Haran

Whatever, Vork.

I'll remember your dismissal of major paleographers if anything comes up in the future that could provide support for your point of view.

Someone should have told that to Altman... Not every artifact goes through the ringer like an artifact that mentions Jesus. When I addressed the issue, paleographers, historians, and statisticians were the only ones looking at the ossuary. I was simply addressing the claims made by the only ones studying the ossuary at the time.

Haran

I still feel like people aren't reading my posts, Steeeeven. I said that I lean toward inauthenticity at the moment... So, watch the rhetoric.

The toilet incident was something that definitely helped tip the scales for me. In fact, I think I was one of the first to post a link to the picture (which is also why I think people are just assuming my position on things without really reading what I'm writing).

However, this incident cannot be used in any way to prove inauthenticity. I have heard that the bathroom had never been used and was acting as a separate storage space. It still seems stupid to have it stored there to me though, especially if there was running water in the toilet. I'm sure the authorities really enjoyed this picture taking opportunity though considering the lengths to which they've been said to have gone with other antiquities dealers just because they don't like or approve of what they do.

Rick Sumner

Right. Because evidence has nothing to do with it. Let's just stop and scream ulterior motive whenever we see a contrary position.

Or let's not, and recognize it for the ad hominem it is.

Argument from LOL? That's almost as solid as your speculation above. Let's get the recap:

I never said a word about authenticity. I've stated previously, on other threads both here and on the JM list, that I most certainly think it's a fraud. The box not being authentic doesn't make Altman right--it's not a dichotomy--The box can be forged by one hand.

Regards,
Rick

Rick Sumner

That's not evidence, it's speculation. Golan, being the forger, needs to show it to someone. Whoever he shows it to clearly has that kind of luck.



They dropped broad hints about members of the scholarly community, ranging from archaeologists to scientists. That hardly does anything for your case. Is he a suspect? Probably. That establishes precisely nothing.



I never said otherwise. What I asked is if you were aware of anything remotely concrete implicating Lemaire. You haven't shown anything meeting that criteria.

Regards,
Rick

Rick Sumner

The radiocarbon testing of the DSS was a major feather in the cap of paleographers. They were tested twice, the second time blind. Both times, with only one exception, the dates fell well within the ranges established by paleographers.

The question here isn't one of dating though. I'm not saying the inscription is ancient--of course it isn't, it's a fraud. What I'm saying is that these expert paleographers should certainly be able to see two hands, if two hands are present. So why don't they?

Regards,
Rick

Rick Sumner

Just to add to this--even the James Ossuary has confirmed the validity of paleography as a form of dating.

Numerous stencils and templates were found at Golan's residence. He knew what he was doing, presuming he was the forger. It stands to reason, thus, that the template he would use for the James Ossuary would be a script from that time period: The same time period paleographers recognized it as.

Paleography worked just fine. But it's a tool for dating, not a tool for spotting a fraud, so a well-forged ancient script was dated to the time period the script came from, not the time the box was made.

Regards,
Rick

Rick Sumner

Wow. I'd almost missed this--J T Milik commented? He hasn't put his mitts anywhere in at least a decade, to my knowledge.

For those unfamiliar, J T Milik--TIME magazine's "Fastest Man with a Fragment" is easily the most talented man to ever touch a Dead Sea Scroll, and unrivaled as the best Hebrew/Aramaic paleographer in the relatively young history of the field.

Joseph Fitzmyer provides this impressive account from his year at the scrollery. A fragment had been seized from a private collector, and

There is no such thing as a weightier voice than Milik. Between him and Cross I would be my bottom dollar that there was only one hand.

Regards,
Rick

Jayhawker Soule

As I have asked in the past, where might I find documentation of the paleographers' Curve of Knowns?

Steven Carr

Lemaire writes 'The owner says that he bought the ossuary several decades ago from a Jerusalem antiquities dealer in the Old City. On the market, the price of an ossuary depends on the quality of its decoration and/or its inscription. An uninscribed, undecorated ossuary has very little value. Obviously, the seller wants to show off his goods to advantage, emphasizing the quality of the decoration and the clarity of the inscription. In this case, the decoration was so faint he may not even have noticed it. Even if he did, he could not argue that this significantly increased the ossuary�s value. The inscription, however, was a different matter. He very probably tried to clean it. How? With a brush, warm water and perhaps a nail to get inside the letters. In this way, the letters would look sharper. Admittedly, this is conjectural, but at least it is a plausible scenario.'

CARR
So the inscription was 'sharpened' with a modern, sharp instrument - to wit , a nail.

But it is a perfectly genuine inscription. The fact that the owner has gone over it with a nail is not suspicious.

I wonder why Golan did that.


I though he had no idea what the inscription meant, thought it was just another of the many ossuaries on the market, until he showed it to Lemaire.

Golan had no idea what the inscription mean, or that it might be valuable, but had just been 'sharpening' the letters to make the ossuary more valuable.

Doctor X

Of course that would explain why the mysterious seller only did this to half of the inscription. . . .

--J.D.