<!DOCTYPE html><html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8"><title>Printable Note - Blog - Biblical Archaeology (Theo Todman's Web Page) </title><link href="../../../TheosStyle.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"><link rel="shortcut icon" href="../../../TT_ICO.png" /></head> <P ALIGN="Center"><FONT Size = 3 FACE="Arial"><B><HR>Theo Todman's Web Page<HR><p>For Text Colour-conventions (at end of page): <A HREF="#ColourConventions">Click Here</a></p><U>Blog - Biblical Archaeology</B></U></P> <P ALIGN="Justify"><FONT Size = 2 FACE="Arial"> <ol type="1"><li>While looking for something on YouTube, I came across a BBC Documentary on <b>King Solomon's Tablet of Stone</b> (<A HREF = "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxgUMOCUK4A" TARGET = "_top">Link</A> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxgUMOCUK4A)). This led on to two other threads  that of the so-called <b>James Ossuary</b> (<A HREF = "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary" TARGET = "_top">Link</A> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary)) and that on the <b>Talpiot Tomb</b> (<A HREF = "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tomb" TARGET = "_top">Link</A> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tomb)). While interesting, these discussions  on Wikipedia and other sites  are disquieting on a number of grounds  mainly that such important matters remain unresolved, and the troubling nature of fraud either in the archaeological process or in the prosecution service, depending whose side you take. </li><li>Otherwise, I m not too concerned about the matter:- <ul type="disc"><li><b>King Solomon's Tablet of Stone</b>: The alleged importance of this stone (if genuine) if that it s the only hard extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Solomon and his temple. This isn t on my list of worries  I see no reason to doubt the existence of either, even if the account may be exaggerated (which the Stone has no bearing on). </li><li><b>James Ossuary</b>: Again, this  if <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_1000_1">genuine</A></U><SUB>1</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_1000_1"></A>  would be probabilistic evidence for the existence of Jesus. But, again, this isn t one of my worries. </li><li><b>Talpiot Tomb</b>: this is certainly genuine, but its import is unclear. There is some suggestion that the missing  tenth ossuary is the James Ossuary, which would connect the three cases together, but the style looks different to me. The issue is the probabilistic evidence that the collection of names makes this Jesus family tomb, once containing the (now lost) bones of Jesus himself. This would, of course, be dynamite, but is highly unlikely. </li></ul></li><li>This document is a temporary holding place and requires <a name="4"></a>completion. For the time being, it is a holding-place, lest I forget the matter. </li></ol><FONT COLOR = "000000"><BR><HR><BR><U><B>In-Page Footnotes</U></B><a name="On-Page_Link_1000_1"></A><BR><BR><B>Footnote 1</B>: Doubted because it comes from the same collector as Solomon's Tablet. <BR><BR><FONT COLOR = "000000"></P><B>Note last updated:</B> 02/07/2013 14:12:29<BR> </P><HR> <a name="ColourConventions"></a><BR><P ALIGN="Left"><FONT Size = 2 FACE="Arial"><B><U>Text Colour Conventions</U></B><OL TYPE="1"><LI><FONT COLOR = "000000">Black</FONT>: Printable Text by me; &copy; Theo Todman, 2018<LI><FONT COLOR = "0000FF">Blue</FONT>: Text by me; &copy; Theo Todman, 2018</OL><hr><BR><a href = "../../../index.htm">Return to Home page</a><BR><B>Timestamp: 06/08/2018 09:52:11. Comments to <U>theo@theotodman.com</U>.</B></P></BODY></HTML>