Tomb of Jesus and Family Found?

[basemetal]

This ought to generate a bit of news and discussion worldwide:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000

An archeological verifiable in terms of provenance find.

[kerux]

Here is an early response from Prof Amos Kloner of the Israel Antiquities Authority - "It is just not possible that a family who came from Galilee, as the New Testament tells us of Joseph and Mary, would be buried over several generations in Jerusalem.”

I'm always leery of those trying to promote a book, movie or TV show...commercial gain is not the best motive for historical research.

Joe W.

[slokind]

I thought the new religion was supposed to free us from relic and funeral superstitions.  Is human foible really then insuperable?  Pat L.

[LordBest]

Discovery channel helped promote the James ossuary find several years ago, now generally regarded as a forgery amongst biblical archaeology experts. Now this tomb find is being linked to the James ossuary, by Discovery channel, I find this suspicious to say the least. The ossuaries themselves may well be authentic but it seems likely that the inscriptions are forged in the same manner as the one on the James ossuary. This is of course speculation and until more evidence is presented one way or the other I will maintain an open mind but the circumstances are very suspect.
                                                             LordBest.

[Retrospectator]

"The human remains were analyzed by Carney Matheson, a scientist at the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada. Mitochondrial DNA examination determined the individual in the Jesus ossuary and the person in the ossuary linked to Mary Magdalene were not related."

Since they are claiming that this tomb could be that of Jesus Christ and his family, then such an examination, based on existing physical remains, would appear to call into question the belief of Jesus' bodily resurrection. Is there any evidence yet that would link this tomb with Joseph of Arimethea? Or perhaps that would be asking too much. It looks interesting, but I have to admit that I am getting very, very cynical now about these kinds of programs, and there does seem to be a preoccupation now, particularly since the release of the fictitious "Da-Vinci Code," to try and find evidence of a so-called "royal bloodline". 

[Manzikert]

Hi

Very dubious in my opinion.

For instance, there seems to be no doubt that the 'James' ossuary is a genuine artefact of the 1st century BC/1st century AD, but the inscription is a forgery. Even if the analysis of the patina on the 'James' ossuary matches that on the new ossuaries (and quite why a Florida police laboratory [however competent they might be in forensic analysis] is chosen for this analysis rather than a mineralogical laboratory I don't know) all it proves is that the ossuaries are probably genuine, but it certainly doesn't prove the inscriptions genuine. The inscription on the 'James' ossuary had been carved *through* the patina, and was not *covered by* the patina as would be expected. Trying to revalidate the 'James' ossuary by suggesting 'there is a space for it in the tomb' makes me more sceptical rather than adding to any evidence for the authenticity of the other inscriptions.

Best wishes

Alan

[PeterD]

Frank Moore Cross, a professor emeritus in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, told Discovery News, "The inscriptions are from the Herodian Period (which occurred from around 1 B.C. to 1 A.D.). The use of limestone ossuaries and the varied script styles are characteristic of that time."

That narrows it down a bit!

There are already two "tombs of Jesus" in Jerusalem, why spoil the illusion? Oh I forgot, it helps with the advertising.

[Joe Sermarini]

The latest news had been that 'James' ossuary and the inscription are both genuine. 

[Heliodromus]

The latest news had been that 'James' ossuary and the inscription are both genuine. 

Is there a link that discusses the most recent analysis that comes to this conclusion?

As I recall it was micro fossils (not matching the ossuary itself) in the "patina" of the inscription that proved that this was a false patina, which seemed to be fairly conclusive that the inscription was fake/modern.

Ben

[LordBest]

The latest news had been that 'James' ossuary and the inscription are both genuine. 

It is still controversial, the IAA has not released its evidence for their conclusion that it is a modern forgery, while a leading expert in the field of geology, geochemistry and microbiology notes that as far as he can tell the patina in the inscription matches that of the rest of the box which the IAA claims is authentic, but that the patina could be as young as 50-100 years. It could also be far older. Unfortunately he also notes that photos of the ossuary in 2002 show a type of granular coating which may have been the remnants of an adhesive used to bond original patina to the inscription, but this was removed by the IAA as it was missing from photographs taken in 2005. Epigigraphical experts also point out many errors in the inscription itself, notably different styles of text in different parts of the inscription and concluded the inscription had been copied from guide books on ossuary inscriptions.
Given these types of problems it is usual to examine the provenance of the item to help establish the authenticity of the item, and unfortunately its provenance is unknown beyond that it was in the shop of a now notorious antiqtuities dealer under investigation along with two other men, one of which is an epigraphical expert and would have been quite capable of forging the inscription.

EDIT:
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_Krumbeinreport.pdf
Conclusion: "Our prelinary investigations cannot prove the authenticity of the three items beyond any doubt. Doubtless the patina is continuous in many places throughout the surface and lettering grooves in the case of ossuary and tablet".
 It is worth noting that Professor W. Krumbein is not an expert in antiquities. He seems to believe the patina in the inscription is the same as on the ossuary, which is authentic in the opinion of the IAA, but the IAA does not provide any evidence for its belief that the patina is authentic but the inscription is not so it is all rather murky.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chadwick_Indications.htm
2003 report concluding that the ossuary is a forgery.
Unfortunately I do not have access to the sources we used to debate this issue at an archaeolopgy seminar last October which were generally quite damning of the ossuary.
                                                                 LordBest.

[Salem Alshdaifat]

I agree that this news is tooo big to be true, because if this is true that will change two relagines ( Christianaty, and Islam !!!!!)

according to the Bible, Jesus woke from his death and get out of the tomb and raised to God body and soul.

according to Islam Jesus was never at the cross since God love him and didnt want him to have the pain and he make Judah look like him so The Jews and Romans put Judah at the cross instead of Jesus, and God raised him with Soul and body to heavens to send him back in the final days of mankind.
so according to these two relagions Jesus body and soul was raised to God.
I wont say any thing tell I see the end of the discovery results, and will wait to see what Muslims scholers and Christian scholers will say in this matter.
I belive in facts and logic more than stories and mythology, so we will see.
Salem

[slokind]

Which all goes to show that the authenticity or not of the two ossuaries has nothing to do with the validity of religions.  It is only of archaeologcal interest, in so far as confirming the dating of that type of ossuary.  It has no more interest for belief or worship than Anna Nicole's baby has.  Now, for tourism, of course,...  Pat L.

[LordBest]

Update:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/26/jesus.sburial.ap/
                                                          LordBest.

[slokind]

Lest Reply #11 seemed too crass, let me just say that, supposing the shroud at Turin is all it's been claimed to be (not that I think so), it doesn't matter.  It's not whether something touched a certain body that matters but the life of the person in question.  Whether it's the bones of Theseus or the bones of Alexander of the bones of the family of Jesus of Nazareth, what matters is the difference those lives (and the lives of many, many nameless persons) have made. 
Journals and TV stations keep this dateline non-specific material to use when and as needed.  Pat L.

[Numerianus]

I agree that this news is tooo big to be true, because if this is true that will change two religions ( Christianity, and Islam !!!!!)
Salem

Not at all. The science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God/gods.
Church  scholars  have a lot of experience to treat  even great discoveries. For centuries the Christian Church
was untangible  in the position  that  the Earth is the center of the Universe and the Copernicus theory  contradicts
to the Saint Script. Now there are irrefutable proofs and the Church does not insist on this anymore. In the archeology
there are no irrefutable proofs. Even if the tomb is real and the bones will be of a crucified person,
 there will be always scientists who put in question everything (the authenticity, methods of analyis etc. and,  thus, the conclusion).
As we know with the shroud the story is that C14 dating gives 13 century but there are plenty of explanations why  it is authentic,
nevertheless. For  religions there is a lot of room here, do not afraid. 
For historicians the tomb is of the great interest if  the remnants can be reliably identfied with such important figures...
We can profit a lot to increase our knowledge just following the inevitable discussions. It is quite exciting and an occasion to read more, to
check the arguments and find our owns...       

[Robert_Brenchley]

According to the 'Times', they were claiming that DNA evidence suggested that the bodies originally in the two ossuaries were not related, and therefore they had to be a couple. Dodgier and dodgier! It looks like hype to try to prop up this idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't; there's no knowing. Clearly, she was a major figure in the first generation church at some point, but according to Mark's Gospel, Jesus had sisters. She could equally well have been one of them. I don't see that the names on the ossuaries mean a thing, given how common they were.

[Cleisthenes]

Excerpts from the CNN story of two days ago:

Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea (lost tomb of Jesus) fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.  "They just want to get money for it," Kloner said.  Kloner also said the filmmakers' assertions are false. "The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time," he said.

William Dever, an expert on near eastern archaeology and anthropology, who has worked with Israeli archaeologists for five decades, said specialists have known about the ossuaries for years.  "The fact that it's been ignored tells you something," said Dever, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. "It would be amusing if it didn't mislead so many people."

This is from Reuters--five hours ago:

The archaeologist, Amos Kloner, said the 2,000-year-old cave contained coffins belonging to a Jewish family whose names were similar to those of Jesus and his relatives.

"I can say positively that I don't accept the identification (as) ... belonging to the family of Jesus in Jerusalem," Kloner told Reuters. "I don't accept that the family of Miriam and Yosef (Mary and Joseph), the parents of Jesus, had a family tomb in Jerusalem."

"They were a very poor family. They resided in Nazareth, they came to Bethlehem in order to have the birth done there - so I don't accept it, not historically, not archeologically," said Kloner, a professor in the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. 

Professor L. Michael White, of the University of Texas, said he also doubted the claims were true.

"This is trying to sell documentaries," he said, adding a series of strict tests needed to be conducted before a bone box or inscription could be confirmed as ancient. "This is not archeologically sound, this is fanfare."
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070228/ent/ent4.html

This is from The National Ledger, dateline today (Feb.28):

Perhaps the most important debunker is professor Amos Kloner, who oversaw the original archaeological dig of this tomb in 1980. "It makes a great story for a TV film," Kloner told the Jerusalem Post. "But it's completely impossible. It's nonsense."

Joe Zias, who was the curator for anthropology and archeology at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem from 1972 to 1997 and personally numbered the ossuaries at the center of the film, was even harsher: "Simcha has no credibility whatsoever. ... He's pimping off the Bible. ... Projects like these make a mockery of the archeological profession."

Hebrew University archeologist and epigraphist Leah DiSegni said that the names found in the tomb, Mary, Joseph and Jesus, were among the most common names of the day. It would be like finding a tomb with the name George on it in the future and asserting that it must have been the tomb of President George Bush, DiSegni told the Cybercast News Service. In addition, biblical scholar Stephen Pfann has questioned even the actual inscription on the tomb, claiming it's "scratchy" and hard to read. For all we know, it's Johnny, Mabel and Jerry.

How do the producers defend themselves against the avalanche of criticism? It's so, so typical. On the "Today" show, Jacobovici and Cameron -- the "Titanic" director -- finally were pressed to respond to critics like Zias. They quickly fell back on the laughable concept that they weren't -- surprise! -- experts. Both said they weren't archaeologists. One insisted he was filmmaker, the other a journalist. Cameron found it "compelling" as a layman.

In other words, neither has credibility -- and neither does the nonfiction Discovery Channel.

Discovery aired a 2002 special on the alleged "Ossuary of James," which was declared a forgery in 2003 by the Israel Antiquities Authority. Its promoter, Oded Golan, is currently on trial for forging part of the inscription. Jacobovici produced that badly flawed documentary, too.
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272611831.shtml


It is very difficult to believe that reputable archaeologists and anthropologists have gotten this so wrong for so long--then James Cameron and associates got it right.

Jim

[bpmurphy]

I haven't an opinion one way or the other on this topic, but I do have a few questions.

1) The names Jesus, Joseph and Mary were common names in the first century. Do other ossuary exist with these names? Have other tombs been found that contain ossuaries of Jesus, Mary and Joseph? Finding one name may be common, but finding families all with the same names doesn't seem very probable.

2) How do we know the family of Jesus was poor when Jesus died or when this tomb was constructed and occupied?

3) This is not the same as finding a tomb with the name "George" and assuming it must be president Bush. This is more like finding a crypt with several caskets marked, George, Barbara, George and Jeb.

4) The ossuaries were found years ago. Did they contain any bones when found? If so, did the bones show evidence of crucifiction? If they did, would anyone have an interest in hiding this?

If Jesus showed up in Jerusalem today, stood on a street corner and told the world he was back, no one would believe him.

I would find it much more interesting if this were indeed the tomb of Jesus and his family than just some ordinary 1st century family. If it is the actual tomb of Jesus, we will probably never be told the truth, too many people would have a vested interest in suppressing that information.

I'll be watching the documentary with an open mind.

Barry Murphy

[Salem Alshdaifat]

I realy care for the DNA results for all the bodies to show whats the relation between these people in the tomb, I am from the east, and we still have the same tradetions with some realy very commen names, and Jashua ( Jesus) was a commen name at that time among Jewish people, and Joseph was too, and Mariam (Mary), and Mattaia ( Mathew) but they werent the only names at that time, and the chanse to find all the names togather in one family is not posible realy!!!! I know that so many people will try to fake this, or give many explainations, or go after discovery Chanal or what ever, but I belive as modern people we have to deal with it in open minds, and deal with the facts without caring who is making money or who want to be faimus and far away from religion, this is not just like finding the tomb of Alexander the great or Mark Antony and Cleopatra, this is some thing that we have to deal with it with open mind far away from any religiuse or imotional effections, I for sure agree that the TV Chanals and many people want to get profit and to be faimus  from this but that dosent effect the facts at all, even if it was me or any of you who have the chanse to be involve in a big discovery would be delighted to be well known for his discovery.
one thing I am amazed about is the script that was used for the names, Hebrew, Aramic and Greek that mean the people who were at the tomb havent die around the same time, I will love to go through the Israili discoveries records and see if it is commen to find a family Tomb from that era with such deferant scripts used for one family Tomb, how the bodies found and the Tomb picture for sure means that this is a family Tomb, and the bodies posetion indecate that Jesus Mariam, Judah are a smaller family among the family Tomb, I had the chance to explore families Tombs in Jordan and saw so many of them, some even with 40 or 50 carved graves in one cave, and it was very commen for families to dig one cave and carve the graves like drwars at the walls, so you find four levels of graves intop of each others goind all around the whole cave, and some like this Tomb small families in one Cave, for sure the grave dosent show that they were poor people but it dosent show that they were realy rich too, it shows this family is middel class family.
another thing that amaze me is James son of Joseph brother of Jesus, I am not sure if it is commen to mention that he is Jesus brother, because that dosent respect the father name, why it wasent like James son of Joseph?? thats all, why the need to mention he was Jesus brother, that mean this Jesus wasent any normal brother, this Jesus was special one!!!!
any way it is all dealing with the news as it is now, we will see what will come up in the comming days.
regards
Salem

[sid]

I'm going to admit that I do not have an open mind on this. I trust God's Word more than I trust any archeologist. But there are a few logical, reason-based issues to bring up.
1. The statistics quoted are meaningless. You can come up with an incredibly high number by multiplying the odds of every name in the tomb. If 1/4 of the women were named a variation of Mary, times 1/20 for the name Joseph, times Yeshua, times Mariamne, times Jose, times Matthew, that gets pretty high pretty fast. But a correct statistical approach would say, what are all the possible groupings that Jesus could have been buried with, and the odds that you would find any one of those possible sets of names. That would present us with true odds, and they would be far, far more likely. Any one specific set of names might be very unlikely, but it didn't have to be that set that was found.
2. The fact that these people died years apart means the tomb was a known location for a long time, and the entrance that is shown in pictures suggests this was no hidden, secret burial place. The enemies of the new church would have loved to be able to point to the location of Jesus' grave. Common sense says the family would have chosen somewhere a long ways from Jerusalem and the enemies of Jesus.
3. The DNA claim that the Jesus body and the Mariamne body were not related proving Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene falls apart. Mariamne could have been the wife of any one of the men in the tomb, or a relative of any of the other bodies, someone who was only related to this Jesus by marriage.
I could go on. But other than a coincidence of names, they have no evidence whatsoever, while there's a great deal of logical, and eyewitness, evidence that rejects the whole claim.

[LordBest]

Bearing in mind that there are translation issues with the name, that the ossuary assigned to Jesus may in fact belong to some chap called Hanun. I think what we have here is a case of people with special interests picking the translation of the names which best suits there interests, namely making a great deal of money out of what, in the hands of many unscrupulous people, has become in effect the Jesus brandname.
If the name is wrong then the crux of the argument that this tomb is of any special significance is removed.
                                                          LordBest.

[Numerianus]

2) How do we know the family of Jesus was poor when Jesus died or when this tomb was constructed and occupied?

As for me,  the comment that the family was poor  diminish strongly the credits of  Kloner.  I learnt recently that, contrarily
to the common opinion, it  should be  quite wealthy.

[4to2CentBCphilia]

I have read over 30 articles about this over the days and one thing I will caution..............check the source of each article.

I have noticed that certain articles are biased based on the political/religious leanings of the organization writing the article. Those who stick to a couple sources may get a very skewed view.

Having said that, I have to admit that the "scientific" reasoning behind some of the ASSUMPTIONS are very sketchy. Even the statistical evaluation offered as support for the theory is full of deficiencies.

As far as the James ossuary, I am still seeing mixed information. Of course, "James brother of Jesus" could still be any of many families even if the inscription is determined to be authentic.

M

[4to2CentBCphilia]

I haven't an opinion one way or the other on this topic, but I do have a few questions.

1) The names Jesus, Joseph and Mary were common names in the first century. Do other ossuary exist with these names? Have other tombs been found that contain ossuaries of Jesus, Mary and Joseph? Finding one name may be common, but finding families all with the same names doesn't seem very probable.

2) How do we know the family of Jesus was poor when Jesus died or when this tomb was constructed and occupied?

3) This is not the same as finding a tomb with the name "George" and assuming it must be president Bush. This is more like finding a crypt with several caskets marked, George, Barbara, George and Jeb.

4) The ossuaries were found years ago. Did they contain any bones when found? If so, did the bones show evidence of crucifiction? If they did, would anyone have an interest in hiding this?

If Jesus showed up in Jerusalem today, stood on a street corner and told the world he was back, no one would believe him.

I would find it much more interesting if this were indeed the tomb of Jesus and his family than just some ordinary 1st century family. If it is the actual tomb of Jesus, we will probably never be told the truth, too many people would have a vested interest in suppressing that information.

I'll be watching the documentary with an open mind.

Barry Murphy

1) Yes, others have been found, but none that contain so many names from the same biblical family (although this find also contains names not associated with the family

2) Poor is an assumption based on their social class as craftsmen and the certain Bible testaments attributed to Jesus such as his "man cannot serve both god and Mamon (sp)" statements or 'easier for a poor man to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven' etc.  I.E. he would have eschewed wealth.

3) James Cameron said this same thing, but used the Beatles as an example. He did ignore the names on other ossuaries that do not show up in the Bible as related to the family however. (selective reasoning)

4) Bones were found in the ossuaries. In accordance to Jewish beliefs, they were removed from the ossuaries and buried in earth shortly afterwards. I do not know if they can be recovered or if they would have "polluted" DNA if they were recoverable. (I am editing this because I have now found 2 articles saying bones were present and one that says no bones were found....goes to my earlier post about reading numerous articles to get a better picture of the scope and spin)

PS I will DVR this and skip the commercials. If it proves to be a shameless attempt to sell advertising, I don't want to reward them in any way. 

Mark

[DruMAX]

Did I mention I have a piece of the true cross, a bath towel used by Jesus, and St. Bartholomew’s fingernail?

Needless to say if some of what I have read proved true, it would indeed effect Christianity and Islam in a huge way, you can respect the acts of Jesus the man…but Jesus the man does not a religion make. Not that Christians would accept anything so muddy as truth let alone something more definitive. It is about belief and that will overpower anything put forth that goes contrary to the bible. From what I have read, there is no consensus and to me it seems highly suspect as almost anything that has ever been brought forth directly connected with jesus.