Things Quieting Down, Finally – March 19
I am now back in Dallas. Things appear to be settling down on the tomb front. No real new information or responses to report.
The process of public vetting seems to be playing itself out. We are in a time when such disclosures directly to the public mean that the public will have to allow the public vetting process to take place before embracing or rejecting such directly made claims. What iis so interesting about this particular example is the near unanimity that this claim has little substance to it, given that there are so many points in the linkage to get to the conclusion that are suspect.
I am now back in Dallas. Things appear to be settling down on the tomb front. No real new information or responses to report.
The process of public vetting seems to be playing itself out. We are in a time when such disclosures directly to the public mean that the public will have to allow the public vetting process to take place before embracing or rejecting such directly made claims. What iis so interesting about this particular example is the near unanimity that this claim has little substance to it, given that there are so many points in the linkage to get to the conclusion that are suspect.
I shall continue to keep my eyes and ears open, but the verdict on this one seems to have been quite negative. If so, it may show that public vetting over blogs and the Net can work, even though it is not the best way to go about this kind of discussion.
2 Comments
jnjwallen
Vetting and theory..
I am sorry if you feel vetting on the fly is wrong.. My wild speculation and assumption is only to walk in with eyes wide open to all possible critique so we go in with answers to all potential claims. It seem as though we Christians always dance around issues to paint an obscure picture in the same way Camerron did with his movie idea. We should give a reasonable answers to all angles. I am dealing with a few issues yet.. Please advise:
Your speculation of the DNA tests stating that they may have been distant relatives is wild in it’s assessment alone. The tombs were ceremonially placed together and don’t forget the child..Judah son of Jesus. Why are we skating facts?
My wild speculation was stating that someone could say that Jesus was placed in Joseph of arematheas family tomb; the stats I was stating had to do with there being 10 Jesus sons of Joseph and out of all the men in the tomb the baby was attributed to this Jesus as was this Mary or even Martha? I was stating that this 10 out of thousands of ossuaries few had wives attributed and 22 % chance they were a Mary. The odds are good but not great. I just think there might be some providence involved for some reason..Only God knows why if so. I am just trying to get everyone to see the objections and possible theories before they arise; must be prepared to give an answer.
ps. Were the wifes ossuaries usually nicer than the husbands; if so why was this Jesus ossuary so plain? Also one more.. In the stats what about the specific timeline being factored in; it was uncanny; In being compared to the 1000 year gap these ossuaries spanned over. Love, Jeff
bock
Vetting and Theory – dlb
Jeff:
I have no problem with public vetting. That is what this blog has been about here. We just did not need multiple posts with the same information and questions. I also think many of the good questions you have riased have been adequately addressed and from credible sources.
Let me illustrate, some of what I have posted you call wild is actually coming, not from Christians, but from Israeli experts who are making the points in question and whose living has been studying these tombs. For example, the distiant relative suggestion you call “wild” comes from Amos Kloner, who works with the Israeli Antiquities Authority (he says it on the audio interview we posted). He notes the tomb is likely to have had 35 bodies in it and that not only relatives, but highly regarded slaves could also have ended up in such a tomb. Kloner knows as much about Jewish ossuaries and tombs as anyone. He is currently working on a book being translated from Hebrew on the topic of Tombs in the Jerusalem area for the international publisher Brill out of Belgium. So this is not wild speculation, but the remarks of someone who has studied this area as his life’s vocation.
What we have in Judas Son of Jesus is evidence of a Judah who has a Jesus as a father when there is no existing, clear evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was married and had a child (This is an issue I addressed in detail during the DaVinci Code furor– and as I pointed out then, it is near unanimous position held by scholars of a variety of persuations, not just conservative Christians). Today how many Richard’s might have a son named Henry? That is all we have here, not that we know which specific Richard we are discussing.
These ossuaries cover only 100 years, not 1000 (unless that was a typo).
The plain nature of Jesus’ ossuary is another problem. Ossuaries varied in simplicity and adornment — and gender is not a clue. But to have such a simple script and lack of adornment on a tomb for an honored figure is less than likely as well as your question suggests.
Hope this helps.
dlb