Peter Kirby

Why would anyone want to dialogue with you about the antiquity of the Secret Mark letter after what you said? They are automatically classed as biased. To attempt to smear the credibility of someone else before they can say their part is what I mean by "poisoning the well."

Oh, so it's the "gay is bad, mm'kay" thing.

There are other sources for the idea that there are levels of teaching.

That's interesting. I myself have no doctrinal stake in whether the material was ever a part of Mark's gospel.

Speculating about bias is like jerking off. Everyone does it, and it gets you nowhere.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

I see what you are saying. The wording was too strong. My bad. As to attempting to "smear the credibility of someone else", perhaps you can see what I mean about Vork's own wording. I think Secret Mark is probably a forgery because of the coincidences and suspicious circumstances surrounding it. Maybe that should have given me more of a clue with respect to the James ossuary...

Yes. It can quite easily be used against many Christians. What is "mm'kay"?

I didn't say it was a fake for these reasons, I'm saying that these are some reasons that its possible authenticity has been used against Christians. I know, I've been on the receiving end of these accusations before.

Peter, I'm surprised. I figured that you of all people would realize that you also have biases.

You must have built certain theories of your own...ways that you think it all happened? I'm not saying your beliefs are not malleable, just that they may shape the way you see things. For instance, if you happened to be like certain others who believed that the gospels were complete fiction written sometime in the second century, you might have been more likely to immediately dismiss the James ossuary before you knew all the facts. You might also be more likely to dismiss any other new discovery that doesn't quite fit in with your views.

As to "doctrinal stake", my views on history are probably as malleable as yours. I have no problem admitting, for instance, that archaeological evidence reflects poorly on the story of Joshua and Jericho. I have no problem with admitting things that seem to go against the bible if that's the way I think the data reads because faith can be separated from historical analysis.

It seems as if I offended you with something I said, because I don't usually see you respond in a vulgar fashion. Perhaps it was the Secret Mark thing, I don't know. Perhaps my statements are more strong than I really intend. Either way, I am sorry if I offended.

With respect to bias, I do not believe that speculation about someone's bias is irrelevant, as it affects their data and conclusions and may influence others. When the facts are mostly the same, it is by estimating bias that one is able to discern from their readings what they believe and what they do not. One author may present facts one way and another author may present them in an almost opposite way. I must discern who I believe in order to find out on whom I want to build my own beliefs. If you read the work of a fundamentalist Christian who puts their spin on certain issues, are you going to believe them over a non-Christian who puts a different spin on the same facts?

If you truly think that it is irrelevant, then I respectfully disagree. Why do you think there are so many here who complain about the bias of Christian scholars? Do you think that they are wrong and that any bias those Christian scholars have is irrelevant?

Again, I am truly not trying to offend with my questioning and I'm sorry if I have. Please point out my wording if you feel I am out of line.

Peter Kirby

What I really don't understand is why you asked Vorkosigan whether he should be lumped in with this "biased" group when he agrees with you on Secret Mark.

If Christianity teaches that "gay is bad," that in itself can be used against Christianity.

Excuse me. It's "okay." It's from the television show South Park.

Are Christians really bothered by the idea that some early Christians taught at different levels?

If I say that my eyes are green (they are), I am biased about that too. Wouldn't I lose face if it turned out that I was wrong and my eyes are blue? This is why I consider speculation about bias to be useless.

So, yes, I have biases. There's a file on my web page that talks about Secret Mark without declaring it a forgery of Morton Smith. That's enough to make me biased. When I say that I have no doctrinal stake, I mean that I would not change any part of my views on life because these passages were or were not in the Gospel of Mark in antiquity.

I agree that it is possible to separate faith from history, which is made easiest when one does not make one's faith include any historical items.

I may think that Turkel is the most biased guy on the planet, but that wouldn't make any particular statement or argument of his wrong. I would not be excused from analysing any arguments that he makes because of his bias. The only thing to which bias might be relevant is an argument from authority, but there is no reason to appeal to authority if you intend to study a subject yourself.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

I guess I wasn't very clear. I feel that with some of his statements, he is lumping all Christian scholars (and maybe Christians in general) in with the group in support of the ossuary.

Inter Alia, comments like:

Doesn't this comment ignore FM Cross (and probably others - isn't McCarter a Christian scholar?) whom I mistakenly thought supported the authenticity of the ossuary?

This is why I asked if he would like to be lumped into a group that he doesn't agree with.

What if I had said, "Fortunately a group of Christian scholars was convened to authenticate this object. One shudders to think what would happen if non-Christian scholars had worked on it."

Sounds wrong even to me...

I don't know. I think I'm not getting across the point I was trying to make though. The point is that Vork seems to keep making claims that Christians are the only ones who would use a possible forgery to slam JesusMythers, etc., correct me if I'm wrong (I think I read this view of his in a recent post to Xtalk). I'm saying that some non-Christians have and still do use questionable things against Christians too. Any more clear? Sorry, I'm tired tonight, so I may not be making much sense.

I'm not sure I follow... Unless you or the person you are telling this to is colorblind, then your estimation of the color will probably be correct.

This is less biased, in my opinion, than actually declaring it one way or the other. This is why I did not write anything along with the CBQ articles by Quesnell. I do not want my biases to get in the way of what others will take from it.

True. Several seemed not to believe me, but this is why the ossuary really made no real difference to me other than as an paleographical interest.

However, if he presented you with a set of facts that he connected, would you look to someone else to see if he connected those facts correctly or that he even had the facts right in light of your view that he is "the most biased guy on the planet"? (If it makes you feel any better, I think he's pretty biased too and I think he is unneccessarily rude. )

As you've said before, we can't be an expert in everything (though we can certainly try ). Even scholars wind up relying on the work of past scholars for many of their ideas (sometimes possibly without even knowing it - I can't tell you how many times I've discovered that some scholar reworded something a 19th century scholars said). So, when I form my beliefs, sometimes I find myself having to rely on certain scholars since I just don't have the expertise. The bias factor seems to me to come into play at this point. Do you trust Dr. Altman or Dr. Cross? Do you trust Finkelstein or Dever?

I guess we'll just have to learn everything for ourselves.

Peter Kirby

Ah, I see. I'll let Vorkosigan answer.

Sure, that makes sense. There's a phony Mithraic quote that does the rounds. The sad thing is that these rumors never die.

I guess the questions is, then, what is bias?

The softer the science gets, the less willing I am to trust authority. With math, you can pretty much trust anything you find in two textbooks. With physics, you can trust that which a majority of scientists theorize. With linguistics, it is rational to go by what you find in lexicons. With more recent history, you can usually accept that which the vast majority of historians agree on, where it seems that they'd be in a position to know. With the history of ancient Judaism and Christianity, the subject is so politicised that you can be forgiven for doubting what the experts say. That is part of why I like to study the stuff for myself.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

No idea. <shrug> She didn't tell me everything.

You've read her CV.

Perhaps I have not been clear. Altman looked at that and saw a forgery, based on what she knew of paleography.

Yes. But the thing you are missing is that Altman has what is known in the STS field as "tacit knowledge," the kind of "feeling for the thing" that people get when they work with something for a long time. It is difficult to communicate to others who are not similarly expert. It only looks like luck if you don't understand it.

Because I like curmudgeons, and she's an original curmudgeon. That's really it. I just like her, for all her faults.

"The proof of the pudding...."

<shrug> Then don't.

No, it was because it had a particular kind of heterogenuity, one that shouted "FORGERY" at her. One year I worked on an Amerind dig near my hometown. My prof was the director. We pulled up many tools and had them neatly labeled and stacked. The Boss laughed at us, pulled them out, and showed us that out of our hundred tools, we had about one real tool, and 99 stream-cut rocks. She had the knowledge that comes from a lifetime. So does Altman.

Here you have misunderstood, Haran. It's a particular kind of heterogenuity, not just the fact that it's a mix.

Haran, it is an Ossuary of James, the Brother of Jesus. That's how she knew it would be worth a ton. Of course it is going to be worth millions to whoever owns it. That Temple Reciept Ostracon of Lemaire's sold for several hundred thousand, as I recall. How much for a piece of Jesus? The sky is the limit.

She did! She said it was a fraud using very strong language!

It is quite true that Altman never specifically mentioned that motive. But it is the duty of any ethical scholar to oppose archaeological fraud automatically. No statement of motive needed.

No, I have never changed that. I have said all along that palaeography cannot determine the authenticity of the Ossuary. The only that that can do that is science. Altman had relevant expertise in that she had expertise in forgery detection. Never did I claim only one kind of expertise is necessary. Why would that be the case? What kind of game are you playing? If you catch me in a seeming contradiction, do you get a kewpie doll, or should I just throw myself off the nearest bridge?

Any number of fields are relevant to determining inauthenticity, including paleography. It is just not revelant for figuring authenticity. Apparently this distinction has not yet become clear in your mind.

That's too bad.

However, if one believed it inauthentic, it would be perilously close to an ethical violation not to say so.

Prepare for disappointment. You should take a moment and read this article on a similar scandal in Japanese archaeology and this follow-up piece. That's what we are looking at here.

Speaking out against fraud is the responsibility of every ethical person. Don't you agree?

<shrug> What can I say? She thought it did, I thought it did.

Come, come. You attack her for being venal enough to use this Ossuary to promote her book, then get on my case for pointing out how outrageous that is? Her book has been in the offing for long before this Ossuary came out.

And if she raised her profile by pointing out this fraud, more power to her! There's nothing unethical about that, since she told no lies. She didn't sign an unethical and rushed book deal to promote an obvious fraud, nor did she run around telling people lies and nonsense like Lemaire and Shanks and their cronies. Nor did she forge ancient artifacts, nor defend those who did and do.

Haran, why do you think Shanks called for a Commission of American scholars? Do you think he did so because he didn't think it would work in his favor?

You're just plain strange and in any case, disproved by facts. We already have a set of ossuaries with the Jesus family names on them, Haran, and no skeptics have been trumpeting them, except against this silly fraud. We have a whole passage in the Slavonic Josephus saying Jesus was your garden variety messiah, but hardly any skeptics waste time on it. So you're just talkin' here. I doubt skeptics would rush to embrace any artifact that crawled out of the woodwork and said Jesus was a fake. It's not our style. You see, Haran, unlike believers, skeptics are people whose epistemological stance includes a strong streak of suspicion of fooling oneself. We're the people who just can't bring ourselves to believe.

As for lumping you with the Christian hoi polloi, how to put it? It is hard to avoid. Christians have time and again shown a demonstrated knack for believing plain nonsense, from the Trinity to Original Sin to the Shroud of Turin to Lourdes to the Virgin on a taco to Pat Robertson and Ron Wyatt being decent human beings. Ultimately, the fact that Christians believe nonsense makes them vulnerable to artifacts like this. That is why the thought of the Ossuary being handed over to a US Christian Commission scares the hell out of me and cheered Shanks. This way the Israelis themselves showed it a fraud, and saved much trouble.

Vorkosigan

Bede

Chill out guys.

I read the Haran/Altman correspondence and he has every right to be cheesed off by her behavior. She was right it was a fake but for the wrong reasons. Just being right isn't enough - you get marks for the workings too (which is why you have to show them). She clearly doesn't need defending. If the Israeli police are using her, good on them, but it doesn'ty excuse her behaviour or explain her mistakes. Perhaps she knew from square one it was fake due to inside knowledge but her expertise was insufficient for her to prove it - hence the wild claims about excising and blindness.

Secret Mark is a fake that a lot of big name Jesus Seminar types bought into. As so many big name scholars would look silly if they admitted this then that is bias enough to make them unwilling to. Even on the million to one shot it is really Clementine, its providence is far too poor for it ever to be used by scholars. Given Smith was the most likely forger his interpretation is, axiomatically, most likely to be the right one!

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Clarice O'C

Hello All,

I don't think that this says anything new but from today:

July 2, Ha'aretz Daily's, 'Antiquities Team Declares Ossuary a Forgery' by Nadav Shragai:

http://tinyurl.com/ftln

Best,
Clarice

Vorkosigan

This is new to me, Clarice:

• The Geological Survey of Israel - one of whose
  experts participated in the panel that
  unanimously ruled the inscription fake -
  originally declared the inscription to be
  authentic. Dr. Uzi Deri, who chaired the panel
  that investigated the inscription's patina,
  said the the carbon-14 dating tests used by the
  survey in its original determination proved to
  be irrelevant.

Vorkosigan

Chill out guys.
I read the Haran/Altman correspondence and he has every right to be cheesed off by her behavior. She was right it was a fake but for the wrong reasons. Just being right isn't enough - you get marks for the workings too (which is why you have to show them).

Altman, from the Official Report:

• This peculiar diversity suggests that the writer chose graphs from examples on other ossuaries and/or documents stored in a tomb-cave or other dug-out family mausoleum.

Was she right? Dead on. That's exactly how it was done.

As for excised or incised:

• This question is not really relevant as it does not change the concrete evidence given by careful examination of the complete writing system.

Dead right again. The whole point of this non-debate over excision is that it is a possible mistake of hers, and it is the only one you guys have to latch onto.

She clearly doesn't need defending.

You're correct. That's one of the advantages of being right on nearly every count.

If the Israeli police are using her, good on them, but it doesn'ty excuse her behaviour or explain her mistakes.

Wow! She made mistakes. Imagine a human being doing that. Still, um....she was right.

Two hands? Correct.
A mish-mash of characters from different inscriptions? Correct.
Blind as a bat to miss it? Correct.
The writer of the second half not accustomed to writing on stone? Correct.
Forged? Correct.

Perhaps she knew from square one it was fake due to inside knowledge but her expertise was insufficient for her to prove it - hence the wild claims about excising and blindness.

No "wild claims." Another bit of rhetoric on your part. And to think you started this by asking us to chill out.

Secret Mark is a fake that a lot of big name Jesus Seminar types bought into.

Ah, the big name Jesus Seminar Conspiracy....I'll bet it was due to the breakdown of society since the 1960s....

Given Smith was the most likely forger his interpretation is, axiomatically, most likely to be the right one!

I agree that Smith is probably the forger. It's a good forgery, though, much better than this pathetic Ossuary.

Vorkosigan