Butters

Ah, but not to your average Christian, it would be "proof" of Jesus Christ, superstar. And there would be no end of debating this with them.

Bede

I think we should be clear that the ossuary proves nothing as far as any Christian is concerned because it does not tell us anything we don't already know. While it might have been useful in debates with mythicists I think the fact that it could be any James brother of any Jesus rather killed that idea too.

Unless it is a modern fake, which seems unlikely, it tells us nothing much except that at some point someone thought to put brother of Jesus on an ossary. Why? We do not know but the most likely explanation is that the inscriber thought that whoever James and Jesus were, they were brothers.

None of which will stop me from sitting back and enjoying a full scale academic bun fight. Let the best man or woman win!

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Jayhawker Soule

This probably says more about your deprecating attitude toward "average Christians" than their attitude toward the ossuary. I suspect that most Christians (and Jews) that I know will accept the forthcoming scholarly consensus in this matter much the same way as they accept evolution.

CX

I really don't know what else to say. I obviously offended you and for that I am sorry. As I see it there are two questions here. Is this artifact proof of Jesus of Nazareth? Highly dubious. Lemaire's arguments were silly. Is this artifact from the 1st century including the full inscription? Unknown until it is examined by multiple scholars and their findings are presented in peer reviewed literature. A conclusion about the former question is perhaps rationally justified but does not point to forgery, simply bad scholarship colored by wishful thinking. A conclusion about the latter question is not yet justified, period. Including "from the get go" that the ossuary itself is fake is simply not warranted. Concluding "from the get go" that it is not the ossuary of James the Just is more reasonable, but ultimately probably fruitless since although we could, in principle, prove the negative of that we could never, in principle prove the positive.

And with that I will politely withdraw from this discussion since it is clear that some kind of miscommunication is creating some degree of tension and animosity.

Butters

Maybe I should have qualified that statement with,
"The average Christian here in the south." And while I realize that most Christians accept evolution, you couldn't tell that from living around here.

Layman

It appears that the harm to the ossuary caused the uncovering of additional evidence apparently overlooked by Lemaire that provides additional support to his dating of the ossuary:

<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/835340.asp" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.com/news/835340.asp</a>

<a href="http://globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021114/wossu1114a/Front/homeBN/breakingnews" target="_blank">Article</a>

[Edited because some posters had complained that the long URL was stretching their page display. -Pomp]

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Pomp ]</p>

Clarice O'C

Greetings,

The following is from the Royal Ontario Museum. It is just five paragraphs short but I've only pasted the last paragraph here because of the copyright.
----------------------------------

New Discovery by ROM

Breaking News !!!
Ed Keall, ROM curator
November 13, 2002

"The implications of the discovery are obvious. There are three possibilities, each of which
compound a person's interpretation of the ossuary, if their mind is already made up. Either the inscription was incised on the back of the original ossuary (of which a few examples are
known from the Jerusalem catalogue). Or the inscription was incised on an ossuary that had
already been used once before, perhaps from the century earlier (the old crack is a very
ancient one, and the principle in some instance of recycling old ossuaries is believed to have
occurred). Or the inscription is a fabrication inserted on an antique ossuary (either in medieval
or modern times)."
<a href="http://www.rom.on.ca/ossuary/" target="_blank">Royal Ontario Museum</a>

Best regards,
Clarice

Vorkosigan

It appears that the harm to the ossuary caused the uncovering of additional evidence apparently overlooked by Lemaire that provides additional support to his dating of the ossuary

Layman, nobody ever doubted the ossuary was from that time. It's the inscription from two hands and the lack of provenance that are the problems here.

Besides, look what Lemaire missed. Did you check out the pix?

Mods, can the links be edited so that the margins are proper?

Vorkosigan

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Or the inscription is a fabrication inserted on an antique ossuary (either in medieval
or modern times)."

How are the three choices Keall outlined here different from the ones we had prior to this discovery? Either it's authentically from the first century, it's reused, or it's a forgery. Weren't those the choices we had before? &gt;frown&lt;

Vorkosigan

Also, how did the geological assay done before Lemaire announced this to the world miss the red ochre and the circle?

Vorkosigan