Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bill · 09-07-2003, 06:02 PM

OK, I think that Rick and I are done posting on this topic for the time being, so if a Mod here wants to split the thread, please be my guest....

== Bill

Artemus · 09-07-2003, 08:49 PM

Has Witherington made any public comments since the IAA report? I do hope we can argue about whether or not he is pathetic.

Toto · 09-07-2003, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Artemus
Has Witherington made any public comments since the IAA report? I do hope we can argue about whether or not he is pathetic.

I haven't seen any, but Witherington was the history guy, and Shanks was the one concerned about the archeology.

I thought that Witherington was pretty pathetic here:

Witherington believes God uses antiquities to bring humanity closer to Biblical truth

discussing this article where Ben said:

Quote:

Witherington believes God uses antiquities to bring humanity closer to Biblical truths.

"I think that the further we get away from the time of Jesus, the more evidence God produces," said Witherington.

"This ossuary brings to light the evidence to support what the New Testament says."

My good friend Layman accused me of "poisoning the well" by pointing this article out. And now he won't even discuss the ossuary, or how God has evidently used antiquities to teach gullible Christians a lesson in faith

Artemus · 09-08-2003, 09:40 AM

Interesting. Witherington's stand on the shroud is indeed pathetic. But I will have to see him defend the ossuary after the IAA report to apply the term to him in general.

BTW, after seeing Shanks comments on the shroud I feel compelled to promote him to "truly pathetic". Any discussion?

Toto · 09-08-2003, 02:24 PM

Scholars, Journalists and the Ossuary

Quote:

The story of this piece as told by its owner and its apologists has been baroque since the first day. Now it has become sordid. . . .

The arrest of the owner was reported at the time by the Associated Press, but the popular media in this country - the same media that beat the drum for the authenticity of the piece - mostly let the story pass. How convenient for them. Their new-found reticence permits them to evade the issue of their own credibility in being taken over by a publicity campaign.

. . . . Because that is the case, I am disappointed most of all by the silence of religions organizations -- and of professional societies dedicated to the study of the New Testament. Could they find no words to protest the ethical and scholarly and journalistic sloppiness involved in this fiasco? The Society of Biblical Literature sponsored discussions about the ossuary that claimed its authenticity, but never took a stand. The Royal Ontario Museum has prevaricated over the findings of the Israel Antiquities Authority, evidently embarrassed by its own haste in the embracing the genuineness of the piece. Only the Antiquities Authority seems to have done its job.

Just after the arrest of the owner, I was dining in Cologne at a conference of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, at the invitation of the Archbishop of Cologne. During his speech before dinner, the Archbishop mentioned that the medieval cathedral had been dedicated to house the remains of the three wise men of Matthew's Gospel. In his formal reply, the president of our society, not normally known to joke a great deal, observed that, while many of our members might dispute the identity of the bones in the cathedral, at least they had a better claim to authenticity than 'the Ossuary of James.'

Israel Antiquities Authority Suspects BAR Editor of Colluding with Forgers (from the suspect himself)

Quote:

Shlomo quickly informed me, however, that I, too, was �under suspicion� of being part of a group that had foisted this forgery on an unsuspecting public. And that Andr� Lemaire, the Sorbonne paleographer who was the author of the BAR article about the inscription, was also under suspicion.*** I laughed. But Ganor confirmed that I was indeed under suspicion and that when I would next come to Israel, I would become part of the investigation and would be called in for questioning.

. . .

He nevertheless showed me some drawings of seals with ancient Hebrew writing that, presumably, Golan was preparing to forge. One of them was the seal of a Judahite king (Jotham, grandfather of Hezekiah, who ruled from 750 to 735 B.C.E.). The drawings had supposedly been seized from Golan.

. . .

The police have seized much material from Golan in addition to the plaque containing the Yehoash inscription�boxes of artifacts (Golan owns a major collection of Israelite pottery) and his computers. The computers contained e-mails between Golan and me�and that is how I became involved.

Oh right, blame it on a computer.

I say truly pathetic.

Sauron · 09-08-2003, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Scholars, Journalists and the Ossuary

Israel Antiquities Authority Suspects BAR Editor of Colluding with Forgers (from the suspect himself)

Oh right, blame it on a computer.

I say truly pathetic.

It worked for Oliver North.

09-07-2003, 08:49 PM	#42
Artemus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USA Posts: 2,467	So what about Witherington? Has Witherington made any public comments since the IAA report? I do hope we can argue about whether or not he is pathetic.

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

09-07-2003, 06:02 PM	#41
Bill Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gatorville, Florida Posts: 4,334	OK, I think that Rick and I are done posting on this topic for the time being, so if a Mod here wants to split the thread, please be my guest.... == Bill

09-08-2003, 09:40 AM	#44
Artemus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USA Posts: 2,467	Interesting. Witherington's stand on the shroud is indeed pathetic. But I will have to see him defend the ossuary after the IAA report to apply the term to him in general. BTW, after seeing Shanks comments on the shroud I feel compelled to promote him to "truly pathetic". Any discussion?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.