Vorkosigan

The redoubtable Clarice has alerted JM to this:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/altmanupdates.htm

This piece is completely crushing, especially on the final page where she explains how the Ossuary was deliberately aimed at
Fitzmeyer.

Vorkosigan

Toto

I read that. The part about mistaking a Greek upsilon for a letter in Aramaic was pretty clever.

But I notice that she still maintains that the first part of the inscription is valid. I wonder how that stacks up with the physical evidence.

Toto

Yuval Goren's reply to Shanks is also worth reading, and should dispell any doubts about the technical expertise of the commission.

Steven Carr

People on this forum get a mention!

'The only person who answered the question about the frame in any kind of detail is a complete novice who only showed interest in "biblical paleography" once the Interim Report was issued. In his ad hominem pseudo-"rebuttal," Mr. Bryan Cox had, and still has, no idea that the frame is there for all to see -- but he included a 'slippery slope,' IF... THEN, to conclude with something that was never said.'

Bede

Altmann has got too much wrong to be a reliable source and her behavior re: Haran is unacceptable, even if she was right on the big picture here.

B

Peter Kirby

Altman is wrong. There is not a trace of ad hominem in Haran's response to the Jewsweek article. You can read the original article and his response here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...-bone-box.html

I think I will update this web page when Archaeology publishes the full report of the IAA. The CSUF library subscribes to that journal.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

I think she tried to answer this in her section on the frame.

B) THE FRAME

"The question was asked as to where the frame had gone. The question was, and is, rhetorical; the frame has been visible all along. This question was never answered by any of the experts who have authenticated the ossuary.19 The time has come to enlighten them. In keeping with the expensive, made-to-order simplicity of the Ya'acob bar Yosef ossuary, the frame is severe, simple, and expensive. Many people have noted the difference in texture behind the original part of the inscription (Ya'akob bar Yosef) and the forged addition (his brother of Yeshua).
This difference in texture is the result of surfacing the stone to prepare it for inscribing. The area behind the original inscription was surfaced by a professional stone mason. It was smooth and precise in size. The frame is a reverse excision; the stone was removed within the frame to make a slightly sunken surface. This left a somewhat raised single-line frame made of the unprepared stone of the rest of the box surrounding the excised area. The son or other male relative of Ya'acob bar Yosef wrote on this professionally prepared, slightly sunken surface. Although time-worn, this framed area is still visible on the ossuary.
The area behind the forged second inscription was also prepared for inscribing, but our forger is not a professional stone mason. He did succeed in lowering the edge next to the final “pe?in “yosef?somewhat and wrote the Jericho aleph right on the edge of the original frame. The slight difference in depth undoubtedly accounts for the choice of the Jericho aleph for the fake inscription.
Already coated with a thicker layer of fake patina than the rest of the inscription,20 the forged part is now so covered with scratches that it is unlikely we shall ever be able to check on the surfacing on the fraudulent part.21 The original frame, however, is still very much there and visible -- particularly in photographs
and when one can see the ossuary not covered by plexiglass."

Additionally, I wanted to draw some attention to this:

"This forger has made the same mistakes on every item thus far identified as coming from his workshop. The items identified include seals, the ossuary, the Temple Tablet, and the conglomerate script on the ostracon known as the "Temple Receipt."

There is a major scandal lurking here. This forgery team has been at work since at least 1996. It must have produced many artifacts that have since disappeared into private collections and thence worked their way back around to public ones. I devoutly hope that these three are the only forgeries this crowd has done, but I sort of doubt it.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Just wondering. Now that the composition of the comitee is known, is Haran satisfied - at least as far as their credibility goes?

godfry n. glad

And this, from the same Bible & Interpretation site, is an article from _Church Executive_ that cites Ben Witherington III and his problems with the IAA decision, including this gem:


Since when did the IAA claim that the ossuary is from Cyprus or northern Syria? Quick answer: Never. The stone of the misnamed Jehoash Tablet was finally determined to have originated in Cyprus or points west, but the ossuary...nope. The IAA specifically stated that the ossuary _was_ ancient, but the inscription was not.

As for how dirt from Silwan could become adhered to the ossuary. Well... I can think of a couple of ways myself. And, I didn't strain very hard, either.

Somebody is seriously confused....and I don't think it's the IAA.

Heh..

godfry

Toto

I started to post this in another of these threads, but my post was swallowed by the server, and I gave up. But since people still want to make an issue of how polite people are -

It is my experience that, just as the Japanese are hyperpolite, formal, and reserved, many Israelis are brash, prickly, and in-your-face rude by other culture's standards. I think that NO IMPORTANCE should be ascribed to any of this. If Altman is wrong on a particular issue, let's hear about it. Otherwise, no more whining, please.