The most common response to my hypothesis is the assertion that “The names in this tomb are extremely common.” The implication is that this particular “Jesus,” namely “Yeshua son of Yehosef,” is simply one of many of the time, and he, along with his family members: Yoseh, Mariah, Mariamene/Mara, Matyah, and Yehudah could be any one of dozen of families with names like these. Accordingly, we are told, there is no good argument that this particular Jesus was our own Jesus of Nazareth.Tabor goes on:
The names are common. I could not count the times I have heard this–not only from the media but from trusted and well qualified colleagues who should know better–among them Amos Kloner, Tal Ilan, Eric Meyers, Jodi Magness, Bart Ehrman, Mark Goodacre, Stephen Pfann, Chris Rollston, Jonathan Reed, Craig Evans, Ben Witherington, Richard Bauckham–to name a few–all of whom have written or commented widely on the “Talpiot Jesus tomb” thesis. This refrain, repeated endlessly like a mantra, and picked up by hundreds of bloggers, reporters, and media spokespersons, seems to have “won the day” so to speak.And he adds, "The problem is that this assertion is demonstrably untrue" (emphasis original). The others mentioned in this paragraph can of course speak for themselves, but I have never used the argument "The names are common"; still less have I repeated it "endlessly like a mantra".
In fact my point is a completely different one, that a case like the one made by Tabor and Jacobovici requires remarkable correlation. But what we have is a case contaminated by non-matches and contradictory evidence. I have attempted to explain the point in a variety of ways, including utilizing the Beatles analogy they themselves like to use (The Talpiot Tomb and the Beatles).
Tabor links to a new article by Eldad Kenyon on Bible and Interpretation that illustrates my point about correlation. Kenyon begins the article as follows:
Among the Talpiot Tomb A (henceforth - TT) names, one name draws wide scholarly attention: the Aramaic\Hebrew יוסה (Yoseh), which the synoptic gospels tell us is the name of one of the brothers of Jesus. It is for that reason that Yoseh, a Jewish name of the Second Temple Era, has taken on a pivotal role in the debate over the TT.But "the synoptic gospels" do not tell us this. Mark 6.3 speaks of Joses, Matt. 13.55 of Joseph (see further my blog post on the topic). Now of course we may want to stress that Mark, as the earlier work, is preferable here. But if we do stress that point, then we must also stress the Marcan forms of other names allegedly paralleled the tomb. This means jettisoning the always problematic idea that "Mariamēnē" (Hippolytus, Acts of Philip) is a peculiarly appropriate way of referring to Mary Magdalene; instead, we must insist on Mark's "Maria".
The argument is not that "the names are common". It is that we cannot cherry-pick the data and ignore contradictory evidence if we wish to insist on impressive correlations.