Haran

I do. Because I like paleography and have since before the ossuary incident, regardless of Altman's unchecked slander against me. Those who know me well know that I have been interested in these subjects for years.

I can't think of many, if any, scholars who believe the whole inscription is a forgery. Therefore the study of scripts applies to at least part of the inscription, and not just for dating which you erroneously seem to think is the only purpose of paleography.

I happen to remember this scholar speaking out against the ossuary on another list seemingly before he even looked at it. Why should I trust his conclusions if he went in with preconceived notions about the ossuary and about antiquities collectors? Answer: In good conscience, I can't.

I'll believe this when I see it. Currently it is only rumour.

Funny, but I never said it could. You have developed a position for me that I do not hold. I am agnostic as to the authenticity of the inscription and I am incredibly sceptical of scholars on all sides. Most of what I have seen in this issue has been extreme bias across the board. With the poor information we have, I can only feel that anyone who comes down confidently for or against the ossuary's authenticity is doing so simply for ideological reasons and I do not respect it.

I fully realize that people forge things, Vork. I also fully realize that paleography cannot determine this. If you are still intentionally putting forth this rhetoric against me in spite of my previously stated position, then I am disappointed in you.

The problem that I see is that even the physical science is being overturned at this point by other scientists. People, like you, are quoting scientific assessments that they don't even seem to understand, at least no one has explained them when I've asked specific questions about them.

The only issue that I feel you have correct at the moment, Vork, is that the ossuary is pretty much dead in the water at this point. Both ideological sides have destroyed any possibilities this box ever had of confidently being identified as either authentic or inauthentic.

See above. The science will now always be inconclusive due to the extreme ideological desires on both sides to overstate their case. It is over. Any confident belief in the authenticity or inauthenticity of this box is now purely a matter of faith and ideology.

Artemus

The patina within the inscription was different from the patina on the rest of the box. The inscription cut through the varnish, but the rosettes did not. No analysis of the paleography is going to change that. Science has settled the issue.

Haran

What is with this? The inscription does not prove its authenticity, ok? I know and have known this. How many times do I have to say this before people quit these absurd rhetorical tricks?

It has unfortunately not, for the reason I have already stated and for the scientific reasons that already stand against the information you've presented in more recent articles. It is an issue of faith for those who trust the scholars' analyses.

Again, for those who seem to be a little hard-headed and ideological in insisting the ossuary to be a forgery. The thread was, instead, started to indicate that some of the early scholars made highly questionable claims and yet their claims were and are still used as "proof" of the ossuary's inauthenticity. I think the sceptics need to use a little more scepticism, frankly.

Steven Carr

I can hardly fault Haran for not keeping up with what Lemaire says, but Haran doesn't appear to know what Lemaire's latest story is :-

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/...dications3.htm

'Lemaire reports that on the day he saw a photo of the inscription for the first time, "the owner said he thought the inscription was especially interesting because there was only one other inscription in Rahmani's Catalogue (the standard catalog of Jewish ossuaries) mentioning a brother in a similar way." This statement can only refer to the "ahui Hanin" reading from ossuary 570 of Rahmani's Catalogue. But this is quite astounding.

It means that "the owner" knew of the "ahui Hanin" reading from Rahmani's ossuary 570 long before he ever met Lemaire,, and long before Joseph Fitzmyer identified that same "ahui Hanin" reading as a parallel to the "ahui d'Yeshua" phrase on the Yakov bar Yosef ossuary. ....'


Amazing that the owner knew the exact parallel from the catalogue while not understanding the inscription....

Now that Haran is aware of what Lemaire himself says, will he finally admit that the thing is a forgery?

spin

Well, I think the palaeography shows that we are dealing with two separate artisans. The quality and style changes in mid inscription.

1. From square serifed letters we get wonky (uneven, irregular) sans serif.

2. Could the same person who made the BETs have also made the DALET?

3. Could the same scribe who made the two YODs in the frist part have made the fourth last letter called a YOD?

4. The second part of the inscription gets the heights of the letters with respect to the horizontal totally screwed up.

5. And only the AYIN (and perhaps the middle of the ALEF) in the second half is cut to a depth similar to that of the first part.

The first half speaks of a more diligent scribe who used a more formal script than that of the second half.



Is there a detailed picture of the inscription which shows the position of the inscription on the ossuary?


spin

Artemus

In the post to which I first replied you said:

Maybe some of the early analyses did contain errors. That is irrelevant at this point. Ideology does not change the physical facts that a) The patina within the inscription was different from that on the remainder of the box and b) the inscription cut through the varnish while the rosettes did not. Other analyses that on do not rule out authenticity on their own, but do not refute these facts, change nothing. Unless you can provide a citation to a study which refutes these facts, further discussion is pointless. Science has settled the issue.

Haran

Keep reading, Steven. Sorry, that's all I have to say to you. I'm tired of dealing with your rhetoric.

Haran

Some of the top paleographers have stated that the inscription is in one hand.

Where, exactly, do you believe the script changes? Funny, but scholars who say the inscription is divided can't seem to agree on where it is divided. Read the paleography part of the IAA report.

I've never heard the technical term "wonky" before. Sounds like the use of rhetoric rather than facts.

If one looks at the ossuaries in Rahmani's catalog, one will find that many inscriptions are a mix of script and formal. The "james ossuary" is no different.

Try reading some of the Dead sea scrolls and tell me if you don't see the letters changing somewhat throughout. Sometimes it's hard to tell from one specific letter to its next instance if it was written by the same hand. Yes, the person who made the bets could have made the dalet. Yes, the same hand could have made the yods and ayins.

Haran

It is not irrelevant, because these same analyses are still being used by others in dismissing the ossuary. It is extremely relevant because these scholars have made serious mistakes and the quality of their work should be exposed so that they don't do more damage in the future. If you don't believe me, then study up more on paleography and the languages. Check their claims and then tell me if you think they just made quick dismissals of something out of their ideological prejudices. Come on, people, be critical...

People here on this website (at least initially) bought into some of these scholars claims, so it is quite relevant. Now some like to distance themselves and say no, I never believed them. Yeah...I remember the posts.

What facts? The supposed facts from the scholars you have faith in who were already prejudiced against the ossuary? Science has not settled the issue. It will not settle the issue. You are flying on pure ideological faith in the scholars of your choice if you without a doubt believe the ossuary to be a forgery.

Either way, to me, the topic of the thread is supposed to be the poor scholars and scholarship based on ideological biases for and against the ossuary. I've mentioned to more than one scholar that these other scholars need to be exposed. They don't do it because it is enough for them that these scholars are not recognized in the appropriate fields and they don't want to start a fued. It is not enough for me, though, because these people are believed by the part of the public that has not studied these issues and does not know any better.

I'm going to end here. I can't really go anywhere else with this and people just keep trying to foist positions on me that I do not hold. Believe what you will. Besides, I love to see atheists who have true faith. It gives me hope for them.

Steven Carr

Keep reading what, Haran? Your detailed rebuttal of what Lemaire reported - that Golan told him of the resemblance to the catalogue entry ? I couldn't find any rebuttal in your post.

I shall repost what I posted, so that I can read it again.

''Lemaire reports that on the day he saw a photo of the inscription for the first time, "the owner said he thought the inscription was especially interesting because there was only one other inscription in Rahmani's Catalogue (the standard catalog of Jewish ossuaries) mentioning a brother in a similar way." This statement can only refer to the "ahui Hanin" reading from ossuary 570 of Rahmani's Catalogue. But this is quite astounding.

It means that "the owner" knew of the "ahui Hanin" reading from Rahmani's ossuary 570 long before he ever met Lemaire,, and long before Joseph Fitzmyer identified that same "ahui Hanin" reading as a parallel to the "ahui d'Yeshua" phrase on the Yakov bar Yosef ossuary. ....'

Now will Haran accept that Golan knew about the catalogue entry BEFORE Fitzmyer?