Talk:The Lost Tomb of Jesus

message: A lot of this article is verbatim from this Citizendium article, which is licensed as GFDL so no copyright infringement occurs (note you need to be registered to read that article) Glen 12:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Someone needs to specify what exactly was in the ossuaries. Some people say fragments, others imply skeletons. Also is the claim that several generations might use the same ossuary valid? Jarwulf 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152766396&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Someone needs to add this under the Criticism section. Helltopay27 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recanting of claims: chief scholars change their opinions 

message: Hi, I moved the article to "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). The definite article here is a part of the title of the work (some other examples are The Old Man and the Sea, The Three Musketeers). Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from "Lost Tomb of Jesus" to "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"

message: "Francois Bovon, professor of the history of religion at Harvard University, told Discovery News, "Mariamene, or Mariamne, probably was the actual name given to Mary Magdalene""
where's controversy in this?? 83.4.169.124 13:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe those can't be added to the article, cause of N:POV. -Dark Dragon Flame 20:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Religious sources are considered non-NPOV in this instance and cannot be used per wikipedia policy:
::"Extremist sources
::Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."
AlexOvShaolin 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for a summary of the attitude that should not lie behind any wiki article. The Talpiot tomb page is a more neutral example of how this subject should be treated. This page seems to merely a place where Christians who know from faith, by means not accessible to others, that this cannot be the tomb of Jesus can repeat their faith based reasons. Stick to the facts - see the Talpiot tomb page for a reasoned discussion of why it doubtful that this is the tomb of Jesus. Reasoned discussion includes the idea that possibly it might be, even if it is a very long shot. It is a disgrace that this page uses so much blog material as "factual". E4mmacro 04:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias sources 

message: It would seem to make sense to merge as much as possible with the Talpiot Tomb article.  Anything about the archaeological find itself (I'm looking at the "Ossuary Inscriptions" and most of the "Controversy" sections) should be merged.  And then this page reflects only on the claims in the book itself apart from the objective archaeological evidence. David Bergan 18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think for now the articles should be separate. After the "documentary" is shown and some of the hoopla dies down, it might be more feasible to merge.  Ward3001 00:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: merge?

message: Usually when high profile stories like this emerge wikipedia is faily comprehensive and well sourced, but here we have three slim, poor and slanted articles, on about the Talpiot Tomb itself, one about the Documentary and another about the Book about the documentary. I'm going to try and gather more sources and reformat the article, hope we can get help. Pablosecca 19:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia failing this one 

message: Just a suggestion to keep the criticisms of the documentary (and there are quite a few of them) specific and to the point, in the sense that they regard the trio of claims made by the documentary -- rather than the sort of ad hominem comments we saw before such as "the documentarians are illiterate in this topic", etc, etc. Specificity is all, and will avoid this article devolving into appeals to authority. Pablosecca 06:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pablo, that was way too big of a slash. You removed more than half of the criticisms section! :-) If anything it should have been reorganized or condensed. I'm going to restore the text from your edit. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There, I've broken it down into three subsections and have removed some of the rather sensationalist quotes, focusing upon the quantitative and empirical objections with a small section about the criticism of the publicity at the bottom. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 16:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed one or two ad hominem quotes ("James Cameron is incompetent") and left everything else -- I condensed some others that said the same thing (especially the issue about the probability and statistical study). Pablosecca 23:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't there been a lot of ad hominem ad hostile attacks of the film makers and the documentary by some well respected authorities. On Larry King, for example, there were some scholars/experts who had not seen the documentary being very hostile to the claims made by it rather than countering the claims with counter-evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.19.33 (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: The more photographs of the Talpiot Tomb I see in other sources, the more convinced I am that the photograph tagged "An image of the Talpiot Tomb" in this article is not in fact the tomb in question. I think it might be a photograph of a different building. Take a look at this newspaper article. Does anyone else see what I mean? Ecto 23:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I have been asking the same thing myself is there a trusty source that confirms it is? -  Dark Dragon Flame (talk • contribs) 23:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I flipped through the book itself and found a reproduction of the photograph in there. From the description of the image, the photograph is of the tomb's antechamber as it was first exposed by the construction crew in 1980. This part of the tomb must have been covered up again, so it looks very different these days. Well, that explains that. Ecto 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Why are they searching for a tomb if Jesus rose to Heaven? There wouldn't be a body to bury....Epetrone 03:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Question 

message: Someone broke interwikis and references when he/she did CLEANUP. Please FIX IT. --Zzzzzzzzzz 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article broken

message: It would be interesting to add a section to this article discussing the Chevron/circle symbol and the snowflake-looking symbols on the ossuaries.  155.91.28.232 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Symbology

message: Please review:
David Mavorah, a curator of the Israel museum in Jerusalem, points out that the names on the ossuaries were extremely common. "We know that Joseph, Jesus and Mariamne were all among the most common names of the period. To start with all these names being together in a single tomb and leap from there to say this is the tomb of Jesus is a little far-fetched, to put it politely."[8]  The stastics calculated may lead one to the conclusion that the odds of such combination of names are low, and those odds could potentially cause a possibility that a great of a leap of faith is not required to accept this family as the family of Jesus of Nazareth. (See statistics section above).
Professor Amos Kloner, former Jerusalem district archaeologist of the Israel Antiquities Authority and the first archaeologist to examine the tomb in 1980[23], told the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper that the name Jesus had been found 71 times in burial caves at around that time.[8].  He said that the inscription on the ossuary is not clear enough to ascertain, and although the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards it makes for profitable television. 
((This quote is biased, find a quote based on the previous sentence.  It is an opinion and not fact.) Quote: “The new evidence is not serious, and I do not accept that it is connected to the family of Jesus…. They just want to get money for it."[4])
Dr. Richard Bauckham, professor at the University of St Andrews, has catalogued ossuary names from that region since 1980. His records(needs reference if possible), based on the catalogue, indicate that "Jesus" was the 6th most popular name of Jewish men, and "Mary/Mariamne" was the single most popular name of Jewish women at that time.  Given this, it is possible that to find two ossuaries containing the names "Jesus" and "Mary/Mariamne" is not significant at all, and the chances of it being the ossuaries of Jesus and Mary Magdalene are "very small indeed." [24]
Concerning the inscription attributed to Jesus son of Joseph, Steve Caruso, a professional Aramaic translator using a computer to visualize different interpretations(consider a reference for the technique in a general context), claims that although it is possible to read it as "Yeshua" that "overall it is a very strong possibility that this inscription is not."[25]
(This quote needs to go with the paragraph of the source, whoever it is attributed to)Name "Mary" and derivative of it may have been used by 25% of Jewish women at that time.[26]
Conclusions from known authorities
*Lawrence E. Stager, the Dorot professor of archaeology of Israel at Harvard, said the documentary was "exploiting the whole trend that caught on with The Da Vinci Code. One of the problems is there are so many biblically illiterate people around the world that they don’t know what is real judicious assessment and what is what some of us in the field call ‘fantastic archaeology.’"[4]
*William Dever(Who is he?  Need a reference) said, "I'm not a Christian. I'm not a believer. I don't have a dog in this fight. I just think it's a shame the way this story is being hyped and manipulated."[22]
*Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, has criticized the decision of the documentary makers to make their claims at a news conference rather than in a peer-reviewed scientific article. By going directly to the media, she said, the filmmakers "have set it up as if it's a legitimate academic debate, when the vast majority of scholars who specialize in archeology of this period have flatly rejected this."[22]
*Joe Zias, former curator of archeology at the Israeli Antiquities Authority, described in an e-mail to The Washington Post, that the documentary is a "hyped-up film which is intellectually and scientifically dishonest."[22] He also wrote an extended Viewers Guide to Understanding the Talpiot Tomb documentary, published on his web site.[27] --RWilliamKing 18:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible neutral-revision of interpretation section 

message: What I notice is alot of academics making comments on other fields where they hold no authority. For example you have archelogist making comments on statistics. Unless that archeologist is a statistic expert, he has no authority on the subject matter. 
Doug (March 25 2007) A lot of archaeologists are trained in statistics, and the statistics themselves are based on whether or not the inscriptions are correct and the frequency of the names.  So there are quite a few archaeologists out there qualified to comment on the statistics. Dougweller 17:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academics 

message: Could some one please fix the accidental blanking from a few edits ago? Everything south of the "Conflicts with Christian views" section needs to be restored. My browser is horrible for doing that. Thank you! Ecto 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidental browser blanking 

message: He, someone blanked a huge chunk of the article!!!! How does someone go about to restore what has been lost? --Benz74 20:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done adriatikus | 20:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems you've lost the edits between the 2 versions. adriatikus | 20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking out a huge chunk of the article 

message: If the article was protected due the editing dispute, that has been resolved.  See my User talk page. Carlo 12:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so everyone knows, someone must REQUEST that protection be removed. It is not done automatically. If the protection was because of disagreements about the Mavorah statement, my understanding is that the issue has been resolved. Ward3001 17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Say it is the Jesus of the bible. Doesn't that add to rather than take away from Christianity, confirming more details of the New Testament than it denies? So there really was this guy called Jesus, who had a wife and child and apparently said and did some amazing things. Good news, I'd say, whether he physically rose from the dead or ascended into heaven or not. Can't we take comfort from the fact that he existed - that he knew what it was like to have a family, to love and be human? And isn't his message of redemption and rebirth something we can all relate to every day? We should admire Jesus the man and son of God, as we are all children of God, and not be distracted by specious theological arguements. I believe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.9.250.240 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100%. I believe in possibilities, isn't it possible that Jesus had a family, a wife and child? Would having a family, destroy Jesus' message to a path to a better life? As we venture more into the 21st century, new discoveries will be unearthed, are we to reject these new discoveries, all because they contradict Catholic doctrine, or they contradict what the Bible says, I'd say no, I accept all new discoveries, even if they contradict Catholic doctrine or the Bible. I do not believe that faith and belief should be fixed, I believe that faith and belief should have room for possibilities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.167.9.106 (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Talk pages are supposed to be related to articles. In order to promote/ask/debate/argue/discuss personal beliefs/opinions/questions there are forums and blogs. See #2 and #4 at How to use article talk pages. adriatikus | 00:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good News 

message: Anyone got any clues about the three extraordinary skulls that was found in the tomb?
- "This too was decidedly not typical. In ancient Jerusalem, the dead were placed inside tombs; in tombs, the dead were placed inside ossuaries. If anything was left behind, it was a lamp or a bottle of perfume—not skulls. What were human bones doing under the symbol? Whose bones were they?"
--Roberth Edberg 07:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The three skulls 

message: This article is such garbage! Of course it was Jesus! We know that for sure! Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead; this article has to say that, or it will be the most biased piece of junk on the planet! Skeptic03 02:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're really bad at being a skeptic. 154.20.253.36 20:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You aren't agreeing with me.  It is easier to follow something as complicated as this if each section is NPOV, separating out criticisms would make it harder to follow.  And you are wrong about the purpose of an encyclopedia -- as WP:ENC says, "An encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge." Generally speaking, the sort of separation you suggest is frowned upon, and there is even a template which says "It has been suggested that some of the information in this article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) be merged into other sections to achieve a more neutral presentation."--Doug Weller (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: One question, which seems to have been ignored by all commentators, looms over film, book and debate. We are told in various places that, after discoveries of tombs in Israel, the bones found within were normally given to Orthodox Jewish authorities for reburial. Presumably, this was done in the case of the Talpiot tomb. Presumably, too, transcripts or receipts of this handover exist in some authority's archives. Indeed, there may even be eyewitnesses who remember the occasion. The question that no one seems to have asked is whether or not the bones of Yeshuah bore evidence of crucifixion.
I am not trying to claim that such information would prove any historical, religious or statistical assertions. It would merely be of interest as an element in the debate.--PeadarMaguidhir 21:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crucifixion. 

message: The sources bother me. First, you can't use any Wiki article as a source, that's pretty explicit. The source just added for the Judas, etc. statement not only doesn't mention Judas, I don't see how it qualifies as a 'reliable source' in Wikipedia terms. Look at this page for instance . This is a site with a good reputation for fact checking? Wikipedia says "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." and "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  Without better sources I think it needs to be removed.  (to make my position clear on the article, I think Jesus was buried somewhere but not at Talpiot). Doug Weller (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't use YouTube for this either, I'm afraid. Same reasons as above. Doug Weller (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  nor blogs  Ochib (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I took the stuff out, and it was immediately put back in. Doug Weller (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conforming to Islamic views 

message: I removed the following (apparently inserted by Pellegrino) from the article as it is not a forum for presenting one's views, added here in case they are of interest. Gr8white (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. We don't allow first person accounts, how would you verify them?  dougweller (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed comments 

message: The image :Image:The Talpiot Tomb.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:The Talpiot Tomb.jpg

message: I notice the para 2 "Ossuary Inscriptions" twice refers to claims in the film that four leading epigraphers agreed - without naming them; the film/article might be slightly (but not very) convincing if they were named!  Hugo999 (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four leading epigraphers? 

message: Making a new hoax with an old one...
The Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 28, verses 11 to 15 :
While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
As written since a long time, the chief priests and the elders had good reasons to make a fake tomb of Jesus two thousand years ago...
All scientific discussions about "evidences" seem very futile now...
Bruno Déry 19:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this relate to this article?  This page is for discussing how to improve the article, not to state your opinions about the subject.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

text: We don't write articles using scientific method, we write articles using reliable sources, see WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. You need to find a reliable secondary source making this argument and cite it. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The Bible is a primary source, reliable as a source for what it says but not for history. But that's irrelevant, please read WP:OR. You are adding your own arguments to this article, and the article should reflect what other reliable sources say - and you can't simply combine sources to make an argument either. They need to talk about this specific topic, this 'Lost Tomb of Jesus', you can't use other sources that don't mention it to construct an argument. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making a new hoax with an old one 

message: In its current form, this is the most hopeless article on a documentary film that I have seen. What should it consist of? A description of the film, when it was made, where, by whom. A description of the content. A section on how it was received. I am going to start editing the article so that it does its job. In the process I might cut quite a lot out. Please help if you can. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced by this argument. It's still an article about a film. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving this as an article on a documentary film 

message: A documentary is not an "author" film, a film where critics are based mainly on the artistic presentation, on the artistic point of view, not on the content like documentary film. A documentary film is mainly made for the content, and the critics of those films should be mainly based on the content, the heart of the film.
This documentary film does not only present facts, it also presents a point of view, an interpretation of those facts. The heart of this film is a presentation of a point of view more than a presentation of facts. Critics of a film should be based on the content of the film, and in this documentary, critics should be also based on the point of view presented in this documentary. Not doing so is eliminating the heart of this film.
So, your critics, about critics of the others, are not superior or more objective. You simply present your own point of view on what film critics should be... What a chance, we are on a "talk page”!     ;-)
--Bruno Déry 12:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced by this argument. It's still an article about a film. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The content of this documentary film

message: Please note the following from WP:Verifiability before adding unsourced content:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true."
I would add, and not whether editors think it is important.  Also note that self-published material is not considered a reliable source. Gr8white (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced material

message: So far I understand the excavation-reports, none of the bones was examined carefully before they were reburried. So, how is it possible to come to such theories as: "Jesus having a child", "Presumably Mary not being virgin"? When there was no DNA-test of all bones, it is neither possible to postulate father-sun-relations nor to postulate, that the bones in den Mary-cache were not from a virgin....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.2.190.162 (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The assumption made in regards to the bodies found is quite extraordinary.  Especially, the times of Jesus when tombs were reused by individuals of that day.  To assume, that Jesus was the individual discovered on this particular site is quire impossible to decipher given the time frame and the fact that determination would literally be called "Cheaper a person" according to the usual term in the English format.  I am amazed at what people will come up with these days to make a few dollars!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.244.242 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theological Implications? 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070303084823/http://www.nbc11.com:80/entertainment/11116378/detail.html to http://www.nbc11.com/entertainment/11116378/detail.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070914025939/http://byustudies.byu.edu/Reviews/Pages/reviewdetail.aspx?reviewID=133 to http://byustudies.byu.edu/Reviews/Pages/reviewdetail.aspx?reviewID=133
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070307120414/http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000 to http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=2905809&page=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070227105907/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070307084558/http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10408 to http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10408
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302073737/http://dev.bible.org/bock/node/106 to http://dev.bible.org/bock/node/106
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070409103402/http://shopping.discovery.com/product-65159.html to http://shopping.discovery.com/product-65159.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203213209/http://www.discovery.com/tomb to http://www.discovery.com/tomb
*Added archive https://archive.is/20070826060941/http://www.thelosttombofjesus.com/ to http://www.thelosttombofjesus.com/
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894526073&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070307084558/http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10408 to http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10408
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070318041520/http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/ to http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article is biased, apparently by religious individuals, who state "The documentary and the book's claims have been rejected by many leading experts." I added three respected professors, including an award-winning archeologist and professor from Harvard, as experts who support the conclusions of the documentary. The article should not simply state that the claims made in the documentary are rejected by many leading experts. It should state, in addition, that the claims are also supported by many experts. I have cited the experts and sources who support the claims. RSFCA (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia does not give credence to fringe theories, none of this should be in the article, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. Zaathras (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   I would like to add that all the experts quoted in the documentary later stated that their words had been interpolated and that they in no way agreed on the idea that Talpiot was the tomb of Jesus or that he was married to Mary Magdalene. The conclusions of this docu-drama have been widely rejected by the overwhelming majority of scholars, (Christians, Jews and atheists alike) as stated in a symposium in 2008.  It's not history, it's nonsense.--Karma1998 (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is BIASED toward complete rejection of experts supporting documentary. Does not cite experts SUPPORTING documentary's claims/experts. 

message: The ossuary (IAA S-767) and inscription used as illustration for this article are not from this tomb. The Jesus ossuary from Talpiot (IAA 80.503, CJO 704) is not decorated. Rob G Weemhoff (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading illustrations 

message: I have edited this page in order to make it closer to reality. The overwhelming majority of scholars have rejected the possibility that Talpiot Tomb is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. Jacobovici and his colleagues have tried to bring new evidence to support their claims, but such evidence have also been rejected by scholarly consensus. The possibility that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth is a fringe theory, which is not supported by any mainstream scholar (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist etc.). Using Géza Vermes's words, the case can be considered closed. -Karma1998 (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Try going through the article and deleting everything that isn't sourced. It will end up a lot more readable. Achar Sva (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing