That’s my main question: why don’t they talk about any genetic links between Jesus, “Mariamene”, and Judah? If they are claiming Judah is Jesus’ son, isn’t that what needs to be done? What about proving that “Maria” is Jesus’ mother? In essence, how are all these people related? Can we say who in the tomb were brothers, who were mothers, etc?
It just makes no sense as presented. I suspect that they either don’t know, or that the only DNA test that proves what they want for their documentary is the one where Jesus and his supposed wife aren’t related.
At this point, the DNA test simply suggests that there are remains of two people in the tomb, a man and a woman, who are not blood relatives, while all the others are genetically related to one another (and thus to Jesua). Therfore, because, as Steven noted, people who whose bones are in a common tomb must be “realted” somehow, that means “Maria” and “Jesua” must be related by marriage.
At least this is how I understood the BBC Radio report this morning. What am I missing here?
In the end, does it even matter? Archaeology and religion are rather separate disciplines. It is interesting when the science confirms the religion. But it’s not as our family is suspending the seder because there’s as yet no evidence that the Exodus really happened as told.
Comment by MSS — Tuesday, February 27, 2024 @ 10:05 am
No, no, no. It’s not Mary Magdalene’s DNA, it’s Sarah Connor’s. If you’re going to send a Terminator into the past, you might as well go for the gusto.
Now, see, that would be an intriguing documentary.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, February 27, 2024 @ 10:40 am
Well, first of all, it would be difficult to prove that the “Jesus” character in this story is related to the “Jonah” character, because they only had mitochondrial DNA which is only transmitted from the mother to the child.
Second, they only proved that “Jesus” and “Mariamene” were not related through a common mother. They could easily have had the same father and mitochondrial DNA would have no way of showing it. It is not uncommon, even in old societies for men to have children by more than one woman (due to death in child birth, etc).
So really, their one little shred of DNA evidence really proves nothing.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, February 27, 2024 @ 10:45 am
I am shocked!
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, February 27, 2024 @ 10:50 am
Thanks Jan. I wondered about that, but I’m not a DNA expert - I just watch crime dramas. I definately thought it would be iffy to attempt to establish sibling-hood for similar reasons - what if a different mother was involved? (If so, then that’d contradict the story that they were blood relatives, which even I, as a proponent of the virgin birth, say would be established. Since its the mother’s DNA you track, Jesus would share DNA with any brothers he would have.)
Again, hardly a surprise, and we all know this is being done for ratings anyway.
[…] Among the various things that Bauckham had to say, I found the discussion of names to be especially interesting, given my earlier post: We have much more evidence about this than was used by the programme makers. We have a data base of about 3000 named persons (2625 men, 328 women). Of the 2625 men, the name Joseph was borne by 218 or 8.3%. (It is the second most popular Jewish male name, after Simon/Simeon.) The name Judah was borne by 164 or 6.2%. The name Jesus was borne by 99 or 3.4%. The name Matthew was borne 62 or 2.4 %. Of the 328 named women (women’s names were much less often recorded than men’s), a staggering 70 or 21.4% were called Mary (Mariam, Maria, Mariame, Mariamme). […]
If this information is correct then in my opinion the answer is clear.
Joseph 8.3% = 218 named per 2,625 births.
Judah 6.2% = 164 named per 2,625 births.
Jesus 3.4% = 99 named per 2,625 births.
Matthew 2.4% = 62 named per 2,625 births.
= = = =
4 = 20.3% = 543 named per 10,500 births.
=
4 / 10,500 = 3.8% chance
Now we drop the top statistic to the bottom and add to the female.
Males 4 = 20.3% = 543 named per 10,500 births.
Female 1 = 21.0% = 70 named per 328 births.
= = = =
5 = 41.3% = 613 named per 10,828 births.
=
5 / 10,828 = 4.6% chance
Keep in mind that if you figure in the possibility of the female being the mother of Judah, and the grave which is believed to be Jesus is the father then you get an almost 100% possibility of this being legit.
If anyone finds any of these numbers to be wrong, please help to correct it.
Comment by Eric B. — Thursday, March 1, 2024 @ 10:58 am
The ossuaries were recovered and kept for 27 years with no thought at all of preventing DNA contamination. Who knows how many people handled them over the years? One touch of a hand would leave more DNA molecules than would have remained in a whole skeleton, much less in tiny bits of matter in the ossuary. It’s overwhelmingly likely that the DNA found was modern DNA from contamination.
Comment by Chuck Y — Friday, March 2, 2024 @ 3:47 pm
That’s my main question: why don’t they talk about any genetic links between Jesus, “Mariamene”, and Judah? If they are claiming Judah is Jesus’ son, isn’t that what needs to be done? What about proving that “Maria” is Jesus’ mother? In essence, how are all these people related? Can we say who in the tomb were brothers, who were mothers, etc?
It just makes no sense as presented. I suspect that they either don’t know, or that the only DNA test that proves what they want for their documentary is the one where Jesus and his supposed wife aren’t related.
Comment by B. Minich — Tuesday, February 27, 2024 @ 9:33 am
At this point, the DNA test simply suggests that there are remains of two people in the tomb, a man and a woman, who are not blood relatives, while all the others are genetically related to one another (and thus to Jesua). Therfore, because, as Steven noted, people who whose bones are in a common tomb must be “realted” somehow, that means “Maria” and “Jesua” must be related by marriage.
At least this is how I understood the BBC Radio report this morning. What am I missing here?
In the end, does it even matter? Archaeology and religion are rather separate disciplines. It is interesting when the science confirms the religion. But it’s not as our family is suspending the seder because there’s as yet no evidence that the Exodus really happened as told.
Comment by MSS — Tuesday, February 27, 2024 @ 10:05 am
No, no, no. It’s not Mary Magdalene’s DNA, it’s Sarah Connor’s. If you’re going to send a Terminator into the past, you might as well go for the gusto.
Comment by Kingdaddy — Tuesday, February 27, 2024 @ 10:36 am
Now, see, that would be an intriguing documentary.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, February 27, 2024 @ 10:40 am
Well, first of all, it would be difficult to prove that the “Jesus” character in this story is related to the “Jonah” character, because they only had mitochondrial DNA which is only transmitted from the mother to the child.
Second, they only proved that “Jesus” and “Mariamene” were not related through a common mother. They could easily have had the same father and mitochondrial DNA would have no way of showing it. It is not uncommon, even in old societies for men to have children by more than one woman (due to death in child birth, etc).
So really, their one little shred of DNA evidence really proves nothing.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, February 27, 2024 @ 10:45 am
I am shocked!
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, February 27, 2024 @ 10:50 am
Thanks Jan. I wondered about that, but I’m not a DNA expert - I just watch crime dramas. I definately thought it would be iffy to attempt to establish sibling-hood for similar reasons - what if a different mother was involved? (If so, then that’d contradict the story that they were blood relatives, which even I, as a proponent of the virgin birth, say would be established. Since its the mother’s DNA you track, Jesus would share DNA with any brothers he would have.)
Again, hardly a surprise, and we all know this is being done for ratings anyway.
Comment by B. Minich — Tuesday, February 27, 2024 @ 11:12 am
[…] Among the various things that Bauckham had to say, I found the discussion of names to be especially interesting, given my earlier post: We have much more evidence about this than was used by the programme makers. We have a data base of about 3000 named persons (2625 men, 328 women). Of the 2625 men, the name Joseph was borne by 218 or 8.3%. (It is the second most popular Jewish male name, after Simon/Simeon.) The name Judah was borne by 164 or 6.2%. The name Jesus was borne by 99 or 3.4%. The name Matthew was borne 62 or 2.4 %. Of the 328 named women (women’s names were much less often recorded than men’s), a staggering 70 or 21.4% were called Mary (Mariam, Maria, Mariame, Mariamme). […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » More on the Bones — Tuesday, February 27, 2024 @ 1:28 pm
If this information is correct then in my opinion the answer is clear.
Joseph 8.3% = 218 named per 2,625 births.
Judah 6.2% = 164 named per 2,625 births.
Jesus 3.4% = 99 named per 2,625 births.
Matthew 2.4% = 62 named per 2,625 births.
= = = =
4 = 20.3% = 543 named per 10,500 births.
=
4 / 10,500 = 3.8% chance
Now we drop the top statistic to the bottom and add to the female.
Males 4 = 20.3% = 543 named per 10,500 births.
Female 1 = 21.0% = 70 named per 328 births.
= = = =
5 = 41.3% = 613 named per 10,828 births.
=
5 / 10,828 = 4.6% chance
Keep in mind that if you figure in the possibility of the female being the mother of Judah, and the grave which is believed to be Jesus is the father then you get an almost 100% possibility of this being legit.
If anyone finds any of these numbers to be wrong, please help to correct it.
Comment by Eric B. — Thursday, March 1, 2024 @ 10:58 am
Go to www.choosejesusrightnow.com & click on BUMPER STICKERS.
Comment by Karen Finley — Thursday, March 1, 2024 @ 1:28 pm
The ossuaries were recovered and kept for 27 years with no thought at all of preventing DNA contamination. Who knows how many people handled them over the years? One touch of a hand would leave more DNA molecules than would have remained in a whole skeleton, much less in tiny bits of matter in the ossuary. It’s overwhelmingly likely that the DNA found was modern DNA from contamination.
Comment by Chuck Y — Friday, March 2, 2024 @ 3:47 pm