Ossuary was genuine, inscription was faked

Jewsweek ^ | November 1, 2002 | Rochelle I. Altman

[lexington minuteman 1775]

intresting read.Think i will wait till other scholars wade in on this one. But my guess is we will never really know whether its real or fake.Some things are best left to FAITH.

[joesnuffy]

When Jesus was told that his mother and brothers and sisters wish to see him...he replied "Those who do my Father's will, are my mother and brothers and sisters indeed"!

[berned]

As you know, the Ossuary was damaged pretty badly during the recent flight to Canada...

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 fracture caused by this week's airplane ride almost AUTHENTICATE that the inscription was NOT faked or added recently?

[Vidalia]

Well I'd be dawg gone!

Another religious fakery?

Who could imagine such a horrid thaing, but who could or would benefit, exceptin' for the fakirs themselves?

Take 'em out and bury 'em in the deep and undulating sands of the desert, along with their thieving brethren...

[Hank Kerchief]

The ossuary itself is undoubtedly genuine; the well executed and formal first part of the inscription is a holographic original by a literate (and wealthy) survivor of Jacob Ben Josef in the 1st century CE. The second part of the inscription bears the hallmarks of a fraudulent later addition and is questionable to say the least.

Somebody needs to explain why the word "fraud" is used for this supposed, "addition," and exactly who it would be that was defrauded. Why an addition is necessarily a fraud is never explained, it could just as well have been a well intentioned addition of fact, even if poorly done.

It is obvious the evaluation is anything but objective, and the reason for that may point to a genuine fraud.

Hank

[lelio]

Or how bout this: the owner knew the jig was up and either broke the stone before it left for Canada or made some serious dents in it hoping that it would break en route? That seems more likely.

[berned]

It doesn't seem likely at all. The box had been photographed all last week. It was put on the plane in good condition -- no fractures -- the insurance companies would have made sure of that.

[Vince Ferrer]

As you know, the Ossuary was damaged pretty badly during the recent flight to Canada...

Believe it or not, this is the first full article I have read about this, so I'm probably way behind the curve. I heard the basic story about this ossuary, but hadn't paid much attention to it yet.

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 fracture caused by this week's airplane ride almost AUTHENTICATE that the inscription was NOT faked or added recently?

I wouldn't even guess about something like that. I don't know about the dimensions of the ossuary, or where the inscription is on that ossuary, in relation to the places it would be stressed on an airplane flight. I don't know where the cracks are in relation to the inscription. I don't know if the cracks were caused by the removal of the frame, which would seem to be the most stressful thing about the inscription. I think they could study the cracks and basically tell if the removal of the frame itself caused the stress fractures. Also, this article does not claim or require that the later addition was done recently. It could be quite old.

What is your opinion on why the frame was removed?

[isthisnickcool]

Why don't the ask Walter Mondale? He was around back then.

[berned]

don't know where the cracks are in relation to the inscription.

The stress fracture (the visible manifestation of an inherent weak spot in the limestone piece) runs RIGHT THROUGH the part of the inscription in question -- "Brother of Jesus".

I maintain that the stress that would have been imparted by forcefully inscribing those words would be far greater than the vibrations of an airlpane ride, and probably would have caused the fragile 2000 year old limestone to crumble in the inscribers hands.

The "frame" in question is not really a frame, but more a "style" of inscription. The frame refers to the way the words were inscribed, inside a sort of stylistic "frame".

At least that's my understanding from reading the articles.

[Sacajaweau]

Interesting but proves nothing whether fake or real.

The case is for the "value" of the item and that is whatever someone wishes to pay.

This is a rich folks game!!

[Vince Ferrer]

The stress fracture (the visible manifestation of an inherent weak spot in the limestone piece) runs RIGHT THROUGH the part of the inscription in question -- "Brother of Jesus".

To me, this fact is direct evidence of it being a later addition, and probably a fraud. The author describes the first part of the text as being excised and expertly written. By excising text, and carving a frame around it, the carver is weakening the rock at that point. An experienced carver would have chosen a rock strong enough to fit the inscription. While the rock was strong enough for the original text, by removing the frame and adding another line, the rock was weakened even more, beyond what the original author had allowed for. Had the whole text been the product of the original author, he would have chosen a thicker, stronger starting material. But if this is a later addition, the second carver had to work with the material he had, and created the weak point by his addition, at the point of his addition.

[toenail]

ping

[berned]

The author describes the first part of the text as being excised and expertly written. By excising text, and carving a frame around it, the carver is weakening the rock at that point

But that was 2 thousand years ago.

As of LAST WEEK the piece had no damage whatsoever. It was photographed extensively last week before the airplane ride.

The experts will have to weigh in, but the fragile, brittle 2000 year old limestone was just fine as of last week.

[Vince Ferrer]

As of LAST WEEK the piece had no damage whatsoever.

Yes it was damaged last week, and all the weeks and years since somebody added more text than it was designed to hold. The extra text is the damage.

Has anyone CAT scanned, X-rayed, or anything other than photographed it yet?

[berned]

The extra text is the damage.

Not if the "extra text" was added circa 62 AD.

At that time the limestone was fresh enough to build a box out of and would have supported any amount of writing.

If you look at a photo of the box post-damage, i.e. after the flight to Canada this week, you'll see the vibrations from the flight punched a hole right through the wall of the box. It looks as brittle as an egg shell.

Photos of the inscription LAST week show no sign of damage at all.

If one wants to claim the "brother of Jesus" part was a HOAX, one must postulate WHEN the supposed "hoax" was done... last month? Last YEAR? 20 years ago? 200 years ago? And one must factor in the brittle, eggshell-like condition of the ancient limestone.

Then one must ask to what end and what purpose it would have been done? Money? To corroborate certain passages in the Bible?

How long did the box sit in dusty obscurity before it's recent discovery? Why would a hoaxer forge an inscription but make no effort to live to see the outcome of his handywork? And make no effort to profit from it?

[Hank Kerchief]

If one wants to claim the "brother of Jesus" part was a HOAX, one must postulate WHEN the supposed "hoax" was done... last month? Last YEAR? 20 years ago? 200 years ago?

Exactly! That was my point also, see #6.

Odd that the Catholics venerate the Shroud of Turin, an obvious fake and contradiction of the Bible, but are having a hissy-fit over this, which agrees with the Bible.

I'm not too surprised the thing was nearly destroyed. I'm sure it's going to be.

Hank

[Varda]

It will be fun reading about this find for a while as the expects have their usual knock down drag out fight over it.
The issue of the spelling of "brother" was addressed in Biblical Archaology Review.

From BAR,
"To forge the James inscription, a forger would need to be able to imitate Aramaic letter forms of the first century CE and also to avoid any errors in first-century usage.

Before publishing the inscription, we showed it to Father Joseph Fitzmyer, formerly of the Catholic University of America and one of the world's leading experts in first-century Aramaic and a pre-eminent Dead Sea Scroll editor (he edited a number of the Aramaic texts among the scrolls). Father Fitzmyer was troubled by the spelling in the James inscription for the word "brother", it is spelled aleph, het, waw and yod. In Hebrew it is spelled simply aleph het. Only after hundreds of years would the spelling on the James inscription appear in Aramaic, and then it would be plural, not singular.

However, after doing some research, Father Fitzmyer found the same spelling of "brother" in the Dead Sea Scroll known as the Genesis Apocryphon. In addition, He found another example in which the same form appeared - in an ossuary inscription in which the deceased was identified as someone's brother, just as James is here. "I stand corrected," said Father Fitzmyer.

Either the putative forger had to know first century Aramaic better than Father Fitzmyer or the inscription is authentic.

To my mind this is one of the strongest arguments for the authenticity of the James inscription. - H.S. (Hershel Shanks)"

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Odd that the Catholics venerate the Shroud of Turin, an obvious fake and contradiction of the Bible, but are having a hissy-fit over this, which agrees with the Bible.

Odd that so many reject the Shroud despite the evidence that it is authentic but accept the Ossuary which doesn't prove any geneology at all. It's also humorous to watch the Protestant clamor considering that Calvin, Luther, Zwingli Wesley and many others all believed in, wrote and preached about the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Please provide those passages of Scripture that state the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to other children or that the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus are called the "sons and daughters" of Mary. The linguistic literalists get tripped up again.