There's no denying that this issue is intriguing, but I feel there are some serious problems with the facts and the manner in which they were presented.
First of all, the "re-enactments":
They were not an accurate interpretation of the "facts" presented. For the film-makers to take this discovery, which cannot DEFINITELY be attributed to Jesus Christ, and use it re-interpret certain passages from the Bible, is ludicrous. The film-makers' credibility would have been better served by using the time and money spent on crafting these scenes for further RESEARCH.
Mr. Jacobovici's motives in this matter are very questionable, in my opinion.
The Bones:
The documentary barely made any mention of the bones which were once contained in the ossuaries. Why were they not examined? Did the individuals who originally catalouged the boxes and bones note any damage to the hands and/or feet of the bones contained withing the "Jesus Box"?
There may be much dispute about whether or not Jesus was physically or spiritually resurrected, but I don't think there are many who would dispute that he was crucified.
If the hands and feet of the individual contained in the "Jesus Box" were unscarred, then this would suggest that the discovery is not as monumental as Mr Jacobovici thinks.
The name "Matthew" was left out when calculating the "odds" of this being the Holy Family, because it did not fit with the Family's genealogy.
In my opinion, it shows bias on Jacobovici's part. He has manipulated the facts to support his own conclusions. The fact that this name appears on one of the boxes, should considerably lower the odds that this is Jesus Christ's family tomb, shouldn't it?
I am not Dr. Tabor, but I can, at least, answer one of your objections.
The reason the bones were not examined is because the Israel Antiquities Authority had them reburied, according to Orthodox Jewish custom, before they could be examined.
The IAA has gone out of its way to make it difficult, if not down right inaccessible, for some scholars to examine evidence.
Dr. Tabor made the point about the bones and about the reason more DNA was not available for additional study too.
And Dr. Tabor has made that claim about the obstacles the IAA and the Israeli authorities have thrown up in his book, "The Jesus Dynasty."
Dr. Tabor is not a filmaker, he is a biblical scholar and head of the religion department at Univeristy of North Carolina at Charlotte, by the way. I don't think the charge of Hollywood huckster would stick to him. The attempt to label Simcha Jacobovici fraud and other insults was unfortunate and unwarranted.
He and those associated with him made a sincere effort to present a documentary that raised questions. Rather than answer them, his critics want to shu off those questions completely.
However, I saw the leaving out of the name "Mathew" when calculating the odds the exact opposite of you.
Had they left "Mathew" in when calculating the odds, that would have showed bias since the documentary clearly stated that they couldn't conclusively link "Mathew" to this family's geneaology.
By removing that name from their calculations, plus the additonal reduction (they divided by 4) to account for any bias I believe the filmakers did a reasonable job of calculating these odds.
Who was this Mathew, and what was he doing in Jesus' familial tomb?
At the end of the day you have no more than 4 (out of 10) ossuaries in a family tomb with name inscriptions that can be tied to names in the J.O.N. family. Mara Miriamne (without a good many suppositions; such as translating half the name in Greek and the other half in Aramaic) and Mathew do not belong.
This was certainly a family tomb, but a different family.
What about carbon dating the ossuaries themselves? Why are we to assume they are 2000 years old? I think the testing fell well short of due diligence. Although, having the Suffolk County Police proclaim Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene was an interesting touch . . .
I'm sure the carbon-dating was a given. Also, I believe that the burial-practice of using ossuaries existed for only about 100 years or so, around the time of Jesus Christ. So, unless the ossuaries and the tomb were both fakes, it's reasonable to think that the evidences were dated to the times of Christ.
To ignore something as basic as the dating of these objects is to open oneself to ridicule later.
I did not see any "Serious Problems" well unless you take the resurrection literally I guess! LOL I really like James Tabor and his book The J Dynasty, if you have not read it you got to go right now to Amazon and buy it! If I did not have to work for a living, I would be following James around the Middle East. He just lays the facts out there and lets you decide for your self. In my humble opinion the Christian community needs a reality check. The Koppel fiasco after the show was an excellent example of how well James and Jacobo’whatchamacallit’ handled the whole thing. The truth will set you free but first it will P1SS YOU OFF! This is exactly what the panels of “experts” were. I do agree that the documentary had a few places where they should have made it clear that they were drawing conclusions, and not stating facts. But those few occurrences made no impact on the overall subject matter, and most logical people would have drawn the same conclusions.
Is anyone thinking to dig the bones of Jesus in order to examine them to see if there are signs of crucifixion? Was a DNA test done on the bones of "Jesus son of Joseph" and Mary's bones? Why people are so scared to find the truth? If those bones are truly Jesus bones, I personally think this incredible discovery is moving and wonderful: Jesus is still with us.
dkh2007, I agree with you. I've read Dr Tabor's book and I think it's very honest. I'm a little perplexed about his theory of Jesus real father, a Roman soldier...But when you read Lentulus' description of Jesus features (straight nose, pink skin) you may agree that those are not semitic traits. I am a roman myself and incidentally a roman catholic. I do not like the Roman Catholic church . It has nothing to do with the original message of Jesus Christ. It was Paul(who never met Jesus and, by the way, hated women)who made up the whole thing, mediating the passional jewish religious attitude with the rational Greek culture. In the year 313 A.D., in Nicea,Constantine The Great, the Roman Emperor,incorporated pagan cults and believes in the early christian religion, in an efford to make a common religion throughout the Roman Empire. That was a big effort. Can you imagine to be able, nowadays, to do the same thing? Finding a common ground between Jewish and Muslims? I don't speak about Buddist and Induists, because they are not fundamentalists, they are very tolerant. But orthodox Jewish and Muslims are not. They are passionate and they make problems: 2000 years ago, the situation was pretty much like today. Helen, Constantine mother, was a follower of Jesus. She was the mind behind the scenes. Anyhow,the basics of the Roman Catholic church were set, and Christianity was decleared the official religion of the Roman Empire. Only....This common religion was the syncrethysm of many beliefs. Resurrection? Coming from Mitraic Cult, related with death and rebirth of nature.Pagan cults. (We may should reconsider what "pagan" means) Dec.25th is the winter solstice, birthdate of Mitra. The iconography of the Vergin Mary and her Son is related to the Egyptian Goddess Isis and Horus. Costantine did a great job. At least, he tried. While his mother was a christian, he didn't give up, till the last moment.
He accepted to become a christian at the very last moment, and his last words were: " I hope I'm not making a mistake". I personally do not agree with the Roman Catholic Curch in many issues. Dogmas: why should I accept dogmas? Why should I accept the dogma that the Pope is infallible? They condemned Galileo for heresy, and Galileo was right. The Roman Catholic Church apologized years ago. This is ridicolous. They are not infallible. They made a lot of mistakes, they exterminated p And this brings me back to the Tomb of Jesus. I do really hope this is the Tomb of Jesus. He was a beautiful person, a great teacher. To me, the idea that we found his bones is wonderful and moving. I don't care about Catholic Curch. Catholic Church is a business. But if I only knew that Jesus's bones are found, I should be so happy... I'd think that he is here with us. And I think that we really need him. To be with us. Flash and bones. With us.
Just a couple of things- 1) Paul did not hate women, If you are referring to his statments about "women being submissive to their husbands" - read those statements in the context of the whole passage. He first tell the church to submit to each other. Also, when he tells wives to submit to their husbands, he also tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loves his church (a pretty tall order). The implication is that a marriage should resemble our relationship with Christ. If it is unfair for a wife to submit to her husband, is it also unfair for the man to love his wife to the point of sacrificing himself for her? The wife submits to the husband, the husband submits to Christ, and Christ submits to the Father - it should not be that offensive a concept, unless we also have a problem with submitting to Christ or the Father - then the whole thing goes downhill fast. -If you are referring to Pauls statements about women not being allowed to have authority over men, he explains his statement the same way Jesus did when discussung divorce with the pharisees - he went back to Genesis, to the creation, and pointed out what God originally instituted. In Genesis 2:18 GOd says he is going to make a "helper" for Adam (not a "competitor"), again, in the recounting in Genesis 3:20 it says there was not a "suitable helper" (again, "helper", not "competitor") for Adam, so Eve was created. This is what Paul uses to support his staments about the roles of men and women - he is not implying any inherent superiority or inferiority in men or women, only that men were given a certain role and women were given a different role by GOD. As a side note, however, I think much of the difficulty in this area can be traced back to Genesis 3:16 where God tells Adam and Eve the consequences of "the fall" and of sin entering the world. One of the "curses" mentioned to Eve ("Yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you".) has been explained this way - the woman's temptation will be to usurp the man's authority, and the man's temptation will be to abuse his authority ("lording it over the woman" - so to speak). Many men would prefer to be "passive" and let their wives be in charge - but that is not the role GOD intends for them. Likewise, many women would prefer to have their husbands "get out of the way, and let them be in charge" - but that is not the role GOD intended for them. If we have a problem with the male/female roles instituted in the Bible, maybe our problem lies with GOD? 2) It did not take Constantine to get the church to mix other religions with their practices, etc. - we do a good enough job of that all on our own. Read the history of the Israelites in the Old Testament - they were constantly "playing the adulteress" (as GOD would say) by mixing other religions in with the practices GOD set up for them to follow. Paul (as well as other apostles) actually warned the believers NOT to get mixed up in other religions or "different gospels", but some of the churches, I'm sure did just what many Christian believers and churches still do to this day - we want to "fit in with the rest of the world", because "If we're going to reach this world, we have to go where they go and do what they do or they won't think we're cool or they won't listen to us."; or we're so Biblically illiterate that we don't know enough to "search the scriptures daily" as the Bereans did, to see if things we hear are true according to the scriptures, and so we let all kinds of strange doctrine and teaching into the church and if we're not carefull, we will end up no better than the Roman Catholic Church (with a mixture of true scripture,superstition and manmade fables/traditions).
Ahhh Im not any of the involved.... but before I saw the documentary, I got the book, as I was awre that all the information could not be fit into 2 hours including commercials.
OK here it goes, to answer your question. The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation and the Evidence That Could Change History. Jacobivici & Pellegrino February 2007 Harper San Francisco ISBN 9780061192029
Page 23, First full paragraph of the page..
Date sometime between Good Friday and Easter Sunday, 1980
"By the time Rivka Maoz entered the red chamber, one ossuary had gone missing, and nine surviving ossuaries were stored in one of the IAA's suburban warehouses. The three skulls from the main chamber, the bones from the antechamber, and all the skulls and bones from the inside the ossuaries, including any loose fragments from the "Jesus, son of Joseph" ossuary, were poured out and set aside for temporary study. According to an understanding between the archaeologists and the rabis, the bones would eventually be turned over to the religious authorities for reburial. There were several large graves reserved locally for the purpose of "respectfully reinterment of ancient human remains"
Very well put ciberxsa, I am in the boat with you. One thing that seems ironic to me is how the burden of proof is on people like us, instead of on the fanatical Christians. They can not prove any of the extreme stories involving Christ (yes a great man) but insist that we disprove them completely. I am sorry, but that is just not the way it should work. I do understand that religious beliefs are a necessity for some types of people; I just wish they could be more focused in each other rather than in myths and "inherited" beliefs as the Lawyer/Priest kept referring. (sometimes our forefathers made mistakes) The world is not flat, nor is it the center of the universe, Peanuts and tomatoes are not poison, and Christ did what he did because he believed God was coming to free his people. All of the modern Religions are Businesses, run by small men with large appetites for Power. By the way I was raised a Mormon! LOL
First, let me make it clear that I do not lump Dr. Tabor in with the "film-makers".
My point about the name "Matthew" being left out of the calculations was this -
It was stated by the narrator that the name "Matthew" was left out of the calcualtions because it did not fit the family genealogy of neither Joseph, nor Mary.
This is a manipulation of the facts to support Jacobovici's conclusion.
The fact is, that name appeared on one of the ossuaries, and cannot be denied because it doesn't fit with his conclusion that this is the family tomb of Jesus Christ.
I personally do not believe that Jesus' body PHYSICALLY ascended into Heaven. I've not read anything in the Bible that would make me believe this.
To find Jesus' remains should be a blessing to Christians - proof that he indeed did exist. I was born into Christianity, but never really understood that the religion was based on the resurrection. As a child, I always thought the religion was based on Jesus' teachings, and that he was willing to die for what he believed in.
I don't however believe that Jacobovici has "discovered" what he thinks he has. Time will tell, but his motives are questionable.
His re-enactments were not an accurate interpretation of the "facts" he has uncovered, nor were they even imaginative.
In my opinion, his enthusiasm is fueled by the success of Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code".
dkh2007 - "One thing that seems ironic to me is how the burden of proof is on people like us, instead of on the fanatical Christians."
When one tries to present EVIDENCE to counter the beliefs of millions of Christians . . . yes, I am afraid the burden of proof is on you.
mathias1 - "To find Jesus' remains should be a blessing to Christians - proof that he indeed did exist."
I don't think anyone denies the existence of Jesus. He is written about in many, many different texts and religions. What is debated is whether or not he was; The Son of God, a Prophet or just a regular guy with a really, really good schtick.
The issues I found with the theories presented in the documentary (I found it interesting - but loaded with supposition and "what ifs"):
Out of ten ossuaries in the tomb - six had name inscriptions when originally discovered, of them, only four can be directly linked to the Jesus of Nazareth familial line (Mara Miriamne and Matthew do not belong).
The 'missing' ossuary is supposedly the famous (now infamous and possibly a fraud) James, Brother of Jesus. How'd they make that leap? Well, that bone box was purchased from a dealer at approx the same time (within a year ir so) as the others were discovered and a patina test showed a very close match (nearly exact I'd say) to the patina on a Jesus tomb box. Issue #1 is the James box 'may have been' purchased in 1979 (before the Jesus tomb was uncovered). #2 is the patina test was done on other ossuaries that were in storage, not to another known tomb near the Jesus tomb location. The James box could have come from the Jesus tomb . . or another close by.
The inscriptions themselves - the burial custom was to indicate the father (ie. Jesus, son of Joseph and Judas, son of Jesus) - not the brother, sister, cousin, etc.. I find it odd to see inscriptions like: James, brother of Jesus or Jose, brother of Jesus.
The inscriptions - If this were indeed the J.O.N. ossuary - I find it odd that it would have been placed/inscribed by His desciples in such a plain way. This was the Son of God . . . God himself that came to walk with us in the flesh, why was crucified, died and rose again! To see that plain 'ole chicken scratch just struck me as odd (given another in the tomb was much more ornate). I know, the arguement is the fear of persecution. If that is the case, and it was done to keep a 'low profile' - why was the entrance to the tomb emblazoned with that symbol? Most tombs have no such symbology.
Mara Miriamne - oh brother, what a leap this was. Good grief, talk about finding a way to make a square peg fit in a round hole (even Oliver Stone would be proud). First off, Mary Magdalene was never referred to in the Bible as Miriamne. Not once. So, what to do? Find the Gnostic writings of Phillip. Yes, Miriamne is there . . . but never (not once) is Miriamne referred to as being Mary Magdalane. Don't take my word for it - read it. Then - they translate Miriamne in Greek (Mary) and the translate Mara in Aramaic (Master). They come up with Mary the Master . . . and then suppose that must mean Mary Magdalane! I've read that Mara actually transates to "Bitter" but have not confirmed that myself.
DNA testing - I found it odd that they went to the lengths they did to tie Jesus to Miriamne, but not to take the more important step to tie Jesus to the Virgin Mary. Oh yea, Mary's ossuary was clean as a whistle . . . yet, the box of Jesus, Son of Joseph (and Miriamne) had plenty of DNA to test (even bone fragments). How about doing tests on the Judas, son of Jesus DNA? Oh yea, the film-maker said he is not a scientist and felt he did enough testing for the documentary (but hopes someone does more).
Carbon Dating - Was this done? If not, should have been. Someone on these boards seemed to think that Carbon Dating was a given . . . I don't think anything of this magnitude should be a 'given'. I also understand that Carbon Dating is not very accurate (usually within one to two hundered years). However, I'd prefer to know that these boxes were from the first century and not the twentieth century. Kinda reminds me of a sign I saw while travelling in Maine a fews years back: "Antique Rocking Chairs made daily".
I am going too long. There are other issues I had; dramatizations, inaccurate Bible quotations, the fact that no one tought to write down the inscription found within the tomb, the fact the IAA member insisted they close up the site immediately (as if the Israelis would not love to prove Jesus was just a prophet), when Jacobivich was in the tomb another member of his crew joined him - there was a shot of him picking up a skull . . . was this for dramatic purposes - or was there still a skull in the tomb?, "throwing out" Matthew from the statistical portion because he was not a known member of the J.O.N. family lineage (whoa, you're just going to throw him out - why not explain why he is there at all?), etc.
This was a family tomb all right . . . but not THE family tomb Jacobivich (and no doubt others) hoped.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: strider111,
jim, Folk in these threads seem to forget they are supposed to address you instead of each other. I guess chat room mentality is de rigeur these days, but not intellectually appropariate.
Here's my take on the serious problems, I see no hassle for a practical joker to set up a hoax here. Anybody can rummage around innumerable tombs in Jerusalem, pluck out requisite named ossuaries with some bones in them and dump them in a spiffy tomb waiting for a 'discoveery' ala hollywood. DNA is a legalistic device for the prosecution, check out the O.J trial with all of its hi-tech DNA stuff, what was the result of all that?- zilch. DNA is used medically to treat diseases, which Cameron didn't do. If Cameron wanted to prosecute the killers he's 2,000 years to late for litigation, the crime scene is contaminated.
If Cameron wanted the original tomb all he had to do is go the basilica where its located, you know that. The opening on the film with its old, tired, worn out, used and abused gnostic mantra of the apostles did a grab and run job, is more hollywood shtick, you know that.
The nit picky, spin yer wheels in the sand go no-where distractions of gnostic theory passed off as explanations for trivia revolving biblic quotes, dates of occurrences is just that gnostic spin, you know that.
Extraneous trivia about Paul being a misogynist, have any of these posters seen Joan Rivers in action what she says about her own mother, yiddish humor would not exist if it could not pillory jewish mothers, I can give you a long list of websites full of them, you know that Jim.
Jim, you know the Rabbinate ain't zakly too happy about the effects this Cameron dog and pony show is having in Israel. It supports a growing Jews for Jesus movement there. They have a homegrown Messianic fervor clamoring for a 3rd Temple, you know that. You know only too well any positive proof of Jesus' remnants will start a renewed wave of a backlash for Israel. I can understand why the Rabbinate are being very restrictive.
jakeabf - "jim, Folk in these threads seem to forget they are supposed to address you instead of each other. I guess chat room mentality is de rigeur these days, but not intellectually appropariate."
Oops. You are correct jakeabf. I suppose we have all digressed to "chat room mentality" because Dr. Tabor is no longer responding to questions.
This forum is also supposed to be "reserved for QUESTIONS to Dr. Tabor." I did not see one in your post. Correct spelling and punctuation is appreciated as well. Just sayin' smart guy
Jim, I will address another issue for the benefit of gnostics following these threads, it has to do with why Jesus came to earth to suffer on our behalf before He returned to heaven, body and soul. I will give the gnostic crowd something cognitive to chew on in that regard.
In biology and medicine there is a concept called the obligate parasite, its what fungi, viri(plural of virus), cancer do to exist. They are totally dependent on a stronger, viable organism to survive. I see a direct connection here to what gnosticism has done for 2,000 years. There isn't a single nation comprised solely of gnostics even though they had 2,000 years to establish one.
Jesus came to earth to redeem sinners of a deadly spiritual cancer due to apostasy from the original sin passed down to generations that followed, so they can be cleansed and be able to come to heaven. Gnostics after 2,000 years have yet to produce a super-duper cancer cleaner for anybody. They can gainsay all they want, its positive results folk want, not hysterical rantings that don't help anybody attain the level of sanctity required to achieve heaven. Once gnostics can demonstrate they are cancer healers and not a source of being a cancer can they happily co-exist with those strong, self-sustaining Christian believers who have no need for gnosticism to attain eternal bliss with Jesus
