Ancient burial box that may be oldest link to Jesus seriously damaged on the way to Canada

Yahoo / AP ^ | 11/1/2202 | MERITA D. ILO

[ex-Texan]

Because the ossuary was "broken" I was tempted to place this article under "breaking news" ......

[Humidston]

grooooan ;-)

[holyscroller]

Three or four posts earlier is one entitled "Ossuary was genuine, inscription was faked". A Jewish scholar who is an expert in inscriptions says the first part of the inscription is genuine, but the "brother of Jesus" part was added later and is a poorly done fake.

[berned]

Here's an intriguing thought.

There are several other threads which claim that the second half of the inscription "Brother of Jesus" is a hoax or forgery...

My thought is, since the limestone is 2000 years old and very very fragile...It's very serious damage, but not unusual for a limestone box of this age." ... and since the stress fractures were inherent in the piece of limestone, (just made manifest by vibration to the fragile limestone during the flight) isn't it reasonable to assume that if the 2nd half of the inscription was FORGED RECENTLY, the stress from grasping the fragile box and laboriously scratching the words "brother of Jesus" into it, would have caused the box to fracture THEN?

In a way, doesn't the stress factor caused by this week's airplane ride almost AUTHENTICATE that the inscription wsa NOT faked or added recently?

[berned]

should read "stress FRACTURE" not "factor"

[ex-Texan]

Hense the reason for the breaking ....

[berned]

Ah, but the stress fracture wasn't there when the ossuary was unveiled last week.

It only occured after the plane flight to Canada THIS WEEK.

Since the limestone was very very fragile, wouldn't the fracture have occured if someone laboriously scratched the "Brother of Jesus" part into the limestone RECENTLY?

[ex-Texan]

Galatians 1:19
I saw none of the other apostles -- only James, the Lord's brother.

Jude 1:1
Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved

Compare the following:

Mark 6:3
Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

Does anyone seriously contend that Jesus was the brother of Joseph, Judas and Simon? It's time to get real,

[dead]

How hard is it to transport a stupid box without breaking it? Even if it's really old and fragile, hows about you take that into consideration and pad accordingly.

[berned]

How hard is it to transport a stupid box without breaking it? Even if it's really old and fragile, hows about you take that into consideration and pad accordingly.

I'm sure they did. The box is worth $2 million. It's just that the box is 2000 years old, and is very, very, very, fragile.

TOO FRAGILE for someone to RECENTLY hack the words "Brother of Jesus" into it without the whole thing crumbling!

[AFPhys]

hmmm... i dunno... here at the lab, i've seen more than on example of a ceramic machined intact that failed after very mild subsequent handling. i'm not very familiar with the materials properties of rocks such as this, but i could imagine that the inscription could be added ok, but after a period of time, and some mild vibration or handling, that stress cracks could appear. the additional inscription could cause a change in the surface stresses that could render it even more fragile in that area. if so, i would expect a crack to be propagated beginning in the area of the additional inscription.

[berned]

Have you worked with any 2000 year old limestone?

[weegee]

Actually I would think that limestone is whole lot older than 2000 years. What he'd need to work with are 2,000 year old cut pieces of limestone.

[berned]

You're right.

[ccmay]

The box is worth $2 million

Says who? Seems to me it could be a sight more valuable than that.

-ccm

[berned]

I read the 2 million figure in one of the many articles currently on the ossuary.

It seemed a bit low to me too.

[Dialup Llama]

>A Jewish scholar who is an expert in inscriptions says the first part of the inscription is genuine, but the "brother of Jesus" part was added later and is a poorly done fake.

Something tells me this scholar was already not too happy about the 'brother of Jesus' part.

[berned]

Hee hee! Right you are!

[AFPhys]

No, I've not worked with any 2000 year old limestone, and I conceded in my post I know little about rocks, but I have worked with other brittle materials, and wrote of my observation of those. Well, and I might mention that I do have a materials science degree, but that might not be kosher.

[notyourregularhandle]

who said it had to have been faked RECENTLY? why couldn't it have been faked thousands of years ago?