I plan now to respond to Jim Tabor's summary one point at a time. Today I look at his remarks about the historical context.
Here is Tabor's summary on this point:
The Historical Context: I do not find it unlikely or improbable that the family tomb of Jesus might be found in the Jerusalem area. I have argued elsewhere that neither the social status of Jesus and his family, nor their Galilean origins, stand contrary to the idea. All our evidence points to Jerusalem as the center of the Jesus movement after his death, with James and the family taking up permanent residence there. The tomb itself is small and very modest, quite plain, as are most of the ossuaries, and it is away from the city on the road to Bethlehem. My understanding of the Nazarene movement, as it began to thrive in the 40s through 60s CE, is that one would expect, rather than doubt, that the inner family wouldreceive such an honored and traditional burial somewhere in Jerusalem. If, as seems likely, Jesus’ body was taken from the temporary rock hewn tomb used for emergency purposes the Passover weekend he died, and he was subsequently moved to a permanent place of honorable burial, a tomb like this one in east Talpiot makes sense. One would expect then, as other intimate family members died, they would have likewise been placed in the same small tomb. Our earliest Gospel, Mark, knows of no “resurrection appearances,” and many scholars see his proclamation that the disciples will “see him in Galilee” as a reference to a “second coming” or Parousia. Some have scoffed at the very possibility of “finding the tomb of Jesus” as sensational and ridiculous nonsense. It is much like someone claiming to have found the “ark of the covenant” or any other Indiana Jones type nonsense. My view is that regardless of films, books, or hype, the tomb is a material reality that is worthy of full academic discusison [sic].