I really think that you piecing all of this together with the ossuary artifact is going to become one of the most prolific pairing of evidences to date. If you are correct, then there is strong arguable evidence about the historicity of gospel details occurring decades earlier than scholarly consensus concludes. Atheists use the post-70 ADs as examples of how people couldn’t confirm details because of the Roman dispersion of Jews after the temple was destroyed. This work essentially destroys that argument among many others that critics use.
I really think that you piecing all of this together with the ossuary artifact is going to become one of the most prolific pairing of evidences to date. If you are correct, then there is strong arguable evidence about the historicity of gospel details occurring decades earlier than scholarly consensus concludes. Atheists use the post-70 ADs as examples of how people couldn’t confirm details because of the Roman dispersion of Jews after the temple was destroyed. This work essentially destroys that argument among many others that critics use.
Thanks. FYI, I'll be adding a chapter to my book on the implications of my thesis for the dating of Luke/Acts.
Something that might also be useful would be a 1 pager visual that summarizes the connecting evidence (both archaeological and textual).