Toto

Kosh - I think you can browse Crosstalk's archives (you might have to be a registered yahoogroups user, which is free.) Try going to

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2" target="_blank">Crosstalk2 on Yahoogroups</a>

or directly to

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/messages/" target="_blank">Crosstalk2 messages archive</a>

I think the real discussion may be on the <a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioudaios/" target="_blank">Ioudaios</a> list which Altman moderates.

Sauron

Interesting, perhaps. But as has been pointed out several times, just being quarried in Jerusalem does not prove that the ossuary was used as a burial device there. Ossuaries from Jerusalem were used as far away as Jericho.

CX

Have you read it? It's downright funny in a "Jane you ignorant slut" point/counterpoint sort of way. It's too bad copyright laws preclude us from posting it here. In my opinion Hershel Shanks metaphysics are showing significantly throughout the interview. Plus I can almost hear Dr. Finkelstein saying, "Now calm down Hersh." It's a distinct abbott and costello vibe going on.

CX

I think "lying" is far to strong a word. Selective data mining is a better phrase. In the first case the total incidence of names is taken from inscriptions only. Plus several assumptions are made which clearly serve to constrain the numbers. Lastly one point in favor of the analysis is that the period in question in which osseilegium was practiced DOES limit the estimates somewhat. On the whole though I think there is a fair amount of theological axe grinding involved in the calculations and I wouldn't put much stock in them. I think the question of which James the inscription refers to is largely unanswerable to any scientific degree of certainty. That being said I don't see any compelling reasons to dispute the providence and relative dating of the object.

CX

I haven't seen Altman's comments, but I think accusations of interpolation are probably premature and unrealistic. If the "brother of Jesus" bit were added at point significantly later than the original inscription the initial geological analyses would probably have exposed it.

Vorkosigan

Why yes, Layman, you can't run the numbers and simply arrive at "21." Even if you drastically lop off 50 years off the estimate, the number of JJJ instances is much greater than 21. I put up a long post at XTALK showing this, perhaps you can respond there.

And yes, Layman, I do think that when I have to chose between the incompetence and maliciousness when dealing with miscues by otherwise competent people, "lying" is the correct term. Especially when they are faith committed to evade, lie and destroy truth wherever it conflicts with their beliefs. And especially when the miscue dovetails so elegantly with their beliefs. And when clear double standards are being employed in judgments about the evidence in question.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

On the whole though I think there is a fair amount of theological axe grinding involved in the calculations and I wouldn't put much stock in them.

The difference between "lying" and "theological ax grinding" would be...?

Ted Hoffman

Altmans arguments were not about the geological analysis or even the dating.
Do you know the nature of the initial geological analyses that were performed? Do you know what they meant when they said "no trace of modern elements", do you know that patination analysis is an inaccurate method of dating?
And do you know that geological analysis are the least of the "concerns" concerning the BAR article and their handling of the matter concerning the ossuary?
<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000709&p=2" target="_blank">Read this thread for more on Altmans analysis</a>

The only thing that is premature and unrealistic is saying Altmans arguments are "premature and unrealistic" before you have even gone through them.

Frankly, I think this topic has been beaten to death. I don't see BAR writing anything new or substantial other than what it already has.

What we need now is a debate between the experts and specifically, we need to see Altmans' arguments refuted.

Perhaps Layman should be warned against incessantly opening new threads on the same topic giving the illusion of new ideas on the topic yet in reality its an approach he takes when he is cornered in a thread.

Waste of bandwidth, waste of time.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

CX

I would say lying is stating something you know to be false. Whereas theological ax grinding is allowing theological preconceptions to color one's thinking such that the most reasonable conclusion is unconsciously avoid in favor of a theologically more satisfying answer which is not impossible, btu not the most likely. Maybe I'm using the phrase incorrectly. I'm thinking of the phenomenon of "confirmation bias". I don't think there is any evidence of intentional deceit. Rather Lemaire and others are simply establishing conclusions that fit their perspective based on pretty slim evidence.

Layman

My my you are naive. This will no doubt be the subject of many articles to come, though probably not in BAR.

Some experts have already pointed out some of her blunders. Perhaps once she publishes in a peer-reviewed journal we can see a peer-reviewed response.

I posted about a couple of important new developments on this issue.

1. The ossuary will be made available for public display. There was some concern that the owner would not let this occur.

2. The ossuary will be tested by the very well-respected Israeli Antiquities Society.

These are new developments and I thought people would find them interesting. And rather than tack them on to another thread with over a hundred posts, I decided to post them in a new thread.

If the Moderators find this problematic they can speak for themselves. Otherwise, your complaint itself is nothing more than a waste of bandwidth.