Haran

Sometimes patience and time is all that is required to find the truth... Did anyone see Dr. Altman's name mentioned in there anywhere?

Jerusalem Post on the "James Inscription"

Seriously, though, the "James Inscription" was dismissed too quickly and in too biased a manner. I seem to remember stating many of the things found in this article and for quite some time (ie. one hand, authentic script, etc.). Perhaps this will awaken some to their biases...or not.

Diogenes the Cynic

It's an op-ed piece by Hershel Shanks, the editor of BAR. What is it supposed to prove? What is new in any of this?

Haran

It's not the writer, it's the content. I suppose there's nothing too new, but it combines the facts that are beginning to turn the tide back in favor of authenticity of the "James Inscription". The "James Inscription" is already being included (with caveat, of course) in new and respectable publications such as Ancient Texts For New Testament Studies.

Krumbein's analysis appears to be putting an end to the theory of forgery by Golan (although I'm sure some will immediately and illogically shift their stance to that of an earlier forgery). In this case, palaeographers may have some say again in the authenticity of the inscription. Even if one does not buy Lemaire's analysis because of his heavy involvement, it is very hard to ignore Dr. Ada Yardeni's analysis and strong statement that if it is a forgery, she quits (recalling a similar statement made very early on by another expert in semitic palaeography, Frank Cross, who stated that if it was a forgery, then the forger must have been a genious - or something along those lines).

In other words, some skeptics should apply their skepticism a little more evenly and consider anew the likelihood that the "James Inscription" (whether or not it actually refers to "The James", brother of "The Jesus") could, in fact, be an authentic inscription and not a forgery.

post tenebras lux

Respectable? In what way is Hendrickson Publishers respectable?

Here's their 'product line':
Are you sure that there's no chance of bias creeping in there? :huh:



PS Will some kind mod please infidelise the Amazon link in Haran's post (and my quoting thereof). Thanks in advance.

rob117

His contention that "no one has questioned the artifact on paleographical grounds" is also false. See here.

Also, Frank Cross seems to have accepted its status as a forgery as well.

post tenebras lux

Um, it's not just 'false', it's also a blatant lie given the opening paragraph of the article you linked to:

Haran

Why are they not respectable?

Craig Evans is a reputable and well-recognized scholar.

This book and its counterpart on the Old Testament have been reviewed well online. Question it if you like, but find out more about them before condemning them because you don't like the publisher... Should I dismiss the publisher of some other secular scholars' works because they also print the likes of Freak and Candy and UFO literature?

No. In fact, I am sure there is some bias as it is unavoidable no matter who the scholar or what his/her worldview...

Believe me, he'll get around to it, he always does.

Haran

I'm not so sure. And this may depend upon the definition of "expert". Can you list Chadwick's credentials with respect to semitic palaeography and then compare and contrast them with those of Lemaire and Yardeni? It might be an interesting exercise. Isn't Chadwick Associate Professor of Church History?

Possibly...he has kept very quiet. However, he did not accept the status of forgery based on the palaeography. In fact, for his judgement, he relied on the analysis of the IAA and an area of expertise that is not his own. And, Krumbein's analysis is causing problems for the IAAs conclusions. You might want to check the conclusions (and opinion changes afterwards) for those on the IAA committee. All of them in the end relied on the geological conclusions, which Krumbein has labeled flawed.

Why is everyone still so against it possibly being authentic? Are there ideological agendas at play?

post tenebras lux

They publish apologetics, preaching aids, theology and 'pastoral helps': so, no, I don't see why I should consider them as respectable if we're talking about genuine biblical research rather than printing to the choir.:huh: You mention one author they publish - who I don't think I know - so all I can ask is 'so what?' :huh::huh: are you still talking about Craig Evans?

Rick Sumner

They also publish:

Jacob Neusner (several of his works)

Matthew Black

Steve Mason

John J Pilch

Paul J Achtemeier

Graham H Twelftree

And so on. I tried to keep it to well-known scholars bearing their imprint, scores of lesser known, but nonetheless serious academics appear in their catalogue.

Their imprint appears on "genuine Biblical Research." In spades. Whatever fault you may find with individual books, their imprint, at least in this regard, is beyond reproach. It's almost enough to make Eerdman's drool.

Regards,
Rick Sumner