$imcha Jacobovici Defends Himself

Simcha Jacobovici has written a 46 page defense of his “nails of the cross” discovery. Sad to say, his delivery mechanism was James Tabor’s blog. No doubt it will be filled with backtracking, denial, and otherwise hair-splitting parsing of what he “meant.” The person with casual interest will probably not even bother wading through it, allowing Simcha to say, “Hey, I responded in detail,” to the masses whose eyes will glaze over thinking he’s done due diligence. Those people will also never find or read the critiques of his defense that will surely follow.

Simcha, we already know why you went public with this and what you meant. You are an attention-seeker who needs to cash in so you can keep your film career going. It isn’t rocket science. Why not just ask James Cameron for some cash — maybe you can catch him when he’s not out bonding with cannibals.

8 thoughts on “$imcha Jacobovici Defends Himself

  1. It’s obvious you haven’t read his response. Why speculate when you have the document just a click away?
    I think he’s made a very interesting case, and maybe he’s trying to trigger some real scientific debate, instead of childish slander, which is obviously what you present your readers in the above post.

  2. As @N noted, your response is childish and amounts to nothing more than PaleoBabble. You should read his defense which is surprisingly well written and detailed.

    • I have read it – his connection of the real nails to Caiaphas’ tomb requires the assumption that it was Caiaphas and not Pilate who washed his hands — something utterly without evidence and unprovable — so that the Jewish priest would view them as a talisman (huh?). If it was really Caiaphas, he’d be thinking “good riddance.” Typical.

      Real scholars have two views on Matthew’s comment about the washing: (1) it never happened – it is an interjection into the narrative by a later writer (during Roman times and Roman persecution of the church) to soften Rome’s responsibility for the death of Jesus, and turn it to the Jews; (2) Pilate did it deliberately *for Jews* (not Romans – it was not part of their procedure) to shift responsibility to them.

      Neither view helps $imcha.

  3. Simcha must had the help of a lwayer to write this, it look like a legal factum.

    He is very weak on many points, among others:

    *His claims about ponce pilate washing his hands
    * His identification of the tomb of caiphas
    * The nails being the ones used to crucify Jesus.

    He is strong with attacking Zaias but it does not constitutes proofs for any of his claims., its only good for the trash can.

    Like Isarel Finkelstein wrote : Simcha is a nobody.

  4. As someone directly involved in the whole affair, excavated the tomb, published the anthropological report I can state that $imchas doc. along with Three Tombs of Jesus Tabor is but another cheap attempt to give the Fundamentalists the $igns and wonders they are looking for. As for the response by $imcha, obviously written by someone else and turned down by two high-profile bloggers, the fact that Tabor ran it speaks volumes. It’s not worth a read.

Comments are closed.