The tomb was found in 1980 during construction for new housing.
Not much was done about the find until the children of Tova Bracha, playing in the construction debris in her basement, found an opening and wiggled down into the space beneath where they found 10 ossuaries with bones in them. Six had inscriptions on them.
indeed this is Jesus of Nazareth's ossuary
and bone fragments,
Jesus was not raised from the dead.
As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15: 13-14:
To this, I say: "what is your faith about ???"
Whatever your faith is, it is certainly not in Jesus was raised from the death.
And since you denied that Jesus was rasied from the death, your faith is - as Paul said it - vain
Furthermore, they resorted to highly speculative interpretations to make their "conclusion" stick.
I have gather many objections and present them together in this webpage
They recognized that Jesus' Father was not Joseph
|[John 6:42] They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"|
|[Act 5:40] They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.|
|[1 Co 9:5-6] Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?|
The fact that Paul did not include Jesus was: Jesus was not married !
(I have saved a local copy: clcik here )
Read: a FOURTH century ORIGINAL
That's like finding a document written in the year 2000 that called "George Washington" by the name "Gregory" and prove that Washington was in fact called "Gregory Washington"...
Wow, great scholarship, people...
Oh, BTW, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to anyone who believe this... Really !
However, Bovon himself denies this, writing in a letter to the Society of Biblical Literature:
As I was interviewed for the Discovery Channel's program
The Lost Tomb of Jesus, I would like to express my opinion here.
First, I have now seen the program and am not convinced of its main thesis. When I was questioned by Simcha Jacobovici and his team the questions were directed toward the Acts of Philip and the role of Mariamne in this text. I was not informed of the whole program and the orientation of the script.
Second, having watched the film, in listening to it, I hear two voices, a kind of double discourse. On one hand there is the wish to open a scholarly discussion; on the other there is the wish to push a personal agenda. I must say that the reconstructions of Jesus' marriage with Mary Magdalene and the birth of a child belong for me to science fiction.
Third, to be more credible, the program should deal with the very ancient tradition of the Holy Sepulcher, since the emperor Constantine in the fourth century C.E. built this monument on the spot at which the emperor Hadrian in the second century C.E. erected the forum of Aelia Capitolina and built on it a temple to Aphrodite at the place where Jesus' tomb was venerated.
Fourth, I do not believe that Mariamne is the real name of Mary of Magdalene. Mariamne is, besides Maria or Mariam, a possible Greek equivalent, attested by Josephus, Origen, and the Acts of Philip, for the Semitic Myriam.
Fifth, the Mariamne of the Acts of Philip is part of the apostolic team with Philip and Bartholomew; she teaches and baptizes. In the beginning, her faith is stronger than Philip's faith. This portrayal of Mariamne fits very well with the portrayal of Mary of Magdala in the Manichean Psalms, the Gospel of Mary, and Pistis Sophia. My interest is not historical, but on the level of literary traditions. I have suggested this identification in 1984 already in an article of New Testament Studies.
Fran?ois Bovon, Harvard Divinity School
I have saved a local copy:
|M in Mariame||M in Mara|
|Straight lines !!!||Curved lines !!!|
This is not uncommon and ossuaries can be used to store the bones of multiple individuals.
|"Mariame e Mara" if written by the first scribe|
|"Mariame e Mara" if written by the second scribe|
The next forced interpretation is very unethical especially when it was not revealed in the film that many experts disagreed with their interpretation
should be read as:
MARIAME NOU-MARA "of Mariamene (a.k.a.) Mara." (Mara means Master)
is to be read as "NOU"
Look carefully at the first letter, does that look like an N ???
If you think so, then you must have "mirror-vision". Take away that mirror and look again.
The diagonal line in letter N starts at the TOP and ends at the BOTTOM
The first letter in the inscription starts at the BOTTOM and ends at the TOP
The word in question is KOI (AND), it is NOT NOU !!!
So these people who made the film are either blind or they have an agenda in the mind and is pushing it really hard...
should be read as:
MARIAME KOI-MARA "Mariame AND Mara" (Mara is Martha !)
He gave these pictures as examples:
|"Martha and Mary"|
|Inscription containing 5 names|