The mathematics needed to determine the probability that the Talpiot tomb could by chance have exhibited the pattern of New Testament names found inscribed on its ossuaries was entirely elementary, something a bright undergraduate with a semester of probability theory could in principle have figured out. Yet Andrey Feuerverger, acting as the statistical expert for the “Jesus Family Tomb” people, failed to figure it out. His math was not only wrong but also inadequately developed, leaving crucial elements unjustified. ~ William Dembski  † 

François Bovon of Harvard was brought in to make the critical link between the name Mariamne and Mary Magdalene. This link is made possible by the Acts of Philip and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, as this is a variant Greek name for Mary. Now, in fat, things are more complicated. The inscription actually reads Mariaamnou, a diminutive of Mariamnon. It is the only inscription in Greek out of the six found in the cave. All he did was to verify that such a link exists between the fourth century text and Mary Magdalene. The way the special used experts was to ask them to verify points of fact to lay the ground work for the speculation but did not follow up to ask them what they thought of the actual hypothesis. ~ Darrell Bock  † 

Drama is powerful. It's a form of preaching and persuasion. If this really were an open ended historical inquiry and not an argument for a particular point of view, not a docu-drama, this sort of filming technique would not have been used. ~ Ben Witherington  †   

Perhaps the only redeeming factor in all of this is that Cameron/Simcha and Co. have somehow united the entire academic community in protest, this is nothing short of a miracle in a world where archaeology is akin sometimes to war, not to mention that religious and non-religious alike, Christian and Jew, including the media have somehow come together and condemned the film for what it is, a cheap attempt to make a fast buck at the expense of the profession and to offend each and all of us. ~ Joe Zias  † 

I've known about these ossuaries for many years and so have many other archaeologists, and none of us thought it was much of a story, because these are rather common Jewish names from that period. It's a publicity stunt, and it will make these guys very rich, and it will upset millions of innocent people because they don't know enough to separate fact from fiction. ~ William Dever  † 



Jesus † 

When the Gospels tell us that Joseph of Arimathea offered Jesus a spot in his tomb, it is because Jesus' family did not own a rock-cut tomb and there was no time to prepare a grave --  that is, there was no time to dig a grave, not hew a rock-cut tomb (!) -- before the Sabbath. ~ Jodi Magness  † 

No mention at all is made of the fact that though we only have a few hundred ossuaries with inscribed names, there is in fact another ossuary with the inscription 'Jesus son of Joseph'. Apparently this was not a rare combination of names at all, and in any case, as I have said Jesus of Nazareth is never called 'son of Joseph' by his family, or by his disciples. Notice how Luke pours cold water on that theory in Luke 3.21-- "Now Jesus himself was about 30 when he began his ministry, he was the son, so it was supposed/thought, of Joseph." Supposed by whom? Clearly not by Luke or the family whom Luke has just shown knew about the virginal conception of Jesus. Even the cousins knew about this miracle when Mary told Elizabeth. There can be no good reason Luke would put it this way if he knew the earliest followers of Jesus or members of his family had thought that Jesus was son of Joseph. ~ Ben Witherington  †