Vorkosigan

New article on Ossuary: Three Hands?

Forcing a small but strong water stream on the letters of the inscription for several minutes each day over a two to three week period will smooth sharp edges in a way that leaves no marks behind. But such high pressure water treatment will also soften, dissolve, and even cleanly remove any patina which may have built up on the limestone surface. This is apparently what happened with the Yakov bar Yosef ossuary.

"....Lemaire reports that on the day he saw a photo of the inscription for the first time, "the owner said he thought the inscription was especially interesting because there was only one other inscription in Rahmani's Catalogue (the standard catalog of Jewish ossuaries) mentioning a brother in a similar way."16 This statement can only refer to the "ahui Hanin" reading from ossuary 570 of Rahmani's Catalogue. But this is quite astounding."

Anyone spot the changing story? Still think Lemaire is not involved?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Lemaire's old story from this article:

"The discovery of the ossuary was made at a chance meeting when Mr. Lemaire attended a party in Jerusalem. There he met an Israeli antique collector, Oded Golan, a Tel Aviv engineer, who asked him to decipher some inscriptions for him. When Lemaire read the inscription on the ossuary, he immediately understood its significance. "I was very excited," he said. "Although I am a Catholic, I related to the inscription as a man of science." (Ha'aretz Magazine, Nov. 8, 02)"

See any changes? Lemaire sees a photo in the new version (old version he sees the Ossuary first), and immediately relates it to the only other BROTHER inscription. He's preparing his defense, of course, having recognized that that everyone realizes the inscription is copied from the authentic version, he must establish that Golan knew of this BEFORE he met Lemaire (officially). See what I mean about fighting to stay out of jail?

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

Nothing in the latter account precludes having seen pictures first, as related in the former. In fact, it would be expected that he had. That would be rather standard practice.



No prosecutor in his right mind would cite what you have just presented as indicating anything. Let me know when you have evidence. Something indicating that, prior to the IAA's findings, Andre Lemaire was aware that the Ossuary was fraudulent. That is what you need to present, not speculation stemming from a Ha'aretz article that is about the *ossuary* not about providing a detailed account of Lemaire's discovery.

One must wonder if you understand the gravity of the accusations you are attempting to level, and why it is necessary that you provide, if not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a court of law, at the very least some form of strong indication.

This doesn't meet that criteria. It's speculation based on half-measures.

And "still think Lemaire is not involved" can be dismissed as the strawman it is. I never said Lemaire was not involved. I said it's a rather serious accusation that can't be levelled without substantiable evidence. I then asked if you had any. It would appear we'll need to keep looking.

Regards,
Rick

Steven Carr

From the original story :-

'A question people are asking is why Golan, who is known to be extremely knowledgeable in archaeology, didn't know what a potential treasure he possessed. His answer was, "It just didn't ring any bells." Hershel Shanks explained why Golan hadn't realized he had anything of significance. When first told about the possible significance of the inscription, Golan told Andre Lemaire, "How could the son of God have brothers?" He didn't know that Jesus had a brother, said Shanks. '


So how did Golan know what the inscription meant?

Supposedly 'The discovery of the ossuary was made at a chance meeting when Mr. Lemaire attended a party in Jerusalem. There he met an Israeli antique collector, Oded Golan, a Tel Aviv engineer, who asked him to decipher some inscriptions for him. '

What happened at the annual conference of the Society of Biblical Literature held in Toronto over the weekend of 22 November 2002 :-

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/The_experts.htm

Lemaire was also present in Toronto that weekend.

'Oded Golan then came to the podium and said that he had been collecting since he was 8 and now had a collection of over 3000 items, including over 30 ossuaries. Yigael Yadin even published a find he made when he was 10 years old.

With regard to the ossuary, he purchased it in the early 1970s from one of the four dealers who were then in the Old City. He did not understand the inscription or its significance because he could not decipher the 'brother of' part.'

So Golan said he could not understand the inscription or decipher the 'brother of' part, and Lemaire kept quiet although he knew Golan was lying, as it was Golan who had pointed out to Lemaire the significance of the inscription.




Lemaire is in big, big trouble......


Happily , Lemaire's reputation was made when he was the one who discovered the only non-Biblical reference to David ever found.

Somebody wrote about this inscription 'While naturally given is the good faith of both the archaeologist and the epigraphist who published the fragment, it is not possible to rule out the possibility of tampering with the archaeological site with the purpose of causing the "finding" of that which was meant to be found. '

Of course, we should not question the good faith of the archaologist who found the Tel Dan fragment. Is there any reason to?

Steven Carr

Lemaire appears to think that if people are right about the ossuary, they could also be right about the David inscription.

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba2906f2.html

'For example, take the famous Tel Dan inscription, excavated by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran. It is in excellent condition and has great historical value (it contains an extra-Biblical mention of David). Using Professor Kloner’s criterion, we would have to declare it a forgery.'

Why does Lemaire himself link the genuiness of these two things, if there is no connection?

Vorkosigan

Then you didn't read the account. Lemaire clearly stated that they met at a party in June. Golan invited him home. There Lemaire saw the Ossuary for the first time. If Lemaire had seen pictures of the inscription, he would have shit himself with excitement at the party, not in front of the Ossuary, as he originally said he did. Ergo, he never saw pictures. Ergo, this whole story is made up to get it out in public that Golan knew about the other BROTHER OF inscription prior to meeting Lemaire. But why would Lemaire want to do that?

No prosecutor in his right mind would cite what you have just presented as indicating anything. Let me know when you have evidence.

No prosecutor in his right mind would cite that alone. But this change in story is decisive in its direction and import.

Witherington's Ossuary tome in which Lemaire's claim about the photo was made was published on March 18. The IAA Committee met AFTER that. What will it be this time, Rick? <deep voice> "No jury on earth would convict on the basis of evidence like that...." and then after that it will be "No higher court on earth could fail to reverse that verdict...."

All of Lemaire's behavior indicates to me that the probability is high he is aware the Ossuary is fraudulent. A change in story at this late date is highly indicative. It is not "speculation" that the story has changed, Rick, but a fact you will not recognize. Shifting the story is evidence. When stories change, it is a signal that something is wrong. When important details emerge at a late date, something is wrong. Basic.

You can certainly bolster Lemaire's position, though, by finding a mention of the photo and the other BROTHER OF inscription back in the October 2002 stories about this box. I couldn't. Photographs were not mentioned.

The import is clear.... and not "speculation" at all. I wonder if YOU really understand the gravity of this situation. Do you think this Bone Box is the only thing this team of forgers, whoever they are, has done? Right now Israel's history hangs on Lemaire's credibility. Right now there are only two possibilities, Rick. Either Lemaire is an extremely stupid dupe, or he is a con man. No third option is currently available. Pick one.

No, I suspect if I had a video of Lemaire and Golan carving it hand-n-hand, you'd still complain about something....

The Photo Claim also appears in Lemaire's Rebuttal of the IAA. This time the information about the other BROTHER OF is missing.

Vorkosigan

{fix /URL tag - Toto}

Rick Sumner

1) Where does it say that the first time he saw the inscription was at Golan's home? How are we to conclude that he did not, in fact, see a picture, which inspired him to go to his home? How does "the inscription on the ossuary" indicate "the inscription on the ossuary first seen in front of him at his home," and where is the citation from Lemaire indicating that the Ha'aretz account is accurate?

What we have is the Ha'aretz says X, in a story not so much about X, with X not being ascribing citation to Lemaire regarding it at all.

What you need to present is a citation from Lemaire, in which Lemaire tells an earlier story, that later changes to another.

You need to show me Lemaire's story to begin with. It's not hard to find, he did write an article about it.



Accusations of being agenda driven or biased are ad hominems. Period. They are your customary ad hoc response whenever your position is challenged--in four discussions with you in my time on this board, you have levelled it five times.

Want a peak at how predictable that was?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atrueprophet/message/1

Check the time on that. Either such accusations are your generic, ad hoc response to everything, or I'm a true prophet. You did it again below. I'm open to either possibility. If you decide I'm a true prophet, I'll expect tithes to support my divine revelations.

My participation in this discussion with you will end now.

Vorkosigan

In all the early accounts Lemaire does not get excited until he gets to Golan's home. Now here he is holding a photo of an Ossuary at the party, looking at the Brother of Jesus inscription, which Golan -- who previously had no idea of significance, but now does in the new story -- is holding in front of his nose. The change in the story is clear and obvious. The story has been adjusted by someone to reflect the fact that the other BROTHER OF is the template for the Ossuary inscription.

This is just your usual goalpost shifting. You asked me for evidence that he changed his story prior to the IAA, I gave it to you. In Jan, about the same time Lemaire is penning this new story, Golan says he showed Lemaire photos in the spring. No mention is made of the BROTHER OF. Indeed Lemaire maintains Golan could not have forged it, while at the same time claiming that Golan knows there is an extant Ossuary with BROTHER OF on it, which later turns out to be the template. Either Lemaire is a dupe of new heights of stupidity, or something else is going on.

Done, thanks.

Just echoing YOUR language back at you, Rick. Apparently it is only an ad hom when you do it.

That's "peek" bigfella.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atrueprophet/message/1

I can't believe you are THAT obsessed with me. The level of immaturity you have displayed is remarkable.

Were we having a discussion? I thought I was just bouncing words off the hard rock of your denial, while attempting to kick harder to put the ball between your ever-shifting goalposts.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Steve.

Steven Carr

Here is a story from October 2002

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...nrelicbox.html

'Lemaire stumbled upon the ossuary by chance. While he was in Jerusalem on a six-month project to study paleo-inscriptions, a friend introduced him to a private collector. The collector, who remains anonymous, told Lemaire he had a few inscriptions and showed him some photographs of an ossuary.

"When I read it [the inscription], I immediately wondered if it was the same James who was said to be the brother of Jesus of Nazareth," said Lemaire. "To the collector, Jesus was known as the son of God, so he had no brother. It never occurred to him that this might be anything other than just another ossuary."

Lemaire said, "I knew right away that it could be something really important."