A Discovery That's Just Too Perfect [James brother of Jesus Ossuary is a hoax-my title]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-eisenman29oct29.story?null ^ | October 29, 2002 | Robert Eisenman

[Polycarp]

COMMENTARY

A Discovery That's Just Too Perfect

Claims that stone box held remains of Jesus' brother may be suspect.

By Robert Eisenman Robert Eisenman is the author of "James the Brother of Jesus" (Penguin, 1998) and a professor of Middle East religions and archeology at Cal State Long Beach.

October 29 2002

James, the brother of Jesus, was so well known and important as a Jerusalem religious leader, according to 1st century sources, that taking the brother relationship seriously was perhaps the best confirmation that there ever was a historical Jesus. Put another way, it was not whether Jesus had a brother, but rather whether the brother had a "Jesus."

Now we are suddenly presented with this very "proof": the discovery, allegedly near Jerusalem, of an ossuary inscribed in the Aramaic language used at that time, with "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." An ossuary is a stone box in which bones previously laid out in rock-cut tombs, such as those in the Gospels, were placed after they were retrieved by relatives or followers.

[Delbert]

And to fake the inscription would be a hoax. Keep reading the thread. Antiquities script experts and all of us Freeper Catholics believe the inscription was faked.

[Sabertooth]

Dr. Rochelle Altman is another critic of the recent findings. An historian of writing systems and an expert on scripts, Altman writes that while the ossuary itself is genuine, the second half of the inscription -- "brother of Jesus" -- is a poor imitation of the first half of the inscription, one that must have been added later. Her reasons sound pretty convincing (though I claim no expertise in that area).

According to Altman, inscriptions on ossuaries were covenants made by the dead person's family members, pledging that they would continue to revere their deceased loved one. As was the case with all such solemn vows, the covenant had to be written in the hand of the person making it. Thus, while professional masons might have "touched up" the inscription later, the original inscription had to be made by the family member.

Obviously, not all family members were literate, so their inscriptions might have been a little shaky. Either way, it would have all been done in the same hand. However, Altman argues that the inscription on this particular ossuary was written by two different people.

How does she know? Well, the first group of words -- "Jacob son of Joseph" -- was written by someone who was fully literate (she could tell by the consistency of the lettering and the formal script).

After the author carved the initial lettering, a professional excised the text (meaning that the stone around it was carved out to make the letters raised) and enclosed the words in a kind of frame -- a common practice when excising an inscription.

All of this appears legitimate to Altman. But, she says, that's not true of the second half of the inscription -- "brother of Jesus." Apparently, there are a few strange misspellings in this second part, as if the person writing it had little grasp of either Hebrew or Aramaic, and was trying to copy a script and language unfamiliar to him. Altman also points out that the script is informal, as compared with the formal lettering of the first section.

But that's not all. She additionally notes that there's no excised frame around the words. Since it was a normal practice to excise both the words and a frame, she concluded that the second writer removed the original frame so he could add his own words.

Her final verdict? The box is real; the inscription is not. "If the entire inscription on the ossuary is genuine," she says, "then somebody has to explain why there are two hands of clearly different levels of literacy and two different scripts. They also have to explain why the second hand did not know how to write 'brother of' in Aramaic or even spell 'Joshua' [the Hebrew form of Jesus]. Further, they had better explain where the frame has gone."

Here's the problem: even if we grant every aspect of Dr. Altman's analysis about the inscription(s) on the ossuary, her conclusion, "the box is real; the inscription is not," is not logically necessary.

If two people write a note together, with parts of it in each of their own scripts, is the note genuine?

Simple answer: we don't know.

That two people wrote a note together has no bearing on its authenticity. And the same is true of the inscription on the ossuary.

This type of textual analysis is interesting, but is often carried too far. For example, there are those who conclude that the Book of Genesis was written by multiple authors because there are multiple names used for God. This presumes (without justification) against the possibility of a single author using different names for God as they were used by different people in the past, and thereby reflecting that in the chronology he was writing.

Here's a simple and plausible anwer to the challenge of Dr. Altman's final paragraph (as quoted above):

The original inscription was written by one person, and the subsequent inscription was written hastily by someone less literate and skillful with a chisel. Maybe the second inscription is true, maybe it isn't. Maybe it was inscribed by someone who knew James and Jesus, maybe it wasn't.

Stone inscriptions are notoriously tough to date. I'd like to see an analysis of the matrix found in the grooves of the inscriptions, and perhaps dating on any pollens or organic material found there.

[VOYAGER]

I'm glad to know the "rest of the stoooreeeee",(as Paul Harvey would say)thanks.

I am sure at one time I knew that but my mind only stored some of it in the long term memory bank of my brain.

[Desdemona]

Antiquities script experts and all of us Freeper Catholics believe the inscription was faked.

Actually, common sense and a fair amount of experience around archival and rare artifacts as well as antiques tells me it's probably faked. The box itself is supposed to be from the period, it's the second part of the inscription that's in question. Market value of any object increases by attributing it to a famous person. That's what I think happened. It happens in the antique world all the time. Faith didn't come into conclusion at all.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I heard that they also found some Roman coins dated XXII BC.

LOL!!

Weren't there some dated 0 ??

[Polycarp]

THIRD time asking Polycarp a simple question which he has thus far refused to answer:

For the last week you have spent much time trumpeting this ossuary as authentic and as one that crushes that Catholic position on Mary.

Scriptural explanations of differing thoughts have taken up multiple threads, as a result of this ossuary.

I have posted a thread that refutes the authenticity of the ossuary.

You had your chance to crow.

Now refute posts 1, 5, 131, and 206...

AND STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT!!!

yOU KNOW YOUR OSSUARY HAS BEEN DISPROVEN, SO YOU'RE SIMPLY TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

No more theological questions from you till you refute posts 1, 5, 131, and 206.

Stop trying to run away and trying to change the subject, Berned.

And simply assassinating the character of the author does NOT REFUTE his arguments in post 1, and neither have you addressed posts 5, 131, nor 206.

[berned]

I will not answer any further theological questions on this thread from you. Don't bother asking, and don't bother trying to put words in my mouth.

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're as slippery as Bill Clinton!!!!

At least Campion is man enough to state publicly what he thinks and believes.

YOU ARE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

But I will try one last time. In YOUR post to me, # 128, you said:

Yeah, like you run away from the clear proof that James the Just was the son of Alphaeus, not Joseph.

Since you believe there were only TWO James's mentioned in the NT, and James and John were the sons of Zebedee and Salome, I asked you if the James mentioned in Mark 6:3 whose brothers were ALL NAMED (Joses, Jude, and Simon -- for now let's leave Jesus out for the sake of clarity) I asked you if you believe this James, mentioned in Mark 6:3 is the son of Clopas/ALPHAEUS.

In your note # 128 you seemed to indicate you believe these ARE the sons of ALPHAEUS.

Yes or no?

[Delbert]

Well in all of these threads since this was first posted last week, there were several Freepers of multiple Christian denominations that were happy and excited that even though we dont need archaeology to support our faith that it is indeed a blessing when it does happen. Wow a possible historical real tangible link to Jesus.

Then there was another camp that immediately set out to prove that this ossuary was a forgery and a fake. Interesting how all of those people were either atheists or catholics.

[RightWhale]

Market value of any object increases by attributing it to a famous person.

Certain people get on my case for telling what I see, but it looks like the text was carved into the stone a long time after the stone was first cut. The text is fresh and clean, the surface looks worn or eroded.

[Campion]

Oops, you got me. It doesn't say that Joses was the son of Alphaeus. It says that James was the son of Alphaeus, and Jamee and Joses were the sons of Mary (e.g., Mt 27:56). This is not the mother of the Lord, or she would be identified as such, since He is far the more important figure. Elsewhere it says that this Mary was the wife of "Clopas," which is just another rendering of Alphaeus.

That Mary is the "sister" (sister-in-law?) of the BVM, according to John 19:25.

So, yeah, I guess she could have been married twice, and James and Joses could really be half-brothers. But that seems like an unnecessary complication that can be proven by nothing more than silence.

[berned]

I'm not changing the subject. Your belief about James hinges on there being only two James's. The son of Zebedee and Salome, and the son of Alphaeus and Mary.

I'm just asking you if you think the James mentioned as JESUS' BROTHER in Mark 6:3 (directly relating to THIS TOPIC -- THE OSSUARY) is the son of ALPHAEUS.

You refuse, for some reason, to type a simple Yes or no.

If the Mark 6:3 James is neither the son of Zebedee OR the son of Alphaeus -- THEN WHO IS HE?????

[Polycarp]

These debates have gone on ad nauseum already.

On this thread, the ossuary has been debunked.

See my last post.

You are the slippery one. You cannot refute this debunking of your pet ossuary and thus must try to steer the discussion away from the topic of the thread itself.

Nice try. Ain't gonna happen. You gotta not refute the debunking of the ossuary.

I don't give a hoot about YOPIOS re Mark 6:3.

Refute posts 1, 5, 131, and 206.

[Desdemona]

Certain people get on my case for telling what I see, but it looks like the text was carved into the stone a long time after the stone was first cut. The text is fresh and clean, the surface looks worn or eroded.

Exactly. Anything almost 2000 years old is going to be worn and chipped. I can't believe people can't see this.

[Campion]

You forgot about the camp that immediately set about to use the ossuary to trash and denigrate the beliefs of their Christian brothers and sisters.

[Delbert]

Its time for you guys to meet outside by the gym after the 3:15 bell. ; )

[Polycarp]

I'm not changing the subject.

Thread Title:

[James brother of Jesus Ossuary is a hoax] A Discovery That's Just Too Perfect

On the contrary, I must insist that you are indeed changing the subject.

refute posts 1, 5, 131, and 206.

That is the subject of this thread.

[berned]

Campion, you will never know how much your stock has soared in my estimation. Thank you for your note # 230.

Polycarp is not man enough to publicly state what he believes. But you are, and for that you have my admiration.

[Myrnick]

So much hatred for fellow Christians. Shameful really.

[Delbert]

Point Taken. I love you man....(in a strictly heterosexual, christian content of course)

[Desdemona]

Then there was another camp that immediately set out to prove that this ossuary was a forgery and a fake. Interesting how all of those people were either atheists or catholics.

We Catholics DO have artifacts. Several. All have been around for centuries. None are proven absolutely conclusively, as far as I know. We argue over the Shroud. The Crown of Thorns (Notre Dame, Paris) has been questioned. Even the original Cross, which was found, we believe... All of which were known to exist long ago. This burial box appeared out of nowhere.

What I've seen questioned by non-RCs isn't faith, but the Blessed Mother's virginity and her relationship with Joseph.