Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 10-21-2002, 02:18 PM

Well, it does have theological significance as well. Apparently some Protestants are pointing out that this conflicts with Catholic Dogma about the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Layman, you carp on another poster for mentioning the supernatural, and here you are.....

In any case, it is certainly an interesting curiousity, but of no evidentiary value. The artifact was not found in situ, after all. Most likely a later fake of some kind.

Vorkosigan

Toto · 10-21-2002, 02:23 PM

Layman - why did you start your post with "Lemaire is . . . the one who discovered a ninth century B.C. stone inscription created by King Mesha of Moab that referred to 'the House of David.'"

I have to point out (at the risk of severe abuse

) that having one expert discover the only clear physical evidence outside the Bible of the House of David, followed by this same expert discovering the only physical evidence outside the Bible of Jesus Christ, increases the probability that there is something fishy behind both of these discoveries.

Except that I don't see any evidence that Lemaire discovered the Tel Dan stele, so maybe you're off the hook. Lemaire appears to have been a key translator of the Mesha Stele, which was discovered in 1868 and housed in the Louvre.

The possible inauthenticity of the Tel Dan inscription was discussed <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/tel_dan.htm" target="_blank">here</a> (referenced in another thread.)

Layman · 10-21-2002, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
[QB]
Well, it does have theological significance as well. Apparently some Protestants are pointing out that this conflicts with Catholic Dogma about the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Layman, you carp on another poster for mentioning the supernatural, and here you are.....

How did I use the ossuary to argue for the supernatural? I did not.

Quote:

In any case, it is certainly an interesting curiousity, but of no evidentiary value. The artifact was not found in situ, after all. Most likely a later fake of some kind.

Actually, it's not likely a "later fake of some kind." I agree its too early to claim its undisputable, but:

Quote:

Scientists at the Geological Institute of Israel examined the box, which is made of Jerusalem limestone, and judged it to be about 2,000 years old. The inscription is written in Aramaic, in a form that further narrows the possible time frame.

<a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html" target="_blank">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html</a>

And,

Quote:

Retired Wheaton College professor John McRay, author of Archeology and the New Testament, says the survey's lab report was convincing. "Six different pieces of the patina ofthe stone were looked at through that laboratory," he said. "It was verified, by people who are not Christians, that the date on this is first century and there is no evidence of recent disturbances of the box."

"I have no question it is an ancient artifact from the first century," said Eric Meyers, the Bernice and Morton Lerner Professor of Judaic Studies and Director of the Graduate Program in Religion at Duke University. "It appears to be the oldest extra-biblical, non-literary mention of Jesus in the context of the nascent Christian church, and that's pretty significant."

<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/141/11.0.html" target="_blank">http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/141/11.0.html</a>

And,

Quote:

The archaeology magazine says two scientists with the Israeli government's Geological Survey conducted a detailed microscopic
examination of the surface patina and the inscription. They reported last month that there is "no evidence that might detract from the authenticity."

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20021021_898.html" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20021021_898.html</a>

This may not be valid. It might be a fake. It might not be.

But to conclude right now that it is "most likely a fake" is just wishful thinking on your part. What evidence do you have that it is a fake?

MortalWombat · 10-21-2002, 02:29 PM

Quote:

I haven't read his article yet and from what I have read he seems pretty straight forward about this and is not misleading anyone. Perhaps it is I who have misrepresented him.

Both the National Geographic article and the abcnews.com article say that Lemaire dates the ossuary to 63AD, although the washingtonpost.com article doesn't. I suspect it's the writers of the articles who jump to the conclusion.

Jayhawker Soule · 10-21-2002, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
<strong>In any case, it is certainly an interesting curiousity, but of no evidentiary value. The artifact was not found in situ, after all. Most likely a later fake of some kind.</strong>

Somehow that seems overly dismissive. Why is it "most likely a later fake of some kind"?

Layman · 10-21-2002, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
[QB]Layman - why did you start your post with "Lemaire is . . . the one who discovered a ninth century B.C. stone inscription created by King Mesha of Moab that referred to 'the House of David.'"

I have to point out (at the risk of severe abuse

) that having one expert discover the only clear physical evidence outside the Bible of the House of David, followed by this same expert discovering the only physical evidence outside the Bible of Jesus Christ, increases the probability that there is something fishy behind both of these discoveries.

I would expect nothing more than for you to despearately claim bais and conspiracy with no evidence for either charge.

Quote:

Except that I don't see any evidence that Lemaire discovered the Tel Dan stele, so maybe you're off the hook. Lemaire appears to have been a key translator of the Mesha Stele, which was discovered in 1868 and housed in the Louvre.

I did not say he discovered the Tel Dan stele, I said he discovered "a ninth century B.C. stone inscription created by King Mesha of Moab that referred to "the House of David.""

Perhaps discovery is the wrong word, but I meant it in the same sense in that he "discovered" this atifact--he's the one who translated it and determined its significance. He didn't dig either one out of the ground with an archeology crew.

Layman · 10-21-2002, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
<strong>Somehow that seems overly dismissive. Why is it "most likely a later fake of some kind"?</strong>

Because otherwise some people might agree with all those historians and New Testament scholars out there who claim that Jesus existed.

Toto · 10-21-2002, 02:54 PM

Perhaps "most likely" is hyperbole, but given the history of fakes and forgeries in the field of Jesus artifacts and in art and archeology in general, you always have to consider that as a possibility. And it does seem a little too pat. It's one thing for Josephus to identify James as the brother of Jesus, but then someone conveniently finds a reference to James, the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus, on a burial box that was looted from a grave and is in the hands of a private collector, and so cannot be authenticated.

I'm more interested in the statistical analysis that shows that linking 3 such common names can show anything.

Sauron · 10-21-2002, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:

Actually, it's not likely a "later fake of some kind." I agree its too early to claim its undisputable, but:

quote:
Scientists at the Geological Institute of Israel examined the box, which is made of Jerusalem limestone, and judged it to be about 2,000 years old. The inscription is written in Aramaic, in a form that further narrows the possible time frame.

<a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html" target="_blank">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html</a>

Maybe this is a question for talk.origins, but how can someone date limestone to an accuracy of 2000 years?

Peter Kirby · 10-21-2002, 03:08 PM

Why do all the news reporters neglect to mention the fantastic and authentic Latin inscription that was also found on the box?

DOHERTUS ERRAT.

How can you argue with that?

best,
Peter Kirby

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-21-2002, 02:18 PM	#21
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Well, it does have theological significance as well. Apparently some Protestants are pointing out that this conflicts with Catholic Dogma about the perpetual virginity of Mary. Layman, you carp on another poster for mentioning the supernatural, and here you are..... In any case, it is certainly an interesting curiousity, but of no evidentiary value. The artifact was not found in situ, after all. Most likely a later fake of some kind. Vorkosigan

10-21-2002, 02:23 PM	#22
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Layman - why did you start your post with "Lemaire is . . . the one who discovered a ninth century B.C. stone inscription created by King Mesha of Moab that referred to 'the House of David.'" I have to point out (at the risk of severe abuse ) that having one expert discover the only clear physical evidence outside the Bible of the House of David, followed by this same expert discovering the only physical evidence outside the Bible of Jesus Christ, increases the probability that there is something fishy behind both of these discoveries. Except that I don't see any evidence that Lemaire discovered the Tel Dan stele, so maybe you're off the hook. Lemaire appears to have been a key translator of the Mesha Stele, which was discovered in 1868 and housed in the Louvre. The possible inauthenticity of the Tel Dan inscription was discussed <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/tel_dan.htm" target="_blank">here</a> (referenced in another thread.)

10-21-2002, 02:54 PM	#28
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Perhaps "most likely" is hyperbole, but given the history of fakes and forgeries in the field of Jesus artifacts and in art and archeology in general, you always have to consider that as a possibility. And it does seem a little too pat. It's one thing for Josephus to identify James as the brother of Jesus, but then someone conveniently finds a reference to James, the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus, on a burial box that was looted from a grave and is in the hands of a private collector, and so cannot be authenticated. I'm more interested in the statistical analysis that shows that linking 3 such common names can show anything.

10-21-2002, 03:08 PM	#30
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Why do all the news reporters neglect to mention the fantastic and authentic Latin inscription that was also found on the box? DOHERTUS ERRAT. How can you argue with that? best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.