[Myrnick]

I agree. But while you have hammered on Polycarp for failing to answer (to your satisfaction) some questions about Mary's whereabouts on the weekend of resurrection, you have also failed to engage him on his point potentially refuting the legitimacy of this archeological find - in Post #131.

I for one would like to think this is a genuine find. I can even convince myself that the second "hand" is the result of a second person coming along and adding a detail he was familiar with which the carver neglected. But you haven't even given Polycarp the benefit of that shaky theory, let alone any rock solid proof that this is the ossuary of THE James. You've allowed your sight to be clouded by a doctrinal point which in the end, likely won't matter much.

[berned]

I've stated several times that challenges are a normal and routine event in virtually EVERY archaeological find. They ALL get challenged. It's part of the process. I imagine the B.A.S. will want to rebut the challenges soon.

As to my "refuting" post # 131, how would I do that?

Someone makes a scientific discovery, using all the tools and expertise at their disposal. Someone else disputes that find. How can I or you or anyone sitting at a computer "REFUTE" this challenge?

I find the objections they raise to be weak. The mere fact of an addition (if done circa 62 AD) does not spell "hoax". It's merely an addition, as in "Hey, we should also mention that this man James was the brother of Jesus Christ", and added after the first inscription. Perhaps the writer of the first part didn't really know James. Maybe he just routinely put the name of deceased and the name of his father (which the Jews used like we do surnames)

How can I REFUTE the expected challenge?