Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-02-2003, 11:00 AM

Top 10

Quote:

In an update to the 2002 book "Excavating Jesus," Christian scholar John Dominic Crossan and archaeologist Jonathan Reed rank the top 10 biblical archaeological discoveries.

1. The James Ossuary: Found in 2002. Placed first on the list "not because we affirm its authenticity, but because it underscores the integrity of archaeology," the authors said. "We put it number one because it is an object lesson for archaeology as a rigorous historical discipline."

. . .

missus_gumby · 08-02-2003, 11:41 AM

Shouldn't the quote above be in the Humour Forum?

Martin

{Edited to add: Top 10? I'd love to see the least convincing Top 10! None of the top 10 shown in the article attest to any biblical events at all. Why am I not surprised?}

Toto · 08-02-2003, 12:00 PM

Humor? Please! These are serious scholars. Show some respect.

I was just trying to figure out whether they wrote this before or after the official report declaring it a fraud. Is their point that the fact it can be detected a fraud makes the object itself significant? Is that too convoluted?

Doctor X · 08-02-2003, 12:20 PM

Seems pretty funny to me.

--J.D.

Clarice O'C · 08-03-2003, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Top 10

"In an update to the 2002 book "Excavating Jesus," Christian scholar John Dominic Crossan and archaeologist Jonathan Reed rank the top 10 biblical archaeological discoveries.

"1. The James Ossuary: Found in 2002. Placed first on the list "not because we affirm its authenticity, but because it underscores the integrity of archaeology," the authors said. "We put it number one because it is an object lesson for archaeology as a rigorous historical discipline."

* * * *

Hello All,

I think that the significance of the James bone box is that it is authentically first century. That qualifies it for a it a top 10er archaeologically, yes?

I would also be interested in knowing the month that Crossan updated his book. This is important for knowing whether he swallowed the hoax or not.

Secular Pinoy · 08-03-2003, 09:03 AM

No, I think 1st century bone boxes are unremarkable and not that uncommon. What made the James ossuary big news is the possibility that if the inscription is authentically 1st century, then it might be possible that it is referring the James the brother of Jesus. And if that's the case, then this would be (supposedly)the first, definite, sceintific proof for the existence of Jesus (or so they claim), the demigod of about two billion people.

Toto · 08-03-2003, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clarice O'C

I think that the significance of the James bone box is that it is authentically first century. That qualifies it for a it a top 10er archaeologically, yes?

Authentically first century ossuaries are so unremarkable that they can be used as flower boxes. The ossuary of the high priest Caiaphas was only #2 the list. (I wonder if that is being reexamined now.)

butswana · 08-04-2003, 11:49 AM

Hell, Golan was using his to hold his throne room reading material.

Vorkosigan · 08-04-2003, 11:12 PM

3. The Pontius Pilate inscription: Found in 1962. The first tangible witness to such a prominent New Testament figure.

Not only do 7 of 10 have nothing to do with the Bible, but this one is plain wrong. We have coins from certain biblical rulers, including Herod the Great and coins of Agrippa too. #2, the Caiaphas Ossuary, the inscription does not say he is the High Priest. What is it about Ossuaries?

Vorkosigan

Postcard73 · 08-05-2003, 08:13 AM

It seems most of the listed items merely confirm that ancient Israel was, in fact, inhabited during the period of the biblical events. Moreover, it seems to confirm that some of those inhabitants were Jews and Romans. I was unaware that this was an issue of contention. How does this provide any impact concerning the historicity of the Bible? And yes, that is a rhetorical question...

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

08-02-2003, 11:41 AM	#2
missus_gumby Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: UK Posts: 1,898	Shouldn't the quote above be in the Humour Forum? Martin {Edited to add: Top 10? I'd love to see the least convincing Top 10! None of the top 10 shown in the article attest to any biblical events at all. Why am I not surprised?}

08-02-2003, 12:00 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Humor? Please! These are serious scholars. Show some respect. I was just trying to figure out whether they wrote this before or after the official report declaring it a fraud. Is their point that the fact it can be detected a fraud makes the object itself significant? Is that too convoluted?

08-02-2003, 12:20 PM	#4
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Seems pretty funny to me. --J.D.

08-03-2003, 09:03 AM	#6
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	No, I think 1st century bone boxes are unremarkable and not that uncommon. What made the James ossuary big news is the possibility that if the inscription is authentically 1st century, then it might be possible that it is referring the James the brother of Jesus. And if that's the case, then this would be (supposedly)the first, definite, sceintific proof for the existence of Jesus (or so they claim), the demigod of about two billion people.

08-04-2003, 11:49 AM	#8
butswana Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 1,804	Hell, Golan was using his to hold his throne room reading material.

08-04-2003, 11:12 PM	#9
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	3. The Pontius Pilate inscription: Found in 1962. The first tangible witness to such a prominent New Testament figure. Not only do 7 of 10 have nothing to do with the Bible, but this one is plain wrong. We have coins from certain biblical rulers, including Herod the Great and coins of Agrippa too. #2, the Caiaphas Ossuary, the inscription does not say he is the High Priest. What is it about Ossuaries? Vorkosigan

08-05-2003, 08:13 AM	#10
Postcard73 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Roanoke, VA. Posts: 2,198	It seems most of the listed items merely confirm that ancient Israel was, in fact, inhabited during the period of the biblical events. Moreover, it seems to confirm that some of those inhabitants were Jews and Romans. I was unaware that this was an issue of contention. How does this provide any impact concerning the historicity of the Bible? And yes, that is a rhetorical question...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.