DOCSLIB.ORG

Lost Tomb of Jesus”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lost Tomb of Jesus” FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Biola Professors Respond to the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” A documentary titled, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” is set to premiere on the Discovery Channel on March 4. The film claims that the 1980 discovery of 10 ossuaries in Jerusalem belonged to the family of Jesus of Nazareth, challenging the Christian belief that Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead three days after he was crucified. Scholars from Biola University, a private Christian university in Southern California, responded to the claims on Friday with a list of points. 1. The discovery of the tomb is not a “new” discovery. According to John Hutchison, professor of Bible Exposition, “This is not a new archaeological find, but only a rehashing of information that has been known for more than two decades. I think it’s important to remember that this ossuary evidence has been around since 1980, and was the subject of a BBC documentary in 1996. During these years, reputable international scholars and archaeologists have examined the ossuaries and have discounted this theory. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, has said that this theory fails to hold up by archeological standards, but makes for profitable television. Oscar-winning directors like James Cameron and reputable sources like the Discovery Channel generate interest in projects like this; however, nothing new has really been discovered that was not known in 1996. Reputable archaeologists, most of whom are not orthodox Christians, have denied any significance in this find.” 2. The location of the tomb discovered is not historically supported. John Hutchison said, “Another problem for this theory is the location of the family tomb. Why would a poor Galilean family have a burial tomb in Jerusalem? Located in south Jerusalem, this site is also far from the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The claim that Golgotha and the tomb of Jesus are located under the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is strongly supported archaeologically and historically. Helena, mother of Constantine, ordered the building of this church and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem approx. 325 AD, and buildings have existed on these sites ever since. Until at least 66 AD there had been a tradition for the Jerusalem community to hold celebrations of public worship at the tomb, in accordance of the Jewish practice of praying at the tombs of holy persons. The original Christian community knew where Christ had been executed and buried; but they were prohibited from entering Jerusalem after its destruction in 70. Yet the list of bishops of Jerusalem during this period is continuous, and the site of Christ's crucifixion seems to be known even at a later date. The decision of Hadrian (117-138) to eliminate Christian churches is a clear indication that in his time the veneration of Christian holy places was widespread. The Romans built a temple of Venus (Aphrodite) over the tomb (135 AD) and erected a statue of Jupiter on Golgotha. When the Empress Helen visited Jerusalem in 326, Bishop Macarius was able to give her information about the locations; In 326-35 AD Hadrian's temple was then replaced by a new church that became the shrine of Christendom. The information leading to this church as the burial place of Jesus thus has an unbroken archaeological and historical trail of information.” 2. This documentary challenges the Christian belief of a resurrection of Jesus Christ. Contrary to the Discovery Channel’s Web site, this documentary does challenge the Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection. Kevin Lewis, professor of theology and law said, “The “resurrection” of Jesus is defined as the reunification of His human spirit with His physical body after He was biologically dead for three days. The resurrection to new, physical, biological life is a permanent condition. As such, Jesus could not die again and leave a body in a tomb and later bones in an ossuary. Thus, the statement regarding a second tomb theory is completely absurd.” John Hutchison said, “Belief in the resurrection is based on BOTH the claim of an empty tomb and the appearances to hundreds of people later. The claim that Jesus’ body was moved from one tomb to another is based entirely on speculation, and it seems to me that the makers of the documentary are proposing it only to appease opponents who hold more traditional views. The traditional resurrection from any tomb could not have happened if bones are found in an ossuary. The story in John 20:11-18 is clearly emphasizing the missing body, followed immediately by Jesus’ first appearance to Mary Magdalene.” Clinton Arnold, professor of New Testament Language and Literature said, “This lacks historical plausibility. It must assume that Jesus’ disciples were able to come in stealth to a tomb guarded by a company of soldiers, move away the stone that sealed the entrance, and then steal the body of Jesus without the soldiers detecting them. The reenactment in the film conveniently did not depict any soldiers as present. The only reason for suggesting a second tomb is to explain how there could be a burial box with Jesus’ bones present there. But once again, if Jesus rose bodily from the grave, as the Scriptures and Christian tradition both proclaim, there would have been no bones for a secondary burial.” 3. According to the Web site, the discovery of the lost tomb does not challenge the ascension of Jesus Christ, only that the ascension was spiritual, not physical. John Hutchison responds: “The only trustworthy historical record we have of Jesus’ ascension is in Acts 1:9-12. The language is not symbolic here, but descriptive of physical events, specifically the disappearance of Jesus’ body into the clouds. If Jesus’ mortal remains were found, yes it would deny a physical ascension, but it would also deny a physical resurrection. The preaching of the early church linked these two truths—resurrection & ascension—as both true and inextricably linked. Spiritual ascension would not seem to me to be acceptable.” 4. According to the documentary, the names found inscribed on the ossuaries belong to Jesus of Nazareth and his family. Also suggesting that Jesus was married and had a family and heir. John Hutchison says, “Scholars and archaeologists who have examined this find since 1980 have described all the names on the ossuaries as very common names from the first century. The makers of this documentary claim the appearance of these particular names together in a family tomb increases the odds it is the tomb of Jesus’ family. But why does it? Neither the canonical Gospels nor tradition include Mary Magdalene in Jesus’ family. The claim that the coincidence of these names increases the chances that this is Jesus’ family is a false claim. Clinton Arnold, Professor of New Testament said, “The statistical argument falls apart if Mariamene e Mara cannot be interpreted as referring to Mary Magdalene. The University of Toronto statistician cited in the film admitted this in the “Critical Look” segment that aired immediately following the two-hour special. He noted, “I must work from the interpretations given to me.” It is highly doubtful that Mariamene e Mara was Mary Magdalene. There is no evidence at all that the name Mariamne was ever used of Mary Magdalene. This was noted and stated quite forcefully by Jonathan Reed in the Ted Koppel special. Mariamne was also a very popular name among Jews from that era. It appears 75 times in the writings of Josephus. The film moved into unrestrained and foolish speculation when it inferred that since “Mara” can mean “master,” Mary Magdalene became “Jesus’ most trusted apostle” and thus merited the title, “master.” “One of the ossuaries clearly had the inscription, Yehuda bar Yeshua (Judah, son of Jesus/Joshua). But once again we need to observe that we are dealing with the commonest of Jewish names. “Judah son of Joshua” would have fit many individuals in Palestine during the Hellenistic and Roman era. That one could infer from this piece of evidence alone that Jesus must have had a secret sexual relationship with a woman, fathered a child, and that his name was Judah— without a shred of any other corroborating evidence and piles of historical evidence to the contrary—is an irresponsible and sensationalistic journalistic claim.” 7. How have other archaeologists and biblical scholars responded to this interpretation of the tomb? Clinton Arnold: “It is still too early to tell how they will respond, but many who have weighed in on this have expressed considerable doubt. The Jerusalem Post reports that Amos Kloner, the archaeologist who oversaw the archaeological work at the Talpiot tomb, has said that “it makes a great story for a TV film. But it’s completely impossible. It’s nonsense. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem.” In an interview with the Scientific American, Professor Tal Ilan, whose Lexicon of Jewish Names was essential to the statistical argument, expressed outrage over the film and its use of her work.1 Also in an interview with the Scientific American, Jodi Magness, Professor of Archaeology and Jewish History at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, expressed disdain over the unprofessional way that this research had been carried out: “the entire way this has been done has been an injustice to the entire discipline and also to the public.” ‘ 8. How should Christians respond? Clinton Arnold: “This is a great opportunity to talk to friends, co-workers, and neighbors about Jesus. How often does the opportunity so easily present itself to discuss the events that stand at the heart of the gospel—the death and resurrection of Jesus? “ Several Biola professors, including Clint Arnold, John Hutchison and Kevin Lewis, are available to talk to the media responding to claims made by the documentary.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media Proceedings of the Duke University Conference, April 23–24, 2009
    Offprint from: Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media Proceedings of the Duke University Conference, April 23–24, 2009 Edited by Eric M. Meyers and Carol Meyers Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2012 © 2012 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Archaeology, bible, politics, and the media : proceedings of the Duke University conference, April 23–24, 2009 / edited by Eric M. Meyers and Carol Meyers. pages ; cm. — (Duke Judaic studies series ; volume 4) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-237-2 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Archaeology in mass media—Congresses. 2. Archaeology—Political aspects—Congresses. 3. Archaeology and history—Mediterranean Region—Congresses. 4. Archaeology and state—Congresses. 5. Cultural property—Protection—Congresses. I. Meyers, Eric M., editor. II. Meyers, Carol L., editor. CC135.A7322 2012 930.1—dc23 2012036477 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the Amer- ican National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ♾ ™ Contents List of Contributors . viii Introduction . 1 Eric M. Meyers and Carol Meyers Part 1 Cultural Heritage The Media and Archaeological Preservation in Iraq: A Tale of Politics, Media, and the Law . 15 Patty Gerstenblith Part 2 Archaeology and the Media Fabulous Finds or Fantastic Forgeries? The Distortion of Archaeology by the Media and Pseudoarchaeologists and What We Can Do About It . 39 Eric H. Cline Dealing with the Media: Response to Eric H. Cline . 51 Joe Zias The Talpiyot Tomb and the Bloggers .
    [Show full text]
  • 4Th Sunday in Lent March 2, 2008 INTRODUCTION Sight Is A
    4th Sunday in Lent March 2, 2008 INTRODUCTION Sight is a wonderful gift, but what we see with our mind and heart is even of greater value. God helps us to see clearly. We have examples of that inner vision in all of today’s readings. Our first reading takes us back 1000 years before Christ when the prophet Samuel had to choose a king from among the sons of Jesse of Bethlehem. They all had the dignity and physical characteristics of potentially good leaders, but God knew who would make the best king. Paul tells us we have been enlightened by Christ and in the gospel we hear how a man born blind not only had his eyes opened by Christ but his heart, whereas those who claimed to be able to see were blinded by arrogance. HOMILY Two weeks ago, I appealed to all of our parishioners for their support of the Catholic Ministries Appeal. It is going well. We are about $2500 short of our $15,000 goal. I am most grateful to all who have responded. There has been one item that a few people have been confused about. In past years, at this time of the year, we have had the Archdiocesan Fund Drive. Some are wondering if another appeal is coming next. The answer is: No! I wanted to make another appeal to you today, not for money, but for your involvement at Mass. You might have noticed that last week and this week we’ve been singing some hymns you might not have heard for years, such as All the Earth Proclaim the Lord; Yes, I Shall Arise; My Soul is Longing for Your Peace.
    [Show full text]
  • THE TOMB of JESUS Easter 2007 4/5/07 We Are Here This Morning
    THE TOMB OF JESUS Easter 2007 4/5/07 We are here this morning to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ and to worship our risen Lord. Christianity is at its very heart a resurrection religion. If you remove the resurrection, Christianity is destroyed. Christ deliberately staked his credibility upon his resurrection. Twenty times in the gospel accounts we find Jesus announcing that He would rise from the dead We find the disciples proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection 145 times in the book of Acts alone. Historian Philip Schaff writes “The resurrection of Christ is therefore emphatically a test question upon which depends the truth or falsehood of the Christian religion.” On Sunday, March 4th the Discovery Channel aired a so-called documentary called, The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Movie director James Cameron (Titanic) claims that he has found the lost tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem. Along with Jesus’ tomb he claims to have found graves in the same general area of Jesus’ mother, father, supposed wife, (Mary Magdalene), and a son, Judah. A headline in the New York Time’s blog read “Raising the Titanic, Sinking Christianity?” Time followed, proclaiming that “this time the ship sinking is Christianity.” If indeed they have found the remains of Jesus, then Christianity has been debunked once and for all. But the question remains, “Is the tomb Cameron found really the tomb of Jesus? The site of Jesus’ supposed tomb was first found and excavated 27 years ago. Prominent Israeli archeologist Amos Kloner conducted extensive work and research on this tomb and its ossuaries ten years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Jesus Was Not Buried in Talpiot
    Jesus was not buried in Talpiot Louis C. de Figueiredo Earlier this year Discovery Channel aired the programme “The Lost Tomb Of Jesus” directed by James Cameron and largely based on some investigation made by the Israeli-born, Canadian-based film maker Simcha Jacobovici. In conjunction with the film came the companion book The Jesus Family Tomb. The Discovery, the Investigation and the Evidence That Could Change History by Jacobovici and the paleobiologist Charles Pellegrino. It was claimed that a tomb discovered during some construction work in the East Talpiot region of Jerusalem in 1980 contained the ossuaries of Jesus and his family because they had inscriptions saying: Yeshua bar Josef/ Jesus, son of Joseph Maria Matia/ Matthew Yose/ Joseph Yehuda bar Yeshua/ Judah, son of Jesus Mariamene e Mara Some of the ossuaries were found broken. Of those found intact five had inscriptions in Hebrew or Aramaic, one in Greek, and the last one was plain. In his report A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiyot, Jerusalem Prof. Amos Kloner, then Jerusalem’s District Archaeologist, explained that the Greek inscription ‘Mariamene e Mara’ referred to a Mariamene, a variant of the name Mariam, Maryam and Marya, while ‘Mara’ was a contraction of Martha, this name also being “common in the Jewish feminine onomasticon.” ‘Mariamene’ was central to the programme because it was interpreted as referring to Mary Magdalene. “That’s the ringo, that’s what sets the whole film in motion”, the producer said. The claim that the Talpiot tomb was the “Jesus family Tomb”, and particularly that “Mariamene e Mara” meant “Mary Magdalene, the Master” provoked bitter contestation and indignant criticism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lost Tomb of Jesus 1 Anarchist Archaeology
    April 15, 2007 The Lost Tomb Of Jesus 1 Anarchist Archaeology The program opens with an excavation at a construction site in Jerusalem would fit since Magdala was described as a Greek speaking area. First of all for a new apartment complex. Children playing in the area discover what there is the continual reference to the “Jesus” family and the Jesus family appears to be a tomb and archaeologists are called in. The tomb, similar tomb. The site of the tomb is a problem first of all. Family tombs, if that is to many others, is assumed to be from around the first century A.D. be- what we are dealing with would have been situated near the individuals home, fore the destruction of Jerusalem. Inside the burial site are limestone ossu- not some place they visited. Christ grew up in Nazareth. His earthly father, aries, stone coffins, containing the remains of what are assumed to be Joseph, was from Bethlehem, which might be considered close enough to be a family members in each of the tombs. On the side of each ossuary is an suburb of Jerusalem, but the excavation site is not outside Jerusalem, it ap- inscription with the name of the person and this is where the program be- pears to be in the heart of the city and is not far from the mosque of the rock gins to hint that there has been a cover-up of a great find. The name on which marks the site of the temple in the first century. If Christ had been bur- one of the stone boxes is Yeshua who is immediately referred to as ied, I would expect to find the tomb for the family in Nazareth or Bethlehem, “Jesus”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lost Tomb of Jesus
    The Annals of Applied Statistics 2008, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1–2 DOI: 10.1214/08-AOAS162 c Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2008 EDITORIAL: STATISTICS AND “THE LOST TOMB OF JESUS” By Stephen E. Fienberg Carnegie Mellon University What makes a problem suitable for statistical analysis? Are historical and religious questions addressable using statistical calculations? Such issues have long been debated in the statistical community and statisticians and others have used historical information and texts to analyze such questions as the economics of slavery, the authorship of the Federalist Papers and the question of the existence of God. But what about historical and religious attributions associated with information gathered from archeological finds? In 1980, a construction crew working in the Jerusalem neighborhood of East Talpiot stumbled upon a crypt. Archaeologists from the Israel Antiqui- ties Authority came to the scene and found 10 limestone burial boxes, known as ossuaries, in the crypt. Six of these had inscriptions. The remains found in the ossuaries were reburied, as required by Jewish religious tradition, and the ossuaries were catalogued and stored in a warehouse. The inscriptions on the ossuaries were catalogued and published by Rahmani (1994) and by Kloner (1996) but there reports did not receive widespread public attention. Fast forward to March 2007, when a television “docudrama” aired on The Discovery Channel entitled “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”1 touched off a public and religious controversy—one only need think about the title to see why there might be a controversy! The program, and a simultaneously published book [Jacobovici and Pellegrino (2007)], described the “rediscovery” of the East Talpiot archeological find and they presented interpretations of the ossuary inscriptions from a number of perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lost Tomb of Jesus”
    The Annals of Applied Statistics 2008, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1–2 DOI: 10.1214/08-AOAS162 © Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2008 EDITORIAL: STATISTICS AND “THE LOST TOMB OF JESUS” BY STEPHEN E. FIENBERG Carnegie Mellon University What makes a problem suitable for statistical analysis? Are historical and reli- gious questions addressable using statistical calculations? Such issues have long been debated in the statistical community and statisticians and others have used historical information and texts to analyze such questions as the economics of slavery, the authorship of the Federalist Papers and the question of the existence of God. But what about historical and religious attributions associated with informa- tion gathered from archeological finds? In 1980, a construction crew working in the Jerusalem neighborhood of East Talpiot stumbled upon a crypt. Archaeologists from the Israel Antiquities Author- ity came to the scene and found 10 limestone burial boxes, known as ossuaries, in the crypt. Six of these had inscriptions. The remains found in the ossuaries were re- buried, as required by Jewish religious tradition, and the ossuaries were catalogued and stored in a warehouse. The inscriptions on the ossuaries were catalogued and published by Rahmani (1994) and by Kloner (1996) but there reports did not re- ceive widespread public attention. Fast forward to March 2007, when a television “docudrama” aired on The Dis- covery Channel entitled “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”1 touched off a public and reli- gious controversy—one only need think about the title to see why there might be a controversy! The program, and a simultaneously published book [Jacobovici and Pellegrino (2007)], described the “rediscovery” of the East Talpiot archeological find and they presented interpretations of the ossuary inscriptions from a number of perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Lost Tomb of Jesus.” the Good News Is University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, Said He Balk at the Filmmaker's Claim That the James That Jesus Is Still Attractive
    On March 4, 2007 the Discovery Channel aired a special * Academic Stephen Pfann, a scholar at the An AP Report tells us, "Archaeologists also on finding the “lost tomb of Jesus.” The Good News is University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, said he balk at the filmmaker's claim that the James that Jesus is still attractive. 2,000 years later and people did not expect Christians to accept the film's Ossuary _ the center of a famous antiquities are still interested in Him. Of course! His is the only findings. "I don't think that Christians are going to fraud in Israel _ might have originated from the name by which people can be saved and there is a spot buy into this," said Mr Pfann, who was interviewed same cave. In 2005, Israel charged five in the heart of every person that longs for Jesus. The real by the film-makers. "But sceptics, in general, would suspects with forgery in connection with the Jesus that is. But did they find the tomb of Jesus? OK, like to see something that pokes holes into the story infamous bone box." let's take a look! that so many people hold dear." * Darrell Bock, a professor at Dallas Seminary, Here are the facts as they stand: * Some Jerusalem residents are excited. "It will whom the Discovery Channel had vet the film mean our house prices will go up because two weeks ago, adds another objection: why * The documentary is produced by Oscar winner James Christians will want to live here," one woman said.
    [Show full text]
  • Talpiot Tomb Analysis Sjp3a
    1 Demythologyzing the Talpiot Tomb: The Tomb of Another Jesus, Mary and Joseph By Stephen Pfann, Ph.D. University of the Holy Land [Pl. 1: Photo of Tabor, Jacobovici, Cameron with CJO 701 and 704] The 2007 documentary on the Talpiot Tomb produced by Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron in cooperation with professor of religion James Tabor, superimposed the faces of Mary Magdalene, Jesus and Mary the mother of Jesus on the the tomb's ossuaries including those pictured above. This image has captured the imagination of many by attaching the identity of the first century's most famous family to these ossuaries. The documentaryʼs claim that these ossuaries can be identified as those of Jesus and his family is based on the following assumptions: 1) the cluster of names found in the tomb includes the names Joseph, Mary, Jesus and Joseh makes this tomb statistically significant; 2) finding an ossuary a Jesus son of Joseph and, perhaps more importantly of a "Mary also called Mara", perported to be Mary Magdalene, providing the "Ringo", the linch pin, that forms the basis of an astounding hypothesis. 3) the existence of other followers of Jesus, including Simon Peter, in Jerusalem's necropolis increases the likelihood that Jesus' family tomb appropriately belongs in the same area. According to the hypothesis built upon these premises, it would be extremely unlikely if it was the tomb of anyone other than the central character of the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth and his family. However, marshalling in the inscriptional evidence on names at our disposal from the Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries and Dominus Flavit it becomes clear that these names are far from unique, in fact they are among the 1st century Jewish worldʼs most common names.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Ebook ~ Alleged Tombs of Jesus: Church of the Holy
    CMYY3MDY85JR » Doc » Alleged tombs of Jesus: Church of the Holy Sepulchre, The Lost Tomb... Find Doc ALLEGED TOMBS OF JESUS: CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE, THE LOST TOMB OF JESUS, TALPIOT TOMB, CALVARY, RENNES-LE-CHâTEAU, EMPTY TOMB, SHINGÅ Download PDF Alleged tombs of Jesus: Church of the Holy Sepulchre, The Lost Tomb of Jesus, Talpiot Tomb, Calvary, Rennes-le-Château, Empty tomb, ShingÅ Authored by Source: Wikipedia Released at 2016 Filesize: 5.01 MB To open the PDF file, you need Adobe Reader computer software. If you do not have Adobe Reader already installed on your computer, you can download the installer and instructions free from the Adobe Web site. You could possibly download and install and save it on your personal computer for later on study. Make sure you follow the link above to download the PDF file. Reviews An incredibly awesome publication with lucid and perfect answers. This can be for all those who statte that there was not a well worth reading. You wont feel monotony at at any time of your time (that's what catalogues are for concerning when you ask me). -- Destiny Hahn This pdf is very gripping and intriguing. It is writter in easy words and phrases rather than difficult to understand. You are going to like just how the article writer publish this ebook. -- Geovany Weimann It is an remarkable publication that I actually have ever study. It really is rally interesting throgh studying period of time. Your daily life period is going to be transform the instant you complete reading this article pdf.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the Jesus Family Tomb and the Lost Tomb of Jesus by Ronald V
    THE DEVIL’S IN THE DETAILS: A Review of The Jesus Family Tomb and The Lost Tomb of Jesus By Ronald V. Huggins, Th.D. Salt Lake Theological Seminary Copyright © 2007 Ronald V. Huggins. All rights reserved. In springtime the thoughts of young media folk and religious book editors turn fondly to the mountains of shekels they’re gonna rake in off this year’s just-in-time-for-Easter “scholars discover radical new take on Jesus” story. Last year it was the Gospel of Judas and Ron Howard’s film rendition of The Da Vinci Code. The first horse out of the gate this Easter season was Simcha Jocobovici’s documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus that aired on the evening of Sunday March 4th, on the Discovery Channel, with 4.1 million viewers the largest audience for that network since September 2005.1 I bought my copy of the accompanying book, co-authored by Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino (along with, I suspect, an uncredited ghostwriter or two), entitled The Jesus Family Tomb, at one of the local Barnes and Nobles on the first of March. I had been keeping my eye out for it after reading of its release on Ben Witherington’s blog a few days earlier. Where I live the program played from 11 at night to 1 in the morning, not exactly prime time, and I had to impose on friends who had cable and who would put up with me camped out in their living room until the wee hours. By the time the show was over and I had made the long drive home it was 3 AM.
    [Show full text]
  • Quarles' "Buried Hope Or Risen Savior: the Search for the Jesus Tomb
    Volume 58 | Issue 2 Article 14 2015 Quarles' "Buried Hope or Risen Savior: The eS arch for the Jesus Tomb" (Book Review) Hannah Bitner Calvary Bible College and Calvary Theological Seminary The Christian Librarian is the official publication of the Association of Christian Librarians (ACL). To learn more about ACL and its products and services please visit http://www.acl.org/ Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/tcl Recommended Citation Bitner, Hannah (2015) "Quarles' "Buried Hope or Risen Savior: The eS arch for the Jesus Tomb" (Book Review)," The Christian Librarian: Vol. 58 : Iss. 2 , Article 14. Available at: http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/tcl/vol58/iss2/14 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Christian Librarian by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Book Reviews intends to follow this book with another, more in-depth study of “American political development” (p. xii). Here, DiIulio makes a persuasive argument for hiring more highly qualified and trained bureaucrats in order to tame the “Leviathan by Proxy” (p. 21). His phrase refers to the government mess composed of overworked bureaucrats as well as myriad contractors who are not held accountable for poor performance or for lobbying congress for their own interests (p. 16). He suggests that having more bureaucrats would lead to better management of monies and increased security (pp. 64, 68). Besides increasing the number of official government workers, he proposes that the executive and legislative branches perform their constitutional roles rather than – as they are currently doing – trade them with each other (pp.
    [Show full text]