tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post5573225700931062884..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: Stephen Pfann Rules Out Mary Magdalene OssuaryBen Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-33168868602232474432007-04-05T08:15:00.000-07:002007-04-05T08:15:00.000-07:00While I have studied Biblical Hebrew, I have no fa...While I have studied Biblical Hebrew, I have no familiarity with Hebrew script. In both the inscription "Mary" and "Jesus, son of Joseph" I see the letter "heth" not the letter "he." Is or should there be a difference in the written form?<BR/><BR/>While I'm at it, I would also have read the "resh" in Mary as a "lamed" and ended up with something like "Maliach" which wouldn't have made for much of a documentary.<BR/><BR/>Is this to be explained by the challenge of cutting the letters in stone?jpaustianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01479736509604939792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-39124092435228686022007-03-20T13:44:00.000-07:002007-03-20T13:44:00.000-07:00I posted the comments on Mary and Martha independe...I posted the comments on Mary and Martha independently of Tabor, at about the same time he posted on it at his blog, independently of my post.<BR/><BR/>Assuming that Pfann is correct and the Greek inscribed ossuary does read “Mary and Martha”. Here's my take on the cluster of names:<BR/><BR/>1."Jesus son of Joseph;"<BR/>2. "Marya" (Name of Jesus' mother);<BR/>3. "Yose" (contraction of Joseph. Name of Jesus' 'father' and precise nickname of his fourth brother);<BR/>4. "Mary and Martha" –they must have been sisters because Jewish law didn’t allow burial together of two unrelated women;<BR/>5. "Matya" - Name of Jesus' first cousin, son of his father's brother Alphaeus/Clophas. As Tabor writes in a different context Matya could also well have been Jesus' half brother, considering a certain specific rule of the Torah (Deut. 25:5-10);<BR/>6. "Judah son of Jesus."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Therefore out of seven names inscribed on these ossuaries three names undoubtedly relate to Jesus’ immediate family, and three other names relate to the same with a somewhat lower probability.<BR/>The seventh name is “Judah bar Yeshua”- must have been the son of Jesus and one of the sisters Mary or Martha. More probably Mary.<BR/><BR/>In addition , the name "Yeshua bar Yehosef" is preceded with a large mark, which is the letter Taw in ancient Hebrew script. That has important significance also to discussion of the full magnitude of the Talpiot find.Itamar Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16384706306468542114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-57228579659709331872007-03-20T13:42:00.000-07:002007-03-20T13:42:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Itamar Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16384706306468542114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-933891100800589812007-03-20T13:39:00.000-07:002007-03-20T13:39:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Itamar Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16384706306468542114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-18115417546458338822007-03-20T13:31:00.000-07:002007-03-20T13:31:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Itamar Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16384706306468542114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-50595018962566762362007-03-14T10:50:00.000-07:002007-03-14T10:50:00.000-07:00Itamar:Glad to see I'm not the only one who took P...Itamar:<BR/><BR/>Glad to see I'm not the only one who took Professor Tabor's musings seriously.<BR/><BR/>For an update, see:<BR/>http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2007/03/mariamene-and-martha-stephen-pfann.htmlBenjamin S. Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03294977803981386645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-26548298733838208002007-03-14T09:27:00.000-07:002007-03-14T09:27:00.000-07:00Very intriguing suggestion indeed. If the names on...Very intriguing suggestion indeed. If the names on the "mariamne" ossuary are Mary and Martha, these could well be the famous sisters from Bethany, of NT fame. Mary who ointed Jesus and wiped the oil with her hair per John 12:3 (very intimate scene) could have been Jesus' wife. Martha would automatically belong in the Jesus family too. This actually substantially enhances the statistical probablity that the Talpiot tomb is the real thing. See comments on Jacobovici's book page at Amazon.comItamar Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16384706306468542114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-58743623950432614532007-03-14T09:23:00.000-07:002007-03-14T09:23:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Itamar Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16384706306468542114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-78252361856935096352007-03-13T18:31:00.000-07:002007-03-13T18:31:00.000-07:00Benjamin --LOL. Good one. I thought roughly the ...Benjamin --<BR/><BR/>LOL. Good one. I thought roughly the same.<BR/><BR/>JayJayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08463270120830489380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-6149039250972020372007-03-13T18:05:00.000-07:002007-03-13T18:05:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08463270120830489380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-8090427470900438322007-03-13T15:30:00.000-07:002007-03-13T15:30:00.000-07:00I'm glad I didn't panic and sell my Bible. It's a ...I'm glad I didn't panic and sell my Bible. It's a good one with a leather cover.Benjamin S. Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03294977803981386645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-70011182801290806392007-03-13T13:26:00.000-07:002007-03-13T13:26:00.000-07:00http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/March 13, 2007DNA and...http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/<BR/><BR/>March 13, 2007<BR/>DNA and the Talpiot Ossuaries<BR/>Filed under: Tabor's Blog — James Tabor @ 8:51 am <BR/><BR/>Report coming soon… <BR/><BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/><BR/>March 12, 2007<BR/>Presuppositions, Methods, and Assumptions: The Tomb<BR/>Filed under: Tabor's Blog — James Tabor @ 4:39 pm <BR/><BR/>Under revision pending breaking news…Benjamin S. Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03294977803981386645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-23366502974540175052007-03-13T12:26:00.000-07:002007-03-13T12:26:00.000-07:00JD --I just found your blog and it seems that you ...JD --<BR/><BR/>I just found your blog and it seems that you and I are on the same page in many respects. Randy Ingermanson and I are working on a comprehensive statistical analysis of Talpiot, and we could use your feedback. Drop me a line at: jay_cost@hotmail.com.<BR/><BR/>JayJayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08463270120830489380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-80318277447724194992007-03-12T23:35:00.000-07:002007-03-12T23:35:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08463270120830489380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-48798765338083143882007-03-12T23:28:00.000-07:002007-03-12T23:28:00.000-07:00Jay,I actually noticed this too several days ago, ...Jay,<BR/><BR/>I actually noticed this too several days ago, and I pointed it out to Dr Tabor over at ntgateway, but all he did was express puzzlement that I would ask if he knew of Krumbein's report. Not a single word on how that affects his theory about the James ossuary. Don't that beat all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-73025291473685830112007-03-12T19:57:00.000-07:002007-03-12T19:57:00.000-07:00I am guessing that many of you already know this, ...I am guessing that many of you already know this, but I wanted to post it on this thread anyway just so that we can see how tendentious Jacobovici, Pellegrino and Cameron are in regards to the evidence.<BR/><BR/>You'll recall that they loudly trumpet the independent investigation of Wolfgang Krumbein as evidence that the James ossuary is legitimate.<BR/><BR/>What they fail to mention is that in that very report Krumbeing also goes on to basically eliminate the James ossuary from contention at Talpiot. <BR/><BR/>He states:<BR/><BR/>"Based on a comparison of the ossuary surface to many other ossuaries, it appears that the cave in which the James ossuary was placed, either collapsed centuries earlier, or alluvial deposits penetrated the chamber together with water and buried the ossuary, either completely or partially.<BR/><BR/>"Further the root or climbing plant marks as well as the severe biopitting on the top and bottom parts of the ossuary indicate that the ossuary was exposed to direct sunlight and atmospheric weathering and other conditions that are not typical of a cave environment, for a period of at least 200 years."<BR/><BR/>Yes. The James ossuary was outside for at least 200 years.<BR/><BR/>Could this ossuary belong to Talpiot? Maybe. Put aside (a) the photograph dated to 1976, (b) the fact that "Joseph" is spelled differently on the "Jesus" and "James" ossuaries, (c) Joe Gath's notes indicate a firm no on both a match via inscription and dimensions and nobody has ever contradicted that. <BR/><BR/>So, with all that out of your mind, let's think about how to place the "James" ossuary at Talpiot despite its 200 years in the bright Jeruaselm sun.<BR/><BR/>Two possibilities come to my mind:<BR/><BR/>(A) Maybe somebody took it from Jesus' family tomb, left it outside for 200 years, and then that person's great-great-great-grandchild had the kind idea to put it back in the cave.<BR/><BR/>(B) Or maybe, if the rest of the ossuaries have these root markings, somebody took the Jesus, James, Jose, and Mary ossuaries from some other place, left them outside for 200 years, and then their great-great-great-grandchild had the bright idea to put them all at Talpiot. (Hey -- that would be a great way to explain the Judah and the Matthew ossuaries! Just say that all of the ossuaries that fit with Jesus' family were placed there later. All of those that are not were there originally and belong to another family that originally owned the tomb at which Jesus et al. were squatting until 1980.)<BR/><BR/>Assume one of these two scenarios. And then go on to assume further that:<BR/>(a) Somebody doctored a photograph that an FBI forensic guy could not figure out.<BR/>(b) Somebody mispelled Jesus' dad's name on his tomb.<BR/>(c) Joe Gath, a man whom everybody seems to hold in high esteem, was wrong about both the inscription and the dimensions of the 10th ossuary.<BR/><BR/>Now, with all of these assumptions -- if you can still believe that the James ossuary comes from Talpiot, give me a call. I have a bridge in New York that I have been dying to sell to a smart investor like you! <BR/><BR/>Check out Krumbein's report at:<BR/>http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_<BR/>Krumbeinreport.pdfJayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08463270120830489380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-28201660335838716742007-03-12T19:48:00.000-07:002007-03-12T19:48:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08463270120830489380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-80151010489154124502007-03-12T16:50:00.000-07:002007-03-12T16:50:00.000-07:00Ben,Thanks for continuing to provide good informat...Ben,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for continuing to provide good information. I agree with the prior poster, this is indeed "scholarship" on the level of Geraldo's great work...<BR/><BR/>JoelJoelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02658656743349972681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-84578968076656122012007-03-12T15:29:00.000-07:002007-03-12T15:29:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08463270120830489380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-26004611894223569022007-03-12T15:04:00.000-07:002007-03-12T15:04:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.yuckabuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05286909279733012915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-92152682264629602592007-03-12T14:50:00.000-07:002007-03-12T14:50:00.000-07:00"The quotation in my initial post was taken from t..."The quotation in my initial post was taken from this website:<BR/><BR/>http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/the_tomb/james_ossuary.html<BR/><BR/>'One of the ten ossuaries went missing from “The Jesus Family Tomb.' Its hastily scribbled, rounded-out dimensions generally match the James ossuary."<BR/><BR/>Since the statement that they "generally match" is not necessarily that of Tabor, then the contradiction doesn't necessarily come from the same witness (as I previously suggested). But it does show a questionable flexibility among the theorists as to just what the facts are. And Tabor has claimed that he has had this information for some time. I'm curious whether he would now agree with the information on the Jesus Family Tomb website that what used to be a match "to the centimeter" is now rounded numbers that "generally match." In his rejoinder to Poirier (who reviewed Tabor's book), Tabor mentioned some "re-measuring" of the James ossuary. He claimed on Goodacre's blog that the dimensions are "no big mystery," but they are still fairly elusive to many of us.<BR/><BR/>I don't wish to be snide or disrespectful, but statements are on record and I'm skeptical of yet another, more modern, reconstruction.Benjamin S. Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03294977803981386645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-56806593567232030112007-03-12T14:28:00.000-07:002007-03-12T14:28:00.000-07:00Personally, I think this documentary is profoundly...Personally, I think this documentary is profoundly irresponsible.<BR/><BR/>Consider:<BR/>(1) This claim, if true, would shock the world and dislodge the faith of 2.1 billion.<BR/>(2) The documentary was marketed in a way to take advantage of the previous fact. Viewers were essentially scared into watching and purchasing the book so as to find out whether their faith, their hope, is built on a lie. The marketing campaign itself was incredibly disrespectful and insensitive. I thought we were supposed to be a "tolerant" and "sensitive" society -- why is it that the faith of some 75% of the nation was not tolerated here? Would they have attacked Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism in this way? I do not think so. That would be insensitive. How is it, then, that this was not just as insensitive. Law-abiding, taxpaying people who proclaim the risen Jesus are not owed some sensitivity?<BR/>(3) There is not a single claim that they make that has not been utterly demolished. Not only is their strong evidence against every claim, the evidence that they rally for every claim turns out to be ephemeral. Their statistics demonstrate nothing. Their patina testing demonstrates nothing. Their DNA evidence demonstrates nothing. They even misread the names in the tomb. They literally have nothing to offer.<BR/>(4) They accuse a dead man of either deceit or incompetence. His name has been muddied, and he lacks the capacity to clean it.<BR/><BR/>I would like to see somebody take moral responsibility for this. I think it is time that somebody somewhere who green lit this step forward and admit that this was not appropriate to air or to publish. It is wrong to attack the faith of a third of the world, and the good name of the dead, with no evidence. I would further like to see the producers of the documentary donate their renumeration to charity. I find it noxious that they will enrich themselves by a patently false, incendiary claim that is promoted in an incendiary, insensitive manner. <BR/><BR/>I am outraged. <BR/><BR/>I'll not one other outrageous element. I am sure many of you have seen the "patina" fingerprint of the James and Mariamne ossuaries. I am sure many of you noted that it does not match on five different elements, where the Mariamne ossuary shows a higher concentration.<BR/><BR/>In actuality, they fail to match on <I>seven</I> different elements. You do not notice this difference because of the presentation. If you look at the graph they offer at the Discovery Channel, you will see that the green for James is printed <I>over</I> the red for Mariamne. Thus, when Mariamne shows a higher reading, it is easily readable. But when James shows a higher reading, it is difficult to make out. But, if you look closely at the 1st and 9th peaks, you will see that, indeed, the James ossuary contains a higher concentration of those elements than the Mariamne ossuary.<BR/><BR/>Was this intentionally deceitful? Who knows. But I do know that the way to present this data is NOT this way. This way presents the data in a way that overstates their similarity. The proper way would have been to offer two graphs, or to use three colors -- one for James, one for Mariamne and one for the overlap.<BR/><BR/>This sort of sloppiness that -- coincidentally! -- overstates their claim is about the only consistent part of this whole affair.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08463270120830489380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-9611483803879593172007-03-12T14:18:00.000-07:002007-03-12T14:18:00.000-07:00Jay:Don't get me wrong: I agree with you in what t...Jay:<BR/><BR/>Don't get me wrong: I agree with you in what these statements seem to imply. I have been expecting any day now Tabor to come up with his historical reconstruction of the excavating and cataloging events so that it supports his James ossuary hypothesis, better than half expecting him to implicate at least Kloner and Zias in dishonesty or incompetence. Tabor posted at Mark Goodacre's blog (March 8) that he just needed time to get his ducks in a row (my interpretation of what he wrote), which seems to support the implications you draw. I'm not saying he will ultimately attempt to make this case explicitly and publicly, but I've been expecting it. <BR/><BR/>Be sure to read the response there by James Snapp.<BR/><BR/>http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2007/03/talpiot-tomb-assorted-thoughts.htmlBenjamin S. Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03294977803981386645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-22151770660779605892007-03-12T14:15:00.000-07:002007-03-12T14:15:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08463270120830489380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-92094548970997077092007-03-12T13:59:00.000-07:002007-03-12T13:59:00.000-07:00The quotation in my initial post was taken from th...The quotation in my initial post was taken from this website:<BR/><BR/>http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/the_tomb/james_ossuary.html<BR/><BR/>“One of the ten ossuaries went missing from “The Jesus Family Tomb.” Its hastily scribbled, rounded-out dimensions generally match the James ossuary.” <BR/><BR/>This is a subtle response to the fact that the measurements of the James ossuary do not match the 10th ossuary at Talpiot on the X, Y and Z planes. <BR/><BR/>According to Andrey Lemaire, the James ossuary measures:<BR/>Length: 50.5 cm to 56 cm<BR/>Width: 25 cm<BR/>Height: 30.5 cm<BR/><BR/>According to Kloner (1996), the 10th Talpiot ossuary is:<BR/>Length: 60 cm<BR/>Width: 26 cm<BR/>Height: 30 cm<BR/><BR/>If we follow the documentarians, there are "mistakes" on all three axes. And only one the height is reducible to a possible "rounding" error. And, I would note that about half of the Talpiot ossuary measurements do not extend to the half-centimer, but half of them do. Thus, even the height is unlikely explicable by rounding.<BR/><BR/>So, we return to the word "hastily." <I>That is an attack on Joe Gath</I>, even if Jacobovici et al. do not mean it to be. The inference is clear: Gath rushed the job and got the measurements wrong, and not by a close call. <BR/><BR/>-Or-<BR/><BR/>If we accept their hypothesis that the 10th ossuary was the James ossuary, that it went missing and found its way into the for-profit world of the antiquities market -- we must then wonder if Gath's grossly wrong measurements, which by the way are not (so far as I know) wrong regarding the other 9, were not intentionally wrong so as to cover tracks. <BR/><BR/>Let me be clear: at no point do Jacobovici et al. claim that this is true. The point is that if we accept their claim, we must then begin to question Gath's at worst integrity or at best his competence. Because Zias and Kloner were both involved in the intake and publication of the Talpiot information, if we accept the James ossuary as coming from Talpiot, they would also have to be questioned regarding competence and integrity.<BR/><BR/>This is why I said that their claims rest, ultimately, on ad hominem attacks. For their thesis to be true, somebody in a position of power must either have screwed up or have pulled a fast one.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08463270120830489380noreply@blogger.com