But that does not stop him from steering the reader

toward a more positive assessment of Tabor’s idea than the evidence can sustain. Tabor’s argument is further hampered—and I would say undone—by two considerations: (1) We have no proof that the Yose of the tomb is actually related to any of the other people named on the tomb’s ossuaries; and (2) even if Yose is related to the other people in the tomb—which is a reasonable guess, but a guess nonetheless—we have no idea HOW he was related since Yose’s ossuary lacks any patronym, or statement of kinship relation.This is perhaps a good place to highlight the need for clear thinking with regard to the Jesus tomb theory and the names in the tomb. The Jesus tomb theory is only compelling if two considerations are true: (1) that the Jesus of the tomb’s Jesus ossuary was in fact Jesus of Nazareth, and (2) the names of the people in the tomb are related to the Jesus of this tomb in the same way that people with those names were related to the Jesus of the New Testament. Both of these are inextricably linked. We can only embrace the Jesus tomb theory if its Jesus figure was Jesus of Nazareth, and that in turn can only be established if the other people in the tomb are the people who knew Jesus of Nazareth. Hence, the Jesus figure of the tomb only takes on the identity of Jesus of Nazareth if it can be established that the other people in the tomb were related to the Jesus figure the way the New Testament describes. The inscriptions must match the New Testament record to “get Jesus in the tomb,” so to speak. If they do not, there is no case.This means that from the outset, the reader must make a basic decision before embracing or rejecting the Jesus tomb theory. You must decide if you are going to make your decision to embrace or reject on the basis of data that actually exist, or data that are speculated to have once existed. The former is real; the latter is the domain of the imagination. This decision is fundamental to processing the inscriptions in the Talpiot tomb in terms of what we can actually know and what we imagine might be knowable. The data provide us with six ossuaries with the following inscriptions:• Mariamenou [e] Mara (“Mary, who is Martha / lord”); or(Mariamē kai Mara; “Mary and Martha”) (Pfann 2007)• Yhwdh br Yshw’ (“Judah/Jude, son of Jesus”)• Mtyh (“Matiyahu”; “Matthew”)• Yshw’ br Yhwsp (“Jesus, son of Joseph”)• Ywsh (“Joseph/Yose”)• Mryh (“Mary”)Notice that only two of the names have what is called a patronym—a descriptive phrase denoting family affiliation or ancestry (e.g., “Jude, son of Jesus”; “Jesus, son of Joseph”).What this means is that, in terms of data that actually exists,the Talpiot tomb tells us only that we have a Jesus who was the son of a Joseph, and a Jude who was the son of a Jesus. We know nothing about the other relationships of the other people in the tomb. Despite this paucity of information, Jacobovici and his associates know how the mind works. Since millions around the world are familiar with the names of Jesus, Mary, Joseph,and Mary Magdalene—whether because of Biblical literacy or The DaVinci Code—the creators of the Jesus Family Tomb documentary assume correctly that when a person hears those names presented together, the mind will immediately cluster them in a manner associated with the New Testament. The mind therefore “defaults” to the supposition that these people are related in the way the New Testament describes, and so the mind is predisposed to equate them with the actual New Testament characters. But that is not what the data from the tomb tell us, since there are no patronyms that produce that conclusion—it is just where the mind goes subconsciously. The data speak to two family relationships. Now here is what we do not know, based on the lack of patronyms, not on where our mind wanders:• We do not know if all or even most of the people in the Talpiot tomb are related. It is assumed that the Talpiot tomb is a family tomb, but we do not actually know that. It is probably a fair guess, but it does not lend any clarity to the situation.• We do not know who among the named occupants of the tomb were immediate or distant relatives. We have only two sonship patronyms on six ossuaries, but that is not as helpful as it has been assumed.• We do not know if the people in the ossuaries were adults or children. There is nothing inscribed on any of the ossuaries that tells us anything about the age of the occupants.• We do not know if the two Jesus names on the ossuaries are one and the same. That is, we do not know if Joseph, Jesus, and Jude are grandfather, father, and son. Those relationships are assumed by the defenders of the Jesus Family tomb theory, but they are actually only speculation. These three individuals could be unrelated in terms of immediate family, but still belong in the family tomb because they are more distantly related to the immediate family members in the tomb.• Though it is assumed, we do not know that Mary (not the Mariamenou) in the tomb is the mother of Jesus. There is no patronym that conveys this information. That Mary mayhave been the sister of the tomb’s Jesus, or an aunt, or a grandmother.• It is also assumed that Mariamenou, considered to be Mary Magdalene, was married to the Talpiot Jesus. Positing such a relationship is based purely on speculation, not on what the ossuaries actually tell us.• We have no way of knowing from the data that actually exists if either Mary was married to the Joseph in the tomb who was supposedly the father of Jesus.The general point to be made by these observations is important. If we have no data with which to match the family relationships that existed between the people who bore these names in the New Testament and the named individuals in the Talpiot tomb, we cannot make an evidence-based claim that this is the Jesus Family Tomb. That conclusion cannot be drawn from the existing data; it must be supplied by means of the imagination.Tabor would respond that the mitochondrial DNA evidence lends support to his view of the names in the tomb. We read from a different blog post:There are two “Marys” in this tomb, known by different forms of that name, namely Maria and Mariamene. The mitDNA test indicates the Mariamene in this tomb is not related to Yeshua as mother or sister on the maternal side. That leaves open the likelihood that Maria could well be the mother, especially if we have two of her sons, Yeshua and Yose, in this tomb. It would make sense that she would be buried with her children in this intimate, small, family tomb and that her ossuary would be inscribed Maria (2007a).Yes, this would make sense—if the data actually told us that Yeshua and Yose were the sons of Mary—but of course there are neither patronyms nor DNA evidence for that. The absence of patronyms means that this Mary could be the wife, sister, or cousin of Yeshua or Yose. The fact that the mitDNA test indicates the Mariamene in this tomb is not related to Yeshua as mother or sister on the maternal side does not rule out a host of other possibilities, including sharing the same father. Yeshua and Mariamne could have had the same father with different mothers or could be paternally related as cousins, aunts-uncle, grandparents, or father-daughter. They could even be close family friends. I can think of several adjectives that would characterize this line of argumentation, but “compelling” is not one of them.THE STATISTICAL RARITY OF THE COMBINATION OF THE NAMESTabor’s second argument is that the combination of names on the ossuaries is statistically improbable, and so the Talpiot tomb is likely the Jesus family tomb. Anyone who has followed the debate over the Talpiot tomb knows that this statistical argument has been forcefully disputed, chiefly by Dr. Randy Ingermanson, whose expertise is computational physics,a field that requires professional experience in statistics.Dr.

Rosetta Stone Chinese

mystery man who informed him of a fifth anchor

And a sixth anchor found off the Munxar Reef.After his investigations, the author had a problem. He had no tangible proof of the anchor stocks to show the world. The first of the anchor stocks was melted down; the second, third and fourth were in private collections; and the fifth and six had been sold. According to the Maltese antiquities law, it was illegal for the private citizens to have the anchor stocks in their possession, a fear expressed by each diver/family that told their stories about the anchor stocks in his or its possession (Cornuke 2003: 108, 112, 126). A strategy, however, was devised that would get those who possessed the anchor stocks to reveal them to the public. The aid of the US ambassador to Malta, Kathy Proffitt, was enlisted to convince the President and Prime Minister of Malta to offer an amnesty to anyone who would turn over antiquities found off the Munxar Reef (2003: 221-223). The pardons were issued on September 23, 2002. This resulted in two anchor stocks being turned over to the authorities. Now the book could be written. Thorough Research?When I first read the book, I was disappointed to find that Mr. Cornuke does not interact with, or mention, some very important works on the subject of Paul’s shipwreck; nor are they listed in his bibliography. The classic work on this subject is James Smith’s The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. In fact, the noted New Testament and classical scholar, F. F. Bruce said this book was "an indispensable handbook to the study of this chapter [Acts 27]" (1981: 499), and elsewhere, "This work remains of unsurpassed value for its stage-by-stage annotation of the narrative of the voyage" (1995: 370, footnote 9). Yet nowhere in his book does Mr. Cornuke mention Smith’s work or even discuss the information contained therein. Nor is there any mention of George Musgrave’s, Friendly Refuge (1979), or W. Burridge’s, Seeking the Site of St. Paul’s Shipwreck (1952). There are some scholars who do not believe Paul even was shipwrecked on the island of Malta. Nowhere in Mr. Cornukes’ "Lost Shipwreck" is there an acknowledgment or even a discussion of the Dalmatia or Greek sites.James Smith identifies the place of landing as St. Paul’s Bay, others suggest different beaches within the bay. Musgrave suggested the landing was at Qawra Point at the entrance to Salina Bay. Burridge places the shipwreck in Mellieha Bay. Those who reject the island of Malta as the place of the shipwreck point out that the Book of Acts uses the Greek word "Melite" (Acts 28:1). There were two "Melite’s" in the Roman world: Melite Africana, the modern island of Malta, and Melite Illyrica, an island in the Adriatic Sea called Mljet in Dalmatia (Meinardus 1976: 145-147). A recent suggestion for the shipwreck was the island of Cephallenia in Greece (Warnecke and Schirrmacher 1992).Did the sea captain and crew recognize the land? (Acts 27:39)Luke states, "When it was day, they did not recognize the land; but they observed a bay with a beach" (Acts 27:39a). The sea captain and the sailors could see the shoreline, but did not recognize the shoreline and where they were. It was only after they had gotten to land that they found out they were on the island of Malta (Acts 28:1).Lionel Casson, one of the world’s leading experts on ancient nautical archaeology and seafaring, describes the route of the Alexandrian grain ships from Alexandria in Egypt to Rome. In a careful study of the wind patterns on the Mediterranean Sea and the account of Lucian’s Navigation that gives the account of the voyage of the grain ship Isis, he has demonstrated that the ship left Alexandria and headed in a northward direction. It went to the west of Cyprus and then along the southern coast of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) and headed for Knidos or Rhodes. The normal route was under (south of) the island of Crete and then west toward Malta. Thus the eastern shoreline of Malta was the recognizable landmark for them to turn north and head for Syracuse, Sicily and on to Puteoli or Rome (1950: 43-51; Lucian, The Ship or the Wishes; LCL 6: 431-487).Mr. Cornuke correctly states: "Malta itself was well visited as a hub of trade during the time of the Roman occupation and would have been known to any seasoned sailor plying the Mediterranean" (2003: 31). Any seasoned sailor coming from Alexandria would clearly recognize the eastern shoreline of Malta.He also properly identified two of the many ancient harbors on Malta as being at Valletta and Salina Bay (2003: 32). The ancient Valletta harbor was much further inland in antiquity and is called Marsa today, and is at the foot of Corradino Hill (Bonanno 1992: 25). Roman storehouses with amphorae were discovered in this region in 1766-68 (Ashby 1915: 27-30). When Alexandrian grain ships could not make it to Rome before the sea-lanes closed for the winter, they wintered on Malta (see Acts 28:11). They would off load their grain and store them in the storehouses of Marsa (Gambin 2005). Sea captains coming from Alexandria would be very familiar with the eastern shoreline of Malta before they entered the harbor of Valletta.The city of Melite was the only major city on Roman Malta, there were however, villas and temples scattered throughout the countryside. Today Melite lies under the modern city of Mdina / Rabat. The main harbor for Melite was Marsa, not Salina Bay (Said-Zammit 1997: 43,44,132; Said 1992: 1-22).Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian who lived in the First Century BC, states regarding Malta: "For off the south of Sicily three islands lie out in the sea, and each of them possesses a city and harbours which can offer safety to ships which are in stress of weather. The first one is that called Melite [Malta], which lies about eight hundred stades from Syracuse, and it possesses many harbours which offer exceptional advantages." (Library of History 5:12:1-2; LCL 3: 129). Note his description, "many harbors." Many includes more than just two; so where are the rest?Knowledge of Arabic can give us a clue. The word "marsa" is the Arabic word for harbor (Busuttil 1971: 305-307). There are at least three more harbors that can be added to the list. The Marsamxett harbor within the Grand Harbor of Valletta; Marsascala Bay just north of St. Thomas Bay; and Marsaxlokk Bay in the southeast portion of Malta all would be Roman harbors. The last bay was a major Roman harbor / port that served the famous Temple of Juno on the hill above it and was also a place for ships to winter.Any ancient Mediterranean Sea captain, or seasoned sailor on the deck of a ship anchored off the Munxar Reef, immediately would recognize the eastern shoreline of Malta with these Roman harbors and anchorages. Malta was the landmark for sailors traveling from Crete and about to turn north to Sicily. The eastern end of the island would be what they saw first and it would be a welcome sight.There are at least four recognizable points that could be seen from the outer Munxar Reef had this been the exact spot of the shipwreck of Paul as Mr. Cornuke argues. The first was the entrance to Marsaxlokk Bay where a Roman harbor / port was, the second, the entrance to Marsascala Bay where another Roman harbor was located. The third point would be the dangerous Munxar Reef (or small islands or peninsula in the 1st century AD) that any sea captain worth his salt would recognize because of its inherent danger. The final point, and most important, was the site known today as Tas-Silg. This was a famous temple from the Punic / Roman period dedicated to one goddess known by different names by the various ethnic groups visiting the island. She was Tanit to the Phoenicians, Hera to the Greeks, Juno to the Romans, and Isis to the Egyptians (Trump 1997: 80, 81; Bonanno 1992: Plate 2 with a view of St. Thomas Bay in the background).In preparation for my January 2005 trip to Malta I studied this important temple. It was a landmark for sailors coming from the east. Could this temple be seen from the outer Munxar Reef? On the first day I arrived in Malta, Tuesday, January 11, a fellow traveler and I went to visit the excavations.

Rosetta Stone Japanese