Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gregg · 10-29-2002, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
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 ]

Nah. Without "Mark" writing an allegorical account that placed the descending/dying/ascending savior god Jesus Christ in an earthly, semi-historical setting in the recent past, an account that was literalized several generations later by Gentile Christians, believers might all be worshipping Mithras today.

Gregg

leonarde · 10-30-2002, 04:56 AM

Posted by Toto:

Quote:

Or as Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review, says of thevossuary, "It is something tactile and visible reaching back to the single most important personage ever to walk the earth."

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

1)It is difficult to know exactly how to evaluate
'importance' objectively.

2)One criterion might be: sheer numbers. By that
one, Christianity beats out Judaiism by something
like 10 to 1.

3)Since BAR is about the 2 testaments of the Bible and the second one (the NT)is entirely about the life, works, teachings, and early disciples (and prospective Second Coming) of ONE MAN,
it is natural that that one man be thought of as
more important than even Moses, however important
Moses is to Judaiism.

4)Then there is the divine element: hundreds of
millions declare (at least at church services)that
Jesus is "true God and true Man". That would tend
to put him on another plain (ie above the status
of any OT figure). One doesn't have to be an adherent to Christianity to see that the impact on
BELIEFS caused by such recognition is incomparable.

Cheers!

Amen-Moses · 10-30-2002, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
3)Since BAR is about the 2 testaments of the Bible and the second one (the NT)is entirely about the life, works, teachings, and early disciples (and prospective Second Coming) of ONE MAN,

Strange, I thought that the vast majority of the NT was about Paul!

Amen-Moses

CX · 10-30-2002, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MortalWombat:


Many book stores such as Barnes and Noble, Borders, etc. carry BAR in their magazine section. You might want to try there to get a single issue once it hits the newsstands.

Son of my dog's mother! A year's subscription is only 15 bucks! Why pay 4 and 1/2 bucks plus tax to get one issue when you can have the whole year's delivered to you for 15? Subscribe for 2 years and it's cheaper yet. It's not like we're talking about forking over $400+ for a private individual subscription to Nature.

CX · 10-30-2002, 07:15 AM

I'll make it even easier for you (am I beginning to seem like a BAR salesman?) go <a href="https://commerce.cdsfulfillment.com/BAR/subscriptions.cgi" target="_blank">here</a> to subscribe online. Click "Bill Me later" and get a free issue. (If you elect not to subscribe).

CX · 10-30-2002, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:
The mention of a sibling relationship is apparently quite rare, though not unique to the James ossuary. For example, no. 570 in the catalog bears the inscription Symy br `syh 'Hwy (d')Hnyn = Shimi bar Asiya akhui (d')Hanin = Shimi son of Asiya, brother of Hanin. This language exactly parallels that in the James ossuary. (If Lemaire and/or Shanks has done his homework, this should be mentioned in the BAR article.)

It is the last citation on p. 70 "See Rahmani, Catalogue, number 570". It's referenced with a footnote when the box is mentioned in passing. No discussion of the nature of the box is included in this mention.

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]

Layman · 10-30-2002, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:
You're lying. Michael made his statement:

No. I am not. You are once against wasting band-width with a personal vendetta and attempting to manufacture some issue that clearly was not there.

If you really want to accuse someone of deception, why not join me in pointing out how Michael edited his post to soften his rhetoric after I had already responded to his point in detail?

Michael claimed that "BAR was lying." When I asked him how he could make such a statment, he replied that he could because their "faith commitment" motivated them to lie and distort about things related to their faith.

I asked him about Lemaire who wrote the article for BAR. About Shanks who is the Editor-in-Chief of BAR. And then about others who have voiced agreement with BAR's analysis, such as McCardy and Crossan.

None of which concerns you at all except for your desire to distort the dialouge and waste our time.

Quote:

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.

Explain how this is part of his Jewish "faith commitment"? Which part of his faith is strengthened by finding the body of a Christian killed by a Jewish high priest? You are being rather vague here.

Quote:

Or perhaps, it's not so much a 'faith commitment' as it is a personal prestige connection; his neck is on the line.

If you want to start speculating about other issues that is fine. But the only one that Michael originally raised was the "faith commitment" one. And that is the one I challenged him on.

Quote:

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.

So you are saying that because Crossan is so adept at debunking tenuous claims of historicity he's likely to lie about another tenuous claim of historicity?

Quote:

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 ]

And what was Michael's point? He vaguely mentioned something about a double-standard. No details or implication as to what that might me. The only person who has raised this in a detailed manner was Carr, and I addressed his arguments specifically. In short, Michael gave insufficient argument or evidence to respond to other than yet another blanket denial.

godfry n. glad · 10-30-2002, 08:28 AM

CX did opine:

Quote:

Son of my dog's mother! A year's subscription is only 15 bucks! Why pay 4 and 1/2 bucks plus tax to get one issue when you can have the whole year's delivered to you for 15? Subscribe for 2 years and it's cheaper yet. It's not like we're talking about forking over $400+ for a private individual subscription to Nature.

Why pay $15 bucks to enrich someone who I hold in the lowest esteem? Especially since I can request the stuff via interlibrary loan at zero cost? Now, I realize I get a great deal on interlibrary loan services, but those who don't have such access can still take a stroll to your nearest scholastic or public library and scan the article there. If you don't have such access, my condolences....

I do, however, like your idea of snatching a free copy as an introductory offer. Stiff 'em for the cost of the rag _and_ the mailing, too.

godfry n. glad

CX · 10-30-2002, 09:11 AM

Here's an interesting perspective that was raised on my discussion board by a one time New World archaeologist:

Quote:

From what I read, the box lacks what we call "archeological provenience" data both within and from a site. This cannot be supplied by testimonials from geological sources: the question is not one of patina, stone type or anything else: it is WHERE EXACTLY did the box come from (where found), who removed it, how did they remove it, where are the accompanying field notes (and pix and drawings); etc etc.

These are the sine qua non of real archelogical finds: without them, the object will always be under a cloud. Cannot be helped. Hence my categorizing it with all the other relics of Xiandom - splinters from the true cross, bones, stones, et al.

Apikorus · 10-30-2002, 09:33 AM

CX, thanks. I also noticed the brief reference to Rahmani no. 570.

I think the ossuary is significantly more exciting than putative "splinters from the true cross" because, despite having no identifiable provenance, it nonetheless can confidently be dated (20 BCE - 135 CE) and placed (Jerusalem area, including Jericho) based on what we know about Jewish ossilegeum. The inscription is quite remarkable. I suspect that scholarly attitudes toward the James ossuary will approximate those toward the Tel Dan stele. That is, most scholars will regard it as authentic, even though it was not found in situ. But it is still very early, as far as the ossuary debate is concerned.

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

10-30-2002, 09:33 AM	#80
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	CX, thanks. I also noticed the brief reference to Rahmani no. 570. I think the ossuary is significantly more exciting than putative "splinters from the true cross" because, despite having no identifiable provenance, it nonetheless can confidently be dated (20 BCE - 135 CE) and placed (Jerusalem area, including Jericho) based on what we know about Jewish ossilegeum. The inscription is quite remarkable. I suspect that scholarly attitudes toward the James ossuary will approximate those toward the Tel Dan stele. That is, most scholars will regard it as authentic, even though it was not found in situ. But it is still very early, as far as the ossuary debate is concerned. [ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

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

10-30-2002, 07:15 AM	#75
CX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portlandish Posts: 2,829	I'll make it even easier for you (am I beginning to seem like a BAR salesman?) go <a href="https://commerce.cdsfulfillment.com/BAR/subscriptions.cgi" target="_blank">here</a> to subscribe online. Click "Bill Me later" and get a free issue. (If you elect not to subscribe).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.