Sauron

Discussion started between myself and Layman, prior to the move to the new BBS system. Layman indicated that he was skeptical of the use of the aerospace engineer's technique to derive useful information about the ossuary, and that such usage was inappropriate for archaeology.

In addition, Layman indicated that he was leaning his geological arguments upon the statement from the Israeli Geological Society. However, in a follow-up statement, the IGS clarifies their earlier statements.


Layman
The only recent development I see referenced here is the "study" by an aircraft engineer who does some archeological work, but in the field of metallurgy.

Sauron:
Your sarcasm is noted. However, the aircraft engineer does not pose as a professional archaeologist, and it's clear from the articles that he's approaching this from a standpoint of physical sciences. Noting the timing and placement of scratches is a perfectly valid way to evaluate a historical claim, since such artifacts are still subject to physical laws:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/sc...al/03JAME.html

Dr. Daniel Eylon, an Israeli engineering professor at the University of Dayton in Ohio, approached the problem from his experience in failure analysis investigations for the aerospace industry. Applying a technique used in determining if a malfunction of an airplane part occurred before or after an accident, he examined photographs of the inscription for scratches caused by moving the box against other boxes in the cave or in the final excavation.

"The inscription would be underneath these scratches if it had been on the box at the time of burial, but the majority of this inscription is on top of the scratches," Dr. Eylon said. "And the sharpness of some of the letters doesn't look right — sharp edges do not last 2,000 years."

And again:

http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/loca...1203jesus.html

Eylon's interest in the matter is far afield from his primary expertise of failure analysis (such as metal fatigue in airplanes). But he also does scholarly archeological work in Israel, his homeland. He analyzes metallurgical technology (whether iron artifacts were forged or cast).

Eylon is the only scholar who has contested the ossuary's authenticity from a physical science perspective.

But many others have noted the inscription's two styles. The first part, about James, son of Joseph, seemed to be written in a formal script, while the second, about Jesus, is in a more free-flowing cursive style.

''The fact that the cursive and the formal types of letters appear in the two parts of the inscription suggests to me at least the possibility of a second hand,'' said P. Kyle McCarter Jr., a specialist in Middle East languages at Johns Hopkins University.


Layman:
At this point, I'm much more willing to side with the Isreali Geological Survey.

Sauron:
Which hasn't told us anything definite about where the ossuary was quarried. They assumed Jerusalem, but have also not ruled anything else out:

http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.c...1&t=000726&p=4

Dear Dr Welling,

Duba passed to me your request. I and my colleague Dr Amnon Rosenfeld studied the rock type and the patina the THE ossuary. The rock type is Senonian chalk of the Menuha Formation. In the eastern parts of Jerusalem, such as Mount Scopus and Siluan area, the country rocks belong to this formation. There are several ancient quarries and workshops within this lithology, such as sites in Hizma, Anata and the eastern slopes of Mount Scopus. See Magen 1984, 1988, 1994, 2002 where he describe the excavations of these sites in which stone ware industry existed during the Second Temple period.

To your specific question, we cannot say for sure that the ossuary was produced in the Jerusalem area, because this Senonian chalk is exposed in many places in Israel and the vicinity. To the present knowledge, there are no specific characteristic signs of that chalk to specific site. Yet, the evidence of the quarries and the workshops of that ancient time in the vicinity of Jerusalem, using this chalk, is what we can say at present.

Dr Shimon Ilani
The Geological Survey of Israel.


Secondly, the IGS obviously cannot ascertain where it was used in a burial. The location where the ossuary was quarried is not necessarily the same location where it was used in a burial. The possibility is still that it could be from another town, such as Jericho.

So I am not sure what you are gaining, by relying on the IGS here. Their assumption is just that: an assumption.

No comments about this one, BTW?

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Ossuaries.htm

Sauron

Bumping this thread.

Layman doesn't want to mix topics inside the same thread, so I thought I would bring this to the top, in order to make it easier for him to find.

Layman

I'm a little unclear on your point. So please clarify it for me.

If you are saying that the new letter from the Geological Society clarifies that they have not expressed an opinion on the location of the Ossuary's burial, then I agree.

But you confuse me with the reference to the aircraft engineer. When I said I would rely on the IGS instead of him, I was referring to their study of the Patina and conclusion that it was consistent with the 2000 year old age of the box.

I did not think the aircraft engineer had expressed any opinion on whether the Ossuary came from Jerusalem or elswhere.

Sauron

1. You claimed that the IGS had definitively localized the quarry source to Jerusalem.

2. You used their initial, limited statement (quoted in BAR) as the basis for your belief. You did this, in spite of the fact that you were pointed to numerous websites that showed the particular kind of limestone chalk to be widespread through the Judean hillside area. And you did this, in spite of the fact that at least one professionally trained geologist warned you that such a precise localization was almost impossible to make with any type of rock.

3. The IGS's limited statement appears to not support your point, in light of their recent clarification (printed above).

No, I am saying that the new statement from the IGS does not definitively localize the quarry to Jerusalem. They assume so, but they cannot make a definitive claim. Indeed, they admit as much:

To your specific question, we cannot say for sure that the ossuary was produced in the Jerusalem area, because this Senonian chalk is exposed in many places in Israel and the vicinity. To the present knowledge, there are no specific characteristic signs of that chalk to specific site. Yet, the evidence of the quarries and the workshops of that ancient time in the vicinity of Jerusalem, using this chalk, is what we can say at present.

The question of where it was used in burial is another matter. It must be settled before the ossuary can be deemed authentic, of course. But for the moment, the IGS comment is focused on the quarry location, not on the place of the burial ceremony.

Sauron

The aircraft engineer is a separate matter (physical characteristics of the box) that needs separate clarification (i.e., given no a priori reason to reject his research, how do you justify your position of initial skepticism?)

To keep things neat and tidy, I can start a new thread, if you like.

Layman

I still have no idea why you thought the issue of the aircraft engineer and the IGS were related. I have admitted that the IGS's clarification makes it clear that they do not purport to affirm that the Ossuary was constructed in Jerusalem. You intertwined the two issues though and now seem to say they are separate ones. That was and is confusing. If you want to split them up then go ahead. It would make some sense that way.

Sauron

It was not my intent to say that the IGS and Eylon were linked in any way; I merely included all the "unfinished business" from the ossuary discussions in a single thread.

Have you? Not to my knowledge. Your recent post did not mention "constructed".

If you are saying that the new letter from the Geological Society clarifies that they have not expressed an opinion on the location of the Ossuary's burial, then I agree.

You were discussing the location of the burial here, not the location where it was quarried. I did not realize that you now believe the IGS clarification negates any claim for Jerusalem as the definitive quarry site. Is this a revision to your position? If so, then I'll drop my point.

I have started a new thread to address the aircraft engineer.

Layman

If that is the story, okay. Whatever.

How many times do I have to say the same thing? Of course the IGS letter clarifies that they did not mean to state that they concluded that the Ossuary necessarily came from Jerusalem.

I grow weary of jumping from thread to thread and through hoop to hoop for you.

I suspect you will do so again with some other issue.

Sauron

That is precisely the story. The items in the post were all issues surrounding the ossuary. It's also why I included this comment at the bottom, as yet another piece of unfinished business from the ossuary discussion:

No comments about this one, BTW?

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Ossuaries.htm



It is NOT the same thing.

You admitted that the IGS did not have a position on where the ossuary was buried.

That is NOT the same as saying that the IGS wasn't definite on where the ossuary was quarried.

Do you understand that burial and quarrying are two different processes? That don't necessarily have to be in the same place?


Perhaps if you were more careful with terms like "burial" and "quarried", you wouldn't get so tired.

Layman

Yes, I realize that is your story. But you sure seemed intent on cramming together the issues in one post with one distinctive title for some reason. And it certainly was not for the sake of clarity.

Not at this time no.

Actually, since the only geological reason to think it was buried in Jerusalem was because it was quarried there as well, then yeah, its the same issue to me. Why would it not be?

Perhaps if you quit distorting my terms while claiming to have "exhaustively" reviewed my posts on the issue, and quit hounding me in other threads completely unrelated to the ossuary, or quit playing semantic game after semantic game, you could make life easier on both of us? Of cousre, I doubt that is your purpose at all.