Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-23-2002, 11:52 PM

James or Pandora's Box? contains a quote from Meier:

Quote:

When asked for comment, Dr. John P. Meier, Roman Catholic priest and professor of New Testament at Notre Dame University and author of several scholarly works, including "The Marginal Jew," said, "The basic problem is that, with the exception of a very few people, all anyone knows is what Prof. Andre Lemaire has written in his article in Biblical Archaeological Review of November/December 2002.

"Like many scholars, I was able to see the box during the exhibit in Toronto, but that hardly adds much to one's knowledge," said Dr. Meier, adding, "All I can say right now is that we need an international committee of independent scholars to examine the box, its inscription, and the history of the box as soon as possible.

"For the moment," he said, "I think Prof. Lemaire's judgment of 'very probable' is too confident, or at least premature. On the other hand, I would want more evidence before I agreed with those who claim that part or all of the inscription is a later forgery. Until we get further detailed scientific investigations no solid judgment is possible," he concluded.

Ossuary held over until Jan 5 (delaying returning it to Israel where it would be subject to the tests we are all waiting for.)

godfry n. glad · 12-24-2002, 11:21 AM

Hey... Toto...

Have you heard any of the rumours about the ossuary possibly never returning to Israel?
I think they were floated shortly after the
delivery of the damaged item to ROM.

We shall see...

godfry n. glad

Toto · 12-26-2002, 02:18 PM

Here's another link, as I practice with the new vBB code:

Discovery of An Ossuary Inspires a Debate About Early Christianity

Quote:

"The ossuary tells us that these are Jews, the Jewish followers of Jesus," said Ben Witherington III, professor of New Testament at Asbury (Ky.) Theological Seminary, and co-author of a forthcoming book about the ossuary. "I want to stress the need to rethink the thoroughgoing Jewishness of Jesus and his followers.

"History is written by the winners, and the winners in early Christianity were the traditions of Peter that led to Catholicism and of Paul that eventually led to Protestantism. James represents a stream that got lost in the shuffle."

Laura Ice of Lakeland, who is pursuing a doctorate under Witherington and assisting him with his book. . .

. . .

"I think Jerusalem could do with a few more Jameses these days," said John Dominic Crossan, a retired professor of New Testament at DePaul University who now lives in Clermont. "He was not so strict he won't give an inch. I find him a fascinating character, and I think his vision was right."

Crossan infers that James learned to combine Jewish moral rectitude with a measure of tolerance for Gentiles from Jesus.

. . .

Vorkosigan · 12-26-2002, 10:07 PM

Rochelle Altman wrote on another list:

Quote:

Eric Meyer's personal "hang-up," right. Meyer (past president of ASOR and an eminent archaeologist, not as Mr. Bartley lies, "an expert on ossuaries" and let's not get into the smarm and one outright lie about me culled from an ad hominem attack on XTalk) merely iterated the position of the American Society on Oriental Research about publicity for black market, therefore, stolen artifacts.

For a sensible and ad rem report (including Professor Meyers "hang up" statement in full) on the Toronto conferences, see Dr. Flesher's article at
www.bibleinterp.com

(And try not to laugh too hard that someone whose name starts with 'S' stated publicly that he was incapable of following my analysis.)

As a "Christmas Present" for me, <G> Dr. Meier of Notre Dame U, a much bigger gun and more noted scholar than Fitzmeyer, has in a press release yesterday backed off from his initial support. He has shone the spotlight directly on the fact that we have only Lemaire's word for it as written in the article in BAR. Meier issuedf a call for a completely outside investigation -- including the duality of the inscription. Not too surprising, in light of:

The article in the repected French Science journal, _Sciences et Avenir_, on the bone-box is the leader in the December issue (pp. 7-12, "Un mot de trop: Jesus faux frere?"). It starts off with "when an archaeological inquiry is transformed into a 'veritable roman policier'"... Gives the evidence from numerous directions and numerous scholars -- including eminent French scholars -- that without question, the box is a fake. The final sentence is particularly devastating: He commiserates with
Lemaire for his "misadventure."

Incidentally, the _Sciences_ article mentions that it seems Mr. Golan is not the real owner...

A final note about the fellow travelers: Peltransport maintains
(documented) that they did not pack the box for shipment; it arrived wrapped. These gentle folk couldn't care less what they did to the reputation of the transport company, now could they.

Toto · 12-26-2002, 11:33 PM

To put that post in context, Rochelle Altman is referring to Bartlby's column in the Wall Street Journal, which favorably mentioned Peter Kirby's website, but dismissed her as "a semi-retired Medieval English Ph.D. who hosts a Web discussion group":

A Stone Box, Christ and History: Science can't ignore Jesus

The John P. Meier quote is in the first post in this thread.

Flesher's bombshell of an article is here:

The Experts and the Ossuary: A Report on the Toronto Sessions about the James Ossuary

Quote:

HarperSan Francisco announced that Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III would write a book about the inscription that would be published in March 2003. Rumor pinned a 6-figure price tag to the deal. It was also noted that such a fast publication meant that the authors would beat any scholarly analysis into print and thus could not be faulted for failing to discuss it. Another rumor that came to light was that the Discovery Channel had an exclusive deal to publicize the ossuary in its forthcoming documentary �Brother of Jesus.� This arrangement was so tight that other film companies were not allowed to take video pictures of the box. . . . Other rumors were too vicious to repeat in print. . .

This article contains a good discussion of a number of issues, including remarks by Eric Meyers that "both the dirt covering the box and the patina need further scientific study, for both can be faked." Meyers also found it odd that the inscription was on the back of the ossuary and not on the front. Flesher then discusses Shanks' address, noting "it was quite apparent immediately that the audience was in the hands of a master rhetorician":

Quote:

Shanks then addressed questions of authenticity by first observing that the ossuary itself is first century, as everyone agrees, [Note: Several scholars disagree.]; it is the inscription that is under debate. With regard to the question of whether the second half is original, let the paleographers decide. But after this reasonable beginning, Shanks went on the attack. I don�t understand the suggestion that part of the inscription is two or three hundred years later, he said. And just who is this Rochelle Altman anyway? Has anyone ever heard of her? Shanks was obviously not interested in engaging in scholarly analysis but rather wanted to win the point by innuendo and personal attack. After admitting he could not follow her analysis, he decided to imply that she had no right to participate in the scholarly discussion.
. . .
Andre Lemaire was by this time clearly angry. He attacked Altman�s work, again not dealing with her arguments, but wondering whether anyone had heard of her and saying that she dealt in rumors, not scholarly analysis. Following that, he turned to my dialect analysis without mentioning me by name, saying instead that he did not want to embarrass someone who was obviously a junior scholar whom he did not know. [Note: I helped found the journal Aramaic Studies and presently serve as the President of the International Organization for Targumic Studies.] . . .

The plot thickens in this "veritable roman policier". Is Inspector Maigret waiting in the wings?

Vinnie · 12-27-2002, 07:54 AM

How could an informative book actually be written about this ossuary we know next to nothing about?

Quote:

"I want to stress the need to rethink the thoroughgoing Jewishness of Jesus and his followers. '

"History is written by the winners, and the winners in early Christianity were the traditions of Peter that led to Catholicism and of Paul that eventually led to Protestantism. James represents a stream that got lost in the shuffle."

That sound pretty similar to some stuff I read from Bruce Chilton. I think Ben Witherington and Hershel Shanks will be writing about James and will be using this "shoe-box" for promotional purposes. I don't see how they could contribute anything meaningful to the situation with their book.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan · 12-27-2002, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
I don't see how they could contribute anything meaningful to the situation with their book.

Vinnie

I for one am delighted they are writing a book, particularly Ben Witherington. It was obvious he is rushing it into print so as to avoid having to include the scholarly conclusion that the whole thing is a deliberate modern fraud, as is rapidly becoming clear. This little fact will make a very effective rebuttal to people who criticize mythicists for writing just to make money. Go Ben!

Vorkosigan

Vinnie · 12-27-2002, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
I for one am delighted they are writing a book, particularly Ben Witherington. It was obvious he is rushing it into print so as to avoid having to include the scholarly conclusion that the whole thing is a deliberate modern fraud, as is rapidly becoming clear. This little fact will make a very effective rebuttal to people who criticize mythicists for writing just to make money. Go Ben!

Vorkosigan

I am not delighted by that action if that is Witherington's purpose. I honestly don't see how you could be happy with it either but maybe you're too polarized for your own good. Who cares if people claim mythicists write for money? That is not an effective argument and anyone with two brain cells knows it. Saying that Witherington's actions would make an effective rebuttal against this accusation against mythicists assumes the accusation has merit to begin with. Claiming Doherty or Freke or Gandy write only for money does not an argument against Christ-mythicism make.

Vinnie

David Bowden · 12-27-2002, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Who cares if people claim mythicists write for money?

This reminds me of something the great literary critic Samuel Johnson said about writing for profit: "No one but a blockhead writes but for money."

I think what Vorkosigan means is that in the future any attack on mythicists writing for money is going to be a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. So, apart from its technical worthlessness, such an objection now stands to lose even its rhetorical bite, and Vorkosigan applauds this apparent development because of its implications for the sound-bite war, which I suppose is what the masses are going to pay attention to anyway.

-David

Vorkosigan · 12-28-2002, 01:07 AM

David, that's exactly what I meant. You said it better than I could.

Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-24-2002, 11:21 AM	#2
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	Hey... Toto... Have you heard any of the rumours about the ossuary possibly never returning to Israel? I think they were floated shortly after the delivery of the damaged item to ROM. We shall see... godfry n. glad

12-28-2002, 01:07 AM	#10
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	David, that's exactly what I meant. You said it better than I could. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.