1. Comment #23114 by wayne on February 26, 2007 at 12:30 pm

I'm dying to hear about the "DNA analysis"! To what does one compare Jesus's DNA?

Other Comments by wayne

2. Comment #23118 by The author on February 26, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Sounds like complete nonsense to me.

Other Comments by The author

3. Comment #23119 by Mr. Mark on February 26, 2007 at 12:49 pm

"I'm dying to hear about the "DNA analysis"! To what does one compare Jesus's DNA?"

I'd think any communion wafer would do...

Other Comments by Mr. Mark

4. Comment #23120 by Lady GG on February 26, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Well hopefully this "DNA analysis" will finally dispel the "born of a virgin" myth by finally proving that Jesus has a diploid chromosome complement! Although, we really don't need that to figure out it's a myth now, do we!?

Other Comments by Lady GG

5. Comment #23121 by OUMedStudent on February 26, 2007 at 12:59 pm

"any communion wafer"!!!! Hilarious!

Other Comments by OUMedStudent

6. Comment #23122 by wice on February 26, 2007 at 1:01 pm

calm down. it easily could be a hoax. OR a forgery. OR a grave of a family that coincidentally had the same names mentioned in the bible. joseph, mary and jesua were not uncommon names that time. so please, don't take this on trust just because you want it to be true.

Other Comments by wice

7. Comment #23123 by maton100 on February 26, 2007 at 1:05 pm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54131

Read tthis! A physics fool of Kentucky's finest has developed a paper on particles flying out of the sun's ass after God spoke. Apparently God's sound vibrations caused the big bang, you see.

Other Comments by maton100

8. Comment #23124 by maton100 on February 26, 2007 at 1:07 pm

http://www.scienceprovescreation.com/

Another link.

Other Comments by maton100

9. Comment #23125 by Graham on February 26, 2007 at 1:13 pm

6. Comment #23122 by wice on February 26, 2007 at 1:01 pm

"so please, don't take this on trust just because you want it to be true."

Why would we want it to be true?

The whole question of the historicity of the Jesus character is facinating question, but I for one have no agenda one way or the other. From the point of view of the pursuit of knowledge it would indeed be very interesting to shed a little archaeological evidence on the issue. It may well provide some additional arguments against literal christianity, but it would not change anything regarding the philosophical debates over whether a god exists or not.

Other Comments by Graham

10. Comment #23126 by toomanytribbles on February 26, 2007 at 1:13 pm

please, don't take this on trust just because you want it to be true

lol.. this sounds precariously close to faith

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

11. Comment #23130 by DerrickB on February 26, 2007 at 1:20 pm

This isn't a hoax.
Here's the full story from the Discovery Channel Website:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html

The DNA analysis was to show that while this is clearly a family tomb 'Jesus' and 'Mary Magdelene' are not genetically related and hence were likely to be married. Further analysis is intended to show if the Ossary with the remains of Judah is their son.

Other Comments by DerrickB

12. Comment #23131 by Urbi Cica on February 26, 2007 at 1:23 pm

For me, the perfect antedote to this sort of thing is an improvisation by Chris Morris and the legendary Peter Cook in which they discuss Sir Arthur Streeb Greebling's (Cook) discovery of the fossilised infant Jesus! In fact, not just one but several fossils because Jesus had to make some trial runs for the resurrection to ensure he got it right! This is what popped into my mind when I read this article and I'm still smiling.

It was broadcast on Radio 3 (the excellent classical music station) in 1993.

Other Comments by Urbi Cica

13. Comment #23132 by DerrickB on February 26, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Its attracting some interesting responses - as usual misrepresenting the claims and attacking the messengers:


Rev. Schenk: Documentary on Jesus' Grave is a Hoax

Calls film "pure presumption" at best, "pure chicanery" at worst

WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 /Christian Newswire/ -- National Clergy Council president, the Reverend Rob Schenck issued this statement following a press conference that announced a new documentary claiming proof against the Resurrection of Jesus Christ:

"Today, Hollywood director James Cameron, whose claim to fame is a fictionalized account of the sinking of the Titanic, unveiled a documentary claiming a coffin found in Jerusalem 27 years ago once contained the remains of Jesus Christ. Cameron employed archaeologists and DNA experts to bolster his assertion Jesus was buried along with his mother Mary, Mary Magdalene and a supposed son, Judah.

"Over the years, Hollywood has attacked and mocked Christianity, providing only negative portrayals of people of faith. It has produced films that undermine moral culture. Hollywood's production of 'The Da Vinci Code' sensationalized a conspiracy theory that the Catholic Church engaged in a cover up of the real story of Jesus operating in the manner of a crime syndicate.

"According to Cameron, his film is no mere speculation, but historical fact. By claiming the remains of Jesus returned to dust along with other members of his family, the Hollywood filmmaker is denying the divinity of the Son of God and his victory over death. Cameron clearly intended to drive a stake into the heart of Christianity, since without the Resurrection, Jesus was only a mortal man.

"Media outlets should exercise restraint in reporting Cameron's Hollywood fiction masquerading as scientific fact. All of Jesus' contemporaries recorded Christ rose after being dead for three days and ascended into Heaven. For 2,000 years people of faith along and countless scholars have pored over the Scriptures, confirming their veracity. A Hollywood director is the least qualified to render any determination of Biblical truth. Not only so, but the people Mr. Cameron has partnered with completely lack credibility. One has been discredited by experts as a charlatan. This is nothing more than a modern day circus sideshow. At best it is pure presumption. At worst, it is pure chicanery."

Rev. Schenck holds degrees in Bible and Theology, Christian Ministry and has completed additional postgraduate work in Christian History.

He is Chairman of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance and President of the National Clergy Council in Washington, DC.

Other Comments by DerrickB

14. Comment #23136 by wice on February 26, 2007 at 1:28 pm

9: oh, please... let's be honest. you say you wouldn't laugh your socks off if the grave was genuine? i know i would.

Other Comments by wice

15. Comment #23137 by sane1 on February 26, 2007 at 1:31 pm

I saw Cameron and the reporter on the Today show. They make factual claims, they say. The DNA tests were to confirm that the remains in the tomb of "mary" were not those of a sister to "jesus," which apparently was a possibility. Not sure what else they used the DNA for - probaly to establish the relationships among the buried. And don't worry, Christians will attack the messenger, insist on the truth of utter nonsense, and make up all sorts of arguments to hold on to their myths. Don't expect to be vindicated as an atheist. I hope the show when it airs is well done.

Other Comments by sane1

16. Comment #23138 by Stephen on February 26, 2007 at 1:33 pm

this is from the same people who made the Exodus Decoded doc on the History Channel, so skepticism is definitely in order

Other Comments by Stephen

17. Comment #23139 by DerrickB on February 26, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Most of the news reports so far quote 'scholars' or 'experts' who have either 'slammed' or 'derided' the findings. As far as I can determine the scholars are either devout Christians who argue that it must be nonsense as the claims conflict with the Bible, or a then student archaeologist called Amos Kloner who originally discovered the tomb in 1980 and did not recognise its significance.

I am sure there will be some interesting and intemperate discussion for some weeks.

In a recent post on the debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan I recall someone asking what evidence would convince Sullivan that he was wrong about Christianity. If Cameron's documentary should turn out to be soundly based - I wonder how Christians will deal with this evidence?

Other Comments by DerrickB

18. Comment #23141 by Carl S. Richardson on February 26, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Well if it is true, we can all get ready to watch those wacky theologians once again reinterpret the bible and claim it was right all along.

Other Comments by Carl S. Richardson

19. Comment #23142 by DerrickB on February 26, 2007 at 1:43 pm

#16 Stephen - I didn't see Exodus Decoded. How bad was it?

Other Comments by DerrickB

20. Comment #23147 by RickM on February 26, 2007 at 2:12 pm

"All of Jesus' contemporaries recorded Christ rose after being dead for three days and ascended into Heaven. For 2,000 years people of faith along and countless scholars have pored over the Scriptures, confirming their veracity."

Is this a joke or what?

FOX News going nuts on this. LOL.

Other Comments by RickM

21. Comment #23149 by ksskidude on February 26, 2007 at 2:21 pm

I am positive that if this turns out to be indeed true, Christians all over the world will unite in defiance of this finding. If one thing has become apparent to me, its that believers don't care what evidence there is to the contrary.

Other Comments by ksskidude

22. Comment #23150 by Kingasaurus on February 26, 2007 at 2:29 pm

The problem is Cameron and his buddies are theorizing that The James Ossuary is a missing coffin from this particular tomb. That conjecture won't make their new claims look very credible, as The James Ossuary is highly suspect and a potential forgery:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-03/bonebox.html

Other Comments by Kingasaurus

23. Comment #23151 by Frostbit on February 26, 2007 at 2:30 pm

quote:
"I'd think any communion wafer would do..."

I damn near choked to death on that one.

Funny!!!

Other Comments by Frostbit

24. Comment #23153 by Meow_Mix on February 26, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Created my account just to comment on how truly excellent this is... and just in time for Lent, no less! Unfortunately, ksskidude and others are probably right about the eventual reaction to this earthshaking find, but I can't give up hope! If the story is as authentic as it appears to be, I am crossing my fingers and hoping that it turns out to be as earth-breaking as a find like this deserves to be. Another triumph over superstition in the name of science and good sense!

Other Comments by Meow_Mix

25. Comment #23154 by DerrickB on February 26, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Kingasaurus - suspect yes - but this from Wikipedia:

"The Israeli Antiquities Authority has never offered any report explaining why it concluded the ossuary is a forgery. Therefore, a number of international experts refuse to agree that it is a forgery until the IAA allows scholars to review its findings. For example, Ed Keall, the Senior Curator at the Royal Ontario Museum, Near Eastern & Asian Civilizations Department, continues to argue for the ossuary's authenticity, "The ROM has always been open to questioning the ossuary's authenticity, but so far no definitive proof of forgery has yet been presented, in spite of the current claims being made." [1]

Meanwhile Biblical Archaeology Review also continued to defend the ossuary. In articles in the February 2005 issues, several experts in writing on stone argue that the James Ossuary is authentic and should be examined by specialists outside of Israel. Another article claims the cleaning of the James Ossuary before it was examined may have caused the problem with the patina."

It will be interesting to see how the documentary addresses this.

Other Comments by DerrickB

26. Comment #23156 by Stewart on February 26, 2007 at 2:42 pm

What I find particularly rich here is that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus and yet Christians seem to have their knickers in a twist over the possibility this discovery will make people believe Jesus had earthly remains, meaning their religion is buggered.

Even if 2,000-year-old DNA could tell us that the "significant" two weren't blood relatives, nothing other than that can be established. It will mean the credulous will think it more likely it's Jesus' family. That's the furthest and most conclusive it can possibly go. Any use of the word "proof" here is totally out of place.

Other Comments by Stewart

27. Comment #23159 by Russell Blackford on February 26, 2007 at 2:56 pm

This is all so inconclusive that it means nothing. Still, I had to laugh at the ridiculous sputterings by Rev. Schenck.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

28. Comment #23160 by Bremas on February 26, 2007 at 3:02 pm

This one is starting to pick up steam. Just was on Fox News blog regarding the story. You can guess what most of the responses are like.
An example:

"No, this claim is not possible. I am a Christian and I know that my savior Jesus Christ lives. He died on a cross, was buried in a tomb and rose again on the third day. When he rose again, there was nothing left in the tomb. He now sits at the right hand of God our father in heaven and is returning soon to take those who believe in him and live for him, back to heaven. How do I know this? Because he said he is returning soon. The Bible says so." — Paul

True or not, I like watching the religious folks get up in arms about things like this. The next couple of weeks should be fun.

I also loved post #3.

Other Comments by Bremas

29. Comment #23163 by A.Lex on February 26, 2007 at 3:19 pm

It's not a joke - yet! It will be aired on April 1st.

Other Comments by A.Lex

30. Comment #23166 by sindiosxfa on February 26, 2007 at 3:22 pm

I saw the story this morning. It is interesting to see someone looking for DNA of a being that that most probably never existed. Garbage.. Mr. Cameron´s only motivation is more money... That is it.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/raising-the-titanic-sinking-christianity/

Other Comments by sindiosxfa

31. Comment #23167 by Stephen on February 26, 2007 at 3:23 pm

simcha jacobovici is behind this, like Exodus Decoded (which attempted to prove that the Expodus happened factually, but the doc was full of assumptions, speculation, and was not very scientific). at the risk of sounding like a raging anti-semite before even seeing the show, my guess is that this one might also be as unscientific and full of assumptions as Exodus Decoded, only this time, jacobovici is trying to establish that jesus' life does not parallel with the jesus story of the new testament--therefore validating his judaism against xianity (just as he tried to validate his beliefs in Exodus Decoded).


i'd imagine this guy might come up against the same opposition from the xian community as an atheist would if he found 'evidence' like this. time will tell, but even as an atheist, i'm wary from the start

Other Comments by Stephen

32. Comment #23168 by kmccardle on February 26, 2007 at 3:26 pm

As much fun as this will be, immediately it is noticable that there's almost no way to prove this is in fact the tomb of THE Jesus. It can be speculated, it can be likely to be his tomb, but the religious nuts can just say "That can't be Jesus the Christ's Tomb, there were many Jesuses back then, this is simply a coincedence. Our Jesus was burried somewhere else and rose from the dead." It is still enjoyable to see them sputter over claims like this.

Other Comments by kmccardle

33. Comment #23170 by lpetrich on February 26, 2007 at 3:32 pm

I smell a large murid rodent with Linnaean name R. norvegicus.

In this case, survival of enough DNA to be analyzable for evidence of family relations.

That aside, Mr. Cameron ought to release the details of his alleged DNA testing.

-

But post 28 makes me wonder what's at God's left hand.

Other Comments by lpetrich

34. Comment #23172 by John P on February 26, 2007 at 3:36 pm

From what I read, it seems to leave a lot of questions. For instance:

1. The tomb with 10 ossuaries indicates a relatively well off family. I thought Jesus was the "son" of a poor carpenter and his wife, who had to be born in a stable. Did the family become well off later on? Perhaps as a result of Jesus's .. errr.. vocation? Perhaps he was what Bart Ehrman claims, an early apocalyptic, i.e. a huckster, a pre-televangelist, and he got rich off of the tent revivals?

2. Can you really get viable DNA out of 2000 year old bones?

3. Do we trust an Academy Award winning movie director to do scholarly research?

4. Why Jerusalem, and not Nazareth?

5. Why are there any bones in Jesus's box? Shouldn't it be empty?

Those are for starters.

Other Comments by John P

35. Comment #23178 by Robert Maynard on February 26, 2007 at 4:03 pm

comments 9 and 14:
I agree that it's not really crucial to atheism that we find the coffin of Jesus, but that struck me just then as being like a funny reverse "NOMA" situation. "Whoah, hey, religion and archaeology are too separate things, they answer different questions. I don't think it's really important if that is Jesus (Christ) or not. ..but if it is.. WABAM!"

comment 34
Your points 1,4 and 5 assume that critical points of the gospel narratives are true (including his resurrection and ascension?). I'm not really of that opinion.. although it's worth pointing out that for the documentaries argument to work we must accept the gospels account of his family structure to be true.

As for #2, paleontologists recently discovered a 68 million year old T-Rex bone with soft tissue in the marrow cavity - complete with structures resembling blood vessels and blood cells. So anything's possible. :P
I realise there's a difference between soft tissue structures and actually retrieving DNA, but if it was impossible they wouldn't even have brought it up as forming part of the argument.

As for the claims of DNA analysis, I hear this was for establishing the relationships and family structure of the crypt. This becomes important because although all the names of the "The Holy Family" are quite common, a statistician in the documentary uses the DNA analysis to calculate that the chances of the family structure being such a precise analogue of the biblical family (Joseph and Mary being the parents - Jesus, Matthew and Jofa as their kids, and Mary and Jonah as wife and son of Jesus) is apparently 600:1.
I haven't seen it yet though, I don't know when it'll arrive to Australian cable.. it sounds entertaining at least.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

36. Comment #23180 by zoltix on February 26, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Although atheists will maybe smile or have a told you so attitude, the ones who will use this as serious propaganda will be the Islamists. They won't wait for any proper evidence/proof. The likes of Bilal Philips and Zakir Naik will already be working out ways to use it in their muslim dawah training programmes.

Other Comments by zoltix

37. Comment #23190 by mmurray on February 26, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Our local newspaper's web site in Adelaide, South Australia is filling up with comments from US fundamentalists

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21294570-5006301,00.html#comments

is this happening elsewhere ? Any help with a few atheistic comments would be great. You don't have to register or anything.

Thanks - Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

38. Comment #23192 by Logicel on February 26, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Mr. Mark wrote:

I'm dying to hear about the "DNA analysis"! To what does one compare Jesus's DNA?"

I'd think any communion wafer would do...
_______

The award for best post of the century goes to Mr. Mark!

I can envision evidence-destroying Catholic feasts becoming suddenly popular where the church's minions stuff themselves with communion wafers and wine to obliterate any existing DNA evidence! Priest will be forbidden to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ to ensure that no new DNA evidence will surface.

Though there were so many odd and stupid aspects of what I was taught when being raised a Catholic which allowed me to remain the atheist that I was born (like everyone else, though that atheist needed to be in the closet until she turned 18), transubstantiation had me in stitches even when I was a kid, and was one of the Catholic tenets that ensured my closet atheism stayed viable.

From Wikipedia: Transubstantiation – the substance (fundamental reality) of the bread and wine is transformed in a way beyond human comprehension into that of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, but the accidents (physical traits, including chemical properties) of the bread and wine remain; this view is that taught by the Roman Catholic Church (both the Latin and the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches) and by the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem, and is held by many Anglicans, especially in Anglo-Catholic circles.

Seriously, no evidence-destroying feasts would be necessary--the Catholics would just say well, yes, it is the body and blood of Christ, but it is still bread and wine, so it is perfectly understandable if no DNA is found.

Their slippery and protean rationalizing has allowed them to continue practicing their idiotic beliefs by selectively rejecting/accepting any evidence that will allow them to continue to practice their nonsense.

Other Comments by Logicel

39. Comment #23193 by mr gollo on February 26, 2007 at 5:16 pm

If it's as well researched and unbiased as "The Exodus Decoded" I think I would rather accept a date between my eyeballs and some sizeable knitting needles.

As Ronald Hendel, University of California, Berkeley, wrote in his review, "Watching it reminded me of an expensive infomercial, in which the actor-salesman makes increasingly exaggerated claims for his product—it makes you lose weight, adds muscle, and makes you rich to boot."

Other Comments by mr gollo

40. Comment #23194 by Stephen on February 26, 2007 at 5:22 pm

^^^^As Ronald Hendel, University of California, Berkeley, wrote in his review, "Watching it reminded me of an expensive infomercial, in which the actor-salesman makes increasingly exaggerated claims for his product—it makes you lose weight, adds muscle, and makes you rich to boot."


oh, thats rich haha

Other Comments by Stephen

41. Comment #23195 by HappyPrimate on February 26, 2007 at 5:23 pm

I would strongly suggest everyone check out thoroughly the Discovery Channel website on this documentary. It will answer all of the questions that are being raised here. While it may not be slam-dunk proof, it sure comes very very close to proving that Jesus was a normal human person who married and had kids, died and was buried - no resurrection. I am looking forward to watching the program.
On the matter of the program Decoding the Exodus, I enjoyed the fact that they could NOT come up with any substantial proofs other than the Egyptian tablet claiming the expulsion of the evil ones around about the time the exodus was supposed to have taken place. It seems highly likely that a group of nonconformist were expelled to provide harmony in Egypt. Sort of like throwing out the hippies from an ultra conservative community. Anyway, that is what I got from it.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

42. Comment #23197 by mr gollo on February 26, 2007 at 5:47 pm

"On the matter of the program Decoding the Exodus, I enjoyed the fact that they could NOT come up with any substantial proofs other than the Egyptian tablet claiming the expulsion of the evil ones around about the time the exodus was supposed to have taken place. It seems highly likely that a group of nonconformist were expelled to provide harmony in Egypt. Sort of like throwing out the hippies from an ultra conservative community. Anyway, that is what I got from it."

I agree HappyPrimate, but they went from a disputed reading of a single historical source to the privileged first born males throughout ALL Egypyt dying because they slept downstairs, whereas the Israelites survived because they were "sitting up" during passover, to missing Israelites wandering the Northern Medditerannean carving pictures into rocks of the Arc of the Covenant.

Why did all this tortured reasoning last for two hours?.... "The answer is revealed after these short messages...."

Other Comments by mr gollo

43. Comment #23201 by js5535 on February 26, 2007 at 6:29 pm

A sample of Joseph's DNA would be quite useful right now. It would prove or disprove paternity. I wonder what the chances are of a viable source ever being found.

It's awful that some hyper-Conservative Jewish group got their hands on the alleged Jesus Family's bones.

Other Comments by js5535

44. Comment #23209 by BT Murtagh on February 26, 2007 at 7:50 pm

"I'd think any communion wafer would do..."

I can see the controversy now - did the body of Jesus lay here, or was it just a loaf of bread?

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

45. Comment #23213 by JJoe on February 26, 2007 at 11:02 pm

It's interesting how the standards for proof & evidence are all of a sudden so important to christians. We all know they wouldn't accept something unless it could be fully verifiable and foolproof to casual scrutiny. [/sarcasm]

Other Comments by JJoe

46. Comment #23226 by Kevin Ronayne on February 27, 2007 at 2:43 am

I'm surprised that no-one as of yet has mentioned RD's point from the God Delusion: that DNA analysis of Jesus could shed light on whether or not he had a biological father. In other words, the claim of virgin birth was one that in theory could be settled scientifically. I wonder if this means that we need to find a Y-chromosome in this DNA to debunk the virgin birth claim, or will it suffice merely to show that he was diploid and not haploid?

I speak partly in jest of course. At any rate, any evidence that contradicts the biblical account will be trashed by the faithful, just as predicted in TGD.

Oh, I add my vote for Mr. Mark's "communion wafer" put-down!

Other Comments by Kevin Ronayne

47. Comment #23229 by AbstractMonkey on February 27, 2007 at 2:54 am

I'm still hoping that the name Oded Golan doesn't turn up in relation to this discovery. He's fooled a lot of people in the past.

Other Comments by AbstractMonkey

48. Comment #23231 by gibodean on February 27, 2007 at 3:17 am

What results did the radioactive dating give about the age of the tomb? What about the other evidence ? Is it 2000 years old, or 1000, or 3000?

I googled and found one article that claimed it was 2000 years old, but didn't give any information on how this was determined.

I would have thought that info important enough to mention..

Other Comments by gibodean

49. Comment #23237 by Ilovelucy on February 27, 2007 at 4:13 am

I have to say, fascinating though this is, it seems to be missing a vital ingredient. Maybe James Cameron will pep it up a little with a poor boy/rich girl romantic plot device just in case us plebs get bored of all that history stuff...

Other Comments by Ilovelucy

50. Comment #23238 by DerrickB on February 27, 2007 at 4:22 am

#48 gibodean

I believe that ossuaries were only used for burial in this way by Jews up to about 70AD. If the ossuaries are genuine therefore (and I don't think thre is any claim to the contrary) then they must be about 2000 years old.

Other Comments by DerrickB