The Lost Tomb of Jesus (Not)

"He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"

- Terry Jones as Brian’s Mother - Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”

A week ago, “Titanic” director James Cameron and journalist Simcha Jacobovici released a TV film called “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”. If you haven't heard of the film you can visit the Discovery Channel for the details.

You know this is going to be a serious film when right at the beginning they tell you, in all upper case: THIS FILM CONTAINS RECONSTRUCTIONS. Well thanks for the information, because without that, I might have thought they’d found some actual original first century film footage or something. Oh I see – you got some actors to reconstruct some scenes you think happened. Thanks for clearing that up. Perhaps all these reconstructions, plus the stuff they included that was totally unnecessary (eg filming the wrong tomb), were the reason this epic lasted for two hours. With some editing it could easily have been reduced to under an hour without omitting anything important. Still, what would you expect from someone who made a three and a half hour film of a ship sinking?

Who’s Buried in Jesus’s Tomb?

As it turns out, that’s not such an easy question to answer. Here’s the thing. If some future archaeologist found a tomb containing the names John, Paul and George, he wouldn’t necessarily get too excited. However, if he found a tomb containing the names John, Paul, George and Ringo – he might be excused for thinking he had found the lost burial place of The Beatles. The filmmakers think they found the tomb with (by analogy) all four members of The Beatles – ie the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth including his “wife”, Mary Magdalene. The important question though is: did Cameron and Jacobovici really discover the lost tomb of the Messiah and his wife, or are they both just very naughty boys? To answer that question you have to examine the statistics – specifically the 1 in 600 claim.

(Note: when I refer to “Jesus” in this post, I mean the Jesus of the New Testament. By “Yeshua bar Yehosef” I mean the (alleged), inscription on the ossuary that translates to “Jesus son of Joseph”.)

One in 600!

Here are the probabilities that the filmmakers gave us for each of the four names found in the tomb.

1. Yeshua bar Yehosef (Jesus Son of Joseph) - 1 in 190
2. Maria (Mary) - 1 in 4
3. Mariamene e Mara (possibly “Mary Magdalene”) - 1 in 160
4. Yose (a diminutive of Joseph, Jesus’s brother) - 1 in 20

They then showed some simple math that they said meant this was Jesus’s tomb with odds of 600 to1 in favor. The calculation was as follows:

1. Multiply the probabilities: 190 x 4 x 160 x 20 = 2,400,000
2. Divide by 4 (to adjust for “unintentional historical biases”): 2,400,000 / 4 = 600,000
3. Divide by 1,000 (to adjust for all possible first century Jerusalem tombs): 600,000 / 1,000 = 600

Unfortunately this math is almost certainly wrong. First, you don’t multiply probabilities the way they do in the film. If you don’t believe me, think of this: there were six named ossuaries in the tomb. Imagine if there had been 60, or 600 or 6,000. Hey, let’s imagine there were six million ossuaries in the tomb. With that number you would be certain to find probably hundreds of examples of each of the four names listed above, but with the math they’re using they would still show only a 1 in 600 probability of them occurring! Clearly absurd. Then there was a division by 4 to adjust for “unintentional historical biases”.  This doesn’t seem to relate to any standard “bias adjustment” I can find a reference for. In fact, I think the filmmakers simply made it up. We know this because the film’s statistician Dr Andrey Feuerverger has just posted a clarification (and listed assumptions – more of them below), and was interviewed by Scientific American on these very statistics. If you read those two links you’ll see that although he did originate the 1 in 600 figure, his calculations were not the ones shown in the film. Apparently the filmmakers didn’t think the actual math used by Feuerverger was important, just as long as they showed an equation that agreed with his end figure. Naughty boys!

Feuerverger is preparing a paper for peer review, and until then we cannot know exactly how he calculated the 1 in 600 number, although I presume he knows what he’s doing. (More so than the filmmakers, anyway.) However, we know many of his assumptions – specifically that he seems to have used the probabilities of the names as listed above (or pretty close in most cases). As Feuerverger himself says, the computations are highly dependent on the assumptions that enter into it, so the assumptions are where we should look.

Something About Mary

You should understand one thing the filmmakers are muddled about. It’s this: the 1 in 600 probability is not 1 in 600 that this is the tomb of Jesus. It is a 1 in 600 probability that there would be a tomb with these exact four names, or an even closer match to Jesus’s family, in one of the 1,000 tombs found so far.  The filmmakers’ assumption is therefore that these four names (or an even more specific group) would be the ones you would expect to find in Jesus’s tomb. Hold that thought for a minute.

We would expect Jesus’s family tomb to contain a Yeshua, a Maria etc. However, we would not expect a Mary Magdalene since there are no records that she was in Jesus’s family. In other words, she is not the “Ringo” of The Beatles analogy, because although we know Ringo was in The Beatles, we don’t know Mary Magdalene was in Jesus’s family. The filmmakers just assume Mary Magdalene was in Jesus’s family and they include the low probability of this (I in 160) as part of the 1 in 600 calculation. But Mary Magdalene being in Jesus’s family is also a conclusion they draw from the 1 in 600 odds. That means they are assuming their conclusion – the definition of circular reasoning. The 1 in 160 odds of Mariamene must therefore be taken out of the calculation.

Now, you might say that Jesus knew Mary Magdalene, and so she might be in the tomb. For example, if the inscription had unambiguously read “Mary of Magdala”, you might want to include the odds of this in the calculation. This would still, strictly speaking, be circular, but you could perhaps make a case. But this would only be worth even considering if “Mariamene e Mara” has to be Mary Magdalene. Not only can you not say this, but on the contrary few scholars even think “Mariamene e Mara” could be Mary Magdalene, who is always referred to as “Maria” in first century documents. The filmmakers slyly slip in the information that according to the Acts of Philip, Mary Magdalene was known as “Mariamene”. The difficulties with this are that (1) the information presented in the Acts of Philip are questionable at best and (2) the “Mary Magdalene” interpretation of this questionable document is actually just the speculation of one person - Francis Bovon – and not generally accepted by other scholars. The filmmakers engage in speculation about the “e Mara” part too. There is really no reason to suppose “Mariamene e Mara” is Mary Magdalene and/or should be in Jesus’s tomb at all.

What would the revised odds be when we remove Mariamene from the mix? It’s hard to say, since we don’t have Feuerverger’s actual calculations, although if you use the formula described in the film you arrive at just under 4 to 1.

If that wasn’t enough, scholars such as Ben Witherington even have doubts about the accuracy of the translations and the historical fit of the other three names. I’ll just quote one example – numerous sources state that Jesus was never referred to as “bar Yehosef” (son of Joseph). That alone, if true, would sink the whole “Jesus’s tomb” claim.

In summary – statistics don’t support the filmmakers’ conclusions.

Neither does the supposed DNA “evidence”. The mitochondrial DNA information they make such a song and dance about only shows that Yeshua bar Yehosef and Mariamene were not maternally related. But she doesn’t have to be Yeshua’s wife. She could be the wife of one of the other three named men, or of any man in one of the four unnamed ossuaries, or the daughter of any of the other nine in the tomb. And that’s if the DNA is even from the former inhabitants of the ossuaries, and some experts even doubt that. In summary, the DNA evidence is worthless too.

Britney, not Ringo

It's as if our future archaeologist had found a tomb with the names John, Paul, George and Britney, calculated the really small odds (say 1 in 600) that these four names would appear together randomly, and concluded that (with odds of 600 to 1), Britney Spears, and not Ringo Starr, was the drummer in The Beatles! In fact it’s worse than that: the “Britney” inscription isn’t even Britney Spears.

In the program that followed, Jacobovici defended his film along the lines of “the film was just to get a debate started”. In other words, he’s not really saying this is Jesus’s tomb, he’s only trying to get the scholars interested in examining the evidence. Considering the way the 1 in 600 data and DNA conclusions were presented, and considering the numerous “reconstructions”, I think he was being disingenuous. He presented the film the way he did because if he had made a film that said “very small probability we found the tomb of Jesus”, no one would have shown it. So yes, I think Cameron and Jacobovici were very naughty boys indeed. Perhaps we shouldn’t blame them too much – they’re only filmmakers. But this exercise demonstrates why we should look to peer reviewed scientific literature, and not TV films, to answer scientific questions.

I’ll end with a joke.

One day while Jesus was out walking, he came upon a group of people who were about to stone an adulteress to death.  Jesus stopped them, saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".  The crowd, chastised, starts to disperse, until an old lady at the back of the crowd suddenly throws a large rock, hitting the adulteress on the head, killing her instantly. Jesus turns to the woman and says, "Mother - sometimes you really piss me off".

April 12, 2007 Update

Read about how the experts shown in the film are backtracking on the film's claims.

Comments

[Bronze Dog]

Jacobovici defended his film along the lines of “the film was just to get a debate started”.

Kind of like how movies like "Loose Change" get started with "just asking questions."

[Craig Reed]

If this was the tomb of Jesus, don't you think the nation of Israel would ask for the return of the artifacts? Since 'they' took the artifacts to New York (as I understand it) for the 'unveiling' & associated PR, it gives the appearance of archeological plundering.

I am so excited to have found this website! Finally some sense! Well, I teach art and archaeology at a city college, and my students have been asking me about this "tomb of jesus" malarky lately. I've tried to stress to them that not only does it have no bearing on anything theological, but it is certainly not what Cameron wants it to be. My students said I was "cynical". Here I am, giving my expert opinion on a specific disciplinary matter, and it's not that I have some expertise to offer, it's that I'm "cynical"!!!?? WTF? How do I counter something like that?

BTW, I'm constantly treading water...as a teacher I have to be careful of any indication of bias (in my case that would be non-"bleever")...but over the years I've come to the conclusion that many people are drawn to archaeology and ancient history so they can "prove" their own literal beliefs in the Bible. This is difficult, because I try to teach critical thinking about the material, and stuff like this "tomb of jesus" continues to make my job harder. That and 300. Argh. I wish I could spend time debunking the misconceptions out there (including another Cameron special which purports to be able to date the Santorini eruption, and that it happened at the exact time of the Exodus. sigh.), but then I wouldn't have time for the actual curriculum!!

[Arren Frank]

"But this exercise demonstrates why we should look to peer reviewed scientific literature, and not TV films, to answer scientific questions.

I’ll end with a joke."

But..... you just did!

By the way, the comment that led my students to say that I was "cynical", is that I said it all sounded too familiar: that an Antonio Banderas movie came out in 2001 or so, called The Body, in which he plays a priest sent to Jerusalem to "hush up" the archaeological finding of Jesus' body. it would have been a decent movie, but I was too annoyed by the premise - a crucified body=Jesus. The Romans crucified everybody! They were execution experts, and that was one of their favorite methods. Anyway, this is a popular story, no matter which silly moviemaker wants to tell it this year. But I just personally resent the misuse of archaeological material. As an archaeologist, I wish those debunking this crap weren't mainly theologians, but archaeologists - it would give the argument more credibility. But I guess the experts on late antiquity/early Xianity generally won't even dignify it. They're probably hoping it will just die a quiet death.

[Citizen Deux]

Sigh, I was hoping for more science and less speculation. Pity. I thin kthis would have been a useful point at which to start a debate over ANYONE's presumed divinity.

[BigHeathenMike]

Hey there,
Another great piece, my friend. Oh, speaking of that, did you know that your bit on "The Secret" is referenced in the Skeptic's Dictionary? Check it out under "Law of Attraction" if you haven't already.

You rock.

Hey Citizen,
Totally good point. I can't believe we're at a point in time when we still need to prove someone ISN'T god! crazy, no? As far as science - that's one of the things that bothers me most about this, and that I'm afraid my students are falling for: using a technological (DNA testing) or mathematical (statisical analysis) method to "prove" your fallacious theory doesn't make it science. Sure, they took some DNA from some old bones, but that doesn't prove anything, just means they have some 2,000 year old, unknown, random guy's DNA. What good is that? And they're using the statistics in the most egregious, procrustian way - begging the question - assuming as true the very thing they are supposed to be proving! Statistics are sooo easily manipulated. It's all very irritating. And their epigraphy sucks. Some scholars aren't even sure it says "Yeshua" (jesus). Some think the word says "Hunan". Bet they didn't mention THAT in the movie. And the filmaker saying he "just wanted to get the debate started": how disengenuous. He just wanted to make a million dollars, more like. It's not about Jesus' body. It's not about Jesus' divinity. There's not even any proof of this Jesus' historicity, let alone anything else!

[Fellow Skeptic]

“There is really no reason to suppose “Mariamene e Mara” is Mary Magdalene and/or should be in Jesus’ tomb at all.”

Given the unorthodox nature of the Christian movement in the first century, and Mary Magdalene’s close ties and devotion as a Christian, might it then be at least a plausible possibility that she could have been placed in the tomb with Jesus, even if they weren’t married?

“If that wasn’t enough, scholars such as Ben Witherington even have doubts about the accuracy of the translations and the historical fit of the other three names. I’ll just quote one example – numerous sources state that Jesus was never referred to as “bar Yehosef” (son of Joseph). That alone, if true, would sink the whole “Jesus’ tomb” claim.”

While I do not question Mr. Witherington as a noted and prestigious evangelical bible scholar and respect his position, it should be stated that he is not necessarily an objective observer per se, as his devotions are with the Christian faith and his opinions are based on his beliefs as a theologian. If one approaches this scenario from a non-supernatural point of view, it could be reasonable to suspect that Jesus’ original followers may not have been convinced that he was indeed the son of God, born of immaculate conception, but that he was indeed the son of Joseph and Mary (as Joseph would have society believe to protect Mary’s virtue). Whether or not Jesus is referred to as “son of Joseph” in any other texts is not proof that he never could be referred to as such.

“In summary, the DNA evidence is worthless too.”

Perhaps before we can totally dismiss the DNA results, more testing should take place. If contamination is an issue, perhaps finding all the handlers of these ossuaries and testing their DNA against the ossuary DNA samples could shed some light on whether contamination happened through handling. Given the possible gravity of this find, the importance of conclusively proving or disproving it’s theories, any and all testing that is possible should be funded and carried out. Frankly, I would like to hear more about the other ossuaries found in the Talpiot tomb, and whether they tie into the theory.

“...I think he [Jacobovici] was being disingenuous. He presented the film the way he did because if he had made a film that said “very small probability we found the tomb of Jesus”, no one would have shown it....”

I agree, it would be difficult to sell or show a film that said “very small probability we found the tomb of Jesus,” and then few would know about it. The importance of the film being seen by a broad audience is to simply call into question the “facts” we are fed everyday by religious leaders, politicians, and yes, even filmmakers and newscasters. I don’t recall Jacobovici ever saying “this is definitely it, the tomb of Jesus and his family,” but rather “it’s possible.” As a skeptic, I must call upon all possibility, even if it’s fantastic in nature... because let’s face it, if the Talpiot tomb proved to be what Jacobovici suspects it is, it’s one step closer to showing faith-driven society what it’s all really about.

[Tom Foss]

Given the unorthodox nature of the Christian movement in the first century, and Mary Magdalene’s close ties and devotion as a Christian, might it then be at least a plausible possibility that she could have been placed in the tomb with Jesus, even if they weren’t married?

It's certainly possible, but that doesn't invalidate or respond to Skeptico's point. The fact that something is possible is not a reason to believe that it actually happened.

Whether or not Jesus is referred to as “son of Joseph” in any other texts is not proof that he never could be referred to as such.

Certainly not, but then we question who buried him. If his followers buried him and his followers never referred to him in that fashion, then why would they start there? We should also ask how common the names Yeshua and Yehosef were at the time; if I find a grave marked "Sean, son of John," it doesn't follow that I've stumbled onto the burial place of Sean Lennon.

Again, it's possible, but it doesn't work as proof of this being the genuine grave of Jesus, since it could easily be interpreted to mean the opposite with equal validity (after all, the filmmakers themselves are not without bias and agenda). Without more corroborating evidence, the two theories (that it must be Jesus because two names are right/that it cannot be Jesus because the name doesn't match other sources) are of equal validity.

Perhaps before we can totally dismiss the DNA results, more testing should take place.

Well, certainly. But the problem is, even if we have the DNA, we have nothing to match it to, and thus no way to show whether or not it is Jesus. The most we could show is that the DNA of the Yeshua chest is or is not related to DNA in other caskets. Hardly proof of the burial place of the son of God.

As a skeptic, I must call upon all possibility, even if it’s fantastic in nature

No, as a skeptic, you should evaluate all possibilities according to the evidence which support them, and you should assume the null hypothesis until it is disproven. That Jesus existed at all is a fairly extraordinary claim, that he existed and lived a completely different life from what is described in the book which is the primary (shaky) evidence for his existence is a claim of substantially greater extraordinariness. There's going to have to be quite a lot of evidence to make all the conclusions that have been drawn in the wake of this expedition, and so far, the evidence simply isn't there.

[Skeptico]

Skeptico replies to Fellow Skeptic

Re: Given the unorthodox nature of the Christian movement in the first century, and Mary Magdalene’s close ties and devotion as a Christian, might it then be at least a plausible possibility that she could have been placed in the tomb

I covered that in my article. Did you read it?

Re: While I do not question Mr. Witherington as a noted and prestigious evangelical bible scholar and respect his position, it should be stated that he is not necessarily an objective observer

Numerous scholars have doubted the translations.

Re: Perhaps before we can totally dismiss the DNA results, more testing should take place.

In theory, yes. But if they don’t have the DNA then they can’t. My comment was based on the DNA they actually tested. On the basis of that DNA, we can conclude virtually nothing.

Re: The importance of the film being seen by a broad audience is to simply call into question the “facts” we are fed everyday by religious leaders, politicians

And as I wrote, these “facts” should be replaced by scientific data, not sensationalist films like this where the data is tortured to reach the conclusion they wanted. That’s not science.

[Fellow Skeptic]

Forgive me, it just seems that this whole thing is a bit out of hand. I do understand the need for irrefutable evidence in a forum which is attempting to 'prove' a theory. Jacobovici simply put forth a possibility, and while he has succeeded in bringing about great conversation, he's also stirred up great controversy - controversy that is more like a personal attack than anything else, which to me is innappropriate. If people are to attack these filmmakers, then they should attack the entire Discovery/History Channel lineup, because they all use similar formats when referring to ancient civilizations. I'll add that if these filmmakers are to be challenged in this way, I would very much like to see other 'more qualified' people step up to the plate with their own intriguing global presentations (not to disprove any theories, but to provide their own).

As an inventor and engineer, I must use scientific principle and fact to make my products reality, but first I must delve into the realm of possibility or I shall never have anything to test. I believe it was Einstein who once said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." I appreciate the 'null hypothesis' more than many, but I simply will not attack a fellow inspired person... that would place me in the same ranks as those that silenced men like Galileo or Tesla. Gooday.

[Skeptico]

Skeptico replies to Fellow Skeptic

Re: Jacobovici … also stirred up great controversy - controversy that is more like a personal attack than anything else, which to me is innappropriate.

What part of my review was a “personal attack”? I refuted some of the claims and faulty logic of the film. That was a response to what he presented, not an attack on him personally. If you don’t agree with what I wrote then show me where I was wrong.

Re: If people are to attack these filmmakers, then they should attack the entire Discovery/History Channel lineup

Sometimes I do. For example, see Nostradumass about a History Channel program. But even if I hadn’t – so what? This review was a review of this film. Why do I have to show what’s wrong with the entire Discovery/History Channel before I can show what’s wrong with this one film?

Re: I simply will not attack a fellow inspired person... that would place me in the same ranks as those that silenced men like Galileo or Tesla.

Oh purleeeze – don’t compare Jacobovici to Galileo. Galileo presented evidence – evidence you can still check for yourself today. Galileo’s critics were the ones who refused to examine the evidence. I have examined Jacobovici’s evidence and have explained where it was wrong. You are the one ignoring the evidence.

This sounds to me like an appeal to be open minded. An open mind is open to all ideas, but it must be open to the possibility that the idea could be true or false. Is your mind open to the evidence I presented that Jacobovici over reached in making this film? If not, and if you can’t explain why, you are not a “fellow skeptic”.

[Bronze Dog]

Sometimes the Discovery and History Channels do good stuff. Sometimes they do REALLY stupid stuff. I see absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing teh stupid while enjoying the good.

And they accuse us skeptics of "throwing out the baby with the bath water."

And really, "Fellow skeptic", this one must be debunked before it goes any further - yes "pseudo-archaeology" is rampant these days - dilettantes thinking they can prove theories that take very specialized knowledge. Jacobivici said he's attempting to "democritize knowledge", but he's not, he's spreading misinformation, which is dangerous. Scholars who publish their work are the ones democritizing knowledge! To become knowlegeable, one must do some reading, not just make wild assertions! And this particular topic is especially important because there are so many people that are determined to prove the existence of historical jeebus, that unless this is stopped in the gates, it will encourage further misuse of archaeology. As a teacher, it's discouraging to have students come into my classes already believing whack-job theories. If the actual information disagrees with their preconceived notions, then they may doubt the real thing, and they'll be opposed to learning what I'm trying to teach. Like when I discuss the pyramids in my art history course. People come in thinking they "know" that Hebrew slaves built them (not true). It's a mess for those of us who want our students to learn critical thinking skills.

keep it up, Skeptico, I say!
madaha

[Rockstar Ryan]

I simply will not attack a fellow inspired person... that would place me in the same ranks as those that silenced men like Galileo or Tesla. Gooday.

Does that mean you are a militant apathist then? It's ok that vultures like Sylvia Browne and Alison DuBois are out there milking people? Or that this Jacobovici is deliberately spreading false information?

If so, please see Stupid Thing People Say #5 - It Doesn't Matter to Me! and make a visit to a room full of liquored up razorblade wielding baboons.

If you do not believe that speaking out against people deliberately spreading complete falsehoods is wrong, please withdraw your previous statement.

["Fellow Skeptic"]

There seems to be much pressure asserted in the "prove me wrong" area. I see no need to prove anybody wrong, though I do see need for those who present something as fact to also include hard evidence of those "facts." As no actual claim was made in the film, except that artifacts were discovered, I see no need to be "militant" about anything either way. I do not place Jacobovici in a category either with Galileo OR Sylvia Browne, and I certainly do not place the film in the category of "archeology." I do not believe he is spreading falsehoods. I believe he made a discovery, shared it with the world, and said 'here are some possibilities based on the information I have been presented by a few experts... discuss.' It should also be noted that I know my fair share of 'experts' in many fields, and they rarely have definitive answers for anything.

Well, he didn't make a discovery. That ossurary was found in 1980 or so. And even if the inscriptions say what he "suggests" they say (which they don't) his "possibilities" are ridiculously unlikely. So unless you take this film as an intentional complete cartoon fantasy, then it is presented in a dishonest way. It's not opening a debate to posit ridiculous assertions. How about this? "There's a bigfoot in them thar hills!" Discuss!

(what? I'm only "opening a debate!")

madaha

[G Mandy]

This film is silly. Look at the director's personal interview comments when he said 'i don't have to prove anything' ... and 'it's a hot story'... Ha!

http://www.donsausa.com/

[Renzo]

Skeptico nailed the issue at hand.

We are presented with a “documentary” that says they found the tomb of Jesus, or more accurately at least a potential candidate.
Skeptico, as a good skeptic, points out all the holes in the theory, and how this can be dismissed as something really unremarkable, that has been inflated for the purpose of making money out of controversy.

That is all true. Plus it has a very nice extra ingredient:
People who hate religions like Christianity or just are annoyed by it would love for a tomb of Jesus to be found, since it would prove he was just a man and died.
Certain Christian groups would love to find a tomb of Jesus since it would prove his historicity.
Neutral parties, like REAL scientist would be very interested in such a remarkably important person grave (if he really existed is unimportant, the guy split western timeline in 2 and eastern civilization has to adapt to it, thanks globalization for that :p). As a mirror effect we have most Christian groups who would HATE to find a tomb of Jesus because it is clear such a tomb REALLY buries the Christian faith.
And you have not so good skeptics that would HATE to find such tomb for it would prove the existence of someone they don’t want to even have walked the Earth.

Cameron and Jacovici knew they couldn’t loose, some people would get angry, some other would love it and the rest of the flies would attracted by the whole noise. Add some not very smart “scientists” and Christian groups arguing without merit to give the authors some credibility, ala Larry King.

We must see this as what it is, an exposition of supposed scientific work that isn’t. Skeptico said why it was scientific. I think anyone disagreeing should point out the errors on his arguments, and the only way to do that is by validating the “evidence” presented in the documentary, which I find hard to do.

Where are the answers to these questions?

How is this DNA important?
What was the result for ALL the other tombs? - Who was related to whom and how?
Where they ALL even tested to begin with?
What is the error margin for the dating of the bones? 5, 50, 100 years?

[acs]

It amazes me that through all the discussions I've read on this topic, almost no one mentions Rozabal in Srinigar, India.

[Jeff Kantz]

It is interesting that "Miramne" was represented such an uncommon name, yet was the name of Herod the Great's second and, supposedly, beloved wife! As I recall Herod had her executed in 24 BC, at the instigation of his sister, and then built a tower on his Jerusalem palace, in her memory.
I don't know her family tree, but wouldn't it be paradoxical if "Miramne the Master" was actually the ossuary of Herod's executed wife!!! That might even explain the ornamentation, and why there were an unusual percentage of inscribed ossuaries! Perhaps she had a brother named Jesus and her father was named Joseph, but I don't know...
Similarly, since Herod's wife (the queen) was known as Miramne, why should we think that it would be an unusual form of the name in that era? Certainly before her execution she was held in high regard and might have well been an inspiration for parents to name their daughters with that form of the name! After her execution there might have been a reluctance to use that form but others may have used it simply in 'protest' of the unjust execution of the queen.
The 'uniqueness of the Miramne form of the name' argument seems to falter if history, contemporary to the era, is considered!

[Wesley Sin]

>>The filmmakers just assume Mary Magdalene was in Jesus’ family and they include the low probability of this (I in 160) as part of the 1 in 600 calculation. But Mary Magdalene being in Jesus’ family is also a conclusion they draw from the 1 in 600 odds. That means they are assuming their conclusion – the definition of circular reasoning.<<
u are wrong, the film didn't concluded Mary Magdalene was a Jesus' family member. But it assumed she was, based on the fact that it was a family tomb so every bone box should belong to the same family. The film proposed Mary Magdalene could be Jesus' wife because their DNA had no maternal relations. This proposal didn't defeat the assumption. In simple words, we can say "If Mary Magdalene was a family memeber, with the fact that they have no maternal relations, then Mary Magdalene could be wife of Jesus." No circular thoughts here.
If you cannot accept that was a family tomb that only burried family members, then you can completely ignore this film.

[Skeptico]

Skeptico replies to Wesley Sin

Re: u are wrong, the film didn't concluded Mary Magdalene was a Jesus' family member.

Er, yes they did – it was one of the main conclusions of the film.

Re: But it assumed she was,

Precisely – they assumed their conclusion, which is circular reasoning.

Re: based on the fact that it was a family tomb so every bone box should belong to the same family.

That fact would lead you to conclude only that all the bones in the tomb were related, NOT that Jesus was related to Mary Magdalene. To assume that Jesus was related to Mary Magdalene you would also have to assume that two of the ossuaries were of Jesus (ie THE Jesus) and Mary Magdalene. They only assumed this because of the small odds (I in 600) that there would be a tomb with these exact four names, or an even closer match to Jesus’ family, in one of the 1,000 tombs found so far. So, if they were going to use the 1 in 600 odds, they obviously had to assume that Mary Magdalene was in Jesus’ family – ie they had to assume their conclusion.

Re: The film proposed Mary Magdalene could be Jesus' wife because their DNA had no maternal relations. This proposal didn't defeat the assumption. In simple words, we can say "If Mary Magdalene was a family memeber, with the fact that they have no maternal relations, then Mary Magdalene could be wife of Jesus." No circular thoughts here.

First, the conclusion that “Jeshua” was Jesus and “Mariamene” was Mary Magdalene was based on the circular reasoning I described above.

Second, the film only proposed that “Mariamene” could have been married to “Jeshua” – but the DNA evidence did not necessarily lead to the conclusion they were married; several other relationships were possible.

Re: If you cannot accept that was a family tomb that only burried family members, then you can completely ignore this film.

I’ve never said this was not a family tomb that (probably) only had family members. I have said there was no reason to believe this was the tomb of Jesus’ family.

[mushroomz]

well constructed bashing man
James Cameron is a filthy white dude that blows his money on stupidness, and after making this film, I would have to put him as worst filmmaker of the year...
they should call him to those awards they give to the worst of everything... oh yeah, the Razzies (Golden Raspberry Awards) like that one time Tom Green actually went there and accepted the award for worst filmmaker of the year.

that was classic

[Movie Lover]

Well I'll have to see the http://www.BestMovieBlogs.com/>Movie first, then say anything

[Maronan]

...And that’s if the DNA is even from the former inhabitants of the ossuaries, and some experts even doubt that.

And that's why I suspect the DNA evidence has been tampered with!