Name:sadinoel •
Title: Debunking the "Jesus Tomb" •
Date posted: 04/26/07 17:36
Q: Please visit Dr. Joe Zias' website for complete unbiased information on this supposed "discovery".
Also note the photo of Simcha standing on ancient writings and ritual objects. Nice.
http://joezias.com/tomb.html
www.joezias.com
Name:JohnD •
Date: 04/26/07 18:54
A: Old info with the same "its not the tomb because we the experts say so" .Hardly "debunked".
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/27/07 9:45
A: The Hebrews believe in the buriel of the Bible when the books get old.The Talpiot tomb was used for that purpose after the ossuaries were removed in 1980.
Name:Xcavate •
Date: 04/27/07 10:56
A: Open Minded scholars dont debunk claims in a day or 2 as Joe has. This research will go on for years to come. No conclusions should be drawn at this point until they have undergone serious peer review. Just my opinion. Thanks
Jerusalem Post staff, THE JERUSALEM POST
Apr. 24, 2007
The director of the Lost Tomb of Jesus documentary, which claims that Jesus of Nazareth and his family were laid to rest in a burial tomb in what is today the Jerusalem neighborhood of East Talpiot, has rejected claims that scholars who were interviewed in the film have now backtracked and revised their conclusions.
“Not a single scholar that appears in the film has backtracked on any statement made in the film,” the Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici stated in an e-mail to The Jerusalem Post. “Not a single scholar has retracted a single word.”
Jacobovici was responding to an article that appeared in the Post of April 11, which stated that several scholars who had featured in the film had backtracked and were now stepping away from the filmmakers’ “Jesus and family were buried here” theory. The article cited a paper entitled “Cracks in the Foundation: How the Lost Tomb of Jesus is losing its scholarly support” compiled by epigrapher Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem.
Jacobovici, who could not be reached for comment in the original April 11 article, rejected the assertion that the University of Toronto statistician Prof. Andrey Feuerverger, who claims in the film that the odds are 600:1 in favor of the tomb being the family burial cave of Jesus of Nazareth, has now undergone a “startling change of opinion.” “What is ’startling’ about this statement,” said Jacobovici, “is that it’s completely false.”
Feuerverger is not giving interviews, but Jacobovici quoted from an e-mail he received from Feuerverger in response to the article, in which the statistician states: “I would like to make it clear that I stand by the statements I had made in my probability calculations. I have retracted nothing.” Jacobovici added that Feuerverger was continuing “to refine his calculations in preparation of a scholarly paper destined for publication in a scholarly journal.”
Changes cited in the April 11 article that have been made on the Web site of the Discovery Channel, which broadcast the documentary, relating to Feuerverger’s conclusions, said Jacobovici, reflect those refinements. “As he refines his language, Discovery Channel refines its Web site language on the statistics. So what? The bottom line is that Feuerverger does not ‘backtrack’ on any statement made in the film, nor on the 600 to one probability presented in the film,” insisted Jacobovici.
Relating to the critique that Israeli archeologists have called the similarity between the names in the Talpiot tomb and the Jesus family “coincidental,” Jacobovici noted that several prominent experts were given the opportunity to level precisely this objection in the film itself and did so. But “the fact is that the cluster of names found in the Talpiot tomb is not only rare, it is unique,” said the filmmaker. “The fact is that in 100 years of Jerusalem archeology, only one ‘Jesus, son of Joseph’ ossuary has ever been found in situ. Only one other [such ossuary] emerged unprovenanced in a warehouse.” Similarly, there is only one ossuary inscribed “Yose,” said by the filmmakers to relate to one of Jesus’s brothers, and “even the so-called Mary ossuaries are extremely rare,” said Jacobovici.
Jacobovici also stated that reservations raised by other experts in the Pfann paper and the subsequent Post article relate to matters outside their field of expertise. For instance, epigrapher Prof. Frank Moore Cross has said that he is not persuaded by the statistics. But, noted Jacobovici, “Cross is not a statistician. I respect him as a scholar but I would never turn to him for an opinion on statistics. I went to him to confirm the reading of the inscriptions.”
In similar vein, the dismissal of aspects of the Jesus family theory by DNA scientist Dr. Carney Matheson, who supervised DNA testing carried out for the film from the supposed Jesus and Mary Magdalene ossuaries, is “nonsense,” according to Jacobovici, who noted that “Matheson, in my film, makes statements that are limited to his expertise in DNA.” And in that specific area, “he hasn’t retracted a single word.”
Jacobovici also countered the assertion that Prof. Francois Bovon - who is quoted in the film as saying that “Mariamene” is the name given in the Acts of Philip to Mary Magdalene, and that she is differentiated from the mother of Jesus who is called “Maria” - has changed his mind. “All that has happened is that Prof. Bovon now states that his references to Mary Magdalene’s name being ‘Mariamene’ have to do with a literary tradition, not a historical one,” said Jacobovici. “But that’s all we asked him.”
Jacobovici also noted that Pfann challenges the reading of the “Mariamene” inscription, and stated that “It’s good for scholars to give various opinions. That’s what scholarly debate is all about… But the fact is that Pfann is not an expert on Greek inscriptions. The inscription in question has been categorically identified as ‘Mariamene’ by Dr. Rahmani in the IAA official catalogue of ossuaries.”
One scholar who has been skeptical all along about the “Jesus family tomb” claims is Dr. Shimon Gibson, who was one of the original team that worked at the tomb when it was first discovered in 1980, appears in the film and sat on Jacobovici’s panel when the documentary was launched at a New York press conference in February.
In a recent e-mail to Jacobovici, Gibson states that: “My professional assessment of the facts available about this tomb, based on having dug there, and on some 30 years of experience studying Second Temple tombs around Jerusalem, is that the Talpiot Tomb is not the Jesus family tomb.” Gibson adds that, “At the moment, I think the facts stack up against the Talpiot tomb being the family tomb of Jesus. But the filmmakers do have a right to do their investigative journalism, and we, as scholars, must now check out their claims and make balanced arguments for or against the ideas, as the case may be.”
Jacobovici said that this does not represent backtracking, since “Gibson never says it is the tomb of Jesus in the film. I never quote Gibson saying anything about the probability that this is the tomb of Jesus.”
Meanwhile, Jacobovici added, an attempt by certain “religious groups” to block a screening of the film in Chile next week on Discovery Latin America has been thrown out by the local courts.
Name:sadinoel •
Date: 04/27/07 11:03
A: Simcha's experts were only allowed to operate within the confines and limited data that was provided to them. Thus, though their statements are valid when isolated, they do not support that this is actually Jesus' tomb.
When we say his experts are backtracking, we don't mean they had invalid data. We mean that they are distancing themselves from Simcha because of the way he presented the data in a misleading way.
It's not rocket science to see this.
Name:OneGod •
Date: 04/27/07 14:28
A: Nobody is backtracking at all. What we do have is a lot of misinformation. Its a smear campaign by a few websites. We don't have any new "credible" info that debunks the film at all.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/27/07 20:17
A: Or the book.
Name:JMD •
Date: 04/28/07 0:38
A: This theory is far too complex, so how can anyone right off the bat simply write it off as 100 per cent false? I've already read many of the debunkers from day one and I find that their arguments are weak, compared to what is presented in the documentary and book. But of course the immediate disputers would present weak arguments because these so-called experts have not done the proper research and studying and thinking on this that they should be doing.
And what about the other research to be done yet? -the unexplored tomb next door, the writings on the walls of the Talpiot tomb, things like that. So how can one write it off, when there is still work to be done?
We should await serious peer reviews as Xcavate has wisely noted. Those will take time; can't do that in a day or two, nor even a month or two. [and thanks Xcavate for posting the Jerusalem Post article; I would have done so myself, but you beat me to it.]
sardinoel is just following the lead of the other knee-jerks; and of course, when they have to stoop to personal insults, which a lot of them do, [as sardinoel has done elsewhere], it just shows how unprofessional and immature they are - so insecure and unsure of their argument, that they thus have to attack the person, and not the argument itself.
Whether you lean towards no or yes, or I don't know, with this theory, one should keep an open mind. I'd really like to know what Dr. Gibson has to say as he's studied the Talpiot tomb for some time? If he claims the facts stack up against this Jesus tomb theory, where are they? More details, anaylsis, information, please. However, Gibson is also himself keeping an open mind.
sadinoel notes:
"Simcha's experts were only allowed to operate within the confines and limited data that was provided to them. Thus, though their statements are valid when isolated, they do not support that this is actually Jesus' tomb.
When we say his experts are backtracking, we don't mean they had invalid data. We mean that they are distancing themselves from Simcha because of the way he presented the data in a misleading way."
How is the data misleading? It isn't. If you want to get an objective test result, it is best to 'not' tell the DNA experts about just whose DNA this is. If they'd known ahead of time, that this was DNA for Yeshua and Mariamene from the Talpiot tomb, how can we be sure they'd give honest and unbiased and objective results? -we can't be sure, if we tell them beforehand.
Some like to claim it proves nothing, just because there isn't a maternal match between Mariamene and Yeshua. That isn't true in this instance! As James Tabor the Just and Wise, noted on his blog:
"..as I have often pointed out, since Jesus had three “intimate” Marys in his life, his mother, his sister, and Mary Magdalene, in this case, getting “absolutely nothing” in terms of a maternal match between Yeshua and Mariamene does indeed turn out to be quite significant for overall possibilities of interpretation."
Also per Tabor, from his blog:
"... it is ludicrous to fault Jacobovici, who is neither archaeologist, epigrapher, statistician, DNA expert, nor historian for consulting with those experts considered among the best in each of these areas, presenting the results of their work, and then making use of that data in formulating his own presentation. In the same way, if I consult a lexicon or translation of an ancient work from a language in which I am not trained, even as a scholar and an historian, by using such a source, I am not implying the editors of these works somehow agree with some historically reconstructed model that I might construct, based on such linguistic evidence."
Thus, it doesn't matter if any of the scholars in this documentary accept this theory or not; Simcha is not asking them to. He needed their expertise in various areas, and, that's what he received, which he then strung all together, along with all his other goods about the Talpiot Tomb, and presented his theory/findings. In my opinion, it's a very good initial presentation, and so far the opposing arguments are weak, so until it can be proven to 'not' be the Jesus Family Tomb, I accept that it is.
So, let the games begin, let the 'serious' scholars, who are truly intelligent, take their time and study this, [I can wait. I'm patient.] and later on, present their viewpoints.
Do you think certain religious groups are behind this smear campaign? As OneGod had noted: "Its a smear campaign by a few websites."
As noted from the above posted Jerusalem Post article:
"Meanwhile, Jacobovici added, an attempt by certain “religious groups” to block a screening of the film in Chile next week on Discovery Latin America has been thrown out by the local courts."
Glad they lost on that one - but it shows how some "religious groups" will do whatever they can to stop people from seeing/reading what they don't approve of, as they like to do the thinking for others. And I wouldn't put it past some of these "groups" to pay people to dispute these findings. Always question authority, as they are at times up to no good.
One of the immediate debunkers, who thus lacks in the critical thinking department, was Jodi Magness, who of course does not admit to any bias, but it shows in what she writes, on the SBL site.
Magness doesn't even know the proper spelling of Talpiot, so how much research and thinking and paying attention to this did she really do? Precious little, if she spells Talpiot as "Talpiyot" several times in her article! "Why" does she add a "y" to Talpiot!?:
"I explain why the Talpiyot tomb"... "the names on the ossuaries in the Talpiyot tomb" ... "If the Talpiyot tomb is indeed" ... "The identification of the Talpiyot tomb" ... "the case for the identification of the Talpiyot tomb" ... "To conclude, the identification of the Talpiyot tomb"
Sadinoel: "Please visit Dr. Joe Zias' website for complete unbiased information on this supposed "discovery".
Way far better than Zias' website, please visit Dr. James Tabor's very informative and far more detailed and objective/rational blog than many other Internet sites out there, to discover the unbiased information on this Jesus Family Tomb discovery/theory. In alliterative fashion:
Talpiot Tomb Theory: Tabor Tells The Truth - Travel Through There Today, Tonight, Tomorrow!
TaTa!,
:-JMD
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/28/07 10:25
A: It's diffucult for some of the religious groups to accept because one of the main beliefs is physical ressurrection.And the Talpiot tomb proves there where bodies buried there in ossuaries marked with a cluster of names found in the New Testament.If it were changed to Spiritual Ressurection I think they would be able to accept the facts easier.It's very diffucult to change a religious view when it's been expounded and believed for centuries.It can psychologically rock a person right to the core with the impact.Facts are facts and the evidence is present.The only thing tampered with was the original grain of Truth.It also means that someone many centuries ago set the twist of facts in motion and lead people blindly for their own gain.Is this what they mean by blind faith?No questions asked!!!--or was it all political?
Name:Ladyhawk •
Date: 04/28/07 21:11
A: Hi, new person here. I've been reading along for a few weeks and thought maybe I would join in.
The speed with which most of this ecclesiastical scoffing is coming is not indicative of thoughtful assessment or respect for scientific enquiry; it is much in the nature of Pavlovian response. Christians trained to distrust science, and further to repudiate any and all ideas or events that do not precisely fit the parameters of their particular religious experience are prone to this sort of thing. Still, we have seen what happens when dogma is preserved at the cost of demonstrable truth. Galileo comes to mind (and lest we forget, he was right, the Church was wrong, and life and faith went on anyway). Inevitably faced with the truth, the Church in the end accommodated the martyred heretic, but not before realizing its credibility was compromised by its ridiculously narrow focus.
What I find most fascinating about these apologists in how they righteously diminish the greatness of God by confining him to a framework of thought that is hopelessly unimaginative and in no way a mirror of the Divine. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,” says Hamlet in Shakespeare’s play, “than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Surely the infinite God of an infinite universe could have handled the resurrection in ways that might still, to this day, escape our understanding; is our faith so small that we cannot imagine such a thing? It seems to me there is too much defending of the faith and not enough living it; and in truth, we have no faith if we imagine our God needs defending in petty ways, or if we fear to subject our own beliefs to the challenges of scientific and/or historical evidence.
For my part, I found the book enthralling, the argument careful and logical, and the people involved to be respectful, conscientious and principled. Further, and quite unexpectedly, I found my faith absolutely galvanized by the thought of this historical Jesus and his wife and their child. I thoroughly enjoyed the science and the supposition (as in the case of the Beloved Disciple) and I in no way feel my faith has been battered.
I so appreciate those of you here who are open to the idea that there is a common germ of truth in all our spiritual experiences, regardless of form and philosophy. Here is the truth and the way, I think!
Name:JMD •
Date: 04/29/07 22:24
A: Hello Ladyhawk, and welcome. I quite enjoyed reading your thoughtful post. You are a person of strong faith, I can see that, and speak words of wisdom and intelligence. We certainly need more people like you on board !
Panluna - I think it's more than just the physical resurrection which makes it difficult for some (whether religious groups, or individuals).
Some are disgusted with the thought of Jesus being married, and having a child. Why? Well, there's been so much damage done, due to all the guilt and shame surrounding sex, that some Christians are horrified at just the thought of Jesus having sex -they think of Jesus as 'sinless', and to them, having sex, means 'sin' even if married. Very sad, isn't it?
And of course the title "Mary known as the Master" does not sit well with those who view women as secondary - it 'could' mean letting women in, as equals, in the church -allowed to be ministers/priests in all churches. Also, you couldn't demand celibacy of priests, could you, if Jesus was married? Isn't that what they like to claim - that priests have to be celibate, since Jesus was? So this theory could shake things up quite a bit - but in a positive way, I think.
I was earlier reading the 'top twenty fictions', "The Talpiot Tomb: Separating Truth from Fiction", from James Tabor's blog, and he's almost got the list complete; he added more today - he just has the last few to do. And one thing I read, which I found quite interesting is this:
"In Jewish culture males in general were expected to be married, and rabbis, teachers, or leaders of communities even more so. Evidence for the selective celibacy that Josephus claims for the Essenes is completely lacking in the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves. They rather reflect a normal Jewish understanding of marriage as a fulfillment of the very first commandment of the Torah: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” This mitzvah was considered both an honor and a duty. The only clear pre-70 CE Christian evidence we have of celibacy is Paul’s advice to his followers in 1 Corinthians 7. He is quite anxious in this chapter to appeal to Jesus to back up his arguments, for example, in the case of prohibiting divorce (v. 10). But when he recommends celibacy he only refers to himself, not to “the Lord” (cf. v. 25). I think this is pretty strong evidence that he knows Jesus was married. Otherwise Paul would have surely used Jesus as his main example for his case for celibacy, just as he uses himself. Evidence of this type from Paul’s own hand, when he is actually addressing the subject of marriage and celibacy is quite decisive I think, though it had not occurred to me until I began to factor in the evidence that the Talpiot tomb might have been that of Jesus and his family."
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/29/07 22:38
A: Thank you ,Ladyhawk.I agree with you.I felt the book was very informative and I've said all along he had a family.Originally I believed the Grail legends and they are still fun to read.But there is a possibility that Joseph of Arimethia may have brought more than a cup to Europe.It's a shame that the early church founders did not stick with the truth but maybe they weren't told the story clear enough and hear-say can change the facts and so can power.
Name:betty47 •
Date: 04/29/07 23:27
A: The only clear pre-70 CE Christian evidence we have of celibacy is Paul’s advice to his followers in 1 Corinthians 7. He is quite anxious in this chapter to appeal to Jesus to back up his arguments, for example, in the case of prohibiting divorce (v. 10). But when he recommends celibacy he only refers to himself, not to “the Lord” (cf. v. 25). I think this is pretty strong evidence that he knows Jesus was married. Otherwise Paul would have surely used Jesus as his main example for his case for celibacy, just as he uses himself. Evidence of this type from Paul’s own hand, when he is actually addressing the subject of marriage and celibacy is quite decisive I think, though it had not occurred to me until I began to factor in the evidence that the Talpiot tomb might have been that of Jesus and his family."
I totally agree with this. St Paul changed a lot around from what the historical Jesus probably was. Ever know a Jewish mother today who doesn't want to see their son married with children. Such a Jewish mother hardly exists, and probably didn't exist in Jesus time either.
There is increasing comments on the internet that St. Paul was a homosexual. I wonder if any of this is true and if it influenced his thoughts on Jesus. Any comments from open minded scholars on this side of St. Paul?
Name:JohnD •
Date: 04/30/07 9:11
A: Good post Betty. Look at 2John verse 1-who is the chosen lady? A lot of "scholars" will say she is the church. I believe differently. Read at the end of the chapter- 2John verse 13 "the children of your chosen sister".If the chosen lady is the church then who is the church's sister and her kids-that doesn't add up. I believe the chosen lady was Mariamene. I think her son was killed/died and the other kid(s) were kept in hiding due to persecution.I may be quite wrong-it has happened many times before. Anyone who says this is 100% without a doubt not the tomb is only fooling themselves.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/30/07 11:13
A: Was Paul Greek or Jewish?
Name:CanuckChick •
Date: 04/30/07 11:37
A: Paul was in Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin.
Philippians 3:5: "circumcised the eighth day, out of the family stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born from Hebrews; as respects law, a Pharisee;"
Name:betty47 •
Date: 04/30/07 16:52
A: He was Jewish and a rabbi, but he moved easily in Greek circles, and spoke Greek. He at first was against the Christians, and then converted, and was very against anything Jewish. Converts to a religion tend to be devoted and Paul was. He was able to move in Greek circles easily and set about converting the Greek/Roman world to Christ which he was successful in doing. His teachings don't always agree with James, Jesus brother, but some of the scholars on this site don't agree with me on that point. Please correct me someone if I'm wrong.
