The Lost Tomb of Jesus
By Clyde Annach 4:39 AM Now playing in the theater of the absurd, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”, produced by Oscar-winning director James Cameron, written and directed by award winning documentarian Simcha Jacobovici. Yes, Its that time of year once again. The beginning of the Lenten season and concluding with Easter Sunday. Last year it was NBC and their glorification of Michael Baigent’s book “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail”. The year before that it was an ABC special aimed directly at mythologizing the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This year it is a documentary showing on the Discovery Channel on Sunday, March 4th, and its companion book “The Jesus Tomb”. The “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” is about a burial tomb unearthed by a team of archeologists in 1980 in the Talpiot neighborhood of Jerusalem. Inside they found ten ossuaries or bone boxes. Inscribed on these boxes, claim Cameron and Jacobovici are the names of Jesus, Joseph, Matthew, Judah and two Marys. In fact according to the authors, two of the inscriptions read “Jesus, son of Joseph”, “Judah, son of Jesus” written in Aramaic. Mary, Matthew and Joseph are written in Hebrew and the second Mary in Greek. They theorize that this tomb once held the body of Jesus and His family. The ground Jacobvici and Cameron build their hypothesis on is two fold. They base their conclusions on the basis of mathematical probability, and DNA samples taken from the ossuaries. The DNA evidence claimed by the film makers is ultimately the lesser of the two arguments presented in an attempted defense of their supposition. In fact Jacobvici’s only direct claim regarding the DNA evidence is that it proves that two of the people in the tomb were not related therefore they must be married and further it must be Jesus of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala.Quite a logical leap of faith on Mr. Jacobvici’s part, going from unrelated to married to Jesus. Jacobvici also over emphasizes the importance of the DNA that was found. Insinuating that a DNA sample by itself can prove a point. A DNA sample can not tell us who is in the tomb without a control sample used for comparison. The simple fact that DNA was found does not support any argument, either pro or con. The main thrust of their argument is based on mathematical probability. They theorize that even though the names found on the boxes were quite common for the time period, it is in the combing of the names that the odds favor their assumption. Mr. Jacobvici admits that it is true, Jesus was a very popular name in the first century. Something like nine percent of all males were named Jesus. Meaning if ten males were present one of them would answer to Jesus. The same can be said for the other five names to lesser degrees of popularity. Multiplying the percentages of the six names you come up with a very small number of percentage of occurrence. As an example if each name occurred one time in twenty the value would be .056 . That equates to one chance in sixty-five million, quite long odds indeed! If it truly is that the odds of this combination of names is virtually impossible then mathematically is it possible? Yes, except for a few over looked variables. Bible scholar Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, thinks the film’s hypothesis holds little weight. Sighting the difficulty in interpreting Ancient Semitic script, Pfann thinks the name is more likely interpreted as “Hanun”. Asked to rank the possibility of the films hypothesis on a scale of one to ten, ten being completely possible, he gave it a one to maybe one and a half. Mr. Pfann awarded the lowest score he could and with a slight hedge. As with any evidentiary chain its weakest link can cause its undoing. If Pfann a Bible scholar, is correct the probability of the theory falls to a zero percent chance of its being correct . Further opposition to the films claim comes from the man who directed the original excavation of the site, Professor Amos Kloner of Bar Ilan University. Professor Kloner calls the claim “nonsense” and “impossible”. He has published an archeological report stating that the tomb actually belonged to a Talpiot family from the first century CE. Professor Kloner goes on to say The claim that the burial site has been found is not based on any proof, and is only an attempt to sell and “I refute all claims and efforts to waken a renewed interest in the findings. With all due respect, they are not archaeologists.” Professor Kloner by his use of the phrase “efforts to waken” is referring to a 1996 BBC documentary on this very subject. Professor Kloner said the idea fails to hold up to archaeological standards but makes for profitable television and “They just want to get money for it,” Like prior attacks on the divinity of Christ, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” lacks even a shred of evidence that would stand up in a court of scientific or forensic law. The logical arguments are at best fatally flawed. The archaeological community stands firmly against the claims of this film The Lost Tomb of Jesus is better suited for April Fools Day than it is for Easter Sunday. Clyde Annach is the operator of the Web Log Clyde’s been thinking again! Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Clyde_Annach http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Lost-Tomb-of-Jesus&id=473275 quick business loan direct lender online debt consolidation loans car finance calcul bad credit car loan the dalles payday loans in seattle
