Comments on: “Yoseh, can you see?”: checking the sources (updated) http://www.uhl.ac/blog/?p=448 Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:51:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: uhl staff http://www.uhl.ac/blog/?p=448#comment-24775 uhl staff Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:07:23 +0000 http://www.uhl.ac/blog/?p=448#comment-24775 Our blog was addressing the premises of those who are supporters of the the "Jesus Family Tomb" hypothesis. It made no reference to you or your work. On the other hand, others who support the hypothesis have made this claim. The major proponent, James Tabor, made much of this in the film and in his blogs over the past year. His recent statement on The View from Jerusalem was: “Statistical: Even without any a priori inclusion of Mary Magdalene in a Jesus family tomb, just the names we have, based on Kilty’s calculations, endorsed by Fuchs, yields a .48 probability. This is far from random, in fact it means if we had two tombs to look at one of them would probably be the Jesus family tomb. Even one in ten would be interesting but .48 I find quite compelling, given the other evidence of history and epigraphy.” I am happy to hear that you do not count yourself among those who support this claim. Best wishes. S. Pfann Our blog was addressing the premises of those who are supporters of the the “Jesus Family Tomb” hypothesis. It made no reference to you or your work.

On the other hand, others who support the hypothesis have made this claim. The major proponent, James Tabor, made much of this in the film and in his blogs over the past year. His recent statement on The View from Jerusalem was:

“Statistical: Even without any a priori inclusion of Mary Magdalene in a Jesus family tomb, just the names we have, based on Kilty’s calculations, endorsed by Fuchs, yields a .48 probability. This is far from random, in fact it means if we had two tombs to look at one of them would probably be the Jesus family tomb. Even one in ten would be interesting but .48 I find quite compelling, given the other evidence of history and epigraphy.”

I am happy to hear that you do not count yourself among those who support this claim. Best wishes.

S. Pfann

]]> By: Eldad Keynan http://www.uhl.ac/blog/?p=448#comment-24722 Eldad Keynan Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:11:18 +0000 http://www.uhl.ac/blog/?p=448#comment-24722 the Yose problem. It seems like a real problem, isn't it? I wish to begin by declaring: my presentation regarding the Yose during the symposium meant to clear only one point: that this name, in it's exact Hebrew form (as found in Talpiot Tomb), was very rare in second Temple era. I never even tried to imply that this conclusion is an evidence that the Talpiot Tomb is indeed Jesus' tomb. I'm surprised that Prof. Pfann is debating a claim no one claimed. the Yose problem. It seems like a real problem, isn’t it? I wish to begin by declaring: my presentation regarding the Yose during the symposium meant to clear only one point: that this name, in it’s exact Hebrew form (as found in Talpiot Tomb), was very rare in second Temple era. I never even tried to imply that this conclusion is an evidence that the Talpiot Tomb is indeed Jesus’ tomb. I’m surprised that Prof. Pfann is debating a claim no one claimed.

]]>