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

RE: James Ossuary

Expand Messages
  • David C. Hindley
    Deborah D Amico sent us a link to an interesting web site that raised a ... Ya akov bar Yohosef akhui di Yeshua [that is: Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Deborah D'Amico sent us a link to an interesting web site that raised a
      question in my mind:

      >>The Jerusalem ossuary, which carries the inscribed name (in Aramaic) of
      "Ya'akov bar Yohosef akhui di Yeshua" [that is: "Jacob, son of Joseph,
      brother of Joshua"], is not a new discovery. It has been reported by the
      press and media several times since it first came to light in 1926, while
      ossuaries citing the name of Jesus are mentioned in the 1978 Manual of
      Palestinian Aramaic Texts and the 1994 Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries. The
      Hebrew Union College and Ben Gurion University confirm that the James
      ossuary has no known archaeological provenance, and it was originally found
      in a museum basement by Prof. E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University,
      Jerusalem.<<

      >>From 1986, the James ossuary - 20 inches (51 cm) by 11 inches (28 cm) -
      has been owned by an anonymous private collector in Jerusalem, who bought it
      at auction for around $500. He was advised that it came from a tomb in the
      Silwan suburb of Jerusalem but, whatever its pre-1926 origin, it was clearly
      the product of looting since it is not recorded as an archaeologically
      excavated artifact from Silwan or anywhere else."<<

      http://www.graal.co.uk/ossuary.html

      I was intrigued by the detail. I just wonder where it comes from. I have
      sent a message to the web author, Laurence Gardner, described as a Fellow of
      the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, to see if he will comment as to his
      sources.

      My curiosity is raised by the possibility that the ossuary somehow lost its
      connection to the unnamed museum mentioned above. Could there be another
      ossuary with the same inscription? If there is already a history to this
      item, why is it not being mentioned?

      With regards to your question as to whether the previous Jesus son of
      Joseph, Joseph, Jude and a couple of Mary ossuaries, with intact bones,
      discovered in situ in 1980, have been downplayed intentionally, the answer
      is I don't know. I think the downplaying has more to do with the commonness
      of the names around the turn of the era (meaning the combinations were pure
      chance, and thus statistically insignificance), or the curious combination
      of so many NT names in one place (meaning it may have served as an ancient
      tourist attraction associated with a long destroyed basilica or mosque).
      Interestingly, these are diametrically opposed reasons to doubt. However, I
      am intrigued and may look into this kind of thing more closely.

      Respectfully,

      Dave Hindley
      Cleveland, Ohio, USA
    • Bob Schacht
      ... Can someone dig out some of those old press & media reports? It might be interesting to see what was written about it then. ... Does this mean that an
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        At 04:01 PM 11/3/2002 -0500, David C. Hindley wrote:
        >Deborah D'Amico sent us a link to an interesting web site that raised a
        >question in my mind:
        >
        > >>The Jerusalem ossuary, which carries the inscribed name (in Aramaic) of
        >"Ya'akov bar Yohosef akhui di Yeshua" [that is: "Jacob, son of Joseph,
        >brother of Joshua"], is not a new discovery. It has been reported by the
        >press and media several times since it first came to light in 1926...

        Can someone dig out some of those old press & media reports? It might be
        interesting to see what was written about it then.

        >The Hebrew Union College and Ben Gurion University confirm that the James
        >ossuary has no known archaeological provenance, and it was originally found
        >in a museum basement by Prof. E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University,
        >Jerusalem.<<

        Does this mean that an object found in that museum had no record of how and
        where they obtained it?
        Was there actually a publication, or just press accounts in the popular media?


        > >>From 1986, the James ossuary - 20 inches (51 cm) by 11 inches (28 cm) -
        >has been owned by an anonymous private collector in Jerusalem, who bought it
        >at auction for around $500. He was advised that it came from a tomb in the
        >Silwan suburb of Jerusalem but, whatever its pre-1926 origin, it was clearly
        >the product of looting since it is not recorded as an archaeologically
        >excavated artifact from Silwan or anywhere else."<<
        >
        >http://www.graal.co.uk/ossuary.html
        >
        >I was intrigued by the detail. I just wonder where it comes from. ...If
        >there is already a history to this
        >item, why is it not being mentioned?
        >
        >.... I think the downplaying has more to do with the commonness
        >of the names around the turn of the era (meaning the combinations were pure
        >chance, and thus statistically insignificance), or the curious combination
        >of so many NT names in one place (meaning it may have served as an ancient
        >tourist attraction associated with a long destroyed basilica or mosque).
        >Interestingly, these are diametrically opposed reasons to doubt. However, I
        >am intrigued and may look into this kind of thing more closely....

        I think that the "downplaying" may also have something to do with short
        attention spans, and turnover in staffing.

        Thanks for the additional info.
      • John Lupia
        ... http://john-betts.blogspot.com/ In point of fact, there have been two such Jesus ossuary discoveries - one in 1926 and the one above in 1980 whose story
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Bob Schacht <bobschacht@...> wrote:

          > Can someone dig out some of those old press & media
          > reports? It might be
          > interesting to see what was written about it then.

          > Does this mean that an object found in that museum
          > had no record of how and
          > where they obtained it?
          > Was there actually a publication, or just press
          > accounts in the popular media?
          >

          http://john-betts.blogspot.com/
          In point of fact, there have been two such "Jesus
          ossuary" discoveries - one in 1926 and the one above
          in 1980 whose story was broken by the London Sunday
          Times on March 31, 1996, 16 years after the discovery.
          And these ossuaries are authentic too, at least
          according to the following source:

          Author: Rahmani, L. Y.
          Title: A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the
          Collections of the State of Israel Place
          Jerusalem Publisher: The Israel Antiquities Authority,

          The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
          Date: 1994
          Collation 1 volume (xii + 307 pages + 135 plates)
          ISBN 965-406-016-7

          The Jesus ossuaries noted above are listed as #9 and
          #704.


          Best regards,
          john

          =====
          John N. Lupia, III
          501 North Avenue B-1
          Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
          Phone: (908) 994-9720
          Email: jlupia2@...
          Editor, Roman Catholic News
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

          __________________________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
          http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... From: Bob Schacht To: Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Recent History
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Bob Schacht" <bobschacht@...>
            To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 3:59 PM
            Subject: Re: [XTalk] Recent History of James Ossuary


            > At 04:01 PM 11/3/2002 -0500, David C. Hindley wrote:
            > >Deborah D'Amico sent us a link to an interesting web site that raised a
            > >question in my mind:
            > >
            > > >>The Jerusalem ossuary, which carries the inscribed name (in Aramaic)
            of
            > >"Ya'akov bar Yohosef akhui di Yeshua" [that is: "Jacob, son of Joseph,
            > >brother of Joshua"], is not a new discovery. It has been reported by the
            > >press and media several times since it first came to light in 1926...
            >
            > Can someone dig out some of those old press & media reports? It might be
            > interesting to see what was written about it then.


            I think this is confusing the James ossuary of current discussion with the
            early Sukenik excavation. We have only anecdotal information of the origin
            of the current ossuary which was apparently looted about 20 years ago. The
            James ossuary was not part of the Sukenik find.

            Jack
          • John Lupia
            ... You re right of course. That is why I posted the citation of the two separate Rahmani numbers 9, & 704. However, the provenance of the ossuary is
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 3, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:

              > I think this is confusing the James ossuary of
              > current discussion with the
              > early Sukenik excavation. We have only anecdotal
              > information of the origin
              > of the current ossuary which was apparently looted
              > about 20 years ago. The
              > James ossuary was not part of the Sukenik find.


              You're right of course. That is why I posted the
              citation of the two separate Rahmani numbers 9, & 704.

              However, the provenance of the ossuary is critically
              important particularly the identification of the
              actual archaeological site of the find. When it was
              unearthed is pure hearsay at this juncture. It is
              alleged to have been found about 15 years ago. For
              all we know it was found only two or three years ago.
              The reason why the date of its surfacing is so
              important is to bring that date into consideration
              when investigating fraud to see if the technology
              available at the time of the find could have allowed
              for processes that could have produced it. The
              ossuary has a clouded title and it will be hard to
              convince anyone about the actual date of when it
              surfaced. This is a serious problem with its
              provenance that seems incurable.

              Moreover, when I first saw digital photographs of the
              so-called James Ossuary I immediately knew the
              inscription was fake without giving a paleographic
              analysis for two reasons: biovermiculation and patina.
              Biovermiculation is limestone erosion and dissolution
              caused by bacteria over time in the form of pitting
              and etching. The ossuary had plenty except in and
              around the area of the inscription. This is not
              normal. The patina consisted of the appropriate
              minerals but it was reported to have been cleaned off
              the inscription. This is impossible since patina
              cannot be cleaned off limestone with any solvent or
              cleanser since it is essentially baked on glass. It
              is possible to forge patina but when it is it cracks
              off. Sound familiar? With these observations I
              immediately knew the inscription could not be
              authentic regardless of what any paleographer might
              say in favor of it since the physical aspects preclude
              forgery. Besides, at this point any paleographic
              analysis would have been superfluous.

              Best regards,
              John N. Lupia




              =====
              John N. Lupia, III
              501 North Avenue B-1
              Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
              Phone: (908) 994-9720
              Email: jlupia2@...
              Editor, Roman Catholic News
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

              __________________________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
              http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
            • Peter Kirby
              http://www.graal.co.uk/ossuary.html Also discovered around the same time was an ossuary inscribed Alexander, son of Simon of Cyrene . According to the
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 4, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                http://www.graal.co.uk/ossuary.html
                Also discovered around the same time was an ossuary inscribed "Alexander, son
                of Simon of Cyrene". According to the Gospels, Simon of Cyrene helped Jesus
                to carry his cross on the road to Golgotha/Calvary (Simon and his son
                Alexander are mentioned in Mark 15:21).

                Does anyone know about this ossuary? References?

                --
                Peter Kirby (Student at Fullerton College, CA)
                11:53am up 43 min, Mandrake Linux 9.0, kernel 2.4.19-16mdk on AMD Athlon 750
                Web Site: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

                Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and
                Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. -- Einstein
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.