Examining the Christian Arguments Against Cameron's Claims

**UPDATE: Looks like I was right to be skeptical.**

So now the book is coming out, which will detail the claims and the evidence, along with the movie, which I have embedded the trailer of below. The book should help us to know how likely this tomb really is to be that of Jesus of the Bible.

As I said, I'm not convinced about Cameron's claims; time will give me more evidence to know one way or the other. However, since I was pointed to a few Christian responses to the new claims about the tomb of Jesus being Jesus of the Bible, I want to examine them for their merits, in order to help me decide if Cameron's claims are more likely or less likely. The first is Stands to Reason, who forwards a correspondence from Paul L. Maier, Ph.D., Litt.D, History Dept. of WMU:

1) Nothing is new here: scholars have known about the ossuaries ever since March of 1980. The general public learned when the BBC filmed a documentary on them in 1996. James Tabor’s book, The Jesus Dynasty, also made a big fuss over the Talpiot tombs more recently, and now James Cameron (The Titanic) and Simcha Jacobovici have climbed aboard the sensationalist bandwagon as well. He [sic]

No one is claiming that the find is new, so I don't see how this is highly relevant. The reason this movie and documentary are coming out now, they claim, is that the DNA work has been completed, and the names on the ossuaries have all [finally] been translated. Point 1 is weak.

2) All the names – Yeshua, Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, Matia, Judah, and Jose -- are extremely frequent Jewish names for that time and place, and thus most schol-ars consider this merely coincidental, as they did from the start. One-quarter of Jewish women at that time, for example, were named Maria.

This seems to be the best question to ask, "How likely is it that there is another family, of the same relational status (with the same names and same DNA heredity) as that claimed for Jesus of the Bible, in Jerusalem in the 1st CE?" Well...so far, Christians have admitted the numbers, while claiming that it isn't very likely:

Here are the details on names provided to me by Prof Richard Bauckham of St. Andrews and sourced in a famous catalogue of ossuary names that has been out since 2002 with the information known about this locale since c. 1980.:

“Out of a total number of 2625 males, these are the figures for the ten most popular male names among Palestinian Jews. The first figure is the total number of occurrences (from this number, with 2625 as the total for all names, you could calculate percentages), while the second is the number of occurrences specifically on ossuraries.

1 Simon/Simeon 243 59
2 Joseph 218 45
3 Eleazar 166 29
4 Judah 164 44
5 John/Yohanan 122 25
6 Jesus 99 22
7 Hananiah 82 18
8 Jonathan 71 14
9 Matthew 62 17
10 Manaen/Menahem 42 4

For women, we have a total of 328 occurrences (women's names are much less often recorded than men's), and figures for the 4 most popular names are thus:

Mary/Mariamne 70 42
Salome 58 41
Shelamzion 24 19
Martha 20 17

You can see at once that all the names you're interested were extremely popular. 21% of Jewish women were called Mariamne (Mary). The chances of the people in the ossuaries being the Jesus and Mary Magdalene of the New Testament must be very small indeed.”

Once I saw these numbers, I was a bit surprised that the Christians tried to spin them as they did. Simply put, if only 218 and 99 out of 2625 males [8.30%, 3.77%] and 70 out of 328 females [21.3%] have these names, then a basic probability calculation based on randomness, determining the probability that Joseph, Jesus, Mary and Mary would be buried together, would tell you that: (218/2625) * (99/2625) * (70/328) * (70/328) is the probability that these would all occur in an interdependent fashion, assuming random distribution and based on the sample sizes for the population in general. That number is: 105,751,800/741,321,000,000, or 0.00014265, or .0143 out of 100.

I don't know how safe it is to assume a random distribution, but any way you spin this, the numbers don't make your case extremely strong. Furthermore, this is ignoring the familial relationship, which would, indeed make these odds even more staggering given extra probability factors for the likelihood that a man named Joseph and a woman named Mary would sire a man named Jesus, who would be buried with a wife named Mary Magdalene. Those odds would become astronomical.

If you took any one, or two of these admittedly common names and threw them together, then sure, no big deal. But in doing a careful statistical analysis, I don't think that Christians have a strong case here. Ancient Palestine was not nearly so large as we would think, with both Shiloh and Broshi estimating the region's maximum urban population during the Roman-Byzantine era at 372,000, and Palestine's entire maximal population at a million. Broshi estimates this maximum occurring at about 600 CE, but the socio-economic conditions he uses provide an upper limit for any point during the entire period. It is likely that 1st CE Palestine had less than did 7th CE, but let's be generous.

If we assume half are men, half women, then apply the percentages above, we see that there are likely to be about 15,440 people named Joseph, 7,010 named Jesus and 39,620 named Mary in urban areas at that time, and 2.688 times each of those for the entire population of Palestine (rural+urban). It seems reasonable to limit the possibilities of interest here to the urban population, given that neither Jesus nor his family are peasants, but instead are able to travel freely and practice a skilled trade.

Thus, at the end of the day, the probabilities of finding a tomb with one or two or three of these names is not conclusive, but finding the hereditary relationship and the four names is quite significant, whether Christians like it or not. Point 2 is what I think this all hangs on.

3) There is no reason whatever to equate “Mary Magdalene” with “Mariamene,” as Jacobovici claims.

Having no knowledge of languages, I will leave this one alone, but it seems odd, given that the inscription is plainly available for view, that a major claim would be this wrong. Anyone can view and translate it. Hmmm...

4) So what if her DNA is different from that of “Yeshua” ? That particular "Mariamme” (as it is usually spelled today) could indeed have been the wife of that particular “Yeshua.”

Again, it isn't really about one relationship, it's the question of how likely this entire family is to be the family of interest, based on several criteria.

5) What in the world is the “Jesus Family” doing, having a burial plot in Jerusalem, of all places, the very city that crucified Jesus? Galilee was their home. In Galilee they could have had such a family plot, not Judea. Besides all of which, church tradition – and Eusebius – are unanimous in reporting that Mary died in Ephesus, where the apostle John, faithful to his commission from Jesus on the cross, had accompanied Mary.

This may or may not be a strong point, but I don't see how one couldn't reconcile the notion that Eusebius had reliable information with this finding, if it is true. Moving bones from one place to another is hardly unheard of in those times. Especially if another part of the family is buried elsewhere.

6) If this were Jesus’ family burial, what is Matthew doing there – if indeed “Ma-tia” is thus to be translated?

I don't know if this does anything to detract from it. This doesn't have to be the Matthew of the Bible, first and foremost. Second, the last biblical mention of Matthew is in Acts, in Jerusalem. Third, Matthew could very well have requested to have been buried with his teacher, or perhaps he was the one who moved all their remains to his tomb and thus was buried there himself.

7) How come there is no tradition whatever – Christian, Jewish, or secular -- that any part of the Holy Family was buried at Jerusalem?

This is an argument from silence, which suits Christians well here, but suits them very poorly in defense of the life of Jesus from contemporary secular sources. Christians do believe that Jesus was buried here, they just don't believe he stayed buried here. So far as I know, Christians don't have a reliable source to point to where Jesus' family was buried, although of course Catholics believe Mary ascended. Further, I don't know how to even analyze this claim at all, since I'm not familiar with how early these traditions are, aside from Josephus, and given that we all know that he never mentioned Jesus' tomb one way or the other. It seems quite reasonable that if Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem that he would've been buried there. Then, it seems reasonable to assume that his family would've wanted to have been buried with him if they could've been. This point is weak, as it hinges on the argument from silence and turns on an assumption that is unfounded.

8) Please note the extreme bias of the director and narrator, Simcha Jacobovici. The man is an Indiana-Jones-wannabe, who oversensationalizes anything he touches. You may have caught him on his TV special regarding The Exodus, in which the man “explained” just everything that still needed proving or explaining in the Exodus account in the Old Testament! It finally became ludicrous, and now he’s doing it again. – As for James Cameron, how do you follow The Titanic? Well, with an even more “titanic” story. He should have known better.

Argumentum ad hominem -- attacking the character of the person presenting evidence, rather than addressing the evidence itself. Either the evidence stands or falls, the person who found it doesn't matter. Point 8 is pitiful.

I think the 2nd point -- about statistical likelihood, is what all of this is contingent upon. There is, really, no way to prove any particular Jesus that one digs up from the 1st CE is the Jesus of the Bible, aside from the other things found in the tomb with that Jesus. In this case, I think the names of the family, and the correct hereditary relationships, is the crux of the issue. Simply not knowing how he got there, or pointing to a lack of tradition, doesn't present any serious refutation to the claims. I will reserve personal judgment until I see more data on the statistics and perhaps read the book.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion

Just Another Liberal Venting...Right?

Guess who said the following:

"Who is losing Afghanistan?

"George W. Bush, that's who. His watch. His administration. His incompetence. His arrogance. His failure to learn from failure.

"I wish I could say that I was surprised by this latest report from Aghanistan, but I'm not ... As I've said time and time before, the decision by the Bush administration to prioritize the drug war ahead of the war against the Taliban is, of course, madness. It's time for the Brits to take a stand, and announce that either Bush's drug warriors leave Afghanistan or Britain's troops do. Ninety days would seem to be adequate warning."

Who is it just ranting again about how the GOP really isn't strong on national security, on how they're losing the real war to the real enemy responsible for 9/11 and global terrorism? Some damn liberal, right?

Was it Hillary? Obama? Al Franken? Some generic Hollywood liberal?

Wrong -- Andrew Stuttaford, on the blog of conservative National Review. How many people will have to turn against their own party before someone impeaches the lunatic naked emperor?
________________
Technorati tags: Politics

New Eddy by Paul Kurtz on "Evangelical Atheists"

People like Paul Kurtz are a boon to the freethought community and a bane to theists. The man is brilliant, visionary enough to have founded the CFI and recognized the serious need to organize our ranks, a moral objectivist, an articulate philosopher and a cool head when the waters of discourse are often turbid with emotive ranting. His new editorial, "Are ‘Evangelical Atheists’ Too Outspoken?" is much-needed food for thought for those of us who are turned off, at times, by Dawkins-esque antics:

What is often overlooked by the critics of “evangelical atheism” is that skepticism about the existence of God does not by itself define who and what we are. For there is a commitment to the realization of human freedom and happiness in this life here and now and to a life of excellence, creativity, and fulfillment. Life is meaningful without the illusion of immortality.

A good point to ponder -- if we don't have something positive to offer, are we "evangelizing for atheism"? What positive thing could compel us to vehemently "evangelize" towards nonbelief? Sure, we could be motivated against fundamentalist religion and miltant religiosity...but even to rail against liberal believers, and Deistic types?

If we have no message to promote and spread, other than a critique of theism, then are we "evangelizing" at all? No. It wouldn't be the proper term. Secular fideism doesn't sit well with those who want to have a foundation of reason and morality to build upon to move away from religious superstitions and myths.

Are ‘Evangelical Atheists’ Too Outspoken?
by Paul Kurtz

The recent publication of four books—The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins; The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, both by Sam Harris; and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett—has provoked great controversy and consternation.* The fact that books by Dawkins and Harris have made it to The New York Times best-seller list has apparently sent chills down the spines of many commentators; not only conservative religionists but also some otherwise liberal secularists are worried about this unexpected development. We note that the people now being attacked are affiliated with FREE INQUIRY and the Center for Inquiry. The editors of FREE INQUIRY, of course, are gratified that the views espoused in these pages have received a wider forum. What disturbs us is the preposterous outcry that atheists are “evangelical” and that they have gone too far in their criticism of religion.

Really? The public has been bombarded by pro-religious propaganda from time immemorial—today it comes from pulpits across the land, TV ministries, political hucksters, and best-selling books. Indeed, at the present moment, the apocalyptic Left Behind series, coauthored by evangelist Tim LaHaye, is an all-time blockbuster. Other best-sellers include The Purpose-Driven Life by Rick Warren and a slew of books attacking liberal secularists and humanists by religious conservatives such as Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly.

Let’s be fair: Until now, it has been virtually impossible to get a fair hearing for critical comment upon uncontested religious claims. It was considered impolite, in bad taste, and it threatened to raise doubts about God’s existence or hegemony. I have often said that it is as if an “iron curtain” had descended within America, for skeptics have discovered that the critical examination of religion has been virtually verboten. We have experienced firsthand how journalists and producers have killed stories about secular humanism for fear of offending the little old ladies and gentlemen in the suburbs, conservative advertisers, the Catholic hierarchy, or right-wing fundamentalists. It is difficult to find any politicians who are not intimidated and will admit that they are disbelievers or agnostics, let alone atheists. Today, there are very few, if any, clearly identified atheist personalities in the media—Bill Maher is a notable exception. The war against secularism by the Religious Right is unremitting. Even New York Times columnists are running scared. We note the column by Nicolas Kristof (December 3, 2006) calling for a “truce on religion.” He deplores the “often obnoxious atheist offensive” of “secular fundamentalism.”

Science columnist William J. Broad, in a piece published earlier this year in the Times (February 28, 2006), criticized both Daniel C. Dennett and Edward O. Wilson (another Center for Inquiry stalwart). Dennett, complains Broad, “likens spiritual belief to a disease” and looks to science “to explain its grip on humanity.” Broad faults E.O. Wilson for writing in an earlier book (Consilience [Knopf, 1998]) that “the insights of neuroscience and evolution . . . increasingly can illuminate even morality and ethics, with the scientific findings potentially leading ‘more directly and safely to stable moral codes’ than do the dictates of God’s will or the findings of transcendentalism.” Broad remonstrates against such views, maintaining that they exhibit “a kind of arrogance,” and he likewise recommends that scientists declare a truce in their critiques of religion. To which I reply that it is important that we apply scientific inquiry as best we can to all areas of human behavior, including religion and ethics. I fail to see why it is “arrogant” to attempt to do so.

Another Times op-ed piece by Bernard A. Shweder of the University of Chicago (“Atheists Agonistes,” [Novem¬ber 27, 2006]), denigrates the Enlighten¬ment and reminds us that John Locke, author of “Letter Concern¬ing Toleration,” de¬fended tolerance in democratic societies for everyone but atheists. We note that the National Review and the Jewish Forward are also worried by “militant secularists” who question established religions—they were ob¬jecting to an advertisement the Center for Inquiry/Transnational ran on the op-ed page of The New York Times (Novem¬ber 15, 2006), headlined “In Defense of Science and Secularism.” We think it appropriate to defend the integrity of science and the importance of secularism at a time when both are under heavy attack.

We should point out that, over the years, Prometheus Books, a company I founded, has consistently published books examining the claims of religion. Now, the fact that mainline publishers, largely owned as they are by conglomerates, have published books by scientists critical of belief in God—because they see that they can make a buck by doing it—has shocked the guardians of the entrenched faiths. But why should the nonreligious, nonaffiliated, secular minority in the country remain silent? We dissenters now comprise some 14 to 16 percent of the population. Why should religion be held immune from criticism, and why should the admission that one is a disbeliever be considered so disturbing? The Bush administration has supported faith-based charities—though their efficacy has not been adequately tested; it has prohibited federal funding for stem cell research; it has denied global warming; and it has imposed abstinence programs instead of promoting condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS. Much of this mischief is religiously inspired. How can we remain mute while Islam and the West are poised for a possible protracted world conflagration in the name of God?

Given all these facts, why should the criticism of religion provoke such an outcry?

THEOLOGICAL VERSUS HUMANIST ETHICS

One charge often hurled at disbelievers is that we have nothing positive to offer. On the contrary, we at Free Inquiry have always maintained that it is possible for an individual to lead a good life and be morally concerned about others without belief in God. We have pointed out that the traditional creeds often condoned heinous crimes: censorship, repression, slavery, war, torture, genocide, the domination of women, the denial of human freedom, and opposition to new frontiers of scientific research. We surely cannot condemn all religions, and we recognize that some religions have performed good works: providing charity to the poor and consoling the sick and weak at times of suffering or tragedy. Religions are among the oldest human institutions on the planet. They developed in agricultural and nomadic societies. “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want” expresses the metaphors of premodern and prescientific cultures. Many of them would later oppose modern secular trends and fight against democratic reforms. Indeed, the achievements of human progress in the past have often been in spite of opposition from devout religious believers. Today is another day, and religious liberals now support many of the ideals and values of modern secularism and humanism; they may support science and even not be unsympathetic to biblical criticism. Yet in spite of this, they often cling to earlier mythological creeds spun out in the infancy of the race.

What is often overlooked by the critics of “evangelical atheism” is that skepticism about the existence of God does not by itself define who and what we are. For there is a commitment to the realization of human freedom and happiness in this life here and now and to a life of excellence, creativity, and fulfillment. Life is meaningful without the illusion of immortality. There is also the recognition that the cultivation of the common moral decencies—caring, em¬pathy, and altruism—is an essential part of our relating to other human beings in our communities of interaction. Humanists have always been concerned with achieving justice in society. Many of the heroes and heroines in human history were freethinkers who contributed significantly to democratic progress and a defense of human rights. Indeed, the agenda of secular humanism is twofold: first is the quest for truth, a critical examination of the assumptions of supernatural religion in the light of science; second is the development of affirmative ethical alternatives for the individual, the society in which he or she lives, and also the planetary community at large. To label us “evangelical atheists” without recognizing our affirmative commitment to secular humanist morality is an egregious error.

Sunni versus Shiite Muslims

Of special horror today is the carnage inflicted by the Sunnis and Shiites, the two major branches of Islam, upon each other in Iraq. We’re told that the conflict is “sectarian,” as though we should leave it at that. We beg to differ. This is a religious conflict, driven by clashes over theology and history. That fact, which the blander word sectarian underemphasizes, should not be overlooked.

The horrendous slaughter between two factions of Islam, claiming thousands not only killed but tortured each month in Iraq, proceeds from doctrinal differences about the origins of Islam and the proper successors of Muham¬mad. The Shiites (concentrated mostly in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) comprise about 15 percent of the world’s Muslims; the Sunni most of the remainder.

The Shia Muslims believe that the rightful successor of Muhammad after his death should have been Ali, the second person to accept Islam (after Muhammad’s wife Khadija). Ali was the male head of “the people of the prophet’s house” (Ahlul Bayt). Shiites believe that Ali was appointed by direct order of Muhammad himself. The branch supporting Ali is also known as the “Party of Ali.” Upon the death of Muhammad, however, the majority of Muslims favored Abu Bakr as the first caliph. He was succeeded by the second and third caliphs, Umar and Uthman; the fourth was Ali. The Sunnis recognize the heirs of the four Caliphs (including Ali) as the only legitimate Islamic leaders, the Shia recognize only those of Ali. There are also important doctrinal differences in the interpretation of the Hadith, allegedly based on the testimony of the Prophet’s original companions.

One can only imagine why, thirteen centuries later, men and women are so concerned about these differences that they will destroy each others’ mosques and slaughter one another over them. This, of course, is reminiscent of the battles between Roman Catholics and Protestants in Europe, such as the Hundred Years War in the early modern period, when there were disputes about the hegemony and authority of the Bishop of Rome. The alleged statement of Jesus to Peter in the New Testament, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,” has led to vast bloodshed and violence when Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox rejected the authority of the pope. But this happened centuries ago, and Christians by and large have learned to tame their animosities and have abandoned the Inquisition and Holy Crusades. Appar¬ently, the disputes in the Muslim world are as great as ever, and the world watches in horror as violent jihad is unleashed. The key lesson to learn is that it’s not so much the existence of God (or Allah) that is in dispute, for both factions claim to believe in the deity, but the authenticity and legitimacy of divine Revelation, delivered, in this case, to Muhammad, who transmitted it to humanity. The key issue is whether these ancient revelations (those of Muham¬mad, Jesus, Paul, Moses, Abraham, etc.) have been corroborated by reliable eyewitnesses or rather have been corrupted by an oral tradition and insufficient eyewitnesses. But that is another matter.

“Enough already,” we say in disgust. Surely, there must be other sources of morality besides religion. From the fatherhood of God, one can deduce all sorts of contrary moral prescriptions, as one can justify bloodshed, torture, punishment, and death in the name of Allah. This is an old story in human history that has been repeated time and time again. When religion becomes dogmatic, when it becomes thoroughly entrenched in human civilization and institutions, the only way to overcome differences of creed seems to be violence. The best antidote for such devastating nonsense, in my judgment, is the cultivation of critical thinking and the administration of a dose of scientific skepticism to unmask the claims of faith.

The Iraqi Bloodbath

The war in Iraq has degenerated into a bloody religious war between two factions of Islam on the one hand, yet, on the other, it is also a brutal confrontation with Western interests and values.

The editors of FREE INQUIRY opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. We argued that a preemptive strike against Iraq without the support of the United Nations had no legal or moral justification, unlike Afghanistan. The fear that Saddam Hussein had amassed weapons of mass destruction was mistaken. Weapons of mass destruction could not be found. There did not seem to be any direct connection between Al Qaeda-supported terrorism and the Iraqi government. While we were well aware of the dangerous ideological views of radical Islamists across the region, we were concerned that the invasion of Iraq could make matters worse by exacerbating the situation (as it has).

We submit that the plausible motive for the preemptive strike against Iraq was to secure a base in order to protect the future export of oil and gas deposits in the region. The claim that we wished to establish democracy and human rights in Iraq (a noble, if perhaps impractical, goal) might be viewed as a rationalization after the fact.

One aspect of the Iraq war that has been unfortunately minimized by the media is the vast numbers of casualties among the Iraqi people. The lands surrounding the Tigris and Euphrates rivers—the “cradle of civilization”—have undergone absolute devastation, an enormous human tragedy for the Iraqi people. The destruction of cultural artifacts and treasures in Iraq’s museums illustrates the insensitivity to priceless historic values. The number of Iraqi refuges who have fled the country is enormous. The malnutrition suffered by Iraqi children during the years of sanctions as well as during the war is another concern. We are especially disturbed, however, by the excessive loss of life in the civilian population—let alone the dead and wounded American soldiers.

Representative Dennis Kucinich (D–Ohio) convened a special House hearing on December 12, 2006, devoted to an examination of the extent of “collateral damage,” as it is euphemistically called. This was broadcast over C-SPAN. The key participants were Les Roberts (Columbia and Johns Hopkins) and Gilbert Burnham (Johns Hopkins), who had conducted a survey to ascertain the number of civilian deaths caused by violence over and beyond normal death rates. Their work was published in the British medical journal The Lancet, one of the leading publications of its kind in the world. Roberts and Burnham used the “cluster method” of tabulation, in which a randomized selection process in certain areas throughout Iraq was used as the basis for the survey. The Lancet article estimated that 650,000 to 900,000 Iraqi civilians had died since the American and British invasion in 2003. The mass media has basically ignored or underreported the number of casualties. The Bush administration insisted that the number was much lower, but Roberts and Burnham maintain that there were actually at least 650,000 deaths among people who are in essence noncombatants. Some defenders of the administration question the cluster methodology for estimating deaths, but Roberts and Burn¬ham insist it is reliable. (It was reliable enough to be used by the American military in Bosnia, the Congo, and elsewhere.)

The basic issue concerns innocent civilians, not Iraqi soldiers nor the combatants of the various tribes that wander the streets and kill people. On the basis of these tragic casualties, a good case can be made that the “gang of four” (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice) have made enormous blunders and that Pres¬ident Bush may have committed impeachable offenses.

• The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)
• The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, both by Sam Harris (W.W. Norton and Company, 2004, and Knopf, 2006, respectively)
• Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett (Viking Adult, 2006).
  

Paul Kurtz is Editor in Chief of Free Inquiry, a professor emeritus of philosophy at the University at Buffalo, and Chairman of the Center for Inquiry/Transnational.

Although it digresses a bit into politics unnecessarily, the points are well established.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Politics, Philosophy

The Long-awaited Scientific Mechanism of Intelligent Design Creationism: "Poof!"

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2007/02/25/
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism

More on "Yeshua bar Yehosef"

I mentioned that Cameron claims to have found Jesus' tomb yesterday, and that they'll be airing more on the research on March 4 on Discovery (see website).

While I think it interesting that an ossuary was discovered bearing the inscription, "Jesus, son of Joseph," and that they claim DNA testing confirms the genetic relations of the other occupants of the tombs, also inscribed with Joseph, Mary, Mary Magdalene, etc., I simply don't know enough history or archeology to evaluate a claim like this on my own. I'll wait to see what the skeptical/liberal experts have to say. If even they are dubious, then I think it quite unlikely that this means much.

So far, predictably, conservative scholars have slammed it.

Obviously, the names Mary, Jesus and Joseph were very common at this time. But the likelihood of finding them all together in one familial tomb, with proper inscriptions and with DNA evidence makes this find quite interesting. We'll have to wait and see as the evidence is released to the scientific community.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion