Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 11-24-2002, 09:16 AM

Did anyone attend the ROM's "The James Ossuary – Context, Authenticity & Significance"? I'd be interested in reading a report.

Also ...

Quote:

On Friday, Mr. Golan will announce results of a study by Camil Fuchs, director of Tel Aviv University's Department of Statistics, who searched historical records for information about ossuary use in first-century Jerusalem. He analyzed literacy rates (only literate families inscribed ossuaries), life expectancy, birth rates, family size and the prevalence of the names Jesus, Joseph and James among people whose families could afford ossuaries. He restricted his study to the Jewish population because the practice of exhuming bodies after burial to reinter the bones in carved boxes was exclusive to Jews. He also restricted his study to people older than 16 because the box was too large for a child's bones. ...

[see <a href="http://www.nationalpost.ca/search/site/story.asp?id=D478BB87-6389-4D0C-B25F-4C5481C178B3" target="_blank">National Post article by Joseph Brean</a>]

Has anyone had the opportunity to review the Fuchs study?

Edited to add: The last sentence of the Brean article is interesting. That article was written on 11/20. Five days earlier He has an article titled <a href="http://www.nationalpost.ca/search/site/story.asp?id=30A7F244-145A-4C3E-86B0-BBC3D829DFBB" target="_blank">'Bone box' used twice, curator says'</a> where he quotes Dr. Keall saying: "I believe that the inscription is genuine and it was inserted on to an older box". But, if this is true, the ossuary size is a function of the first occupant, and Fuchs clearly erred when he "restricted his study to people older than 16 because the box was too large for a child's bones".

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Toto · 11-24-2002, 10:46 PM

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/BC-Jesus-Inscription.html" target="_blank">Latest News</a>

Quote:

Eric Meyers of Duke University, who got his first look at the box last week, told the meeting he has "serious questions about authenticity" and urged caution, among other reasons because the "brother of Jesus" phrase could have been added.

. . .

University of Toronto archaeologist Peter Richardson told a separate panel at the Ontario museum that the inscription shows two different writing styles, but the "character of the letters changes gradually" from one end to the other, making forgery less likely.

But Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins University responded that the existence of two writing styles "suggests the possibility of a second hand."

. . .

Hershel Shanks, editor of the archaeology magazine, who is co-authoring a book and advising a television documentary about the box, said of all the questions being posed, "There's a kind of resistance. We don't want to believe it."

Vorkosigan · 11-25-2002, 02:01 AM

Hershel Shanks, editor of the archaeology magazine, who is co-authoring a book and advising a television documentary about the box, said of all the questions being posed, "There's a kind of resistance. We don't want to believe it."

What did Shanks mean? That people don't want to believe it's the box of James? Or that believers resist believing the questions?

godfry n. glad · 11-25-2002, 08:51 AM

Posted by Kelly Wellington in JesusMysteries group:

Quote:

Well, it's been a quiet week, much to my surprise. Now commentary is
beginning to trickle out of Toronto, particularly after the panel
discussion (attended by 800 people!!!). The experts are gathered in
Toronto through Tuesday, so I expect we'll be seeing a raft of
opinion come the end of this week....

Anyway, here's what I've found:

From the Toronto Star, November 25, 2002 (watch the URL wrap):

<a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?" target="_blank">http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?</a>
pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035774760101&call
_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

"Eric Meyers has "a bad feeling, a very bad feeling" about the
authenticity of the James ossuary, the controversial burial box that
may have contained the bones of the brother of Jesus.

`One of the world's most prominent scholars of religion and an
archeologist, Meyers said he didn't like the fact that the limestone
burial box was bought on the antiquities market in old Jerusalem and
didn't come from an authorized excavation."

From Startribune.com, this AP report that indicates a looming scrap
over the statistical guesses:

<a href="http://www.startribune.com/stories/614/3453965.html" target="_blank">http://www.startribune.com/stories/614/3453965.html</a>

Easy to get at, too….

From the Toronto Globe & Mail, another version of the AP report:

<a href="http://globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021124/wossy" target="_blank">http://globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021124/wossy</a>
1124a/Front/homeBN/breakingnews

(Again, watch the URL wrap.)

Note that the AP report, still, at this late date, includes the
factual error that, "The words appear on a 1st-century bone box known
as an ossuary, a form of Jewish burial that ended in A.D. 70." In
fact, the custom of using ossuaries in funereal practices continued
into the mid-3rd century CE, per the research done by Y.L. Rahmani.

Also from the Toronto Globe & Mail, a story by their arts reporter:

<a href="http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20021125/" target="_blank">http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20021125/</a>
UBIBLN/national/national/national_temp/1/1/9/

This one has the following commentary about the yet to be released
statistical report:

"Tel Aviv University's Camil Fuchs, a professor of statistics, has
added what is bound to be more fuel to the debate. In a paper to be
published soon, Dr. Fuchs has made a more thorough study of the
demography of first-century-AD Jerusalem, with a view to
determining "how many other . . . persons called James, whose father
was named Joseph and had an older brother called Jesus."
His estimate of the probability of such a configuration: 0.0155 per
cent or approximately one in 6,400.

'In other words, says Dr. Fuchs, not factoring in the relative rarity
of an ossuary containing any reference to a brother, "we can state a
93-per-cent confidence level that . . . there were no more than three
such individuals" in Jerusalem in 62 AD, the time James is widely
thought to have died."

I'm still trying to determine upon what basis, given that the ossuary
was not found in situ and the material from which it is fashioned
cannot be placed definitively as coming from the Jerusalem area, that
it has been determined that the ossuary was used for its intended
purpose in Jerusalem. If that cannot be determined, then the figures
underlying the statistical report regarding the estimated population
of Jerusalem are specious, because that is the WRONG population base
to be using. The correct population base would be all possible 1st
century ossuary users who might have utilized an Aramaic
inscription. That means the entire population of Judea, if not
beyond.

So...What is the deal with this "statistical analysis"? Has anyone seen it? Or, early drafts? What assumptions does it make?

godfry n. glad

Toto · 11-25-2002, 05:29 PM

Links in prior post:

<a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035774760101&call_pag eid=968332188492&col=968793972154" target="_blank">Toronto Star, November 25, 2002</a>

<a href="http://www.startribune.com/stories/614/3453965.html" target="_blank">Star Tribune</a>

<a href="http://globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021124/wossy1124a/Front/homeBN/breakingnews" target="_blank">Globe and Mail</a>

<a href="http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20021125/UBIBLN/national/national/national_temp/1/1/9/" target="_blank">Globe and Mail Arts</a>

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]

Toto · 11-25-2002, 05:42 PM

<a href="http://www.sunspot.net/bal-te.ossuary25nov25,0,2232580.story?coll=bal-home-headlines" target="_blank">Baltimore Sun report</a> (first one to mention Rochelle Altman)

<a href="http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/local/4588090.htm" target="_blank">Ben Witherington and Herschel Shanks cash in with instant book</a>

Quote:

HarperCollins announced a few days ago that it will soon publish The Brother of Jesus, written by Witherington and Biblical Archaeology Review editor Hershel Shanks.

Witherington, 50, says it took him only two weeks to write 125 pages, and he never doubted that major publishing houses would be interested in the topic.

"Oh my gosh, this is probably the biggest New Testament archaeological find in my lifetime. Somebody's got to write a book," he said.

. . .

HarperCollins, which calls the James Box "the most important Jesus discovery of all time" plans to print 75,000 copies of the book initially, and a publicist predicts it'll be a best seller.

"We think it's going to be huge," said Roger Freet, associate director of Marketing and Publicity for Harper San Francisco. "We're setting this up to be the Easter-Passover holiday book of the season."

Vorkosigan · 11-25-2002, 06:10 PM

Writing a book to cash in on the box! I think the most entertaining aspect of this whole affair has been to watch NT scholars toss their integrity right out the window.

Vorkosigan · 11-25-2002, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
Writing a book to cash in on the box!

And let me add, I don't ever again want to hear any shit from Christians on this and other lists in the future about how Doherty and other mythicists are writing books just to make money.

Steven Carr · 11-26-2002, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:


And let me add, I don't ever again want to hear any shit from Christians on this and other lists in the future about how Doherty and other mythicists are writing books just to make money.

<a href="http://www.newsherald.com/archive/religion/ba041198.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newsherald.com/archive/religion/ba041198.htm</a>

'There was no proof the tomb they examined was authentic, but they knew such headlines would sell newspapers. The whole episode turned out to be nothing but cheap sensationalism to attract readers.'

<a href="http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Ossuaries.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Ossuaries.htm</a>
is a rather more measured criticism

MortalWombat · 11-26-2002, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
And let me add, I don't ever again want to hear any shit from Christians on this and other lists in the future about how Doherty and other mythicists are writing books just to make money.

Given the target audience sizes, it would seem that if one were writing just for the money and leaving integrity to the wind, then one would make a bunch more money by publishing pro-Christian stuff, even if one didn't believe in it.

Besides, Doherty must have a poor grasp of economics if he put almost everything that is in his book on his website for free if he wanted to make the maximum amount of money.

11-25-2002, 05:29 PM	#125
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Links in prior post: <a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035774760101&call_pag eid=968332188492&col=968793972154" target="_blank">Toronto Star, November 25, 2002</a> <a href="http://www.startribune.com/stories/614/3453965.html" target="_blank">Star Tribune</a> <a href="http://globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021124/wossy1124a/Front/homeBN/breakingnews" target="_blank">Globe and Mail</a> <a href="http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20021125/UBIBLN/national/national/national_temp/1/1/9/" target="_blank">Globe and Mail Arts</a> [ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

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

11-25-2002, 02:01 AM	#123
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Hershel Shanks, editor of the archaeology magazine, who is co-authoring a book and advising a television documentary about the box, said of all the questions being posed, "There's a kind of resistance. We don't want to believe it." What did Shanks mean? That people don't want to believe it's the box of James? Or that believers resist believing the questions?

11-25-2002, 06:10 PM	#127
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Writing a book to cash in on the box! I think the most entertaining aspect of this whole affair has been to watch NT scholars toss their integrity right out the window.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.