Jesus Tomb - Not!

This post concerns the article on the Discovery Channel website regarding the current "Jesus Tomb" brouhaha. In the final analysis, it's amazing how Discovery, et al., can continue putting out such malarkey over the years without any damage to their credibility.

If you read that article closely, you will see a perfect example of intellectual legerdemain in action. Firstly, they say there's DNA evidence "suggesting" the tombs are those of Jesus, et al. What is this evidence? They took the DNA of the bones and compared it to what? Did they have some DNA evidence that had already been scientifically determined to be that of Jesus? Wow! That IS big news!

From this article, what this so-called evidence appears to be is that the bones in two of the ossuaries - one reading "Jesus" and one "Mary" - are not related. Therefore, goes this incredibly specious argument, they are the bones of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene! The guy who is making all these definitive connections, Jacobovici, was involved in the Jame ossuary hoax - how credible is he? In his declarations, he is already assuming a priori that these tombs are proved to have been those of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. Considering that Jacobovici is now trying to prove that the James ossuary came from the same tomb, my suspicion is that all of this sleight-of-hand is an attempt on his part to resurrect his own reputation.

I find it interesting that there is no mention of the work of James Tabor called The Jesus Dynasty, which, not having read, I am assuming is based on the same tomb and which was widely touted on all the talk shows some years ago. Why is he not being mentioned now? Could it be because his work has been discredited since then, and the producers don't want anyone to realize the connection? (This is speculation on my part, obviously, since I haven't followed that debate.)

Furthermore, what about the Jesus tomb found in 1945 in the same Talpiot Quarter of Jerusalem, as I mention in my article on the James ossuary? It had charcoal crosses on it - so why couldn't THAT be the tomb of the "real Jesus of Nazareth?" Perhaps because, as the archaeologists themselves have repeatedly stated about this "new" find (from 1980), there is no real, solid and scientific evidence to that effect? I.e., the archaeologists on neither tomb have made these definitive connections - and that's an important point. Nowhere does Discovery even mention the 1980 tomb's archaeologist Amos Kloner, who pointedly stated, ""It's a beautiful story but without any proof whatsoever."

If the inscriptions are from the Herodian period (1 BC to 1 AD), per Frank Moore Cross, how the heck are they relevant to Jesus and his family? Even if Jesus himself had been born and named by then, did someone predict his marriage to Mary and the name of their son, born decades later, such that these inscriptions were made before either event had occurred, in anticipation that both would be buried there? What nonsense!

As to the conclusion by "Jodi Magness" that the New Testament writings demonstrate Jesus "likely" lived during the 1st century AD/CE - wow! I'd never heard that before. What stellar reportage.

And what is "Matthew" doing in this family tomb? Say, now, that's why the book of Matthew is so "accurate" - because Matthew was in reality one of Jesus's lost siblings! (FYI, that's sarcasm, because the book of Matthew and the other gospels reveal the writers did NOT have familiarity with the topography and geography of Palestine at the time, proving they could not have lived there and been eyewitnesses to the events. For more on the problems with the New Testament, please see my book Who Was Jesus?)

Discovery reports that a scholar has stated that the name "Mary," as in "Mary Magdalene," was probably "Mariamene" or "Mariamne." Well, that's good enough for Discovery, apparently, to conclude that these bones belonged to Mary Magdalene! Never mind that the name "Mary" was common in Jerusalem at the time - and has been found on numerous tombs and ossuaries, including two in this so-called Jesus Tomb itself.

As concerns the silly statistic regarding the names (600 to 1), again, the fact is that the names Jesus, Mary and Joseph were VERY common at that time. The name Mary, in reality, was apparently SO common that there are THREE Marys mentioned in the gospel tale! Indeed, there are few other named females in the gospel tale, such as Anna and Salome, and these are relatively minor characters. Hence, for the major female characters in the gospel drama, we are faced almost exclusively with Marys! What are the odds for that? Could it be that the gospel writers hit upon the names Jesus, Mary and Joseph PRECISELY because they WERE so common? It would be much easier to place them into history because of this commonality - the results of such efforts being that here we are some 2,000 years later squabbling about which "historical" Jesus, Joseph and Mary these characters were!

Based on this sketch at Discovery, what it comes down to here, apparently, is that, because the two sets of bones in the 1980 Talpiot tomb discovery are not related, they are THE Jesus and Mary of New Testament myth. From there, we have the set of bones belonging to a "Judah son of Jesus" that must be those of the son of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene! (As an aside, would Jesus and Mary - had they actually been married and parented a child together - really name their son after the person [Judas] who betrayed Jesus to the authorities?!)

Discovery Channel is obviously the World Weekly News of television. I'd say the National Enquirer, but that august publication is actually far more accurate in its reportage.