tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post8035264221109211763..comments2024-03-27T11:13:34.520-05:00Comments on The Dunamis Word: Resurrection & The "Sign Of Jonah"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-68393356002922768952013-06-25T17:04:13.628-05:002013-06-25T17:04:13.628-05:00See the comments section of THIS POST for a respon...See the comments section of <a href="http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2008/03/biblical-jesus-stands-every-test.html?showComment=1372197533924#c8108182808076281780" rel="nofollow">THIS POST</a> for a response to the article Tabor wrote on my response to him and his work. District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-35395941108524080222012-03-05T09:52:24.133-06:002012-03-05T09:52:24.133-06:00Both of these comments were 3/5/12. He also stated...Both of these comments were 3/5/12. He also stated this:<br /><br /><b>"Had we found a cross, we would have been told that the cross is not a Christian symbol in the 1st century. The fact is we found a 1st century cross! Had we found nothing else, we would have been told that we should have found a fish, if we thought the tomb was linked to the early Jesus movement. But we found a fish! If that’s all we had found, we would have been told that we should have found a “Jonah”. We found a Jonah! But for some, the iron rule is the golden rule. When it comes to Jesus; everyone is wrong about everything all the time. So the cross is not a cross, the fish is not a fish, the Jonah is not a Jonah and now even the “Jehovah” inscription doesn’t say “Jehovah”.<br /><br />For the record, we spent 5 years and a lot of money and effort to excavate this tomb. Never before have the IAA and the Haredi activists agreed to work together on the excavation of a 1st century Jerusalem tomb. We built a robotic arm that has pushed the envelope of Jerusalem based archaeology. We had absolutely no guarantee that we would find anything, but we did. And now it’s time for a reasoned and scholarly debate. Many top scholars have weighed in stating that this is a very significant find including Prof. James Charlesworth and Prof. John Dominic Crossan. If “scholars” stop attacking each other personally, more will go on record. Furthermore, it’s time to review, in light of the new findings, the archaeology previously dismissed. Maybe everyone’s not wrong about everything all the time. Maybe we actually found something significant this time. And maybe significant archaeology has been hiding, for decades, in plain sight."<br /><br />Simcha Jacobovici, filmmaker<br />Professor, Religious Studies, Huntington University</b>District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-1370871775664721332012-03-05T09:50:49.631-06:002012-03-05T09:50:49.631-06:00Wow!!!
I am excited about this information and it...Wow!!!<br /><br />I am excited about this information and it seems that it may take years to actually assess its impact in the scholarly community and to sort through the thousands of biblically critical assumptions that have been made for generations.<br /><br />Here is the latest. A portion from the filmaker Simcha Jacobovici:<br /><br /><b>" The fact is that what we found is unprecedented whether you call our Jonah image a pillar, an amphora or a perfume bottle. In the words of Yuval Baruch, Jerusalem District Head of the Israel Antiquities Authority, “there’s nothing else like it on an ossuary”. We also found a statement of faith. But even if you say it’s not about resurrection, but some kind of exaltation or testament to an ascension of some kind, there is simply nothing like it on any of the thousands of ossuaries catalogued so far. Again, those are the words of Yuval Baruch. It doesn’t help to say that many Jews believed in resurrection. They didn’t record their statements on their ossuaries. The statement is unique. Furthermore, the archaeological context is attested. Like it or not, these two tombs are linked and set apart from the rest of the Talpiot necropolis. That’s not my opinion, that’s the opinion of Dr. Natalie Messika, an expert in archaeological mapping often under contract with the IAA. As for the linkage to early followers of Jesus, the fact is that whoever made those pictures and wrote that inscription was sectarian and not normative. Jews did not – and do not – write the Tetragrammaton on a bone box filled with “tumah” or impurity. I know that there is an attempt to re-read the second line in the inscription, but the reading was confirmed repeatedly by major scholars, including Prof. Rollston who is now revising his opinion. It’s OK to change one’s mind. All I’m saying is that the vast majority of scholars see the ineffable name inscribed in the second line."</b>District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-50075532318886521672012-03-01T20:15:05.051-06:002012-03-01T20:15:05.051-06:00Here is another that may interest you regarding so...Here is another that may interest you regarding some aspects of this finding:<br /><br /><b>"This is a repetition of a comment that I made at ASORblog, but I believe it ought to be said here also.<br /><br />We are not qualified to comment on any of the new claims; however, we do take exception to claims that scholars continue to make regarding Talpiyot Tomb A.<br /><br />Rollston, on ASORblog, claims again that the names are common and that “Jesus son of Joseph”) is not unique because Sukenik found an ossuary inscribed similarly in 1931.<br /><br />If we take the word unique to mean literally a single occurrence, then yes, the combination "Jesus son of Joseph" is not unique. But "not unique" does not mean so common that the combination is without interest. In arguing for non-uniqueness as the equivalent of "common and not interesting", Rollston points to the only other documented occurrence of the combination of Yeshua/Jesus and Yehoseph/Joseph on an ossuary. When we use Ilan's compilation to expand inquiry on this question, a compilation that includes 231 examples of the name Joseph, we find only one more example; Joseph, Joshua's brother. The combination of these two names occurs with a frequency that is consistent with drawing two names independently and randomly from the distribution of names in First Century Palestine, which also leads one to believe the combination is not common in any sense of the word.<br /><br />Moreover, focusing on "Jesus son of Joseph" ignores that the collection of inscriptions also includes "Yoseh" and "Mary". To decide what the observation of additional known names from the family of Jesus might mean, we have reasoned as follows:<br /><br />If we assume that the Jerusalem area does contain a tomb of the Jesus Family, and considering that the inverse of the number of such tombs represents a neutral probability that the Talpiyot Tomb A is that of the Jesus Family, then we and other investigators place this a priori probability at about one in a thousand--a probability low enough to render most tombs as being uninteresting to the search for the Jesus Family Tomb. However, we view the combination of names as evidence about the family in the tomb. Likelihood ratio is a measure of power of evidence and the likelihood ratio of this name combination, relative to random occurrence in the population, is about 30, if one assumes that "Yoseh" is as common as the name "Joseph", or rises to 470 if one considers "Yoseh" as a rare name in its own right. Even a likelihood ratio of 30 is significant, but a ratio of 470 is very powerful evidence of rareness of such a combination of names, and evidence in favor of being able to identify the specific family in this tomb. <br /><br />Frankly, we do not expect to see such a combination of names in any other tomb, found or remaining to be found; a conservative estimate would be that one might see one other such combination of names in one-thousand tombs. If there truly is a Jesus Family Tomb, Talpiyot A is likely the best candidate. Of course this evidence may all be a coincidence, but Jacobovici and Tabor ought to be commended for bringing such an unusual find into public view, and for persevering to look for additional evidence by such extraordinary means."</b> ~ Kevin Kilty. Mark ElliottDistrict Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-31966992957314059932012-03-01T20:09:19.872-06:002012-03-01T20:09:19.872-06:00As I've followed this discussion, I will impor...As I've followed this discussion, I will import a couple of comments that my readers may be interested in as they study this information:<br /><br /><b>"When we identify Jesus' first-generation-followers as the earliest Judeo-Christians, we also point at the first "Christians". The interments in this tomb were Jews, undoubtedly. Yet normative Jews wouldn't inscribe any artistic figure in the second Temple era in general, nor would they in a tomb. When it comes to the explicit name of God, יהוה, the prohibition reaches its peak. So the Jews in this tomb were not normative Jews. This is not the only fish inscribed in a tomb; there is another one in the Galilee. The cross in this tomb is also not the only cross-in-a-tomb. This combination does exist in the Galilee as well. Yes, the patio tomb is the first (Judeo) Christian tomb we know. Maybe we have also to reassess the convention that the cross is a later symbol of Christianity."</b>- Eldad KeynanDistrict Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.com