From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 17:58:07 EST
Surely the best historical response is that the ossuary is good
circumstantial evidence but not proof.
It does upset minimalists who want to discredit any history in the bible.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 2:02 PM
Subject: Ossuary
>
> My brother, an ancient historian and archaeologist specializing in the
> Middle East, saw the "James" ossuary in Toronto last month. He believes
> "the same hand did the inscription. Not based on letter forms, but on the
> tool used to carve it and the depth of the letters. If it is a fake, who
> benefits? if it was an ancient fake, then it would have been placed in a
> reliquary and a church built over it. If a modern fake, it would have sold
> for more than $300!"
>
> This hardly proves that it came from the tomb of the biblical James, but
> the possibility is an obvious one.
>
> Ted Davis
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Dec 11 2002 - 00:14:35 EST