Zwinglius Redivivus

Aren is Dissatisfied (or Disgruntled)

Posted in Archaeology by Jim on January 29, 2013

Aren’s reaction to Burleigh’s aforementioned essay is soundly negative.  It seems to me on the basis of her using the term ‘archaeologist’ of Jacobovici and Zias.

He’s entitled to his reaction and I do understand it.  Truly.  But it raises questions for me which I’ve posed to Aren and which I reiterate here in hopes that actual dirt archaeologists will answer them:

So, to Aren and all:

Don’t you think that to the extent that Jacobovici portrays himself as an archaeologist (albeit naked), in the view of the larger public he is perceived as such?  And, consequently, worth refuting on the basis of his claims to such knowledge?

I’m not trying to start a feud, just interested in how arcaheologists think Simcha and other non experts ought to be dealt with- or do they think they should just be ignored?  And if so, then isn’t the public just left with a false impression and misinformation?   And isn’t it the job of actual archaeologists to say something to disabuse the public of falsehood?

What i’m really interested- genuinely interested in knowing is – what is their view concerning archaeology’s obligations to the public which funds it?

Eric Meyers has already offered his reasoned viewpoint in Nina’s piece.  Anyone else?

About these ads

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. avrahaum segol said, on January 29, 2013 at 13:41

    I have known Simcha for several years, and for previously disclosed to scholars such as Amos Kloner, Shimon Gobson & Joe Zias, as well as others, why I think it very possible that Simcha has revisited the Talpiot site locations with some views I support and others I do not.
    Amos made mention of one of my significant disclosures in his paper presentation made at Bar Ilan on December 27, 2012 ce.

    Simcha’s follow-up article: … DR. KLONER MR. HYDE … discussing Amos’ presentation and with specific reference to my contribution have been sad cause to a complete end of communcations between Simcha and me. Truth be told Simcha and James Tabor, et al, elected to withhold and not to disclose vital observations I made which dismiss any theory of a CHRISTIAN CROSS being etched upon the Talpiot Ossuary which they call the JONAH OSSUARY and which I have now “christen” their “ZONAH OSSUARY.”

    However, in terms of the litigation brought against Joe Zias, Simcha well knows my feelings that the suit is entirely out of order — even if he felt insulted & slandered by Joe’s hardline refutation. Simcha has long known that I belief under all facts and circumstances friends should be made and not enemies. Simply put. The case should be settled. In Court, publicly, or out of court. Settled and publicly disclosed, so the world should know about it.

    The Talpiot sites will be excavated this coming summer. It would appear that Simcha has a prime opportunity to mend breaches rather than further greater chasms. Simcha has done great things with regard to retracking past digs which had to be hurried due to politics and building. Speculation will be ended.

    On the other hand, noone could possibly disagree with the great potential and wonderful use his GE sponsored Robotic Arm Camera presents for future excavations & the halahic considerations requisite to prepare for such digs. The Yisra’eli Ministry of Educaton should be waking up to these advancements. They provide greater interest for the Yisra’el Public Education System to demonstrate the wealth of available history which rest beneath our feet in Eretz Yisra’el. History and heritage yet to be discovered! Truly a gift.

    The below three [3] posts I have published on my blogspot set forth reasons why I think no matter how much I ever may support Simcha — past, present or future — the case against Joe Zias is plainly uncalled for. He has turned on his own name. Today, Simcha Is Sad.

    Most sincerely,

    Avrahaum
    Avrahaum Segol @ 054-733-0098

    1] http://www.chassiyot.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/professors-charlesworth-tabor-see.html
    2] http://www.chassiyot.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/simcha-jacobovici-james-tabor-give.html
    3] http://www.chassiyot.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/james-charlesworththe-princeton.html

  2. joe zias said, on January 29, 2013 at 16:21

    One can and must ask does his own University have some responsibility for these Talpiot tomb attempts to mislead the public. When we were first alerted to the goings on at the bldg by their former fund raiser, ‘Joanna Wail’ who saw the light and had the integrity and courage to speak out, research had been carried out by a Dr. Jessie Pincus from Bar-Ilan in 2009. She unlike the others working there put her research findings and conclusions out on the inter-net for all to see inc. the raw data and her conclusions. Once word got out that we had been tipped off as to what was going on, her blog inc. excellent photographs was suddenly pulled from the inter-net never to return. Question is, in the name of science, why was she forced to remove it ? Something to hide, particularly relevant when they accuse Kloner and others of not sharing data with them. When I Googled her a few minutes ago, one sees a nice web site showing those places she has used her ground scanning equipment, however nowhere is there any mention of her work in Talpiot, nor is there any mention of her work at the tomb of Caiphias. She appears briefly in their Jesus Nails doc. with her scanning equipment which was done to give the impression that they are serious, only problem is that the tomb was clearly marked by a large green pipe and there were detailed plans available with the IAA. In the words of Dylan, one doesn’t need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind is blowing’.

  3. Michael Helfield said, on January 29, 2013 at 16:48

    I don’t see the discrepancy, Jim, between your questions and Aren’s outrage. I think that Aren would agree, based on what he has said in the post, that we must refute claims of people like Simcha to authentic archaeological knowledge. Yes, we have a duty as scholars to relate to the public and explain the difference between dilettantism or pseudo-science and the real deal. I don’t see why someone can’t be upset here and also agree with you Jim that we have to work hard to show the public why mountebanks are mountebanks. Joe Schwarcz does as much in the field of chemistry (particularly topics that involve everyday living) all the time (http://www.montrealgazette.com/columnists/Joe_Schwarcz.html).


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,070 other followers