David Bowden

Thanks for that info, Vorkosigan. Although I'm not sure I see why it would have to say "Yeshua uncle of..." when "Yeshua" is the last word in every translation I've seen: "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus" is the usual English translation.

Altman's hypothetical version ("Yeshua uncle of Jacob bar joseph") makes it sound like Jesus was in the ossuary (and the son of Joseph could still be either Jacob or Yeshua, if "bar" = "son of").

I would think that it would have to say "James son of Joseph nephew of Jesus" (Jesus listed last, not first) - but that's still ambiguous: is it James or Joseph who's the nephew of Jesus?

Unfortunately this trio's relationship structure is not as obvious as "Mary daughter of John brother of Jeremiah" or "James son of Mary mother of Jesus." In the former case, Mary can't be the brother of Jeremiah, so by process of elimination we get John and Jeremiah as siblings. In the latter case, we know that "mother of" doesn't refer to James because Mary's the only one capable of being a mother.

Or, had the inscription been "James brother of Jesus son of Joseph" we'd know for certain that James and Jesus were brothers (but that wording would probably make the ossuary less important for Christians, since Jesus' father allegedly wasn't Joseph). Or, if it said "James son of Joseph brother of James", we'd assume that Joseph didn't name two of his sons "James", and that one James was the uncle of the other.

But "brother of" in its position on the real ossuary causes this ambiguity problem because all persons are the same gender and the paternal relationship is given before the fraternal. I still think that "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus" can be interpreted two ways. At least in English it can be.

Perhaps someone on these boards fluent in Aramaic could explain for me what prevents "brother of Jesus" from applying to Joseph rather than James.

Like, is there a rule that says that all familial relations on an ossuary refer to the first-named person?

I assume that there is such a rule or convention because no scholar has raised the issue, and I'm not delusional enough to believe that I've stumbled onto something obvious that they've all overlooked.

I'm sure Altman et al. are probably justified in only considering the "Jesus and James were brothers" interpretation; it's just that the reasons for being so certain haven't yet come together in my own head.

-David (who probably should just start a separate thread on this topic, or learn Aramaic...)

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: David Bowden ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

I spoke of competency and integrity.
To assert that Lemaire "had gone around the scholarly bend" is one thing, the presumption of forgery is another.

Parenthetically, while I've indicated my displeasure with the BAR article and my contempt for Shanks, I find nowhere in the article nor the previous PBS report where Lemaire offers a "a firm date of 63 AD".

Vorkosigan

To assert that Lemaire "had gone around the scholarly bend" is one thing, the presumption of forgery is another.

Parenthetically, while I've indicated my displeasure with the BAR article and my contempt for Shanks, I find nowhere in the article nor the previous PBS report where Lemaire offers a "a firm date of 63 AD".

<a href="http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021023/12/dcd9d.html" target="_blank">Here...</a>
<a href="http://www.wtlv.com/news/2002-10-21/usw_jesus_evidence.asp" target="_blank">and here...</a>

If you googlize "Lemaire 63 AD" only about a million sites will tumble out.

I'm trying to track down the Newsweek article (I think) where he was even more positive.

The issue, RD, as I said, isn't the scholarly competence or integrity of Messers Fitzmeyer et al. Your irrational insistence on focusing the issue in terms of an attack on them as scholars and human beings has blinded you from noticing that they know nothing of positive use in authenticating the ossuary. Them's the cold, hard facts, bro.

Vorkosigan

Jayhawker Soule

And out of all these sites, you come up with this: Well done!

As you wish, bro.

MortalWombat

This <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html" target="_blank">National Geographic</a> article says:

And the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/21/science/21CND-JESU.html" target="_blank">New York Times</a> also cites the above mentioned quote:

Clutch

RD,

Thanks. I was simply rebutting the "[said it off the bat] --&gt; [said it uncritically]" claim. As to whether this particular case is one that invited a prima facie dismissal as fraudulent in some respect or other: Certainly it is a case of "I'm willing to bet" rather than a complete no-brainer based on some utterly straightforward reading of prior probabilities. But betting smart is very different from guessing, and subsequent success is indeed an indication of initial insight.

Vorkosigan

"Well done!"

"As you wish, bro."

Don't worry about it, RD. I already knew that you didn't understand how to think about this object.

Vorkosigan

Clarice O'C

Hi Everyone,

I thought that you would be interested in a
public notice written by Rochelle Altman. My
conclusion is that it is a Christian(s) wreaking
the havoc because I can't think of who else would
do such things.

Best,
Clarice

-------------------

Subject: Ossuary update

It appears to be quite hazardous to uncover a
forgery and possible fraud.

Between mid-October 2001 and November 6, 2002,
I received precisly one virus attachment -- and
that was when a member of IOUDAIOS-L indavertently
passed a virus to the list. (A problem that was immediately corrected.)

Between November 6, 2002 and November 10, 2002
there were a total of 12 attempts to hack my
computer and get into my mailing list. First it
was attachments containing Trojans; when this
failed, the next onslaught was viruses. Two of
the latter were caught by the fire-wall at my
ISP.

One of these attachments came from the editor of
Israel Insider; another came from J. Adams at the
Toronto Globe and Mail. Both "letters" were
nevertheless deleted immediately. Both people have
been warned that their sites have been hacked.

To my certain knowledge at least one other person
who published on the ossuary inscription as a fake
has been hacked. It is clear that the nature of
the attacks is a smear campaign intended to
discredit us.

The ploy did not work. As a security measure, I
use a DOS-based mailer. Attachments come in
uuencoded and unexecutable.

Unable to get into my computer, the attacker has
changed tactics. He has spoofed my address and
subscribed me to pornographic lists. I have
received 7 of these easily identifiable from
their subject line attachments in the last 24
hours. As these are uuencoded, I merely delete
them; but the intent behind this attack is very
clear: a smear campaign.

I do not believe that there could be clearer
evidence that the ossuary inscription is forged.

An official complaint has been made with the
internet abuse department. This is an official
public notice registering a complaint.

Rochelle I. S. Altman
--
Dr. R.I.S. Altman, co-coordinator, IOUDAIOS-L
risa3@netvision.net.il

[Edited to fix a paragraph that I messed up.]

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Clarice O'C ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Clutch. I appreciate it.

Vorkosigan

BTW, Lemaire made the claim 'privately' in TIME (not newsweek as I recalled) that he thinks there is a 90% chance it is the ossuary of James of Jesus. See the Nov. 4 issue.