Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Apikorus · 01-03-2003, 11:29 AM

godfry, thanks for the update. I haven't had the time to get the thing scanned. You might also want to scan the sketch of the inscription, which is found in the main section of the book, rather than the photo itself.

godfry n. glad · 01-03-2003, 12:50 PM

Apikorus-

It's done. I'm just waiting for word from IAA to post it up.

godfry n. glad

Toto · 01-08-2003, 04:36 PM

Ossuary exhibit a hit for ROM

The exhibit attracted

Quote:

94,994 attendees, including 21,639 school children, since it was first displayed on Nov. 15.

. . .. Attendance was particularly strong on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, days which traditionally have some of the lowest attendance of the year.

The ossuary will be returned next week to its owner, Oded Golan, in Tel Aviv.

I thought it was going to be returned to the Israeli government for more tests.

Bill · 01-08-2003, 08:07 PM

Having not been one who (unlike Earl Doherty) has much invested in the idea that the whole Jesus business was total myth (having preferred to believe the concluding lines of Eisenman's book, James the Brother of Jesus to the effect that the existence of both James and the "brother" relationship was about the only independant evidence we have that Jesus actually existed), I really don't care much whether the ossuary is genuine or a fake. Either way, it creates substantial problems for Christian apologists.

On the one hand, if it eventually proves to be a fake, it has still highlighted the near-total absence of any actual (touchable) historical evidence of the existence of Jesus. All we have is documents whose very dating and authorship is the subject of vast controversy; let alone the many allegations of "later alteration(s) to the text" of those documents.

On the other hand, having the ossuary be genuine would give new life to Eisenman's theories about the history of James and his relationship with the Christian church. James himself virtually certainly existed as more-or-less the "head" of a substantial faction of Jews in the 50s and early 60s (up until his death). If James suddenly "becomes real" for the Christian church, it will need to rapidly deal with Eisenman's assertions of vast rewrites in the early chapters of the Book of Acts to gloss over the leadership of James after the "departure" (by whatever means) of Jesus. And, as the letters of Paul (particularly Galatians) reveal, Peter was clearly subservient to James, thus casting doubt upon the legitimacy of the entire lineage of the Roman Catholic Church, which has long founded itself upon a claim that Jesus passed his authority to Peter (and NOT to James). How many Christians will be tempted to convert to Judaism and become "Jews for Jesus?" And how would the Jews react to that "invasion" of Christians?

The Law of Unintended Consequences has yet to work its magic on this whole ossuary situation.

== Bill

godfry n. glad · 01-13-2003, 12:24 PM

For those looking for the inscription from the "Shimi" ossuary, which is the other extant ancient Jewish ossuary which includes an adelphonymic ("brother of...") reference, Bryan Cox has pasted up the inscription from page 200 of L.Y. Rahmani's catalogue here.

It is the inscription alone, without the commentary and text by Rahmani. Be sure to scroll down through most of the page...

A photo of the ossuary is also included in the Rahmani catalogue, but it is of no use for the inscription, as it is a grainy b/w photo of the side of the ossuary, and the inscription is on the lid.

godfry n. glad

Toto · 01-13-2003, 02:38 PM

A friend who subscribes gave me the last issue of BAR, where I read this article by Hershel Shanks: Cracks in James Bone Box Repaired: Crowds Flock to Toronto Exhibit

I am amazed at the level of scorn and vituperation Shanks displays towards his critics. He says "there is not much question about the authenticity of the James ossuary inscription" - a pretty breathtaking assertion. And then he refuses to give his critics names or discuss their work seriously or accurately:

Quote:

On the other hand, the doubters are also coming out of the woodwork. One marginalized scholar (his own word) with little, if any, experience as a Hebrew/Aramaic paleographer has attacked the authenticity of the inscription saying that it is �just too pat,� without further specification. Another scholar claims that the last part of the inscription (�brother of Jesus�) is in a different hand from the first part of the inscription. This is a legitimate question, but that is as far as the scholars we have talked to are willing to go. They continue to believe that there is only one hand in the inscription, despite the fact that some letters in the second part are more difficult to read and are in cursive or semi-cursive, rather than in formal script. In any event, it is unclear what it would mean if two hands did engrave the inscription. One person suggested that a forger in about 300 A.D. added �Brother of Jesus� to the inscription. But this seems a bit far-fetched. The person who is most certain and vociferous in claiming that different hands were responsible for the first and second parts of the inscription is also certain that the inscription is excised, rather than incised; that is, the space around the letters has been carved out leaving the letters protruding in relief. It is difficult to understand how she could have been so certain when she had never seen the ossuary itself. The experts who have seen the ossuary and studied the inscription continue to maintain that the inscription is plainly engraved�incised, not excised.

The next issue will have an article about the SBL session. I can hardly wait.

Haran · 01-13-2003, 04:41 PM

I think Shanks was pretty fair, personally. He told the plain truth anyway.

I would like to know the names of all the scholars that BAR talked to who believe there is only one hand. I bet they are some big names in paleography - Lemaire, Cross, Yardeni, McCarter...

While waiting for BAR's assessment of the SBL meeting, you can listen to the procedings yourself here:

SBL meeting files

Oh yeah, the website linked to by Godfry n Glad with the "Shimi" inscription is mine.

Vorkosigan · 01-13-2003, 07:33 PM

Lemaire, Cross, Yardeni, McCarter...

Lemaire has too much invested in this ossuary and his opinion must be taken with a prominent crystal of NaCl...

McCarter sees two writing styles and does not rule out a second hand.

Yardeni believes the second part of the inscription was added later. Just type yardeni ossuary in google and you'll find the articles sooner or later.

Cross thinks there is only one hand involved.

Two out of three. Lemaire doesn't count, since he is the one hustling the object.

Vorkosigan

Haran · 01-14-2003, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Vorkosigan:
Lemaire has too much invested in this ossuary and his opinion must be taken with a prominent crystal of NaCl...

I think this is taking scepticism a little too far, though. Regardless of his "investment", it will be very interesting to read his detailed arguments and weigh them for myself.

Quote:

McCarter sees two writing styles and does not rule out a second hand.

I think this is right. Again, I will be interested to see his in-depth analysis.

Quote:

Yardeni believes the second part of the inscription was added later. Just type yardeni ossuary in google and you'll find the articles sooner or later.

I think that this information is the result of Dr. Altman's rhetoric. I confronted her about it in my article and she has never responded.

You probably found this on a website (P & C 600 or something like that...) which mentioned Dr. Altman and Yardeni agreeing. I believe they got it from Dr. Altman's report.

I would like to see something from Yardeni herself. Her views are probably much like McCarter's.

Quote:

Cross thinks there is only one hand involved.

Cross wrote what I believe is almost a standard reference work for the development of Jewish Scripts, which I have been in the process of reading. It means a great deal for him to think there is only one hand in the inscription.

There is other information in Cross' work that seems to contradict Dr. Altman (e.g. where the "invisible guide-line" for writing would have been - Dr. Altman measures the straightness of the bottoms of the letters only, if I remember right - I think Cross might disagree...I pointed this out in my article too.).

Vorkosigan · 01-14-2003, 06:28 AM

I think this is taking scepticism a little too far, though

Sensibly, if your used-car salesman tells you that the suspension on the lemon he's selling you is fine, you get a second opinion. Similarly, if Lemaire claims it's from one hand, you don't pay much attention. He's bound to say that one way or another; his opinion has 2 million very good reasons for its existence. It's not skepticism, but common sense.

However, if Frank Moore Cross says it is from one hand, that's another thing altogether.

Vorkosigan

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

01-03-2003, 11:29 AM	#41
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	godfry, thanks for the update. I haven't had the time to get the thing scanned. You might also want to scan the sketch of the inscription, which is found in the main section of the book, rather than the photo itself.

01-03-2003, 12:50 PM	#42
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	Apikorus- It's done. I'm just waiting for word from IAA to post it up. godfry n. glad

01-08-2003, 08:07 PM	#44
Bill Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gatorville, Florida Posts: 4,334	Having not been one who (unlike Earl Doherty) has much invested in the idea that the whole Jesus business was total myth (having preferred to believe the concluding lines of Eisenman's book, James the Brother of Jesus to the effect that the existence of both James and the "brother" relationship was about the only independant evidence we have that Jesus actually existed), I really don't care much whether the ossuary is genuine or a fake. Either way, it creates substantial problems for Christian apologists. On the one hand, if it eventually proves to be a fake, it has still highlighted the near-total absence of any actual (touchable) historical evidence of the existence of Jesus. All we have is documents whose very dating and authorship is the subject of vast controversy; let alone the many allegations of "later alteration(s) to the text" of those documents. On the other hand, having the ossuary be genuine would give new life to Eisenman's theories about the history of James and his relationship with the Christian church. James himself virtually certainly existed as more-or-less the "head" of a substantial faction of Jews in the 50s and early 60s (up until his death). If James suddenly "becomes real" for the Christian church, it will need to rapidly deal with Eisenman's assertions of vast rewrites in the early chapters of the Book of Acts to gloss over the leadership of James after the "departure" (by whatever means) of Jesus. And, as the letters of Paul (particularly Galatians) reveal, Peter was clearly subservient to James, thus casting doubt upon the legitimacy of the entire lineage of the Roman Catholic Church, which has long founded itself upon a claim that Jesus passed his authority to Peter (and NOT to James). How many Christians will be tempted to convert to Judaism and become "Jews for Jesus?" And how would the Jews react to that "invasion" of Christians? The Law of Unintended Consequences has yet to work its magic on this whole ossuary situation. == Bill

01-13-2003, 12:24 PM	#45
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	For those looking for the inscription from the "Shimi" ossuary, which is the other extant ancient Jewish ossuary which includes an adelphonymic ("brother of...") reference, Bryan Cox has pasted up the inscription from page 200 of L.Y. Rahmani's catalogue here. It is the inscription alone, without the commentary and text by Rahmani. Be sure to scroll down through most of the page... A photo of the ossuary is also included in the Rahmani catalogue, but it is of no use for the inscription, as it is a grainy b/w photo of the side of the ossuary, and the inscription is on the lid. godfry n. glad

01-13-2003, 04:41 PM	#47
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	I think Shanks was pretty fair, personally. He told the plain truth anyway. I would like to know the names of all the scholars that BAR talked to who believe there is only one hand. I bet they are some big names in paleography - Lemaire, Cross, Yardeni, McCarter... While waiting for BAR's assessment of the SBL meeting, you can listen to the procedings yourself here: SBL meeting files Oh yeah, the website linked to by Godfry n Glad with the "Shimi" inscription is mine.

01-13-2003, 07:33 PM	#48
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Lemaire, Cross, Yardeni, McCarter... Lemaire has too much invested in this ossuary and his opinion must be taken with a prominent crystal of NaCl... McCarter sees two writing styles and does not rule out a second hand. Yardeni believes the second part of the inscription was added later. Just type yardeni ossuary in google and you'll find the articles sooner or later. Cross thinks there is only one hand involved. Two out of three. Lemaire doesn't count, since he is the one hustling the object. Vorkosigan

01-14-2003, 06:28 AM	#50
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I think this is taking scepticism a little too far, though Sensibly, if your used-car salesman tells you that the suspension on the lemon he's selling you is fine, you get a second opinion. Similarly, if Lemaire claims it's from one hand, you don't pay much attention. He's bound to say that one way or another; his opinion has 2 million very good reasons for its existence. It's not skepticism, but common sense. However, if Frank Moore Cross says it is from one hand, that's another thing altogether. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.