Re: [XTalk] Ah, so... Ossuary
Have you read Robert Eisenman's comments on the use of 'brother
of Jesus'? Please do. That particular phrasing does not turn up
before the late-3rd to 4th century.
In cursives, your so called "obtuse dalets" always have a litle cup
where the hasta joins the downstroke. This is a 6th-4th century BCE
Greek upsilon that, inscriptionally, shows up on votive offerings
and other holographic texts.
Habbakuk is a private edition, a holographic text, and dates anywhere
between early 2nd BCE to late 1st BCE. The form, as follows,
is what is on the inscription. The form appears in paleo-, but is
also used in cursives from ca. 4th through 2nd BCE and not afterwards.
These 3 forms are archaic; and the het is not just paleo-.
>I believe it IS a dalet and have seen "obtuse" dalets before. As aI have serious doubts that there will be a response. There might be some
>dalet, I see the Aramaic as Old Judaean Aramaic which I believe was
>used by the priestly class in the 1st century. The het is similar
>to the Habakkuk Pesher.....but I will wait for your full report and,
>hopefully, Lemaire's and McCarter's response.
difficulty explaining why dating was based solely on the three cursive
of the DSS type forms. It will also be quite difficult to explain why
the first half of the inscription dates to between 30 BCE and 25 CE,
yet the second half supposedly dates to the year after the death of
James -- on no other basis then three graphs that were in use through
the end of the 1st CE.
Dr. R.I.S. Altman, co-coordinator, IOUDAIOS-L risa3@...
- A couple of nights ago, the CBC (Canada's primary television network) late news
program The National did a very short piece on the arrival of the Ossuary to
Toronto. In the piece they spoke, however, to John Kloppenborg about the
authenticity of the inscription. For what it's worth, since this was a popular
(that is undetailed) and very brief format, he too called the second half of the
inscription a later addition, and thus thought associating the Ossuary with
biblical James and Jesus a stretch.
"Rochelle I. Altman" wrote:
> It will also be quite difficult to explain why the first half of the inscription***
> dates to between 30 BCE and 25 CE, yet the second half supposedly dates to the
> year after the death of James -- on no other basis then three graphs that were
> in use through the end of the 1st CE.
Zeba Antonin Crook (Ph.D. Cand)
University of St. Michael's College
Faculty of Theology
81 St. Mary Street
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- I do have ONE red flag, so far, and that is the mention of the dirt from the
cave still clinging to the box, dirt that was analyzed. Yet this ossuary is
supposed to have been around for 15 years, passed from the looter to the
antiquities dealer and then bought by Golan. That soil would have been gone
long ago. I suspect that this box was looted recently and the earlier date
is being claimed to avoid the Israeli Antiquities law passed in 1978 that
would make the box the property of the Israeli government. IF the box, as
it would seem, was looted recently, it may be possible to trace it back to
recover its contents.
What, exactly, would we *do* with those contents? While I know that bones
can be subject to C14 analysis, and DNA can be sometimes be recovered from
them, I don't know if that will answer any questions.
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
PS: On Star Trek TNG (a science fiction TV show for the bookworms among us),
a faction of the warlike Klingons cloned their first emperor from DNA on a
knife he had used to seal the unification covenant with his blood. When they
sprung him on the people as the emperor redivivus, they all got real excited
due to the apparent fulfillment of long-held religious expectations, yet in
the end ended up saying "So what!" He was relegated to the role of a
figurehead, exactly the role that the HJ plays in Christianity now. Can't we
just skip the hysteria? <G>
----- Original Message -----
From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:30 PM
Subject: RE: [XTalk] Ah, so... Ossuary
> What, exactly, would we *do* with those contents? While I know that bones
> can be subject to C14 analysis, and DNA can be sometimes be recovered from
> them, I don't know if that will answer any questions.
C-14 could help date the box within 50 years but if it was a recent
acquisition and the looter identified, perhaps the catacomb can be located
and at least some contextual information developed.
- At 09:16 PM 11/4/2002 -0600, Jack Kilmon wrote:
>----- Original Message -----C-14 would probably be the least interesting result, even if possible,
>From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...>
>Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:30 PM
>Subject: RE: [XTalk] Ah, so... Ossuary
> > Jack,
> > What, exactly, would we *do* with those contents? While I know that bones
> > can be subject to C14 analysis, and DNA can be sometimes be recovered from
> > them, I don't know if that will answer any questions.
>C-14 could help date the box within 50 years but if it was a recent
>acquisition and the looter identified, perhaps the catacomb can be located
>and at least some contextual information developed.
because the wide error margin is likely. Better yet would be the analysis
of microfauna and microflora still in the dirt found in the corners, if
there was any such. That sort of thing might reveal something about where
the ossuary had been buried, and other things of interest. Archaeology
these days can do a lot with a little.