Name:Gina •
Title: James Ossuary •
Date posted: 02/27/07 19:04
Q: Does anyone know about the James ossuary? Is it connected with these finds?
Name:NormaPorter •
Date: 02/27/07 19:30
A: I believe that it may be the one that was stolen from the tomb.
Name:eblondet •
Date: 03/04/07 2:28
A: I believe this is the missing ossuary.
I'd like to see a cross reference of catalogue number with placement within the tomb. I find curious that the one listed as #5a in the maps was actually "moved and placed back" sometimes in the 1300's.
And this will also allows us to see which was the placement of the "missing" ossuary. James/Ya'cov's ossuary.
Name:sinatra70 •
Date: 03/07/07 0:39
A: It is connected with the Talpiot tomb; James Tabor discusses it at some length in his book, "The Jesus Dynasty." For additional reading, I would also recommend "The Brother of Jesus," written by Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington; it is devoted to the life of James and the controversy surrounding his ossuary.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 6:49
A: Actually, according to the archeologist who removed the ossuaries, it isn't. He states that the tenth ossuary wasn't missing, had different dimensions, and didn't have an inscription. He mentioned the ossuary as being on his list, which to me indicates some the notes that would have been taken at the time of the initial discovery.
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/08/07 1:49
A: Actually, as far as I can see, is the first real report made on this find authored in 1996. All it has on the missing ossuary, 80.509, are some measurements, and the description, that it is plain. My guess is, that the ossuary was missing in 1996, and that he jotted something down from memory. A plain case would not bring that much attention if lost.
Name:Dennis •
Date: 03/08/07 4:14
A: According to a Feb 26, 2007 article in theToronto Star, the James ossuary may have been already unearthed years before the 1980 discovery of the tomb in question.
http://www.thestar-.com/News/article/185708
Fro-m- the article:
"But there is one wrinkle that is not examined in the documentary, one that emerged in a Jerusalem courtroom just weeks ago at the fraud trial of James ossuary owner Oded Golan, charged with forging part of the inscription on the box.
"Former FBI agent Gerald Richard testified that a photo of the James ossuary, showing it in Golan's home, was taken in the 1970s, based on tests done by the FBI photo lab. The trial resumes tomorrow.
"Jacobovici conceded in an interview that if the ossuary was photographed in the 1970s, it could not then have been found in a tomb in 1980. "
Dennis
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/08/07 8:33
A: Hi Dennis
There's a wrinkle to that story. Gerald Richard testifies in favor of the defense. The purpose of his testimony is to say, that the photo ain't a recent one (the IAA says the inscription is very recent, just prior to the ossuary surfacing in the media). It also serves as a safeguard as to Oded Golan being the rightfull owner. According to jewish law, is he not allowed to keep artifacts like that one, if they have been unearthed BEFORE 1978.
If the James ossuary IS the missing ossuary, will Golan have to let the IAA take ownership of it.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 8:33
A: Dennis,
I knew about the photo, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to alter the time stamp, especially considering he's pretty good at forging artificial artifacts. Likely, next someone will be saying the FBI agent was paid - since we now seem to be assuming that Amos Kloner doesn't know how to file his own notes from a dig.
It seem we're getting into the territory of trying to make the evidence fit, I think.
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/08/07 13:36
A: Hi Dennis
I'm just trying to point out, that the James ossuary isn't a shut case, in spite of Joe Zias and the IAA claiming that. A german scientists has examined the ossuary, and refutes the IAA report in regards to engraving and patina.
http://www.bib-arch.org-/bswbOOossuary_Krumbeinreport.pd-f- (remove all hyphens, except between bib and arch, and ossuary and krumbein, sometimes the links have hyphens added randomly).
The timestamp is probably a written date or a rubber stamped date on the back (and even dateback cameraes can be tampered with (did they exist prior to 1978?)). In regards to a precise dating using forensic techniques, do I doubt it is impossible to be more specific than he was. All he had to convince the court of was, that the photo wasn't recent (he's accused of forging it, and not actually trying to hide something that should have been turned over to the Israeli authorities).
Let science have another look at the patina under objectively supervised conditions, and make a forensic comparison of EACH ossuary against that of the James ossuary. Should silence anyone (except the most radical ones), in regards to the validity of the James ossuary, should they all show the same result.
If it fits, we go on from there....
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 17:32
A: Actually, if I'm correct (and I'm working on second hand data), an FBI agent is the one saying that the photo was taken in the seventies.
This article isn't relavent to this discussion, its an expert dealing with patina that the IAA said was used to enhance the forgery of the additional inscription, and there are some questions in this analysis as well.
As to testing Patina, how sure are we as to how definitive this is? I realize that the guys they had test the patina for the film weren't near the top in their field, so you need someone more credible doing the testing. In addition, you need to be more selective in the blind samplings - other tombs of similar mineral composition. Finally, to make the study double blind, you need to test it against ossuaries from the site where the ossuary is alleged to have been stolen from. (Incidentally, some of the same people who are now saying it is from Talpot, are the ones who claimed it was stolen - there is something fishy going on with the making of this film besides their poor logic - Golan may not be the only guy passing forgeries off on people).
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/09/07 15:14
A: Hi KRS
"The photo was examined by Gerald Richard, a former FBI agent and an expert for the defense. Richard testified that "Nothing was noted that would indicate or suggest that they were not produced in March 1976 as indicated on the stamps appearing on the reverse side of each print.""
This passage is found on Haaretz website (google for "gerald richard" james ossuary).
As I stated: He is testifying for the defense, so the purpose of his testimony is to prove, that Oded Golan couldn't have forged the ossuary just prior to revealing it, plus give Oded Golan the right to have the ossuary at all (being obtained prior to 1978).
It's easy to forge a date of some kind to any document. I'm sure Gerald Richard has examined the photograpic technique (paper, development, aging, fading), and established the only possible deduction he could make; that there is no evidence that it wasn't taken in 1976. He's not dating the photo to1976. He's saying, that the photo isn't recent. There's a difference.
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/09/07 15:21
A: Hi KRS
Perhaps they are not the best of their field, so let the best in their field do the job.
Normally, I would suspect a CSI lab to have the determine the isotopic composition, which they did.
I would like the same as Simcha. Not to accept his theory as right based on the evidence, but to wish for a broader and more thorough examination of a find that seems to have been sweeped under the mats. He clearly admits, that he is an investigative journalist, who found what he believed were the best of their field.
He started a quest. He certainly did not end it, and he never has professed to have done so.
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/09/07 23:49
A: BTW, James Tabor has an excellent piece on the statistics:
http://jesusdynasty.com/blog (no hyphens in link).
It'll be interesting to read the rest of Gath's report when it gets translated.
Name:lightwoman •
Date: 03/12/07 19:06
A: For those interested, lab tests done on the lettering on the James ossuary have shown that the patina in the lettering, especially the "brother of Yeshua" part under fire, claimed to be a forgery (added recently to hike the selling price), is consistent witht the patina on the rest of the ossuary, and is not a man-made fabrication. Visit the Biblical Archeology Society's webpage for more details:
http://www.bib-arch.org/b-swbOOossuaryarchive.asp?PubID=BSBA&-Volume=28&Issue=6&ArticleID=1
Th-e- lab's certificate of authenticity is even posted there. An expert states that if it is a forgery, the alleged forger should receive a medal and be hired to detect other forgeries - that's how difficult it would be to fake the patina in the lettering.
When you tie this to the patina tests done in this film which show a high likelihood ("match") that the James ossuary did indeed come from the Talpiot tomb (when it did not "match" other patina chromatograph "fingerprints" from other randomly sampled tombs), it all starts to add up.
As to arguments that this James ossuary was not the 10th missing ossuary, where Joe Zias backtracks and states he never told James Tabor it was missing (that because it was plain it was put out in the courtyard), Dr. Tabor took notes during their meeting, too, and his notes tell no such story (refer to Tabor's blog at jesusdynasty.com/blog). He also points out that "plain" only refers to being unadorned/having no decorations; it has nothing to do with whether it had an inscription or not. The James ossuary in question is indeed unadorned, has no decorations.
Of course, this is all fascinating, and we won't know more until the fraud/forgery court case is decided. But if it turns out the James ossuary is authentic, and further tests can prove it highly likely it did come from the Talpiot "Jesus family" tomb (as well as stats showing the probability of a James with a father Joseph and a brother Jesus), then the implications are huge - that will really throw the odds in favor that this IS the Jesus family tomb.
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/14/07 9:11
A: "Of course, this is all fascinating, and we won't know more until the fraud/forgery court case is decided."
Actually, we won't. The court case is unlikely to include the testimony of Krumbein and the patina evidence from the documentary. The purpose of this case is to establish whether the ossuary belongs to Oded Golan, and the inscription is real, or that it was forged and obtained later than the cut date set by jewish law as to when he's allowed to have it.
Neither the IAA, Oded Golan or the Israeli state has an interest in proving this to be the missing ossuary.
If indeed it is the missing ossuary, the IAA would look like complete fools: The cluster would be even more significant, and their excavation report and their scientific objectivity put in serious doubt. Also, the ossuary would have to be turned over to the IAA, and Oded Golan would loose out to.
Do you still believe we will find out?
Name:TheNakedBoneHunter •
Date: 03/15/07 20:49
A: VERY IMPORTANT - SEE BELOW - email of JOE ZIAS, March 1, 2007 - CAN SOMEONE VERIFY THIS AS BEING THE GENUINE EMAIL FROM JOE ZIAS, if it is, then this is critical news ( Note: I am not the author of the following excerpt , The Naked Bone Hunter )
Time magazine again reports: "Asbury Theological Seminary professor Ben Witherington, a early Christianity expert who was deeply involved with the James Ossuary, says there are physical reasons to believe it couldn't have originated in the Talpiot plot." Following the lead of Time, I did my own detective work and checked out Ben Witherington's blogspot (see, www.benwitherington.blogspot.com).
Witherington claims: "Joe Zias is a fine archaeologist of long standing and good reputation. He is the person who catalogued the ten ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb, and personally catalogued the tenth ossuary. He worked with Amos Kloner as part of the team who made the original discovery. In two emails this morning to someone I have been talking to he made crystal clear that the tenth ossuary was blank, certainly was not the James ossuary at all despite the assertions of those involved in making the (Vision TV) special. These emails have been sent along to me, and I will let them speak for themselves.
Joe Zias [email protected]: Subject: Re: Jesus Tomb Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 6:02 AM
"Amos Kloner is right as I received and catalogued the objects, the 10th was plain and I put it out in the courtyard with all the rest of the plain ossuaries as was the standard procedure when one has little storage space available. Nothing was stolen nor missing and they were fully aware of this fact. It just didn't fit in with their agenda." Shalom, Joe.
The filmmakers were fully aware that the tenth ossuary in the so-called "Jesus family tomb" was blank, but it didn't fit in with their agenda. So they deliberately misled viewers with a spurious assertion that this was the James ossuary
END OF EXCERPT
CAN SOMEONE CONFIRM THIS WITH JOE ZIAS ?
Name:lightwoman •
Date: 03/15/07 23:45
A: This is just my opinion, but I tend to agree with Dr. Tabor in that Joe Zias may be not be recalling what he had told Dr. Tabor previously, per Tabor's notes of their conversation. (Refer to Dr. Tabor's blog at jesusdynasty.com/blog). It may have to come down to outside mediators comparing their notes, a case of "he said, he said," LOL!
There's still the patina tests (more of which should be conducted) that reveal the James ossuary most likely could have come from the Talpiot tomb. Tabor mentions the James ossuary in a new paper, his rebuttal to Jodi Magness on the Society of Biblical Literature's website:
http://sbl-site.o-rg/Article.aspx?ArticleId=651-
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 03/29/07 17:20
A: Professor Amos Kloner, the archaeologist who was in charge of clearing the Talpiot tomb in 1980, was interviewed on 2-27-07 by David Horovitz of the Jerusalem Post:
Horovitz: What do you make of the assertion that Jesus and his family were buried there?
Kloner: It makes a great story for a TV film. But it's completely impossible. It's nonsense. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle class family from the 1st century CE.
Horovitz: But there is apparently such a confluence of resonant names.
Kloner: The name "Jesus son of Joseph" has been found on three or four ossuaries. These are common names. There were huge headlines in the 1940s surrounding another Jesus ossuary, cited as the first evidence of Christianity. There was another Jesus tomb. Months later it was dismissed. Give me scientific evidence, and I'll grapple with it. But this is manufactured.
Horovitz: What of the assertion that the 10th ossuary disappeared from your care and may be none other than the "James" ossuary?
Kloner: Nothing has disappeared. The 10th ossuary was on my list. The measurements were not the same (as the James ossuary). It was plain (without an inscription). We had no room under our roofs for all the ossuaries, so unmarked ones were sometimes kept in the courtyard (of the Rockefeller Museum).
