Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-30-2002, 07:51 AM

Rad - I don't think there is any contradiction in the two statements you listed.

Eisenman said that James the Just was not referred to as James the Brother of Jesus in the first century. So if this ossuary did date to 63, and if it is authentic, there were plenty of other James-Joseph-Jesus combinations it might refer to.

Layman · 10-30-2002, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
Layman et al,
Apikorus is also using a photograph. Its really pathetic to choose to beleive his assesments over Altmans - why do you do that?
Do you think Apikorus is better qualified than Altman?....

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

Probably he is not. But he is relying on an actual picture which by all acounts I have heard is excellent. Altman was likely relying on an inaccurate sketch of the ossuary for his judgment. Reasonably, therefore, I concluded that Apik. had a better source for his comparison. Of course, what really impresses me is that so many respected scholars, like Lemaire and McCardy and Fitzmyer have passed their judgment and found it utterly convincing. And they have studied the original.

Radorth · 10-30-2002, 08:01 AM

If both statements could be true, then we must conclude that "brother of Jesus" had no special meaning even though it was extremely unusual if not unique. That would be the biggest stretch proposed on the thread IMO.

Rad

Ted Hoffman · 10-30-2002, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
Layman, I apologize unreservedly for my hypocritical and insulting behavior on this thread. I am very sorry.

Vorkosigan

Layman has insulted me but never apologised. I know he insulted Toto too (Kirby had to close the thread).
I dont know what unspeakable insult Vork could have hurled at untouchable Layman to make Vork so remorseful, all I know is that Layman, as I know him, does not deserve this civil treatment.
At best he needs to be ignored. And at one time, I had decided to avoid his posts.
I decided that it was an inferior approach to avoid his posts because that only gave him room to propagate false ideas without meeting opposition.

I will try not to be insulting to Layman, buy If I do become insulting (thanks to human fallibility), I don't see myself apologising. As far as I am concerned, he owes me one and its likely he owes others too.

I had to say that.

Ted Hoffman · 10-30-2002, 08:31 AM

Reasonabledoubt :You confuse belief with appreciation and respect, attitudes clearly foreign to you.

Intensity : Semantic quibbles

Reasonabledoubt : I do not know. What are the relative qualifications held by Lemaire, Fitzmyer, McCarter, Altman, Apikorus, and you?

Intensity : If you dont know, dont act like you know because you then have no basis for apportioning what you call "appreciation and respect". So, in effect, your so-called "appreciation and respect" is arbitrary.

I know from Apikorus' profile that he is a phycisist and that Rochelle I. S. Altman is specialised in older writing systems.
More on Altman:

Quote:

Education
BA, English/Philosophy (Elizabethtown College)
PhD. Medieval English, (Arizona State University)
Additional courses in the US, France, Greece, and Israel: palaeography, calligraphy, system design, system analysis, book binding, typography, typesetting, and script design.

Language Facility
Fluent in English, French, and Hebrew.
Read Aramaic, Catalan, German, Greek, Latin, Old English
Introductory level Syriac and Ugaritic
Publications
Psalms from the Paris Psalter: Psalm 22(23), 1993.
The Diplomatic E-Edition of Beowulf (MS emulation -- 4 editions) 1994.
DIPLOMAT: Computer Application for creating diplomatic editions, 1995.
Absent Voices: Phonetic-Based Writing Systems (forthcoming).
"A Surfeit of Scribes: The Six Hands of B.L Cotton Vitellius A.xv, 2nd MS" (forthcoming).

I dont know how up-to-date that is check for more details check <a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioudaios/bio/altman.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

Reasonabledoubt : Actually, a week ago you said, in part: ...

Intensity : Who said I dont have a sense of humour? Do you know what those graemlins mean? Why not find out so that you dont goof up again. Next time you might burn a lot of neurones figuring out the logic behind a silly joke.

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

Geoff Hudson · 10-30-2002, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Posted by Geoff Hudson: Any evidence of either the fraud or the prayer?

Cheers!

I am suspicious about man's pecuniary nature, me boy.

I also have my own theory that James did not die in Judea, but in Rome where he was taken after appealing to Caesar at his trial in Acts. The later editors wanted to keep James out of Rome and in Jerusalem at all costs. This is why James is transmogrified into Barnabas and Peter. There is a clue in the heavily garbled Clementines that James was Barnabas. In the Recognitions 1.60, we read, "..Barnabas who is also called Matthias.." showing that the editor of Acts was garbling when he had Matthias elected to the "leadership" of the Jerusalem assembly to replace the ficticious Judas. Barnabas = Matthias = James who was elected to replace John the Prophet, not Judas. James was the intial leader of believers in the Spirit both in Jerusalem and in Rome - where they were first called the "anointed ones" or "christians" because they believed they were anointed by the Spirit of God.

Geoff

Layman · 10-30-2002, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Geoff Hudson:


I am suspicious about man's pecuniary nature, me boy.

I also have my own theory that James did not die in Judea, but in Rome where he was taken after appealing to Caesar at his trial in Acts. The later editors wanted to keep James out of Rome and in Jerusalem at all costs. This is why James is transmogrified into Barnabas and Peter. There is a clue in the heavily garbled Clementines that James was Barnabas. In the Recognitions 1.60, we read, "..Barnabas who is also called Matthias.." showing that the editor of Acts was garbling when he had Matthias elected to the "leadership" of the Jerusalem assembly to replace the ficticious Judas. Barnabas = Matthias = James who was elected to replace John the Prophet, not Judas. James was the intial leader of believers in the Spirit both in Jerusalem and in Rome - where they were first called the "anointed ones" or "christians" because they believed they were anointed by the Spirit of God.

Geoff

Why would James be able to appeal to Caesar? Are you saying James was a Roman citizen?

Ted Hoffman · 10-30-2002, 08:52 AM

Layman : Probably he is not. But he is relying on an actual picture which by all acounts I have heard is excellent.

Intensity : Whether or not a picture is excellent depends on what one is looking for IMO. I beleive if the picture was unclear, Altman would have pointed that out.

Layman : Altman was likely relying on an inaccurate sketch of the ossuary for his judgment

Intensity : Very likely? Why not just admit you dont know the kind of information source she was using instead of speculating?

Layman : Reasonably, therefore, I concluded that Apik....

Intensity : Reasonably? You can see how incorrect this is - you dont know what she used, so it is unreasonable to make conclusions.

Layman : Of course, what really impresses me is that so many respected scholars, like Lemaire and McCardy and Fitzmyer have passed their judgment and found it utterly convincing. And they have studied the original.

Intensity : Appeal to numbers Layman? You can do better than that.

Layman · 10-30-2002, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:

Intensity : Appeal to numbers Layman? You can do better than that.

It is an appeal to leading, respected scholars who have actually examined the evidence in issue.

And more and more commentators over on cross-talk are ripping her analysis apart. Especially her dogmatic claim that the text was excised rather than incised. Everyone else that has seen even pictures recognize her as completely wrong about this.

And her claim about the box not having a "frame" is irrelevant because she can't point to other Jewish ossuaries that had such a frame. Instead she refers to other cultures and their practices. Hardly convincing.

So yes, when she's the only one making a claim and is contradicted by every other informed commentator who has seen the inscription, I'm confident in siding with those respected scholars who have actually seen the ossuary. Moreover, she asserts it so strongly (it's so "obvious" anyone could see it) that she loses credibility. It's obviously not "obvious" because some of the best scholars in the world have analyzed the inscription and found it to be genuine.

You and others announced this was a "fake" from the first day it was announced. You are desperately clinging to one isolated opinion that seems to be flailing about. If Dr. Altman's position has merit, I'm sure she'll start persuading others. Right now though, other scholars are rejecting her analysis wholesale.

Geoff Hudson · 10-30-2002, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


Why would James be able to appeal to Caesar? Are you saying James was a Roman citizen?

Yes.

Geoff

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

10-30-2002, 07:51 AM	#71
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Rad - I don't think there is any contradiction in the two statements you listed. Eisenman said that James the Just was not referred to as James the Brother of Jesus in the first century. So if this ossuary did date to 63, and if it is authentic, there were plenty of other James-Joseph-Jesus combinations it might refer to.

10-30-2002, 08:01 AM	#73
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	If both statements could be true, then we must conclude that "brother of Jesus" had no special meaning even though it was extremely unusual if not unique. That would be the biggest stretch proposed on the thread IMO. Rad

10-30-2002, 08:52 AM	#78
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Layman : Probably he is not. But he is relying on an actual picture which by all acounts I have heard is excellent. Intensity : Whether or not a picture is excellent depends on what one is looking for IMO. I beleive if the picture was unclear, Altman would have pointed that out. Layman : Altman was likely relying on an inaccurate sketch of the ossuary for his judgment Intensity : Very likely? Why not just admit you dont know the kind of information source she was using instead of speculating? Layman : Reasonably, therefore, I concluded that Apik.... Intensity : Reasonably? You can see how incorrect this is - you dont know what she used, so it is unreasonable to make conclusions. Layman : Of course, what really impresses me is that so many respected scholars, like Lemaire and McCardy and Fitzmyer have passed their judgment and found it utterly convincing. And they have studied the original. Intensity : Appeal to numbers Layman? You can do better than that.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.