Talk:The Jesus Dynasty

Merge

It's likely that this book is notable, but the article is currently only a single-paragraph summary. There's already a paragraph about the book at James Tabor#Works and publications (which cites two reviews), so I suggest merging the additional information from this article into that. If enough is later written about the book to require a separate article, it can be split off then. EALacey 18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK! Give me time!!! Mike0001 (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The last paragraph of this summary is clearly not neutral. It also seems to imply that there is not further controversy surrounding the Talpiot tomb itself, which significantly affects how much "weight" the tomb findings can lend to Tabor's position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffvw29 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

POV

This article seems to cite only positive responses. See Talk:Ebionites#Possibility of bringing the article back up to FA for other review material which was significantly less favorable. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources template

As per discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Compassionate Spirit website, Akers' own review from that website probably does not qualify as a reliable source per se. That is the reason for the addition of the template. I will find some of the other reviews of the book to help ensure that it pass notability guidelines, as I have no doubt it does. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael, unfortunately, a single assertion by one editor that a source is reliable does not take priority over a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, as is linked to above. I realize you almost certainly didn't even bother to look at this, but, really, that sort of behavior is really inexcusable. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your realisation is incorrect. Which you should have realised since I have actually implemented the suggestion at the discussion to mention the reviews listed at Tabor's website. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to exclude a review because it is favourable, whilst leaving alone a negative review is about as POV as it gets. And BTW the aforesaid discussion did not say that the review was unreliable.--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your statekent above not only completely fails to assume good faith as per WP:AGF but is factually wrong. I went to the RSN to determine if the source was a reliable one because, if it was, the information I had added to the Ebionites article regarding the Ebionite Jewish Community could be made a separate article, based on its mention in that web site as well. This is currently the only page which links to that site as a source, which is why I mentioned it on the RSN. Your failure to abide by that most basic conduct guideline is troubling, but, unfortunately, not unexpected. And please note that, despite your own additions, the subsequent comments on the RSN seem to indicate that the site itself is still, at best, dubiously reliable as a source. You know, if I had wanted to remove it, I could have just done so, citing the RSN as basis. The fact that you jumped to an unfounded conclusion, and that your own response still doesn't exactly proof that it is a RSN, is like I said, unfortunately not unexpected. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

POV template

The majority of the critical response to this book, so far as I have seen, is actually negative, as can be seen by the sources cited at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor, yet, somehow, almost all of them seem to have been overlooked. That being the case, I believe it is more than reasonable to add the POV template until and unless a more balanced discussion of the reception the book actually received is. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And somehow all the positive responses were overlooked, except 1.--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I only found the ones on the databases I used. However, that does not excuse your removing the template when there is clear evidence that the article is, from the above named sources, clearly unbalanced. Please do not engage in an edit war by removing the template again until these concerns have been met. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I fully addressed your concerns. I note the shameless attempt to game the mediation process. But I shall leave the POV template in place so all the world can see your bias. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael, I cannot see how any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that the comment you made above even remotely addresses the concerns that none of the reviews or comments on the works, including several negative comments from academics, even remotely addressed the concerns raised. I note your once again failing to provide any reason why that material is not included, and jumping to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence. The concerns will be addressed when that critical material receives the same degree of emphasis and attention as the material already included, given concerns regarding due weight and such, and not until then. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the template. John Carter, do some work for once and add the new sources yourself to make the article more NPOV rather than criticizing everyone else. Ovadyah (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And I restored the template. Your comments above are also probably unacceptable as per WP:TPG and other bases and I will have to take any further attempts as edit warring. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If you tag the article, the burden is on you to do something constructive to improve it. Ovadyah (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And the burden was met in the very first edit to this section. Unfortunately, unlike other individuals, there are a number of things I am engaged in around here, some of which are more pressing than others. Right now, this subject is basically waiting for a mediator, and I am basically waiting to engage in edits until such time as a mediator is selected, particularly taking into account the reguarly less than civil comments of others. The sources are all there, and the burden of proof has been met. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No consensus for template. Reverted. Despite claims to the contrary, a range of reviews are accessible from the article. Let the reader decide. --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, policies and guidelines are fairly explicit regarding this subject, and the evidence to the contrary is abundantly clear, including how, somehow, the negative reviews in Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews, two of the most obvious sources for reviews, have been, to date, completely ignored. I have to say that any further removal of the template without adding several of the quite easily accessible less than positive reviews and analysis the work has received will have to be reported as edit warring. I am, unfortunately, busy with a few other matters right now, as can be seen by my recent edits. Also, there is an inherent assumption in WP:AGF that the individuals involved actually demonstrate good faith occasionally. The fact that so many other comments, including the to-date ignored negative responses, are so easily available, and have been for some time, and have yet been ignored, is I believe at least some reason to indicate that the assumption of good faith may not be necessarily relevant in this instance. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If you, John Carter, feel the reviews are unbalanced, then why don't you add a few more to the external links in a neutral fashion - as I have in the past - where readers can judge for themselves. And don't waste your breath making puerile threats - you are the one editing against the consensus. As Ovadyah said, trying doing something constructive for a change. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael, it is not a case about what I personally fell, but what is demonstrably the case. As I said above, why don't you do something not only constructive but also demonstrating good faith and add the material which obviously exists which you have somehow managed to avoid even any reference to? It would be a significant improvement over the reversions which you have. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added material. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have put the POV tag back. It should not be removed without a consensus being reached here per policy. I will also point out external links to reviews is not how it`s done. So i`ll make a start on fixing this article mark nutley (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And I will point out that Michael has already reverted that template 3 times in the last 24 hours, which is the maximum permitted by WP:3RR and a fourth, whether within 24 hours or not, would almost certainly qualify under WP:EW. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you can count. What a shame you can't edit constructively. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael, go read wp:npa then come back here. The only posative review in this article was to a self published website so i took it out. Lets try to find some others to provide balance mark nutley (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out above, in the first edit to this section, there are several others available. I certainly do not expect Michael to trust me on this, but the material at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor all relates, to some degree or another, to the discussion of Tabor and his theories in this book, or in the documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus which is said as per the sources listed there to have been based on this book. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

John, that wikilink leads to just a bunch of excerpts from the book? At least i think thats what it is, such is ok for the books synopsis section but not for reviews mark nutley (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No, it's just that the first and by far the longest item included regarding the response to this book is from another book, specifically from an appendix to that book relating directly to this book. If you were to page down several times, you would see that there are about 40 or more other fully-quoted reviews and other comments on this work. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Got links to the actual reviews? Or just the name of the book in which these reviews are? BTW biblical heritage, looks self published to me, can you tell me more about them at all? mark nutley (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is looking more balanced now but a few more positive reviews are needed, lets get a consensus on the tag mark nutley (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if many, if any, of the other reviews are available online, other than on the databases I list as the sources. I intended to try to find them, but various things have been coming up to delay that effort, unfortunately. And, for what it's worth, if anyone were to check any of the databases listed there, they would I think have to agree that I included pretty much everything from every article available, with the exception of some material which was picked up or written by wire services and used in multiple sources. Sorry about not getting to checking the web for them yet. Regarding looking for a few more "positive" sources on the subject, good luck, I like I said added almost literally everything I saw on the subject, positive or negative, barring wire service material and really brief nonsubstantial mentions in "books received" articles and the like. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as progress is being made - adding content to improve the article and to make it more NPOV - there should be no need for a tag. This is a typical John Carter stunt used to hold articles hostage and intimidate other editors. Ovadyah (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As i said to Michael above, go read wp:npa then come back here mark nutley (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:NPA. However, if you are familiar with JC's edit history, you will realize this is a historical fact as opposed to a personal attack. There are many different ways to make progress I suppose, but I believe the best approach is to try to reach a community consensus. Ovadyah (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And if you will look at Ovadyah's edit history, using talk pages to belittle others without addressing the issues of substance being raised is very typical of his recent behavior. John Carter (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought for a minute John, you were describing your behaviour at the mediation you eventually walked away from. You know, the one where you refused to provide any sources? --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Guys, either remain civil or stay away from this article. Sniping at each other only leads to more trouble. Discuss content not each other and the article will get somewere mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

US News link doesn't seem to work

I can't get the link to the US News & World Report article to work for me, just FYI. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

[1] Works for me ok mark nutley (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It does now for me as well; previously I was getting some screen saying that the page could not be produced or whatever - I can't remember the specific format though. My apologies. A few quotes from the article, perhaps from the paragraphs starting "What Tabor attempts is not completely new," "Tabor seems himself squarely within this effort to restore the Jewish context of Jesus's life and mission," "How to prove that interpretation is, of course, the question," and "Tabor admits that his book uses evidence creatively," and maybe the following paragraphs, might be in order, not saying that other material might not be as well. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with adding anything from that one, it will unbalance the article to far and create another POV issue. Personally i think the review section is ok, maybe a few tweaks here and there but not really a lot to be added. We should start on the synopsis next whic his really not very NPOV at all. mark nutley (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The synopsis is, of course, of the book itself. Not sure how you apply NPOV to that. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article at present basically ignores all the content that doesn't relate directly to this group of theories, and, although I don't remember the exact structure of the book that well, gives the impression that this theory is, basically, the only thing he says in the book. It could be argued that such exclusive attention to one aspect of the book is itself a form of POV violation, I suppose. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And just what is the content that is ignored? --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the book discussed at length toward the beginning of the book the Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera legend, which doesn't even seem to be mentioned in the article as is. This seems to have been one of the major parts of the "Indiana Jones" role Tabor gave himself that is discussed both in some reviews as well as the cover text of some editions. And I believe that isn't the only material which the article doesn't cover, but I can't remember right now. John Carter (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe Tabor explicitly stated in the book that he could not accept the idea that Jesus did not have a natural biological father, which was the reason the Pantera legend was brought up. I also have to question the possible overuse of the word "theory" in the heading. It is more standard in good articles about books to break up the material regarding the content of the book in roughly the same way as it is presented in the book itself, which I very much believe the article as is completely fails to do. John Carter (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I had already changed the heading title :-) And your first sentence is a complete non-sequitur (and very funny). So now Tabor is a quack, fringe etc because he thinks someone had a father. Gee, I guess that would make him an ... ebionite. Shock, horror........ Thanks. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets focus here guys

I assume everyone is more or less happy with the reception section now? If not please state what you think is wrong with it here mark 08:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Lede

I have changed the lede a little to reflect that this is Tabor`s theory and that is is an alternative one, would people say this is an accurate assessment of the situation? If not please state your objections here mark 08:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems to overlap with the next section, but I'll repeat it here. Tabor's POV is a development of the ideas of others, e.g. Eisenman, Hugh Schonfield and others who fall into what can loosely be described as the "historical Jesus" camp. Describing it as "his theory" (alternative or not) is slightly misleading, since it ignores this context. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis

The synopsis needs to be rewritten to reflect that all of this is a theory put forward by tabor, we can use some of the reviews to source it or the book. Thoughts on a way forward here please mark 08:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Some of it just a development of earlier work. Eisenman has been pushing James of the Just as Jesus's sucessor for awhile and there is a large segment of the "historical Jesus" viewpoint in academia. Tabor is developing material that is already "out there" - as at least one of the reviews said. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes i know that but it is still a little fringe right? It can`t be written as fact or that`ll cause NPOV problems. So what is the current thoughts on this theory? mark (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That very much depends on which camp you fall into, as you would expect for such a sensitive subject. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well for me i`m not in any camp :o) but what is the current academic view on this issue? I know the whole tomb thing caused uproar [2] Shall we play it safe with the synopsis and try to present it from both sides? mark (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the tomb thing has not generally been accepted, but I could be wrong. Anyway the book itself is quite agnostic about that, which is now mentioned in the article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The "tomb thing" is indicated in table of contents item 2.2.40 of User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor as having been at one time rejected 15-0 by the members of the Israeli Antiquities Association, although one member of the IAA apparently is open to it being the tomb of Jesus. This is, admittedly, I think in a section unrelated to Tabor directly, and isn't included in the summary I have provided elsewhere of the material directly relevant to Tabor. Also, the BBC piece about it, which was released around the time the tomb was first found, has been described as "laughable". I think it is safe to say that the theory has met fairly general rejection. And I myself would prefer to see the material discussed as being from the book as being specifically cited and, if possible, with quotations from the page. And the structure of the article probably would be best conformed to the proposed template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the book makes no claims about the authenticity of the tomb (yes, check the book if you don't believe me) I see no point in raising the issue of its authenticity here, although it would have merit at the tomb article.--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, actually, as I think you know, the burden of proof lies on the person who wants the material included, in this case, you. And, while your personal opinions about what content is relevant are welcome, they are only your own personal opinions, and I think it makes sense to find out if perhaps less involved parties might have different ones. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

John and Michael, i should like to see the two of you work together in one of your sandboxs and write a rough draft for the synopsis. I would like it fully sourced from reviews and the book itself. Will the two of you join together and see what you can come up with? mark (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

One problem with the Talpiot Tomb thing is that there is still, after I think at least a few years, a court case ongoing in Israel about whether one of the artifacts involved (I think the James ossuary) is a fraud. The judge at some time said in mild exasperation something like How can I rule on the case when your experts disagree with each other about it? Also, honestly, I think I only read the book once, and my memory of it isn't good. I can try to help write something up, but I don't think that I'm likely to get to it for at least a few days yet. But if Michael is ready to prepare a draft of the content in a sandbox or user subpage, I would be more than willing to add what I can in a few days. If he does, I think that content of the section about the book would probably be best if it created subsections about each of the named sections of the book, and added the content appropriately. Those section titles are "In the Beginning was the Family," "Growing Up Jewish in Galilee," "A Great Revival and a Gathering Storm," "Entering the Lion's Den," and "Waiting for the Son of Man." I would think each section would probably deserve at least one or two paragraphs about the content contained therein. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And that john is how you and micheal will get this article up to GA :o) nice one mark (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Forwarding of e-mails

It is possible for me to get the host of any of the documents I have listed at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor to e-mail those items to any e-mail address. If anyone would want those materials, please send me an e-mail.

For what it's worth, the material that I think is relevant and deserving of mention is more or less what follows, with indications of which sources can be used to support it indicated, indicated by their number in the table of contents at the top of the userpage mentioned above, because so many have similar if not identical titles.

• Kathy Reichs said she was inspired to write her book Cross Bones on the basis of Tabor's work. Items 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.4.
• Religious response to the book. The only source I have on this is from Cardinal Egan, 2.2.16
• The audiobook edition should be mentioned, 2.2.18
• Kirkus Reviews, Library Journal and Publishers Weekly are among the most standard reviews, and could bear mention. The "not recommended" in the Library Journal article is I think relevant. 2.2.5, 2.2.13, 2.2.14.
• 2.2.33 says that Tabor in his blog said he sold the film rights to the book, and the article indicates that The Lost Tomb of Jesus is the film based on that book. This is specifically mentioned nowhere else, I think because the producer of the documentary published a book to accompany the documentary, and saying it was based on an already extant book wouldn't help sales of his new book, but we probably could quote the item as the source.
• 2.2.22 describes Tabor and others as cashing in on the Da Vinci Code. 2.2.23 and 2.2.25 say Tabor says his book was at least partially aimed at the DaVinci Code audience. The fact that 2.2.1 says the then yet-to-be-released book was about Masada and ancient bones, and there is no subsequent mention of Masada in any of the other comments, leads me to think the book was changed to better sell to the DaVinci Code audience. Also, JSTOR comes up with virtually no references to the book at all, indicating that the academic market was not considered part of this book's market. 2.2.8 says this more explictly saying the book falls in the subgenre of popular religious nonfiction.
• Pages 308 and 309 of Witherington's book say that Tabor had a vested interest in the book, even quoting him to indicate where in the book this is indicated. He goes on to say that Tabor says in the book he is hopeful that his preferred form of religious belief could be resuscitated. I think it is very relevant to this article to indicate that Tabor was apparently using the book, at least in part, to advance a religious opinion. Slate also says "Tabor blares a loud trumpet to announce his appeal for the 'original version of Christianity, long lost and forgotten.'" Tabor also explicitly says near the end of 2.2.21 that he hopes he lives to see that people accept that Jesus was not resurrected. The material can also easily be taken as saying that he hopes that people accept the Talbiot Tomb as being Jesus's burial place, but that is somewhat ambiguous.

I can have any of these pieces retrieved from databases, or any others anyone wants, sent by the database to those individuals if they give me their e-mail addresses. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this a legitimate use of talk page space? Please move this your own user space. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, actually, indicating that the sources can be sent out to individuals for verification is I think a legitimate use of talk page space. And I am largely using this section to indicate what material I think should be added and on what basis, which I think is one of the main purposes of article talk pages. Anyone who wants any of the articles I mention can send me an e-mail. Then I will have the database I retrieved the articles from send them the material they request, and they can confirm the material themselves. I believe the databases in question have all been found to be acceptable sources of information before, as per discussion at WP:RSN#Subscription databases as reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Directly relevant quotation

I was rather presumptuously, at least I thought, told by Michael to raise this issue here, as, apparently, he doesn't think that questioning the reliability of sources on articles where the material is used as a source is relevant to that article. Anyway, the following quote from Witherington's book does, I think, deserve being referenced in this article:

"Tabor says that the phrase "James of Alphaeus" means James son of Alphaeus, and this is likely correct. As we saw in the case of Simon bar Jonah, Jewish men were normally identified by such patronymics. But Tabor then wants to turn around and read the adjacent phrase "Judas of James" as meaning Jude brother of James. This will not do. The Greek construction is the same in both cases, and the original audience hearing the wording would have assumed that the genitive modifier had the same sense in both cases. Immediately prior to the verse in question, when Luke wanted to say someone was the brother of another disciple, he inserted the word adelphos (for instance, "Andrew the brother of Peter," v. 14). There is a good reason translations render the phrase "Judas of James" as referring to a son and a father. This is the most natural and appropriate way to render the phrase if there is no further qualification, as in the case of Peter and Andrew. This in turn means this Judas cannot be the one who was Jesus' brother. But then neither was Simon the Zealot or Jacob listed as one of Jesus's brothers. This logic cannot stand close scrutiny, and with its demise so goes most of Tabor's theory about a Jesus dynasty."

The most important part is, I think, the last few sentences. John Carter (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Witherington's blog was deemed inappropiate, by others, for this article.--Michael C. Price ^talk 23:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael, it's a book, not a blog. And please show me exactly where these comments were made, thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

[3]. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I was aware of that comment at the time, actually, and do not think that it meant that any and all material from that book is to be ignored in this article, which is what you at least very strongly implied in your comment. I have also asked the person who made that comment to comment here about whether that is what he meant. John Carter (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ben Witherington is a well-known conservative religious polemicist, who has published scathing criticisms of the Jesus Seminar in book form. He is doing the same thing with Tabor. While Witherington is a legitimate scholar, it's also important to recognize that his books have an element of religious propaganda, and therefore need to be carefully weighted and counter-balanced in articles such as this one to maintain a NPOV. Ovadyah (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And you are making assertions and assumptions about the motivations of others without providing any sort of evidence to substantiate them. And there have been statements in other sources, not just Witherington, that Tabor's book itself is, in a sense, itself a form of religious propoganda, which you have seemingly overlooked. If there is, as is I believe the case here, clear evidence that the majority of individuals who have examined the book and theories related to it have discounted the theories and the book, then it is more or less required that that be made clear in the article. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this book published by a reputable publisher? Is it quite notable? Is the author notable? If so then some of this could be used to balance the synopsis and retain NPOV. mark (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In answer to the first question, it was published in hardcover by HarperOne as per here, which is generally considered a reliable source. The author has, as Ovadyah makes clear, an article here, which I tend to think establishes his notability alittle. He is also contacted in some of the published articles which discuss Tabor and this book, which I think goes even further to establish the relevance of his opinions to this subject. The book has also received several independent reviews, some of which can be found at the page linked to above. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We've just tightened up inclusion criterion for the review section. Now you want to open the flood gates again? --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael, please do not engage in apparent misrepresentation of the statements of others. This source is, probably, the single most notable review of the book of all. Witherington is quoted about the subject directly in the articles "THEORY CLASHES WITH FAITH IN DEBATE OVER JESUS' TOMB - UNCC EXPERT TAKING HEAT FOR WORK ON FILM" and "Evidence destroys absurd claim that tomb held Jesus and his family," as can be seen in those articles reproduced at User:John Carter/Ebionites. On that basis, I have to say that his comments in this book had very clearly established that he was perhaps the single leading critic/reviewer of the book out there. How exactly is adding a citation from someone who is himself directly quoted in two articles related to the book "opening the flood gates again"? Please explain. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Since Tabor makes no claims about the authenticity of the tomb this is all just hot air, and irrelevant. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael, if he uses the Talpiot Tomb as evidence of his theory, whether he specifically makes claims for the authenticity or not, then he is using it as evidence for his theory, and on that basis discussion of that evidence can be reasonably discussed. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

IIRC he doesn't connect the two. The dynastic claims, which are the main focus of the book (hence the title), are independent of the Talpiot stuff which is rather disconnected from the rest of the book. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily doubt your memory of the book, the subject is extensively discussed in the book, as I remember, before the presentation of the theory, so, whether he did or didn't explicitly link them, the fact that it was some of the data he presented before he presented his theories would to the eyes of most readers be indicative that he did see it as being evidence. So, in effect, we would have to say, basically, that the book is a bit of a mishmash of theory and observations, or that the observations were meant to support the theory, whether he explicitly said as much or not.

• "Intriguing look at the historical Jesus" certainly linked the two ideas with this quotation "Jesus' tomb indeed was empty on Easter morning - but his own followers had reburied him, either in the family tomb Tabor studied outside Jerusalem, or in Galilee, in another grave Tabor has visited."
• "The Kingdom of Christ" article in U.S. News says the following, "Equally conjectural are Tabor's speculations about Jesus's very human paternity and his discussion of the possibility of a Jesus family tomb in Jerusalem,"
• "Two books latest bids to rewrite the history of Jesus" says "He figures people stole Jesus' corpse from the tomb, most likely Jesus' mother Mary and siser Salome. Tabor assumed there's a "family tomb" containing Jesus' bones somewhere around Jerusalem, but like Baigent and his secrets, tried to track down evidence without success."
• "Jesus Family Tree rooted in wishes" says "Tabor clings to the authenticity of the now largely discredited James Ossuary, saying it could possibly be from "the Jesus family tomb." (By the way, I wonder if Ovadyah noticed Witherington was one of the writers of the apparently first widespread article on the James Ossuary.)

So, it does seem that he discusses the tomb regularly in the book, in a way which indicates that he seems to believe that it could be real. If that is the case, and apparently it is, then it is certainly reasonable to at least discuss in this article about the book one of the major topics of the book, particularly if the author presents it in a way which, whether explicitly stated or not, leads the readers, including those above, leads the reader to believe that he might be using it as a form of evidence for his theory in some way. WP:TRUTH would seem to apply here - basically, if reviewers or readers came to the conclusion he was using it as evidence, whether he explicitly said he was or not, we are free, if not required, to indicate that such was their opinion of the work and act accordingly. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The tomb is mentioned in the introduction - after which it only gets a passing mention. My guess is that he had written the introduction last and wrote the tomb in because it was topical. Not relevant to the dynastic stuff. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

DELETED The Jesus Dynasty

I wrote this on James Tabor main article, Michael considers it "defamation", but seems to me exactly what the state of play is. Tabor is riding a big conspiracy theory wave. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

---

[In 2006 Tabor published The Jesus Dynasty, which interprets Jesus as an apocalyptic Messiah whose extended family founded a royal dynasty in the days before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. He included archaeological data as well as textual interpretations of biblical texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and ancient historical sources. The form of Christianity that grew out of this movement, led by the apostle Paul, was, according to Tabor, a decisive break with the Ebionite-like original teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus.]

ADD Tabor presents the view that the sources of the New Testament documents were collated and altered at an early date so that all surviving manuscripts have been altered to reflect the position of Paul. For example, where all surviving Greek manuscripts of Matthew (3:4) and Mark (1:6) describe John the Baptist as eating "locusts", Tabor argues that the original reading was "cake" (egkris ἐγκρίς, per the Gospel of the Ebionites, c.370s AD) and was altered to "locust" (akris ἀκρίς, in Matthew 3:4 and Mark 1:16). Tabor describes this as "an ancient Hebrew version of Matthew insists that "locusts" is a mistake in Greek" This approach is supported by Jeffrey J. Bütz in The Secret Legacy of Jesus (2010) to which Tabor supplies the preface. Wheras, in this example, most scholars consider that the document referred to as "an ancient Hebrew version of Matthew" is in fact a Greek document for which no Hebrew ever existed. and that the only surviving source, the 4th Century opposer of heretics, Epiphanius of Salamis, is basically correct in his judgment that it is the local Greek-speaking vegetarian sect who are the ones who have altered "locust" (akris ἀκρίς, in Matthew 3:4) to (egkris ἐγκρίς, cake) in the sect's own version. In support Tabor further notes that an 11th Century (though in a multitude of 15th-17th Century manuscripts) Old Church Slavonic manuscript of Josephus' War of the Jews includes a different set of textual additions which also make John the Baptist a vegetarian. However it was established by Mescerskij (1958) that these texts are translations of a late Greek original. And the recent edition of Leeming, Osinkina, and Leeming (2003) places the textual interpolations in the context of later Christian history.

Tabor's theories in The Jesus Dynasty have, in the four years since the book was published, not entered debate among mainstream biblical scholars. The Society of Biblical Literature's Review of Biblical Literature offers only one, scathing, review. Darrell Bock and Daniel B. Wallace (2007) critique Tabor's overall methodology in the context of popular literature.

In ictu oculi (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What is this obession with what is just a passing mention in two footnotes? You haven't even read the book, so give it a break and get a life. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael What is the obsession? I was invited, by yourself among others to come and have a look at the Ebionites subject. And in it, the most immediate thing I see, is this conspiracy theory stuff that John the Baptist was really a vegetarian and its all been hushed up and the secret truth was lurking in a 4thC doc in Egypt and an 11thC doc in the Balkans. It's garbage. But it's very well protected garbage. I'm going to get a life. Please don't ever contact me about this Ebionites conspiracy stuff again. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Of that you can be sure. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We have a similar issue here with this reversion. Michael is obviously very strongly committed to these books but that doesn't change the fact that the Review of Biblical Literature has given one of the most negative reviews given by the RBL to this book:

Review of Biblical Literature

— Doing history should be something else than picking historical “facts” at random from all kinds of literary traditions and archeological digs. A scholarly publication should not contain the level of speculation that characterizes this book. It is a pity that plotting theories such as Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code are now even entering into the academic arena. Read as an entertaining thriller, The Jesus Dynasty deserves a certain degree of popularity, but preferably not on the nonfiction list.

In ictu oculi (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The review's negative slant was already reported in the article. Your expansion of it was a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. Nowhere did the review mention footnotes at all! (And I'm fairly sure that Tabor did mention Epiphanius on "manna" vs "locusts", although that is rather moot given the other factual errors introduced, so I haven't checked yet.) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael

No, it's simply a result of me having had a week gap inbetween last looking at it and editing again. I was incorrect, I misremembered the RBL reviewer's comment of Tabor's confusion/conflation of a Greek Matthew into a Hebrew one here:

Review of Biblical Literature

— But on the same page Tabor mentions a “Hebrew version of Matthew that offers a version of this Q saying that is untouched by the Greek copyists and editors”! How on earth should these two approaches be combined? Theoretically it is possible to assume that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but in that case the whole Q hypothesis falls to the ground.

with Tabor's other confusion/conflation of a Greek Matthew into a Hebrew one where Epiphanius' Panarion is misrepresented as a "ancient Hebrew text of Matthew". If you can find that Tabor *does* elsewhere declare that the "ancient Hebrew text of Matthew" is in fact a 4thC Greek text then please by all means note it here. You may not see "picking historical “facts” at random" as being related to the failure to provide refs/sources/footnotes.

You should restore the edit that identifies the back-jacket endorsement as such.In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I have reservations about having much of the content of the biographical article on Tabor be devoted to subjects which already have separate articles, such as this book. I would think the majority of the content specifically about the book should be on this page. There is at least one reliable source, I believe containing a statement from an Iowa academic, which said that there was a documentary based on the book, which Tabor worked on. It would certainly be relevant to add some material to the biographical article about that, particularly if the production does not at this point have its own article. Sources for that material can be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Experts question claims behind Jesus documentary and in the material from Larry King on the same page. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of a back-jacket endorsement

That should be indicated as a back-jacket endorsement not as a review. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That, at least, is factual. Will do. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, a SBL reviewer noting Tabor's apparent difficulty in distinguishing languages and sources is also factual in that (a) Tabor does it, (b) the reviewer mentioned it. The real snag however with all of this is that serious academic journals don't review populist/sensationalist material like this. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but the original edit was not factual. The other problem, though, is simply undue weight. Why is it that you only want to expand the unfavourable reviews to ludicruous proportions? Just give a brief synopsis - without synthesis - and let the reader decide if they want to read the full reviews via the links. Please review WP:NPOV. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Weight is determined by examing the independent reliable sources and reflecting, as accurately as possible, the opinions which can be found in them. So far as I can tell, there has been very little material from independent reliable sources which actually gives this book any serious support. If that is the case, then, reasonably, we would expect the majority of the material about the independent reliable academic opinions of the book to reflect the fact that the majority of the independent reliable academic opinions of the book are negative. In fact, not doing so would probably be a bigger violation of WP:NPOV than doing so. Pretty much all the independent reliable opinions I found on the subject of this book can be found elsewhere, at User:John Carter/Ebionites. If other editors have other sources which are given similar degrees of respect which are less negative about the book, I would be very interested in seeing them and the specific comments from them which would be included. But, certainly, backcover endorsements are probably among the least independent of all sources. The one neutral comment about this book from such sources is that of Ehrman, who, if I remember right, said something along the lines of "you'll never see another book like this." But, as in all other cases, it really isn't up to us to "let the reader decide" if the majority of the independent reliable sources, particularly those of a generally academic nature, more or less agree on the subject. This book, ultimately, is, more or less, similar in many ways to Chariots of the Gods, in that there are some individuals on the periphery of reliability who are very much in support of it, while the majority of academic sources either have dismissed it without much specific comment. We probably should follow the same general pattern for responses to this book as are followed with similar "fringe"y opinions. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comparison with Chariots of the Gods speaks volumes. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

John Carter's comparison with Chariots of the Gods is not that far off the mark, though clearly it's further along the road towards WP:fringe than Tabor, but not so greatly that the comments above don't stand. I would encourage John to balance up the review section with more representative academic reception. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Upon conclusion of the existing resolution efforts, I intend to. And I also note how one editor's continuing to indulge in attempts at impugning the statements of others, while at the same time doing nothing to address the issues raised in those comments, speaks volumes about how weak the arguments for material regarding this source and provides evidence of certain editors' apparently ongoing attempts at misdirection and obfuscation. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hypothesis?

Is this hypothesis? --Hypothesisornot (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Is this really true? --Hypothesisornot (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of POV tag

I have restored the POV tag as the reviews of the work seem to exclude the numerous rather unfavorable comments about the book, including those of one of the few really academic reviews, that of Robert M. Price, which is even available online here. I cannot see how an unbalanced section regarding the reception of the book can even remotely be considered acceptable. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed In ictu oculi (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We already discussed this review in mediation. So, add it to the article. I believe there were a few other negative reviews discussed here. Feel free to include them. Ignocrates (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess it is just more than a bit interesting to me that the one editor who seems most directly interested in the article seems to personally refuse to add anything critical of Tabor himself. In ictu, perhaps you would do the honors? Also, I think the lead should definitely be adjusted to present a more complete, and more accurate, view of the content. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is laughable. Check how many times my name appears in the edit logs for this article compared to yours. The answer would be two edits over the entire history of the article, one of which was to remove one of your stupid tags. So much for my direct interest. What's more than a bit interesting is that you would have wasted less time adding the reference directly to the article rather than tagging the article and complaining about it not being there. Ignocrates (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we can proceed in a collegiate way here. I am a bit wary of the James theories but must admit I'm not sure I want to go deliberately looking for a neg review to balance. If it's okay I'll do a straight search in Google Scholar and reflink all the significant reviews, good or bad. Incidentally I was looking at James the Just (cough, not exactly NPOV title) and saw Achille Camerlynck (1910) conclusion that Hegesippus' reference to "James the brother of the Lord, called the Just" was James son of Alphaeus. I can't help thinking something got mixed up there. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, please proceed as you see fit. With regard to James the son of Alphaeus being the same person as James the Just, see Yaakov ben Khalfi and also ref3 on the Clopas page. Khalfi in Hebrew is the same as Caliph in Arabic, i.e. a title not a name. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that Alphaeus begins with a forward accent mark in Greek, so it would be pronounced Halphaeus. I think the assignment is pretty safe. Ignocrates (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Tabor's religious bias

The following comments can be found in the article "'Jesus Family Tree' rooted in wishes - faith and archaeology prove an uneasy match," by Jackie Loohauis, which appeared in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel on May 21, 2008.

"Tabor clings to the authenticity of the now largely discredited James Ossuary, saying it could possbly be from "the Jesus family tomb." He also names other burials s possible links to the "Jesus family". That's when a sense of wishful thinking begins to creep into the work. (Tabor finally quotes the Israel Antiquities Authority as saying, "The chances of these being the actual burials of the holy family are almost nil.") When Tabor asks if certain bones could belong not just to Mary Magdalene but to Jesus himself, reader eyebrows should be at full alert. Ask archaeologists about the chances of finding the remains of, say Queen Nefertiti, or of any ancient individual, and they weill say the chances are "slim and none." ... Ultimately, the author's religious views are allowed to overshadow new factual evidence about Jesus and his world."

So, apparently, even in the book itself, Tabor explicitly acknowledges that the most directly relevant body to his theories, the Israeli Antiquities Authority, has said the chances of his basic assumption are "almost nil". In terms of references to other content, I would have to say that the author has, basically, himself asserted that his primary theory is in fact a fringe theory. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am even doing this correctly, excuse my ignorance, but is it appropriate for me to comment here on these posts as the author? James D. Tabor 23:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdtabor (talk • contribs)

You are free to comment on article talk pages about anything you like as long as it relates to improving the content of the article. Please sign your posts with four tildes. Ignocrates (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The status of the Talpiot tomb is not the "primary theory" of the book. Give it up John. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Michael, please indicatewhat other evidence he provides to support his contentions, then. I know of no other evidence. I am sorry that you seem to find actively trying to improve an article to be something you object to. In response to te unsigned comments, I would have to say that editors with a WP:COI, such as authors, can post on talk pages, but they should only edit articles under independent supervision. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I note, as usual, that you have failed to address my point. Nothing changes. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. You have provided an unsubstantiated assertion, specifically that the Talpiot tomb is not the primary theory of the book. I note also that I never actually said that, by the way. I also specifically asked if my assertion is inaccurate, as you claim, that I would want evidence as to what the primary "theory" is, basically as per the definition of "academic theory". This point was completely ignored, and, instead, the request for evidence as to what actually is the primary theory was ignored, and a derogatory comment was all that was offered. One might have thought that having recently been reprimanded for incivility, which would presumably include nonresponsive insinuations of misconduct, some people might have learned. But, as you said, it does indeed seem to be the case that "nothing changes", at least in terms of the conduct of some editors. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry John, but you did NOT specifically ask [..for] evidence as to what the primary "theory" is until after I made my point about the Talpiot tomb not being primary. You're just making stuff up, presumably as a smokescreen to cover your earlier absurdities. BTW the cover of the book answers your question :-) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

To quote my earlier post, "Michael, please indicatewhat other evidence he provides to support his contention. And I am amazed how you seem to be willing to say the cover of the book answers the question, but unwilling to answer the question directly. Is there any chance of getting you to provide useful data in response? I ask again, based on the quotation provided, what other evidence is provided? Also, on a rather relevant point, I note that the source itself is from a reliable source which meets basic WP:RS requirements. The only reason I can see such material not being included in the article is if there are specific objections to the points raised. So far, none have been provided. Editors who have in the past advised others to assume good faith about their edits could do something toward giving cause to substantiate that assumption by either demonstrating good faith by adding this reliably sourced material to the article or providing a reason why it itself is not of sufficient weight to be included. If there are questions about whether the source is reliable, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check is a good place to get confirmation. Otherwise, I look forward to seeing a demonstration of good faith by seeing the material added to the article. The source provided rather clearly indicates in the title that the book contains "wishful thinking" and the article itself contains the quote "'Ultimately, the author's religious views are allowed to overshadow new factual evidence about Jesus and his world.'" I can see no good reason why this material should not be added to the article, barring explicit statements of reservations as per the above, and would be quite curious if the material is not added, as doing so would itself seemingly violate WP:AGF unless specific reasons for doubting its accuracy, reliability, or weight as per WP:WEIGHT are given with some good reason to support those doubts. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)