"Brother of Jesus" bone-box plot thickens [Israeli Scholars: Jesus' 'Brother' Box Fraud]

Israel Insider ^ | November 5, 2002 | Ellis Shuman

[Polycarp]

Ownership battle brews over Jesus-era burial box Ha'aretz

Ossuary repairs on hold The Globe and Mail

Final report on the James ossuary Rochelle I. Altman

Ossuary was genuine, inscription was faked Rochelle I. Altman

[Polycarp]

"The reason the police are onto Golan is that there are two such ossuaries, both already known and photographed in a book on the ossuaries in collections in Israel published in 1996. This one was not bought at an antique dealer in the 1960s, but at an auction, from a museum, in the 1980s," Altman says.

[Polycarp]

I think this hoax has been adequately laid to rest. Ping (as usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my Catholic ping list, please let me know via Freepmail.)

[Alouette]

Both Altman and noted paleographer Ada Yardeni have concluded that the second part of the inscription was added later. "There are two hands; two different scripts; two different social strata, two different levels of execution, two different levels of literacy, and two different carvers," Altman says.

Altman believes that the second half was actually written in the 3rd or 4th century, while Paul Flesher at the University of Wyoming, an expert on Hebraicized Aramaic dialects, dates it anywhere between the 2nd and 7th centuries.

It looks like plain old everyday MODERN Hebrew block letters to me. I think these "experts" are pulling everyone's leg.

[berned]

Notice that the limestone is so ancient, so brittle, and so fragile, that merely moving it causes it to nearly disintegrate.

But, of course, forcefully HACKING letters into the 2000 + year old surface did NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!!!

[AnAmericanMother]

No, that's the AUTHENTIC part. Remember that Hebrew reads right-to-left.

On the right, traditional funerary script, very meticulous. On the left, scraggly uneven inconsistent lettering, probably by somebody who didn't speak Hebrew or not of that period . . .

[Thinkin' Gal]

But, of course, forcefully HACKING letters into the 2000 + year old surface did NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!!!

[LimitedPowers]

I don't get it: if the second half of the inscription was done by the 7th century, and the box was in a museum 20 years ago and had presumably been examined, why didn't anyone take notice of the inscription?

Anyway, it isn't necessarily a "hoax" if the whole inscription was completed in ancient times; it can't be used as evidence of the existence of Jesus, though (as if such evidence were really needed, anyway).

[Polycarp]

it can't be used as evidence of the existence of Jesus, though (as if such evidence were really needed, anyway).

EXACTLY!!!

Though some here and elsewhere with a sectarian axe to grind have used this ossuary box inscription as if it definitively disproved certain Catholic teachings about the Blessed Virgin Mary.

How absurd.

[Doctor Stochastic]

It should be easy to date the inscription."Weathering" on the incised part starts on the incision date as opposed to the surface weathering which starts on the quarry date.

[meandog]

I think this hoax has been adequately laid to rest. Ping (as usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my Catholic ping list, please let me know via Freepmail.)

Even if it is a 2nd century hoax, would not this be THE absolute fact that the early Church did not attach itself to a dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity--as proposed by the Church of Rome centuries later?

[Polycarp]

I think these "experts" are pulling everyone's leg.

Personally, I think "the experts" are making an honest, disinterested study of this ossuary.

The ones pulling everyone's leg are those who, two weeks ago, used this ossuary inscription as a mighty big sledge hammer to attack traditional/orthodox Christianity's teaching's regarding the Mother of God.

They owe everyone a big apology and admittance of error, both on this forum and elsewhere, but I ain't holding my breath.

[meandog]

Though some here and elsewhere with a sectarian axe to grind have used this ossuary box inscription as if it definitively disproved certain Catholic teachings about the Blessed Virgin Mary.

See post #11...even if hoax it backs up fact about early Church theology...

[kjam22]

Unless the box cries or bleeds the Catholic Church won't recognize it as valid.

[Polycarp]

Even if it is a 2nd century hoax, would not this be THE absolute fact that the early Church did not attach itself to a dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity--as proposed by the Church of Rome centuries later?

No. Mary's perpetual virginity was taught by the early Christians as well as the protestant reformers Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli.

See Mary: Ever Virgin

It was only recently, in the mid 1800's, that protestants began denying this continuous belief of Christianity.

So contrary to the thinking that the RCC "attached itself to a new doctrine...

...the Truth is that protestantism detached itself from the continuous teachings of Christianity regarding Mary, only about a century ago.

[Polycarp]

even if hoax it backs up fact about early Church theology...

I guess you fail to see the contradiction in this post of yours.

Typical of the defenders of this hoax.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Who would be the perpetrators of this "hoax" and why would they have done it over a millenium ago? So far there has been no evidence of a "fraud" or a "hoax" even if everything the debunkers say is true.

[xzins]

1. Jewish scholars reacted negatively before they knew anything. That indicates a religious based hostility to the ossuary that precludes their ability to fairly evaluate it.

2. Even IF the 2nd part of the inscription were demonstrated to be dated 200 years after the first, that would not invalidate the ossuary. In order to maintain exact accountability of a relic, a devotee added the words to keep the box preserved and properly handled and appreciated.

3. The son of Joseph, brother of Jesus inscription does NOT invalidate the catholic position of the virginity of Mary. It might invalidate the notion that James was his cousin. It probably indicates an additional marriage for Joseph.

[Polycarp]

Unless the box cries or bleeds the Catholic Church won't recognize it as valid.

Typical. Guess you forgot about the Shroud of Turin tho....

[berned]

Altman believes that the second half was actually written in the 3rd or 4th century, while Paul Flesher at the University of Wyoming, an expert on Hebraicized Aramaic dialects, dates it anywhere between the 2nd and 7th centuries.

Now wait a second here. Suppose the early Jewish Christians had this box, labelled "James son of Joseph", which they knew contained the bones of the James who the Bible CLEARLY SAYS was the "Brother of Jesus".

The Jews are run out of Israel in 70AD. As the years go by, and the ossuaries begin to pile up, and there are more ossuaries with "Joseph & James" (very common names) the Jews realize that if they are to diferentiate THIS box from the others as belonging to "James the Brother of Jesus" -- they need to FURTHER LABEL it so they can know WHICH "James son of Joseph" is ALSO "James brother of Christ".

So someone adds the additional identifier.

THAT IS YOUR IDEA OF A "HOAX"?????