This is from the Discovery Channel documentation packet. I’d like your thoughts. More »« Less

I can’t get this to copy and paste, but they are going to say that the James Ossuary is the 10th ossuary in this tomb, which supposedly went missing. Remember that this is inscribed with “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

Ben Witherington III must be a man with high blood pressure tonight. I can’t wait to hear what he has to say, since he has staunchly defended the James Ossuary, and to do so now will be to endorse this interpretation that does in the resurrection of Jesus.

Meanwhile, the Jolly Blogger gets some TR heat for saying we need compassion. The first comment blows me away.

Jerusalem Post: Not so fast.

But Bar-Ilan University Prof. Amos Kloner, the Jerusalem District archeologist who officially oversaw the work at the tomb in 1980 and has published detailed findings on its contents, on Saturday night dismissed the claims. “It makes a great story for a TV film,” he told The Jerusalem Post. “But it’s impossible. It’s nonsense.”

Kloner, who said he was interviewed for the new film but has not seen it, said the names found on the ossuaries were common, and the fact that such apparently resonant names had been found together was of no significance. He added that “Jesus son of Joseph” inscriptions had been found on several other ossuaries over the years.

“There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb,” Kloner said. “They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the 1st century CE.”

I realize that this, in the grand scheme of things, is probably a minor point:

Since tombs normally contain either blood relations or spouses, Jacobovici and his team suggest it is possible Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple. “Judah,” whom they indicate may have been their son, could have been the “lad” described in the Gospel of John as sleeping in Jesus’ lap at the Last Supper. [emphasis mine]

Huh?!?

Granted, I’m not a theologian, cannot read Greek to save my life and am not aware of every last possible translation of John 13:23. Somehow, a reclining disciple (whom Jesus loved) was morphed into a sleeping lad.

You’d think they’d come up with something a little more solid. You know – like Joel’s suggestion. :)

MOD: It’s indicative of the level of DVC scholarship at work here. There’s a “family tree” on the Discovery web site, that implies a ton of things not even hinted, much less proven, by the evidence.

More Jesus tomb information is coming now. Here’s a much more detailed news site.

And here is the Discovery Channel site. They are going for the jugular. This is the real deal in terms of an attempt to destroy the faith. Get ready to talk about this one.

Fromn the news story:

In addition to the “Judah son of Jesus” inscription, which is written in Aramaic on one of the ossuaries, another limestone burial box is labeled in Aramaic with “Jesus Son of Joseph.” Another bears the Hebrew inscription “Maria,” a Latin version of “Miriam,” or, in English, “Mary.” Yet another ossuary inscription, written in Hebrew, reads “Matia,” the original Hebrew word for “Matthew.” Only one of the inscriptions is written in Greek. It reads, “Mariamene e Mara,” which can be translated as, “Mary known as the master.”

Francois Bovon, professor of the history of religion at Harvard University, told Discovery News, “Mariamene, or Mariamne, probably was the actual name given to Mary Magdalene.”

Bovon explained that he and a colleague discovered a fourteenth century copy in Greek of a fourth century text that contains the most complete version of the “Acts of Philip” ever found. Although not included in the Bible, the “Acts of Philip” mentions the apostles and Mariamne, sister of the apostle Philip.

“When Philip is weak, she is strong,” Bovon said. “She likely was a great teacher who even inspired her own sect of followers, called Mariamnists, who existed from around the 2nd to the 3rd century.

Note the DVC/Gnostic gospels connection. It’s all a seamless garment with these people. You use the NT to make part of your case, reject it for the rest, then buy anything in any gnostic gospel as true.

If John Cleese called a press conference to announce that Brian was the real historical and biblical Jesus, it would be more credible than Cammy’s claim.

Kentucky makes the news.

MOD: Murray is a university town. What do you expect from edumacated peoples?

IM is updated with “A Rejected Messiah Buried With Honor? Responses to the “Tomb of Jesus and His Family” Story.

Denise reports four weeks into her antidepressant meds journey.

I visit Ted Baehr’s website from time to time just to wallow in his ridiculousness. He actually had a petition on there for months to try to stop “The DaVinci Code” which of course was an exercise in futility and an embarrassment. Yes, he counts the curse words and all the stuff that might be “objectionable” (upper male nudity, anyone?) but the thing most reprehensible to me is that he downgrades movies that he perceives as being liberal or “anti-American.” Thus, Clint Eastwood’s acclaimed “Letters from Iwo Jima” gets the same “abhorrent” rating as the most vile, disgusting horror/slasher flick just because it treats the “enemy” in what Baehr’s bunch perceives as a sympathetic light.

In fact, one of my favorite movies of all time, the critically lauded but mostly ignored “Waking Life” got an “abhorrent” rating from Baehr just because there was a lot of philosophical discussions in the movie that were not of the Christian variety. God forbid our impressionable youth be exposed to different ideas! Any Christian parent that goes by Baehr’s guide should be flogged 40 times with a wet noodle.

NTW has a wonderful article summarizing his work on the resurrection of Jesus here. A quote from the end, dealing with the nature of the evidence we have in the Gospels.

In fact, in this case, the evidence presents us with exactly the sort of result that Christian theologians ought to be happy with. I would not pretend to have found an argument that would force a sceptic to admit that Jesus ‘must have’ been raised from the dead. It is always open to anyone to say, at least, ‘I can’t think of a better explanation, but I know there must be one, because I intend to hold to my presupposition that dead people don’t rise.’ Cautious agnosticism is always an option. What historical investigation can do, and in this case I believe must do, is to clear away the overgrown thickets of misunderstanding, misreading, sheer bad history, and sometimes willful obfuscation, in order that the main texts can be allowed to say what they are saying and the main questions may stand out in their stark simplicity.

Historical investigation, I propose, brings us to the point where we must say that the tomb previously housing a thoroughly dead Jesus was empty, and that his followers saw and met someone they were convinced was this same Jesus, bodily alive though in a new, transformed fashion. The empty tomb on the one hand and the convincing appearances of Jesus on the other are the two conclusions the historian must draw. I do not think that history can force us to draw any particular further deductions beyond these two phenomena; the conclusion the disciples drew is there for the taking, but it is open to us, as it was to them, to remain cautious. Thomas waited a week before believing what he had been told. On Matthew’s mountain, some had their doubts.

However, the elegance and simplicity of explaining the two outstanding phenomena, the empty tomb and the visions, by means of one another, ought to be obvious. Were it not for the astounding, and world-view-challenging, claim that is thereby made, I think everyone would long since have concluded that this was the correct historical result. If some other account explained the rise of Christianity as naturally, completely and satisfyingly as does the early Christians’ belief, while leaving normal worldviews intact, it would be accepted without demur.

That, I believe, is the result of the investigation I have conducted. There are many other things to say about Jesus’ resurrection. But, as far as I am concerned, the historian may and must say that all other explanations for why Christianity arose, and why it took the shape it did, are far less convincing as historical explanations than the one the early Christians themselves offer: that Jesus really did rise from the dead on Easter morning, leaving an empty tomb behind him. The origins of Christianity, the reason why this new movement came into being and took the unexpected form it did, and particularly the strange mutations it produced within the Jewish hope for resurrection and the Jewish hope for a Messiah, are best explained by saying that something happened, two or three days after Jesus’ death, for which the accounts in the four gospels are the least inadequate expression we have.

A selection of resources on the Rez can be found at LeaderU, many from William Lane Craig. If you aren’t familiar with Craig’s defense of the empty tomb- which is formidable- go through this essay, and keep to the outlined points.

It’s strange that, in these times when conservatives are supposedly opposed to any kind of postmodernism, we get CONSERVAPEDIA, an alternative to homeschoolers having their minds polluted by Wikipedia.

Anything and everything about the church year is available at Church Year.net. Great explanations of all the things post-evangelicals get asked about.

Speaking of which, Leithart has important words about where Presbyterians (and their heirs) went wrong with the calendar.

Much as I admire the Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians, I believe they erred when they stripped the church calendar to an annual cycle of fifty-two Sundays. They reduced the rich melody of the earlier calendar to a repetitive ticking of the clock.

But the problem actually goes deeper.

Israel’s festive calendar was fixed by Torah. Passover, Pentecost, Atonement, Booths, and other festive days puctuated the year. Over the course of Israel’s history, however, other feast days were added. Purim marked the deliverance of Israel from Haman, and Jews celebrate the success of the Maccabean revolt at Hanukuah. The founding moments of Israel’s history were celebrated from the beginning, but history didn’t stop at Sinai.

The church continued the tradition, with relish. To the great commemorations of Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, and Pentecost the church eventually added feast days for saints, special observances of the Mass, fasts and carnivals. Doubtless this was overdone, but it stood as permanent testimony that God continued His redemptive work throughout the Christian era.

In this context, the Puritan scouring of the church calendar begins to look like an effort to produce a permanent, unalterable calendar. It appears to be an unintentially gnostic effort to stop time in its tracks. It appears an unconscious declaration that nothing worth remembering will ever again happen in Christian history. To that extent, it represents a failure of faith in the God who is Omega and well as Alpha.

It’s alive…CCM Patrol that is, and bashing away at Christian movie critics like Ted Baehr.

All of this points to a problem in Ted Baehr’s soul, namely an embrace of that foul philosophy that places rigorous moralist concerns over quality and artistry. Which is supposed to be the whole reason we humans do the creating thing, anyway. Baehr’s column says not a word – not one – about the technical quality of any of the films being discussed; he simply expects us to accept that “cleaner” (whatever that even means) is better. It doesn’t matter how moving, how well acted, how well-directed, how socially informed a film is, it’s all about letters and swear-word counts.

Looking on the positive side, the Cameron film gives us a chance to focus on the resurrection and evidence for it.  I plan on doing more study.

In other news, my friend and I went to The Journey’s bar outreach last Wednesday.  I’ll give a full report sometime in the next few days.  With all the controversy, I want to take the time to write it well.  My one-sentence review is that we need a lot more of this, and I hope God will let me be involved in doing something like this.

The tomb of Jesus has been found by…wait…..wait…..a Hollywood director. Well, sortof. Here’s the story that you’ll hear when “DVC Part II” opens Monday with a James Cameron press conference announcing that the tomb of Jesus has been discovered.

Yes, Virginia, there will be a movie on the Discovery Channel. With DNA.

Here’s another blog article. And a third. I guess that’s it then.

UPDATE: James White has the story updated on his site, and two AP stories announcing all of this in 1996. (He is dead on: it’s the DVC $$$$ cha-ching that has this out again.)

My short response:

1. The current faddish hatred for the claims of the Christian faith are an embarrassment to any serious person who buys into them. DVC madness has driven a segment of the Christianity hating world nuts.

2. DNA? Hello? Helllllllloo?

3. The testimony of the early church to the resurrection must completely be unknown to these Jethros. It’s the resurrection appearances that are the key to the Christian claim.

4. This is a relentless attempt to wrench as many minds as possible away from the Christian faith. It will work with the usual suspects. It will get Cameron and Co. on Larry King and it will fill up the Discovery Channel with more psuedo-science. It will sell a lot of bad books and make a lot of preachers mad. To the person who looks at the claims of the resurrection calmly, they will fail. As Wright says, why is this failed Messiah different? And why such a difference?

5. I wonder if Mr. Cameron might have read this book? Or this one? The wish for a “smoking gun” to disprove Jesus is telling. The fantasy is to destroy God with one fell swoop from Science and archeology. And it’s just that—-a fantasy.

6. If this weren’t associated with the Mary Magdalene marriage bit, it would have slightly more credibility. That would be, about none, but still…

7. DNA?

If Amazing Grace has a flaw, its in an over-reliance on “talking” rather than “showing,” especially in the first third or so of the film. I suppose in some ways this makes the film more clearly a biography of Wilberforce than a movie on the slave trade in general, and lets us see first the personal cost to Wilberforce before even seeing what drove him to such lengths. Still, the film might have benefitted from a little more “action” nearer the start.

It’s a very talky movie overall, but such talking! I thoroughly enjoyed last night’s late showing, and I’m looking forward to seeing it again in another week or two.

One of my brothers pointed out that Wilberforce was an anti-war, animal rights, civil rights protester, drug addict—a hippie two centuries ahead of his time!

Okay—if Suze Orman has a same-sex “life partner” and, assuming they have a relationship that involves sex, how can she call herself a “virgin” just because she has never had sex with a man?

Why I’m in favor of civil unions to solve some of the legal absurdities that prevent a person from disposing of their estate to whom or whatever they choose without ridiculous taxation penalties.

Noel writes “It’s a Chain Letter…with Bread!”

The Sydney Anglicans that put out materials through Matthias Media have been a bit behind in online ordering. No longer. A new store is up. I get all kinds of things from them to use here. They have an 8 session overview of the Old Testament that is great. Also all the 2 Ways to Live products, which are miles ahead of all Gospel presentations available here. We’re training all of our Campus Ministry staff in 2 Ways every year.

If you’ve been ignorant of Wilberforce up till this moment (like I have been), Catherine Claire at CGO has a post with a list of links to short readings on Wilberforce, some of her own, and some from Break Point.

I’m going to try to get out to see the movie as soon as possible.

My first answer to one of Frank’s questions is up at IM: Do missionals have a problem with “contending?”

Joe Thorn reviews the best book on evangelism available today: Jerram Barrs: The Heart of Evangelism.

I find it fascinating that the TR community believes- sincerely apparently- that we differ on almost everything. My impression is that we agree on almost everything significant, with the possible exception of “inerrancy.” Is it simple the TR perception of the world that all other Christians are off base all the time?

Last night’s performance of Titus Andronicus was outstanding. The production, actors and director understood what this play is and isn’t: it is the young Shakespeare imitating the popular forms of Kyd and Marlowe. What it isn’t is anything like Shakespeare’s later, greater work. It’s more about where he started and what he left behind. We all begin somewhere, and later, others can look back and wonder how the person who wrote THIS could have written THAT. Still, it’s amazing to see the hand of the man who wrote Lear and Macbeth at work in this bloody potboiler. We are all something before we are something greater, better. Titus reminds me that, when I grade the papers of my students, I may be grading a future Shakespeare.

You have to have fun in this play, and they did, right down to chopping a baby in half as the curtain closed on Aaron the Moor saying he wished he had 10,000 more foul deeds to relish. It passed my first Shakespeare test: would Will love it, and he would. Especially electrocuting Saturninus with a DieHard battery.

Dilbert offers up a business strategy that seems to mirror a lot of what goes on in the blogosphere.

The first of my Q/As with Frank Turk is posted at his blog.

Care of the theo-blogging giant Ben Myers, we have this story about a caller claiming to be a member of a millionaire-making Christian band, none of whose members are Christians. From the comments, Jim West brings us this keyboard-ruining gem:

Christian rock is to music what hemorrhoids are to relaxation.

Sorry you guys who are aficionados, but that right there is funny, I don’t care who you are.

MOD: Often true. Of course, Jim West, if he is “Dr.” Jim West, is a former BHT fellow who left us in a huff.

Of course, Phil Keaggy, Michael Card, Rich Mullins, Larry Norman, Randy Stonehill, Pierce Pettis, etc. make up for the frequent pain.

I’m searching for a sweeping statement about organs, but none of them are that funny :-)

Last week (?) Michael asked what the future held for Christian-themed films. Gideon Strauss points us to “Nineteen Hopes for an Activist Cinema” in Vertigo Magazine, and highlighted the top 3:

1. That it tells me something I don’t know and questions as much as it answers.

2. That it holds a mirror to the broken world.

3. That it takes a new shape, somehow unlike that of the movies before it, especially those within its own genre.

There are more on the list that I think are highly appropriate for Christians in the movie business to rally around. There’s another interesting one:

11. That it not be guided by the Hollywood Commandments (Film as a Business, Movies as Commodities, Worship of Celebrity and Spectacle, Life in three Predictable Acts).

And I wondered if “evangelical” films are able to break out of these same strictures. And if not, I wonder if that is because we are governed by the “Hollywood Commandments” in more things we believe and do than just the movies we produce. Do they not arise in other matters of church life and practice? Are we “doing” church like we expect (and sometimes demand) our movies to be?

For a one-volume commentary I like the HaperCollins Bible Commentary, but keep in mind I’m just a flaming liberal, he he he!

This dialog was posted over at Mere Comments and deserves to be passed along.

Travis, nice pick. I have the IVP Reference series on Libronix too, and there is no deal better. 12 of the best dictionary/reference books that are top of the line for $150. Can’t beat that.

Many things can distract your mind during a church service. This is a new one.

I’ll second the recommendation of the New Bible Commentary.  And I’ll second the use of Libronix software, and the absolute awesome-ness of its inclusion of the IVP study materials (the dictionaries, commentary, background commentary, theological dictionary, etc.)

RE Michael

The New Bible Commentary by IVP is probably the best one-volume commentary out there. I have it in my Libronix system and it is surprisingly handy. Very concise, easy to understand, and helpful in introducing you to larger questions.

When Civ first came out, my interests were elsewhere (Ultima and Might & Magic, anyone?).  Since then, I’ve gone through all of Sierra’s empire building games – Caesar, Pharaoh, etc.  I probably should pick up a copy of Civ and see what the hubub is about.

There’s something rather satisfying about conquering the world and having the populace worship you.

Sid Meier’s a Lutheran?!

Yeah, this was just before he jumped ship and went to Rome, and he was writing articles on why no Christian with a conscience can be anything but Catholic or Orthodox.  This one in question was about how AMiA churches are not an option for conscientious Christians.  I remember how weird it sounded at the time…it wasn’t the atheist bishop of Newark, the ordination of women, or anything else that finally required Anglicans to flee.  It was “alternative episcopal oversight.”  Apparently, Orthodox dioceses in the USA governed by patriarchs in Eastern Europe rubbing shoulders with the Antiochene or OCA parishes isn’t as big a deal.  They’ve got more Historic Tradition to atone for them, I think.