Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Haran
I believe Lemaire has stated (possibly not in the original article...don't remember) that script on ossuaries of this period is of a mixed character. Therefore, the difference you note did not seem troublesome to him.
|
In the original article, Lemaire stated this about the hand: "They [the 20 Aramaic letters] reveal a classical script carefully incised." That's it. It is an accurate description for the beginning of the inscription, but inaccurate for the last part.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Haran
If the latest issue of BAR is reporting her words correctly, I feel for Yardeni when she states..."If this is a forgery, I quit". As Yardeni has written pretty extensively on semitic palaeography, it gives me pause to note that she still believes in its authenticity. It just does not seem to me that the palaeographical analyses of the James inscription have been very consistent.
|
A more detailed statement of her view is found here:
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_yardeni.html
The key line is this: "It is quite normal for a hand-made inscription to display variations in the execution of the letters." That was the same theory that Marcel Matley used to explain away the problems in the signatures of the Bush memo that CBS News got in trouble for.
Quote:
|
I am quite anxious to see the evidence presented at trial. Hopefully everything will be made clear.
|
BAR has given us a preview of Golan's defense: "Even if some of the pieces are not authentic, that doesn't mean Mr. Golan knew about it." I'm willing to bet that much of the trial will be about the defendants' state of mind.
02-19-2005, 11:21 PM
