Haran

Andre Lemaire in the new issue of BAR

"....Professor Frank Cross of Harvard, Father Joseph Fitzmyer formerly of the Catholic University of America, Dr. Ada Yardeni (author of The Book of Hebrew Script) and Joseph Milik, a prominent Dead Sea Scrolls epigrapher—all of whom see only one hand in this inscription."

This quote is for certain others who did not believe me about Ada Yardeni or about the number of well-known paleographical and epigraphical scholars who believed differently from Altman. One cannot determine from the paleography alone that the ossuary is a forgery.

"....one Rochelle Altman, who is not a serious scholar of Second Temple period paleography, but who early on in this controversy gained momentary fame by declaring the inscription to have been forged by two different hands."

Ouch!! :notworthy

It will be interesting to watch this thing unfold. Many members of the IAA committe did a good job of showing their biases, whether right or wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Sideline from this issue of BAR:

Richard Carrier in Queries and Comments
"I must take issue with Alan Millard's use of evidence in "Literacy in the Time of Jesus" (July/August 2003). He would do well to read W.V. Harris's Ancient Literacy for a more careful analysis."

Alan Millard's response
"Richard Carrier draws attention to W.V. Harris's major study, and I can assure him that I have read it and the subsequent studies that responded to his work, notably, Literacy in the Ancient World (1991) edited by J.H. Humphrey." Millard goes on to explain why Carrier and Harris are probably wrong in the particular case in question.

Artemus

Lemaire is pathetic.

Seriously, the bias of those still claiming authenticity in light of the overwhelming physical evidence is astronomical. They need to give it up.

Haran

Lemaire has been slammed many times for no good reason except that some people don't like him. He is a good and intelligent paleography expert. Regardless of what one thinks of Lemaire, the quote about the scholars stands. The statement about Altman is a mixture of truth and rhetoric, however she is not formally an expert in semitic paleography like the others mentioned (thus the "not a serious scholar" bit).

We'll see. The "cleaning" bit seems somewhat silly, but if true and it explains the physical problems, then what? Lemaire did a good job pointing out the inconsistencies between the stated intent of the IAA committees and their results. With some of the statements Lemaire mentions them making, they let their biases hang out for all to see. Why should we trust their confused conclusions?

Their report is starting to seem fishy, as it sounds like the main part of it that concluded forgery, the physical testing, has not even been completely and officially released yet...

They certainly made their evidence sound "astronomical", but it is beginning to sound as if they were not so sure of their conclusions, except of course in the media.

MortalWombat

I noticed that Lemaire did not address the microfossils in the patina found only in the inscription, or the fact that the older rock varnish in the inscription had been cut through, while the varnish in the rosette pattern on the other side of the ossuary has not been cut through.

I wonder why that is?


Reference

Vorkosigan

No, he has been slammed for being a crook and liar who is probably a knowing participant in a decade-long fraud. None of us had any opinions about Lemaire until he showed up as Oded Bin Golan's front man.

Haran, you are way overinvested in this thing. It's over. It's Shroud of Turin stuff. Sooner or later Oded will confess and that will be that. Time to detach, you know.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

I'd be interested in knowing what you base this on. I'm not aware of anything remotely concrete implicating Lemaire in anything. Simple presence simply won't suffice for such a weighty accusation.

Regards,
Rick

Weltall

Wasn't there a little discussion a while ago where many people far more learned than I pointed out to you, Haran, than the issue of epigraphy doesn't matter? The issue concerning authenticity that needs addressing is the fake patina. The style of writing can never be used to prove authenticity, remember the Hitler Diaries. Ok, now that I've just reiterated what everyone else has already told you those people can now feel free to discuss this issue with far better eloquence.

Haran

I don't really understand much of the really technical science details behind the findings of the IAA committees and ROM. However, if I understand enough, I believe that Lemaire did refer to the microfossils. Do you understand the whole microfossils thing? The report you quote refers to them in this manner: "microfossils called coccoliths, naturally occurring as foreign particles in chalk". I believe the same was referred to in Lemaire's article as "carbonate particles" (do a search on "carbonate microfossils"...) and that they could be consistent with a cleaning as Golan has claimed and the IAA seemed to admit could be a possibility. However, I'm speaking of that which I do not know well, so someone who knows science correct me if I am wrong. What exactly are these "microfossils" and how were they referred to in the IAA report? Does it only seem as if no one is addressing them because the terminology used has been somewhat different?

I'm learning here, but you better believe I'll check claims if I can find the resources...

I think he did refer to these things as well. Are not varnish and patina the same thing?

However, it seemed that he was showing that (1) the IAA committees did not follow their stated procedures, (2) scholars with inappropriate expertise were used, and (3) the decision on the main physical problems which seemed to influence all other committee members decisions does not even seemed finalized yet: "They say they will write a final report sometime in the future and publish it in a professional journal. Until that time, however, scientific comment is well-nigh impossible.". That's not a very good summary because there were many other interesting points, but those are a few of the big concerns.

Yahzi

I feel like I've stumbled into a time warp.

The ossuary is fake. We know this because the man who owns treated it like a fake. He took the most valuable archeological artifact ever discovered and stored in a broken toliet on the roof of his building. Did you miss the picture?

Right next to his workshop full of other ancient artifacts, some still in the process of being constructed.

What argument is left?

Haran

I'd also be interested in what you base this on, Vork. There has been some physical evidence and strange circumstances surrounding Golan (even though the police still can't seem to make a real case against him), but I have seen nothing pointing a finger at Lemaire. He has simply had a smear campaign run against him for believing in the ossuary's authenticity. I have witnessed other scholars talking badly about Golan, but I have not heard any (with the possible exception of Altman) proposing that Lemaire had anything to do with forgery.

If the ossuary is a forgery, I can easily see the comparison between Golan and Morton Smith. I cannot compare Smith and Lemaire. Lemaire would be more like one of the few scholars with whom Smith actually shared his discovery. If SGM is a forgery, then some scholars were fooled into supporting Smith's "discovery", just as Lemaire has been fooled if the ossuary is truly a forgery.