The Ossuary of James

[Captain Ochre]

Seems like this should have its own thread, what with its potential for being one of the outstanding recent discoveries to flesh out the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
Okay, the thing cracked, and then a whole bunch of specialists were going to examine it.
Anybody know what the findings are?

[Yog^sothoth]

it is a box.

it had bones in it.

:rofl:

Ummm, specifics? What would you like to know?

[TheFiveSolas]

According to the best scholars on ancient inscripitions (including one considered the Dean of ancient epigraphy, Professor Frank Moore Cross of Harvard, see the link at the end of this post) the box has been authenticated.

Testing has dated it to around 60ad (the date given by Josephus of James' death is 62ad). Testing has also revealed that the box has not been tampered with. Historians have explained that ossuaries were only used from about 10ad to about 70ad. Also, there has only been ONE other ossuary found that lists a brother and only did so because the brother listed was a very prominent member of society (if I remember correctly it was either a king or a prince).

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbbreakingV.html

see also one of the original articles written at:

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/dpa/news/news/box.html

[Lizard]

I read an article that said that the "brother of Jesus" portion was a late addition to the original ossuary. I will see if I can find it and provide a link.


Found it. Click here (http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/The_James_Ossuary_Inscription.asp) .

Of course it is from a Jewish site so it may not be objective, but then the same could be said of a Christian site. ;)

[Pilgrim]

I've seen the ossuary up close when it was in Toronto...I'll see if I can find the what I posted on another forum...here it is:

To Toronto and Back again.
So I went to Toronto this past weekend to see the James Ossuary. For all of you who may not know about it an Ossuary is a box used by Palestinian Jews in the 1st century to hold the bones of the deceased. This particular ossuary has inscribed on it's back side, "James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus."

If the box is indeed the final resting place of James the Just (brother of Jesus, 1st Bishop in Jerusalem) then it is the most significant archeological find in history. This is because it would be the only extra-Biblical primary source reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

Here's what I learned in Toronto.
1. There are some 900 ossuaries dating from the first century AD in various collections.
2. Just over 200 of them have an inscription of some sort.
3. about a half dozen have a reference to someone named James connected to a Joseph.
4. There is one ossuary that has an inscription "Jesus, son of Joseph."
5. None of them have the three part inscription of James, Joseph and Jesus and this makes the inscription very significant in regards to the "brother of Jesus" bit. There would have had to have been something particularly significant about this Jesus.
6. This particular Ossuary was originally dated at between 33 and 77 AD based on the Aramaic scrip.
7. Subsequently the placement and the rendering of the Hebrew letters "vauv" and the "yod" were determined to narrow the date even further to the middle of the 1st century.
8. 2 "star wheel" designs (significance unknown) were discoverd on the front side of the Ossuary which confirm it's dating and match 2 other ossuaries in the Royal Ontario's collection from the same time period.
10. #'s 6,7 and 8 fit in with the life span of James the Just, Christ's brother.
9. The conclusion of the Royal Ontario Museaum's staff is that this ossuary is very likely the one which contained the bones of James, the brother of Jesus of Nazareth though of course absolute proof has yet to be uncovered.

All in all the trip was well worth it. If you get a chance to see the ossuary as it continues it's world tour, you should go. One does not get the chance to see such a think very often.

[Lizard]

Captain Ochre:


I had already read that article during the initial James ossuary brouhaha. I figured that once it was contributed & published that other experts would either confirm or rebut her claims regarding the inscription. That's part of why I'm curious about the follow-up.

Not to say that providing the link was uncalled-for. It's good to hear all sides, imo.

I agree. That is why I posted the link. I would like to think that the ossuary is genuine, but i really lack the technical expertise to know for certain.

If the ossuary is fake, no biggy, my faith is not based on its genuiness (sp?).

If it is genuine, :yipee: Just one more pebble in the Mountain of evidence for the reality of Christianity.

[Yog^sothoth]

There really isn't a mountian of evidence. More like a handful of random pebbles. I'm trying to find my post on grays post on his toronto experience....but it's totally missing.

[Pilgrim]

I'm not grey!

[TheFiveSolas]

Of the few scholars that I know that are doubting the inscription (they claim it is the work of two writers rather than one), not one has seen it firsthand but rather are relying on photographs. This holds true for the two most "prominent", Professor Daniel Eylon and Rochelle Altman (whose article was referenced by Faramir).

Professor Eylon's area of expertise is in failure analysis (such as metal fatigue in airplanes) NOT ancient inscriptions. Altman is a self-proclaimed expert in ancient scripts and moderates an internet bulletin-board for scholars of ancient Judaism.

In my study of this subject I came across Altman's critism several weeks ago and shot off an email to Dr. Fitzmyer (an epigrapher par excellence at Georgetown University). Here is his short and to the point reply.

Dear Mr. *****:
Sorry, but I am not interested in the views of R. Altman. She does not know what she is talking about. It is better to forget about her interpretation. I trust Lemaire, who is a noted expert.
Sincerely yours, J. A. Fitzmyer.

In my first post I also referred to Professor Frank Moore Cross of Harvard, who is considered the "Dean of epigraphy". He inspected the inscription firsthand and concluded it comes from ONE hand, not two.

[Captain Ochre]

TheFiveSolas:
Dear Mr. *****:
Sorry, but I am not interested in the views of R. Altman. She does not know what she is talking about. It is better to forget about her interpretation. I trust Lemaire, who is a noted expert.
Sincerely yours, J. A. Fitzmyer.


Dismissive missive.
Is there an emoticon that lifts one eyebrow, ala Spock? The winking one kind of looks like it . . .

Oh! Thank you, TheFiveSolas.

[TheFiveSolas]

Captain,
Fitmyer dismisses Altman because he has seen the inscription personally and knows of the other scholars that have also seen the inscription first-hand. They have refuted the position of people like Altman because she made her comments after seeing a photo rather than doing an in depth hands-on examination as they have done.
For example, Dr. Altman claims that the text is excised rather than incised, indicating a forgery (she lists the reasons why excised texts point toward a forgery in her original article on this). However, ALL scholars that have examined the ossuary point out that the text is incised. This is only one of the reasons why scholars like Fitzmyer claim that she doesn't know what she is talking about (i.e., he wasn't simply dismissing her with a wave of the hand, he had good reason).

I'll end with quote from a sidebar of BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review).

Finally, from the halls of academe to the internet, an enormous amount of scholarly discussion is taking place regarding the James ossuary inscription and its implications. The Institute for Advanced Study of Hebrew University devoted a session to it and one participant wrote us: “Nobody at all cast doubt on the authenticity of the ossuary and of the inscription written on it. Ada Yardeni [who drew the inscription for BAR] was there and no one challenged at all her assertion that the writing is authentic.”

On the other hand, the doubters are also coming out of the woodwork. One marginalized scholar (his own word) with little, if any, experience as a Hebrew/Aramaic paleographer has attacked the authenticity of the inscription saying that it is “just too pat,” without further specification. Another scholar claims that the last part of the inscription (“brother of Jesus”) is in a different hand from the first part of the inscription. This is a legitimate question, but that is as far as the scholars we have talked to are willing to go. They continue to believe that there is only one hand in the inscription, despite the fact that some letters in the second part are more difficult to read and are in cursive or semi-cursive, rather than in formal script. In any event, it is unclear what it would mean if two hands did engrave the inscription. One person suggested that a forger in about 300 A.D. added “Brother of Jesus” to the inscription. But this seems a bit far-fetched. The person who is most certain and vociferous in claiming that different hands were responsible for the first and second parts of the inscription is also certain that the inscription is excised, rather than incised; that is, the space around the letters has been carved out leaving the letters protruding in relief. It is difficult to understand how she could have been so certain when she had never seen the ossuary itself. The experts who have seen the ossuary and studied the inscription continue to maintain that the inscription is plainly engraved—incised, not excised.

[Captain Ochre]

Thank you again, TheFiveSolas!

If I left the impression that I found the earlier information unsatisfactory in some way, then I apologize. Yet, I appreciate the additional material in view of the greater depth.

I like depth ('cept maybe when I'm way out of my own).
After all, "Knowledge is good".
:)

[TheFiveSolas]

Captain,
No need to apologize. I merely recognized the need to protect the intellectual integrity of Dr. Fitzmyer by clarifying why he was so dismissive of Dr. Altman. I realized that my quoting of his very short email did give the impression that he was dismissing her out of hand rather than for good reasons.
Thanks for the opportunity to contextualize the statement quoted in my earlier post.
:)

[Captain Ochre]

Ah, good--though I hadn't even intended to imply that being dismissive is necessarily a *bad* thing!
:)
Then there's the alliteration/pun and how am I supposed to pass *that* up???
;)
(need better winking icon, imo--this one looks like Spock raising his right eyebrow while suffering from advanced Bell's palsy on the left side of his face--but this comment should be in a different forum, no doubt).

[Lizard]

Thanks, guys. This is really interesting stuff. :thumb:

[Pilgrim]

I'm not an expert though I have done a bit of hands on archeology. I have alse seen the ossuary up close and in person. I don't see how anyone could think the inscription was excised even from looking at a photo of it.

Pilgrim

[Yog^sothoth]

I'm like, so mad. I can't find my IN DEPTH post at that other site concerning biblical archaeology. I had listed all biblical relevant finds and their signifigance and also where they were found and how they were found.

it would be a good post here. I'll have to do it ALL OVER AGAIN!! :bawl:

Oh well. i'll do it once I get home and assemble all of the materials I have once again!

:read:

[Blake Reas]

Bryan Cox has submitted this response to Altman's report.

I find the James ossuary inscription fascinating for many reasons, not least of which are the reactions it has produced. Its discovery has sent many people scurrying into separate ideological camps to prepare for battle. Some already believe that the box is truly authentic and once held the bones of Saint James, while others declare, seemingly without a doubt, that it is obviously a fake.

The inscription is currently a hot topic on several online scholarly forums. A few individuals posting to these forums have garnered quite a bit of public attention (or at least netwide public attention) for their views. One such individual is Dr. Rochelle Altman.

Dr. Altman believes that the newly discovered ossuary, itself, and the "first part" of its inscription are authentic while the "second part" of the inscription is a fake. She has expressed these views in the Ioudaios-L (of which she is a co-coodinator) and Crosstalk2 forums as well as in an online web magazine by the name of Jewsweek.


I believe that her challenge to the authenticity of the James inscription can be summarized as follows:

1) Two different scripts can be seen which divide the inscription into halves. The first half is an expertly executed script while the second half is poorly executed.

2) There appear to be two different levels of literacy. The first half of the inscription was carved by a literate relative of the deceased. The person who inscribed the second half seems not to have known how to spell "brother of" or "Joshua".

3) The text is excised (i.e. raised or in bas relief), and excised text normally had surrounding frames to protect it from alteration. Since no frame can be seen, it must have been removed to make room for the fake second half of the inscription.


I would like to address these concerns in turn using the corresponding number found before each.

1) I must admit that I do see a change in the text as it progresses from right to left. I am not sure, however, that the change is as extreme and obvious as Dr. Altman would have us believe.

She labels the first half of the inscription ("James, son of Joseph") as "formal", "expertly spaced", and "internally consistent". Though I agree with the relative formality of the script, I disagree that it is any more expertly spaced than the "second half" of the inscription and neither is it more internally consistent.

With respect to spacing, the first yod seems a reasonable distance from the the ayin. There seems to be a larger space between the ayin and qoph. The serif of the qoph nearly touches the vav. There is a relatively large space between the bet of "Jacob" ("James") and the bet of "son". Granted this extra space could be a name/word separation, but then the space between the resh and the yod of "Joseph" is very minimal, closer that the internal separation of the letters in "Jacob". The yod and vav in "Joseph" are spaced extremely close. The distance between the vav and samekh is about the same distance as the resh was from the yod. Finally, the samekh and pe are separated by a resonable distance. Ultimately, the spacing of the letters in "first half" of the inscription seems as haphard as in the "second half".

I also do not see internal consistency in the style of the "first half" of the inscription. While there are visible serifs on the qoph, bets, and resh, I would have expected them on at least the ayin as well and perhaps other letters.

The bets seem inconsistent. The first bet has a rounded upper right corner whereas the same corner of the second bet forms a sharp right angle.

The "first half" of the inscription does not hang consistently from what would have been the scribe's invisible upper guide-line. As Jack Kilmon pointed out on Crosstalk, the letters begin to drop after the resh. The samekh then appears to pop above the line, and the pe falls well below it. In fact, the top of the pe seems to be on the exact same lower level as the beginning of the "second half" of the inscription.






The best point Dr. Altman has here, I believe, is that the "first half" of the inscription contains some formal letters with serifs and the "second half" does not.

Though she states her article in Jewsweek that one would "have to be blind as a bat not to see that the second part is a fraud", I do not agree. I, personally, find this statement somewhat irresponsible for someone with a doctoral degree. It flies in the face of the esteemed scholars who have looked at the ossuary inscription and stated otherwise.

The change in script style could possibly be due to a broken tool, a hurried scribe, or other reasons. I do not believe that someone would be "blind as a bat" for not seeing the "second part" of the inscription as a fraud.


2) Dr. Altman seems to believe that the "first part" of the James inscription is probably authentic and written by a literate relative of the deceased. The "second part" she believes to have been added later by a person who was either semi-literate or illiterate in Hebrew/Aramaic. This is due mainly to what she believes to be strange and/or incorrect spellings of "brother of" and "Joshua".

Please refer to the Crosstalk2 website for the following transliterations.


Dr. Altman transliterates the "second part" of the James inscription as follows: )XWW(Y#W(

I believe this is an incorrect transliteration that leads her to much of the confusion she expresses about the phrase in her Jewsweek article.


I believe that the proper transliteration should be: )XWYDY#W(

She seems to spend a great deal of time troubling over what she sees as two vavs followed by an ayin. Indeed, her transliteration would cause one to see the inscriber as nearly illiterate. It would be difficult to make much sense out of what she reads in the inscription.

However, in close-up pictures of the inscription one can see (I believe rather easily) the difference between the two letters that she reads as adjacent vavs. In the following picture, one can see that the downward stroke on the left is barely over half the length of the downward stroke to its right. The longer letter would be a vav and the shorter one a yod.






After this vav/yod pair, Dr. Altman sees an ayin (though she has since changed her mind about this). The letter stands too upright to be an ayin and would be completely different from either of the other two ayins in the inscription.

Though I have questions of my own surrounding this seemingly malformed letter, I lean toward experts in semitic paleography like Andre Lemaire, who have transliterated it as a dalet.






There are at least two examples of similar dalets in Ada Yardeni's Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabataean Documentary Texts from the Judaean Desert, volume 1 (1986). According to the article in Biblical Archaeological Review (BAR), there is another similar dalet that can be found in L.Y. Rahmani's A Catalog of Jewish Ossuaries.

Dr. Altman has since decided that the letter is actually an "archaic Greek upsilon"! She further states in her post to Crosstalk2 that the "inscription actually reads what both Yardeni and I reported: Y(QOBBRYWSP )XWWuY#W( "!

I find both of these statements incredible and would like to see them explained more thoroughly. Why would a forger have inscribed an archaic Greek upsilon in the middle of otherwise ledgible Hebrew letters? As to the other statment, Ada Yardeni's transcription may suggest to Dr. Altman how the inscription "actually reads", but has Yardeni herself actually made a transliteration of the inscription?

Assuming )XWYDY#W( is the correct transliteration of the inscription, there are still some oddities. For one, "brother" is spelled )XWY instead of simply )X . The Aramaic word "di" is abbreviated and attached to "Joshua" ("Jesus") as a prefix: DY#W( .

The spelling )XWY is indeed rare, but there are a couple of examples of its use according to Joseph Fitzmyer. One example is actually from another ossuary inscription which reads: "Shimi, son of Asiya, brother of Hanin". The phrase "brother of Hanin" is written similar to the James inscription: )XWYDXNYN . (See entry #570 of A Catalog of Jewish Ossuaries by L.Y. Rahmani.)






The other example given by Fitzmyer is from the Dead Sea Scroll called the Genesis Apocryphon. Specifically, the strange spelling for "brother", )XWY can be found in column 21, at the end of line 34 (refer to A Genesis Apocryphon by Nahman Avigad and Yigael Yadin, 1956).

I feel that I must note, however, that Fitzmyer wrote in his 1971 book, Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1, that the form (XWY "is probably a scribal error for )XWHY ".


)XWY
)XWHY



Finally we come to the spelling of "Joshua" ("Jesus"). I see no problem with the spelling Y#W) . It seems to be a relatively common contraction and can be found many times throughout Rahmani's catalog of ossuaries.

I do not, therefore, see any difference in "literacy" great enough to divide the inscription or to definitely call the "second half" a fraud.


3) Dr. Altman sees an "excised" text (i.e. raised or in bas relief) in her pictures of the ossuary inscription rather than an incised text which other scholars see. She claims that ancient anti-fraud techniques would have required that a frame be placed around the text. Since she considers the "second half" of the inscription to be a forgery (though I believe the above reponses demonstrate that this is not necessarily so), she believes that the frame surrounding the "first half" of the inscription must have been removed to make room for the forged "second half".

In her own words, "...the words are excised (not incised)."
And also, "Well, to anybody who knows something about anti-fraud techniques as practiced in antiquity, it is rather obvious. The frame was removed to add the second part of this inscription. The original frame would have been the barest minimum distance from the text and have appeared something like this:

|------------|
|Y(KOBBRYWSF | )XWW(Y#W(
|____________|
"

[Blake Reas]

(To find the above quotes, see Dr. Altman's Jewsweek article and post to Crosstalk2.)

She has put much emphasis on this challenge to the authenticity of the "second half" of the James inscription. Unfortunately, I find this much emphasized last challenge to be the least credible. As a matter of fact, I believe that it is more than likely based on an optical illusion played on her by the picture she was using.

She mentions several times that the text of the inscription is "excised" or in "bas relief". Others have said that they believe she means that an area around the text was excised. From her own words, she seems to or seemed to mean both:

"There is yet another tell-tale sign of fraud here. As noted, the text is excised. (Which indicates a wealthy family.) Nobody excises an entire block of stone to raise the text; not even the Yadi stele is entirely excised. In "name" plates or other small inscriptions, if excised rather than incised (cheaper), the normal practice is to excise the text and a frame, which frame itself is excised by incised limits but never beyond them. Only the area within the frame will be excised; the rest of the block will be left alone. Far too much here has been excised from around the names. More to the point, where is the original frame?"

Please note her wording in the above phrase: "...excises an entire block of stone to raise the text".

Rahmani states in his Catalog of Jewish Ossuaries, "By far the greatest number of inscriptions were finely incised, presumably in front of or inside the tomb itself at the time of burial."

I believe that the "excised" text that Dr. Altman saw was an optical illusion. If one stares long enough at pictures of the inscription, the text may suddenly appear to pop out and look like it is in "bas relief". I have had friends notice this while looking at the picture in BAR.

I believe this optical illusion can also make erosion pits on the surface of the ossuary appear to be raised chunks of limestone that were left by a crude job of excising the area around the "raised text".

However, if this is not the case, perhaps she was actually making reference to inscriptions such as the Uzziah burial inscription.





In the Uzziah inscription, one can see a frame was carved into the stone and then the text nicely incised within the frame. If the James ossuary originally had a similar frame surrounding the "first half" of the inscription, then one would expect to notice a concave area around the inscription where the edges of the frame were chipped away and smoothed upward, level with the rest of the ossuary. From the pictures that I have seen, there is no such concave area around the inscription, and there are no signs that a frame was chiseled away.Dr. Altman said that the frame would have been "the barest minimum distance from the text". This would lead one to expect to see some sort of strange anomaly after and near the pe of "Joseph". I don't see any signs of tampering.

This "frame" theory seems like pure speculation. Perhaps Dr. Altman will point out exactly where she sees an anomaly in or around the inscription where a frame must obviously have been.

Finally, I took the time to glance at every single picture in Rahmani's catalog of Jewish ossuaries. I do not remember seeing any inscriptions that were surrounded by a frame that was meant to specifically frame the text. As a matter of fact, most of the inscriptions seemed to be scrawled on the sides, lids, and rims of the ossuaries almost as an afterthought using whatever tool that was handy to do the inscribing.

Rahmani states, "Inscriptions are rarely incorporated into the decoration of soft limestone ossuaries...". Indeed, the majority of the inscriptions seemed to have no decoration around them at all.

Ultimately, I do not see much merit in this particular argument of Dr. Altman.


Dr. Altman has recently posted her "Final Report" concerning the ossuary on several websites. Unfortunately, though she has modified her position slightly from what I have addressed above, I believe that many of the things that I have proposed still stand against her arguments in a fairly strong way.

Bryan Cox
Plano, Tx

www.Earlychristianwritings.com this is where I got it from.

[Sher]

Wow! :cool: :joy:

Thanks for all that wonderful information. My Christian faith doesn't rest on the whether the inscription is genuine or not. However, it is wonderful to read that it is not as easily dismissed as we have been misled to think. One can only wonder if once again the stones are crying out (Luke 19:40)

[Sauron]

[i]02-05-2003 @ 02:36 PM

Professor Eylon's area of expertise is in failure analysis (such as metal fatigue in airplanes) NOT ancient inscriptions.


That doesn't matter, in this case. Eylon's criticism of the authenticity claim is based upon materials analysis of the ossuary box itself, and not upon the inscription. The comments he made about the scratches would apply to this box, if it were stone, wood, plastic, or metal.

[Sera Sixwings]

[02-08-2003 @ 08:10 PM] - Blake Reas:

Bryan Cox has submitted this response to Altman's report. Hi. Could you tell me a little about Dr. (?) Cox?

[Blake Reas]

03-03-2003 @ 04:51 PM
Sera Sixwings:

Hi. Could you tell me a little about Dr. (?) Cox?

Hi could you tell me why you want to know more? Like I said I got this from www.earlychristianwritings.com which is no friend of Christianity.

[Vorkosigan]

03-03-2003 @ 07:41 PM
Blake Reas:
Hi could you tell me why you want to know more? Like I said I got this from www.earlychristianwritings.com which is no friend of Christianity.

How exactly is EarlyChristianWritings not a "friend of Christianity?" I know many Christians who love that site and consider it a great source of information. Numerous Christian scholars, from Dom Crossan to Marcus Daniel Wallace to Luke Timothy Johnson and Raymond Brown, are represented in cites and quotes and points of view. Kirby's links generally cover all spectrums of information on a topic, and are always well-written and useful. But perhaps you think that thoughtful and thoroughgoing report and analysis are unfriendly to Christianity....

Cox is not a "Dr." and paelograhy is a hobby of his. Altman is apparently one of the world's leading experts. She posted on the XTALK and Jesus Mysteries lists, which you can find archived on Yahoo, and read and judge for yourself. As I recall, she quickly change her position on the "excised" once she realized her error. This disparity of experience does not make Cox wrong. Cox is an interesting and thoughtful writer, and his writing makes good reading. He in fact spotted some interesting things about the inscription, though I believe he missed their significance.

The artifact is obviously a fraud, although it is difficult to tell whether it is modern or not. Several of us pointed out the many telltale signs of fraud from the start even before the scholars weighed in, and it was very satisfying to be vindicated by the subsequent judgement of so many heavyweight scholars -- Naveh, who is probably the top scholar on hebrew scripts, also has come out against it. People who came out early arguing that it was a fraud were subject to internet attacks and hacks, one reason Altman got so testy about it over time, as she was a target.

Altman has written on another object:

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

which is also educational. Bibleinterp.com is a wonderful site that always has all the latest stuff. I highly recommend it.

Those of you who want to get a good idea of how forgeries and frauds actually work in real life should read something like The Hermit of Beijing, a brilliant study of one of history's great forgers by Trevor-Roper, or Selling Hitler by Robert Harris, about the famous Hitler diaries. It is routine for frauds to fool experts and be exposed by amatuers, to develop a whole inventory of supporters and subfrauds and fakes, and garner significant support in the academic community. Forgers are also quite bold, and when they succeed at one thing, will up the ante and try something even bolder. Additionally, it helps to have some experience buying antiquities, so that one realizes how extensive and common and easy antiquities frauds are. I used to collect Song Dynasty porcelain, but stopped because bad porcelain is so common. The James Ossuary stank from the start, and no amount of fragrant writing from religious conservatism is going to make that stink disappear.

Vorkosigan

[Haran]

Greetings all. I saw my article on the James ossuary mentioned and thought I'd respond.

03-04-2003 @ 12:28 AM
Vorkosigan:
How exactly is EarlyChristianWritings not a "friend of Christianity?" I know many Christians who love that site and consider it a great source of information.[/b]

Hi Vork... :) I'd like to say that Vorkosigan is correct. Many Christians, including myself, believe that Peter's site is an excellent information website. Though I feel that Peter's website has some liberal leanings, it is obvious that he tries to present all points of view.

My article is posted on his website because he asked. However, the original is on my website (where I corrected a few minor mistakes and may eventually add some additional information if any comes to light):

http://www.dreamwater.org/bccox/ossuary.html

Vorkosigan:
Cox is not a "Dr." and paelograhy is a hobby of his. Altman is apparently one of the world's leading experts.

Vorkosigan is correct. I do not have a doctorate degree. Paleography is my hobby.

However, I'm not quite as sure of his evaluation of Dr. Altman. Her claims have implied that she is an expert in ancient writing systems, yet her BA is in English/Philosophy and her doctorate was in Medieval English. In her Bibliography on the Ioudaios-L website (linked to in my article), she claims only to have had "additional courses" in paleography. I'm not sure that she has made it clear to anyone exactly how much of a qualified expert she is when it comes to ancient semitic scripts (like the inscription on the James ossuary).

In stark contrast, Dr. Lemaire (whom Dr. Altman disagrees with) is a recognized expert, specifically in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic epigraphy at the Sorbonne in Paris:

http://www.ephe.sorbonne.fr/enseignements/4philaram.htm

Dr. Lemaire is and has been published in many pertinant peer-reviewed, scholarly publications. I believe Dr. Lemaire mentioned in the SBL meetings in Toronto that he was unaware of Dr. Altman and unaware of any of her publications in his field of study.

Finally, unlike Dr. Lemaire, Dr. Altman seemingly rushed to an unreasonably confident conclusion on the ossuary though I believe she had only seen photographs of the inscription. Dr. Lemaire, however, had physically studied the ossuary inscription (and I believe had it tested) before publishing the first results of his study in Biblical Archaeology Review.

I believe that Ada Yardeni (a recognized scholar who has written a book on Hebrew and Aramaic paleography) agreed with Dr. Lemaire's analysis. I have heard there are other good scholars in the field that also support Dr. Lemaire's conclusions on the ancient script.

Everyone probably noticed that most scholars have been very reserved on the issue of the script's authenticity. Most scholars will take the time to produce a thoughtful and accurate scholarly analysis of the ossuary inscription. As usual, it will be those with significant experience in the specific field of study (Hebrew/Aramaic Epigraphy) that will carry the most weight among the majority of scholars.


The artifact is obviously a fraud, although it is difficult to tell whether it is modern or not.

As can be seen from my comments above, I do not believe it is "obviously a fraud". It might turn out to be a fraud (though I lean toward authenticity), but too many good scholars in the field appear to be split for it to be obvious.


Naveh, who is probably the top scholar on hebrew scripts, also has come out against it.

I would appreciate it if you could point me to Naveh's (who *is* an expert) comments against the ossuary inscription.

I have heard that he believes the Joash inscription to be a fraud, but I had not heard about his conclusions on the James ossuary.


The James Ossuary stank from the start, and no amount of fragrant writing from religious conservatism is going to make that stink disappear.

This statement appears to be a bit of the opposite sort of fragrant writing (i.e. extreme rhetoric). ;)

In truth, we will probably never know for sure whether the ossuary is authentic. For believers, it is a thought-provoking find. However, Christian faith will live on without it if anyone should happen prove the ossuary inauthentic.

For those who might be interested, I do not find much of Dr. Altman's article on the Joash inscription convincing either. However, for my own reasons, I also lean toward believing it may not be authentic.

As with the James ossuary, I look forward to unrushed, scholarly analysis on both new artifacts in peer-reviewed journals.

Bryan Cox
Plano,Tx

[stevencarrwork]

02-08-2003 @ 08:10 PM
Blake Reas:

Bryan Cox has submitted this response to Altman's report.







Who is Bryan Cox? I think he has joined this group under the username of Haran. An unlucky username for him to choose.

He may not be aware that this was also the username chosen by a deceptive Christian on http://www.infidels.org/ who then signed on with a different username, trying to deceive people into claiming he was a sceptic, and using the second username to write posts saying that Haran was doing a great job.

As I said, a most unfortunate name for Bryan Cox to choose!

[Pilgrim]

03-05-2003 @ 09:57 AM
Haran:

Greetings all. I saw my article on the James ossuary mentioned and thought I'd respond.



Hi Vork... :) I'd like to say that Vorkosigan is correct. Many Christians, including myself, believe that Peter's site is an excellent information website. Though I feel that Peter's website has some liberal leanings, it is obvious that he tries to present all points of view.

My article is posted on his website because he asked. However, the original is on my website (where I corrected a few minor mistakes and may eventually add some additional information if any comes to light):

http://www.dreamwater.org/bccox/ossuary.html



Vorkosigan is correct. I do not have a doctorate degree. Paleography is my hobby.

However, I'm not quite as sure of his evaluation of Dr. Altman. Her claims have implied that she is an expert in ancient writing systems, yet her BA is in English/Philosophy and her doctorate was in Medieval English. In her Bibliography on the Ioudaios-L website (linked to in my article), she claims only to have had "additional courses" in paleography. I'm not sure that she has made it clear to anyone exactly how much of a qualified expert she is when it comes to ancient semitic scripts (like the inscription on the James ossuary).

In stark contrast, Dr. Lemaire (whom Dr. Altman disagrees with) is a recognized expert, specifically in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic epigraphy at the Sorbonne in Paris:

http://www.ephe.sorbonne.fr/enseignements/4philaram.htm

Dr. Lemaire is and has been published in many pertinant peer-reviewed, scholarly publications. I believe Dr. Lemaire mentioned in the SBL meetings in Toronto that he was unaware of Dr. Altman and unaware of any of her publications in his field of study.

Finally, unlike Dr. Lemaire, Dr. Altman seemingly rushed to an unreasonably confident conclusion on the ossuary though I believe she had only seen photographs of the inscription. Dr. Lemaire, however, had physically studied the ossuary inscription (and I believe had it tested) before publishing the first results of his study in Biblical Archaeology Review.

I believe that Ada Yardeni (a recognized scholar who has written a book on Hebrew and Aramaic paleography) agreed with Dr. Lemaire's analysis. I have heard there are other good scholars in the field that also support Dr. Lemaire's conclusions on the ancient script.

Everyone probably noticed that most scholars have been very reserved on the issue of the script's authenticity. Most scholars will take the time to produce a thoughtful and accurate scholarly analysis of the ossuary inscription. As usual, it will be those with significant experience in the specific field of study (Hebrew/Aramaic Epigraphy) that will carry the most weight among the majority of scholars.



As can be seen from my comments above, I do not believe it is "obviously a fraud". It might turn out to be a fraud (though I lean toward authenticity), but too many good scholars in the field appear to be split for it to be obvious.



I would appreciate it if you could point me to Naveh's (who *is* an expert) comments against the ossuary inscription.

I have heard that he believes the Joash inscription to be a fraud, but I had not heard about his conclusions on the James ossuary.



This statement appears to be a bit of the opposite sort of fragrant writing (i.e. extreme rhetoric). ;)

In truth, we will probably never know for sure whether the ossuary is authentic. For believers, it is a thought-provoking find. However, Christian faith will live on without it if anyone should happen prove the ossuary inauthentic.

For those who might be interested, I do not find much of Dr. Altman's article on the Joash inscription convincing either. However, for my own reasons, I also lean toward believing it may not be authentic.

As with the James ossuary, I look forward to unrushed, scholarly analysis on both new artifacts in peer-reviewed journals.

Bryan Cox
Plano,Tx

Well stated Bryan. I might also add that when I viewed the ossuary at the Royal Ontaria Museum it was the opinion of the staff there that, although not 100% verafiable, this ossuary was authentic and likely to have been the ossuary of James the Just. Not to appeal to authority or anything, but the opinion of a respected museaum like that can not be easlity brushed away.

[Captain Ochre]

03-05-2003 @ 03:29 PM
stevencarrwork:



Who is Bryan Cox? I think he has joined this group under the username of Haran. An unlucky username for him to choose.

He may not be aware that this was also the username chosen by a deceptive Christian on http://www.infidels.org/ who then signed on with a different username, trying to deceive people into claiming he was a sceptic, and using the second username to write posts saying that Haran was doing a great job.

As I said, a most unfortunate name for Bryan Cox to choose!

Yeah? What about Steven Carr?

Former Contra mercenary Steven Carr is found dead of a drug overdose in Los Angeles, shortly before he was to testify about Contra drug and arms dealing in Costa Rica.
http://www.saxakali.com/CommunityLinkups/dalit1.htm

Well, that's not good!

David Steven Carr, 48, of White Oak was released Thursday on $1,000 bond, charged with driving while intoxicated. Carr was arrested at 9:56 p.m. Wednesday after he collided with a guardrail on north Texas 42, an arrest report said.
http://www.news-journal.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2002/12/21/1040447408.01917.9140.0857.html

Tsk-tsk!

:huh: :bonk: :rofl:

[Celsus]

Hmmm...

I always thought Steve Carr (http://www.4thegame.com/playerprofile.d?personid=3026) was that Irishman who plays for the mighty Tottenham Hotspur. In which case, I worship the ground he walks on (so much for being an atheist).

[Blake Reas]

03-04-2003 @ 06:28 AM
Vorkosigan:



How exactly is EarlyChristianWritings not a "friend of Christianity?" I know many Christians who love that site and consider it a great source of information. Numerous Christian scholars, from Dom Crossan to Marcus Daniel Wallace to Luke Timothy Johnson and Raymond Brown, are represented in cites and quotes and points of view. Kirby's links generally cover all spectrums of information on a topic, and are always well-written and useful. But perhaps you think that thoughtful and thoroughgoing report and analysis are unfriendly to Christianity....

Cox is not a "Dr." and paelograhy is a hobby of his. Altman is apparently one of the world's leading experts. She posted on the XTALK and Jesus Mysteries lists, which you can find archived on Yahoo, and read and judge for yourself. As I recall, she quickly change her position on the "excised" once she realized her error. This disparity of experience does not make Cox wrong. Cox is an interesting and thoughtful writer, and his writing makes good reading. He in fact spotted some interesting things about the inscription, though I believe he missed their significance.

The artifact is obviously a fraud, although it is difficult to tell whether it is modern or not. Several of us pointed out the many telltale signs of fraud from the start even before the scholars weighed in, and it was very satisfying to be vindicated by the subsequent judgement of so many heavyweight scholars -- Naveh, who is probably the top scholar on hebrew scripts, also has come out against it. People who came out early arguing that it was a fraud were subject to internet attacks and hacks, one reason Altman got so testy about it over time, as she was a target.

Altman has written on another object:

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

which is also educational. Bibleinterp.com is a wonderful site that always has all the latest stuff. I highly recommend it.

Those of you who want to get a good idea of how forgeries and frauds actually work in real life should read something like The Hermit of Beijing, a brilliant study of one of history's great forgers by Trevor-Roper, or Selling Hitler by Robert Harris, about the famous Hitler diaries. It is routine for frauds to fool experts and be exposed by amatuers, to develop a whole inventory of supporters and subfrauds and fakes, and garner significant support in the academic community. Forgers are also quite bold, and when they succeed at one thing, will up the ante and try something even bolder. Additionally, it helps to have some experience buying antiquities, so that one realizes how extensive and common and easy antiquities frauds are. I used to collect Song Dynasty porcelain, but stopped because bad porcelain is so common. The James Ossuary stank from the start, and no amount of fragrant writing from religious conservatism is going to make that stink disappear.

Vorkosigan

Sorry if you misunderstood me, what I meant was Peter Kirby is not a Christian, and it would not be a site that was of a biased opinion. I also NEVER said that I disliked the site. I also do not think I ever called Cox a Doctor. Sounds like you asserted more than was there.:argh:

In Christ,
Blake

[stevencarrwork]

03-06-2003 @ 01:20 AM
Celsus:

Hmmm...

I always thought Steve Carr (http://www.4thegame.com/playerprofile.d?personid=3026) was that Irishman who plays for the mighty Tottenham Hotspur. In which case, I worship the ground he walks on (so much for being an atheist).

He spells his name with a 'ph'.

As a Newcastle United fan, I disapprove of my namesake's blatant diving for penalties when he played us.

As a result, my name is now booed whenever it is mentioned at our ground. do you know what it is like to be a fan of a club and hearing 50,000 spectators booing your name at the club you have followed since childhood?

[Celsus]

03-06-2003 @ 11:02 PM
stevencarrwork:
As a Newcastle United fan, I disapprove of my namesake's blatant diving for penalties when he played us.

As a result, my name is now booed whenever it is mentioned at our ground. do you know what it is like to be a fan of a club and hearing 50,000 spectators booing your name at the club you have followed since childhood?
Let's clear up some OBVIOUS and BLATANT misconceptions my friend. Firstly, that's not DIVING. It's a blatantly obvious attempt to destroy a player's career through malicious violence in the penalty box. Secondly, the obvious and RATIONAL solution is to abandon your Geordie friends and move to London where your name is praised by at least one half of Walthamstow.
:yipee: (yay, I finally have a dumb enough post to use the annoying banana)

Glad to be of assistance,
Joel
:wink:

[Vorkosigan]

03-05-2003 @ 04:20 PM
Pilgrim:



Well stated Bryan. I might also add that when I viewed the ossuary at the Royal Ontaria Museum it was the opinion of the staff there that, although not 100% verafiable, this ossuary was authentic and likely to have been the ossuary of James the Just. Not to appeal to authority or anything, but the opinion of a respected museaum like that can not be easlity brushed away.


The man who made that decision for the museum is not a trained paleographer or even a trained archaeologist. I've spaced his name (Keen? Keane?) but he does not have the proper background.

Yardeni, according to what I have seen, sees two hands. Naveh, who is the leading scholar of ancient Hebrew, has rejected the inscription. Cross and Fitzmeyer are old and faith-committed.

Viewers can look on Roger Viklund's site for a view of the inscription and decide for themselves.
http://user.tninet.se/~npt994z/james_ossuary_inscription.htm

The artifact is from a collection, Golan's that is now the source of two suspect artifacts, the Ossuary and the recent Joash inscription.

As for Lemaire, he has an interest in the Ossuary, and for some reasn has chosen to make himself its spokesman. For that reason, he cannot be considered to have the proper distance from it, and his judgements can no longer be considered reliable.

Additionally, as the cite of Lupia noted, the erosive features of the box show that the inscription is not as old as box.

Finally, as we both know, the authenticity of the inscription itself is not a guide to whether it is a forgery. A competent forger will of course produce a script that falls within the acceptable range. This is an even greater problem because, as some of you know, many of the authenticated samples are themselves forgeries, forgery being so common in antiquities markets. The only reliable guide are the biochemical and geochemical assays of the surface.

I can't wait to see what the Israeli Commission says. The pressure on them to cave to authenticity will be enormous. In such cases many scholars say nothing at all, since lawsuits and wrecked careers are so common. I bet they produce a very equivocal document.

Vorkosigan

[Blake Reas]

I have now come to the conclusion that the ossuary either has a partially false inscription or that it is not the same James, Jesus, or Joseph that we think. I came to this conclusion after looking at the differences in the writing on the box. Also my question would be why didn't the box say more? I find it highly odd that the early creeds that we have in the New Testament refer to Jesus as Christ and Josephus even calls him the so called Christ but this bone box mentions nothing of the sort. I do however find part of the incription questionable. The second part seems to be written in a Galilean style Aramaic the first is different from that, I can not remember what script it was written in though.

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

[Sauron]

03-09-2003 @ 08:57 PM
Blake Reas:

I have now come to the conclusion that the ossuary either has a partially false inscription or that it is not the same James, Jesus, or Joseph that we think. Blake

Good evening, Blake.

I came to the same conclusion, with one small modification. I think that the ossuary itself is real and genuine; i.e., that it is a stone ossuary from the Jerusalem area, and dates from the 1st century CE.

However, I think the inscription is at least partially forged; if not entirely forged.

There were certainly enough such ossuaries around, to provide a "blank" to use as a starting point for a forgery. And of course, anyone wanting to create a forgery would (if at all possible) start with an ancient artifact, and not a freshly cut stone.

Christianity isn't going to rise or fall on the question of whether or not this is or isn't the ossuary of James. It would have been interesting if proven affirmative, but not conclusive of anything that wasn't already known (or asserted) from other sources.

In summary, I would say, "box good, writing bad". :smile:

[Blake Reas]

03-12-2003 @ 05:10 AM
Sauron:



Good evening, Blake.

I came to the same conclusion, with one small modification. I think that the ossuary itself is real and genuine; i.e., that it is a stone ossuary from the Jerusalem area, and dates from the 1st century CE.

However, I think the inscription is at least partially forged; if not entirely forged.

There were certainly enough such ossuaries around, to provide a "blank" to use as a starting point for a forgery. And of course, anyone wanting to create a forgery would (if at all possible) start with an ancient artifact, and not a freshly cut stone.

Christianity isn't going to rise or fall on the question of whether or not this is or isn't the ossuary of James. It would have been interesting if proven affirmative, but not conclusive of anything that wasn't already known (or asserted) from other sources.

In summary, I would say, "box good, writing bad". :smile:


I agree with you. I think the writing on the second half of the inscription is clearly by another scribe. The writing style changes and becomes what appears to be shakey. The first part is in straight letters like the hand was steady while chisling it in. I have just ordered Rohls revised egyptian Chronology I iwll post a reveiw of it when I get done with it.
Nice to have you back Sauron!

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake
:yipee:

[Haran]

Vork, I am seeing more and more rhetoric in your recent posts on the ossuary... Are you sure you're being unbiased and objective?


Vorkosigan:
Yardeni, according to what I have seen, sees two hands. Naveh, who is the leading scholar of ancient Hebrew, has rejected the inscription. Cross and Fitzmeyer are old and faith-committed.

Dr. Altman wrote a very misleading statement in one of her reports that seemed to say Yardeni agreed with her. I commented on it in my article and she never responded. At the moment, I do not believe that Yardeni thinks the inscription is in two hands.

Naveh counts and so does Kenneth Kitchen. They both seem to view the inscription as being in two hands.

However, to dismiss Frank Moore Cross and Joseph Fitzmyer as "old and faith-committed" is rhetoric at its finest. These two scholars are excellent and well-respected scholars.

Dr. Cross is one of the most respected paleographers in the field (Dr. Lemaire is not all that far behind):



His article "The Development of the Jewish Scripts" has been the standard reference work for the scripts of the scrolls and other Jewish texts from the last centuries of the Second Temple.

[i]The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls - James VanderKam & Peter Flint (2002)


I have read the work mentioned in the quote and currently agree with Dr. Cross, who believes that the inscription is in one hand:



Harvard University’s Frank Moore Cross, acknowledged as the dean of epigraphers (specialists in ancient writing), declared that the inscription was written by one hand.

BAS Special (http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbbreakingV.html)


It would be hard for a good semitic paleographer to ignore this scholar's conclusions.



Vorkosigan:
Viewers can look on Roger Viklund's site for a view of the inscription and decide for themselves.
http://user.tninet.se/~npt994z/james_ossuary_inscription.htm


Roger has done a great job of illustrating general shapes of the letters in the ossuary inscription. However, by clipping the letters out of the picture, he has accidentally removed some important features and reshaped some of the letters.

He also does a good job of summarizing what he believes to be Dr. Altman's points about the ossuary inscription. However, there are still no references to back up some of the claims (e.g. written in sound bites, final letters are lowered, exteded final pe as "end-of-text marker" - where do these claims come from?? I'd appreciate it if someone would find out for me, since Dr. Altman will not repond.).

At least one of the points, the one about the extended final pe being an "end-of-text marker" just seems plain wrong. Certain letters have "final forms" which are used at the end of words (even if scripta contiua, I believe). This is a very basic fact and one that Dr. Lemaire alluded when addressing what he seemed to see as Dr. Altman's lack of familiarity with semitic paleography.



Vorkosigan:
The artifact is from a collection, Golan's that is now the source of two suspect artifacts, the Ossuary and the recent Joash inscription.

To my knowledge, Oded Golan has not been declared a forger or thief. Many collectors have valuable artifacts in their possession, such as Shlomo Moussaieff who owns many Biblically important seals and famous "Temple Receipt". This does not make either of them crooked.



Vorkosigan:
As for Lemaire, he has an interest in the Ossuary, and for some reasn has chosen to make himself its spokesman.

This is not an unusual thing for scholars of any stripe to do.



Vorkosigan:
For that reason, he cannot be considered to have the proper distance from it, and his judgements can no longer be considered reliable.

This is unfair and I see no good reason to disregard this reputable scholar's opinion, especially when it coincides with that of one of the most eminent semitic paleographers, Frank Moore Cross.



Vorkosigan:
I can't wait to see what the Israeli Commission says. The pressure on them to cave to authenticity will be enormous. In such cases many scholars say nothing at all, since lawsuits and wrecked careers are so common. I bet they produce a very equivocal document.

This is more rhetoric, Vork. Darned if they do, darned if they don't... It doesn't leave open any possibility that they might just honestly come to the conclusion that the ossuary and its inscription are authentic.

Scholars in all fields seem very split at the moment. There is no real consensus and there seem to be good scholars who support different views. This may ultimately boil down to what you want to believe.

Whatever the case, it is wrong to leave the impression that the scholarly community has come to a consensus on the ossuary and its inscription being inauthentic.

[Vorkosigan]

To my knowledge, Oded Golan has not been declared a forger or thief.

Do you think Golan acquired that ossuary legally? Which of the stories he told is the correct one? And if he acquired it illegally, what does that make him?

Many collectors have valuable artifacts in their possession, such as Shlomo Moussaieff who owns many Biblically important seals and famous "Temple Receipt". This does not make either of them crooked.

Quite. But as I said, it is a signal.

However, by clipping the letters out of the picture, he has accidentally removed some important features and reshaped some of the letters.

Which ones? And if he has, did he do that to every letter? Every letter in the second half is clearly by a different hand.

It doesn't leave open any possibility that they might just honestly come to the conclusion that the ossuary and its inscription are authentic.

The ossuary is authentic, no question. It is the inscription that is fake. The only question is when it was faked.


Whatever the case, it is wrong to leave the impression that the scholarly community has come to a consensus on the ossuary and its inscription being inauthentic.

There will never be a consensus, Haran, on this ossuary.

Vorkosigan

[Sauron]

03-12-2003 @ 09:44 PM
Blake Reas:

I agree with you. I think the writing on the second half of the inscription is clearly by another scribe. The writing style changes and becomes what appears to be shakey. The first part is in straight letters like the hand was steady while chisling it in. I have just ordered Rohls revised egyptian Chronology I iwll post a reveiw of it when I get done with it.
Nice to have you back Sauron!

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake
:yipee:


Hi Blake,

I've elucidated on some of my reasons for believing the ossuary is a partial forgery, on this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=38494#post38494

Enjoy, and tell me what you think.

[Haran]

Yesterday @ 09:10 PM
Sauron:
I've elucidated on some of my reasons for believing the ossuary is a partial forgery, on this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=38494#post38494

Enjoy, and tell me what you think.

Sauron, I have countered some of your points in that thread. There are an awful lot of rumors and unsubstantiated claims flying around... I'm getting tired of them being stated as fact without reputable sources backing them up - that goes for some of Dr. Altman's claims (which no one seems to be able to provide me with information for) as well as claims that certain scholars believe certain ways without reputable sources backing up the claims.

Are we being unbiased??

[Haran]

03-15-2003 @ 09:01 PM
Vorkosigan:
Do you think Golan acquired that ossuary legally? Which of the stories he told is the correct one? And if he acquired it illegally, what does that make him?


I have no idea if he acquired it legally. If he truly bought the thing 15 years ago, then I would expect his memory to be somewhat fuzzy on the details since he also claims to not know its value. His actions are mildly curious, but I think much to much is being made of it to his detriment. Unless he is proven guilty, I have a problem with people damaging his reputation. It's rather sad. If he's a crook, then hopefully he'll be turned up. However, even if he did acquire the ossuary illegally, that does not mean that he forged anything. Most scholars seem to believe in the antiquity of the script anyway whether they believe it to be in two hands or not.


Many collectors have valuable artifacts in their possession, such as Shlomo Moussaieff who owns many Biblically important seals and famous "Temple Receipt". This does not make either of them crooked.

Quite. But as I said, it is a signal.


Signals are not proof. They seem more like cruel rumors.


Which ones? And if he has, did he do that to every letter? Every letter in the second half is clearly by a different hand.

I addressed this in some detail over on the SecWeb in the following thread:

James Ossuary thread on SecWeb (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47099&perpage=25&pagenumber=2)


The ossuary is authentic, no question. It is the inscription that is fake. The only question is when it was faked.

I don't think there are too many scholars who believe the inscription it was faked. Added for legitimate reasons perhaps. Maybe forged in antiquity as a relic, but then why was does it seem to never have been venerated?


There will never be a consensus, Haran, on this ossuary.

Probably not. However, there is more than enough reason to believe the ossuary and its inscription might be authentic.

[Sauron]

Today @ 06:56 AM
Haran:



Sauron, I have countered some of your points in that thread.


You responded. But you did not counter.


There are an awful lot of rumors and unsubstantiated claims flying around... I'm getting tired of them being stated as fact without reputable sources backing them up - that goes for some of Dr. Altman's claims (which no one seems to be able to provide me with information for) as well as claims that certain scholars believe certain ways without reputable sources backing up the claims.



Fortunately my post didn't contain any such flaws.

[Woman]

The truly sad thing about this find is that because of thieves and ignorant collectors like Golan - this ossuary, which may be one of very few extra-Biblical historical references to Christ, will never be fully authenticated. (Although I'm a skeptic, I am a great lover of antiquities and ancient history.) Not that believers need it. Even most skeptics believe there was a person named Jesus who got the attention of peope in the ANE.

Crosswalk.com has a three part article, from which I quote:

The discovery of this remarkable ossuary box has caused a whirlwind of excitement and skepticism and wonder. What do we know about this ossuary box?

The owner or the ossuary box is an engineer from Tel Aviv named Oded Golan. Golan claims that the box was purchased in an antiquities shop in the Old City of Jerusalem in 1978. He also claims that the owner of the gift shop told him the ossuary was found by Arab grave robbers in the village of Silwan, located to the southeast and across the Kidron Valley from the Temple Mount. There are problems with Golan’s claims.

First of all, we really do not when Golan did obtain the box from the antique dealer in the Old City. There is a law in Israel which states that any archaeological artifact discovered after 1978 is the property of the State of Israel. In 1978 Golan was sixteen years old. Some doubt that a sixteen year old would have made such a purchase as this. If not, and the purchase was made after 1978, then Golan and the antiquity dealer broke the law.

A second problem is that we do not know where the ossuary was found. If it was found in Silwan, as Golan has stated, this raises some interesting possibilities. We will discuss this later. But since we cannot know for sue where the ossuary was found we cannot scientifically verify the authenticity of the artifact.

Furthermore, the cave or tomb where the ossuary was kept has most likely been destroyed. This means we can never properly investigate the history of the ossuary

For those of you who don't know about it, a very high quality news site for such things is Bible News at: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles