Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-08-2004, 01:40 PM

Interview with Hershel Shanks in Jerusalem Post

Quote:

But given the murky facts surrounding its discovery, shouldn't the burden of proof be on those like yourself arguing its authenticity?

I question this "burden of proof" remark of yours. You do have to be careful. There are forgeries, and there are some pretty good ones, but I don't think the burden of proof is one way or another. I think that what we need, what we always had, is a presentation of scholarly views, and an openness to these views – not a court that comes down and declares something as forgery or authentic. This is the first time in the history of the country that a committee has been appointed to determine the authenticity or forgery of an antiquity. And if anything, I think it will never be done again. The proper way is to allow scholars to speak and not be intimidated.

Didn't you make any effort to check the background of Oded Golan, the dealer now accused of forging the inscription, before announcing to the world the discovery of the ossuary?

No, I did not; the question from my viewpoint is the object. It could be a forgery for all I know, but that doesn't mean that everything is a forgery.

The government of Israel and the police have treated Golan horribly. The pressure put on him was ghastly. They shackled him. They team-interrogated him without his lawyers for 30 hours. Everybody thinks he's been indicted, but they didn't charge him. They rushed him off to jail with rapists and murderers. They threatened him, I won't tell you how. Then, after four days, they released him. And now everyone says he's on bail, when he's never even been charged. This is not the way the State of Israel should act

Shanks appears to be arguing for no government controls on a field that is full of fraud and willing dupes.

Quote:

The IAA declined to react to the comments made in this interview. The Israel Police told The Jerusalem Post that they have concluded their investigation into Oded Golan, and have passed their findings to the State Attorney's Office, which is now weighing whether to file charges against him.

Steven Carr · 10-09-2004, 01:22 AM

I though that if you insured something for a couple of million dollars, the burden of proof would be on you to show that it is worth that much.

rlogan · 10-09-2004, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Shanks appears to be arguing for no government controls on a field that is full of fraud and willing dupes.

Hi Toto!

I think I would argue for government to for the most part stay out of it and allow scholars free exchange on ideas and evaluations of such things. Government "controls" sends a chill down my spine harkening to the days of... inquisition.

This is obviously a problem, and where fraud occurs the courts are the right branch of government to address it. But it should be through actions by specific parties to transactions as opposed to the government "rooting out" fraud.

If someone pays money for a fraud then it is their right to sue. (Including museums and such run by the government for the public)

I don't think we need a bureau of authenticity, though. I know you did not suggest this. But we need to be careful about getting the legislative and executive branches into the picture.

This is an area for scholars. They can testify in court in actions at law between parties. But no authenticity police, please.

Toto · 10-11-2004, 05:04 PM

Con artists are always arguing against government controls on what they do, or anyone who gets between them and their mark.

But BAR has published this - I'm not actually sure of the date - by Yardeni

Hebrew Script Expert Ada Yardeni on the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet

BAR has an Update on the Ossuary page, which contains this:

Quote:

In the meantime, follow the twists and turns of this fast-changing story here and in the pages of Biblical Archaeology Review (Subscribe now!).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2004, 01:22 AM	#2
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	I though that if you insured something for a couple of million dollars, the burden of proof would be on you to show that it is worth that much.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.