But that is what collapses the entire house of cards. There are worlds between “we’re pretty sure” and “it cannot be ruled out” and this program’s hypothesis rests too heavily on the latter.
Just the fact that the odds are still non-zero is already kind of amazing.
Bro, you know the odds of just about anything from that far back being true are non-zero.
The Discovery channel website explains this. They say that they didn’t have access to the actual remains/bones found in the ossuarys back in 1980, because after they were removed and cataloged, the remains were turned over to someone (can’t remember) to be buried, to keep in line with Jewish tradition.
The only human remains they were able to test was some tissue they found left in the ossuarys, only they only found testable materials in the Jesus and Margy Magdelene ones.
Not true.
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/0...journalists.php
"In an interview, Mr. Jacobovici was asked why the filmmakers did not conduct DNA testing on the other ossuaries to determine whether the one inscribed “Judah, son of Jesus” was genetically related to either the Jesus or Mary Magdalene boxes; or whether the Jesus remains were actually the offspring of Mary.
“We’re not scientists. At the end of the day we can’t wait till every ossuary is tested for DNA,” he said. "We took the story that far. At some point you have to say, ‘I’ve done my job as a journalist.’ "
In other words, he didn’t even try. Yes, the ossuarys were supposed to be empty. But ALL of the ossuaries were supposed to be empty. He only tried on two.
Assuming for a moment that your interperetation is correct, there are a lot of reasonable explainations for this oversite. For one thing, this was, as you’ve pointed out, a TV show…so of course they are going to try and hit on the most sensationalist aspects. In addition, we aren’t talking about an indepth scientifically rigorous study here…but something to try and spark interest. Finally, we probably are talking about serious time and or money constraints placed on this effort…most likely time as opposed to money.
That said, at least from what I’ve read and listening to the show, there IS supposedly going to be an effort to do a more indepth and rigorous study that will be peer reviewed. I’m willing to wait for that and see what, if anything, comes out of it…certainly before I call BS as you have been. Will you be willing to re-examine your conclusions when/if a peer reviewed study of this comes out?
-XT
The other were too cleaned out. We’ve been over this.
It’s a disingenuous objection anyway. It’s not like people like DrDeth would be willing to concede anything even if the remains in the other ossuaries were able to be tested and supported the hypothesis.
My thought is that if they are indeed proposing a rigorous scientific study that will be peer reviewed that we’ll know about the rest of it at some point. If they don’t do this…well, then it was an interesting show, and entertaining…but its hardly science.
I’m willing to see how it unfolds. It certainly appeared, to me at least, that there were enough questions that its worth looking into. It seems too interesting to just blow off…which several of the folks on the show at least (the skeptics) were attempting to do. Maybe there are real, rational and well thought out reasons for that skepticism…but I didn’t hear any show stopper type arguements in the show at least, and I’m curious why the seemingly hostile response.
-XT
Since I didn’t see the show I’ll admit I’m being knee-jerkishly hostile but after a lifetime of cheesy In Search of Noah’s Ark-like shows my default attitude has become “publish first THEN make the TV show.” Publishing in the popular press, like Tabor did, doesn’t count. And no sensationalistic “hidden history” shit, either; “if it ain’t dry it ain’t science” may not always be accurate but it’s a generally safe rule of thumb.
That said, I’m also open to seeing how it unfolds and, as you know, I’ll make a 180 if that’s how the cards fall, but for now you can color me “highly dubious.”
I know what you’re talking about and it doesn’t get any more skeptical than me. I expected this show to be in the same vein as a million other BS pseudo-documentaries that I’ve seen on the Discovery and History channels (“Jesus Lived in India,” etc.), but this was of a better quality over all, and I’m not one to get taken in by visual dramatizations (which were were really kind of minimal and innocuous in this thing) or to get dazzled by journalistic sleight of hand when it comes to selective facts, or numbers or lies by ommission. I’m’ the first one to say, “yo, back up there, sport, run those numbers by me again, and this time include the stuff you left out.”
I’m not claiming this was science, or that I’m convinced the hypothesis is right or that it doesn’t need a lot more examination and peer review (which it will get), but it surprised me that I didn’t find it patently ridiculous, which is my normal reaction. Usually, going public first is not the way to go, but this tomb got no attention for almost 30 years. Tabor said in his blog that if he went through the normal routes of peer review before the show, it would have taken years to get enough attention to precipitate the kind of examination the hypothesis will get now.
I would say that the show was not presented so much an argument for the hypothesis, per se, so much as it was an argument for EXAMINING the hypothesis. It’s more like “please take a look at this,” not “This is the only possible conclusion.”
I have to say the show was odd in its quality and persuasivness as well. I was trained in science at some great schools and I expected it to be the usual dreck. I was blown away in a way that I can’t remember being by any one of these things and I was convinced without a doubt, not that it is absolutely true, but that it is certainly possible and maybe even likely if things went just like they were shown. I can’t really listen to someone talk about it unless they have seen all of the show themselves because they wouldn’t really understand.
Unlike most of these things, we know that the tomb, ossuaries, and writing are real. Even the Harvard professor had no problem confirming that they said what they were reported to. The other persuasive thing is that the subtle oddities of the names match up very well with obscure but real biblical evidence. Most of the names reverse-translate back into what these people probably would have been called.
Pretty much what DtC said. I’m usually at least reasonably skeptical about these kinds of things too (unlike my dad :)), and I went into this with far from an open mind…I was pretty much prepared to rip the show to shreds as I usually do, much to the annoyance of my spouse and chillins. However, this show, IMHO, was a cut above the normal Discovery/Learning Channel drek we’ve all come to know and love…and while it was definitely sensationalist, it hit at least some of the high points scientifically speaking. Was it conclusive? Absolutely not. For one thing, there are probably some good reasons the experts are skeptical. For another, their study wasn’t what anyone could call rigorous.
However, you really should watch the show and judge for yourself. If nothing else, its worth seeing for the entertainment value…it wasn’t boring at least! 
Oh, definitely know that about you. And to be perfectly honest, though I’ve come out pretty much on the pro-theroy side, I’m in the same boat…I’m with holding judgement until I see more data. While I found the arguments compelling and logical, there is a lot still missing…and I will await my own verdict until I see what, if anything, they do for a follow up…and what they finally publish and how its received. Like you, I’m fully prepared to do a 180 on this and put it down to another In Search of Bigfoot episode…
-XT
From Discovery Channel webiste, under the DNA evidence section about this show:
“In the case of the Talpiot tomb, researchers were able to extract usuable tissue samples from only two of the ossuarries - the “Mariamne” and “Yeshua bar Joseph boxes.””
and
“Why not analyze the actual bones found in the ossuaries? Because of protests against tomb excavations by members of the ultra-Orthodox community in Israel, the handling of such remains is an extremely sensitive issue. After the ossuaries are removed and catalogued fom the tomb, the bones are turned over to religious authorities for reburial”
One would presume this happened shortly after the ossuaries were removed in 1980, so the remains from the other ossuaries were not available to be tested, rather than they hid the results or were just too lazy.
That is literally true as they only *tried *to extract DNA from those two (note that the “Yeshua” part of that name is very doubtful). Thus literally “researchers were able to extract usuable tissue samples from only two of the ossuarries” as they only tried in two of the ossuarys. Jacobovici admited this.
They removed all the remains and reburied them. There could have been trace amounts in the other occusarys but Jacobovici sez he only tried on those two.
No he didn’t. He said to Koppel that the other boxes were too cleaned out.
Let me ask you this, if it were able to be proven that the Yeshua was definitively the son of two people named Mary and Joseph, would that make any difference to you? Would you then concede that Jacobovici might be onto something? If not, then your objection sounds disingenuous. You’re demanding to see evidence for a familial relationship which you would not accept as meaningful anyway.
*Then he lied *as we have him in another interview stating that he only tried on those two.
Well, the name is not Yeshua, first. He lied there again. Next those two names were very very common, so no.
Here’s evidence:
http://www.craigaevans.com/tombofjesus.htm
"There are several problems with this radical and new interpretation of the Talpiot Tomb. First, the name Jesus in the “Jesus(?), son of Joseph” inscription is far from certain. Some experts think it is actually a different name. Kloner, followed by Rahmani, reads “Yeshua‘(?).” They are unsure of the reading. If the first name is not Yeshua‘ (or Jesus), then the new theory collapses. The facsimile of this inscription below indicates why epigraphers find the first name (or word) uncertain. I can make out the last two words
("son of Jehosef [or Joseph]), but I can’t see Yeshua’
in the scribbles at the beginning (i.e., at the right) of the inscription shown at left below. At right, is a photo of the inscription.Secondly, almost no one agrees that the name Mariamne refers to Mary Magdalene, or that Mara
means “Lady” or “Master,” as though it were a title of honor. It is, rather, an abbreviation of Martha, which is attested in other inscriptions. Given that the Greek form of Mariamne
is in the genitive case (of the diminutive form shown below).
The inscription could be interpreted “Mariamne’s (daughter) Mara (or Martha).” Kloner and Rahmani translate: “[Ossuary] of Mariamne, (who is also called) Mara.” A facsimile of the inscription is shown at right. "
From Wiki: "Stephen Pfann, president of Jerusalem’s University of the Holy Land and an expert in Semitic languages, who was interviewed in the documentary, also said the film’s hypothesis holds little weight:
"How possible is it?" Pfann said. "On a scale of one through 10 - 10 being completely possible - it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half."[28]
Pfann also thinks the inscription read as “Jesus” has been misread and suggests that the name “Hanun” might be a more accurate rendering.[29]"
As to Jacobovici falsehoods: From Wiki:
"During Ted Koppel’s critique, The Lost Tomb of Jesus - A Critical Look, Koppel revealed he had denials from these three people Simcha Jacobovici had misquoted in the documentary.
1.) Koppel had a written denial from the forensic archaeologist asserting that he had NOT concluded that the remains of Yeshua` and Miriamne showed they were husband and wife. In fact, he had logically stated, “you cannot genetically test for marriage”.
2.) Koppel had a written denial from the Suffolk Crime Lab Director asserting that he had NOT stated the James ossuary patina matched that of the Yeshua` ossuary. He denied ever saying they were a match, and said he’d have to do much more comparison testing of other tombs before he could draw any conclusions.
3.) Koppel had a verbal denial from Professor Amos Kloner, the archaeologist who had supervised the initial 1980 dig of the tomb of Yeshua`, with whom he spoke on 3/4/07, asserting that the ossuary that later turned up missing from the alleged Tomb of ‘Jesus’ could not have been what is now known as the James ossuary. In fact he indicated there was evidence that it was not the same by saying that the now missing ossuary he had seen and photographed and catalogued in 1980 had been totally unmarked, whereas the James ossuary is marked with the name of James and a rosette."
Jacobovici made much of his fact that the James ossuary was the missing 10th ossuary. But it isn’t. The patina does not match. The 10th ossuary was cataloged and it had no incription and it’s dimensions are significantly differnt, and finally there is solid evidence that the “James” ossuary was photographed a decade before the Talpiot tomb was opened.
Dr Evans again: *"Fourthly, the James Ossuary was in circulation in the 1970s, before the Talpiot Tomb was discovered. It is therefore highly unlikely that it was originally from this tomb. Indeed, Joe Zias, who assisted Amos Kloner in 1980, has recently stated that the tenth ossuary (the supposed “missing ossuary”) was not stored with the other nine because it was plain—no artwork and no inscription. Dr. Zias emphatically states that the James Ossuary most certainly was not the tenth ossuary; it is not from the Talpiot Tomb.
*
Another lie.
Here’s another cite:http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10408
“The identification of the Talpiyot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family is based on a string of problematic and unsubstantiated claims, including adding an otherwise unattested Matthew (Matya) to the family of Jesus; identifying an otherwise unknown son of Jesus named Judah; and identifying the Mariamne named on one of the ossuaries in the tomb as Mary Magdalene by interpreting the word Mara (which follows the name Mariamne) as the Aramaic term for “master” (arguing that Mariamne was a teacher and leader). To account for the fact that Mary/Mariamne’s name is written in Greek, the filmmakers transform the small Jewish town of Migdal/Magdala/Tarichaea on the Sea of Galilee (Mary’s hometown) into “an important trading center” where Greek was spoken. Instead, as in other Jewish towns of this period, generally only the upper classes knew Greek, whereas poorer Jews spoke Aramaic as their everyday language. Taken individually, each of these points weakens the case for the identification of the Talpiyot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family. Collectively these points are devastating, since the statistical analyses presented in the film are based on certain assumptions made about these names.”
No we don’t.
No, he didn’t. The inscription says “Yeshua bar Yosef.” That’s according to every source I’ve looked at. Have you seen some variant transliteration for the spelling or something? Not that it would mean much. In point of fact, the only spellings we have for the names of those characters in question are the Greek spellings given to them in the New Testament. If you want to get really snitty about it, the earliest written name we have for Jesus is Iesous which can be back-translated to Aramaic in multiple ways and we have no way of knowing which would be considered “correct” or even if it would have had a consistent spelling at all.
So you admit your objection to a lack of demonstrated familial relationships is disingenuous?
A photo and an attempted copy are on DrDeth’s first link. You’re our resident ancient mideast language pro–YOU try reading it.
It seems to me that just as a lot of people want this to be false, a lot of people want it to be true and are wishing real hard. As has been repeated on this board ad nauseum, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and all I’m seeing is pathetic straw grasping. If this were a claim of ghosts or UFOs we’d laugh this level of eveidence out of the room.