link to good resources.

A few of the better commentaries I’ve seen on them are:

‘Da Vinci Code’ Archeology Gone to Seed – Philip Blosser (Professor of Philosophy at Lenoir-Rhyne College) – Musings of a Pertinacious Papist

THE JESUS TOMB? ‘TITANIC’ TALPIOT TOMB THEORY SUNK FROM THE START - Ben Witherington (Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary) (non-Catholic)

Hollywood Hype: The Oscars and Jesus’ Family Tomb, What Do They Share? - Darrell Bock (Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary) (non-Catholic)

I’m also looking forward to Jimmy Akin’s info once he’s ready to post it.
Ben Witherington’s name keeps popping up but Dr. James Tabor addressed (very well I might add) all the points Witherington made.

jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/02/27/christian-blogging-on-the-jesus-family-tomb/
 
Ben Witherington’s name keeps popping up but Dr. James Tabor addressed (very well I might add) all the points Witherington made.
I think if this were Tabor vs Witherington, you might have a point. However, this is Tabor vs (basically) the World. It is further telling that even some of the fellow archaeologists who were part of the dig and the discovery do not accept the conclusions of the filmmaker and the history professor.

At any rate, the entire story contradicts everything the Church and the Scriptures have passed on for the last 2000 years about these matters.
 
Glancing over Tabor’s replies, I don’t think he did much to blunt what Witherington is saying. A large chunk of it is agreement (Empty tomb, no record of Jesus being married or having a child, appropriate application of the DNA results) or deferral (on the statistical points, not Tabor’s specialty.)

Mostly Tabor is saying, if we exclude a fair chunk of what we know about Jesus and His family up to this point (based on previous historical work and research), ignore the contradictory finds (Jesus with a son? A Matthew in the family? Burial in Jerusalem?), and allow in the James ossuary (Explain away the 1970s dated photograph of it as resulting from old paper, Amos Kloner’s claims that the ossuary which went missing from the site was unmarked), then statistics indicate a high probability of this being the tomb of Jesus, based on the grouping of the names.
 
Which ossuary had the cross? I only see a hexagon with a kind of starburst carving in the middle.
Taken from post #4 of this thread, which I would think is a quote from an article about it, and which I quote as well:
All together, more than 100 first-century coffins were found on the Mount of Olives, many bearing additional names and cross marks. While not all the remains and inscriptions were preserved well enough to be identified or deciphered, the overall conclusion was clear.
 
Taken from post #4 of this thread, which I would think is a quote from an article about it, and which I quote as well:
Those aren’t the same ossuaries featured and discussed in Cameron’s documentary.
 
and allow in the James ossuary (Explain away the 1970s dated photograph of it as resulting from old paper,
I saw someone else (or maybe it was you) mention that but I don’t understand what that’s about. Can you elaborate please?
 
dang I just researched a lot of links to give my catechists, but my article is at work.
the best is the blog of Ben Witherspoon, which you can get from the Christianity Today website, he is a respected bible scholar and has the most complete rebuttal I have seen. If I can get the link I will edit my post.
 
I saw someone else (or maybe it was you) mention that but I don’t understand what that’s about. Can you elaborate please?
The Cameron film is attempting to link the James Ossuary with the Talpiot tomb. The James Ossuary surfaced years ago, with the inscription ‘James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus’ on it. It was at first well-received, then considered to be fraudulent (The inscription, rather than the ossuary itself.) Cameron contends that the tomb is missing an ossuary, and that the James ossuary may be it.

The problem is twofold. First there’s the questionable status of the James Ossuary itself (Just look up James Ossuary on the wikipedia for more information.) The other problem is that, during the trial of the man accused of forging fraudulent artifacts, a former FBI agent testified that a picture of the ossuary was taken in the 1970s. But the tomb itself wasn’t uncovered until 1980. So how do you get an ossuary from a tomb that hasn’t been unearthed? Not to mention that the archaeologist who originally worked on the tomb claims that what Cameron’s team actually thought was a missing ossuary (stolen from the site) is still accounted for, and bore no inscription to begin with.

On the other hand, more intriguing is the Mary & Martha interpretation of the Mariamne (SP) ossuary. Since Martha was named as the sister to Lazarus and Mary of Bethany in the NT.
 
You may have caught him on his TV special regarding The Exodus, in which the man “explained” just everything that still needed proving or explaining in the Exodus account in the Old Testament! It finally became ludicrous, and now he’s doing it again.
Yes, I caught it and watched it with embarrassment for these fools. It was so ludicrous and such a s-t-r-e-t-c-h of the imagination, that even someone with no archeological knowledge (like myself) could recognize the absurdity.
 
On the other hand, more intriguing is the Mary & Martha interpretation of the Mariamne (SP) ossuary. Since Martha was named as the sister to Lazarus and Mary of Bethany in the NT.
Do you think the ossuaries are theirs? And if so, is it possible that could make the claims that the one was from jesus more credible?
 
Do you think the ossuaries are theirs? And if so, is it possible that could make the claims that the one was from jesus more credible?
That Mara = Martha is actually the response of Professor Richard Bauckham (You’ll see his comments on Ben Witherington III’s blog), who says he does not believe this is the tomb of Jesus.

Another thing to keep in mind: When they did their statistical analysis, they used some interesting numbers. Reference is here:

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

For Maria, the odds of the name appearing is given as 1 out of 4. For Jose, 1 out of 20. Jesus Son of Joseph, 1 out of 190. Mariamne, 1 out of 160. Calculated together and adjusted (divided by 25, I believe), you get 1 out of 600.

The problem I see right away: They treat ‘Jesus Son of Joseph’ as a different, far rarer probability compared to simply ‘Jesus’. Jose, rarer than ‘Joseph’, even though Jose would be a form of Joseph. Mariamne, far rarer than Maria, even though Mariamne is a form of Maria/Mary.

The justifications for doing this seem squirrelly (Note, I’m not an archaeologist or a statistician.) The pdf doesn’t give their justifications behind the numbers - frequency of the names in those exact or very close to renditions showing up on discovered ossuaries? Calculations of how many guys named Joseph would have had a child named Jesus?

This is why the statistical argument, and the limited DNA argument, is adding up to this being rather shady. (The Naked Archaeologist guy, when asked why they only did DNA work on Jesus and Mariamne’s ossuaries, responded that he’s not a scientist, and there comes a time when you just have to stop working and go with the evidence you have. But testing Jesus and Mariamne alone was a no-lose situation; If they don’t match, he advances the Mary Magdalene thought. If they did match on the mother’s side, then this was the other Mary in Jesus’ family line - more proof.)

As for what I personally believe? I’m very skeptical. The arguments given are rather strained, their way of interpreting the data seems crafted with the intention of arriving at a certain conclusion. It’s an interesting development, whatever the case.
 
These unbelievers always look for some great TRUTH to help undo religious morality or philosophy in order to justify their own lack of faith or aversion to religion.
So-called “believers” are always looking for some great truth to help impose their particular brand of institutionalized superstition on others. But at the same time, they readily profess and encourage the need for believers to believe on faith alone. Evidence is never needed, and indeed, it is discouraged. “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” You can’t have it both ways. Either admit it’s all based on faith only (which by definition makes it a superstition), or else start producing some evidence (and not merely Bible verses) - or at least encouraging and supporting the search for evidence wherever it leads. That’s what science does. That’s what philosophy does. Stop telling others that religion cannot be questioned.

The whole reaction in this thread is typical of religious people. Wake up from your self-imposed nightmare. An intelligent person has no need of imaginary gods in order to live a respectful, moral life. Who gives us the morals? Even if there was some kind of god-being doing so, causing the “natural law”, why would he/she care one fig’s leaf about people worshiping or believing in him/her, or for that matter, following petty rules. It would be enough that people just live according to the great morals, don’t you think?

But religions never are able to yield to enlightenment. Inevitably, fundamentalism brings them back to be mired in outdated thinking, and this is why all religions have a limited lifespan. At some point, they are all replaced by something new which is more suited to where human civilization has progressed to that point, because they cannot stand the test of time. It might take 2000 years or so, but it’s inevitable. Past history shows this.

Morality based not on fear of a vengeful god, but one based on our shared love of humankind and the universe we live in. Now there’s a radical idea. I think I’ve heard this before. It may have been said by someone about 2000 years ago, before religious people horribly garbled it by trying to make it fit with their preconceived mystical ideas (in a time of ignorance when only spirits, gods and demons could account for things happening to people). It’s time to grow up now.
 
…Evidence is never needed, and indeed, it is discouraged…start producing some evidence…That’s what science does. That’s what philosophy does. Stop telling others that religion cannot be questioned.
QUOTE]

Reason,

What you’re saying may be true of some, but as I’m sure you know, generalizations are not conducive to an intelligent discussion.

If you are TRULY interested in understanding the Catholic position, I recommend two documents to start with:

“Faith and Reason” by Pope John Paul II, which addresses how the two are related, can be found in many places. Here’s one link:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

“Summa Theologica” by Saint Thomas Aquinas, which takes the reader step by step, through each of the precepts of our belief. It is often slow and dificult reading. I have only begun to read it myself, and am on Article 16 of the First Part. It uses philosophical language, so it might help you to start with “Aristotle for Everybody” by Mortimer J Adler, like I did.

One type of evidence you are rejecting out of hand is the countless testimony of believers throughout the centuries.You may write them off as no more than superstitious folks akin to UFO abductees, but there are many documented cases of manifestations where there is more than one witness. I will not lie to you and say that I have experienced first-hand any similar apparition. However, I was not there when Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon or when Sir Edmund Hillary climbed Mt. Everest, but I believe both of those happened based on the testimony of others. Don’t forget, there are many who choose NOT to believe in the Moon landing – they have “proof” that it was a Hollywood production.

In addition, you certainly would admit that scientists have been wrong before, wouldn’t you? I remember when I was in school, the prevailing belief was that there was nothing smaller than an electron. Now, they have disovered quarks, neutrinos, etc. There are many examples of errors in science which were widely accepted by the scientific community.

Finally, sometimes in science evidence is based on the study of the effects, of something, rather than direct examination. An example (admittedly poor) is that if you are trying to determine whether what is inside a black box is electrically-related, you could take a portable radio, off-tune it a bit, and pass the antenna close to the box. If you hear a buzzing noise in the radio, you can surmise that there is electrical activity going on inside the black box. Not until you open the black box are you going to know specifically what generates the electromagnetic waves emanating from within, but at least you understand something of what’s inside.

In some ways, Christianity does something similar. We look at the world around us, see the intricacies of nature, the complexity of processes (even down to the sub-cellular level), and we surmise that there must have been an Intelligent Designer. With that as a starting point, we have the testimony of believers throughout the centuries who provide evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. This is a simplified explanation. Again, read “Faith and Reason” and “Summa Theologica” for the nitty-gritty details.

We do not simply dismiss science out of hand. We embrace it. However, we see it in light of another truth – a revealed truth – which has been proven time and again. I respectfully ask you to at least read “Faith and Reason” before replying again. I trust that you will find that generalizations are unfounded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top