Tidningen Dagen skriver om följande konferens:
The Third Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins: Jewish Views of the After Life and Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism: Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context (Jan 13-16, 2008, Mishkenot Sha’ananim, Jerusalem)
Här är några viktiga röster från konferensen. Du kan läsa hela uttalanden genom att klicka på namnen. Glöm inte läsa kommentarerna på bloggarna:
Stephen Pfann:
Throughout this conference, almost without exception, the archaeologists, scientists, epigraphers and textual scholars could find no compelling evidence that would support the claim that the Talpiot Tomb under discussion (one of many tombs in the Talpiot district of Jerusalem) was anything other than a first-century Jewish family tomb with no connection to any known historical family. There were a few scholars on hand, working in the literature and the social sciences, who would contend that there was some likelihood that the tomb was actually the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.
Duke University Religion Department and NT Gateway Weblog:
A firestorm has broken out in Jerusalem following the conclusion of the “Third Princeton Theological Seminary Symposium on Jewish Views of the Afterlife and Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism: Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context.” Most negative assessments of archaeologists and other scientists and scholars who attended have been excluded from the final press reports. Instead the media have presented the views of Simcha Jacobovici, who produced the controversial film and book “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” with Hollywood director James Cameron, and who claims that his identification has been vindicated by the conference papers. Nothing further from the truth can be deduced from the discussion and presentations that took place on January 13-17, 2008. … To conclude, we wish to protest the misrepresentation of the conference proceedings in the media, and make it clear that the majority of scholars in attendance – including all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb – either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly speculative.
Joe Zias:
When first approached by conference organizers to participate in the Princeton Theological Seminary three day symposium, I along with several colleagues refused. My refusal was due to the fact that I had firsthand experience with Simcha Jacobovici, James Tabor and company over the film as well as their popular books and saw the deliberate manipulation of anthropological/archaeological data in order to pursue their agenda, namely TV ratings and book sales. … Now that the damage has been done the sponsors behind the Talpiot tomb publicity stunt are claiming on their blogs that they were misunderstood, ill advised etc. and that the jury is still out on their claim, whereas the truth is just the opposite, the overwhelming majority, if not nearly all scholars present, except one, regarded this as but a shameful and distasteful attempt to achieve fame and fortune at the expense of colleagues, the Holocaust and the profession.
Professor Charlesworths tolkningen av resultatet av konferensen, att det skulle finnas ett mandat bland bibelforskare och arkeologer att öppna graven på nytt, måste betraktas som mycket tveksamt. Det hela luktar publicitet och pengar.
Biblical Archaeology Society har öppnat en hemsida enbart för denna debatt. Där kan du läsa fler röster för och emot, och följa hur diskussionen utvecklas, även om hela grejen också enligt min mening borde begravas för gått.
HOS Green 
Tack för intressant läsning!
/Mikael Gunnarsson – Teologiska Högskolan i Stockholm
GillaGilla
(Ursäkte om det här blir en dubelpostning; jag vet inte om inlägget postades eller inte.)
Hej,
Jag läste lite på din blogg.
Läs gärna mitt inlägg om Ribi Yehoshuas grav:
http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2008/01/skedde-det-en-fysisk-uppstndelse-av.html
Vänliga hälsningar
Anders Branderud
GillaGilla
Hej Anders
Den nyhetsartikel du citerar är anledningen till att forskarvärlden och arkeologerna som var på konferensen reagerade med egna uttalanden, att den ursprungliga rapporteringen i nyhetsmedia inte stämmer med verkligheten. Det var bara en arkeolog, som inte heller hade någon expertkunskap i ämnet, som ställde sig positiv till möjligheten att det är Jesu släktgrav som är funnen. Resten av deltagarna är skarpt kritiska och förkastar idén som publicistisk.
Vad beträffar Yosef Gat var han aldrig en ledande arkeolog. Läs Joe Zias uttalande om bland annat Yosef Gat som jag har länkat till i mitt inlägg.
GillaGilla
Hej Stefan!
Ursäkta att mitt svar har dröjt.
Det är bevisat att ”Ya·aqov Ossuary” är autentisk.
Citat från vår hemsida – http://www.netzarim.co.il :
Interestingly, the world-renowned petrologist who testified at the forgery trial, Dr. Wolfgang E. Krumbein, proved from before and after photographs that the traces of red paint, along with many other features, appeared only after the ossuary was in the custody of IAA and Israeli police. Dr. Krumbein notes that the rosette was made with different tools (stylus and metal chisel), perhaps suggesting that these may be recent additions that weren’t part of the question posed to him and, hence, he did not directly address. This proves that parts, probably all, of this ”transformation” was done either by the IAA or the police while in their custody!!! The obvious motivation would be for persons of IAA to cover their tracks for previous irregularities. That would indicate an IAA, not police, conspiracy.
It was not the deceased Yoseiph Gat, thus, a priori, apparently leaving only Amos Kloner as the person who ”lost” the 10th ossuary. So why is Joe Zias so declaratively defensive? He was the curator. Even if he wasn’t involved in removing the ossuary or selling it on the black market, as curator [intendent; vid museum och dylikt] he remains ultimately responsible for the ossuary being lost. Thus, Joe Zias has to argue that it was never lost or missing—despite the fact that it was there and is no longer there.
Not only did Dr. Krumbein prove that the Ya·aqov Ossuary is authentic (see ”Burning Issues, the Ya·aqov Ossuary”), he also proved it had been ”reddened,” contaminated by modern chemicals and cleaning agents, wire-brushed (or similarly defaced), making the inscription look fake, and possibly inscribed the rosette ”decorations,” using modern tools, while in IAA and police custody (1996?), either the IAA or the Israeli police deliberately changed the ossuary to make it appear a forgery! (See the reports by Dr. Krumbein in Burning Issues: Ya·aqov Ossuary.) In 1980, before this deliberate defacing (to make the ossuary appear fake?), the ossuary was simply ”plain and broken” when the inscription was suppressed, covered in terra rosa or unnoticed in the hasty and cursory look by Yoseiph Gat (and, maybe, Amos Kloner).”
citat från http://www.netzarim.co.il ; klicka på ”History museum” i vänstermenyn; klicka på ”Mashiakh” i toppmenyn; bläddra ner.
GillaGilla
Oavsett om stenkistan är autentisk eller inte, så bevisar det inte på något sätt att den skulle vara kopplad till Jesus Kristus. Namnet på benkistan är alltför vanliga för att kunnas betraktas som bevis för att man har funnit Jesu grav. Se karikatyren i nästa inlägg i denna serie: så länge det inte finns med ett ”Gringo” i namnen bevisar denna ”upptäckt” inget utom att det är frågan om en vanlig släktgrav från nytestamentlig tid där personerna inte går att identifiera med någon slags säkerhet. Att koppla ihop detta med Jesus i Nya testamentet är helt enkelt pseudovetenskap, dvs nonsens.
GillaGilla