James Tabor recently published a post on his TaborBlog entitled, “‘Jesus Discovery’ Film Wins at Cannes Film Festival.” Now, “Cannes Film Festival” is the common and popular title of the Cannes International Film Festival (French Festival de Cannes or the larger La Festival International du Film de Cannes), which dates back to the 1930s and is one of the most prestigious and popular film festivals in the world.
The film produced by Tabor and Jacobovici did not win an award at THE Cannes Film Festival. It won an award from the Cannes Corporate Media & TV Awards, which is an unrelated awards program that extends beyond film to corporate media and TV, and nowhere bills itself as a “festival” at all. The closest it comes is the word “gala,” which is how it describes the actual awards ceremony. The ceremony awards multiple trophies in each category to film makers who nominate themselves at a modest €250. Their motto is “Establishing the world’s standard for corporate films since 2010.” This year there are a total of 120 awards chosen from 719 submissions. No word on how many submissions there were for the “Science & Knowledge” category, but there was only one trophy awarded in the category last year.
It should be needless to say, but the title of Tabor’s blog post is entirely deceptive. Whether that deception was calculated or the product of naivety and lack of forethought is not clear (the latter may be possible in light of the author’s misspelling of Émile Puech’s name, by the way). As the jury responsible for this award cannot possibly be qualified to speak in any informed way about the scholarship represented in the film, and the quality of the filmmaking may not even have played a role, the award may be little more than an acknowledgement of participation (and receipt of payment).
[illustration coming]
Daniel O. McClellan 
September 12th, 2013 at 1:58 pm
And remember, per their own admission, they don’t know what award they won in exchange for their 250 euros. The white dolphin? The black dolphin? The gold dolphin?
Why do I feel like the awards ceremony at my daughter’s 7-year old soccer party, where everyone who participated got a trophy?
And I agree: the headline is deliberately deceptive.
September 12th, 2013 at 4:38 pm
So Bob, are you thinking that anyone who pays the administrative “submission” fee wins an award…I think all film “Galas” or god-forbid, “festivals” have such fees. I think this award in this category is well deserved given the amazing technology we developed over two years…however we might differ on interpreting the “science and knowledge” our exploration provided. I am also thinking that the judges and the award process probably has more integrity than you imply here, though I know little of these things firsthand.
September 12th, 2013 at 6:18 pm
I know very little about these film awards but just checked out the Jury for 2013 on their web site and I think your implication that these people are clowns, handing out awards for pay, and giving anyone who “pays” some kind of trophy as in 1st grade soccer is really demeaning to these distinguished folk. http://www.cannescorporate.com/en/jury.php
September 12th, 2013 at 7:21 pm
James,
Maybe if it were a one-off and weren’t Simcha, I’d let it go. I’ve got plenty of courses and grad students and undergrads and grant writing and lectures and digital models and articles to keep me busy. Oh yeah, and three kids under two, including 4-month old twins to care for. It’s why I’ve been blogging so little and commenting even less.
BUT…
Because it’s Simcha, and because it’s on the heels of his “I’m a co-director at Bethsaida” which while technically correct in an honorific manner, is misleading because he’s merely the designated figurehead of a previously unknown university’s delegation that sent (how many? one? two?) students to the dig (for how long?) because of a $2000 contribution, a designation that was kept so far in the dark that other delegation leaders who have been digging at Bethsaida for years had no clue that Simcha was even affiliated with the excavation, and especially given the fact that he only visited Bethsaida on one short visit for one day this past summer, one can see how the “Co-Director” claim would look embarrassing and deliberately misleading to any of us actually working in the field.
When you lump it together with the “Look at me. I won again” emails we get spammed with, where a quick look reveals that his awards are coming from film award groups that started up only three years ago and where you can suggest new categories and then nominate yourself for them, and win one of many several different awards in obscure, often self-suggested, newly created categories, then one can see his this looks like self promotion of the worst kind. I lived in west LA long and have rnough friends snd colleagues in the industry, and have worked on enough docs to know how these small trade/industry award programs work. It’s often the “Who’s Who” equivalent of documentaries, where you pay the entry fee, and then are told you won, but you don’t know exactly what you won, so you pay the registration fee for the festival and book a room at the partner hotel and schmooze with other folks and take home one of many awards awarded in a single category. Allnofvthe ‘winners’ then tout their awards, and come up with a deceptive headline like “won award at Cannes Film Festival”, which sounds good until you bother to look into it.
Add that do the “I’m a(n adjunct) professor”, which was voted on as part of the deal naming the head of the Huntington delegation, and never mind that he’s never taught a class for them yet still insists on calling himself a professor, you can see how those of us actually in the profession, as well as all of those grad students and recent grads working hard and looking for jobs might see this as deliberately misleading.
So given the “Co-director” and “professor” claims, and given his recent grossly hypocritical bandwagoning on Deutsch’s manufactured backhoe controversy, where he pretends he actually knows how a field excavation is supposed to work, you can see how many might see the intentional ambiguity of the recent “Cannes Film Festival” win claim just looks like yet another egregious example of resume padding of the most misleading and self-aggrandizing kind.
The private emails demonstrating that he can’t read a simple Hebrew tattoo AFTER making accusations of me probably didn’t help either. 😉
Simcha has every legal right to ply his trade and pad his résumé. Likewise, we have every legal right to call BS when it’s little more than a manufactured PR campaign to promote sub-par, speculative, sensationslized, and academically debunked archaeology documentaries from a guy who is desperately craving sone semblance of legitimacy and credibility from an archaeological academy that knows he has none.
Other than that, how was your summer? I see we’re on the slate at BAR-fest together. Let’s grab a beer.
Cheers, bc
September 12th, 2013 at 1:59 pm
[…] via Tabor, Jacobovici, and THE Cannes Film Festival | Daniel O. McClellan. […]
September 12th, 2013 at 2:24 pm
James Tabor descends to even danker depths of duplicity . . .
September 12th, 2013 at 5:08 pm
Thanks a lot Keen…and what would be those less dank depths? A nice example of what your post elicits Daniel 🙂
September 12th, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Why so nasty and aggressive? Maybe festival is the wrong technical term but back off. I can assure you that AP did not pay for its submission. I am linking to Simcha’s post and maybe he will clarify. Often awards for documentaries are handled in separate venues. But why the attitude?
September 12th, 2013 at 3:33 pm
I should add, thanks for noticing the typo. The auto correct often does strange things. But again, why be so rude and nasty and condescendingly sarcastic?
September 12th, 2013 at 4:01 pm
I don’t feel I’m being nasty or aggressive, Dr. Tabor. I’m being critical, but I don’t see it as nasty or aggressive. Sober academic support for the theories espoused in the “Jesus Discovery” film is difficult to come by, and Mr. Jacobovici has mischaracterized and demeaned my professional colleagues for some time now for their criticisms of the same (see here, for example). I have sat on the sidelines and watched, and I have sincerely been surprised at the kinds of rhetorical games and pseudo-scholarship that have been marshaled in defense of thorough and objective evaluation of the claims made by Jacobovici. My small contribution is the last thing published on this topic that deserves a “back off.” I have not considered it time well spent to wade into an online battle being waged by a non-academic sensationalist, but I read your blog post and looked up the award Mr. Jacobovici will be winning and could not help but be stunned by the misleading nature of the title of your post (which I do not consider to be the work of a sensationalist). If you tell me that the conflation of the media and TV awards and the very well known title “Cannes Film Festival” was an honest mistake, then I will be happy to take you at your word. As I said, I wasn’t sure it was intentional. That renders the title no less misleading, however.
I would add that auto-correct cannot be blamed for the misspelling of Dr. Puech’s last name unless you specifically commanded it to correct to the misspelling, which I doubt you did. Typographical errors occur. I was pointing to this one as an indication that the blog post was not given the utmost editorial care before being published, which suggested to me that the composition of the title was ad hoc and not meant to be intentionally deceptive.
September 12th, 2013 at 5:04 pm
I think there is a difference between proper critical exchanges and the tone and approach you choose to use here. It comes across to me as nasty and non-collegial. I think you are incorrect about no serious academic support for probably identification of the Talpiot tombs with the Jesus family–take a look at the archive of posts, pro-and-con, at bibleinterp.com under the Home page category “Talpiot tombs.” There is much to consider there. I can only speak for myself and I stand by what I have written on my blog, published in academic papers, and presented at professional conferences (ASOR and SBL). I surely don’t consider these well-considered views as pseudo-scholarship. As for the film, I guess I should have used “Gala” rather than festival, which is fine. I just assumed everyone knew the Cannes Summer event was over and this was another venue, and Simcha’s post makes that very clear, describing the event and the process. I make no comment on the event but only pass along his description. Our efforts in exploring Talpiot tomb B were extraordinary and breathtaking in terms of science and the knowledge we obtained by this method. I think such an award in this category is well deserved. Simcha has three Emmys and a string of other top shelf awards, including I think, the coveted Edward R. Murrow award I think, so he does not need to “buy” cheap accolades.
On typos, OMG, I would hate to think how many there probably are in my blog posts…my wife used to proofread but now says I “write too much, too fast” for her to read it all. As for autocorrect, I find it often slips in without one noticing…I even had to shut it off on my iPhone because of the crazy things I had apparently “chosen” without realizing it.
September 12th, 2013 at 5:38 pm
Nicole here, Associate Producer on the film that you’re blogging about. For the record, all the information, including a picture of the award, is correctly posted on Simcha’s blog and Facebook: http://www.simchajtv.com/we-won-we-won-again/ For what it is worth, it’s a really cheap shot to insinuate that we are buying our awards. I suggest that you try to buy one as well. All your attacks on Simcha and James are always personal, while at the same time congratulating yourselves on how academic you all are. Simcha is an adjunct professor at Huntington University, but everyone jumps on that and says that it doesn’t mean anything. He’s not there all the time. Simcha is a co-director of the Bethsaida Excavation project but, again, it doesn’t mean anything. He just bought his way into that as well. Now Simcha wins an award but, again, it doesn’t mean anything. What does mean something? Does it mean anything that he has more Emmys in “Investigative Journalism” than anyone else in history? Did he buy those? Do you guys also have three Emmys on your shelves? As for the “scholarship” involved on this film, have you seen Professor Puech’s endorsement of the Jonah reading? http://www.simchajtv.com/jesus-tomb-finds-dramatic-support/ Professor Puech is no friend of Simcha’s and yet he says that the so called “amphora” is a fish spitting out Jonah and he reads the inscription on the fish’s head as “Yonah”. More than this, he identifies the cross on the ossuary as “Judeo Christian”. Does this also not mean anything?
You guys are a sad bunch. But I’m sure that as Simcha sits at the Gala dinner in Cannes waiting to hear which award he won, he won’t be thinking of you.
September 12th, 2013 at 8:36 pm
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Nicole. First, I assume you are using the plural “you” in reference to bloggers in general when you refer to personal attacks, since I don’t believe I’ve ever mentioned his name on my blog before today. Next, I recognize that Mr. Jacobovici did not mischaracterize the award on his blog post, but since you bring it up, I do take significant issue with his self-promotion as an “adjunct professor” and “co-director” of the Bethsaida Excavation project. He performs none of the functions associated with the common use of the titles and it’s clear he received the titles only because of monetary contributions (for instance, $2,000 in dues to the Bethsaida Excavation Consortium). The collective faculty agreement connected with Huntington University describes the title “adjunct professor” as lacking any appointment or stipend, and being honorary. The titles serve to arrogate to his work an air of academic gravitas. I do believe pointing out the misleading nature of the titles is a legitimate criticism, and I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a sincere or legitimate defense of his touting of those titles. If you can point me to one, I’d be happy to consider it.
Next, I have no concern with the awards the other films he worked on have won, most of which appear to have more to do with significant social and political issues than with biblical scholarship. Excellence in filmmaking, however, does not equate to excellence in biblical scholarship or archaeology, and I would be quite surprised if any of the bodies responsible for the accolades he has won know the first thing about the latter. I’m not entering this fray to argue about filmmaking, I’m doing it to point to some misleading factual claims.
I have seen Dr. Puech’s endorsement, which lacks in any real argumentation (understandable considering the medium). The critical points are simply asserted, and I am surprised by some of his claims. For instance, he states that the inscription is unique, and he’s never seen anything like it, and yet he declares with certainty that it represents a specific ancient symbol that itself appears nowhere in ancient iconography in a form at all related to the current inscription. How do you confidently interpret the meaning of an ancient image unlike any you have ever seen before? And why does the downward orientation of the fish indicate it is vomiting Jonah? Can anyone point to anything in biology or art that suggests a fish’s vertical orientation indicates vomiting? I have seen many fish vomit things out of their mouths, and pointing downward has never been a part of it. In point of fact, the ancient iconography always has the fish vomiting Jonah upwards out of the water. What can be pointed to in support of the assertion that downward orientation = vomiting?
I am sure a more thorough analysis of Dr. Puech’s comments will be forthcoming, and this is not the place for that, so I will simply point out that scholars disagree about things, but when they disagree they take the time to consider objections to their arguments and to respond respectively and thoroughly. I have seen little of that from Jacobovici’s camp, and I have seen many very thorough and objective analyses of his claims by acknowledged and respected leaders in the field. Those analyses seem to get overlooked in favor of sharp accusations of ad hominem, the touting of whatever support can be found, and the characterization of critics as lazy and juvenile slobs (see here). I am happy to respond to your concerns, as well as those of Dr. Tabor and Mr. Jacobovici, but I expect you to show me the same courtesy.
September 12th, 2013 at 9:08 pm
Daniel, I have written quite a lot about the orientation of this fish that I take as a Jonah image. You are right, there are no antecedents from the period on ossuaries or other objects and the hundreds of examples we have of such Jonah/fish images (it is the most ubiquitous symbol for “resurrection” in the 3rd and 4th century catacombs) exhibit a different style and orientation. My suggestion is the “artist” is basing the image on the text of Jonah and I have written extensively on this. Jonah is “vomited” onto the shore, not into the water to drown. That Puech also reads without hesitation “Yod Vav Nun Heh,” which seems to me to be really clear in the untouched photos, pretty well makes the case. Perhaps you know the range of expertise and experience with tombs of the period, inscriptions, and artwork of Rachel Hachlili? She also agrees it is a fish with YONAH inscribed on the mouth. So far there have been only two published peer reviewed articles on the subject that I have seen, Peter Lampe and William Tabbernee, both of whom presented as SBL last November, and both of whom have concluded this is a Jonah image. What this might imply is a fascinating discussion but I can’t help connect it to the “sign of Jonah” tradition we know among the early Christians. In my book I present other such examples, including the Figueras fragment. Okay, enough, got to go to bed–and I hope no one is up this late reading this stuff I am writing 🙂
September 17th, 2013 at 6:50 pm
Nicole, I’d like your comments on Simcha’s recent response to Professor Mark Goodacre’s recent post:
http://www.simchajtv.com/pants-on-fire/
You accused me and my colleagues of leveling criticisms at him that are “always personal,” and I’m curious how you respond to the following characterizations of Dr. Goodacre from Mr. Jaocobovici:
“. . . hysterical . . .”
“Masquerading as scholars . . .”
“. . . enforcers of Pauline theology . . .”
“. . . the purpose of this pseudo-scholarship is to rewrite history in Orwellian fashion.”
“. . . pseudo-scientific analysis of photographs . . .”
“. . . I’m going to take a shower because I feel slimed by these guys . . .”
Now, mind you, he must appeal to events involving Dr. Cargill to prop up this criticism of Dr. Goodacre, and he never links to the blog posts and criticisms he mischaracterizes (wouldn’t want someone to check up on his rhetoric). Can I count on you commenting critically on Mr. Jacobovici’s personal attacks as well?
September 18th, 2013 at 5:57 am
Thank you for your invitation to comment. I’d be glad to. First of all, if you’ll notice, whenever Simcha talks about “enforcers of Pauline theology” he’s talking generally about a group, perhaps you’re part of it. He doesn’t focus on one individual and libel him, which is what the other guys do. For example, if you look on the internet, you’ll find endless amounts of personal attacks from Joe Zias on Simcha, but you will not find a single personal attack from Simcha directed at Zias. The one time he questioned Zias’ professional work with respect to the Caiaphas nails, Zias never responded.
With respect to what Simcha says about Cargill and Goodacre, with due respect, there’s a difference between the thugs in the alley beating up on an individual, and the individual fighting back. Simcha points out – and you don’t seem to be upset by this at all – that Dr. Cargill mocked his religious head covering, and accused him of planting evidence. The latter accusation was based on remarks made by Joe Zias. Even Zias had to retract those remarks in court. And yet, despite repeated efforts to try to get Cargill to change his blog and apologize, the man has refused. I’ve been witness to these exchanges. In my book, too, this is “pseudo-scholarship”. When you know the truth and you let defamatory remarks stand, what else would you call it?
You also don’t seem upset by the fact that Cargill incited his readers to beat Simcha up (metaphorically, of course). I don’t hear a word of criticism from the West and Goodacre camps about Cargill’s irresponsible blogging; comparing Simcha to a piece of basalt that needs to be smashed with a hammer. I don’t hear indignation from you either.
Finally, with regards to Goodacre, anybody who looks at the Puech video sees that Puech is examining the photograph with respect to the “Yonah” inscription and yet Goodacre ignores that and creates a counterfeit conspiracy so as to accuse Simcha of deception. Simcha has blogged on the discrepancies on the ossuary replicas in his numerous articles on Kloner. Again, you don’t seem upset by the false accusations and defamations. Rather, you seem upset that someone would defend himself.
This morning, I saw a post from Dr. Dorothy King (http://phdiva.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/avrahaum-segol.html) – a critic of Simcha’s – stating that “Whilst I disagree with the various findings of Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor’s research, I find the way they are being attacked incredibly unpleasant and wholly uncalled for.” Now that’s an honest reaction. I don’t see that reaction from you. Rather, I see shock that Simcha would defend himself.
I’ve worked with Simcha for a decade. During that time, we’ve seen people like Professor Karen King browbeat into silence. I’m telling you right now, they’re picking on the wrong guy. He won’t be insulted into submission. If you engage him on evidence, you will find him to be open to discussion and willing to change his mind. But if you take the road of personal defamation he will defend himself, and don’t be surprised when he does.
You wanted my reaction, that’s it. Sometimes schoolyard bullies will find that there is a new kid on the block willing to fight back.
September 12th, 2013 at 6:07 pm
BTW, we’ve just posted a list of all the festivals that have invited our new feature award-winning documentary, that Simcha executive produced/co-produced, on the illicit organ trade: http://www.simchajtv.com/tales-from-the-organ-trade-world-tour/. Think hard, I’m sure you’ll figure out a reason of why this, too, doesn’t mean anything.
September 12th, 2013 at 7:56 pm
September 12th, 2013 at 7:58 pm
It’s technically correct, it’s just intentionally ambiguous and designed to mislead people into think I accomplished something I really didn’t.
September 12th, 2013 at 8:31 pm
That is entirely false Bob. If you read the post there was not even a hint of anything of the sort.
September 12th, 2013 at 9:32 pm
OF COURSE it’s true James!! Why else would you change the title of your post??!!
Your original title was “Jesus Discovery” film wins at Cannes Film Festival”
It was so misleading, you’ve already changed it!!!!
Don’t call me false and then take remedies to alter the deception.
September 12th, 2013 at 9:45 pm
What is false, and entirely and insultingly so, is your assertion that the word “festival” rather than “Gala” or “Bash” was added to intentionally mislead. Almost every film gathering I know of is called a “film festival.” As I have written here I made no comment whatsoever on the award or its merits. I simply passed on Simcha’s post where he explains clearly the award and its origins. As Daniel writes below, nothing in Simcha’s post or his description is inaccurate. I removed the word “festival” so there would be no misunderstanding regarding “THE” festival. Your assertion of “intentional ambiguity designed to mislead people” is simple false. It never occurred to me that anyone reading that post would mistake the award for the May/Summer Cannes festival, given the clear content of the post. That is the honest truth.
September 12th, 2013 at 10:19 pm
OF COURSE IT WAS, and PLEASE don’t start with the ‘you’re insulting me’ rhetoric.
It’s called the CANNES FILM FESTIVAL!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannes_Film_Festival
You DIDN’T call it the ‘gala’ or ‘bash’ – you called it the CANNES FILM FESTIVAL!
THAT IS PATENTLY FALSE AND MISLEADING!
And do not feign insult just to score rhetorical points – that’s Simcha’s gig.
You called it the CANNES FILM FESTIVAL. Simcha did not win at the CANNES FILM FESTIVAL.
And, you were so convinced that your title is misleading, THAT YOU’VE ALREADY CHANGED IT!
It is not ‘insulting’ to call you on your deception, ESPECIALLY when you took the time to alter the original title and remedy the original deception.
And how you claim with a straight face that you never even *considered* that it *might* look like a deceptive claim of a greater award that he actually earned, ESPECIALLY when his last few resume pads are PRECISELY THAT – attempts to make himself look like more than he is: Co-director* Professor**
Scholars know the power of words. Scholars don’t play fast and loose with words. Scholars are careful and measured with their claims and words. You know this. Politicians and entertainers and PR people are, on the other hand, loose with their words, always looking to suggest more than is there, and rely on the public to jump to make associations and connections they never actually said. YOU, however, are a careful scholar. You know how to use words carefully and thoughtfully. And YOU know when you write (or perhaps were given or suggested) a title that can be misleading. You used a PR headline for the original tile of your blog.
And you MUST see how an extended pattern of carefully worded claims can be interpreted as Simcha attempting to be more than he is.
I expect this from Simcha and Nicole and John. I DO NOT expect it from you.
Concede you made a mistake. Concede it was deceptive (intentional or not). Concede that YOU’VE ALREADY CHANGED THE TITLE to at least eliminate further deception (intentional or not). And PLEASE leave the rhetoric and carefully worded, intentionally ambiguous claims to Simcha, as this is not the way of real scholars.
Good night.
September 12th, 2013 at 10:27 pm
Well Bob, I will let it go. I have said what I wanted to say here and your condescending accusatory SHOUTING RANT here is ridiculous and speaks for itself. I have no interest in carrying on with you in this manner.
September 12th, 2013 at 8:21 pm
Jim, we hoped you had learned your lesson a long time ago. That is why I befriended you on FB. I didn’t care about all the stuff people were saying. But in the meantime, I’ve seen for myself the kind of stupid crap that people have long talked about. You bring it upon yourself and then cry when people call you on it.
September 12th, 2013 at 8:28 pm
Please Nicole, quit, for the sake of all that’s decent. Simcha did NO win 3 Emmys. He was a member of the very large crews of projects that won them. In none of the cases was he the director! Those Emmys are not on his shelf. You’re really ridiculous.
September 12th, 2013 at 8:29 pm
The point of my post was not the phrasing of the title (whether “Gala” “Festival” or “Pay Your Own Way Drunken Bash”), but the substance of the post, that was word for word Simcha’s post in quotes. In fact, I made no comment on the award itself whatsoever. I just passed on the link. Simcha explained fully what the award was, when it began, what it is all about. I am happy to change a word from “festival” to “Gala” if it helps to avoid confusion in my header. Nothing was “entirely deceptive,” and for anyone who bothered to read the post it could not be confused with the May/Summer film festival. As I wrote above, I think the assertions here that these awards are “bought” and given to anyone for “showing up,” are an insult to the Jurors, and if you take a look at the distinguished films that have won these awards in the past, to the directors and producers as well. Both you and Bob have made it abundantly clear here that you have a much wider “pulverize Simcha” agenda (to use Bob’s recent metaphor). If that is your thing then so be it but I stand by my work on Talpiot and the integrity of our exploration of the tomb that was the focus of the film and I am pleased the film received this recognition.
September 13th, 2013 at 5:35 am
James, you know I think highly of you, but I feel like I’m watching FOX News spin and weave and bob out of a situation that they knew they couldn’t win. “Simcha wins at Cannes Film Festival!” and then, when caught, you change the title and all dissenting comments or criticisms are automatically labeled as an agenda. Sorry, but you know as well as I do that ‘agenda’ is a loaded term that is never helpful. If you made a mistake because Simcha misled you into thinking it actually was the Cannes Film Festival, we can all understand that and it was probably embarrassing to learn that it wasn’t. I’m sure Bob is as grateful as I am that you changed the title of your blog post to reflect more accurate information. Thank you for that. But there is no need to dig a hole for yourself. Simcha has already dug himself into his own hole by inflating his credentials; you don’t need to waste your time–which I’m sure you’d rather be spending on research and publishing–defending his mistakes (and everyone makes mistakes–this isn’t a critical judgement of SImcha, but a statement about his humanity).
We all have to take responsibility for the things we say and the words we use. That is part of the responsibility of using language. You must know that; I’m sure you demand no less from your students. So let Simcha take responsibility for his actions. All Bob is asking from you is to take responsibility for yours. I think that is fair. It certainly isn’t ‘insulting’ or ‘agenda-driven’. It is no more ‘agenda-driven’ to ask a peer to accept the consequences of their words than it is ‘agenda-driven’ to demand the same from the students you teach.
September 13th, 2013 at 6:32 am
Tom, you are really out in left field here. The idea that Simcha “fooled” me and then I realized it or “got caught” and “recanted” is absurd. My blog post is crystal clear. I don’t personally care if one calls this event a festival or a gala or whatever but if taking out the word “festival” avoids any confusion with an event that was held in May that obviously was not being referenced, that is fine with me. Anyone who read two lines of the post itself would immediately learn the name, history, and significance of the award. Bob’s shouting rant is shameful, and his charge of willful deception is as untrue as it is ugly and unbecoming of colleagues.
September 13th, 2013 at 6:45 am
Dr. Tabor-
I appreciate that you changed your post. I have had to alter posts of mine in the past, although so you are aware, I have been chided if I did so without acknowledging the change.
I also appreciate your appeal to collegiality, and I will strive to meet it, but I notice that you and Nicole–as far as I can tell–seem to give Simcha a pass when it comes to personal attacks and mocking. I have twice linked to a post where he publicizes and chuckles about a cartoon he says reifies a private joke he has about how we bloggers are juvenile slobs who sit around in our underwear and connive and plot to attack and demean his character. A quick google search would return numerous examples of him making personal attack after personal attack against my colleagues. Would you care to comment on that?
September 13th, 2013 at 7:15 am
Thanks Daniel. I can’t say much since I am one of the underwear bloggers 🙂 I don’t like or support personal attacks by anyone and you won’t find anything like that in my blog or in my responses–anywhere. If you look at my blog you will find an archive of over 500 posts on all sorts of topics related to Christian Origins, including the Talpiot tombs, but nothing attacking or slamming anyone else personally. If I differ with others I try to show them the respect I would want to receive myself. It makes the academy run well. I think it is called the “Golden Rule,” or the “Hillel Rule.”
Simcha is a friend. I know him well, as well as his family. He is a good soul. In my book The Jesus Discovery I describe in detail our relationship and positive collaboration on the Talpiot tombs, which has been an amazing project. We don’t agree on everything and our approaches are different but I respect him as a skilled filmmaker, a sharp thinker, and a good friend. So far as “attacks” the bulk of the nastiness has come from people like Zias and his supporters. He has written hundreds of e-mails to colleagues, my chancellor, provost, dean, publisher, agent calling for my “dismissal” and accusing me and Simcha of “planting evidence,” financial corruption and conduct “bordering on the criminal.” I have mostly let it pass. Simcha decided enough was enough and is suing him–not for academic criticism, but for this slander and libel.
I am curious since I see you work on Herodian period scripts and scrolls how you read the inscription on the “fish,” which to my eye is so clearly Yod/Vav/Nun/Heh that an Israeli child could read it–I tried it out on a few this summer without any prompting. I will send you a HiRes untouched photo later today so you can take a look. However the find is finally interpreted, if it is a “sign of Jonah” depiction, on a 1st century ossuary, it is quite significant. When we went in with the camera we had no idea what we would find. It was truly an amazing operation. The film captures it well. I am incredibly proud of the entire operation.
September 13th, 2013 at 6:48 am
James,
Asking for clarity is not absurd, it is a staple of good writing–even I know that, and I’m just a lowly undergrad. If asking you to take responsibility for your own words is what you consider to be ‘left field’, that is pretty shameful. I do hope that isn’t the case and I hope that wasn’t what you were implying.
I thank you for admitting you altered the title in order to account for that clarification. I think that is important since most people reading your original blog title will not be aware that the real Cannes Film Festival was held in May. Most scholars that I know are not as involved in making television programs as you are, and therefore I wouldn’t expect them to automatically know the difference without first looking into it further and since many are more involved in research and writing (not making films), I suspect they wouldn’t bother to do it. And who could blame them? So your altering of the title is extremely welcoming.
I think the issue that Bob is highlighting is that you have a history of changing things on your blogs and in your articles when they are corrected–which I think is admirable–but without giving proper attribution to those scholars or critics who may have suggested those corrections. I recall Mark Goodacre bringing this issue up when you relabeled ossuaries in your Bible and Interpretation article without giving him due attribution. I believe you have adjusted the orientation of the CGI’d image what what I believe to be an amphora (you call it a fish) on your blog as well without giving credit to the fact that Bob Cargill originally called out the fact that the orientation was wrong and misleading.
Like I’ve said before, we all make embarrassing mistakes (god knows I’ve made my share), but the correction and attribution bit is what is alarming to me; certainly that is alarming to a lot of people–including Bob. I hope that you can understand that position.
Thanks,
Tom
September 13th, 2013 at 7:41 am
Well your memory fails you Tom. I have no such history. Of the 500 blog posts on my site there are none that fit your charge, not a single one. And I do indeed gratefully acknowledge Mark’s sharp eye. I also thank Cargill for his suggestion of the relabeling of the CGI. The orientation of the fish was presented correctly in our book (you have a copy), our press conference in NY the day the discovery was announced, and in my initial blog posts on Talpiot. I even wrote posts about why the fish is pointed downwards, which would make no sense if I thought it was horizontal. Remember all that discussion on ASOR about the “upside-down tower” on the very day of the book release. The PDF at bibleinterp.com had it printed wrong, because the vertical would not fit the page, but we corrected that immediately once it was noticed.
This is from March, 2012, days after the publications of our discovery:
“We do continually want to correct anything wrong. For example, two of our photos were labeled 1980 rather than 1981, and we have corrected that. We appreciate anyone pointing out any other errors and we will do our best to correct them. I thank Mark Goodacre for his sharp eyes in noticing that one of the figures in my Preliminary Report is misidentified (the inside shot of the ossuary with the bones, Fig. 7 in my Preliminary Report, was incorrectly labeled as ossuary 5 when in fact it is ossuary 4 as our GE camera man has now confirmed). Robert Cargill suggested that the label “composite representation” for the complete Jonah image we produced should be clarified as a CGI representation and not a photo and we agreed and made that clarification.” See http://jamestabor.com/2012/03/15/more-photos-of-the-talpiot-tomb-discoveries-released/.
September 13th, 2013 at 8:38 am
It’s fine James; I’ll blog something later and we’ll see how poorly my memory has failed me–if at all. =) I hope you have a nice weekend.
September 12th, 2013 at 9:02 pm
Oh please. This was so clearly intentional. You’re happy to change the header? Then why haven’t you done it hours ago??? And why not write an official statement explaining this to everyone. Because if all of us misunderstood what your original post, then we can be sure that everyone else did too. And you owe them the truth.
September 12th, 2013 at 9:13 pm
As I told you when you landed on my FB page calling me a liar and a half dozen other names I have no intention of dealing with you further Jacob. You are a nasty and unpleasant kind of guy. If anyone READ my post today the award and all it entailed was entirely clear. I will not respond to you again.
September 12th, 2013 at 9:44 pm
Except you changed the title of your post so that it is now far less deceptive.
(Btw, did you make a note that you changed the title after it was published?)
At least you the original title wasn’t altered with digital ink, and you didn’t call the altered title a ‘blow up’ of the original 😉
Again, it’s bad form to accuse someone of speaking falsely and then take steps to correct your own deception.
September 13th, 2013 at 5:39 am
For the record, I never called you one name, neither liar nor anything else on your FB page. You may have found my tone to be “nasty.” But to say I called you “a liar and a half dozen other names” is, yes, a lie.
September 13th, 2013 at 2:20 am
something that the Associated Producers reps should admit: there is a huge difference between investigative journalism. and archaeological interpretation. Professor jacobovici excels at the former, but generally makes a mockery of the latter by applying the former’s techniques to the latter. Criticism thereof — as it applies to the archaeological side — isnt personal. it’s what happens in academia and what one of the many reasons academics blog. If the AP crowd is unwilling to admit that, or were unaware of it, they just might want to take things a little less personally. They’re not helping their cause ….
September 13th, 2013 at 5:37 am
For the record, I never called you one name, neither liar nor anything else on your FB page. You may have found my tone to be “nasty.” But to say I called you “a liar and a half dozen other names” is, yes, a lie.
September 13th, 2013 at 7:46 am
Daniel, I am leaving this threaded discussion and won’t be back. I have said all I want to say on this issue. YK is hours away and I am would like to put my head and heart around some other thoughts. I will send you some things later today to look at in terms of the YONAH inscription. Hey, nice running into you here, maybe I will see you in Baltimore, and whatever else might have been accomplished I am thinking your blog traffic got a real traffic bump the past 24 hours!
September 13th, 2013 at 8:04 am
James-
Fair enough. Thanks for participating, and I look forward to getting a look at better photos of the artifact. Enjoy your holiday!
September 15th, 2013 at 6:00 am
regrettably it wasn’t much of a bump. you’re still in the 7 million range on alexa though, personally, i think you should be in the 100,000 range. you are in my heart anyway. 😉
September 15th, 2013 at 6:07 am
You’re a scholar and a gentleman, Jim.
September 15th, 2013 at 9:30 am
to those deserving. 😉
September 15th, 2013 at 6:25 am
I think we’ve seen this ‘movie’ before with non-accredited Huntington University professorship.
September 13th, 2013 at 8:32 am
[…] In light of all of this stuff here. […]
September 13th, 2013 at 11:08 am
[…] after growing defensive and making some rather odd comments about feeling attacked, has stated that he mistakenly put ‘Festival’ there instead of ‘Gala’ which […]
September 14th, 2013 at 6:16 am
In May 2013 Tabor’s Univ. ran a blog concerning his Hermes Creative award for the Jesus Discovery film/book which is very short and based mainly on an interview in what looks like his office and a few shorts from the film trailer. Intrigued and not having ever heard of the Hermes Award I decided to see if I too could get one, so I e-mailed the org that gives these awards in which it appears that there is a category for everything under the sun and asked if perhaps I too could join Tabor’s illustrious group and get bragging rights.
I contacted the org. that gives the awards and found out that for but $150.00 dollars one can enter basically whatever and then when one wins the prize one pays another $230.00 to get the gold or platinum statue, not bad for $380.00 , a statue and bragging rights, but a bit short on cash at this time I decided to take a pass.
As far as these worthless film awards go have a look at an opinion piece in the NYT by noted film critic Armond White and judge for yourself.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/07/are-awards-worth-the-hype
September 16th, 2013 at 6:58 am
[…] this follows neatly the revelations by Daniel McClellan and Tom Verenna about certain word games and uncited changes. This hasn’t stopped Simcha from still posing as a legitimate […]
September 17th, 2013 at 3:41 am
Tabors Sept 13th remark ” We do continually want to correct anything wrong” is another blatant attempt to obscure the facts. When they ran their 2007 film The Jesus Family Tomb, Goodacre pointed out 17 glaring errors which needed correction, some of which were apparently deliberate. They ignored him and and the corrections, so a few years later, Goodacre resent the memo pointing out in a very collegial way that that if they wanted credibility, they needed to address these issues, again no response. Why, well the answer is simple, correct these and many other errors and one has no film. For people who identify themselves as biblical scholars, teaching students, this is, as an academic is inexcusable.
September 18th, 2013 at 6:23 am
Nicole-
Thank you for being open about this. My concern here is that I’m left with a case of “he started it,” mixed with guilt by association. I’m not responsible for anyone else, and I’m not visiting other blogs to defend others directly, but I have a problem with the way Mr. Jacobovici broadly characterizes anyone who dares to challenge his claims (for instance, I promise you very few of us are “enforcers of Pauline theology”). If I begin to engage Mr. Jaocobovici directly am I going to be saddled with these various rhetorical indiscretions, so that any response to my concerns will primarily constitute reminders that other people did this, that, and the other? I’ve yet to see Mr. Jacobovici actually address an academic concern directly, I’ve just seen these rhetorical characterizations bandied about in an effort to poison the well and attack character. Is this what I’m going to be subjected to if I throw my hat into the ring? Leaving aside what anyone else has said or done, I’m concerned that I’m not going to get a fair shake. Can you assuage my concerns, or is my assessment accurate?
September 18th, 2013 at 12:44 pm
[…] was no “mock[ing of] his religious head covering” as Simcha’s paid employee, Nicole Austin rhetorically claimed this […]
October 7th, 2013 at 1:16 am
Hi Daniel,
I’ve been traveling so I’m sorry I didn’t get back to your questions earlier. Despite Zias’ incomprehensible comments above quoting Dickens about “wounding the hands he licked”, I can assure you that Simcha Jacobovici has not attacked anyone personally – ever. That’s why Zias has to say that Simcha has other people “shilling” for him. That’s Zias’ way of admitting that he can’t find a single statement from Simcha attacking him personally. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Zias’ writings concerning Simcha. They’re all ad hominem.
Even Simcha’s comments about “enforcers of Pauline theology” were reactions to literally years of ad hominem attacks and the man is allowed to defend himself! Especially since there are some enforcers of Pauline theology out there. On your very blog you can see the ad hominem attacks on him without any regard to content.
When people try to engage him on an academic level, Simcha is more than happy to debate. For example, when he was criticized for arguing that the iron nails found in Caiaphas’ tomb might be related to Jesus’ crucifixion, he wrote a 40 page academic response which you can still find on Professor Tabor’s blog: http://jamestabor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/The-Nails-of-the-Cross_June22.pdf. No one ever responded to the content of this paper. Bibleinterp.com peer-reviewed it and was willing to publish it if Simcha removed the references to Dr. Cargill. In his paper, Simcha calls Cargill’s references to Simcha’s kippah/yarmulke anti-Semitic. Simcha refused to remove these so the paper ended up on Tabor’s blog. My point is, if he’s attacked personally, Simcha will defend himself – not by libeling but by defending himself from libel. He will defend his rights in the media and in court. On the other hand, if he’s engaged on an academic level, I can assure you that you will find him knowledgeable, thoughtful and willing to change his mind if proven wrong.
Happy debating.
I also don’t recommend bringing up his kippah in discussion.
Nicole
October 7th, 2013 at 6:55 am
Nicole-
I’m happy to let Mr. Jacobovici defend himself, but I think it’s important not to lump everyone together and pretend that each criticism applies to all. That is a manipulative ploy whereby one evades responding to the criticisms of one group by dismissing them within the rhetorical jabs aimed at another, while at the same time managing not to “attack anyone personally.” It’s a very convenient tactic, albeit phenomenally fallacious and manipulative. If you disagree, then please specify whom exactly (by name) is referenced with the “enforcers of Pauline theology” characterization. Links would also be helpful.
Next, I do not see any willingness on the part of Mr. Jacobovici to debate on an academic level. I’m not interested in the “Nails of the Cross” documentary, I’m interested in his claims about the YWNH ossuary and inscription. Can you provide any academic response from him to concerns with his claims there? If you can, I’d be happy to engage him on an entirely respectful and academic level. I have my doubts, though.
Now, I have seen the comment Dr. Cargill posted about Mr. Jacobovici’s kippah, and the notion that it is anti-Semitic is absolutely asinine. He made absolutely no judgment about it at all. It was a passing and entirely harmless reference to the fact that he is in the habit of wearing a “colorful hat.” Unless Mr. Jacobovici means to insist that calling a kippah a “hat” is anti-Semitic (he had no concern with Ari Rabinovitch calling it a “cap”), he is being ludicrously irrational in his accusations (Dr. Cargill addresses that here). The fact that he refused to remove those criticisms in order to have his piece published by B&I shows his arguments rest primarily on emotive rhetoric, not on facts or reason. I’m happy to be proven wrong, but if the past is any indicator, no attempt is going to be made to do anything other than hurl more accusations. I would love it if you could show me I’m wrong there, as well.
October 7th, 2013 at 11:32 am
Welcome back. Seems you were not only out of town but a bit out of touch with many facts. For example, Simchas Jesus Nails film was an excellent example of what someone once termed, ‘archaeology for losers’ i.e no peer review, press conference instead with one archaeologist on the stand, who has admitted time and time again , that he pays well. Remember the words of Tabor when I suggested as a friend in 2006 that this was ‘going nowhere’ and his reply “I’ll laugh all the way to the bank when it happens’. You are clearly out of touch with the fact that his 40 page blog was not only refused by Mark Elliot but others as well, which left one with but two choices, BAR or Tabor, he chose the latter. Fact that no one commented should be proof that aside from a handful of those working for them or need a position badly, speaks for itself. When they give their SBL papers today, they are lucky to have a minion.
As for me replying I wrote two blogs immed. when the film appeared, one which is part of his legal action SLAPP which he instituted in 2011. For a moment I thought I may respond, but when it became apparent that both he and Tabor labeled Cargill and West anti-Semitic, over their remarks I thought I’d take a pass.
As for labeling critics anti-Semitic this was not the first time, in fact a few years earlier, Simcha called a prominent critic on live radio, who had the courage to challenge him, anti-Semitic. She is Jewish.
October 7th, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Hi Daniel,
It seems that I made a mistake. You seemed like a nice guy to me so I answered respectfully. But somehow you have adopted the tone of a prosecutor where Simcha Jacobovici has to somehow defend himself from you, or prove something to you. In my response, I gave you an example of a detailed academic response that he posted on Tabor’s blog. It was just an example. You can choose to engage or not engage. Instead, you dismiss it and, like others, go for the ad hominem approach. You call the fact that he doesn’t insult people a “manipulative ploy”. I wish more people were “manipulative” to the point of not insulting. Just look at the comments posted by Mr. Zias on your blog.
As for the Yonah inscription, Simcha has made an entire film about this, has blogged about it, has posted video interviews etc. Somehow he now has to personally address you to convince you. I don’t exactly know where you’re coming from but all I can tell you is that at this moment some of the world’s greatest experts on the subject say that the word “Yonah” appears in a fish’s head on the ossuary from the so-called Patio Tomb, 60 meters from the controversial Jesus Family Tomb. The experts include Professor James Tabor, Prof. James Charlesworth, Prof. Emile Puech, Prof. Rachel Hachlili, Dr. Yuval Baruch, Dr. Robert Deutsch, Prof. Rami Arav, Prof. Richard Freund etc. etc. I have no idea why this has to be personalized with Simcha. (BTW, the first one to identify the fish – on camera – was Prof Rami Arav and the first one to identify the inscription was Prof James Charlesworth. I don’t know why it all keeps coming back to Simcha).
As for the kippah, please don’t be disingenuous. What Cargill wrote was a whole list of insults and then he capped it off with the kippah comment. He wasn’t making a fashion statement. Would he do the same about a Muslim woman’s headdress? How about a Sikh’s turban? Let me give you a tip – it’s best not to talk about people’s religious garb or skin colour.
By the way, Simcha has never been a reader of the various blogs. Sometimes some people draw his attention to something and he’ll comment on his own blog or Facebook. If you have something serious to say, I’ll draw his attention to it. Otherwise, I’m out of this interchange, especially since coming to your blog causes me to have to read the comments by Zias.
September 18th, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Nicole’s arguments are on par with the bogus Cannes film award, PhD’s from unaccredited universities, buying awards, etc and one should take note that their ONLY supporters to date, are those like Nicole herself, working for him. As for her accusations that he never attacks me, he has others shilling for him. Case in point is a recent accusation that Puech and I went to the IL police and recanted our remarks over the James ossuary along with a reference. When one goes to the citation, one sees nothing whatsoever dealing with the alleged recant. So I Goggled the blogger and sure enough, he and Tabor are close friends and were once part of the Garner Ted Armstong cult.
As for my court testimony, which she cites, to date, I have not testified in court and it should be remembered that on July 11 when a NPR reporter showed up in court to cover the proceedings, he was threatened by Simcha. This is the norm, when a prominent Univ Dean reviewed their film/book in SBL he received a cease and desist letter from James Cameron’s law firm as a warning. Furthermore, Simcha’s co-author, who claimed for over 30 yrs to have a PhD was shown to be lying and later outed in the NYTimes as a literary fraud so Tabor then took his place. I would like to point out that none of their books, inc. the books of Tabor were ever sold in Israel, a country interested in religion and archaeology.
What one is witnessing over the last 10 years is failure after failure, both with their books, films along with their attempts to be the next Dan Brown. As a result they have taken a page out of the Scientology MO, ‘critics, you have critics, sue them, the aim is not to win, the aim is to threaten and destroy them in one way or another. A bit far fetched, lets listen to the words of Tabor in his self published, religious manifesto, Restoring Abrahamic Faith in which he writes, : “These tablets [given on Mt. Sinai] seem to reflect some kind of advanced laser-like holographic technology in which data was embedded into these translucent stones.” (p.42) Immediately when I read this I knew that the Scientologists were being courted and in fact, they gave the book an excellent review.
Currently there are two authors working on books dealing with this pathetic attempt for fame and fortune, at the expense of academic freedom and the profession itself. I asked one of them who was once very involved with several of them, to describe their behavior and she chose a description from Charles Dickens which she felt was apropos;
“This man, who has crawled and crept through life, wounding the hands he licked, biting those he fawned upon: this sychopant, who never knew what honor, truth or courage meant.”
Charles Dickens 1841 (Barnabas Rudge)
Lastly, this is a classic SLAPP legal action, outlawed in most states, as a way in which those with means, short on integrity, threaten and harass those individuals who have the courage to speak up and challenge them.
September 19th, 2013 at 4:59 am
Read many of the comments. The Talpiot Tomb from 1980 is still the subject and apparently due to it there is a meltdown going on in the Christian academic community thank Heaven. Hard to make those inscriptions and ossuaries go away.
October 21st, 2013 at 8:36 am
I just went to their website and it looks like one of those, show up and get the award galas. . There are two awards, silver and gold for each category and some winner categories will show numerous films winning the same silver or gold fish. When it comes to their category there is but one gold which he received, no other gold ‘fish’ nor is there a $ilver fish, which seems to indicate, as many have suspected, it may have been the only film in the category. http://www.cannescorporate.com/en/regulations.php. In short, it does not pass the smell test.
October 21st, 2013 at 5:02 pm
Nothing seems to pass your smell test. Here are links to the Jerusalem Post and the Times of Israel. Don’t you get tired just putting people down?
Jerusalem Post: http://www.jpost.com/Arts-and-Culture/Arts/Naked-Archeologist-Simcha-Jacobovici-wins-docu-TV-award-at-Cannes-329265
Times of Israel: http://www.timesofisrael.com/jacobovici-wins-gold-at-cannes-tv-awards/
October 22nd, 2013 at 10:40 am
Jeff, its time for a reality check. First of all both articles are written by ‘staff’ which is akin to anonymous or the fact is, both were written by himself or someone in his organization and the writer is hiding the fact. It’s on par with their ‘press conference archaeology’ tricks.
As for the ‘smell test’ when people are posing as scientists, archaeologists, scholars, professors, Con Film awards, whatever, without any creditability or support within the profession, then they fail to pass the ‘smell test’. Case in point, they have published two books on the Talpiot tombs, the first co-author was later ‘outed’ by the NYTimes as being a literary fraud and neither of the books were ever sold in Israel, nor can they be found in libraries here !!! Israelis read books and are interested in biblical archaeology, yet they are totally ignored by the public.
As I’ve spent quite a bit of my career ‘underground’ excavating tombs, burial chambers of one type of another I’d like to sign off with the following quote from the underground:
“I’ve only taken to an extreme that which you haven’t even dared to take halfway.”
–FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY, Notes from the Underground
Stay tuned
October 22nd, 2013 at 5:14 pm
Hi Joe,
I agree, it is time for a reality check. The reality is that you’re not in touch with reality. Somehow you think that Simcha writes news articles for both the Jerusalem Post and the Times of Israel about himself. He also manipulates the Cannes Corporate Media & TV Awards and awards a Gold Dolphin to himself. You really have to get a grip.
As for Simcha and his colleagues not having credibility, I know this may be hard for you to conceive, but writing two books gives someone more credibility than blogging about how bad they are. As for Israel, it’s my understanding that Simcha’s “The Naked Archaeologist” series has aired on two channels! Again, I watch “The Naked Archaeologist” and really enjoy it. While you’re talking about your smell test, he has produced three seasons of this series. And, to the best of my knowledge, it’s airing internationally.
As you say, it’s time for a reality check. Someone who produces best selling books and long running series has more credibility than a retired blogger with an overactive smelling test. BTW, that whole lawsuit is doing you no good. Your coming off more and more isolated. If I were you, I would publicly apologize to Simcha and beg him to drop the suit. After which I would take my nose and keep it underground.
October 22nd, 2013 at 10:44 pm
Shalom Jeff, out of curiosity, do you have a last name or are you on ‘Staff’, as all others, aside from you and Nicole sign on with family names. As for the trial and ‘how is it going’ I’m glad that you asked, let me bring you up to date, not from me as I may be biased but listen to what happens when a REAL investigative reporter, working for National Public Radio and the Associated Press, drops in the court room, to see for himself ‘how its going’?
sound link https://soundcloud.com/theworld/071920138-1
Feel free to pass it on, hope it goes viral…remember were talking about freedom of press. BTW it ran on NPR in both EU and the US. Any comments on it will be gladly appreciated, from you, staff or any others.
Shalom
October 23rd, 2013 at 4:32 pm
Joe, I didn’t ask what NPR thinks about the trial, I suggested that you apologize. Your twisted idea that Simcha controls the world is a pathology that needs to be addressed. Also, it seems to me that of everyone you’re getting a very cheap ride on his coattails. You don’t write any books, you don’t teach anywhere, you don’t make any movies but, by libelling him, you get to see your name in the newspaper and hear it on the radio. Why don’t you leave him alone and write something of your own for a change?
November 20th, 2013 at 10:55 am
b”h z”a
Please see GE Photographs concealed and suppressed by Jacobovici, et al, at: http://www.chassiyot.blogspot.co.il.
Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Avrahaum
November 26th, 2013 at 4:31 pm
You keep saying in various places that Simcha “conceals and suppresses”. But every picture from the tomb – every single picture – that his critics are using, they get from one source, and one source only – Simcha! He’s the only one who put a robotic arm into that tomb. I doubt that you put your own robotic arm in there. So it seems that Simcha is a very good filmmaker but very bad at suppressing information since he’s providing all his critics with all the photos that they want. Get a life.
November 26th, 2013 at 4:37 pm
Amen Jeff. What is even more ironic is that the very photos that are supposedly “suppressed” are readily available and have been since March 2012 for ANYONE to download free of charge at our web site: http://thejesusdiscovery.org. In fact, the very photo A. claims we suppress appears clearly in our book. Interpretation is one thing, and there are more than a few out there, but the photos are the photos.
January 5th, 2014 at 2:47 am
b”h z”a
Dear Dan: I have read the above comment by Professor James Tabor written on behalf of himself, Simcha Jacobovici and their Associates.
The Israel Press Council has a complaint filed before it, requesting that corrections and disclosures be made.
The complaint is pending.
Professor Tabor is an outright liar. I challenge him to specifically review and respond to my <> written at:
http://chassiyot.blogspot.co.il/2013/12/the-great-american-balding-seagle.html .
Related Reading is seen at:
1] http://chassiyot.blogspot.co.il/2013/12/the-great-american-balding-seagle_23.html
2] http://chassiyot.blogspot.co.il/2013/12/the-great-american-balding-seagle.html
3] http://chassiyot.blogspot.co.il/2013_11_01_archive.html
4] http://chassiyot.blogspot.co.il/2013_10_01_archive.html
Most sincerely,
Avrahaum
January 8th, 2014 at 12:14 pm
Avrahaum,
As you know, you have a problem. Calling Prof Tabor an “outright liar” shows that you’re not playing with a full deck. As for lodging a complaint before a press council, I can lodge a complaint right now before the United Nations against your irrational postings. So what? Then I can say that there is an outstanding claim against you before the UN. I suggest you tone down your rhetoric and focus on things you understand.