Layman

No, I'm not.

But they did not say "anywhere in the region." BAR reports "in the Jerusalem area."

Are you saying by "in the Jersualem area" that they would mean "anywhere in the region." And which region? All of Palestine?

Amen-Moses

Let me use another analogy, almost all the houses in the UK made of red-brick have the same source for the brick. The deposit from which these bricks come is called the "Oxford Clay" because the layer was first established in Oxford (there is a different much thinner layer called "London Clay"). The extent of this layer is approximately 300 square miles and a few hundred feet deep at the deepest point (much has been eroded away).

If you give a geologist a housebrick from Edinburgh he could grind it down and would be able to tell you with utmost confidence that this is "Oxford Clay" but there is no way he can tell you whether it was dug up in Swindon or Cambridge! The best you'd get is "Oxford area".

(don't any of you other geology buffs come leaping on my back with corrections as I'm at work and my survey maps are at home so I could have got a few details wrong!)

Amen-Moses

Layman

Let me make my position clear, since you all seem to think I'm convinced this is James, the New Testament brother of Jesus' ossuary.

I am tenatively confident based on the evidence to date that:

1. This ossuary is from the middle-first century.
2. This ossuary is from the Jerusalem area.
3. The inscription on the ossuary is not a fraud and is the original inscription.

If more analysis or evidence tends to bring any of these points into contention, I would of course consider it and change my opinion. Since I think the Jesus-Myth idea is a silly one based on the existing evidence, I certainly do not think this "find" is needed to silence them. And since I've already seen JMers jump to the conclusion that this find is a "fake" or "fraud," I doubt very seriously that this would change their minds even if it holds up.

I am less sure, but intrigued by the "statistical evidence." If it is true that the odds can be limited to 1 in 20, and that the reference to a brother is unusual, I think we have a good case for this being a reference to New Testament figures. However, I really do not know if that "statistical evidence" is on solid footing. I want to see how it was determined before reaching even an tenative conclusion on the issue.

Sauron

I'm talking about ruling out such a possibility.

It is more than enough to be cautious about accepting him at face value. Furthermore, as the NYT article indicated:

How the ossuary was discovered is part of the problem, scholars said. It somehow fell into the hands of looters, who then turned a profit selling it on the antiquities market. Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, said the ossuary was now owned by an unidentified collector in Jerusalem.

Because the ossuary did not come from a controlled excavation, where archaeologists plot every detail and possible clue to a discovery's context, scholars said they despaired of ever knowing the inscription's meaning beyond doubt.

"This could be something genuinely important, but we can never know for certain," said Dr. P. Kyle McCarter Jr., a professor of biblical and Near Eastern studies at Johns Hopkins University. "Not knowing the context of where the ossuary was found compromises anything we might say, and so doubts are going to persist."


And the end result of such uncertainty is that no reputable scholar takes the position that they are proof.
[i]"Not knowing the context of where the ossuary was found compromises anything we might say, and so doubts are going to persist."[i/]

However, the evidence for being from Jerusalem is 15 year old hearsay from an individual who might very well have motive to lie. And we know the artifact was looted, and sold on the black market - is it really your contention that black market items carry a certificate of authenticity?

As Apikorus said: an extremely thin reed for you to be leaning on.

*sigh* And it's a strawman to claim that I 'concluded' anything, Layman. I merely raised the distinct possibility, and reminded you of the need to remove that doubt before accepting his testimony as authentic.

Because thieves lie??? Shit, Layman, are you really that stupid?


And the BAR article had precious little to say about their GSI claim. Having watched media articles distort the work of actual scientists in the field, I am not going to take the BAR article's statement at face value. Unlike you.

BAR is the most knolwedgeable? Then why did the NYT provide more detail?

I don't accept that the BAR article is, by default, the more knowledgeable here. And since the chief piece of evidence appears to be paleography, not geology, and the discoverer is an expert in that field, I am not prepared to accept Lemaire's summary of the GSI work.


As I indicated: the NYT article seems to clarify exactly what tests the GSI did: "An investigation by the Geological Survey of Israel found no evidence of modern pigments, scratches by modern cutting tools or other signs of tampering." I'm betting that this more technical analysis is the source of the BAR article. But, as usual, it has gotten watered down and redacted during the publication process, and the end result is the statement that you have in the BAR article.



Many of them have said that they can state nothing with certainty about its origin. I quoted such scholars in this post, and other posts.

As I said: your face-value acceptance is naive and driven by bias.

Nonsense. The "evidence" for its Jerusalem location is confined to 15 year old hearsay evidence, from a looter involved in black market antiquities. The experts in the field have indicated that any attempt to definitively nail down its origin would be speculative at best, and (at this stage) your affirmative case is non-existent.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Apikorus

Layman, I'm not sure how to take the preliminary BAR report of the Israel Geological Survey's conclusions regarding the "Jerusalem area" origin of the limestone. I'm not much on geology but having lived in Israel I do know that the soft kaakule or nari limestone is found in several parts of the country. The "Jerusalem area" could sensibly include Jericho. Perhaps the IGS analysts were simply verifying that the stone came from Israel, obviating any concern that it was a fraud manufactured in Arizona. I'll be interested to learn more details when they are made available.

However, even if it could be unambiguously demonstrated that the stone came from a Jerusalem quarry, and that the ossuary was carved in Jerusalem, that still would not really provide any solid evidence that the tomb from which it came was in Jerusalem. As Rahmani writes,

"Prior to Jerusalem's destruction in 70 CE, ossuaries were made by local artisans utilizing skills acquired in dressing building stones and tomb facades and by artisans proficient in shaping and ornamenting stone vessels and receptacles. Until this date, ossuaries from Jerusalem were also used by Jews living within a radius of 20-25 kms from that city, including Jericho."

So any geological evidence adduced is pretty much useless in helping us determine where the ossuary originated. It could easily have come from Jericho, for example. The only evidence we have which ties the ossuary to a Jerusalem tomb is the alleged word, some 15 years ago, of an unnamed Arab dealer to a secretive and somewhat strange collector, as told by Hershel Shanks. That is all laughably flimsy.

If I were to guess, I'd guess it did come from a Jerusalem tomb. I suspect there will be much uncertainty and guesswork involved in assessing the significance of a potentially important find such as this, given that it is of rather uncertain provenance.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Sauron

We were discussing the entire topic, Layman - not just the statistical probability of names. Discussions tend to weave and meander, regardless of what the original seed post for the thread might have been focused on.

No, I'm not taking any affirmative position. I am pointing out the unfinished items you need to satisfy, before your affirmative claim will be solid - if indeed, ever. That is not an argument for an affirmative position; how bizarre.

No, I am pointing out that you have not dispelled that possibility, and until you do, the affirmative case will remain unproven.

Yes, but your affirmative evidence is confined to 15 year old hearsay from a looter involved in black market antiquities. Given the low quality and reliability of that evidence, your affirmative case remains unproven.

And no - I have not forgotten about the GSI report - however, as I posted earlier, it's my bet that BAR and NYT are discussing the same tests, but that BAR has oversimplified them.


Fortunately for me, my objections are not impaired thusly. I'm not proposing any conspiracy/fraud theory, nor are my concerns addressed by any 'evidence' you've presented so far.

No. It is not. The fact that TVs come from Costco doesn't prove that my own TV actually came from Costco.

Which gives him motive to state that it came from Jerusalem, even if it came from some other area.

And if the individual knew the significance of the names on the side of the box, then it would be better for the box to come from Jerusalem than from Ashkelon (for example) - because the legends about James are centered on Jerusalem.

No, it doesn't. To lend credence to the particular claim for that particular ossuary, one would need particular evidence associated with that box. But since the article wasn't found in situ, and was passed around on the black market for years, we don't know anything for sure.

"Not knowing the context of where the ossuary was found compromises anything we might say, and so doubts are going to persist."

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Layman

[

Ruling out "possibilities" is a tricky thing. Almost impossible. Perhaps we should speak of supported possibilities. And right now I don't think that there is any support for the fraud possibility.

First, please try to refrain from insulting my intelligence and using profanity.

Second, you have an incomplete understanding of McCarter. He does seem to have ruled out fraud.

So far all you have come up with to doubt the report of where this was found is spectular speculation: like an Arab making $200 a year created a fraud that convinced the Geological Survey of Israel and leading inscription experts, including the one you are claiming supports your suspicion this is a fraud.

If you are going to believe any of these reports, it should be the BAR ones. You've taken the NYT's at face value AND claimed that because they did not mention something specifically that it DID not happen. Which is less reasonable than concluding that the SOURCE of all these stories probably got it right.

You are kidding. Right? BAR is the source for all these stories. They broke the story. The scholar who discovered it is publishing his article in BAR. It's already written and on its way to the presses. I cited from a summary of the article.

Perhaps you should ask them what they believe is most likely?

And the Geological Survey of Israel's determination that the ossuary was made of stone from the Jerusalem Area.

Saying that the "origins" are in doubt does not mean that it did not come from Jerusalem.

Layman

I'll be interested to learn more details when they are made available to.

But its much to earlier and there is no evidence to claim or suspect that the stastitical analysis is flawed. Is it possible? Yes, as I've said many times. I'm most supsicious of the stastical evidence.

But when the only theories that support the idea that the ossuary came from elsewhere are the fraud/hoax ones, then I think those are unsupported by any evidence.

That's an interesting point. But it does not give the source of the report a reason to lie about where it was found.

How many limestone ossuaries have been recovered fron Jericho?

Layman

Well, you are trying to make that the topic. I made all my assertions on this issue in response to the claim that the Jerusalem population was too narrow of a sample-size.

You are affirming the possibility that this find is a fraud. You are affiriming the possibility that this did not come from the Jerusalem area. And, in fact, you seem to be saying more than that. You are claiming that these are reasonable options. Like I said before. Anything is possible. But before it affects the analysis you should establish it as a reasonable possibility.

So you are making your claims. Again and again and again.

It's possible BAR did. But since BAR is the publication responsible for the story, I'm inclined to accept their statement at face value. When I read the article I may have to revise that assessment.

DO you really think that the NYT called up the Geological Survey of Israel and asked them what studies they did? Or do you think they talked to BAR and the author of the BAR piece?

Unless you can establish a reasonable possibility that it is a fraud, then you really have no basis to assert that it is a "hole" in the analysis.

Are you asserting this is an accurate analogy? That the "options" for finding grave sites with ossuaries in Israel is comparable to the "options" for finding a television set in the United States?

No, some ossuaries have been found in other area. And you seem to miss some of the data here. He does not just claim it came from the "Jerusalem area" he names a specific place near the Mount of Olives.

You are back to asserting something that has no foundation.

That last statement is grossly overbroad. And the author of your quote is convinced that this find is legitimate. As I quoted above.

[/QUOTE]

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Apikorus

If by the "source" you mean the shadowy Arab dealer from 15 years ago, we don't even know that such a person exists, let alone that he was unswervingly accurate in what he told the collector.

People have all sorts of reasons for telling falsehoods, Layman. It might be that the dealer was confused, that the collector asked him where the item came from and he didn't really know so he just made up a plausible story, that he thought something from Jerusalem was more valuable (maybe the collector was looking specifically for such an item), etc. I could think of dozens and dozens of plausible reasons. It would not be the first instance in recorded history in which a seller of rare objects had lied about some detail.

Of course I am not suggesting that anyone quoted thus far has lied. But if the only piece of evidence which ties this ossuary to a Jerusalem tomb is the alleged word of this nameless Arab dealer to this seemingly eccentric collector, as related by Shanks, then that really doesn't count for much in anyone's book. It has essentially zero probative value.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>