Haran

It was intended to be convincing. The problem is the twisting of facts that has gone on with both sides of this controversy. We simply do not know the whole story.

As mentioned, there are esteemed scholars that still believe in the authenticity of the entire James Ossuary inscription.

The IAA dragging their feet on prosecuting anyone makes it seem as if the charges are trumped up and intended to defame the ossuary and those associated with it. If they have solid non-circumstantial proof, then let them present it and prosecute so that everyone can know the truth.

Finally, if the ossuary is such an obvious fake, then allow the stupid thing to be tested by others so that the IAA aren't the only ones to make claims about it. Why will they not release it for further testing? This seems incredibly odd, selfish, and even vindictive to me.

Toto

book excerpt

on page 3: I'm not sure where I got the idea that Tabor thought the inscription was a partial forger - he does say that A partial forgery would seem to fit Tabor's theory as well as authenticity.

Hardly. Even if it is genuine, it does not show anything about the divinity of Jesus, and it does nothing to negate the current misconduct of Christians.

Haran

Then why did atheists and mythicists here champion Rochelle Altman and ignore the true experts in the field? Why did they non-questioningly accept the shifting conclusions of the IAA over other conclusions?

Finally, why do atheists think that they are unbiased? This story has been so twisted that we will likely never know the ultimate truth. I fear that history may have been lost, and I'm sure that will suit many just fine....

S.C.Carlson

Looks like he is hedging his bets.

I'd like to see how he deals with Jodi Magness, "Ossuaries and Burials of James and Jesus," JBL 124 (2005): 121-154. She argues--convincingly in my view--that it is highly unlikely that James's bones were ever put in an ossuary. Here is the crux of the argument (p. 152):

However, none of our sources indicates that James was placed in a rock-cut tomb. To the contrary, all available evidence suggests the opposite. As we have seen, the family of Jesus and James presumably could not afford a rock-cut tomb. Even if James’s family owned a rock-cut tomb, the fact that James was executed by stoning for violating Jewish law means that his remains could not have been placed in it (m. Sanh. 6:5). And as we have seen, there is no evidence that the Sanhedrin paid for and maintained rock-cut tombs for executed criminals. Instead, these unfortunates must have been buried in trench graves, in the manner of the poorer classes. Unlike Jesus, James did not die on the eve of a Sabbath or holiday, which means there would have been time to dig a trench grave for him. And finally, James’s opposition to the accumulation of wealth and the wealthy makes it hard to believe that he would have been buried in the kind of rock-cut tomb that was a hallmark of the elite lifestyle.

Hence her conclusion (p. 154):

To conclude, the controversy surrounding the “James ossuary” reflects a fundamental and widespread misconception about the function and social context of ossilegium in late Second Temple period Judaism. There should be no controversy. Even if the inscription is authentic and is not a modern forgery, this ossuary did not contain the bones of James the Just, the brother of Jesus.

Stephen

Notsri

Magness has misread the Mishnah on this point. M. Sanh. 6:5 proscribes the initial interment of a criminal in a family tomb; they were instead to be placed in one of two court-owned graveyards. M. Sanh. 6:6 indicates, however, that once the criminal's flesh had decayed, their bones were collected from the court's graveyard and rightly placed in the family tomb.

Regards,
Notsri

Toto

Are the only true experts ones that you agree with?

The paleographic evidence was mixed. The hard scientific evidence regarding the patina that IAA finally produced was pretty conclusive. The Egyptian who worked with Golan and who actually did the forgery pretty much wrapped the case up when he got drunk and started bragging about what he did in a bar.

Let it go, Haran.

S.C.Carlson

She addressed the issue of reburial in a family tomb (and its unlikelihood) rather thoroughly on pp. 152-154.

Stephen

Haran

ו,ז [ה] אמר רבי מאיר, בזמן שאדם מצטער, מה הלשון אומרת--קל א�*י מראשי, קל א�*י מזרועי. אם כך אמר הכתוב מצטער א�*י על דמן של רשעים, קל וחומר על דמן של צדיקים ש�*שפך. ולא זו בלבד, אלא כל המלין את מתו, עובר עליו בלא תעשה; הלי�*ו לכבודו להביא לו ארון ותכריכין, אי�*ו עובר עליו. ולא היו קוברין אותם בקברות אבותיהם, אלא שתי קבורות היו מתק�*ין לבית דין--אחד ל�*סקלין ול�*שרפין, ואחד ל�*הרגין ול�*ח�*קין.

ו,ח [ו] �*תאכל הבשר--היו מלקטין את העצמות, וקוברים אותם במקום. והקרובים באים ושואלים את שלום העדים, ואת שלום הדיי�*ין--כלומר שאין בליב�*ו עליכם כלום, שדין אמת ד�*תם. ולא היו מתאבלים; אלא או�*�*ים, שאין א�*י�*ה אלא בלב.

Mishnah...see 6.5 and 6.6

Neusner's Mishnah
6:5
A. Said Rabbi Meir, "When a person is distressed, what words does the Presence of God say? As it were: 'My head is in pain, my arm is in pain.'
B. "If thus is the Omnipresent distressed on account of the blood of the wicked when it is shed, how much the more so on account of the blood of the righteous!"
C. "And not this only, but whoever allows his deceased to stay unburied overnight transgresses a negative commandment.
D. But [if] one kept [a corpse] overnight for its own honor, [for example,] to bring a bier for it and shrouds, he does not transgress on its account.
E. And they did not bury [the felon] in the burial grounds of his ancestors.
F. But there were two graveyards made ready for the use of the court, one for those who were beheaded or strangled, and one for those who were stoned or burned.

6:6
A. When the flesh had rotted, they [then do] collect the bones and bury them in their appropriate place.
B. And the relatives [of the felon] come and inquire after the welfare of the judges and of the witnesses,
C. as if to say, "We have nothing against you, for you judged honestly."
D. And they did not go into mourning.
E. But they observe a private grief, for grief is only in the heart.

-------

Remember that the Mishnah postdates Jesus, though the traditions may not. Which ones absolutely date to Jesus' time?

Haran

I agree with those who have credentials in semitic palaeography. Rochelle Altman did not, and she was the first one to come out swinging against the ossuary after it was presented. Many here jumped on her bandwagon and trumpeted her analysis to their own embarrassment.

More balanced reviews came out later. Some were for authenticity of the entire inscription, some were against. The ones who are against the authenticity of the inscription do not convince me. Obviously, you must also only agree with the experts with which you agree as well.

It was not, and they have not released the ossuary for others to make a more complete analysis. Previous examiners have stood their ground on the ossuary's authenticity.

Hearsay. Produce the transcript.

I'm sure some atheists here would like that, wouldn't they. I wonder why? It seems to threaten their notion that there is no historicity to the New Testament.

It is funny to me that I have been able to admit, and still do, that it may possibly be a forgery. However, most here are not able to admit that it may possibly be authentic. Speaks loads to me about who is truly biased and who is not.

Steven Carr

You could say the same about the Gospels. Which bits are not hearsay?