Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Maverick · 12-11-2002, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
In any event, my preference would be to have you move generic let's-play-with-Layman dialogue to its own thread.

I agree. Let's stick to the topic at hand.

Maverick - BC&A Moderator

Vorkosigan · 12-11-2002, 11:13 PM

Here is the latest from Rochelle Altman, posted to JM:

*******
There is a growing consensus that a) there are indeed two hands and b) that the box is not that of James of the NT. Reporters are still interviewing people and the police are still making inquiries. Much of the SBL meetings evolved into discussions of who and why
the second hand wrote the second part.

Drs. Cross and Fitzmeyer, while still claiming one hand, place the "clear" (first) part to Herodian. And they should. While I or any
other script designer can reconstruct the entire entire script system from just one graph, for instance, the 'bet' in ya'a cov -- this is a basic requirement for a script designer --, we don't have to: I recognized the script right away.

The exact same script that is used for the first part of the inscription is to be seen in its entirety in *one* private edition of Deuteronomy from among the DSS. (I did say that this is a pretentious script... those mini- wedges.) My gut feeling is that the box is probably one of the oldest we have and may date from 30/20 BCE, but I'm still giving the range of 30 BCE- 30 CE.

The NYT science article mentions yet another expert's reasons for doubting the authenticity of the box:

Dr. Daniel Eylon, an Israeli engineering professor at the University of
Dayton in Ohio, approached the problem from his experience in failure

[Eylon's report deleted -- Vork]

My only caveat is that Dr. Eylon is correct about the sharp edges if something has been outside in the weather. This box, though was buried in a
cave tomb, a family mausoleum, and thus protected from the weather. The type of water damage and water marks at different levels (although never
reaching as high as the first part of the inscription), reported by other experts whom examined the box, indicate repeated flooding in a cave tomb for roughly a period of 200-300 years. The box was dug out, probably by looters when repeated rains either collapsed the ceiling of the man-made cave or exposed a corner of this or another box. The second part of the text was added to fit whatever purpose the person had in mind; then the box was probably stored in a natural cave until once again dug out by a looter
or looters in the modern period.

Dr. Flesher has a very to-the-point article, "Observations on the James Ossuary," at <a href="http://www.bibleinterp.com" target="_blank">www.bibleinterp.com</a>

You will also find the "Official Report on the James Ossuary," which contains more information on ossuaries, at that site.

Hope this helps,

Rochelle

*************

Herodian period! Before 30 CE! Bwahahahaha....

But don't worry! The Legions of Christ are 93% certain that it is the bone-box of Jesus' brother. What are mere facts against a 93% certainty?

I'm gonna be laughin' my head off about this one for a long time -- although I suppose that will come between fits of frustration over correcting dimrods who think the box is actual evidence for Jesus. Wanna know why Witherington is rushing his book into print? So he can get it out before the consensus emerges that the box predates 62 and the inscription comes from two different hands. That way he won't have to include that data in the data in the book, and it will leave the impression that things are much less clear than they actually are. Ah, the joys of integrity.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 12-11-2002, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Artemus:

I should say that I also get the same impression when reading through the links that Peter Kirby has provided on the earlychristianwritings.com pages. The leaps that are taken from tiny pieces of evidence are, in many cases, shocking, at least to me. Perhaps I have been spoiled by participating in what may be best termed as a "hard science", where everything claimed can be independently tested.

Same experience I had when I first came here. I assumed the scholarly case was much stronger than it was. It was not. The mythicists were defeated not by argument, but by ignoring them, by insults and personal attacks. You should read the review of the mythicist case in Theissen and Merz's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0800631226/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide</a> to understand just how weak the historical case truly is.

Vorkosigan

Toto · 12-12-2002, 12:13 AM

Flesher's article is <a href="http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Observing.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.

Jayhawker Soule · 12-12-2002, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
Herodian period! Before 30 CE! Bwahahahaha....

Is the following inaccurate?

Quote:

Three main periods in the development of the Jewish script are distinguished: the Hasmonean period (167–30 B.C.E.), the Herodian period (30 B.C.E.–70 C.E.), and the post–Herodian period (70–135 C.E.). The majority of Qumran documents belong to the first two periods, although some earlier fragments are available. The variety of handwriting testifies to the activity of scores of scribes. It is reasonable, therefore, to believe that a great many documents found in the caves of Qumran came from other places.[p. 131]

- from Scrolls From The Dead Sea (New York: George Braziller, 1993) Edited by Ayala Sussman and Ruth Peled)
- see <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~ironmen/qumran5.htm" target="_blank">Notes About Dating the Dead Sea Scrolls</a>

Vorkosigan · 12-12-2002, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
Is the following accurate?

Altman: I'm still giving the range of 30 BCE- 30 CE.

Jayhawker Soule · 12-12-2002, 06:22 AM

I'll take that as a yes.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Artemus · 12-12-2002, 06:59 AM

I'll check out the Theissen and Merz book. I also need to get Earl Doherty's book. I've read his web page at length, but there is no harm in supporting his work through royalties.

So what is everyone's opinion on why Lemaire skipped peer review and went straight to BAR? Does my cynical "cold fusion" reference have any merit, or is this a more accepted practice in this specialty? Is there even an appropriate peer-review avenue that he could have pursued? I would have to think there must be, but I am so far out of my league here that I am quite sure I will make a fool of myself sooner rather than later.

One other comment: I find it rather unprofessional that Lemaire is still defending his original conclusions as based partially on laboratory analysis (would forensic be the proper term?) of the ossuary when he hadn't even examined it closely enough to notice the circles inscribed on the other side. That alone indicates that the original study was superficial. The additional reports (such as Flescher's cited above) only reinforce this opinion. How well respected is Lamaire as a scholar?

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Artemus ]

Vorkosigan · 12-12-2002, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
I'll take that as a yes.

ReasonableDoubt ]

It's flattering to have someone following me around, hanging on my every word...

Vorkosigan · 12-12-2002, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad:
 Now, considering the world's leading expert on such things was right there in Jerusalem, when and where the object was "found", don't you find it curious that it was hustled out of the country of origin without such a consultation?

Yes, this would tend to indicate a (1) a forger attempting to avoid further analysis and retain control over the investigation or (2) someone trying to hustle it out ahead of the investigation of its origins. In this case I am going with (2) because I don't think Golan forged it. Yet. Lupia noted that some crucial analyses had not been done....

12-12-2002, 06:22 AM	#47
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	I'll take that as a yes. [ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

12-12-2002, 06:59 AM	#48
Artemus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USA Posts: 2,467	I'll check out the Theissen and Merz book. I also need to get Earl Doherty's book. I've read his web page at length, but there is no harm in supporting his work through royalties. So what is everyone's opinion on why Lemaire skipped peer review and went straight to BAR? Does my cynical "cold fusion" reference have any merit, or is this a more accepted practice in this specialty? Is there even an appropriate peer-review avenue that he could have pursued? I would have to think there must be, but I am so far out of my league here that I am quite sure I will make a fool of myself sooner rather than later. One other comment: I find it rather unprofessional that Lemaire is still defending his original conclusions as based partially on laboratory analysis (would forensic be the proper term?) of the ossuary when he hadn't even examined it closely enough to notice the circles inscribed on the other side. That alone indicates that the original study was superficial. The additional reports (such as Flescher's cited above) only reinforce this opinion. How well respected is Lamaire as a scholar? [ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Artemus ]</p>

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

12-11-2002, 11:13 PM	#42
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Here is the latest from Rochelle Altman, posted to JM: ******* There is a growing consensus that a) there are indeed two hands and b) that the box is not that of James of the NT. Reporters are still interviewing people and the police are still making inquiries. Much of the SBL meetings evolved into discussions of who and why the second hand wrote the second part. Drs. Cross and Fitzmeyer, while still claiming one hand, place the "clear" (first) part to Herodian. And they should. While I or any other script designer can reconstruct the entire entire script system from just one graph, for instance, the 'bet' in ya'a cov -- this is a basic requirement for a script designer --, we don't have to: I recognized the script right away. The exact same script that is used for the first part of the inscription is to be seen in its entirety in one private edition of Deuteronomy from among the DSS. (I did say that this is a pretentious script... those mini- wedges.) My gut feeling is that the box is probably one of the oldest we have and may date from 30/20 BCE, but I'm still giving the range of 30 BCE- 30 CE. The NYT science article mentions yet another expert's reasons for doubting the authenticity of the box: Dr. Daniel Eylon, an Israeli engineering professor at the University of Dayton in Ohio, approached the problem from his experience in failure [Eylon's report deleted -- Vork] My only caveat is that Dr. Eylon is correct about the sharp edges if something has been outside in the weather. This box, though was buried in a cave tomb, a family mausoleum, and thus protected from the weather. The type of water damage and water marks at different levels (although never reaching as high as the first part of the inscription), reported by other experts whom examined the box, indicate repeated flooding in a cave tomb for roughly a period of 200-300 years. The box was dug out, probably by looters when repeated rains either collapsed the ceiling of the man-made cave or exposed a corner of this or another box. The second part of the text was added to fit whatever purpose the person had in mind; then the box was probably stored in a natural cave until once again dug out by a looter or looters in the modern period. Dr. Flesher has a very to-the-point article, "Observations on the James Ossuary," at <a href="http://www.bibleinterp.com" target="_blank">www.bibleinterp.com</a> You will also find the "Official Report on the James Ossuary," which contains more information on ossuaries, at that site. Hope this helps, Rochelle ************* Herodian period! Before 30 CE! Bwahahahaha.... But don't worry! The Legions of Christ are 93% certain that it is the bone-box of Jesus' brother. What are mere facts against a 93% certainty? I'm gonna be laughin' my head off about this one for a long time -- although I suppose that will come between fits of frustration over correcting dimrods who think the box is actual evidence for Jesus. Wanna know why Witherington is rushing his book into print? So he can get it out before the consensus emerges that the box predates 62 and the inscription comes from two different hands. That way he won't have to include that data in the data in the book, and it will leave the impression that things are much less clear than they actually are. Ah, the joys of integrity. Vorkosigan

12-12-2002, 12:13 AM	#44
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Flesher's article is <a href="http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Observing.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.