Clutch

CX,

You seem to confuse "from the get-go" for "without evidence". I think Vork's point was (kinda obviously) that fraudulence was a conclusion that was rationally warranted from the get-go.

If someone tells me that a holy man in Manila can perform invasive surgery with only his fingers, and leave no scars, I will conclude "from the get-go" that this story is fraudulent at some point or other in the chain leading from the putative holy man to the person who tells me. Is this somehow an abandonment of critical thinking on my part? Of course not; it is a probability judgement based on massive evidence about (inter alia) the nature of human bodies and the ways of human deception.

Mutatis mutandis, then...

Vorkosigan

David Bowden:

I was wondering about the same issue as you (the uncle or brother), so I posted a question to XTALK about it, and Rochelle Altman reposted an answer:

(someone else asking the same question)
>Also, I've thought that the inscription could
>either be saying that James was Jesus' brother or Joseph was
>Jesus' brother. Is one or the other clear for you?

Brother of Jacob bar joseph. If brother of Joseph had been meant,
it would say Yeshua uncle of Jacob bar joseph.

________________
Hope this helps,

Vorkosigan

CX

Heh. Somehow I don't think you really mean that.

I wasn't so much taking you to task as pointing out that drawing a conclusion based on insufficient evidence is not vinidicated simply because that conclusion happens to be correct. I freely admit that I am not in a position to judge the ossuarys authenticitity. I've only seen photos, there isn't yet much peer reviewed literature yet and I'm not familiar with epigraphy nor with semitic languages.

CX

Well Vork said, <i>It will be delicious, period, after all the abuse for "jumping the gun" and "irrationality" and "creationism" for concluding from the get-go that it was a forgery.</i>

I see no other way to interpret that other than that a conclusion was drawn from the very beginning. The implication is that the evidence such as it is has not been carefully weighed. Secondly no conclusion is <i>rationally warranted</i> under such circumstances. Rather forgery should be <i>rationally considered</i> as a possibility. No rational conclusion can be made solely on the basis of, "<i>experience, knowledge, context or understanding of history, the NT texts, human nature and behavior, or Christianity played any role in the formation of my opinion.</i>"

The fact is, initially there was insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion, only to formulate an hypothesis and see if that hypothesis is borne out by the evidence.

In any event, my point was not related to any of those issues, but rather that a premature judgement or conclusion is not mitigated by eventually being proven true. That is simply not an effective way to approach historical studies.

Hex

While this is true, one also has to recognize that within science and historical studies, there are very few true empericists. Almost everyone has an agenda, and when an opertunity like this ossuary comes up, they want to claim it for 'their' side. The Xians want it to be real so they have 'proof' for their faith. Athiests want it to be a hoax so they have another item to flaunt in the faces of Xians.

That said, I'm still waiting on evidence. I have a gut feeling that it's a hoax, albeit one of antiquity, especially after the 'crack that happened in transit' just happened to go through the script that gives the whole thing its 'importance'.

And for those who are clinging to the idea that 'if it were a hoax of antiquity, why didn't they use it then?' ask yourself how many times people have buried money or some other item then, for one reason or another, haven't been able to go back and retreive it? Maybe someone set this up, like a religious 'Piltdown Man', buried it, then couldn't go back with a throng of observers to unearth it.

Right no there's no way to be sure.

Bede

First, this box, even if 100% genuine, does not prove anyone's faith or indeed prove anything that historians are not very confident about already.

Second, if it is a hoax/fraud then that proves that the "brother of Jesus" is significant as it was added to try and produce a relic of James the Just. But I had already been convinced that the "brother of Jesus" told us no more than a James had a brother called Jesus - not a desperately unlikely contingency in 1st century Jerusalem.

It seems we cannot have it both ways. If a "brother of Jesus" inscription is significant enough for someone to try and fake it, surely it remains significant even if it turns out to be real.

Yours

Bede

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

Toto

But was it significant because the 4th century chruch was busy inventing evidence for a historical Jesus who never existed? That's the real question.

Jayhawker Soule

That's silly.

That seems illogical to me. Why "especially"? I would think that, to the extent that the recent damage is deemed suspicious, it would, if anything. suggest a modern hoax rather than "one of antiquity".

Vesica

I doubt the veracity of the this story only because I can only find it on religious-interest websites and no mention of this debate on any major news wires....

Please correct me if I am wrong here (and provide links)

CX

You are wrong. Actually this box made it briefly to the national news, but as soon as academics start talking about biovermiculation and epigraphy, Joe Sixpack changes the channel to WWE Smackdown.

It seems reasonable to conclude that it is in fact a 1st century bone box that contained the remains of James, Son of Joseph. The "brother of Jesus" part is still very controversial. If it is a hoax it's a pretty old one. We talked about a lengthy article in BAR on this topic a while back.