Unsupported by anything I saw. Got a cite that only those two ossuarys contained anything they could test?
What are you claiming is unsupported and which two ossuaries are you referring to?
More Wiki arguments against"
*In addition, during the trial of antiquities dealer Oded Golan there has been testimony from former FBI agent Gerald Richard that a photo of the James ossuary, showing it in Golan’s home, was taken in the 1970s, based on tests done by the FBI photo lab. This would make it impossible for the James Ossuary to …]
[edit] Interpretation of the inscriptions
David Mavorah, a curator of the Israel museum in Jerusalem, points out that the names on the ossuaries were extremely common. “We know that Joseph, Jesus and Mariamne were all among the most common names of the period. To start with all these names being together in a single tomb and leap from there to say this is the tomb of Jesus is a little far-fetched, to put it politely.”[8]
Professor Amos Kloner, former Jerusalem district archaeologist of the Israel Antiquities Authority and the first archaeologist to examine the tomb in 1980[21], told the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper that the name Jesus had been found 71 times in burial caves at around that time.[8]. Furthermore, he said that the inscription on the ossuary is not clear enough to ascertain, and although the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards it makes for profitable television. Quote: “The new evidence is not serious, and I do not accept that it is connected to the family of Jesus. … They just want to get money for it."[4]
Dr. Richard Bauckham, professor at the University of St Andrews, catalogued ossuary names from that region since 1980. He records that based on the catalogue, “Jesus” was the 6th most popular name of Jewish men, and “Mary/Mariamne” was the single most popular name of Jewish women at that time. Therefore, finding two ossuaries containing the names “Jesus” and “Mary/Mariamne” is not significant at all, and the chances of it being the ossuaries of Jesus and Mary Magdalene are “very small indeed.” [22]
Concerning the inscription attributed to Jesus son of Joseph, Steve Caruso, a professional Aramaic translator using a computer to visualize different interpretations, claims that although it is possible to read it as “Yeshua” that “overall it is a very strong possibility that this inscription is not.”[23]*
In other words, it is likely the ossuary isn’t even “Yeshua” but another name.
Maybe it was already covered in this thread (or the other thread that was referred to), but just in case it wasn’t, check the article at www.sciam.com. The scientist whose data was used is not very happy.
They did not say that they could only find DNA in the two ossuarys tested on the film. I did not here anything like that. In fact, all I saw was them geting DNA out of the assumed Jesus ossuary and the assume Mary Magdalene ossuary. Where do you get your supposition that all the other ossuarys were tested for DNA?
The other boxes were empty. They had been vaccuumed out. They were not able to retrieve any samples from any but the Yeshua and Mariamne boxes.
Yes they did.
The others were NOT tested because they were cleaned out in 1980. Were you watching this thing or weren’t you? They went into this in some detail in the Koppel after-discussion.
Cite?
Here’s a quote from the cite “www.sciam.com.” that** RaftPeople** gave (you have to follow the links)
06:35:28 pm, Categories: Archaeology, Life Sciences, Skepticism, 1144 words
*Says Scholar Whose Work Was Used in the Upcoming Jesus Tomb Documentary: “I think it’s completely mishandled. I am angry.”
Finally, Carney Matheson, whose titles include everything from mortuary archaeologist to forensic examiner, conducted the DNA examination the film cites. Basically, the filmmakers scraped a tiny amount of biological material out of the ossuary (or bone box) labeled Jesus, and a tiny amount out of the one that they think belonged to Mary Magdalene. Matheson then sequenced the mitochondrial DNA in both samples in order to establish that whoever those two boxes once contained was not related on their mother’s side–in other words, they’re not family. It’s a negative result that doesn’t say much (and it begs the question - if you were gathering material for testing, why not test the boxes that you believed belonged to related people, such as Jesus and his mother, as well?)
Matheson had this to say:
The only conclusions we made was that these two sets were not maternally related. To me it sounds like absolutely nothing. "*
This article says to me that they only *tried *to find DNA in two ossuarys.
From reading that article, it doesn’t appear that the scientist in question is disputing anything about the numbers but only that the hypothesis was presented in a television documntary rather than a peer-reviewed journal.
There WAS no DNA in the other boxes. How many times do I have to tell you? They covered that on the show. Jacobovici said the other boxes were to “vaccuumed out” to provide samples. The contents of the boxes were cleaned out and reburied after the first excavation.
More cites about they only tried on those two:
http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?cat=221
"This consideration of DNA testing brings up another, very important issue: why was the only DNA test that was conducted focused on Yeshua’s and Miriamne’s common maternity? The filmmakers also claim that one of the occupants of another ossuary, Maria, was Yeshua’s mother. Why didn’t they test Yeshua’s and Mariah’s mtDNA to see whether Mariah really was Yeshua’s mother? They also claim that Miriamne was the mother of Yehudah bar Yeshua; why didn’t they test Yehudah’s mtDNA to determine whether Miriamne really was Yehudah’s mother? It turns out that the answer is that the filmmakers were impatient"
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/02/27/jesus_and_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.
I haven’t seen the show. But this is one criticism I have heard of the whole deal, that good science doesn’t work this way.
That is, by announcing to the world and letting the public decide by voting or concensus.
Can you think of any other “discovery” that was handled in this manner, but which, upon closer, longer, better, peer-reviewed examination, proved to be true?
He said during the Koppel interview that the other boxes were too cleaned out.
I have yet to see a meaningful rebuttal in all of your cutting and pasting. Just a bunch of whining. This hypothesis may or may not have legs, but - as it stands - there is no smoking gun AGAINST it. . Sure there needs to be more testing. Tabor and Jacobovici agree. No one else seems to want to do it, though.
More:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070301/ts_csm/ctomb
"As for the DNA evidence, critics say the idea captures people’s attention today, but there is no DNA evidence related to the historical Jesus. “They simply say they’ve demonstrated that the two people are not related by DNA,” says Ben Witherington, a New Testament expert and author of “What Have They Done With Jesus?” “That proves nothing. There are [many] explanations for why you could have two people in the same extended family tomb that are not related by DNA.”
The testing was done on residue in the limestone boxes, since the bones they contained were buried in a cemetery after the tomb was excavated, in line with Jewish custom. *DNA tests were not conducted on the other ossuaries, such as the one belonging to “Judah, son of Jesus.” *"
The Dead Sea Scrolls come to mind.
They aren’t “letting the public decide,” by the way. They are preparing presentations for peer review. They just thought it would get more people to actually EXAMINE the hypothesis if it were in the public mind first. The fact that something doesn’t get peer-reviewed before it’s made public is a reason for healthy skepticism but it’s not a disproof of anything in itself.
But he said otherwise in print that he didn’t even try. "
“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.’ "
I ask again- where is your cite that every other ossuary was carefully checked for DNA?
Ben Witherington believes the Shroud of Turin is authentic. Witherington is a nutburger. Not that he’s making any particularly incisive points with this statement. Just whining.
:smack: I saw the movie on its first release, and about twenty or thirty times since, and never got that until I saw it written down just now.
He said it in the interview with Koppel. How am I supposed to link to that? He said “they were really vaccuumed out,” and that they couldn’t recover anything to test.
Not that this objection actually means anything anyway. If the other boxes can be tested, by all means test them. Jacobovici agrees that they should be tested.
For what it’s worth, that’s the explanation I recall hearing, too. Not that I trust him to be scrupulously accurate in his explanations.