Rick Sumner

Looks like Lemaire was always saying there were photographs.

I trust an apology will be forthcoming.

Regards,
Rick

Steven Carr

It seems there always were photographs, but in the early story, Golan was unable to decipher the inscription, had no idea it meant 'Brother of Jesus', and he said this at the Toronto meeting, when Lemaire was present.

Lemaire did nothing to correct this statement.

Now Lemaire says Golan knew what the inscription said and had found the catalogue where it appears.

'"....Lemaire reports that on the day he saw a photo of the inscription for the first time, "the owner said he thought the inscription was especially interesting because there was only one other inscription in Rahmani's Catalogue (the standard catalog of Jewish ossuaries) mentioning a brother in a similar way."

Golan had looked up in Rahmani's Catalogue and found the only mention of a brother, while being unable to decipher the inscription, no idea what the words for 'brother of' meant and having no idea that the ossuary could be signficant.

Rick Sumner

Golan is quoted as always knowing what it said. "I didn't think the son of God could have a brother" was the reason he provided for his failure to recognize it. It was never, to my knowledge, suggested that he didn't know what it said, the claim was that he didn't understand the significance. He was, of course, lying, but it's certainly plausible that Lemaire, caught up in the excitement of what appeared to be the biggest find in the history of the field, would accept his story. It's certainly not enough to hang accusations of forgery on.

Regards,
Rick

Vorkosigan

Under no circumstances. When they bust Lemaire, the first cigar I smoke will have your name on it.


Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

It's more than that. Lemaire's original article, as I recall, mentioned that other Ossuary, without mentioning any alleged remarks Golan had made making that connection.

Vorkosigan

{fix quote, b tags - Toto}

Steven Carr

I was just repeating the report of Golan's speech :-

'Oded Golan then came to the podium and said that he had been collecting since he was 8 and now had a collection of over 3000 items, including over 30 ossuaries. Yigael Yadin even published a find he made when he was 10 years old.

With regard to the ossuary, he purchased it in the early 1970s from one of the four dealers who were then in the Old City. He did not understand the inscription or its significance because he could not decipher the 'brother of' part.'

I quote 'Did not understand the inscription.'

and 'Could not decipher the 'brother of' part.'

----------------------------------------
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/...iscussion2.htm

'What new things the owner and the experts said at the two sessions

Owner:

Oded Golan once again repeated the story of his collection and the origin of the ossuary. He explained why he was unable to understand the inscription and its significance: 'He could not decipher the 'brother of' part' of the inscribed line.

--------------------------------------

In Lemaire's foreword to 'The Brother of Jesus', he repeats that he first saw a photograph of the ossuary at Golan's flat, when he was told by Golan that the 'brother of' bit was also in Rahman's catalogue.

Rick Sumner

Outstanding. You're more than welcome to do so. Though, I note again, that I still haven't stated Lemaire is not guilty of anything.

You berated me, repeatedly, for having the audacity to criticize your conclusions regarding what you viewed as contradictory accounts because of the presence of photographs in one, and not in the other. You criticized my methods, my conclusions, and my motivations--which in so doing leads to a criticism of my character. You did all this based on nothing more than your own presupposition that one could only reach a conclusion contrary to yours through agenda driven motivations.

You did so unjustifiably. You were wrong, clearly, as a 2002 article inextricably demonstrates. Your failure to acknowledge this, I must confess, will color my perception of your posts for some time.

Regards,
Rick

Rick Sumner

See, now that is curious, and I hadn't been aware of it. Particularly considering that Golan had already stated otherwise to Lemaire, as Lemaire observed even in the National Geographic article you cited:

I still fail to see how this implicates Lemaire, however. Lemaire, as we've just observed, did state that Golan knew what it meant, and did not state otherwise. A sin of omission, perhaps?

Lemaire probably should have said something to the contrary, but it can hardly be maintained that he covered up what he knew--he had already publicly stated what he knew, and is quoted as doing so in the article you presented. It's not much of a cover-up if your quotes are appearing in National Geographic. It's, in fact, not a cover-up at all.

What muddies the waters more than that, I think, is Golan's repeated statements emphasizing that he empathizes with James and Jesus as fellow Jews. I'm not aware of any Jews who would worry that the son of God could not have a brother. It's curious that Lemaire wouldn't find that suspicious.

But, as I've noted, it's also a situation where the benefit of the doubt needs to be granted. This would have put Lemaire's name among the greatest archaeologists of all time, people will go to great lengths, and become incredibly blind, in such situations.

If Lemaire's involved, I hope he pays for it. As I've stated more than once, forgers are scumbags and an embarassment to the field at large. But at this point that's a rather big "if." Anything approaching remotely concrete evidence implicating him continues to be lacking. Until such time as such evidence presents itself, I think a responsible observer is obligated to reserve judgment.

Regards,
Rick

Vorkosigan

Rick, the personal attacks in this and other threads have been initiated by you. I have never accused you of having an agenda. Simply of being obtuse. You have constructed a Vorkosigan in your own mind and responded to him.

Both right and wrong, as the swirling story indicates.

<shrug> Mine have been colored since you announced your presence here with a blanket assault on the Infidels community.

Vorkosigan

Artemus

Assuming innocent until proven guilty, I personally lean much more toward "Lemaire is an idiot" rather than "Lemaire is a crook". Are there any other reasons to suspect his involvement?