Replies

Where to begin...

Well, looking at the Discovery Channel website's treatment of this "finding," it is clear that we're not dealing with a scholarly understanding of the issues. Just for starters, they say that the Herodian Period was from "1 B.C. to 1 A.D." Uh, guys, that's only a maximum of two years! And then there's this bombshell of a revelation, delivered to breathless listeners by one Jodi Magness, associate department chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina: "Jesus likely lived during the first century A.D." Do tell! And this pronouncement is, according to the Discovery Channel's take on Ms. Magness' rare powers of discernment, "based on the New Testament writings." No way!!!???

Clearly, we're dealing with purveyors of junk science here who will swallow just about anything their vapid minds think will enhance their ratings. So, enough about the cable channel airing this tripe, what about the tripe itself?

How can DNA extracted from the remains in the ossifies "prove" that the remains are Jesus of Nazareth and His family? To prove such a thing, one needs to have a sample from a known, undisputed member of His family. Do we know of any such person living today? No. Do we know of any such person who died after Jesus' time on earth? No. Therefore, it is simply ridiculous to make the claim that the DNA samples can be identified with Jesus Christ and His kin, real or putative. The best the DNA can do is prove that these people were of Palestinian Jewish lineage. But we already *know* that from the site of the burial (Jerusalem) and the obviously Jewish names found inscribed - Jesus (Yeshua), Mary (Miriam), Matia (Matthew), Yousef (Joseph), and Judah. These were, moreover, very common names for the place and time, sort of like finding a family plot in the US with names like John, William, Mary, Joseph and Robert. So what?

But the explanation given for the sixth name is a real mind bender. The claim is made that the sixth ossuary contains the remains of Mary Magdalene (of course!). Does the ossuary have that name inscribed on it? No. It says "Mariamene e Mara" in Greek (btw: all of the others are written in Aramaic or Hebrew), which is translated as "Mary known as the master." The Discovery Channel quotes Francois Bovon, professor of the history of religion at Harvard as saying "Mariamene, or Mariamne, probably was the actual name given to Mary Magdalene." Citations, please, professor! His only "evidence" is that the apocryphal text "Acts of Philip" mentions the Apostle Philip's alleged sister Mariamne, so, naturally, he presumes this *must* be Mary Magdalene! Honestly, that appears to be the only connection!

So we have somebody named Yeshua presumed to be the spouse of someone named Mariamne who seem to have had a son named Judah. GOTTA be *that* Jesus, right? Well, who are the Matthew and Mary mentioned? Well, they must be more kids of Jesus and Magdalene, or maybe their brother and sister, or...something. Who knows? But since we have a Yeshua and someone else who is implausibly contorted into Mary Magdalene, EVERYTHING else "logically" falls into place.

Well, what about this Joseph they found? Hmmm. There's good Scriptural evidence that Joseph died before Jesus' ministry, since he never apes in His public life and Mary was entrusted to the Apostle John at the cross. That would mean that he was almost certainly buried in Nazareth, and, as a carpenter (not exactly a lucrative occupation at the time) he was probably buried very simply in Nazareth. He most certainly would not have been disinterest and relocated to Journalism due to an aversion to such relocation practices. He definitely wouldn't have been relocated by Christians who, between the crucifixion and the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, would never have had the nerve to flout the ever-watchful Jewish authorities in reburying the father of that hated "cult leader" Jesus of Nazareth! In a costly tomb built to contain costly ossuaries, presumably with much ceremony for passersby to notice! With Jesus *Himself* conveniently buried there for the authorities to present dead to the world!

Well, there's more, but I'm at work and I've gotta get going. James Cameron is "under the ban" from here on in my household!

Paragraph 3. "ossifies" = "ossuaries" Oops!

From http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/26/D8NHFDRG3.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.

/cut/

Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun."

Hanun? Who the heck is Hanun?

I saw the Cameron/Jacobovic program concerning the Exodus. It was very intriguing, but not being Jewish I don't know that it impacted the Jewish faith one way or the other. Even so, they seemed to take certain ill-advised intellectual leaps based on some pretty thin evidence.

I can think of a lot of possible explanations for this tomb. For instance it could be a 2nd or 3rd century re-creation by a local bishop, long forgotten (though it is interesting how little is forgotten in that part of the world).

James Cameron is "under the ban" from here on in my household!

Amen.

Good post.