Talk:The Jesus Family Tomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article is part of WikiProject Jewish history. An attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.

Project Jewish history To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: History of the Jews in the Land of Israel Copyedit: International response to the Holocaust, Henry Cohen (? add categories), History of the Jews during World War II, Antisemitism Cleanup: Xueta (quite a mess) Stubs: Category:Jewish history stubs, Category:Jewish biography stubs NPOV: Category:Hasmoneans Other: Review: Föhrenwald (expanded) Translate: from German: Judensau

[edit] Criticism

Someone recently added this passage to the article:

The book has been hailed by scholars, such as Dr. James Tabor, as "exceptionally well written, utterly riveting, and it lays out most of the facts related to the discussion".

I removed this line because it is unattributed, and a search of news sources and the Internet in general failed to come up with such a quote. (Is it from the book's jacket? If so, it should not be used as an example of praise for the book, since clearly the authors and publisher are not going to include anything but praise on the jacket.)

Also, I find this passage misleading, because while it may have "been hailed by scholars," it is my impression that by far most legitimate scholars either have a negative view of this entire "Jesus family tomb" matter or, at the very least, are highly skeptical of it. It would be more accurate, I believe, to say that "some scholars have hailed the book, although most regard it with skepticism or even contempt," or words to this effect -- which based on media reports seems to me a more accurate accessment of the book's reception by scholars.

Finally, if we're going to cite praise for the book, we need to site negative criticism, too, otherwise the article will look like an advertisement. --Skb8721 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave out the word contempt :) Mathiastck 19:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Tabor

A little searching on the Net shows that Dr. James Tabor is involved with the documentary that accompanies the book The Jesus Family Tomb and in fact was present as a sympathetic panelist at the Discovery Channel's recent public relations event announcing the film's forthcoming release. Therefore, I don't think he should be cited as a scholar who praises the book, since he clearly has a conflict of interest (being an insider on the project and not an independent reviewer).

See this Discovery Channel press release. --Skb8721 03:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

James Tabor was indeed active in the research for the film and is releasing his own book shortly that will be, hopefully, more scholarly. There is some activity I've been involved with at his article with another person. If any of y'all would, I'd appreciate some input, as I'm a real newbie to all this. I think as it stands it does not have a neutral point of view. Thanks. Reverend Mommy 14:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

Indeed, all praise and criticism should be carefully cited, attributed and footnoted. Please note it is "cite," not "site." Erudil 17:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Find

I added a small data point about the actual date of the find. My understanding is that when the tomb was found, its discoverers dutifully cataloged it and thought nothing of it. In fact, having seen all the evidence presented by the crew now announcing this great find, the original discoverers STILL believe there is nothing big to this story. At any rate, that's what I've heard. The only part I can back up at the moment is the date of the find, which I have added to the article and referenced. I believe that a thorough section on criticism of this book is necessary. I only wish that I had the time to do it! CrimsonLine 11:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)