hâ-Ârëtz — Finally, archeologists concede the obvious. "The widow of the archaeologist who discovered the tomb in Talpiot that some believe to be that of Jesus of Nazareth, explained Wednesday in Jerusalem to a gathering of senior archaeologists and other scholars why her husband kept his discovery a secret. In an emotional voice, Ruth Gat said that Yosef Gat, a Holocaust survivor, was afraid a wave of anti-Semitism would ensue if he did so. Speaking at the three-day Third Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins at Mishkenot She'ananim in the capital, Gat also said, "I thank G*od his fears did not come true in light of the discovery of the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth."
What archeologist Yoseiph Gat feared, that kept him from announcing his identification of the tomb as that of
"I fell off the chair," Jacobovici said [Day4] following Gat's presentation. "She said the leading archaeologist, who I thought had claimed it was nothing, actually thought he had discovered the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, and as a Holocaust survivor was afraid it might lead to anti-Semitism."
Although most of those who spoke at Wednesday's seminar said it was possible the tomb was that of Jesus, Jacobovici's film was taken with a grain of salt.
That new admission is the shifting snowflake that sets off the avalanche – it's now scientifically and archeologically acceptable to think it could be the tomb of
"What Simcha did was good work, as long as it stays in the right perspective," said archaeologist Professor Shimon Gibson of the University of North Carolina. "We, the archaeologists and the historians, spend our lives trying to evaluate the information collected over time. The journalist, however, makes one film and moves on."
Professor Israel Knohl of Hebrew University said Wednesday that he saw no reason not to evaluate the tomb as Jesus' family tomb, although there was no unambiguous proof. He said surrounding caves should be excavated in order to obtain more proof, and explanations for various contradictions in existing evidence should be sought.
In response to arguments by scholars against his film, Jacobovici said Wednesday that it was a great honor that such an august group had gathered to discuss the matter. He said that when they made the film, the feeling of the public and the scientific community was that there was no chance it was the tomb of Jesus. Now, Jacobovici said, the consensus is that it might be true.
("Widow: Archeologist kept tomb secret for fear of anti-Semitism," 2008.01.17)
As I advised Prof. Tabor (email 2008.01.07), a speaker at this symposium, in response to his inquiry to me,
The primary weakness in your case is the twisting, by your detractors, of the pivotal definition of the issue.
The issue has been hijacked – by Christians to protect Christian doctrines and by miso-Judaic non-Christians to thwart the progress and advancement of Bible-belief or Judaism (which they perceive as "xenophobic religiosity"); misrepresenting that Simcha and you have claimed to have proven that the Talpiot tomb is the tomb of
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and his family. This conclusion is evident in the fundamental argumentation of every opposing essay.How can they not win if this definition is allowed to stand? How many accepted things in archeology are proven? How many in science? Why is it called the Theory of Relativity? Electron theory? The theory of evolution? Number theory? The "Big Bang" Theory? Who demands that these be proven before they are regarded as likely, accepted and used?
My impression has been that Simcha and you have claimed to show that it is plausible, even likely, that the Talpiot tomb is the tomb of
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and his family.I don't think you can lose that issue.
All of the counter arguments amount to no more than an attack on the "proof" that the Talpiot tomb is the tomb of
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and his family, a straw man – assuming that the issue is properly (re)defined. Such a redefinition takes all of the wind out of all of their sails in one stroke.
Exactly as I called it.
 |
|
 |