Holes in the theory of the Jesus Family Tomb (James Cameron documentary)

[steve(thelil)]

Last night on the Discovery Channel, there was a much talked about documentary in which the filmmakers sort of claimed that they found the tomb of Jesus and his family. According to the show, the family tomb had individual burial ossuaries.

The argument that it was the real historical Jesus family tomb was based largely on the inscriptions on the individual caskets and the odds that a group of ossuaries would have exactly the names of the people in Jesus' family. Among the religiously (if not archaeologically) controversial points were that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married; that Mary Magdalene was actually Jesus' wife and a priest (and not a fallen woman) and that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a son. (I forgot the name, but I think it was "Skippy")

Not being a believer, the stuff about Mary M and a son didn't offend my sensibilities. However, being an amateur archaeologist and a respected logician, I was put off by a serious flaw in their argument.

They were trying to prove it was the J-Family because of the names and the fact that they were all buried together. They strongly asserted that ONLY a family would have been entombed together way back in that time and place. Yet they glossed over the fact that Jesus' supposed son was buried next to a non-family member that the show referred to only as "Larry Mondello of Nazareth."

Fishy.

[Gentle Giant]

I go by what I learned from Jesus Christ Superstar, and damn if I'm going to allow Webber and Rice redo the one work of theirs I can stand.

[Gary Sisco]

This kind of chicanery amazes me. First, if there was a historical Jesus (whose name would not have been Jesus), his followers were the ones who buried him (or placed his corpse in a cave or whatever). They lived for decades after that, broadcasting all over the Mediterranean world, and there was long a christian community in Jerusalem, led by his biological brother. How could it have been that early Christians wouldn't have known where his tomb was and passed on that information to others? They remembered this or that sermon over time via oral history and written, both, but forgot where his tomb was?

Suckers born every minute and lots of them, too.

[jesus marion joseph]

"Ossuaries" are the names of the stone boxes, lil.

Gary, wy do you say Jesus wouldn't have been named Jesus?

[Gary Sisco]

Because it's not a Hebrew name. His name would have been Yeshua ben Joseph, and he would have been an Aramaic speaker as by then Hebrew was used in ritual and study only. It wasn't a common language of the street. So Yeshua would be the equivalent of Joshua, in that world, at that time.

[Jimmy Cantiello]

And, as everyone knows, Christ was not Puerto Rican.

[Gary Sisco]

In any case, according to the book, he ascended into heaven, bodily. His followers claim to have seen him and touched him, eaten and drunk with him, after the alleged resurrection.

I'd not find it surprising if he had a wife and kids. There's a record of such reports early on, until the Church started making its own history up as it went along.

[steve(thelil)]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Because it's not a Hebrew name. His name would have been Yeshua ben Joseph, and he would have been an Aramaic speaker as by then Hebrew was used in ritual and study only. It wasn't a common language of the street. So Yeshua would be the equivalent of Joshua, in that world, at that time.

The ossuary inscriptions did use "Yeshua"

[Gary Sisco]

I know. I was just saying because of this Jesus shit. Wasn't his name.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

How could it have been that early Christians wouldn't have known where his tomb was and passed on that information to others? They remembered this or that sermon over time via oral history and written, both, but forgot where his tomb was?

Isn't it also possible that his followers might have suppressed the location of his burial in order to perpetuate the resurrection myth?

[tippy]

Jesus Lives!

[Gary Sisco]

Possible, sure. But so is anything.

It's hardly likely, however, that as much as that area has been combed and dug up and studied by generations of scholars and archaeologists, that they'd not have noticed a box of bones labeled Yeshua ben Joseph.

We're not talking children here. "We found it on the street."

Right.

But, this one will fire up the fireable as much as the Da Vinci code idiocy did.

[groover]

Then what happened to his body? Did he go up to the heavens in a chariot of fire? Was he abducted by aliens? Was he cremated? As you've said, Gary, it's hard to believe this info isn't widely known, yet it still is a mystery, isn't it?

[Gary Sisco]

I've already said that according to the book, he ascended to heaven *bodily.* I don't believe any such nonsense of course but many do or the story falls apart. The whole thing is based on the crucifixion and bodily resurrection (a classic dying god myth, by the way, which were ubiquitous in the ancient world).

I'd guess that, given the situation at the time, his body was just dumped eventually along with the many others who'd met the same fate. Crucifixion was a common thing in the Roman world, and it would have been they who did the disposing. Historically speaking, to add ammo, it is said with more credulity than early tales warrant, the bodies of Peter and Paul, both of whom were killed in a wave of Roman reaction against Christians, were tossed into the Tiber along with many others. There was a whole lot of killing going on as an aspect of everyday life in that world. There were not many people willing to dissent or they'd be floating, too, quickly enough.

Another common practice was to leave an executed person's corpse hanging in public til it rotted as a warning to others. This happened by the thousands, sometimes. Their families knew that if they took the body down, their own would be hanging quickly enough.

The ton-ton macoute in Haiti often used the same tactic, with great effect.

[John L]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Cantiello

And, as everyone knows, Christ was not Puerto Rican.

Do you mean to say that they couldn't find three wise men and a virgin?

[Gary Sisco]

Virgins, sure. Virgins who give birth to gods, not often. ;-)

[clinthopson]

In actuality the bodies were of Jesus, Maria and Chico Ramirez.

[Gary Sisco]

What's this big deal about virgins, anyway? I much prefer women who already know how to ride.

[clinthopson]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

What's this big deal about virgins, anyway? I much prefer women who already know how to ride.

But the Muslims seem to need 72 of them.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

But the Muslims seem to need 72 of them.

Lots of false starts?

[Jazzzoline]

Originally Posted by steve(thelil)

Last night on the Discovery Channel, there was a much talked about documentary in which the filmmakers sort of claimed that they found the tomb of Jesus and his family. According to the show, the family tomb had individual burial ossuaries.

The argument that it was the real historical Jesus family tomb was based largely on the inscriptions on the individual caskets and the odds that a group of ossuaries would have exactly the names of the people in Jesus' family. Among the religiously (if not architecturally) controversial points were that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married; that Mary Magdalene was actually Jesus' wife and a priest (and not a fallen woman) and that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a son. (I forgot the name, but I think it was "Skippy")

Not being a believer, the stuff about Mary M and a son didn't offend my sensibilities. However, being an amateur archaeologist and a respected logician, I was put off by a serious flaw in their logic.

They were trying to prove it was the J-Family because of the names and the fact that they were all buried together, as ONLY a family would have been way back in those times. Yet they glossed over the fact that Jesus' supposed son was buried next to a non-family member that the show referred to only as "Larry Mondello of Nazareth."

Fishy.

Maybe Larry was the real father of Magdalena's son. That's probably where every Larry on this planet got that reputation.

[tippy]

It's sounding kinda like Three's Company.

[tippy]

Honestly, my feeling is that we have all suffered enough for Jim Cameron's since with Titanic - that Celine Dion song alone. Just when he and his haughty embarrassing speech had just about left my memory, now he wants to do a film about Jesus. Puhleeze.

Jimmy could you have someone from your crew whack this guy already?

[steve(thelil)]

Originally Posted by tippy

It's sounding kinda like Three's Company.

LOL


Cameron is actually doing a followup where they explore why John Ritter's will specified that he be buried next to one of the forgotten babes who replaced Suzanne Somers after she split from 3's Company - and not Suzanne/Chrissy herself.

Talk about losin' my religion.

[jesus marion joseph]

IIRC, there's a documentary that runs every so often on Discovery HD about his search for (and finding) the wreck of the Bismarck.

[tippy]

IIRC?

[Jimmy Cantiello]

Originally Posted by tippy

IIRC?

IIRC = If I Remember Correctly

[tippy]

Thanks, Jimmy. Now about that unfinished business by your relatives.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by steve(thelil)

Fishy.

[Hot Ptah]

I find it odd that so many people really want to believe that there was a romance between Jesus and Mary Magdalen. Or else they think that mentioning such a tryst will sell books, documentaries, films, etc. Why isn't there more direct evidence of that, if it was true?