Haran

This excellent article speaks volumes about certain scholars' claims.

Remarks On The Aramaic Of The James Ossuary

No, I'm not saying I think the inscription is genuine. At this point I have no idea. I am saying that people should be wary of claims made even by scholars.

Toto

From that article (dated November 2003):

This is of course the example that the forger is assumed to have copied, which this author rejects.

The Shimi inscription can be viewed here (scroll down). I have to admit that I do not see a lot of similarities, but my eye is very untrained at this.

The original argument that Cook tries to rebut is here:

Cook's argument strains just a little. He claims that this particular grammatical formation is known from writings in the 2nd century, so it could have, certainly must have been used in the first century, so it is possible that this inscription fits 1st century grammatical usage.

In any case, the physical evidence shows that this is a forgery, in spite of Shanks' claims that Oded Golan's mother just cleaned it too vigorously with a sharp stick and some old chemicals that Oded left lying around.

Haran

Hmm...where did the author of this website get his picture of the Shimi inscription?

Anyways, the site is a polemic against the ossuary, believes some scholars that do not have a clue what they are talking about, and twists it into an insult toward Christians.

Much better and less biased sources of information can be found.

Rhetoric that poisons the well against Cook.

More rhetoric.

Why does this argument "strain"? Are you agreeing with those opposite Cook who appear to be saying that it is more likely that the grammatical forumation ahuy was all of a sudden in use? What Cook proposes is entirely reasonable and plausible, id est, the inscription simply contains an early occurance of this form.

This was one issue in the article anyway.

The physical evidence has now become as inconclusive as the paleographic and linguistic evidence. The ossuary will not recover from its over-scrutiny and will simply be another Shroud of Turin.

However, as I thought I had made clear, the point was not about the inscription being genuine. It was to show that there were certain scholars who commented very early and very irresponsibly and even erroneously (in certain instances), yet because they had the oh-so-important doctorate many assumed the must surely know what they were talking about, especially with their presumptuous titles such as "Official Report" and "Final Report"... People should be careful what information they listen to, especially when it comes across so early and so ridiculously confident.

Haran

Good grief, Toto. That must be one of the most highly biased websites I have ever seen and uses the likes of Acharya S among other questionables.

When will some realize that religion does not have to be an enemy that must be conquered by whatever questionable means available??

I always wonder what happened in peoples lives to make them hate religion so much. From my experience, it is usually because someone is treated poorly by one person (or a few) who claims to be a Christian (or other theist) and assumes the all are guilty by association fallacy, attacking all of them with fervor.

I have become so weary of both sides efforts. In twisting all available information, both the unreasonable theist and the militant "anti-theist" destroy history and many other related things.

Oh, who's listening anyway...

Toto

Hi Haran - I only linked to that website because it had the Shimi inscription, which I assume was scanned in from Rachmani's text. You are free to ignore whatever else you do not like there. I did not notice a reference to or reliance on Acharya S.

There are other places to discuss this, but from my experience it is a reaction to the blatant hypocricy that some Christians practice and the modern use of Christianity as an organizing tool for the Republican Party.

At this point, commenting on the paleography is just a question of how good the forger really was. You seem to be saying that he was good enough so he should have gotten away with it a bit longer?

Amlodhi

Hello Haran,

I am. For what it's worth I was raised in a fundamentalist Baptist environment. The members of this church, for the most part, were (and still are) wonderful, caring people. I just no longer agree with their scholarship regarding the bible. So we have come to an amiable agreement: I don't attempt to stop them from going to church and they don't tell me I should.

I do agree with the point you were making concerning the ossuary. Too many people on both sides were attempting a rush to judgment for no other purpose than to advance their standing in the scholastic community.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Haran

Um...no.

At least part of the inscription is genuine. Which part is genuine, however, seems to be up to the interpretation of the various scholars.

What I'm saying is that there were a lot of highly questionable claims made by certain scholars that were just accepted by many without question.

One claim, among many that I could present, for instance, was that ancient Hebrew was written in sound bites. I have not seen any information to indicate that this was the case and have contacted various scholars who also say they have not heard of such a thing.

Another is a claim (though more involved than I will mention) that said there was a 'zayin' in the Shimi inscription that meant "in memoriam". I can only assume, since the claim was not very specific" that this refers to a form of the root ZKR. However, this root is Hebrew not Aramaic, the language the Shimi inscription appears to be in.

I won't blather on. I'm just miffed at some of the scholars grasping for attention who seemed to me to have little experience and big egos whose many claims seemed to be accepted by many unquestionably.

Haran

Thanks, Amlodhi. I appreciate your response.

Toto

Why do you assume that everyone accepted Altman's analysis uncritically? She was one of a number of scholars who came up with varying criticisms.

Why do you say that "at least part of the inscription is genuine?" (The inscription is only notable because it had two parts that seemed to point to a particular individual, so if either part were genuine, it would only be just another humdrum ossuary.)

The ossuary had rosettes on one side, indicating that was originally the front, with the inscription on the other, indicating that it was added later. How do those who see this as partially authentic get around that?

Doctor X

So am I

I'M SPARTICUS!!! [Stop that!--Ed.]

Er . . . yes . . . sorry, anyways:

Er . . . the Shroud of Turin is a forgery. Is this what you wish to imply?

--J.D.