Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 10-21-2002, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
[QB]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.

I do consider it to be a possibility. But I think its silly to claim its "most likely" a fake at this point. Especially given the pedigrees who have accepted it as legitimate.

Quote:

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.

The authentication is in the dating of the box and detecting whether the script was tampered with or not. I also would like to know the place of origin, but if it dates from 2000 years ago and is determined to be legitimate and the inscription is not al ate addition, its a little silly to claim its "inauthentic."

And franky, your concern that it is a "little to pat" is ridiculous. It's only "pat" because it's strong evidence.

Quote:

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

Buy the issue. Hopefully he'll explain it more in the article.

I do know that there have been a lot of ossuaries discovered releatively recently. Heck, some of them that did have inscriptions were for "James, the Son of Joseph" but had no mention of Jesus. But most have no inscriptions. Those that do probably contain notables. Caiphas' ossuary being a prominent example.

Jayhawker Soule · 10-21-2002, 03:20 PM

Quote:

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

I agree that forgery may be a possibility. But, to the extent that there exists the presumption of forgery, I would think that the outcome of any statistical analysis would be deemed irrelevant.

Ronin · 10-21-2002, 03:33 PM

Well, as always I am considerate of any real evidence.

Alas, it looks like we'll all just have to wait a little longer before we hear any more news of this human Yeshua and the bonebox of his family ~

Lemaire told The Associated Press the owner wants anonymity to avoid time-consuming contacts with reporters and religious figures. The owner also wants to avoid the cost of insurance and guarding the artifact, and has no plans to display it publicly, he said.

Layman · 10-21-2002, 03:34 PM

J.D. Crossan comments:

Quote:

If authentic, "it's high on the list � probably No. 1" of the most important Jesus related artifacts, says John Dominic Crossan, coauthor of "Excavating Jesus." It is "the closest we come archeologically to Jesus." ....

Ultimately, the box's biggest impact may be to stoke interest in James and his relationship to Jesus � and to remind millions that Jesus is more than the abstract icon so often pictured high above a pulpit. "Sometimes Jesus just drifts off into the clouds," says Dr. Crossan. But "we're not just dealing with mythical characters who are being theologically assessed. These were real people in real situations."

<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1022/p01s04-usgn.html" target="_blank">http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1022/p01s04-usgn.html</a>

Sauron · 10-21-2002, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
And franky, your concern that it is a "little to pat" is ridiculous. It's only "pat" because it's strong evidence.

To be fair to Toto, his concern that it is a "little too pat" doesn't come from the strength or weakness of the evidence.

It comes from the fact that a similarly touted claim for the Old Testament was 'discovered' by the very same individual who 'discovered' this.

It's a little too convenient.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

Layman · 10-21-2002, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:


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

I'm not an expert in this area, but from what I understand, part of the evaluation is measuring the amount of build-up of some kind of plant or fungi.

The Christian Science Monitor provides some more detail than the other articles:

Quote:

The article's author, a well-known epigrapher from the Sorbonne in Paris, scrutinized this ossuary carefully. Scans by electron microscopes show no trace of modern tools � and full evidence of layers of a patina that could have developed only over many centuries. The inscription's grammar and script also appear to fit normal usage in the decades leading up to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1022/p01s04-usgn.html" target="_blank">http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1022/p01s04-usgn.html</a>

Layman · 10-21-2002, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:


To be fair to Toto, his concern that it is a "little too pat" doesn't come from the strength or weakness of the evidence.

It comes from the fact that a similarly touted claim for the Old Testament was 'discovered' by the same individual who 'discovered' this.

It's a little too convenient.

And as I understand it, no scholar has accused Andre of forgery--although a minority disagree with one of his conclusions. He's a top scholar in this field and is very widely regarded. His conclusions so far have been confirmed by other scholars. Heck, even Crossan accepts this as genuine.

Sauron · 10-21-2002, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


And as I understand it, no scholar has accused Andre of forgery--although a minority disagree with one of his conclusions. He's a top scholar in this field and is very widely regarded. His conclusions so far have been confirmed by other scholars. Heck, even Crossan accepts this as genuine.

I'm not commenting on the strength or validity of the physical artifact.

I'm explaining Toto's reasoning - that it isn't based on the artifact either, but on the fact that this one man mysteriously manages to discover two such pieces of evidence. This was a point that you did not seem to understand.

Put it another way - if this ossuary had been discovered by someone other than Lemaire, then Toto would withdraw his objection.

Peter Kirby · 10-21-2002, 03:51 PM

Layman writes: His conclusions so far have been confirmed by other scholars. Heck, even Crossan accepts this as genuine.

Has Crossan examined the object?

best,
Peter Kirby

Sauron · 10-21-2002, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


Heck, even Crossan accepts this as genuine.

No, he does not. Yet. Which is why the article plainly says:

If authentic, "it's high on the list � probably No. 1" of the most important Jesus related artifacts, says John Dominic Crossan, cauthor of "Excavating Jesus." It is "the closest we come archeologically to Jesus."

One small word: "if". Makes all the difference in the world.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

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

10-21-2002, 03:33 PM	#33
Ronin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 5,047	Well, as always I am considerate of any real evidence. Alas, it looks like we'll all just have to wait a little longer before we hear any more news of this human Yeshua and the bonebox of his family ~ Lemaire told The Associated Press the owner wants anonymity to avoid time-consuming contacts with reporters and religious figures. The owner also wants to avoid the cost of insurance and guarding the artifact, and has no plans to display it publicly, he said.

10-21-2002, 03:51 PM	#39
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Layman writes: His conclusions so far have been confirmed by other scholars. Heck, even Crossan accepts this as genuine. Has Crossan examined the object? best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.