-DM-

Keep in mind that we are not responsible for the content of TSR. However, For the record, we removed the personal information regarding Holding/Turkel (his address, phone number, place of employment, etc.) from the subject issue of <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2002/4/024jph.html" target="_blank">The Skeptical Review</a> (TSR) shortly after we became aware of it, which was when we received the first complaint.

I don't personally see what good purpose would be served by including or keeping that information as part of the article.

-Don-

-DM-

My understandning is that Carrier believed only that the ossuary is genuine. He was undecided about the inscription.

-Don-

Vorkosigan

I thought because he mentioned "forgery" that he was talking about the inscription. &lt;shrug&gt; No biggie.

Vorkosigan

Layman

Bizarre.

I was not trying to be lawyerly. I have expressly stated that this is not a legal issue. So why would you expect a legal-oreinted post from me on this issue?

Sauron

Hi Shlomi,

I can't access your refutation on geocities.com. Was it moved?

n.b. - one would think that Turkel would have more self-respect than to let himself be published by the likes of Ken Ham.

Sauron

Your comment about "Fitzmyer not backing off from his claim of authenticity" is confusing. Are you familiar with Fitzmyer's position?

Fitzmyer does not take the position of strong authenticity that you seem to think he does:

<a href="http://report.ca/archive/report/20021118/p55i021118f.html" target="_blank">http://report.ca/archive/report/20021118/p55i021118f.html</a>

Not unexpectedly, however, some Catholic scholars have voiced opposition to even this tentative conclusion. For example, the Catholic University of America's Father Joseph Fitzmeyer told the Associated Press that, although he agrees with the soundness of Prof. Lemaire's investigation, "the big problem is, you have to show me the Jesus in this text is the Jesus of Nazareth, and nobody can show that."

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61782-2002Oct21&notFound=true" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61782-2002Oct21&notFound=true</a>

So far the ossuary has withstood scrutiny, but even those who have studied it, such as the Rev. Joseph Fitzmyer, an emeritus professor of biblical studies and an Aramaic expert at Catholic University, concede "it will always be controversial."

"The problem is how do you determine that the people involved are the people in the New Testament?" Fitzmyer said. "It's certainly possible that they are, but I can't see going beyond that."

Indeed, given Fitzmyer's stance as a Roman Catholic, one might expect that he would *not* be taking a position of hard authencity:

<a href="http://www.anglicanmedia.com.au/old/2002/400.htm" target="_blank">http://www.anglicanmedia.com.au/old/2002/400.htm</a>
Joseph Fitzmyer, the eminent Roman catholic scholar, is cautious about this discovery noting that the names James, Jesus and Joseph were fairly common. As well, the spurious Shroud of Turin is doubtless well-remembered. At the same time, to call James the “brother of Jesus” tends to undercut the Roman Catholic dogma of the “perpetual virginity of Mary.”

<a href="http://www.baptiststandard.com/2002/10_28/pages/artifact.html" target="_blank">http://www.baptiststandard.com/2002/10_28/pages/artifact.html</a>

Joseph Fitzmyer, a professor of biblical studies at Catholic University, acknowledged the box's potential impact for Catholic teaching. "It all centers on the meaning of the word 'brother,'" he said. "If you take it to mean a blood brother, then yes, it would (disqualify) the Roman Catholic position."

Now regardless of whatever you or I might think of the Catholic position on perpetual virginity, I think that one thing is clear: Fitzmyer is not a strong advocate for authenticity. He is somewhat neutral and cautious, with some slight optimism.