MLADEN ANDRIJASEVIC BeershebaThe ossuary’s ‘yihus’ Sir, – As an amateur genealogist, what mystifies me most about “Putting the case to rest” (October 7) is that, based on three names and only two generations, archeologists would presume that the ossuary in question relates to the Jesus of Nazareth.In the traditional Jewish family of six to 10 children, at least one firstborn son is named for a patrilineal grandfather, and subsequent sons for matrilineal grandfathers and uncles on both sides.Following down the line to great-grandchildren, there would be at least as many brothers named Ya’akov and Yeshua as there were children of their great-grandfather, and each one of them could have been born to a grandson named Yosef. There could be even more if the names in question were those of uncles on the matrilinial line. And this process will geometrically multiply with each succeeding generation.My antecedents hail from the island of Rhodes, where, by any third or fourth generation, familial names are repeated so often that even the addition of matrilinial names in a descendancy chart doesn’t always clarify an identity.Even if the ossuary in question had been found in situ, in Nazareth let’s say, and its inscription confirmed as authentically ancient, its identity as the Jesus’s brother’s tomb would still not be a certainty.Archeologists should certainly know that, without further evidence, stating otherwise is merely a case of wishful thinking.JUDITH AMATEAU HAZARY NahariyaDismissal deserves no praiseSir, – Hebrew University geneticist Ariel Darvasi’s praise for Dr.Gaby Avital’s dismissal and his ludicrous statement that in the Israeli academic world “there are no people who share Avital’s beliefs” (“Education Ministry denies Avital let go due to Darwinism remarks,” October 6) are indicative of his unwillingness to recognize the legitimate existence of ideas other than his own.All anyone needs to do is to Google the terms “creationism” or “intelligent design” to find the thousands of scientists who do not believe that evolution could possibly occur as a result of random chance and without guidance.(Compare the views of Nobel laureate and biologist George Wald of Harvard University.) In fact, Darwinism is merely a scientific theory based on incomplete fossil evidence, before the discovery of DNA. Therefore, Dr.Avital’s apparent dismissal for questioning the validity of Darwinism deserves no praise.GIL GOLLER Jerusalem Quick fixesSir, – Former US president Bill Clinton is quoted as saying: “It [solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict] will take about half the impetus in the whole world – not just the region, the whole world – for terror to go away” (“Clinton: Peace would deflate terror,” October 6).The agenda of the supporters of terrorism (e.g., Iran) and of the terrorists themselves is much broader than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The “quick fixes” so loved by American administrations are extremely dangerous and probably counterproductive. We have to be more patient and smarter.COLEMAN BROSILOW RehovotGeneva Convention blues and the Jews Sir, – David Newman, while coming out strongly against the boycotting of Israeli universities by foreign universities and other organizations such as Church bodies and trade unions, blithely ignores the part of some of his own colleagues at Ben-Gurion University in advocating such boycotts (“The wrong litmus test,” October 5).The main thrust of these boycotts is the espousal of the canard that Israel is occupying Palestinian land and that the building of socalled settlements are against international law. Even President Obama, for reasons of his own, has espoused this position.However, the mouthers of this mantra have never read or perhaps even do not know of the existence of the Geneva Convention, which allegedly provides the basis for this allegation. Israel is in no way in infringement of the Geneva Convention. The language is comparatively simple and one does not have to be a lawyer to understand it.Ironically, China – which occupies Tibet – and Turkey, which occupies part of Cyprus are actually in violation of the Geneva Convention, but no one would ever dream of condemning them – because they are not Jewish.CYRIL ATKINS Beit Shemesh
October 11: A video is worth 1,000 words
Has she seen the video? Did anyone notice all of the cameramen there? They knew in advance they would be getting “juicy” pictures.
MLADEN ANDRIJASEVIC BeershebaThe ossuary’s ‘yihus’ Sir, – As an amateur genealogist, what mystifies me most about “Putting the case to rest” (October 7) is that, based on three names and only two generations, archeologists would presume that the ossuary in question relates to the Jesus of Nazareth.In the traditional Jewish family of six to 10 children, at least one firstborn son is named for a patrilineal grandfather, and subsequent sons for matrilineal grandfathers and uncles on both sides.Following down the line to great-grandchildren, there would be at least as many brothers named Ya’akov and Yeshua as there were children of their great-grandfather, and each one of them could have been born to a grandson named Yosef. There could be even more if the names in question were those of uncles on the matrilinial line. And this process will geometrically multiply with each succeeding generation.My antecedents hail from the island of Rhodes, where, by any third or fourth generation, familial names are repeated so often that even the addition of matrilinial names in a descendancy chart doesn’t always clarify an identity.Even if the ossuary in question had been found in situ, in Nazareth let’s say, and its inscription confirmed as authentically ancient, its identity as the Jesus’s brother’s tomb would still not be a certainty.Archeologists should certainly know that, without further evidence, stating otherwise is merely a case of wishful thinking.JUDITH AMATEAU HAZARY NahariyaDismissal deserves no praiseSir, – Hebrew University geneticist Ariel Darvasi’s praise for Dr.Gaby Avital’s dismissal and his ludicrous statement that in the Israeli academic world “there are no people who share Avital’s beliefs” (“Education Ministry denies Avital let go due to Darwinism remarks,” October 6) are indicative of his unwillingness to recognize the legitimate existence of ideas other than his own.All anyone needs to do is to Google the terms “creationism” or “intelligent design” to find the thousands of scientists who do not believe that evolution could possibly occur as a result of random chance and without guidance.(Compare the views of Nobel laureate and biologist George Wald of Harvard University.) In fact, Darwinism is merely a scientific theory based on incomplete fossil evidence, before the discovery of DNA. Therefore, Dr.Avital’s apparent dismissal for questioning the validity of Darwinism deserves no praise.GIL GOLLER Jerusalem Quick fixesSir, – Former US president Bill Clinton is quoted as saying: “It [solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict] will take about half the impetus in the whole world – not just the region, the whole world – for terror to go away” (“Clinton: Peace would deflate terror,” October 6).The agenda of the supporters of terrorism (e.g., Iran) and of the terrorists themselves is much broader than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The “quick fixes” so loved by American administrations are extremely dangerous and probably counterproductive. We have to be more patient and smarter.COLEMAN BROSILOW RehovotGeneva Convention blues and the Jews Sir, – David Newman, while coming out strongly against the boycotting of Israeli universities by foreign universities and other organizations such as Church bodies and trade unions, blithely ignores the part of some of his own colleagues at Ben-Gurion University in advocating such boycotts (“The wrong litmus test,” October 5).The main thrust of these boycotts is the espousal of the canard that Israel is occupying Palestinian land and that the building of socalled settlements are against international law. Even President Obama, for reasons of his own, has espoused this position.However, the mouthers of this mantra have never read or perhaps even do not know of the existence of the Geneva Convention, which allegedly provides the basis for this allegation. Israel is in no way in infringement of the Geneva Convention. The language is comparatively simple and one does not have to be a lawyer to understand it.Ironically, China – which occupies Tibet – and Turkey, which occupies part of Cyprus are actually in violation of the Geneva Convention, but no one would ever dream of condemning them – because they are not Jewish.CYRIL ATKINS Beit Shemesh