<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Alleged Mary Magdalene Inscription</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/bible/the-alleged-mary-magdalene-inscription/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/bible/the-alleged-mary-magdalene-inscription</link>
	<description>ALERT: Dr. Köstenberger’s blogs are now becoming available in Spanish. We will continue to add new posts as soon as they can be translated. Click on “Espanol” above</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:35:08 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Andreas Köstenberger</title>
		<link>http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/bible/the-alleged-mary-magdalene-inscription/comment-page-1#comment-8042</link>
		<dc:creator>Andreas Köstenberger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:37:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=100#comment-8042</guid>
		<description>James:

I&#039;m not sure why you say it doesn&#039;t make the DNA evidence fall apart, because obviously now we don&#039;t even know whose bones were DNA tested: Mary&#039;s or Martha&#039;s? Or both?

On not being too hard on Simcha and others: I see your point, but in my view the lesson is, when you rest such a huge point on something as they obviously did with regard to the alleged &quot;Mary Magdalene&quot; inscription, you better not rely on somebody else&#039;s work unquestioningly but check it out for yourself or have true experts do it. All they had to do is have somebody like Pfann look at the inscription in the first place before going ahead with their huge sensationalist theory. But they didn&#039;t. Even now, they are denying his findings, when they are plain for (almost) everyone to see. On a related note, I&#039;m not even sure they were aware that Mara is a short form of Martha, which also strikes me as surprisingly ignorant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>James:</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure why you say it doesn&#8217;t make the DNA evidence fall apart, because obviously now we don&#8217;t even know whose bones were DNA tested: Mary&#8217;s or Martha&#8217;s? Or both?</p>
<p>On not being too hard on Simcha and others: I see your point, but in my view the lesson is, when you rest such a huge point on something as they obviously did with regard to the alleged &#8220;Mary Magdalene&#8221; inscription, you better not rely on somebody else&#8217;s work unquestioningly but check it out for yourself or have true experts do it. All they had to do is have somebody like Pfann look at the inscription in the first place before going ahead with their huge sensationalist theory. But they didn&#8217;t. Even now, they are denying his findings, when they are plain for (almost) everyone to see. On a related note, I&#8217;m not even sure they were aware that Mara is a short form of Martha, which also strikes me as surprisingly ignorant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Snapp, Jr.</title>
		<link>http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/bible/the-alleged-mary-magdalene-inscription/comment-page-1#comment-8039</link>
		<dc:creator>James Snapp, Jr.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:53:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=100#comment-8039</guid>
		<description>Dear Dr. Kosterberger:

I too am convinced by Dr. Pfann&#039;s presentation.  The Mu&#039;s are clearly different -- the &quot;M&quot; in &quot;Mara&quot; resembles what paleographers used to call a &quot;Coptic Mu,&quot; unlike the straight-line Mu&#039;s in &quot;Mariame.&quot;  

This does not make the DNA evidence fall apart.  But the DNA evidence meant little in the first place.

You mentioned that Pfann&#039;s correction &quot;casts serious doubt on the competence of the makers of the &quot;Jesus tomb special&quot; and their advisers.&quot;

I wouldn&#039;t be too hard on their advisors regarding this particular point, because Tabor and Jacobovici were just following the reading in the definitive guide to ossuary-inscriptions, Rahmani&#039;s catalogue.  Rahmani was certainly not incompetent.  He just got this particular reading wrong, probably because not only is the inscription in sloppily-written Greek but because the second part of the inscription is written in semi-cursive Greek.  

AK:  &quot;Rather than exercise care in reading the ossuary inscription in question, they jumped to conclusions and read the inscription the wrong way.&quot;

No no no; Rahmani read the inscription incorrectly and they accepted Rahmani&#039;s reading.  Everyone else did, too (more or less), until Dr. Pfann came along.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Dr. Kosterberger:</p>
<p>I too am convinced by Dr. Pfann&#8217;s presentation.  The Mu&#8217;s are clearly different &#8212; the &#8220;M&#8221; in &#8220;Mara&#8221; resembles what paleographers used to call a &#8220;Coptic Mu,&#8221; unlike the straight-line Mu&#8217;s in &#8220;Mariame.&#8221;  </p>
<p>This does not make the DNA evidence fall apart.  But the DNA evidence meant little in the first place.</p>
<p>You mentioned that Pfann&#8217;s correction &#8220;casts serious doubt on the competence of the makers of the &#8220;Jesus tomb special&#8221; and their advisers.&#8221;</p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t be too hard on their advisors regarding this particular point, because Tabor and Jacobovici were just following the reading in the definitive guide to ossuary-inscriptions, Rahmani&#8217;s catalogue.  Rahmani was certainly not incompetent.  He just got this particular reading wrong, probably because not only is the inscription in sloppily-written Greek but because the second part of the inscription is written in semi-cursive Greek.  </p>
<p>AK:  &#8220;Rather than exercise care in reading the ossuary inscription in question, they jumped to conclusions and read the inscription the wrong way.&#8221;</p>
<p>No no no; Rahmani read the inscription incorrectly and they accepted Rahmani&#8217;s reading.  Everyone else did, too (more or less), until Dr. Pfann came along.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Lost Tomb Losing More Ground at Ray Fowler .org</title>
		<link>http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/bible/the-alleged-mary-magdalene-inscription/comment-page-1#comment-8016</link>
		<dc:creator>The Lost Tomb Losing More Ground at Ray Fowler .org</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:44:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=100#comment-8016</guid>
		<description>[...] Well, the film lost even more ground today now that scholars are getting a closer look at the inscription. Stephen Pfann, a textual scholar and the president of the University of the Holy Land, makes a convincing case that the inscription should read &#8220;mariamekaimara,&#8221; which would translate into two common names - Mary and Martha. This removes one of the central claims of the film leaving its other claims to flounder. You can see some neat color-coded examples of the inscription for yourself here. This will apparently be on the news tonight and tomorrow. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Well, the film lost even more ground today now that scholars are getting a closer look at the inscription. Stephen Pfann, a textual scholar and the president of the University of the Holy Land, makes a convincing case that the inscription should read &#8220;mariamekaimara,&#8221; which would translate into two common names &#8211; Mary and Martha. This removes one of the central claims of the film leaving its other claims to flounder. You can see some neat color-coded examples of the inscription for yourself here. This will apparently be on the news tonight and tomorrow. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KevinPierpont.com</title>
		<link>http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/bible/the-alleged-mary-magdalene-inscription/comment-page-1#comment-8009</link>
		<dc:creator>KevinPierpont.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:05:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=100#comment-8009</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Jesus ossuary controversy&#160;resources&lt;/strong&gt;


Pulpit Magazine&#8217;s Resources on The Lost Tomb of Jesus
Don’t Lose Any Sleep Over Jesus’ Lost Tomb - Pulpit Magazine
Eight Reasons Why I Believe That Jesus Rose from the Dead, by John Piper
What Bones of Jesus? at Media Research Center
The Jes...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Jesus ossuary controversy&nbsp;resources</strong></p>
<p>Pulpit Magazine&#8217;s Resources on The Lost Tomb of Jesus<br />
Don’t Lose Any Sleep Over Jesus’ Lost Tomb &#8211; Pulpit Magazine<br />
Eight Reasons Why I Believe That Jesus Rose from the Dead, by John Piper<br />
What Bones of Jesus? at Media Research Center<br />
The Jes&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan</title>
		<link>http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/bible/the-alleged-mary-magdalene-inscription/comment-page-1#comment-8005</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:10:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=100#comment-8005</guid>
		<description>This is an excellent example of dealing with the evidence. We now have solid arguments prompting us to reject the Discovery Channel hypothesis based on a careful examination of the evidence. Incidentally, I heard on the radio that the Discovery Channel is planning to pull the Jesus Tomb off air. They apparently want to distance themselves from those claims due to damaging criticisms coming from both Christian and non-Christian scholars. In other words, the Jesus Tomb theory depends on flimsy data and strains credulity to the point that most reasonably minded people cannot lend it any credence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is an excellent example of dealing with the evidence. We now have solid arguments prompting us to reject the Discovery Channel hypothesis based on a careful examination of the evidence. Incidentally, I heard on the radio that the Discovery Channel is planning to pull the Jesus Tomb off air. They apparently want to distance themselves from those claims due to damaging criticisms coming from both Christian and non-Christian scholars. In other words, the Jesus Tomb theory depends on flimsy data and strains credulity to the point that most reasonably minded people cannot lend it any credence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
