Toto

just go to <a href="http://www.google.com" target="_blank">www.google.com</a> and enter "ossuary james jesus" in the search line. You will find a lot of religious sites, also stories on CNN and some very good articles in the Toronto Globe and Post.

Vesica

Apologies...I did do the above mentioned google search and was unable to find articles claiming all or part of the inscription was faked beyond those on religious-intrest websites. CNN has three articles but none offered serious discussion of the inscription.

Toto

Vesica - what exactly are you looking for?

Vorkosigan

I wasn't so much taking you to task...

I must have been confused by the part where you accused me of being lacking in critical thinking. Refreshing that -- most people say I am too skeptical.

...as pointing out that drawing a conclusion based on insufficient evidence is not vindicated simply because that conclusion happens to be correct.

Oh, now you've upgraded from "accidental" to "insufficient evidence." I could just as well accuse you of being insufficiently perspicacious. Enough evidence already existed, CX.

I freely admit that I am not in a position to judge the ossuarys authenticitity.

You're a real man, CX.

Vorkosigan

No rational conclusion can be made solely on the basis of, "&lt;i&gt;experience, knowledge, context or understanding of history, the NT texts, human nature and behavior, or Christianity played any role in the formation of my opinion.&lt;/i&gt;"

Let me get this straight. No rational conclusion can be made on the basis of "experience, knowledge, context or understanding of history, the NT texts, human nature and behavior, or Christianity."

Hmmm. It appears that you are even more skeptical than I am.

The fact is, initially there was insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion,

You have confused your opinion with a statement of fact. You are welcome to your opinions, but as you said above, they do not form the basis for a "rational conclusion."

In any event, my point was not related to any of those issues, but rather that a premature judgement or conclusion is not mitigated by eventually being proven true.

Let's assume for the moment that I made a real conclusion. Show that it was "premature" instead of merely asserting your opinion in a lordly and vacuous manner.

That is simply not an effective way to approach historical studies.

Quite true, but the issue resides in your use of the word "premature." I already made one long list of things that sent up red flags...there were many more that I did not list, not wanting to hear any more abuse.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Yes, and that seems incredible to me. But then forgers do have unlimited gall.

Another point several people have made, which no one has really responded to, is that the "second hand" actually begins prior to the "second half" of the inscription, which suggests that it was made at the same time!

Vorkosigan

Clutch

CX,

Who disputed that? The question is whether the conclusion was rationally defective, not whether it was drawn as soon as the news came down.
It's hardly an implication, but, sure, let's grant that.

That's what simply does not follow. Lots are. I gave an example already. Here's another: I am Jesus reborn, and my left arm is Napolean's surgically grafted onto me.

You are rationally entitled to conclude, from the "get-go", without any careful weighing of the balance of evidence, that this is not true.


Hmm. Maybe by "conclusion" you understand folks to mean "final, indefeasible, beyond any reconsidering conclusion". Certainly such a conclusion should never be drawn, period. But pro tem conclusions based on prior probabilities and balance of evidence (aka, "conclusions") can of course be drawn on the basis of the things you list.

Jayhawker Soule

Clutch, I fully concur with both examples, but do you truly find these claims equivalent to those made by Lemaire? A claim that the ossuary is holy and cures warts can and should be dismissed. A claim that the ossuary contains the 1st century CE inscription highly suggestive of James the Just is of a different category in that it is not predicated upon supernatural events. Lacking informatiuon that would cause me to question the competency and integrity of Lemaire, McCarter and/or Fitzmyer, I continue to believe that fraudulence is a conclusion in no way "rationally warranted from the get-go".

leonarde

Partial post by Vorkosigan: So possibly:

1)the "first half" of the inscription was left
unfinished. (Buuuut: why?)

2)the differences between the "first half" and "second half" are due to:

a)the breaking of a tool before the "first half"
was even complete.

b)an experienced inscriber turning the job over to
an apprentice/beginner.

I see the "second author's" work on the "first part" of the inscription as militating AGAINST
interpolation/forgery theories.

Cheers!

Vorkosigan

Unfortunately, their competence is not an important issue in the judgment of whether the item is a forgery, nor is it the only possible datum in making such a conclusion early on (see my discussion below on experts and frauds). Further, RD, you had information from the get-go that Lemaire, at least, was coming to highly suspect conclusions about the ossuary (such as a firm date of 63 AD, or only 20 who could possibly be named James in Jerusalem at the time, when it wasn't even known where the object was from or what its date was, nor had he even done the simple math that would prove his claims incorrect) that indicated he had gone around the scholarly bend. Whether you chose to incorporate such information into your thinking is up to you, but you cannot deny that it existed, nor can you accuse me of being irrational for integrating it into my own thinking.

Nor, for that matter, is the epigraphy, CX, so key in establishing authenticity. Even if we go with the identification of the inscription as consistent with first century Aramaic, it is pretty much irrelevant to authenticity. Epigraphy can disconfirm authenticity, but it cannot confirm it. Other things (content, context, material and technical composition) reveal forgery. For example, Hitler's handwriting (=inscription) in the infamous diaries was expertly copied, but the forger copied everything from public records of Hitler's speeches, even incorporating the errors, and the paper and ink were postwar. A number of Hitler experts even said prior to the authentication process that the Diary had to be a fraud, since no one had ever heard of one, and Hitler detested writing things down himself. They were ignored. No doubt their conclusions were irrational.

Another feature of the Hitler Diary mess, along with this ossuary, the Ching Shan Diary, the <a href="http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_van_Meegeren" target="_blank">Meergeren Vermeers</a>, the Cyril Burt psychological data, the fake porcelain currently pouring out of China, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/278413.stm" target="_blank">the Drewe fakes</a> is that the fake was authenticated by experts, not once, but several times, early on in the process. Finally, over time, doubts begin to accumulate. In some cases, such as <a href="http://www.pixi.com/~hicatt/" target="_blank">certain works of Dali</a>, it is now impossible for experts to verify which works are by him, because he facilitated fraud in various ways. In almost every case there were people who from the get-go said it would be fake and had good reasons, but they were ignored. No doubt they had jumped the gun and were irrational.

When making judgments about fraud and forgery, context is as important as the content of the object. The context was clear even before the Toronto meeting and the subsequent revelations about the two hands at work, the microstructure of the inscriptions, the bizarre antiquities fraud/insurance fraud goings on, and the other antics. That, plus the issues raised by Lupia, Altman, and others, has only strengthened my initial judgment that it will in the end turn out to be a fake. There are a couple of things, though, that strike me...

But I'll gaze into my human nature crystal ball and say that no matter how strong the case is for inauthenticity, religiously conservative NT scholars will be able to kick up enough dust and obscure it.....

Vorkosigan

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>