Sauron

But Robert Eisenman, author of "James the Brother of Jesus" worries the inscription is too good to be true. "It's too pat," he says. "Why add 'Jesus' to the inscription? It's like someone wanted us to be sure."

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Ronin

DOHERTUS ERRAT

Damn near smiled myself.

Don't do any more of that.

Layman

But where did he say anything about "cautious skepticism"?

Heck, I'm cautious about this too. But a silly objection is a silly objection. Be cautious and wait to see how this pans out. Don't conclude that its "most likely" a fake or "too pat" until you know what you are talking about.

Apikorus

Andre Lemaire is a world-class scholar who has written extensively on ancient Hebrew and other Semitic seals, ostraca, etc. It is perhaps fair to say that the Roman era lies on the periphery of his sphere of expertise, but he has written on Qumran and very recently (2002) on Josephus.

This find seems to have fallen into his lap, and it is not the first such incidence of luck for Lemaire. In 1979 he stumbled onto an Iron I ivory pomegranate in a Jerusalem antique dealer's shop. The pomegranate bore the inscription lby(t yhw)h qdS khnm = l'bayi(t yhw)h qodesh kohanim = "of the hou(se of yhw)h holy to the priests". Scholars generally associate this artifact with the Solomonic Temple (= house of yhwh). You can read a little about the pomegranate at <a href="http://www.ancientneareast.net/pomegranate.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ancientneareast.net/pomegranate.htm</a>

The Israel Museum eventually paid $550,000 for the pomegranate. God alone knows (forgive the linguistic fossil) how much the James/Joseph/Jesus ossuary is going to fetch. One thing is certain - having Andre Lemaire come to your home or business is better than a trip to the Antiques Road Show. Perhaps I'll send him an email and invite him to rummage through my garage.

Sauron, regarding Eisenmann's skeptical remark, indeed someone probably did want to obviate all doubt as to the significance of the ossuary. It is hardly untenable that this someone might have been the 1st century author of the inscription, some 2000 years ago. I'm sure this find will be subjected to great scrutiny. Sit tight and we'll eventually hear all about it.

Assuming for the moment that the ossuary is what it appears to be, it is remarkable, and quite telling concerning the field of archaeology and the problems posed by private collectors, that the most important archaeological find pertaining to the New Testament had been sitting quietly in someone's living room (or vault) for the past 15 years. Shanks has editorialized forcefully on the matter of private collections in his journal, BAR.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Sauron

Oh, please.

Layman, I never said that Eisenmann specifically used those words. But it's clear that he is practicing cautious skepticism when he makes such comments as this.

The fact that you had to be led by the nose, dragging your feet, to admit this obvious (and rather harmless) fact explains why few people take you seriously.

It's not a silly objection - Eisenmann makes the same objection, when he questions something too good to be true - are you calling Eisenmann silly?

I'm afraid I never said anything about it being a fake, or "most likely" being anything. You've got me mixed up with someone else.

Layman

A poll was taken about how many people take me seriously? And I missed it? What were the results?

Eisenman just seems skeptical period. Your characterization of his comments is a little bizarre. At least as "inaccurate" but probably more so than my statement (also not using quotes) that Crossan accepted the new evidence as genuine (when you griped about the fact he only said "most likely credible").

The fact is that any exchange with you devolves into a bitter personal vendetta with excessive focus on impresice wording and characterizations.

Can you please just avoid wasting excessive bandwidth with your typical pettiness?

What sort of methodology is "too good to be true" exactly? Has he published a peer-reviewed article on how this methodology should be applied to evaluating ancient archeological discoveries?

But no. In this instance I'm not "calling Eisenmann silly," I'm calling the objection silly.

I'm not mixed up. I was responding to a number of comments the knee-jerks have made.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Eudaimonist

It's too bad that the inscription doesn't give any additional reason to think it refers to a man-believed-divine other than the teasing combination of family relationships and all-too-common names. It invites too much wishful thinking.

What if an inscription were to be found that said:

Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary

Would that be evidence that Jesus of Nazareth had died and stayed dead? It's all so annoyingly speculative and emotion-begging.

I'd love for this issue to be settled one way or the other, but I'll hold out for something more specific.

Apikorus

Hey, Gilgamesh appears in the Sumerian king list. It doesn't mean he killed the Humbaba, or than the snake stole from him the plant of eternal life, or that Enlil and Ninurta were at Shuruppak.

Layman

BAR's online preview of the article is available here:

<a href="http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbbar2806f1.html" target="_blank">http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbbar2806f1.html</a>

Toto

When you have something like this popping up in mysterious circumstances, fraud and forgery have to be a possibility. Andre Lemaire appears to be a reputable scholar, but he is not the only possible suspect. There are too many possibilities - an ideologue who wants to prove the existence of Jesus, a mercenary who wants to become rich, a frustrated scholar who wants to prove that he can put one over on the establishment or has some other grudge or is just mischievous. These are all well-attested motives for manufacturing history.

It's all speculation at this point. There is nothing to do at this point except wait for more evidence or expert opinion.

And even if it is genuine or can't be proven false, we can't know that the Jesus mentioned is the purported founder of Christianity. There were many prominent men of that age with the name of Jesus/Joshua.