Talk:James Ossuary
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
James Ossuary is part of the WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
|
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/374068.html has some updates --Zero 04:08, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Professor Krumbein's Analysis
Ben Witherington recently reported on his journal that "Professor Wolfgang E. Krumbein, a world-renowned authority...has reached startling conclusions that will change the debate over this highly controversial artifact." Read the copy of the report on his journal here. -- Hairouna
[edit] Proof or not?
Even if this was a real artefact would the text: James, son of Jospeh, brother of Jesus proof that the Messiah existed? Jesus wasn't an uncommon in that time (same of Jospeh and James) so it might have been any James, son of a Joseph, brother of a Jesus. I still hope they will found proof of Jesus' existence but how much proof can be left of one man's existence after 2000 years. Jorgenpfhartogs 01:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, evidence anyway. The PBS show I saw back in 2002 calculated the probability of a man dieing during the time ossuaries were in use that would have been named James, and would have had a father named Joseph and a big shot brother named Jesus important enough to be mentioned on the ossuary. Pretty slim actually. Of course the question of Messiah don't come into it. Tobor8 05:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Israel's best interest
of course the Israelis would deny anything like this being real, If they said it was real then they would have to officially admit the existence of Jesus, and wouldn't that cause more controversy?--Tomtom 18:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, to my knowledge, Judaic tradition holds that Jesus existed. They merely argue that he was not in fact the Messiah. Technogeek 20:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Just for the record, the following has been delete, though not by me: "Some people still refused to believe the conclusion. Oded Golan claimed publicly to believe his findings were genuine. Hershel Shanks declared that he did not believe the evidence and launched a personal complaint against IAA director Shuka Dorfman. Lemaire supported his original assessment when Frank Cross regretted Shank's attitude." --11:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The final section of this article on the Ted Koppel critical look documentary is incredibly one-sided. Good points were made on both sides of that discussion, and this article only represents one side with no attempt to even mention the other side. For example:
1) I'm not sure the film ever suggested that they "must" be husband and wife, and it was a fact that the quote used from the forensic archaeologist in the film was a quote. That's the nature of film: he was on video saying husband and wife was a possibility, and it in fact is.
2) While the crime lab said the patinas of the two ossuaries were not a "match" in a technical sense of "match," they did say they were consistent, which provides evidence that they are from the same tomb. It doesn't prove this, but it does provide evidence.
3) While Kloner says he doesn't remember the 10th ossuary as having inscriptions, there are no photographs of the ossuary and it was not obvious to anyone involved that it went missing when they cataloged them, so I'm not sure we can conclude with the certainty that this biased report uses that Kloner must be right.
Ending by saying Dever "summed it up" suggests you have proven the truth and he is merely summarizing it for you, when in fact this is still an open question and Wikipedia is not here for you to merely try to win arguments. So, I've deleted your biased conclusion about Ted Koppel simply being right (come on, he refuted "ALL" the evidence? Who's going beyond reasonableness here?), but left your biased presentation of the evidence (which is a part of the evidence, and so I don't think I should delete it) for others to clean-up.
Roachman 15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Roachman
