[QUOTE=DrDeth]
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.” *"
[/QUOTE]
Is there anything in Jewish burial tradition which would forbid the remains from being buried in containers? It seems strange to me just to dump the remains in a hole when they could have archaeological value in the future. In a container, at least the remains would have a chance of survival to be studied again as technology advances.
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.
[/QUOTE]
Gotta watch the show before you show up here dude. I was amazed by the quality of the documentary in general but just a very informed layperson. This was no Noah’s Ark hunt. Watch it and then come back. It is a good show no matter what.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
Is there anything in Jewish burial tradition which would forbid the remains from being buried in containers? It seems strange to me just to dump the remains in a hole when they could have archaeological value in the future. In a container, at least the remains would have a chance of survival to be studied again as technology advances.
[/QUOTE]
I haven’t been able to find clear information on how the remains were disposed. I kind of assumed they were placed in a container, but I don’t know if they were each placed in separate containers or all poured into a single one.
the greater problem in locating them may be that the burial spot was not marked.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I haven’t been able to find clear information on how the remains were disposed. I kind of assumed they were placed in a container, but I don’t know if they were each placed in separate containers or all poured into a single one.
the greater problem in locating them may be that the burial spot was not marked.
[/QUOTE]
It was like an adventure movie in that the Jewish Ultra-Orthodoxy require a pipe leading above the ground so that the spirits can move up and down for all such tombs after they are recovered or built on top of. Where else can you go into an apartment complex with micro-camera’s and peer down into not one but two tombs?. I would be a little spooked out by those pipes.
[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
Gotta watch the show before you show up here dude. I was amazed by the quality of the documentary in general but just a very informed layperson.
[/QUOTE]
They are preparing presentations for peer review. I agree that this will build or lessen the scholarly consensus … I always thought given who these guys were this deserved more attention than a simple wave off - but always thought also that it deserved skepticism until other real scholars viewed the evidence (away from the Circus atmosphere of TV Lights) and weighed in.
I am still there, from the Documentary I got this:
**
THINGS THAT TO ME WEAKENED THE HYPOTHESIS:**
I think that he stretches his point on Matthew. Jacobivci actually says at one point: “If there was one name, just one, that didn’t fit we would have to throw this out.”
Yet as far as Matthew goes, which appears to fit this very scenario he says “Well look Mary had a Matthew in her lineage so it isn’t surprising ….” uh yeah – it wouldn’t be surprising top find a Jonah or Jacob or (the 1st century Judean equivalent of) Big Earl either – but it would weigh against this being the Jesus Family tomb
The truth is, something similar is going with Judah son of Jesus–yes he offers some insight on why we might not know this name - still by the time the Gospels are written (And from where we get the rest of these names except Jesus BTW) this boy has clearly died …So why hide it? It doesn’t add up.
Other thoughts:
I would like to know what the Latin Inscription was in the Tomb and see if there were more.
I am Glad that it can’t be easily tampered with without the place coming down around its ears.
I was impressed at how he called BS on the IAA Official who said Caiphas was fact but this wasn’t – but I know it was showmanship – he (and you) know that anything with Jesus’ name needs if not extraordinary, at least solid, proof. That line of arguement struck me as disingenuous.
Even though I know the design could mean “3rd Degree Mason” or “Rotarian” or “100 Meter Dash Champ” or just “good mensch” IOW – we have no idea it could mean anything and certainly has never been Jesus related before – I still got goosebumpy when they found the Chevron symbol from the Tomb on that Ossuary form the purported Christian Cemetary.
Unclear to me if the Name was claerly MArimne Master or CLEARLY Master Marimne
I would like to know what the Latin Inscription was in the Tomb and see if there were more.
[/QUOTE]
Finally saw it…yeah, I found that part odd…it seemed like the letters were pretty clear, and either in Greek or Latin…I wonder why a translation was not provided.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Another consideration is that the measurements of the James Ossuary do not match the measurements listed for the tenth ossuary, which is no longer stored with the rest of the collection. The James Ossuary is listed as being approximately 50 centimeters long by 30 centimeters wide on one end, and 25.5 centimeters on the other end [28]. The tenth ossuary in the Talpiot collection is listed as 60 centimeters long by 26 centimeters by 30 centimeters[29]. Furthermore, Amos Kloner has stated that the tenth ossuary had no inscription. And Joe Zias, former curator of the Rockerfeller Museum who received and catalogued the ossuaries, has also refuted this claim on his personal site. [30]"
[/QUOTE]
I thought the show made the assertion that the dimensions “matched” (I assumed am imprint or outline in the tomb, as it seemed to suggest to me that it had not been recovered in the initial excavation, and the IAA had no record of it).
Was the 10th ossuary at one point recovered directly from the tomb and documented? I did not catch that.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The Dead Sea Scrolls come to mind.
[/quote]
I seem to recall that scholars latched on to those pretty quickly, before a sensational documentary could be made trumpeting their discovery and making wild claims. Besides, finding old manuscripts with biblical writings near the Dead Sea doesn’t sound nearly as fantastic to me as Cameron’s claims.
Not the way good science works. There is no shortage of interest about reasonable hypotheses in the scientific community. It IS the way cold fusion was announced. It IS the way Joseph Newman operates.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
There is no shortage of interest about reasonable hypotheses in the scientific community. It IS the way cold fusion was announced. It IS the way Joseph Newman operates.
[/QUOTE]
Dunno, the tomb has been sitting there for 26 years, largely ignored.
I thought the show made the assertion that the dimensions “matched” (I assumed am imprint or outline in the tomb, as it seemed to suggest to me that it had not been recovered in the initial excavation, and the IAA had no record of it).
Was the 10th ossuary at one point recovered directly from the tomb and documented? I did not catch that.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and mapped (archeaologically mapped which is pretty damn precise). But somehow now they can’t find it. Beingas that building looks like the one where (in Raider’s) they stored the Ark, I can see how it’d be easy to “lose” one ossuary amoung thousands. My WAG is that it was just miscataloged. Note that it was also logged (when found and cataloged) as having no inscription.
The “James Brother of Jesus” ossuary is NOT the same one. Especialy since the police have a photo of it in the guys bathroom and the photo is dated 10 years before the Tomb was found.
[QUOTE=Uncommon Sense]
I was suprised that they welded the tomb shut at the end of the show, before they could really examine the tomb.
[/QUOTE]
I feel this bears repetition. The IA folks know exactly why they want it welded shut. Seems there is only ONE reason why any government agency- ironically one involved in the science and not politics ( cough ) of the antiquities found in their country- would do this. They want to make absolutely sure that nobody ever gets in there again.
Now, it is 2007. Why in the world do you think that would be? :dubious:
I watched it all, and the first 45 minutes of Ted Koppel’s discussion. No surprise that the Director of the film was attacked. ( Archaeo-Porn? Oh god please. Please. ). He made a film. He showed scenes that were recreations based upon proofs provided by scholars and scientists. I thought it was brilliant, and rather compelling.
I also believe it absolutely. Remember, Jesus wasn’t a carpenter when he died. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a small town preacher whose family was just scraping by. It is entirely believable that the burial tomb ( which, we must admit, isn’t a gargantual lavish marble edifice… ) was paid for by his followers for use by his family. ( I’m not trying to take a shot at either Jesus OR MLK, Jr. here, ok? Just saying that one’s followers take care of their leader in many ways, some of them perfectly material. )
I thought the evidentiary chain was fairly compelling. The patina match alone was really something to see.
The bones were buried by the Orthodoxy in Jerusalem who I suspect knew exactly what they had on their hands. Remember, at THAT time, technology was not what it is now and the proofs presented in the documentary were the stuff of science fiction. In the context of what was available THEN as far as proving mechanisms, it does not surprise me that the bones were buried instead of being sent to scientists.
If my extended family were buried in a common space, mausoleum or something like that, the mitochondrial DNA would show that several members weren’t related maternally. Would that mean that I was married to my half-brother? That’s a huge assumption to make. Especially in a time when maternal death was so much more common than it is now.
This isn’t science, this is making the evidence fit the conclusion.
[QUOTE=thirdwarning]
If my extended family were buried in a common space, mausoleum or something like that, the mitochondrial DNA would show that several members weren’t related maternally. Would that mean that I was married to my half-brother? That’s a huge assumption to make. Especially in a time when maternal death was so much more common than it is now.
This isn’t science, this is making the evidence fit the conclusion.
[/QUOTE]
Also the Jesus there could have been that Mary’s father. Or half-brother (not same mother) or Brother in law, or …
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
He couldn’t have been her father. That would mean they had a common female ancestor.
[/QUOTE]
Not the way mitochondrial dna works. It’s only passed to children from their mother, since it exists only in the ova and not the sperm. Fathers and daughters don’t share mitochondrial dna unless there’s some inbreeding going on. If, for example, the maternal and paternal grandmothers were sisters. So yes, he could have been her father.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
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.
[/QUOTE]
You gotta admit, Dio, it’s rather incredibly convenient that the Jesus and Mary ossuaries *did * seem to have enough stuff there to test. Doesn’t that strike you as weird? That only those particular two, and not any others, contained anything testworthy?
Note: I haven’t seen the show. But from what I’ve read here, it seems they had to scrape stuff off the Jesus and Mary ossuaries in order to test anything. They couldn’t scape the others as well, no matter how well vaccuumed and cleaned? Sounds fishy to me.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
He couldn’t have been her father. That would mean they had a common female ancestor.
[/QUOTE]
If your father and sister have a common maternal ancestor, that means that your father and mother have a common maternal ancestor. Just how much inbreeding do you think is going on, here?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
If your father and sister have a common maternal ancestor, that means that your father and mother have a common maternal ancestor. Just how much inbreeding do you think is going on, here?
[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t trying to suggest any inbreeding. I’m kind of confused about what you’re saying. The alleged “Yeshua” and “Mariamne” ossuaries showed that they were not maternally related, but if Yeshua was Mariamne’s father, then They would have a shared mitochondrial profile through Yeshua’s mother (Mariamne’s grandmother), would they not?
Or would the mitochondrial DNA not pass through Yeshua to a granddaughter? maybe I’m just confused about the genetics.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Or would the mitochondrial DNA not pass through Yeshua to a granddaughter? maybe I’m just confused about the genetics.
[/QUOTE]
Mitochondrial DNA can only pass from mother to child. For a father and daughter to have the same mtDNA, the father would have had to inseminate his own mother.