FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-12-2006, 08:24 PM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,490
Default Jerusalem Post on "James Inscription"

Sometimes patience and time is all that is required to find the truth... Did anyone see Dr. Altman's name mentioned in there anywhere?

Jerusalem Post on the "James Inscription"

Seriously, though, the "James Inscription" was dismissed too quickly and in too biased a manner. I seem to remember stating many of the things found in this article and for quite some time (ie. one hand, authentic script, etc.). Perhaps this will awaken some to their biases...or not.
Haran is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 09:13 PM   #2
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

It's an op-ed piece by Hershel Shanks, the editor of BAR. What is it supposed to prove? What is new in any of this?
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 06:33 AM   #3
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
It's an op-ed piece by Hershel Shanks, the editor of BAR. What is it supposed to prove? What is new in any of this?
It's not the writer, it's the content. I suppose there's nothing too new, but it combines the facts that are beginning to turn the tide back in favor of authenticity of the "James Inscription". The "James Inscription" is already being included (with caveat, of course) in new and respectable publications such as Ancient Texts For New Testament Studies.

Krumbein's analysis appears to be putting an end to the theory of forgery by Golan (although I'm sure some will immediately and illogically shift their stance to that of an earlier forgery). In this case, palaeographers may have some say again in the authenticity of the inscription. Even if one does not buy Lemaire's analysis because of his heavy involvement, it is very hard to ignore Dr. Ada Yardeni's analysis and strong statement that if it is a forgery, she quits (recalling a similar statement made very early on by another expert in semitic palaeography, Frank Cross, who stated that if it was a forgery, then the forger must have been a genious - or something along those lines).

In other words, some skeptics should apply their skepticism a little more evenly and consider anew the likelihood that the "James Inscription" (whether or not it actually refers to "The James", brother of "The Jesus") could, in fact, be an authentic inscription and not a forgery.
Haran is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 06:53 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Republic and Canton of Geneva
Posts: 5,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haran
The "James Inscription" is already being included (with caveat, of course) in new and respectable publications such as Ancient Texts For New Testament Studies.
Respectable? In what way is Hendrickson Publishers respectable?

Here's their 'product line':
Quote:
Bibles
Christian Living
Prayer
Children
Divorce
Women's Studies

Commentaries
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament
New Testament

General Reference Works
Preaching Aids
Worship
Youth Ministry
Biblical Studies and Interpretation
Early Christianity
New Testament
Surveys/Introductions
General Studies
Jesus Studies
Gospels and Acts
Pauline Studies
General Epistles and Revelation
Old Testament
Surveys/Introductions
General Studies
Background
Pentateuch
Historical Books
Wisdom/Poetry
Prophets

Archaeology and Biblical History
Language and Reference
Hebrew
Greek

Judaism
Pastoral Helps
Youth Ministry
General

Church History
Biography
General
Early Church History

Religion and Culture
Missions and Evangelism
Apologetics

Theology
General
Biblical Theology
Historical Theology
Practical Theology
Are you sure that there's no chance of bias creeping in there? :huh:



PS Will some kind mod please infidelise the Amazon link in Haran's post (and my quoting thereof). Thanks in advance.
post tenebras lux is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 06:57 AM   #5
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New York State
Posts: 440
Default

His contention that "no one has questioned the artifact on paleographical grounds" is also false. See here.

Also, Frank Cross seems to have accepted its status as a forgery as well.
rob117 is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 07:03 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Republic and Canton of Geneva
Posts: 5,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob117
His contention that "no one has questioned the artifact on paleographical grounds" is also false. See here.

Also, Frank Cross seems to have accepted its status as a forgery as well.
Um, it's not just 'false', it's also a blatant lie given the opening paragraph of the article you linked to:
Quote:
Dr. Jeffrey R. Chadwick's essay, "Indications that the "Brother of Jesus" Inscription is a Forgery," was an early scholarly analysis of the so-called James ossuary inscription, written within a few months of the Ossuary's announcement to the world. Dr. Chadwick first submitted the essay for publication to Hershel Shanks' magazine, Biblical Archaeology Review. Although the magazine turned down the essay, Mr. Shanks argued against it in his book The Brother of Jesus, which he co-wrote with Dr. Ben Witherington III. Dr. Chadwick's essay has never been released to the public, so Bible and Interpretation offers it to the world here for the first time.
post tenebras lux is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 09:28 AM   #7
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by post tenebras lux
Respectable? In what way is Hendrickson Publishers respectable?
Why are they not respectable?

Craig Evans is a reputable and well-recognized scholar.

This book and its counterpart on the Old Testament have been reviewed well online. Question it if you like, but find out more about them before condemning them because you don't like the publisher... Should I dismiss the publisher of some other secular scholars' works because they also print the likes of Freak and Candy and UFO literature?

Quote:
Are you sure that there's no chance of bias creeping in there? :huh:
No. In fact, I am sure there is some bias as it is unavoidable no matter who the scholar or what his/her worldview...

Quote:
PS Will some kind mod please infidelise the Amazon link in Haran's post (and my quoting thereof). Thanks in advance.
Believe me, he'll get around to it, he always does.
Haran is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 09:34 AM   #8
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob117
His contention that "no one has questioned the artifact on paleographical grounds" is also false. See here.

and by Post Tenebras Lux

Um, it's not just 'false', it's also a blatant lie given the opening paragraph of the article you linked to
I'm not so sure. And this may depend upon the definition of "expert". Can you list Chadwick's credentials with respect to semitic palaeography and then compare and contrast them with those of Lemaire and Yardeni? It might be an interesting exercise. Isn't Chadwick Associate Professor of Church History?

Quote:
Also, Frank Cross seems to have accepted its status as a forgery as well.
Possibly...he has kept very quiet. However, he did not accept the status of forgery based on the palaeography. In fact, for his judgement, he relied on the analysis of the IAA and an area of expertise that is not his own. And, Krumbein's analysis is causing problems for the IAAs conclusions. You might want to check the conclusions (and opinion changes afterwards) for those on the IAA committee. All of them in the end relied on the geological conclusions, which Krumbein has labeled flawed.

Why is everyone still so against it possibly being authentic? Are there ideological agendas at play?
Haran is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 12:07 PM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Republic and Canton of Geneva
Posts: 5,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haran
Why are they not respectable?
They publish apologetics, preaching aids, theology and 'pastoral helps': so, no, I don't see why I should consider them as respectable if we're talking about genuine biblical research rather than printing to the choir.
Quote:
Craig Evans is a reputable and well-recognized scholar.
:huh: You mention one author they publish - who I don't think I know - so all I can ask is 'so what?' :huh:
Quote:
This book and its counterpart on the Old Testament have been reviewed well online. Question it if you like, but find out more about them before condemning them because you don't like the publisher... Should I dismiss the publisher of some other secular scholars' works because they also print the likes of Freak and Candy and UFO literature?
:huh: are you still talking about Craig Evans?
post tenebras lux is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 02:18 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,612
Default

They also publish:

Jacob Neusner (several of his works)

Matthew Black

Steve Mason

John J Pilch

Paul J Achtemeier

Graham H Twelftree

And so on. I tried to keep it to well-known scholars bearing their imprint, scores of lesser known, but nonetheless serious academics appear in their catalogue.

Their imprint appears on "genuine Biblical Research." In spades. Whatever fault you may find with individual books, their imprint, at least in this regard, is beyond reproach. It's almost enough to make Eerdman's drool.

Regards,
Rick Sumner
Rick Sumner is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:26 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.