Toto

The Plot Thickens

Steven Carr

Fascinating!

I'm still baffled by Lemaire's claim in Shanks and Witherington's book that Yardeni 'probably' told Golan what the inscription meant, when Shanks appears to imply that Yardeni only saw the inscription much later.

Just how DID Golan know of the correspondence of the ossuary to the one in number 570 in Rahmani's catalogue?

I like Shanks claim that any forger would have to know Aramaic better than Fitzmyer, when Lemaire appears to suggest that Golan is very familiar indeed with ossuary inscriptions.

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Toto! It's just as Altman said -- the second half is an addition.

Vorkosigan

Bede

Tangentally, I visited the Enlightenment gallery of the British Museum a few days ago. It is about the early collectors in the 18th century and the masses of material they amassed, catalogued, and most importantly, ordered as they saw fit.

One of the striking things was the number of fakes on display. Basically, all these Englishmen wondering about Italy buying up anything Greek or Roman was far too good a market for the locals to resist. Needless to say huge amounts of the standard progressions of art, pottery and epigraphy were based on fakes. Still are, in all likelihood.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Artemus

Frankly, a report that an anonymous archaeologist remembers seeing the box in an antique shop in the mid-90s with only the first half of the inscription is no more compelling than Golan saying he remembers he bought it in the 70's . The physical analysis is far more revealing. Now, if documentary evidence of the claimed attempt to sell the ossuary in 2001 is produced, that would be something.

Vorkosigan

Actually, this is not the first report that the ossuary has been around a while and dovetails with other things I have heard. So it is somewhat more credible.

Vorkosigan

leonarde

Repost from this thread:Curious, I tried looking at old threads on the ossuary (and had some trouble finding same via search function) but I did find this intriguing post:[QUOTE]Above (emphasis added by leonarde) from: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...860#post620860

So Vorkosigan, writing on November 12th 2002, takes note of the fact that several persons have seen the "second hand" begins inscribing on the 'first half' of the inscription which (apparently in Vorkosigan's opinion-------though it's an opinion I would share!) "suggests that it was made at the same time".

I'm having trouble reconciling the two statements by Vorkosigan. Perhaps he can elucidate??

Cheers!

godfry n. glad

It's from the IAA catalog of Jewish ossuaries by L.Y. Rahmani. No need to speculate at all. The site clearly states that on the site, directly to the right of the reproduced inscription.

Jeez, Haran, I thought you were on to this. I thought I sent you a scan of the page for that catalog month's back, while the Jim/Joe/Josh ossuary was still on display in Toronto.


godfry n. glad

godfry n. glad

Oops...double post. gng

Vorkosigan

Why leonarde! I am flattered that you search through my old threads looking for minor contradictions as though I were the Bible or something!

The way to resolve this devastating error is to note that my position changes as new information flows in. This is generally the way intelligent people handle their evaluations of reality. I am sorry if I have confused you.

Vorkosigan