Oh Christ!!

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:25 pm

I'm not so sure about #3 Beagle.

Simcha and Tabor said they believe the ossuary came from the same tomb as the Jesus family. The patina tests, proved that and I guess that will be presented in court. However, as Reed pointed out on the 'rebuttal', according to Kloner's records, there were no inscriptions on the 10th ossuary when it was first examined in 1980. Reed felt an archaeologist of his caliber would not have missed it, since he did record found inscriptions on the others.

If the patina evidence holds up, it could prove the source of the original ossuary but there are conflicting reports about the genuiness of the first part of the inscription, the second part of the inscription and any part of the inscription, which may be the basis of the forgery charge.

.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:27 pm

One thing that has an odor to it: Simcha has been doing his Naked Archaeologist series in Israel for a while now. He is no stranger to the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). He even discussed the agency at one time. In the film last night he acted as if he was ignorant of their policy when he told the official "we have permission from the tenants".

In the post discussion, Koppel asked Simcha why he had not done certain tests. I wondered at the time why he didn't reply that he had been kicked out before the work was completed. But he never brought that up.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:30 pm

Sounded to me from the letter that Koppel read that the patina tests were a little less conclusive than Pellegrino claimed. That's not surprising...Pellegrino is a huckster.

IN looking at the overlays it seemed to me that there were differences in the quantities of trace elements present in the patina if not in the elements themselves. They did flash them up there pretty quickly, though.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:32 pm

Forum Monk wrote:I'm not so sure about #3 Beagle.

Simcha and Tabor said they believe the ossuary came from the same tomb as the Jesus family. The patina tests, proved that and I guess that will be presented in court. However, as Reed pointed out on the 'rebuttal', according to Kloner's records, there were no inscriptions on the 10th ossuary when it was first examined in 1980. Reed felt an archaeologist of his caliber would not have missed it, since he did record found inscriptions on the others.

If the patina evidence holds up, it could prove the source of the original ossuary but there are conflicting reports about the genuiness of the first part of the inscription, the second part of the inscription and any part of the inscription, which may be the basis of the forgery charge.

.

I'm not familiar with all the charges Monk. To me however the patina evidence raises a reasonable doubt. That would mean, of course, in an American courtroom.

As to the "patina fingerprint", that struck me as true, but as you say, it will have to stand up to scrutiny.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:37 pm

I too, saw discrepancies in the patina element signatures but how can anyone be certain, the way they were displayed? The Israeli court will not be fooled IMO.

As far as IAA, why not just ask them for permission to reopen and examine the contents of the tomb using the proper safety precautions etc? Especially in light of the current controversy, how could they ignore such a request?

To answer my own question, I think they're concerned about the exploitation, misrepresentation and commericalization of the site.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:39 pm

I too, saw discrepancies in the patina element signatures but how can anyone be certain, the way they were displayed?

Okay. Then it wasn't just my eyes!

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:47 pm

I'm amazed any more about archaeological technology. For instance, I have lived in Tennessee since 1979. But I was born and raised in Indiana. Upon isotopic analysis by bones would show that I originated in Indiana.

Seems everything has a fingerprint. Rocks, lava, etc., so I'm not surprised about a patina fingerprint.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:52 pm

It is reported that Oded's defense has photos of the James ossuary dated from 1976. This is a key part of the defense claim the ossuary was acquired at that time. If Simcha and Tabor, are correct, how can it be the same ossuary that was not discovered until four years later?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:57 pm

Monk, I'm unfamiliar with the case unfortunately. His goose may well be cooked. I think though that if the patina fingerprint evidence holds up, it seems compelling.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:05 pm

No problem Beag - just check the net and you find plenty of stories about the photos.

For me their two major ASSumptions very early on which set the tone for the production.

1. First, according to a certain gospel it was rumored that the body of Jesus was stolen and hidden by the disciples in order to support their claim of resurrection. This is denied in the gospel which relates this rumor but somehow, Simcha somehow twists it into a gospel confirmation of what happened. This makes no sense as I 've already said, why hide the body in Jerusalum?

2. Second, the marriage of Jesus and Mariamne is assumed because the mtDNA shows no common mother. Huh?

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:11 pm

As I recall the story Jesus only arrived in Jerusalem a week before he was executed. Does not seem like a lot of time to establish a "family tomb" and, for that matter, an itinerant preacher would not have the resources to have a tomb in the first place. And, realistically, it would be the height of folly for any wealthy Judean to 'donate' their tomb for a criminal who was just condemned by both the Jewish and Roman establishments.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:19 pm

Regarding any ASSumptions about mDNA evidence, I don't think much can be drawn from that. Those two people are not related by the same mother, that's it. Since it is a family tomb, they are assuming that she is family by way of marriage. There are other possibilities though.

If all the ossuaries were able to yield DNA analysis it could all be confirmed. Particularly I would like to see testing on Judah. But even then that wouldn't prove anything.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:18 pm

Minimalist wrote:As I recall the story Jesus only arrived in Jerusalem a week before he was executed. Does not seem like a lot of time to establish a "family tomb" and, for that matter, an itinerant preacher would not have the resources to have a tomb in the first place. And, realistically, it would be the height of folly for any wealthy Judean to 'donate' their tomb for a criminal who was just condemned by both the Jewish and Roman establishments.

I agree. And about this so-called family tomb. Why the mix of languages in the inscriptions and especially why greek? According to this article, Koine Greek was common in the Hasmonean era, but it seems out of place with the aramaic speaking Jesus bar Joseph of the New Testament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariamne

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:42 pm

Another strange thought...
What did the entire camera down the pipe, call the plumber, find an unopened tomb but wrong tomb add to any of the discussion? It was fun to watch but really did not add one bit of evidence to the fray. It was as unnecessary as mentioning the finding of the Book of Jonah in the correct tomb. That latter bit struck me as an attempt inject a mystical quality to the tomb scene.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:19 pm

It was another of those dramatic moments before a commercial that the black woman mentioned during the commentary.

"Will they find a PLUMBER? Stay tuned for the answer!!!"