What Do You Think? March 5

Mr. Bock,
Thank you for your involvement in this. You did a great job. I wonder how Mr. Tabor would have answered Luke 24:38-43 and John 20:27. I am praying for you.
Darryl Lewis

I think it's unfortunate this information was known to Christianity for over a year, along with evidence to show it up, yet funding has been so poor. Why the christian community of businesses hasnt contributed to create what is really needed, a factual second half to the program revealing the fallacious theory, makes one wonder. This tomb and its contentspose a challenge which the church needs to be informed on.

Stolen ossuaries, forged inscriptions, weird symbols-something about all this just doesnt settle with me.

The performance of the experts brought on to Koppel's show was suboptimal at best.

By the way Dr Bock, any reason the remaining ossuaries were vacuumed out? Would be nice to see some DNA evidence from them. Not sure why this would have been done with all ossuaries except Jesus and Mary-very inconvenient.

Has anyone done a stats equation for the odds given James and Mary M NOT Jesus brother or Mary Magdalene? In other words, what are the odds of a 12t century Joseph, Jesus, Mary, Jose family. Thanks in advance.

Nice to see you mention the importance of bodily resurrection last night. I further think it looks bad to, as Im seeing some chruch officials do on the internet, decide faith is all that matters and not address this tomb issue. The Catholic priest on last night I sensed had this opinion, however I find retreating merely to faith in light of ossuaries looks bad-our beliefs are based on historical events.

I tried to ask this question in an earlier thread, because I'm genuinely curious about your response. Although I know you believe Jesus was resurrected, what kind of an archaeological find would you require in order to cast doubt upon that belief? While I have suspicions about this particular case, I wonder what evidence (in terms of statistics, geographical location etc) might be compelling for a Christian.

Naturally we use ancient texts such as the Gospels to interpret finds; but at some point, it's possible for these finds to influence the veracity of ancient texts.

Could you sketch out the "perfect find" of Jesus' body? (And a corrolary to this question--if such a sketch cannot be created, does that mean there is no historical evidence which could dissuade Christians from their belief in the [historical] resurrection?)

Thanks in advance.

Mr. Bock,
Thank you for your involvement on this. You did a great job. I wonder how Mr. Tabor would answer John 20:27 and Luke 24:38-43. I'm praying for you.
Thank you,
Darryl Lewis

Dr. Bock,

I thought you did a great job on the Koppell show. What came across to me is how selective the creators of the show can be. Where the Bible supports their position they use it, where it contradicts them they discard it, and they do the same thing with the "science".

My impression and opinion is that few will be swayed to disbelieve any of the core Christian teachings because of this show. I could be wrong, but the nature, style, and presentation will lead people not to take this very seriously. The current culture is gullible, but this wasn't on Oprah - so I think it will fade out rather quickly.

I find it funny that Tabor kept promoting the idea of a "spiritual resurrection." This is the same man who continues to promote the fact that he is a historian who does not rely on supernatural incidents to factor into his interpretation of facts. You and Tabor kept going back and forth over Paul. Let's stick to the gospels (which you tried to do) and note where they stated that the resurrected Jesus could be touched and actually ate with the disciples. Do spirit bodies eat?
Thanks for your participation in this project.

When I first heard of this "documentary" I was irritated by what I regard as another atheist or agnostic liberal trying to defame the name of my Lord. It's been going on for 2000 years and will not stop anytime soon.

At first I planned to boycott The Discovery Channel, but a few days ago I began to feel a nudging in my spirit to watch this program. As I settled in to watch, prepared to be angered and appalled, I found myself shaking my head and chuckling. This program may be the best thing to happen for the cause of Christ in decades! Not only was the research shallow, the assumptions wild, the experts and scientists misquoted, but the production itself was rather amateurish. I have no idea who this canadian dude Jacobici is, but I'm surprised James Cameron put his name on the finished product. I expected something a little more professional and even credible from him.

I watched the "documentary" and stayed tuned for the discussion afterward because I figured Mr. Liberal himself, Ted Koppel would be making every effort to defend this farce. I have gained a greater measure of respect for Mr. Koppel because, even while making it plain that he is not a believer in any religion, he also was honest enough to make it plain that he found nothing credible in this film.

I hope Mr. Jacobici has a double major in business management or something, because, after putting his name on this, he may have to change careers.

If Jesus' Family Tomb was right there in 1st Century Jerusalem it should have been easy enough to discredit the Apostles' preaching of the Resurrection & the Gospel. I appreciated the way the Christians on the panel handled themselves. I never heard anyone point out the Scriptural textual discrepancies mentioned in the docu-drama, like the stretch it is to make "the disciple Jesus loved" any one other than John the son of Zebedee, etc. The Biblical quotations all seemed to be taken second hand by the producers rather than from the text of Scripture. Concerning a "spiritual ascension", just what were the disciples looking heavenward to see when Jesus' spirit ascended upward in Acts 1:9-11? And did Jesus simply walk away with them to return to His wife and family afterward?

Hello,

I was a little confused that the James Ossuary was presented in such a credible fashion during the show - and very little was said of the owner of the Ossuary - Oded Golan. Last I heard of him the IAA was going to charge him for forging the Ossuary. The patina was chiseled through, plenty of half-inscribed tablets and blank tablets were found in his apartment, chiseling equipment, un-used patina samples as well. I even thought at one point he confessed to the forgery, along with his Jehoash tablet. I thought the program was pretty interesting until they brought the James Ossuary in, and the credibility level dropped quite a bit for me at that point. Am I mis-informed regarding Oded Golan? This was the biggest issue for me by far, but no real mention by critical or defending parties.

With all that has been said in the blogosphere, the documentary was what I expected. The followups like the one with Ted Koppel seem useless. I can't imagine how hard it is to challenge a whole 2 hour documentary with only a two to three sentence sound bites on the fly. It's hard to get into the details. You could see this really with William Dever, who I know could have given a lot more insight into the problems with the documentary.

I thought you did great. I loved how you were very open and honest that if these are Jesus' bones it would have huge implications for Christianity. I think it's wise for us not to be PC or have blind faith, but be truthful. I like how you said that faith needs to be interwoven with history. I liked how the gal from Virginia Theological Seminary said that Christians need to be better at thinking critically. I think if we think critically of big media splashes like this one, they can actually be a blessing in helping us see what a beautiful historical faith we have.

Thanks also for the hard work of supplying information and links through your blog all week. It has been enormously helpful. When TV can only give you frustrating sound bites, blogs have really been a blessing to get alot more information quickly.

I want to say thank you Dr. Bock for bringing the "Voice of Truth" to the issue. I thought your careful, gracious, and solid mannner of dialogue was a huge step forward for the truth. So often Evangelicals are portrayed negatively in the media, but you have shown that we have a solid scholarly approach that can be put forward.

I have been tracking the story since last week and have decided as a pastor of a new church plant (3 yrs old) that I would do an entire series of messages leading up to Easter that explore the evidence for the empty tomb. As the Pastor of our church t seems every Easter I have to stand up against the alledged 'lost' teachings of Jesus. Last year it was the "lost gospel of Judas' and this year it is the 'lost tomb of Jesus.' I think that what is lost is the voice of truth - thanks for being that during this debate.

I preached last week on some of the evidences for the resurrection and this week I will be speaking on the subject "Is There A Lost Tomb of Jesus?" Having read "The Jesus Family Tomb" last week, I have formulated a reponse the the findings presented in the book and through your Blog and other scholars like Bauckham I have ample info for providing a solid critique for our church family which has seekers and believers.

By the way, thank for writing the book on the Missing Gospels.

I would love to see a solid reply to Ehrman's book on Misquoting Jesus - do you know of any good critiques.

By the way, I am a pastor in West Jordan Utah and have a friend down the road from me named Brian Hurlbutt who is a fellow Church Planter. He's a DTS grad and a great friend. Living in Utah among the LDS church provides a huge challenge in interacting over matters like the Lost Tomb of Jesus.

Once again thanks!

Personally, my wife and I thought the 'opposing' viewpoint was embarrassed at the lack of evidence they could put forward. We came away with a clear sense that truth prevailed.

Sincerely,
Cory Anderson
Pastor
Shadow Mountain Church

I was troubled when I heard that the Discovery channel would be airing a program on the the tomb of Jesus. What was most alarming to me was seeing images of a skull being removed from an ossuary bearing the name "Jesus son of Joseph." Frankly, I was nervous about watching the program, concerned that the strength the evidence would be hard for me to reject.
But while watching it, I was surprised by how accepting the program was toward the New Testament. Yet it simply rejected the New Testament's reason for why the body of Jesus was missing from the garden tomb.
Matthew 28:6
He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.
Mark 16:6
"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him."
Luke 24:5–7
In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' "

The film claiming instead that the body was missing because the disciplines had moved it.
This hypothesis presents its own set of problems which the film overlooks.
It was apparent to me that the filmmakers were selling snake oil. The goal was to put out as convincingly as possible that the ossuary found was that of Jesus and ignore anything to the contrary.

on the show Dr. Bock, you were spot on. If nothing else, it was very apparent that the "name statistics" and the "patina matching" were well overstated. I think the guest in the first half that called it Archeo-porn was right.

jweaks
NC

While I enjoyed Jacobvici's presentation for various reasons, the evidence and the conclusions seemed quite lacking. I almost felt bad for him in the Koppell discussion because he was definitely put on the defensive, even by Koppell himself. Almost. The documentary was incomplete, it didn't tell the entire story. That was Jacobvici's prerogative because he was making the film, but when it is presented as complete and the only possibility, that is being dishonest.

Hype was created, there was a buzz, but for what? The apologetic in me was hoping for more of a fight (I know, I really shouldn't ever hope for that) but their claims were based on so many ifs that that statistical probabilities just don't hold much weight or merit.

The debate is definitely interesting, but I am still confident in the bodily resurrection of our Lord. :)

Dr. Bock,

I very much appreciated your defense of the Christian Faith last night. You did so with love, honor and showed a great deal of knowledge on the subject. I haven't really watched Tedd Koppel before, but he seemed to be a man of intellect was able to keep up with the group.

I wrote a little ditty about this program on my blog and suggest that the untranslated text, on the walls of the tomb, at the end of the program, has the following translation:

"Elvis was here!"

It seems to make about as much sense as the rest of their GIANT leaps of faith in concluding that this is the tomb of Christ.

I think that most intelligent people who watched "Lost Tomb" will discern that it is propaganda, not an even-sided presentation of the evidence. Clearly Jacobovici was trying to make the Talpiot tomb look like the tomb of the family of Jesus of Nazareth, while avoiding the clear signs in front of his face that said, "This is the tomb of an ordinary family from the first century." (The Mission:Impossible-ish suspenseful music that played while someone took a buzz-saw to a concrete slab at Talpiot was a good metaphor for the entire show: fancy packaging of everyday things.)

I wish that the tenuous nature of some of Tabor's claims would have been more energetically emphasized. For instance, he was saying that the dimensions of the James Ossuary and the "missing" tenth ossuary from Talpiot are the "same dimensions." Well, are they or aren't they? This isn't a point that should be allowed to be left hanging. Rahmani's report says that the 10th ossuary was plain, broken, and 60 cm long. The James ossuary is described as 50 cm long at its base, and 56 cm long along its longest upper edge (it flares out, with a trapezoidal shape). That's a difference of more than an inch, so how can Tabor claim that they're the same dimensions? By re-measurement, he says. That's something that can be double-checked. Tabor's "same dimensions" claim shouldn't be left alone. It should either be accepted, or proven incorrect by a simple double-check of the length of the James Ossuary. (Of course, Amos Kloner could simplify things by just holding up the tenth Talpiot ossuary in front of a camera.)

Also, as you've pointed out, the alleged link between Mary Magdalene and "Mariamne" is highly speculative, and the main text being used to support that link is a fourth-century text which not only refers to Mariamne as a sister of Philip (who was from Bethsaida, not Magdala), but which is filled with fairy-tale fiction that Tabor knows quite well is fairy-tale fiction but somehow fails to share with the audience.

Regarding the statistics, I think that the statement that Feuerverger has already made sums up what most people will suspect: the validity of the stats depends on the validity of the data-base, and on the assumptions involved in the calculations.

Reed's point that no one is saying that Mary Magdalene was called "Mariamne" in the first century was actually a pretty important point, when you think about it.

Also, you probably should've bit down hard on the dramatization of John 19:26 and chewed it to bits. There's no way that that little drama-scene was accurate in light of John 19:27. I picture you saying, "Simcha, were you trying to tell your audience that this little boy had his own house? How dumb do you think they are?" and watching him try to vocalize a response for a few seconds. Oh well. At least you kept the first rule of medicine.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

I was troubled when I heard that the Discovery channel would be airing a program on the the tomb of Jesus. What was most alarming to me was seeing images of a skull being removed from an ossuary bearing the name "Jesus son of Joseph." Frankly, I was nervous about watching the program, concerned that the strength the evidence would be hard for me to reject.

But while watching it, I was surprised by how accepting the program was toward the New Testament. Yet it simply rejected the New Testament's reason for why the body of Jesus was missing from the garden tomb.
Matthew 28:6
He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.

The film claiming instead that the body was missing because the disciplines had moved it.
This hypothesis presents its own set of problems which the film overlooks.
It plays the same way with the other evidence, taking only what supports their hypothesis and either twisting or ignoring that which does not support it. The filmmakers are clearly selling snake oil. The goal was to put out as convincingly as possible that the ossuary found was that of Jesus of the New Testament and ignore anything to the contrary.

I'm a little surprised no mention has been made about Oded Golan (the owner of the James Ossuary). He was indicted in 2004 along with some others for operating a forgery ring. Some facts about him:

1) When Israeli police busted into his apartment they found inscribing tools, unused patina, blank tablets, some forged and half-finished tablets, among much other parapheranalia.
2) I may be wrong, but I thought at one point Golan actually admitted to the forgeries?
3) He was busted for a forged "Jehoash tablet" that supposedly detailed repairs done to Solomon's temple (would have been quite a large find as it would be the only artifact proving the existence of the templ)
4) During this trial, an FBI agent testified that a photo of the James Ossuary, showing it in Golan's home, was taken in the 1970s. Of course this would make it impossible to have been discovered with the rest of the tomb in the 1980s.

The list kinda goes on and on. But no mention of any of this? I was quite entertained and compelled by the program until they brought in the James Ossuary, which shot the credibility almost completely for me. Does anyone know any more about this? And especially why it wouldn't have been mentioned in the program?

Thanks Dr. Bock for representing, no merely the Evangelical, but the historic Christian position with respect to Jesus' resurrection. Both the special and the post-discussion exposed the shallowness of the Cameron-hyped hypothesis. It rests entirely on inuendo and remote "possibilities". Jacobovici's methodology is not unlike that of conspiracy theorists, who rest their whole case on "it just might be possible that . . ." Thanks also for bringing out the weaknesses of the Jesus tomb discovery, while also remaining respectful to your opponents.