Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-21-2008, 02:53 PM

I see that there is now an archeoporn blog.

From that blog

Quote:

Archaeoporn n. - Archaeology utilizing selective analysis of facts and evidence to either entertain or prove a point predetermined by the individuals involved. Frequently, the individuals involved seek to oppose scholarly work due to personal offense or rejection. Such works generally appeal to popular crowds, and are presented in venues targeting such without any peer review. - word source Dr. William Dever

...

Thaddeus Nelson is a PHD student at Stony Brook University in Long Island, studying in the Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Science, with a focus on archaeology of Iron Age Syria-Palestine. Before this, he attended Columbia University for and MA in Religions of Late Antiquities and Rutgers University where he received a combined BS in Computer Science and Religion with an accompanying minor in anthropology.

His major area of study is Iron Age religion and ethnicity, which he is currently exploring through consumption choices evident through faunal remains. Past research includes an honors thesis on the impact of Zoroastrianism on postexilic Judaism and encyclopedia articles on the Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia, Biblical oral tradition, Mesopotamian archaeology and the Bible, and Canaanite child sacrifice.

. . .

Minimalist · 01-22-2008, 09:30 AM

Looks like Jacobovici got caught again!!!

http://drjimwest.wordpress.com/2008/...-is-thy-truth/

Quote:
Talpiot O Talpiot, How Mangled Is Thy Truth
January 21, 2008
And many of the scholars who attended the Conference in Jerusalem which has been so much in the news and so biblio-bloggified have protested in what I would classify an “Open Letter to the Media” (though they don’t call it that; but perhaps only because they don’t have the gift of titularization that I myself gladly possess).

Here it is (via Mark ‘the good’ Goodacre). And do note that Mark has the personal integrity not simply to lift the piece wholesale and plop it on his blog as another well known NT person has done with Rollston’s posting.

The concluding part is to the point indeed:

To conclude, we wish to protest the misrepresentation of the conference proceedings in the media, and make it clear that the majority of scholars in attendance – including all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb - either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly unlikely. Sincerely,

Professor Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Professor Eric M. Meyers, Duke University
Choon-Leon Seow, Princeton Theological Seminary
F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Princeton Theological Seminary
Lee McDonald, Princeton Theological Seminary, visiting
Rachel Hachlili, Haifa University
Motti Aviam, University of Rochester
Amos Kloner, Bar Ilan University
Christopher Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion
Shimon Gibson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Joe Zias, Science and Antiquity Group, Jerusalem
Jonathan Price, Tel Aviv University
C.D. Elledge, Gutavus Adolphus College

I would note, though, that it isn’t just the media which is evidently misrepresenting the proceedings. Various media related media hounds and fame-seekers have as well- for their own reasons of course.

gilly54 · 01-23-2008, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Professor Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Professor Eric M. Meyers, Duke University
Choon-Leon Seow, Princeton Theological Seminary
F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Princeton Theological Seminary
Lee McDonald, Princeton Theological Seminary, visiting
Rachel Hachlili, Haifa University
Motti Aviam, University of Rochester
Amos Kloner, Bar Ilan University
Christopher Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion
Shimon Gibson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Joe Zias, Science and Antiquity Group, Jerusalem
Jonathan Price, Tel Aviv University
C.D. Elledge, Gutavus Adolphus College

I would note, though, that it isn’t just the media which is evidently misrepresenting the proceedings. Various media related media hounds and fame-seekers have as well- for their own reasons of course.

Four (almost 30%) of these guys are from seminaries or religious schools. Of course they would proclaim Jesus' tomb a hoax. They shouldn't be included in an investigation that is entirely in the domain of archeological science.

Minimalist · 01-24-2008, 08:55 AM

While I might agree with you, I didn't make up the guest list for the conference. Apparently, James Charlesworth, another of those Seminarians, organized the conference and seems determined to breathe life back into this corpse.

Thus, the existence of 4 of them on the list of critics indicates that there is a split even in the ranks of seminarians on this point. I find that refreshing. It is good to see that there are some ideas that even they can't endorse.

Minimalist · 01-24-2008, 09:03 AM

BTW, Joe Zias, who signed the letter, has now published his own account.

http://www.joezias.com/talpiot.htm

Quote:

Now that the damage has been done the sponsors behind the Talpiot tomb publicity stunt are claiming on their blogs that they were misunderstood, ill advised etc. and that the jury is still out on their claim, whereas the truth is just the opposite, the overwhelming majority, if not nearly all scholars present, except one, regarded this as but a shameful and distasteful attempt to achieve fame and fortune at the expense of colleagues, the Holocaust and the profession.

Minimalist · 01-24-2008, 09:14 AM

Jonathan Reed's review of Jacobovici's book on the tomb.

http://bookreviews.org/pdf/5934_6304.pdf

andrewcriddle · 01-24-2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

James Tabor is now claiming that his critics' beliefs that Jesus rose bodily from his tomb and other non-scholarly irrelevancies are getting in the way of evaluating the claim.

He does make some interesting points on the different treatment given this tomb from other tombs - people are more willing to accept the tomb of Caiaphas on a similar amount of evidence.

I don't know how strong is the evidence for the putative family tomb of Caiaphas but one obvious difference in the two cases is that the there would have been, before the discovery of the alleged Caiaphas family tomb, general consensus that such a tomb had at some time existed.

The idea that there ever existed a Jesus family tomb in Jerusalem in which Jesus and most of his close relatives were interred, does seem from almost any standpoint much more speculative, prima facie less likely, than in the case of Caiaphas.

Hence one can legitimately require somewhat stronger evidence in this case, than for a claim to have discovered something that everyone agrees once existed.

Andrew Criddle

Minimalist · 01-24-2008, 12:31 PM

Of course. Caiaphas (Qafa) would have been from a well-known family that would be expected to have a tomb in or near Jerusalem. Contrast that with a supposed nobody from Nazareth. If there were a Jesus family tomb, one would expect it to be in Galilee not Jerusalem. However, the poor could not afford tombs.

Toto · 01-24-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Jonathan Reed's review of Jacobovici's book on the tomb.

http://bookreviews.org/pdf/5934_6304.pdf

Thanks for this.

Quote:

The inclusion of the James ossuary in the equation increases the probability but strains credulity. A test on the patina from the James and Jesus ossuaries, tracing the elements with a Scanning Electron Microscope/EDS is said to match. But that kind of test tells us much more about the composition, care, and storage of the ossuaries than the microclimate of a single cave. The authors’ appeal to the James ossuary deceives the reader. We are told that its owner, Oded Golan, is on trial for forging the inscription. This is only partially true. He is in fact charged with being part of a larger antiquities fraud ring with a complete workshop full of inscribed artifacts in various states of production, as well as denticular drills, chemicals, and soil samples from archaeological sites. He is being prosecuted by the IAA, not persecuted.

But this concerns Jacobovici, who is a filmmaker and not a scholar.

In the interests of full disclosure, Reed teaches at a Christian-owned institution, the University of LaVerne, better known in LA for its IT training. But I see no reason to doubt his objectivity. He adds:

Quote:

Fanciful speculation on the “mysterious” chevron symbol above the tomb’s entrance is given much space and even tied to Knights Templar. But the design is common on Jewish ossuary lids, and similar faux-gables appear on tomb facades; the faux-gabled roof and circular patera are also common in Roman domestic shrines (lararia). The chevron symbol is indeed interesting, but only insofar as it shows Jewish adaptation of Roman architectural or ornamental themes. Contrary to almost universal scholarly consensus against the existence of pre-Constantian crosses, the authors argue that x-marks on a few ossuaries are crosses and that the so-called “cross” at Herculaneaum is a Christian mark. They further accept the now outdated Franciscan theory of Jewish-Christians burials at Dominus Flevit in Jerusalem and even argue to have found Peter’s ossuary (with the inscription Simon bar Jonah).

Toto · 01-24-2008, 01:50 PM

BAR has a new online section: AIRING DIFFERENCES "Jesus Tomb" Controversy Erupts—Again

However the only "difference" aired is between Tabor and the rest of the commentators.

Quote:

• 15 Scholars Protest “Vindication” Claim
• The Vindication Claim
• Dubious Mary Magdalene Identification
• Lemaire: It’s Very Improbable
• Vermes: No Support Whatever
• Gibson: Not Vindicated in Any Way
• Tabor: It Could Be the Tomb
• Zias: Deliberate Misrepresentation?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-22-2008, 09:30 AM	#12
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	Looks like Jacobovici got caught again!!! http://drjimwest.wordpress.com/2008/...-is-thy-truth/ Quote: Talpiot O Talpiot, How Mangled Is Thy Truth January 21, 2008 And many of the scholars who attended the Conference in Jerusalem which has been so much in the news and so biblio-bloggified have protested in what I would classify an “Open Letter to the Media” (though they don’t call it that; but perhaps only because they don’t have the gift of titularization that I myself gladly possess). Here it is (via Mark ‘the good’ Goodacre). And do note that Mark has the personal integrity not simply to lift the piece wholesale and plop it on his blog as another well known NT person has done with Rollston’s posting. The concluding part is to the point indeed: To conclude, we wish to protest the misrepresentation of the conference proceedings in the media, and make it clear that the majority of scholars in attendance – including all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb - either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly unlikely. Sincerely, Professor Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Professor Eric M. Meyers, Duke University Choon-Leon Seow, Princeton Theological Seminary F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Princeton Theological Seminary Lee McDonald, Princeton Theological Seminary, visiting Rachel Hachlili, Haifa University Motti Aviam, University of Rochester Amos Kloner, Bar Ilan University Christopher Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion Shimon Gibson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte Joe Zias, Science and Antiquity Group, Jerusalem Jonathan Price, Tel Aviv University C.D. Elledge, Gutavus Adolphus College I would note, though, that it isn’t just the media which is evidently misrepresenting the proceedings. Various media related media hounds and fame-seekers have as well- for their own reasons of course.

01-24-2008, 08:55 AM	#14
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	While I might agree with you, I didn't make up the guest list for the conference. Apparently, James Charlesworth, another of those Seminarians, organized the conference and seems determined to breathe life back into this corpse. Thus, the existence of 4 of them on the list of critics indicates that there is a split even in the ranks of seminarians on this point. I find that refreshing. It is good to see that there are some ideas that even they can't endorse.

01-24-2008, 09:14 AM	#16
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	Jonathan Reed's review of Jacobovici's book on the tomb. http://bookreviews.org/pdf/5934_6304.pdf

01-24-2008, 12:31 PM	#18
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	Of course. Caiaphas (Qafa) would have been from a well-known family that would be expected to have a tomb in or near Jerusalem. Contrast that with a supposed nobody from Nazareth. If there were a Jesus family tomb, one would expect it to be in Galilee not Jerusalem. However, the poor could not afford tombs.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.