Sauron

[quote]Originally posted by Layman:
Let's just say: "keep your day job."


No, I think he realizes what everyone else knows: be careful of things that appear too good to be true.

Eisenmann is skeptical. So what? My point is that he is right to be so, especially considering his pedigree and the timing. My characterization of his comments is right on point. He is skeptical because it is too good to be true - which is all I was pointing out.

Your original dodge was to ask for Eisenmann specifically saying something about "cautious skepticism." Apparently, you've now decided that he was indeed skeptical, but that Eisenmann is unreasonable to carry such skepticism. So that brings me back to my other question: based upon what? Given the wide disparity in your two pedigrees, why should we trust your view?


Oh, right. Says the man who cannot observe someone practicing cautious skepticism, but *requires* that the person actually use those words, verbatim.


The only reason I have to go to such lengths, is because you continue to try and make mileage out of pointless little detours like the "cautious skepticism" incident above. If you would focus on the issue, and less on doing whatever you can to avoid admitting your mistakes, then none of this would occur. You are your own worst enemy, when it comes to wasting excessive bandwidth, Layman.

The discovery, with the specific mention of Yeshua. It smacks of forgery. That, and the unusual circumstances surrounding the discovery:

The biggest red flag is that it comes from an anonymous collector in Jerusalem who is mum on its history. Observers worry it could be a fake from the sometimes shady antiquities market. There is a long history of archeological forgery. The largely discredited "Shroud of Turin" – supposedly placed on Jesus after the crucifixion – is one example.

You're drowning here, Layman. The points that I am making are not controversial. Nor do they particular hurt the case for authenticity. All they do is establish a healthy skepticism of the overly convenient and things that appear to be too neat and clean.

A peer-reviewed article on the need to be cautious in the near east antiquities field? An article demonstrating that a lack of such skepticism correlates with accepting a larger number of frauds and forgeries?

That is a de rigeur caution for all such archaeologists, for obvious reasons The fact that you (once again) have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to see this plain fact underscores again your desire to win an argument at all costs, even when the point in dispute is universally recognized and rather harmless to admit.

And of course, your whining about others abusing bandwidth is somewhat ironic, given your predilection for such behavior.

As for Eisenmann in particular - he wrote a book on James, the brother of Jesus. So far, that puts him ahead of you in the credentials and credibility department.


Which brings me back to the question:

* if Eisenmann, given his pedigree and experience, is cautiously skeptical, why shouldn't we all be?

* and why should we trust you, on what constitutes a silly objection or not? Given the number and frequency of frauds in this area, as well as the slighly strange circumstances surrounding this particular find:

The biggest red flag is that it comes from an anonymous collector in Jerusalem who is mum on its history. Observers worry it could be a fake from the sometimes shady antiquities market. There is a long history of archeological forgery. The largely discredited "Shroud of Turin" – supposedly placed on Jesus after the crucifixion – is one example.

Then you erred by including your irrelevant comments in your response directed at me.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Apikorus

I suspect Lemaire is savvy enough to steer clear of detectable forgeries. It'd be pretty embarrassing for him to be associated with such a spectacular flop as a forged ossuary of Jesus' brother. And if a scholar of Lemaire's echelon were taken in, the forger would have to be pretty damned good. Plus I suspect a large amount of work has already been done on the ossuary, including extensive surface analysis (which was alluded to in some of the articles). Stay tuned, and we'll all hear much more.

Layman

This is the only thing you said worth commenting on:

This is simply silly. And this is what I specifically said was silly. I did not say that we should not be cautious. I admitted this could be a mistake or even a hoax. But to reject it because its "too pat" is, simply, silly.

The origins is a valid reason for being cautious. As I have said in this thread more than once now. I was responding to two claims: 1) Vorks claim that this was "most likely" a fake, and 2) Toto's claim that it was "too pat." Both of these statements are untenable. Does that mean its legitimate? No. As I've admitted. But you have attempted to mingle the two points into one, when I did no such thing.

I do think we should be cautious. And I'm watching very keenly to see how this plays out in the scholarly community. But it should be noticed that the origins issue is not "unusual":

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

Toto

I found this preview a bit overblown.

This can only be the most important find in the history of NT archeology if there are no significant finds, which, come to think of it, is probably true.

But can someone explain how this could alter anyone's, much less "the world's" understanding of the Bible?

I think BAR is trying to sell more issues.

Sauron

It is overblown. I would not place this ossuary on the same level as the Qumran scrolls, for example.

Grumpy

As a tangent, I noticed some oddities with the Associated Press write-up on this subject earlier today. It's not quite the same as this <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021021/ap_on_re_us/jesus_inscription_5" target="_blank">longer version</a>, but I can't find the original article online.

The linked article has the same reference to the ossuary being "the first appearance of Jesus in the archaeological record." I take it this means the oldest artifact attesting to [a] Jesus, as opposed to the first ever artifact ever discovered.

The other article also had a strange digression in the second paragraph, providing the background that 'Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe Mary remained a virgin her entire life, while Protestants believe she and Joseph had children after Jesus.' Or words to that effect. First, I didn't realize the doctrine split that cleanly. Second, since the article bothers to explain at all, it could just as easily mention the theory that James et al were Jesus' step-siblings -- Joseph's children from a prior marriage. I understand this leads to the theory that Joseph was much older than Mary, combined with his apparent premature demise.

Basically, the AP was trying, early in the story, to explain to readers who haven't cracked a Bible in years just how Jesus could have a brother named James.

Toto

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/21/science/21CND-JESU.html" target="_blank">More details from the NY Times</a> (free reg required)

The Discovery Channel is planning a television documentary next spring on the scientific testing of this ossuary.

edited to add: this article clarifies that Roman Catholics believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and James was actually a cousin, a son of Joseph's brother [explaining perhaps why their Catholic expert was so openly skeptical]. Eastern Orthodox consider James to be a son of Joseph from a previous marriage, which would make James older than Jesus. Protestants think that Mary was a virgin at Jesus' birth, but then went on to have children through normal sexual relations.

This <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Jesus-Inscription.html" target="_blank">AP article</a> notes:

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Vorkosigan

1) Vorks claim that this was "most likely" a fake, and 2) Toto's claim that it was "too pat." Both of these statements are untenable.

Nothing "untenable" about them. The Christian Church has a long history of forgery, and of course individual frauds and forgers are a legion.

The ossuary is a perfectable identifiable and ordinary ossuary, but it supposedly holds the bones of the brother of god and a major figure in his own right.

The inscription, as Sauron pointed out, contains a Latinism. Can anyone confirm if he is right?

It could have been made any time in the first few centuries of the present era. It comes from a private collection and its provenience is unknown.

Although it is explosive, it sat for 15 years undetected. It's too pat and perfect, as Eisenman said.

As Toto and Apikorus pointed out, Lemaire has been involved in other amazing finds. I am skeptical on those grounds alone, simply because, in the end, such people so often turn out to be forgers, eventually getting caught when they attempt too much.

Finally, of course, James was probably not Jesus' brother -- no document of the time, except the dubious and probably fictional gospel tales, refers to this relationship. As we have discussed before, it is nowhere mentioned that James died in 63 AD -- the famous passage Ant 20.200 neither confirms nor denies that he was killed. The fact that the box contains references to the almost certainly mythical joseph, the semi-mythical Jesus, and a mythical link between them is a little too much to swallow.

In its favor are -- the genuiness of the box itself, the lack of machine marks on the inscription (which a clever forger would leave off anyway, and meaningless if it is a 3rd-4th century forgery).

If it is authentic, it would certainly be interesting. But I sort of doubt it at this point. "Most likely," Layman, is an estimate of probability. It's most likely a fraud dating from the relic-production phase of Christianity in the first millenium.

Vorkosigan

Apikorus

Michael, there is no Latinism in the ossuary inscription, and it is was completely wild of Sauron to suggest there is. In Aramaic, a daleth at the beginning of a word can mean "who" or "of". In this case, dysw` = d'yeshua = "of Yeshua". (Aramaic daleth can also substitute for Hebrew zayin, but that is another story.)

The entire inscription can be viewed through the CNN web site. I find that CNN's "enhanced inscription" is actually worse than the non-enhanced image (which itself is rather clear).

I tend to doubt this ossuary is a fraud. It is a remarkable find, but remarkable finds happen every now and then. The sad thing is that there are likely dozens of other significant artifacts lying in private collections which have not been properly investigated by scholars. It is a serious problem in archaeology, particularly in populated areas such as Israel, and one of which people unfamiliar with the field are generally unaware.

To assume this ossuary is a fraud simply because Lemaire was lucky enough to discover the Solomonic pomegranate strikes me as completely irrational.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Toto

I think it's irrational to draw any conclusions with our current state of information. Shanks is obviously hyping it beyond its signficance even if it does date from 63 CE, but that's the only definite thing I can see.