Re: FW: FW: [XTalk] Ossuary of "JAMES": Why was "brother of Jesus" written
>First, the comment was actually by Ed Tyler, not Jack.
> It's not ad rem, but has a point that must be
> >> > 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.
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 aIt isn't an unstated assumption, it is based on the
> 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.
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
> Jack is right; that's exactly what people did and itNow this was the underlying assumption to my remarks.
> did take effort,
> because the scribes had to learn and practice an
> entirely new font.
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 withYes, been there, done that.
> 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.
> Why do people think I am absolutely certain that theYou've conflated two separate issues here: late
> 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
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
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
To anyone whose name should go here but I neglected,
my abject apologies.