-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ossuary Source Indicted
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
Pah
Uber all member
It's rather sad to target religious zeal. But the Ossuary provided a good run in the discussion groups.Deut. 32.8 said:
Tektonics still has it real in it's repartee.
. http://www.tektonics.org/books/jesbrorvw.html
Bob
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
So are they now called artificialfacts? 
In all fairness, while "those who proclaim a truth to be self evident " may have been victims of their own confirmation bias, the manufacturers are more likely characterized by greed than theology.Faust said:
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
At the risk of sounding stupid... oh wait, I do that all the time!
What is an "Ossuary"???
What is an "Ossuary"???
EightyOne
Member
I remember reading about that ossuary in Biblical Archeology Review, and I had believed it was authentic. There was one issue in particular that was pretty controversial. An analysis of that box had shown that on the inscription - James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus - the first portion of the text did not have the layer of patina which was present on the second part. Someone had said that was because the first part had been cleaned, and that accounted for the lack of patina. Of course, it seems pretty strange to think that someone would just clean one part of an inscription instead of the entire thing. Interesting to see that it was just a fraud after all.
EightyOne
Member
Faust
Active Member
(The forgers "were trying to change history," said Shuka Dorfman, head of the Israel Antiquities Authority.)
Deut. I'm afraid that I allowed this small part of the story to colour my interpretation of the entire story, however upon re-reading the link, I see my error.
I was seeing visions of (Constantines mother?) being born through the Holy Land pointing to a piece of wood and proclaiming it to be the cross of the crucifiction, and a rusty piece of iron and stating with authority that it was the spear that pierced Jesus's side.
Faust.
Deut. I'm afraid that I allowed this small part of the story to colour my interpretation of the entire story, however upon re-reading the link, I see my error.
I was seeing visions of (Constantines mother?) being born through the Holy Land pointing to a piece of wood and proclaiming it to be the cross of the crucifiction, and a rusty piece of iron and stating with authority that it was the spear that pierced Jesus's side.
Faust.
Smoke
Done here.
Herschel Shanks on the forgery indictments (from the November-December issue of Biblical Archaeology Review):
In an indictment dated December 29, 204, five men were charged with conspiring to forge numerous extremely important Biblically related artifacts or to knowingly traffic in them. The case has been dubbed "the forgery trial of the century." Included in the allegedly forged items are a limestone bone box inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" and a small ivory pomegranate that may have come from Solomon's Temple.
Last December, we posted a story on our Web site titled "Conspiracy of 5 Becomes Conspiracy of 4" when the case against one of the defendants was dismissed. More recently, the conspiracy of four became a conspiracy of two. The charges against another defendant were dismissed. A third defendant pleaded guilty to a minor charge unrelated to forgery and received a sentence of four months in jail. Now he, too, is out of the case.
The trial has been going on for over a year now. The government is still ploddingly presenting its case. So far, it has presented no evidence that the defendants forged the bone box inscription or the inscription on the ivory pomegranate. [...]
No prosecution should be brought unless the government has a reasonable case. It remains a question whether prosecutorial discretion has been abused in this case.
On visits to Israel I often look for scholars who might argue that a particular item, say the inscribed bone box, is a forgery. But I can't find them -- even though the bone box inscription is widely regarded as a forgery. What I do find is scholars who have a feeling that it is a forgery, bt they cannot support their "feeling" with evidence. I cannot find a single palaeographer who will argue, on palaeographic grounds, that the bone box inscription is a forgery. True, a petrologist at Tel Aviv University says it is a forgery based on an oxygen isotope test performed on the patina covering the box. But his conclusion is widely contradicted by other scientists.
What I am often told is, "Well, I really don't know. Why not let the court decide? Then we will know."
I'm not sure that is an adequate answer.
The full text of Shanks' column can be found here.Last December, we posted a story on our Web site titled "Conspiracy of 5 Becomes Conspiracy of 4" when the case against one of the defendants was dismissed. More recently, the conspiracy of four became a conspiracy of two. The charges against another defendant were dismissed. A third defendant pleaded guilty to a minor charge unrelated to forgery and received a sentence of four months in jail. Now he, too, is out of the case.
The trial has been going on for over a year now. The government is still ploddingly presenting its case. So far, it has presented no evidence that the defendants forged the bone box inscription or the inscription on the ivory pomegranate. [...]
No prosecution should be brought unless the government has a reasonable case. It remains a question whether prosecutorial discretion has been abused in this case.
On visits to Israel I often look for scholars who might argue that a particular item, say the inscribed bone box, is a forgery. But I can't find them -- even though the bone box inscription is widely regarded as a forgery. What I do find is scholars who have a feeling that it is a forgery, bt they cannot support their "feeling" with evidence. I cannot find a single palaeographer who will argue, on palaeographic grounds, that the bone box inscription is a forgery. True, a petrologist at Tel Aviv University says it is a forgery based on an oxygen isotope test performed on the patina covering the box. But his conclusion is widely contradicted by other scientists.
What I am often told is, "Well, I really don't know. Why not let the court decide? Then we will know."
I'm not sure that is an adequate answer.