Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 10-21-2002, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:


I'm not commenting on the strength or validity of the physical artifact.

I'm explaining Toto's reasoning - that it isn't based on the artifact either, but on the fact that this one man mysteriously manages to discover two such pieces of evidence. This was a point that you did not seem to understand.

Put it another way - if this ossuary had been discovered by someone other than Lemaire, then Toto would withdraw his objection.

And I responded to this point. Unless Andre L. has been accused of forgery, what is the point of the objection?

And how about that Toto. Would you withdraw your objection?

Layman · 10-21-2002, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:


No, he does not. Yet. Which is why the article plainly says:

If authentic, "it's high on the list � probably No. 1" of the most important Jesus related artifacts, says John Dominic Crossan, cauthor of "Excavating Jesus." It is "the closest we come archeologically to Jesus."

One small word: "if". Makes all the difference in the world.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

It would if that was the statement I was relying on. But it was not.

Quote:

Experts already disagree about the authenticity. Crossan figures it's most likely credible.

<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1022/p01s04-usgn.html" target="_blank">http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1022/p01s04-usgn.html</a>

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

Layman · 10-21-2002, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby:
Layman writes: His conclusions so far have been confirmed by other scholars. Heck, even Crossan accepts this as genuine.

Has Crossan examined the object?

best,
Peter Kirby

I do not know how much Crossan has seen. I just noticed he had made some comments in the Christian Science Monitor article.

Geepers. I guess Bible Scholars can keep a secret. Sounds like they've been talking amongst themselves for quite a while about this one.

Radorth · 10-21-2002, 04:07 PM

Interesting logic Toto. In the case of the Bible, finding evidence disproves it. Of course if you every managed to locate a 2nd century fragment with three sentences denying the historicity of Christ, you'd be calling it absolute proof of Doherty's theory.

Rad

Peter Kirby · 10-21-2002, 04:10 PM

Copyright 1996 Associated Press AP Online

April 02, 1996; Tuesday 21:30 Eastern Time

SECTION: International news

LENGTH: 667 words

HEADLINE: 'Jesus' Casket Found In Israel AP-Jesus-Tomb

DATELINE: JERUSALEM

BODY: Deep in the warehouse of the Israel Antiquities Authority, on a dusty crowded shelf, is a box that is empty except for a great question that it holds.

The limestone box, catalogue No. 80.503, once contained human bones and is engraved in barely legible Hebrew: ''Jesus, son of Joseph.'' Officials allowed reporters to see it Tuesday, after researchers for the BBC stumbled on the ossuaries last month and speculated they may have been the caskets of Jesus Christ and his family.

The 2- by 1-foot box, called an ossuary, was found along with nine others including two bearing the names Mary and Joseph by Israeli archaeologists in a Jewish burial chamber in Jerusalem in 1980 and then packed away in the warehouse with hundreds of other caskets. The bones that were in the caskets were reburied.

The find ''will electrify the centuries-old debate: did Jesus' body really rise from the dead on Easter morning?'' BBC reporter Joan Bakewell wrote in The Sunday Times of London.

But Israeli archaeologists and Bible scholars said Tuesday that Christians have no reason to worry that one of the pillars of their faith Jesus' resurrection is about to crumble.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph were among the most common Jewish names in biblical times and that their appearance together in one place had little significance, they said.

Biblical scholar Father Jerome Murphy O'Connor of Jerusalem's Ecole Biblique said there was no way to prove that the ossuary had contained the bones of Christ.

But, he said, if such proof could be made, ''the consequences for the faith would be disastrous.''

The burial chamber was discovered in March 1980 during a salvage dig in the Armon Hanatziv area in southern Jerusalem before construction of a new neighborhood there.

Archaeologists found 10 ossuaries, bones included, in the underground central chamber and six niches, said archaeologist Zvi Greenhut of the Antiquities Authority.

Greenhut said the combination of the names Jesus, Mary and Joseph on the ossuaries did not prompt archaeologists at the time to probe further. ''The names are common names. There is nothing unique in the appearance of all names together,'' Greenhut said.

He said that among the about 1,000 ossuaries from biblical times unearthed in Jerusalem, six carry the inscription ''Yeshua,'' or Jesus. Of those, two are engraved with the words ''Jesus, son of Joseph.''

He said about 25 percent of the women's caskets bore some form of the name Mary and that Joseph was the second most common man's name of the period.

The BBC will screen its story on the ossuaries as part of its ''Heart of the Matter'' religious series on Easter Sunday.

Ray Bruce, director of the independent television company CCTV that produced the program, said a check of a catalogue of ossuaries found that the names appeared only once in that combination.

Sauron · 10-21-2002, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
It would if that was the statement I was relying on. But it was not.

Experts already disagree about the authenticity. Crossan figures it's most likely credible.

<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1022/p01s04-usgn.html" target="_blank">http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1022/p01s04-usgn.html</a>

I would still say that this phrasing, "most likely", is tentative.

Experts already disagree about the authenticity. Crossan figures it's most likely credible. But Robert Eisenman, author of "James the Brother of Jesus" worries the inscription is too good to be true. "It's too pat," he says. "Why add 'Jesus' to the inscription? It's like someone wanted us to be sure."

Saying "even Crossan accepts it" commits Crossan to supporting its authenticity right away - at this early stage - which the article doesn't indicate, and given Crossan's background, I doubt that even Crossan would do, before even seeing the article first-hand.

Radorth · 10-21-2002, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Why do all the news reporters neglect to mention the fantastic and authentic Latin inscription that was also found on the box?

DOHERTUS ERRAT.

LOL Kirby! I didn't realize such genteel folks as yourself could be so funny. My. I may even start reading your posts all the way through.

Rad

Layman · 10-21-2002, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:


I would still say that this phrasing, "most likely", is tentative.

Experts already disagree about the authenticity. Crossan figures it's most likely credible. But Robert Eisenman, author of "James the Brother of Jesus" worries the inscription is too good to be true. "It's too pat," he says. "Why add 'Jesus' to the inscription? It's like someone wanted us to be sure."

Saying "even Crossan accepts it" commits Crossan to supporting its authenticity right away - at this early stage - which the article doesn't indicate, and given Crossan's background, I doubt that even Crossan would do, before even seeing the article first-hand.

I'd say that "most likely credible" means Crossan thinks its "most likely credible."

And I'd be interested to know just what Crossan has seen or head prior to today. Witherington and Crossan were quick to comment, so its very possible that they had read the article or seen some form of discussion prior to today.

Sauron · 10-21-2002, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:

And I responded to this point. Unless Andre L. has been accused of forgery, what is the point of the objection?

Your objection is baseless. It is quite proper to question the timing and coincidence. Indeed, Eismann does the same thing:

But Robert Eisenman, author of "James the Brother of Jesus" worries the inscription is too good to be true. "It's too pat," he says. "Why add 'Jesus' to the inscription? It's like someone wanted us to be sure."

If Eisenmann considers cautious skepticism to be a scholarly virtue when examining things that appear too good to be true, who are you to say otherwise? Considering Eisenmann's pedigree vs. your own, I mean?

Layman · 10-21-2002, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:


Your objection is baseless. It is quite proper to question the timing and coincidence. Indeed, Eismann does the same thing:

But Robert Eisenman, author of "James the Brother of Jesus" worries the inscription is too good to be true. "It's too pat," he says. "Why add 'Jesus' to the inscription? It's like someone wanted us to be sure."

If Eisenmann considers cautious skepticism to be a scholarly virtue when examining things that appear too good to be true, who are you to say otherwise? Considering Eisenmann's pedigree vs. your own, I mean?

Please show me where Eisenman suggest "cautious skepticism" and I'll respond to your questions.

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

10-21-2002, 04:07 PM	#44
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Interesting logic Toto. In the case of the Bible, finding evidence disproves it. Of course if you every managed to locate a 2nd century fragment with three sentences denying the historicity of Christ, you'd be calling it absolute proof of Doherty's theory. Rad

10-21-2002, 04:10 PM	#45
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Copyright 1996 Associated Press AP Online April 02, 1996; Tuesday 21:30 Eastern Time SECTION: International news LENGTH: 667 words HEADLINE: 'Jesus' Casket Found In Israel AP-Jesus-Tomb DATELINE: JERUSALEM BODY: Deep in the warehouse of the Israel Antiquities Authority, on a dusty crowded shelf, is a box that is empty except for a great question that it holds. The limestone box, catalogue No. 80.503, once contained human bones and is engraved in barely legible Hebrew: ''Jesus, son of Joseph.'' Officials allowed reporters to see it Tuesday, after researchers for the BBC stumbled on the ossuaries last month and speculated they may have been the caskets of Jesus Christ and his family. The 2- by 1-foot box, called an ossuary, was found along with nine others including two bearing the names Mary and Joseph by Israeli archaeologists in a Jewish burial chamber in Jerusalem in 1980 and then packed away in the warehouse with hundreds of other caskets. The bones that were in the caskets were reburied. The find ''will electrify the centuries-old debate: did Jesus' body really rise from the dead on Easter morning?'' BBC reporter Joan Bakewell wrote in The Sunday Times of London. But Israeli archaeologists and Bible scholars said Tuesday that Christians have no reason to worry that one of the pillars of their faith Jesus' resurrection is about to crumble. Jesus, Mary and Joseph were among the most common Jewish names in biblical times and that their appearance together in one place had little significance, they said. Biblical scholar Father Jerome Murphy O'Connor of Jerusalem's Ecole Biblique said there was no way to prove that the ossuary had contained the bones of Christ. But, he said, if such proof could be made, ''the consequences for the faith would be disastrous.'' The burial chamber was discovered in March 1980 during a salvage dig in the Armon Hanatziv area in southern Jerusalem before construction of a new neighborhood there. Archaeologists found 10 ossuaries, bones included, in the underground central chamber and six niches, said archaeologist Zvi Greenhut of the Antiquities Authority. Greenhut said the combination of the names Jesus, Mary and Joseph on the ossuaries did not prompt archaeologists at the time to probe further. ''The names are common names. There is nothing unique in the appearance of all names together,'' Greenhut said. He said that among the about 1,000 ossuaries from biblical times unearthed in Jerusalem, six carry the inscription ''Yeshua,'' or Jesus. Of those, two are engraved with the words ''Jesus, son of Joseph.'' He said about 25 percent of the women's caskets bore some form of the name Mary and that Joseph was the second most common man's name of the period. The BBC will screen its story on the ossuaries as part of its ''Heart of the Matter'' religious series on Easter Sunday. Ray Bruce, director of the independent television company CCTV that produced the program, said a check of a catalogue of ossuaries found that the names appeared only once in that combination.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.