Steven Avery

Good question. Perhaps Tabor et al will in essence (and very quietly) claim that the photo is valid and ancient but misdated (I do not know offhand the basis for the 76 date). Then they would be defacto accusing Golen of pushing the photo back to before the 78 law (the critical date where the new law would have made the ossuary Israeli government property). At least one could see a motivation, although obviously it is hard to defend the theory of the more truthful lie - and it is a bit of a strange triangle. Can others help here ?

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Stats have no solidity in the sense of validity outside of proper assumptions and interpretations, both of which are lacking terribly here. They can have mathematical consistency and accuracy and that is probably what you meant. The multiplications "worked".

Shalom,
Steven

Ruhan

FBI analysis in the trial have shown that the paper on which the photo was printed came from teh 1970's, however the photo itself could have been printed after 1978, which is when Israeli legislation changed in regards to the sale of antiquities.

This is important in the trial because if the ossuary was purchased before 1978 then it would have been a legitimate sale. The defendant is obviously arguing that this was the case, however this might just be a tactic of the defence which is unfortunately undermining this entire investigation. I.e. it might have been taken from the Talpiot tomb in 1980 but Oded Golan is now trying to make it appear as if he had it before 1978.

Ruhan

For anyone who is interested, Tabor has responded to Joe Zias' claim that he personally handled the 10th ossuary and that it was a blank ossuary without any mention of "James son of Joseph".

Tabor states that when he interviewed Zias last year, Zias could not recall who handled these ossuaries back in 1980 and that he didn't believe that he himself recorded these. Zias was also the "lone voice in the wilderness" which asked for further investigation into this cluster of names back in 1996, which is in stark contrast with his current position.

One can only wonder what Zias' motives are with his recent media blitz.

You can read the entire response by Tabor here

Malachi151

The big problem is, I can't take anyone with a website and book called "Jesus Dynasty" seriously....

Ruhan

You took the Jesus Puzzle seriously...

Surely you have to admit that your bias is a little bit superficial?

The biggest weakness of this find is the way in which it has been presented to the public. The whole media frenzy and tacky marketing has had more attention paid to it, than the actual conclusions and the accompanying supporting evidence.

Hopefully once the hype has subsided a less biased formal peer review will be conducted so that we can seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Malachi151

Sorry, but its not the same thing, and also, I didn't take the Jesus Puzzle seriously at first either.

Just look at the front page of his website:

http://jesusdynasty.com/

This is the biggest load of fantasy crap I've ever read. It's like reading a teenagers D&D novel.

As I have said before, I think that calling Tabor a "scholar" is a stretch.

Ruhan

Which should make teach you that you can't judge a book by it's cover.

Now you don't like the web design?

Ehrman said it was a great book and the University of North Carolina recognizes his scholarly credentials.

It just comes across as if you are as dogmatic about your MJ theory as most Evangelicals are about their version of HJ. I don't want to sound patronising but you do come across as being more intelligent than that. We should be open to all options if new evidence becomes available and in this case some scholars such as Carrier and Charlesworth have responded positively to Tabor's conclusions. Let's at least give it chance once he delivers his formal paper on this find.

All the best,

Ruhan

Malachi151

No, Tabor is crafting pseduo-history out of inferences made from contradictory and unverifiable church tradition, mythology, and assumptions made from unrelated historical knowledge of the time, i.e. assuming that Jesus was a rabbi, and then claiming that Jesus did various things because we have accounts of other rabbis doing those things, etc.

As far as I can see his "scholarship" is a turd.

Notsri

Does the film claim (I have not seen it) that the form Jose is generally uncommon in the ancient world, or merely that it is rarely found on ossuaries in particular?

I ask because the name Jose is used with some frequency in the talmudic literature: Jacob Neusner's Dictionary of Ancient Rabbis lists 18 Joses. It also appears severally in, e.g., the wall inscriptions from the Beth She'arim tombs (6 times by my count).

It is interesting to note, incidentally, that one Beth She'arim inscription makes the connection between the name Joseph and the diminutive form Jose rather explicit: inscribed in Hebrew is the name Joseph son of Isaac, and below it, in Greek, Jose son of Isaac. (It might also be worth mentioning that the two Talmuds often vacillate between Jose and Joseph: a certain Jose in the Jerusalem Talmud, e.g., might be Joseph in the Babylonian Talmud.)