…and this is a 
Lost Tomb of Jesus
Category: Entertainment • History • Stupidity • Weirdness
Posted on: March 4, 2007 11:56 PM, by PZ Myers
Last week, I promised I'd watch this documentary about the "lost tomb of Jesus" because it was being advertised here on Pharyngula. Promise fulfilled, but the ghastly program was two hours long—two hours of nothing but fluff. I've put a bit of a summary of the whole show below the fold, but I'm afraid there's nothing very persuasive about any of it, and it was stretched out to a hopelessly tedious length.
| 8:00-8:30 | We learn that there were some ossuaries pulled out of a tomb in 1980. The names scrawled on them: Jesus bar Joseph, Jose, Mary, Matthew. They really didn't have to drag that out for a half hour. |
| 8:30-8:45 | They poke around the site of the tomb, which is under an apartment complex in Jerusalem. I do learn that rabbis there insist on pipes being poked down to tombs so the spirits can get out, which is kind of freaky, but convenient if you've got a camera and some fiber optics. We also see some handwaving statistics, given the frequency of various names, and an estimate that it's very unlikely that this can be anything other than Jesus' family. I don't buy it. |
| 8:45-9:00 | Another ossuary has the name "Miriamne Mara". They speculate that this might be Mary Magdalene's, despite it not saying "Magdalene", because MM might have been a master ("Mara") and preacher. Extensive confabulations follow. |
| 9:00-9:05 | You know that tomb they were poking around in earlier? They finally get a camera in. Wrong tomb. |
| 9:05-9:15 | Hey, Simon bar Jonah's ossuary was found somewhere near here—maybe this was an area where lots of early Christians were buried! So they show some more piles of ossuaries nearby. It seems to me, though, that if they've got an association with a specific community of early Christians, that the statistical analysis which assumes a random distribution of names has just gone kablooiee. |
| 9:15-9:25 | Finally, the much ballyhooed DNA evidence. They extracted mitochondrial DNA from bone fragments in the ossuaries. The mito DNA from the Jesus ossuary and the Miriamne Mara ossuary don't match—which is what you'd expect if it were Jesus and Mary Magdalene (they are not maternally related!) It's also what you'd expect if it were a family tomb, and they were husband and wife. Therefore, they speculate for a while that Mary Magdalene and Jesus must have actually been married to one another! It's an awful lot to spin from a lack of a DNA match. |
| 9:25-9:30 | The guys at the apartment complex find a cement cover 20 meters away, and open it up. It's the right tomb! I don't quite understand why they're rummaging about in the old tomb—the ossuaries had been removed 20 years before, and stored in a warehouse. |
| 9:30-9:45 | They count the ossuaries in the warehouse, and the tally in the archaeological records. They don't match—one is missing. So they dredge up Oded Golan and the "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus" ossuary, which is known to have had a forged inscription. They speculate that even if the "brother of Jesus" part was forged, if it came from the same tomb, it would still indicate a familial tie. |
| 9:45-9:50 | Patina analysis shows that the James ossuary probably came from the same tomb as the Jesus/Mary/Miramne/Matthew/Jose group. Uh, they don't seem to care that they've just linked their inscribed ossuaries to a known forged ossuary inscription. |
| 9:50-10:00 | Bombshell! Now, at the end of the program, they mention another ossuary that was inscribed "Judah son of Jesus". Let's speculate that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child together so that this all makes sense. Unfortunately, their earlier arguments relied on the compatibility of the names with scriptural evidence; now when they've got a name that contradicts the scriptures, they just pull an unsupported story out of their asses to make it fit. If they found "Kilroy" scrawled on one of the ossuaries, I suspect they'd make up something about a distant cousin mentioned in an apocryphal scrap of parchment somewhere. |
It wasn't very impressive. They really milked a paucity of hard data for an over-long 'documentary' that was mostly handwaving. The DNA data was pretty much non-existent—one pair of bone fragments were compared and found not to match. Most of the story was an assurance that the conjunction of names found in the tomb couldn't merely coincidentally match the names found in the gospels…but they really had to reach to make excuses to turn "Miriamne Mara" into "Mary Magdalene", and they had one name, this "Judah" kid, that didn't match the biblical collection at all, so they just flat-out invented an unsupported tale of Jesus having a son. Flogging a link between some ossuaries stored in a warehouse (which did not look at all secure) for twenty years and a known forgery also simply obliterates any credibility the whole shebang might have.
Don't waste your time with it. It's nonsense. I was rather enchanted with the idea that some apartments in Israel have 'spirit pipes' that lead down to 2000 year old tombs, though, and that if you pry up the right slab in your garden you might find a ladder down to an ancient tomb. Otherwise, it was pretty much a bust.
One good thing: the commercials for an 11-part documentary titled "planet earth" to be shown later this month looked very, very good. I may have to catch that one.
Comments
Most painful 2 hours EVER! The "journalist" was such a sleazeball, which became even more apparent during the 1 hour criticism session after the documentary. It was good to see Ted Koppell and the two archaeologists tear him a new one, although I have to say I don't know why the Discovery Channel didn't make the guy change his film before showing it. The fact that they would actually air such a piece of crap is definitely a black mark on their record, although I'll be tuning in to Planet Earth later this month nonetheless.
Posted by: Laelaps | March 5, 2007 12:06 AM
I vaguely watched it and I wasn't impressed either. They just dragged and dragged and dragged the show on. I kept waiting for something revealing but nothing. I gave up after the second pipe dive and decided I had a better use of my time.
Posted by: Callandor | March 5, 2007 12:06 AM
You should have watched the whole thing, and the Ted Koppel "critical thinking" debate afterwards. Not that it was very good either. Mostly a lot of people arguing over who said what and in what context, with very little science referenced. The second half of the debate was with three theologians, who basically said "this is all bunk... and we don't have to think of it at all because it doesn't match with our faith."
What struck me the most was all the argument over the dramatizations, like they don't occur in other documentary pieces... it became the MAIN FOCUS of the debate, rather than the science.
BTW, I haven't done the research on the "James ossuary" yet, but apparently the patina results from the lab are being used in a fraud lawsuit.
oh, and you linked Wikipedia? ((SHUDDER)) I'm appalled!
Posted by: dorid | March 5, 2007 12:07 AM
I noticed they didn't mention the possibility that the mitochondrial DNA didn't match because the Jesus and Mary ossuaries were father and daughter. Is there a good reason I'm missing that would exclude that possibility, or were they just doing a shoddy job?
Posted by: Tiax | March 5, 2007 12:08 AM
I think "shoddy job" is the right term. They came up with one reasonable explanation -- the DNA was from individuals in a family tomb related by marriage -- and then spun out a silly story about how Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. Making up a story about Mary Magdalene being the daughter of Jesus was too much for even that gang of fantasists to swallow.
And yes, it was all drawn out to ridiculous lengths for nothing at all. It was a kind of Al Capone's Vault story.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 5, 2007 12:15 AM
I seem to recall a video about the parasitic fungus Cordyceps being posted here awhile back. That was actually a excerpt from an episode of Planet Earth, I believe. Unfortunately, it seems that the American version of the series will be narrated by Sigourney Weaver in place of the BBC's David Attenborough. I'm sure it will still be interesting though. The bits I've seen have had some beautiful footage.
Posted by: kyle | March 5, 2007 12:19 AM
Judah, Judah, Judah.
[I'm glad I missed that.]
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 5, 2007 12:20 AM
It wasn't very impressive.
that's why nobody gave him enough money to make it into a hollywood summer blockbuster.
uh, did they?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2007 12:29 AM
And yes, it was all drawn out to ridiculous lengths for nothing at all. It was a kind of Al Capone's Vault story.
ahh, where's Geraldo when you need him, eh?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2007 12:31 AM
Ahhh. So, it basically was as much crapola as I thought it would be. I was kind of hoping for an ark of the covernant or something like that. (Maybe you only get an ark of the covernant in movies like "Raiders of the Lost Ark.")
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | March 5, 2007 12:38 AM
...the commercials for an 11-part documentary titled "planet earth" to be shown later this month looked very, very good. I may have to catch that one.
"Planet Earth" is a fascinating BBC series that has already been shown up here in Canada on the CBC. Light on details, but a wealth of incredible visuals.
Posted by: sinned34 | March 5, 2007 12:39 AM
Hey, Judah?
Actually, that sounds like a way cooler documentary to me. I'd love to see that one! You know, just interview people who live over these tombs. Ask what they think about living over crypts, how people react to the spirit pipes, whether their kids ever climb down and play with the corpses, etc.
Posted by: Joshua | March 5, 2007 12:44 AM
Apparently, the Discovery Channel gets its name from the fact that they have discovered novel ways of padding time for content-free television.
This crap is everywhere, though. My wife loves crime shows and likes to have her feet rubbed during Court TV. I don't mind the foot rubbing, mind, but so many of these crime shows have 5 minutes of fact for every half-hour of television. Especially annoying is their tendency to spend a minute or more of each segment recapping the key developments of the previous segment(s), with the same footage, albeit ominously ramped-up narration and music.
At any rate, programs like this seem generally obnoxious:
1) Serious, thoughtful people who question the utility of religion are going to be subjected to a lot of quasi-mystical crap that demonstrates nothing.
2) Sincere believers are likely to be conclude that the shoddy presentation was put forward for no other reason than to discredit their faith by dishonest means, which will contribute to their likely isolation from centers of inquiry.
3) Regardless of where we stand on the above issues, those of us who care about the practice of science are left rolling our eyes and wonder how much damage this piece of sensationalism will do to the general public's understanding of science, and its practice.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | March 5, 2007 12:50 AM
I saw this coming a mile away. IMO it's just nor worth the effort - to begin with - to try and prove Jesus didn't exist. I won't even touch on the myriad other reasons why this 2-hour "special" is such rancid material.
Joe Scarborough was on Bill Maher on Friday and seemed to take serious offense to Mr. Cameron's program. However, he couched it on a platform of the existence of a massive movement to "irritate Christians", which was about the only point I totally disagreed with him on the entire hour. He was essentially saying - in a conspiracy theorist-stoking way - that shows like this were made merely to piss off a bunch of church-goers to try and goad them into dropping all of their beliefs. I felt it was a pretty stupid argument, because - of course - he didn't acknowledge the proliferation over the last 50 years of anti-science and anti-atheist rhetoric found in countless books that normally pad the NYT bestseller list (and bookstore shelves), and was using the present NYT list (which is something of the opposite) to show that there was apparently this massive movement to oppress Christians.
As I figured, Cameron has succeeded at not only making himself look really dumb and flaccid professionally, but in stoking the anger of a bunch of people who already believed in a very vaporous and shoddy conspiracy, and in allowing them to continue believing there is some unseen force (which inevitably ends up being filed unreasonably under the pejorative "liberal") pushing the buttons that enslave them.
Cameron should stick to cutting celluloid about head-splitting acid-spitting aliens invading large Guilded Age shapes that split in half in icy north Atlantic waters. Or maybe he'll pen a script about said aliens erupting from tombs in Israel via barely breathing DNA escaping via "spirit pipes". Perhaps he could also work in something about free energy...
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 5, 2007 12:52 AM
Thank goodness I didn't make the promise that PZ made. I got to shut it off after 20 minutes (20 minutes that I'd like back thanks, where do I send the bill?). I tuned back in for the "critical" look thing after, but only lasted 5 minutes with that.
If they made money on this load, I think I am going to excavate my bathroom for remnants of the FSM. That HAS to be worth something.
Dave
Posted by: Dave | March 5, 2007 12:53 AM
I recall that in the ubiquitous ad for the show there was a clip of Koppel saying "we present both sides of the story", and wondering what the hell he meant. Are there only two sides? Was he going to present only two of the sides of one interpretation?
When the hell was the last time anyone encountered an argument with only two sides?
Posted by: autumn | March 5, 2007 12:59 AM
Ya know, they started pimping the Koppel follow-up only a day or so ago (based on my viewing habits vis a vis Discovery Channel). If you ask me, Discovery management made a decision to enter in a concession piece to try to bring the hype and resultant uproar back to center and focus on the debate. It seems like such a half-assed affair to me, all 3 hours of it.
Not one of Discovery's finest decisions, whether you agree with religion or not.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 5, 2007 1:24 AM
2) Sincere believers are likely to be conclude that the shoddy presentation was put forward for no other reason than to discredit their faith by dishonest means, which will contribute to their likely isolation from centers of inquiry.
What, just because of that "spirit pipes" thing for the spirits to escape? No no, I think that was from a different religion. The sincere believers you're talking about think Jesus floats up on a cloud and there are magic angel spirits flying around everywhere, and the really big spirit who turns into doves and flies around all over the place. However, I do believe that both religions are related somehow and that both of them believe invisible "poofy" things that "poof" the universe into existence and fill it (eventually) with creatures who are never quite worthy enough to be, er, "worthy" of something or other. :-)
Posted by: 386sx | March 5, 2007 1:30 AM
Thank you for this! I just deleted the entire thing unwatched from my DVR, and I'm glad I didn't waste my time. Way to take one for the team!
Posted by: g33kgrrl | March 5, 2007 1:34 AM
Dave - if you really want to cash in on the FSM remains, try any college apartment. Each strand of hardened Raman is evidence that a term paper was inspired by one of his noodley appendages.
Posted by: Alex | March 5, 2007 2:12 AM
Sounds like they *nailed* the TV adaptation of "The Da Vinci Code".
Posted by: ben | March 5, 2007 2:18 AM
Ted Koppell
Hey, Laelaps must have seen TK change his name from Koppel to Koppell on Conan O'Brian's "dubble letter week".
Posted by: truth machine | March 5, 2007 2:43 AM
As the visuals include cannibalistic chimps, lions hunting elephants, snow leopards, whale sharks, and some fantastic cave faunas, it shouldn't be missed. The DVD will keep the original narration.
There's a three-part series accompanying Planet Earth about Man's impact. Another David Attenborough narration, only in America I think he's being replaced by Matt Damon for this one. Maybe they've changed the narration to remove any references to either of the dreaded "e" words?
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | March 5, 2007 2:52 AM
What was missing from the discussion after the show was anybody making the obvious point: "Well, this evidence is pretty weak; but there's nothing intrinsically unlikely about his body turning up. He was buried someplace."
Posted by: Jim Harrison | March 5, 2007 3:14 AM
The Planet Earth documentary by the BBC is fabuloaus!
Posted by: Heleen | March 5, 2007 3:31 AM
Speaking of Noah's Ark, how is that research going? I seem to remember some "exciting" news on CNN a couple years ago, about an ark-shaped blob in some photo of a mountain in Turkey.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 5, 2007 3:54 AM
You forgot the part where the blind woman comes out of the apartments and says, "Oh yes...the children played in that tomb and we had to install a concrete cover to keep them out." That kind of destroys the whole, over-dramatized portion of the documentary where the IAA asks them to leave and they (the film makers) whine about the fact that the IAA is preventing them from gathering more evidence. Um. Hello!?! If the ossuary was open to CHILDREN, you just might find KILLROY scratched into a wall. ;)
Furthermore, did you note the slight of hand with the Act of Phillip/Mara connection? Let's see...the Acts of Phillip were "discovered" in the 1970's. The AoP is the FIRST place (according to the docu people) to reference the "Magdalene as Master" phrase. Then, conveniently (in the 80's) someone discovers an ossuary with that EXACT name!! Why isn't it, at the very least, plausible that someone - knowing that a tomb had been discovered- went in and etched in the name from AoP. ESPECIALLY since the patinas matched and these ossuaries didn't appear to be under any really tight security!
As much as I'd love for the whole Jesus story to be proven false, I still like to imagine that I have some shred of academic and intellectual integrity.
Posted by: possummomma | March 5, 2007 3:56 AM
I spent those two hours playing a video game, and I'm happy I did so.
Posted by: Zombie | March 5, 2007 3:57 AM
They remove David Attenborough's narration from the US version of 'Planet Earth'?
Blasphemy!
Or at least philistinism of the highest order!
Don't you know that this man brought the world 'Match of the Day'?
The only downside of Attenborough's amazing narration style is that his voice is so soothing, I tend to nod off half way through the programme and wake up at the credits. I'm sure it's a cunning ploy to make people buy the DVD boxed set.
'Planet Earth' is an amazing series - well worth the watch.
Posted by: Paul | March 5, 2007 4:44 AM
I thought the main selling point of Christianity was that Jesus didn't stay in the tomb. Wouldn't the fact that there actual bones in the tomb labeled 'Jesus' deserve a mention? Perhaps a breathless commentary to the effect of "This discovery could destroy the faith of BILLIONS of Chrstians?"
Posted by: RickD | March 5, 2007 5:04 AM
Changing the narration seems so strange. here in the UK, it is viewed as a David Attenborough series. It is excellent though, and the lengths they went to to get some of the shots are amazing
Posted by: G. Shelley | March 5, 2007 5:14 AM
The Planet Earth series is quite brilliant. The DVD set has an extra 3 episodes about preservation and conservation, which are also worth watching.
Posted by: D.Hill | March 5, 2007 5:52 AM
Yes, Planet Earth is BRILLIANT! Attenborough excels himself, again. You'll like the Squid Sex Garden scene especially, I suspect :)
Posted by: Drhoz! | March 5, 2007 6:22 AM
Jim Harrison
RE:"What was missing from the discussion after the show was anybody making the obvious point: "Well, this evidence is pretty weak; but there's nothing intrinsically unlikely about his body turning up. He was buried someplace."
From: -
Once More into the Breach
http://www.telecomtally.com/blog/2007/03/once_more_into.html
"When the women entered the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea on Sunday morning, the loculus where Jesus' body had been laid was empty. The theological explanation for this phenomenon is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. However, once Jesus had been buried in accordance with Jewish law, there was no prohibition against removing the body from the tomb after the end of the Sabbath and reburying it. It is therefore possible that followers or family members removed Jesus' body from Joseph's tomb after the Sabbath ended and buried it in a trench grave, as it would have been unusual (to say the least) to leave a non-relative in a family tomb. Whatever explanation one prefers, the fact that Jesus' body did not remain in Joseph's tomb means that his bones could not have been collected in an ossuary, at least not if we follow the Gospel accounts."
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | March 5, 2007 7:07 AM
This is going to be shown on German TV on Good Friday! I know what I'm not going to be doing on that day!
Posted by: Thony C. | March 5, 2007 7:14 AM
Say what? So the soul isn't immaterial? What's it made of? Is there any good info on t'internet about this practice?
You have got to be shitting me. For the love of FSM, why?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 5, 2007 7:16 AM
truth machine-
Thanks for calling out my errant spelling; that falls into the "It was late and I was tired" file of mistakes.
Posted by: Laelaps | March 5, 2007 8:14 AM
'Wouldn't the fact that there actual bones in the tomb labeled 'Jesus' deserve a mention? Perhaps a breathless commentary to the effect of "This discovery could destroy the faith of BILLIONS of Christians?"'
Not when there are other people named Jesus buried hither and yon. Imagine finding a tomb labeled 'Abraham Lincoln', no other info, in which the body showed no signs of being shot. Would that cast doubt on the historical accuracy of President Lincoln's assassination?
Posted by: Ryogam | March 5, 2007 8:16 AM
Posted by: wrg | March 5, 2007 8:17 AM
Most modern biblical scholars maintain that there never was a tomb that jesus was laid in at any time. All the gospel stories date from the late 1st and early 2nd century. This is generations after the events depicted, and therefore suspect as to reliability. So any story based on accepting data from the gospels are intrinsically flawed from the beginning. The most likely scenario, (assuming there ever was an historical person, jesus of Nazareth), is that after the crucifixtion and all the followers, including the women, fled back to Gallilee and hid for some time, the Romans merely cut down what was left of the half eaten body of jesus and threw it into an unmarked common grave for criminals and the bones are still undiscovered and undiscoverable.
The Tomb and Ossaries may in fact be from a period when a remnant aramaic early christian group sought to provide tangible support for a worship system built around bones.
We will never know.
Posted by: Denis C | March 5, 2007 8:36 AM
Pipes in ossuaries? Sounds to me like the Messiah died waiting for a plumber. Just like the rest of us, then.
Posted by: Peter McGrath | March 5, 2007 8:37 AM
As hokey as it must have been (didn't waste my time on it), I did notice that the fact that it was shown was bothering the god-heads at work this morning.
So it can't have been all bad. :)
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | March 5, 2007 8:38 AM
Enough of this silliness. Can't we all get back to taking about Anna Nicole Smith?
Posted by: Lago | March 5, 2007 8:40 AM
Before you make up your mind on the "Lost Tomb of Jesus" you need to see and hear the rest of the evidence.
For a comprehensive and scholarly rebuttal of the film's evidence please visit ExtremeTheology.com.
Read and hear the evidence for yourself.
Posted by: Chris Rosebrough | March 5, 2007 8:57 AM
I have long suspected that in American journalism every argument has exactly two sides. Like duct tape and the Force.
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 5, 2007 9:03 AM
It seemed odd to me in the pre-show reports that the producers didn't test all the DNA. (The "I'm a journalist" excuse was pure gold.) From your description of the show, it sounds like those tests could have offered a clear-cut test of whether "Judah" was the son of "Mary Magdalene." If yes, same mtDNA. If not, not same. Hmmm...you don't think they wanted to avoid an unpleasant test result?
Posted by: Carl Zimmer | March 5, 2007 9:20 AM
Chris Rosebrough -
I think most, if not all, of us agree with you that the show was crap . . . but not necessarily for the same reasons.
Posted by: spencer | March 5, 2007 9:25 AM
Actually, there's three--the third one represented by the South Park-ian "the truth is exactly in the middle between these two positions!" pseudo-argument.
Posted by: dzd | March 5, 2007 9:30 AM
Speaking of crap, did anyone see the "Noah's Ark" show that aired before the Jesus thing? After that, the Discovery Channel lost much credibility in my book.
Posted by: Kurt | March 5, 2007 9:35 AM
Yawwwwwn...oh wait James Cameron was involved, so of course it was waaaay too long!!!
Posted by: ukexpat | March 5, 2007 9:41 AM
Mr. Rosebrough is looking for easy hits on his blog. It doesn't sound like he's paying attention to what people here have said about this "documentary" either.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 5, 2007 9:42 AM
""For a comprehensive and scholarly rebuttal of the film's evidence please visit ExtremeTheology.com.
Read and hear the evidence for yourself.""
Can I just poke myself in the eye instead?
Posted by: Lago | March 5, 2007 9:42 AM
"#48
I have long suspected that in American journalism every argument has exactly two sides."
Are you making claim I can enjoy RC Cola in place of either Pepsi or Coke?
That borders on sacrilege.
Posted by: Lago | March 5, 2007 9:45 AM
Well I made the mistake of going over to 'Extreme theology' and bumped around for awhile. What a wasteland! It is more of the same from nutters. They are pretty much bashing other Christians and of course making alot of nonsense claims.
Save yourself the time and trouble for while I agreed with some of what they said it is nothing new and frankly people that into their religion don't seem so stable.
Posted by: Uber | March 5, 2007 9:50 AM
I didn't watch it. I'm not sure if Simcha Jacobovici was the "I'm a journalist" guy, but I've come to the conclusion that anything with him is, at best, only going to contain psuedo science. He draws conclusions based on fluff in his History channel show "The Naked Archaeologist". After two episodes (I gave him the benefit of the doubt after the first) I couldn't watch it anymore.
The History channel, Discovery channel, and even the Science channel all have shows with very little scientific/historic backing. The dramatization-type shows are the ones that really irk me.
Posted by: ordinarygirl | March 5, 2007 9:54 AM
I would always ask a blind woman in my neighborhood for updates on construction activities.
Did anybod get why the bones were never shown ? If a guy gets crucified and then speared, you'd think that would leave a few marks on his bones. Did I miss something ?
Posted by: Umilik | March 5, 2007 9:59 AM
In the Koppel program, when asked why they didn't test Judah's DNA to test the maternal connection to Mary, he replied that the Judah ossuary was very clean and it would take much more careful methods to try to recover DNA from it.
Would proof of Jesus bones destroy Christian faith? That quation was asked in the documentary by that Irish theologian that seems to be in all these TDC documentaries. He gave a good answer, "God will do what he wants with the bones", and the show itself speculated that the Bible could be read as a purely spiritual resurrection with the body remaining behind just like any other.
I did not catch the whole discussion about the James ossuary during the Koppel program, but it seemed that the decision about whether it is a forgery or not is still being decided?
The Koppel program did teach me a new neologism, "archeoporn" that I thought was pretty funny.
Posted by: SteveM | March 5, 2007 10:10 AM
While waiting on the start of Jesus' tomb at 9PM I watched the classic B&W movie of Harvey with Jimmy Stewart. Switched over to Discovery at 9...went back to Harvey by 9:15. Far more informative, enlightening, and entertaining! Seemed like Jesus'tomb was chasing imaginary rabbit friends, as well...not very successfully, either, IMHO. ;-)
Posted by: Chemist | March 5, 2007 10:16 AM
What caught my fancy about this too long film has been the great efforts of both scientists (archeologists) and theologians to discard the whole story as nonsense. Also intersting is the fact that both the film maker and the man who conducted the debate afterwards are Jewish.
Here's my take: The scientists who dug the tomb in 1980 never made the possible connection between the people whose names were on the ossuaries and the biblical Jesus family. Being pompus scientists (most of the archeologists are pompus), they don't have either the guts are the honesty to admit that they may screwed up 27 years ago and missed a possibly great find, especially when a shmock journalist getting all the air time. The theologians will fight tooth and nail to discredit anything that may point to the possibility that Jesus was married (especially to an adulterous woman) and had a son. Even more scarry for them is the possibility that Jesus stayed on earth and his bones are still here.
For me, and I think for the film maker too, the uniqueness of the names on the ossuaries is the most facinating of all. Thus, the name Maria (מריה) in Hebrew is extermely uncommon, likewise the name Jose (יוסה), which according to Mark's gospel was the nickname of Jesus's brother, Joseph. The fact that Mariamme's name was written in Greek letters on the only ossuary to bear such letters in a tomb, where all the other ossuaries bear names in Hebrew only, should not be dismissed as just another common occurrence.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | March 5, 2007 10:25 AM
If atheists were as desperate for evidence as ID proponents, we'd be fawning all over this documentary. It's telling in many ways that we're as skeptical about it as the Christians.
Posted by: Kevin W. Parker | March 5, 2007 10:26 AM
That's a humor site, isn't it?
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | March 5, 2007 10:35 AM
I managed to just catch the Theology vs. Documentary panel after the Jesus Tomb show.
The woman from Virginia was the most coherent in her objections to it... not very scientific. She was right.
The man from Texas, another theology professor was rambling about most Christians believe that Jesus' physical body actually floated up into the sky. So he has a big issue with any bones being found whatsover.
The minister basically said sciene wouldn't shake the faith of believers regardless of what was found. It's managed to ignore science this long.
The film maker and his professorial counterpart (can't remember his affiliation or realm of knowledge) didn't get alot of chances to speak and weren't particularly agressive about anything. They looked actually kind of annoyed that they were even there.
It seemed thrown together in order for the Discovery channel to not have to answer the outrage that was sure to follow. Lame.
The show that followed was about Noah's Ark... sort of. It basically said that there's no way in hell was there a global flood or that the boat could of been built or even possibly hold all the animals mentioned in the bible. However, they did trace back the myth to the story of Gilgamesh, who essentially had built a barge that floated out into the Persian gulf on a Mesopotamian River flood.
Watched some of the Dark Ages show. They told the story of Charlemagne.
Brutal christian king who executed anyone caught worshipping pagan gods.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 5, 2007 10:50 AM
Besides planet earth (narrated by David Attenborough, so you KNOW it will be great), I'd also suggest "galapagos". It's in HD as well, and it's going to be shown in the national geographic channel march 18 ... not sure what time because the site doesn't say :P http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/channel/galapagos/
They BETTER not!
Posted by: TAW | March 5, 2007 10:51 AM
Only in the US would they dub David Attenborough. I mean he is speaking the same damn language.
The mind boggles.
Posted by: LiberalDirk | March 5, 2007 10:53 AM
He was essentially saying - in a conspiracy theorist-stoking way - that shows like this were made merely to piss off a bunch of church-goers to try and goad them into dropping all of their beliefs.
Well, think about it, Scarborough's not exactly wrong.
It's makes a perfect foil to all this manufactured "evidence" of man's existence alongside dinosaurs, the "discovery" of arks all over Mount Ararat (there must have been arks on the ark, or else the ark had babies), the Flood "laying down the fossil strata," visions of Mary and Jesus in maple syrup, and our quintessential fav, intelligent design, doesn't it?
Scarborough's lifeblood is conspiracy theories, and so are the careers of the pseudoscientists pushing intelligent design. Create a conspiracy, and you'll see them everywhere. (And you'll invite money-grubbers like Cameron to make crap films "disproving" a religious belief that was itself propped up by smarmy "research" and crap films, like the "designed banana" rot by that other Cameron.)
The two sides deserve each other.
Posted by: Kristine | March 5, 2007 10:54 AM
This to me is very telling. You cannot get a spiritual resurrection from the reading. It seems pretty clear what is said to have happened.
Daniel Dennett is correct. It's not about the belief, it's about belief in belief for these people. Now we just need to figure out why it is so hard for them to admit the bible isn't what they where raised to think it is.
Posted by: Uber | March 5, 2007 11:12 AM
Glad I didn't watch it yesterday. I was way too busy with my wordpress blogs and Mom and I was watching Iron Chef America on Food Network.
Posted by: Sherry Konkus | March 5, 2007 12:52 PM
Because it's not about belief, or even about belief in belief, it's about using one's beliefs as the sole generator of one's identity.
Without their beliefs, these people have and are, quite literally, nothing. They're blank robots, but someone downloaded god(s) into them instead of Lucy Liu.
Posted by: Dan | March 5, 2007 1:14 PM
I exclaimed "oh jesus!" exactly 250 times.
I slapped my head to my forehead exactly 300 times.
I giggled once, a nice long giggle.
Posted by: the giggler | March 5, 2007 1:28 PM
The story of Gilgamesh: It was not about Gilgamesh building a barge. The story is about Gilgamesh visiting an immortal named Utnapishtim, in order to learn how to be immortal - Gilgamesh is 1/3 god (?? divine reproductive processes), and is afraid of death. It turns out that Utnapishtim gained immortality because he followed one of the gods' instruction in building an ark and saving mankind from a great flood. The flood was sent to kill mankind because man was too noisy - kept on waking the gods up early on Sunday, like evangelists in the suburbs. One of the gods (I believe Enlil) was a bit brighter than the rest and realized that killing all mankind would lead to an end of sacrifices (lunch will be late for eternity!) There was also a bird used to find the recession of the flood, etc - basically the same Noah story, but with a different(?) moral.
Posted by: frog | March 5, 2007 1:30 PM
*hand to my forehead... though the first thing I wrote would be 1000 times awesomer.
Good day.
Posted by: the giggler | March 5, 2007 1:30 PM
Wait, so Doubting Thomas was right?
And from Luke:
"Then did Jesus add, 'Now technically, I'm not actually in my flesh and bones, which Bartholomew buried in Jerusalem after nipping round the back of the cave two days ago, but I still, you know, have them. Just not on me. And I didn't really eat that fish, just hacked into your visual cortex to make you think I did. Still, good trick, right?' And all the apostles did groan and slap their foreheads."
Posted by: Anton Mates | March 5, 2007 1:35 PM
Posted by: llewelly | March 5, 2007 2:07 PM
I avoided turning on discovery at all until later, when there was some hot leopard seal-on-penguin action to be had.
Imagine how bummed you'd be as a penguin with some monster leopard seal pushing around the ice chunk you were chillin on....my goodness. That was the saddest looking marine bird i've ever seen, and they've got a notable lack of facial features.
Posted by: garth | March 5, 2007 2:46 PM
I saw the preview for planet earth while watching the 'pre'-previews at the movies...man am I glad i've got HDTV. It looks like it will be an incredible mini-series.
Posted by: Matt R | March 5, 2007 3:12 PM
Having grown up the daughter of a Biblical archaeologist/Episcopalian priest who renounced his orders when he decided that a belief in God was probably a prerequisite for remaining a member of the clergy, I watched the far more scientific Dresden Files. Not as good as the books, but...
Posted by: DominEditrix | March 5, 2007 3:23 PM
Scientific American talked to Andrey Feuerverger, the statistician cited in the documentary...Unlike the snake-oil peddlers, Feuerverger freely admits that his analysis is completely inconclusive. His probability calculations are only as good as the data he was given, which is not very good at all.
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=14A3C2E6-E7F2-99DF-37A9AEC98FB0702A
Posted by: Aloysius | March 5, 2007 4:07 PM
"Imagine how bummed you'd be as a penguin with some monster leopard seal pushing around the ice chunk you were chillin on....my goodness. That was the saddest looking marine bird i've ever seen, and they've got a notable lack of facial features. "
That's nothing compared to the photo in National Geographic a few months ago of a leopard seal ripping the head off a penguin.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 5, 2007 4:10 PM
It would actually be hilarious if they were jesuses bones... Teenagers making out next to him.. before all the parents had the hole sealed up.. people jogging over him everyday.
It would be pretty much perfect.
Posted by: the giggler | March 5, 2007 4:25 PM
Uber,
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment at extremetheology.com. Here is what you said..."I like your review but referring to the New Testament as 'eyewitness accounts' calls your creditibility into question.
It is well known and has been well known for a couple hundred years now that the NT writers are not eyewitnesses. "
I noticed that the name of this site is 'scienceblogs'. Can you tell me what you know about the SCIENCE of Historiagraphy. I minored in history during my undergraduate degree.
Since you are making the claim that I am not credible because I along with other historians, agree that the historical proof that the New Testament documents are not only written early in the First Century but that two of the gospels constitute primary source data, why don't you educate us about the Scientific rules that historians following in determining whether a document is primary or secondary source material.
While your at it please provide the historical proof that the New Testament authors were not eye-witnesses. You made the claim you therefore have the burden of proof when it comes to supporting your claim.
You are scientific in your thinking, aren't you? Or are you a materlistic-mystic and only believe what you are told without checking the facts?
Posted by: Chris Rosebrough | March 5, 2007 4:45 PM
While your at it please provide the historical proof that the New Testament authors were not eye-witnesses. You made the claim you therefore have the burden of proof when it comes to supporting your claim.
You are scientific in your thinking, aren't you? Or are you a materlistic-mystic and only believe what you are told without checking the facts?
The irony is sweet.
Posted by: