|Jesus' brother's ossuary box...||Dwayne Barry|
Jun 27, 2003 6:58 AM
|turned out to be a fake. I remember it was discussed here somewhat, so maybe some of you will find it interesting to know this.|
|Ossuary box with Jesus' brother's name scratched in nm||PdxMark|
Jun 27, 2003 7:12 AM
Jun 27, 2003 7:15 AM
|I saw that the other day. Quite a downer. I was hopeful this was the true gen.|
Jun 27, 2003 7:41 AM
|It seems that there is much debate among the experts as to the genuineness of the box. I don't think the report from the IAA can be seen as conclusive.
"I think what we have here is a case of dueling experts," said Steven Feldman, managing editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, the journal which first reported the find. "I don't think we've heard the last of this story. So far three groups of specialists have examined this. The Geological Survey of Israel thought the inscription was ancient, as did the Royal Ontario museum, which did extensive testing. The group with the Antiquities Authority thought it an inscription in modern times. I think it needs more evaluation, and hopefully some kind of consensus will emerge about it."
Despite today's announcement, many experts continue to argue the box and the inscription are genuine. "The Israeli Geological Survey investigated both the patina on the box and the patina throughout the inscription," Jack Meinhardt, managing editor of the Biblical Archaeological Society's magazine Archaeology Odyssey, told Beliefnet. "They found that the patina in the inscription matched the patina on the box, meaning that they were both ancient patinas."
Edward Keall, senior curator at Toronto's Royal Ontario Museum, where the ossuary was displayed this fall, maintains that the ossuary's inscripton is genuine. The museum's study of the ossuary, he said, led him to believe that the "artificially induced patina theory was a false claim."
Witherington, a biblical scholar, agrees, noting that the Toronto Museum's mass-spectrometry test shows "absolutely no evidence of modern tampering with the box or the inscription."
The lack of certainty about the inscription's authenticity might be as much due to politics as to the patina. "There's a conflict among the geologists, and there's even more conflict among the paleographers," Meinhardt said. "This is a panel of respected scholars who have put out this statement, but I suspect there was disagreement within the panel."
|That's good to know...||Dwayne Barry|
Jun 27, 2003 7:48 AM
|I just read what CNN had reported. And the debate actually appears to be a scholarly debate rather than something like the crap that surrounds the Shroud of Turin.|
|Can we ever know for sure with things like this?||Kristin|
Jun 27, 2003 8:02 AM
|I just don't think that there is anyway to determine with 100% certainty that something so old is or is not genuine. There is still debate about that accuracy of carbon dating. No one can really "proove" that carbon dating is valid.|
|Not carbon dated. The debate is not whether the box||Brooks|
Jun 27, 2003 10:27 AM
|is ancient, the experts seem to agree that it is 2,000 years old. The question is whether the inscription is modern and a patina added to make the inscription seem older than it really is.
BTW, carbon dating has been proven to be valid. Some natural and manmade processes can skew the numbers a bit but remain within statistical norms (e.g 2000 year old plus or minus 200 years).