gnosis92

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary


While many atheists and Christ-mythicists here take IAA's conclusion at face value that it is a hoax, like much of Christ mythicism, why isn't this conclusion published in peer-reviewed academic journals so that those with the expertise can comment? Also what of the claim that a photo taken in 1976 shows those letters there? IA's position was that the "brother of Yeshua" was etched with the aid of a computer, but computers did not have such sophistication in 1976.

Just asking. Also, while I did not watch all 3 hours of the documentary, what do you make of the patina?

According to the film, "recent tests conducted at the CSI Suffolk Crime lab in New York demonstrate that the patina (a chemical film encrustation on the box) from the James ossuary matches the patina from the other ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb." However, records made at the time of the Talpiot excavation show dimensions and physical characteristics that do not match the physical appearance of the James ossuary.

"The Israeli Antiquities Authority has never offered any report explaining why it concluded the ossuary is a forgery. Therefore, a number of international experts refuse to agree that it is a forgery until the IAA allows scholars to review its findings. For example, Ed Keall, the Senior Curator at the Royal Ontario Museum, Near Eastern & Asian Civilizations Department, continues to argue for the ossuary’s authenticity, saying “the ROM has always been open to questioning the ossuary's authenticity, but so far no definitive proof of forgery has yet been presented, in spite of the current claims being made."[2] Meanwhile Biblical Archaeology Review also continued to defend the ossuary. In articles in the February 2005 issues, several experts in writing on stone argue that the James Ossuary is authentic and should be examined by specialists outside of Israel. Another article claims the cleaning of the James Ossuary before it was examined may have caused the problem with the patina.

Oded Golan claimed publicly to believe his findings were genuine. Hershel Shanks declared that he did not believe the evidence and launched a personal complaint against IAA director Shuka Dorfman. Lemaire supported his original assessment when Frank Cross regretted Shank's attitude. Joe Nickell, an investigative columnist for the magazine Skeptical Inquirer, very early on, pointed out several suspicious facts about the ossuary that needed further explanation:[3]

S.C.Carlson

Don't believe everything you read in Wikipedia. The IAA's reports are available online here: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Final_Reports.htm

Stephen

gnosis92

mayb someone should change it then.

What do the experts say about IA's report?

S.C.Carlson

Most think it's a fake. There is some dispute over which is the old part and which is the new part.

Stephen

P.S. You can read all my blog postings about the James ossuary at: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/labels/Ossuary.html

gnosis92

Does a photo from 1976 and the 3-hour Discovery patina analysis change this conclusion?

S.C.Carlson

I haven't seen the photo from 1976 and don't know if it's even authentic.

The alleged forgery is a fake inscription on a geniune limestone bone box. During Golan's ownership of the box, the patina around the inscription had been scoured off and replaced with a new, modern patina. Golan had blamed this on an accidental by-product of cleansing by his overly enthusiastic mother. Why Golan's mother, a scientist at an Israeli university, would be destroying the precious patina of his archeology collection has not been satisfactorially explained.

Stephen

gnosis92

ive not seen it myself, only BAR refers to it

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_photos.asp
February 9, 2007

The attorney for Oded Golan, accused of forging the James Ossuary inscription, will introduce in court photos from the 1970s that purport to show the ossuary and its full inscription. The photos have been dated to 1976 by a former FBI photo expert; Golan is accused of forging the inscription in about 2000. Read more in Ha'aretz.



what do you make of Professor Wolfgang E. Krumbein counter-claims?

curious
Dan

S.C.Carlson

That all I know about it too.

I discussed it here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...8&postcount=15

gnosis92

well thanks