I think that most intelligent people who watched "Lost Tomb" will discern that it is propaganda, not an even-sided presentation of the evidence. Clearly Jacobovici was trying to make the Talpiot tomb look like the tomb of the family of Jesus of Nazareth, while avoiding the clear signs in front of his face that said, "This is the tomb of an ordinary family from the first century." (The Mission:Impossible-ish suspenseful music that played while someone took a buzz-saw to a concrete slab at Talpiot was a good metaphor for the entire show: fancy packaging of everyday things.)

I wish that the tenuous nature of some of Tabor's claims would have been more energetically emphasized. For instance, he was saying that the dimensions of the James Ossuary and the "missing" tenth ossuary from Talpiot are the "same dimensions." Well, are they or aren't they? This isn't a point that should be allowed to be left hanging. Rahmani's report says that the 10th ossuary was plain, broken, and 60 cm long. The James ossuary is described as 50 cm long at its base, and 56 cm long along its longest upper edge (it flares out, with a trapezoidal shape). That's a difference of more than an inch, so how can Tabor claim that they're the same dimensions? By re-measurement, he says. That's something that can be double-checked. Tabor's "same dimensions" claim shouldn't be left alone. It should either be accepted, or proven incorrect by a simple double-check of the length of the James Ossuary. (Of course, Amos Kloner could simplify things by just holding up the tenth Talpiot ossuary in front of a camera.)

Also, as you've pointed out, the alleged link between Mary Magdalene and "Mariamne" is highly speculative, and the main text being used to support that link is a fourth-century text which not only refers to Mariamne as a sister of Philip (who was from Bethsaida, not Magdala), but which is filled with fairy-tale fiction that Tabor knows quite well is fairy-tale fiction but somehow fails to share with the audience.

Regarding the statistics, I think that the statement that Feuerverger has already made sums up what most people will suspect: the validity of the stats depends on the validity of the data-base, and on the assumptions involved in the calculations.

Reed's point that no one is saying that Mary Magdalene was called "Mariamne" in the first century was actually a pretty important point, when you think about it.

Also, you probably should've bit down hard on the dramatization of John 19:26 and chewed it to bits. There's no way that that little drama-scene was accurate in light of John 19:27. I picture you saying, "Simcha, were you trying to tell your audience that this little boy had his own house? How dumb do you think they are?" and watching him try to vocalize a response for a few seconds. Oh well. At least you kept the first rule of medicine.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.