Replies

It fits in ways we would expect it to fit after 2000 years have past, but not in ways understandable at the time.

Please explain what wouldn't fit 2000 years ago. I understood that their are similar inscriptions mentioning brothers in that time period. I agree that it is possible its a fraud and I agree its possible that this is a coincidence in names but I don't see how basing a logical proof on the concept that the evidence is "too good" works.

Seems to me that the article raises legitimate doubts, combined with a clear bias. For instance, the use of the phrase "brother of Jesus" instead of "James, the Just" or some such thing. It all depends on how James was regarded by the person in question, who (family member or not) may not have esteemed him in the same manner as he would be by others. Nevertheless, the fuzzy provenance of the box, combined with differences in the textual style, are exactly the sort of evidences honest believing Biblical scholars look for when seeking to authenticate an artifact or manuscript. It's fair game.

Bottom line is that we shouldn't go out on any limbs, nor make our faith dependent on an object.

I don't see how basing a logical proof on the concept that the evidence is "too good" works.

You've heard the phrase, "if something is too good to be true, then it probably is" - the same thing applies in research. The quickest way to be exposed as a fraud is to submit data, for example a graph, which exactly fits the theoretical predictions with absolutely no error (or to use a recent example to submit graphs from two different experiments which have exactly identical noise profiles). In other words if you have too perfect a specimen then that will raise some cackles somewhere.

Fraud?

Ok - So the box itself is considered real - right time, right place, right construction. (By the quoted skeptical "experts".

Fine.

The (first) inscription is aknowledged to be "real" ... by these same experts.

(They seem to have doubts that something ca't be real if it can't be tracked (by hand-to-hand receipts maybe?) through 2000 years, but what the heck...)

And so they base their claim that it is fake because of the subtle differences between first and second inscriptions.

Did these "experts ever figure out that about year 150 Ad - When a person WANTED TO PROVE THIS WAS THE REAL BOX - added the second inscription?

Don't you take a photograph and write the child's NAME and Date on the back? To remember the TIME and the event - even though the date you inscribed the photograph WASN'T the date you took the photo?

Don't you take an old photograph album and write new descriptions on the new pages? What do you use: "Aunt Jane" or "My sister Jaba?" Isn't "Aunt Jane" more accurate now (30 years later) to your children than your baby-talk nickname that you used when you were four?

So the Teaching changed from AD 45 to AD 150.

Isn't that more reflective of truth than scholar's secular prejudices and a common hatred of Biblical phrases by most academic experts?