Freethought & Rationalism Archive

godfry n. glad · 03-05-2003, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
The answer to the original question:

Authenticity of Jesus Inscription Probed

Toto... You are a _gem_.

godfry --> :notworthy

Vorkosigan · 03-05-2003, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
I understand quite well. It's called poisoning the well.

ROTFL. You must be really upset that yet another "scholar" has turned out to be a schmuck hoping to cash in on the Ossuary before the thing is definitively proven to be the fraud it most certainly is.

Golan owns the Joaish Inscription as well.

I guess there is no limit to the forger's boldness. What next, the diary of Jesus? I am sure Shanks will rush to authenticate it. Hey! Maybe we can get Luke Timothy Johnson to write a book about it!

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 03-05-2003, 06:55 PM

How much time, in your expert opinion, would be sufficient Toto?

Obviously, inking the book deal before the academic community had viewed the box was not scholarly at all.

who has been critizing them?

Me! Me. And also. Me! And laughing at all of those who used to cite Witherington as a "scholar" of integrity.

fact is that publishing about the Ossuary is the best way to promote even further discussion and inquiry.

Yes, if it were a serious review of the evidence. But it won't be with a Christian "scholar" and a lawyer-turned-Bible-fanatic as authors, will it?

I don't know whether the book will be a good one or not. But I think I'll wait until its arguments and discussion are generally known before passing judgment one way or the other.

Layman: Golan apparently owns the latest Maximilist fraud. The Ossuary is also a fraud. It's time to put 2+2 together and get 4, not the Trinity. You don't have to accept everything that has "Jesus' name on it.

The case is now following the classic fraud trajectory, in which the forger, having convinced vested interests -- in this case, maximalists in the scholarly community -- to sell out to him, now brings forth an even bolder forgery. Few realize that a fraud nut is a lot like a serial killer; the forger enjoys his victory over the scholarly community, and attempts to inflict further defeats on the experts, confident he will not get caught. At last he overreaches and is caught, at which point he gladly confesses all, with relish, enjoying his run.

Layman, start backpedaling. It will cost you nothing to change your position to fraud. If by some strange turn the scholarly community authenticates this disaster -- and it might, stranger things have happened, remembering Cyril Burt, the Lincoln letter to Bixby, Piltdown and other stuff -- you can change back again. But quite seriously, the maximalists are going to take a huge hit when the Temple Ostracon, the Ossuary, and this latest inscription all go down in flames. I suspect the Tel Dan stele will also go as well, though that one I am not so sure about. The credibility being staked on these objects is out of proportion to their ability to prove what people think they prove, and the backlash will be similarly nasty. It may well be that the maximilist position will take a permanent backward step, simply due to the psychological aftermath.

Does anyone know what Golan's politics are?

Vorkosigan

SLD · 03-05-2003, 07:18 PM

Why is it that Christians are so quick to jump on this as conclusive proof of Christianity, but utterly ignore the other ossuary with the inscription "Jesus son of Joseph" that was found in a burial chamber along with an ossuary of Mary and one of Joseph?

I read a few articles on the web, and not one of them talks about Jesus's ossuary. Is this a double standard or what?

SLDER

Haran · 03-05-2003, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
They are being criticized for rushing to print before there has been an adequate amount of time to examine the ossuary.

With as many people as I've seen around here supporting Dr. Rochelle Altman's highly rushed reports on the James ossuary, I find that hard to believe. Please forgive me if you have not...

Quote:

I doubt that the message of their book will be all that controversial.

I do not either. I will also like to see whether they actually claim it is authentic, or like Dr. Lemaire, say that it has a high probability of being authentic.

Toto · 03-05-2003, 10:35 PM

It appears that the History Channel is airing a documentary, Secrets of the Ancient World: James: Brother of Jesus? on Sunday March 9.

Quote:

Has historical evidence for the existence of Jesus come to light, literally written in stone? An ossuary, a box that holds bones, was uncovered among the relics of a private collector in Jerusalem. It bears an amazing Aramaic inscription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Hosted by Father Ken Deasy, we delve into the ossuary's discovery, dated to 63 AD, and interview religious scholars, archaeologists, and paleontologists about its authenticity and significance and the controversy it's stirred.

Vorkosigan · 03-05-2003, 11:54 PM

With as many people as I've seen around here supporting Dr. Rochelle Altman's highly rushed reports on the James ossuary, I find that hard to believe. Please forgive me if you have not...

Come on, Haran. Altman is hardly the only reason to think that it is a fraud. In fact, as you well know, scholarship cannot authenticate the thing. It can only prove that it is a fraud. Even if the writing is considered authentic, it will only mean the forger is skilled -- but we already knew that. The reasons for thinking it is a forgery are complex, sociological, and known to both of us. The entire paleographic discussion is of interest only if it proves the thing a fraud, otherwise it is useless.

I do not either. I will also like to see whether they actually claim it is authentic, or like Dr. Lemaire, say that it has a high probability of being authentic.

I suspect the commissions will try to steer a middle ground, and play down indications of fraud while playing up indications of authenticity. After all, there is the enormous pressure on them to find it authentic. Not only are big $$ hanging on it, but there are all those believers in the States, not to mention the scholarly community that desperately wants to overcome its cut its gordion knot of methodological shortcomings with the sharp sword of archaeological certainty. There is always the threat of lawsuits too if they find it fraudulent. $2 million insurance smackers hang on this one.

Of course Lemaire believes it authentic; but then there is a lot of money hanging on his judgement, isn't there? And other things as well; he is involved with the Temple Ostracon too. His career may be at risk here; jail too, if he is found to be knowingly involved in this fraud.

Whose collection was the Temple Reciept ostracon found in?

Vorkosigan

Haran · 03-06-2003, 05:54 AM

Hey Michael. I don't know Oded Golan, so I can't say what he would and would not do. Professor Lemaire has been around a very long time and I have an extremely hard time believing that he would risk such a great career on what he knew to be a forgery.

I am very tired of the claims of forgery without proof. Conspiracy theories abound when people are displeased with what a new discovery might say (just as they did with the Dead Sea Scrolls and other important discoveries). If there is conclusive proof, then I will change my mind.

I'm not sure what evidence you are talking about that we both know leading to the conclusion of a forgery. There are different reports out there. I think you may have heard things that I do not know. Please share them if you think they make that much of a difference.

Haran · 03-06-2003, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Whose collection was the Temple Reciept ostracon found in?

London collector Shlomo Moussaieff, as reported in an article by BAR in 1997. Why?

Please remember that Lemaire (if he is whom you are trying to imply), unlike some others, is an expert in ancient semitic paleography. Who do you go to when you need to understand some ancient semitic writing you have discovered? An expert like Andre Lemaire. There is nothing unusual about the number of finds he has been involved in interpreting.

Vorkosigan · 03-06-2003, 07:17 AM

Hey Michael. I don't know Oded Golan, so I can't say what he would and would not do. Professor Lemaire has been around a very long time and I have an extremely hard time believing that he would risk such a great career on what he knew to be a forgery.

I don't. Burt, Backhouse....Lemaire is in the forger's dream position (assuming he is the forger) -- that of being able to authenticate one's own forgery. I can't tell from this angle whether he is duped or knowing. It's one or the other, though. Lots of academics who end up hooked to forgeries never give up on them, because their career is at stake. Indeed, Haran, the mere fact that Lemaire is running around trying to convince audiences that the damn thing is authenticate is a very telling point against the Ossuary.

I am very tired of the claims of forgery without proof.

It's all out there in public. You just refuse to see it, Haran.

Conspiracy theories abound when people are displeased with what a new discovery might say (just as they did with the Dead Sea Scrolls and other important discoveries). If there is conclusive proof, then I will change my mind.

Haran, there is no conspiracy here, just one forger, working through fronts. The evidence has been there from the beginning. Why was the thing run out of Israel before Rahmani saw it? Why were people who criticized it attacked? Why did arrive at the packers already broken? Why weren't crucial geological tests performed prior to its exhibition at the ROM? Why is it being hawked by someone associated it with another suspect artifact (now 2 other suspect artifacts)? Why does the damage to it look deliberately inflicted? Why does the crack go right through the controversial part of the text? Etc. Too many questions. No good answers.

I'm not sure what evidence you are talking about that we both know leading to the conclusion of a forgery.

Some of it is above.

There are different reports out there. I think you may have heard things that I do not know. Please share them if you think they make that much of a difference.

Can't. Don't trust my private sources. The public information out there is more than enough. Especially now that it appears Golan "owns" the Joaish Inscription too. Doesn't that signal a five-alarm fire to you? It should. Altman's dissection of that thing is even better. Another forgery rejected by both her and Naveh. Maybe it's a conspiracy.

I've said it before. Go curl up with a copy of The Hermit of Beijing or Selling Hitler. Come back when you have the right kind of nasty suspicious mind.

Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2003, 06:55 PM	#13
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	How much time, in your expert opinion, would be sufficient Toto? Obviously, inking the book deal before the academic community had viewed the box was not scholarly at all. who has been critizing them? Me! Me. And also. Me! And laughing at all of those who used to cite Witherington as a "scholar" of integrity. fact is that publishing about the Ossuary is the best way to promote even further discussion and inquiry. Yes, if it were a serious review of the evidence. But it won't be with a Christian "scholar" and a lawyer-turned-Bible-fanatic as authors, will it? I don't know whether the book will be a good one or not. But I think I'll wait until its arguments and discussion are generally known before passing judgment one way or the other. Layman: Golan apparently owns the latest Maximilist fraud. The Ossuary is also a fraud. It's time to put 2+2 together and get 4, not the Trinity. You don't have to accept everything that has "Jesus' name on it. The case is now following the classic fraud trajectory, in which the forger, having convinced vested interests -- in this case, maximalists in the scholarly community -- to sell out to him, now brings forth an even bolder forgery. Few realize that a fraud nut is a lot like a serial killer; the forger enjoys his victory over the scholarly community, and attempts to inflict further defeats on the experts, confident he will not get caught. At last he overreaches and is caught, at which point he gladly confesses all, with relish, enjoying his run. Layman, start backpedaling. It will cost you nothing to change your position to fraud. If by some strange turn the scholarly community authenticates this disaster -- and it might, stranger things have happened, remembering Cyril Burt, the Lincoln letter to Bixby, Piltdown and other stuff -- you can change back again. But quite seriously, the maximalists are going to take a huge hit when the Temple Ostracon, the Ossuary, and this latest inscription all go down in flames. I suspect the Tel Dan stele will also go as well, though that one I am not so sure about. The credibility being staked on these objects is out of proportion to their ability to prove what people think they prove, and the backlash will be similarly nasty. It may well be that the maximilist position will take a permanent backward step, simply due to the psychological aftermath. Does anyone know what Golan's politics are? Vorkosigan

03-05-2003, 07:18 PM	#14
SLD Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Birmingham, Alabama Posts: 4,109	Why is it that Christians are so quick to jump on this as conclusive proof of Christianity, but utterly ignore the other ossuary with the inscription "Jesus son of Joseph" that was found in a burial chamber along with an ossuary of Mary and one of Joseph? I read a few articles on the web, and not one of them talks about Jesus's ossuary. Is this a double standard or what? SLDER

03-05-2003, 11:54 PM	#17
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	With as many people as I've seen around here supporting Dr. Rochelle Altman's highly rushed reports on the James ossuary, I find that hard to believe. Please forgive me if you have not... Come on, Haran. Altman is hardly the only reason to think that it is a fraud. In fact, as you well know, scholarship cannot authenticate the thing. It can only prove that it is a fraud. Even if the writing is considered authentic, it will only mean the forger is skilled -- but we already knew that. The reasons for thinking it is a forgery are complex, sociological, and known to both of us. The entire paleographic discussion is of interest only if it proves the thing a fraud, otherwise it is useless. I do not either. I will also like to see whether they actually claim it is authentic, or like Dr. Lemaire, say that it has a high probability of being authentic. I suspect the commissions will try to steer a middle ground, and play down indications of fraud while playing up indications of authenticity. After all, there is the enormous pressure on them to find it authentic. Not only are big $$ hanging on it, but there are all those believers in the States, not to mention the scholarly community that desperately wants to overcome its cut its gordion knot of methodological shortcomings with the sharp sword of archaeological certainty. There is always the threat of lawsuits too if they find it fraudulent. $2 million insurance smackers hang on this one. Of course Lemaire believes it authentic; but then there is a lot of money hanging on his judgement, isn't there? And other things as well; he is involved with the Temple Ostracon too. His career may be at risk here; jail too, if he is found to be knowingly involved in this fraud. Whose collection was the Temple Reciept ostracon found in? Vorkosigan

03-06-2003, 05:54 AM	#18
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	Hey Michael. I don't know Oded Golan, so I can't say what he would and would not do. Professor Lemaire has been around a very long time and I have an extremely hard time believing that he would risk such a great career on what he knew to be a forgery. I am very tired of the claims of forgery without proof. Conspiracy theories abound when people are displeased with what a new discovery might say (just as they did with the Dead Sea Scrolls and other important discoveries). If there is conclusive proof, then I will change my mind. I'm not sure what evidence you are talking about that we both know leading to the conclusion of a forgery. There are different reports out there. I think you may have heard things that I do not know. Please share them if you think they make that much of a difference.

03-06-2003, 07:17 AM	#20
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Hey Michael. I don't know Oded Golan, so I can't say what he would and would not do. Professor Lemaire has been around a very long time and I have an extremely hard time believing that he would risk such a great career on what he knew to be a forgery. I don't. Burt, Backhouse....Lemaire is in the forger's dream position (assuming he is the forger) -- that of being able to authenticate one's own forgery. I can't tell from this angle whether he is duped or knowing. It's one or the other, though. Lots of academics who end up hooked to forgeries never give up on them, because their career is at stake. Indeed, Haran, the mere fact that Lemaire is running around trying to convince audiences that the damn thing is authenticate is a very telling point against the Ossuary. I am very tired of the claims of forgery without proof. It's all out there in public. You just refuse to see it, Haran. Conspiracy theories abound when people are displeased with what a new discovery might say (just as they did with the Dead Sea Scrolls and other important discoveries). If there is conclusive proof, then I will change my mind. Haran, there is no conspiracy here, just one forger, working through fronts. The evidence has been there from the beginning. Why was the thing run out of Israel before Rahmani saw it? Why were people who criticized it attacked? Why did arrive at the packers already broken? Why weren't crucial geological tests performed prior to its exhibition at the ROM? Why is it being hawked by someone associated it with another suspect artifact (now 2 other suspect artifacts)? Why does the damage to it look deliberately inflicted? Why does the crack go right through the controversial part of the text? Etc. Too many questions. No good answers. I'm not sure what evidence you are talking about that we both know leading to the conclusion of a forgery. Some of it is above. There are different reports out there. I think you may have heard things that I do not know. Please share them if you think they make that much of a difference. Can't. Don't trust my private sources. The public information out there is more than enough. Especially now that it appears Golan "owns" the Joaish Inscription too. Doesn't that signal a five-alarm fire to you? It should. Altman's dissection of that thing is even better. Another forgery rejected by both her and Naveh. Maybe it's a conspiracy. I've said it before. Go curl up with a copy of The Hermit of Beijing or Selling Hitler. Come back when you have the right kind of nasty suspicious mind. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.