22 of 29

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

first century. Something like nine percent of all males were named Jesus. Meaning if ten males were present one of them would answer to Jesus. The same can be said for the other five names to lesser degrees of popularity. Multiplying the percentages of the six names you come up with a very small number of percentage of occurrence.

As an example if each name occurred one time in twenty the value would be .056 . That equates to one chance in sixty-five million, quite long odds indeed! If it truly is that the odds of this combination of names is virtually impossible then mathematically is it possible? Yes, except for a few over looked variables.

Bible scholar Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, thinks the film's hypothesis holds little weight. Sighting the difficulty in interpreting Ancient Semitic script, Pfann thinks the name is more likely interpreted as "Hanun". Asked to rank the possibility of the films hypothesis on a scale of one to ten, ten being completely possible, he gave it a one to maybe one and a half.

Mr. Pfann awarded the lowest score he could and with a slight hedge. As with any evidentiary chain its weakest link can cause its undoing. If Pfann a Bible scholar, is correct the probability of the theory falls to a zero percent chance of its being correct .

Further opposition to the films claim comes from the man who directed the original excavation of the site, Professor Amos Kloner of Bar Ilan University. Professor Kloner calls the claim "nonsense" and "impossible". He has published an archeological report stating that the tomb actually belonged to a Talpiot family from the first century CE.

Professor Kloner goes on to say The claim that the burial site has been found is not based on any proof, and is only an attempt to sell' and "I refute all claims and efforts to waken a renewed interest in the findings. With all due respect, they are not archeologists."

Professor Kloner by his use of the phrase "efforts to waken" is referring to a 1996 BBC documentary on this very subject. Professor Kloner said the idea fails to hold up to archaeological standards but makes for profitable television and "They just want to get money for it,"

Like prior attacks on the divinity of Christ, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" lacks even a shred of evidence that would stand up in a court of scientific or forensic law. The logical arguments are at best fatally flawed. The archeological community stands firmly against the claims of this film

The Lost Tomb of Jesus is better suited for April Fools Day than it is for Easter Sunday.

Learn more about this author, Clyde Annach.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about Movie analysis: Controversey of The Tomb of Christ documentary?
We want to hear your view. Write now!