Time Mag Revives 'Discovery' of Christ's 'Tomb' Story

By Warner Todd Huston (Bio | Archive)
January 20, 2008 - 21:11 ET

In 2006, movie mogul James Cameron lent his name to a "documentary" detailing the "discovery" of the tomb of Jesus Christ and his family. The film was widely panned by archeologists, Christians, Jews and non-believers alike and the evidence of the find has been shown to be highly suspect. But, this doesn't seem to bother Time Magazine as the monthly is reviving the story once again in Jesus 'Tomb' Controversy Reopened, a story by Tim McGirk. Naturally, the entire article is written from the perspective of those who take the anti-Christian position on the story and Christians are presented as rejecting the "find" merely out of blind belief while those supporting the interpretation of the find as that of Jesus' final resting place are presented as serious scientists and academicians.

Catch this first paragraph:

When the Discovery Channel aired a TV documentary last year raising the possibility that archeologists had found the family tomb of Jesus Christ in the hills behind Jerusalem, it caused a huge backlash among Christians. The claim, after all, challenged one of the cornerstones of Christian faith -- that Jesus, after his crucifixion, rose bodily to heaven in his physical form.

Here we see Time setting the stage to lead readers to believe that Christians are only against the claims because it would challenge the "cornerstones of Christian faith." Time follows this line of discussion for nearly the entire article, giving only scant exposure to some of the many substantive issues that a host of people from a myriad of disciplines find standing in the way of believing that this is the tomb of Jesus Christ. One easily comes away from the article thinking that people who are against the claims are only against them because they are closed minded religious zealots.

In truth, there are so many problems with this story that few really believe the case for this find being the tomb of Christ and his family. (For a nicely detailed article presenting the problematic evidence connected with this find, see “Jesus’ tomb found” claim as empty as Jesus’ [real] tomb) Strangely, this Time article only revives the mythical claims of the tomb find without really going into any of the problems with the evidence. Out of the whole article, we only get this one bit of the proof against the claim:

But the professor has a few doubts. "The name on Jesus's ossuary was scrawled on, like graffiti. There was no ornamentation. And there should have been. After all, his followers believed he was the Son of God."

McGirk mentions that Cameron's "documentary" was pulled from TV after only one airing. He seems to allude to the reason the show was pulled as being that Christians forced the TV presenters to bury the thing, as if that truth was squelched by crazed Christians. McGirk says that, "it was no surprise that the film was panned by some academics and many Christian clerics," as if the many Christian clerics were against it solely on religious grounds as he pointed to in his first paragraph.

McGirk then gives us the opinion of the organizer of the small conference (50 attendees) that revived this issue that he is "vindicated" as if his position that this is Christ's tomb has been put on more solid grounds.

"I feel vindicated," Jacobovici told TIME. "It's moved from 'it can't be the Jesus' family tomb' to 'it could be.' "

Who could be surprised that the guy who had the idea to have the conference would deem the result a great success? His is hardly an unbiased opinion here!

In any case, the argument in favor of this find being that of Christ’s tomb is presented as a serious contention and the flavor of the story really makes the position seem respectable. In truth there are not many academics, scientists or archeologists who favor this theory.

Sadly, this Time article does a disservice to the argument against this being a discovery of Jesus Christ’s tomb and that of his family and unduly keeps this debunked story alive.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Mohammed was a murderer and

January 20, 2008 - 21:17 ET by drillanwr

Mohammed was a murderer and a pedophile ...

Mohammed was a murderer and a pedophile ...

Mohammed was a murderer and a pedophile.

Okay, Discovery Channel and Time ... Prove me wrong.

Jesus, His earthly family, Heavenly Family and adopted family

January 20, 2008 - 21:59 ET by Lame Cherry

All of this is basic information, but people without God's Holy Spirit always get it mucked up WRONG.

Jesus family can not be in Jerusalem no more than Jesus can be in bodily form.
Jesus by His Mother Mary and earthly namesake Joseph had half siblings. Some of them served in the ministry. After Jesus arose to heaven as He is thee Son of God, He had in Matthew 24 warned His family and followers that Jerusalem would be sacked.

Various legends indicate some of the Apostles did visit Angle Land or England which if you know the story of Jeremiah the Prophet makes sense as Jeremiah was on a comission after the fall of the Judean realm of David to transplant it with the King's daughter to where the seafaring tribe of Dan had gone into exile, which was Ireland. The Angle Saxons were the half tribe of Joseph in Ephriam.
Jesus thrown today is in England ready and waiting for His return just as He predicted in the Bible.
If you look at the Bible it also relates that there was another Joseph "who was supposed Jesus adopted parent" That Joseph was Joseph of Aramathea, who was Mary Magdalene's husband and Mary the Mother of Jesus brother. When Joseph the carpenter died, it was according to custom a respected male would take over as family head.

THIS EXPLAINS all that horrid lying going on of Jesus and Mary Magdalene producing children and other blasphemy. Mary Magdalene was his legal step mother, He saved her from being stoned in being His aunt and it explains why there was this close relationship between them. It was not sexual but the deepest kind of familiar love and adoration.

To add to the explanation of lying in that idiot DaVinci Code nonsense, Jesus sibling did move out of Jerusalem as it was to be destroyed. If one follows the northern kingdom of Samaria or Israeli in exile, they were transplanted by the Assyrians to northern Iraq where they were known as Khumri, Cimmerans and Aryans. (Yes Hitler was looking for the part of the family of people he was intent on destroying and making war with.)
As these Khumri flexed their muscles in captivity and finally broke free, they belted the largest empires in Greece and Persia. After their defeat in Persia, they moved north into central Asia (One can find the people buried their today in China) and were known as Scythians.
They would move through the Caucasus west and loose their identity as they came into contact with Roman peoples in being called then Germani (not to be confused with modern Germans as they are Assyrian) Celt, Anglo Saxon, Normans, Royal Scyths etc...

The Reubenites settled into France and this is where the siblings of Jesus lived among their own Israelite brothers. Of course of their standing they intermarried with the leading Israelite rulers and this is how this "Jesus blood" is spoken of by them. It is not Jesus, but the siblings.
As a sidenote in this, the Magi who came to Jesus after His birth were these displaced Israelites of the northern kingdom. This is why they came. They knew the prophecies, were watching in the stars for the signs and were not just coming to the King of the Jews, but were coming to THEIR PROMISED KING in the Messiah, thee Son of God.

The devil does his worst in deceiving people in this as it always culls away people who are not in tune with God. It is all very easily explanable though for anyone with God's Wisdom if they ask.

Jesus is no longer Jesus in the sense people think of Him. He has returned to the Father in the complex office He instituted as the Word or Thought of God. He is High Priest, King, Prophet, Angel of the Lord and an office He is soon to implement on His return as Warrior King to establish the Kingdom of God on earth

It really is a beautiful story God has worked out. He has not lost one of His children in exile. Americans are the product of sifting the tribe of Mannaseh of Joseph, son of Jacob. Jacob prophesied that Mannaseh would be the product of colonization from his brother Ephriam (England) and would become the greatest single nation on the earth.......and all the earth would be blessed in them.

Doubters and scoffers will always be around to test the children of God. The worst tempter is soon to come out of Europe in the anti christ as that person will have all the answers, bring a false peace and be the catalyst for the last worst war.
My observation and inspiration is this will happen after George W. Bush has left office.

If people would simply ask God for the answers, the real story is much more exciting and beautiful than the fakery these closed minds and souls blunder on about.

 

agtG

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Ah yes, the "lying" in that

January 20, 2008 - 22:03 ET by balboa

Ah yes, the "lying" in that work of fiction. Golly gee.

Let's see where this goes

January 20, 2008 - 22:54 ET by Superman

When an old family tomb is found in Jeruselem, and the names on the ossuaries match the entire Jesus family, it does make you wonder. Let's see how this plays out.

superman

January 20, 2008 - 23:04 ET by botg

are you sure they matched?

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

Yeshua was a popular name

January 21, 2008 - 11:42 ET by misterbee241

Yeshua was a popular name in that part of the country. The New Testament mentions several men named "Jesus". When Jesus the Messiah ascended into Heaven, an angel told His followers "this same Jesus will return as He left." The angel made the point with "same" that it would be the Christ that returned and not someone else.

The real tomb of Jesus if ever found will be as empty as the one they think is His.

There is none so blind as they that won’t see. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745

What a bizarre thing to

January 20, 2008 - 23:13 ET by cleverpig

What a bizarre thing to take issue with. The article isn't saying that the only problem with the find is that it challenges Christianity, it is saying that is the reason for the backlash.

Do you really disagree? Maybe Christian clerics regularly get involved with archaeological disagreements, but I imagine they only do so when it has something to do with Christianity.

I just read the article and it very clearly does not take one side or the other. The issue has been revived because an academic conference revived it. Time reported on the conference, citing one piece of evidence for and one against. The organizer of the conference feels vindicated because the conclusion was not a definite "no." So what?? What exactly should Time have reported here to make you guys happy?

Well, Silly Sow

January 20, 2008 - 23:33 ET by Cool Arrow

They could have reported a retraction of their Global Warming deception in light of the extreme cold spell gripping the country.

If I'm not mistaken, more people are having trouble dealing with the current cold spell than any hyped up rehash of Erik Von Danniken theories.

I ♣ My Seal

Frankly, it's immaterial to

January 21, 2008 - 11:53 ET by misterbee241

Frankly, it's immaterial to me whether the real tomb of Jesus has been found or not. Just as the Shroud of Turin, I couldnt care any less whether it's real or not. The shroud is interesting, but has no impact on my faith whatsoever.

The tomb Jesus was buried in was only borrowed for three days from Joseph of Arimathea. The important thing is the tomb where ever it is, is empty.

There is none so blind as they that won’t see. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745

Most of the MSM are atheists

January 21, 2008 - 00:06 ET by c5then

Most atheists try and discredit any criticism from believers by claiming that they are against the idea because it challenges their beliefs.

It's the same circular logic that the AGW crowd tries to use to silence their critics. Isn't it true that any who disagree with man-made global warming are being paid off by "big oil"?

The fact that the "discovery" is 20 years old and has been discarded by the archeological profession long before the "Discovery Channel" picked it up is probably not relevant to Time. All they want is the sensationalism and the chance to try and discredit a religion that they don't like.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

c-5 you are so right...thank you!

January 21, 2008 - 00:22 ET by JoggerNot

History Shows Again, and again how nature points out the follies of man..boc

Most of the MSM are atheists

January 21, 2008 - 07:58 ET by Uphill

Most of the MSM are atheists

Do you have a source for this statement?

I think that's a fair

January 21, 2008 - 08:26 ET by Jack Bauer

I think that's a fair statement, if only by default.

Most journalists not only don't practise religion, but they not interested in religion in any way, except when it reinforces their peculiar mindset and stereotypes.

But worse than that... they have a negative view of those who are religious, that is nothing short of contemptuous, and borders on outright hostility.

Now true... that might not make them practising atheists. But it strongly suggests that they have an antipathy to religion, specifically to one religion, Christianity. And that antipathy matches any atheist.

So what's the difference whether they call themselves that or not. Same outcome.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

Sorry, JB

January 21, 2008 - 14:19 ET by Uphill

Most journalists not only don't practise religion, but they not interested in religion in any way

"Most" as in the ones that do reports on religion, then I might be able to agree.  But as a whole I doubt this is true.

 

It's totally true. The fact

January 21, 2008 - 14:35 ET by Jack Bauer

It's totally true. The fact that you can't even begin to acknowledge it, I find very odd.

I suggest you read this... it's a long article, here are some highlights

God in the Newsroom
Evangelicals get discovered by the New York Times.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof dropped a bombshell in a recent column: He wrote, "nearly all of us in the news business are completely out of touch with a group that includes 46 percent of Americans."

Kristof said he disagrees with Evangelicals on "almost everything," but observed that "liberal critiques sometimes seem not just filled with outrage at Evangelical-backed policies, which is fair, but also to have a sneering tone about conservative Christianity itself. Such mockery of religious faith is inexcusable." He went on to say that "liberals sometimes show more intellectual curiosity about the religion of Afghanistan than that of Alabama."

Everybody remembers the astonishing paragraph from a news story of a decade ago in the Washington Post, in which a reporter remarked that religious conservatives were "largely poor, uneducated and easy to command" —

Got that? If those who report the news consider religious conservatives (who are usually, but not always, political conservatives) to be part of a lunatic fringe, there's no reason to take them or their views seriously. In fact, the people this writer considered "most of us" are in fact a minority. But it says a great deal that this writer, and his editors, took this worldview as normative. That was only one writer in one newspaper, but in my professional experience, that viewpoint is common in newsrooms.

I worked for a fairly large paper that was particularly proud of its diversity program. I got into a peppery exchange with the newsroom executive in charge of running it. She said to me, "Don't you think this newsroom should look like our city?" — by which she meant that it should more or less mirror the area's race-gender-ethnicity demographic. I told her that it was more important that the newsroom represent the diversity of belief and experience in the city.

"How many conservatives do we have working here? How many Pentecostals?" I said. "You have people of various racial and ethnic backgrounds working here, you have gays, you have a lot of women — but everybody went to pretty much the same journalism schools, and as far as I can tell, everybody thinks more or less alike on most issues."

There have been a number of studies and polls in recent years showing how dramatically different the opinions and lifestyles of the media class are from that of the people they ostensibly serve. Everybody knows that reporters at the Washington Post are very different from folks in Tulsa. But Peter Brown, an editor at the Orlando Sentinel, has done research showing that this phenomenon holds true even at the local level.

A decade ago, working with a polling firm and a market research outfit, Brown surveyed reporters in Dallas-Forth Worth, a major regional media market, and five middle-sized media markets around the country, and compared their views, values and lifestyle choices with those of their readership. "The data clearly show that journalists, although living geographically in the same markets as their readers, really do have a completely different mindset, and for the most part different values and behavior," Brown says.

He also found that journalists were "much less likely" than people in their markets to pray daily, attend religious services regularly, or even to belong to a church or synagogue. Says Brown, "Many journalists will acknowledge that there's a big demographic difference, but they say it doesn't affect coverage. I don't think that's true."

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

Well JB

January 21, 2008 - 17:34 ET by Uphill

In a limited search I found nothing to suggest that you might be wrong.  But I did find this:

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/334004848.html

Cheers.

Tomb discovery was in early 80's, now up again as something new!

January 21, 2008 - 08:52 ET by PawpawN

Tomb discovery was in early 80's, now up again as something new!  Proof again that the writers strike has left the so called editors, producers, directors, in charge and without a clue.  Just recycle stories from almost 30 years ago and make like they're new.  Wouldn't they be better off claiming it is a sequel, like Shrek 3, etc.