Does the DNA really prove anything?

The next line of argument involve DNA sample from "human residue" – which is a residue that was left "imprinted" as it were on the ossuary walls. The samples that were sent for testing were from "Jesus, son of Joseph" and from "Mariamne".
Now, I am not, by far a nuclear biologist, or any sort of expert in DNA. However, I think there is enough logical information given in this work to be able to refute the conclusions that Simcha Jacobovici has come to in his work. Their DNA expert is Dr. Carney Matheson and he even has some things to say about their conclusions. Let's examine.
First, the method. The human residue was initially tested and resulted in the conclusion that "…these people were of Middle Easter stock." (pg. 169). No big news there. Apparently, the DNA samples weren't in the best condition so the type of testing they could do was very limited. Thus, Matheson says, "…we shifted our focus to the mitochondrial DNA – which is, of course, the DNA inherited maternally, from mother to child. This means that we can identify maternal relationships. Meaning we can only address questions such as: 'Are these two individuals – one male and the other female – mother and child? Are they brother and sister? Or are they two unrelated individuals?'" (pg. 170).
In the DNA expert's own words, we can only address questions about maternal relationship such as:

1) Are these mother and child?
2) Are these brother and sister?
3) Are they not maternally related?

Now, Matheson is the expert here, so quite frankly, his work needs to speak for itself. The results? After a series of test explanations and graph comparison of DNA proteins, he says, "…we can then conclude that these two individuals are not related – or at least, not maternally related." (pg. 172)
Now, logically speaking, simply because two individual are not from the same mother, does that logically mean that they are, therefore, married to each other? Hardly! Not being maternally related is not a sufficient condition to prove marital relations. The very proposition is obviously false! There are many people who do not share the same mother yet they are not married. So what do we really have here? Logically, there is no warrant to make the connection that they are married.
This is not to say that the possibility is not there. It is entirely possible that these individuals are indeed husband and wife. However, this DNA test does not and cannot prove that relation at all. It only leaves open that possibility.
Another possibility, precluding maternal relations, is that, since there is no maternal relations and these individuals are not related is that these individuals are married to other people in the tomb. This is an equally viable possibility. But DNA testing the maternal relation between only these two samples will not tell us this. It is only a possibility.
Another possibility that needs to be considered is that though these two individuals don't share maternal relations, they might in fact share a paternal relation. It could very well be the case that "Jesus, son of Joseph" is the father of "Mariamne". This could be true, but again, no way of testing it. Thus, it remains only a possibility.
So what do we really have here with the DNA? Again, we really do have a whole lot of nothing. All the "evidence" tells us is that these two DNA samples are not maternally related! That's it! Anything further than that is pure speculation. In fact, to conclude that simply because these people do not share the same mother, and thus they must be married is to have already had an answer before the evidence was presented and simply twisting and spinning the facts to fit the preconceived conclusion! We've all done it. We make a claim and whatever circumstance support our side are the ones that we selectively use for our support!
The true method would be to see the facts and then go only where it leads and no further. Contrary to what many believe is "scholarship", it is ok to say "I don't know"! It is ok to admit ignorance and stop there. One does not have to answer everything.
As I read the chapter on the DNA evidence, which is roughly a short 8 pages, when Simcha Jacobovici is receiving the results, I got the idea that he was just so thrilled that these weren't related because it meant, essentially, that there was no counter DNA evidence to debunk his theory. As long as he heard "no relation" he was able to conclude "then married."
The one who seems to be caught in the middle of this is Dr. Carney Matheson. He is quoted as saying that "these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely have been husband and wife." (pg. 172). To be fair to the good Doctor, lets remember the context in which he spoke this.
In book, Dr. Matheson is given only two samples of "human residue" with which to be able to extract some sort of DNA. He is not given any names, but only told that these came from a family tomb. According to the authors, "Of course, this was not the whole story, but it was the absolute truth."(pg. 168). Was it? If Matheson assumes only two samples coming from one tomb, presumably a family tomb (see pg. 172), then isn't it entirely possible that Matheson assumed that these were the only two individuals that were found in the tomb? Isn't it entirely possible to assume from a familial tomb that two unrelated individuals in a single family tomb are married? Of course it is. But we have to note that he was not given the rest of the facts that could have led him to say something else, and just as reasonable. He as not told that there were other ossuaries in from which these samples came. This is certainly crucial information to leave out if you want to test maternal, even paternal if possible, relations from a family tomb.
When Matheson is told the "rest of the story", Matheson is on the record as believing their conclusions "impossible" (pg. 173) Notice, what we read next and this really proves my earlier point about not having contradictory evidence for the theory. We read,

"Impossible. But the details from the tomb so far had failed consistently to negate the conclusion and were in fact adding up, one positive indicator after another, in support of it." (pg. 173).

What is Jacobovici saying here? Essentially he's saying that since there is nothing to disprove the theory, therefore it must be correct so far!!! Notice, there is nothing to PROVE the theory either! What we have is an argument from silence. There is no positive evidence for the relationship and there is no negating evidence either. Thus, whatever runs between those two boundaries, for all practical purposes, is neither supported nor defeatable.
Interestingly enough, Dr. Matheson has responded to questions about this work. In response to questions from Dr. James White about the maternal relations with the samples, Dr. Matheson responded with this statement:

"This work was done as a service. We did not know who they suspected these individuals to be from. On the report it concludes that these two profiles from two different individuals were not maternally related. That is all the report states. When they did the filming and on the documentary they asked every question under the sun with permutations and manipulations. I provided the investigators with all the possibilities. They were not brother and sister, mother and child, maternal cousins, maternal grandparent and child etc. I also mentioned all of the possibilities, which I should not have done in hindsight. These included, father and daughter, paternal cousins, half brother and sister (sharing the same father) or simply unrelated individuals.The media does what they want." (Link to Dr. White's Blog)

Matheson regrets mentioning to Jacobovici all the possibilities. It should have been enough to just say, "no maternal relation." But the telling part is that he explicitly denies their conclusion and regretfully says, "the media does what they want." Matheson is also quoted as saying, "The only conclusions we made was that these two sets were not maternally related. To me it sounds like absolutely nothing." (see Joe Zias article) .
That is exactly what we have. Nothing. We have no logical basis to conclude what Simcha Jacobovici has. We have no evidence point toward it in the slightest way. The evidence, at best, is neutral from the DNA. And thus, we have a very menacing shadow cast by a bright light behind a small figure made to look like a giant.
Good Christian, you have nothing to fear. Christ is risen! He is not here but is at the right hand of the Father ever interceding for us as our great High Priest. The ones who should fear are those unconverted souls who should always entertain the possibility the Bible is true and that the risen Christ will come back in judgment. Then the world will see all the evidence it needs to bow down to the risen Christ who returns in glory. Come Lord Jesus!

Examining the Statistical Evidence

So what are the odds that these characters found in the tomb are the authentic characters of Christianity? Well lets first understand the method taken by the authors (pg. 67-83)
First, the commonality of the names found in the tomb. Remember that this is old news. The tomb was found in 1980 and dismissed on the basis of the cluster in the first place. That is, the names were common enough of first century Jews that it was not compelling enough. According to Joe Zias the names of the time period are as follows: "Joseph/Jose 8.3%, Judah 6.2%, Jesus 3.5%, Matthew 2.4% and Mariam/Mary 21.4%" (www.JoeZias.com/tomb.html) . Now, that is just during the time period. Among all the documented ossuaries with names, 233 were male and 193 were female. Out of 233 ossuaries, roughly 14% of them bear the name Joseph and 9% bear the name Jesus. Now, the authors estimate that during the period of use of ossuaries, there was 80,000 males who lived in Jerusalem. So the formula goes as follows:

(percentage of Jesus' in Ossuaries x percentage of Joseph's) x estimated male population of era

(.09 x .14) x 80,000 = 1008
1008/ 80000 = 0.0126
1 of 79 persons who could have been "Jesus, son of Joseph"

According to the book, "From this point onward, the 'Jesus equation' was simply a matter of factoring the probability of each name in the tomb cluster, one after the other, and multiplying them against each other." (pg. 75) So here are the formulations:

Mariamne 1 of 193
Mary 1 of 24 (8 of 193)
Jose (taken as a variant of Joseph) 1 of 7

So here's what we're looking at mathematically:

(1/79) x (1/193) x (1/24) x (1/7) = 1/2561496

Roughly interpreted, the odds that this name cluster appears together in Jerusalem based on all known ossuaries is 1 in 2.56 million. Now let's examine what this really proves.
First of all, probability only proves what it proves. That is, it only proves the probability of the NAMES. Since the factor that we are working on is based on names, the stats only logically conclude the odds of finding this particular name cluster. Now, do odds really mean that something can't be entirely possible? For instance, let's take the statistics of "Jesus, son of Joseph". According to the stats, out of an estimated 80,000 males in the ossuary time period, 1008, or 1 out of 79, could have borne that name. What the stats don't say is at what time periods these possible 1008 people could have borne the name. Hypothetically speaking, the names could have been borne in one generation, either early or late in the ossuary period; they could have been all spread out. The stats won't tell us that at all. The stats won't even tell us the ACTUALITY.
In other words, according to a pool sample of 233 ossuaries bearing male names, it is POSSIBLE that out of a POSSIBLE 80,000 males in Jerusalem during that time period, that POSSIBLY 1,008 of them could have borne the name "Jesus, son of Joseph". Now, the sampling of names is from a pool of 233. It is entirely possibly that in ACTUALITY, there could have been more people who bore the name, "Jesus, Son of Joseph" and it is entirely possible that there could have been less than 1,008 people bearing the name "Jesus, Son of Joseph." The stats don't tell us that! They only give us a probability.
All that these stats prove is that probability of the names being grouped together. They do not prove, nor can they, that these names belong to the actual characters of the Bible! This brings up another point. There is a HUGE name discrepancy with some of the names in tomb in regard to the names of members of what would be Jesus' family.
First, there is the name "Mariamne e maras". The translation of this from the Greek is supposed to read, "Of Mariamne, the Master". Now, in any reading of the canonical Gospels, there is no mention of a character named "Mariamne". In fact, historically speaking, "Mariamne" was the name of Herod the Greats wife during the Hasmonean dynasty, which is when the practice of ossuaries began. The only supposed evidence for associated Mariamne with the family of Jesus are the non-canonical works of the Gnostic sects. In particular, the Acts of Phillip – which alone mentions the name "Mariamne" as being the sister of Phillip. That is the only explicit mention of who she is in this (generously dated) 4th text! Based on the speculation of one Prof. Bovon from Harvard, it is said that this "Mariamne" is "Mary Magdalene". Does the text explicitly say this? No. Is this connection between "Mariamne e maras" explicit therefore, with the Acts of Phillip? Not to mention, the Acts of Phillip was written almost 300 years after the death of Christ. So there is a very blatant discrepancy already. "Mariamne" is not necessarily "Mary Magdalene". Let's factor that in.
Second, there is the "Judah, son of Jesus". Again, no source – canonical, non-canonical, even historical at best – mentions Jesus having a son, much less one named Judah. So that this "Judah, son of Jesus" is the son of "Jesus, Son of Joseph" the Jesus of the Bible, is hardly credible. The conclusion is based on speculation, rather than on solid premises. Where do we find any information saying that Jesus had any offspring? In fictional works like the most recent "The Da Vinci Code". So again, a blaring discrepancy in the name cluster. This should actually decrease the odds that the tomb even belongs to the family of Jesus at all. For the sake of non-argument, it seems, this was not factored in at all. Why? Probably (no pun intended) because this information probably would have actually lowered the odds that this is, in fact, Jesus' family tomb. How convenient.
Now let's look at Mary. The tomb is said to have the name "Maria" which is said to be a Latinized version of the Hebrew name, "Mariam". Stop. In what source do we find Mary, the mother of Jesus referred to by her Latin variation? Could it be that this isn't the same Mary, the mother of Jesus? Why would Mary, a good Jew, be known according to a Latinized, or Romanized version of her name? Why would she be buried with that version of it if it was not her name? Think of it this way: my name is Moses Flores. Now, there are many variants of my name in different languages. In Hebrew, my name is Moshe. In Spanish, Moises (Moy-ses). Last name in English translates to Flowers, etc…When I die, my name will more than likely be printed according to what it was legally known as: Moses Flores. Why would I be known as Moises if that were not my name? Why would Mariam be known as "Maria" by her own family, rather, by her own Jewish family? Why would a family of Hebrew descent all of a sudden refer to their mother through a Latin variant? While there certainly could be a viable explanation for this, it certainly escapes us. Without evidence to believe contrary to the historical records with reference to "Mariam" (known as Mary), we really have no historical reason to believe that this "Maria" is the Mary who gave birth to Jesus at all. Hence, another discrepancy.
Another member that was in the tomb is known by the shorthand for Joseph, "Jose". According to the common name list, this name is not uncommon. How do we know that this named person is the BROTHER of Jesus? There is nothing explicit in the tombs that leads to this conclusion. Their only inference is made from Mark 6:3 which says, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" These names come to us in Greek as follows: Mary is marias, James is Iakwbou (Iakoobou), Joses is Iwshtos (Ioosetos). In Matthew 13:55 this same brother of Jesus is called Joseph, thus showing the shorthand form of Joses for Joseph. But what does this prove? The text only proves that Jesus had half-brothers one of whom was named Joses. Is the Jose of the discovered tomb necessarily the same Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55? Not at all! In fact, if all the connection one can make is the names, this is obviously weak being 8.3% of the names of that period were Joseph/Jose and even at that, 14% of the names found in the ossuaries were Joseph/Jose as well. This is hardly compelling evidence! We may as well say that any Joseph/Jose related to a Jesus are brothers if this is the type of logic one is going to use here! Names do not prove familial relationships. At least not logically, especially since the names are common names for that time period.
But there is something else. Joses is not the only Joses in the Bible. In fact, there is another Joses who also has a brother named James, just like Jesus' half-brother and who even has a mother by the name of Mary, just like Jesus! Talk about a name cluster! In Mark 15:40 we read, "There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger (the less) and of Joses, and Salome." In Matthew 27:56 we read "among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons Zebedee." Cross-referencing this with John 19:25 we can see that this Mary, mother of James and Joses, is more than likely "Mary the wife of Clopas." The funny thing in this text as well is that at least three Mary's at the cross with Jesus. For our purposes here, we can at least entertain another possibility based on a name cluster other than those of Jesus' family. We have a Mary, a James, and a Joses. The names Mary and Joses are in the "Jesus family tomb".
So now the question: Why couldn't the names in the tomb somehow have been related to them? Isn't it entirely possible that the "Jesus, son of Joseph" is the son of "Jose" in that tomb as well? After all, granting the name variation with "Maria", it would not be anything to grant another name variation for Joseph either. The point is, that to only conclude that "Jose" in the tomb can only be the brother of Jesus is not a logical necessity. Rather, it is a conclusion based on its premises already. That is, the argument is circular. "Joses is Jesus brother because in the Bible there is a Joses who is Jesus' brother." How ludicrous! Needless to say, the discrepancy is certainly a real one that the Jacobovici did not care to deal with. Hardly any scholarship in that.
So what does that leave us with? Well we have a "Maria" who may or may not be the mother of Jesus. We have a "Jesus, son of Joseph" who may or may not be Jesus of Nazareth. This "Jesus" could even be the son of the "Jose" in the tomb. We have a "Jose" who may or may not be the brother of Jesus, but who could have a mother named "Mary the wife of Clopas" or "Mary the virgin who gave birth to Christ" or even a totally unrelated Mary being that his name was the most popular among women names in that century. Who knows? We have a Matthew who may or may not be the disciple. Interestingly, some church traditions say that the disciple Matthew died a natural death is either Ethiopia or Macedonia. Some other traditions celebrate his martyrdom. And of course, you have a "Mariamne, the master" whom is not referenced to at all in the canonical Gospel, and whom no historical and even non-canonical work explicitly identify as Mary Magdalene. We have a "Jesus, son of Joseph" – not an unlikely name statistically speaking. We also have a few unnamed tombs as well. Add all that together and what do we really have? A whole lot of nothing!!!
Any true scholarship and research should immediately recognize, as the initial discovery of these ossuaries did, that there is no real substantial evidence in the names to reveal that these ossuaries are indeed the final resting place of Jesus Christ. The truth is that all we have are names. As we will see from the DNA evidenced to be examined later, there is not even any clear familial ties in the tomb.

In summation, statistics only prove the same kind of information that they put in. Math is like deductive logic. You input your premises and your conclusion yields what is already contained within the premises. In logic, it is fallacious when you have something like :

All A are B
All B are C
Therefore, All A are D

The correct conclusion should be "Therefore, All A are C". This conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. So the question I have sought to clarify here is what kind of information was placed into these statistics? Names. That's all. The equation can only answer the probability of the names appearing in a cluster. To find out how bogus this can be, only need only to acquire the same information about their own names from their own family and then calculate the odds. The stats only prove the name cluster. They cannot prove WHO is in the tomb in any way!
Just to prove this is so, I can do the same calculation from above using the commonality of the names from the time period, provided by JoeZias.com. Accordingly the commonality of the names in the time period, rather than those of the ossuaries. Lets see what we come up with.

Joseph/Jose 8.3% or 1 of 12
Mary 21.4% or 1 of 5

Based on an estimated male population of 80,000
I ask, how likely is it that a Mary is in the family of a Joseph (Joses)?

(1/12) x (1/5) x 80,000 = 1,333

That's roughly 17 of 100 Jose's connected to a Mary. This is not even factoring the commonality of the name James (only because I could not readily find it). Suppose we give it a hypothetical 3% which is 1 of 33

(1/12) x (1/5) x (1/33) x 80,000

Then we add the "Mariamne" factor (see above) of the ossuary, as well as the "Jesus, Son of Joseph" factor (see above) and lets see what we get:

[(1/12) x (1/5) x (1/33) x 80,000] x (1/79) x (1/193)
(1/200) x (1/79) x (1/193)
1 of 3,049,400

That is, the odds are 1 in 3 million that the tomb belongs to a Joses who has a brother named James. And if we start off with the premise that this "Joses" is the son of "Mary of Clopas", then through circular reasoning, we have greater odds that this tomb is theirs and not Mary the mother of Jesus, or Joses the brother of Jesus either.
(* This formula may not be entirely correct. I believe I have used probability to the best of my knowledge as a former Math major. It is certainly subject to peer and even expert review. However, I have tried to use the same method that was employed by the Jacobovici team. Therefore, as long as I am consistent with their methodology, right or wrong, I only seek to prove the point that number don't necessarily mean anything.)
Again what does this statistic prove? It only proves the probability of there existing a Joses whom was clustered with a Mary and a James who might have ended up in an ossuary with a "Jesus, son of Joseph" and a "Mariamne e maras". That's it! These numbers are greater so do that mean that this is the case? Not at all. In fact, as mentioned before, the names in the probability formula do not even prove relation of any sort.
Don't be fooled by numbers! Rest assured dear Christian reader your faith is on solid ground! For any who deem the find to be true based on the statistics, I challenge you to be objective in the stats and understand their purpose. Christianity, I strongly believe, is not a matter of probability but one based on the real and objective revelation of the Almighty, everlasting and sovereign God.

The Jesus Family Tomb...here we go again!!!

Alrighty…well if you haven’t heard already, BIG NEWS!!! Archeologists claim to have discovered the “lost family tomb” of Jesus Christ. The tomb marked “Jesus, son of Joseph” was found in Jerusalem along with other tombs marked “Miriam” (said to be Maria by the book), “Matya” (said to be Matthew), “Mariamne e Mara” (said to be Mary Magdalene), “Judah son of Jesus”, “Yose” (said to be Joses, the brother of Jesus according to Mark 6:3).
So here’s the argument. First, there is the name cluster. We have a “Jesus” related to a “Joseph”, along with a “Mary”, and another “Mary” (Mariamne) , a “Matthew” , a “Joses” and mysterious “Judah, son of Jesus”. Now, here the statistical game begins. What are the odds that a family tomb is found with the cluster of these names? According to Simcha Jacobovici, one in 2.4 million. And then, there is the DNA evidence. According to the mitochondrial DNA test, which only reveals or precludes maternal lineages, reveals that “Jesus” and “Mariamne” are not from the same mother to which Jacobovici concludes marital ties between “Jesus” and “Mariamne”, or at least strengthens prior suspicions. But the final clincher, is the one that puts it all together. It’s the one that connects all the dots. So far this tomb discover and name cluster thing is not uncommon. The initial problem, especially for the initial discoverers of the tomb in 1980, was the second “Mary” or “Mariamne”. This name has no connection to Jesus in the Gospels. BUT…here it is…in the possibly 4th (being VERY generous) century work the Acts of Phillip, there is mention of a character named Mariamne (Acts of Phillip 8:94-95), whom not even a handful of scholars, at least one mentioned from Harvard, believes to be Mary Magdalene at that not based on explicit evidence from the text itself.

How timely an attack on the resurrection of Jesus Christ; just near Resurrection Sunday. Last year it was the Gospel of Judas and now the ossuary which contained the bones of Jesus Christ at one point or another. Of course, if this is true, then the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ seems to be false not to mention the physical ascension of Jesus Christ as well. Now, early in the work it actually seems to be the case that Simcha believes that he is doing the Christian world a favor by revealing this discovery. In the foreword, the work begins by mentioning how many have disregarded the existence of a historical figure named Jesus Christ and then says, “But now, with this stunning book, Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino have delivered not just a particle of evidence but a veritable avalanche of it. Their investigation proves…that a first-century Jewish tomb…is the tomb of Jesus and his family” (pg. vii).
Of course, what the authors fail to realize is the centrality of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ and its ensuing ascension. According to the Gospels found in the Bible and in the book of Acts, Jesus rose from the grave on the third day and hung around for about 40 days before being taken up bodily into heaven. This has been the historic Christian belief for roughly 2,000 years! This has been and still is the foundation for true Christianity. Listen to Paul in I Corinthians 15:

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you – unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he WAS RAISED on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive today, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me…Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection from the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in you sins.(!) Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.”

Paul is very explicit that if Christ is body is still in the ground – essentially – then several things follow of necessity. (1) The Scriptures are not true since Christ’s resurrection was based on them (here in context, the Old Testament Scripture, much more the New Testament!) (2) The entire Christian movement – including its heretical sects – are gross misrepresentation of God and even making a liar out of God. (3) The entire Christian movement – which would include its heretical sects – is in vain. (4) If Christ is not raised, then all are still in our sins, that is, there is no salvation for anybody, PERIOD! (5) Finally, the apostles are to be the most pitied among men for their belief and practice which is based on a trumped-up story!
Perhaps it’s the case that Jacobovici really doesn’t understand this aspect of the Christian faith and how foundational the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ really is! Now, this is being entirely generous from a Christian – a historic Christian – perspective. One could just say “heretic!”, and be done with it. I really think Jacobovici believes he is doing the Christian community a favor. I think he’s deceived! He’s been theologically influenced by theologians of the likes of John Dominic-Crossan (of the more Liberal persuasion) and others (including Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels) who deny things like the historicity of the person of Jesus, the miracles of the Bible, the authority of the Bible, even the resurrection of Jesus Christ and affirm the Gnostic version of Christianity, including the validity of the Gnostic Scriptures. Now, if this is his source for what Christianity, I can hardly blame him and almost want to look at him as a child wounded by a ravaging wolf. But, alas, we choose our influences. A quick look through the bibliography reveals not one genuinely conservative, even middle of the road, Christian scholar; only those who are in favor of his theory. Horribly, he says, something to the effect of “this isn’t a problem for Christians and the resurrection and the ascension – unless you believe its physical !!” (pg. 71).
Well the problem is that we do believe the resurrection and ascension are physical ones!!! So, we have to take this for what it really is: an attack on the very heart of the Christian faith.
The funny thing about this work is that if this work is true, then the research done by Dan Brown for The Da Vinci Code is blatantly false. That is, if it is true that the bones of Mary Magdalene were interred in Jerusalem as Jacobovici proposes, then it cannot be true that Mary Magdalene fled to France after the crucifixion of Jesus and had a daughter named Sarah. Of course, if that is true, then this is obviously false and the tomb with the name “Mariamne” cannot be Mary Magdalene! Both claim “credible” research for their stories, so who is right? I don’t want to pursue that line of thought any further but only wish to point out how ridiculous all this really is. I mean come on! Myth after myth all to debunk what has not been, and I believe, cannot be truly debunked! There is PLENTY of credible scholarship out there that can certainly prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ with greater probability than the stats to prove that it didn’t happen in this work. One only needs to pick up Josh McDowell’s work, “Evidence that demands a verdict” to be blitzed with argument after argument and much evidence for the credibility of the New Testament Scriptures and the testimony of the apostles contained in them!
Hopefully, in the next few weeks I want to examine this issue a bit more. I have recently read the book already put out – let me say that it is not worth the $27.95. More than 75% of the book is merely the story of how they found the tomb and the steps they took to keep it all a secret until recently. I don’t like dealing with an issue like this because I think it is a joke on their part, but still it has to be taken for what it is: an attack on true historic Christianity. I hope that this research that I will provide will benefit the reader and will at least give them new ways of thinking about evidence, in particularly critical thinking about “evidence” and where it leads.