Vorkosigan

Rick, Eisenmen had a valid case against the DSS carbon dating irrespective of his particular views (have you seen Ian Hutchinson's site? He did not "ignore" them as you claim, but dealt with the issue in his books. Doherty has written one review of Archarya. He is not an editor of a major magazine, nor does he have significant financial interest in Archarya's success nor does he accuse his opponents of being anti-semites, etc. Shanks does not have anything in support of his case. He has a deep financial interest in the Ossuary. He is defending a known forger. Etc. Shanks is definitely pathetic.

Further, Shanks was known as "pathetic" around here long before the Ossuary, for precisely those issues you identify. For example, godfrey n. glad wrote:

• (That Hershel Shanks...what a kidder, eh? Calling anyone who disagrees with his favored interpretation an anti-Semite, even if they happen to be Jewish, as well as the chairman of the Archeology Department at Tel Aviv University.)

or from here

• BAR is a rag, run by a religiously conservative money maker, who given the opportunity can be very nasty, as in the case of a letter sent to Ha-Aretz in Jerusalem by Ze'ev Herzog, which SHanks responded to in an ignominious manner, using dirty rhetorical trick after dirty rhetorical trick.

As for entering a group and accusing it of having 'double standards' when you yourself are clearly ignorant of its discussion history...I find I have no comment at all. Not everyone here is a mythicist, and while we defend Doherty, I doubt any of us are wholly committed to his position. The thing that sets so many of us off here is that the attacks on Doherty and mythicism are launched by individuals who have no methodological basis for their conclusions, and employ disingenuous rhetorical techniques and faulty logic in support of their own faith-committed positions.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

What? Did you read the book? He dealt with nothing--he made claims with absolutely no support based on nothing but but his own decree. Pages 83-85 of his book contain exactly zero citations of any geologists that support his position, nor any references to information on carbon dating. Nothing. Not a one.

Huh? Is Eisenman a geologist now? He must be, because he doesn't provide any support for this claim. Or any of those that immediately follow.

Footnotes on the matter are limited to his own conceptions of what radiocarbon dating should entail, which means less than nothing to me. A citation of a New York Times article, which also means less than nothing to me, and an accusation of bias against the radiocarbon team, which means even less than that. He attempts to rebut hard science by speculative assertions regarding what the "internal evidence" suggests. Why I should throw hard science to the wind and follow him is beyond me. But don't worry, he does plenty of well-poisoning to persuade you to that effect--after all, you don't want to blindly follow the "Establishment consensus."

This further ignores the fact that it was Eisenman who requested the carbon-dating--apparently it was good enough for confirmation until it didn't confirm him.

And did you read the site you just posted? It doesn't argue against the dating. You should have cited Atwill's article.

The claim that Shanks only supports the Ossuary because of a "deep financial interest" is absurd. Shanks has defended many positions in the past with greater tenacity that he didn't have a vested interest in. Besides which, the frenzy over the Ossuary was largely over anyway--most people who would have bought his book already had.

To purport that Doherty has never engaged in personal attacks against those who disagree with him is patently untrue.

I noted, quite explicitly, that unless you already had condemned Shanks you weren't justified in doing so now. If you'd already done so, this would clearly exempt you from this.

[Editted to add the following]

Speak of the devil! I was just talking about people who seemed to have no problem with Shanks prior to the Ossuary incident suddenly condemning him for behaving exactly the way he always does. . .

From the second thread cited by Vorkisogan:

Now, I'm aware that this doesn't state that "Shanks is okay," but it doesn't exactly convey that Shanks is pathetic, now does it?

[End editting]

This 1) presumes (erroneously) that I've only recently begun following discussions here, and 2) misses the point of my sentiments. To speak nothing of 3) being too arrogant to warrant further comment.

Regards,
Rick

Artemus

Whether or not a double standard is being applied is irrelevant to the question regarding Shanks. Simply put, his behavior regarding the ossuary is pathetic. What does the fact that he consistently behaves in this way (as you pointed out) say about him in general?

Also, what difference does it make how people felt about him previously? People can change their minds as evidence mounts. Too bad Shanks never learned this.

Roger Pearse

Where is this review to be found? I'd like to read it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

Revies of Acharya S's Christ Conspiracy

As I said before, Doherty does not speak ill of a fellow mythicist. I think that Doherty has thrown in a mild disclaimer in his more recent references to Acharya S, but I don't have a reference.

Doctor X

ricksummer:

Methinks you nitpick:

I must confess I consider "stubborn as a mule" and "jackass of a human being" rather pathetic behavior, if not worse.

--J.D.

CX

No sooner had I seen this thread started than my Sept/Oct issue of BAR was delivered to my desk. On the cover---AGAIN---is the "James Ossuary" with the enormous tagline "FAKE Israel Antiquities Authority" in the shape of a rubber stamp and underneath the graphic the terse query "Is it?". This gets more absurd every moment. I can hardly wait to see what the article says. At least the Silberman article in this months issue of Archaeology magazine is more dispassionate and critical basically outlining the whole debacle with the ossuary and the Jehoash inscription forgeries and doing giving BAR, Shanks and others a much deserved castigating.

Off topic but equally intriguing is the other headline on the cover of BAR this month "Israelites Found In Egypt". I can hardly contain myself.

CX

I subscribed to BAR (and read a friends copy monthly before that) before the James Ossuary hit. From the beginning I've found that you must take most of the writing in BAR with a 50lb grain of salt. Shanks is stubborn,yes, but also foolish and dogmatic and this ossuary nonsense is the tip of the ice berg. It's positively ridiculous and I'm ashamed for Shanks for not having the balls to say, "You know what? I was wrong." when nothing could be more obvious. He is making a complete and utter jackass out of himself. Whether it's simple foolish pride or financial considerations is irrelevant. The fact is it IS "pathetic".

Roger Pearse

Thank you for that -- most interesting.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Rick Sumner

Absolutely. It's a highly popularized forum, and there can be no doubt of its a priori biases. The general editorial position of condemning the likes of Finkelstein (and, more recently, Dever is apparently a minimalist too--they're running out of support for their positions, I note they seem to have dismissed Dever in favor of Malamat as their golden boy, as of late) is out of touch with mainstream archaeology, and you'd be a fool to cite the sizable majority of BAR submissions in any academic paper.

But to the non-academic, it's an invaluable resource, presuming one bears in mind to read it with a jaundiced eye. For example, look at Shanks' rephrasing of Cross' sentiments on the Jehoash Inscription on pages 27-28 of the May/June 2003 issue. I can understand those--they're put forth in such a fashion that I can understand the concerns, and if I was interested in further persuing it (which I wasn't, in this case), I have something to work from. Were I to read Cross' actual report (and I haven't, so can't say this for certain), it is extremely likely that I wouldn't understand a word of it. To draw a rough parallel, I can barely understand the review of Cross' work in the most recent JNES--it presumes a familiarity that the BAR doesn't.

The BAR is the rough equivalent of SciAm for Biblical Archaeology. Do the responses in SciAm regarding Creationism reflect the current state of biological sciences? Of course not--Creationism isn't even on the radar. Does this mean SciAm is not a valuable resource for the layman? Again, of course not.

And this I have no problem with--his handling of the James Ossuary is pathetic. The fact that he defends a known forger is beyond sickening, and if anyone should be touting on the cover of their publication that Golan is a repulsive scumbag worthy of nothing but our scorn, it's Shanks.

It's the blanket statements that are unjustified. People who had no problem citing Shanks six months ago suddenly preface their remarks with "This was before the James Ossuary," as though Shanks has suddenly turned into a complete buffoon whose work is wholly without merit.

To draw a parallel, if I were to cite Allegro regarding the Copper Scroll, I wouldn't preface my remarks with "He wrote this before he went crazy and wrote The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross" anymore than if arguing against it I would note that it was written after he all but flat-out lied on BBC radio.

I will surely continue to recommend Shanks' Mystery and Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls as the best popular introduction to the Scrolls I've ever read. I will continue to unabashedly recommend Frank Moore Cross: Conversations with a Bible Scholar as informative and enlightening. I will continue to do both without disclaimer.

It's important to remember that, regardless of everything else, Shanks has contributed a great deal to the field at large, and more importantly has made it accessible to the layman. I have no doubt that when all is said and done on the James Ossuary, he will continue to do so.

A blanket dismissal of him as "pathetic" is unjustified.

Regards,
Rick