Layman

And how have you demonstrated how "everyone else in the world" is in the world is using the term "authentic"?

First, so far you've only shown that you and Toto misunderstood my use of the term. Not "everyone else" or "we all" or "the rest of us."

Second, I'm not attacking Toto for misunderstanding me. I'm not attacking you for misunderstanding me. I'm pointing out that unlike Toto, you had claimed to have "exhaustively" reviewed the debates on this issue but missed all those times I explicitly said I'm withholding judgment on whether the inscription referred to Jesus.

You have also ignored, of course, HOW I used Fitzymer's quote. Again, if you had "exuastively" reviewed my posts you might have noticed it. It was in the first post of the thread:

The First Century Jesus Inscription (a compliation of relevant information)

You might also have noticed that I only used Fitzymer's quote under this heading:

IS IT A FORGERY?

Probably not. It seems to date to the correct time period and there is no evidence of tampering.

You might have also noticed that I did not quote Fitzmyer under this heading:

WHY DO THEY SUGGEST THAT THIS IS JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT?

Even if it's a real artifact, why should we think that this was James the brother of Jesus discussed in the New Testament? Were not these names common back then?

Yes, and as I said, I am not attacking Toto. But you are wrong about one thing. He did "misunderstand" my use of the term. That's a rather value neutral statement. A "misunderstanding" may be one parties fault, or the other parties' fault, or no one's fault at all.

Nor have you offered us this wide body of literature that is using "authenticity" in some different way than mine.

Of course, the real issue is that you ignored all those posts where I was clear that I belived the ossuary and inscription authentic but was withholding judgment on refering it to Jesus of Nazaraeth -- and even ignored the post where I explained what I meant by "authentic" -- despite having claimed to have "exhaustively" reviewed all the posts on that issue.

No. My usage of the term is not unreasonable. It's a reasonable application of the word.

Of course, the real issue is that you ignored all those posts where I was clear that I belived the ossuary and inscription authentic but was withholding judgment on refering it to Jesus of Nazaraeth -- and even ignored the post where I explained what I meant by "authentic" -- despite having claimed to have "exhaustively" reviewed all the posts on that issue.

What is the google search supposed to prove? It has nothing to do with general usage of the term "authentic."

You are once again wasting my time about a definition.

And so far your only evidence that "everyone else" uses it differently is restricted to you and Toto.

The problem is with your claim to have "exhaustively" reviewed all my posts on this topic, when you either clearly did not or you chose to misrepreseny my views on the ossuary.

Not my opinion. On reading them, you certainly seemed to suggest that they were somehoe related. You only just did this by claiming that the aircraft engineer's analysis showed that the transcript was "partially" forged, while omitting the fact that his analysis does NOT claim that first part is authentic while the second added by a person with another hand.

And I am not on this board to answer to whichever issue you want. I hate debating with you at all because your intent seems to be to waste time on irrelevant matters or distort what I say.

I come here to discuss topics that interest me when I have time to discuss them. I do not come here to post about what you think I should be worried about or what you think I should spend time on.

Layman

Some articles refuting Suaron's notion that the "rest" of the world uses the term "authentic" differently than I have.

http://www.myinky.com/ecp/gleaner_li...528889,00.html

Also, the IGS letter itself used the term "authentic" to refer to the inscription.

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/jesus2.htm

Shanks himself in this article distinguishes between the ossuary and inscription being "authentic" and the reference being actually to Jesus of Nazareth.

http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3,50395.jsp

Yet another article makes the same distinction:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

There were many others, but I thought it was getting redundant.

Layman

Yet another example of discussing the "authenticity" of the ossuary or inscription without implying its reference to Jesus of Nazarath.

From Sauron his/er self:

1. The IGS did not conclude that the patina indicated an authentic inscription.The IGS' conclusion was merely that the patina was consistent with a 1st century date, and did not show signs of modern tools. That is a much more limited claim. Indeed, the IGS is not an expert on 1st century inscriptions, so for a Geological Society to be making definitive claims about the quality of inscriptions would be somewhat out of their field. You should be more careful about what positions you assign to the IGS.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...867#post765867

Sauron

You mean right there in the title, when they say:

Authentic or fake?
Scientists may never know for sure if recently discovered burial box had link to Jesus

They pose the dichotomy right there at the top: either it's (a) fake, or (b) it's authentic, and a link to Jesus. Consistent with what I said about how people understand the term "authenticity" in relation to this ossuary.


And the article says:

If verified as an authentic relic of the period, it may be a link to an individual who lived around the beginning of the first millennium and was at the center of some reverential movement.

Clearly pointing out that authenticity means that it is 1st century evidence of Christ. The same article goes on to point out that even if it is successfully dated as a 1st century relic, that does not establish its authenticity - why? Because in the context of this relic, authenticity is understood to mean "1st century evidence of Christ". Note below, where they juxtaposition the question of authenticity against your definition of "authentic" (bold, below). That would be pointless, unless the definition of authenticity encompassed more than your narrow definition:

There are already indications, though, that many scholars are skeptical that the artifact is authentic. Even if it does date to the period of an "historical Jesus," it gives little if any credence to claims that Jesus was divine and performed miracles.

"If it's looted, archaeologists would say it's useless, because we have no idea where it came from, and it has no context" said Glenn M. Schwartz, a Near Eastern Studies expert at Johns Hopkins University.

Rev. Joseph Fitzmyer, a Bible professor at Catholic University says that while the Aramaic writing on the box "fits perfectly" with other historical examples, "The big problem is, you have to show me that the Jesus in this text is Jesus of Nazareth, and nobody can show that."

Consistent with what I said about how people understand the term "authenticity" in relation to this ossuary.

No. In the article, Shanks lists several lines of evidence. One of those lines of evidence for authenticity is his numerical analysis of the frequency of such names. When he discusses authenticity, he also means a 1st century proof of Christ.

Consistent with what I said about how people understand the term "authenticity" in relation to this ossuary.


Yep, this article does use your definition. I overstepped when I said that "no one" is using your definition. However, the clear majority understanding is still as I described.

Layman

And as I pointed out, the article explicitly uses "authentic" as I did. The big difference here, however, is that I never suggested that your usage was unique or "private" or that "the rest of the world" uses mine. YOU did.

Actually, it means just the opposite. Even IF it is found to be "authentic", it only "may" be a link to Jesus. Clearly then, the article anticipates that the ossuary can be "authentic" and still not be a link to Jesus.

Schwartz offers no support for your claim that the "rest of us" use "authentic" only in reference to the whole shebang. He/She does not use the term at all.

Fitzymer also offers no support for your claim that the "rest of us" use "authentic" only in reference to the whole shebang. He does not use the term at all.

You have an article that uses the term exactly as I did. You try and show that it also uses the term as you do. At best, you have an article that uses the term both as I do and as you do. That's no surprise. I never claimed that "everyone else" used the term as I did and that you and Toto had your own "private use."

Shanks explicitly uses "authentic" to refer to the inscription apart from whether it refers to Jesus of Nazareth. I guess I should have quoted it so you couldn't deny it. I'll break it down simply.

First, the article notes that Shanks "says several lines of evidence suggest that the box is authentic."

What does he mean here? That the ossuary refers to Jesus? Nope. He means that the ossuary and the inscription are genuine.

He then goes through several lines of evidence. His last word on "authenticity" is here and it does NOT include an anlaysis as to whether the inscription refers to Jesus of Nazareth:

Only AFTER determining (by the "final test") that the ossuary and inscription are authentic, does Shanks then turn to the OTHER issue of whether it refers to Jesus of Nazareth.

Shanks then goes on to discuss the statistical anaysis without EVER using the term "authentic" or authenticity" in the discussion.

You had distorted Shanks, who clearly only used "authentic" when discussing the ossuary and inscription. When discussing whether it referred to Jesus of Nazareth he treated it as a separate issue and never used the term authentic.

Actually, you've had to distort the evidence even to claim that any of these articles use "authentic" as you claim, much less that a "clear majority understanding" is how YOU would use the term.

Of course, I never claimed that NO ONE would use the term as you have. Nor did I claim it was one of your own "private" use. Nor did I "misunderstand" your usage AFTER I claimed that I had reveiewed all of your posts on the subject and apparently ignored ones that were exactly to the contrary.

Nice try, though.

Sauron

http://www.probe.org/docs/ossuary.html

Biblical Archaeology Review revealed that a stone ossuary (bone receptacle) has an inscription reading "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." If authentic, this would be the earliest archaeological find that corroborates biblical references to Jesus.

Thus linking the question of authenticity to being 1st century proof of Christ.


http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/.../3dd094bcc6be3

Although the notion of Jesus as a historical figure has been widely accepted by experts for nearly a century, Meyers noted that the ossuary, if authentic, would be the oldest extra-biblical evidence of Jesus' existence.

Thus linking the question of authenticity to being 1st century proof of Christ.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/20...2002155823.asp

In an article in the current issue of the Washington-based magazine "Biblical Archeology Review," or "BAR," Lemaire describes an inscription carved in stone on the ancient ossuary -- or bone box. It reads in the Aramaic of 2,000 years ago, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." In the article, Lemaire says the inscription appears to be authentic. As he puts it, "It seems very probable that this is the ossuary of the James in the New Testament."

In his "BAR" article, the Sorbonne's Lemaire lays out the case for the ossuary's authenticity. He says microscopic examination shows no evidence of modern tampering. Lemaire says Joseph and Jesus were common names in that time, James less so. But, he says, a brother would not ordinarily be named on an ossuary unless he were prominent. He says the likelihood of more than one person named James with a father named Joseph and a prominent brother named Jesus is miniscule.

Your idol, Lemaire, obviously understands that authenticity is connected to the question of being the bone-box of James, brother of Christ.

Continuing....


If the ossuary is authentic, it may be the most important find in the history of New Testament archaeology and the earliest known non-Biblical reference to Jesus, some academics believe.


http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs...021/jesus.html

If its authenticity is proven beyond doubt, this will be an outstanding discovery in modern scholarship," Paul Shalom, Professor of Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told Discovery News.

Until now, the most significant finds related to New Testament figures have been the ossuary of Caiaphas, the high priest who handed Jesus over the Romans for crucifixion, and a dedication tablet on a monument. It mentions Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea who passed the death sentence against Jesus.

The new find would be the first archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus.

"This ossuary could be compared to the Turin Shroud: a big key artifact for believers. I would be thrilled if it were true, but I believe it is a forgery. Several things cast suspicion: the line of custody is insecure, and the inscription is too perfect. They would have never written 'brother of Jesus' in the first century," Robert Eisenman, professor of biblical archaeology at California State University, Long Beach, and author of "James, Brother of Jesus," told Discovery News.

http://www.issuesinperspective.com/index_608.cfm

If this is authentic, this ossuary would be the only artifact from the first century that proves the existence of Jesus. Until this ossuary, the earliest know artifact was a fragment of the Gospel of John, dated from about AD 125. This ossuary would also be the first artifact to link James, Joseph and Jesus.


Enough of that.


Your IGS quotation - yes, I read it. But the IGS's evaluation of the ossuary was limited to the geological aspects of the artifact. That's all that BAR asked them to provide. When narrowed to that solitary and technical topic, then an evaluation of "authentic" is just like your narrow definition: limited in scope. I'm not surprised at all by that, and it doesn't change the fact that the majority usage of "authentic", in the context of this ossuary, means "the actual 1st century bonebox of James, brother of Christ".

Layman

Are you a glutton for punishment or what?

I've shown several sources and scholars that have used authentic exactly as I have: in reference to the ossuary and/or the inscription apart from whether it is a reference to Jesus.

Thus your claims that such usage were merely my own "private" usage and that "everyone else" and "all of us" and the entire world used it differently than me was all unfounded rubbish. Obviously so actually.

But what further compounds your overreaching attempt to insult me again, was that you claimed to have "exhuastively" reviewed all of my posts on this topic. But somehow you managed to miss EVERY SINGlE ONE (of many) where I explained that I believed that the ossuary and inscription were likely valid, but that I was withholding judgment on the claim that it refers to Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, you even ignored one of my posts -- in one of the very big threads on this issue -- where I explained to Toto exactly what I meant by "authentic."

To support your claim that I was the "only" one who used "authentic" in this way, you provided a list to a google search that did not even include the term "authentic." When I did my own search you attacked my links and misrepresented some of their content, claiming they actually supported your usage (an irrelevant point because I never claimed the term could not be used in that way). Now that I have demolished your attempted spin on those links -- as well as gross mischaracterizations of their contents -- you fail to provide any defense for your latest antics on this issue and instead provide NEW links that you claim support your usage of the term -- which again is a point I never denied.

I could check you again to see what latest distortions and mischaracterizations you've offered us -- and peek at the other end of those links. But what is the use? I've made my point and you are left defending a usage of the term that I never assaulted.

Nevertheless, I did just notice that at least some of the links are questionable (at best).

Of COURSE there is a link between the authenticity of the ossuary and inscription and there being 1st century proof of Christ. If the ossuary and/or the inscription are inauthentic, then it cannot be 1st century proof of Christ.


Lemaire is not my idol. But he is a leader in his feild.

But, OF COURSE authenticity is connected to the question of whether this is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. If the ossuary and/or inscription are not authentic, there can be no real reference, can there?

If you have ever bothered to actually read Lemaire's article, you would notice that he includes an entire side-column devoted "to establish the autheniticy" of the inscription. Andre Lemaire, Epigraphy--and the Lab--Say It's Genuine, Biblical Archeology Review, at 28 (Nov/Dec 2002).

Yes, exactly. IF the ossuary is authentic, then it MAY be a reference to Jesus. Of cousre, IF the ossuary is inauthentic, then it is surely not. The issue of the authenticity of the ossuary in this article is related to, but not conclusive of, whether there is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

Another example of my usage.

And if you had bothered to read any of those posts of mine that you claim to have "exhaustively" reviewed, then you would know that I was using the term in this exact contect--limited in scope.

Just how do you think you've established this as the "majority usage" since I've demolished so many of your examples and provided so many of mine? It seems obvious that the word can be used in both ways and reasonable people may find themselves using it in both ways. Personally, when I hear "Is the ossuary authentic" I think "is it fake?" If I hear, "is the inscription autneitic" I think, "is it fake"? If I hear, "is this an authentic reference to Jesus", then I think about that satistical evidence. And everytime the context of the discussion focused on the stastistical evidence I have expressed caution on the subject and said that I have made no determination as of yet.

Jayhawker Soule

Sauron Contra Layman is getting a little old - maybe it belongs ~~Elsewhere~~.