• Joe Zias
    • iWildwood

      It seems to me, Joe, that you should be assisting in this quest to solve the mystery of the tombs, rather than thwarting every effort made to determine what it is that we really have here.

  • yodacat

    I have seen some of Simcha’s work and read books he and collaborators have written. Although startling nd perhaps disturbing to some, they get people thinking, and learning about both the beliefs of Christianity and Judaism.
    Bravo for Simcha!

    • iWildwood

      Godspeed.

  • Isabella1709

    After seeing all Simcha’s films and speculation about the Jesus Tomb I wonder why it is the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and His family would be found in Jerusalem when the family home was in Nazareth. Of course, I am a Christian. I recognize there is big bucks in these kinds of finds. However, it also seems to me that were I related to a man claiming to be the Messiah I would do anything possible to keep the story of the resurrection valid. Hence, no bones or named ossurary’s would be in a family tomb. Call me crazy, but I don’t think the family was stupid.

    • Jon Isaacson

      Jesus’ family continued to live in Jerusalem for at least thirty years after Jesus’ crucifixion. Jesus’ brother James was the acknowledged leader of the Jerusalem congregation until he was killed by the high priest of the temple in 62 A. D. (His leadership is attested in Acts and several of Paul’s epistles, in case you didn’t know that). It seems likely that Mary and Jesus’ other brothers and sisters also stayed in Jerusalem. The tomb that Jesus’ body was placed in was a temporary one, and with the Jewish emphasis on corpses being entombed quickly, it seems unlikely that they would have transported his body to Nazareth for burial if there was a permanent tomb nearby. I think the earliest followers of Jesus saw the resurrection quite differently from the version that was promoted by Paul.

  • Joe Zias

    It would be interesting to know who was responsible for deleting the last portion of the National Public Radio link below, which would provide readers the truth behind the entire story. I’ll try again for the sake of the readers, as to what happens when a real journalist shows up in court to cover the story. https://soundcloud.com/theworld/071920138-1

    • iWildwood

      The NPR? Seriously? National Propaganda Radio?!?

      Why are Christians so intimidated by this discovery? Do they really think the finding of Jesus’ bones, or that he was possibly married, changes anything? So what if he was married! So what if he was buried! What does any of that matter, even considering the belief that he couldn’t be buried because he ascended – but how was it so that he did? Physically? Spiritually? The verdict is still out on that, isn’t it? Some say he ascended in the flesh and others say not. Scriptural evidence suggests either one might be the case.

  • Joe Zias

    As for the academic reputation of many of the ‘scholars’ mentioned in the article, the following from the BBC speaks for itself, as it deals specifically with them. Little has changed, same personalities, different site. “these days it is hard to
    distinguish the smell of sulfur from the rotten stench of claims,
    counterclaims, and accusations emanating from the nearby site of Qumran”.
    Ari Goldberg, BBC News World Edition 27 August 2002.

  • Nico

    Daniel Estin’s report for NPR is chilling. The idea that a vast sum of money can be used punitively to try and silence or intimidate a detractor in a court of law (Google search: SLAPP) would certainly have underpaid or retired academics or journalists reluctant to challenge celebrity culture. Seems to me that this is the real story. In any case, this article does not appear to have been written by a professional journalist.

  • puresnow

    Jacobovici’s arguments in his article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simcha-jacobovici/jesus-marriage-to-mary-th_b_6225826.html) are flawed. He claims “Never once does Paul argue that Christians should be celibate, because Jesus was celibate. Not once!” Anyone should be able to see that the argument “because Paul didn’t say that the reason Christians should be celibate is because Jesus was celibate, that means Jesus was married” is flawed and does not prove that Jesus was married and does not warrant a sensationalist title such as “Jesus’s Marriage to Mary the Magdalene is Fact, Not Fiction”. Also, Jacobovici doesn’t mention why Paul never once mentions Jesus’ wife and child. Especially if Paul was arguing for celibacy, one would expect Paul to at least try to explain why he would argue for celibacy if everyone knew Jesus was married with a child. But Paul never once mentioned that Jesus was married with a child, not once. Maybe Paul argued for celibacy and didn’t mention “because Jesus was celibate” because that was too self-evident. A teacher can say to her students “you shouldn’t bully other kids” without adding “because the principal didn’t bully other kids.” Just because she says “you shouldn’t bully other kids” without mentioning that the principal did or did not bully other kids, doesn’t necessarily mean the principal bullied other kids. But if the principal bullied other kids and the teacher still says to her students “you shouldn’t bully other kids”, her students may wonder why they shouldn’t bully other kids when the principal bullied other kids, and the teacher may be more likely to explain further in that case.

    Jacobovici’s claim that Mary was Jesus’ wife because she anointed him after his death is also a strong claim based on weak evidence. The bible mentions Jesus being anointed several times with no indication the person doing the anointing was his wife. In fact people’s reaction to the anointing indicates that the person doing the anointing was not his wife. If it was his wife then people probably wouldn’t say “doesn’t he know she is a sinful woman?” or “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” Why would people ask “doesn’t he know she is a sinful woman” just because he didn’t rebuke her when she anointed him, if they knew he not only knew her but he was actually her husband? And if they knew she was a sinful woman and they invited him, why wouldn’t they know the woman and Jesus were married? And if the woman and Jesus were married then why would she suddenly anoint him and wipe his feet with her hair at a place where she was uninvited, rather than at home when she was alone with him? And why would anyone object to a woman using her own family’s perfume on her own husband? The bible indicates Judas cared about his outside appearances and if she was Jesus’ wife then Judas probably wouldn’t have wanted to appear rude by criticizing her for using her own family’s perfume on her own family member. Just after Judas objected to Mary anointing Jesus, Jesus said “she was preparing me for burial”, so maybe that was why Mary anointed Jesus after his death as well, not necessarily because she was his wife. Jacobovici claims that the person who anointed Jesus after his death also washed his private parts but the bible gives no indication of that. Maybe in the old days it was customary for family members to anoint dead family members, but that holds true in modern days as well and that doesn’t mean no one else can anoint dead friends for instance. Moreover, Jesus often went against social norms of his day and was criticized for eating with unclean hands and spending time with tax collectors and prostitutes. Just because most people in the old days may have been anointed by family members and it may have been customary for people to be anointed by family members, doesn’t necessarily mean everyone who anointed Jesus was his family member.

    Jacobovici’s claim that the idea of Jesus as the good shepherd came from Paul is also not backed by strong evidence. The bible mentions many times that Jesus himself used the sheep/lamb metaphor and referred to himself as the good shepherd. The Gospel of John most strongly portrays Jesus as the Lamb of God. Jacobovici may argue the Gospel of John was actually written by Paul, but that is unlikely based on the differing writing styles. The bible is also a form of historical document. Jacobovici’s claim is solely based on the fact that Paul was from Tarsus, which is also based on the bible. Jacobovici put a lot of emphasis on the fact that Paul was from Tarsus and which god the people in Tarsus worshipped, while totally ignoring other parts of the bible. Maybe Jacobovici found it convenient to emphasize certain parts of the bible and completely ignore other parts of the bible in order to support his story and suit his needs.

    Jacobovici’s claim that archaeologists found Jesus’ family’s tomb is not backed by good evidence. The names Jesus, Joseph, and Mary were extremely common in Jesus’ time. Just because someone found tombs with the inscriptions John and Mary and their son Jacob, doesn’t mean everyone named John in the world was married to a woman named Mary and had a son named Jacob. Jacobovici does not mention any scientific study done to find out how old the tombs are, if the inscriptions are authentic, if it is scientifically/historically feasible to conclude that the tombs actually belong to Jesus’ family, etc.

    It seems like Jacobovici just fished for random things that may be the slightest bit useful/remotely relevant to supporting his sensationalist made-up story. I heard he even filed a libel suit against an archaeologist who was understandably concerned about the way Jacobovici was coming up with sensationalist claims that were not backed up by sound evidence. No one knows for certain if Jesus was married or not, but if Jacobovici is allowed to go around making huge claims based on little to no evidence, why isn’t anyone allowed to criticize that? Why are people like Jacobovici best-selling authors anyway? Did he just jump on the “Jesus was married” bandwagon after the Da Vinci Code became a huge hit and he wanted to make money off it too? At least everyone knew the Da Vinci Code was fiction, Jacobovici is claiming it’s not even fiction. I wouldn’t have minded if he took a more cautious approach based on the available evidence, such as “they found tombs with the inscriptions … but no one knows for certain if they are actually Jesus’ family’s tombs (and mention at least one scientific study indicating approximately how old the tombs are etc)”, but his strong claims were not warranted based on the little to no evidence.

    He just seems really fishy and if he was confident about his claims he could have argued back with evidence rather than filing a libel suit against a dissenter and basically shutting up a dissenter with threats saying it resulted in millions of lost revenue for him. He claims Christianity shut up dissenters but what about him? Also what was the incentive for early Christians to deny Jesus’ marriage to Mary if early Christians including Paul were willing to die for their faith? Whereas Jacobovici had an obvious incentive for shutting up the archaeologist, the archaeologist was causing lost revenues for him.

  • puresnow

    Simcha claims Christianity shut up dissenters but he’s the one doing that

  • puresnow

    Jacobovici’s arguments in his article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simcha-jacobovici/jesus-marriage-to-mary-th_b_6225826.html) are flawed. He claims “Never once does Paul argue that Christians should be celibate, because Jesus was celibate. Not once!” Anyone should be able to see that the argument “because Paul didn’t say that the reason Christians should be celibate is because Jesus was celibate, that means Jesus was married” is flawed and does not prove that Jesus was married and does not warrant a sensationalist title such as “Jesus’s Marriage to Mary the Magdalene is Fact, Not Fiction”. Also, Jacobovici doesn’t mention why Paul never once mentions Jesus’ wife and child. Especially if Paul was arguing for celibacy, one would expect Paul to at least try to explain why he would argue for celibacy if everyone knew Jesus was married with a child. But Paul never once mentioned that Jesus was married with a child, not once. Maybe Paul argued for celibacy and didn’t mention “because Jesus was celibate” because that was too self-evident. A teacher can say to her students “you shouldn’t bully other kids” without adding “because the principal didn’t bully other kids.” Just because she says “you shouldn’t bully other kids” without mentioning that the principal did or did not bully other kids, doesn’t necessarily mean the principal bullied other kids. But if the principal bullied other kids and the teacher still says to her students “you shouldn’t bully other kids”, her students may wonder why they shouldn’t bully other kids when the principal bullied other kids, and the teacher may be more likely to explain further in that case.

    Jacobovici’s claim that Mary was Jesus’ wife because she anointed him after his death is also a strong claim based on weak evidence. The bible mentions Jesus being anointed several times with no indication the person doing the anointing was his wife. In fact people’s reaction to the anointing indicates that the person doing the anointing was not his wife. If it was his wife then people probably wouldn’t say “doesn’t he know she is a sinful woman?” or “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” Why would people ask “doesn’t he know she is a sinful woman” just because he didn’t rebuke her when she anointed him, if they knew he not only knew her but he was actually her husband? And if they knew she was a sinful woman and they invited him, why wouldn’t they know the woman and Jesus were married? And if the woman and Jesus were married then why would she suddenly anoint him and wipe his feet with her hair at a place where she was uninvited, rather than at home when she was alone with him? And why would anyone object to a woman using her own family’s perfume on her own husband? The bible indicates Judas cared about his outside appearances and if she was Jesus’ wife then Judas probably wouldn’t have wanted to appear rude by criticizing her for using her own family’s perfume on her own family member. Just after Judas objected to Mary anointing Jesus, Jesus said “she was preparing me for burial”, so maybe that was why Mary anointed Jesus after his death as well, not necessarily because she was his wife. Jacobovici claims that the person who anointed Jesus after his death also washed his private parts but the bible gives no indication of that. Maybe in the old days it was customary for family members to anoint dead family members, but that holds true in modern days as well and that doesn’t mean no one else can anoint dead friends for instance. Moreover, Jesus often went against social norms of his day and was criticized for eating with unclean hands and spending time with tax collectors and prostitutes. Just because most people in the old days may have been anointed by family members and it may have been customary for people to be anointed by family members, doesn’t necessarily mean everyone who anointed Jesus was his family member.

    Jacobovici’s claim that the idea of Jesus as the good shepherd came from Paul is also not backed by strong evidence. The bible mentions many times that Jesus himself used the sheep/lamb metaphor and referred to himself as the good shepherd. The Gospel of John most strongly portrays Jesus as the Lamb of God. Jacobovici may argue the Gospel of John was actually written by Paul, but that is unlikely based on the differing writing styles. The bible is also a form of historical document. Jacobovici’s claim is solely based on the fact that Paul was from Tarsus, which is also based on the bible. Jacobovici put a lot of emphasis on the fact that Paul was from Tarsus and which god the people in Tarsus worshipped, while totally ignoring other parts of the bible. Maybe Jacobovici found it convenient to emphasize certain parts of the bible and completely ignore other parts of the bible in order to support his story and suit his needs.

    Jacobovici’s claim that archaeologists found Jesus’ family’s tomb is not backed by good evidence. The names Jesus, Joseph, and Mary were extremely common in Jesus’ time. Just because someone found tombs with the inscriptions John and Mary and their son Jacob, doesn’t mean everyone named John in the world was married to a woman named Mary and had a son named Jacob. Jacobovici does not mention any scientific study done to find out how old the tombs are, if the inscriptions are authentic, if it is scientifically/historically feasible to conclude that the tombs actually belong to Jesus’ family, etc.

    It seems like Jacobovici just fished for random things that may be the slightest bit useful/remotely relevant to supporting his sensationalist made-up story. I heard he even filed a libel suit against an archaeologist who was understandably concerned about the way Jacobovici was coming up with sensationalist claims that were not backed up by sound evidence. No one knows for certain if Jesus was married or not, but if Jacobovici is allowed to go around making huge claims based on little to no evidence, why isn’t anyone allowed to criticize that? Why are people like Jacobovici best-selling authors anyway? Did he just jump on the “Jesus was married” bandwagon after the Da Vinci Code became a huge hit and he wanted to make money off it too? At least everyone knew the Da Vinci Code was fiction, Jacobovici is claiming it’s not even fiction. I wouldn’t have minded if he took a more cautious approach based on the available evidence, such as “they found tombs with the inscriptions … but no one knows for certain if they are actually Jesus’ family’s tombs (and mention at least one scientific study indicating approximately how old the tombs are etc)”, but his strong claims were not warranted based on the little to no evidence.

    He just seems really fishy and if he was confident about his claims he could have argued back with evidence rather than filing a libel suit against a dissenter and basically shutting up a dissenter with threats saying it resulted in millions of lost revenue for him. He claims Christianity shut up dissenters but what about him? Also what was the incentive for early Christians to deny Jesus’ marriage to Mary if early Christians including Paul were willing to die for their faith? Whereas Jacobovici had an obvious incentive for shutting up the archaeologist, the archaeologist was causing lost revenues for him.

    Many people believe they are being so rational by denouncing religion but they are biased. If any Christian claims to have witnessed a miracle, they want strong scientific evidence. But if anyone challenges Christian beliefs with equally weak or even weaker evidence, people hail him as the triumph of the rational mind, which is ridiculous.

  • puresnow

    They accused a man of libel just because he didn’t know some Aramaic/Hebrew? Besides his argument wasn’t even that the inscriptions did not say what Simcha claimed they said. This is so ridiculous. He was an archaeologist, not a language professor.

  • puresnow

    Upon reading the article more closely, no scientist even got to investigate the tombs and he’s already going around claiming that the tombs belong to Jesus’ family? No wonder an archaeologist who doesn’t believe in making huge claims based on little to no evidence took offense at that. It’s not about whether or not the archaeologist was fluent in Aramaic and Hebrew. The legal system must be so corrupt. This is just like the feudal ages where those in power do whatever they please and censor whatever they want to censor.