Haran

No one pointed out anything to me that I did not already know, Weltall. Perhaps you did not follow the discussion very well. I never stated that the paleography proved the ossuary to be authentic. In fact, I never stated in absolute terms that the ossuary was authentic. I leaned toward authenticity based on true experts in semitic paleography (which I happen to understand probably better than most here). At that time, paleography was all there was and all there is in many cases. However, because the discovery had to do with Jesus, it became a major fiasco in which the polar extremes decided to subject it to further testing.

The whole paleographic issue came before the testing when it was a reasonable thing to use in favor of authenticity (at least as reasonable as it ever is) and was a response to Altman's first diatribe against the ossuary's authenticity based on paleography. I pointed out what I saw as problems in her theories and asked her to elaborate. Instead, she chose the low road of running a surreptitious smear campaign against me, based on what, I'm not sure since I was nice to her.

It was she who decided that paleography could be used to show inauthenticity. She never provided good paleographical reasons why...as is obvious by the true semitic paleographers listed in the OP.

Read the article, Weltall... All this stuff about what "everyone told you" is simply rhetorical and incorrect. No one told me anything. Many were debating about things they did not even understand as I doubt most here know much about semitic paleography. The patina is being addressed by Lemaire and will be addressed further if the true final report of the committee is ever released. It's all in that article if you'll read it.

I'm not defending authenticity and I still lean toward inauthenticity at the moment, but since I see and have seen some conspicuous circumstances surrounding the IAA committees, I will keep an open mind to other evidence (inluding Lemaire's).

And no one can tell me otherwise unless they know what they are talking about. So if you are an expert on microfossils or on semitic paleography then please email me so I can understand what everyone is trying to tell me ).

Haran

I feel that there are some severe reading comprehension problems in here...

I did not say the ossuary is authentic. I quoted pieces from the article that strengthed things that I had said in reference to the paleography in previous posts. It was also posted to inform others of yet another article on the ossuary that might be of interest to some. Unlike others here, I prefer to keep an open mind and see what the final evidence will be (since it has apparently not been presented yet).

Rick Sumner

For what my two cents is worth, I think the sentiments expressed regarding Altman are correct--a number of people were entirely too quick to applaud her as vindicated. She wasn't.

Paleography is a highly technical field. One in which the layman, such as myself, has absolutely no choice but to depend on the testimony of experts. There are scant few who can hang with likes of Fitzmyer or McCarter. There are none--with the lonely exception of J T Milik there have *never* been any--who can hang with the likes of Frank Moore Cross. They, to my knowledge, still don't see two hands. This is about as expert testimony can possibly get on the matter.

Regards,
Rick

Doctor X

Damn . . . Yahzi beat me to it.

The fat lady has not only sung, she is in the back having a cigarette.

--J.D.

Steven Carr

This is all utterly convincing. Haran should realise that this quacking, web-footed chicken is actually a duck. It walks like a duck and sounds like a duck and looks like a duck.

People do not store priceless relics on top of a toilet.

It screams forgery, to an extent that makes me wonder about Lemaire defending it.

And note this is just the first stage of authentication. Speculation was piled on speculation to get it to be the brother of Jesus Christ.


Golan's mother is a remarkable woman

Lemaire writes 'Most significant, however, only the first part of the inscription was thoroughly cleaned.'

Why did Golan's mother only clean the first part of the inscription?

Apparently she knew nothing of its value, but carefully cleaned only one part of it, not allowing the hot water to go anywhere near the next.

Who cleans things like that?

Lemaire writes 'In fact, we know that the ossuary was cleaned. Not only did the owner tell us of this possibility, but the GSI�s first examination also recognized this, as did the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) team, which found that it was cleaned with a sharp instrument to such an extent that some of the letters of the inscription were �enhanced.�

Who cleans things with sharp instruments? And who cleans things in such a way as to enhance letters on old gravestones?

Just who is Lemaire trying to kid?

DrJim

I've always wondered about paleography and I do have some reservations.
How accurate can it be proved to be by other methods? I know Cross makes some pretty precise dating of inscriptions but have they been verified within 5-10 years or so on through carbon 14, or whatever?


How accurate can one be? How long was hte working life of a scribe, and how uniform could we expect handwriting to be? Does it really change at uniform rates in consistent directions over the short-term (i.e 10-20 year spans?)

I don't mean to throw mud at Cross' reputation: I just don't have as much background in the field as I would like ot be confident in it.

If this is a little too off topic for the ossuary thread, sorry...

JRL

Doctor X

It could also all be "Monday Morning Quaterbacking" where fooled scholars try to justify how brilliant men could be fooled by a forgery.

--J.D.

Vorkosigan

Lemaire's involvement is obvious from his position as gatekeeper and authenticator for the forger. Either he is fantastically stupid, or he is a fake. Nobody has that kind of luck. He has exposed his position further by continually campaigning for the Ossuary. This is not because he believes in it. It has now become a campaign to keep himself out of jail.

Additionally, the Israeli police dropped some rather broad hints a while back about his involvement, though they didn't mention him by name.

There are two books I'd suggest reading. One is Selling Hitler, the other is The Hermit of Beijing. Both discuss in detail very similar fraud cases. Lemaire's "role" is a common one in fraud cases; the forger needs a front who can give him weight and authenticity. Lemaire supplies that service.

When this is over, everything he has touched is going to have to be re-assessed and re-evaluated. The stink of this is going to infect the archaeology of Israel for some time to come. This is a huge scandal, make no mistake.

Vorkosigan

Doctor X

Vork:

I have not read the "nitty-gritty" as you have. I wonder if Lemaire is simply trying to salvage a damaged reputation. Faced with world-wide ridicule, it is hard to admit you are wrong. The proponents of "cold fusion" suffered similarly.

--J.D.

Vorkosigan

<shrug> Apparently some people are still burned up by the rapidity and surety with which she punched holes in this thing.

LOL. And some people, no matter how many times you explain it and in what level of detail, will simply never understand that this testimony was utterly irrelevant to the authenticity of the Ossuary.

Vorkosigan