Simcha Jacobovici

[serapha]

And is an Orthodox believing Jew ( see Bas discussion between Shanks /Jacobovici )


turanclancath

Well, I'm surprised!
 

He doesn't dress like an orthodox Jew, nor does his conduct come across as an orthodox Jew.    The orthodox Jews in Israel wear the long black coats and have the beards.   They would never touch a tomb and would be against anyone else touching anything that might even come close to excavation of a grave. 

They are the people in Israel that when they hear of any site that has found a body/burial, then they picket and say that it was a jewish tomb, and try to shut down the archaeology site... or worse, picket with riots causing great expense to replace damaged equipment.   


~serapha~

[turanclancath]

Orthodox Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to this link Orthodox Judaism is very Heterodox .
From tolal assimilatad in culture  and behaviour and clothing till  total unassimilated clothed with peyes and streimel etc .( sectaric groups )
They are all religious    but range from left to right wing.
InChristianity you have the same.
Think of the Amish or Quakers   compare them with the Mea Sharim Judaism with  hats and beards at long blac k gowns ( Chassidim ,ChabadLubawither rebbe etc etc )   .See The Movie The Chosen ( novel by Chaim Potock)
By the way in Greek Orthodox church you have the same problem Archeologists cant go under Church yards for excavations because its holy ground gives a lot of problrems as i kow in Athens if you have a Byzantine
Church with an classical stratum under it.
Forget the dig.

So Simcha as is stated in the intervieuw is standard orthodox ( word of mine )  a standard religious believer.

The bad thing is that he (mis )used  facts in an extreme and very wrong way to prove the truth of the Holy Bible .
You dont have to prove it as a believer i think( personal opinion )
turanclancath

[SMMAssociates]

serapha:

Orthodox Jews' dress varies from the extreme (peyes, beards, beaver hats, and "formal" clothing), all the way to "you'd never notice".

The short answer is that you can spot the "more" Orthodox sect members due to their dress, but "Orthodox" itself is a very broad definition.  Simcha doesn't seem to go past wearing a yarmulke, and probably is observant of the dietary laws. 

(As long as you're not a member of one of the more Orthodox sects, where "group pressure" likely would be effective, it's not a "uniform"....)

In this case it also means that Simcha probably would NOT observe some of those "it's a tomb" rules.  Again, unless peer pressure intervened, it'd be up to him.  Other than the somewhat cultic Orthodox sects, Judaism generally allows a lot of choice.

One of the Rabbi's we had here at "my" Conservative Synagogue had a solidly Orthodox upbringing and Rabbinical training.  He also drove on the Sabbath and is a Trekkie....

We tend to refer to the Lubavitchers and other Chasidic groups as "Ultra-Orthodox".  This isn't an insult - just means that they're very serious about the "rules".  There was an incident some years ago when a Lubavitcher was arrested on Saturday.  When the NYPD tried to stuff him into a patrol unit the result was a riot.  He (and some friends) offered to walk the few blocks to the Station but the NYPD guys on-scene wouldn't accept that.... 

Regards,

Stu.

[archaeologist]

before this goes too much further  has jocobovici done a 2nd season of naked archaeologist or anything like exodus decoded or the jesus tombs recently?

does he have new work out there or di dthe jesus tomb finish off his career?

[RamboPreacher]

before this goes too much further  has jocobovici done a 2nd season of naked archaeologist or anything like exodus decoded or the jesus tombs recently?

does he have new work out there or did the jesus tomb finish off his career?

I don't know of any info on a second season,  but I did find this:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1200475897708&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[turanclancath]

News

I looked out of curiosity and found that Simcha got a  prestigious Emmy Award 2007 see the link above.
So surely he isnt out of favour with the TV producers and Companys i think deducing from that news ?


I never did see any of these documentarys of him but from my readings and the postings here

i got the understanding that his historical   interpretation is nearly zero and the documentarys are very manupilating.
Is that correct ?

And now we come to an very interesting general problem

Visualisation of Biblical History one of my favorite topics.!!!
I opened a link about that in  other    here in the forum.

When i teached my first year students  Biblical history( freshmen you call them in the States i think ) i always tried to illustrate the topic with art fiction,  music and film.
And then looking again to the Bible text.



For instance Jephta and his daughter Bible text,Music from Haendels Opera  and part of the libretto ( she is spared here life there ) and art works.
etc etc many topics.
But you have to try to stay as close as possible  to Biblical truth with visuallisations is my honest opinion.

turanclancath

And know we com

[archaeologist]

I don't know of any info on a second season,  but I did find this:

i read that and i take it with a grainof salt.  i am also  sad at the conclusion of this conference and that they decided now to 'upgrade' the tomb's standing. 

the tomb has been disqualified very clearly and yet people like charlesworth have the audacity to think anything has changed in20 years when the evidence hasn't.

charlesworth's comments about about it being a 'spiritual' ressurrection flies in the face of scripture where Jesus invites Thomas to feel the hole in his side.  You can't do that with a spirit.

all i see that conference as is a waste of time and promoting more wasting of time

[falasha]

I have not figured out how to operate in this forum yet but would like to comment on Simcha.

Simcha has made biblical archaeology accessible to civilians and I, for one, would like to say THANK YOU. I would also like to say thank you to Mr. Shanks while I am at it!

[SMMAssociates]

Falasha:

Welcome aboard....  As you can see, I'm a relative newcomer here myself, but web-based boards and I go back a while by now....

My problem (and I suppose many others here) with Simcha is that he's taking a sensationalist approach, and is often either wrong in his interpretations, or jumping out ahead of the pack, before much of any scholarship has been done.

For example (and a little cattywhumpus, but it's almost suppertime), anybody who has ever had a subscription to National Geographic knows that frogs come in several colors, even if most of the ones you're likely to see are green....  Now, assume that our "host" is unaware of that, for whatever reason.  If he sees a red frog, running off to the New York Times with the news, or a 2-hour TV special on "the miraculous red frog" probably isn't in order....

Whoever he's working for doesn't seem to be willing to rein him in....  Doesn't sell nearly as much soap....

If this generates some effort on our part to learn about the topic, it has some value, but IMHO he's obligated to try to stick to accurate and well-documented facts, rather than just tossing red frogs at us....

The "tomb" story is made up of way too many frogs....  There are some logical assumptions made based on inferences that make some kind of sense, but lack any solid proof, and may still be wrong.  Silly example:  I didn't use the word "I" or "we" in the above paragraph until this sentence.  Does that mean that my computer wrote it itself?  Simcha's technique could lead you to those kinds of conclusions.

The problem, IMHO, is that a lot of people might watch that show (or any of Simcha's Naked Archaeologist shows) and assume that they're seeing accurate and well vetted scholarship.  They're not....

This doesn't mean that "scholars" can't be wrong, especially in a field as fluid as this can sometimes be.  It's OK to ask questions.  It just gets a little silly when you answer them yourself, and your facts (or inferences) are wrong, or suspect.

Regards,

Stu.

[falasha]

Thanks for replying to my post. I haven't figured out the quote function yet so I'll have to practice more.

Didn't really understand your frog analogy. If you could be more specific and tell me what he has reported that is inaccurate it would be more meaningful to me and I would love to discuss it.

Thanks again

[falasha]

[/quote]

the tomb has been disqualified very clearly and yet people like charlesworth have the audacity to think anything has changed in20 years when the evidence hasn't.

charlesworth's comments about about it being a 'spiritual' ressurrection flies in the face of scripture where Jesus invites Thomas to feel the hole in his side.  You can't do that with a spirit.

all i see that conference as is a waste of time and promoting more wasting of time
[/quote]

I hope this reply works.

I appreciate your faith but I don't see this as a waste of time. As soon as a fact is known that disputes this being the tomb of Jesus, then disregard it. But until they come up with one piece of evidence that this was not the tomb of Jesus I think it is a legitimate endeavor.

[SMMAssociates]

Falasha:

You almost got the "quote" thing right.... Just clicking the "quote" button may be sufficient - you can just delete the stuff you don't want to include.  What you did wrong, above, is the "/" in the first "quote" marker.  You need the slash to STOP the quote function, but not to start it....

About the frogs - just a sloppy analogy.  Lemme see if I can do better....  OK - suppose you are excavating a small site, and find a yellow statue.  In so far as Orientals tend to have yellow skin, Simcha might make a claim that this was evidence that a member of an Oriental civilization had lived and worshipped there....  That's the kind of barely-supported logic, as well as sensationalism, we're talking about.

The tomb - we don't have any facts that prove Jesus' association to the tomb.  While we don't have any good factual evidence to disprove it, either, all we really do have are some inferences based on things like "how many women are named Mary"....  Very much on the order of "a yellow statue means Orientals lived there."

To some extent it's like the Great Pyramid.  About all we really know, other than physical details, is that somebody said that Khufu/Cheops built it.  Now, if we use the name "Cheops", which I believe to be Greek, can we say it's a Greek tomb?  That's the sort of thing Simcha is doing....

And, yes, you can say "might" or "maybe", but at some point speculation gets way past sensibility if you understand the situation....

I was watching a show on one of the Science channels last night.  About a mummy with no markings discovered in a tomb that had belonged to a Royal Physician.  The face mask looked Ptolemaic to me, but what do I know.... (I.e, circa 300BCE, not 3000BCE.)

The guy prattled on about the possible reason the mummy was buried there, etc., making little sense, but filling a half hour or more.  The mummy was taken someplace for an X-Ray, and Dr. Hawass was invited to have a look.  (The mummy most likely was killed by a nasty whack to the head.)  Hawass immediately said that it was Ptolemaic....

As it turned out, MAYBE, the mummy was placed in that particular tomb because the Greeks weren't real happy about Egyptians continuing their rituals for the dead, and they had to hide him....  But it's all "maybe".... Simcha would have us believe that he'd been ritually murdered by the Greeks for knowing who Osiris was....  Or something like that....

Regards,

Stu.

[falasha]

The tomb - we don't have any facts that prove Jesus' association to the tomb.  While we don't have any good factual evidence to disprove it, either, all we really do have are some inferences based on things like "how many women are named Mary"....  Very much on the order of "a yellow statue means Orientals lived there."

I hope this works

I am very interested in the Talpiot tomb.  The evidence is a great deal more than the name Mary. But what really caught my attention the first time I saw a picture was the symbol carved in relief. It looked exactly like a proto-Amharic "L" or lamed. In cabalistic meaning, the lamed represents "Rightous man". Every century there is one rightous man on earth according to cabalists. The more I find out about this tomb the more it interests me.

That Hawass guy bothers me though. Why does he always have such a large entourage?

Thanks for replying to my post.

[SMMAssociates]

Falasha:

You got the quote right....

Lesson #2 is that you can put multiple blocks of quotes in a message, should you want to.  Quoting back is useful when a topic is very busy, but it's possible to quote too much ....

I don't know enough about the Kabala to have an opinion on the lamed or "Righteous Man" issue - except that my understanding is that the Kabala wasn't really formed up until quite a bit later.  I won't say "coincidence", but you're treading on Simcha's territory ....  He'd call that proof....  (However, if I'm wrong about the dates, it gets more interesting.)

Jacobovici has more than the "Mary" count in his bag, but all of it is in the same category - inferences....

Hawass is practically Pharaoh - he is the top of the Egyptian Government's archaeology heap.  I would expect him to have assistants, etc.  Not necessarily that we'd see them, but they're out there.  He has a "gimme back my rocks!" attitude about a lot of stuff that was removed from Egypt, and isn't shy about it, but seems to have his act together otherwise.   Pretty good image, although I have no idea what he's really like....

What I thought was funny about that TV show was that I knew that the mummy was Ptolemaic, but the "star" and his staff apparently didn't....  Hawass didn't exactly say "you idiot", but I think he got close. 

Regards,

Stu.

[falasha]

Falasha:

You got the quote right....

Lesson #2 is that you can put multiple blocks of quotes in a message, should you want to.  Quoting back is useful when a topic is very busy, but it's possible to quote too much ....

testing
[/quote]
I don't know enough about the Kabala to have an opinion on the lamed or "Righteous Man" issue - except that my understanding is that the Kabala wasn't really formed up until quite a bit later.  I won't say "coincidence", but you're treading on Simcha's territory ....  He'd call that proof....  (However, if I'm wrong about the dates, it gets more interesting.)
[/quote]
Isaiah was a cabalist so I think the timeframe works.
[/quote]

Jacobovici has more than the "Mary" count in his bag, but all of it is in the same category - inferences....

Hawass is practically Pharaoh - he is the top of the Egyptian Government's archaeology heap.  I would expect him to have assistants, etc.  Not necessarily that we'd see them, but they're out there.  He has a "gimme back my rocks!" attitude about a lot of stuff that was removed from Egypt, and isn't shy about it, but seems to have his act together otherwise.   Pretty good image, although I have no idea what he's really like....

What I thought was funny about that TV show was that I knew that the mummy was Ptolemaic, but the "star" and his staff apparently didn't....  Hawass didn't exactly say "you idiot", but I think he got close. 

Regards,
[/quote]
Thanks for letting me practice on your posts.