Monday, February 26, 2007


Not everyone is buying into the Jesus tomb discovery:
Archaeologists and clergymen in the Holy Land derided claims in a new documentary produced by the Oscar-winning director James Cameron that contradict major Christian tenets.

In 1996, when the BBC aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.

"They just want to get money for it," Kloner said.

I think we have a winner.

1 comment:

Wild Bill said...

More skepticism from Mr. Kloner from NY Times

"Among the most influential scholars to dispute the documentary was Amos Kloner, former Jerusalem district archaeologist of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who examined the tomb in 1980.

Mr. Kloner said in a telephone interview that the inscription on the alleged “Jesus” ossuary is not clear enough to ascertain. The box on display at the news conference is a plain rectangle with rough gashes on one side. The one supposedly containing Mary Magdalene has six-petalled rosettes and an elaborate border.

“The new evidence is not serious, and I do not accept that it is connected to the family of Jesus,” said Mr. Kloner, who appears in the documentary as a skeptic.

New Testament scholars also criticized the documentary as theologically dangerous, historically inaccurate and irresponsible.

“A lot of conservative, orthodox and moderate Christians are going to be upset by the recklessness of this,” said Ben Witherington, a Bible scholar at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky. “Of course, we want to know more about Jesus, but please don’t insult our intelligence by giving us this sort of stuff. It’s going to get a lot of Christians with their knickers in a knot unnecessarily.”


In fairness to Cameron, who unburdened the absurd "Titanic" on America, Kloner apparently appeared in the documentary to express his skepticism.

And before anyone makes anything of the DNA "evidence", all it showed is that the remains attributed to the "Yeshua" ossuary and that to the "Mary Magdelene" ossuary, were not related on their mother's side (which they assert is essential because "Mary's" ossuary is there). Of course, they didn't test the remains of "Maria" to see if they matched any of the others, nor did they test the remains of the alleged "children" to test any relation to "Yeshua" or "Mary Magdelene." It all seems rather fishy to me (remember the bogus "James" ossuary?)

In any event, all of this Magdelene silliness is stupid for anyone who reads the NT and understands that the inspired text does not support the alleged "defamation" of her as a prostitute, but instead indicates she was demon-possessed and later support Jesus and the apostles financially. So, if the claims that the Christianity dominated by Paul and the apostles defamed Mary Magdelene to "conceal" her alleged role, he "queenship" in essence, are false, then the claim of her alleged role must also be false. (If you don't try to conceal, ergo, there's nothing conceal).

And another thing, if Jesus wasn't resurrected, why do these "scholars" seemingly accept that he died on the cross? Why is the claim he died on the cross as an atoning sacrifice accepted as true, but his resurrection and claim of divinity untrue? Or are they accepting the Islamic lie that Jesus lived to a ripe old age? If so, then why would he have "apostles" (whether with or without Mary Magdelene)? What would he have need for apostles? All of which, of course, ignores Pauls' recitation in 1 Cor 15 of the hundreds of witnesses to Christ's resurrection and ascension.

One thing I will certainly concur with in the NY Times article is that the degree of biblical illiteracy abroad which is the only thing that permits trash like the Da Vinci Code and this ossuary nonsense to get any play. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." Hosea 4:6.