Johann_Kaspar

Sorry, but I did not follow the news about this "question" and I am not up-to-date.
What is the latest information about the so-called James ossuary? Is there any conclusion?
Thanks!

Toto

The Israeli experts have decided it is a forgery. (See the Final Reports.) Shanks of BAR is holding out, but then he believes that DNA from Jesus can be extracted from the Shroud of Turin.

Oded Golan was arrested but released; everyone is waiting for an indictment and trial.

spin

Shanks believes anything that will sell BAR. That's a very interesting coincidence.


spin

Johann_Kaspar

Very good link indeed. Thanks Toto and Spin.

It tells something about the honesty of some people and what they are up to.
The list of forgeries is too long... In fact every forgery is pointing in the other direction than the one wanted by their authors.

Haran

The IAA committee's reports are now being questioned by other good Israeli scholars, their conclusions are being labeled "one-sided". I would read others' opinions as well for a more balanced assessment. Many good scholars are calling for new testing...David Noel Freedman and Joseph Fitzmyer are among the many. Anyway, obviously this is only meant for those who have not already come to the presumptive conclusion that the artifacts are definitely and obviously forgeries.

Johann_Kaspar

When you can not convince them, confuse them.
You want to know the good news: now only 55% of the Frenchies believe in dog and 60% of the catholics do not believe that the resurrection took place. It leaves place for not prejudiced scholars.

capnkirk

For me to reconsider the IAA committee's conclusions, someone would have to demonstrate that the published patina layering anomalies were false. Since this was not a difficult test to conduct, the result that IAA published should be considered conclusive. If there were room for judgemental error due to ambiguity, then I would be more open minded, but the finding of the layering anomalies is as forensically obvious as determining that an object was painted green before it was painted blue. For IAA to have gotten it wrong implies deliberate falsification. To have published a result that was patently false, then risk having other forensic scientists discredit their finding would scandalize IAA as thoroughly as their report has scandalized Oded Golan. Since I consider it highly unlikely that IAA would take such a risk, I remain highly skeptical of those who refuse to believe it was a forgery. I tend to put them in the same category as those who refused to accept the C14 tests on the Turin Shroud because it burst their faith bubble. My conclusion is 'presumptive' only in the absolute sense that there remains perhaps a 1% chance that IAA has committed a fraud to protect Judaism from having to admit that there was a Jesus (even though James, Jesus and Joseph are among the most frequent names to appear on all the appx 140 engraved period ossuaries found so far, leaving far greater room for doubt even if the engraving were genuine.).

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

CX

Oh, I don't know, I think he also devotes a great deal of effort to protecting his image. The current BAR has 2 bits on the the James ossuary controversy. One is a positively hilarious fictional account of what Oded Golan's arraignment hearing would go like.

Haran

To my knowledge, as stated in BAR, these conclusions have been scientifically challenged with no answer from the IAA - Unanswered questions...

They seem to have failed to consider reasons other than forgery for their findings.

Not necessarily (though I have to say I am beginning to wonder). It could simply be due to the fact that many of the committee members had already made up their mind about the authenticity of the ossuary (as some stated on the internet beforehand) and their conclusions simply followed. I'd like to think it was that and not deliberate falsification...

First, the scholars questioning the IAA and calling for a new committee are not the Shroud of Turin type, IMHO. Most Christians that I know barely know anything about the ossuary. Most who do know about it don't really care one way or the other and would prefer to see it exposed if truly a fraud.

If a new IAA committee could be formed that accepted diverse opinions about the ossuary and considered all possible explanations for it results (rather than how do these results lead to the conclusion of forgery that we expect), it's opinions might be more readily accepted.

Reference Thread

capnkirk

From the second paragraph of your linked article:

Quote:

Yuval Goren, a geologist from Tel Aviv University and a member of the Israel Antiquities Authority committee, convinced everyone else on the committee1 that the inscription on the ossuary, or bone box—James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus—is a modern forgery—or at least to vote that way.

There is the bald-faced accusation, plain and simple! One that I don't believe for a minute! And furthermore, I would have to question the objectivity of anyone who would give credence to a claim that one person coerced a whole panel of respected scholars to issue statements in direct contradiction to their own conclusions. He is asking us to value HIS integrity over the integrity of more than a dozen others. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.
And what reasons are you suggesting that they consider but have not?
In view of the aforementioned pull-quote, that certainly seems that BAR is making that claim.
I am basing my characterization on some other BAR positions that have seemed to me to carry more than a little religious bias. So far as 'most Xtians you know' is concerned, their views are not germane to the position of BAR.

Now I hear you accusing the committee of being biased enough to put their reputations on the line by publicly concluding that this is a forgery, while turning a blind eye to Oded Golan's other forgeries. I have to seriously question just who is biased here.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.