capnkirk

Haran,

I wrote my response before I pulled up the reference thread. Had I read it first, I would have been much harsher on you. From the BAR website's invitation to subscribe:

Quote:

BAR’s writers are the top scholars, the leading researchers, the world-renowned experts. BAR is the only nonsectarian forum for the discussion of Biblical archaeology.

The bolded word is the operative one. Their disclaimer only extends to being objective with respect to not favoring any particular religious denomination. This leaves the implicit bias in favor of Xtianity in general intact while subtly trying to appear genuinely objective.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

spin

I don't think one can take Haran seriously on this subject. It seems like a personal hobby horse about which he stonewalled on the palaeography, admitting a change in the scribal evidence when he swore long ago that the scribe "broke his stylus" and continued to write in a different script. Now he just refuses to acknowledge any difference between the two halves claiming thee is no coherence of font in the first half to his chagrin. Don't expect him to quote from anything other than BAR related sources.

(I guess Vorkosigan is right about Lemaire who just so conveniently has been connected with all the dubious artefacts to come to light and has authenticated them.)


spin

Haran

Spin...spin... Read my article again. I stated back then, that is originally, that I could see a change in script across the inscription. In other words, I stated that from the beginning. Not to mention you don't appear to know much about paleography, but then I'm sure you'd say the same of me regardless of the fact that my ideas are similar to several major scholars in semitic paleography. Even Emile Puech originally stated that the inscription was in one hand and seemed to assume its authenticity (that's at least 3 or 4 of the top paleographers, spin, when you include Frank Moore Cross, Andre Lemaire, and Ada Yardeni).

So, actually, you're only partly right. It is something of a hobby for me when new information pops up. I have little time now and choose to focus mostly on this because I find it interesting. I still find this subject of interest due to the unexplainable extreme bias against Golan and the ossuary. :banghead:

Christianity is most always claimed to be the culprit with respect to prolonging the life of the ossuary. The funny thing is that I've met very few Christians who know about the ossuary, much less care about it. Many of them already believe it is a fraud due to all of the biased reporting. Due to their lack of care and concern with respect to the ossuary, I can only assume that the only other forces at play here are those who want to take any opportunity, no matter how small, to attempt to crush Christianity and any evidence that might even have the remotest possibility of supporting Christianity through spin (er...I meant rhetoric ).

Haran

Nonsectarian..."implicit bias in favor of Xtianity"??? Huh???

So in other words, you simply assume they are lying? I've never seen so much bias. It just amazes me that in America, so many assume guilt before innocence.

I'll give you a pass if you simply don't know about BAR. It could be that you are simply unfamiliar with this archaeological magazine and the fact that it is nonsectarian, which does not mean Christian.

Haran

spin

Haran, I came across your broken stylus kludge to explain the change in scripts long ago while trawling the net, not from any article.


spin

Haran

That's too bad, because if you read the report, you'll realize that most of the scholars on that committee bowed to the Goren's analysis and were not able to make a determination based on their own expertise and stated so. Read the report. By the way, the official, detailed report apparently has yet to be published in a scholarly journal. How long has it been now?

While turning a blind eye to Golan's "other forgeries"?? What forgeries are those? This is the problem, people have been left with this impression through biased reporting in the media, but there are no definitely confirmed forgeries made by Golan. And, yes, the committee was obviously biased because committee members were online speaking against authenticity beforehand. As if that weren't enough, apparently it seems as if the scholars who thought the inscription might be authentic were intentionally excluded from the committee. Good Israeli scholars are calling for a new committee. If that isn't enough for you, then you will probably not be convinced.

Haran

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The article is one of the first things I wrote. I have held both of these beliefs (which are not incompatible) from the beginning. The only other place I can think of that I might have mentioned this before I wrote my article was on X-talk. Otherwise, the article came pretty much before anything else.