Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-22-2002, 10:03 AM

Yes, Layman is trying to cover two positions, one of listening to the experts, and the other of dumping abuse on anyone who suggests that this is another in a line of manufactured Christian relics.

The more I read, the more it sounds like godfrey's position is the most reasonable: some guy named James/Jacob, son of Joseph, died, and his surviving brother Jesus/Joshua saved his bones in an ossuary. No relevance to Christianity at all.

But if I were going to turn this into the movie of the week, I would want to consider the possibility that the ossuary was a clever fake planted by a secret agent of Doherty, much like George Jamal maunfactured a piece of the ark in his kitchen. Once people like Lemaire and Shanks have fallen all over themselves claiming that this is proof of Jesus, the hoax will be revealed, and we'll all have a good laugh and get on with more important stuff.

Just my fantasy.

Apikorus · 10-22-2002, 10:08 AM

Not to beat a dead horse, but it is important to recognize that the ossuary could be a genuine first century CE artifact and still have nothing at all to do with the New Testament and its cast of characters. The scholars interviewed thus far have been careful to point that out. A variety of tests can be envisaged (and have doubtless already been performed) to assess whether or not the ossuary is a fake. Unambiguously connecting it to the New Testament, though, is very likely impossible. As I said above, this find, while it will undoubtedly be celebrated, will very likely also be perpetually shrouded in mystery and uncertainty.

Layman · 10-22-2002, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Yes, Layman is trying to cover two positions, one of listening to the experts, and the other of dumping abuse on anyone who suggests that this is another in a line of manufactured Christian relics.

This is almost correct. I do say we should keep listening to the experts and I think those that suggest (by saying its "very likely" a fake) its a fake are prematuraly speculating.

Quote:

The more I read, the more it sounds like godfrey's position is the most reasonable: some guy named James/Jacob, son of Joseph, died, and his surviving brother Jesus/Joshua saved his bones in an ossuary. No relevance to Christianity at all.

This is an entirely different and worthy conversation.

Of course, the evidence is rather against it. We have a few hundred Ossuaries and such identifications as 'brother of' are rare or nonexistent. Do you have any evidence that it was customary for the person--especially a relative--who transferred bones to an ossuary (remember, this happend long after the burial ceremony) to place their name on an inscription? That seems unlikely since the vast majority of ossuaries have no inscriptions at all and the minority that did have inscriptions did not mention brothers. And why exactly is this unfounded speculation more likely to be the case than the noteriety argument?

But it is at least worthy of discussion.

Duvenoy · 10-22-2002, 10:17 AM

Got it. Thanks again Mortal Wombat.

I'll have some fun with the son-in-law, who is quick to jump to conclusions, with it.

doov

SillyMonkey · 10-22-2002, 10:18 AM

Ok, my ignorance on DNA may be glaringly obvious here but...

If there were bones in the box, would it be possible to extract some DNA from the box? Could a family lineage be established? How long does DNA "hang around"? This way, if it is deemed authentic, the question of which Jesus this is may be better answered.

If DNA does "hang around" for quite some time, a nail used to crucify a Jesus would be quite a find indeed.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: SillyMonkey ]

FunkyRes · 10-22-2002, 10:24 AM

Quote:

This ossuary discovery can be "legitimate" (i.e., a genuine 1st-century artifact and inscription) without having anything to do with the James/Jesus/Joseph of NT fame. In other words, even if no expert posits that it's a fraud, the assumption that the ossuary has anything to do with Biblical characters is a separate matter.

Given the Josephus link to James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ - it makes the case for the biblical Jesus having actually existed a LOT stronger- particularly since James is called the brother of Jesus in the NT as well.

This makes the myth position very very weak.

FunkyRes · 10-22-2002, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SillyMonkey:
Ok, my ignorance on DNA may be glaringly obvious here but...

If there were bones in the box, would it be possible to extract some DNA from the box?

Box has been deboned (no bones found in it).
Therefore it would be very difficult to determine that any DNA samples that might be there were of James and not contamination DNA.

Sauron · 10-22-2002, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:
[QB]Michael, there is no Latinism in the ossuary inscription, and it is was completely wild of Sauron to suggest there is.

"Completely wild"? I think you need to calm down, Ap.

*I couched my comment about the 'di' in properly cautious terms,

*invited others to explain the situation, and

*also noted that I found it unlikely that such an obvious clue would be missed by the BAR folks.

Here; let me refresh you:

Quote:

don't speak biblical Hebrew. However, I have two issues with this text.

1. It seems to say "Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of Yeshua." Jacob - not James.

2. The compound noun-in-construct for Semitic languages is usually just to put the two nouns together. So "Jacob brother of Jesus" would be "Ya'acov akhui Yeshua." Yet this inscription contains the particle "di", which is Latin. So it seems to have some Latin (or Italian) in it.

Does anyone have an explanation for how these two issues could be resolved? Or do they point to a forgery?

And as a follow up I added:

Quote:

And note that if either of these would point to a forgery, I would be very surprised that BAR wouldn't catch it long before someone like myself would see it. :-)

So Apikorus: What is 'wild' about that?

You know what I think is wild? Watching how certain people, who are so eager to believe, will get a deer-in-the-headlights problem when confronted with such an artifact. They lose all their objectivity and common sense about evaluating ancient artifacts surrounding a highly contested personage or event.

Sauron · 10-22-2002, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
Perhaps it's just me, but I get the sense from some of a near palpable anxiety in response to any development not easily and immediately dismissed as fraud. I'm looking forward to the magazine.

You're right - it is just you.

As others have explained, at maximum, this ossuary isn't evidence of anything except the fact that someone named Yeshua lived. Which most skeptics don't even debate - they only disagree on the supernatural items, which this ossuary isn't evidence of.

FunkyRes · 10-22-2002, 10:38 AM

Yes- the biggest implication is for the sects that believe James was the cousin of Jesus, not the brother.

But that arguement has always been week anyway- not only from the biblical text, but from Josephus as well.

James could still be the son of Joseph through a prior marriage and not through Mary and this finding has no effect on that.

10-22-2002, 10:18 AM	#115
SillyMonkey Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Posts: 43	Ok, my ignorance on DNA may be glaringly obvious here but... If there were bones in the box, would it be possible to extract some DNA from the box? Could a family lineage be established? How long does DNA "hang around"? This way, if it is deemed authentic, the question of which Jesus this is may be better answered. If DNA does "hang around" for quite some time, a nail used to crucify a Jesus would be quite a find indeed. [ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: SillyMonkey ]</p>

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

10-22-2002, 10:03 AM	#111
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Yes, Layman is trying to cover two positions, one of listening to the experts, and the other of dumping abuse on anyone who suggests that this is another in a line of manufactured Christian relics. The more I read, the more it sounds like godfrey's position is the most reasonable: some guy named James/Jacob, son of Joseph, died, and his surviving brother Jesus/Joshua saved his bones in an ossuary. No relevance to Christianity at all. But if I were going to turn this into the movie of the week, I would want to consider the possibility that the ossuary was a clever fake planted by a secret agent of Doherty, much like George Jamal maunfactured a piece of the ark in his kitchen. Once people like Lemaire and Shanks have fallen all over themselves claiming that this is proof of Jesus, the hoax will be revealed, and we'll all have a good laugh and get on with more important stuff. Just my fantasy.

10-22-2002, 10:08 AM	#112
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Not to beat a dead horse, but it is important to recognize that the ossuary could be a genuine first century CE artifact and still have nothing at all to do with the New Testament and its cast of characters. The scholars interviewed thus far have been careful to point that out. A variety of tests can be envisaged (and have doubtless already been performed) to assess whether or not the ossuary is a fake. Unambiguously connecting it to the New Testament, though, is very likely impossible. As I said above, this find, while it will undoubtedly be celebrated, will very likely also be perpetually shrouded in mystery and uncertainty.

10-22-2002, 10:17 AM	#114
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	Got it. Thanks again Mortal Wombat. I'll have some fun with the son-in-law, who is quick to jump to conclusions, with it. doov

10-22-2002, 10:38 AM	#120
FunkyRes Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Antioch, CA Posts: 173	Yes- the biggest implication is for the sects that believe James was the cousin of Jesus, not the brother. But that arguement has always been week anyway- not only from the biblical text, but from Josephus as well. James could still be the son of Joseph through a prior marriage and not through Mary and this finding has no effect on that.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.