Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: FW: FW: [XTalk] Ossuary of "JAMES": Why was "brother of Jesus" written

Expand Messages
  • LARRY SWAIN
    ... First, the comment was actually by Ed Tyler, not Jack. Jack eventually responded to Ed. My own reaction to this paragraph is that it is a neat theory to
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 31 10:26 AM
      >
      > It's not ad rem, but has a point that must be
      > made...
      >
      > >> > My reservations at this point are against
      > the use
      > >> > of the patina to try to date the entire
      > thing; <snipped>

      > Jack, it would not have been easy to fool people
      > back then. Maybe moderns
      > can be fooled, but back then they would know that it
      > was a forged addition
      > for precisely the reasons I have given. People
      > fighting about the sibling
      > status of James would have jumped all over the box
      > if it were not an "inept"
      > example of a forgery by known ancient standards.
      > That's why we never hear
      > of this box from supposedly contemporary sources.

      First, the comment was actually by Ed Tyler, not Jack.
      Jack eventually responded to Ed. My own reaction to
      this paragraph is that it is a neat theory to support
      your theory, but so far neither convinces.

      > >Actually in this case I think it would take a
      > herculean effort on the
      > >part of the forger. Here we have a script known
      > in the first century,
      > >basically dieing out after 70. [Larry Swain]
      >
      > It is hardly "a herculean effort." The unstated
      > assumption on which this
      > is based is that a script or font has lost
      > popularity; therefore, no
      > texts using the script or font are still available
      > in archives, bookkeeping
      > records, etc. This was the commercial cursive in
      > heavy use throughout a
      > large area; in sober fact, thousands upon thousands
      > of documents with
      > examples would still have been available... many
      > still are.

      It isn't an unstated assumption, it is based on the
      identification of the date of the script made by
      Lemaire. So, to give you your day in court, I'm
      issuing an invitation. What I would like to see at
      this point in the discussion on script is a full scale
      palaeographical analysis of the letter forms. You
      claim that it is a popular commercial cursive script,
      Jack and Lemaire identify something else. SO, from
      Rochelle, and from Jack, I would like to see a full
      analysis, and preferably with pictures or references
      to reference books where I can go and see that your
      identification of the qoph indeed is the one used in
      the commercial script.

      I would like to issue the same invite to Lemaire, but
      I don't know him. Perhaps Jeffrey or the moderators
      if they haven't already done so might issue an
      invitation to him, or one of the senior scholars on
      the list?

      > Jack is right; that's exactly what people did and it
      > did take effort,
      > because the scribes had to learn and practice an
      > entirely new font.

      Now this was the underlying assumption to my remarks.
      If the script, contra your claims, is NOT a commonly
      available, commercial script, but one that disappeared
      after 70, or between 70-135, it makes forgery much
      more difficult to pull off successfully.



      > If people would like to familiarize themselves with
      > exactly this type of
      > scribal exercise in forgery, pouring over Medieval
      > charters from around
      > the time of the Norman conquest of England would be
      > an excellent exercise
      > for a beginner.

      Yes, been there, done that.


      > Why do people think I am absolutely certain that the
      > second half is a
      > late addition. I know -- not think, not opine, but
      > know -- that that
      > second inscription is a forged late addition because
      > exactly the same
      > things that show up on this box show up in scads of
      > other forged made-to-
      > look-archaic documents in various languages and
      > scripts across the
      > millennia.

      You've conflated two separate issues here: late
      addition and forgery. They are not the same things,
      as Jack I believe pointed out yesterday. You further
      didn't answer either the explicit or the implicit
      question: Why do you people think I am absolutely
      sure.....people think that because you've said it.
      The implicit question is Why are you so sure? You've
      only reiterated your absolute conviction in your
      conclusion, not demonstrated anything new that helps
      us move closer to your perspective. Nor have you
      addressed adequately the challenges to your analyses
      of forgery as applied to this box, mere reiteration
      does more to convince me that you are wrong than that
      you are correct. I'm inviting you to address that.

      I'd also like to take a moment to spread some cheer.
      My thanks go out to Peter Kirby for the excellent (or
      should I say typically excellent) work he has done in
      referencing reactions to this ossuary. Well done, Mr.
      Kirby, well done indeed.

      I would also like to thank Bryan Cox for some
      excellent commentary and posts. Capital.

      To Ed Tyler, Bill Arnal, and Ted Weeden for
      introducing caution, level-headedness, and perspective
      into this increasingly heated discussion. Thank you
      all for that.

      Kudos go to John Lupia whose explanation of what he
      thought Rochelle was talking about on the issue of
      excision was very well done and is very deeply
      appreciated. Thank you very much John.

      To David Hindley for the frustration of being a go
      between.

      And finally to Rochelle and Jack for continuing the
      conversation. I would like to ask Rochelle to become
      part of the list, at least until the discussion is
      over. But I appreciate your willingness to defend
      your point of view and look forward to that
      palaeographical analysis.


      To anyone whose name should go here but I neglected,
      my abject apologies.

      Regards,

      Larry Swain
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.