Evangelion

Toto -

Does he, though? His discussion of the carving seemed a bit too detailed to be brushed off so lightly. A unique style of writing that was only in existence between AD 50-70... hardly the sort of stuff we'd expect from the average (or even above average) fraud, is it?

Does he need to? Do they present any material that directly contradicts (and/or refutes) his argument against fraud?

As will I.

Toto

Ev - different experts have dated the style of writing on the second part of the inscription to a later period. There is other evidence (such as the engineering report) that indicates fraud. So a comprehensive report would have to take all this into account. Carrier just wrote a brief note, not the comprehensive report that can be written sometime next year.

CX

I have to agree. I thought that was inappropriate as well.

Evangelion

Ah, well. Fair enough.

And thanks for the details, Toto.

simian

Out of curiousity, is anybody aware of the Catholic take on this? Do any Catholics hail it as a good find, or call it a fake? After all, Mary remained virginal throughout her life - Jesus had no brothers.

Simian

Toto

As I recall, one of the experts quoted in the first news stories was a Catholic. His take was that the names were too common to link this ossuary to James the brother of Jesus Christ.

Jayhawker Soule

Toto, have you or others seen anything recent from Frank Moore Cross? Also, whatever happened to that statistical work-up talked about.

Sauron

Don't be silly; of course you did. You felt that the posting of some personal details was out of order and an invasion of privacy. Even though you were mistaken about that, your attempt to call that to the attention of the Infidels here was (in *your* mind, anyhow) a defense of Turkel's privacy.


Your sarcasm is noted. However, the aircraft engineer does not pose as a professional archaeologist, and it's clear from the articles that he's approaching this from a standpoint of physical sciences. Noting the timing and placement of scratches is a perfectly valid way to evaluate a historical claim, since such artifacts are still subject to physical laws:

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/science/social/03JAME.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/science/social/03JAME.html</a>

Dr. Daniel Eylon, an Israeli engineering professor at the University of Dayton in Ohio, approached the problem from his experience in failure analysis investigations for the aerospace industry. Applying a technique used in determining if a malfunction of an airplane part occurred before or after an accident, he examined photographs of the inscription for scratches caused by moving the box against other boxes in the cave or in the final excavation.

"The inscription would be underneath these scratches if it had been on the box at the time of burial, but the majority of this inscription is on top of the scratches," Dr. Eylon said. "And the sharpness of some of the letters doesn't look right — sharp edges do not last 2,000 years."

And again:

<a href="http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/local/daily/1203jesus.html" target="_blank">http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/local/daily/1203jesus.html</a>

Eylon's interest in the matter is far afield from his primary expertise of failure analysis (such as metal fatigue in airplanes). But he also does scholarly archeological work in Israel, his homeland. He analyzes metallurgical technology (whether iron artifacts were forged or cast).

Eylon is the only scholar who has contested the ossuary's authenticity from a physical science perspective.

But many others have noted the inscription's two styles. The first part, about James, son of Joseph, seemed to be written in a formal script, while the second, about Jesus, is in a more free-flowing cursive style.

''The fact that the cursive and the formal types of letters appear in the two parts of the inscription suggests to me at least the possibility of a second hand,'' said P. Kyle McCarter Jr., a specialist in Middle East languages at Johns Hopkins University.


Which hasn't told us anything definite about where the ossuary was quarried. They assumed Jerusalem, but have also not ruled anything else out:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000726&p=4" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000726&p=4</a>

Dear Dr Welling,
Duba passed to me your request. I and my colleague Dr Amnon Rosenfeld studied the rock type and the patina the THE ossuary. The rock type is Senonian chalk of the Menuha Formation. In the eastern parts of Jerusalem, such as Mount Scopus and Siluan area, the country rocks belong to this formation. There are several ancient quarries and workshops within this lithology, such as sites in Hizma, Anata and the eastern slopes of Mount Scopus. See Magen 1984, 1988, 1994, 2002 where he describe the excavations of these sites in which stone ware industry existed during the Second Temple period.

To your specific question, we cannot say for sure that the ossuary was produced in the Jerusalem area, because this Senonian chalk is exposed in many places in Israel and the vicinity. To the present knowledge, there are no specific characteristic signs of that chalk to specific site. Yet, the evidence of the quarries and the workshops of that ancient time in the vicinity of Jerusalem, using this chalk, is what we can say at present.

Dr Shimon Ilani
The Geological Survey of Israel.


Secondly, the IGS obviously cannot ascertain where it was used in a burial. The possibility is still that it could be from another town, such as Jericho.

So I am not sure what you are gaining, by relying on the IGS here. Their assumption is just that: an assumption.

Yes. Witherington has already managed to crank out a book. Imagine that.

No comments about this one, BTW?

<a href="http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Ossuaries.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Ossuaries.htm</a>

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

godfry n. glad

Simian did ask:

To which Toto did respond:

Would that be the opinion put forward by one John Lupia as in <a href="http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/20021106/UOSSUM" target="_blank">this page.</a> If so, he was the one to raise the intriguing terms of "biovermiculation and patina." Very early on.

If you're curious about the _Roman_Catholic_News, try
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/" target="_blank">this webpage.</a> You'll find that John Lupia is the editor.

All this raises an interesting question with regards to Rochelle Altman's "Official Report" of her opinion. Because, if you go to that report (<a href="http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm" target="_blank">here</a>), posted on the same website that hosts Dr. Flesher's report, you'll find, at the very end of the document, this statement:

Would you look at that... John Lupia is one of the advisors who had the opportunity to read and advise Rochelle Altman on her critique prior to her online publication. Now, warrented, Steve Mason (assuming it's the York University professor who specializes in Josephus studies) and Paul Flesher (provided he's the same Paul V.M. Flesher who teaches at the University of Wyoming) are excellent company to keep if you're going to engage in the the biblical criticism game, but the presence of John Lupia in this line-up gives me pause.

Could it be that Rochelle Altman represents the Roman Catholic Church's designated hitter on the ossuary?

It's certainly fodder for speculation.

godfry n. glad

P.S. - Does anyone have any idea of who Isidoros Kioleoglou might be? I've googlized him and only come up with postings to the Ioudiaous-L list for which Dr. Altman serves as moderator. No other listing.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]</p>

Toto

Wow, godfry, that is real conspiracy thinking. No, I wasn't thinking of Lupia, but another commentator I don't have time to look up. I doubt that Altman, being presumably Jewish, is a tool of the Vatican, and I doubt that the Vatican has a real motive to discredit this - they already have an alternative meaning for the term brother.

{edited to correct godfry's name}

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>