Rick Sumner

Any inscribed ossuary would have been valuable. Lemaire's solution is plausible. It's just not right.

Regards,
Rick

MortalWombat

And yet chalk and microfossils were also found in the Yehoash inscription, also owned by Golan. But the Yehoash stone was not made from chalk, so it could not have produced them itself. It had to have been added on purpose in that case.


No they are not. Rock varnish is the underlying coating caused by the action of algae or bacteria, upon which is ovelaid the patina, which is a calcitic coating. Only within the inscription is there no rock varnish underneath the patina.

See Examination of Authenticity: James Brother of Jesus Ossuary and Yehoash King of Yehuda Inscription by Prof. Yuval Goren
Department of Archaeology and Ancient Eastern Cultures and the Laboratory for Comparative Microarchaeology, Tel Aviv University

Rick Sumner

Frank Moore Cross' "The Development of the Jewish Scripts" published in The Bible and Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of W. F. Albright is supposed to be the standard from which all later models were developed, though it's been criticized (Vermes and Fitzmyer spring immediately to mind) as perhaps being a little too rigid.

Solomon Birnbaum's The Hebrew Scripts is applauded as providing an excellent discussion on the development of Hebrew script.

Just recommendations based on other references. I don't read a word of Hebrew, so haven't read either.

Regards,
Rick

Vorkosigan

Interesting, since the forgers prepared the inscription from a template...and thus, there are two different handwritings. One writer, perhaps. It is really not as simple as Cross et al thinks.

B. The inscription itself exhibits variations in handwriting, thickness and depth of the incised letters when comparing the words �?ames son of Joseph?to the words ��rother of Jesus? I have been told, that the committees reached similar conclusions after very precise examination. Thus, the inscription was made with two different chisels.

C. There is a significant difference between handwritings in the first and second parts of the inscription. The first part is written in the formal style of a scribe and the second part is cursive. The letters bet and kuf in the first part are characteristic writing of a scribe, and the second, cursive part has a characteristic alef.

D. When comparing the words ��rother of Jesus?on this ossuary to ossuary no. 570 in the Rahmani catalog (p. 200), a surprising resemblance can be seen. The letters het, vav, and yud are quite similar, and the most exceptional letter dalet is identical. In both inscriptions, only the descending line survived. It thus seems that the writer copied the inscription from this ossuary.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

That's not two hands, that's nothing but equivocation. Your using "two hands" in an entirely different fashion than 1) Is being used in the context of this discussion and 2) Is being used by Rochelle Altman.

Besides which, I'd suggest that Cross et al. don't think it's simple at all. Perhaps you could cite something to show the simplicity of their positions.

The question is whether two distinct writers engraved on the ossuary, not whether or not one writer used a template.

With the exception of point C, the rest of these are still geared toward arguing against authenticity. I'm not advocating authenticity, so it's really quite irrelevant.

Not being a paleography, I can't reach anymore of a conclusion regarding C than you can, the difference is that I recognize this.

I have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not such a deviation should be surprising coming from one hand, whether or not the cursive versus non-cursive scripts can be identified as coming from the same hand, and so on. Unless you happen to be familiar with Hebrew/Aramaic paleography, you don't either.

Regards,
Rick

Steven Carr

Lemaire's solution is that somebody who owned an ossuary would sharpen the letters, perhaps with a nail, to make it more valuable, and Golan did that unaware of what the letters meant.

Presumably people routinely make ossuaries more valuable this way. After all, Golan did not think of the ossuary as in any way special, until somebody told him about the inscription.


According to the original report, that Lemaire, Shanks and Witherington put so much stock on , there were no traces of a modern instrument having been used.

How was it that the Israeli Geological Society felt competent to examine ossuaries when they did not know that it was very plausible that owners would sharpen letters on ossuaries to make them more valuable?

Why did Lemaire not ask Golan if he had restored the ossuary in any way (a standard question in the antiques business)?

Why did Lemaire, Shanks, Witherington allow this statement to stand (that no modern instrument had been used), when they knew that it was IMplausible, and Golan knew it was plain false?

Vorkosigan

Nice dodge, Rick. Here we have one expert who worked at length close-up with the Ossuary. And three others, who have not. If I'm betting the retirement, it's not going to be on doddering Christian scholars who couldn't recognize that the letters they were looking at had come out of Rahmani (there is only one other Ossuary with "BROTHER" on it!!!!) and in the case of two, did not instantly spot this obvious fraud, but instead leaned authentic. Shit, even Haran picked up that tidbit about Rahmani and BROTHER from somewhere, even though he didn't recognize its significance. So don't tell me about the amazing Frank Cross -- when his expertise was put to the test, it failed completely.

The point is that the writing styles were different from one half to the other, the second was prepared from an obvious template. Further, the incision depth was also different on the other side, and two chisels were used. There is ample room here for confusion about hands and handwriting. The evidence is consistent with several interpretations.

Quite true. And I am suggesting that Cross and Malik don't know either. Maybe they are giving professional judgments, and maybe they are positioning themselves with a safe position, in case suddenly this thing turns out not to be a fraud "Heck, we knew all the time it was one hand. See?" Either way, if Golan does the whole thing, or the thing turns out to be real, they are covered. Only if Golan turns out to have altered an existing inscription (Altman's position now) are they busted. But they can always say they recognized his hand throughout. It's a can't-lose judgment.

"There is a significant difference between handwritings in the first and second parts of the inscription."

Vorkosigan