It seems that despite the fact that essentiially all Talpiot Tomb claims from the pseudo-documentary last year have been examined and found null and void, some media's voice is too wide spread to silence the silliness. Mark Goodacre passes along a letter from a group at a Princeton Theological Seminary Symposium on the subject: Talpiot Tomb Controversy.
Through all this discussion, I almost find it shameful for a scholar to parse words as we've seen in this discussion over the last year--words like "It is possible that this tomb..." This is the kind of string that Dr. Tabor still dangles on, and I simply find it non-sustainable in a scholarly argument.
In this light, it is also possible that the piece of wood a guy sold me in Jerusalem came from Jesus' cross. You'll have to prove it's impossible before I relent from saying it's possible.
See also: Jim Davila's quotes of Geza Vermes.
Here S. Jacobovici responds in what seems to to me a somewhat inappropriate "quit attacking me and the widow" tone. Questioning a scholar's competency with a linguistic skill is not an ad hominem attack that ignores the substance of the debate. The complete denigration of this subject is a clear indication that the way this all was resurrected, through this sensationalized film, is a poor way to do scholarship.