Possible Earliest Artifact Identifying Jesus?

ReasonableDoubt,

Much as the "pressure" to select alternative explanations might well be driven by a need to validate a mythicist position.
Click to expand...
True enough - but I note with interest that the reporting of this find in the general press seems to emphasizing the possibility of being *the James*. Why this immediate slant towards the positive (not a verdict, just an angle)? Surely the sensible default is towards the negative, in the absense of any further evidence?
 
RD,

You can show no "serious scholarship done on Jesus' missing years that involved submerging himself in the Essene culture", only speculation. You insist on proving yourself worthy of disdain.

As usual you enter mid stream, get half the story, then show your ass. My original quote used the word "more" before the words "serious scholarship." That quantifier was a reference to early suggestions that Jesus may have been married-- I've read those sorts of things too.

But even if you want to throw my post out the context of the first half of this thread, we should still do a quick breakdown to determine where your issues are. Would it have been more pleasing to your tender sensibilities if I had posted this sentence instead:

I have seen more serious scholarship done on Jesus' missing years that SUGGESTS (instead of "involved") he had submered himself in the Essene culture...

???

Or is it the phrase "serious scholarship" that begins to wad the panty?
If so, is it the word "scholarship" or "serious" or a combination?

If you object to scholarship, then what do you consider to be scholarship? Do you reject periodicals? Journals? Dissertations? Because there has been "scholarship" on this topic in such publications.

Or is it just periodicals and journals that fail to fall into line with your skeptical view of ancient history?

Does saying that there is NO serious scholarship on the topic, mean there is no scholarship (you would be foolish to claim this), it is not scholarship you accept by your criteria, or the scholarship cannot be deemed serious?

Flick
 
It Arrive in the Mail - It Should Go Out In The Trash

I have just received my copy of the much anticipated Biblical Archaeology Review. What a waste. There is zero substance beyond what is readily available on the news. In brief, it appears to be an interesting artifact of little or no probative value.
 
stamenflicker said:
I have seen more serious scholarship done on Jesus' missing years that SUGGESTS (instead of "involved") he had submered himself in the Essene culture...
Click to expand...
Please reference the peer reviewed, serious scholarship suggesting that "Jesus had submered himself in the Essene culture."[/i]
 
Please reference the peer reviewed, serious scholarship suggesting that "Jesus had submered himself in the Essene culture."[/i]

Why should I? You could care less and I have better things to do with my time. On top of it all, you'd completely disregard anything I submitted as you have previously done-- skirting the issue and redircting me to a goose chase of your choosing.

Flick
 
stamenflicker said:
Please reference the peer reviewed, serious scholarship suggesting that "Jesus had submered himself in the Essene culture."[/i] Why should I? ... you'd completely disregard anything I submitted as you have previously done-- skirting the issue and redircting me to a goose chase of your choosing.
Click to expand...
I'll let others evaluate the extent to which I've skirted the ossuary issue. With regard to your childish diversions, however, the issue is your credibility. Evade it if you wish ...
 
I'll let others evaluate the extent to which I've skirted the ossuary issue. With regard to your childish diversions, however, the issue is your credibility. Evade it if you wish ...

Surely you jest. I find it extraordinary that not only are published articles in recognized journals not enough "evidence" of scholarship for you, but instead you want only that which has been peer reviewed. I would think to get into most scholarly journals you be "peer" reviewed by the editors. Instead, you'd like me to not only find the article, or even "peers" who have cited the articles, but rather find people who have written a review of it.

I just did a quick search through my university databases of current journals and periodicals and found over a dozen relevant articles written since 1997 alone-- particularly regarding Jesus' alleged use of Dead Sea similar words and phrases, as collaborated with the 4th gospel, as well as similar eschatological themes. If you think for a second that I'm going to waste my time tracking down the reviews of these articles and their citations for you, then you are a fool. I suppose having numerous Phd's post on the subject in admirable scholarly journals is not quite enough for you.

Futhermore, if you want to talk about diversions then take a hard look at you pulling my entire sentence out of context to begin with... talk about diversions. I am quite comfortable with my credibility, if anyone would like to investigate the subject that's their business. In the meantime, you continue to operate outside the boundaries of "reasonable doubt" and have moved into "unreasonable doubt."

Flick
 
Going back to the subject at hand, I was interested in reading the following from the State of Israel, The Ministry of National Infrastructures Geological Survey, as reported in BAR:
... All chalks in the Jerusalem belong to the Menuha Formation of Mount Scopus Group Sequence of the Senonian period. Generally the lower part of the Menuha Formation was exploited around Jerusalem during the 1st and 2nd centuries CE and several chalk stone quarries were discovered from that period in the Jerusalem area. The studied ossuary is made of this chalk.
Click to expand...
Note the part about "exploited ... during the 1st and 2nd centuries CE". Given that previous reports suggested a terminus of 70CE, this comment from the IGS more than doubles the time base by extending it another 130 years.

Furthermore, the articles estimate of the number of possible
  • James son of Joseph brother of Jesus
is based an assuming 2 generations over the time base 20 BCE - 70 CE, i.e., over 90 years. I'm in my late 50's and a proud grandfather. In 40 years I have every expectastion of being a great-grandfather.

All in all, what we seem to have in the BAR piece is an example of wishful thinking supported by innuendo based firmly on sloppy scholarship.
 
ReasonableDoubt said:
snip..

All in all, what we seem to have in the BAR piece is an example of wishful thinking supported by innuendo based firmly on sloppy scholarship.
Click to expand...


.. wishful, inuendo, sloppy ..

Anthing else and there would be little to write about...


You have my vote..

Something I am curious about.. The BAR doesn't mind printing that " The ossuary has been dated to approximately 63 A.D. "

I wonder how this correlates to Christian scholars' estimate of when James actually died?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited: Just did a little reasearch ..

"The time of James' death by martyrdom is known, because Josephus (a non-Christian 1st century historian) recorded it as AD 62 or 63."


Hmmmmmm... I wonder who 'dated' the ossuary and what information they used..


Scholar: " Well, James died in 62 - 63.. Looks like we have a date for our ossuary.." :D
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------








----------------------------------
P.S.
The message board over at the BAR is very akward to navigate, but I found this..


"Hello. One skeptic say that first part of inscription is good hebrew:"yakov ben yoseph" but last part is like nabatean aramean and paleographic is like diffrent hand. It is less readable and clumsier. Probably later adden."

As is, this is anecdotal, and of course 'inadmissable', but I haven't seen any referances to counter, credible analysation of this thing.

Does anyone know of any?
 
RD:

thank you for that most interesting link...she has some interesting points that seemingly the claimers for authenticity need to address.


This may be a stupid question (but that's yet to stop me from posing it :)) but can anyone comment on the grammer of the inscription? It says, so far as I understand it James son of josehp brother of Jesus. My question is grammatical, given an inscription like this (and I may have recorded it incorrectly, if so, my bad): how do you know it is James son of Joseph AND brother of Jesus, and not James son of Joseph (joseph) the brother of Jesus...in short, is there a reason to read this a James is Jesus' brother, and not James, nephew of Jesus?

Interested in views from folks with an archeological education/bent/understanding far deeper than mine...
 
ReasonableDoubt said:
See the Dr. Rochelle Altman Analysis.

Please note that I have no basis upon which to judge her analysis and do not presume it to be accurate.
Click to expand...


Excellent!

If we can verify Dr. Altman's credentials, it would seem her opinion should have as much weight as any other 'verified' expert.


My question would be: If the difference in the two parts of the inscription is so obvious, how does the other camp imagine for a moment, that the truth will remain hidden for any length of time?
 
headscratcher4 said:
RD:

thank you for that most interesting link...she has some interesting points that seemingly the claimers for authenticity need to address.


This may be a stupid question (but that's yet to stop me from posing it :)) but can anyone comment on the grammer of the inscription? It says, so far as I understand it James son of josehp brother of Jesus. My question is grammatical, given an inscription like this (and I may have recorded it incorrectly, if so, my bad): how do you know it is James son of Joseph AND brother of Jesus, and not James son of Joseph (joseph) the brother of Jesus...in short, is there a reason to read this a James is Jesus' brother, and not James, nephew of Jesus?

Interested in views from folks with an archeological education/bent/understanding far deeper than mine...
Click to expand...


I'm not the expert you expect to hear from, but I would infer, that if the text , had appeared to be 'one' inscription, and not two parts, Dr. Altman might have addressed the grammar issue you bring up.


Dr. Altman, proceeding under the impression that she is looking at two different inscriptions, did not bother with the grammatical context, when viewed as a 'single' inscription.


(just noting my thoughts)
 
The thread in ReasonableDoubt's link is interesting.

More questions from both sides..

This caught my eye, regarding the ' uniform patina ', and how it might relate to the age of the object.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Considering the age of the object, if the second hand were three or even four
centuries later than the first it would be undetectable by patination
analysis. It would probably be undetectable if it were even later. This is
because a patina forms upon a "clean" surface relatively quickly (in
archaeological terms--usually only a couple of centuries, depending upon the
environment); but once the patina has covered the surface the process comes
to a virtual standstill, since the patina is primarily formed by the chemical
reaction of compounds in the environment with the surface. (Hence the
"cauliflower" pattern in this case.) "

----------------------------------------------------------------
 
headscratcher4 said:
... how do you know it is James son of Joseph AND brother of Jesus, and not James son of Joseph (joseph) the brother of Jesus.
Click to expand...
I've read that the word ordering makes it unambiguous. On the other hand, I have a son-in-law who is an Orthodox Jew familiar with Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, and he tells me:
  1. The sentence is every bit as ambiguous as it is in English and, furthermore
  2. while the "son of" term is definitely Aramaic, the "brother of" term is Hebrew.
Damned if I know who's right, but his wife makes one hell of a good Shabbat dinner. :D :) :D
 
Diogenes said:
My question would be: If the difference in the two parts of the inscription is so obvious, how does the other camp imagine for a moment, that the truth will remain hidden for any length of time? [/B]
Click to expand...

It could be argued that the second part was done after burial, for instance when moving the urn from one side to another. Hey, even if the second part were written in latin, you could argue that a paleochristian roman got the box!

This reminders me of the old joke:
-Are you interested also in some ancient coins? See I have one of Augustus: The incription reads "CAES. AUGUST. IMPER. 18BC"
-Wow! 18 BC! That is irrefutable.

Also, I find uneasy with the probability estimates. They should consider all the population of Israel, not only the ones living in Jerusalem, as they do not know where the urn was. On the other hand, the simple fact of the box being removed and preserved should, if authentic, to be taken in account.

Alejandro
 
It's a Josephus redeaux

I suspect that the refutation of the authenticity of the inscription (if a refutation occurs) will never be reported in the popular press.

While it makes news to say we mysteriously found a 2,000 year old bone box mentioning a "Yeshua," only archeologists will hear if it is determined that the "brother of Yeshua" phrase was written by someone centuries later. Hell - preachers today continue to cite Josephus as evidence of historicity, when all historians concede to at least some christian additions to his writings.

Skeptics - keep a watchful eye out. The shroud may have a new neighbor.
 
Re: It's a Josephus redeaux

Gregor said:
Hell - preachers today continue to cite Josephus as evidence of historicity, when all historians concede to at least some christian additions to his writings.
Click to expand...
As an aside: it may be that your sentence is a bit misleading, since it suggests that "all historians" dismiss Josephus as probative. In fact only those historians who insist that the Josephus reference are complete interpolations are rejecting historicity. Those who merely "concede to at least some christian additions to his writings" are, in fact, supporting your dreaded preachers. By the way:
Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist. In one book, by Freke and Gandy, the authors go so far as to state that no "serious scholar" believes that the passage has authenticity (p. 137), which is a serious misrepresentation indeed. [ see Kirby on TF ]
Click to expand...
We all have to be respectful of the facts, careful with our deductions, and aware of our biases. ;)
 
Two points on Joey

Thanks - and I concede that my FJ reference is something of a drive-by.

My point was that two weeks ago a preacher answering the question "Was Jesus real?" incorrectly asserted that historians agree that Joe wrote about Jesus. I think the link you reference would support the following statement: "In the past 70 years, only 4 historians (and none publishing since 1980) thought the entire passage was authentic. Everyone else (over 50 historians?) conceded to at least some interpolations."

By the way, the prior link appeared to argue that the inscriptions of names were in raised letters, rather than cut into the stone. The only photos I have seen show "cut in" letters. Was I mistaken about the refutation? The refutation seems suspect.
 
Re: Two points on Joey

Gregor said:


By the way, the prior link appeared to argue that the inscriptions of names were in raised letters, rather than cut into the stone. The only photos I have seen show "cut in" letters. Was I mistaken about the refutation? The refutation seems suspect.
Click to expand...

Do you have any links to your 'Photo's' ?

I agree, that ' incision ' was my perception, but this can be misleading, depending on how the object was illuminated, when photographed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom