Sauron

Evidently not. Here are the issues on the ossuary that are included in the URL I listed above. I leave it as an exercise to the audience whether these constitute real substantive issues, or are just an "off-topic taunt":


Sauron:
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:

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/science/social/03JAME.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/science/social/03JAME.html</a>

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:

<a href="http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/local/daily/1203jesus.html" target="_blank">http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/local/daily/1203jesus.html</a>

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:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000726&p=4" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000726&p=4</a>

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 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?

<a href="http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Ossuaries.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Ossuaries.htm</a>

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Vorkosigan

The information is already public with Holding's permission, on the State of Florida website, just as the information on me is already public, on the Chaoyang University website, and the website at another university where, although I don't work, they once claimed I did. The ethics of Taiwan universities are often slippery. An updated edition, with my picture and even more info, is going up soon at Chaoyang, I just sent the info out today. Well, better amend that "soon" to "someday" the wheels grind slowly around here.

Your specific question asked "How would you like it if...." and I responded with evidence showing that I don't mind. &lt;shrug&gt; Also, I haven't insulted you by terming you "daft." I don't think my replies to you have been uncivil.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Comparing all the facts and arguments, unless I learn something new about this matter, I'm of the opinion that this find is probably genuine. The odds seem stacked against forgery here.

I suspect Carrier wrote this before Altman and others weighed in, and the script experts placed the Ossuary in the Herodian period prior to 30 CE, and the consensus is emerging that there are two hands involved. I'd bet money Carrier will change his position soon -- as he sensibly intimated above. RC, you out there?

Vorkosigan

Evangelion

I personally don't believe that the ossuary proves anything, either way. It's a fascinating coincidence, and I think it's a genuine 1st Century relic, but I see no relevance to the argument for the existence of Christ.

Atheists - if Christ's existence could be proved, surely your views about God (and Christianity) would remain unchanged.

But when I read your posts I see a recurring motif, to the general tune of "Let's prove that it's a fraud", rather than "Yes, perhaps it's genuine, and wouldn't that be interesting, despite the fact that it proves nothing about the existence of Christ?"

This (along with the constant stream of "Jesus Christ didn't really exist" apologetics from atheist scholars) genuinely puzzles me.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Evangelion ]</p>

Clutch

I love seeing instances of one of my contributions to <a href="http://facts4god.faithweb.com/thelist.html" target="_blank">The Big List of Theist Arguments</a>.

emotional

Personally, I've always been an adherent of a historical Jesus (not that I know much about the issue - I'm a Jew, and the NT isn't part of my upbringing) who was just a popular cult leader executed for going too far. The discovery of a bonebox would not change my view a bit.

Christianities can be seen evolving in wildlife even today, as I described in an article I wrote for the Agora recently:

<a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=243" target="_blank">Habad - Genesis Of A New Christianity</a>

Vorkosigan

Atheists - if Christ's existence could be proved, surely your views about God (and Christianity) would remain unchanged.

Almost every atheist here believes that there is a human figure (or two) under the Jesus legends, but we remain atheists.

But when I read your posts I see a recurring motif, to the general tune of "Let's prove that it's a fraud", rather than "Yes, perhaps it's genuine, and wouldn't that be interesting, despite the fact that it proves nothing about the existence of Christ?"

Nobody "wanted" it to be a fraud. Some of us were of the opinion it would prove to be, others were less sure. But as you said, genuine or not, it proves nothing.

This (along with the constant stream of "Jesus Christ didn't really exist" apologetics from atheist scholars) genuinely puzzles me.

Hardly anybody believes this....the issue is whether and how much the gospel legends are fiction. How would you go about proving a certain person from antiquity never existed? The most you can do is show that the stories about him or her are fiction.

Vorkosigan

Evangelion

Clutch -

I'm sure you do. But in this case, you've resorted to a straw man. (Please, if you're going to post a response, keep it relevant.)

And for goodness' sake, go back and read what I wrote.

Evangelion

devnet -

Well, that's a refreshing change from the all-too-common atheist mantra. How nice.

Exactly my point. It wouldn't change your view because it offers no valid reason for changing your view. (Please take notice, Clutch...)

That's precisely why I discount the relevance of the ossuary as "evidence for Christianity."

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Evangelion ]</p>

Evangelion

Vorkosigan -

Thanks for the information. I guess I haven't seen much evidence for this proportion, but I haven't been here very long, and you're obviously an old-timer, so I'll happily take your word for it.

Of course you do. That's because the mere existence of Jesus, proves nothing about the validity of the stories surrounding him.

Which makes me wonder why so many atheists are so passionate in their efforts to denial the historical Jesus. It's almost as if this poses some sort of threat to them.

I've seen a few people tending in this direction. YMMV.

Agreed.

Well, perhaps the "Jesus didn't exist" people are simply more vocal than the others. Extremists do tend to be the most vocal of any group, I guess. (Just thinking of Zindler here... especially during his debate with Craig.)

Agreed.

Well, that would depend on (a) the person in question, and (b) the type of evidence in favour of his existence.

...or that the historical references (i.e. contemporary, secular references) are (a) interpolated, or (b) misguided. (Hence Josephus.)

Thanks for your fair-minded response. I really appreciate it.