TedM

That was some fascinating reading. From what I've read the integrity which allows for good analysis was compromised by cleaning detergents on the inscription, and then the Israel police who pulled of a soft patina layer. Allowing for that, the scientific analysis may still be most in favor of authenticity since there is old patina on a couple letters of the brother of Jesus part.

But, common sense leads to a different conclusion:

To me there are 3 things stand out as most damning against Golen, that together would seem to render all of the scientific analysis moot:

1. I highly doubt that he kept it for 30 years before discovering that Jesus had a brother named James. How could a serious collector not know? And not check around--since he surely would have known that 'brother of Jesus' would ONLY have been on the box if Jesus was someone important. Had he never heard of Jesus either? Doesn't wash.

Against this is the photo which shows a date in the 1970s. I read the date was the date the photo paper was manufactured, and that no proof was given that the photo was taken back then. EDIT: see 2 posts down..very interesting article from a Jerusalem reporter.

2. His connection to the Jehoash inscription, a shoebox-sized tablet inscribed with Biblical-style Hebrew instructions on caring for the Jewish Temple, shortly after the James ossuary. The odds of one man -- even with a reputation for paying top dollar -- owning and producing 2 historic pieces even in one lifetime are virtually nil.

3. The discovery of tools and materials AND half-finished forgeries in his apartment when police raided his apartment.

I question this. Is this guy a complete idiot? Why would have have such materials after already knowing he is under suspicion? Is it even a true story? I find it hard to believe he could be so stupid.

All 3 of these have something in common: They show an incredible arrogance by the man and a belief that he can get away with doing or saying anything. That, perhaps is the mindset of a highly successful forgerer..

And, guess what? He is right. Unlike the OJ trial, it wasn't a jury that was taken in by emotion, or overwhelmed with testimony. It appears that the judge just couldn't find enough evidence to convince him. I find the verdict unfathomable though. Did they not find damning EVIDENCE of what he was up to? How could they ignore the materials found in his apt and warehouse? How could this be the sentence?:

The verdict is bizarre.

Is there going to be a writeup of the testimony? I'd like to know how he was able to divert attention from the findings by the police..

What if they discover that it really was stolen from Talpoit, but originally said James, son of Joseph? What if he really was James the brother of Jesus? How ironic would that be?!

TedM

Ah, perhaps I was right to be suspicious of the truth of this one. The response sounds possible.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...ct-not-guilty/

Perhaps the judge decided that the police and news reports mishandled the reporting here..but there's those bags of dirt. Did they really find those? How would he use dirt for restoring antiquities?

TedM

check this out:

http://www.jpost.com/JerusalemReport...aspx?id=273554

All I can say is this: wow. I don't think they had photo-shop in the 70s! hmm...This is a powerful piece of evidence against forgery.

Thoughts? How could that all be a hoax?

A few thoughts:
1. Someone else forged it before he got it in the 70s, but he didn't understand the significance.
2. The photo is a complete hoax -- staged perhaps even by Golan -- but his parents won't testify against him.
3. The photo is real -- he had the old box but it was missing the words brother of Jesus -- he sent the photo to someone who had it photo-shopped with putting the words in, and then had that transferred onto the same kind of older manufactured photo paper.

TedM

Another really good article. This one makes a strong point about the photo being the ONLY one he had with Kodak on the back..hmm...

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-...ittal-1.421645

Edit: next post says he found the photo when living with his parents after being charged.

TedM

This website presents a strong case for the authenticity of the ossuary and the innocence of Golan. I'm not saying they are right, but am saying they've done some good homework.

http://www.2all.co.il/Web/Sites/ossuary/PAGE2.asp

I've been on a rollercoaster tonight with this issue..from convinced it is an elaborate hoax to leaning toward believing it is authentic..

TedM

very long report, lots of info:

http://magazine.bible-translation.ne...ial_Report.pdf

sotto voce

I'll take that as a climb-down.

andrewcriddle

FWIW IF Golan possessed the ossuary in the early 1970's then it seems unrelated to the Talpiot tomb which was excavated later (c 1980) .

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

That's right. That's the bottom line. Succinct as always Andrew

TedM

I agree.

Woke up this morning with 2 issues on mind:

First, the bags of soil. What reason did Golan give for having those? Only legit one can think of would be to do his own testing on items he was about to purchase, or had purchased..sounds far fetched though. What was said in court about those? I haven't seen anything.

Second: his treatment of the ossuary. The packaging when sent to Canada and keeping it on a toilet in a shed seem inconsistent with the idea that it was a prized possession. What other prized possessions (and he had many) were treated that way?


Is the full report of the trial ever going to be made public?