Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 06-29-2008, 12:27 PM

One should perhaps note that there are several examples of serious honest and respected scholars developing what seem to be delusional ideas about ancient texts and inscriptions.

According to Metzger Early Versions of the New Testament pps 311-312; E S Buchanan became convinced that the Huntingon or Tarragona Codex, a Latin Missal, is a palimpsest the underwriting of which presents a more authentic version of the Gospels and Acts noted for its frequent use of the word spirit and omitting any references to eschatology or baptism.

His edition of the text was never published (although it reached the proofs stage) because in the opinion of other scholars this under-writing simply does not exist.

Buchanan continued to believe in his discovery and managed to publish various short articles about it.

Andrew Criddle

patcleaver · 06-29-2008, 01:24 PM

PhilosopherJay,

My appologies about vocabulary, :blush:

A patina is a surface that is produced by wear or age especially on stone or metal.

A fascia is a surface or covering especially on a wall between horizontal moldings on a wall.

Although it is not incorrect to say that the exterior surface of a stone inscription is a fascia, it is more common in archeology to refer to the surface layer produced by age and wear as a patina.

Solitary Man · 06-29-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One should perhaps note that there are several examples of serious honest and respected scholars developing what seem to be delusional ideas about ancient texts and inscriptions.

John Marc Allegro and the Sacred Mushroom? I thought Barbara Thiering started off with Levantine pottery, but I think I'm thinking of Jodi Magness.

jjramsey · 06-29-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

If we assume that it was actually found in the pavement, this brings up the question of how does parts of a pavement of a Byzantine room get to be found 70 meters apart? It must have been quite a large Byzantine room.

Who says that the first fragment was part of a pavement? The stone used in the inscription was apparently broken up and then recycled for various purposes. There's no reason that the fragments should be all that close to each other or used for similar purposes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

We cannot be sure that the reference to the "second" marble indicates that it was found later or simply has an inferior significance to Vardaman's marble. The article by Ben Smith refers to a "third" marble which was apparently found and lost two years before. Since the term "third" is not being used to indicate chronological order of discovery, we cannot assume that the term "second" indicates it either. Thus no fiddling of records or postdating would be necessary if the term second is not referring to the chronology of the discovery.

Maybe, but Fragment 3 seems to be called "third" because after Fragments 1 and 2 were discovered, it was realized that it was related to those two fragments, and no one wanted to renumber the other fragments.

The plain reading of the text that mens_sana gave implies that Fragment 1 was discovered before Fragment 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I am not sure about any time constraints. I do not imagine that any archaeologist with a good knowlege of Hebrew as Vardaman had, would need more than half an hour to inscribe 18 or 19 letters.

Hello!! It's not just knowledge of Hebrew that's the issue. There's also the matter of the skill needed to inscribe the marble in such a way as to have the writing style match that of Fragment 3--which as you yourself noted, was discovered earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Would not the logical thing to do in the case of diggers missing objects, would be to tell the diggers to slow down and uncover less dirt and examine it more carefully?

That obviously isn't sufficient to recover artifacts that diggers had already thrown into baskets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Having the wheelbarrow person recheck the dirt seems like a useless action. Are you not less likely to find something in dirt that has been sifted than in dirt that has not been sifted?

The wheelbarrows were said to have debris, not just dirt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

In fact, telling the wheelbarrow person to carefully check his wheelbarrow, a procedure that had not been followed up to that point, till the very end of the dig, is virtually equivalent to Vardaman pointing to a spot and saying, "Dig here."

Aside from it being a perfectly rational way to make up for the legitimate possibility of diggers having overlooked something, yes it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I am not sure of how much craftiness or careful planning he needed.

Let's see now:

If Vardaman forged the whole thing, then he was slick enough to redistribute the separate pieces, and either have separate people discover the pieces or give the appearance of separate discoveries. The latter would involve fiddling with the records for keeping track of finds.
If Vardaman forged the first two pieces, then he was slick enough to redistribute the separate pieces, and either have separate people discover the pieces or give the appearance of separate discoveries, and was also slick enough to imitate a previously documented inscription style.
If Vardaman forged just the first piece, he still needs to be slick enough to forge the lettering to match a previously known style and find marble that matches well enough to the second piece.

mens_sana · 06-29-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi, Mens_Sana, This is really great stuff. Thanks.

Why, thank you, PhilosopherJay! I’m glad you found it interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The question is: Did Vardaman suddenly snap in the 1980's and start creating pictures of coins with fake information written on them or was he involved in forgery since the beginning of his career in archaeology?

Why did you begin your response in this manner? As far as I can see, it has no direct connection with the single fragment (out of three) that Vardaman found some 20 years earlier. And it is speculation, in regards to both the “snap” and the “forgery,” unless you intend to show that Vardaman “snapped” in the 60s or “forged” his one fragment (out of three) of the inscription.

Ah, I see, “snap” is not developed beyond your original speculation. Is this, then, an ad hominem argument, one that purports to impeach the man’s character, rather than his expertise? Is it, therefore, addressed to the “choir,” instead of those who wish to engage in evaluation of the facts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Vardaman explains that the diggers were fatigued and had missed spotting some of the objects that was turning up in the work. But if they were fatigued, why not let them rest as soon as it was noticed that they were not doing their job properly? Vardaman says that it near the end of the season of excavation (August 14, 1962). Perhaps, he did not have time to let them rest. However, he says:

Quote:

I [Vardaman] gave strict instructions to the workman on the wheelbarrow (whose name was Shalom Attiah) to pay close attention to the debris which was being emptied there by the basket men. This proved to be most fortunate, for the particular fragment mentioned above (no. 1) was found by Mr. Attiah as he searched through his wheelbarrow before carting the debris away to the dump.

So it is the end of the dig, suddenly, with the dig about to end, Vardaman issues orders for a wheelbarrow man to sift through the dirt of his wheelbarrow to look for missed objects. It is as if Vardaman had a premonition that something would be found in the wheelbarrow just before the end of the dig. How fortunate, indeed, that Vardaman had suddenly issued that instruction to the wheelbarrow man to join in the hunt for antiquities. If he had not done it just at the moment that the marble passed entirely unnoticed through the diggers' shovel and hoe and the basketman's basket, this singular archaeological object mentioning Nazareth would have been lost forever.

A “fortunate” “premonition”? Was it a “sudden” instruction? Does the possibility that the marble might have escaped discovery without this sudden, fortunate premonition, with the consequent loss of this earliest artifactual mention of Nazareth mean that all this was intentional? Or might it really be nothing more than a natural precaution in light of dealing with fatigued workers at the end of the season? The latter does appear logical, does it not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Of course, knowing how Vardaman would later produce shameless forgeries in support of his strange notions, one might suspect something else: With only a few days to go on the dig, Vardaman did not have time to find a way to bury his forged marble in the ground. Even if he did, the diggers might notice that the ground had been disturbed before they began digging or simply miss it in their fatigue. He thought of a better alternative than burying it: He gave instructions to the wheelbarrow man to sift the dirt before carting it away and he waited until Shalom Attiah's attention was diverted and placed the marble in the wheelbarrow. How excited Attiah must have been a few minutes later when he made the discovery and brought it to Vardaman's attention.

This second hypothesis I think explains better:
1) Why the diggers did not find the artifact.
2) Why Vardaman took the extraordinary step of having a wheelbarrow man re-sift dirt that had already been sifted by trained professionals.

OK, Vardaman is now characterized as an almost lifelong forger, the "coins" forgery (never proved, never more than speculation) has set the stage for your assertion that Vardaman likely “forged” marble Fragment #1 and “salted” the site. But there is no explanation of how Vardaman could have effected the inscription of the fragment. And a crucial (in my eyes) point has been overlooked. How could Vardaman have effected the Fragment #1 inscription in such an expert manner as to have completely fooled Michael Avi-Yonah (a completely disinterested party as far as Christian Nazareth is concerned) into believing that the epigraphy matched in both fragments and that both fragments came from the very same inscription?

I like your “scenario” though. It is highly visual, almost a movie script at its high point. And I like jjramsey’s summary of what would be involved in the forgery scenario.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

If Vardaman forged the whole thing, then he was slick enough to redistribute the separate pieces, and either have separate people discover the pieces or give the appearance of separate discoveries. The latter would involve fiddling with the records for keeping track of finds.
If Vardaman forged the first two pieces, then he was slick enough to redistribute the separate pieces, and either have separate people discover the pieces or give the appearance of separate discoveries, and was also slick enough to imitate a previously documented inscription style.
If Vardaman forged just the first piece, he still needs to be slick enough to forge the lettering to match a previously known style and find marble that matches well enough to the second piece.

PhilosopherJay · 06-29-2008, 08:08 PM

Hi Patcleaver,

Thanks for the correction.

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

PhilosopherJay,

My appologies about vocabulary, :blush:

A patina is a surface that is produced by wear or age especially on stone or metal.

A fascia is a surface or covering especially on a wall between horizontal moldings on a wall.

Although it is not incorrect to say that the exterior surface of a stone inscription is a fascia, it is more common in archeology to refer to the surface layer produced by age and wear as a patina.

PhilosopherJay · 06-29-2008, 09:05 PM

Hi Mens_Sana and JRamsey,

Thanks for the feedback.

Here is an obituary I found for Vardaman:

Quote:

Professor E. Jerry Vardaman, who was retired from the Cobb Institute of Archae¬ology (Mississipi) died on the 17th November 2000 of a massive heart attack at his home in Starkville. Born in 1927, Vardaman was proud of many things and among them for studying for a period under W.F. Albright, for having obtained his ThD (1958) and his PhD on Herodian inscriptions (Bayor, 1974) for his work with M. Avi-Yonah at Caesarea-on-the-coast (1972), for his excavation at Machaerus in Jordan (1968), and for his work with A. Negev at Elusa (1980). He was particularly proud for having published the first report in English (JBL 1962) of the discovery of the Latin inscription of Pilate, and for having himself excavated in the synagogue of Caesarea the first fragment of the Hebrew inscription mentioning Nazareth. Apart from his own Family. his wife and two daughters, Vardaman was 'in love' with the Herodian family, as well as with his books (which he was capable of binding personally in leather), and with his large collection of ancient coins. For those who knew him, He had a very happy smile and was quick to reply (in his Southern US accent) using unfamiliar biblical passages always in a most humorous way. He will be sadly missed by his colleagues and friends.
Nikkos Kokkinos

from the Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society; 2000, Vol. 18, p111-115, 5p.

Note that the two listed achievement that he was most proud of was the announcement of the Pilate inscription and the Nazareth Inscription. It was not a typical find for Vardaman, but one of the highlights of his career.*

In his article entitled "A New Inscription Which Mentions Pilate as "Prefect," he begins, "Readers of JBL will rejoice to know that the official publication of the Latin inscription bearing the name of “Pontius Pilate” has now been made available to scholars…" It is an interesting choice of words, perhaps attributable to his background as a Baptist Reverend, that one should "rejoice" at finding an artifact with Pilate's name on it. It indicates that Vardaman, the student of W.F. Albright, placed a religious significance on archaeological discoveries.

It is a most curious thing that Vardaman is the person to announce this joyful information. The Pilate inscription is a four line inscription with the name Pilate in the second line, containing approximately 20 visible letters and it is the first archaeological object mentioning the bible character Pilate. Vardaman within six months of this announcement, finds the Nazareth inscription, a four line inscription, with the name Nazareth in the second line, containing approximately 20 visible letters.

Let us assume for the moment, that I am Vardaman and I wish to make the readers of JBL "rejoice" again after announcing the Pilate discovery. What discovery would be virtually equal to the discovery at Caesarea of Pilate's first inscription. Well, he would almost certainly be aware of the Hebrew courser text that was discovered apparently in 1960. Apparently, it had disappeared, but there were photographs. My plan would be to discover a small addition to that lost piece with just the name Nazareth on it. Of course this is too obvious, but too much text could complicate matters. If the Pilate inscription was accepted with just 20 letters, an inscription with a similar number should work. Access to pieces of blank marble from the period would hardly be a problem. If they were excavating the site of buildings, there must have been tons of the stuff. Copying the letters from the photograph would hardly be a problem either. Note how well Vardaman copied letters off of coins in freehand a few decades later to produce another fraud.

Vardaman may have had trouble planting the marble once inscribed, so he hit upon the wheelbarrow discovery method. Everything worked nicely. Let us suppose that the only problem was that Avi-Jonah did not buy it. He could not see the connection with the previous photographic text. To save the discovery, Vardaman had to inscribe another piece of marble. This time only a few letters - 5 - need be visible. It was just enough to show that the discovery is connected with the photograph of the missing third tablet. But if he brings it to Avi-Jonah, he might make the Jew even more suspicious. It must be an independent discovery. It must be found in the next site. It is the end of the season, security is probably lax as everybody is getting ready to go home. The planting is probably quite easy.

This I would suggest is the most likely scenario based on the scantily published report. Of course, it may be the recent large number of cases of pious-archaeological frauds that is influencing my thinking in this case and I may be slandering an entirely innocent man...or not. That is why I wish to have some scientific evidence brought forward regarding the discovery.

Incidentally, according to the continuation of Carrier's article on Vardaman:

Quote:

a few outside experts called in by MSU in the 1970s to evaluate Vardaman's claims. The consultants gave a resounding condemnation, but the only action taken appears to have been the removal of Vardaman as director of the Cobb Institute in 1981.

So it was not in the 1980's, some 20 years later than the 1962 expedition, that people first started noticing Vardaman's atypical behavior, it was apparently sometime in the 1970's, if not before.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

*from "A New Inscription Which Mentions Pilate as "Prefect",Jerry Vardaman
Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Mar. 1962), pp. 70-71
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature.

Warmly,

Philospher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

If we assume that it was actually found in the pavement, this brings up the question of how does parts of a pavement of a Byzantine room get to be found 70 meters apart? It must have been quite a large Byzantine room.

Who says that the first fragment was part of a pavement? The stone used in the inscription was apparently broken up and then recycled for various purposes. There's no reason that the fragments should be all that close to each other or used for similar purposes.

Maybe, but Fragment 3 seems to be called "third" because after Fragments 1 and 2 were discovered, it was realized that it was related to those two fragments, and no one wanted to renumber the other fragments.

The plain reading of the text that mens_sana gave implies that Fragment 1 was discovered before Fragment 2.

Hello!! It's not just knowledge of Hebrew that's the issue. There's also the matter of the skill needed to inscribe the marble in such a way as to have the writing style match that of Fragment 3--which as you yourself noted, was discovered earlier.

That obviously isn't sufficient to recover artifacts that diggers had already thrown into baskets.

The wheelbarrows were said to have debris, not just dirt.

Aside from it being a perfectly rational way to make up for the legitimate possibility of diggers having overlooked something, yes it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I am not sure of how much craftiness or careful planning he needed.

Let's see now:

If Vardaman forged the whole thing, then he was slick enough to redistribute the separate pieces, and either have separate people discover the pieces or give the appearance of separate discoveries. The latter would involve fiddling with the records for keeping track of finds.
If Vardaman forged the first two pieces, then he was slick enough to redistribute the separate pieces, and either have separate people discover the pieces or give the appearance of separate discoveries, and was also slick enough to imitate a previously documented inscription style.
If Vardaman forged just the first piece, he still needs to be slick enough to forge the lettering to match a previously known style and find marble that matches well enough to the second piece.

Toto · 06-29-2008, 09:28 PM

Somehow the idea of Vardaman as a conscious forger doesn't ring true. He sounds more like someone who sees patterns that aren't there - a projection of his internal desires.

Think of the recent cases of forgery - have any of them been committed by pious Christians, or were they initiated by outsiders who played on Christians' desire to find relics and their willingness to believe and lack of skepticism? I'm thinking in particular of Oded Golan, who is still defended by Hershel Shanks.

But that's just my subjective impression. I would be surprized if someone went from a conscious forger to a looney who only had the ability to fool himself.

mens_sana · 06-30-2008, 03:19 PM

I'm impressed, PhilosopherJay, really impressed! All of #5421107 based on "rejoice" — with speculation throughout and not a jot of evidence regarding the Nazareth inscription.

Hey! You're good. I wish you'd try your hand at a Gospel.

DCHindley · 06-30-2008, 10:17 PM

Since I know that at least one person here, besides myself, has a copy of Robert Eisler's _Messiah Jesus & John the Baptist_, I am surprised that someone has not noted that most of these assertions about Jesus' chronology can be found in that book, or deduced from details in it.

A rule of 15 - 26 CE fir Pilate throws me for a loop. Are you sure that the end of his rule shouldn't be 36 CE? I seem to recall that both Vardamann and Nikos Kokkinos dated the end of Pilate's rule, and the crucifixion of Jesus, to late 35 CE to passover of 36 CE.

Eisler argued that "Christian apologists," to bring Josephus (Ant xviii.4.1 [89]) into conformity with the synoptic gospels, omitted a letter and changed another in the number of years of Pilate's rule to change it from 16 to 11 years. Thus, Pilates' rule started in 19 CE and not 26 CE.

That date for Jesus' death is related to _Acta Pilati_ published by the emperor Maximin Daia around 311 CE, which dates the crucifixion of Jesus to the fourth consulate of Tiberius, in the seventh year of his reign (Aug 21/22 CE).

While I do not see this cited by Eisler, the 12 BC thingy is probably a backward dating "about 30" +2 years from 21 CE. Vardaman might support it in some way by reference to Tertullian's assertion that Saturninus was the governor of Syria at the time of Jesus' birth. FWIW, 12 BCE is also a year when Halley's comet would have been observed. I recall inputting the comet's orbital elements into an astronomy program some years ago and being surprised to note that it would have appeared directly overhead in Jerualem for a period of time.

Again, I cannot find a firm date for Paul's conversion mentioned, but about four years after Jesus' death in 21 CE seems "reasonable."

It's too late to screw with this anymore tonight.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Is it correct to charge Vardaman with forgery? Carrier charges him with insanity:

Vardeman's Magic Coin

Quote:

The late Dr. Jerry Vardaman, an archaeologist at the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University, claimed to have discovered microscopic letters covering ancient coins and inscriptions conveying all sorts of strange data that he then uses matter-of-factly to assert the wildest chronology I have ever heard for Jesus. He claims these "microletters" confirm that Jesus was born in 12 B.C., Pilate actually governed Judaea between 15 and 26 A.D., Jesus was crucified in 21 and Paul was converted on the road to Damascus in 25 A.D. This is certainly the strangest claim I have ever personally encountered in the entire field of ancient Roman history. His evidence is so incredibly bizarre that the only conclusion one can draw after examining it is that he has gone insane. . . .

See also Pseudohistory in Vardaman's Magic Coins

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-29-2008, 12:27 PM	#11
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	One should perhaps note that there are several examples of serious honest and respected scholars developing what seem to be delusional ideas about ancient texts and inscriptions. According to Metzger Early Versions of the New Testament pps 311-312; E S Buchanan became convinced that the Huntingon or Tarragona Codex, a Latin Missal, is a palimpsest the underwriting of which presents a more authentic version of the Gospels and Acts noted for its frequent use of the word spirit and omitting any references to eschatology or baptism. His edition of the text was never published (although it reached the proofs stage) because in the opinion of other scholars this under-writing simply does not exist. Buchanan continued to believe in his discovery and managed to publish various short articles about it. Andrew Criddle

06-29-2008, 01:24 PM	#12
patcleaver Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New York Posts: 742	PhilosopherJay, My appologies about vocabulary, :blush: A patina is a surface that is produced by wear or age especially on stone or metal. A fascia is a surface or covering especially on a wall between horizontal moldings on a wall. Although it is not incorrect to say that the exterior surface of a stone inscription is a fascia, it is more common in archeology to refer to the surface layer produced by age and wear as a patina.

06-29-2008, 09:28 PM	#18
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Somehow the idea of Vardaman as a conscious forger doesn't ring true. He sounds more like someone who sees patterns that aren't there - a projection of his internal desires. Think of the recent cases of forgery - have any of them been committed by pious Christians, or were they initiated by outsiders who played on Christians' desire to find relics and their willingness to believe and lack of skepticism? I'm thinking in particular of Oded Golan, who is still defended by Hershel Shanks. But that's just my subjective impression. I would be surprized if someone went from a conscious forger to a looney who only had the ability to fool himself.

06-30-2008, 03:19 PM	#19
mens_sana Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: 1/2 mile west of the Rio sin Grande Posts: 397	I'm impressed, PhilosopherJay, really impressed! All of #5421107 based on "rejoice" — with speculation throughout and not a jot of evidence regarding the Nazareth inscription. Hey! You're good. I wish you'd try your hand at a Gospel.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.