The only problem i have with the debate is how circular the reasoning gets. You can't refute someone who is claiming to refute the Bible by quoting the Bible. If Cameron and co claim they have found Jesus's tomb somewhere dogma says it can't be, its not very helpful to say it can't be there because dogma says so. Everything we know about the life of Jesus comes from a very small number of direct sources, probably none of them contemporary (depending on if you believe historians or not).

Im fairly certain this is either a hoax or a weird coincidence, but on the other hand i hear much more idiotic or pointless scientific theories trumpeted to the media every single day and dont see the kind of knee-jerk backlash you see in this case.

Im pretty sure neither side is as interested in objective truth as they are in protecting their idealogical turf. This is a fascinating historical find even if the names are Bob and June Cleaver.

Mark, Cameron and accompany are asserting that they found the tomb of the Biblical Jesus. Their assertion requires them to match the evidence with the Bible. So, I think its completely approriate in this particular case to say Cameron can't be correct because verse so-and-so.

Cameron and Co are saying they may have found the biblical Jesus. Just as everyday I am told a caffeine may give me a heart attack or save me from a stroke (or vice versa) and everday I am told my cars exhaust may contribute to a hurricane. I don't think the producers are claiming they have definitive evidence, but regardless who really cares what Cameron thinks? This is an interesting find. Any archeologist who stumbled on a first century tomb with the words Jesus son or Joseph, well thats just immediately interesting and I would argue anyone who dismisses it out of hand as a coincidence is just as guilty of spin as those who immediately latch on to it. Heck, Schliemann discovered Troy and it was the wrong Troy but did that make it uninteresting or unworthy of hype to some degree?

Also, I think one of the issues Biblical scholars have is that while recognizing some of the limitations on contemporaneous accounts, Cameron and Co. appear to reject First Century sources in favor of Fourth Century sources when it serves their aims.

There's a big difference between saying "This is the tomb of the person named Jesus who is the subject of the Christian Scriptures" and "This is the tomb of Jesus as stated in the Christian Scriptures." I think Mark is onto this, and P Dhimmi is not; Dhimmi's comment depends on the unstated assumption that everything the Bible says about the Biblical Jesus is true, and can be used to refute extra-Biblical claims about a person named Jesus. But this assumption can not, really, be correct, since the Christian Scriptures aren't even internally consistent in detail about the life and death of Jesus.

Andrew, you wrote:
bq. There's a big difference between saying "This is the tomb of the person named Jesus who is the subject of the Christian Scriptures" and "This is the tomb of Jesus as stated in the Christian Scriptures."

Can you expand what you mean? There is a tomb in Jerusalem shown to tourists as the actual tomb of Jesus. I've never been there, but it's been claimed as "the tomb of Jesus as stated in the Christian Scriptures." Simcha & Co. are claiming that the Talpiot tomb "is the tomb of the person named Jesus who is the subject of the Christian Scriptures," Is this the distinction you you mean? If so, just what is the point you are trying to make?

Can you cite any internal inconsistencies in details about the life and death of Jesus that are even relevant to the thesis of the Family Tomb proposal, much less buttress it?

Simcha & Co. absolutely did claim that the Talpiot tomb was the tomb of Jesus called the Christ, the same figure who is the object of Christian faith. They did not weasel on this point at all.

Yet their entire thesis depends completely on their claim that Jesus was an anti-Roman agitator or proto-revolutionary who sought to take the throne of David. Yet they offered absolutely no evidence for this claim! Even non-Christian historians do not say that was what Jesus was trying to do.

If you wish to protest that the NT is not reliable about matters relevant to that, fine, please make that case. Just understand that Simcha & Co. did not even try.

OTOH, maybe this is the Jesus' nephew family tomb.

"Sunday night's Discovery Channel show, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," has disappeared from serious consideration faster than the Iraq Study Group's report did."

The next similar beat-up will be along soon enough.

Donald: let's posit that there was a religious teacher called Jesus who lived in Judea and was executed by the Romans. That doesn't imply that every detail about his life and death occurred as stated in the Christian Gospels, and of course the miraculous events retold in them aren't accepted as true by billions of persons. I suggest you couldn't refute claims about, say, the location of the tomb on the basis of the text; indeed the determination of the site of the crucifixion took place significantly after the event. And there are good reasons to doubt—as I'm sure you know—that the Gospels' version of the trial of Jesus, either with or without Mel Gibson's embellishment, is historically accurate.

I agree entirely with your post about broader reasons to be skeptical of this "documentary", and the positive evidence presented for its claims about "revolutionary" are slim indeed. The genuine historical context of the trial and execution of Jesus has pretty much been lost under ex post facto revisions made with clear purpose (e.g., the comparative exoneration of the Romans), wouldn't you say?

I think Ted Koppel drew the correct conclusions at the end of his program. There is a story about the conflict between religion and science, but for right now, we are not there yet because we still have questions about the science.

Mark, I don’t know if you saw this show, but I believe they did claim that this was the Biblical Christ with a lot of certitude (though numbers like 600 to 1 in favor of their hypothesis suggest the theoretical exist of doubt). After the program when they distanced themselves from that on at least one occasion, Koppel replaid a portion of the show to rebut them.

But is it an interesting find? It was found in 1980 and it wasn’t interesting then. It’s not the first Jesus son of Joseph ossuary, so statistically we have to assume that there were numerous Jesus sons of Joseph during the time period ossuarial burial was used.

I don’t know enough about the Troy discovery, but some of the Bible scholars appear peeved that this study did not go through the traditional scholastic channels, including peer review. To go straight to television with a lot of loose threads hanging, data being challenged at the last minute, and experts claiming their words were taken out of context, makes the field look unduly provocative. Archeo-porn.

Andrew, I think you've missed the point. I don't have to defend or prove the accuracy of the Gospel accounts to demonstrate that TJFT show fails to make a case. I can stipulate to every point you make but that still does nothing at all to show that TJFT proposal has any merit at all.

Saying that the Gospels aren't reliable does nothing at all to make the case that Simcha is.

Of course I can refute the claim about the location of the tomb based on the Biblical ext. Prof. Ben Witherington did that days ago, namely that the Talpiot tomb's location was not even in Jerusalem in the 1st century, but the Gospels affirm Jesus was entombed in Jerusalem. Just read his site.

Same with James - ancient historical accounts confirm he was buried near the Temple Mount, but Simcha claims the James ossuary came from the Talpiot tomb. Amos Kroner, the Jewish arecheologist who led the tomb's original investigation, has specifically denounced that claim. To make Simcha's case worse, evidence is being presented in the James-ossuary-forgery trial, ongoing now, to show that the James ossuary was documented a few years before the Talpiot tomb was even discovered. The claim that the James ossuary came from the Talpiot tomb is a major plank of Simcha's thesis.

In short, Simcha's case falls apart in both external and internal consistencies and also depends, in part, on the Gospel accounts of Jesus. That's where Simcha gets the familial associations of the tomb's names with Jesus, and other key information, such as Jesus' death in Jerusalem. So Simcha's case itself depends to a great degree that the Gospels are reliable.

I dunno, maybe we're actually agreeing with one another in a roundabout way.

I think Mark is onto this, and P Dhimmi is not; Dhimmi's comment depends on the unstated assumption that everything the Bible says about the Biblical Jesus is true, and can be used to refute extra-Biblical claims about a person named Jesus.

AJL, that's incorrect. The documentary claims that this is the Biblical Jesus, not simply a Jesus son of Joseph from the time period. How else could you prove this hypothesis without holding it up to the scripture?

If you start with the assumption that the scriptures are unreliable and bad evidence, then you’ve simply found another Jesus son of Joseph ossuary. Frankly, I think they found “Brian.”: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/ I understand the confusion, a lot of circumstantial similarities.

I think that I am agreeing with Donald in a roundabout way; I'm choosing a different emphasis. I didn't see the documentary, lacking a TV, but I'm acquainted with the work of one of the scholars who endorses it. It seems to me that the positive evidence is weak even on the most generous construction. (I will say that there are a few scholars who theorize that the Received View of the borders of Jerusalem before the destruction of the city in 70 is not correct. The geography of the "Old City" we know is later.)

On the other hand, I'm not agreeing with PD Shaw. I think it's perfectly logical to make a claim that a tomb is the tomb of the Jesus written about in the Bible without endorsing the historical accuracy of all the details of the Gospel narrative. After all, if someone claimed to have an artifact from the life of the Mohammed, that wouldn't require adhering to belief in the life of Mohammed as presented in Muslim Scripture, would it?

My wife reminds me of a Div School joke. Jesus' tomb is found, and when it's opened, there's a skeleton inside. The Catholics are horrified: "He wasn't resurrected!" The Protestants are also horrified: "You mean there was a Jesus!"

Heh, now that's funny!

AJL: I think it's perfectly logical to make a claim that a tomb is the tomb of the Jesus written about in the Bible without endorsing the historical accuracy of all the details of the Gospel narrative.

I agree.

After all, if someone claimed to have an artifact from the life of the Mohammed, that wouldn't require adhering to belief in the life of Mohammed as presented in Muslim Scripture, would it?

If the claimant was simply hawking goods in the bazaar or a t.v. show, no. If someone was making the claim as having a scientific basis, then there would have to be a scientific methodology employed. I dispute the science.

If someone were to have found a tomb believed to be the remains of King Arthur, that claim would have to be judged against the stories in some way. That doesn't mean you would have to accept that there was a magical sword, its just that you cannot claim this to be King Arther without making the comparison. Otherwise, its just some guy named Arthur. And if you make your case by ignoring older Celtic tales in favor of later French accounts, then you appear quite disingenuous.

The only scholar I am familiar with that appears to endorse the theory, just published a book last year concluding that Jesus would have been buried in Galilee.

Sorry for the confusion,

I'm no longer commenting as P Dhimmi. Mocking Dean Esmay can only go so far.

P Dhimmi Shaw, I think that comparison to King Arthur is just right.

As a Liberal adherent - I almost said "believer" :) -,
I "believe" evolution, so I discount Noah's Ark. Stories about it on Mt. Ararat don't interest me. The Gospels of Judas, found in Ethiopia, don't interest me. Neither story will alter my foundations in the least. I'm close to that "joke" at #12, the one Donald found funny.

The Bible is a message, and the vehicle is not what I believe in.

Suppose they find a tomb near Hissarlik with the inscription "Hector" and another with "Achilles." I think what this proves is that people travelled across the ocean from Puerto Rico to western Turkey.

Is it real or just another fruad like the HITLER DIARIES or AL CAPONES VUALTS and PILTDOWN MAN and GLOBAL WARMING