Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ghiangelo · 11-03-2002, 03:48 PM

speaking of ossuaries, i guess jesus wouldn't of had one... after all he had disappeared and later ascended up to the sky. so the material lack of physical evidence of jesus is advantageous to the beliefs of the devout. makes one wonder if ever a bone box written with Yeshua scrawled across the side did exist, which there is a possibility one did, it might well have been conveniently disposed of long ago.

evidence for the existence of jesus is a political problem for both believers and non believers.

ghi

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: ghiangelo ]</p>

leonarde · 11-03-2002, 05:07 PM

Readers of this and prior threads on the ossuary
can notice that anti-authenticity adherents have
two very different ideas staked out:

1)that all three names on the ossuary (James/Josef
/Jesus) were so common in 1st Century Palestine that this particular juxtaposition on
the ossuary is meaningless (every Tom Dick and
Schlomo had such names in the family). Hence it
probably ain't the ossuary of THE James, leader
of the Jerusalem Church.

2)(and in this thread) the first two names together (James, son of Josef) are more than enough to identify the individual, so the "brother
of Jesus" part is unnecessary and hence probably
a (much) later addition.

Cheers!

Peter Kirby · 11-03-2002, 05:34 PM

leonarde writes:

Quote:

1)that all three names on the ossuary (James/Josef
/Jesus) were so common in 1st Century Palestine that this particular juxtaposition on
the ossuary is meaningless (every Tom Dick and
Schlomo had such names in the family). Hence it
probably ain't the ossuary of THE James, leader
of the Jerusalem Church.

2)(and in this thread) the first two names together (James, son of Josef) are more than enough to identify the individual, so the "brother
of Jesus" part is unnecessary and hence probably
a (much) later addition.

It seems as though you have confused two separate things: whether we in the twenty-first century can say that an ossuary with the names Jacob/Joseph/Joshua can be identified with the biblical characters and whether a first century epigraphist would have needed to add the phrase "the brother of Jesus."

Since estimates on the number of ancient candidates who would have been named Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of Joshua have ranged from twenty to one hundred -- depending on such factors as time period, geographical area, and family size -- the problem of identifying this ossuary with any particular Jacob is a real one.

Since most ossuaries have no inscription at all, and since only one other known ossuary identifies the bones by both patronymic and adelphonymic, then it is clear that a first century ossuary inscription would not even have the function of distinguishing the individual from all other people of the time, as most of them fail miserably in this respect. If there was an identification function of the inscription, at most it would be to distinguish this ossuary from the other ones in the same cave.

So I think that these two considerations are both valid and compatible: we cannot make a positive identification, and they were not concerned with doing so.

best,
Peter Kirby

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Kirby ]</p>

jess · 11-04-2002, 06:34 AM

Quote:

"The box is still intact in the sense that it hasn't fallen apart," said Dan Rahimi, director of collections management at the ROM. He said the museum is making two proposals to the owner about how to treat it.

"Both proposals involve injecting adhesive into the cracks with pigment that will fill in parts of the cracks and consolidate the piece," he said. Rahimi added that the packing and shipping was the responsibility of the owner and was handled by a reputable company chosen by the owner.

Ted Hoffman · 11-04-2002, 07:35 AM

There is no evidence that the Ossuary actually got broken.
Just a report.
No photos, no positive identification by other parties (BAR is not very reliable on this issue). I think its a ruse to evade close public scrutiny.

In addition to Kirby's assesment, Vork posted this earlier:
-------------------------------------------------------
John Lupia said:

Quote:

Moreover, when I first saw digital photographs of the so-called James Ossuary I immediately knew the inscription was fake without giving a paleographic analysis for two reasons: biovermiculation and patina. Biovermiculation is limestone erosion and dissolution caused by bacteria over time in the form of pitting and etching. The ossuary had plenty except in and around the area of the inscription. This is not normal. The patina consisted of the appropriate minerals but it was reported to have been cleaned off the inscription. This is impossible since patina cannot be cleaned off limestone with any solvent or cleanser since it is essentially baked on glass. It is possible to forge patina but when it is it cracks off. Sound familiar? With these observations I immediately knew the inscription could not be authentic regardless of what any paleographer might say in favor of it since the physical aspects preclude forgery. Besides, at this point any paleographic analysis would have been superfluous.

------------------------------------------------------
Either way, something very sneaky is going on here.

godfry n. glad · 11-04-2002, 07:48 AM

Peter Kirby did state:

Quote:

Since most ossuaries have no inscription at all, and since only one other known ossuary identifies the bones by both patronymic and adelphonymic, then it is clear that a first century ossuary inscription would not even have the function of distinguishing the individual from all other people of the time, as most of them fail miserably in this respect. If there was an identification function of the inscription, at most it would be to distinguish this ossuary from the other ones in the same cave.

I am still curious as to this "other" ossuary with the adelphonymic. Some who wish to interpret the evidence of the Jim/Joe/Josh ossuary for us are claiming that because of the rarity of the inscriptional configurations (one of two known) it somehow indicates the social prominence of the Josh in the inscription.

Now...Could somebody else tell me how this interpretation has been arrived at? Particularly since nobody, but nobody, has seen fit to present any information on the "other" adelphonymic ossuary and how it was determined that that particular cited adelphonymic was so prominent.

It certainly sounds like an exceedingly small sample upon which to base such an important interpretation. So small, in fact, that any interpretation based upon it would be suspect.

godfry n. glad

Toto · 11-04-2002, 09:46 AM

FWIW, Acharya S. has weighed in on the ossuary here:
<a href="http://www.truthbeknown.com/ossuary.htm" target="_blank">Bone-Box No Proof of Jesus</a>

There are some obvious errors (including the misspelling of beliefnet.com as believenet.com) but also some interesting arguments and archeological comparisons.

Toto · 11-04-2002, 10:06 AM

Curiouser and curiouser . . .

<a href="http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news/infocus/?disp_feature=ps1f31.var" target="_blank">Ownership battle brews over Jesus-era burial box</a>

Quote:

According to the Antiquites Law, an artifact that "was discovered or found in Israel" after 1978 - when the law was enacted, is "state property." The editor of Biblical Archeology Review, Hershel Shenks, who is unfamiliar with the Israeli law, announced at the news conference that the ossuary was purchased 15 years ago. If so, the artifact would belong to the state under this law, not to Golan.

The Antiquities Authority has received information that the ossuary was actually purchased by Golan only a few months ago. Golan, on the other hand, told police investigators that he acquired the artifact around the time of the 1967 Six-Day War (when he was just 16 years old), before the law was enacted that would make this item state property.

. . .

Three days before the magazine hit the newsstands, Antiquities Authorities officials were asked by CNN to comment on an unusual artifact discovered in Israel. "We put one and one together and realized that this must be Oded Golan," says Dr. Uzi Dahari, deputy director of the Antiquities Authority. "I telephoned him and he confirmed that he was the owner of the ossuary."

godfry n. glad · 11-04-2002, 10:07 AM

Vork indicated in another list that Kloppenborg has expressed an opinion that the inscription is by two separate hands. Anyone know where we can confirm this?

Vork? You reading this? Can you confirm?

godfry n. glad

Toto · 11-04-2002, 11:26 AM

For the latest news or analysis, keep an eye on the Crosstalk2 archives. You don't have to be a member of the list to browse - go to <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2</a>

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

11-03-2002, 03:48 PM	#21
ghiangelo Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: vancouver, bc Posts: 30	speaking of ossuaries, i guess jesus wouldn't of had one... after all he had disappeared and later ascended up to the sky. so the material lack of physical evidence of jesus is advantageous to the beliefs of the devout. makes one wonder if ever a bone box written with Yeshua scrawled across the side did exist, which there is a possibility one did, it might well have been conveniently disposed of long ago. evidence for the existence of jesus is a political problem for both believers and non believers. ghi [ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: ghiangelo ]</p>

11-03-2002, 05:07 PM	#22
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Readers of this and prior threads on the ossuary can notice that anti-authenticity adherents have two very different ideas staked out: 1)that all three names on the ossuary (James/Josef /Jesus) were so common in 1st Century Palestine that this particular juxtaposition on the ossuary is meaningless (every Tom Dick and Schlomo had such names in the family). Hence it probably ain't the ossuary of THE James, leader of the Jerusalem Church. 2)(and in this thread) the first two names together (James, son of Josef) are more than enough to identify the individual, so the "brother of Jesus" part is unnecessary and hence probably a (much) later addition. Cheers!

11-04-2002, 09:46 AM	#27
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	FWIW, Acharya S. has weighed in on the ossuary here: <a href="http://www.truthbeknown.com/ossuary.htm" target="_blank">Bone-Box No Proof of Jesus</a> There are some obvious errors (including the misspelling of beliefnet.com as believenet.com) but also some interesting arguments and archeological comparisons.

11-04-2002, 10:07 AM	#29
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	Vork indicated in another list that Kloppenborg has expressed an opinion that the inscription is by two separate hands. Anyone know where we can confirm this? Vork? You reading this? Can you confirm? godfry n. glad

11-04-2002, 11:26 AM	#30
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	For the latest news or analysis, keep an eye on the Crosstalk2 archives. You don't have to be a member of the list to browse - go to <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2</a>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.