Even if it was used for the priestly garments, I tend to think that it would have changed over 500 years, though I can also see how it could have been the color produced by a particular animal, in which case it would have been easier to keep constant. But don’t forget, we don’t know if the sample from Masada was t’chelet or not.

Every time t’chelet is used in the text, it is associated with clothing. It’s never just used as a word to describe the color of the sky or the sea. My assumption is that it’s not an abstract word that means a shade of “blue,” but a particular dye color.

Is there a reason to assume that the dye color would be different in the Second Temple Period than in earlier history? Given that it would have been needed for priestly garments, it seems like the knowledge would have been handed down over the centuries.

I took an admittedly quick look at all the occurrences of chatah in the Torah and found that the vast majority of the its uses are descriptive, not prescriptive. Even when it is seems to be used in prescriptive way, its usage still more or less describes that a person has ‘sinned’ by doing certain things (eg. failure to witness [Lev. 5:1], deceit, robbery, oppression [Lev. 5:21]) or that what he has done has been a sin.

Another question I have is one of context, not so much concerning the use of chatah in the Torah but rather concerning Osteen’s use of ‘sin.’ I understand that you (Joel) are a big proponent of always translating (and interpreting) a word based first and foremost on the context in which it is used. So then, in what context did Osteen use the word ‘sin’? Are we to presume that he intended his listeners to interpret his use of the word ‘sin’ as relating only to things in the Tanakh prescribed as chatah, or should we make at least some reasonable attempt to judge Osteen’s comments according to how the majority of Osteen’s listeners would have understood his use of ‘sin.’ The venerable wikipedia offers this definition of sin:
“In religious contexts, a sin is an act that violates God’s will.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin)
Considering the extent to which information found online informs (and reveals) much about the way we think, would using this definition of ‘sin’ generate a scripturally accurate interpretation of Osteen’s comment that “homosexuality [at least the male-male homosexual act referred to in Lev. 20:13)] is a sin”?

I provide that link in my main text, but I discount it, for two reasons. First, the fabric patch, from the first decades of the first millennium AD, comes too late to help directly with the Old Testament. Secondly, we don’t know for sure that this is t’chelet. It’s a fascinating find, because it shows us what coloring technology was in use at the time, but I don’t think it helps much with color terms from hundreds of years earlier.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/middleeast/28blue.html?_r=1

Some interesting videos are also on the tekhelet.com website…

http://www.tekhelet.com/mystery.htm