Kosh

Perhaps people just get tired of disengenious Xians, being dishonest to promote their religion, like masquerading as a know it all "uber-atheist" under the guise of the sock puppet "King Arthur".

But then, you know all about that little incident, and we're not buying the sympathy act!

Haran

If you feel my information to be incorrect, disingenuous, or dishonest, then please present your case. Otherwise, get over it. "King Arthur" was a bad decision on my part to parody the attitudes I found here (especially of some in this very thread) and to try and get people to think more critically and dig a little deeper. It was my incorrect reaction to having presented detailed scholarly information that was simply dismissed out-of-hand. In a nameless place where everyone seems like a caracature anyway, I suppose I didn't see the harm and thought I'd try and see if people would accept the scholarly information if presented from a different caracature (there are others who admitted having done it here, both atheist and Christian, did you know?). Anyway, it didn't work and I shouldn't have done it. Perhaps it was dishonest on some level though I didn't really think of it that way at the time, but for others to continually bring it up as if I am currently being dishonest in some way about something is also wrong and seems to show that some are simply sore and like to hold a grudge.

I have every right to be upset about biased scholars and websites and those biases and attitudes were part of what I felt I was parodying with "King Arthur".

Vorkosigan

I never minded the King Arthur thing, so quit feeling bad.

Haran, the ossuary is not controversial because of ideology on the negative side. The negative side is populated by members of all creeds. The positive side is now only populated by Christian nuts who also believe that the Shroud of Turin is real, and by people like Shanks and Golan and Lemaire who have a personal interest it. Lemaire's claim that Golan brought the identical "brother" inscription to his attention is as good as a confession of involvement, BTW. Lemaire obviously knows perfectly well what the identical "brother" implies.

As for the forgery team being at this for more than a decade, Yuval Goren's public statements only hint at his private knowledge. As I said to you before, you should consider every artifact that passed through Lemaire's hands, and anything having to do with Israeli nationalist history that came from private collectors as a potential Golan artifact. He's been selling to private marks for more than a decade. This ossuary, as I told you from the beginning, is not a first effort (it's so nice to be right again). It's the apex of a career.

I genuinely do not understand this statement. Is it your claim that the microfossils and other scientific data are somehow ideologically driven? Or what?

Vorkosigan

spin

There is some debate over the significance of the dropped PE, but the plain difference comes after it. There is nothing wrong with the shape of the PE.

(I have read an analysis somewhere which talked about two distinct writers for the second half of the inscription.)

"Wonky" was used for brevity. Then I decided to add the relevant adjectives which you happily ignored for apparently rhetorical purposes?

Not just change from formal to informal, but to irregularity of depth, change of instrument, total irregularity of characters.

What you find there is a "consistency of irregularity", whereas this inscription simply changes from quality to rustic.

I wouldn't think so. Can you cite such dramatic changes from serifed to sans serif in mid inscription like this? square BETs and RESH then a weird (sorry, can you give me an appropriate word?) DALET? What about the attempted HET with its unusual straight horns? They normally have a notch at the end so that they look triangular, which would fit the script of the first half. The YOD is so highly unlikely given the care and precision made in the first section. The AYIN comment was only about the depth, ie deeper than the rest of the second half. And thinking about it, the X shape of the ALEF is unexpected as well. One would expect a capital lambda with a horn on the right to be the basic form (the so-called N-shaped ALEF). So, we have problems with

1. the unusual ALEF plus the hole in the middle
2. the strange horns on the HET
3. the unusual shaped DALET
4. the YOD which looks like a WAW
5. the depth of the last AYIN
6. the basic lack of serifs
7. the strange angles of the letters
8. the slope downwards of the whole second half

The hands just seem so different. I can see no reason for your apparent stonewalling on this issue.


spin

Haran

Vork, you do realize that by classifying people as "nuts" you only appear to be using rhetorical devices in order to convince people that they don't even want to think about believing the ossuary might actually be authentic because others would think of them as "nuts"? This is the kind of stuff that bothers me. Part of the problem is that the ossuary's opponents have been so outspoken from an early period (way too early for most scholars) that most people have bought into their poor scholarship. Then comes the report of the IAA, a government agency that seems quite biased to me. I, personally, think there are "nuts" on all sides.

Or his own private paranoia or agenda. If Lemaire et al can be speculated about, I do not see the problem in wondering about someone who seemed to publicly condemn the ossuary in a scholarly forum before examining it. Most of the IAA report smacks of prejudicial bias. I think there was another certain scholar who I believe I heard participated on the side. If true, I certainly do not trust their conclusions.

Currently, I think this is mere rumour and paranoia. Let me know if anything comes of it though. If I see true evidence that these bold rumours are true, then I will believe it. There are too many politics bound up in the archaeology there for me to think that a government agency can unbiasedly handle something like this.

I do not think it is currently reasonable nor really honest (in my opinion with the information we have) to say that the ossuary is a fake without a doubt.

My more on topic question for this thread would be why do so many automatically believe unheardof and unpublished scholars who have doctorate degrees, call themselves experts in fields that have nothing to do with their degree, label their writings "Offical/Final Report on the XX...", and quickly declare things fakes a few days after they are published when they have not even physically looked at the artifacts or analyzed them in serious scholarly detail? Do you or do you not agree that this smacks of bias?

Kosh

Good point. One might ask all the Hovind and Hamm fans about this point when it comes to "creation science"....

Haran

I have no idea who they are and believe in evolution anyways. If they write reports like the scholars I am referring to, then they should also be exposed. I have zero tolerance for poor scholarship these days.

Steven Carr

I'm surprised Haran never responded to this sentence in Vork's posting.

Haran

But if it is so plain, why did't all good semitic paleographers see it? The script changes across the inscription as others have stated. It is written with a mix of script and formal as other ossuaries are.

I definitely have not read this. Where? Man, can people over-analyze things or what? Talking about missing the forest for all the trees.

My bad, I'm probably being over-sensitive about language usage at the moment.

I have not seen the ossuary (and probably never will), but this appears to be the result of uneven weathering to me. As a matter of fact, the supposed "second half" of the inscription has always looked older and more "worn" than the supposed "first half". The "first half" seems unreasonable deep and sharp to me for something 2000 years old.

The two bets are not even the same. The letters do not keep a consistent height. I see a script that slowly changes from right to left. I just don't see any abrupt change midstream.

The legs of the het are not unusual at all, especially since the script appears mixed. The het quite often looks like an H with the middle stroke higher. Many examples are found in the DSS.

I don't see the "care and precision", I see mostly easily carved straight lines in the ossuary. As to Yods being different, there is an example in the 1st column of 1QS where (when you can even tell the difference between yods and waws) a yod is drawn that looks almost like an upside-down V, even though all the others appear to be drawn with "care and precision". No one is perfect and I believe the inscription is being over-analyzed. It happens with all kinds of things, just like over-analyzing the JEPD theory produces all its supposed little branches and Q and all its supposed little branches. I don't buy the scholarship when it seems not to be able to see the forest.

The only real problem I see in the script is the dalet. I wondered about this letter form the start. However, I'm pretty sure I saw some similar examples in Ada Yardeni's text. Perhaps one of these days I'll look it up again.

The script changes and is a mixed script like most ossuaries. The writing is not wonderful like most ossuaries. Top paleographers initially saw no problem with the script being in one hand, and I think one on the IAA committee, but I might be mistaken on that.

Haran

I'M SORRY STEVEN, I MADE A MISTAKE. HAPPY? NOW PLEASE QUIT ANNOYING THE HECK OUT OF ME.

With the way you act, who would ever want to admit a mistake to you??

I was referring to something different, where Joseph Fitzmyer pointed out the AHUY in the Genesis Apocrypon. Mea Culpa.

If you had anything other than nit-picks and hounding on trivialities, I might actually feel like responding to your posts. I rarely feel like you have anything valuable to add, only that you want to try and trap someone and hound them.

Ultimately, I think too much is made of the quote by those who want to oppose the authenticity of the ossuary. If it was pointed out to Golan by Ada Yardeni, then I guess she's an accomplice as well, huh? Don't answer.