I only know Greek and Latin. I’m useless at Hebrew or Aramaic.
The hypothesis is not really so extraordinary in the sense that is usually intended by that expression (i.e. an assertion of the supernatural), and strictly speaking, it isn’t being positively asserted as a fact yet. It’s just a proposed hypothesis and a pleas for further examination. My position is that th possibility that this is the tomb of THE Jesus still seems unlikely but not impossible. I’m open to more testing, peer review, etc. What’s striking to me is the knee-jerk hostility by some people to the idea that the hypothesis even deserves to be examined. I personally have no emotional investment in the hypthesis being confirmed. I don’t care either way.
DrDeth is more … fervent … about this than I am, but he’s raising some of the same linguistic issues that troubled me about the show.
_ Is Mary’s name on the ossuary really given in a rare form used for the Mary?
_ Is “Mariamne” really a name that was used for Mary Magdalene?
_ Is there any support for the claim that “mara” is a reference to Mary M’s status as a religious leader?
_ Is Jose really a rare nickname that was used for Jesus’ brother?
Those are some key questions, and I don’t trust the filmmakers to provide honest answers.
All legitimate questions, and to go you one more, I think they still have some work to do to prove the James Ossuary came from the Talpiot tomb. I also think the contention that the “Matthew” ossuary might be an unknown brother of Jesus is weak, and basing the argument on the false presumption that Luke’s genealogy gives Mary’s bloodline is even weaker.
Al I want (like the filmmakers) is more examination. Nobody is drawing any definitive conclusions yet.
Are you sure it isn’t Greek? Seeing characters of any language in that series of scratches is like seeing bunnies in clouds.
I have it! Those scratches were made by the Roman soldiers as they kept score in their lot casting for Jesus’ clothes. Somebody get George Lucas on the phone!
Yeah, I know, I should research this more before I make fun of it, and I have to because a Tabor is a FOAF, but IT’S JUST SO SILLY! How can a closet archaeologist resist it?
I looked at the pictures. The letters are Hebrew, but they’re apparently hard to read and the identification of the name as “Yeshua” is uncertain. That identification was first made by the original archeologist, Kroner, though (who translated it as “Yeshua?” in his notes), so DrDeth calling it a “lie” by the filmmakers is unwarranted.
Are you even reading my posts and cites? I have given some 4 cites here and the other thread with dudes saying Jacobovici did not bother to check the other ossuaries. I even gave a cite *"http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/0...journalists.php
"In an interview, Mr. Jacobovici was asked why the filmmakers did not conduct DNA testing on the other ossuaries to determine whether the one inscribed “Judah, son of Jesus” was genetically related to either the Jesus or Mary Magdalene boxes; or whether the Jesus remains were actually the offspring of Mary.
“We’re not scientists. At the end of the day we can’t wait till every ossuary is tested for DNA,” he said. "We took the story that far. At some point you have to say, ‘I’ve done my job as a journalist.’ "* where he admitted he didn’t even try. Those are his words, that’s a *quote *from him saying he didn’t even try. Its backed by a cite and alink. So far, you have exactly 0 cites or links, just that you remember his saying that. However, it is clear Jacobovici is a master of telling the literal truth without the whole truth. What were his exactwords? I remember something like “the ossusaries were all cleaned out of remains” or something like that. Literal truth, but they managed to find traces in two of them- the only ones where they actually looked for such traces.
Next, I have given several cites, and links including one by an expert- Dr.Evans, and by Stephen Pfann, president of Jerusalem’s University of the Holy Land and an expert in Semitic languages, who was interviewed in the documentary. “Pfann also thinks the inscription read as “Jesus” has been misread and suggests that the name “Hanun” might be a more accurate rendering.”
No expert sez it is Yeshua, the very best we have is some saying “Yeshua‘(?).”
Try some cites, get some experts lined up, and stop with the “No we don’t.”'s and the "No, he didn’t. "'s. You’re not an expert here, don’t try and talk like one. If you have some cites and facts trot them out. I’d love to see them. You’re supposed to be Diogenes the Cynic, not Diogenes the Gullible.
I don’t know myself, but I have cited and linked to experts who do. And the real scientists say: No
No
No
("Secondly, almost no one agrees that the name Mariamne refers to Mary Magdalene, or that Mara
means “Lady” or “Master,” as though it were a title of honor. It is, rather, an abbreviation of Martha, which is attested in other inscriptions. Given that the Greek form of Mariamne is in the genitive case (of the diminutive form shown below).
The inscription could be interpreted “Mariamne’s (daughter) Mara (or Martha).” Kloner and Rahmani translate: “[Ossuary] of Mariamne, (who is also called) Mara.”)
and No
But let’s look at reality. Ok, when Jesus died, he wasn’t very important, really. Maybe he could have been buried in a tomb with nothing noting about his claims to be the Messiah. :dubious:
But James the Brother of Jesus was the Leader of the Early Church. He was important. Why does his ossuary not mention this? :dubious: (The part of the inscription that adds the words “the Brother of Jesus” is an undoubted recent forgery).
Then, the filmaker also claimed that Peter was in that tomb. Peter, the first Pope, the man whose possible remains are beneath the Vatican, and who was venerated and revered when he died. Again, his remains put in an ossuary with no note this was Peter? No Christian markings? :dubious:
Jesus may have died a Jew, but James and Peter certainly did not.
My own description is “Illegible though probably made through conscious effort by a human,” but I’ll defer to the experts who claim they can see characters.
I’m not getting how NONE of the interpretations take into account how the inscription plainly begins (if it’s an aleph) or ends (if it’s a chi) with the character LEAST open to guesswork, the great big X.
I’m going with both DrDeth and the filmmakers overstating their cases. However, the way Jacobovici appears (hey, if I had cable I’d’ve watched it; as is I’m stuck with print and online sources) to ignore the alternate interpretations says he’s, at best, overly enthusiastic to the point of tunnel vision and, at worst, deliberately ignoring anything that could limit the rewards, professional and financial, that could come his way. Could be a sin of omission but I won’t presume to know his intent. DrDeth finds it easier.
