More on the Jesus tomb story

Here are some more articles on the shaky archeaological and scientific basis for the sensational claims of the "Jesus tomb" advocates.

Has James Cameron Found Jesus's Tomb or Is It Just a Statistical Error? by Christopher Mims Scientific American Online 03/02/07. Mims focuses on the contribution of the statistician Andrey Feuerverger who contributed a key statistical calculation to the James Cameron documentary:

Despite his previous lack of interest in biblical archaeology, Feuerverger would spend two years on what turned out to be a labor of love. At the end of all of his figuring, he told the documentarians, including director James Cameron of Titanic fame and award-winning investigative journalist Simcha Jacobovici, that there was a one in 600 chance that the names — Jesus, Matthew, two versions of Mary, and Joseph — scribbled on five of the 10 ossuaries (or caskets for bones) found in the Talpiot tomb could have belonged to a different family than the one described in the New Testament.

Mims' account is a good explanation of how a sound statistical calculation can be misused to support false or unfounded claims. Mims cites Feuerverger himself:

Even the Discovery Channel, which is set to air the controversial documentary on Sunday, March 4, seemed confused by Feuerverger's calculations, declaring on its Web site that that the odds are "600 to one in favor of this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB."

Feuerverger says he was neither asked nor did he attempt to calculate the odds that the Talpiot tomb was the final resting place of Christ, the Messiah. As Aleks Jakulin, a statistician at Columbia University, points out, "I doubt Professor Feuerverger really estimated 'the odds that these ossuaries were not Jesus's family's final resting place.' Instead ... one should say that one in 600 families (on the conservative side) would have that particular combination of names purely by chance, based on the distribution of individual names in the population." (my emphasis)

Here is one case where the importance of some minimal scientific literacy comes in. As Mims goes on to explain, the statistical calculation has meaning only if the underlying assumptions of the calculation are sound. In this case, there are a number of assumptions that have to be made on incomplete information, including what names were most common among Jewish residents of Judea, the liklihood of Jesus' family being buried in Jerusalem, and the liklihood of their being buried in a tomb instead of in the ground.

It seems that the advocates of Cameron's film are particularly eager to promote the idea that Mary of Magdala and Jesus were married. This is a favorite theme of New Age fans of Gnosticism, and has also been popularized by The Da Vinci Code. But the distinctiveness of the name on the tomb which the film claims is that of Mary Magdalene, "Mariemene e Mara", is disputed by other scholars. And even if there were general agreement that the reference was distinct to Mary Magdalene, even that would solve the question of whether the bones actually buried there were hers. Forensics on people who died two millenia ago are not exceptionally precise.

In a blog post at Sciam.com, Says Scholar Whose Work Was Used in the Upcoming Jesus Tomb Documentary: "I think it's completely mishandled. I am angry." 03/02/07, the same writer, Christopher Mims, discusses the fact that the particular claims made in this documentary were largely handled as show business, not as science. He quotes archeaology professor Jodi Magness:

Let me tell you what I think. So first of all if you're writing for Scientific American, so it's important to point out that this debate is taking place in a most unscientific of manners.

Archaeology is a scientific and academic discipline and there are proper fora for these discussions--if you're a scholar and you have something you want to present to the larger world, there are proper ways of doing that, specifically publishing papers in peer reviewed journals or at meetings, so your colleageus can respond to it.

If after that you can go ahead and announce that and people can say "Well I've responded to this," then that's fine. But I've been slammed with [interviews for] this now - it was announced in the public media.

I'm reacting to something that has not been published or peer reviewed and I haven't even seen the film - the entire way this has been done has been an injustice to the entire discipline and also to the public.

Mims concludes:

Even if scholars conclude the whole thing is bunk, I have a feeling this will become a permanent part of the our culture's conspiracy lore, like the JFK conspiracy, the staging of the moon landing, the Turin Shroud, and all the rest before it.

Tags: tomb of jesus

More on the "Jesus' Tomb" story

Several of these links were included in an e-mail from the Biblical Archaeology Society.

From Crypt Held Bodies of Jesus and Family, Film Says by Laurie Goodstein New York Times 02/27/07:

Mr. Kloner said in a telephone interview that the inscription on the alleged "Jesus" ossuary is not clear enough to ascertain. The box on display at the news conference is a plain rectangle with rough gashes on one side. The one supposedly containing Mary Magdalene has six-petalled rosettes and an elaborate border.

"The new evidence is not serious, and I do not accept that it is connected to the family of Jesus," said Mr. Kloner, who appears in the documentary as a skeptic.

New Testament scholars also criticized the documentary as theologically dangerous, historically inaccurate and irresponsible.

“A lot of conservative, orthodox and moderate Christians are going to be upset by the recklessness of this,” said Ben Witherington [an evangelical scholar], a Bible scholar at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky. “Of course, we want to know more about Jesus, but please don’t insult our intelligence by giving us this sort of stuff. It’s going to get a lot of Christians with their knickers in a knot unnecessarily.”

Der Heiland würde im Grab rotieren von Stefan Schmitt Der Spiegel Online 27.02.2007:

Ein Blick in die Tageszeitungen vom Dienstag weckt jedoch Zweifel am potentiellen Erfolg der Cameronschen Geschichtsauslegung: "Jesus-Grab entdeckt?", zweifelt das "Hamburger Abendblatt". "Ist hier das Grab Jesu?", wundert sich die "Bild"-Zeitung. Die "Welt" berichtet von "Skepsis", "unrealistisch" schimpft die "Berliner Zeitung".

Man darf davon ausgehen, dass diese Ablehnung nicht allein dogmatisch begründet ist. ...

Als das Feuilleton der "Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung" ("FAZ") am Tag der New Yorker PR-Veranstaltung den Film vorab als "Cameron-Code" verulkte, setzte sie den Trend für die Berichterstattung. Jürgen Zangenberg von der Universität Leiden, Experte für die Bestattungen im Palästina der Zeitenwende, verbreitete den Argwohn des Gelehrten: "Hier geht es um Geld und um Schlagzeilen." Er wurde nicht nur in der "FAZ" zitiert, sondern auch von der Deutschen Presseagentur. Andere Archäologen, Bibelforscher und Historiker reihten sich ein.

Jesus' burial saga: Raiders of the Lost Tomb by David Horwitz [not the kook who runs FrontPageMag.com] Jerusalem Post 02/27/07:

Kloner: A great story, but nonsense by David Horwitz Jerusalem Post 02/27/07

Israel may open 'Jesus tomb' to public by Etgar Lefkovits and David Horwitz Jerusalem Post 02/27/07.

This article, Analysis: Christian heresy of the Talpiot tomb? by Matthew Wagner Jerusalem Post 02/27/07, suggests that the documentary could produce some unpleasant consequences in the current arrangements for the Holy Sepulchre, the traditional site for Jesus' tomb and Resurrection, in the Christian part of Jerusalem:

Throughout history all the major traditional Christian churches have vied for control over the site, one of the holiest, if not the holiest, to the Christian religion.

Infighting and conflict led to an Ottoman decree in the mid-1800s. Thanks to an intricate framework of time-sharing, space division and mutual recognition of jurisdiction, six distinct Christian communities - Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Syrian Orthodox, Coptic, and Ethiopians (who have minimal rights) - have shared the Holy Sepulchre with varying degrees of peace.

Any change in the Holy Sepulchre edifice - from replacing broken toilets to creating emergency exits - is hotly disputed. Rights of possession, procession, cleaning and restoring are carefully guarded.

The status quo is so fragile and the balancing of opposing interests is so complex that the sides refrain from adhering to daylight savings time so as not to upset the delicate equilibrium of prayer times.

Centuries of infighting, power struggles and jockeying for positions emanate from the heart-felt belief that a tiny plot in Jerusalem's Christian quarter is the site of Jesus's resurrection.

Predictably, fundamentalists are using the controversy to say, look, you just can't trust all this science stuff. From "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" a made-for-television flight of fancy, Mohler says on Larry King Live by Jeff Robinson Towers Online 02/27/07:

Calling the documentary's claims "far-fetched," [Albert] Mohler said Christians will continue to stand on the truth of Scripture that Jesus rose from the dead and will not be swayed neither by pseudo-science nor statistics.

"There is no time machine here that is going to take us back to the First Century and actually tell us what happened there," he said.

"I'm going to base my beliefs on the Scriptures which hold together far better than the kind of farcical documentary we are talking about here, throwing in a little bit of statistics. I mean, you're talking about the most common names, especially the most common male names, also female with the name Mary, you're talking about anything that could be found just about anywhere."

James Tabor, chairman of the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, also appeared on the program. (my emphasis)

What makes the anti-Semitic bigot Bill Donohue any kind of authority on Biblical archaeology? I have to question the judgment of Albert Mohler, who is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, for agreeing to appear on a program with a low-grade sleazebag like Donohue.

If you're so moved, you can hear Brother Al's own version on his radio show of 02/27/07.

Mysterien um das Heilige Grab von Lars Langenau Süddeutschen Zeitung 27.02.2007:

Die Windel des Heilands ist in der Schatzkammer des Aachener Doms zu bewundern - und sein Leichentuch gleich in mehreren Orten. Allein mit den in katholischen Kirchen aufbewahrten Holzsplittern des Kreuzes von Jesus sollen weltweit mehrere Galeeren zu bauen sein. So ähnlich verhält es sich mit den Nägeln, mit denen er ans Kreuz genagelt wurde.

Als Entdeckerin des überwiegenden Teils dieser wundersamen Dinge gilt die Heilige Helena. Die Mutter von Konstantin dem Großen - dem Begründer des Oströmischen Reiches - lebte bis 330 nach Christus. Heute gilt sie als eine der ersten Pilgerreisenden. Bei einer Tour nach Jerusalem im Jahre 300 fand sie zielsicher das Grab des Erlösers - und ließ darauf eine Kirche errichten.

1700 Jahre später stellt sich in die Reihe von Helenas geistigen Ahnen der dreifache Oscar-Preisträger James Cameron ("Titanic"). Gemeinsam mit dem israelisch-kanadischen Dokumentarfilmer Simcha Jacobovici will er in Jerusalem einen Sarg aus Kalkstein gefunden haben, der eine wahre Sensation wäre - wenn denn alles stimmt, was die beiden behaupten. ...

Auch die Namenskombination auf den steinernen Knochenkisten ist für den Religionswissenschaftler kein Beweis. "Die Namenskombination kann damals viel häufiger vorgekommen sein", sagte [Jürgen] Zangenberg. Die Auswahl der Namen sei damals sehr klein gewesen: "Jesus ist wie Hans oder Kurt."

Experts question claims behind Jesus documentary by Dion Nissenbaum, McClatchy Newspapers 02/26/07:

The documentary used DNA testing on samples taken from the ossuary for Jesus and a second for Mary to show that the two sets of bones weren't related, evidence the television researchers said indicated that the two probably were married.

The documentary suggests that the ossuary labeled Judah, son of Jesus, may have carried the bones of their son, though the researchers make no mention of doing DNA testing on that box.

That does seem to be a strange part of the argument the filmmakers have made in the advance publicity. If they tested for DNA on the "Jesus" and "Mary" bones, why did they not test for DNA on the supposed son? It presumably would at least have confirmed that it was the son of the two whose bones were in the "Jesus" and "Mary" boxes.

Tags: tomb of jesus