From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 10:26:07 EST
Regarding the scholar quoted by Hudson who expostulated on the =
inscription and claimed that the inscription was in two different hands =
and that the first part was surrounded by a frame, I looked at the =
inscription for some time, and while the ossuary was placed in a =
plexiglass container, still the inscription was clear enough to read, =
and I did not discern the frame that Altman claims is there around the =
inscription of "James son of Joseph." (I might have missed it, I would =
note.) This claim is not made by other scholars who studied the script, =
at least not in the materials I have read about the ossuary.
As for the claim that the Ark of the Covenant rests in a chapel in Axum, =
Ethiopia, Hudson is a bit behind the times. There is a video on this =
matter that has been broadcast on both A & E and the Discovery Channel =
for quite some time, at least a year or so before his July story. I'm =
not sure why Hudson would bring the Ark in, except, as he said, as a =
plug for his magazine.
The materials accompanying the display at the ROM duly reported some =
disagreements and scepticism about the authenticity of the ossuary. We =
are all aware that many are adept at perpetuating pious frauds (my =
favorates are the Shroud of Turin, and the three heads of John the =
Baptist found in three medieval churches). It stands to reason that =
there would be arguments on both sides. I certainly would not stake my =
life on what I am happy to suppose. =20
I am not surprised that Robert Eisenman would reject the view that this =
ossuary was that of James the brother of Jesus, as he has written a =
massive revisionist history of James and early Christianity, a book I =
started to read a year ago and hope to dig further into.
Bob Schneider
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Dec 02 2002 - 21:56:30 EST