Layman

I do not think that he has to be "unswervingly accurate" to remember where he found it.

You mean you could invent dozens and dozens of other "plausible reasons" that have no support. At least not yet.

It counts for more than anything else anyone has come up with.

And you are, of course, discounting again BAR's report of the GSI's deterimination.

And for the dozenth time Ap, I do think that the statistical case is something we are all going to have to wait and see. But many do not seem to want to wait and see and I doubt they will ever even read the article.

Sauron

That's a cop-out. There is a significant issue on the table, and you aren't going to sweep it under the rug by waving your hands toward the sky and saying "Well, gee, I don't know, we can't *possibly* rule out everything." <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />


So far both scenarios are supported. That, in fact, is the crux of the problem.

There is nothing to rule it out, and plenty of reason to suspect it.

Why? Becuase you refrain from insulting other people's intelligence? Not that I have seen.

You failed to address the point: thieves and looters lie. They might also lie about where an ossuary was discovered.

Unfortunately, it is *you* who has the incomplete understanding of McCarter. As usual, you're reading too much into the person's comments. All McCarter has said is that the Aramaic inscription is authentic. He has not said that he believes that it was dug up in Jerusalem.

Why? Because it helps your case?

Incorrect. My position is that they are the same thing, and that the BAR piece has redacted the GSI results.

However, the source of the geological information is not BAR; it is the GSI report. Which the NYT has access to.

How silly. The BAR is not the source for all these stories. The individual contributors (scholars, etc.) are also being interviewed. In fact, the talk-show circuit has been very busy rounding up experts and giving them their 15 minutes of fame.

In addition, independent reports (such as the GSI report) would be made available to anyone whom BAR wanted to review the material. A good scholar is going to ask for any research work done so far. Presumably, such reports would also be available to large publications like the NYT.

To what end? To hear them repeat what they have already said? That nothing can be known for sure, and no firm positions can be taken on it?


Which is meaningless, since:

a. the range and scope of that area is unknown, and could reach for tens or hundreds of square miles;

b. as Apikorus points out, the context of the GSI statement is ambiguous - by saying "from the Jerusalem area" perhaps they were only trying to rule it out as a fraud made in Arizona;

c. the fact that something might have been quarried in Jerusalem doesn't mean that it was used there; it could have been used as far away as Jericho (again, thanks Apikorus);

d. the statement you have from the BAR article may very well be the same as the NYT tests, only redacted and thereby distorting the accuracy in the process;

e. based upon Amen-Moses' comments, such a precise localization is most likely not possible anyhow;


So your geological 'evidence' has quite a few unanswered questions and weaknesses in it, Layman.

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

godfry n. glad

Layman did state:

You know, Layman, I read that article and it includes at least one factual error and is written in a very unscholastic style, intimating all sorts of unsupported claims. I would be willing to bet that it was written by one of Shank's acolytes with the intent of whipping up interest (and issue sales), rather than accurately portray the subtle issues of the controversy....

Until such time as a fuller and more complete explication is produced, I'd recommend that you not rely upon the rather "sensational" BAR teaser.

I have emailed a published geologist specializing in Israeli geology, asking about whether it is possible to determine the origin point of a discrete chunk of limestone to a limited geographical area like "the Jerusalem area".
I shall be interested in his reponse.

The other question that has arisen for me is one revolving about the claim that since the inclusion of the relationship to the brother, in addition to the father, in the inscription is so rare that it must indicate that he (being Jesus) important enough to enjoy some notoriety. It has been repeatedly stated that there is only _one_ other such ossuary with the decedent/father/brother combination, yet not one of the claimants has bothered to inform us as to who the "famous brother" was in this singular case. Does anyone know anything about the detail of this singular prior discovery...like, who the "notable" was and how it was determined that he was a "notable"?

godfry n. glad

Layman

[quote]Originally posted by godfry n. glad:
[QB]Layman did state:

You know, Layman, I read that article and it includes at least one factual error and is written in a very unscholastic style, intimating all sorts of unsupported claims. I would be willing to bet that it was written by one of Shank's acolytes with the intent of whipping up interest (and issue sales), rather than accurately portray the subtle issues of the controversy....

Until such time as a fuller and more complete explication is produced, I'd recommend that you not rely upon the rather "sensational" BAR teaser. [quote]

Like I've said many times, of course we should wait until the full article before reaching definitive conclusions about the artifact. I think though, at this time, there is no reason to doubt its origins in or around Jerusalem.

I would too. But perhaps you could ask him to read the article and hopeful discovery how the connection was reached?

Not that I have seen.

And I have been thinking about a similar point. I'm not so sure that it indicates a "famous" person as much as a "significant" person to James or the community or people that buried James.

godfry n. glad

Layman did reply:
I have no problem with that, but the extended speculation that it was because he was famous (i.e., he was the messiah, or whatever) is unwarrented. I think it just as likely that Dr. McCarter's supposition is correct, that the epigramatic Jesus was the surviving brother who owned the tomb or paid for the ossuary. That qualifies as significant to the Jamesian community, but does not make him _the_ historical Jesus at the core of modern Christian belief.

godfry n. glad

Layman

Actually, no. Your scenario has no support. It's purely hypoethetical.

I will take that as a refusal to refrain from personally insulting my intelligence. Shall I also take that as a refusal to avoid using profanity?

Of course they might. But that's not a motive to do so. And so far your motives have all revolved around the conpsiracy/fraud hoax theory.

Now you are switiching back and forth. You were claiming that nothing was certain. That it could be a hoax. That is could be a fraud. And that scholars --specifically this scholar-- were saying we would never know. All that is clearly false. McCarter is "satisfied" that this is an inscription from the "middle of the first-century." Thus, he is "satisfied" that this is NOT a hoax. So any motive to lie you ascribe that relies on the hoax theory is already suspect.

No. Because they are the publication responsible for the forthcoming piece that broke the story.

You have claimed many times now that the NYT article proved that the GSI did not link the ossuary to the Jersualem area.

They did? Where in the article did they claim to have reviewed the original report?

And where did they claim to have exhaustively recited all the tests that the GSI reported?

They are now that the story has broken. But BAR and the article publishing the piece in BAR are the source for most of what has been released. That and others commenting on the BAR piece.

Presumably you are right that it would be made available.

However, what evidence do you have that the NYT's article was based on the GSI report?

We know that BAR broke the story. We know that BAR and the author have been working on the story for longer than anyone else. We know that it was Shanks at BAR that requested the GSI study and reviewed its results before proceeding.

So your refusal to consider the BAR article accurate is rather unfounded. Of course, we should both revise our positions if the full-length article contradicts us. But considering what we know now, I think you are just being a bit stubborn.

To find out what they mean. Like your citation of McCarty for the proposition that we will never know anything for sure about this article when he clearly accepts it as legitimate.

Not hardly.

Hundreds of square miles? How do you know this? And how populated where those area? How many ossuaries came from other areas in those hundreds of square miles and how many came from near Jerusalem?

That was not how the the BAR piece reports it. But If Ap. is right, then this would not be a significant point. We should know better when the article is actually read.

It is certainly suggestive. And further corraboration for the initial claim of the dealer that it was found near Jerusalem.

If you can prove that, then I'll withdraw my reliance on that statement.

Like I said, I will rely on the GSI before I'll rely on AM.

Not at all. It's the best evidence we have right now. If the BAR article makes it clear that this is not the case, then the argument for Jerusalem is lessened.

Layman

I'm suspicious of this reasoning.

Given that there is only one other example of a "brother" being mentioned, I'm not sure that we could conclude that mere burial would mean constitute such a "signficant" relationship.

Sauron

Incorrect. My scenario is just as plausible as yours, due mainly to the weakness and ambiguity of the evidence for your position.

And that will remain the case, until such time as you can provide a testable scenario that can rule one or the other out.


No, take it as a reminder that you shouldn't ask for such standards of behavior from other posters, when you fail to exhibit them yourself.

Take it however you like. Note, however, that the word "shit" has been used several times in this thread. And even though you might not like the word, it isn't profane.


Money is the motive.

If they're motivated by money to steal and loot a tomb (which is obviously the case), then why wouldn't they be motivated by money to lie about the items they looted from it, Layman?

Another strawman. I'm not offering any theory. I'm merely pointing out the weaknesses and failings of the affirmative position. These will need to be addressed, before the affirmative position can be credible.

On the contrary. You claimed that I misunderstood McCarter. I just demonstrated that I did not - but that *you* most certainly did.

Incorrect as usual. And I see you tossing out another strawman; must be a bargain sale on strawmen somewhere. I was claiming that we could not know anything about the origin of the box.

Incorrect as usual. What I did was quote this scholar on the sole question of the origin of the box, and whether the Arab dealer might have lied about its origin. Which is precisely what McCarter does say - we will never know, as long as we cannot ascertain the origin of the box and the circumstances of its discovery.

Go back and check the post: 1:58pm, on Oct 24th. You simply goofed here, Layman. My usage of the McCarter quote was confined to that one point.


Which still doesn't answer the question why I should rely on their quickie advertisement, as opposed to the NYT? And the other sources that have interviewed since the news broke?

I see that godfry glad has also corrected you, on your over-reliance on this marketing blurb from the BAR.

Telling whoppers again, Layman? What I said is that the GSI report did not say what you think it did. To repeat:

In the second place, from a geological standpoint, all they said is that they found no evidence of tampering. That doesn't substantiate your claim that it came from Jerusalem. From the NYT article on the topic:

Fraud cannot be ruled out, they said, though the cursive style of the script and a microscopic examination of the etched surface seemed to diminish suspicions. An investigation by the Geological Survey of Israel found no evidence of modern pigments, scratches by modern cutting tools or other signs of tampering.

Radiocarbon dating was impossible because no organic material was found with the inscription. But the words were carved on a 20-inch-long limestone burial box, similar to ones the Jews used only in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. More specifically, the scholar said, the style of the script and the forms of certain words placed the date of the inscription to the last decades before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

I do not know if it has been reported elsewhere but, when I arrived home, I discovered my copy of BAR in the mailbox. Inside I found the most underwhelming discussion imaginable - absolutely worthless fluff. What a joke ...

Sauron

The NYT recited more tests than BAR summary article mentioned. So where did they get that info from, Layman?

If you think that BAR is the only source of info here, then how come BAR didn't mention the extra three tests that the NYT article mentioned? Surely the readers of BAR would have liked to know about:


1. no evidence of modern pigments,
2. scratches by modern cutting tools or
3. other signs of tampering.


Yet the BAR article failed to mention them. The NYT did. Obviously the NYT has access to more information than just the quickie summary provided on the BAR website.

None of which matters. My point, which you have not refuted by your comment, is that BAR is not the single source of info about this item. Breaking the news is irrelevant; I don't know why you even brought that up, it doesn't help your case any. Once the news was broken, there are now multiple independent sources that are both familiar with the artifact (as a result of being consulted by BAR) and are being actively interviewed.


See the above. They included more details than the BAR blurb. Where did they get them, if not from the GSI directly?

I suppose they could have interviewed someone, who himself/herself saw the GSI report and related the information to the NYT reporter. But in either event, I highly doubt that the GSI report says what you think it says.

Perhaps Shanks was interviewed for the NYT piece, and conveyed the information that way.


Not really. When a different source has more info than BAR has, my conclusion is that they either contacted the GSI for the report, or interviewed some scholar who had seen the full report himself.

Pot-kettle-black.


I think they've made their position fairly clear.

1. It's McCarter, not McCarty.

2. You must be a creationist - you're repeating lies that have been refuted already. I used the McCarter citation from him only in context of never being sure of the artifact's origin and circumstances of discovery.


Quite meaningless, though much it pains you, I'm sure. Let's see.


When the scope and range are undefined, there is nothing preventing it from being hundreds of square miles. That's the unfortunate thing about something which is undefined. And a hundred square miles really isn't that big. In hilly terrain, it can be far less than a 10 mile x 10 mile area, due to mountainous geography.

None of which is relevant to discussing the scope of distribution of limestone, and what is considered to be "Jerusalem limestone".

Unfortunately, the BAR article is ambiguous on this point - you cannot derive a definitive position on this from their short statement.

If Ap is correct, it will be a signficant point - because it vastly increases the areas from which it could have come.


You seem to misunderstand.
1. The ossuary might have been quarried in Jerusalem.
2. The ossuary might have been sold to someone who died and used it in Jericho.
3. Two thousand years go by.
4. The ossuary is found in Jericho by the looters.
5. It spends several years on the black market, passing from one dealer to another.
6. Finally, the 5th or 6th black market dealer to acquire it takes it to Jerusalem for sale on the black market there.


You should check godfry's comments about the mistakes he's already found in the article.

And again: the discoverers themselves appear to be leaning on paleography as the #1 affirmative evidence, and using geology as a form of non-definitive testing; i.e., there is nothing inconsistent with it being found in Jerusalem - which is not the same as confirmatory evidence; i.e., this HAD to come from Jerusalem, and nowhere else, because of XYZ, etc.

Unfortunately, you have no GSI report to rely upon, Layman. All you have is two lines in a quickie summary from the BAR.

And your utter failure to address any of the real-world examples that Amen-Moses provided suggests that you are way out of your field on this one.

Given the available data, the most likely conclusion is that Amen-Moses is correct about the inability to localize rock to such a precise area. Which means that Apikorus' suggestions that either the phrase "limestone from the Jerusalem area",

a. denotes a widespread area of several hundred square miles in the Judean hills, or

b. was probably added to differentiate it from Arizona, Jordan, or some other non-related place

is the solution here.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>