Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jess · 11-04-2002, 01:53 PM

Quote:

There is no evidence that the Ossuary actually got broken.
Just a report.
No photos, no positive identification by other parties (BAR is not very reliable on this issue). I think its a ruse to evade close public scrutiny.

The box is supposed to be reinforced and put onto public display on schedule.

Phots were sent to the owner, who (last I heard) had given permission for the museum to fix the box.

Dark Jedi · 11-04-2002, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clarice O'C:


Hey there, Toto. I've read so many articles on the bone box that I can't remember where I read this but some scholar is saying that the later addition, "brother of Jesus" was not something that was written on ossuaries until much later than 63 CE--"Son of Joseph" was enough to clarify who was in the box. When they wrote, e.g., "James son of Joseph" instead of just "James," the "son of Joseph" was like a last name. If I find the link again, I'll post it here.

Cheerio,
Clarice

Hmm, "James bin Joseph"

Toto · 11-04-2002, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Jedi:


Hmm, "James bin Joseph"

more like "Yakob bar Yosef"

Vorkosigan · 11-05-2002, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad:


Vork? You reading this? Can you confirm?

godfry n. glad

Yes, the post was to Crosstalk. Search the archives, I think either Dave Hindley or John Lupia forwarded it.

Vorkosigan

David Bowden · 11-05-2002, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
There is no evidence that the Ossuary actually got broken.
Just a report.
No photos...

I wondered for a couple of days exactly what this alleged break/shattering looked like, and finally found this in Wired.com's Science Images Gallery:

CNN.com used this image of the pre-cracked inscription:

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: David Bowden ]

Ted Hoffman · 11-05-2002, 07:59 AM

David Bowden,
Thanks for the photos. The break (I wouldn't call it a crack) becomes a scratch as it curves upwards towards the left, don't you think?
Something definitely scratched it and it broke along the line of scratch - anyone agreeing with my observation?

Kosh · 11-05-2002, 08:01 AM

Can't tell for sure, but doest that crack cut off the "brother of Jesus" part? What are the odds of that? Surely, this is a sign from God telling us that the second part is a forgery!

simian · 11-05-2002, 08:38 AM

It is clearly JEEEE-SUS telling the world the correct way to pronounce his name. That is JEEEE-SUS. Not jesus.

Simian

godfry n. glad · 11-05-2002, 11:10 AM

Simian quoth:

Quote:

It is clearly JEEEE-SUS telling the world the correct way to pronounce his name. That is JEEEE-SUS. Not jesus.

Yew shur? Ah allways thot it wuz "ja-HEEEEE-zus" cuz thet's how my telebishun preechur-man sez it.

godfry n. glad

Didya ever stop to think that maybe this crack through the name "Yashua" on the inscription is God's way of telling us that it's a fake?

No? Me neither.

godfry

Apikorus · 11-05-2002, 11:23 AM

I've been staring at the inscription before going to bed. I'm beginning to think Altman might be right about the second half being in a different hand after all. The incisions are not nearly as clean, and all the poorly executed letters (the aleph and the daleth in particular) are from this half. The Het though looks very good and consistent with the precision achieved in the first half. Staring at the final ayin, it does look different than the ayin from yaaqob.

The yaaqob bar yosep is beautifully executed, with far better precision than the vast majority of inscriptions in the Rahmani catalog.

I'll be very interested to see how epigraphers weigh in on this issue after the dust has had time to settle. Altman tripped herself up a bit insisting on a rather strange reading of some of the letters (e.g. reading the daleth as an ayin), and on the excision business, but there is some merit to her basic point that the second half is in another hand.

What seems to be the case, but what I can't really tell from the photographs, is that the incisions in the second half (akhui d'yeshua) are not as deep as in the first half. Presumably this could be assessed by a more complete surface analysis. The IGS letter reproduced in BAR didn't say anything specific about the depth of the incisions.

Terrible news about the cracking. The owner has to be a frikkin' moron to ship it in bubble wrap alone.

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

11-05-2002, 07:59 AM	#36
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	David Bowden, Thanks for the photos. The break (I wouldn't call it a crack) becomes a scratch as it curves upwards towards the left, don't you think? Something definitely scratched it and it broke along the line of scratch - anyone agreeing with my observation?

11-05-2002, 08:01 AM	#37
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	Can't tell for sure, but doest that crack cut off the "brother of Jesus" part? What are the odds of that? Surely, this is a sign from God telling us that the second part is a forgery!

11-05-2002, 08:38 AM	#38
simian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 1,924	It is clearly JEEEE-SUS telling the world the correct way to pronounce his name. That is JEEEE-SUS. Not jesus. Simian

11-05-2002, 11:23 AM	#40
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	I've been staring at the inscription before going to bed. I'm beginning to think Altman might be right about the second half being in a different hand after all. The incisions are not nearly as clean, and all the poorly executed letters (the aleph and the daleth in particular) are from this half. The Het though looks very good and consistent with the precision achieved in the first half. Staring at the final ayin, it does look different than the ayin from yaaqob. The yaaqob bar yosep is beautifully executed, with far better precision than the vast majority of inscriptions in the Rahmani catalog. I'll be very interested to see how epigraphers weigh in on this issue after the dust has had time to settle. Altman tripped herself up a bit insisting on a rather strange reading of some of the letters (e.g. reading the daleth as an ayin), and on the excision business, but there is some merit to her basic point that the second half is in another hand. What seems to be the case, but what I can't really tell from the photographs, is that the incisions in the second half (akhui d'yeshua) are not as deep as in the first half. Presumably this could be assessed by a more complete surface analysis. The IGS letter reproduced in BAR didn't say anything specific about the depth of the incisions. Terrible news about the cracking. The owner has to be a frikkin' moron to ship it in bubble wrap alone.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.