Vorkosigan

And John Lupia weighed in with this post on Sunday:

• Moreover, when I first saw digital photographs of the so-called James Ossuary I immediately knew the inscription was fake without giving a paleographic analysis for two reasons: biovermiculation and patina. Biovermiculation is limestone erosion and dissolution caused by bacteria over time in the form of pitting and etching. The ossuary had plenty except in and around the area of the inscription. This is not normal. The patina consisted of the appropriate minerals but it was reported to have been cleaned off the inscription. This is impossible since patina cannot be cleaned off limestone with any solvent or cleanser since it is essentially baked on glass. It is possible to forge patina but when it is it cracks off. Sound familiar? With these observations I immediately knew the inscription could not be authentic regardless of what any paleographer might say in favor of it since the physical aspects preclude forgery. Besides, at this point any paleographic analysis would have been superfluous.

******
Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Well, well, well...

Steven Carr

Not many. We are assured that James was not a common name.

leonarde

Whoclaimed James was not a common name?
If it was someone here, please cite the post. My
memory is that all three names were held up as fairly common but that the COMBINATION in the exact right relationship WOULD NOT be nearly so
common. Moreover, brother relationships are rarely
inscribed on ossuaries......

Steven Carr

Layman wrote 'James was significantly less common than they were:' (meaning Jesus and Joseph)

So it was significantly less common while all three names were held up as fairly common.

Does 'significantly' in the quote have no significance?

And, perhaps the combination, of Jesus, son of Joseph , in a family tomb also containing *2* Marys was uncommon.

And, brothers were indeed rarely mentioned, so rare, that wild guesses have had to be made about what it could mean.

The idea of identifying the ossuary of somebody by reference to his brother strikes me as strange (unless they were twins, which are often treated as two halves of the same person).

Perhaps the brother is mentioned because he married the widow, and the widow wanted to record both her husband's names after burying them. (Women can be sentimental sometimes)

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]</p>

leonarde

What would stop the widow from inscribing EACH
ossuary with the respective name of the husband?

Cheers!

Vorkosigan

My
memory is that all three names were held up as fairly common but that the COMBINATION in the exact right relationship WOULD NOT be nearly so
common.

For any given year, the number for the city of Jerusalem, assuming a population of 40,000 and a pre-industrial birth rate of 45/1000, is 143 J-J-Js. For the entire empire, assuming a population of 35 million and 5% Jewish, it would be over 9,000.

Of course, such calculations are looking more and more irrelevant, in light of the mounting claims that the inscription is a forgery.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

Nothing.

Perhaps she did. We don't have the other ossuary.

leonarde

Well, that would be a far more direct way
of honoring the other husband/brother than putting
the name (brother of Yeshua) on the one ossuary.

Cheers!

leonarde

Vorkosigan posted: To my ears these "forgery" scenarios seem more and
more like JFK assasination conspiracy theories:
based on little and frequently self-refuting.
Earlier it was claimed that merely the "brother of
Yeshua" part was added much later. NOW someone (John Lupia) is claiming that the WHOLE inscription is fraudulent. Hold on to your hats: more theories to "explain" the ossuary are issued every week.....

Cheers!