There's a special coming on Discovery channel Sunday night called <a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html?clik=www_wh_1">The Lost Tomb of Jesus.</a> This is a documentary on a tomb found near Jerusalem which may contain the remains of Jesus and his family, including Mary Magdalen and a child they had together. Statistics say there is a 1 in 600 chance it is so. Produced by James Cameron, this is sure to cause some murmurs...

Sunday night around 9/10

There is also a documentary on the Dark Ages on the History channel at the same time. It's probably not as controversial.

I'll be recording both.

Well, it will probably raise more speculation and controversy than anything else, but I doubt that there is any kind of believable proof given how confusing the history of that period was, and how little documentation we have from that period

Ronnoco

Holy cow tell me someone else saw this?!

I watched both, both were compelling and entertaining. But I try not to believe anything I see on tv.

I didn't see it, but I did hear an "expert" talk about the "discovery" on my National Geographic News podcast yesterday. He said this is at least the 3rd tomb they have found with those names in it. I'll have to see if they are going to reair the show.

...his hair was never too messy. A bit unkempt, perhaps, but I think considering the times he lived in, that was perfectly acceptable...

Anyway, I have serious doubts that what they found was actually his...oh, wait.

Did you say TOMB?!?!?

I thought you said they found the COMB of Jesus...

Tomb???? That's different...

Nevermind... :D

...his hair was never too messy. A bit unkempt, perhaps, but I think considering the times he lived in, that was perfectly acceptable...

Anyway, I have serious doubts that what they found was actually his...oh, wait.

Did you say TOMB?!?!?

I thought you said they found the COMB of Jesus...

Tomb???? That's different...

Nevermind... :D

that was very funny. I laughed out loud, which provoked a nice gasping wheezing cough. Thanks! :D

I laughed out loud, which provoked a nice gasping wheezing cough. Thanks! :D...

My, what a pretty picture you paint. Aren't you a little young to have a gasping wheezing cough???? :(

Well now, that's very interesting. One of the strongest points in his argument to me was the significance of the names. Not just having a Jesus, 2 Marys, et al, in a tomb together, but the historical relevance of the names the way they were written - the name "Jose" as it was spelled apparently only occured in the Bible as it was being referred to as Jesus's brother. Mariamne being a rare name, and happening to be the name used in 4th century writings to describe Mary Magdalen (Mary from Magdala.) Jesus was a very common name, but a "Jesus son of Joseph" narrows it down. Having the ossuaries with "Jesus'" and "Mariamne's" bones being DNA tested and "proving" that they were not maternally related, thereby giving weight to the argument that they were married was interesting. And the Latin spelling of the other Mary's name was of signifance, too, considering she would have had to have been significant enough for her name to have been translated (if memory serves.)

All in all, a very compelling argument. BUT, not proof. I will be interested to see how this plays out over the years. I'm sure they will reopen the tomb and start selling tickets soon. Or, maybe find evidence in the tomb that it was not the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

Either way, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't change THE NOW and the fact that we all need to be nice to each other now anyway :)

Sunday, we watched Borat and Prestige.
Monday, we watched 24 and Heroes which were both EXCELLENT!
Tonight, I'll try to watch the documentary after the family finishes Idol.

The Life and Times of a Couch Potato....

My, what a pretty picture you paint. Aren't you a little young to have a gasping wheezing cough???? :(

That's a little thing we like to call walking pneumonia. Tuesday last was a trip to the ER with the flu, Friday I picked up pneumonia. Been a fun week.

Well now, that's very interesting. One of the strongest points in his argument to me was the significance of the names. Not just having a Jesus, 2 Marys, et al, in a tomb together, but the historical relevance of the names the way they were written - the name "Jose" as it was spelled apparently only occured in the Bible as it was being referred to as Jesus's brother. Mariamne being a rare name, and happening to be the name used in 4th century writings to describe Mary Magdalen (Mary from Magdala.) Jesus was a very common name, but a "Jesus son of Joseph" narrows it down. Having the ossuaries with "Jesus'" and "Mariamne's" bones being DNA tested and "proving" that they were not maternally related, thereby giving weight to the argument that they were married was interesting. And the Latin spelling of the other Mary's name was of signifance, too, considering she would have had to have been significant enough for her name to have been translated (if memory serves.)

All in all, a very compelling argument. BUT, not proof. I will be interested to see how this plays out over the years. I'm sure they will reopen the tomb and start selling tickets soon. Or, maybe find evidence in the tomb that it was not the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

Either way, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't change THE NOW and the fact that we all need to be nice to each other now anyway :)

Thanks Rick for rewiewing this for me. I don't watch much TV, but this is very interesting. I am sure just like the shroud, this will be debated for years to come. I guess I will just wait for the book. Thanks for the post.
Greg

Well now, that's very interesting. One of the strongest points in his argument to me was the significance of the names. Not just having a Jesus, 2 Marys, et al, in a tomb together, but the historical relevance of the names the way they were written - the name "Jose" as it was spelled apparently only occured in the Bible as it was being referred to as Jesus's brother. Mariamne being a rare name, and happening to be the name used in 4th century writings to describe Mary Magdalen (Mary from Magdala.) Jesus was a very common name, but a "Jesus son of Joseph" narrows it down. Having the ossuaries with "Jesus'" and "Mariamne's" bones being DNA tested and "proving" that they were not maternally related, thereby giving weight to the argument that they were married was interesting. And the Latin spelling of the other Mary's name was of signifance, too, considering she would have had to have been significant enough for her name to have been translated (if memory serves.)

All in all, a very compelling argument. BUT, not proof. I will be interested to see how this plays out over the years. I'm sure they will reopen the tomb and start selling tickets soon. Or, maybe find evidence in the tomb that it was not the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.
:)

I suppose it depends on what constitutes proof given the nature of history. I hope it stimulates the need for more research and more archeological study into this period. There was certainly documentation to show that Mary Magdalene played a very strong role in the early church which I hope also brings pressure to give women a more prominent role in the current church heirarchy.

Ronnoco

The documentary did take on the growing viewpoint that Mary was more than a follower of Jesus, but a disciple, and later his wife, and after his death one of the carriers of his teachings. All of that is circumstantial, of course. But what's interesting is there is probably as much "proof" that it was the case as there is "proof" that it was not the case. It is now known that Mary Magdalen was never described as a prostitute in the Bible, but that her status as a prostitute was decided by early Christian church leaders centuries (?) later.

Ever since Dan Brown's book, people's view of Mary Magdalen has been changing. The prospect that she could have been a powerful figure in early Christianity certainly seems to be striking a chord with a great many people. I would even go so far as to say she has become a point of inspiration for women today and has opened up an alternative interpretation of the Bible.

What's more important than all that of course is that is that women are finding evidence historicaly for the power of women in the early Christian church, which today empowers them to throw off the shackles of their subordination over the last 10,000 years and seek a more empowered status in our religions, politics, and culture. Which, if you look around, has already been happening. Funny, that this relevation about Mary Magdalen should come at such as a synchronus time as this.

All imo.

But what's interesting is there is probably as much "proof" that it was the case as there is "proof" that it was not the case.


We finally watched it last night. I enjoyed it. Besides the topics that provoke controversy, I simply enjoyed learning about the traditions of the time. I also couldn't help be bothered by how much in the New Testament was excluded by 'editors'. Ironically, what made it into the New Testament is a curve ball like the info on Jesus possibly having blood brothers and Mary Magdalene never being the woman depicted in some well known stories. Like Rick states, there are probably enough arguments that cancel each other out, the typical nature of archeology. The Bible alone is used as an indicator then used at the same time as a disqualifier. Everything is subject to interpretation.


....seek a more empowered status in our religions, politics, and culture. Which, if you look around, has already been happening. Funny, that this relevation about Mary Magdalen should come at such as a synchronus time as this.


Rick, are you referring to Hillary, Nancy, Han Myung-Sook, Portia Lucretia Simpson, or Drew Gilpin Faust??? Yeah, they are finally taking over the world.....now the men can kick back and relax :thumbsup:

I have not seen this particular documentary, but I remember the BBC one on the same subject about 11 years ago which was pretty well ignored/rubbished by the scholarly community.

For what it's worth I am a minister and teach NT periodically at a local college. That does not mean I am necessarily biased - but it does mean I have a certain knowledge about these things.

It has been known for decades that Mary Magdalene was a powerful figure in the early church - indeed, the NT itself implies as much by making her the first witness to the resurrection. She is sometimes referred to as the "apostle to the apostles" because of that - it would have been far more "convenient" to have Peter discover the empty tomb; but the fact that the NT gives Mary Magdalene that honour indicates that she was held in very high regard.

It is also a fact that she was eventually slandered by the church in the late Patristic period - I refer to the works of various "feminist" theologians, especially Elizabeth Moltmann-Wendell who notes that her decline coincides remarkably with the hoisting of Mary mother of Jesus as an "ideal" role model (ie passive and obedient).

In other words, it is hardly new scholarship to recognise that Mary Magdalene was a major player but lost her preeminence. All this can be gleaned from the NT itself and tracing patristic writings. Dan Brown is not responsible for this and I have books on my shelf 20 years old which say much of this.

Now, let me get one thing straight though - almost all the so-called "scriptural" material about Mary Magdalene was NOT "editted" out of the NT (as Dan Brown etc would have you believe). Most of that material is gnostic and considerably (several centuries) later, not to mention distinctly unorthodox. Any serious web site on the Nag Hammadi finds will repay careful reading on this. In short, documentaries/Dan Brown/etc get part of their effect by hoisting the completely false notion that all this is "new" or has been suppressed by some kind of conspiracy. Nonsense and I can give oodles of references to anyone who is interested.

Finally, we live in an age of religious scepticism. This is not necessarily a bad thing - but it does tend to spill out into people/media/etc grasping at the latest straws whether or not they have any real theological merit. I have lost count of the number of alleged "finds" almost all of which turn out to be nonsense (remember the Judas Gospel of just a few months ago, the Bible Codes, etc?)

Get a grip! Jerusalem and the Grassy Knoll are separated by some distance!

Cheers
Mike

I don't believe in that! I think they're just making up stories...

It amazes me that as big a figure as Jesus was in history that outside of the bible, little evidence of him can be substantiated, perhaps this is by design? Maybe it was meant to be and that is where faith comes into play.
Greg

Did they find any threads of the shroud of Turrin in it?
Now that would stir up a hornets nest.
I didn't see it but will probably watch for a re-run.

It amazes me that as big a figure as Jesus was in history that outside of the bible, little evidence of him can be substantiated, perhaps this is by design? Maybe it was meant to be and that is where faith comes into play. Greg

There is actually some very logical reasons behind this.

First of all, the Roman officials permitted the Jews to conduct their own religious affairs without much interference. So consequently, while the Romans knew about what was going among the Jewish and early Christian communities (see Acts 26:26) they didn't meddle too often, unless of course it concerned threatening the public peace.

Secondly, neither the Roman officials nor the average Roman would have had much interest in a Jewish rabbi such as Jesus. The Romans had their own religions and were pretty much loyal to them, as they felt the state of the state was dependent upon their service to the gods. In other words, they would have paid little attention to whatever claims were rumored about Jesus.

Last of all, keep in mind that Jesus' ministry was pretty much confined to just the Jews, for it was to the "lost house of Israel" that he said he was sent by his Father. It was not until after the resurrection that the Gospel message of Jesus began to spread out to other nations, and even then that took some time before it was initiated. So outside of Israel the Roman empire was pretty much ignorant of Jesus and what he was doing, so it shouldn't surprise us that there aren't any extra-biblical references to him.

What this means is that the only thing we have to depend upon is the New Testament writings itself to provide us information about Jesus and evaluate it for ourselves as to whether or not he was who he is claimed to be. The interesting thing about the New Testament is that it actually has the best manuscript evidence of any document in antiquity bar none, not to mention the fact that the internal and external evidence supports its veracity. It is truly a unique historical document, and that I think was by design.

By the way, I haven't seen any churches abandoned yet as a result of the documentary in question. I myself did not get to see it, but I think we can all gauge just how effective (or would that be non-effective?) it was on the public.

It is hardly suprising that there are no contemporaneous references to Jesus, apart from the NT. He was just one more itinerant rabbi as far as the Romans and the Jews were concerned. Even when he died, he had little more than a small band of followers.

It wasn't until the infant church itself started to grow that it impinged on the consciousness of the world.

Apart from the probably spurious references in Josephus, there are:

In the Annals of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is a short passage which speaks of 'Christus' as being the founder of a party called Christians -- a body of people 'who were abhorred for their crimes.' (published about 115-117 AD)

In his Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius, writing around 120 CE, states: 'Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome.'

Pliny the Younger, writing in the first decade(s) of the 1st century CE, corresponded regularly with the emperor Trajan. In these writings, Pliny specifically mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, and asks Trajan's advice about what action to take against them, if any.

And, as Porky Pig would say, "That's all folks!"

In other words, the NT is and remains the only read evidence for the life and works of Jesus.

Mike

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11681

Just an FYI.

thanks,
Wes

Just an FYI.

It seems to me like some people at the top got a little nervous about the content of this documentary :)

Which brings up an interesting point. Had this special been about the lost tomb of Julius Cesar and the evidence suggested that history might have recorded his family history incompletely, something tells me the backlash would not have been quite so strong. The fact that Jesus became a religious figure after his death and that the religion which elevated Jesus has such a strong following in this country seems to confound the objectivity of a documentary such as this. People are understandably threatened by any evidence or words which might suggest their religious figure or sacred texts are incomplete, or wrong, or being contradicted by scientific evidence. I think one of the unfortunate results of this special airing is that Discovery, the director, James Cameron, et al were perceived as "attacking Christianity." In fact, they were merely exploring archeology and espousing a radical hypothesis about an historical, and later religious, figure. It seems to me the religious ties of Jesus of Nazareth are going to further complicate any future studies of his life from an historical perspective. His religious followers are going to fear any scientific results which contradict their beliefs and perceive any evidence contradicting their views as "an attack." This persecutory response, coupled with the considerable financial and political weight of their religion, is going to make any further explorations and discoveries like this one compex, burdonsome, and seeming hardly worthy of the challenges involved. Whereas if the historical landscape were leveled and people were not as sensitive to the figure Jesus of Nazareth I would think historical evidence of his existence might be easier to find and hypotheses about his existence easier to formulate, without the fear of religious backlash.

All imo, of course!
Rick

The problem, if you want to see it that way, is that Christianity is a cult based on the personality of Jesus. If Jesus is not divine, did not rise from the dead, there is no religion. Other religions do not depend that much on a single historical figure supposed to be real. Naturally, Christians will fight any notion that the Christian dogma and history is somehow untrue. But, come on now, this was basically MacArcheology at its finest, not really something for Christians to worry about.

It seems to me like some people at the top got a little nervous about the content of this documentary :)

Which brings up an interesting point. Had this special been about the lost tomb of Julius Cesar and the evidence suggested that history might have recorded his family history incompletely, something tells me the backlash would not have been quite so strong. The fact that Jesus became a religious figure after his death and that the religion which elevated Jesus has such a strong following in this country seems to confound the objectivity of a documentary such as this. People are understandably threatened by any evidence or words which might suggest their religious figure or sacred texts are incomplete, or wrong, or being contradicted by scientific evidence. I think one of the unfortunate results of this special airing is that Discovery, the director, James Cameron, et al were perceived as "attacking Christianity." In fact, they were merely exploring archeology and espousing a radical hypothesis about an historical, and later religious, figure. It seems to me the religious ties of Jesus of Nazareth are going to further complicate any future studies of his life from an historical perspective. His religious followers are going to fear any scientific results which contradict their beliefs and perceive any evidence contradicting their views as "an attack." This persecutory response, coupled with the considerable financial and political weight of their religion, is going to make any further explorations and discoveries like this one compex, burdonsome, and seeming hardly worthy of the challenges involved. Whereas if the historical landscape were leveled and people were not as sensitive to the figure Jesus of Nazareth I would think historical evidence of his existence might be easier to find and hypotheses about his existence easier to formulate, without the fear of religious backlash.

All imo, of course!
Rick

As always, Rick, an interesting, intelligent, and well thought out point of view. Unfortunately that places you in a small and distinct minority. As you point out, it is a very common tendency to "attack", characterize, and negatively contrue the motives and character of anyone presenting even the possiblity of a contrary point of view. :)

Ronnoco

Well, I personally wouldn't call Christianity a cult. Their intentions are good. Some of the behaviors and attitudes exhibited by Christians over the millenia have been a little "ungodly" as defined by their own terms. But ultimately, in their own minds they are saving humanity from "firey hell" so at least they think they're doing good by everyone. I mean, the words of an Arab who could walk on water and heal the sick would certainly would bear some weight with me! My personal concern is not with Jesus or the Bible, it's with the Chrisitian religion's interpretation of both (but that's a different thread altogether)

And could you say more about "MacArcheology?"

And I agree that Christians should not be worried about this. Those of strong faith will not be affected.

Gee, Ron, you can't relate to that at all, can you? :wink:

And could you say more about "MacArcheology?"

Sorry, must be regional. "Mac" as a prefix refers to fast food, as MacDonalds. Cheap, fast, resembling food but not really rising to the level of being food. Sort of like USA Today being called a MacNewspaper. The "archeology" was so flawed and required so many guesses it sounded more like a UFO conference than a real discovery.

More food-for-thought: one of the film's "ossuary experts" releases a paper stating that the inscription on the ossuary previously believed to be that of Mary Magdalen was actually misinterpreted. The film's maker claims several other historians had validated the inscription as saying "Mary the Master." From <a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/03/14/jesuscritic_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070314140000">Discovery online</a>

And I agree that Christians should not be worried about this.

We're not. ;)

There might be some segments, however, that seem to react hysterically to anything that appears anti-christian. But for the more rational, emotionally secure and those secure in the truth of Christ's resurrection, it's not raising any concerns.