Haran

Because her claims are used on many websites and do not seem to have ever been questioned, only accepted. Even Roger Vikklund, who seems to be a pretty thoughtful guy (and is probably the source of at least one of the pictures on the website you linked to) wrote down everything she said and put it into this picture. Perhaps he did, but I don't remember him asking for sources from Dr. Altman to back her questionable claims on ancient Hebrew being written in "sound bites", the lowering of the final pe, the final pe being and "end-of-text marker", etc. I've not contacted a scholar yet in the relevant field that can tell me the source of these claims.

The IAA report. The accounts there and Dr. Altman's views do not mesh. Even Altman, at one time (her story seemed to me to change a lot), thought that only part of the inscription was fake. In fact, the accounts are all so varied, one wonders if any of the inscription is really fraudulent.

Again, it's about the fact that some scholars very quickly dismissed the ossuary inscription for poor reasons and analysis. What was the necessity in so quickly dismissing in an unreasonably confident rhetoric an artifact that was linked to Jesus? Sorry, but it smacks of bias and bad scholarship to me. And yes, so does exposing something in BAR the way it was done.

It may be "just another humdrum ossuary" to you, but I happened to find it very interesting paleographically due to the seemingly strange dalet and other features. If it was an authentic ossuary inscription, then it's historicity has been destroyed because of those who desperately wanted it to be that of James and by those who didn't want it to be all for ideological reasons.

This has always sounded like propaganda to me. If one looks through Rahmani's book, the inscriptions can be found all over the ossuaries. If the rosettes had been on the front and the writing on back, then that is simply the way it was... The writing could have been scrawled on the lid or side of the ossuary (e.g. Caiaphas ossuary) for that matter.

This brings up one other claim of Altman's, the supposed "frame". Has she provided an example besides the Uzziah inscription which she somehow independently came up with after I had it on my website first, that is anything from an ossuary? I looked seriously through Rahmani's book for text that was framed in a manner which she seemed to mention, but I could not find any. Most script was simply scrawled somewhere on the ossuary. I don't remember finding an example of text that was intentionally framed. Perhaps there is one, but I didn't see it and she didn't provide a reference.

Haran

Tell that to those who've performed tests on it and supposedly found it to be authentic.

Anyway, what I mean to imply is that the ossuary has passed into the realm of faith (faith for those who believe it is inauthentic as well as those who still believe it to be authentic).

Doctor X

Haran:

Not to hijack this but:

what tests? The tests performed on it show otherwise. I know that some have made some rather painful interpretive claims that resemble attempts to prove there actually is an Ark in Turkey!

I can link a whole lot of stuff on that point--including the fact that the initial investigation of the Church considered it a forgery and even identified the probable forger, but I do not think you are trying to defend it as genuine.

My point, other than to ask about the statement, is that I think the Ossary will become like the Shroud--a forgery that believers simply will not reject because they want some proof of their faith.

No, I am not accusing you, specifically, as being such a person.

--J.D.

Haran

But based on what? Scientific analysis by scientists that you have faith are not biased in their conclusions? Your interpretation of news stories about Golan?

I don't want to get into all that. I just think that with all the slanted views, I don't see how anyone has any confidence in anything to do with the ossuary anymore. I could not state either way and will probably remain permanently agnostic on the issue.

Haran

You mean kind of like Dean is doing?

It seems to me from some of his statements that he has to adopt religion if he's gonna relate to us Southerners! I wish I had a link to some of the comments he made. I didn't appreciate them.

{Ah... Found a few: Dean quotes on religion in a weblog}

There are some high-profile Christians getting involved, and I don't personally like it. I also do not like faith-based initiatives - gives the government too much control over those organizations in which they can trample on the beliefs of the people in them, however unintentional.

Sorry, this is way off topic, but I just couldn't stand not responding any longer.

Doctor X

Pssst! Your pleated brackets are showing!!!

You need to wear a proper "]" man!

Anyways, to continue a bit on the hijack, the "need for religion" is part of that need for validation--"look! All of the politicians, and Presidents believed! It must be true!"

Now read that again and think of how sadly funny it is!

--J.D.

Toto

Haran - there is a thread on Dean's religious outreach in the Church State forum.

Vorkosigan

Who gives a hoot about the paleography? If it conforms to some (constantly shifting) standard, all it means is that the forger was skilled. As I pointed out early, and Yuval Goren more recently, because this forgery team has been making artifacts since 1993 or so, many of the "authentic" artifacts in the databases used for comparison are themselves forgeries by the same team. In other words, the paleography is meaningless (always has been). Inscriptions can only disprove the object, not prove it. Someday you might realize that (I still hold out hope). I really, really beg you to read Selling Hitler and The Hermit of Beijing, and bone up on famous forgers (better, try establishing a collection of ancient artifacts -- that'll teach you about forgery real fast). You cannot understand this case from the perspective of someone who is studying inscriptions -- which is why so many were fooled -- you can only understand it from the perspective of someone who has to make actual decisions about forgery (like yours truly, the oft-burnt Sung dynasty porcelain collector). You're applying the wrong expertise, Brian.

The science has settled the issue. Now we must sit around and wait for the forger(s) to confess. Although no matter how detailed the forger(s)' confession, I am sure it will never be good enough for certain parties.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

So there is only one example of 'brother', and it happens to be an exact parallel, and Golen knew this and brought it to the attention of Lemaire (while being unable to recognise the significance of the inscription). Coincidence? I think not.

Two very rare, identical things?

Haran

No. The Shimi inscription, the Genesis apocryphon, and more than likely others I am not aware of. It is proof of the evolution in orthography. You should like the evolution part.

No. Joseph Fitzmyer did. Golan claimed he did not completely understand the inscription.

See. This is the problem. So many are going off their own interpretations of faulty and hole-ridden information, not to mention trusting in the expertise of scholars they don't even know about.