Haran

If you don't think he should care about Kilmon's opinion, then do you think he should care about Lupia's? Why or why not?

Jayhawker Soule

I guess if you need to ask, the answer is sadly obvious.
Therefore? I addressed the "but dad, he does it too" argument when my kids were yet quite young.

Vorkosigan

Lupia is correct in his identification of necessary tests that were not carried out. Kilmon does not have a similarly cogent position either way, and his comments tend to be personal attacks rather than serious critiques. For some reason mythicism seems to goad him into irrationality; I suspect because he feels the lack of solid methodology in NT historical studies.

Here is what Lupia said in his initial posts:
"Moreover, when I first saw digital photographs of the so-called James Ossuary I immediately knew the inscription was fake without giving a paleographic analysis for two reasons: biovermiculation and patina. Biovermiculation is limestone erosion and dissolution caused by bacteria over time in the form of pitting and etching. The ossuary had plenty except in and around the area of the inscription. This is not normal. The patina consisted of the appropriate minerals but it was reported to have been cleaned off the inscription. This is impossible since patina cannot be cleaned off limestone with any solvent or cleanser since it is essentially baked on glass. It is possible to forge patina but when it is it cracks off. Sound familiar? With these observations I immediately knew the inscription could not be authentic regardless of what any paleographer might say in favor of it since the physical aspects preclude forgery. Besides, at this point any paleographic analysis would have been superfluous."

In support of Lupia's comments about the inapplicability of the geological survey's conclusions, subsequent examination showed that the ossuary had a rosette and red ochre on it. The Survey missed those. I suspect what we'll find in the end is that access to the object was carefully controlled by the forger in order to limit the Survey's conclusions. Kilmon has been unable to come up with anything as concise and clear as that. That is why Lupia deserves consideration, and Kilmon a belly laugh.

There's really nothing to argue about, Haran. The evidence has been sitting in front of you for months, some of it identified right away by Toto, Sauron and myself. Many the arguments were laid out in this long thread.

Another thread

Lupia, way back when (me summarizing):
"Our esteemed colleague Rochelle Altman
has carefully gone over the Yardeni transcription. She too has had access to photographs as well. My opinion regarding the erosion of the limestone was based on digital photographs having sufficient resolution for enlargement. The observation of uneven erosion affecting what appears to be sgraffito compared to the body of the ossuary was immediate and obvious to me...[goes on to list several types of studies which should have been done]..The fact that none of the aforementioned research and study has been performed leaves this researcher as well many others wondering why? Do not be too quick to summarily dismiss out of hand the many insightful comments made by Rochelle Altman and Nahum Applbaum."

That day Kloppenborg also saw two hands.

Basically, as we've said before, it comes down to one's ability and willingness to smell forgery from a mile away. Some people are more sensitive than others in this regard. The trick to spotting forgeries, Haran, is concentrating on the social and historical context. Many experts said right away the famous Hitler Diary had to be a forgery -- no one ever knew he kept a diary, and he was notorious for hating the act of writing. You're much too focused on the inscription, Haran.

But didn't you say you were going to stop arguing about this thing?

Vorkosigan

Sauron

C. Atheist, perhaps if we could just identify your captor, then we could be of more use.

You know - the captor who is holding a gun to your head, making you read threads and postings you obviously don't like?
:boohoo:

Hint: if you want to read an actual intellectual discussion on this, check my responses to Haran. Yanking Turkel's doggy chain is just entertainment, something I do when I have spare time.

Haran

I don't doubt that. Is there some standard battery of tests that are always performed when looking for a forgery? My thought is that there will always be someone to cry "Foul"! You didn't do these tests!

I brought up Kilmon, because he seems to have a background in science as well as in-depth knowledge of the history, languages, and scripts. I think you know that. Can you honestly tell me that one knows more than the other? I don't think you honestly can.

I've seen Jack get frustrated. I've also seen John get pretty snooty. But, hey, we've all been there...

Personally, I'd like to see some big scholarly names agreeing or disagreeing with John. So far, I've not seen any real confirmation of his theories.

There is no evidence. Only speculation.

Show me evidence....a half completed forgery, some material used to make fake patina, something. You can, can't you? In time, I suppose...

To my knowledge, Kloppenborg is not an expert in scripts. He is an expert in hypothetical documents.

Exactly. Even if this is not the ossuary of James brother of Jesus, it has a lot to tell us about ossuaries, paleography ,and the language of that time period. I am severely frustrated with those who want to trash this important find simply because they disagree with it due to a biased philosophical world-view (I'm not talking "evil atheist conspiracies" because there are theists who do not want it to be real either).

I did say that I wanted to stop until something new came up. Unfortunately, I saw incorrect information presented and my name mentioned in an unflattering light and I decided to respond.

I'm not looking to "win" any arguments. I'm looking for the truth. If Golan turns out to be a forger then he sucks. However, I want to see proof (and I mean real proof as mentioned above) because the find can have interesting effects on scholarly understanding of that time period (e.g. general history, ossuaries, paleography, orthography, linguistics, etc.).

Just make sure you guys aren't trying to dismiss this thing simply because you don't want to admit that there might be possible evidence for an historical Jesus.

godfry n. glad

That's why we all await word from the two commissions appointed by the IAA.

By the way, does anybody have any idea who was appointed to which commission and/or with what each commission is charged?

godfry n. glad

MiddleMan

Found this in the ol' archieves and wonder what Turkel is saying now?

Any new word?

See also post: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=48821

Sauron

Oh, I'm sure he's doing the backpedal ballet - while simultaneously asking for financial handouts. I've lost interest in TWeb, when it became obvious that they were determined to protect Turkel and Sarfati.

Vorkosigan

I left after I discovered some of my posts had been edited to have key points removed.

Vinnie

Was a new ossuary discovered or something?

Or are we still discussing that forgery one? I so, wh yare we still discussing this?

Holding is a conservo-monkey when it comes to scholarship in general. He couldn't find mainstream scholarship even if somebody stuck a handful of it up his ass.

Vinnie