Chris Weimer

What? Have you actually read his book? Have you talked to him personally to see if this is his view?

Why yes; the program was full of it.

Prithee keep James Tabor and "they" separate. Jocobovici is a sensationalist newsreporter, and James Tabor, though acted as a special consultant, did not run the show.

That it's from the third century doesn't bother me so much as the nature of the composition. Perhaps one day you'll realize this that later works are allowed to contain authentic tradition.

No, it's there in plain day. Mariamne is found in Hippolytus. I don't necessarily agree that it's original, but I haven't studied the exact relationship to say with any certainty.

So you agree that you know nothing of James Tabor's position? Your Honor, I rest my case.

There's a thousand and one reasons to disbelieve orthodox Christianity. This is nothing.

I'm not Sauron, now am I?

Sauron

We'll leave it at that.

Sauron

It's the only thing you know how to cook.

Indeed - sometimes you even have to be coaxed into spelling out your claims, too - as we've seen in the probability thread, where you still haven't listed your starting assumptions and initial conditions.

Same problem here, lee:

1. What is your claim here?
2. Where is this text from?
3. Connect the dots - how does the text support your claim?

Ruhan

I have read Zias' comments and I am not overly impressed. When reading his objections it appears that he took the conclusions of this find very personally. He is one of the main characters behind the claim that the James' Ossuary is an entire forgery, not just the "brother of Jeshua" line. Much has been made of this effort to debunk the entire ossuary when experts have stated that the "James son of Joseph" is indeed authentic. Like many of the religious commentary, he has started with a position and is now attempting to use whatever evidence to support that dogmatic position.

This becomes his main objection to this find and this does seem cast his character in a dubious light.

His other objection that the missing ossuary was a blank ossuary with no inscription is also dubious. This ossuary was removed 27 years ago and it's remarkable that he would remember the details of one blank ossuary. His story is too contrived to be true.

Zias is not qualified to comment on the DNA or the statistical evidence yet he fumbles in creating further objections in these areas. Why he felt compelled to do so should raise further questions about his motives in this regard.

All the best,

Ruhan

Malachi151

Here is a specific issue that I would like to address:

In the presentation they list Salome as a sister of Jesus, and they claim of course that Joses is a brother of Jesus. I don't find that to be the case.

These are the only mentions of Salome.

Unless they are arguing that "Mary the mother of James" is also the mother of Jesus, then this is bogus.

The only other mention of Joses is:

So, what are they doing here, just lying or using really bad interpretation of the text, or what?

By the way, someone had asked what I meant by Tabor's poor use of scriptures, here is an example.

coloradoatheist

Matt 13:55 lists Joses, James, Judas and Simon as brothers of Jesus.

Mike

Malachi151

So Joseph is really spelled "Joses", I see. They said how rare this name was though, but there is apparently another Joses in the Gospels, unless that is also a bad translation.

What about Salome, whom they listed in the beginning among the sisters of Jesus?

Chris Weimer

As I noted on my blog, it's Ἰωσὴφ in our earliest manuscripts, but Ἰωσῆς in some other manuscripts, and even Ἰωσῆ in others. There's also two other variants: Ἰωάννης and Ἰωάννης καὶ Ἰωσῆς.

andrewcriddle

I have been looking up the textual question about Hippolytus.
Books 4 to 10 of the work by Hippolytus attacking various heresies survive in one single manuscript dating from the fourteenth century.

The lady in question is mentioned 3 times, twice at the beginning of book 5 chapter 7 and once in a recap section in book 10 chapter 9.

In book 5 she is Mariamme both times and in book 10 (the recap) Mariamne once.

This gives two Mariamme to one Mariamne plus the fact that (going by the number of suggested conjectural emendations per line in the critical text by Marcovich) the recap of what has gone before in book 10 is textually in particularly bad shape.

Hence on this evidence Hippolytus probably wrote Mariamme.

The lady is almost certainly the same as the lady referred to by Celsus as a source of gnostic tradition according to the Contra Celsum by Origen book 5. Here the manuscripts are divided with some reading Mariamne and some Mariamme. However the best manuscript and the critical text of Contra Celsum read Mariamme.

I agree one cannot be certain but in all probability Hippolytus and Contra Celsum originally read Mariamme not Mariamne.

Andrew Criddle

douglas

And Tabor responds...

http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/