spin

This was an even better cut from the article:

Yuval Goren is the expert in the chemistry of ancient artefacts who did most of the physical testing to show how the box was doctored.

One wonders just what other recently "unearthed" artefacts smell and what assumptions have been built upon there use.

And I love the description of palaeography being "a fool's paradise".


spin

Doctor X

I am certainly not competent to comment on whether or not paleography is a "fool's paradise," a legitimate "science," a "good tool," or whathaveyou. I suspect it is a good tool subject to abuse. For example, if you compare something written in Old English with something spat out by the ancient printer I sometimes attach this Mac to . . . well . . . probably a good chance the Old English is older.

Forgery is a problem. Forgery attempts to recreate the conditions of the past. As others have noted, failure to understand forgery leads to being fooled by fogery.

Frankly, academics and scientists do not expect forgery and, frankly, I would wager many "assume" they could spot it. James "the Amazing" Randi deserves credit for reminding how magic tricks work--it is fun to see a "scientist" expound on how a trick works--I think it a rule that the explanation is always far more complicated than what happened!

Look at "scientific" explanations of spoon-bending . . . how disappointing to realize the guy just bends it when you are distracted!!

Thus, I am afraid the bone box has firmly passed to the realm of "prove it." the burden of proof resides on it. I cannot accept appeals to "prove it is a forgery" anymore.

Unfortunately . . . having just written that . . . it is hard to "prove" something--take my Old English example! Well, the "prover" would have to demonstrate that what was writtten--roughly translated as "JLo has a gorgeous butt" is something you would find in Old English, that the Xerox paper it was written on is as old as the day . . . et cetera. Someone can raise evidence to the contrary, "Gee, I did not know Xerox produced paper back in 914. . . ."

This is what happened to the Ossary--or is it "ossuary?"--people have raised legitimate objections.

Finally . . . back to Mum scrubbing . . . the explanations for some of these objections really stretch reason.

--J.D.

spin

Apparently unbeknown to Haran, Altman is an expert on ancient writing systems, so is quite understanding of palaeography, so I would read her take on the box with more care.

The workmanship on the second part of the inscription shows less skill than the first part. This includes shape of letters and ability to carve. I think people try to pass the problem off as poor equipment, breakage of the stylus and lack of interest from the engraver who continues to use the same tool.

I think it has passed beyond "prove it" to "you're joking aren't you?"


spin

Doctor X

I washed up here just as the revelations on the old box became known. I noticed a lot of "heat" had been generated by "both sides" in some threads. Anyways, I gave mental credit for Haran backing off his support given the natural human tendency to lord-over any mistake.

Indeed, methinks some of the now ridiculous apology for the box comes from scholars with too much invested in being right. Certainly, they do not want their reputations ruined and, certainly, they do not want rivals dancing the "I Told You So Dance" around them at the next meeting. Besides, such mistakes stick--"Well he was WRONG about the Ossary . . . so he MUST be wrong about this dating of the Q47.3 passage!!"

However, it becomes a problem of proponents "digging the hole deeper." Again, I came late into this, so I may mischaracterize some of the facts [Facts never bother him.--Ed.]. Prof. Cross was touted as supporting the box only to have him eventually back off. My point in that is that because Cross backed off early, people do not really remember him as giving it that much support. Had he "stuck to it" it would be a "sad end to a wonderful career."

--J.D.

spin

Well, I have far less respect for the guy than you do. He's responsible for the palaeographical problems besetting the Dead Sea Scrolls. He did a fine job collecting the various fonts and scripts used in the scrolls, but he should have stopped there. When he ventures into palaeography he suddenly flounders. (I've made other comments on his efforts, especially in the Allegro thread.)


spin

Haran

For those who obviously have not followed this debate very closely, I think it is probably a forgery.

I do not think it is definitely a forgery.

I prefer to keep an open-mind, unlike many, and will see where the data leads in the future, not the rhetoric. Stating over and over again that something is definitely a forgery does not make it so.

I am still very bothered by what I feel to be the IAA's very biased attitudes and conclusions. As to the scientific evidence and the terminology that everyone likes to throw around, even though they don't seem to have the slightest idea what they are talking about, it appears that newer reports are explaining that evidence or contradicting it. I guess we can throw science out the window as conclusive proof of forgery as well as paleography.

As to Golan, the speculation and innuendo has been amazing! The guy has been arrested numerous times and nothing has come of it. I believe the press labeled or at least implied that his workshop was a "forgery workshop". How many of you know enough about the guy to have any idea whether or not he might have been in the business of creating legitimate "reproductions"?? If the workshop was so obviously a "forgery workshop", then why is the guy still not in jail after more than a year? I assume you're all simply saying that the police completely are inept? Either that, or Golan is VERY VERY good...

It seems to me that there are just as many who want the ossuary to be a forgery. In light of the true facts, I see no other reason for people to make such absurdly absolute statements.

For instance, I think Secret Mark is probably a forgery. I will not say it is definitely a forgery. There's just no way to know for sure. But, as in the case of the ossuary, much of the speculative evidence seems to lean in that direction. I lean toward forgery (though not because of the paleography), but I'm still willing to consider evidence to the contrary.

You can call the ossuary an obvious forgery until you're blue in the face, but it isn't so just because you say it...

Haran

I would assume that you are unfamiliar with my own analysis (and the fact that she has included me in at least one of her online articles - in a completely incorrect and unreasonably unflattering light, I might add. If she really feels as she wrote about me, then there should have been no reason at all to include me. Of course, my analysis nicely pointed out her errors, so she was forced to deal with me, though in a highly unscholarly manner.). I also assume that you are completely unfamiliar with the fact the she vigorously defended her own obviously incorrect ideas, such as her vehement defence of the ossuary inscription being incised...even though nearly everyone tried to point out her obvious error. To my knowledge, she has still never admitted that she was wrong.

Frankly, I have enough knowledge of semitic paleography to know that there were no Greek letters in the inscription. I thought it was absolutely absurd that she decided that there was an ancient Greek upsilon smack in the middle of an otherwise ledgible aramaic inscription. Doesn't she now support the theory that the inscriptions were somehow copied from Rahmani's book? If so, then that kind of contradicts the whole silly upsilon business anyway.

Finally, Altman is not a recognized expert in semitic paleography. It has been stated by those who are that she is not published in the appropriate journals. Due to some of her initial analyses of the ossuary inscription, I had a hard time believing that she even knew the ancient aramaic script...

Oh whatever, I'm not going into another long discussion about her. She was so unreasonably disrespectful to me in her many incorrect and slanderous diatribes against me that I'm not sure I see the point. Those who truly understood the paleographical issues (like the scholars who contacted me in agreement) and those who saw her railing against me and slandering me will know.... Others can think what they like. I'm sick of it...

There has been sharp disagreement over this. Views similar to my own were expressed by some of the top paleographers.

Read my above post. I lean toward forgery, but I keep an open mind.

My deal with the paleography is that I believe Altman was and still is quite wrong in her paleographic assessment. Scholars with much more acclaim in semitic paleography than she have rendered a different analysis. I believe she simply got lucky when it came to pronouncing her decision of forgery (which I also believe she did in a very quick and unscholarly way - snap decisions smack of bias) because that seems to me to be about the only detail she possibly got right.

Haran

When he ventures into paleography???

Frank Moore Cross has been a paleographer for some time... He wrote one of the premier works...

spin

You might think it a premier work, but what I've seen is a career of forays into the inexact science which try to make definitive conclusions -- which are inappropriate, starting with his work on the Hyram sarcophagus. The "handmaiden of history" is just that.


spin

Haran

I'm afraid it's not just me who thinks so...

His work is a classic and seems to be considered by many as an indispensible classroom text for semitic paleography.