PopeInTheWoods

I also am "exceedingly underqualified as an expert on this stuff" - even more (or less) so than you. But how about for the same reason that some apologists claim that the absurdities/contradictions of the Bible actually support its authenticity? Maybe they (rightly) felt that skeptics would be suspicious of a unique find that supported their beliefs too well?

Or maybe they're just not all that bright....

Andy

S.C.Carlson

Ambiguity helps the forger because it makes it harder to disprove. And the lack of a word divider might not even be an error if Lemaire's proposal is accepted that the Mesha Stele has a BTDWD (which as far I can determine would also lack the word divider).

(Unfortunately, the word-dividerless BYTYHWH in the Three Shekel Ostracon that turned up a couple of years after the Tel Dan Inscription was found cannot be used for support because it is one of the artifacts involved in the big forgery trial.)

But the fact of the matter is that forgers almost never have full mastery over every aspect of their fakes. Mistakes are going to happen and usually look bone-headed in retrospect. Mistakes are not intentional so it's important not to get trapped into analyzing mistakes, even blatant ones, as if they were intentional. Also, be especially skeptical about arguments such as "it must be real since no forger who is otherwise so good would make this stupid of a mistake." Even skilled forgers can make stupid mistakes.

That's why successful forgeries usually require some manipulation of the authentication process. And the most effective approach is to line up the forger's own hand-picked experts (either co-conspirators or reliable dupes) and get their version out there first. Be especially skeptical of authentications that seem to spend as little time as possible on the most relevant evidence for authenticity in an eagerness to get to how great the "find" is.

The James Ossuary forgery fits the pattern well. How was it "authenticated"? It was given to to geologists who spent a lot time examining the composition of the limestone box and the soil inside. Their examination of the patina was mostly with a magnifying glass and they only patina they chemically analyzed was nowhere near the inscription. Obvious problems like the fact the patina only over the inscription was a different color were glossed over with such statements as "the patina's color varied from gray to reddish brown."

Then the epigraphical analysis (by Lemaire) stated that the inscription was consistent with such and such other inscriptions but with no reproduction of the comparison samples for readers to check if they are too different or too identical. The fact that there are two hands in the inscription was ignored. But the epigraphy was a just a tiny part of the article. Most of the space was spent educating the reader about James, ossuary practice, and making statistical calculations about how likely this ossuary belongs to the James that everyone cares about.

And that could be another reason for the lack of the word divider in BYTDWD: attention paid to that feature of the text takes attention away from the dodgy parts of the text.

Another strategy to deal with mistakes is to forge confirming evidence.

That's why I don't see the lack of a word-divider in BYTDWD to be inconsistent with an above-average forgery.

Think of a successful forgery as a magic trick. It's all in the misdirection.

Diogenes the Cynic

Thank you for that very eluciditatory explanation, SCC. I did follow the James Ossuary story and my WAG from the beginning on that was that it was probably a plausibly old bone box with a forged (or partially forged) inscription. The IAA conclusions were pretty much exactly what I had expected. When the Tel Dan discovery made headlines I confess that I thought it was probably authentic. For a few years I just assumed that Tel Dan had confirmed some sort of Davidic dynasty (although I didn't think it was the legendary Biblical kingdom, just some kind of local southern kingship or chiefdom). Basically, I thought it wasn't inherently implausible that a local king or folk hero named David had existed and accrued a personal legend and mythical status until he personified a non-existent golden age of the past but it wasn't until a couple of years ago that I became aware of the disputes with the Tel Dan find. Usually, I haven't seen arguments for fraud but that BYDWD isn't "House of David."

I think your explanations make sense and like I said before, I am not trying to argue for authenticity but was only curious about that one aspect. I appreciate your taking the time to give me that response.

Vorkosigan

For the related ostraca, see

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

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I went back and re-read Lemche's article. Now I understand something I didn't before -- the surface fragments were found two years after the BYTDWD one.

Again, The Lemche article is at:

http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/dan.pdf

Kosh

Clearly, it must be real. I mean, if it was another of Golans frauds, it would have read:

/sarcasm

S.C.Carlson

I know that you were being sarcastic, but in my view the modus operandi for the Tel Dan Inscription (if it is a fake) is very different from Golan's fakes. Golan's artifacts are all weak in terms of provenance, strong on the materials side (patina deposition), and iffy on the epigraphy side. The Tel Dan Inscription is the opposite: better provenance, unclear on the materials side (I heard it had been cleaned by the archaeologists), and strong on the epigraphy. If the Tel Dan Inscription is a fake, then it would imply a different forger.

Haran

Greetings Stephen. I enjoy reading your blog.

I don't mean to derail this thread, but I don't think Lemaire believes there are two hands in the James ossuary inscription, which is probably why it appeared to be ignored. I also do no think that Ada Yardeni believes the inscription is in two hands. Both apparently still believe the inscription to be authentic. I honestly have no idea what to think anymore, as I have found their works valuable and trustworthy. You believe they are both 'dupes'?

Unless I misread them, both Dr. Eshel and Dr. Cohen stated in their IAA committee reports that they believed the second part of the inscription to be authentic (I have to admit the initial letters of the inscription do appear deeper cut and/or much less worn than the final letters). Dr. Reich's analysis seemed to me to imply one scribal hand. On the contrary, Dr. Altman and apparently the indictment state that the second half the inscription is a forgery. Does anyone know if there is yet evidence supporting this view?

One thing that you recently wrote in your blog with respect to the authenticity of Tel Dan interested me:

"To be perfectly clear, I think the weight of the evidence is against it being a forgery. Not only that, but the appropriate standard for deauthenticating an already authenticated inscription is very high, close to "beyond a reasonable doubt," a level which the doubts adduced by the Copenhagen school do not reach anywhere near."

However, this does not seem to be the same opinion that you hold with respect to the James ossuary after it was authenticated by Andre Lemaire and the IGS. I am genuinely curious why?

S.C.Carlson

Thanks!

The first part of the inscription uses serifs while the second part does not. That was obvious to me in the BAR article. People who saw the Ossuary inscription in Toronto told me that the depth of the inscription is visibly different. If Lemaire noticed the differences between the first and second parts of the inscriptions and did not think they were important, he should have pointed that out and explain why. The failure to note this obvious difference questions the thoroughness of the analysis.

If it's in the indictment, that's what the prosecutor thinks he can prove. (I think that there is going to be eyewitness testimony to the Ossuary with only half the inscription.)

I came to the conclusion that the James Ossuary was a forgery after IAA deemed it a forgery. In my first blog post on the topic, I discovered that it had never been properly authenticated in the first place and I should have recognized that sooner.

But even if it had been properly authenticated, the IAA's analysis meets that high standard and is sufficiently detailed that it can be independently re-evaluated. I can't independently re-evaluate Lemaire's opinion (if he had one) that there was only one hand since he didn't mention it. So it's a question of trusting someone (Lemaire) who didn't show his work or trusting the facts documented by the IAA.

Haran

Fair answers. Thanks.

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.

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.

I am quite anxious to see the evidence presented at trial. Hopefully everything will be made clear.