blastula

I don't know if it's legible or not, but a site like that blog won't convince me either way. The site looks like a hoax itself. It offers no citations or sources for its claims and even has this disclaimer.

Charles Gadda

Blastula:

I think you quote what they say out of context, it doesn't exactly sound like a disclaimer to me -- you left out the next sentence of their statement:

"Although many people are unaware of this situation, there is currently a sad state of affairs, in which traditional Qumranologists control an entire power structure and have shown no qualms whatsoever in threatening to ruin the careers of young scholars who have come to see that little or no evidence supports the old theory of Scroll origins."

This has indeed been known to happen in the past (it's an open secret in Qumranological academics), so I see no reason to doubt that those people know what they are talking about. After all, they post a photo of the inscription tracing, as well as the paragraph from the Jerusalem Post stating that several experts have said the inscription is illegible, so anyone who knows Hebrew or Aramaic can judge for himself.

Clearly, if there is any remaining doubt, a committee of paleographical semitics experts should be appointed to decide the matter. If anyone sees the name there, he needs to explain the reading -- where does he see the characters forming that name, or the alternative "Hunan" proposed by Pfann? I for one can't make out either of those names there.

blastula

Regardless of whether their anonymity is out of valid concerns or not, unsourced claims like these are worthless to the reader. It's no better than saying, "my brother-in-law's cousin's friend says so."

The Post quote they use also cites unnamed sources.

The blog post also says

From their link, manipulation is not at all clear to me.

All their claims may be true, but they've given no good reason to accept them.

Charles Gadda

Well, you may be right that they shouldn't have used the word "manipulation", but they quote the following statement by Jacobovici in response to the question why the other ossuaries weren't tested for DNA:

"We're not scientists. At the end of the day we can't wait till every ossuary is tested for DNA. We took the story that far. At some point you have to say, I've done my job as a journalist."

And it seems to me that they are clearly justified in asserting that this statement is "disingenuous" and gives rise to the suspicion that the makers of the film decided not to proceed with further DNA tests because they feared such tests might reveal that none of the buried remains were related to one another, in which case there would have been no reason to make the film at all.

It seems to me that one can quarrel with one point or another, but when all of the elements (illegible "Jesus", DNA, statistics) are put together, there is an almost overwhelming case that this film is in essence based on mere conjecture and that the only argument in its favor is that it is not entirely implausible.

And if one adds to this the other bizzare and unsustainable "Essene latrine" claims recently made by James Tabor, one begins to see a pattern of improper behaviour on the part of a small group of academics who are making sensationalist claims for profit.

Charles Gadda

P.s. I have informed them by comment of your point about the term "manipulation"; they say that you are right and they are going to correct their statement accordingly.

Steven Avery

Hi Charles,

Yes, your point is well-taken. 'Missing' mentioning the fact that the primary name is largely guesswork or conjecture is fundamental. Any exposition that is trying to be honest and fair rather than sensationalistic would have to make this very clear and then go on from that point. However it might not feed the ratings or the bogus probability aspect.

I'll pass on the comparison of the two items as to which is more significant (methodology of probability manipulation or hiding the unclarity of the primary name, Jesus). They are two peas from the same pod, linked by DNA.

Shalom shabbat,
Steven Avery

Johnny Skeptic

In order for a body to presumed missing from a tomb, it must first be reasonably established that it was put in the tomb in the first place. What reasonable evidence is there that the body of Jesus was put in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb? How many people saw the body put in Joseph's tomb? Who were they? Were they considered to be reliable eyewitnesses?

Charles Gadda

Steven Avery:

Your point on two peas in a pod is well taken; as usual, my use of the term "fundamental" was rather glib -- what I meant to say is that the illegibility is more fundamental not in the sense of significance, but in the sense that it is logically prior to the statistical problem per se.

The DNA and illegibility problems do have a parallel logic:

(1) If further DNA tests had been performed revealing a lack of relation between the various individuals buried in the crypt, there would have been no basis at all for the film. [Therefore, no further DNA tests were performed.]

(2) If the illegibility of the conjectured name had been properly addressed, there may also have been little or no basis for the entire idea of performing a statistical analysis (as Jacobovici admitted to the Jerusalem Post: "If this doesn't say Jesus, yes, it all falls apart"). [Therefore, the problem of illegibility of the name was essentially ignored.]

The bracketed statements are disputable in that they depend on the conclusion that someone intentionally engaged in these omissions. This conclusion is, of course, not necessary, but it is possible; one must ask in each case whether the disingenuous nature of the explanations given results simply from incompetence or if it reflects actual intent.

Steven Avery

Hi Charles,
This refinement is appreciated.

In regard to the DNA what do you think of the Simcha contention (granted, when spoken it sounded a bit like a fallback position) that getting DNA from other ossuaries would be very difficult. That sounded like they were bone-chip free and scrubbed down with Mr. Clean. And that they would need super-science to try to come up with anything. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt on this unless there is specific evidence against. He was claiming that the two ossuaries tested were exceptional.

Incidentally the Discovery site has made three major changes on the probability claims, as reported on NT Gateway blog (Mark Goodacre).

http://ntgateway.com/weblog/ - March 16th.

I give my view of the changes there on the blog and also on this post on the Jesus Dynasty Forum.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusDynasty/message/3509
Re: [JesusDynasty] Getting Some Clarity on the Talpiot Tomb

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Charles Gadda

I don't give him the credit of the doubt. First he gave the "I'm only a journalist" excuse at considerable length to the NYTimes, then he repeated it to Koppel, and finally he fell back on the other explanation. Why didn't he say so to begin with? After all, it was rather an obvious problem that was bound to arise. Did he just forget that it was impossible to get DNA from the other ossuaries? Why wasn't this discussed in the film? Is there any evidence that they attempted to get DNA from them? Etc.