Toto

Is this a Jewish position? What about Moses, David, Solomon, etc.

Layman

Whoops. Guess he slipped. Toto caught it. Shanks is really a closet Christian!

Perhaps Shanks realizes that without Jesus, most people in the world would never have heard of Moses, David, Solomon, etc.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Apikorus

Toto, I'll answer your question with a very relevant joke:

A third grade teacher asked her students to think of the most important person in all of history. The child with the best answer would receive a brand new five dollar bill.

First to raise his hand is Tommy. "I think the most important person was Albert Einstein," he declares.

Next is Mary. "I think the most important person was George Washington!" she exclaims.

Finally, one of the two Jewish students in the class, little David, raises his hand and says, "Jesus Christ". The teacher is very impressed and declares David the winner.

After class, the other Jewish kid comes up to him and asks, "Hey, David, how could you say that the most important person in the world was Jesus?"

David takes the five dollars out of his pocket and says, "Look - I know it's Moses, and you know it's Moses, but business is business."

Layman

Okay, lest anyone accuse me of misquoting Volk, my response to him and the subsequent discussion was based on the first version of this post. One that did not include the word "sole" in it at all! Perhaps that was his last "edit". I responded well before he made this substantial change.

Although I noticed he left the insults in.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Sauron

The Mount Scopus group appears to be a collection of rock layers that extends beyond Jerusalem, however. This website discusses radon levels, but also identifies what constitutes the Mount Scopus group, and its range (20% of Israeli land):

<a href="http://www.edilitaly.com/radon/rile/157.php3" target="_blank">http://www.edilitaly.com/radon/rile/157.php3</a>

Almost all rock units which
exhibit high radon potential belong to the “Mount Scopus Group” - chalks, limestones and cherts of
Senonian age, containing appreciable amounts of phosphorites with high uranium contents. These
rocks are exposed over approximately 20% of Israel’s area and are typical to all southern and
eastern Mediterranean regions, with some heavily populated cities built on them.

So it appears that the identification of this as either "Mount Scopus group" or "Menuha formation" doesn't actually narrow it down to Jerusalem.

Sauron

Whew. Then I'm glad that Michael never said any such thing. It appears to be a strawman of your own making.

All Michael said was:

And yes, Layman, I do think that when I have to chose between the incompetence and maliciousness when dealing with miscues by otherwise competent people, "lying" is the correct term. Especially when they are faith committed to evade, lie and destroy truth wherever it conflicts with their beliefs. And especially when the miscue dovetails so elegantly with their beliefs. And when clear double standards are being employed in judgments about the evidence in question.

And as you can see, no accusation against Crossan was mentioned. Until you decided to trot one out as a strawman, riding a straw horse.

Interesting, but the Crossan attack is your own strawman. Michael didn't make it.

And in other posts, you'll ask Michael for the date when Shanks became a christian, when we all know he is jewish. And you'll rail on about how BAR is not a christian publication. All of this assumes that it's only fundamentalist christians who ignore facts and put their faith ahead of the data - when in fact, this is also present in some flavors of judaism.

The words "faith commitment" don't apply exclusively to christianity. In fact, Hershel Shanks seems to be quite familiar with the concept, as per his recent diatribe and taunts of anti-Semitism. <a href="http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/copenhagen.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/copenhagen.htm</a>

Very bad argument, Layman.


I notice that you also evaded Michael's second point, about the double standard being used to evaluate such artifacts.

Layman

I didn't say he did. I was simply pointing out out how quickly he jumped to accusations of lying.

I fail to see how a Jewish "faith commitment" would lead Shanks to lie about a Christian artifact.

I've responded to this accusation in Stephen Carr's thread. Since Michael was just ranting with little or not specifics, I wasn't interested in picking the debate back up again over in this thread.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Sauron

You're lying. Michael made his statement:

I do think that when I have to chose between the incompetence and maliciousness when dealing with miscues by otherwise competent people, "lying" is the correct term. Especially when they are faith committed to evade, lie and destroy truth wherever it conflicts with their beliefs. And especially when the miscue dovetails so elegantly with their beliefs. And when clear double standards are being employed in judgments about the evidence in question.

Then you tried to take Michael's statement, and apply it to everyone who was interviewed for the BAR article, or who was associated with it:

Who holds these beliefs? Is Lemaire even a Christian? Are you saying that H. Shanks is lying to promote his Christian beliefs? Is M. McCarty a Christian? How about J. Dominic Crossan, who finds the find "very likely credible"?

After which you said:

Claiming that Crossan would place his "faith" over his scholarship is particularly misleading.

But who was claiming that Crossan would "place his faith over his scholarship"? Clearly you seemed to think that *someone* was intimating that - and that would be Michael. To make sure we all know you mean Michael, you spell it out for us:

One might even say "lying," if one was of Volk's bent.

As we can see by this specific comment, you're well on your way to building up this little straw dog & pony show, and hanging it around Michael's neck. You built up an entire strawman here, over a position that Michael didn't even take. Not surprising, and not unexpected.


Perhaps his "faith commitment" is not about the Jewish religion or preserving an inerrantist view of the Old Testament, but about the 1st century connection that such an ossuary would have, with Jews under Roman rule right before the 70 CE destruction of the temple. Given Shanks' diatribe against other Jewish scholars who disagree with his views, he seems to have a lot of area that falls under the "gotta protect" category. Or perhaps, it's not so much a 'faith commitment' as it is a personal prestige connection; his neck is on the line.

You also overlook the fact that even someone like Crossan, who has problems with the empty tomb and the historicity of several gospel events, might nevertheless have a 'faith commitment' to uphold with this artifact. Don't assume that Crossan's skepticism stems from a kneejerk desire to rebut the claims or shoot them down; it might be exactly the opposite - a near fruitless search for actual physical proof of the historicity of *something*, *anything* in the gospels. For Crossan, then, such an artifact might represent one of the very few touchstones of authencity that he has been able to find, so he might be more zealous (or over-zealous) in defending it. We know that Crossan has enough faith to devote his life in service to the church and its belief system; so a "faith commitment" of some significant magnitude must obviously exist.


Oh, was that a response? Perhaps to Steven Carr, and the question of the Jesus/Joseph/Mary names in proximity in a tomb. But it was not a response to Michael's point.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Metacrock

Meta =&gt; And you call Layman niave? That's just circular reasoning! Why did he have to take on that burden in the first place? Once said he has to defend his reputation, what was his original motivation for saying it?


and (2) because the $$ worth of the ossuary will leap dramatically; and, (3)

Meta=&gt;How do you know he's getting any of it? He doens't own it. Wouldn't he be paid the same one way or the other?


because his reputation will leap dramatically if it can be demonstrated to be a genuine inscription that can be plausibly used to support Christianity.


Meta =&gt;That has got to be the most absurdly curicular reasoning I've ever heard. Congraduations man,you've outdone the christ mythers on circular reasoning! Look, why risk damaging your rep just to say something in genunine if you can see plainly that it's not? That wouldn't be a risk worth taking.An educated scholar would not take risk, espeicially an egotistical one. They guard their reputations. He would probably much rather build his rep exposing the fraud and err on the side of caution.


Meta =&gt; you must be really threatened by the box to stoop that that level of circular reason to try and undermine it.

Vorkosigan

The sketch by Ada Yardeni seems misleading; one might well read )XWW instead of )XWY based on the sketch alone.

Apikorus, if Altman is working off the sketch, that may well also account for why she thinks it is excised -- the artist probably changed the shadowing on the letters to make the stand out (understandably) and Altman thinks that indicates excision.

Still, it is hard to understand her comments that it is "obvious." it's not "obvious" to others, obviously.

Vorkosigan

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>