Talk:The Jesus Family Tomb

Criticism
Someone recently added this passage to the article:

The book has been hailed by scholars, such as Dr. James Tabor, as "exceptionally well written, utterly riveting, and it lays out most of the facts related to the discussion".

I removed this line because it is unattributed, and a search of news sources and the Internet in general failed to come up with such a quote. (Is it from the book's jacket? If so, it should not be used as an example of praise for the book, since clearly the authors and publisher are not going to include anything but praise on the jacket.)

Also, I find this passage misleading, because while it may have "been hailed by scholars," it is my impression that by far most legitimate scholars either have a negative view of this entire "Jesus family tomb" matter or, at the very least, are highly skeptical of it. It would be more accurate, I believe, to say that "some scholars have hailed the book, although most regard it with skepticism or even contempt," or words to this effect -- which based on media reports seems to me a more accurate accessment of the book's reception by scholars.

Finally, if we're going to cite praise for the book, we need to site negative criticism, too, otherwise the article will look like an advertisement. --Skb8721 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's leave out the word contempt :) Mathiastck 19:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

James Tabor
A little searching on the Net shows that Dr. James Tabor is involved with the documentary that accompanies the book The Jesus Family Tomb and in fact was present as a sympathetic panelist at the Discovery Channel's recent public relations event announcing the film's forthcoming release. Therefore, I don't think he should be cited as a scholar who praises the book, since he clearly has a conflict of interest (being an insider on the project and not an independent reviewer).

See this Discovery Channel press release. --Skb8721 03:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * James Tabor was indeed active in the research for the film and is releasing his own book shortly that will be, hopefully, more scholarly. There is some activity I've been involved with at his article with another person.  If any of y'all would, I'd appreciate some input, as I'm a real newbie to all this.  I think as it stands it does not have a neutral point of view.  Thanks.  Reverend Mommy 14:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

Indeed, all praise and criticism should be carefully cited, attributed and footnoted. Please note it is "cite," not "site." Erudil 17:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Date of Find
I added a small data point about the actual date of the find. My understanding is that when the tomb was found, its discoverers dutifully cataloged it and thought nothing of it. In fact, having seen all the evidence presented by the crew now announcing this great find, the original discoverers STILL believe there is nothing big to this story. At any rate, that's what I've heard. The only part I can back up at the moment is the date of the find, which I have added to the article and referenced. I believe that a thorough section on criticism of this book is necessary. I only wish that I had the time to do it! CrimsonLine 11:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Whose wife?
The authors of the book claim that since Mariamne is not genetically related to Yeshua, she must be his wife. However, logically, she could be the wife of Yehuda, Yasua, Matiah, or Yaakov.Erudil 17:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Or even a friend of the family! The Gospels record that Joseph of Arimathea offered his new family tomb to bury Jesus in, a man unrelated to him in any way. Regardless of what you think happened to the body of Jesus historically, the fact that such an offer could be made in this story shows that it's not unthinkable to a first-century mindset.CrimsonLine 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The offer of Joseph of Arimathea was of an unused tomb. A typical first century Hebrew family would not include friends of the family in their family tomb.  However, the teachings of Christ would seem to allow for those in the "Family of God."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.221.251 (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This whol article reads one-sided
I read the boko, and I just watched the movie and I think that this article was written by a critic. Nearly everyone in this article devalues the findings of these archaeologists and filmmakers and I think that is horrible. I am a Jew and I still have done a lot of research on this subject that the probability of this being the "Jesus Tomb" is much higher than what this article is portraying. And the 600:1 ratio that was given was divided by 4 for any errors that can be made in translating (which I think is extremely generous) and that ratio is given only after considering 5 of the 9/10 names. At the end of the book and documentary when they are considering all 10 names (I believe the 10th ossuary is part of the tomb) the odds of this being a coincidence are astronomical.

I do believe that the documentary just kind of ended without follow-up. I believe that they should have tested the DNA more to figure out exactly what the genetic connections of all the ossuaries really were, but I believe the film makers were forced to stop. I can't believe all the critics out there discounting the fact this is Jesus's tomb. They have the tomb on display for the man that ordered Jesus crucified (I don't remember his name) and that is "scientifically proven" and displayed but there is way less scientific evidence that that is his ossuary, than this is Jesus's family tomb.

I think this whole article needs to be re-written with BOTH sides of the controversy. Chexmix53 (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed comments
I removed the following from the article, apparently inserted by Pellegrino:

- - Charles Pellegrino, June 6, 2008 (NOTE: This is the second time I have posted this answer. The fist posting was evidently censored out of existence based on a string of protests that have included accusations that I am really Simcha J. or James Cameron and not Dr. Charles Pellegrino. So much for "Fair and Balanced," and for open discussion of ideas.)


 * The statement that all of the archaeologists, epigraphers, scientists involved in the Princeton's Jerusalem Symposium regard the Talpiot Tomb case as discredited and closed is not accurate and is, at best, somewhat biased and unbalanced. While most of those named in the letter of protest are legitimate scientists of high standing who are providing good counter-arguments, the statement that all scientists/archaeologists involved in the January 2008 symposium have denounced the observations of Ruth Gat and the legitimancy of the Talpiot Tomb discovery is patently false. No polls of opinions were ever taken, either during or after the symposium. There were in fact 65 scientists attending the symposium and submitting papers for the Proceedings. I am one of them, and along with at least five other archaeologists personally known to me from the proceedings, our interpretations of the evidence run counter to the twelve - who but fractionally represent the attendees.

No, Charles, your "posting" wasn't censored for the reasons you give, it's just that the article isn't a forum for presenting your opinions. Discussion on the fairness of the presentation belong on this page, or of course if you can improve the article with constructive edits you're welcome to do so. Gr8white (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Dirt" versus "Patina" on the tenth ossuary
As I understand it, an "outside layer of dirt" is not at all the same thing as a "patina". A layer of dirt could have accumulated over a period of thousands of years, or it could have been deposited yesterday. A patina by contrast is created by dissolved minerals becoming incorporated into, or crystalizing on the surface of the stone itself. It is the result of a process that can take hundreds or even thousands of years, and can be used to correlate/identify materials with specific locations in accordance with the varying amounts of chemical elements that are present in the ground water at various locations. In short, saying that an "outside layer of dirt" was tested is not at all the same thing as saying that a patina was tested!